Loading...
Agenda 03/09/2021 Item # 2B (Draft BCC Meeting Minutes from 2/9/2021)2.B 03/09/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.B Item Summary: February 9, 2021 - BCC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 03/09/2021 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager — County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 02/24/2021 7:55 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 02/24/2021 7:55 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Dan Rodriguez County Manager Review Board of County Commissioners Mary,lo Brock Meeting Pending Completed 02/25/2021 3:38 PM 03/09/2021 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 11 February 9, 2021 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, February 9, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County A Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as '**'A the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having Q%kL � a � 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: fNk ALSO PRESENT: Penny Taylor William L. McDaniel, Jr. Rick LoCastro Burt L. Saunders Andy Solis 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 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 # 1 A �Ov INVOCATION BY FATHER TOM THOENI OF ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH roh, FATHER THEONI: Let us offer our prayers silently or aloud for the various concerns borne in our hearts at this moment. (Moment of silence.) � - "qp* 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. K% 14.6 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 necessities, 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. Page 2 February 9, 2021 (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 1 I 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. _,w"% One other reminder, Commissioners, Item 11 D 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 Page 3 February 9, 2021 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. a# 1% '% 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. NM February 9, 2021 Item #2B JANUARY 12, 2021 BCC MEETING MINUTES - APPROVED AS PRESENTED N MR. OCHS: Item 2B is approval of the Board of Co pp �PY�Na 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: e. 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 #161-11, #161-12 AND #161-13 '* r 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 read those titles just to recognize the recipients. So with your permission, WM February 9, 2021 Madam Chair, I'll move ahead with that. The first item is Item 16H 1. 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 21 st 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. &&, V 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 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 the 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. Page 7 February 9, 2021 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 yo� And Ridge Street is coming along. 6 - 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 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 Scott 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 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 Page 10 February 9, 2021 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 -,,w -%- 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. NN 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 Page 11 February 9, 2021 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. 104`�� (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. Page 12 February 9, 2021 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.%k CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Madam Chair, members of the County 4 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, Page 13 February 9, 2021 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. _ W% ` a 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. 1, - "", `*,- 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 Page 14 February 9, 2021 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 resumes 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 Page 15 February 9, 2021 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. %,N CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. PIRES: Thank you. �, %, CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion_ has been withdrawn. Second has been withdrawn. �� 4V Mr. Pires? Wr k MR. PIRES: Yes. So, again, thank you very much with regards to this matter. The team, as I mentioned -- I've introduced the team. I've left off the President, Cheryl 011ila. 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. Page 16 February 9, 2021 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 it" 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. 6, - "R�W �;— 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 Page 17 February 9, 2021 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. _ W11k 1,, A 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. WAW..w, 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 Wlm February 9, 2021 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. &&, V 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 staffs 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 Page 19 February 9, 2021 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. PIKES: 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 Page 20 February 9, 2021 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 Page 21 February 9, 2021 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. N 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. ^�Vl 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 Page 22 February 9, 2021 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 out 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 Page 23 February 9, 2021 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. Q%kL ` a 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 Page 24 February 9, 2021 Association, Incorporated, will be operated to allow areas designated RI R2, R3, and R4, excluding the area designated AC/R3, full use of Limestone Trail. I'll indicate that the RI, R29 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. 1WAW1"_1 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. _r.» 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 Page 25 February 9, 2021 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. Le of the Land Development Code citing anticipated changes to traffic circulation. Q%hl ` a 11116, 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 Page 26 February 9, 2021 the Board of County Commissioners on the -- of Collier County, by the approval of The Quarry Phase 1 A 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. Q%kL ` a 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. Page 27 February 9, 2021 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. lk 1,1111111114" So you can see that you would anticipate the change in i 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. **W.-W, 11* 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. ' 4N 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 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. _ 9% ` a 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. 1W*W1"_1 11* As Mr. Pires indicated, the County Commission approved The Quarry Phase 1 A 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. I*- 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 Page 29 February 9, 2021 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 Page 30 February 9, 2021 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. �"N 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 Page 31 February 9, 2021 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 I B 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? Page 32 February 9, 2021 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. Thy -this is heavy stuff. I certainly think it's important. � I , 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? &&I V W. 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 Page 33 February 9, 2021 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 signal 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. Q%hl ` a 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. Page 34 February 9, 2021 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. - N 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. Page 35 February 9, 2021 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. Page 36 February 9, 2021 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-a-vis the TIS to Limestone Trail for the commercial then -- what's he doing? MR. YATES: Oh, there we go. