BCC Minutes 02/09/2021 RFebruary 9, 2021
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 9, 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
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
February 9, 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
February 09, 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
February 9, 2021
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Invocation by Father Tom Thoeni of St. Paul's Episcopal Church
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
B. January 12, 2021 BCC Meeting Minutes
Approved as presented – 5/0
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. EMPLOYEE
Page 3
February 9, 2021
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Read into the record - Items #16H1, #16H2 and #16H3
• Artist of the Month – Muffy Gill
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
A. Dan Cook – Covid-19 Vaccines and mask mandate
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item requires all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. Recommendation not to approve
an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended, the Heritage Bay
Planned Unit Development, to amend Section 2.5.A of the PUD document,
to clarify the ability of the property owners associations to place and operate
access control facilities such as gates and control arms on private roads
including but not limited to Limestone Trail, and providing for an effective
date. The property is located on the northeast corner of Immokalee Road and
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of approximately
2,562± acres. [PL20200000191] (District 3)
Ordinance 2021-06 Adopted – 5/0
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to appoint a member to the Animal Services Advisory
Page 4
February 9, 2021
Board. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-33: Appointing Kelly Hyland – Adopted 5/0
B. This item has been continued from the January 26, 2021 BCC meeting .
Recommendation to appoint four members to Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-34: Appointing David Corban, Carl Kuehner and Re-
appointing Gary Bromley and Brittany Patterson-Weber – Adopted 5/0
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Continued to the February 23, 2021 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A. Recommendation to award Agreement No. 20-7722 in the total amount of
$28,738,890 to The Haskell Company for "Design Build Services for
NCWRF Headworks," with authorization to issue an initial purchase order
for FY 2021 in the amount of $20,000,000, followed by a future purchase
order modification for FY 2022 in the amount of $8,738,890 subject to
Board approval and as dictated by Board -approved funding, in support of the
NCWRF New Headworks Project No. 70149, and to authorize the necessary
budget amendments. (Tom Chmelik, Engineering and Project Management
Division Director) (All Districts)
B. Recommendation to approve the East of CR951 Bridge Reevaluation Study,
direct staff to design and construct the five (5) recommended bridges and
continue public engagement with the impacted residents through the design
and construction process. (Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner; Capital Project
Planning) (District 5)
Motion to continue for further discussion with staff to bring back traffic
analysis – Approved 5/0
C. Recommendation to accept an update on Board - directed Collier CARES
community assistance programs and approve allocation of funding available
in the General Fund through reimbursements of public safety expenses from
the Coronavirus Relief Fund. (Sean Callahan, Executive Director, Corporate
Business Operations) (All Districts)
Approved – 5/0
D. This item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. Recommendation to
accept a presentation on the Big Cypress Basin (BCB) Boundary Delineation
study conducted by the South Florida Water Management District (District)
Page 5
February 9, 2021
and recently submitted to the Governor and legislative leadership as directed
in the 2020 General Appropriations Act. (John Mullins, Government Affairs
Manager, County Manager's Office) (All Districts)
Motion not to accept the bill as written and the chair to send a letter to
the legislative body explaining the Commission’s strong position –
Approved 5/0
E. Recommendation to provide additional staff direction regarding the County
Manager recruitment process. (Amy Lyberg, Human Resources Division
Director) (All Districts)
Motion for each candidate to meet with all commissioners individually
and bring the candidates back for a presentation at the March 9th BCC
Meeting and the decision made at the March 23rd BCC Meeting –
Approved 5/0
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Report on the status of the Seed to Table mask dispute. (All Districts)
Report given
Moved from Item #16K1 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
B. Recommendation to appoint two members to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board. (All Districts)
Motion to bring back to a future BCC Meeting after further
consideration – Approved 5/0
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. Mr. Ochs – CRA Workshop on April 6
B. Commissioner McDaniel – NDN article regarding Commissioner Taylor
C. Commissioner Taylor – Developer Fast Tracking Land Use items
D. Commissioner Taylor – Business of the Month
Page 6
February 9, 2021
E. Commissioner Taylor – Truck traffic on Logan Boulevard
F. Commissioner McDaniel – Truck traffic on Logan Boulevard
G. Commissioner Taylor – 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 a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Coral
Harbor, Phase I, Application Number PL20160001134, and authorize
the release of the maintenance security. (District 1)
Resolution 2021-23
2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Coral
Harbor, Phase II, Application Number PL20160001577, and authorize
the release of the maintenance security. (District 1)
Resolution 2021-24
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Naples Reserve, Phase I, Application Number PL20120002540, and
authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 1)
Resolution 2021-25
4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Naples Reserve, Phase II, Application Number PL20130002124, and
authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 1)
Resolution 2021-26
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
Page 7
February 9, 2021
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Naples Reserve Circle, Application Number PL20160000038, and
authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 1)
Resolution 2021-27
6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Savannah at Naples Reserve – Replat, Application Number
PL20190000578, and authorize the release of the maintenance
security. (District 1)
Resolution 2021-28
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Residences at Mercato, Application Number PL20140001634, and
authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 2)
Resolution 2021-29
8) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $110,560 which was posted as a
guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 60.148 for work associated
with Vanderbilt Reserve, PL20160002709. (District 3)
9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the purchase of land
(Parcel 234FEE) required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension
(Project No. 60168). (District 5)
Folio #37548000108
10) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the purchase of land
(Parcel 209FEE) required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension
(Project No. 60168). (District 5)
Folio #37543520007
11) Recommendation to approve an agreement for the acquisition of three
fee simple right-of-way parcels (Parcels 101FEE1, 101FEE2 and
101FEE3) and a temporary driveway restoration easement (Parcel
101TDRE) required for the construction of roadway and related
improvements to Triangle Boulevard and Price Street. (Triangle
Boulevard Project No. 60215.) (District 1)
Folio #6848000329
Page 8
February 9, 2021
12) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the purchase of right-
of-way (Parcel 1180RDUE) required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension (Project No. 60168). (All Districts)
Folio #37440120102
13) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (“RFP”) No. 20 -
7778, “Right-of-Way Acquisition Services,” to Florida Acquisition &
Appraisal, Inc., and award attached Agreement No. 20 -7778. (All
Districts)
14) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”)
between Collier County and Manatee Cove of Naples Homeowners
Association, Inc., for landscape and irrigation improvements within
the Manatee Road public right-of-way. (District 1)
15) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”)
between Collier County and Founders Square Umbrella Association,
Inc., for landscape and irrigation improvements within the intersection
of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road public right-of-way.
(District 3, District 5)
16) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the purchase of land
(Parcel 117FEE) and an easement (Parcel 117TDRE) required for the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project (Project No. 60168).
(District 5)
Folio #36715700009
17) Recommendation to approve and authorize Chairman to execute a
Work Order under Contract #18-7432-CZ to provide engineering
services for Collier Creek Final Permitting, Design, and Construction
Services for time and material not to exceed $179,837.97 to APTIM
Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC., and make a finding that this
expenditure promotes tourism. (All Districts)
18) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Agreement No. 21CO1 with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Beach
Page 9
February 9, 2021
Management Funding Assistance Program for funding reimbursement
and support for Collier County Beach Renourishment and Inlet
Management Projects for the period ranging from January 1, 2019
through December 31, 2023 in an amount not to exceed $5,888,065
for the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches and make a finding
that this item promotes tourism. (All Districts)
19) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 20CO2 with the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Beach Management Funding Assistance Program to provide
additional State reimbursement funding in the amount of $697,395 for
the completed South Marco Island Beach Nourishment Project and
make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (All Districts)
20) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 20CO3 with the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Beach Management Funding Assistance Program to provide
additional State reimbursement funding in the amount of $847,070 for
the completed Wiggins Pass Dredging and Inlet Management Project
and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (All Districts)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the attached Right of Entry which will
provide Naples Botanical Garden with temporary legal access onto
certain County-owned park lands to plant trees funded by the
Community Foundation of Collier County ($300,000 for Collier
County and $50,000 for Immokalee). (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve a $280,070 work order under a Request
for Quotation (“RFQ”) for Agreement No. 14-6213 to Quality
Enterprises USA, Inc., for the South Reverse Osmosis (SRO)
Wellfield Wells 19-20 Electrical Improvements (Project No. 70069).
(All Districts)
3) Recommendation to award Agreements in relation to Invitation to Bid
Page 10
February 9, 2021
(“ITB”) No. 20-7750, “Instrument Calibration, Repair and
Replacement Services” to Benro Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Rocha
Controls; Gossamer Bay, Inc., d/b/a Universal Controls Instrument
Service Company; and TriNova, Inc. (All Districts)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve two (2) mortgage satisfactions for the
State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) loan program and HOME
Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and authorize the
associated Budget Amendments. (All Districts)
Located at 561 2nd Street NE and 5296 19th Place SW
2) Recommendation to approve an FY20/21 Federal Transit
Administration Section 5311 Public Transportation Grant Agreement
for formula grants for rural areas in the amount of $1,163,652 to
provide transit service to the rural area of Collier County; approve a
resolution authorizing the Chair to sign the agreement and
certifications and all necessary Budget Amendments. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-30
3) Recommendation of an "After-the-fact" approval of an amendment
and attestation statement with the Area Agency on Aging for
Southwest Florida, Inc., under the Older American Act grant program
to revise funding for the Services for Seniors program, revise
Attachment IX – Budget and Rate Summary, and authorize necessary
budget amendments (All Districts)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the
Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and
notification of revenue disbursement. (All Districts)
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
Page 11
February 9, 2021
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the FY20-21 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-31
2) Recommendation to authorize the necessary budget amendments to
reallocate Pelican Bay Services Division project funds to support the
design and construction of the new Pelican Bay Services Maintenance
Facility. (District 2)
3) Recommendation to approve the use of Tourist Development Tax
Promotion Funds in an amount not to exceed $7,500 to support the
Naples BMX State Race at the Golden Gate Community Park BMX
Track and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism. (All
Districts)
Being held in March 2021
4) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking for
Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 20-7817, “CEI
Services for Pelican Bay Sidewalk Improvements,” and authorize staff
to begin contract negotiations with the top-ranked firm, Johnson
Engineering Inc., so that staff can bring a proposed agreement back
for the Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting. (District 2)
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Proclamation recognizing the accomplishments and continued work of
the Collier County Food Policy Council to improve public health and
prevent chronic disease through nutritionally sound practices in
Collier County. The proclamation will be mailed to the Food Policy
Coordinator, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council .
Adopted
2) Proclamation designating February 21 - 27, 2021 as Engineers Week
in Collier County. The proclamation will be mailed to the Florida
Engineering Society - Calusa Chapter.
Adopted
Page 12
February 9, 2021
3) Proclamation designating February 9, 2021 as Community School of
Naples Day in Collier County. The proclamation will be mailed to the
Public Relations Manager, Community School of Naples, 13275
Livingston Road, Naples, Florida 34109.
Adopted
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence (All Districts)
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve the FY2020 State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program (SCAAP) letter delegating authority to Sheriff
Kevin Rambosk to be the official grant applicant and contact person,
or his designee, and to receive, expends the payment and make any
necessary budget amendments of the FY2020 of the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) grant funds. (All Districts)
2) Report to the Board regarding the investment of County funds as of
the quarter ended December 31, 2020. (All Districts)
3) 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 January 14, 2021 and January 27, 2021 pursuant to
Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts)
4) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of February
3, 2021. (All Districts)
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Moved to Item #12B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
1) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Vanderbilt
Waterway MSTU Advisory Committee. (District 2)
Page 13
February 9, 2021
Resolution 2021-32: Re-appointing Clinton Cuny and Appointing
Thomas Burke, Jr., both to four-year terms expiring February 12,
2025
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
partial Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit pending as Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al; Case No. 18-CA-2727 now
pending in the 20th Judicial Circuit in Collier County, whereby the
County will receive $200,000 to settle its claims against Insurance and
Risk Management Services, Inc. (All Districts)
For insurance coverage relating to Hurricane Irma debris
removal
4) Recommendation to authorize the expenses for Mediation and
Arbitration Services relating to the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension
Project No. 60168, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit
Court for Collier County, Florida for three mediators, including Larry
Gendzier, Esq., Phillip Greenwald, Esq., and Stephen Tabano, Esq.,
and to authorize the Transportation Engineering Division to select and
work with additional mediators as necessary. (All Districts)
For eminent domain cases
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted – 5/0
A. 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
Page 14
February 9, 2021
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)
Ordinance 2021-05
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
February 9, 2021
Page 2
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. Good morning,
Collier County. Good morning, everyone here joining us for the
meeting today.
Today we have Father Theoni from St. Paul's Episcopal Church
to give us our blessing, and after that I'd like Commissioner
Saunders, please, to lead us in the pledge.
Item #1A
INVOCATION BY FATHER TOM THOENI OF ST. PAUL'S
EPISCOPAL CHURCH
FATHER THEONI: Let us offer our prayers silently or aloud
for the various concerns borne in our hearts at this moment.
(Moment of silence.)
FATHER THEONI: Oh, God, creator and preserver of all, we
humbly beseech you for all sorts and conditions and people; that it
would please you to make your ways known to them and your saving
health on all.
We commend to your goodness all those who are in any way
afflicted or distressed in mind, body, or spirit; that it may please you
to comfort and relieve them according to their several necessi ties,
giving them patience under their sufferings, and a happy deliverance
out of all of their afflictions.
And, Lord, we ask you to bless these leaders of our county, give
them the spirit of wisdom, charity, and justice; that with steadfast
purpose, they may faithfully serve their offices to promote the
well-being of all people.
We ask these things for your glory alone and in your holy name,
amen.
February 9, 2021
Page 3
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE
DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR
CONSENT AGENDA.) - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the
Board of County Commissioners' meeting of February 9th, 2021.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 11A from your
regular agenda this morning. It's a recommended design/build
contract award to repair and replace the headworks at our North
County Regional Facility. We're going to bring that back at your
meeting of February 23rd, 2021. As I said, that's a staff request.
And the next proposed change is to move Item 16K1 from the
County Attorney consent agenda to become Item 12B. This is a
recommendation to appoint two members to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board. That item has been moved at Commissioner Solis'
request.
One other reminder, Commissioners, Item 11D will be heard no
sooner than 1:00 p.m. today. That's the discussion on the Big
Cypress Basin boundary expansion. We have some technical
scientists coming from the district headquarters on the East Coast, so
that is set for no sooner than 1:00 p.m.
And those are all the changes that I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
So I would think right now we're going to declare our ex parte
February 9, 2021
Page 4
for the rest of the agenda.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes and nothing to disclose
on the consent or summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Same for me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Nothing to disclose.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no changes, nothing
to disclose as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Four.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That would make it five. No
changes; nothing to disclose.
MR. OCHS: So we need a motion to approve today's agenda as
amended.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 9, 2021
Continue Item 11A to the February 23, 2021 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to award Agreement
No. 20-7722 in the total amount of $28,738,890 to The Haskell Company for "Design Build Services
for NCWRF Headworks," with authorization to issue an initial purchase order for FY 2021 in the
amount of $20,000,000, followed by a future purchase order modification for FY 2022 in the
amount of $8,738,890 subject to Board approval and as dictated by Board-approved funding, in
support of the NCWRF New Headworks Project No. 70149, and to authorize the necessary budget
amendments. (Staff’s request)
Move Item 16K1 to Item 12B: Recommendation to appoint two members to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board. (Commissioner Solis’ request)
2/23/2021 8:10 AM
February 9, 2021
Page 5
Item #2B
JANUARY 12, 2021 BCC MEETING MINUTES - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 2B is approval of the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting minutes of January 12th, 2021.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS - READ INTO THE RECORD - ITEMS
#16H1, #16H2 AND #16H3
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we do have three proclamations
published in your consent agenda that were just adopted. As has
been our custom here during the pandemic, I typically rea d those
titles just to recognize the recipients. So with your permission,
February 9, 2021
Page 6
Madam Chair, I'll move ahead with that.
The first item is Item 16H1. This is a proclamation recognizing
the accomplishments and continued work of the Collier County Food
Policy Council to improve public health and prevent chronic disease
through nutritionally sound practices in Collier County. And this
proclamation will be mailed to the Food Policy Coordinator at the
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.
Item 16H2 is a proclamation designating February 21st through
the 27th, 2021, as Engineers Week in Collier County. The
proclamation will be mailed to the Florida Engineering Society, the
Calusa chapter, which is the local chapter in our area.
And, finally, 16H3 is a proclamation designating February 9th,
2021, as Community School of Naples Day in Collier County. The
proclamation will be mailed to the Community School of Naples on
Livingston Road.
And those are all the proclamations that we had today, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if I may, I'd like to add a little
bit to the Community School proclamation. They have now
expanded their campus, and they have a state-of-the-art science wing
that they've added, but also they have built a stadium. And as they
expand, it's easy to think it's Community School; that they don't care
about the community. But as the headmaster said, we take very
seriously the word "community" in our title, and they give back.
Thirty percent of the students there are on scholarship to Community
School. It's an extraordinary achievement that has been created, I
think, well over 30, 35 years.
They've been a good neighbor, and they wanted me to thank,
personally, the staff for their assistance and certainly their
professionalism as they made these expansions. They said it was
first-class and that it made the timelines that they had to face easier
because of their attentiveness and their professionalism. So I wanted
February 9, 2021
Page 7
to extend that here.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that -- did you have --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have the Artist of the Month, and I
think it should go under proclamations. But our Artist of the Month
is here. And I've asked Muffy Gill -- if you would come up to the
podium, Muffy -- to be here.
We're going to welcome her back. Her work is on the back
wall. But Muffy's ours. She's -- she comes from somewhere else,
but she's made Naples her home for a long, long time. She is one of
the most skilled artists that I have known personally, and she was our
very first Artist of the Month to display her artwork with us in 2016.
She is from New Jersey -- we won't hold that against her -- and
she earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree in graphic design from
Boston University. Behind you, or in front of us, but behind you are
examples of her Florida Native American series paintings showing a
mixed media, primarily the fabric and dye painting process known as
batik. She described her work as exploring ways to give th e viewer
a fresh historical perspective of Florida's Seminole and Miccosukee
tribes who continue to inhabit and impact South Florida. Thus, she's
preserving and interpreting an important part of South Florida's local
history in a new way.
Her work has been shown in numerous museums and galleries
and on display on the 22nd floor art gallery of the Florida State
capitol in Tallahassee.
And she also has her artwork and collections at public
institutions, including collages, museums, and courthouse, including
the office of the Florida Secretary of State, the Marco Island
Historical Museum, Florida Gulf Coast University, and the Volusia
County, Florida, courthouse.
February 9, 2021
Page 8
Muffy, it is just a pleasure to be -- to have you here and to know
that you have decided to remain in Naples, and to see how you're
developing your work has been such an honor. Thank you.
MS. GILL: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you want to say something or --
MS. GILL: I appreciate it. This is very, very nice. Thank
you. And the paintings that are in here today were part of the
exhibition that was featured in the 22nd floor gallery at the State
Capitol Building. But I'm also going to be exhibiting in a couple
weeks at Leu Botanical Gardens in Orlando another exhibition of my
water series of work. So it's nice to be out there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. GILL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And Ridge Street is
coming along.
MS. GILL: Soon. I want my speed tables.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They're coming. Thank you very much.
County Manager.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that moves us to general comments
on general topics, on the current or future agenda.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have one public speaker listed
for general. I'm going to assume they meant public comment,
Item 7, Dan Cook.
Mr. Cook, you have three minutes.
February 9, 2021
Page 9
MR. COOK: Thank you very much.
Last time I was here my comments earned me a 30-day ban on
Facebook, so I wanted to thank you guys for allowing me the
opportunity to come here and make my post.
I wanted to thank the former chair, actually, for going on the
record stating that COVID-19 vaccines will not be mandated in
Collier County. That gives me a lot of relief as well as other people
in the community.
I would also like to thank the County Manager for updating the
signage here in the building from referencing 2020-05 in regards to
the mask mandate to referencing county order 2020-07 which reflects
some of the reasonable exemptions that are within order 2020-07.
The first page of the county order, the mask mandate 2020-07,
says that the CDC does not recommend wearing face coverings for
children under the nine -- under the age of nine or anyone who has
trouble breathing. So I believe that I fall into that category; as well
as Section 3 where the mandatory requirements for a mask say that an
owner, manager, employee, customer, or patron of a business
establishment must wear a face covering while in that business
establishment where social distancing is not possible. So I
appreciate the County Manager making that update on the signage.
I also want to thank the staff in the building who is respectful to
me by not trying to shame me for wanting to breathe freely.
I'd also like to thank Representative Lauren Melo and State
Senator Kathleen Passidomo for having their offices open. I do hope
that our senators, Marco Rubio and Rick Scot t have their offices
open, too. The last time I was here, I was not able to get in there to
speak with their staff. So a little later today after this meeting, I'll be
headed over there, so I do hope that their offices are open so I could
speak with them about my grievances.
And I also wanted to maybe bring up the topic of resolutions to
February 9, 2021
Page 10
the county board. Back in 2013 there was a Second Amendment
resolution passed by that County Commissioner board, and it was
passed because a lot of people in the community were very concerned
about their Second Amendment rights being violated by the federal
government. And so the county took action and passed a resolution
which, yeah, it might not have a whole lot of teeth as a county
ordinance, but I think as a resolution, it's important that our local
government has the ability to express the will of the people through
resolutions to either the state government or to the federal
government.
So I'd just like to bring that to light to the Board today, and
hopefully in the future if you'd consider future resolutions
specifically in regards to the Second Amendment now that once again
we have that concern coming out of Washington, D.C., and I would
like to follow up with, you know, some of you guys on that a little
later.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just one quick question.
Can you tell me the -- do you have the resolution that was passed in
'13 in that regard?
MR. COOK: I do not have that. I saw it on the Clerk of
Court's website. I could look that up and get it to you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to see it.
MR. COOK: Absolutely. I'll get that to you-all.
MR. MILLER: That was our only registered speaker for public
comment. I did have a registered speaker online, but they're not
online with us right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2021-06: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 03-40, AS
February 9, 2021
Page 11
AMENDED, THE HERITAGE BAY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, TO AMEND SECTION 2.5.A OF THE PUD
DOCUMENT, TO CLARIFY THE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS TO PLACE AND OPERATE ACCESS
CONTROL FACILITIES SUCH AS GATES AND CONTROL
ARMS ON PRIVATE ROADS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LIMESTONE TRAIL, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) IN SECTIONS 13, 14, 23 AND
24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY
2,562± ACRES – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us into your
advertised public hearing this morning. This is Item 9A on the
agenda, and this item does require all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
This is a recommendation not to approve an ordinance that
would amend the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development to clarify
the ability of the property owners associations to operate and -- place
and operate access control facilities on private roads. This project is
located on the northeast corner of Immokalee Road and Collier
Boulevard.
And ex parte would be in order at this point, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, good morning. I do
have disclosures: meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone
calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I also have meetings and
February 9, 2021
Page 12
correspondence, emails and telephone calls. I have met with the
affected homeowners in the area going back almost two years ago.
So I've had quite a bit of communications concerning this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I had emails on this topic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I've had numerous emails
from residents, and I had a meeting -- a Zoom meeting with Mr. Pires
and several of the residents.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I, too, have had letters, a lot of
letters most recently, phone calls, correspondence, from -- not so
much from -- I guess it wouldn't -- it would be more staff, staff
briefings, also a Zoom meeting with Mr. Pires and constituents
regarding this issue.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: If we could have the court reporter swear in all
the participants at this time.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. OCHS: Begin with the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chair, could I
ask the County Attorney a quick question before we begin?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course, of course.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have a letter from
Norman Trebilcock that arrived at 2:00 p.m. on Sunday. I've not had
an opportunity to fully review this, and I would like this not to be part
of the record or considered by the Commission unless Mr. Trebilcock
is here to testify.
MR. KLATZKOW: It is not part of the record, and you can't
unring a bell. If the commissioners read it, they read it, but --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I understand. I just
wanted to state it for the record.
February 9, 2021
Page 13
MR. KLATZKOW: But it is not part of the record.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did he say you can't unring
the bell; is that what he said?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what he said.
MR. OCHS: Re-ring the bell.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How about rewind?
MR. KLATZKOW: So if you read it, forget about it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Mr. Pires.
MR. PIRES: Madam Chair, members of the County
Commission, my name is Tony Pires. Good morning. Thank you.
And I'm with the law firm of Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo.
And I'm here representing The Quarry Community Association
and its hundreds of members, which you have probably received
hundreds of emails, communications, and correspondence. It's a
very active and involved community. And it's an honor to be
representing them in this matter.
In today's hearing, representing The Quarry Community
Association, we have a number of individuals who will be testifying
before you. And I'd like to have them declared as experts. And
they were accepted as experts before the Planning Commission.
And those individuals, they're in the audience. Chris Mears, he's a
Professional Engineer with Native Engineering, and he is an expert in
civil site design and road design.
Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, he's a Transportation Planner,
Traffic Expert, and he was accepted as an expert before the Planning
Commission on DRI transportation issues, Traffic Impact Statements
and studies, trip characteristic studies, and signal warrants.
We also have Greg Stuart, MAURP, Stuart & Associates,
Land-use Planning Expert accepted as an expert in
planning -- land-use planning, planning, growth management, zoning,
February 9, 2021
Page 14
and land use. And we would request at the outset that you accept all
those individuals as experts for this hearing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I'll make a
motion to approve that they be treated -- considered as experts at this
hearing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Weren't they already?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second it for point of discussion.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I guess this is a question
for the County Attorney in a way.
In litigation, at least in the civil courts, the courts no longer
accept or designate somebody as an expert. Their testimony is what
it is, and it bears the weight that it has. And I'm just wondering, is
this something that we should be doing? Because the courts quit
doing that a long time ago.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't see the point in it. I've never seen
the point in it at a quasi-judicial level, but I know attorneys from time
to time, like Mr. Pires, do see a point in it. But, personally, I --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, from an
evidentiary standpoint, the courts don't do that anymore because it's a
judgment, then, on the testimony by the Court.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I will -- I will allow this discussion
between attorneys right now.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just real quickly,
Commissioner Solis, the reason that I support that is because in a
quasi-judicial proceeding, if there is an appeal, the County
Commission must make its decision based on competent substantial
evidence.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that has to be expert
February 9, 2021
Page 15
testimony. It cannot be testimony from residents and that sort of
thing.
So for the Commission to consider the testimony of those three
individuals as part of the decision-making process, they have to be
experts, and so that's why I made that motion.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But if their testimony's entered into
the record, we're -- I mean, I -- I'm not objecting to these individuals.
I'm just questioning the process from a legal standpoint, because the
same thing -- the same reasoning applies in a courtroom in terms of
competent substantial evidence and the burdens that a party has to
bear to prove their case. But I'm just -- I don't know that we should
be doing it any differently than a court would in a courtroom, a judge,
because it used to be that the courts would accept somebody as an
expert and then appellate courts said, well, the Court shouldn't be
blessing some testimony over other testimony. You know, the jury
and the -- or the judge is going to decide based upon the evidence
that's presented. So I'm a little concerned that we're doing
something we shouldn't be doing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would agree. Let me ask a
question for Mr. Pires. Are you going to have these three speak as
part of your presentation?
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, absolutely. And with regards to my --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: At that time, then, if you
would just introduce their credentials, that'll be fine.
MR. PIRES: Their resumés and their CVs, their credentials are
all in the record. They're in the agenda packet. They are in the
agenda packet at -- beginning at Page 101 going all the way to
Page 116. And, for the record, they were accepted as experts by the
Planning Commission. I think the Planning Commission routinely
does that.
And to the point of any review by any Appellate Court, I
February 9, 2021
Page 16
routinely see the Appellate Court opinions in quasi-judicial land-use
matters saying the expert opinion of so and so, the expert opinion of
so and so, that they utilize that in making the determination of
substantial competent evidence in the land-use context.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I mean, that's -- sure. I
mean, you can present experts, and both sides can present experts.
I'm just saying, as the quasi-judicial judge in this process, I just don't
think that we should be doing that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: As long as he presents them
as experts, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Withdraw the motion.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion has been withdrawn.
Second has been withdrawn.
Mr. Pires?
MR. PIRES: Yes. So, again, thank you very much wit h
regards to this matter.
The team, as I mentioned -- I've introduced the team. I've left
off the President, Cheryl Ollila. And I will probably mispronounce
her name; I always do. And she is present. She will also be
presenting as well as, I understand, some other residents of The
Quarry Community Association.
We have a PowerPoint, and if I do not do the PowerPoint, please
do not hold it against me. I've been known not to scroll properly.
The Heritage Bay PUD, it's a PUD, a DRI, Development of Regional
Impact, was approved by the County Commission in 2003, and it's
located in the northeast quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier
Boulevard.
February 9, 2021
Page 17
The slide that's in front of you depicts the two residential
communities, the Heritage Bay neighborhood on the eastern portion,
and The Quarry neighborhood on the western portion, and the lower
left-hand corner is the commercial activity center outlined in orange.
That activity center is within Activity Center No. 3. And towards
the bottom of it, you can see Limestone Trail is along Immokalee
Road north of Immokalee Road. That is not in Activity Center
No. 3. That road is not in a mixed-use activity center.
The yellow line is a demarcation line between the two different
residential communities, the Heritage Bay community on the east and
The Quarry neighborhood on the west. Both of those communities
as distinct, separate communities were approved by virtue of various
plats approved by the County Commission, and so they are distinct
residential neighborhoods. The county approved the development
pattern with these two distinct and separate residential subdivisions
and plats.
The next slide is the Heritage Bay PUD road network.
Limestone Trail at the bottom is the private platted two -lane road in
The Quarry community owned in fee simple by The Quarry
Community Association, Inc. The plat was approved by the County
Commission in November of 2004 and recorded in January of 2005.
So in 2003, the PUD/DRI was approved; 2004, the County
Commission approved a plat that said Limestone Trail was platted as
a private right-of-way, and that plat was recorded in 2005.
The Limestone Trail is used by The Quarry and Heritage Bay
residents to access the commercial activity center. The use of
Limestone Trail by The Quarry and Heritage Bay has been
approximately 14, 15 years, and that has not changed, and we'll get
into more detail later on during our presentation. That historical
utilization of Limestone by the residents of Heritage Bay and
residents of The Quarry will not change because you'll hear later on
February 9, 2021
Page 18
that gates, if approved, will be accessible by use of transponders, and
the residents of Heritage Bay will receive those transponders. So
they can travel back and forth as they are today.
One other important aspect is the Heritage Bay community has a
gate at Immokalee Road and Heritage Bay Boulevard that The
Quarry residents do not have access through. The Quarry
Community Association has a gate on Quarry Drive north of
Immokalee Road that the Heritage Bay residents -- so they have their
own distinct gates.
If I'm in Heritage Bay -- and Mr. Mears, others will get to it later
on -- I can travel through the internal roadway system and exit
through The Quarry gate and go to Limestone Trail if I'm living in
Heritage Bay.
Again, when the plat was recorded, we're not aware of any
evidence that the plat was made with the idea of any public use, any
general public use. And, again, it's located outside the activity
center. And the reason why that's important, there's some staff
analysis that talks about what's required in a mixed-use activity
center.
The Heritage Bay residential neighborhood and The Quarry
neighborhood residential and Limestone are not located within a
mixed-use activity center.
The next slide talks about the amendment and why we are here.
The text amendment will protect the private property rights of The
Quarry Community Association and its members and will avoid a
taking, in essence, of this roadway by making it available and
accessible to general public use. The text amendment is to construct
a permitted PUD use right, a guardhouse traffic control facility. And
you'll see excerpts from the PUD later on where one of the specific
permitted uses are gatehouses and guardhouses.
Consistent with the PUD, the text amendment is to clarify the
February 9, 2021
Page 19
ability to install gates on Limestone Trail and other Heritage Bay
PUD privately owned roads. It's to clarify it. The text amendment
will not affect the use of the interconnecting and privately owned
Limestone Trail by Heritage Bay and Quarry residents. As I
mentioned before, that's been enjoyed for approximately 14 to 15
years.
The only authorized users of the Limestone Trail are The Quarry
Community Association and its residents and the Heritage Bay
association and its residents.
As I mentioned before, you will hear the testimony, the status
quo as to Heritage Bay will not be altered. It will be maintained.
With regards to -- conspicuously absent from the PUD is any
requirement that the road be a public right -of-way. And, again, PUD
approved 2003; plat approved by the Board, 2004; making it private,
plat recorded 2005.
At the Planning Commission they took about five-and-a-half
hours of extensive testimony and questioning, and the
recommendation by the Planning Commission, we appreciate their
work, was to recommend approval of the PUD amendment with one
condition, and the vote was 6-1. The recommendation, we would
assert, confirms the text amendment is consistent with the Heritage
Bay PUD ordinance and the recommendation is consistent with the
Collier County Growth Management Plan, its Future Land Use
Element, and the Transportation Elements that you read in the
executive summary and you'll hear our experts testify to. And the
Planning Commission finding was that the applicant has a right to
close Limestone Trail to the general public.
And we believe also the Planning Commission, in their
discussion, recognized that staff's recommendation of denial is
regulatory overreach and that -- one condition was imposed, and we
agreed to it. Mr. Schmitt proposed that the roadway be open to the
February 9, 2021
Page 20
public in case of any declared emergency or evacuation. We readily
agreed to that. And, also, emergency vehicles, as is typical in
gated-access facilities, will have transponders to access the gates if
they need to. And it will be open in case of emergency or
emergency declaration.
Next, Chris Mears is a professional engineer, and he'll be up to
testify next, and I'd like to have Chris give his credentials, his
expertise in civil site design and roadway design, and he will walk
you through the next series of slides, and -- thank you.
MR. MEARS: Good morning, Commissioners. Chris Mears.
I'm with Native Engineering. We're just in the North Tampa area.
I've been a professional engineer here in Florida for just under about
20 years or so. I've been practicing engineering for about 23 years.
I've been -- I've worked on hundreds of different site development
roadway projects for both private developers, schools, public
agencies, state agencies. So I am, again, a professional engineer
here in the state of Florida.
I will go through --
MR. PIRES: If I may, Madam Chair, if we could ask the Board
to accept Mr. Mears as an expert in roadway design and civil site
design.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, we just went over that.
