BCC Minutes 04/27/2021 RApril 27, 2021
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: Penny Taylor
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Rick LoCastro
Burt L. Saunders
Andy Solis
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Daniel Rodriguez, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
April 27, 2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112
April 27, 2021
9:00 AM
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 – Chair – CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; - Vice Chair - CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District 1
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
REQUESTS TO PETITION THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.”
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
Page 2
April 27, 2021
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Invocation by Reverend Edward Gleason of Trinity By The Cove Episcopal
Church
Invocation Given
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex
parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.)
Approved and/or Adopted w/changes – 5/0
B. April 6, 2021 BCC/CRA Workshop Minutes
Approved as presented – 5/0
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
Page 3
April 27, 2021
A. EMPLOYEE
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Items #16H1, #16H2, #16H3 and #16H4 read into the record
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation to recognize the Procurement Services Division for receiving
the Accreditation for Quality Public Procurement Certification from The
Institute for Public Procurement. The award will be accepted by Sandra
Herrera (Division Director).
Presented
B. Recommendation to accept the COVID-19 Status Report. (All Districts)
Update Given
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Continued to the June 8, 2021 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A. Public Petition request from Mr. John Harlem regarding use of artificial turf.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
A. Jacqualene Keay – Racism in society
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the
Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the
establishment of a conditional use to allow a communications tower on lands
zoned Rural Agricultural (A) within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and
Page 4
April 27, 2021
designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use-Sending Lands within the Natural
Resource Protection Area Overlay and North Belle Meade Overlay in the
Collier County Growth Management Plan pursuant to Sections 2.01.03.G.4.a
and 2.03.08.A.4.a(3)(a) of the Collier County Land Development Code on
.95± acres of a 5.0+/- acre tract located on the east side of the north-south
extension of Benton Road, in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20180002327] (District 5)
Motion to continue to the June 22nd BCC Meeting – Approved 5/0
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically
amending the Rural Golden Gate Estates (RGGE) Sub -Element of the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and GGAMP Future Land Use
Map and RGGE Map Series, specifically to establish the Immokalee Road -
Estates Commercial Subdistrict to allow uses permitted by right and by
conditional use in the Commercial Intermediate zoning district (C -3), and
select uses in the General Commercial (C-4) zoning district, at a maximum
intensity of 200,000 square feet of gross floor area and furthermore directing
transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity. The subject property, comprising approximately
19.13 acres and located on the west side of Immokalee Road, approximately
one-half mile north of Randall Boulevard, in Section 22, Township 48
South, Range 27 East. (Adoption Hearing) (Companion to zoning petition
CPUD-PL20200000546, BCHD I Commercial Planned Unit Development
Agenda Item #9B) (District 5)
Ordinance 2021-19 Adopted w/changes – 5/0
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, which established the
comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier
County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by
changing the zoning classification of th e herein described real property from
an Estates (E) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) zoning district to allow up to 200,000 square feet of commercial
uses for a project to be known as BCHD I CPUD on property located
approximately one-half mile north of Randall Boulevard on the west side of
Page 5
April 27, 2021
Immokalee Road in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida consisting of 19.13± acres; and by providing an effective
date. (This is a Companion item to Agenda Item #9A) (District 5)
Ordinance 2021-20 Adopted w/changes – 5/0
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard no sooner than 10:45 a.m. Recommendation to
accept a presentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the status
of the County Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study; authorize
the County Manager, or his designee, to sign a non-binding letter in support
of the Recommended Plan identified in the Collier County Storm Risk
Management Final Report; authorize the Director of Corporate Financial &
Management Services, or his designee, to sign a non-binding letter of
Financial Self Certification of Financial Capability for Agreements, and
authorize both letters to be provided to the Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. (Amy Patterson, Capital Projects Division
Director) (All Districts)
Motion to accept presentation, authorize County Manager to sign the
non-binding letter and have staff work with Dr. Savarese regarding a
task force – Approved 5/0
B. Recommendation to accept an update on COVID-19 related relief funding