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Rabbit ors squirrel or butterfl q y went by. I forgot what I -- MR. YATES: Sorry. Me, too. U4 N$ 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? ,-A, 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 Page 37 February 9, 2021 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. a%, ` a 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 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. il * �" 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 Let neonle 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 Page 39 February 9, 2021 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 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, you 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 try 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 Page 41 February 9, 2021 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 Page 42 February 9, 2021 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 Page 43 February 9, 2021 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. �*W*_,, 11* 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.AI, 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 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, and 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 three policies, rules, if you will, that I want to focus on. Now, I strongly disagree with staffs 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 Page 45 February 9, 2021 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 staffs recommendations are logical, i.e., are they based on clear reasoning? 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 0-M February 9, 2021 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. _ 9%a 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. � pm� *� 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 consistent. So I don't believe that the staff s recommended denial is logical nor predicable. 4ZI �,,� 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 Page 47 February 9, 2021 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. ./�N'*'* 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. Or A 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 0-= February 9, 2021 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. &&, V 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 Level of Service D and the February 9, 2021 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. Page 50 February 9, 2021 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. '*"-- "t 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 Page 51 February 9, 2021 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. 11* 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, Page 52 February 9, 2021 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. ,.,q, � 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-a-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. 6, - vo, ""— * 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. — "lk* '*, 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 011ila, and I'm President of The Quarry Community Association Board of Directors. As you are well aware, the PUD amendment is of great Page 53 February 9, 2021 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. � - ".P* "06",-- 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 Page 54 February 9, 2021 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 11 th 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. KW N` 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 this 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 Page 55 February 9, 2021 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. y` 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 years since these discussions began. Mp", *� 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. -- "'P* '*— - 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.- A 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 Page 56 February 9, 2021 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. 0 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 Page 57 February 9, 2021 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? ` a MR. PIRES: Oh, you mean assuming these people that have the access like the Heritage Bay folks going back? 7 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 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 A 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. Q%hl ` a 11116, 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 Page 59 February 9, 2021 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. w' 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 O February 9, 2021 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.00HS: Yes. MS. GUNDLACH: There it is. Okay, wonderful. Thank you, whoever helped me with that. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundla , g Y 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. Page 61 February 9, 2021 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. KINN W 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 Page 62 February 9, 2021 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. Page 63 February 9, 2021 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 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 there that that's the intent. Q%kL ` a 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 Page 65 February 9, 2021 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. -1 •• February 9, 2021 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 -- ob., in 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 Page 67 February 9, 2021 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? dlh�l V 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 - •i February 9, 2021 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 platted 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 Wr=m February 9, 2021 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 fp�* qqw 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 Page 70 February 9, 2021 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 Heritage 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 similar 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. Page 71 February 9, 2021 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. PIKES: 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 Page 72 February 9, 2021 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. h nks. 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. rN 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 Page 73 February 9, 2021 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. hank 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 Page 74 February 9, 2021 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 down Page 75 February 9, 2021 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. _-Xso� MR. KEDDIE: -- please allow The Quarry to gate Limestone Trail. _ W% NJ CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. KEDDIE: Thank you. "Na At 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 Page 76 February 9, 2021 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 Page 77 February 9, 2021 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. V& 1\ MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Renee Mongiovi,1 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 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 the 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 Page 79 February 9, 2021 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. &&, V CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Randy Seyler. He'll be followed by Ron Koldj eski, 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 -1 i t February 9, 2021 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. 1' 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 Koldj eski. 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. �, v 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 proj ect. 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 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. 0"- ,� A'' 1,,, 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 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. &&I V R 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. — "W � 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 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. k`' 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. •-11 � 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.'- A 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 0-1=11 February 9, 2021 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 complete 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 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 -1 i• February 9, 2021 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. 