MR. PIRES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. PIRES: If the Board has any questions about his
experience or expertise --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I don't think so.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
MR. MEARS: Happy to answer them if you do.
There is a level of redundancy here in our presentation, and it's
February 9, 2021
Page 21
mainly for clarification purposes. As we've gone through this
application for -- gosh, we've been at this process for some time
now -- there's been a lot of questions in regards to traffic circulation,
timing of when circulation changed. So excuse me if there's, you
know, repetition throughout our presentation. But I will continue to
talk about the circulation that Mr. Pires had gone over, initially.
I want to make sure that it's understood that the Heritage Bay
residents and The Quarry residents can both egress from their
communities through any of the gates that are within the PUD
currently. There's a gate here at Weathered Stone Drive. This is a
Quarry community gate. There's a gate here at Quarry Drive, again,
another Quarry gate, and then the Heritage Bay Boulevard gate here
that is a Heritage Bay community gate.
As I'd mentioned, all the residents of The Quarry community as
well as the Heritage Bay residents can exit through any one of these
gates. They cannot return through each other's communities' gates.
So The Quarry residents cannot enter back in through the Heritage
Bay gate, and the Heritage Bay residents cannot enter back in through
The Quarry Drive gate as well as the Weathered Stone Drive gates.
I just want to make sure that's clear and understood.
So going through the traffic circulation, as Mr. Pires mentioned,
there is no proposed change in circulation for these residents from
what it is today and what it will be tomorrow if the gates are
approved and this amendment is approved.
So, you know, again, not to beat this horse, but, going through
the different movements that -- and options that the residents have to
return to their communities from the commercial activity center,
again, residents can both travel along Limestone Trail in either
direction. Heritage Bay residents to return back to their community
would either exit out of Quarry Drive and make a westbound
movement and then eventually have to make a U-turn on Immokalee
February 9, 2021
Page 22
Road to get back into their community.
They could also exit out of the Bellaire Bay Drive and make a
U-turn at Goodland Bay Drive, and the reason for this U-turn
movement is the county recently closed the full median opening at
Bellaire Bay Drive. It used to allow all movements. Now it's
directionalized. It does allow a left-in in the eastbound direction
going into the commercial activity center. It does not allow a
left-out. So it's a right-out only.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What's the name of that road
that you just told -- talked about?
MR. MEARS: This is Bellaire Bay Drive, and there's an
intersection here at Immokalee Road and Bellaire Bay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I drive through it every day;
just don't ever look at the sign.
MR. MEARS: Understood. You'll hear that -- you'll hear this
road name a number of times in this presentation. And, again, I
apologize for that.
Commercial activity center users, speaking specifically about
Heritage Bay residents, can also drive north on Bellaire Bay Drive,
exit out onto Collier Boulevard, and then go southbound and make a
left-turn movement onto Immokalee Road if they prefer not to make
a U-turn movement here at Goodland Bay Drive if they exit out of
Bellaire Bay.
Again, this movement and this forced U-turn was anticipated by
the county. There are a number of Traffic Impact Statements that
were done for the developments. They did show this median
opening being closed and directionalized, and the county also
extended the left-turn lane here at Bellaire Bay Drive in anticipation
of this movement and additional stacking and queuing length within
this turn lane.
There's a number of different movements that occur throughout
February 9, 2021
Page 23
the commercial activity center as well if they need to get back out
onto Collier Boulevard, make a U-turn at other locations.
I will mention that Bellaire Bay Drive is a public roadway. It's
a county-owned roadway, as well as Goodland Bay Drive is also.
And the small portion of Weathered Stone Drive outside of the gate
within The Quarry community, this small portion is also county
owned.
If the -- excuse me. If the amendment is approved, there will be
proposed gates at the -- at either end of Limestone Trail. And as
Mr. Pires had mentioned, residents of Quarry community as well as
Heritage Bay will both have access to Limestone Trail.
So the only movement that would be incorporated if the
amendment is approved is the fact that there's now a signal at The
Quarry/Woodcrest/Immokalee Road intersection. I don't believe, as
of this current moment, that signal is active. It is in a flashing mode,
in a test mode. Very soon it will be active.
So this presentation is still currently accurate in that the signal is
not currently active. But it will be soon, whether it's today or this
week or next week. I would expect very soon it will be active.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It will, no doubt, be a
surprise. We're all riding along, got a big flashing light ou t there.
Signal coming for two weeks now.
MR. MEARS: So with that signal active, the Heritage Bay
residents will be able to travel along Limestone Trail and make a left
turn onto Immokalee Road and get back into their community
through their main gate. And as I'd mentioned previously, currently
Heritage Bay residents cannot access back into Quarry Drive. That
is a movement only for Quarry residents. That condition has been
this way for years, and it's not anticipated to change.
So as I had mentioned before, the county had approved a
number of different conditions along Immokalee Road that's kind of
February 9, 2021
Page 24
forcing this amendment by the applicant. The amendment would
maintain this historic vehicular and pedestrian movements. It's
important to note that the interconnectivity will be consistent with the
PUD master plan, the Collier County GMP, Collier County
regulations, and the Collier County Land Development Code.
The Heritage Bay PUD, Section 2.5A, that I have a snippet of
below, clearly permits the proposed use of having these gates on
Limestone Trail. I'll read this out aloud because it's important to
note that this condition or this allowance already exists. This
process, we believe, should have been a minor site plan modification.
And I'll go through the history of how we got here today. But I will
read this aloud.
The substitutions to design standards in the Section 2.5A of the
Heritage Bay PUD ordinance states that standards for roads shall be
in compliance with the applicable provisions of the LDC regulating
subdivisions unless otherwise modified, waived, or accepted by this
PUD or approved during preliminary subdivision plat approval.
This is important. The developer also retains the right to establish
gates, guardhouses, or other access controls, signs, and monuments as
made deemed appropriate by the developer on all project roadways.
So this has been part of the PUD for years.
The proposed text amendment only clarifies this section of the
PUD. And I will specifically talk about the portions that's been
amended or is proposing to be amended, which is the second
sentence. The developer and property owners associations may
establish, construct, and operate gates, guardhouses, other access
controls, signs, and monuments, and in parentheses, access controls,
as desired on privately owned internal project roadways including,
but not limited to, Limestone Trail.
Access controls on the road currently known as Limestone Trail
opened and operated or, I'm sorry, owned by The Quarry Community
February 9, 2021
Page 25
Association, Incorporated, will be operated to allow areas designated
R1, R2, R3, and R4, excluding the area designated AC/R3, full use of
Limestone Trail.
I'll indicate that the R1, R2, R3, and R4 areas are areas within
The Quarry Community Association as well as Heritage Bay, so
those areas will have full access to Limestone Trail as included in this
text amendment.
So the applicant's concern is mainly the increased -- their
anticipated increase in cut-through public traffic on Limestone Trail.
So their response to this new development along the county's
roadway system and this new signal is forcing them to incorporate
these access controls to minimize their liability and maintenance
costs on their roadway.
The general public has no legal right of use, and at the present
time there is de minimus cut-through traffic by the members of the
general public, mainly because the signal is not activated yet. And
when this signal does get activated, it's anticipated this public traffic
will increase.
So going through the history of this application, in June of 2019,
the applicant requested an insubstantial change to the Site
Development Plan to incorporate these access controls on Limestone
Trail. The county had indicated that the application should be
actually filed under an insubstantial change to the construction plan.
It's a very similar process; you know, low cost to the applicant,
administrative approval, I believe, or through staff approval, but not
going through hearings, through the County Commission or the
Planning Commission.
In October of 2019, we began the application process for the
ICP. The county had changed the requirement again from the ICP
and indicated that an insubstantial change to the PUD would be
required due to perceived changes to traffic circulation. They didn't
February 9, 2021
Page 26
indicate what that change in circulation was going to be at, and still
today they haven't.
January of 2020 we met with county staff for an insubstantial
change to the PUD, a PDI. We met with them in a pre -app meeting,
and the county, again, changed their requirement from a PDI to a
PUD amendment, which is what we're going through today, advising
that the proposed gates would result in a substantial increase in the
impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited
to, increases in traffic generation, changes in traffic circulation, or
impacts on other public facilities under Section 10.02.13 E.1.e of the
Land Development Code citing anticipated changes to traffic
circulation.
So the reason we're here is because the county's anticipated
changes to traffic circulation and a potential increase in traffic
generation onto the public roadways. It's really important.
Again, Collier staff did not provide any factual, quantitative
evidence of traffic impacts and still today has not provided any
factual evidence of these impacts on public facilities to the degree
that would merit a project denial.
And Mr. Pires, in his conclusion, will go over elements of the
county staff report to indicate that there are no perceived increases in
traffic generation that would be considered significant beyond just
being de minimus, and he'll indicate that in the conclusion.
So it's odd that we've gone through this process, yet -- up to
where we are today, that the applicant's spending a significant
amount of money on consulting fees and a lot of time here and, yet,
county staff had indicated that this increase in traffic is considered de
minimus and no real change in circulation.
The present alignment of Limestone Trail was approved, as
Mr. Pires had indicated, administratively on March 30th, 2004, by
Collier County staff by a revision of the PUD master plan, the -- also
February 9, 2021
Page 27
the Board of County Commissioners on the -- of Collier County, by
the approval of The Quarry Phase 1A plat on November 16th, 2004,
and the recording of this plat in 2005.
Heritage Bay PUD Ordinance 2.5, as I indicated previously,
allows this use of these gates on Limestone Trail.
As you can see, I'd outlined that same statement indicating the
developer has these and retains these rights. Other areas of the PUD
ordinance indicate and recognize the access controls can be utilized
throughout -- throughout the community in a number of locations
throughout the PUD ordinance. And it specifically
identifies -- excuse me -- identifies guardhouses, gatehouses, and
access-control structures.
So a little bit of history of the PUD ordinance. The PUD and
the master plan still, then and now, will maintain the internal access
to the commercial activity center that Mr. Pires had pointed out
earlier for both Quarry and Heritage Bay residents. The Heritage
Bay PUD was adopted in 2003, in July of 2003. The commercial
activity center with internal access to neighborhoods so residents will
not have to travel out on Immokalee Road to shop for their everyday
needs, mainly to get to the commercial activity center. This
Limestone Trail that is there now provides that access.
Current county-approved access-controlled facilities at
Weathered Stone Drive, Quarry Drive, and Heritage Bay have
already been approved. They were approved with having access for
The Quarry residents and Heritage Bay residents. As I pointed out
earlier, the residents cannot access back into each other's gatehouses
or guardhouses. They can only egress through those guardhouses.
In the Heritage Bay PUD, the master community plan moved
Limestone Trail outside of the originally planned master plan. And
you can see in this first master plan where it shows Limestone Trail
cutting from Bellaire Bay Drive up to Weathered Stone Drive.
February 9, 2021
Page 28
This master plan doesn't show the guardhouses. The master
plan was approved with the -- through the administrative approval
changing the location of Limestone Trail from the location you see
here on the upper master plan to the one you see here on the lower
right. This is a significant change to Limestone Trail, more
significant than what's being proposed today with the addition of the
guardhouses.
So you can see that you would anticipate the change in
circulation would require, you know, a more extensive process than
just administrative approval, or you would think. The county had
approved this through administrative approval, yet the inclusion of
the guardhouses on Limestone Trail were having to go through this
amendment process.
In a town hall meeting in 2018, the county presented on the
Heritage Bay PUD and outlined the history of the zoning. Also
indicated in that presentation was the anticipated signal that had
changed originally anticipated here at Bellaire Bay Drive, and
Bellaire Bay Drive had a minor alignment change which then pushed
the actual intersection of Bellaire Bay a little bit closer to Collier
Boulevard, and the county deemed that this signal was no longer
viable due to the county moving Bellaire Bay Drive closer to Collier
Boulevard.
The ideal location for the signal, more than Quarry Drive and
Immokalee Road, or at least equivalent to, would be this location
here at Bellaire Bay Drive, which was originally anticipated. So in
order to provide the access into the commercial activity center
directly versus having the public travel on Limestone Trail would
have been ideal to have this signal here at Bellaire Bay Drive for
these commercial activity center users to egress out of the
commercial activity center.
As I indicated, the master plan provides an internal
February 9, 2021
Page 29
interconnected street system without any language or provision that
restricts the placement of gates on private roads within the internal
PUD. No public-access requirements or conditions imposed -- were
imposed or -- on the placement of the construction of the Weathered
Stone Drive, Quarry Drive, or Heritage Bay Boulevard gates when
they were approved. And in the master plan, there is an absence of
exact gate locations, which is common to most PUDs when the
internal street systems are private and maintained by a community or
homeowners association.
And the Heritage Bay PUD and the master plan are silent as to
any commitment or requirement that all development within the PUD
will be provided access to all the depicted roadways and to the
outside general public.
As Mr. Pires indicated, the County Commission approved The
Quarry Phase 1A plat and approved Limestone Trail as a private
right-of-way, and this is an image of the plat which shows
highlighted Limestone Trail as Tract R.
Mr. Michael Yates will continue this presentation.
MR. YATES: Good morning. Michael Yates, Palm Traffic. I
have a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering from University of
South Florida in 1992, so 29 years of experience in this. I do mostly
private-sector work. I've presented professional opinions to over 10
different county agencies within the state of Florida over my career,
and FDOT access management review committees. So a lot of
experience in this specific field.
My expertise is in the traffic impact statements, traffic impact
studies; have done them for large projects as well as large-scale DRI
projects. I'm happy to answer any questions you have but, if not, I
will continue on with the presentation.
So what you see before you is as part of the TIS that we were
requested by staff to prepare for this project, we reviewed all the TISs
February 9, 2021
Page 30
that had been submitted as part of the commercial activity center. So
what you see listed here are all the parcels within the activity center.
We've numbered them out so you can see specifically where they are.
Of the 16, there were 14 different TISs prepared.
The only two were the pump station, which is currently in
operation, and the government center, which is currently under
construction. Let's see. There we go.
So all these 14 TISs were accepted and approved by Collier
County. The interesting part to this is that all but one did not assign
any traffic to Limestone Trail. And, in fact, 11 of the 14 were
requested to evaluate the impacts of the closure of the Bellaire
Bay/Immokalee Road intersection to the directional median opening
that is there today. So left-in, right-in, right-out.
Historically, it's been a full median opening. And so as part of
the TIS review, they were asked to evaluate what the impacts would
be to the local network with the closure. All but one of them did not
assign any traffic to Limestone Trail as part of that review. They,
for the most part, assigned them to be the U-turns that you see and
Chris talked about in his presentation on Immokalee at Bellaire Bay
and Goodland Bay.
There was a signal warrant study prepared in 2018 for The
Quarry intersection at Immokalee Road. And so what that did is that
took, basically, the same approach that we did, is that they used the
TISs that were submitted as part of the commercial activity center.
There's been a historic 35 percent assignment of traffic to the east.
Now, that was done in the original DRI traffic study, and that was the
assignment they used. There was no verification to that. There was
no traffic counts done to support that, but that was the assignment
that was in the original traffic studies for the DRI.
And so what they did is they took those percentages and ran out
the trip generation for all the uses within the activity center that were
February 9, 2021
Page 31
approved, and then they assigned 35 percent of that traffic would then
use Limestone to get to the traffic signal at Quarry Drive and
Immokalee. Then they would all make the left out of that
intersection. And so that's how they got to meeting signal warrants.
And so there were no counts done as part of the study. There's
no evaluation done as part of this study. But that is how they got to
warranting the study. So if you --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. I am going to interrupt
you. Are you saying that the traffic study assigned traffic to
Limestone?
MR. YATES: The signal warrant study, yes, assigned
35 percent of all the commercial activity center traffic to use
Limestone Trail.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that was generated by
who?
MR. YATES: Norm Trebilcock.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Trebilcock. Yeah, you say
his last name. Right, Trebilcock.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Trebilcock.
MR. YATES: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: For the county?
MR. YATES: It was -- it was for Davidson Engineering, so I'm
not exactly sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll ask that question.
MR. YATES: But the county installed the signal so, ultimately,
I assumed it was for the county.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And there's no basis for the
35 percent?
MR. YATES: Other than that was what was in the original
DRI, which was a model estimate at the time. And I don't know how
February 9, 2021
Page 32
much you want on background of how they do those model
assignments. But way too much complicated stuff, but if you have
any questions, I'm happy to explain.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. YATES: So, anyway, that is how they did the assignment,
and that's -- that's what raised the concerns in the neighborhood
association is that when you look at 35 percent of the traffic for the
entire commercial center all using Limestone Trail to come out their
private road, then come down Quarry Drive, which is their private
road, to get to the new signal at the intersection.
So it was just following the original DRI, but I'm not sure why it
was done other than a concern that it may not meet signal warrants
otherwise is because if you look at just the residential traffic, even the
traffic study identified there was only about, they estimated, 31 trips
per hour from the residential making that left.
And so when you do a signal warrant study, what you need is 53
cars per hour for eight hours of the day making a left turn from the
side street to warrant a traffic signal. That's condition 1B of the
signal warrant. Again, I don't want to get into too much of the
details, but -- so that's what is typically required to warrant a signal.
So in -- a general rule of thumb is that residential very seldom
warrants, from a volume perspective, a signal.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Say the criterium again for
the warrant study.
MR. YATES: Yeah. It is 53 cars per hour for eight hours of
the day making a left from the side street.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So it's 400 plus/minus in an
eight-hour --
MR. YATES: Yeah, but it's specific that it must be every hour
for eight hours of the day.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: In a row?
February 9, 2021
Page 33
MR. YATES: It doesn't need to be in a row, but it could be any
eight hours. But they must be 53 cars per hour. And so that's a
distinction. So you'll get -- like a residential, you'll get a large
peaking characteristic that occurs in the morning, and then they're
exiting. Then you'll get a large peaking characteristic that comes in
in the evening, but they're going in a different direction. And so
that's why you never see the residentials by themselves warrant a
traffic signal unless there's an operational concern that is done.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick question, and this
is just on the warrant study, if I may.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. This is -- this is heavy stuff.
I certainly think it's important.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, there's a lot of
subjectivity, and that's one of the things that I want to clarify. Who
gets to pick the hours?
MR. YATES: They can be any hours of the day. So they
could be any eight hours, but they must be eight hours of a day.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Consecutive?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
MR. YATES: They don't need to be consecutive, but they
could be any eight hours within a typical 12-hour period.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that adds to the
subjectivity because he who wants the lights get to pick the hours --
MR. YATES: No, no. They can be any eight hours. So if
you hit the warrant, it would be over that -- typically, the way we do
a typical signal warrant is we go out and do a 12-hour count, typically
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., unless you get an early generator or a late
generator, and we do a 12-hour turning movement count, and then
that tells you how many people are making the left turn.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha.
MR. YATES: And so it's really not very subjective, only if
February 9, 2021
Page 34
you're not meeting the warrants. And then that's where the
subjectivity comes in is that you really get down to peak -hour
warrants. And so those are really not typically what you install a
signal warrant on. You want the 12-hour warrant to be met. DOT
will not install a signal unless there's a safety concern or you meet the
12-hour warrant.
And so with a -- and the guidelines actually go through in detail
that you should try alternative means before you install a signa l like a
directional median opening, a left-in, right-in, right-out. And that
was what was there at the intersection of The Quarry Drive and
Immokalee before they installed the signal. So there was a
directional left-in, right-in, right-out.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Forgive me if I ask you a question.
MR. YATES: No, no, no, please. This is complicated stuff.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Limestone. Has Limestone -- has
there ever been a count of traffic on Limestone?
MR. YATES: Nope, not that I could find through any of the
TIS studies, through the signal warrant, nothing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. YATES: And I looked. And when we had started this
process, that was my first thought process is, hey, let's go do counts
and let's see where we fall. But, of course, we -- when we started
this, it was right after the pandemic started, and so any counts you did
at that point in time were worthless.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. YATES: But the signal warrant was done before the
pandemic, and all -- every TIS that was approved was done --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Before the pandemic.
MR. YATES: -- before the pandemic.
So there was plenty of opportunities, just none done. And I
can't explain why or -- why it was done.
February 9, 2021
Page 35
Now, we do use predictive -- and that was the term that was
used. But we do use estimated volumes for signal warrants when
you start talking a larger-scale project and it's not there today. So
you look at a Lowe's or a Home Depot or a Walmart. When you do
signal warrants for these, they typically like to have the signal
installed before they come in because of the large anticipated volume.
And so you'll typically estimate volumes then. But even at that point
in time you would typically -- unless it was a T intersection with no
other volume, you would typically still do a traffic count so you knew
what the background traffic was.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YATES: Does that help?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, thank you.
MR. YATES: So, basically -- now, with the concern that we
had is -- and I went through a lot of this -- is that what this does is
that with everyone now using -- being assigned to Limestone Trail to
get to the signal, that is now sending everyone in the commercial
activity center to use Limestone Trail to hit that signal. And so what
then you're now doing is now forcing people from a public roadway
network onto a private roadway network, and the road is privately
owned, privately maintained, and so the neighborhood association
has all the responsibilities of owning that roadway. So they have all
the liability issues, everything associated with privately owning and
maintaining that roadway.
And the roadway, you can tell, was never really designed for the
additional traffic that is going to be assigned. Let me show you. I
think it's the next slide.
So this is a typical day. This was, what, January 19th of this
year at 1:30 in the afternoon. This is taken from the guardhouse.
You can see Limestone Trail is labeled there in the green. And
so -- let me see. I think I -- and we did an aerial view down here.
February 9, 2021
Page 36
So this is the guardhouse, Limestone Trail here, this is Quarry Drive
here, and then right here is the intersection with Immokalee. And so
this camera angle is taken right here at the guardhouse.
And so what you have is Limestone Trail is positioned that it is
angled towards the guardhouse and has a very short separation
between the guardhouse and Limestone Trail because it was always
intended to be private. And so anyone that was using Limestone
would more than likely be using the gatehouse or using this as an
access to the neighborhood, not as a public roadway.
And so what you see here is this is the visitor line for the
guardhouse, and you can see in this photo it queues up down the
road, and it actually queues up, you know, somewhere in this range
on Quarry Drive. Now, not an issue because it's a private road
today, but you make this public and you make this section public,
then you've got operational issues. Now this is being blocked. So if
you're coming northbound on Quarry Drive trying to make a left,
you're stuck behind the queue for the guardhouse. And so then you
have some operational issues that have now been created because
you're assigning, they had estimated it was 230 cars, 260 cars using
Limestone Trail in an hour.
So you can see the big impact that making Limestone Trail
public and for accessing a signal that was really never intended.
When you look at the original DRI and the PUD, it had two signal
locations. One was Quarry Drive and it was, again, if warranted,
and the other was at Bellaire Bay, which was the logical spot for the
signal because that was at the eastern side of the commercial where
the Racetrac is today.
And so then that would provide access for all the commercial
and for any of the residents that wanted to use it could access the
signal via Limestone. So, to me, that's the logical spot from a traffic
engineering perspective.
February 9, 2021
Page 37
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick question --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- if I may.
MR. YATES: No, no, please.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm coming back around to
the assignment of a percentage of traffic vis-à-vis the TIS to
Limestone Trail for the commercial then -- what's he doing?
MR. YATES: Oh, there we go.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Rabbit or squirrel or butterfly
went by. I forgot what I --
MR. YATES: Sorry. Me, too.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So the assignment of the
traffic on the TIS for Limestone Trail out of the commercial was
done by Norm. Then the warrant study was done to warrant the light
at Quarry. Now, does -- does the directional traffic count in that 53
per hour -- because I know there's an enormous amount of traffic
coming from the south into that intersection. Does -- is this a
both-way directional traffic?
MR. YATES: It is. It's both directions, but from the south
they would be needing to make a northbound left.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Of course; they're turning.
MR. YATES: So heading north and turning towards Collier.
But that's not the predominant movement from the south. A lot of
the people from the south are making the right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. They're using that
road as a cut-through to avoid --
MR. YATES: Right. They're using Tree Farm and coming up
and coming that way.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. Just to say, the 53
left-turn count is by directional?
MR. YATES: Well, no. The 53 can be made up of either
February 9, 2021
Page 38
direction, but it's not the addition of the two. So it can be a
northbound left.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It takes one direction 53
times, okay.
MR. YATES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. YATES: But it could be either direction.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: As long as they're making a left?
MR. YATES: As long as they're making a left. And the
theory behind that is that you could build a turn-lane and solve the
issue. If it was just one lane, you could make a right -turn lane and
solve the issue of warranting the signal.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: On this overhead photo --
MR. YATES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- where would one of the
gates be?
MR. YATES: So they haven't gone through the design, but
somewhere right in here.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right there. And then a gate
at the other end of it, obviously?
MR. YATES: A gate at the other end. It would be either a
transponder or bar code and would just allow for the vehicle to pass
through.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Don't you think, though,
that -- I mean, I'm just saying hypothetically, people would come
down Immokalee not -- you know, maybe they haven't visited there
in a while, they don't know there's a gate there, so they make a right
on Quarry and they sit and wait in that long queue, then they go to
make a left, and there's a gate there, then what happens; they do a
U'ey and come back out to Immokalee?
MR. YATES: They would have to make a U. But, I mean, I
February 9, 2021
Page 39
will tell you, when you drive down Immokalee, you would never
know Limestone's there. I mean, there's a pretty substantial berm
that you do not see Immokalee from Limestone, and vice versa; you
do not see Limestone except for I think there's a couple little glances
that you could get. So you would never know that it's there and is
a -- you know, a parallel facility to Immokalee unless you knew the
area.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But that actually doesn't help
your cause in my mind because then I sit there and go, wow, if
nobody knows it's there, then why are we worried about it being so
overly congested?
MR. YATES: And that's the issue is -- and that's the concern
today. I don't think the issue is there, and that's why you don't see
them using it today.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MR. YATES: It's when a signal goes in --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's when you're worried
about it.
MR. YATES: -- and you get people funneling that way, that's
the concern.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's the out-traffic. It's not
the -- it's not coming in.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: The exit.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When we want to go to
Goodwill, we go down to the entrance by the Racetrac and go in that.
We don't -- nobody goes in through The Quarry except for the
residents. It's the out-traffic that's the trick out of that plaza. That's
the -- that's been the conundrum we've been fighting forever.
MR. YATES: Yeah. And, I mean, the original PUD always
anticipated a signal there at Bellaire Bay, and from what I can
understand in some of the, you know, meetings that I've been in, is
February 9, 2021
Page 40
that the -- a potential overpass at the intersection of Collier and
Immokalee is the primary reason for not wanting to do that signal at
that location. But that's the hard part to understand from a county
perspective is that the overpass is -- from what I saw, got put into the
2045 Long-Range Needs Plan. So not the Cost Feasible Plan, but
the Needs Plan. Because I've seen a later TIS that was done for
Baumgarten that showed the intersection of Immokalee and Collier
works at an acceptable level of service today.
And so you're looking at a long-range potential overpass on an
intersection that currently works and doesn't have capacity issues. I
mean, there's a heavy volume turning at that intersection, but it's not
warranting a flyover that costs, you know, what, $150 million.
And so you're dictating traffic operations today for a long-range
planning project that may or may not happen in 2045? And so
I'm -- I kind of lose the disconnect as to the reason not to do an
operational signal at Bellaire Bay if it's warranted. Now, I mean,
you would have to go out and actually do counts and see if it meets
the warrants, but if it had the volumes like that was in the signal
warrant study, that would be the logical spot to put a signal. I think
it's 30 feet from meeting signal spacing or 100 feet. It's pretty close
to meeting signal space.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair, can I -- can I
just -- I just feel compelled to -- we're -- I just want to share my view
on how we're going down a rabbit trail talking about trip counts and
things, because -- and I'm not meaning that disrespectfully, because I
understand that the petitioner needs to put their case in.
I'm just -- I feel compelled to say that this is a private road, and
that's it. If we were to say that a private owner of a private road
cannot put a gate on it, we are imposing a public easement on their
land, which we can't do without a taking.
February 9, 2021
Page 41
It's just -- you know, these are private property rights. If
the -- if the road should have been open or should have been made
public at the beginning of this process, then, y ou know, to use
another one of our phrases, you know, the horse is out of the barn, the
train has left the station, whatever we want to call it, but the reality of
it is right now on the plat it's a private road. It's not dedicated to
public use.
And so from my perspective, the traffic counts are irrelevant.
There's private property rights. And if we want it to be a public
road, there's a different process we'd have to go through, which I
wouldn't -- I don't think we should go. But I just want to tr y to focus
this on what are we being asked to do and can we even do it. And I
just don't think we can.
So I just wanted to kind of frame the issue maybe a little more
narrowly before we start talking about the Long-Range
Transportation Plans and, you know, bridges over Immokalee Road
and things.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders is --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I -- just real quickly, I
was going to agree with Commissioner Solis. And I know we're
going to hear some more testimony from the homeowners there
concerning the potential cost and problems if we do turn this into a
public right-of-way, a public road, how much that would potentially
impact our liability and our costs. So we're going to get into that, I
believe, and I believe the County Attorney will have some comments
as well. But I just want to agree with Commissioner Solis that --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And I would agree,
except it's a fascinating discussion because, frankly, I was learning
February 9, 2021
Page 42
things that may move into another issue. But, again, I would agree
that it's not necessarily germane for --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I would just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Keep the --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- throw this out there because I
lived it for, like, 10 years. Lely Barefoot Beach. If
anybody -- Tony laughed. You know, it's -- it's just fraught with all
sorts of issues having private property, public access. It's either
private or it's not, and I think that's really the issue for today. So
thank you. Thanks for your indulgence.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Thank you for your comments.
MR. YATES: Actually, you hit perfectly the next direction of
the slides. So thank you for the tie-in.
But, yes. And, you know, I mean, just to kind of bring closure
to what you've mentioned is that, you know, I mean, when you start
talking what it costs to build a roadway and what The Quarry has
invested in this roadway and what it costs, when you look at DOT,
2020, our District 7 up in Tampa does roadway cost numbers, and so
they go through every project they build and develop a roadway cost
so everyone can kind of know what it costs to build a roadway. And
when you look at a two-lane undivided curbed roadway, when you
factor in all the gutter, pond, all that treatment, you're looking at
$8.8 million per mile for roadway costs.
So when you start talking do you acquire a roadway, it's a
significant cost. I mean, I think we're -- between Limestone and
Quarry Drive to the right-of-way, you're six-tenths of a mile. So
you're $5 million of roadway costs if you were building it and pricing
it out today just for the roadway.
So, anyway, kind of the next part of what I wanted to make
everyone aware of, and I know Chris mentioned it, is that for the
commercial activity center, there's already a logical public pathway
February 9, 2021
Page 43
to use. And so what you can see in the upper left of this graphic here
is that Bellaire Bay is completely public, and it goes all the way up to
Weathered Stone, and then the connection from Weathered Stone to
Collier is all public right-of-way. That is a public roadway.
So you can travel completely within the activity center and get
onto the local roadway network on public roads without using
Limestone Trail. Now, the intersection there at Weathered Stone
and Collier, pretty low volume. You can go out there peak hour of
the day and pretty easily make a left. I went out there yesterday late
afternoon. And Collier ends just north of there, and today it's a
pretty easy way to make a left out. So if you wanted a safe path to
leave, you can completely do it on public roads without using
Limestone Trail.
And so I think that's an important distinction is that when you
look at how that connection occurs, that's the logical use of how you
should access either Collier or Immokalee not using Limestone Trail,
which is the private roadway.
Again, Chris went through this. But this is kind of the traffic
circulation pattern. I think you've seen it enough. But, again,
this -- you can see on this aerial here, you have a logical path of
Bellaire Bay up to Collier and then out. And if you're in the
commercial activity center, there is a connection here that you can
make and then come out and make a U-turn here, and then this is the
government center site that is currently under construction, and I
believe they have requested a connection to Collier Boulevard
separate from going through the commercial activity center. But
there are other ways to get to Collier through the commercial activity
center, but this is all public right-of-way and public road.
So, to me, there already is a logical path. And then if you
were -- wherever you're going, if you came out Collier, then you
would be at the intersection with Immokalee. Then you could easily
February 9, 2021
Page 44
make a left and go, if you did not feel comfortable coming out of the
commercial activity center and making the U-turn at Goodland Bay.
So that's the path that exists today. It's easy to drive. It's
very -- it takes you a little bit out of your way but not by very much,
and it's a very easy path to drive.
And then, again, just a blowup so you can see the circulation.
You can see that this shows what this configuration was. This is
what has happened out there where they've channelized the
directional median opening at Bellaire Bay, and so it made this a
left-in, right-in, right-out movement here.
And then they've extended the left-turn lane here at Goodland
Bay to allow for additional stacking to make that U-turn. But both
of these are actually in place today.
And so this channelization has already occurred. And then just
the little flags on there. And, again, just showing you the
interconnectivity that exists within the neighborhoods and within the
PUD to allow circulation within that.
And then just as a summary, we believe that we are consistent
with FLUE Policy 7.3, Transportation Element 9.3, LDC 4.04.02.A1,
and then LDC 4.04.02.B and LDC 4.07.02.J.4. And then again, the
use of Limestone Trail will remain for who uses it today. We're not
proposing any modifications that would prevent people that have the
right to use it today as a private road from using it in the future with
the addition of the gates.
And that we believe that the staff's proposed not allowing us to
gate it is inconsistent with 6.06.01.G, which says the use of local
streets by cut-through traffic shall be discouraged, and that is all.
And Greg is going to come up next and give his presentation.
MR. STUART: Good morning, Madam Chairman, fellow
commissioners, Collier staff, audience. Greg Stuart for the record.
My testimony in comprehensive urban regional land-use planning,
February 9, 2021
Page 45
zoning, and real estate investment and development has been
accepted by the federal superior court in Tacoma, King County
circuit in Seattle, Lee County circuit, and over two dozen other local
governments and administrative entities in both judicial and
quasi-judicial court cases.
So if you look at the PUD's existing Standard 7, this is really the
core issue in front of you. You know, and I'll just read it for the
record. The Heritage Bay PUD is designed to encourage internal
vehicular trip capture by providing commercial and recreational uses
and providing for pedestrian/bicyclist access to internal, emphasis
internal, community recreation and convenience retail center.