and ongoing community assistance programs, and to authorize the County
Manager or designee to execute any funding agreements necessary for the
American Rescue Plan Act Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery
Fund. (Sean Callahan, Executive Director, Corporate Business Operations)
(All Districts)
Continued to the May 11th BCC Meeting at staff’s request - Consensus
To be heard at 9:30 a.m. (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
C. Recommendation to authorize staff to negotiate a land lease and operator
agreement with BigShots Golf, a division of ClubCorp USA, Inc., for the
construction and operation of a public golf course and entertainment
complex at the former Golden Gate Golf Course property for subsequent
consideration by the Board. (Geoff Willig, County Manager's Office) (All
Districts)
Motion to accept staff’s recommendations – Approved 5/0
Page 6
April 27, 2021
Moved from Item #16A10 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
D. Recommendation to approve a Local Match Agreement with the Naples
Pathways Coalition to reimburse the Coalition up to $60,000 for the Paradise
Coast Trail Feasibility Study and authorize the Chair to execute the
Agreement. (All Districts)
Approved – 4/1 (Commissioner McDaniel opposed)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Commissioner Solis – Tourism numbers look very promising
B. Commissioner LoCastro – Military appreciation month, Upcoming
projects, and Marco Executive Airport Ribbon Cutting
C. Commissioner McDaniel – Truck traffic
D. Commissioner Taylor – Memorial Services for Mrs. Gaynor
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved and/or Adopted w/changes – 5/0
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Chatham Woods, Application Number PL20150002912, and authorize
the release of the maintenance security. (District 2)
Page 7
April 27, 2021
Resolution 2021-85
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Winding Cypress Phase 3B, PL20190002096 and authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond
in the total amount of $4,000 to the Project Engineer or the
Developer’s designated agent. (District 1)
A final inspection was conducted by Development Review staff on
March 19, 2021, in coordination with Public Utilities and the
facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Cran e
Point and Bimini Isle Utilities Conveyance, PL20190002294 and
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of $4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer’s designated agent. (District 1)
A final inspection was conducted by Development Review staff on
March 16, 2021, in coordination with Public Utilities and the
facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the purchase of a road
right-of-way, drainage, and utility easement (Parcel 322RDUE)
required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. [Project No.
60168] (District 5)
Located off Wilson Boulevard and 12th Avenue NE
5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the purchase of land
(Parcel 1107FEE) required for construction of the Vanderbilt Beach
Road Extension. [Project No. 60168]. (All Districts)
Located off 12th Avenue NE
6) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien,
with an accrued value of $962,377.79 for payment of $1,877.79 in the
code enforcement action titled, Board of County Commissioners v.
Domenic P. Tosto, aka Domenic Tosto, Tr., and Joanne M. Tosto Tr.,
of the Fam. Liv. Tr., relating to property located at Folio No.
01199120006, Collier County, Florida. (District 1)
As detailed in the Executive Summary
Page 8
April 27, 2021
7) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $30,700 which was posted as a
guaranty for Excavation Permit Number PL20190002704 for work
associated with Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples – Hatcher
Property. (District 3)
8) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of
Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 20-7821, “Design and
Permitting for Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Project,” and
authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with the top ranked firm,
Taylor Engineering, Inc., so that staff can bring a proposed agreement
back for the Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting. (District
1, District 5)
This project will allow the County to manage its natural resources
in a more holistic, and comprehensive manner
9) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking for
Request for Professional Services ("RPS" No.20-7818), “Upper
Gordon River Improvements,” and authorize staff to begin contract
negotiations with the top-ranked firm, Johnson Engineering, Inc., so
that staff can bring a proposed agreement back for the Board’s
consideration at a subsequent meeting. (District 4)
Services include development of several structural measures,
including but not limited to, clearing exotic vegetation, building a
maintenance access travel way, dredging of the river channel,
reinforcing the banks, and replacing an existing rock weir
Moved to Item #11D (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
10) Recommendation to approve a Local Match Agreement with the
Naples Pathways Coalition to reimburse the Coalition up to $60,000
for the Paradise Coast Trail Feasibility Study and authorize the Chair
to execute the Agreement. (All Districts)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve a Landscaping License Agreement with
Moorhead Manor Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association to
provide irrigation, landscaping and maintenance within the designated
area on the property located at 4260 Bayshore Drive, Naples Florida,
Page 9
April 27, 2021
34112 within the Bayshore Beautification MSTU boundary and
authorize the chairman to sign the agreement and authorize payment.