1W*W11W, 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 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 minute 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 - ii February 9, 2021 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.) o rN 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-a-vis not using OM February 9, 2021 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. �*W--q&-, 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. l February 9, 2021 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. _,h 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. M&' V 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. Page 91 February 9, 2021 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. apk N I appreciate your consideration of these recommendation 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 Page 92 February 9, 2021 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 overa%�� 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. **W*-" 11* 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? Page 93 February 9, 2021 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. qw, ` a 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. 0 •i February 9, 2021 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 saying, 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 Page 95 February 9, 2021 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 dohave 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 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. "PW "lk&,-- '* 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. Page 97 February 9, 2021 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 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. ft�, V 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 OM February 9, 2021 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. NN 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 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: Ay e. (\,, CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) I 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. x (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 # 11 D A PRESENTATION ON THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN (BCB) Page 100 February 9, 2021 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 Page 101 February 9, 2021 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. r �� Amy. V 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. 1W*W11W, � 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. Page 102 February 9, 2021 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 legislation 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. U^� 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 Page 103 February 9, 2021 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 to 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.00HS: 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 1 st 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 Page 104 February 9, 2021 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, Page 105 February 9, 2021 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 a �` 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. Q*� �= � 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. hk - "RPW '*,— 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. ` A '%..& Step 7, when they're available, review the soil maps. Soil maps 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. Page 106 February 9, 2021 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. �*W*_,, 11* 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. Page 107 February 9, 2021 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, J\N-, Okaloacoochee Slough, and the Corkscrew Marsh, and Big Cypress Swamp is here in the center of the region. _ W% a 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 preliminary 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 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. Q%hl ` a 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 Page 109 February 9, 2021 that February 1 st 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 ejuse 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? ;t 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 Page 110 February 9, 2021 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 ea 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 Page 111 February 9, 2021 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. ,K 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 expansion 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 Page 112 February 9, 2021 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. -V: N$ 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. &&I V Imil 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. "'0., 4 V.P 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 Page 113 February 9, 2021 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. A� �1 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. &&, V 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 Page 114 February 9, 2021 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? '4All 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 Page 115 February 9, 2021 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: Page 116 February 9, 2021 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. Mp", � A 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. &&I V W 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. X 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 Page 117 February 9, 2021 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. Q%hl ` a 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? N `' 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 Page 118 February 9, 2021 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 Page 119 February 9, 2021 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. NS 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. � _ "qp* '*,— 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 Page 120 February 9, 2021 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. Ue 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 to 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. Page 121 February 9, 2021 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 Page 122 February 9, 2021 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. ,.,1, N 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 -- N 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 # 11 B Page 123 February 9, 2021 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 _�� a MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move now to Item 1113. 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. &&I V 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. Page 124 February 9, 2021 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. 1 That stud came u with 12 bridges, those 12 bridges as their Y p g g 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 Page 125 February 9, 2021 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 Page 126 February 9, 2021 and our partner agencies, which were EMS, the fire -- both fire districts, the Sheriffs 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. i * 'I-, - 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. Q%k'� ".46, A *� 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. 6, - '*w """ — '* 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, Page 127 February 9, 2021 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 homeowner; 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. Q%hl ` a 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 trips 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 Page 128 February 9, 2021 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 Page 129 February 9, 2021 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 during 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. Q%hl ` a 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 loth Avenue Southeast. The reasoning for the loth 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 Sheriffs 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 Page 130 February 9, 2021 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. N In Bridge -shed No. 8, we have recommended the construction of 31 st Street Northwest. This is north of Golden Gate Boulevard. You can see on the map this is the location of the 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 Sheriffs 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 sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Page 131 February 9, 2021 the insurance rating. This has an EMS response reduction of 5.4 minutes, as well as a Sheriffs 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 response time of 2 minutes, and have the Sheriffs 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. Page 132 February 9, 2021 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 t. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner McDaniel. Your district. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, boy. It is. An 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. Q%h, �, �= *� 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 Page 133 February 9, 2021 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. "PW "",�— 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 Page 134 February 9, 2021 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 I Oth 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; Page 135 February 9, 2021 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. 1"W'W" 11* 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 health, 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 Page 136 February 9, 2021 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? f% ` a 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. -*�, � mi 110b, 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. Page 137 February 9, 2021 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. ft�l V CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we done? No? I have another speaker. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've said that twice, and nobody's looking at me, so... `4, 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 Page 138 February 9, 2021 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. Page 139 February 9, 2021 CHIEF BUTCHER: Yeah. So these will help improve our response times. And, Commissioner McDaniel, the l Oth Avenue, that's a definite benefit for fire, when there's wildfires out there, because we can access out through 1 Oth, and fire can speak on that, but 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 Sheriffs 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 there 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 Page 140 February 9, 2021 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. W 4W 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 Page 141 February 9, 2021 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 IOth 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 Page 142 February 9, 2021 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 loth 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... IKX� ppll 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. 1� ' 1W 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. Page 143 February 9, 2021 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 I Ith, 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 staffs 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? Page 144 February 9, 2021 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. Page 145 February 9, 2021 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.) 6 - '*— 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. A Item # I 1 C �*> � 1W** 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 — Page 146 February 9, 2021 APPROVED MR. OOHS: I understand just you'd like to take 11 C. 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. Todaywe're going to give you a brief update on where we're at g g g Y p 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. . 4..6 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 1 Oth 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 Page 147 February 9, 2021 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 collaboratively 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 M= February 9, 2021 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 Page 149 February 9, 2021 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 Appropriations 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 Page 150 February 9, 2021 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 Page 151 February 9, 2021 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. Page 152 February 9, 2021 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. N A 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. Page 153 February 9, 2021 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 -- Page 154 February 9, 2021 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, Page 155 February 9, 2021 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. _ ` a 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. •IL,16�) So I want to thank you overall and for the county for listening. 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 Page 156 February 9, 2021 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.) 4e 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 # 1 OA RESOLUTION 2021-33: APPOINTING KELLY HYLAND TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED v '•. 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. Page 157 February 9, 2021 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. Page 158 February 9, 2021 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 Page 159 February 9, 2021 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. " 4 1,,, 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 Page 160 February 9, 2021 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?g�jhw COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She's workin f 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 Page 161 February 9, 2021 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. �%L 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 Page 162 February 9, 2021 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 Page 163 February 9, 2021 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 '% '% 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. Page 164 February 9, 2021 Item # 1 OB 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 1013 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? _ &&I V Imil COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm the one that asked it to be continued, yes.104 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... Page 165 February 9, 2021 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 Page 166 February 9, 2021 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 -11 - COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll certainly have W 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. '1 Item #1213 i> APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - MOTION TO BRING BACK TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION — APPROVED Page 167 February 9, 2021 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. U044 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. wi COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I talked to her and -- NN 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 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. 4\41, 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. V�lv � COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And not just -- not just Ms. Kathy. &&, W \ J� 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. NN COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) Page 169 February 9, 2021 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR Item # 11 E It carries unanimously. Thank you. 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 I I 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 Page 170 February 9, 2021 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. _ V., ` a 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 Page 171 February 9, 2021 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. 11mi 1)"* COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Madam Chair, if I may. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. **w'"_1 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: First, I just want to say that, you know, you have five commissioners up here that have very 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 Page 172 February 9, 2021 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 resume 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 resume and say, congratulations, you have the job. OVA 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 resume; 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 appreciate your efforts with regard to assimilating the qualifications and lining us up Page 173 February 9, 2021 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 Page 174 February 9, 2021 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,1' 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. _jm��"* COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS : I make a motion we adjourn. This is getting way out of hand. 1 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 Page 175 February 9, 2021 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 daylong to get a j ob 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 Page 176 February 9, 2021 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 •,6, * � COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let's do it. I'm down; make a motion. I 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 -- Page 177 February 9, 2021 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. Q%hl ` a 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, Page 178 February 9, 2021 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 -- A 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. Q%k� �= *� COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, the second meeting in March. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Why do we not have a special meeting to select? _ d1h, V COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I mean, that's -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We already have two meetings in March. You know, the 1 st 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 Page 179 February 9, 2021 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 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 welmake 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. 6, - "q* '* 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, Page 181 February 9, 2021 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 Page 182 February 9, 2021 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 1 , 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 meeting 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 -7N COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I 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. _,W,% 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. Page 183 February 9, 2021 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 V *11 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 finding 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 MG = February 9, 2021 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, dismissed 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. Page 185 February 9, 2021 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. ^lvkv, \1qW 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. M i • February 9, 2021 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. question is mainly geared towards the County Attorney. lk 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 Page 187 February 9, 2021 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 yo e ask your attorney since we're not your attorney. MS. HINOJOSA: Okay. Thank you very m 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. IN 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? 0 i i February 9, 2021 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? k I 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 M = February 9, 2021 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. p"* 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 Page 190 February 9, 2021 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 -- Page 191 February 9, 2021 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. �'"F' MR. OCHS: Commissioner, could I just have Jami - 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. &&I V *61 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 Page 192 February 9, 2021 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 Page 193 February 9, 2021 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 Page 194 February 9, 2021 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? f% ` a 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 Page 195 February 9, 2021 trips right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. We are adjourned. No,,, * * * * 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 # 16A 1 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 11 00% Q, 3- 100 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, Page 196 February 9, 2021 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 PL2016000003 8, 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 Page 197 February 9, 2021 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 V\ Item # 16A9 4�N AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND (PARCEL 234FEE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION (PROJECT NO. 60168) Item # 16A 10 • AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND (PARCEL 209FEE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION (PROJECT NO. 60168) Item # 16A 11 AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THREE FEE SIMPLE RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCELS (PARCELS 101FEE 1, 101 FEE2 AND 101 FEE3) AND A TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY February 9, 2021 RESTORATION EASEMENT (PARCEL 101 TDRE) REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TO TRIANGLE BOULEVARD AND PRICE STREET (TRIANGLE BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 60215.) Item # 16A 12 * k AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY (PARCEL 1180RDUE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION (PROJECT NO. 60168) Item # 16A 13 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 # 16A 15 A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") BETWEEN COLLIER Page 199 February 9, 2021 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 # 16A 16 \Q AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND (PARCEL 117FEE) AND AN EASEMENT (PARCEL 117TDRE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT ROJECT NO. 60168 Item # 16A 17 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 $1791837.97 TO APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC., AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM — FOR DREDGING AND EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES r � Item # 16A 18� I*. lw 1% AGREEMENT NO. 21 CO 1 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS BEACH MANAGEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FUNDING Page 200 February 9, 2021 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 # 16A 19 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT 20002 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 200O3 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 Page 201 February 9, 2021 THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM — THE AMENDMENT EXTENDS THE AGREEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2023 Item # 16C 1 RIGHT OF ENTRY WHICH WILL PROVIDE NAPLES o\k 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 oli N 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 w 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 # 16D 1 Page 202 February 9, 2021 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 Apw Item # 16D2 RESOLUTION 2021-30: AN FY20/21 FEDERAL SIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GRANT AGREEMENT FOR FORMULA GRANTS FOR RURAL AREAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $111631652 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 _ r� Item #16D3 I: lu "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 # 16E 1 Page 203 February 9, 2021 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 J� PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSOF PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE DISBURSEMENT — FOR ON-LINE SALES IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,995.15, TRADE-INS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,1001 AND DISPOSED ASSETS WITH A BOOK VALUE OF $115,930.47 Item # 16F 1 loil, - 4\wh' RESOLUTION 2021-31: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET Item # 16F2 81 \144 V 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 Page 204 February 9, 2021 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 i TRACK ON MARCH 6-7, 2021 �AiL '1► 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 • k 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 Page 205 February 9, 2021 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 wk� It, w Item # 1611 MISCELLANEOt RRESPONDENCE Page 206 February 9, 2021 Item # 16J 1 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 �1 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 "qL. ' '% Item # 16J4 BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINED VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 3, 2021 Page 207 February 9, 2021 Item # 16K 1 — 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 r 0\ 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 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DIVISION TO SELECT AND WORK WITH ADDITIONAL MEDIATORS AS NECESSARY Item # 17A A ORDINANCE 2021-05 : AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-411 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND ,�� DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR TH 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 Page 209 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. " N BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL %1-vn PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTA K. KINZEL, CLERK Page 210 February 9, 2021 These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYE� COURT REPORTING BY TERRI LEWIS, FPR, COURT' a REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. p`= Q Q D Page 211