So, really, the core question is, is the text amendment that is in
front of you consistent with Standard 7. And then, of course, in so
doing, it would have to be consistent with Policy 7.3, 9.3, an d the
LDC's 4.04.02. So that really is the -- is the thrust of the case.
Now, when you look at staff, they're saying no, it's not
consistent. They're recommending to deny the text amendment and,
again, they cite 7.3, 9.3, and 4.04.02. Those are the thre e policies,
rules, if you will, that I want to focus on.
Now, I strongly disagree with staff's recommendation. It
doesn't take into account -- and, again, go into the staff
documentation that has been provided. You know, they really kind
of sidestep the fact that Limestone Trail is a privately owned road,
and staff is ignoring the fact that existing conditions,
circulation -- internal circulation conditions, i.e., what Chris said.
You know, where is the traffic going? How are they getting into and
out of for the Heritage Bay PUD which, again, consists of The
Quarries [sic] and Heritage Bay. Has that changed? And, no, that
hasn't changed.
So in my -- from my perspective, if the projects have been found
consistent with 7.3 and 9.3 with the -- I mean, obviously, there's a lot
February 9, 2021
Page 46
of permits that have been issued that has been found consistent in the
past and there's no change in conditions, well, then, you know, how is
this possible that all of a sudden, you know, it's now inconsistent
when it's been found consistent for over 15 years.
So what I would like to do is take you through a more of a
detailed assessment of 7.3, 9.3 and 4.04.02 and, really, what I'd like
to focus on is whether staff's recommendations are logical, i.e., are
they based on clear rea soning? Is the reasoning evidence based, and
does the solution, i.e., you know, staff recommended denial, does that
flow from a logical interpretation of the evidence?
I also want to examine this based upon predictability which is
really important which is, you know, is the staff-recommended denial
predictable? Is it -- is it occurring in a way that's expected? And in
this particular case, how many other private, gated country clubs, and
residential developments and, in fact, even commercial mixed-use
developments that have a private network and they have a use by
right, a gatehouse, if you will, how many of these cases have been
approved versus denied?
Certainly, the key question -- and I forgot the Planning
Commissioner that stated this, but does this represent a regulatory
overreach by Collier County staff? So that ties into the predictability
of their recommended no.
And then the final -- the final element is, is this prejudicial to the
applicant? You know, is it fair? Is it harmful? And, again, I'm
sorry I didn't read the minutes. I forgot the commissioner but,
basically, he referred to this recommended denial as trampling on
property rights. So those are the issues that I'd really like to
introduce to you.
Now, 7.3, when you look at it, all new and existing
developments shall be encouraged to connect to their local streets
and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other
February 9, 2021
Page 47
development regardless of land use type.
So in this particular case, as Chris Myers [sic] pointed out, you
know, gatehouses are a use by right. You look at the ordinance.
There are three sections in the ordinance that absolutely assures we're
talking -- you know, it's a use by right. There's no ambiguity here,
and there's no ambiguity that the connection is being maintained.
Again, Mr. Meyer's testimony is correct; the existing internal traffic
patterns aren't going to change with the two new gatehouses on
Limestone road.
And then is it -- is the recommended denial logical? No, it's
not. Because as far as I can tell the general public doesn't have a
legal right to use a private road.
Is it predictable? Again, general public doesn't have the right to
use it. The applicant wants to enjoy his rights the same as any other
mixed-use community in Collier County or in other counties for that
matter. And, again, when you look at the language of Standard 7,
you know, they're talking about internal use, and that's what we have.
It's been deemed consistent with 7.3, and it still is consist ent. So I
don't believe that the staff's recommended denial is logical nor
predicable.
You've seen the graphics. Just to go through this graphic and
then the following graphic, note there's no change in the pattern.
And also note, again, with Michael and Chris' testimony, the new
signalized intersection at Quarry Drive and Woodcrest is the
changing factor that will really impact my client's property interest,
because all of a sudden you have this dynamic of going north and
then using Limestone. And, again, the preexisting versus
post-existing, there's no change in patterns.
So when you look at whether the recommended denial was
prejudicial, I believe that it certainly is prejudicial because it's going
to increase through traffic, which is in violation of Collier County
February 9, 2021
Page 48
policy. Through traffic will certainly reduce resident safety.
Certainly, it may create increased adverse conditions; light, noise,
dust, the maintenance and management and the economic factors of
maintaining a private road that's being used heavily by the public use.
So, yeah, the decision to deny the text amendment is not fair to the
applicant. And, again, if you look at other communities, you know,
if they have a private road with the use by right, then they should
enjoy those rights. And as the commissioner said a while ago, I
mean, that's really the bottom line of this case: What are the rights
of Heritage Bay and why a recommended denial tramples upon those
rights.
And, again, these are the same graphics, again, showing the
existing pattern and on forth.
So the bottom line, the project is consistent with 7.3. I
respectfully disagree with staff. It's been designed and operated for
15-plus years based upon the exact patterns that have now.
There's -- the interconnectivity is maintained, and that should not be
an excuse for denial. In fact, it's a basis for approval.
Now, if you look at Policy 9.3, the county shall require,
whenever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between
developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road
network.
And, again, Limestone Trail is not designed nor built nor platted
as a public road. It's a private road, so the denial, based upon
inconsistency finding, is not logical. And as Michael pointed out,
the general traveling public have multiple ways to access the activity
center and to egress both The Quarry and Heritage Bay.
So it's not logical to recommend denial based upon the
assumption that the public has the full right of access onto a private
road network, nor is it predictable. Again, it deprives the
community association of their ability to decide who comes into their
February 9, 2021
Page 49
project, who comes into their community, and that's essential. You
know, private property in any case, shape, or form is the ability to
say, yes, you can come into my private recreational facility, golf
course, whatever, and you can't.
And the denial is not predictable because it ignores that
fundamental fact and, in so doing, it flies in the face of professionally
accepted planning principles and practices regarding the private use
of property versus the public use of property.
You've seen this graphic before. It shows the continuation of
the existing road network and how The Quarry neighborhood can
access Limestone and so forth. And, again, there's no change.
Mr. Myers pointed out that 13 out of 14 commercial activity center
TISs that they studied, 13 did not assume any traffic onto Limestone.
So, again, it's -- the amendment is consistent with 9.3, and I disagree
with staff.
If you look at 4.04.02.B.2, which is a core standard, it says,
future mixed-use projects are required to provide an internal
interconnection among major project phases, sections, or types of
uses unless one or more of the four circumstances listed below are
applicable, and it goes on to list that. But, again, looking at the
graphic, there is no discontinuous -- discontinuation of internal street
patterns for the Heritage Bay PUD.
So using that as a basis for denial is not logical, nor is it
predictable because what you want to do is look at the evidence.
Look at the facts. Currently, according to our traffic experts, with an
adopted Level of Service E, right now Immokalee Road is at a Level
of Service D, and it's my understanding that is based upon the
existing and the future buildout of the activity center and the two
residential communities.
So here we have a denial based upon evidence that's contrary to
the denial. In my opinion, if you have a Leve l of Service D and the
February 9, 2021
Page 50
recommended denial is to solve a problem that doesn't exist, then
why deny it in the first place?
Also, if you look at Item 2, according to our expert, the PUD
amendment may have 11 reassigned commercial activity center trips
onto Limestone. So 11 trips is absolutely de minimus in the scheme
of things. So, again, it's just not predictable. The amendment
complies with 4.04.02.B.2, and you should overrule staff and go
forward and approve this.
So if I can finish my presentation, and for the record, staff has
identified a number of entitlement elements or bases that they rest
their hat on, on the denial. I would like to address that, because
there are a lot of facts and assumptions that just aren't on the record.
So first and foremost, is it consistent with the Growth Management
Plan? Yes.
Certainly Policy 5.1, I agree with staff on that. You know, so
we are consistent with 5.1, but as I pointed out, when you get into 7.3
and 9.3, I believe the staff is completely in error because they're
talking about changes to on-site traffic flows. There are no changes
to on-site traffic flows. If you look at their staff report, Page 9,
Paragraph 2, again, they're talking about a reduction in internal trip
capture. But as Mr. Myers pointed out, you know, all the other TISs
never even included Limestone. Well, excuse me, 13 out of 14. So,
again, it's just wrong; it's an error.
Then, when you look at 9.3 as I pointed out earlier, that also is
an error, because if you look at the staff report's Page 10,
Paragraph 1, will remove existing public and commercial traffic.
Again, the existing commercial public traffic is not novel [sic] traffic,
and it's not that much to begin with. There's no change in the intent
and purpose of the Heritage Bay PUD, which to provide for internal
interconnection, not external from south to north through traffic. So
the project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
February 9, 2021
Page 51
Now, the change of conditions, both of our -- both Michael and
Chris stated, and I agree, that the primary change of condition that
necessitated this is the new traffic light. My client wants to address
an issue that is going to blow up on them, and they want to do that in
a preemptive manner. It's a -- it's a very viable change of condition.
So I disagree with staff. Staff says the change is not necessary. We
fundamentally disagree with that.
Whether the change will adversely influence living conditions in
the neighborhood. And staff finding is, yes, because, again, they're
talking about people that are using Limestone Trail in times of
emergency or Immokalee Road is congested. But clearly, from my
experience -- and I forgot who made the comment, but emergency
access will be provided for, you know, via transponders. It's done
all the time. So there's no adverse impacts to the existing internal
users of Limestone road and the Heritage Bay road network. So I
disagree with staff findings on that.
In terms of change or create traffic congestion, staff says, yes,
you're going to eliminate public access to Limestone Trail, and it's
going to increase traffic congestion, but there's no documentation to
that effect. And, again, going to 11 displaced trips off of Limestone,
that's completely de minimus.
Again, I'm relying on our traffic engineers. But based on my
conservative and literal reading, it's not going to create any diverse
traffic conditions. And, again, going back to the level -of-service
issue, there's no diminishment on the level of service on Immokalee
Road, which is, of course, of paramount concern.
The staff findings, you know, why the property cannot be
achieved, you know, without this text amendment, and the staff
report states that the subject property can be used in accordance with
existing zoning. And, again, it's a use by right. It's a use by right
on a private road, and I just have to emphasize that. The chairman
February 9, 2021
Page 52
of the planning and zoning commission asked me if I've ever seen
anything like this in my 35 years of doing this work, and I said no. I
mean, it's a private road, and it's a private gatehouse. This should be
a site plan minor modification.
And in fact, that was one -- when I was introduced to this case,
that was the first thing that came out of my mouth. I went, why are
they doing a text amendment? Because the language in the text
amendment is clear it's a use by right. So, I just -- again, I strongly
disagree with their findings.
Is the amendment out of scale with neighborhood needs? Staff
says yes; I say no, because there's no change in interconnection,
traffic patterns, level-of-service diminishment, operational issues, so
forth and so on.
So it fits in well with the neighborhood because it's been
designed in accordance with the original PUD. So there's -- so it fits
in well. Again, this was always envisioned.
Public level of service, I discussed that. Again, there's no
diminishment.
So to wrap up, the staff cited on Page 10, Paragraph 3, and they
quoted a good associate, Bruce Anderson, stating that this project
also features internal access to the activity center. So the residents
of Heritage Bay will not have to travel out on Immokalee Road to
shop. And, you know, so they're citing that as a basis for denial.
And I look at that, I go -- well, I read this as a basis for approval,
because he even -- Mr. Anderson's talking about for the residents of
the Heritage Bay PUD. There's no documentation -- and I went
through the original files. There's no documentation that implied
that public use is going -- the public is going to use a private road
network. So I think Mr. Anderson's language supports the approval.
When you're looking at Paragraph 4, instead of developing as
one consolidated project, it was, unfortunately, split and, ultimately,
February 9, 2021
Page 53
built by multiple parties and, quite frankly, that's not relevant
whatsoever.
You've seen numerous master planned communities that have
subdivided outparcels and development pods. I mean, that's just par
for the course. So that's not at all relevant as an excuse to deny this
amendment.
And then, finally, if you look at Page 10, Paragraph 5, talking
about platted with the ownership and maintained by The Quarry, and
then how in 2.04, as part of an approval process, they were talking
about the sidewalk and there should be an interconnection, you know,
vis-à-vis the implication being, well, there was always envisioned for
a sidewalk to be interconnected so, therefore, we're going to make a
private road into a public road. That's apples and oranges. Clearly,
it's apples and oranges, especially with the liability and cost in
maintenance and potential nuisances that can be created by excessive
drive-through traffic.
So, again, I don't think that reason is at all relevant to the
discussion at hand nor is it a basis to recommend denial for the text
amendment.
So with that, I'm available for any questions, and thank you for
your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't see any questions up here.
It's time for our hardworking court reporter break. So we'll
re-adjourn at 10:51.
(A brief recess was had from 10:41 a.m. to 10:51 a.m.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Please begin.
MS. OLLILA: Good morning. My name is Cheryl Ollila, and
I'm President of The Quarry Community Association Board of
Directors.
As you are well aware, the PUD amendment is of great
February 9, 2021
Page 54
importance to the residents of The Quarry. We appreciate your
service to the community and your attentiveness to the many
expressions of support for this PUD amendment and the concerns of
The Quarry community if the PUD amendment is not approved.
As you've already heard this morning, Limestone Trail was
platted as a private street right-of-way in 2005. Limestone Trail and
its improvements, the road, the sidewalk, the streetlights, the
landscaping, is owned in fee simple title by The Quarry Community
Association.
The QCA pays for and is responsible for all of the operation and
maintenance of that private street right-of-way including the road, the
sidewalk, the streetlights, the landscaping, et cetera, and including
insurance for its ownership, operation, and maintenance. There are
coach homes less than 100 feet from Limestone Trail. And I believe
you've been provided the many emails of concerns from those
affected residents.
In early 2018, after the QCA became aware of the county's plan
to place a traffic signal at the intersection of Quarry Road and
Immokalee Road per the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis dated in
October of '17, the QCA board of directors began discussions with
Collier County, specifically Commissioner Burt Saunders, our
commissioner, and former Deputy County Manager Nick
Casalanguida. In fact, it was a representative of CRE Consultants,
the real estate group at Cameron Commons in the commercial
activity center, who presented a copy of the Traffic Signal Warrant
Analysis to me asking, Limestone Trail is the QCA's private road,
right? I'm sure you don't want this traffic on your private street. He
made it clear he did not care whether a traffic signal was placed at
Quarry Drive and Immokalee Road. He was advocating for a traffic
signal at Bellaire Bay Drive and Immokalee Road.
Knowledge of the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis led to a
February 9, 2021
Page 55
meeting with Commissioner Saunders and representatives of the
QCA, The Quarry Golf Club, and CRE on February 12, 2018. That's
important, because in three days, it will be three years we've been
talking with the county about our private road.
Commissioner Saunders understood our concerns and was
instrumental in scheduling the next meeting between Nick
Casalanguida and representatives of his staff with QCA, Quarry Golf
Club, and CRE, which took place March 8th of 2018. The outcome
of this meeting led to a town hall at The Quarry by county staff to an
audience of over 200-plus Quarry residents on April 11th of 2018.
While it was indicated the county would not push for or support a
public thoroughfare on Limestone Trail as a means of alleviating
traffic on Immokalee Road, the QCA returned -- retained Attorney
Anthony Pires and Native Engineering to begin the process of
obtaining administrative approval from the county for placing gates
on privately owned Limestone Trail and as authorized by the
Heritage Bay PUD.
On July 8th of 2019, a meeting was scheduled with
Commissioner Saunders and Nick Casalanguida at my request.
Attending this meeting with me from the QCA board of directors was
Treasurer Jerry Solomon and Board Director Kevin Mooney. At th is
meeting both Commissioner Saunders and Mr. Casalanguida
specifically informed us the county would not stand in the way of the
QCA placing gates on Limestone Trail but that we may get some
pushback from our neighbors, Heritage Bay and possibly the
commercial activity center.
I informed them that pushback would not likely come from
Heritage Bay residents, as they would be provided the same access to
Limestone Trail with gates as they are without gates.
In December 2019, the Heritage Bay community subsequently
provided a letter of support for gating Limestone as the QCA and our
February 9, 2021
Page 56
legal and engineering support prepared for the developmental order
submittal meetings with the county staff in February of 2020.
Initially, as you've heard before, it started out as an SDPI, then an
insubstantial change to a PUD, and then in the preplanning meeting
in February of 2020 we were told that it would have to be a PUD
amendment despite any lack of evidence for why we would have to
do that.
To turn Limestone Trail into a public thoroughfare is in direct
contrast to the discussions and commitments in the many meetings
with Commissioner Saunders, the Deputy County Manager, and staff
as we approach, as I said, nearly three yea rs since these discussions
began.
Approval of the PUD amendment is consistent with the intent of
the PUD and the County Commission approval in 2004 of Limestone
as a private street. Approval will protect the quality of life and
property values in The Quarry.
On behalf of Quarry residents, we implore the Board of County
Commissioners to approve this PUD amendment reiterating the
ability under the PUD for the QCA as the owner of this private street
to place gates on its privately owned Limestone Trail to prevent
Limestone Trail from turning into what it was never intended to be, a
public thoroughfare. With the gates, the streets which would be used
by the residents of The Quarry and Heritage Bay will be used in
exactly the same manner as exists today for these residents.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Mr. Pires?
MR. PIRES: Members of the Board, thank you for listening
carefully to all of the presentations.
And I guess just to address a couple of items that came
up -- Leo, is the visualizer on, if I could?
What I will have in response to Commissioner LoCastro's
February 9, 2021
Page 57
question about the location of the gates, we had actual plans. It's in
the agenda packet. It's one of the linked packages, so if I could put it
up on the visualizer.
And I always put this up wrong.
MR. OCHS: What orientation do you want?
MR. PIRES: For purposes -- thank you.
This graphic is part of the plans that were prepared by Native
Engineering or KCA [sic] with Native Engineering, Chris Mears,
to -- for the gate on the eastern terminus of Limestone at Quarry
Drive. This is Quarry Road, and this is Limestone Trail. And there
are signs that would be placed here with regards to private drive. It
says "Private road. No through traffic," would be up here, and here
it would say "warning." It advises also of the private road. And
this would be a turnaround before the gates. This would be the gate
locations, and this would be the turnaround for the folks that were
lucky enough to get past that queue of cars to be able to make this
left-hand turn around the bullnose to get into this; they'd be able to
turn around.
Similarly, at the other end, this is Bellaire Bay Drive. And
again, warning, gate-restricted access on Limestone will be placed on
Bellaire Bay in this area. And similarly also, here's a turnaround
before you get to the gates. And my recollection also was that the
Fire Department had reviewed these and approved these. Again,
before we -- while we thought it was still just an SDPI, before we got
into everything else. So hopefully that addressed your question,
Commissioner, with regards to the technical aspect.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It does. Are you worried at
all about, like, queuing at the gates when people leave the
commercial, you know, mall, they make a left, you know, to go back
to their neighborhoods but then there's a bunch of people in the line
that shouldn't be in the line? And, I mean, the gates are going to
February 9, 2021
Page 58
be -- are going to open one car per, right? I mean, so then the gate
closes, waits for the next car, which usually never happens. I mean,
five cars go in on one, you know, gate.
But I'm just -- I was just sort of -- I mean, I'm glad to see the
gates are a little bit deeper than what I initially was -- looked like in
the drawings. But, you know, has queuing been talked about where
you know you're going to have people backed up who, you know, are
making a left by mistake or they're trying to go straight but they can't
because there's, you know, queuing through the gate?
MR. PIRES: Oh, you mean assuming these people that have
the access like the Heritage Bay folks going back?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
MR. PIRES: I think the volume is such that there wouldn't be
an issue based upon my understanding. Mr. Keddie could address
that -- he's also a resident of The Quarry -- or maybe Cheryl can
address that, but I don't think the volume of vehicles going back
eastbound on Limestone would pose an issue. But I do understand
the issue about people at gates; they do get impatient at times.
Chris Mears can address that. I apologize, Commissioner. Or
Michael.
MR. YATES: Sorry. This is Michael Yates.
MR. PIRES: I'm sorry.
MR. YATES: Just -- it's hard to tell scale on the drawing.
There's about 100 feet, which is four cars of queuing, which is the
typical standard you would provide at a gated access like this. Just
hard to tell on scale, but just wanted you to know.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Michael. That's why we have
engineers for these particular matters.
With regards to this -- again, the conclusion -- and we reserve
time for rebuttal depending upon any other presenters that may occur
with regards to this matter.
February 9, 2021
Page 59
I think what's important is in the staff report -- the staff report
from the Planning Commission said the change does not increase the
number of trips approved by the original development order. I think
that's key. Also, the change meets policy -- therefore, meets Policy
5.1 of the Transportation Element.
One thing that's disconcerting, but I think
commissioners -- some of the commissioners already hit on this, this
is from the county staff report, and what this depicts is exactly what
we are trying to avoid is the county imposing a public road network
on a private road. This is part of what the analysis -- the county calls
existing roadway network in blue with Limestone Trail open to the
public in red.
The county is, again, trying to impose and make this private
road part of a public road network. It's been a platted private road
since January 2005. Actually, November 2004 the County
Commission approved it. We are going on 16 years, and yet the
county's recommendation of denial would force this to become a
private -- a public road. It's privately owned and maintained, and it's
not part of a public road network. And nothing in the county road
plans that we are aware of would otherwise make this part of a public
road network.
In conclusion, Limestone's a private internal project roadway
within the Heritage Bay PUD that provides access to the commercial
activity center for the residents of Heritage Bay, as we talked about.
It provides -- it will -- the access that's being provided today to
Heritage Bay over Limestone will be the exact same access provided
in the future because the folks in Heritage Bay will have transponders
so they can freely go back and forth on Limestone.
The Quarry will maintain all the costs. The cost is huge to
maintain that; the liability insurance, maintenance, keeping it up to
the private roadways standards. And with regards -- we would
February 9, 2021
Page 60
submit the county does not have the right to use or appropriate
Limestone as a public frontage road by denying its ability to maintain
the road as private by using the gates. The county wants to impose
upon Quarry Community Association because we believe, like the
staff, I think, thinks it can, because they want it and wish it to be part
of a public road network.
We request the approval of this application with the condition
mentioned by the Collier County Planning Commission. And what's
also important is the county staff in their analysis, they go through
this analysis of whether or not the amendment would be a grant of
special privilege. I would submit to you that denying it would be
denial of property rights; that it's not a grant of special privilege; it's
protecting private property rights, which we all know is, you know, a
critical component of this country and our country's founding.
It provides and clarifies the right of the owner, The Quarry
Community Association, to prevent infringement on its private
property rights. And it's going to be an expensive imposition if that
occurs, and my clients are not inclined to go lightly into the dark
night, so to speak. You know, the county wishes to impose this
private easement.
What's also noticed and was mentioned at the Planning
Commission is that conspicuously absent from the PUD is any
requirement that the road be a public road. The denial will result in
a taking of Limestone road for a public road network, which we think
would be totally inappropriate. There's nothing in the PUD, nothing
in the documents we saw that Limestone will or would always be
open to the public. Platting -- in fact, platting of Limestone as a
private roadway counters any argument Limestone was ever intended
to be a public road or part of a public road network.
So we request that the Board of County Commissioners approve
this application and with the conditions as recommended by the
February 9, 2021
Page 61
Planning Commission. And if you have any other questions, we're
available to answer your questions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seeing no questions, I believe it's
now staff's opportunity.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MS. GUNDLACH: There it is. Okay, wonderful.
Thank you, whoever helped me with that.
Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach,
Principal Planner with the Zoning Division.
And with me today I have several staff subject-matter experts,
including Trinity Scott. She's our Transportation Planning Services
Manager; and with her we have Mike Sawyer; and Sue Faulkner with
the Growth Management Plan, Comprehensive Planning section; and
Ray Bellows, manager of the Zoning Division; and Anita Jenkins, our
Director of the Zoning Division.
And staff is recommending denial of the petition, as Limestone
Trail is a required interconnection between the commercial area and
the developed areas to the east and the south.
And this is a picture of Limestone Trail. There's no driveway
off of it. It's just an interconnecting road between Bellaire Drive
[sic] to the west and Quarry Drive to the east.
Again, the Growth Management Plan requires interconnection as
well as the Land Development Code. In the Growth Management
Plan it specifically states that the county shall require, wherever
feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to
facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network.
The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that
would require the interconnection of neighboring developments and
shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection
of such local streets.
February 9, 2021
Page 62
And then the Land Development Code goes on to state when
we're required to have interconnection and, of course, the
interconnecting road already exists.
And it's important to note that this commercial area in Heritage
Bay PUD/DRI -- whoops -- shows the location that the commercial
area is part of Activity Center No. 3.
And then when this petition was approved back in 2003, the
Board of Collier County Commissioner minutes related to the
approval of the Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact and
Planned Unit Development, Bruce Anderson, he was representing the
applicant, stated that this project also features internal access to the
activity center so that the residents of Heritage Bay will not have to
travel out on Immokalee Road to shop for their everyday needs.
And then this map depicts all of the movements that would have
to be made by people if Limestone Trail were closed and, with that, I
have Trinity Scott to describe more about the traffic movements.
Thank you, Trinity.
MS. SCOTT: Thank you, Nancy.
For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager.
The connection of Limestone Trail is not unique to Heritage Bay. In
fact, Lely Resort has two similar such connections, one of which
passes directly by single-family homes that come directly off of it,
which is Lely Island Circle, for the residential portion to get to the
commercial and back, as well as Celeste Drive, which is -- has gated
communities off of it.
Another one that comes to mind is the Collier Tract 22
Development of Regional Impact, which encompasses Collier's
Reserve. For those of you, it's north of Immokalee Road. It has the
Publix shopping plaza right at Immokalee Road and 41.
What is unique to this particular connection is for the other two
connections with regard to Lely, those roadways are county-owned
February 9, 2021
Page 63
right-of-ways. They were dedicated to the county, and they're
maintained.
And the Collier Tract 2 Development of Regional Impact, that
particular connecting roadway is owned and maintained by the
commercial entity. So there is some uniqueness with regard to the
Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact and this roadway.
And I will tell you that I have read the record. I have gone back and
just tried to figure out what the intent was, and I can't -- I'm not going
to stand up here -- I've talked with a lot of folks. The original
developer is no longer in business, so I can't go back and get history.
But the only item that I could find within the public
record -- and I'll get to it a little bit later on -- is a generalized telling
staff that the public may utilize the roadway.
We understand the uniqueness of this roadway and, in fact, at a
public -- at a town hall meeting with Commissioner Saunders, we
offered to work with the Quarry Homeowners Association to see if
we could make this a public roadway. The residents, I don't believe
that they were interested in that, and so it didn't go any further, but --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Excuse me. Madam Chair,
I need to interrupt for just a second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm very comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. At no point in
time -- I want the record to be clear. At no point in time did I
suggest working with the homeowners to make this a public
right-of-way. That's what you said, and I'm just making it clear that
never happened.
MS. SCOTT: Oh, I'm sorry. That is not at all the intent. It
was at a town hall meeting where staff had presented the idea, and the
residents were not in favor. So it was just a town hall meeting that
Commissioner Saunders -- so I'm sorry if that was the -- the way that
came out. That was not at all the intent.
February 9, 2021
Page 64
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to be clear.
MS. SCOTT: Yep.
So gating of the roadway prohibits the commercial traffic.
From a cut-through perspective, this isn't cut-through traffic like we
see in other -- Ridge Street connector roadways that connect to
arterial roadways and people utilizing that to go back and forth. This
would be traffic that has a purpose for the overall Development of
Regional Impact, meaning the commercial center and back out.
What we have established as part of this PUD amendment
process is that even if the gates are established, the continued use by
the Heritage Bay residents because, quite frankly, they're general
public as well, but that has -- that has been identified within the
language that they would have continued use, because they are not
part of The Quarry Homeowners Association.
So this just shows, yes, indeed, there would be a series of
U-turns that would be necessary or someone would have to go back
out to Collier Boulevard, traverse Collier Boulevard. The county
has a current traffic signal that, as Commissioner McDaniel alluded,
is constructed in flash mode ready to be turned on soon.
The traffic signal at The Quarry Drive, and the Bellaire Bay
Drive is where we did the median modifications. And this is where I
want to go back to. In the public record that -- in my extensive
reading of it, the only time where there was a discussion about public
use of this roadway was when the platting occurred and there was a
request to connect the sidewalk here on Coastline Court to the
sidewalk on Limestone Trail. And the response was, the public may
utilize that roadway. Staff accepted that. They did not require the
sidewalk interconnection.
Bellaire Bay Drive is being channelized. County has multiple
locations on six-lane roadways where we previous -- where we have
full median openings, and we are going through and working towards
February 9, 2021
Page 65
channelizing them. What we find when we have a full median
opening, as this was previously, people want to make the left out.
What do they do? They come hang out in the median for a while
and then they queue up. And then someone else is trying to make
the left in, and we have a recipe for disaster. So we are working on
our six-lane roadways to go in and channelize those as funding
becomes available.
So when the TISs were coming in for some of the new
development within the commercial area, yes, we have the applicant
run their traffic with and without that channelization, because it gives
us the opportunity to let them know before they get tenants in the re
that that's the intent.
In addition, this exhibit here shows the different roadways, who
owns which roadways within the development. The blue is the
Heritage Bay Homeowners Association, green is The Quarry, and the
red is the county, and there's a little part that's orange which is the
Cameron Partners, the commercial area.
So prior to 2015, the intersection of The Quarry Drive and
Immokalee Road had a full median opening which would have
allowed users to make that left-out. That was closed due to safety
concerns in 2015. So any of those TISs that came in around that
time or after would not have routed any traffic down that roadway
because there was no left-out opportunity.
So when we -- when we come in -- and you guys hear a lot from
me from a PUD, that's our one time when we're really looking at the
whole picture. But as they come in and they start breaking into
pieces, now we're really focusing on operational impacts and not
really the big picture, if you will. How those puzzle pieces fit
together, at least back in the day we weren't.
And while we were reviewing those TISs, the only gating
conversations that we were aware of was some discussion about
February 9, 2021
Page 66
possibly gating Siesta Bay Drive. We were not aware that -- of the
intent back in 2015 of the desire to gate Limestone Trail.
The interconnection is not a silver bullet that's going to keep
Immokalee Road running, you know, smoothly forever and ever.
I'm not here to tell you that. But interconnections are very important
to us. And what this exhibit shows you is that there's been additional
residential development that's down Woodcrest that the county has
made some significant improvements to Woodcrest Road and
ultimately Massey Street, and that the residents there, if Limestone
Trail were available to them, could utilize the commercial portion
that's part of the Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact and
get -- return back, so if they wanted to go get a cup of coffee at
Starbucks or go to the dentist, without ever traversing on Collier
Boulevard and Immokalee Road.
But as I said, interconnections are not the silver bullet. One
intersection's not the silver bullet that's going to keep a roadway like
Immokalee Road operating, which currently it's operating at a Level
of Service E with 95 remaining trips.
So with that, we have Planning and Zoning staff to discuss
specific Comprehensive Plan or code requirements; Michael Sawyer,
from Capital Project Planning, who did the review; Tom Ross, our
Professional Engineer from Jacobs Engineering, who also reviewed
the Traffic Impact Statement; and Anthony Khawaja, our Chief
Engineer from Traffic Operations, to discuss any specific items as it
relates to the signal warrants study or the signal construction.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. SCOTT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A question for her.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So now we have -- Commissioner
McDaniel has a question for --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Trinity.
February 9, 2021
Page 67
MS. SCOTT: Her.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- Ms. Scott, okay.
MS. SCOTT: For the record, her.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Her. Well, I just was trying
to get the Chair's attention before she went back and sat down.
Bring up the last slide, please. On the southerly end of Woodcrest,
what's the name of that street?
MS. SCOTT: Massey Street.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Have we bought that
right-of-way yet from those private individuals that own it?
MS. SCOTT: We are -- if we haven't acquired it yet, we're
working on it as part of the --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes or no?
MS. SCOTT: I don't know, but we're working on it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What we're talking about is a
taking of private property rights for folks on the south end for an
interconnection on Massey Street. If you -- four of my -- three of
my colleagues here have been listening, I've been asking for a gate on
Massey Street since that road was opened up with the circle and
roundabout on the south end, and this subject is the same
circumstance for the folks in The Quarry who had the ability to hire
lawyers and consultants to come and share and talk about the real
property right taking that has transpired.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And with all due respect -- and I can
appreciate your frustration, but let's keep to the topic, which is
Limestone.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It is on topic, by the way.
Just as Commissioner Solis earlier stated, this is a private property
rights issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ms. Scott, I just wanted to
February 9, 2021
Page 68
ask you, why do you think the Planning Commission or -- Planning
Commission ruled the way that they did? I mean, they're so -- you
know, it was almost unanimous that the gates be approved. So what
do you think they missed or, you know, can you get to the key points
that might help us understand the difference between staff and, you
know, a Planning Commission that spent hours and hours on this.
What do you think the major differences are in opinion or fact?
MS. SCOTT: I think the difference in opinion was the platting
of it being a private roadway, and I think that our planning and
zoning staff had provided testimony that they felt like the intent of
the roadway was to be an interconnected roadway.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I just had a follow-up.
When that road was initially constructed and striped and maybe even
re-striped over all the years, was that done privately, or did the
county do that?
MS. SCOTT: I believe it's been all done privately. I
don't -- I'm not aware of any county maintenance on that roadway. It
is a platted private roadway.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner
Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, just a quick question.
You said something that I found kind of troubling. You said that
this would not be a silver bullet to keep Immokalee Road operational.
And I don't know why we're even talking about having a
neighborhood -- and it's a question. Why a neighborhood should be
impacted to help us keep Immokalee Road operational when you're
talking about an internal street within a private -- internal street
within a neighborhood. I don't understand the logic of trying to
route more traffic through a residence [sic] to, quote, keep
Immokalee Road operational. I don't understand why we would do
February 9, 2021
Page 69
that.
MS. SCOTT: And, actually, I mean more so even from the
other side of. So once the roadway is gated, visitors, contractors
who may utilize -- who may have business at the Heritage Bay or The
Quarry residential piece will also no longer be able to utilize this.
So they will go out to Immokalee Road and have to enter at one of
the other gated locations.
And so interconnections from an overall standpoint allow us a
little bit of relief from operations of the roadway. Not that people
would cut through this if they didn't have business there, but what it
does is it takes people who have business at that commercial area, it
gives them another opportunity to be able to utilize that roadway to
get back east if that was their desire.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's the entire purpose.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just a -- well, one, there are no
recorded easements, dedications, or anything to the public on this
road, right?
MS. SCOTT: Nothing that I could find. And I will tell you I
went back and I tried to talk with people who had originally plat ted it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MS. SCOTT: The community is -- I believe it was U.S. Homes
who started this; no longer in business.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MS. SCOTT: Certainly my predecessor, Norman Feder, is not
here. I had talked with some folks. I tried to do email research to
see if I could find anything just to try to find the intent. And all that
I could find was the one item within a review process that indicated
the public may use it but not a public access easement, and nothing
else.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Well, you know -- and I
February 9, 2021
Page 70
do -- I do appreciate kind of the position that our staff is in, because
we do have these policies that have been adopted by the Board
requiring these interconnections between commercial centers and
developments. And so I -- you know, I think -- I appreciate that staff
was doing what it thought was right given the criteria that it's
supposed to -- it's supposed to pursue, and I think this is just one of
these unfortunate situations where, you know, for whatever reason
there wasn't a dedication. There is a requirement for
interconnection. It seems to me that the interconnection is there.
It's the interconnection for The Quarry and Heritage Bay, and as long
as everybody that had the rights to traverse Limestone Trail still has
that after gates are put up, I mean, I just don't see how we could
prevent that.
But I just wanted to say that I do appreciate the position that
staff had to take, because it is our policy, and we've had this -- this
has come up in other PUDs that we've looked at. And it is, from a
planning perspective, the right thing, right? Because it alleviates the
people coming out of these developments onto Immokalee Road or
any other main -- you know, main collector.
So, you know, it's just -- it is an unfortunate situation, but it's
unique. And so I just wanted to say I understand why this
was -- why the staff felt the need to do this instead of just doing a site
plan amendment or something.
But I think if -- maybe in the future, if God forbid we ever come
up with another one of these situations, that maybe we could handle it
as a -- as a Site Development Plan change.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: PDI.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And maybe it's a
question for the applicant, or you can answer it. Do the folks over in
February 9, 2021
Page 71
Heritage Bay have access through The Quarry's project on Weathered
Stone Drive? There's a gate over there.
MS. SCOTT: They have egress opportunities. So they can get
out --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They can get out.
MS. SCOTT: -- but they cannot get back in. So the Heritage
Bay residents can -- they have ingress at their own gate. They can
egress through The Quarry to Weathered Stone or The Quarry Drive
and get out to Limestone Trail, Immokalee Road, Collier Boulevard.
The same thing goes for The Quarry residents; they have ingress and
egress on their own gates but they can only egress through the
Heritage Bay gate. They do not have ingress through the H eritage
Bay gate. But they have an interconnected roadway that you see at
the top, which is Siesta Bay Drive, so they can get back and forth.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I saw that. And that
was one of the reasons -- I saw that there was some discussion about
the Heritage Bay folks coming out having ingress and egress out of
Limestone, but then they had -- they can't go back up into The Quarry
and into Heritage Bay, and that was counterintuitive to me why they
can come from their subdivision through Heritage Bay but not back
through The Quarry into Heritage Bay. That was -- that was
interesting to me. I -- okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I was going to have a simila r
question as Commissioner McDaniel just brought up, but it would be
for the applicant, not, you know --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Are we going to -- have we closed
the public hearing or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not quite yet.
February 9, 2021
Page 72
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not yet, okay. And my questions,
I guess, for the applicant is -- Mr. Pires, are you -- I have a question.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there is this unusual situation
with who can go in and out where, right? But as I understand -- and
there was a -- an issue raised in a letter from the Heritage Bay folks
about a sign. I just want to make sure that that -- the issue that was
raised in the letter has been resolved and that the Heritage Bay
owners will continue to have access over Limestone Trail via -- their
clickers will work there as well.
MR. PIRES: If I could, the -- the letter I think -- I think the
letter you're referring to from Heritage Bay was July or August of
2020. Is that the letter?
(No verbal response.)
MR. PIRES: That letter dealt with a sign at the time that was
located on Siesta Bay Drive and Quarry Road. And the purpose of
that sign was not for the residents of Heritage Bay to not use Siesta
Bay to go into Quarry but was to address concerns of Heritage Bay
residents using amenities in The Quarry. That sign came down;
there's a picture of it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All right.
MR. PIRES: And that -- this photo was taken November 16th.
The sign that's there presently at Siesta Bay Drive as of
January 5th -- my clients understood the concern -- just says
"entering The Quarry."
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. PIRES: And that's more towards the northeast. So
that -- again, that was -- and it just focuses on amenities for Quarry
use only. That was the focus, possibly inartfully worded in the
original signage.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So that issue's been
February 9, 2021
Page 73
resolved. And so whatever egress and -- ingress and egress over
Limestone Trail that the folks in Heritage Bay have, they're going to
continue to have it; nothing is going to have changed?
MR. PIRES: That's correct. They will have clickers. And the
language in the text amendment specifically says --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. PIRES: -- that they will have that access.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I had. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner LoCastro.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sir, I just had a question for
you.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir; I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Have you had any pushback
or concern from the owners in the -- of the businesses in the
commercial activity center? I mean, I realize that there's other entry
points. But, you know, if I own a business, the more roads that feed
into my store, the better. So now all of a sudden, although you're -- I
hear everybody saying the road's not really traveled that much and,
you know, traffic is light, but it will -- you know, the perception is it
will pick up once lights are activated and Immokalee becomes busier.
But I actually expected to see some store owners here saying, you
know, so many people use that road who aren't residents and, yeah,
they can go around or whatever, but I was just wondering if you had
heard any pushback or concerns.
MR. PIRES: The only information I had is the letters that were
in your agenda packet. I think there were three emails from some
folks in the commercial center plus a couple letters before
the -- before the Planning Commission. One resident, I think, of
Bent Creek, before the Planning Commission. No one appeared at
February 9, 2021
Page 74
the Planning Commission.
I think that since that time, there have been a couple more letters
of objection. I think there was Pelican Larry's trying to round up a
couple of people in the last day or two. And I think that's totally
indicative of the concerns of the folks in The Quarry that when you
have a place that's open until early morning hours and you have all of
their patrons emptying out onto a private road that has curve, that
that's a huge liability issue, so I don't know if there might be some
commercial property owners here today or not. I don't know. But
that's my knowledge of the extent.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So how many -- public comment.
And how many speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: I have eight registered speakers here in the
room. We have approximately 18 registered for this item online, but
I think I've got about 14 online. So I guess in total around 22.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So we do have a hearing time
set at 1:00, so I'd ask the public speakers if they could -- we'd like to
hear from you. We'd like to hear your name. We'd like to put that
on the record. But if you agree with a speaker that has spoken
previous to you, would you please just say you agree and not repeat
the same thing. I do apologize, but it's much better, and it will
facilitate this meeting.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Peter Keddie. He'll be
followed by Jody Tatro, and then Diane Calabrese.
MR. KEDDIE: Good morning. My name is Peter Keddie, and
I'm on the board at The Quarry, and I've been working helping with
the -- putting this thing together for Limestone Trail.
And so there have been a few impact studies done. And we had
February 9, 2021
Page 75
that camera that shot out the front. And I did a study that showed
the traffic that went on Limestone and off of Limestone. I did it on
March of 2020 over four days using about eight hours of time period.
And what I found was that 92 percent of the traffic that
originated -- either originated or terminated at The Quarry that use
Limestone, and 97 percent of the traffic that went on Quarry Drive
either originated or terminated at The Quarry. So really what this is
telling me, that when this all started, before we put the light in and
everything, that the majority of the traffic that use these two roads are
from The Quarry or from the Heritage Bay PUD.
Gating Limestone -- or gating Limestone is more about [sic] just
Limestone. It's about Quarry Road as well, because both are owned
and supported by The Quarry homeowners.
You asked a question about Heritage Bay and why we're
separate. We're separate because we have separate boards, we have
fiduciary responsibilities, as well as legal responsibilities, and we
have to be careful about who comes in our gates as much as they
have to be careful about who comes in their gates.
And we basically have different systems, so it's really quite
complicated. And we don't know who sells from their facility and
who stays there, and so we have to be really careful about that.
But over -- we've spent over $140,000 to date defending our right to
gate Limestone Trail. And this is crazy that we're to this -- in front
of you talking about this. It should have been -- it should have been
an SDPI.
Cheryl touched on many of the things that we do on Limestone
Trail and Quarry Road and the costs that it takes, and that includes all
the maintenance, the electricity, irrigation, including reserve funding
items for pavers, asphalt, light poles, curbs, sidewalks, masonry
structures, signs, basins of concrete, and the bridge would cost us
$377,000 a year to maintain all of that from Immokalee Road dow n
February 9, 2021
Page 76
to Quarry Road to the end.
And so if you decide to take this as a public road and use it and
allow the cut-through traffic, that's basically our cost to do all this.
One of the main things is they've said before that this is a frontage
road, and it's really not a frontage road. It's basically 70 feet from
our gate and 750 feet from Immokalee Road. And --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. KEDDIE: -- please allow The Quarry to gate Limestone
Trail.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. KEDDIE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jody Tatro, followed by
Diane Calabrese and Renee Mongiovi.
I will remind the speakers, thank you, to use both podiums.
Thank you. You have three minutes.
MS. TATRO: Okay. Good morning. I'm at 8981 Quarry
Road and, like Peter Keddie, I'm also a member of our Board of
Directors.
I just want to touch on a couple of things. One, when you're
going eastbound on Limestone Trail from the commercial area, it has
been posted for a long time that you're entering private property, and
it states "no trespassing." And when I think about the things that are
most important to Quarry residents, it's about safety and it's about
liability. Many people in our community use that road for jogging
and bicycling. And if you take notice on the previous slides, you
actually see that there are bike lanes on Limestone Trail for that
purpose.
The other issue that's a huge concern for me was brought up by
Attorney Pires, and it has to do with the liability of the commercial
area. There are multiple restaurants in there that serve alcohol till
late in the evening, and I think about the people that live nearby
February 9, 2021
Page 77
having traffic at all hours of the day and potentially the liability of
people consuming alcohol and going out our front gates and the
potential damage and liability. Clearly, we would be a named party
in any suit.
I'm just going to leave it with one -- leave with you one thing
that I find incredibly ironic, and that's Collier County established a
neighborhood traffic management program to ensure the safety of
Collier County neighborhoods from speeding drivers and to restore
local streets to the residents. This traffic management program
acknowledges, and I quote, traffic conditions on residential streets
can greatly affect neighborhood livability. When our streets are safe
and pleasant, the quality of life is enhanced. When traffic problems
become a daily occurrence, our sense of community and personal
well-being are threatened, end quote.
Limestone Trail is not a candidate for this type of a program, but
it's exactly what we desire for that road, our private road, and we ask
you to do the right thing and allow us to gate it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Diane Calabrese. She'll
be followed by Renee Mongiovi and John Verala.
MS. CALABRESE: Hi, my name is Diane Calabrese, and I'm a
business owner at 9020 Sage Avenue. I own the car wash.
And just for the record, I have not received any kind of
communications nor had my landlord, Tri Star Management, in
regards to any of this.
And I'm just here today because I do oppose closing that road or
making it private. It's going to hinder business. It's going to make
it very difficult to leave and make a U -- cross over three lanes, make
a U-turn to exit east.
And I know there is an alternate to go through the shopping
February 9, 2021
Page 78
center, but it will hurt business for all of us in Cameron Commons.
We do pay dues quarterly for the roads. I'm not sure what exactly
that encounters, but we are part of the PUD.
And I'm just here to say that I encourage that we keep the road
open for business.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. CALABRESE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Renee Mongiovi,
followed by John Varela, and then Tony Pecoraro.
MS. MONGIOVI: Good afternoon. My name is Renee
Mongiovi. I live at 9343 Marble Stone Drive. I'm on the board of
directors at The Quarry. I also am the board liaison to the
landscaping committee at The Quarry.
We've spoken a lot about the cost of the land, what it costs us to
maintain the land, but I just want to make you also aware, if
something should change here, the costs that Pete mentioned is just
the contractual maintenance of that land. The landscaping
committee is tasked with making improvements and keeping The
Quarry beautiful. And to date we've been holding off on several
bids to be able to make enhancements to Limestone Trail. So as you
think about this, it's not just the actual maintenance, but it's the
improvement going forward.
So we'd like to continue doing that, and having this gated would
help us to make sure that we keep our community beautiful, so I'd
appreciate the approval.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Varela, followed by
Tony Pecoraro, and Randy Seyler. John Varela?
MR. VARELA: Good morning, everyone. My name is John
Varela, and I happen to own the 3A at Cameron Commons where the
car wash is next to the Racetrac.
February 9, 2021
Page 79
I am not opposed to the gate; however, we are paying the
homeowners association to maintain that road. So if they do manage
to get a gate put up, we should not be paying homeowners association
dues. I don't know if anyone's looked into that, but it's a hefty fee
that we pay every month.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So noted. Thank you very much.
MR. VARELA: Okay. And that's all I have to say. Thank
you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tony Pecoraro, followed
by Randy Seyler, and then Ron Koldjeski.
MR. PECORARO: Good morning. Thank you for the
opportunity to allow me to make these brief comments.
I was listening to Mr. Solis speak before, and I think he agrees pretty
much with what I have to say.
The one thing I love about living in the United States of
America is we live in a free country where t he government does not
just come and take over people's private property. This is what is
done in a dictatorship or a communist country.
Limestone Quarry is a privately owned, privately constructed,
and privately maintained road which was constructed for the private
use and benefit of The Quarry community. With this being said, I
don't know what gives the Collier County Board of Commissioners
the right to even think that they can dictate to The Quarry community
owners that they must give permission to allow Collier County
residents to use this road.
If the Collier County Board of Commissioners think there is a
grave safety concern by not allowing Collier residents to be able to
use this road, there are rules of law like eminent domain, the right of
the government or its agent to expropriate property for the use with
compensation and payment. The request then should be tried in a
court of law for permission to purchase the private property land for
February 9, 2021
Page 80
the community's benefit.
To make my point clear, if one of the Collier County board
members owned a home with a circular driveway near a heavily
traveled intersection, how would you react if the board of directors
dictated that the public can use your driveway any time to make
U-turns into traffic? The answer is obvious. You would oppose the
request and not allow it to happen. The same reasoning should apply
to Limestone Trail road.
The reason The Quarry HOA is objecting to the public's use of
this road to gain access to the many restaurants and businesses
located at the western end of the road is because it will create huge
traffic jams right in front of our main gate which allows access in and
out of The Quarry. It is my hope that the Collier County board of
directors will realize the unfairness and drop this matter completely.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Randy Seyler. He'll be
followed by Ron Koldjeski, and then we'll have Adam Best online.
MR. SEYLER: Hello. I'm Randy Seyler. I'm a local
business owner in the affected area in Cameron Commons. I think I
speak along with a lot of the other business owners, you know, Taco
Bell, Culvers, all the other fast food and other places that are in that
location, and adamantly oppose the gates on that road, as it's going to
create quite a hassle for our customers to go back out east, which is
the fastest growing part of the county over there. And it's really
going to create a lot of backlog on those U-turn lanes.
We all know how busy Immokalee Road is going out that way,
and having to make those U-turns and waiting for that plus the
addition of the new Founder's Square is going to create a nightmare
out there, and a lot of traffic and safety concerns are always, always
going to be there, not to mention there's going to be more traffic
February 9, 2021
Page 81
cutting back through to the emergency room up there, the driveway
there, people are going to start cutting back through there. All that
stuff is going to be happening, so that's why I was opposed to it.
One suggestion, whatever, that could be worked out, I thought
of, but if they were denied to put the gates, perhaps the county could
work out an arrangement for maintaining the road, that was the other
thing, as a consolation to it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ron Koldjeski. He will
be followed by Adam Best and then Frank Tatro.
MR. KOLDJESKI: Present. Good morning, Commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ron Koldjeski.
I'm the President of the HOA association for Bent Creek. Bent
Creek's a newer community. It was put in far a time after Heritage
Bay in both -- and The Quarry.
And through the planning process of that -- of our subdivision,
interconnect was very important. The interconnect we're going to
have now will be connecting us with the new Founder's Square
project.
The interconnect that happened in 2003/2004, Limestone road,
was obviously done by the subdividers at the time for convenience
and also to keep some traffic off of Immokalee Road.
We had an explosion of development not just with Bent Creek,
La Morada, Richardson Park -- I'm sorry, Richmond Park, but even
down the road a little bit further; two-and-a-half miles down the road
we have Valencia Trails, and then we have Ventana Pointe. Those
are bringing -- between Valencia Trails and Ventana Pointe,
another -- approximately another 950 homes or doors, if you will, to
the area which will be utilizing -- the majority of the road space
would be Immokalee.
I've heard a lot of good interaction here today, but I'd like to say
February 9, 2021
Page 82
this: To prevent people from utilizing that road to keep traffic off of
Immokalee Road would not be -- to my estimation, would not be in
the best interest of the people that are living in that particular area.
Florida Statute 316.06(3)(b) gives you, the county
commissioners -- it says that you may exercise jurisdiction over
private roads. As a representative of Bent Creek, I ask you to
exercise that jurisdiction and keep this road open. You can make
some type of an agreement, as the gentleman just alluded to, possibly
for maintenance of that road helping the people of The Quarry and
Heritage Bay, but to stop the traffic from being -- people to utilize
that to keep the traffic off Immokalee would not be in a good public
safety interest.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: As we move to our online speakers, I would
like to remind you, when your time has come to speak, you will be
prompted to unmute your computer or smart device, so please do so.
Our first speaker is Adam Best followed by Frank Tatro, and
then go to George Scocca.
Mr. Best, are you with us, sir?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Adam Best, can you hear me, sir?
MR. BEST: I am here. I can hear you.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. You have three minutes. Please
begin.
MR. BEST: Thank you guys for hearing me out. I agree with
a lot of what has been said already, and I need to pass. I apologize.
I'm in a meeting.
MR. MILLER: All right. Thank you very much.
We'll move quickly. Your next speaker is Frank Tatro, followed by
George Scocca and Gerald Williams.
February 9, 2021
Page 83
Mr. Tatro, are you with us online, sir?
MR. TATRO: Yes, sir, I am. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: You have three minutes, sir. Please begin.
MR. TATRO: Yeah. And thank you very much for this
opportunity. I know you have a very busy day, and I don't want to
rehash a lot of the information that's already been given. But just
keep in mind my only points are this is a private road, privately
maintained, it's expensive. I'm a homeowner in The Quarry. I live
at 8981 Quarry Drive. It's expensive to maintain this road.
Also, from a safety standpoint, I'm an avid walker. I'm a biker.
We don't need more traffic going down that road to impede people
using it for recreation purposes.
Everything else has been said. Thank you so much for your
time and consideration, and please allow us to gate the road.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George Scocca. I hope
I'm saying that right. Followed by Gerald Williams and then Gerald
[sic] Miserendino.
Mr. Scocca, I hope I'm saying that right. Are you with us?
Could be Scocia.
MR. SCOCCA: I'm here. Do you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. You have three minutes, sir. Please
go ahead.
MR. SCOCCA: You were close. It was Scocca.
First, I'd like to thank the Commission for listening. I hope you
really listen to your Planning Commission, which was almost
unanimous. I'd like to make one point that -- and I think it's a huge
point that's been totally overlooked here. And the photo that was
showed of Limestone was very disingenuous. It was showing a
piece of Limestone that's -- you know, it's gorgeous, I walk it every
February 9, 2021
Page 84
single day, but it didn't show you the homes that are -- there are four
buildings with 16 homes in them which will have this road 75 feet
from their house.
And there is no doubt that -- I know had we known that
something like this might happen, we would have never bought there.
There's no doubt it will destroy their property values. It will destroy
it, the amount of traffic that's going to come through there.
And my last point I want to make, which I think you're
underestimating the amount of traffic that's going to come through
there. We just heard from Bent Creek, 900 vehicles coming through
there. And every single vehicle -- I know a lot about mapping and
GPS. Every single vehicle that puts their address in a GPS that's in
that activity center that has to go east, they're coming down that road,
because that's where the GPS is going to tell them to go. The day
you make that road public, that road is going -- if there's a backup on
Immokalee, GPSs are going to tell them to go the back way. If
there's a backup on Collier, GPSs are going to have them go the other
way.
I just want to say, the last thing, I fled a state recently -- I just
moved here in October -- because of constant government overreach.
Just the idea that this community had to spend $150,000 to try to
prove -- and maintain a road that we own, property that we own, it's
kind of disheartening.
But I want to thank you very much for listening, and please gate
Limestone.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gerald Williams. He
will be followed by Gerard Miserendino, and Gia Motto.
Mr. Williams, are you with us, sir?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Gerald Williams, are you with us, sir? You
February 9, 2021
Page 85
might have to unmute yourself.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, it just appeared on the screen. I just
unmuted.
MR. MILLER: You have three minutes, sir. Please begin.
MR. WILLIAMS: I will take less than that. I've heard a lot of
evidence from our experts that did a great job presenting the fact that
it's a private road, and we have, according to the PUD, a right to
control traffic.
I did not hear any evidence from staff. They did -- they did
quote a recommendation that local streets be used to comple te
interconnectivity where possible.
Limestone Trail is not a local street. It's a private road. And I
think we've presented all the evidence that's necessary. I sympathize
with my good friend Ron Koldjeski at Bent Creek, but we don't want
that kind of traffic coming through our private road.
So I just -- I just ask that you follow the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and -- which was almost unanimous, and allow
us to do what we have every right to do. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gerard Miserendino,
followed by Gia Motto, and Jerry Solomon.
Mr. Miserendino, are you with us?
MR. MISERENDINO: You pronounced my name perfectly.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Thank you. You have three minutes.
MR. MISERENDINO: I live at The Quarry and have lived
here for about eight or nine years. I appreciate all that the County
Commissioners do. I love Collier County and how well maintained
it is, and I thank you for that.
By all the discussion by our engineer -- the engineers we've
hired and the attorneys for The Quarry community, it's been made
February 9, 2021
Page 86
clear -- and I don't think your staff was able to come up with any
reasons -- any reasonable discussion on why that -- we can't gate the
private road. But all this -- you know, they're just trying to make it
so that the traffic patterns out of that shopping center and some of
those owners in the shopping center or leasers, they're trying to use
our private road to fix the problem that was created by the county
themselves and their planning of the traffic signal, and they put it in
the wrong place. It should have been and -- obviously, it should
have been at Bellaire Bay. It could have easily been modified. And
now you're -- they're trying -- the staff, primarily, is trying to utilize
our private road to fix your past problem. Quarry residents should
not bear the errors of the county employees and planners.
I ask you to follow the county Planning Commission's
conclusion and ask that the County Commissioners approve the gate
on Limestone Trail, and I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gia Motto, followed by
Jerry Solomon, and then Laura Ellison.
Gia, are you with us, ma'am?
MS. MOTTO: I am.
MR. MILLER: You have three minutes. Please begin.
MS. MOTTO: Okay. I am a property owner --
MR. MILLER: Ms. Motto, you are extremely soft. I'm going
to ask you if you can either speak up or speak closer to your
microphone, please.
MS. MOTTO: Okay. I am an owner right on Coastline Court.
I have a daughter, a dog, and we all like to walk. I have seen traffic,
I have seen cars come over the embankment there, and I fear that it's
just going to get worse if you do allow access to this road.
It was stated by the gentleman -- I can't remember his
name -- who is one of the owners at Bent Wood [sic] Creek. He said
February 9, 2021
Page 87
that there is a lot of new development, and with that brings more
concerns and more traffic. So I -- you know, along with my family,
along with all the other families along Coastline Court and in The
Quarry, and especially the elderly people who are walking in the
morning or in the afternoon, it's a big safety concern, and I think that
that should be a top concern for you when making your decision. So
thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jerry Solomon. He'll be
followed by Laura Ellison and then Mary Tracy.
Mr. Solomon, are you with us?
MR. SOLOMON: Yes. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. You have three minutes. Please
begin.
MR. SOLOMON: My name is Jerry Solomon. I'm a board
member and the treasurer of The Quarry. So I'll just focus my
comment on the financial situation.
The Quarry has spent millions of dollars maintaining Limestone
Trail over the 15 years. So it's been pretty convenient, it would
seem to me, that no one had any problem with that being a private
road for the last decade and a half.
So as we move forward, when we think eminent domain or
taking, the question comes up, what happens to all of those millions
of dollars invested in that road, a private road that, of course, I'm
totally for maintaining the privacy of that road.
So, again, I'm just focusing on one small aspect. Thank you for
your time, thank you for your attention to this matter, and please
support the petition to maintain Limestone Trail as a private road.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Laura Ellison, followed
by Mary Tracy, and then Patricia LoGrippo.
February 9, 2021
Page 88
Ms. Ellison, are you with us, ma'am?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Laura Ellison, are you with us? You
may need to unmute yourself.
MS. ELLISON: Okay. I think I unmuted. Can you hear
now?
MR. MILLER: You did, ma'am. You have three minutes.
Please begin.
MS. ELLISON: Okay. I'll be very brief. I am also a property
owner in The Quarry, and I just -- I just can't ask strong enough that
you allow us to go forward to gate this roadway. This is private
property. We're the ones responsible for everything on that road,
and it would be an extreme government overreach to just try to take
this as a public roadway.
So the Planning Commission's spent seven hours one day
listening to all sorts of stats and legal documents and people talking,
and they came to what I believe is the appropriate conclusion in
voting that we be allowed to do this.
So thank you for your time and effort today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Mary Tracy. She'll be
followed by Patricia LoGrippo and Tom Bernardi.
Ms. Tracy, are you with us, ma'am?
MS. TRACY: I'm here.
MR. MILLER: You have three minutes. Please begin.
MS. TRACY: Thank you. I'm opposed to the gates, at least I
was before all this. And I understand the residents of The Quarry
and Heritage Bay. And if that's where I lived, I would feel that way,
too.
It would be nice if somehow the county could help and assist
and that we could maintain it and be able to use it publicly, and
February 9, 2021
Page 89
possibly there will be more traffic with the new light.
It's not that convenient of a road to use. It is long and windy
and curvy. It's not the fastest way out of the shopping center, for
certain. So I'm not sure how much more traffic there will be.
But I would, you know, be opposed because it services me, but I
sympathize and respect The Quarry and Heritage Bay. So I leave it
to you to make the decisions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Patricia LoGrippo,
followed by Tom Bernardi.
Patricia, I hope I'm saying your last name close to correct. Are
you there, ma'am?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Patricia LoGrippo or LoGreppo, are you with
us, ma'am? You may need to unmute.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. I'm not seeing her come up. I'm
going to move on and try Tom Bernardi. Tom Bernardi, you may
need to unmute yourself, sir. Are you with us?
MR. BERNARDI: Yes, I am.
MR. MILLER: Tom, you have three minutes. Please begin.
MR. BERNARDI: I live in The Quarry on Coastline Court.
And I am definitely in favor of the gates. It would be extremely
excessive noise and major traffic to reroute people on that road.
I agree with all the comments that were made by our lawyers. And
the backup on The Quarry, the brick pavers, the bridge, the costs to
maintain the road would be excessive and is excessive today.
And I would argue that the traffic problems are, you know,
conducive for people trying to get to I-75, and the Board should
consider looking into lefts to get people to I-75 vis-à-vis not using
February 9, 2021
Page 90
Immokalee.
And I'll use everyone with -- that there are 900 residents of The
Quarry and 1,200 residents of the Heritage Bay, and most of the
people that have talked are in agreement of these gates.
So I thank the Board for considering this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, before I go back to Patricia
LoGrippo, I see she's online. I also have Norm Trebilcock coming
up online. I don't know, is he consulting on this item, Tony?
MR. PIRES: Not for me.
MR. MILLER: Do you need -- no? Maybe he's
registered -- I'll call him then as a speaker, ma'am. But first, Patricia
LoGrippo.
MS. LoGRIPPO: Yes. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. You have three minutes. Please
begin.
MS. LoGRIPPO: Yes, I'm going to pass. Thank you.
Everybody said what I already was going to say.
MR. MILLER: Thank you very much. And I'll go ahead and
call Norm Trebilcock, because he is signed up for 9A.
Norm, do you have anything to add to this item? Norm
Trebilcock? Yes, Norm, do you have anything to add?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, I just have a prepared statement.
MR. MILLER: Go ahead, sir.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I have provided an email with more
detail and please allow this message to serve as my recommendation
as a professional transportation engineer and planner. Limestone
Trail should continue to be a publicly accessible roadway as well as
to include the short segment of Quarry Drive, including the bridge,
connecting Limestone Trail to Immokalee Road consistent with
Policy 7.3 and reducing signalization along Immokalee Road.
February 9, 2021
Page 91
When Heritage Bay was created, three signalized intersections
along Immokalee Road associated with this PUD were plausible. In
2014, my firm prepared a signal warrant analysis for Bellaire Bay
Drive intersection on behalf of the commercial developments being
initiated in that area of Heritage Bay.
Collier County responded and recommended that a signal
warrant be conducted in the future as things physically built out. At
that time, Bellaire Bay Drive was a full median opening and
Woodcrest/Quarry Drive was a directional median opening.
As a follow-up in 2018, my firm prepared a signal warrant
analysis for Woodcrest Drive and Quarry Drive intersection. In this
analysis we were asked to assume that Bellaire Bay Drive would be a
directional opening and Woodcrest Drive/Quarry Drive would be a
full median opening. Also, the publicly available Limestone Trail
was to be used.
In our signal warrant analysis, the commercial traffic using
Limestone Trail was the volume that led to the signal warrants being
met. Heritage Bay residential traffic alone would not have met the
warrants in the study prepared at this location.
I believe our study was the basis of Collier County to move
forward with the signal at Woodcrest and Quarry Road and to
directionalize the median at Bellaire Bay Drive. I believe staff has a
good plan to avoid the two additional signals on Immokalee Road.
Please consider this formally transferring Limestone Trail and
associated segment on Quarry Drive from a private roadway to a
public roadway to include the bridge and have a maintenance
agreement with the community so that the aesthetic elements of this
roadway, pavers, landscaping, and decorative lighting can be retained
by the community, and the long-term costs of maintaining the road
surface, sidewalks, and bridge superstructure would be the
responsibility of the county as a public local roadway.
February 9, 2021
Page 92
I would also recommend conducting a noise study comparing
the existing conditions and future conditions to determine if
additional traffic along Limestone Trail raises ambient noise levels
warranting noise attenuation along the roadway frontage. I believe
this approach would benefit all parties and serve the public interests
to the greatest extent possible.
I appreciate your consideration of these recommendations.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, that was our last registered
speaker for this item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I have a question and,
unfortunately, I'm not going to lead to a lot. But I see that in the
language that's being proposed, it says, access controls on the road
currently known as Limestone Trail owned by The Quarry
Community Association, Inc., will be operated to allow areas
designated R1, R2, R3, and R4 on the master plan, and those
are -- I'm assuming that's all the residential areas in the entire PUD.
Is that -- yes.
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. Except --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But then it says -- and then
excluding the area designated AC/R3 full use of Limestone Trail.
So my question is: Do the commercial owners -- because I just
heard for the first time that they're paying homeowner association
dues. Do the commercial owners have rights to use the road?
MR. PIRES: For clarification, the commercial owners do not
pay into The Quarry Community Association. There is a Cameron
Commons association for the commercial areas.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, okay.
MR. PIRES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So they're not members of The
February 9, 2021
Page 93
Quarry Community Association?
MR. PIRES: No, sir.
Is that correct, Cheryl?
MS. OLLILA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And so -- and I'm
assuming that Trinity -- if Trinity's still here -- that there was nothing
found in terms of the commercial owners having access over
Limestone Trail as well, because I just want to make sure
that -- because what I said from the beginning was, you know, as
long as nobody's access is going to change, you know, I don't think
we can do anything, but...
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation
Planning Manager.
In my research, I did not find anything other than the plat that
indicated the ownership and maintenance of the roadway to The
Quarry Homeowners Association.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
I've got a question for the County Attorney and then a couple
comments I'd like to make.
Mr. Klatzkow, you and I had a bit of a conversation concerning
what would have to happen from the county's perspective to turn this
into a public right-of-way, and I think you indicated that it would
require eminent domain of the entire roadway, and I think you had an
opinion as to how expensive that would be for the county. And if
you also -- I think you may have had some knowledge about the
original intent.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Could we get the staff report on
the screen?
February 9, 2021
Page 94
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, County Attorney, just a point of
order, and it's my failing here. I would assume we're closing the
public hearing, so now we're just discussing; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Do you have a preference to the page of
the staff report?
MR. KLATZKOW: Page 7, I think it is, or Page 8. Could we
get it on the -- no, the one that -- it's been up there before. The one
that's in the backup, the electronic backup.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The PowerPoint.
MR. OCHS: Oh, the PowerPoint.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Whoever's controlling this.
MR. OCHS: Troy's got it.
MS. GUNDLACH: You can do your magic.
MR. MILLER: I am trying to find it.
MS. GUNDLACH: All righty. I know where it is in the
idrive. There you go. That looks -- yep, that's it. You're there.
Can you make it stop?
MR. MILLER: I'm not doing it.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Well, do this the old-fashioned
way.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We just had it right there. Turn it
the other way. It's upside down.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Staff is relying on our
interconnect policy, but they're really trying to implement it
retroactively, okay. At the time that this PUD was put in in 2003,
there was no requirement that Limestone Trail hook up with a light
that would go to Woodcrest. That's because this didn't exist then, all
right.
February 9, 2021
Page 95
One of the things that Mr. Casalanguida worked on, and I helped
him with, but he was the spear carrier, was the creation of Woodcrest
Drive going down to Tree Farm and then Tree Farm Road going
down to Collier Boulevard. And it required a number of Developer
Contribution Agreements, because as these developments came on,
what Nick negotiated was they would give us the right-of-way for it.
And so the point was that you would be coming -- going down
Immokalee Road, and rather than hitting the intersection of
Immokalee and Collier, which it's scheduled to fail, you would take a
turn down Woodridge [sic] and then to Tree Farm to get to Collier
Boulevard. The whole point of this system was to buy time before
we needed the overpass on Collier and Immokalee. And you can see
the right-of-way that we reserved for the overpass.
So -- and this all took place well after the PUD back in 2003 was
placed in. And I think, from the viewpoint of 2021, it's a great idea
that this hook up, but that's not -- that's not what we did. And the
residents who all bought in here, okay, bought in here with this as an
interconnect between the community and the community only.
So what we're doing after the fact is we're taking our
interconnect policy, which is really designed for when the PUD
comes in, okay, we require you at that point in time to create the
interconnects, all right. What we're doing is we're sa ying, well, a
20-year-old PUD, now that we have the system in place, we want you
to interconnect, and that's two separate things.
I think if the community were to challenge this, they would
likely prevail. I think it would be an inverse condemnation. I think
you are looking at a very expensive litigation. I think you're looking
at a litigation with, quite frankly, our residents. I'm trying to
overturn what they would view as improper government action and
overburdensome.
And, eventually, I would come to you with a settlement
February 9, 2021
Page 96
proposal, because that's what happens in litigation. And the question
is, are you willing to pay money for this to be a public right -of-way?
Okay. If you are, all right, I would suggest just at this point in time
going to the community and seeing if there was a voluntary sum you
could do it, and if they say, no, we want this private, all right, well, I
don't know what to tell you. It would -- unless you're willing to
spend a lot of money, and I mean a lot of money, there's no reason to
deny this PUD, none.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I do have a
comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We as a board really go to
great lengths to protect our neighborhoods. There's been tremendous
growth in this area, tremendous traffic increases, and these two
communities should not bear the burden of that.
I think that the -- it's clear that this is a private roadway; that for
the county to do anything else other than to recognize that would be
an injustice to the two homeowners associations and would be a very
costly thing. I'm hoping that we get five votes to approve this
because it sends a message that we are serious -- serious about
protecting our neighborhoods, and I'm going to make the motion to
approve the petition.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor. Do
we have a second?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second, for discussion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Yes, Commissioner
McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And just briefly,
Trinity, if you don't mind, I had a quick question.
And you might have already said it, but I wanted to make it very,
very clear. This was a DUI -- a DIR [sic] with a PUD -- I'm sorry.
February 9, 2021
Page 97
I was mixing up acronyms -- and platted. In your search, did you
find anywhere in writing that the intent -- or this was going to be a
dedicated road for public use other than the intent that you mentioned
in the plat?
MS. SCOTT: No, but I wanted to say that in the original
Development of Regional Impact that came before this board, the
master plan -- and Mr. Pires noted it in his presentation -- the master
plan had this connecting roadway in a different location, and it was
amended at a later date administratively and with no real explanation
why it was done.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I mean, I saw it. It was
actually -- there was a density removed out, and that originally was
coming out onto Immokalee Road, if I saw in the original DRI.
MS. SCOTT: Actually, it would have come in connected
within the commercial area more probably towards the Bellaire Bay
Drive area.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MS. SCOTT: So -- but in that modification when the roadway
was changed, there was really no explanation as to why they changed
the configuration of the roadway.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Understood. Thank you. I
just -- appreciate that. That's all.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner LoCastro?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I just have a few comments.
I'm very sensitive to overgating. I mean, we could have hearings in
here by so many different communities who have private roads, but
they're still used as cut-throughs. And so, you know, let's throw up a
gate and give ourselves, you know, more privacy. So there's a
possible precedent here, but that has minimal merit. I mean, we're
not sitting here saying -- we're looking at this on its -- on its own
basis.
February 9, 2021
Page 98
I agree with, you know, Commissioner Saunders, and I also am
more sensitive to government overreach. I am concerned about the
business impact. And we did hear from some businesses that,
obviously, more entry and exits help their businesses. So I would
say if this passes and we accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation to approve the PUD, if any of those businesses are
paying money to the HOA or to something else, that should be a
concern. Obviously, we're not voting on that here.
But I agree with Commissioner Saunders, and I think what
maybe a couple of my other commissioners here, that it's public -- or
it's private property. I think, you know, government overreach is the
more overriding factor. I am concerned a little bit about some other
things after this vote, but we deal with those one at a time. But this
one, to me, seems that I would agree with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We have a motion on the
floor and a second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One more comment before
we go.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, very quickly. I know.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't want to be rushed. I
actually have a point that I would like to make, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, sir. But we have a 1:00 firm
with people who are traveling in here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand what we have.
It's not before 1:00.
If I may, please, the comment is, Mr. LoCastro -- Commissioner
LoCastro brought up the point that we've got an issue with an
intersection failure coming at us strong. Commercial businesses are
being impacted by the lack of access with regard to this. Have we
done a study with regard to a light over at Goodland Bay? That's the
February 9, 2021
Page 99
question. That's a direct connection across from both of the
commercial pieces. We're already constructing one on 951 just
south of the intersection.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I understand that, and it's very
important, but, sir, that's not what's before us.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That could be posed to staff at
another time, and that's why I said that. But go ahead. Trinity's
here, so I'm sure she can answer it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What does -- you know, I'm
not going to argue with you. I concur with Commissioner Saunders.
If you don't want to talk about it now, we don't have to talk about it
now. We've got an issue with commercial access. We've got an
issue with the failing intersection, and it's a suggestion to have it
looked at now while everybody's actually listening.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we can answer it quickly, if you'd
like.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. SCOTT: A signal at Goodland Bay Drive would be right
in the middle of our future overpass that we have over many, many,
many years been planning for. As you're aware, once we put up a
signal, it's very difficult to take them down. I think I've only seen
one signal ever come back down in Collier County, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When are you planning the
overpass?
MS. SCOTT: Right now it's identified on the needs plan, but
we'll continue to monitor the intersection and bring it up forward.
We update the long-range plan every five years, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have a motion and a
second. We don't need another speaker.
February 9, 2021
Page 100
MR. YATES: I was going to say you're talking about the
wrong intersection.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no. We don't need this. So,
okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second. The motion is
to support the request of The Quarry and Heritage Bay to put gates on
Limestone.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Thank you very much. We'll return at 1:00.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: I just wanted to remind you and the Board that
item for 1:00 is to be no sooner than 1:00. So you have some
discretion on how long you want to have your lunch hour.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're coming back at 1:00. Thank
you.
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:23 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I guess we're
now going to be talking about Big Cypress Basin.
Item #11D
A PRESENTATION ON THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN (BCB)
February 9, 2021
Page 101
BOUNDARY DELINEATION STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
(DISTRICT) AND RECENTLY SUBMITTED TO THE
GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP AS DIRECTED
IN THE 2020 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT - MOTION
NOT TO ACCEPT THE BILL AS WRITTEN AND THE CHAIR
TO SEND A LETTER TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODY
EXPLAINING THE COMMISSION’S STRONG POSITION –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes. That's Item 11D on the agenda today. It's
a recommendation to accept a presentation by the Big Cypress Basin
regarding the Boundary Delineation Study conducted by the South
Florida Water Management District and the recently submitted
legislation to the general -- excuse me, for the 2021 legislative
session. Mr. Mullens will begin the staff presentation.
MR. MULLENS: For the record, John Mullens, Government
Affairs Manager.
And at your last meeting, a motion was adopted directing staff to
coordinate a full hearing on the proposed Big Cypress Basin
boundary expansion featuring a presentation on the scientifically
based study just submitted by the South Florida Water Management
District to the Governor and legislative leadership.
Today we're pleased to have with us Jeff Iudicello, Lead
Engineer for the District, who will take you through the study that
was initially presented on November 18th to the Big Cypress Basin
Board at that time comprised of sole member and chair, Charlette
Roman. Lisa Koehler, Basin Administrator, is also here to answer
applicable questions.
Now, Senate Bill 406, filed by Senator Rodriguez, will make its
first legislative agenda appearance on Monday in the Environment
February 9, 2021
Page 102
and Natural Resources Committee. The earliest companion bill that
can be heard, House Bill 209 by Ret Botana, could be heard as early
as next Tuesday in the Environment, Agriculture, and Flooding
Subcommittee, and that agenda will be posted by this evening.
But to start us off, Amy Patterson will briefly overview potential
operational impacts of the identical proposed boundary expansion
bills from a county perspective.
Amy.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson, for the
record. I'm the Director of Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees,
and Program Management. And I'm just going to walk you through
some of the high-level points on these bills and some of the
policy -- related policy issues.
Just to recap, which was previously presented by Mr. Mullens,
there are technical deficiencies within the bills that are currently filed
related to the boundary expansion. And I'm just going to go through
those really quickly before we get into the other points. The first
one is the governance. The Basin board representation, including
specific allocation of members between counties, that does not
currently exist in the bill as written.
For the ad valorem concerns, as written the bill would allocate
all ad valorem levied within the counties to be used for projects
within the respective county. This creates multiple levels of
financial impacts but, specific to Collier, would affect funding for
operations and maintenance including those funds currently used to
operate and maintain the majority of the existing primary flood
control system.
Of note, although it's not a direct impact to Collier, the language
in the bill would also exclude Lee County from the new basin
because the portion of Lee County within the revised boundary does
not meet the 50 percent threshold established by the bill.
February 9, 2021
Page 103
Now, as we all know, as bills move through legislative process,
issues like the ones identified above are often corrected through the
bill amendment process and, therefore, there's a high likelihood that
these technical deficiencies will be corrected. So what remains are a
series of policy issues that have not been resolved.
At a basic level, what -- are the following: What is Lee County
and its municipalities trying to accomplish, and does this legi slation
achieve that goal and is there another way to achieve their objectives?
Second, is this legislation beneficial to Collier County? And this is
an issue that's been discussed at different levels throughout -- through
different forums over a number of years.
Regional water management is not a new conversation. Most
recently, a subset of this discussion arose out of the events of 2017,
including the above-average rains combined with Hurricane Irma,
which had devastating effects both on areas of Collier as well as Lee
County.
The concept of restoring natural flows was a topic of discussion
between multiple entities, including Collier County and Bonita
Springs; however, there was no final answer on how to address this
issue cooperatively.
Questions raised by citizens and other stakeholders in Collier
County have remained largely unanswered. Some examples of those
issues are system capacity and post-storm recovery, water quality,
and joint operations of shared stormwater infrastructure.
The proposed expansion has added new questions including
organizational structure: How is this all going to work? And
project prioritization and joint review: What kind of say does
Collier have in projects that may affect Collier County?
Ideally, more public outreach on the expansion of the boundary
would have occurred in advance of the proposed legislation;
however, it's understood that many of the specifics will be addressed
February 9, 2021
Page 104
through rule-making or in setting of administrative policy; however,
answers to the key questions on the apportionment of basin board
members between counties as well as goals, objectives, and benefits
of the expansion to the respective counties are needed to provide
visibility and address ongoing concerns.
With that, I'm going to hand it over to Jeff, and he is from the
South Florida Water Management District.
MR. IUDICELLO: Okay. Thank you. My name is Jeff
Iudicello. I'm an Engineer at the South Florida Water Management
District in the Modeling Section. You see here on the thing it says
H&H. That's district language for hydraulics and hydrology. But
I'm a part of the modeling group in there. And today it's my pleasure
to present to you our work on the Big Cypress Basin boundary
delineation.
Can you all hear me?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. IUDICELLO: Excellent. Okay. As a way of
introduction, the driving force behind this whole project came out of
last spring's Florida legislative session. House Bill 5001, the full
text of it is here on the slide. I'm not going to read that to you. But
there's three key summary points that are worth going over.
First and foremost, the South Florida Water Management
District is to examine the BCB watershed boundaries and to proposed
revisions as needed; secondly, the study is to implement a
scientifically supported approach; and third of all, the results of this
exercise were to be submitted to the state authorities in Tallahassee
by February 1st of this year. Of course, now that's behind us, but we
started working on this project in roughly April or May of last year.
So let's talk about what a science -based watershed delineation is.
First of all, it's something that divides regional land areas into smaller
units or watersheds based on physical laws. Secondly, it considers
February 9, 2021
Page 105
the actual environmental features of a landscape. As we all know,
the land elevation is a key factor defining the runoff from the rainfall.
There are a variety of factors that are included in a study like
this. I have listed a few here for us, such as land use, any kinds of
manmade improvements to the drainage features, animal habitats,
subsurface properties of aquifers, and there's others. The point is
that there's a lot of factors that are included in a scientific study like
this.
Additionally, a science-based watershed delineation is based on
measurements of physical properties and, therefore, it would be
repeatable and verifiable by independent observation.
And, finally, it considers a variety of sources of information.
Additionally, the whole concept of a science-based watershed
delineation, it kind of begs the question of what kind of other
approaches are there to do this kind of project. And so contrasting
approaches may use political or legal factors to establish these
boundaries such as administrative boundaries like county lines or
landowner property limits.
I'll walk through here the methodology we used for this
delineation. There are nine steps, and I'll walk through them one by
one for you.
So first of all, Step 1, review the current catchment boundaries.
Use the geographic -- use a geographic information systems
framework, a GIS, to overlay any kind of existing boundary maps
and coverages, and that way we can see where the lines match and
where they may divert from each other.
Step 2, evaluate the topography. Use digital elevation data
within the GIS system to compare the high and low landscape
elevations with the catchment boundaries.
Step 3 is to examine aerial photography. Take a look at old and
new satellite imagery, any kind of flyover pictures that are available,
February 9, 2021
Page 106
et cetera, to assess the current historical land use as well as any kind
of natural drainage feature and manmade drainage modifications.
Step 4 is to review roadmaps. As we all know, roads are
typically constructed on higher elevations, but they may have bridges
or culverts or other ditches that affect drainage in the local area.
Step 5 is to conduct a field visit. On-site reconnaissance will
help confirm drainage patterns and features. Site visits are
particularly useful immediately after a large rainfall event.
Sometimes we can get out into the field within a few hours even or
within a few days of a large rainfall event, and that really gives us
boots-on-the-ground insight into how water naturally drains off the
landscape.
Additionally, at the district we're fortunate we have drones, and
we have helicopters so, if needed, we can go use those pieces of
technology to get more customized aerial footage immediately after a
large rainfall event.
Step 6, review permits, regulatory actions, and authorize permits
such as the district's environmental resource permit or ERPs will
describe drainage patterns and modifications resulting from permitted
projects.
Step 7, when they're available, review the soil maps. Soil m aps
are a valuable secondary source of information on things like land
use and vegetation and subsurface hydrology.
Step 8, again, when it's available, review other historical
documents such as old county roadmaps, USGS information.
Sometimes landowners have private aerial photography of their
properties or their farms, and all of these are additional pieces of
information that can be useful.
And Step 9, finally, distribute the proposed delineation for
review. And this is to seek additional review from other
subject-matter experts.
February 9, 2021
Page 107
Let's take a minute and define some of the terms we're going to
be discussing here today and ones that are used in the project and in
the report. These definitions come from the South Florida Water
Management District's Arc Hydro Enhanced Database. We call it
AHED for short. So I'm going to give you a list here of what the
AHED district totals are from largest land area to smallest land area.
And so within the AHED system, there are a total of four basins that
cover the entire jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management
District. So, obviously, those are the largest land areas. The next
smallest land aggregation is called a subbasin, and in the entire
district system, there are a total of 12 subbasins. And just as a note,
the Big Cypress Swamp that we're talking about today is one of those
12 subbasins.
The next smallest land aggregation is called a watershed, and
there's a total of 227 of those within our system.
And then, finally, the smallest land aggregation is called a sub-water
watershed, and there's a total of 633 of those within the district's
system.
And just as a final note here, earlier drainage studies or projects
in other areas of the district may use other definitions or other
terminology, so you always have to be careful when you're
considering those kinds of projects. But for what we're talking about
today, this is the terminology that we'll use.
Here's a map of the area. This is a busy map, and I won't
show -- I won't point out everything on this map, but there's a handful
of key features that are worth talking about.
First of all -- see if you can see the mouse. You can. So this
bright green line that kind of goes around the boundary, that is the
existing Big Cypress Basin subbasin boundary line. So that green
line represents one of those 12 subbasins within the district AHED
system.
February 9, 2021
Page 108
If you notice, immediately to the east the subbasin to the east is
called the Everglades subbasin, and then the subbasin directly to the
north is called the Caloosahatchee subbasin.
Additionally, within the Big Cypress Swamp subbasin, there's a
handful of dominating natural hydrologic features. Most notably,
the Big Cypress National Preserve down in this region.
Additionally, up in the northern reach, there's OK Slough,
Okaloacoochee Slough, and the Corkscrew Marsh, and Big Cypress
Swamp is here in the center of the region.
You'll notice the blue lines on the map. Those are waterways.
The straight lines that you see are typically manmade. They're
ditches or canals. The ones that are a little bit less straight or a little
more squiggly tend to be closer to the coast, and those are still natural
waterways, like creeks or rivers.
In general, the flow in the subbasin is into the Gulf of Mexico,
which is in the southwest, and so water flows to the west or to the
southwest or to the south into the Gulf of Mexico. And in the
bottom left of the map here, you see kind of a thumbnail view of
where this subbasin fits in scale with the rest of the state of Florida.
And so when my colleagues and I started working on this
project, the first step was to kind of do a preliminary
review -- preliminary review of the entire subbasin boundary, again,
what you see there in green. And after doing a prel iminary review,
there were a handful of key areas that it was decided needed kind of a
deeper dive for the analysis. And so there were nine areas in
particular where we had to do that deeper analysis. They're listed
there on the left, Letters A through I.
As it turns out, eight of those nine areas resulted in a proposed
revision to the existing subbasin boundary. And if you look on the
map, the red lines that you see there corresponding to each letter,
those are the resulting revisions that resulted from this -- from this
February 9, 2021
Page 109
study.
And the final product is shown here. On the left, that red line
combined with the existing green line, is the final product, the
scientifically based watershed delineation. And this is the main
feature that, then, goes back to address the initial mandate from
House Bill 5001.
On the right side of the screen you see the cover paper -- the
cover sheet for the associated report that was written that describes
this project. It goes into more details about the background and the
analysis and why the decisions were made that resulted in those red
lines. But these are the main products that go back to answer the
initial mandate.
And so I have two maps here which we can come back and
discuss if needed, but I want to skip here to the results page. And so
the proposed map that I showed you is the final product that
addresses House Bill 5001. That map was developed from district
expertise, from up-to-date GIS data, and from permitting knowledge
at the district and some other factors as well.
The work was done consulting with the district's Fort Myers
service center staff as well as staff from the Big Cypress National
Preserve, so that way it's not just us over in West Palm trying to do
the analysis here. We talked with local experts in the field to try to
get some local insight.
Additionally, this product was reviewed by several district
bureaus, such as the water use and water supply bureaus, the applied
science and water-quality bureaus, as well as the ecosystem
restoration planning and Everglades and estuaries protection bureaus.
And so it was thoroughly vetted in-house before being released.
And then numerous external briefings were held with local
stakeholders here on the West Coast.
And then, finally, this product was submitted on time to meet
February 9, 2021
Page 110
that February 1st legislative deadline.
So that's all I have right now. If there's any questions, we can
take some after questions. Otherwise, thank you for your time this
afternoon.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Go back three slides, because
one of the maps you put up, one of the -- that one --
MR. IUDICELLO: This one?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- right there. That's the one
I found most informative. I mean, everything else made perfectly
good sense with your analysis. But this, I believe, is what we're
contemplating with regard to the expansion of the boundary of the
district, correct?
MR. IUDICELLO: Yep.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the different
municipalities that are crossed by the expansion of the basin's
geographic bounds, correct?
MR. IUDICELLO: Correct. This is the final product overlaid
on top of all the local entities.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. If you'd leave that up
there as we're going forward, that would really -- it would really help
me. Because it was difficult for me to actually understand. I mean,
I knew -- I knew there was an expansion of the boundary, but this is
extremely informative as to how we actually come about where we're
going to -- if, in fact, the basin is expanded, where we're going
to -- how we're going to have to actually address that, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I guess we're ready for public
comment. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have three registered public
commenters. Two here in person; one online.
Your first commenter is Meredith Budd. She will be followed
February 9, 2021
Page 111
by Dr. Peter J. Hill, and then online, Rick Barber.
Good afternoon, Meredith. You have three minutes.
MS. BUDD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Meredith
Budd on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation.
I'm here today just to elevate an issue that I don't think has been a
part of the dialogue regarding the expansion and potential fiscal
impacts that it could have on our statewide environmental programs
in funding for those programs.
So it's well understood that the expansion would mean that
dollars that were typically directed toward the Okeechobee Basin
would be directed towards Big Cypress Basin and, therefore,
Everglades restoration projects that would have received that funding
would be missing that funding.
There is a current focus at a state level which the Federation is
grateful for and supportive of for Everglades restoration needs. So
despite existing tax dollars potentially being redirected, the
legislature may be able to compensate for that to make up for that
deficit with such a strong focus on Everglades restoration; however,
the money to make up that deficit has to come from somewhere.
And it's a concern for the federation that the reallocation of the
tax dollars could actually negatively impact, excuse me, other
state-funded environmental programs like Florida Forever, Springs
Restorations, Rollin (phonetic) Family Lands. These are programs
that have been consistently underfunded and the federation is a very
strong advocate for. All of these fundings, including Everglades
Restoration, we don't want to see that funding be depleted either.
But I just wanted to elevate this issue that there may be a greater
trickle-down effect that I don't think has been a part of the dialogue,
and I just wanted to elevate it, bring it to the conversation, and
request that you consider that understanding that these statewide
environmental needs have been consistently underfunded, and we
February 9, 2021
Page 112
don't want to see them underfunded in the future.
So thank you so much for your time and consideration of my
comments.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dr. Peter J. Hill, and he
will be followed by Rick Barber.
Good afternoon, Dr. Hill. You have three minutes.
DR. HILL: Yes. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
I understand the Collier County Commissioners meeting today
to consider the boundary expansion, but the fundamental question to
me is: What is the benefit of this e xpansion to Collier County?
I understand the administrative and the scientific requirements, but
what I fear is that there's going to be additional load placed on the
capacity and infrastructure of particularly North Collier County in
terms of the Cocohatchee Canal and the Cocohatchee River.
Fundamental to this is the fact that there is no consistent -- or
there's no model of the Cocohatchee River itself. What we have
seen post Irma is a significant increase in sediment, silt, and sand into
that river, and I just witnessed going over the 41 where the
Cocohatchee River goes underneath it, the high tide, it's just ankle
deep in water, and no access of vessels can occur up the river.
So we're being asked to consider -- the increasing waters from
Bonita Springs, Lee County, and others, perhaps, together with the
expansion of the Immokalee channel through additional development,
and the strategic plan is 5,000 additional houses going in there.
What we're being asked is to accept the fact that under certain
conditions, under rainfall, hurricane, tropical storm, you are going to
inundate the existing infrastructure of the canals and the
infrastructure of the water systems of Collier County.
That is a tall order. That is asking a lot. And we don't have a
model, and there's no survey and no modeling done beyond Coco No.
1, which is where the BCB and the current Collier County and South
February 9, 2021
Page 113
Florida Water Management ends. Who, then, owns the
responsibility for the Cocohatchee River? Is it the Corps of
Engineers, is it now Collier County as a result of the dredging that
has been recently done on the Palm River, or is it someone else?
We certainly know the BCB and South Florida Water
Management don't control it, and what we're doing here is asking an
awful lot of our infrastructure.
So before you move, I just order wisdom and order thought
about what the existing infrastructure is and what the capacity of that
is and what it needs to be into the future.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final registered speaker is
Rick Barber. Mr. Barber, I'll remind you you'll need to unmute
yourself. Mr. Barber, are you with us, sir?
MR. BARBER: I am.
MR. MILLER: You have three minutes, Mr. Barber. Please
begin.
MR. BARBER: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you for allowing me to
speak.
I just have a few points. The Bonita Springs area is presently
impacted by Big Cypress Basin operations; however, there's already a
cooperative relationship in place to plan mutually beneficial projects.
The legislation that's being proposed to expand the basin boundaries
has had very limited input from the district and I think none from the
Big Cypress Basin. Adding three additional local governments to
coordinate, to me, is not even the realm of realism.
If the goal is to fund infrastructure for these areas that could be
added, then local government should formulate plans, ask the district
for assistance similar to the other 16 counties in the South Florida
Water Management District. The ad valorem tax collected by the
February 9, 2021
Page 114
district is approximately equal to the operation and maintenance costs
for the entire South Florida Water Management District. So all other
projects in the rest of the budget must be provided by the legislature.
The district spends all of its ad valorem revenue on an O&M, as
I recently stated. The rest of the budget is provided by the
legislature; hence, there's a reluctance to comment on proposed
legislation.
Recently we built a new field station. It's down near your new
sports complex in City Gate. It cost Big Cypress Basin $10 million.
It's operated by West Palm Beach, but Big Cypress Basin pays
$3 million for the operation expense.
So I think the map that you've been presented today is a political
map, not necessarily a hydrologic map. And I don't see any
advantage to Collier County to expand the Big Cypress Basin.
Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: That was your final registered speaker, Madam
Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So nobody
wants to comment on this or --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I'll go ahead and comment.
Again, I think when we talked about this last time -- I've certainly
had plenty of discussions with Mayor Simmons in Bonita Springs
about some of the issues that face both Bonita Springs and directly
District 2. And I don't know that those kinds of discussions are
going to be any more fruitful or less fruitful because of this change.
I mean, there are issues that we have to figure out how to deal with
together regardless of what the boundary of the basin is.
What concerns me the most is this funding aspect of the bill only
saying that it will fund projects, which means capital projects, and
there would be no funds for operation. All I can say is, well, oh, my
God. I mean, what -- the stormwater management that the district
February 9, 2021
Page 115
provides is going to no longer have funding. I mean, for me, having
that kind of uncertainty of something that is so critical after a
hurricane is something that I just am not comfortable with, and I don't
see, just based upon that, how we can support something that, on its
face, it's not only not -- neutral to Collier County but could have a
detrimental effect to Collier County.
And, again, I appreciate that we want to be good neighbors, but
it would be -- the way to be a good neighbor is to work these issues
out, make sure that we're clear on the governance. Three new local
governments. I mean, how many representatives from each of the
municipalities? How many from Lee County? All of this is totally
up in the air.
I don't feel comfortable, as representing District 2, saying that
we should support this and hope for the best. I just -- I can't -- I
can't, in good conscience, agree with that. And I don't -- I don't
know how else to say it other than, you know, we're always talking
about unintended consequences when things are clear, and this is
anything but clear. And I think that we should take the position that
while we're not against this, against the expansion of the basin under
certain circumstances, we cannot support something that is
ambiguous at best and already presents on its face some significant
funding issues that could be very, very problematic for the county.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have the same concerns that
I had the last time we talked about this. I think, you know, drawing
the lines on the map, I'm not going to say it's the easy part, but, you
know, I think that the more difficult piece that we still haven't got our
arms around is -- as Commissioner Solis said, is the governance, and
even by the lead engineer that came up here. I'm not going to try to
attempt to say his name. I just looked at it on the slide. I don't
February 9, 2021
Page 116
think I can pronounce it. But, you know, he said we still have policy
issues that are unresolved. I agree with Dr. Hill who said, what's the
benefit, you know, to Collier County. These are all things that have
been on my list.
So although I agree with the spirit of it and, like you say, you
know, Commissioner Solis, we're trying to be good stewards and
teammates and all these kind of things and work together, I think the
nuts and bolts of the proposal are still very sketchy, thin, not nailed
down. And so as I said at the last meeting -- and, you know, you
learn this in business that there's two ways you can have a position.
You can say, I disagree unless you do A, B, C, D, and E; or you can
say, I agree but make sure you do A, B, C, and D. I'm of the first
piece.
So I don't agree with this until I have assurances that all the nuts
and bottles are tight. And I don't think they are, and I also don't
think this is any kind of huge benefit to Collier County.
So my position is, I don't agree with this unless I hear a whole
bunch of other things that I don't think we actually will hear. And so
I don't want to be of the position of, you know, I agree with it in
theory, but let's make sure they do, you know, what they say and
we're properly represented and we have the governance and all that.
I think that's a very, very soft and dangerous approach because the
way that people will hear that is, Collier County agreed with it. Ah,
yeah, we've got some stuff to clean up and, you know, we'll get to it
when we can.
So I don't agree with this because of the many different issues
that are still hanging loose that were presented here today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, let's take that approach.
I don't think there's any of us that disagree that in the spirit of what's
being talked about, that the greater good can, in fact, be achieved:
February 9, 2021
Page 117
The combination of the money, the issues that are out there with
regard to the governance and the tax money and the projects and so
on and so forth, that is the spirit of the -- of why we're actually
having these discussions.
And I don't mind taking -- I don't want to call it a contrarian
approach, but it's more in line with what it is. I don't mind saying,
you know, we agree or -- or we don't agree but we need to have these
things taken care of before we can give it due consideration. They're
all real. Amy brought up real issues. Staff has -- John brought up
real issues, deficits that are in the existing legislation that I find it
hard to actually take a position of support because we don't know the
answers to them yet.
So -- but I also concur -- I think I heard Commissioner Solis say,
and I heard Commissioner LoCastro say, the spirit of what's being
discussed has validity.
You've heard me say on a regular basis, we all live downstream.
We're impacted by what's going on in the north. By enhancing
communication, by developing proper policy and governance with
regard to the increase to the size of the basin, we can have,
potentially, better impact on surficial flows. Not just storm events
but everything. I mean, I talked to Mr. Barber the other day. I'm
watching them build that C-43 reservoir up on the Caloosahatchee
River.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The canal that comes out on
the southwest corner, it's only a 100-yard swath from that -- from that
reservoir into the canal, and the East Lee County drainage district
runs right straight down underneath 82 and into the CREWS. And
yours truly is one of the new trustees on the CREWS. How about
that?
So we have to be cognizant of what's going on upstream. And
February 9, 2021
Page 118
the spirit of what's being proposed I like, but I would go along with
Commissioner LoCastro with regard to taking a negative approach
for and until certain things are, in fact, answered.
And I think we still get there. I still -- I think we still get to
where it is that we want to go but we actually have specificity with
demands, requests, proposals, and better directing staff, who's going
to be working with the legislature, to come up with the answers to
those questions. You're not always going -- you're not going to be
able to answer all of them. I mean, you know, when we start talking
about -- when we start talking about water quality, water quantity,
and the circumstances of a particular storm event, there's a lot of
latitude there.
But I really think -- I think, in pretense, there's an opportunity
for us to actually really help our community, but I'm not opposed to
doing it the way Commissioner LoCastro said either.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, your light
was on and now it's off. Is it on?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, it's kind of off, but --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Kind of off.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You kind of turned it off, but you're
on again?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I've kind of
gone -- yeah, exactly.
Looking at the realities of how legislation kind of moves -- and
I've been in that process -- there's a lot of emphasis on this bill right
now. And Collier County needs to be in a position to be able to
negotiate with the sponsors of the bill. That's one of the reasons why
I had recommended and what we did last time was to basically say,
we don't have a problem with the concept, but we have problems with
three issues that need to be worked out.
So we're not really saying a whole lot different than what
February 9, 2021
Page 119
Commissioner LoCastro has said this morning except he's saying we
are opposed to this unless. And I just like the softer approach where
we are understanding of the rationale for this, but we have problems
that have to be worked out if we're going to support this.
I just think that that's the right message to send to members of
the legislature if we want to be participants in reframing this bill.
There's not a whole lot of daylight between what Commissioner
LoCastro has said and what I've said. It's just a little bit of
semantics. I just prefer the softer approach, but I don't have any
strong feelings on it, and that's why my light kept going on and off.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So now, Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. No, I think there is a
little bit of daylight in between the two, because I think it gives us
more leverage if we say we disagree unless. I think we tend to get
people to come to the table a little bit quicker, and we get to put some
definity into the things we're concerned about.
I think with the softer approach it's -- you know, you tend to
hear, great, we're excited that you're for it except you've got a few
issues. We'll get back to you on that. So I think, you know, we
hold the cards and we have a lot stronger leverage. And, you know,
I'm not a big fan of soft approaches when it comes to, you know,
dealing with, you know, money, the environment, the plus or minus
to Collier County.
So if they want to come to the table and address our issues that
we have before they get our approval, then those stakeholders need to
come to the table, and I think we drive the discussion if we say "we
disagree unless" rather than if we take a soft approach and then hope
that they negotiate it properly with us.
I mean, saying we agree but we have a couple of stipulations I
just think's too soft. So I don't think it's semantics. I think it's a
matter of strategy and a stronger position for our county and for our
February 9, 2021
Page 120
citizens, which -- who we're up here representing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. I don't see any more
speakers from my commission colleagues up here. Is there a
motion?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I make a motion that we not
accept this presentation based on how its written and put together.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The presentation, or the bill as it's
written?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: The bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I agree with Commissioner
LoCastro's well-stated strategy. What I would ask Commissioner
LoCastro if he would be interested in doing is like we did the first
time, that we ask our chairman to prepare a letter stating our
somewhat more adamant position on this. I don't recall who we sent
it to last time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't remember -- I was going to
send a letter, but I don't know if we ever did because I had a meeting
with Senator Ray Rodriguez.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, that's right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I was going to deliver that letter
to Senator Rodriguez. So it would be to Senator Rodriguez.
MR. OCHS: I would think members of your local legislative
delegation as well.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. And Senator Passidomo as
well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So I would ask that we add that, if
you add that to the motion, because I think that's --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I agree. I mean, I'd
like us to all see that letter so that, you know, as Commissioner
February 9, 2021
Page 121
Saunders reminded me at the last meeting, words matter, and he's
right. So long as it says in that letter that we disagree because and
unless and it's that type of verbiage. So I would add that to the
motion that we not accept the verbiage in this bill and that we prepare
a letter that has our strong position and our reasonings for such and
what it would take for us to reverse our position and approve of the
bill.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I would second that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion and a
second.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And, Commissioner
Saunders, would you, if you can -- I don't want to put you on the
spot. Because, basically, when we proposed our softer approach,
letter of approval with these concerns, we actually delineated certain
things. Are we shifting away from those particular concerns here by
saying we don't approve if we don't get -- or we aren't --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's not what I heard. In fact, I
copied them down, but I'm sure that Ms. Patterson and Mr. Mullens
can help delineate with this letter so that it's -- in fact, I think if I
could ask County Attorney and staff to write it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's different than the three
that we discussed at our last meeting?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's greater than the three. There's
more things than the three.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to go ahead and
support the motion just so there's a unanimous vote of the
Commission, but we are going to need to make sure we present t o our
delegation what the issues are and what a solution is to those issues.
If we don't do that, this bill's just going to continue to move.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not pass.
February 9, 2021
Page 122
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No one else in the legislature
will care about this particular bill other than the local delegations and,
of course, the South Florida Water Management District will have
some concerns about it because it affects some of their funding. But
our delegation and the Lee delegation are really going to control this .
So we're going to need to assist them in what it is that we want
them to do to change the bill. We can't just simply say, we oppose
this because we have issues. We're going to have to give them a
solution.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think -- I think it would be
very helpful to have that, you know, whether it's Zoom or in person,
that workshop with the different municipalities, and certainly Lee
County on this issue with South Florida Water Management District
there. I think that that has not happened, and I'm not -- I'm not
pointing fingers. My goodness, we've all been very concerned about
COVID, so, you know, things kind of got -- this is ahead of where I
think we need to be. I have no doubt that reasonable people and
reasonable decisions will prevail in this. I just think we all need to
be given the chance to develop that. But I counted here maybe six,
seven, eight, nine issues that were brought up by staff that certainly
could be included.
I'm not sure we're going to have a solution for them all, but we
can certainly put that olive branch out there that these are our
concerns, please address these, that kind of thing, rather than
providing them a solution for it, but certainly to outline them, I
think -- I think we can do that.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: In some of those cases,
though, on that list, I think, you know, to Commissioner Saunders'
point, we actually do have probably a couple of recommendations or
February 9, 2021
Page 123
something solidified. I agree there's a few that are maybe a little
bit -- a little bit ambiguous, but definitely there's some hard ones on
there where we could say A, B -- you know, unless, colon, A, B, C,
D, and also, you know, something, I think -- it could be definitive.
So I agree that the specificity in the letter, as much as possible,
is -- and the staff, obviously, can help us with that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. I would leave it to them.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, unless Commissioner
LoCastro wants to, I mean, I'd be available to work with staff and
come up with a letter and make sure it reflects what we discussed
here today if that's --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would greatly appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If that's of assistance. I don't want
to be --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, that's --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- in the way --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely. And then we
just see a copy of your good work.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Soon. All right. Well, there's no
more -- no one else wants to speak. 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.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Item #11B
February 9, 2021
Page 124
THE EAST OF CR951 BRIDGE REEVALUATION STUDY,
DIRECT STAFF TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE FIVE (5)
RECOMMENDED BRIDGES AND CONTINUE PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE IMPACTED RESIDENTS
THROUGH THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS -
MOTION TO CONTINUE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH
STAFF TO BRING BACK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move now to Item 11B.
This is a recommendation to approve the east of CR951 bridge
reevaluation study, direct the staff to design and construct the five
recommended bridges, and to continue public engagement with the
impacted residents through the design and construction elements of
the process.
Lorraine Lantz, your Principal Planner for Capital Projects
Planning, will take you through the presentation.
MS. LANTZ: Thank you.
Just for the record, Lorraine Lantz.
This is for the 951 reevaluation study for the bridges.
Just for our agenda, I would do some brief introductions of our staff
and the consultant, as well as a history of the project. The purpose
of our new reevaluation study, that process that we went through, as
well as a prototype of the bridge that we are recommending -- the
recommended bridges, and then the next steps.
For introductions, I'm Lorraine Lantz. I'm joined by Trinity
Scott, who's the Transportation Manager, as well as Jeff Perry. He is
attending via Zoom. He's our consultant on this, as well as Yvonne
McClellan, who's our public involvement consultant. If you have
any questions specifically for them, they would be able to participate
via Zoom or via -- virtually.
February 9, 2021
Page 125
For history and background, this project or this -- these bridge
studies have been around since 2008. The original study was done
in August. It was completed in 2008 and made several
recommendations. Those recommendations were based on first
responders as our stakeholders, our key stakeholders, in coordination
with them looking at their response times as well as interconnectivity,
reduced personal travel time, evacuation routes, and improving
access in the Estates for schools, libraries, and parks.
That study came up with 12 bridges, those 12 bridges as their
recommendations were ranked. So this was the original ranking.
Again, for history and for consistency, we are using the same map
that was from the 2008 study.
The north half of the program area had several bridges. Those
included Bridge No. 12 on 62nd. It's denoted in red because at this
time that specific bridge was at the recommendation of the fire, our
stakeholders, but the first responders. So that came in a little bit
later but during the study process.
Bridge No. 4, which is on 47th, Bridge No. 5, which is on
Wilson north, and Bridge No. 6 and 7, which are on 18th
Street -- excuse me -- 18th Avenue.
The south portion of our study area, there were several bridges
as well. The first bridge was on 13th Street Southwest over here.
The third bridge was on 8th Street Northeast, and then 16th Street
Northeast.
Bridge No. 1, which is on 23rd Street Northwest -- excuse me,
Southwest, this bridge is demarked with a different color as well
because at the time that was supposed to be with a -- with a road
project as part of that project. In actually, the bridge ended up only
being a temporary bridge and then was taken down.
Bridge No. 10, which is on Wilson Boulevard South, Bridge
No. 9, which is on 16th Southeast, and Bridge No. 11. At the time
February 9, 2021
Page 126
of this study, the original study, Bridge No. 11 was demarked as in
this vicinity. There was no specific street located with the bridge at
that time.
Kind of fast-forwarding a couple years. Since that study,
obviously it's been over 10 years. These bridges have been in the
Long-Range Transportation Plan. They were in the 2035 plan, as
well as your 2040 plan. And there was a PD&E, which is -- FDOT's
funded a project design -- design and engineering study that was done
in 2016. That included three of the bridges -- bridges on 8th, 16th,
and 47th.
In 2018, the Collier County voters voted for one-cent
infrastructure surtax to specifically earmark all 10 of the remaining
bridges for that funding, and the surtax was to have bridges funded
within the next seven years.
Bridge -- excuse me. Bridge No. 9 -- excuse me, Bridge No. 3,
which is on 8th Street, that was completed with FDOT's funding in
2019 and became operational.
In 2019, Collier County programmed Bridge No. 2, which is on
16th Street Northeast, and that will be moving forward with surtax
funds. And that leaves 10 remaining bridges, which is what we are
talking about today for the reevaluation.
So we were tasked with looking at the validity of that study that
was done over 10 years ago to make sure that those 10 bridges
remain important and vital to the community and remain important
based on the direction of that 2008 study looking at first responders
as the primary reason.
We did contact the original stakeholders in 2008, and those
entities validated the original study and the 10 bridges. And so,
therefore, looking at health, safety, and welfare, we decided to move
forward with the 10 bridges to do an additional study.
As I said, that study was validated by the original stakeholders
February 9, 2021
Page 127
and our partner agencies, which were EMS, the fire -- both fire
districts, the Sheriff's Office, and the school district administration.
So that led us to our process today.
We then hired -- excuse me. We hired Stantec Consulting as
part of our team to do a full analysis of the bridges to make sure that
they still were valid even though the agencies had said that they were
still important to them.
We came up with nine what we are calling bridge-sheds. Those
are boundaries and areas which we feel were beneficial as well as a
detriment, understanding that there was some benefit as well as
impacts to the areas. But we came up with nine areas for those
bridges.
And we did a GIS analysis of the bridge-sheds. They looked at
the parcels based on the 2009 -- 2009 status of homes as well as at
buildout, and they measured the benefit derived from the bridges as
well as the impacts.
The GIS also looked at the routes that were going to be taken
from -- or to -- to and from bridge locations as well as the distance
that was saved, and then they converted that into time to look at the
reduction of response times.
We also, using the GIS data, were able to quantify the number of
parcels that would be adversely affected by these new bridges.
And then we also at this time looked at and discussed
what -- what -- the primary considerations with our partners, the first
responders, what their comments were regarding the bridges as well
as looking at what their future planned locations were for substations,
fire stations, schools, that sort of thing.
The secondary criteria that was in the original study was used as
our secondary criteria which was a little bit less important and less
weighted, but it was looking at residential trip purposes, looking at
trips to schools, commercial trips, and trips to parks. And,
February 9, 2021
Page 128
ultimately, the intersection/interconnectivity of the safety options of
having a choice as to where to go or how to get there.
When we were doing our analysis, we noticed -- or we were
made aware that three of the new bridges would be located now
closer to fire stations and so that would reduce the insurance rates for
approximately four -- excuse me -- approximately three of the new
bridges would decrease the insurance rating for the homeowners
living and impact by those bridges.
Our analysis -- and it is in your report -- is for every project.
We did our analysis looking at the sheets, looking at the response
times and GIS to quantify the numbers of impacts as well as numbers
of benefits.
And each location received a spreadsheet like this. The green
at the top is for the primary benefits, which are the first responders;
the yellow would be the secondary benefits which are weighted
slightly less than the first responders. That's for personal trip s as
well as schools, getting to the grocery store, that kind of thing.
But I do want to -- I do want to make the point that more access
to, say, your Publix, it's nice to have, I get that, and I understand that
that's maybe a secondary response, but only having one access point
to your home and now having a bridge giving you additional access
points and options is actually a health, safety, and welfare benefit
because if there is an accident, if there is some kind of an emergency
in which you cannot use that only access point, you can route a
different way. And so it's having the first responder get to your
home, obviously, that is the primary concern, but being able for you
to get out, evacuate, or maybe get to the hospital faster is another
equally important factor.
We also considered that there were negative factors with
bridges. And these -- these locations are on dead-end streets where
people may not have -- normally have traffic, and so there is a
February 9, 2021
Page 129
negative impact to those homeowners.
And so we did a matrix, an evaluation matrix of all the bridges,
and we looked at everything that I've discussed. We took into
account weighing factors, and then we also took into account the
agency's support for the bridges in which we are recommending.
Once we did all of that, we then spoke to the first responders to
make sure that what we were saying, again, reiterated what they
wanted and what they envisioned, and then we had -- we also met
with some other coordination with the school administration as well.
And then we had some public meetings. The public meetings were
focused on homeowners that would be negatively affected by these
bridges. Obviously, the bridge-sheds were very large, but we
focused on those that were negatively affected by these bridges. We
also had notifications of the meetings. We went door to door. We
did have these virtually on Zoom, and our -- we have extensive
information on our website. And as I said, we did have some
coordination with our partners.
Throughout the study process, as I said, we have coordinated
with our study -- with our partners, and I believe they are here to
answer any questions, if you have any during the course of the
question and answers, but they are here, and they have submitted
letters of their support for the bridges that we are recommending.
The prototypical bridge we are using is the bridge on North
Street -- sorry, on 8th Street Northeast. This is -- oops. This is a
video, but it's not necessary, if you can see it or not. We are
recommending that they resurface the roadway and add some paved
shoulders. The location of the site -- we are recommending a
sidewalk, one sidewalk on one side of the road depending on
right-of-way constraints and drainage. So we're not saying north or
south or east or west. We're looking at once it is designed, where
that location would be, and so that is just a view of what we're
February 9, 2021
Page 130
envisioning the bridges to be.
Okay. Each bridge that is selected will have to be designed. It
will have a design phase and a construction phase. During that
design phase, it will be evaluated for intersection improvements,
possibly turn lanes and signals. So that will all happen du ring the
design phase of the bridges that move forward.
And I guess now it comes down to the recommended bridges.
So we are recommending five bridges at this time. Those bridges I
have highlighted with the star so you can kind of see, and I will go
through them one by one. But as I said, we are recommending five.
These are not a ranked order. They are specifically just alphabetical,
numerical.
Bridge No. 11 -- I'm sorry. Bridge No. 10 and Bridge-shed 11.
As I previously mentioned, there was no priority for an exact location
for Bridge-shed 11. As we moved forward, this bridge was placed
on 10th Avenue Southeast. The reasoning for the 10th Southeast
was there's actually a school located over here.
This school becomes a staging area. In case of an emergency,
your EMS, fire, they all stage at this location in the school's parking
lot so that they can respond to wildfires or anything like that. That's
where they access their utilities and water. It is -- also EMS uses
that for if someone has to be MedVac'ed out of the Estates area, that
is their landing zone.
So this location became crucially important for them to cross
over the canal to get from their new fire station, which is up here, to
come down and get to, basically, their hub in case of an event.
Bridge No. 11 has a response reduction time of three minutes. That's
when we did our analysis. It also has an EMS reduction time of 2.5
minutes. The Sheriff's Office response time is a reduction of 4.4
minutes. Again, I'm highlighting these because that is what we were
told was the most important was your first responders and their
February 9, 2021
Page 131
response times.
This also does improve emergency access for vehicles during
staging, and it would provide route choice, because right now there
is, you know, no other way to cross over the canal without going up
to Golden Gate Boulevard.
In Bridge-shed No. 8, we have recommended the construction of
31st Street Northwest. This is north of Golden Gate Boulevard.
You can see on the map this is the location of th e bridge that we're
proposing. This has a response reduction for fire of 7.1 minutes, the
response reduction for EMS is 6.1 minutes, and the Collier County
Sheriff's Office response reduction would be about 4.8 minutes.
This would also have approved access to the future park and school
locations as well as access to additional collectors and be arterials for
evacuation, and then the same personal choice interconnections.
Bridge-shed No. 4 is in the northern portion of the county. This
is for bridge on -- along 47th. Okay. And then this has just a
morph of the prototypes so you can see where it would be -- how it
would be located.
This bridge has a reduced [sic] reduction of .4 minute, but we
are noting that this is now less than five minutes from the new
sheriff's station and, therefore, would have a reduced insurance rating
with a score of 3. The average EMS response time is reduced by
three minutes, and Sheriff's Office response -- response reduction of
5.6 minutes.
Number -- Bridge-shed No. 12, again, this was the -- previously
had been specifically called out by your fire and EMS as a location.
This would -- this is the location right here. This actually has
right-of-way acquisition. If you see it morphed, we added 14th
Street Northeast coming south and then connecting to 42nd Ave.
Northeast.
This would be a reduction of 6.3 minutes. Again, also changing
February 9, 2021
Page 132
the insurance rating. This has an EMS response reduction of 5.4
minutes, as well as a Sheriff's Office response rate reduction of two
minutes. And, again, the same interconnection potential.
Bridge-shed No. 10 is in the south area. This is Wilson
Boulevard south to connect to Tobias, this location right here. This
also will require some right-of-way acquisition. The morph would
be something like this. Again, these are not designed. This is just a
layover of what we're envisioning something to look like when it
actually does get designed. This would have a reduced fire response
time of 2.4 minutes, have an average EMS reduced respon se time of
2 minutes, and have the Sheriff's Office response reduction of 1.6
minutes. And, again, this one would now be within 5 minutes of a
fire station and lower -- potentially lower the insurance rating.
Our next steps. The next steps is we are asking you to approve
what we are recommending of the five bridge locations and consider
reevaluating the five remaining bridges at a later date as funding
becomes available. Then we are, excuse me, recommending that
you schedule and move forward with those five bridges but allow for
some public involvement to be accompanying those projects.
Again, these are the five bridges that we are recommending, and
I can open it up for questions. Again, our consultants are available
online if you have questions, and our first responder partner agencies
are here as well.
Yes, Commissioner LoCastro?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: There were some
attachments, some reports, some informational reports on all the
bridges -- this is more just out of curiosity, because I'm a geek and I
read through all of the stuff on the bridges. Why wasn't there an
analysis on Bridge 2 -- 2 and 3? It was -- it was, like, skipped over?
MS. LANTZ: Oh, I'm sorry, if I didn't clarify. Bridge No. 3 is
the bridge on 8th. That has been completed and is operational.
February 9, 2021
Page 133
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. LANTZ: The bridge on 16th is in our work program and
is moving forward.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's Bridge 2?
MS. LANTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I got it. All right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner McDaniel. Your district.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, boy. It is. And I want
to thank you all for indulging in this process. This is -- this is a
complex circumstance. I'm having trouble -- I'm having trouble with
these.
First off, I have a question. In the sales tax referenda, we put
forth eight bridges, seven, eight bridges. We were told that the wood
pilings were falling out from underneath, and I haven't seen how
we're proposing to replace the repair of those bridges with the
construction of these new ones. That's one of my questions that I
have. Do we have the funding sources set up to take care of that?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. You have -- go ahead. We do have
allocations in your surtax as well as gas taxes, but go ahead and give
it a little bit more of a full-throttled answer, if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Full-throttled.
MS. SCOTT: I thought he did a great job answering that. Yes,
we have gone before the sales surtax, the Infrastructure Sales Tax
Committee, to validate expenses for the -- I believe it was 11
replacement bridges, and we are proceeding forward with those. So
those are funded through -- via sales surtax as well as a combination
of gas tax as well. We're in the process of designing and letting
those for construction. So those were separate and distinct identified
bridges within the infrastructure sales surtax than these bridges.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And what I read in here
February 9, 2021
Page 134
where we were replacing surtax money for the construction of these
proposed new five bridges.
MS. SCOTT: In the original sales tax referendum, there was
$60 million associated with the new bridges, the bridges that Lorraine
was speaking of where we were originally at 10. There was a
reallocation that went before the infrastructure sales surtax in
September of last year to take $26 million that was allocated to the
new bridges and put that towards the replacement bridges, which
brings the remaining funding down to $34 million for the new
bridges.
In addition, in December we went before the Sales Surtax
Committee to seek approval for an additional $4.1 million which is
the match necessary for the 16th Street Northeast bridge which was
included in the original new bridges, which brings the
sales -- infrastructure sales surtax down to 29.9 million available for
the new bridges.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So that's how we got there
from here?
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Outstanding. Okay.
Number 2 -- and I'm going to -- I'm going to call out some things.
I -- and just for repeating sake. I was chair of the East of 951
Horizon Study in 2008 when the original bridge study was
conducted. I did that study. I assured our folks that there were a lot
more people since 2008 when the original study was done that hadn't
been communicated with, maybe didn't even know that their
government was planning on putting bridges in at the end of their
street.
So -- and I'd like to just go through just a couple of these, I
mean, because I can kind of sort of see -- and I was also one of the
ones that was insistent upon the increased [sic] first responders' time
February 9, 2021
Page 135
to our residents. But it's difficult -- it's difficult for us to remember
that, you know, when you buy a home in a remote area, there are
consequences that come from that, and -- but on the same token,
when you're the fellow laying there having a heart attack, there's a
difference between a six-minute response time and a four-minute
response time.
And at what point do we degrade the quality of life for the
residents that bought on a cul-de-sac/dead-end street, as they like to
call them, for and on behalf of the greater good? And so that was
one of the reasons why I swayed away from the convenience factor,
getting to and from school and parks and so ons and so forths.
The response times enhancements for Wilson Boulevard south,
that's -- the people that are down there are even more remote than the
folks that live in the Golden Gate Estates. We all know the
extension of Wilson Boulevard south is a contemplated route from
Golden Gate Boulevard all the way down through either out to Green
or, ultimately, out past the amateur sports park. I'm not happy with
the impacts for the folks on 47th at all. Those people have suffered
enough in my personal opinion.
I would like to suggest -- and, you know, there again, the bridge
on 10th that you're contemplating because you've got a helicopter pad
over there at the school, has anybody talked about a helicopter pad
less than a half a mile away on the grass or in that new to be proposed
town that's coming forth just east of where the EMS station is? I
mean, you're -- we're talking about putting a bridge in so that we can
get from the existing EMS station over to the school where the
helicopter pad is, and -- but we're negatively impacting a lot of folks
that live on those particular streets.
So my thoughts -- and, again, I'm -- I'm not happy -- I'm not
happy about these -- about these bridges. I'm -- the degradation of
the quality of life of the people that live on these streets is enormous;
February 9, 2021
Page 136
there's no argument. We've all seen that when they showed you the
pretty picture of 8th and the increase in traffic and the lack of
intersection improvements that are over there.
So one of my suggestions and, really, for Wilson it really doesn't
make a lot of sense, because we all know that that -- Wilson's bridge
is the extension of Wilson Boulevard south and will interconnect all
the way back into the urban area. But why don't we save a lot of
money, build the bridges, and gate them for our first responders?
Put transponders on them. Now we're not negatively impacting the
residents of -- for an increase in traffic. We're providing for the
health, safety, and welfare for that two- to five-minute response time
enhancement and not negatively impact the folks that are living on
those streets.
Let me look at you. She's not making eye contact with me.
It's a -- I don't need to fortify the argument anymore. I mean, there's
an enormous amount of impact admitted by our staff with the
construction of these bridges, and if the pretense of the bridge
construction is health, safety, and welfare, let's enhance the heal th,
safety, and welfare. We don't have to spend all the money on the
sidewalks, streetlights, so ons and so forths. We put the bridges in.
Now -- and EMS is my primary first-responder concern. I mean,
sheriff is a moving target, depends on where the officer particularly
happens to be as to whether or not he can get to and from and have a
reduction in his response time. But, necessarily, we could build all
those bridges, spend half the amount of money that's being proposed
because we still don't know what the right-of-way acquisition's going
to be.
The County Attorney and I were going round and round on the
beginnings of -- that was in our consent agenda today, the Vanderbilt
Beach extension right-of-way. We could -- we could still enhance
the health, safety, and welfare, get the bridges built, and not
February 9, 2021
Page 137
negatively impact from a traffic standpoint. I think if I'm not
mistaken the bridge on 13th Northwest, that's basically an access to
get to a school? Isn't that a school property that's up on the north
end of that?
MS. LANTZ: 13th Northwest will connect to VBR extension.
It is a designated school property as well as a park property.
Those -- the park as well as the school have not been built yet.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How do they get there now
without the bridge?
MS. LANTZ: Right now VBR extension does not exist. So
when -- when it connects to VBR extension, it will create access to
the entire Estates area.
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott. At the north end
of 13th, currently there's no school or park. Right now it goes into
school property. You're going to be hearing an agenda item in the
coming months where we're actually going to be swapping some
property with the school and the park because Vanderbilt Beach Road
extension cuts both of the properties in half so that we're going to
work to get the school totally on the north side and the park solely on
the south side of the road. But right now there's no school or park at
that location. However, I do believe that that location was a benefit
to our first responders as far as existing call times, not just for schools
and parks.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They're accessed by Golden
Gate Boulevard on 13th Northwest now, and then the Vanderbilt
Beach extension, assuming the construction of Vanderbilt Beach
stays on track, we're going to build that road in '22. By '22 it will be
substantively done out through there. So the park and the school
will be accessed by Vanderbilt.
MS. SCOTT: Well, there is no park or school planned at this
time. It's just property that's owned.
February 9, 2021
Page 138
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand.
MS. SCOTT: But I will invite the first responders to come up
and talk about the validity of some of these bridges, because they
were from directly discussing with them and based on how they route
and where their stations are and what they felt like their coverage
area could -- where we could lessen their response times.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. Well -- and I'd be
happy to hear from them if they want, but -- and there's no disputing
the reduction in the response times for our first responders. There's
no -- there's no disputing that whatsoever.
It's just a thought that I had was if that's primarily why we're
contemplating these brings, then let's do that, enhance the health,
safety, and welfare capacity, the ability of our first responders to get
to our people, and gate them so we don't increase the traffic for an
overload on a road system.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we done? No? I have another
speaker.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've said that twice, and
nobody's looking at me, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just had a question. If these are
a balancing, as Commissioner McDaniel was saying, between, you
know, the quality-of-life issue and the public safety, the reduction in
times seems significant, but as I understand it, it's really what that
time is, because the reduction in -- a five-minute reduction in time if
it's a 15-minute response time is a lot different than a five-minute
reduction in time -- at least in my mind, a five-minute reduction in
time if it's a 45-minute response time, because when
there's -- whether it's a heart issue or cardiac issue or something, it's
that 40-minute number that's, like, a critical number to be under, as I
understand it. And somebody feel free to tell me I'm not right about
February 9, 2021
Page 139
that.
So can -- do you have any -- and I was trying to find it, is
there -- what are the response times that we're talking about
reducing? I'm just curious.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'll ask Chief Butcher to come up
and make a few comments.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And, Chief, if I'm not
looking at that right, feel free to tell me I'm not looking at that right.
CHIEF BUTCHER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Tabatha Butcher, Chief of Collier EMS.
Just a couple points of clarification when we're talking about
these bridges and helping access. So not only do they help us access
areas when ambulances are in their set stations out in the Estates, but
one other benefit that it provides is when we receive a call and maybe
the ambulance in the Estates is not available because they're on
another call, it allows for us to send other ambulances from other
areas to get there quicker because they have other means of access to
access some of these areas.
For instance, 13th Street, we have a station at Logan and
Vanderbilt right now. So if the Estates station is out, that Logan
station can actually come straight down Vanderbilt extension once
that's done, access 13th, and get into the Estates much quicker.
Same thing with 47th Avenue. That would allow access for us to get
to that south Everglades area much quicker from our station in front
of the fairgrounds. So many of this -- the benefits of this is not only
the stationed ambulance but when they have to come from other
areas.
And just a point of clarification, it's actually four minutes.
That's critical when somebody is calling 911 from cardiac arrest, that
they get CPR.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Four minutes.
February 9, 2021
Page 140
CHIEF BUTCHER: Yeah. So these will help improve our
response times.
And, Commissioner McDaniel, the 10th Avenue, that's a definite
benefit for fire, when there's wildfires out there, because we can
access out through 10th, and fire can speak on that, b ut it also will
allow us better access from the proposed station that we have at
DeSoto and Golden Gate Boulevard to those calls that are in that
south end of Everglades and DeSoto.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
A couple quick questions. When these bridge locations were
listed, was there any analysis done of how much traffic that would
generate in those affected streets?
MS. LANTZ: We did not do a traffic analysis. We did ask the
Sheriff's Office about 8th and the impacts that it had on traffic as well
as speeding, because that was a concern. They said that when the
bridge originally started, there was some -- some traffic concerns,
some speeding concerns, but once they started to monitor and
enforce, that the problems and the concerns that they had as well as
that residents were having dissipated, and they do not -- they still
routinely enforce in that area; however, it is no longer as high a
concern as it has been. And we have heard that the traffic ther e
is -- once it -- once people found their way, and just -- it was
distributed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But would you anticipate
that these bridges would generate a lot of traffic in those residential
streets?
MS. LANTZ: We're not anticipating it. And, obviously,
people who are at the dead-end, this would be more traffic for them,
so I understand that concern but, in general, once the entire
network -- once the five bridges are all operational and built, it will
February 9, 2021
Page 141
distribute and it will disperse, so we are not envisioning much traffic.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is there any way that you can
take a look at that and come up with some real just guesstimates on
the impacts? I understand what Commissioner McDaniel's saying in
terms of impacts on the neighborhoods. But I think it would be a
shame to spend a lot of money building bridges that will just sit there
unless there's a heart attack or some other emergency. And so if the
concern is traffic, it might be interesting to find out or just get some
sort of a guess as to what kind of traffic impacts that would be.
MS. SCOTT: If you don't mind, sir, I'd like to ask Jeff Perry,
our consultant, because we did do some traffic analysis on 8th Street
post -- we had traffic counts pre and post, so before and after. So if
Mr. Perry, who was available via Zoom, can unmute himself.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. Trinity, let me just make sure Lisa's out
there, our Zoom pilot. Lisa, if you'll unmute Jeff Perry. Mr. Perry,
you should be able to chat now. Go ahead.
MR. PERRY: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Perry.
MR. PERRY: Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
MR. PERRY: Okay, thank you.
To Commissioner Saunders' question, each of the bridge
locations will have a different amount of traffic going across it. The
one on 47th, for instance, will probably carry more traffic because of
the nature of the location, the amount of residential development on
the east side of the bridge compared to the west side of the bridge as
people choose to use that particular route instead of using what is
now the only route east and west, which would be Oil Well Road.
Some of the bridges it's very easy to quantify. On 10th
Southeast, we would expect very little traffic because, from the
standpoint of the motoring public, there's really not a whole lot of
February 9, 2021
Page 142
advantage to use that particular roadway as opposed to going all the
way north up to Golden Gate Boulevard and then traveling east and
west on Golden Gate.
Wilson Boulevard south, we could see a decrease on the roads
that currently serve the lands on Frangipani south of the canal. They
currently use I believe it's 10th Street as a way to get in and out, as
well as the EMS and fire. That traffic would -- some of that traffic
would likely move to Wilson, so there would be some pretty easy
way of quantifying the number of homesites down there that would
ultimately use.
So, yes, we could do some calculations. Each one will be
different. The one on 13th that will lead to the school and park,
that's probably going to be a challenge to try to figure out how many
people would be using that from the Estates compared to using VBR
extension. You know, all of these bridges will be -- will be useful in
one way or another by residents as well as by first responders
but -- and, clearly, we understand that those people who today live on
a dead-end road would no longer live on a dead-end street. They
will, in fact, see additional traffic moving along their roadway that
they don't see today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Well, then the
compensation for that additional traffic is widening, streetlights,
sidewalks, those sort of things. That's the theoretical compensation
for that, but that also comes with an additional expense. I'm going to
paraphrase a circumstance that went along the lines of the
construction of 8th Street. When we did the bridge on 8th -- the
bridges cost about two million dollars apiece plus/minus to build
them, and DOT gave us 10, and the majority of the 10 was spent
because we had to widen the road. We had to expand the road to
make it more traversable, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage, redo the
February 9, 2021
Page 143
driveways and so on so forth. So we spent -- the entire cost went to
the improvements for the two miles of impact that was done by the
construction of the bridge.
And so one of my thoughts as I was coming through here,
Wilson's the only one. I mean, you're shifting traffic off of 10th for
the folks that live and access down in the North Belle Meade off of
Frangipani and such over onto Wilson, but we all know that that's the
contemplated extension of Wilson Boulevard -- Wilson Boulevard's
been planned to be built south all the way down through there since I
can remember.
But the other bridges are predominantly being suggested, from
what I can understand, for first responder access. And so that's why
I'm thinking, if we build -- if we -- if that's the rationale, let's do them
and gate them, and then our first responders can come and go, and we
don't have to spend the extra money right now for the additional
improvements for the theoretical offset for the negative impacts of
the traffic increase, so...
MS. LANTZ: If I may, I just wanted to -- our primary concern,
and that was given the most weight, was for first responders, but the
secondary benefit that all of these bridges actually have is the
interconnection, and the accessibility of if the original -- if your
original route -- if you're at the end of a dead-end street and there's an
accident at the end, at the major intersection there, you have no way
out.
And so if it's an evacuation -- if you personally have an
emergency in which you need to get out or if you're late to work -- I
mean, it does run the gamut -- you have no way out. And so if there
is a bridge, if there is an additional interconnection, there's an option
for you to access it and to route a different way.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I -- may I address her?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
February 9, 2021
Page 144
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That argument's falling short
with me, because we're not bridging every street in Golden Gate City.
We're not impacting every single person that lives on a dead-end
street in Golden Gate City. We've went from 12 to five. And what
if you -- your proposition -- and I'm just going to use 13th as an
example and, Chief Butcher, there you are, I -- there's a little bit
of -- it depends on where the call comes from what your response
time is to have a bridge off of Vanderbilt Beach to-be-built extension
down onto 13th as it is to jump down and go over on the Boulevard,
which is the way they go right now to get to the north end of 13th.
There will be a minute amount of -- reduction of response time,
depending on where the person that's having an issue is on 13th
proper.
But we've got 11th, and 9th and 7th and all of the other streets
that are along there that are dead-end streets. They're -- if there is a
fire and they don't evacuate, they're going to have a bad day.
And so I'm thinking -- I'm just -- again, I'm -- and, again, if you
want me to make a motion, I'll make it a motion. But I can't support
these bridges with this expense that's being proposed to us right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would make a motion that
we -- we at least give consideration to or continue it if you want to. I
mean, that's another thing we can do, until further notice, but if we're
going -- if staff's recommending that we're going to build the bridges,
that we build them and gate them for the first responder, transponder
access. We take care of the health, safety, and welfare, and we don't
negatively impact for the traffic aspect.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second to that motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Hearing no second, the motion fails.
Do I have another motion?
February 9, 2021
Page 145
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we need to continue this,
get some more information from Mr. Perry and from staff on what
the traffic impacts are likely to be so that we at least have some idea
what we're talking about? Is that what you're talking about in terms
of a continuance?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I have to be -- in all
fairness, I haven't shared this idea with them. That's why they're all
looking at me with blinking eyes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, why don't we --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I haven't shared the thought,
and so if you -- if you -- if the continuance is a suggestion, I'll make a
motion that we continue the item and bring it back at a later date after
we've had a chance to discuss it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And maybe as a point of
discussion, when are the contemplated -- when are you planning on
building any of these bridges? What's the soonest you could build a
bridge?
MS. SCOTT: It would take 18 to 24 months if it were a
design-build project.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And forgetting No. 2.
MS. SCOTT: At 16th, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 16th coming at us. We all
know it's coming. But on these five proposed bridges, if you -- the
soonest you could get one built would be?
MS. SCOTT: Eighteen to 24 months.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So we've got a couple of
years.
MS. SCOTT: But we need to get started now.
MR. OCHS: That's if we need to got started now.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand.
February 9, 2021
Page 146
MR. OCHS: Well, we're going to bring it back with some
additional traffic impact analysis; is that the direction I'm getting?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. All right. There's a
motion on the floor and a second to continue this to such time that
staff will bring back additional traffic information on the affected
streets. 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, Ms. Lantz.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it's time for a court reporter
break; is that correct? Yes, she's smiling. 2:45; 10 minutes.
(A brief recess was had from 2:35 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #11C
UPDATE ON BOARD - DIRECTED COLLIER CARES
COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND APPROVE
ALLOCATION OF FUNDING AVAILABLE IN THE GENERAL
FUND THROUGH REIMBURSEMENTS OF PUBLIC SAFETY
EXPENSES FROM THE CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND –
February 9, 2021
Page 147
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: I understand just you'd like to take 11C. This is a
recommendation to accept the Collier CARES Program update.
Mr. Callahan will make the presentation.
MR. CALLAHAN: Can you bring me up, Troy.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Sean Callahan,
Executive Director of Corporate Business Operations.
Today we're going to give you a brief update on where we're at
with some of the different board-approved community assistance
programs that we've been at since last summer when some CARES
Act funding was allocated and make recommendations and accept
your guidance or direction on appropriation -- or allocation of
funding that we have available.
So, again, so just a little bit of brief history. If you remember
last summer, we received about $67 million in allocation from a
Coronavirus Relief Fund. Over on the right side are the different
expenditures/deadlines that were associated with that funding.
They've since changed, but that's not really applicable to us anymore,
and I'll explain why.
The Board actions that we've taken are listed out there. So we
received different allocations from the Board. We've since executed
those programs. I'll give you an update of where we're at.
This was the initial allocation. It changed a little bit
through -- there's five different times that we came to the Board.
There were a couple clarifying executive summaries that went on
your consent agendas to help speed that along.
And then around -- and you're -- at your November 10th BCC
meeting, we'd just gotten an administrative order of convenience.
The state had shifted around a lot of deadlines on us, but that
administrative order of convenience substantially dedicated all public
February 9, 2021
Page 148
safety salaries and benefits as substantially dedicated to COVID,
which allowed us to then submit those expenditures as the fulfillment
of our CARES Act grant. And the fulfilled obligations that were
used as public safety salaries were then available for reallocation to a
project fund within the General Fund.
So to give you an idea of where we're at on each of these
programs, we've tried to -- we're not going to call it the CARES Act
Program anymore. We'll call it the Community Assistance Program
that we've got that was approved by the Board, because those public
safety salaries, when we then backed out the General Fund, allowed
us to continue to pay those out.
So to date, we've got about $33 million that's made it out into
the community. You can see that there through the various
programs. We've got about another 13 or so that we've got in
progress right now for each of those programs. It varies through
each program of what we're being paid out. Some of it's we're still
working with applicants to get proper documentation to be able to
make payments. This has been done very colla boratively with the
Clerk of County Courts.
And I just want to recognize just the amount of money that's
now made it out into the community. Normally, for these types of
programs on an annual basis we see about $5 million be allocated to
individuals through sub-recipients and things of that nature through
our Community and Human Services Division, and in the multitude
of -- after being set up and actually starting to execute this, in about
five months Ms. Sonntag, who's back there, and the rest of her staff
has figured out how to get $33 million out into the community with
another 13 that's left to be distributed.
So what that leaves us with, again, we're still reconciling all of
our last expenditures with the Florida Division of Emergency
Management, but it will allow us to establish some further
February 9, 2021
Page 149
community assistance programs going forward, and you've seen those
outlined in your executive summary. I'll go through each one
briefly. If there's any questions or changes or suggestions, happy to
take those and try to implement them for the Board.
So just real quick, individual assistance. So in the -- in
December, Congress passed another COVID emergency package of
about $900 billion, and that included some emergency rental
assistance that's come down to the states. On your January 26th
meeting, we actually accepted about $11.6 million worth of
emergency rental assistance. That assistance is capped at 80 percent
area median income which, for a family of four in Collier County, is
about $65,000. It also excluded homeowners, so there's no
mortgage-assistance relief that was included in that.
So what we're proposing is that we take an allocation of the
funds that we have available today and actually use it to expand, one,
that rental assistance program to about 140 percent AMI or about
$115,000 for a family of four which, based on the individual
assistance that we've paid out thus far through the programs, that
seems to be about our sweet spot here in Collier County; make that
emergency rental assistance available to homeowners up to that
income level. And then, additionally, establish a program for
mortgage holders as well that mirrors those same guidelines.
Again, we'll be mirroring the requirements that are set forth in
the initial tranche of money that we got for emergency rental
assistance, but we'd also like to include a set-aside for quarantine
assistance so for folks that incur expenses or that need provisions
made for them for needing to quarantine without having a space and
also our Public Utility Department has about 1,400 accounts equating
to just under $400,000 that are eligible for lockout. We've since
foregone doing any of that and because of the pandemic, but we'd
like folks to be able to apply for those assistance so that we can
February 9, 2021
Page 150
alleviate those past-due water bills for them as well.
Small business non-profit loan repayment. So one of the
programs that we're advocating to do a set -aside for is to actually pay
off existing EIDL loans and water utility bills for businesses of a
one-time grant of up to $25,000, businesses that have received an
EIDL loan have already been -- and passed the test of having some
type of economic injury due to pandemic. So qualifying won't be
that hard. We can make those payments direct to the SBA.
And just to give you a brief slide. This was from a recent
presentation from the governor to the Senate Appropria tions
Committee on the budget where he outlined the economic relief. I
would just caveat that out of these five different lines where you've
seen this assistance flow into the state, those EIDL loans are the only
ones that aren't forgivable, which is why we're proposing that as a
program to help out some of the businesses and nonprofits.
Personal protective equipment. We've seen a big success with
that. We've distributed about $1.8 million worth of PPE to area
businesses, to nonprofits, to residents, to some folks that were having
larger events that maybe needed some of that to be able to provide.
So we'd like to have a set-aside to continue to procure that through a
county program so that we have that available in the future.
Senior and social service support, so we are asking for a small
set-aside to support a tele-work case management system. We have
three caseworkers that serve between 90 and 100 seniors in our
homebound program. Some of those don't have -- some of those
seniors don't have the means or devices to be able to connect with
physicians to be able to connect with their caseworkers. We would
like to provide some of that.
Also included in this pot are funding for vaccine roll-outs. So
there's -- the Winn-Dixie out in the Immokalee that the Health
Department's currently leasing, that will allow us to continue to do
February 9, 2021
Page 151
that. And if there's the need for additional capacity as the vaccine
becomes more widely available, we would have that as well.
Emergency food assistance, we've got a great partnership with
Eileen and the Community Foundation that they've
expended -- they're in the process of expending the first $5 million.
This has been a really great program for some of our area food banks
who've seen an increase in operating costs of up to 75 percent since
the pandemic began. She's a willing partner with us. We'd like to
continue to administer our food assistance program as well.
And then community outreach. So we'd like to replenish the
funds that the CVB has spent on the Paradise Pledge Campaign.
That's been a very widely successful campaign getting businesses and
such to sign up to abide by CDC guidelines and then using that in
some of our advertising efforts. We've expended our existing funds
to do that. We'd like to replenish the TD funds so that we don't have
to go to any emergency assistance this year, and then ongoing
marketing and campaigns just to let people know that this assistance
is available out here.
So with that, that would be your update. Happy to answer any
questions about the assistance that's been paid so far or what we're
proposing to provide in the future and, again, seek your
guidance/input on that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No discussion -- Commissioner
LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thanks, Sean. I appreciate
the update.
I really want to challenge the press who is either here or -- you
know, I just got a call from somebody from NBC about something
totally different, so they're obviously watching, you know, on
closed-circuit TV. We really need their help to get the word out
about this money that's available. I mean, you see we've paid out a
February 9, 2021
Page 152
lot, but there's still a lot of money on the table, and you can't tell me
there aren't small businesses out there. You know, Mr. Callahan
here is proposing that we add, you know, some flexibility into, you
know, expand certain programs. But a lot of it is just lack of
communication. I mean, I've run into several small businesses that,
you know, kind of barely heard about the CARES program.
So, you know, we've got cameras in the room, we've got
reporters here. You know, I'm sure they're going to cover bridges
and, you know, what we talked about earlier and all these other
things, but this is extremely important to our community. We've
done some great work, you know, like you've said, but there's an
awful lot of people that don't even know we've paid out this much or
that there's money on the table.
So anything you can do to link with the -- with the press or other
forms of communication. I know we do a really great job here in the
county sending out press releases and anything on social media so
that people know how they can apply, what's available, and those sort
of things. Obviously, some people have figured it out, but still, you
know, money to be had and, you know, we don't want to give it
away -- or we don't want to throw it away or waste it, but I think
there's still a lot of need out there, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just -- I'm curious; I know that
there's some provisions for nonprofits and charities and things, and
I'm just wondering how any of that would be available for, you know,
mental-health organizations in Collier County. You know, I keep
hearing that, you know, the mental-health issues in the community
are increasing exponentially because of the pandemic, because of
isolation. Frankly, the availability of the vaccine and the inability to
get it, I know, is creating a lot of anxiety amongst our seniors.
February 9, 2021
Page 153
So any specific provisions or programs you can think of that
are -- that's making funds available for that?
MR. CALLAHAN: Well, Commissioner, just to answer your
question more directly, some of that non-profit assistance that's
flowing out, I'm looking at a list, I mean, NAMI, David Lawrence
Center.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. CALLAHAN: They're on there. Youth Haven, Grace
Place, those types of assistance programs.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. CALLAHAN: I will note that in the recommended
program going forward as well, you know, helping alleviate some of
the other costs that are associated can free up operating expenses to
implement programs like and then, too, there's a specific program for
seniors that's going to be focused directly on those seniors we serve
that are bound to their homes and isolated to try to get them an
electronic device so they can have more access to those services.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Great. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, if you'd go back a
slide. And this kind of is going right along with regard to -- not
there.
MR. CALLAHAN: Keep going.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The advertising slide. That
one right there, I think, is the one, yes.
It's similar to what Commissioner LoCastro was saying. I
really -- I really want us -- I don't want -- I want us to focus on
getting the word out that we have the money available in any form
and fashion that we possibly can, adjusting our advertising for CDC
guidelines and that sort of thing. That's being -- in my personal
opinion, being worn out on the news networks and the like.
February 9, 2021
Page 154
We certainly can't continue or stop the promotion of
proper -- proper practices with regard to it, but I would like us to
focus our energy as much as we possibly can to our community. I
mean, that was our premise at the beginning when these monies
became available. The Board gave direction to move that money to
our community as expeditiously as possible and directly as possible.
And I applaud your efforts. I mean, our County Manager and I
had discussions last year to take proactive steps to be able to protect
that money, make sure that it stayed here but then, in turn, get it out
to the community. So if -- as a recommendation, focusing on
advertising in some form or fashion to our community directly is
important to me.
MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I mean, Sean, I just
wanted to add, to see that we've only given out 50 percent of the total
we have available to small business -- and, like I said, it's not that we
waste it. And like I think you said at a previous meeting, people
have to apply. We don't go knocking on doors and then giving them
bags of cash. But, you know, to see that we only have 50 percent, I
mean, it's great we spent, you know, big chunks on other things,
which were needed, but that's the one that really jumps out at me, you
know, that the small businesses were probably the hardest hit of
anybody, and to know that we have 50 percent of the funds -- unless
I'm looking at the math wrong, you know, and even childcare
facilities, we've spent a small portion, you know -- you know, for the
overall amount that we have.
So, you know, looking at those percentages, anything we can do
to really get that word out so we can make sure that, like,
Commissioner McDaniel said, the money stays here and it gets to the
right people, but if they don't know about it, you know, we have to
really be aggressive there, and I know we have been, so just --
February 9, 2021
Page 155
MR. CALLAHAN: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We have some public
comment.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have one registered speaker,
Joseph Cofield. You can come to this podium over here, sir.
MR. COFIELD: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Cofield, you have three minutes.
MR. COFIELD: Okay. Thank you.
Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, Commissioners, and general
public, I just want to come first to say thank you for listening to me
on January the 26th. I didn't have enough money to go and let
Dr. Field (phonetic) hear my story, but I walked away from here
thinking that the commissioners really did understand what I was
trying to say about the community and the certain sections of people
that was getting overlooked in this pandemic.
And I just had a great feeling as a citizen of Collier County that
the commissioners, whether they were going to do anything or not,
they listened and they cared, and that was the most important thing
for me. And when I walked away, I found out that I was not the
only person that was in this situation. And some people heard about
me coming up and speaking and how receptive you were, and they
began to tell me their stories. And I began to say, you know, it was
worth coming up here to speak.
And I want to give a shout out to Mr. French and Ms. Sonntag,
because they did a follow-up with me, and they listened to my story
as well.
And I also, when I heard the presentation today, I really get the
feeling that Collier County do realize that there are sections of people
in our county that get overlooked in the big scheme of things. So
I'm glad to see that we're trying to have everybody in the community
and not just the lower level or the people that we see on the street,
February 9, 2021
Page 156
because there's so many people that would not come to ask because
they've never been in this predicament before. And those mortgage
people, they want their money just like the Publix and everyone else,
but no one knows where to come and ask for help.
And so I just want to thank you, and I wanted to say, if you do
anything, vote positively for this help package because people don't
want a handout. They do want to feel like they're entitled to
anything. What they want to do is become whole so that they can
get back to where they were before this pandemic.
And I really think, in conclusion, I want to say thank you for
listening and thank you for caring enough to listen to a citizen that
comes up here, not just talking about myself and my situation, but for
others that's afraid to come and say I need some help, and is there
anything that you can do to make me whole so that I can get back to
where I was, because what's going to happen, those people are going
to get back on their feet and they're going to continue to help the
society just like they were before they got into this predicament with
the pandemic.
So I want to thank you overall and for the county for listeni ng.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you for coming
here.
MR. COFIELD: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Taking your time.
All right. Do we need a motion, sir, to approve the allocation of the
CARES money, which we're not calling CARES money, the
assistance money for Collier County going forward as presented by
staff?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make that motion. And,
I -- I'll make the motion.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
February 9, 2021
Page 157
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.
Hats off to staff. What you were faced with last year and how you
had to move things and react in a very efficient and responsive way
was remarkable. Congratulations. Well done.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2021-33: APPOINTING KELLY HYLAND TO
THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us back to Item 10,
Board of County Commissioners. Item 10A is a recommendation to
appoint a member to the Animal Services Advisory Board. You had
two applicants for one vacancy, and your advisory board was split
evenly on their recommendation, so it trickled up to the Board for
their selection.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to bring everyone's attention
to Ms. Norris. I was impressed by her scientific background; I really
was. I mean, she's -- she's actually published two peer-reviewed
articles in eschatology. She's very involved and has been involved
with DAS, but she also understands the science behind animals, and I
find that refreshing.
February 9, 2021
Page 158
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would -- if you can, Madam
Chair, I was just going to say that both of these volunteers are -- you
know, it's wonderful to have two people that are this passionate about
animals, volunteer to spend this much time helping our community.
The thing I looked at was the ordinance creating the advisory
board talks about kind of a spread of different qualifications, you
know, people representing different parts of the community. And
this is an at-large one, and one of the existing positions is for
somebody that's from -- an animal activist or, what do you call it, an
animal activist kind of group.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Welfare.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I -- you know, while I think
they're both really wonderful, I'm with the chair that I think
Ms. Norris brings a different perspective with the science
background. And, you know, again, this is not a negative on either
one of them. It's just that it's a different perspective, and it's an
at-large seat. And, yeah, I think I would support Ms. Norris.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis -- Commissioner
LoCastro, pardon me. I took you out of order. Pardon me.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I actually was at this DAS
meeting, and I've attended quite a few of them, and Mr. French and I
were at the one that they had the vote on, so I thought I would just
maybe shed a little light on what happened that night to just give a
little, you know, transparency.
There's, obviously, six members. You read they voted three
times. The vote was -- they all voted the same, you know. The
chair, Jim Rich, asked everybody -- you know, to hear from both
applicants, and one of the applicants is here. Maybe they're both
here. I just recognize Ms. Hyland in the back, so I don't know if we
want to hear from her. I know that we already have in several
capacities.
February 9, 2021
Page 159
But, you know, that night they couldn't come to a consensus.
But the one thing that did jump out at me is there's three elected
members. There's Jim Rich, who's the chair, then there's the vice
chair, and there's a secretary. The three elected officials -- and not
that they have more power or anything like that, but they did -- they
did vote every single time for Ms. Hyland, and the reason that they
gave was, if you look at the mission or the focus of the advisory
board, it's to basically be a check and a balance on DAS. And, you
know, the thing that Jim Rich said that really stuck out -- struck
me -- you know, stuck out to me was Ms. Norris has an incredible
scientific background, but also she's very well connected to DAS. I
mean, the people that voted for her were all current volunteers.
She's been a volunteer. And I'm not implying anything, but I'm
saying that there's strong DAS representation already on the board.
The thing that Jim, the vice chair, and the secretary all said who
voted for Ms. Hyland was, she brought that animal -- I'll say not
activist but animal-welfare perspective as an outsider who isn't, you
know, a former volunteer or, you know, doesn't necessarily have as
close of a connection to DAS personally, although I'll tell you she
goes to all the meetings. I've seen her there and have talked to her
and her group before.
So I just thought I would add that, that, you know, that the
chairman and his other elected members made a clear point that
they're trying to diversify the board, and although they definitely
respected Ms. Norris' academic background -- I don't want to say
they didn't need it as much, but besides that, her second qualification
was that she sort of knew everybody in DAS and, you know, sitting
there, I felt like, you know, having an outsider that can ask tough
questions and be checks and, you know, give recommendations to
DAS in how they can get better, somebody on the outside that maybe
is doing that already. And, like I said, the three elected officials
February 9, 2021
Page 160
thought that.
I was disappointed they couldn't come to a consensus. I mean,
they're basically, you know, pushing it up to us and, you know, the
five of us know these candidates the least. And so I think it says a
lot when these other advisory boards do -- you know, do their
homework and pick a person.
But I was very impressed with Ms. Hyland, so to just take sort
of another perspective, I think, you know, she would give a strong
voice to that group from a totally different, you know, perspective,
and the whole mission of the advisory board is to make DAS better,
to hold them accountable, to speak at a high level and maybe, you
know, highlight some things that maybe aren't great.
And, you know, the part that the chairman made was not that
Sarah Norris wasn't qualified by any stretch of the imagination, but
she might not be as aggressive to do that since she's pretty close to
DAS. And those are his words, you know, not mine. But I just
wanted you to know that I was there and Jamie French was there as
well.
And I know that Jamie then talked with Jim afterwards to try to
figure out -- you know, we want the best people on the board.
But I'll end it by saying they're two very qualified people. They
both spoke extremely eloquently, you know, that night. It was -- but
it was obvious that you had three people that knew Sarah, three
people that sort of knew Kelly's work, and they weren't going to
budge.
But I don't know if they're both here, if they have a chance to
speak or if we even allow that. But I know Ms. Hyland's been here
all day because she wanted the opportunity to speak, I'm sure, or just
wanted to see the outcome.
But that's what happened, anyway, that night. And I put a lot of
stock into the three elected members who both -- who all three spoke
February 9, 2021
Page 161
very strongly about Ms. Hyland.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, it's with a
great deal of trepidation that I agree with Commissioner LoCastro.
I had a lengthy conversation with Ms. Hyland the other day. She's
here. And maybe -- it may be worthwhile -- I don't know, is
Ms. Norris here?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She's working.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It may be worthwhile -- I
mean, she's sat here all day -- to let her come and just spend a couple
minutes to introduce herself. I think that would be appropriate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm fine with that. We're fine with
that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Ms. Hyland.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have -- you can go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Terri, can we have the
commissioner's words of "trepidation" struck from the record, please.
I believe you misspoke.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Words matter.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I believe you misspoke.
Words matter.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't even know what it
means.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, I just looked it up to
make sure. It wasn't good.
MS. HYLAND: Thank you, Commissioners. I appreciate this
opportunity.
I am Kelly Hyland, and I would just like to say a few things.
Just for the record, I have been a full-time resident of Collier County
since 2004, and I have been actively volunteering in our community
February 9, 2021
Page 162
since 2005. I have experience in many aspects of animal welfare. I
have a non-profit organization called Animal Task Force of
Southwest Florida. The main goal is focusing on spay/neuter and
educating the community of all ages on basic animal care.
I partner with Harborside Animal Clinic and, through donations,
they take care of the needed surgeries. These efforts help to reduce
pet overpopulation problem. Also through donations, from
EarthWise Pet Supply store, they provide dog and cat food to families
in need. These efforts help families so they can continue to keep
their pets.
I volunteered for Dogs Deserve Better, which is an active -- and
I was active in the field to help pet owners and make life better for
chained dogs. Dog Deserve Better is a nonprofit organization.
They are a voice for chained and penned and abused and neglected
dogs.
I was able to get our current anti-tethering ordinance passed
through the county in 2010. I also worked in the field to help pet
owners come into compliance through education.
I volunteered with Grey2K USA worldwide. They work in the
political process to pass laws to protect greyhounds, prohibit racing,
and promote the adoption of ex-racers. I was thrilled to be a part of
the victory when Amendment 13 passed in Florida.
I have experience working in the field in all areas of Collier
County, including the Immokalee area. I am well aware of the areas
in our community that need extra attention and help. Many years
ago I completed the DAS volunteer orientation class, and I appreciate
the efforts of the DAS volunteers. They do an amazing job, and they
do their best to promote adoptions.
I never started volunteering my time in the shelter because I
knew my time was still needed in places where the issues exist, and
that is out in the community, out of the shelter, hands on, boots on the
February 9, 2021
Page 163
ground.
The idea is to work on issues at the source. So for me, it isn't
simply to be associated with the cause. It's about having the will, the
drive, and determination that is needed and being dedicated to
accomplishing goals and issues at hand. I would like to
acknowledge that the votes I did receive were from the DAS
Advisory Board, which were the chairman, co-chair, and the
secretary.
I also have an email here from the director of Humane Society,
from Sarah. I'd just like to read one sentence. She said, Ms. Hyland
has the background and experience that is varied from any of us
already on the board, which is why I support her candidacy. I think
her presence on the board will result in more diversity of perspectives
and better solutions overall for our community and our animals.
DAS is already being represented on the board, and the mission
of the board is to guide DAS, offer recommendations, and to keep
them focused. My experience, background, and knowledge varies
and is more extensive than any of the current DAS Advisory Board
members.
As I previously mentioned, many years of experience from
working out in our community, I have that experience, and that's
exactly where the issues are is out in the community. I know what
they are and where they are.
I will bring leadership, confidence, guidance, accountability,
vision, positivity, and direction to the board, and I would also like to
promote better communication skills and problem-solving skills to
the board. I feel that is lacking and one of the reasons we are here
right now. The board needs to be able to function within itself.
I feel my experience speaks for itself, so I made the decision to
save hours of our time today by not asking our supporters to fill this
room to speak to show their support for me. I am aware that some
February 9, 2021
Page 164
chose to send emails to show their support in my favor.
The open position is important to me, and my dedication should
speak for itself with my attendance here all day today. I would like
to be a part of the DAS Advisory Board so I can continue
volunteering as a public servant and work as a team with the advisory
board, support DAS, and work better in our community in every
aspect of animal welfare.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Thank you. Thank
you, Kelly.
I agree that we have -- that we're blessed to have multiple
people -- qualified people to choose from. But I'm going to make a
motion that we appoint Ms. Kelly Hyland as the new DAS member.
No -- again, it's so hard -- we're going to get to have this conversation
in a little bit on parks and rec and on the CCLAC as well. It has
nothing to do with lack of abilities or qualifications of the other -- of
the other folks.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Congratulations.
MS. HYLAND: Thank you.
February 9, 2021
Page 165
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2021-34: APPOINTING DAVID CORBAN, CARL
KUEHNER AND RE-APPOINTING GARY BROMLEY AND
BRITTANY PATTERSON-WEBER TO CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE –
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 10B was continued from your January 6th
meeting. It's a recommendation to appoint four members to the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want me to go first?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I think -- you asked it to be
continued, didn't you?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm the one that asked it to be
continued, yes.
So I've subsequently received an email from Ms. Sally. She
doesn't want to stir the pot. She's well aware that she was late to the
party. She didn't -- and same with Mr. Pervis (phonetic) as well.
They were both delinquent in timing that was set up for the
establishment of these committees.
So I'm going to suggest that we accept -- for now we accept the
committee appointments/recommendations for the membership for
the new memberships and that we -- and I'm going to -- I had a long
conversation with our County Attorney yesterday, and I'm going to
bring forward a resolution to maybe, on some of the advisory boards,
make sure that we have individual commissioner district
representation on each one as the primary effort for the -- for the
community and direction to the -- to the committees themselves that
that's the path that we want to travel, so...
February 9, 2021
Page 166
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion on the
floor to accept the staff's -- the recommendations as outlined in the
staff report. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
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. Before we
leave this issue, County Manager, I -- and also I guess in follow up to
your comments, Commissioner McDaniel, at least in my experience,
advisory boards are advisory boards, and they're different -- they're
not all equal, which is pretty much what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And they've been created -- some of
them have representation by district. Some of them don't for a good
reason. And so there's probably something that we probably need to
discuss when you bring this back about exactly -- like, I would like to
see the mission -- we heard about the mission with the animal -- the
DAS board. I want to see their mission. When these come before
us, let's get the mission of the advisory board, because I certainly
don't know them all, and see if what we're doing works with the
mission of the board as written in the resolution that established it,
which is, pretty much, we're going to get a refresher on all of this, I
think, by your idea. But I think it's important, because to me
February 9, 2021
Page 167
sometimes advisory boards should not be political, and when we start
staying, I want somebody from my district or I want
somebody -- you've got more than I do, then it really becomes a
political issue that in some cases I don't think should be there. So
that's just my thoughts on it. So it will be --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll certainly have
opportunity to discuss it further. And, obviously, I'm not suggesting
that we promote people from other districts for the Bayshore CRA or
the MSTU in Immokalee. I mean, those are -- that's absolutely --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, that's a done deal.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- counterintuitive. But
certain -- this particular board, the CCLAC, a lot of the properties
that are going to come before us are from Eastern Collier County for
acquisition, and I think that some diversity of political bounds would
be a benefit to the community overall long term, and we'll
debate -- we'll talk about that. It's not critical.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Thank you.
Okay. County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, you have one other advisory
board appointment listed under the County Attorney's report that was
moved from the consent agenda. Do you want to take that now, or
do you want to wait to finish the rest of the agenda?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we could take it now, sir.
Item #12B
APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE PARKS AND
RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - MOTION TO BRING
BACK TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING AFTER FURTHER
CONSIDERATION – APPROVED
February 9, 2021
Page 168
MR. OCHS: Okay. And that is Item 12A. It was -- excuse
me, 12B. It was previously Item 16K1. This is a recommendation
to appoint two members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,
and it was moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner Solis'
request.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. This is -- I spoke with Ms.
Curatolo, and she was here earlier today. And one of the things I
understood what happened was during the -- I guess the interviewing
process at the committee level, there was some misunderstanding on
her part as to when that meeting was going to be, and she missed the
meeting.
And, you know, I'd like to suggest that we open that up and
invite Ms. Curatolo and the committee to hear her application as well,
because we all know her. I mean, she's been active in the
community in a lot of different ways for decades, has done a lot for
Collier County. And I -- and I don't feel it was -- you know, not
having her application considered because of that, I just think, would
be a disservice. So what I'd like to do is ask that we reopen -- send it
back to the committee and ask the committee to restart that process,
do the interviews, and then, you know, send us back some
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If Ms. Curatolo said that she was
confused about the meeting and she didn't make it, I will take that as
accurate.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I talked to her and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: She shows up.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: She shows up, and she said --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Always.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- somehow it was on the wrong
date, and so she showed up on a date and nobody was there, so I
think -- I'd like to do that.
February 9, 2021
Page 169
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, the question
is -- and this is just us talking. There were six applicants for two
positions. Only two people showed up, or only two people made
that interview process.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I guess my -- and those
were necessarily, I think, the two that the committee -- that the
committee recommended. I'm looking -- yeah, Barry's here,
so -- and I certainly, I think -- if we're going to do this, I hope that
your intent with this continuance is to invite all six of them back and
go back through the interview process.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And not just -- not just
Ms. Kathy.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's the suggestion?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So there's a motion on the floor. Is
there a second? Did I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. There's a motion and a
second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
February 9, 2021
Page 170
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you.
Item #11E
ADDITIONAL STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE COUNTY
MANAGER RECRUITMENT PROCESS - MOTION FOR EACH
CANDIDATE TO MEET WITH ALL COMMISSIONERS
INDIVIDUALLY AND BRING THE CANDIDATES BACK FOR
A PRESENTATION AT THE MARCH 9TH BCC MEETING AND
THE DECISION MADE AT THE MARCH 23RD BCC MEETING –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11E is a recommendation to provide
additional staff direction regarding the County Manager recruitment
process.
Ms. Lyberg will address the Board.
MS. LYBERG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Amy Lyberg, Human Resources Director.
At your January 26th meeting, you decided that you would be
handling the recruitment process for the County Manager internally
and determine that each commissioner would go back and provide a
list of candidate finalists. We gathered that information from each
of you as it was submitted, and what's before you today on the
agenda is the names of the nine individuals who were selected. Each
commissioner's selections are in order by district in your executive
summary, then alphabetically by candidate name. What we're
looking for today is any direction that you can give us on the next
steps in the process, and how would you like to proceed from here?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just real quickly. I handed
out a little sheet that has the names of the seven or eight that were
February 9, 2021
Page 171
listed in our voting with the number of votes that they got. And
so -- and they're just in order of the number of votes. So, like, Mark
Isaacson has five; Paul Carlisle, four, on down the list.
There are four on this list that only got either one or two votes.
It seems to me it would be rather difficult for those individuals to rise
to the level of getting three votes on the Commission. So you might
want to consider dropping those names off and just dealing with the
five names of folks that have either five, four, or three votes. Just a
thought to narrow the list a little bit.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If we could, I also did a little bit of
analysis here -- this is an interesting -- it's several pages -- just to kind
of summarize where we were, which is what everybody was
concerned that they didn't want staff to do it. So I did it by
their -- the skills that we outlined.
And this is -- yes?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair, Troy was over here
making faces because, as you were walking away, I don't know that
anybody --
MR. MILLER: Would you repeat what you said.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, oh, sorry. What I did was I also
did a summary of where we are by the -- what the answers that we
filled out regarding their skill profile, and these are the skills that
were outlined and the ratings that we gave them. And if you just go
one page after another -- we don't have to dwell on this, but I just
wanted to bring this forward. And if we go to the summary page; if
we could do that, please.
MR. OCHS: This one? Is this the page, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is it. Out of the 17 skill traits
rated by the Commissioners, the Commissioners unanimously agreed
that the next County Manager must have a high or high-plus skill
level in the following areas: Administrative ability, verbal
February 9, 2021
Page 172
communication skill, organizational structure/strategic planning,
operational efficiency, budget and finance, public trust and
confidence, economic development and innovation, and then also one
candidate, which my colleague -- Commissioner Saunders brought
forward, one candidate's name appears on each Commissioner's list
for the county manager's position.
So the question is -- and then I'm going to pose it to all of
us -- do we have enough information to proceed with a nomination
for County Manager? Where are we with all of this? So, again, this
is what I asked staff to do, and there was a reasonable concern that
they didn't want staff to do it, so I did it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Madam Chair, if I may.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: First, I just want to say that,
you know, you have five commissioners up here that have ve ry
diverse backgrounds, you know, all highly educated but in totally
different areas or whatnot. But it's -- I think it's -- I don't know want
to say impressive. I say this with great trepidation. But the synergy
and the cohesion between five people that did this all in private is
evident. I mean, you know, we had, what, 40 applications, and we
all -- you know, our top five, to Commissioner Saunders' point, pretty
close. Almost identical. And then, you know, to see what
Commissioner Taylor has brought forward here, you know, we're all
paddling in a very similar direction. So I don't -- I think, you know,
our point of, we can do this, we're smart people, we've hired people
before, this only confirms it.
I know what Commissioner Taylor is -- I'm at least suggesting
possibly or just to get the conversation started that, you know, there
was one candidate that all five of us picked. I'm more of the
line -- and this is just open, transparent conversation of, wow, you
know, you can really draw a line that there was five people that either
February 9, 2021
Page 173
got three votes or more and, you know, the names were very similar.
My initial thought coming in here was, we continue on a path of
having those five either speak before us, interview, you know, we'd
do something like that. Because I'm of the saying that the resumé
gets you the interview, the interview gets you the job. And I think
just because, you know, one person was on all five lists, I mean, that's
great for that one person, but there was also some other similarities,
you know. So there was two people that got four votes. So I -- you
know, I don't want to -- I'm not making a motion or anything, but I
just think that, you know, the top five people were obvious.
They're not all in-house people so, you know, people that had
concerns that we were all going to, you know, pick folks that were on
the county staff isn't true. But I think to hear from those five so we
can see if their, you know, in person matches their resume. I mean,
that's how we do it in business, you know. You don't just sort of just
hire somebody based off a resumé and say, congratulations, you have
the job.
And I think it helps the person that we do hire to have that
person compete against some others in person and then, you know,
we feel better about our pick.
So, you know, my leaning is towards, you know, agreeing with
Commissioner Saunders and saying, you know, you draw the line at
the five here, and then we figure out the next step to either bring them
in front of us in some way, shape, or form to make -- kind of like
what Ms. Hyland did. You know, they've got the podium. We've
seen your resumé; let's hear from you or something like that, but...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Well, you know
that -- and I'm okay with that. I was going to make -- or have the
discussion, how do we want to go from here. I appreciat e your
efforts with regard to assimilating the qualifications and lining us up
February 9, 2021
Page 174
with regard to it.
And, Commissioner LoCastro, you brought forth a valid point
with how do we go -- how do we actually maybe entertain who to
hire. I mean, of the -- of those five -- and I don't know, probably
from a procedural standpoint, we could go ahead and just make a
motion to only give consideration for now to the top five there that
received three votes or more and start that process, as Commissioner
Saunders -- Commissioner Saunders, you were the one that brought
up. And I would be in support of that just to move this process
along.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: To get to that level, then, I'll
make that motion that we're only going to deal with the top five at
this point.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I second it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Third.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. 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.
So now we are now looking at the top five. And the question
is -- for you, Commissioner LoCastro, because you -- you're newly
elected, I can understand that you don't know the internal candidates.
But for those of us who have been here for as long as we have, we do.
There is one external -- two external candidates that we don't
February 9, 2021
Page 175
know that we certainly could bring before us. But my thought was
because these are our staff and people working with people, I'm not
sure I feel very comfortable interviewing an internal candidate in a
public forum. I do feel very comfortable interviewing that candidate
privately on a one-on-one and rating it accordingly and then perhaps
bringing in the two external candidates in a public forum or them all
on a private basis. But I will bow to everyone on this one and,
Commissioner Solis, it's your turn.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I'm going to express great
extreme trepidation because I think this will be the third time I've
agreed with Commissioner LoCastro today.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I make a motion we adjourn.
This is getting way out of hand.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. No, I think -- I think we
have to treat them all the same, honestly, and I think my preference
would be to, at least for myself, have some one-on-one interviews
with each candidate and then invite them to come, you know, tells us
in a public forum why they want the job, and I think -- to interact
with them both ways, I think, for me would be helpful, and I would
feel like I had done everything I could do to make the right decision.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I agree.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to pass for just a
minute; I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like to move right
along that line with Commissioner Solis and you, Commissioner
Taylor, Madam Chair. I think -- I would rather have a personal
interview with all of the candidates. I'm familiar with three -- four
of them. I know Charles. He prefers Charles now. He was Charlie
when I met him back in the day, so I have a personal -- you know, I
February 9, 2021
Page 176
know him as well, but -- and I have a relationship with Paul Carlisle
but not professionally other than serving on the RPC way back in the
day.
So I would prefer a personal interview with each one of them.
And I think we probably should establish some guidelines for timing
for us to get that done, I mean, because we all have busy schedules
and calendars, and should we try to get that done by our second
meeting in February? I mean, you know, an hour apiece is five
hours per candidate up and down the line. That's an aggressive
schedule. So that's what I'm talking about or -- I just want to have
the discussion.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can we do it over the next
two weeks, and then we bring -- at our next meeting, we would
have -- you know, we would have something to say. I mean, it's an
important job. So, I mean, like you say, we all have busy calendars;
this has got to be in our top three list of --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I wasn't really thinking so
much about us, but each one of them is staring at five hours apiece.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, if they want the job,
you know. Ms. Hyland sat here all day long to get a job that she's
not getting any money for. So, you know, if they want the -- and,
you know, one thing I do want to say is, you know, I might be new,
but I've spent quite a bit of time with four of these five candidates.
So I've seen Dr. George more than my own children. I've seen Dan
more than I've seen Dr. George and my own children combined, and
it's with great trepidation I say that that wasn't a positive experience.
No, I'm just kidding.
But the staff's done a really great job, you know, getting me up
to speed quickly, and I feel like I've -- and even Mr. Chapman. I've
spent time with him before. Obviously, he's got a position with the
city, and I've done a few things with the City of Naples. But I think
February 9, 2021
Page 177
it behooves us to try to meet with each of these people and -- you
know, over the next two weeks, if it's possible, you know, with their
schedules. I expect if they want the job, you know, this is on the top
of their list.
And then I agree with Commissioner Solis. I think after that
happens, maybe that next meeting they're also here, or it's their
choice to maybe give some final thoughts at the podium so that also
the general public could see them in action and hear from them, and
they also would have already interviewed with all of us. They might
have sort of some final words from those interviews that they want to
piece together to make a final, you know, presentation, so that would
be my suggestion; something close to that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let's do it. I'm down; make
a motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, let me just -- I agree
that this needs to be done fairly quickly, and, what you're suggesting
is that the five that we've named here, the five of them will contact us
individually for our own 30-minute interview with them or over the
phone, or are you talking about bringing them in? Either way works
for me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, either HR could
reach out to them and work with our executive assistants to find a
hole in our calendar, but if that's too complicated, they could work
directly with our assistants, you know. And HR's done an awful lot
of work already, so maybe we don't need to have too many layers.
But I think, you know, we just tell them you have to meet with each
of the commissioners; you have two weeks to do it. Here's the
phone numbers, you know --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then --
February 9, 2021
Page 178
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- give them a call.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- would we -- just to follow
up, because I think we need to do this fairly quickly.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We could have those call-ins
to us over the next two weeks, and at our next meeting we can make a
decision.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's what I think --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I believe we'd be a lot closer,
that's for sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, you have some
concerns; I see it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I have some concerns in the
timing just for my own schedule and whether or not, you know, I
could get all this done in the next two weeks. I don't want to commit
to that, because I don't know that I can. But I think if we start
with -- if we had a decision -- if the first meeting in March was the
decision point, then we would have from today. The next meeting
maybe they could come and make their statements, then we can
deliberate till the first meeting in March, and the first meeting in
March we make a decision. That gives us March and April and May
before our current County Manager departs. That gives us three
months. That, I think, would give us a good timeline. I'm
just -- I'm just -- my next two weeks are pretty jam packed, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would have no problem
just moving it another two weeks, then, so we bring -- we have the
second meeting in March as our decision-making time, and they have
the next two or three or four weeks to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's a month and a half from now,
February 9, 2021
Page 179
right?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: First meeting in March
would be about a month from now, so they'd have about three weeks
to call us and have whatever interview we wanted to have, it would
be 30 minutes, whatever, and that would give Commissioner Solis a
little bit more time to --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's my only concern is my next
two weeks are really jammed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So now I'm a little confused. When
do we select?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The second meeting in
March.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, the second meeting in March.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Why do we not have a special
meeting to select?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I mean, that's --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We already have two
meetings in March. You know, the 1st and 2nd we're doing One
Naples.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One Naples as well.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's -- you know, we've --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Are we all in agreement that
we'd want to have one-on-one interviews, which we are, we've
already said that, but then are we in agreement that we'd like them
also to come to one of those meetings and make some sort of
presentation, you know, some summations, or that's not required? I
mean, I think it should be the same for all.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I don't like the idea of saying,
if you'd like to come, you know, that sort of thing. It's either come
February 9, 2021
Page 180
or not. But I think, you know, that would be on the -- you know,
citizens would be able to see that and at least, you know, put eyes on
the five candidates. I'm not saying that that's some sort of
mandatory requirement, but I think it's a -- you know, there's a person
that's going to be a public servant, serve the citizens, so -- the other
thing I would say is I feel like we're on or ahead of schedule.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, you know, we're
moving along pretty quick. You know, you could have come here
and had a list of 26 different names that all got one vote. So I think
we're right on or ahead of schedule. So that's -- I think to give a
little extra time so we all, you know, get the time with the person -- I
mean, four of the five -- I mean, Mr. Carlisle, he's from where again?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Glades.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. You know, to me
with all the -- I mean, I'm going to ask that I meet with all these
people in person if they can. I'm sure the four of the five can, you
know, so I think that extra week or two so that we all have the
flexibility -- and also their flexibility. They all have jobs, too.
So I just think we're way ahead of -- or we're right on schedule,
and then I think after the interviews, they should all be invited, you
know, to come here. If one of them decides not to, well, that's on
them, but I think we should say that that's part of the process, that
they come here and make a, you know, maybe a five -minute
summation after the interviews. And I think, like you said, by the
first week of March, I don't know why we wouldn't be -- I'd be
flabbergasted if there wasn't a standout. We're already in very
similar -- you know, you can tell that we've got a very similar, you
know, magnifying glass.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that's one of the reasons I did the
summary, so that you could see the -- you know, you could remember
February 9, 2021
Page 181
what we value in the leadership of this county and in how much
agreement we are, so that's one of the reasons I did that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So the -- over the
next three weeks or so, these candidates would be in touch with us, or
we'd be in touch with them for whatever interviews we wanted to do
with them, and then in the second meeting -- would it be the second
meeting in March where we would bring them in for the interviews --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and then we'd make a
decision that day?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I thought -- no. I thought it was
the next three weeks would be just us doing our interviews, however
we want to do those, then the first meeting in March they would
come and tell us why they want the job, and then the second meeting
in March we make a decision. But, I mean, I'm open to it. That was
what I was thinking.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If that works for you, I'll
make that motion that we do what you just said.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'd second that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you.
MS. LYBERG: Commissioners, I'd like to make a
recommendation. Because we have two candidates who are outside
of the county, currently working for the county [sic], perhaps Human
Resources could do the initial outreach to all and provide them with
communication -- or the information on how to communicate with
each of your executive coordinators.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Perfect.
MS. LYBERG: And then let them go ahead and work
individually to set those up so that they know -- you know, if they're
not -- I'm not going to presume that they're following all of these
processes -- I would hope that they would -- but in case they're not,
February 9, 2021
Page 182
we'd like to at least announce that this is -- this is coming.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. They all have another job.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: To all of them, right; to all of them.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I don't want to speed here,
but one of the notes that I had sent Amy is -- and, you know, we
obviously -- I mean, we're being transparent here. A lot of the
candidates are in the room. But in the case of, you know,
Mr. Rodriguez, if he were to be the person that we selected and he
slid over into the County Manager job, now all of a sudden we have,
you know, a position to fill.
I just wrote her a little note and I said, wow, there's some
applicants on here that I don't think could be the County Manager
but, boy, if Mr. Rodriguez happened to be the person that was picked,
or even maybe some of the others, there's candidates here that I think
would be worthy of consideration.
So, you know, I mean, that has nothing to do with anything
we're saying now, but I think the overall thing is we have an
inventory of some people that want to work for the county at a high
level. And, you know, if this isn't the position, I bet you there's more
than a few on there that would be interested in some other, you know,
position possibly. I mean, we might still start from scratch, but I
think that's a good thing. I mean, we got some candidates that were
very strong.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But you know that that's not our
business.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, I know. Yeah, I'm just
saying that, you know --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's the new County Manager's
business.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Correct. That person will
have a lot of -- yes, but that person will definitely have some people
February 9, 2021
Page 183
to consider or decide to go a different direction, and they could -- it's
a positive on the strength of the applicants.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So are we clear about the
timeline, Ms. Lyberg?
MS. LYBERG: I'll recap to make sure that I understand. So
we're going to reach out from Human Resources to all the five
candidates to provide them the information to contact your executive
coordinators. You will have interviews between now and the
beginning of March, and then at the first March meet ing all five will
come back to provide a up-to-five-minute presentation to you before
you make your selection at the second meeting in March.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think five minutes is
really enough. Let's give them 10 minutes or --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then we can do some
questions. Five minutes is rushing.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I agree.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, County Manager, with
consensus on the Board, that has to be a time certain, not before.
This is like X amount of time you're here, you know, and that we can
get this done, and perhaps if -- I don't know what land-use issues we
have, but it probably should come before any land-use issues on that
day.
MR. OCHS: Sure. I'll work with you to set that time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Okay. So we have a
motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
February 9, 2021
Page 184
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. We're in
agreement today as a board. Thank you. Thank you.
Item #12A
STATUS OF THE SEED TO TABLE MASK DISPUTE - REPORT
GIVEN
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us on to Item 12A.
Thank you, Amy. This is a report from the County Attorney on the
status of the Seed to Table mask trial.
MR. KLATZKOW: And with much trepidation. The word of
the day.
I have been asked to give this slight presentation to inform
mostly the public as to what's going on as to -- as well as solicit some
questions from the Board.
As you remember, back in July the Board enacted a mask order.
The order basically required that an owner, manager, employee,
customer, or patron of a business establishment must wear a face
covering while in that business establishment or it was punishable by
a fine not to exceed $500.
Shortly thereafter, Code Enforcement citations were issued to
Seed to Table for violations of the order. The code enforcement was
done based on complaints that we received from the public.
There were two citations. Basically, it boiled down to findi ng out
there were numerous customers and employees without the required
face mask.
The way we do a citation is we give you the ability simply to
pay the penalty. In this case, it was $105 for one and $255 for the
February 9, 2021
Page 185
other citation or, if you wanted to contest it, you would file a written
request for a hearing before a special magistrate, which is what
happened.
The Seed to Table and Mr. Oakes then filed a civil complaint
against the county in Federal District Court, Middle District of
Florida. In addition to the county, the complaint named three of the
commissioners: Commissioner Solis, Saunders, and Taylor.
There was a 45-page complaint, 13 causes of action, both federal
and state issues. There was also a request for temporary restraining
order, which was denied by the Court. The Court then gave the
county time to file an answer to allow the commissioners to get their
individual attorneys, which happened. The individual attorneys sent
notices to the plaintiffs demanding that the commissioners be
withdrawn from the suit pending sanctions, and that is exactly what
happened. There was an amended complaint that dismissed the three
commissioners. So the lawsuit continued solely against the county.
Back in September, Governor DeSantis issued an executive
order known as the right to work and suspension of fines order which
basically eliminated the ability to collect fines based on COVID
violations on individuals. The Court asked the parties whether or
not this mooted the complaint and, thereafter, dismisse d eight of the
causes of action based on the executive order.
Shortly thereafter, the Board issued a new mask order. The
new mask order basically took the original order but allowed for
social distancing.
The order basically said that an owner, manager, employee,
customer, or patron of a business establishment must wear a
facemask while in the business establishment where social distancing
is not possible. And the reason for that was, in large part, Governor
DeSantis' order. The new mask ordinance specifically provided that
it did not institute a criminal penalty.
February 9, 2021
Page 186
The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. The county
moved to dismiss. Ultimately, the county's motion was granted, and
the U.S. District Court case was dismissed by a judge; she basically
said with respect to the state claims, which basically were that Code
Enforcement should have gotten an administrative order before they
went on the premises and that the mask order was improperly
enacted, she said that the plaintiffs could re -file that in state court.
As of this moment that has not happened.
Eventually the matter got to our special magistrate. The
plaintiffs contested it saying that Ms. Garretson, our special
magistrate, did not have jurisdiction. Ms. Garretson eventually
issued an order saying that she did not have jurisdiction, and that
order has been not appealed by the county, but we've asked her to
rehear it in light of the dismissal of the Federal District Court case
against the county as well as recent cases that have come down. To
my knowledge, a rehearing has not been scheduled by staff. I would
expect that to happen sometime either late February, early March.
The requesting for the rehearing stays the county's time to file an
appeal, and that's where we are on this. I'm happy to take any
questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any questions.
I want to congratulate the County Attorney's Office in the handling of
the federal lawsuit. That worked out very well. Obviously, we are
facing the potential for additional state claims, so we'll see how that
all plays out. And then in terms of the Code Enforcement, if you
could just keep us informed as what your magistrate does on your
motion for rehearing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was a good report. I
thank you.
February 9, 2021
Page 187
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have some public comment.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. I have one registered public
speaker. Daija Hinojosa.
MS. HINOJOSA: Never. It's Daija Hinojosa.
MR. MILLER: Hinojosa.
MS. HINOJOSA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
question is mainly geared towards the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can direct any questions to me,
and he will hear it.
MS. HINOJOSA: Okay. So I'm actually here today to kind of
engage in a small discussion versus making a public comment
regarding the Special Magistrate hearing.
On November 6th, 2020, the Collier County Special Magistrate
of Code Enforcement Board dismissed Seed to Table's motion for
rehearing, ruling upon findings that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction
to hear his matter, thus relieving Seed to Table from having to pay
fines imposed by Code Enforcement. Given this dismissal, if I was a
business owner, could I expect the same outcome?
Commissioner Taylor?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much for the
question, but as we are under -- we are currently in litigation, we
cannot respond to that.
MS. HINOJOSA: Okay. I feel like the people should have the
ability to understand what this means, because at this point it looks
like if a business owner does not enforce masks, they can be fined,
but as we just heard, that the Magistrate could not collect these fines.
So what does that mean for other business owners in the community?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What that means is that we have
asked the Magistrate -- the question still has not been answered
February 9, 2021
Page 188
conclusively is what it means.
MS. HINOJOSA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's still open.
MS. HINOJOSA: Okay. So if I'm a business owner and I
don't enforce masks and Code Enforcement comes to write me a fine,
do I have to pay that fine?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would suggest that you need to
ask your attorney since we're not your attorney.
MS. HINOJOSA: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.
Okay.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Okay. We're moving on to Item 15, staff and
commission general communications. Just one reminder for the
Board. You have an upcoming CRA workshop scheduled for
April 6th at 9:00 a.m. I believe it's on all of your calendars with
your aides. And that's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing further, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nothing from me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything to add.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, my goodness.
Commissioner McDaniel?
February 9, 2021
Page 189
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a tough one.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Uh-oh.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's to you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Uh-oh.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I mean -- and it's just a
question. There was a -- there was a --
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. We can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forgive me. There was what I
perceived to be a disturbing article in the Naples Daily News
yesterday where you were quoted. Was that quote correct?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The quote was correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And were you stating that
circumstance as a member of our board or as an individual in the
community?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm -- I was asked about a political
issue as a commissioner, and my name appeared as "Commissioner,"
so it is as a commissioner --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- but an individual commissioner. I
was asked; not the board was asked. I wasn't representing the
Board's consensus on anything.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Certainly. Okay. Okay. I
found that quote very disturbing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I found the situation very disturbing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well, I have a couple of
things. But on that note, it has come to my attention in the last few
days that it is the custom -- whether it's right or not, I'm not here to
say it is, but it is the custom of Collier County Government to accept
money from developers specifically to expedite or to -- "expedite" is
probably the word -- certain land-use items, and that they have done
February 9, 2021
Page 190
this for a long time, and it's -- I'm not saying that this is wrong or
right, but it suddenly occurred to me that -- this morning. In ex parte
we have to talk about who we talk to, what our meetings are. The
Clerk has all the documents of the letters. We have to disclose
everything.
So I just would like to see, if there's consensus up here by my
board, that going forward, land-use items that are brought to us, that
the staff also has an ex parte, and that ex parte is to ask whether they
have received any kind of money from a developer, which I'm not
saying is wrong. It's a matter of record. The Clerk keeps track of it.
It's in -- we've okayed it in our consent items.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'm -- let me just jump in for
Leo here. I think -- our staff doesn't receive money from developers.
I mean, we have an ethics ordinance.
There have been situations and -- to help protect the public.
And I'll give you -- the classic example is Kalea Bay. We requested
that Kalea Bay, because of things that have been going on and things
that had happened during the construction, that they pay for a
full-time inspector, county inspector, the cost of that, to reimburse the
county for having a full-time inspector --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- to be there all the time.
So I just -- you know, I think we -- the County Attorney has
done this in the past to protect the public and to make sure that the
developer or the builder, whoever it is, is dotting their Is and crossing
their Ts. It's -- I think it's the opposite, in my view, of kind of the
way you're framing it, because the payments -- there's no money
going to staff. These are agreements that the county government
enters into to make sure that things move forward and move forward
according to the law.
I just -- I'm just sensitive to -- because we've just been through
February 9, 2021
Page 191
this before in another context -- saying somehow that the staff is
receiving money from anybody, because they don't.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if I misspoke, I apologize, and I
like the way you have framed it. But, clearly, there is -- there is that
kind of relationship that has been established for a long time in the
county. I'm not saying it hasn't been.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's public record.
MR. OCHS: I'm not sure what you're referring to, specifically,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are you referring to private
developers using private building inspectors? Because that's
permitted by state law. That's a process that's been used in Florida
for years all over the state, and it's a process that's used that way
because frequently local governments don't have enough building
inspectors or they're overstretched. So developers can hire their own
inspectors. Everything's checked by the county's inspectors, but
that's a normal process. That's been around for decades.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That, too, but my
understanding -- and I may be wrong on this, but my understanding is
that there are -- there have been instances when the development
community has reimbursed the time that someone in a department has
given their time to do work that is probably over and above what has
been required.
Now, I may be wrong on this. And I'm not saying that -- I'm
not saying that this is wrong. What I'm saying is, if that's the case,
then it just -- ex parte on the part of the staff. That's all.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I think -- there's another
situation. I know back in the day -- and I don't know if we still need
to do this -- but when we were behind and there was a lot of backlog
on plan review right after, I think, maybe the recession or even before
that, you know, an applicant could pay for some overtime --
February 9, 2021
Page 192
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- you know, to get it done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yes, and that's what I'm talking
about. And I'm not saying it's happened, and I -- look, it's on our
consent agenda. We've approved it. I would never know how to
identify it, but it is. So it's just -- I just -- I think if that's the case,
and they -- it probably doesn't happen a lot, but if that's the case, it
just needs to be put as ex parte. That's all.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, could I just have Jamie --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- clarify a few of these things for you since that
was his area of focus for many years?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, it was.
MR. FRENCH: Good morning. For the record, Jamie French,
your Department Head.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good afternoon.
MR. FRENCH: Oh, I'm sorry. Good afternoon. My
apologies.
Very quickly, Growth Management follows an approved
consolidated fee schedule, and all of those fees are preprogrammed
within our CityView application, and we do not have the ability to
override those fees whatsoever.
So in the event -- the only thing that would be refundable to an
applicant would be the pre-application meeting, and that is applied
back towards any type of Site Development Plan review that would
be done.
The only other available, let's say, additional service that we
would offer is really on our time-certain inspections, and it's an
additional fee, and it gives -- it narrows it down to a two-hour
window. It's about $50, but it only applies to those services such as
concrete pours or something like that where you've got to have an
February 9, 2021
Page 193
inspector there at 7:00 a.m. because they're pouring concrete, and
they may be there for a particular amount of time.
Outside of that, there was some changes within the -- and I want
to say two years ago within the Florida Legislation that does allow
for private providers to be used, but you still have a
responsibility -- being the authority having jurisdiction for building
permits, we're still required to do the inspection after a private
inspector comes through and do the auditing process, because that's
how we're audited by the state and by FEMA.
So for the most part there's no additional fees that I'm aware of
that you've approved of as a board, and you would have to approve
those by resolution. And so we were always very measured in
bringing that fee schedule back because we wanted to be able to
prove that whatever services we were providing, that the fee was
directly lined up with the value of the service or with the cost of the
service to avoid any General Fund contribution.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Correct.
MR. FRENCH: But outside of that, I'm unaware of any
additional fees. Even when it says expedited review, as a matter of
practice, we really -- we're very sensitive on the Board's direction as
well as the Manager's direction and the community direction on some
of these projects that we know that really need to get done where the
applicant may be considering hiring a private provider, and we team
with those, or we always have in the past.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think anyway -- go ahead,
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I agree with my colleagues
here. I don't think this is something that we really need to move into
an ex parte standpoint. It's all a matter of public record. That
article that started this dialogue, or at least I did and you brought it
back up, other agencies have other rules. When they dedicate
February 9, 2021
Page 194
additional employees that take on extenuating amounts of work,
they -- those were all fee-oriented circumstances. Somehow in that
article, those fees all ended up being donations or contributions
attributable to salary and offset of time and so on and so forth. We
don't do that here. It's not -- and it's certainly -- our ethics ordinance
prohibits, which --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I'm not suggesting -- I'm not
suggesting ethics has been violated. I'm just suggesting there are
transactions that I think that from -- in certain situations that
would -- ex parte would be wonderful to have. That's all. I'm not
suggesting there's a violation of the ethics ordinance whatsoever.
MR. OCHS: Let me suggest maybe I spend a few minutes
off-line with the Chair and find out specifically what she's talking
about, and then maybe we could talk a little bit more intelligently, at
least at my level, about this next meeting, and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's fine.
MR. OCHS: -- that way we'll have the benefit of having a little
bit discussion in advance so I know exactly what you're talking
about.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Great.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Two things: The Business of the
Month, I'd like to bring it back at our next agenda, which would be
the next meeting. Now, they're once a month, but because they're
backlogged, what I'd like to do is bring it forward on two meetings
that would be kind of back to back or at least have one at the second
meeting in February and then one at the first meeting in March, and
then from there on it will be the first meeting of the month the
following month, if you're -- if we're okay with that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're talking about bringing
them back in here again or just announcing the Business of the
February 9, 2021
Page 195
Month?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Probably, we can all -- we can
probably do it by Zoom, because I understand we have a Zoom pilot.
I'm very excited about that expression. And so we could actually do
it by Zoom.
And then we're getting lots of emails, at least I am, and I'm sure
we all are, about Logan and the construction traffic. Does anybody
know what's going on that these trucks are traveling on that street and
why -- can we do something about this?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think staff is looking into
that and doing some traffic counts and really trying to determine what
the problem is, because there may need to be signage to prevent
through trucks before this is all over with. But my understanding is
staff is evaluating that; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: That is correct, sir, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Great.
MR. OCHS: I'll get an answer out to all the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, that's all I had.
But, Commissioner McDaniel, you have the last word.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, it's not a last word.
I'm kind of an expert on commercial motor vehicle traffic, dump
truck traffic, and the like, and I've had several calls in that regard.
So as we're going forward, I do know for a fact that we have difficult
time on a public highway prohibiting access for any vehicle. We've
been able to restrict it similarly -- well, Massey, the discussion of
Massey earlier. We were able to keep heavy trucks off of that road
because it wasn't of a caliber, but Logan is, to support those trucks,
so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's -- and I am sure there
is a job going on in that particular area that's increasing those truck
February 9, 2021
Page 196
trips right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, that's it. Thank
you. Thank you very much.
We are adjourned.
**** Commissioner LoCastro moved, seconded by Commissioner
Solis and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2021-23: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF CORAL HARBOR, PHASE I,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001134, AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2021-24: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF CORAL HARBOR, PHASE II,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001577, AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2021-25: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF NAPLES RESERVE, PHASE I,
February 9, 2021
Page 197
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20120002540, AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2021-26: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF NAPLES RESERVE, PHASE II,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20130002124, AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2021-27: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF NAPLES RESERVE CIRCLE,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160000038, AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2021-28: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF SAVANNAH AT NAPLES RESERVE –
REPLAT, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20190000578, AND
AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2021-29: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
February 9, 2021
Page 198
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF RESIDENCES AT MERCATO,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140001634, AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A8
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $110,560 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.148
FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH VANDERBILT RESERVE,
PL20160002709 – THE LAKES WERE INSPECTED ON
DECEMBER 30, 2020
Item #16A9
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND (PARCEL
234FEE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION (PROJECT NO. 60168)
Item #16A10
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND (PARCEL
209FEE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION (PROJECT NO. 60168)
Item #16A11
AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THREE FEE
SIMPLE RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCELS (PARCELS 101FEE1,
101FEE2 AND 101FEE3) AND A TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY
February 9, 2021
Page 199
RESTORATION EASEMENT (PARCEL 101TDRE) REQUIRED
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY AND RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS TO TRIANGLE BOULEVARD AND PRICE
STREET (TRIANGLE BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 60215.)
Item #16A12
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
(PARCEL 1180RDUE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD EXTENSION (PROJECT NO. 60168)
Item #16A13
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”) NO. 20-7778,
“RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION SERVICES,” TO FLORIDA
ACQUISITION & APPRAISAL, INC., AND AWARD
AGREEMENT NO. 20-7778
Item #16A14
A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND MANATEE COVE OF NAPLES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE MANATEE ROAD PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item #16A15
A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN COLLIER
February 9, 2021
Page 200
COUNTY AND FOUNDERS SQUARE UMBRELLA
ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD AND IMMOKALEE ROAD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY
Item #16A16
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND (PARCEL
117FEE) AND AN EASEMENT (PARCEL 117TDRE) REQUIRED
FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. 60168)
Item #16A17
A WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #18-7432-CZ TO
PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COLLIER CREEK
FINAL PERMITTING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED
$179,837.97 TO APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC., AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – FOR
DREDGING AND EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES
Item #16A18
AGREEMENT NO. 21CO1 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) BUREAU OF
BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS BEACH MANAGEMENT
FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FUNDING
February 9, 2021
Page 201
REIMBURSEMENT AND SUPPORT FOR COLLIER COUNTY
BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND INLET MANAGEMENT
PROJECTS FOR THE PERIOD RANGING FROM JANUARY 1,
2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2023 IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $5,888,065 FOR THE VANDERBILT, PARK SHORE
AND NAPLES BEACHES AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS
ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16A19
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT 20CO2 WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL
SYSTEMS BEACH MANAGEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STATE
REIMBURSEMENT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $697,395
FOR THE COMPLETED SOUTH MARCO ISLAND BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM – AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A20
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT 20CO3 WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL
SYSTEMS BEACH MANAGEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STATE
REIMBURSEMENT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $847,070
FOR THE COMPLETED WIGGINS PASS DREDGING AND
INLET MANAGEMENT PROJECT AND MAKE A FINDING
February 9, 2021
Page 202
THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM – THE AMENDMENT
EXTENDS THE AGREEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2023
Item #16C1
RIGHT OF ENTRY WHICH WILL PROVIDE NAPLES
BOTANICAL GARDEN WITH TEMPORARY LEGAL ACCESS
ONTO CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PARK LANDS TO PLANT
TREES FUNDED BY THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF
COLLIER COUNTY ($300,000 FOR COLLIER COUNTY AND
$50,000 FOR IMMOKALEE)
Item #16C2
A $280,070 WORK ORDER UNDER A REQUEST FOR
QUOTATION (“RFQ”) FOR AGREEMENT NO. 14-6213 TO
QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR THE SOUTH
REVERSE OSMOSIS (SRO) WELLFIELD WELLS 19-20
ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT NO. 70069)
Item #16C3
AWARD AGREEMENTS IN RELATION TO INVITATION TO
BID (“ITB”) NO. 20-7750, “INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION,
REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT SERVICES” TO BENRO
ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A ROCHA CONTROLS; GOSSAMER
BAY, INC., D/B/A UNIVERSAL CONTROLS INSTRUMENT
SERVICE COMPANY; AND TRINOVA, INC.
Item #16D1
February 9, 2021
Page 203
TWO (2) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN
PROGRAM AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM (HOME) AND AUTHORIZE THE ASSOCIATED
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - LOCATED AT 561 2ND STREET SE,
NAPLES, AND AT 5296 19TH PLACE SW NAPLES
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 2021-30: AN FY20/21 FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION GRANT AGREEMENT FOR FORMULA
GRANTS FOR RURAL AREAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,163,652
TO PROVIDE TRANSIT SERVICE TO THE RURAL AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY; APPROVE A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND
CERTIFICATIONS AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16D3
"AFTER-THE FACT" APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT AND
ATTESTATION STATEMENT WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., UNDER THE
OLDER AMERICAN ACT GRANT PROGRAM TO REVISE
FUNDING FOR THE SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM,
REVISE ATTACHMENT IX – BUDGET AND RATE SUMMARY,
AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16E1
February 9, 2021
Page 204
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL
Item #16E2
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF
PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE
DISBURSEMENT – FOR ON-LINE SALES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$5,995.15, TRADE-INS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,100, AND
DISPOSED ASSETS WITH A BOOK VALUE OF $115,930.47
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2021-31: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FY20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F2
AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
TO REALLOCATE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
PROJECT FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW PELICAN BAY SERVICES
MAINTENANCE FACILITY – AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F3
February 9, 2021
Page 205
THE USE OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX PROMOTION
FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,500 TO
SUPPORT THE NAPLES BMX STATE RACE AT THE GOLDEN
GATE COMMUNITY PARK BMX TRACK AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM –
HELD AT THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK BMX
TRACK ON MARCH 6-7, 2021
Item #16F4
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING FOR REQUEST
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 20-7817, “CEI
SERVICES FOR PELICAN BAY SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM,
JOHNSON ENGINEERING INC., SO THAT STAFF CAN BRING
A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S
CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING
Item #16H1
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND CONTINUED WORK OF THE COLLIER COUNTY FOOD
POLICY COUNCIL TO IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
PREVENT CHRONIC DISEASE THROUGH NUTRITIONALLY
SOUND PRACTICES IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE
PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO THE FOOD POLICY
COORDINATOR, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL - ADOPTED
February 9, 2021
Page 206
Item #16H2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 21 - 27, 2021 AS
ENGINEERS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE
PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO THE FLORIDA
ENGINEERING SOCIETY - CALUSA CHAPTER – ADOPTED
Item #16H3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 9, 2021 AS
COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF NAPLES DAY IN COLLIER
COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO THE
PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGER, COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF
NAPLES, 13275 LIVINGSTON ROAD, NAPLES, FLORIDA
34109 - ADOPTED
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 9, 2021
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. DISTRICTS:
1) Heritage Bay Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 11/05/2020
Meeting Minutes 11/05/2020
2) Naples Heritage Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 11/03/2020
Meeting Agenda 11/03/2020
B. OTHER:
February 9, 2021
Page 207
Item #16J1
THE FY2020 STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM (SCAAP) LETTER DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO
SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK TO BE THE OFFICIAL GRANT
APPLICANT AND CONTACT PERSON, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
AND TO RECEIVE, EXPENDS THE PAYMENT AND MAKE
ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS OF THE FY2020
OF THE STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(SCAAP) GRANT FUNDS
Item #16J2
REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF
COUNTY FUNDS AS OF THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER
31, 2020
Item #16J3
RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN JANUARY 14, 2021 AND
JANUARY 27, 2021 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J4
BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINED VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 3, 2021
February 9, 2021
Page 208
Item #16K1 – Moved to Item #12B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2021-32: RE-APPOINTING CLINTON CUNY
AND APPOINTING THOMAS BURKE, JR. BOTH WITH TERMS
EXPIRING ON FEBRUARY 12, 2025 TO THE VANDERBILT
WATERWAY MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Item #16K3
A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT
PENDING AS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON, ET AL; CASE NO. 18-CA-2727
NOW PENDING IN THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN COLLIER
COUNTY, WHEREBY THE COUNTY WILL RECEIVE $200,000
TO SETTLE ITS CLAIMS AGAINST INSURANCE AND RISK
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. – FOR DAMAGE CLAIMS
FROM HURRICANE IRMA
Item #16K4
EXPENSES FOR MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION SERVICES
RELATING TO THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION
PROJECT NO. 60168, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA FOR THREE MEDIATORS, INCLUDING LARRY
GENDZIER, ESQ., PHILLIP GREENWALD, ESQ., AND
STEPHEN TABANO, ESQ., AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
February 9, 2021
Page 209
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DIVISION TO SELECT
AND WORK WITH ADDITIONAL MEDIATORS AS
NECESSARY
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2021-05: 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
February 9, 2021
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT
AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:10 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
PENNY Tisflii:TILigR, CH IRMAN
ATTEST
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
ftliti/L
A�'est as�o L�iair�i?i�'�
These minutes approved by the Board on Ytlr\ °i 12.02'\, as
presented ✓� or as corrected
Page 210