(District 4)
The Association will be reimbursed for the installation of the
landscaping pending submittal of required documentation
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the cancellation of
2021 taxes upon a fee-simple interest in land Collier County acquired
by Warranty Deed for Conservation Collier and without monetary
compensation. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-86
2) Recommendation to approve the Easement Agreement with DIAJEFF
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and ALISAN LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, each as to an undivided one-half
interest, at a cost not to exceed $1,800 for the acquisition of a Utility
Easement for proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements.
[Project No. 70141] (All Districts)
To provide safer and uncomplicated access to existing Pump
Station 305.01 within Basin 305
3) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal No. 20 -7803, “Fuel
Storage Tank Systems Testing and Services,” to Primary and
Secondary Contractors, and authorize the Chair to sign the attached
agreements. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$700,000 reallocating funds from within existing Water-Sewer
operating budgets to fund emergency response and repairs within the
Public Utilities Department’s Wastewater Division. (District 1,
District 4)
To fund year-to-date emergency repair costs and restore
emergency response and repair funding in the Wastewater Field
Operations budget through the end of FY21
5) Recommendation to approve to the award of Invitation to Bid No. 21 -
7855, “Orange Tree Wastewater Plant Walkway Improvements,” to
Atlantic Concrete & Mechanical, Inc., in the amount of $126,063,
Page 10
April 27, 2021
authorize the Chair to sign the attached construction services
agreement. [Project No. 70173] (District 5)
To provide and install necessary handrails, platform metals, and
access points improvements at the Orange Tree Wastewater
Treatment Plant and facilitate ease of access to sample locations
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment to recognize
interest earned for the period October 2020 through December 2020
on advanced library funding received from the Florida Department of
State to support library services and equipment for the use of Collier
County residents. (All Districts)
Recognizing $1,015.37 in interest
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of an FY20/21 grant
application for the Federal Highway Administration Flexible Funding
in the amount of $500,000 for the purchase of a 40 ft. fixed-route bus
through the Federal Transit Award Management System. (All
Districts)
This will allow an existing vehicle to be used as a spare
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a
subrecipient agreement between Collier County and Collier Health
Services, Inc., in the amount of $1,170,800.39 to support COVID
testing and case management services utilizing Community
Development Block Grant funding previously approved by the Board.
(All Districts)
As detailed in the Executive Summary
4) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment to recognize
interest earned on the Coronavirus Aid Relief for the period July 2020
through November 2020 on advanced funding received from the
Florida Department of Emergency Management to support
programmatic expenses under the CARES program. (All Districts)
Accrued interest from the advance payment for the period July
2020 through November 2020 was $22,346.94
Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
5) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to fully fund the
Page 11
April 27, 2021
restoration of the 1909 Haskell & Barker Caboose at the Naples Depot
Museum. (District 4)
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to sign an
Agreement with David Lawrence Mental Health Center in the amount
of $450,000 to operate a drug court program utilizing funds from the
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Adult Drug Court
Discretionary Program. (All Districts)
To provide a post-adjudication, court-supervised, substance abuse
Drug Court Program for those involved in the criminal justice
system
7) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal No. 20 -7788,
Paratransit Demand Response Software, to Ecolane USA, Inc., in the
amount of $322,962.98 funded with Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) Section 5339 and Section 5307 Grants and authorize the Chair
to sign the attached agreement. (All Districts)
To provide scheduling and dispatching software system
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve modifications to the 2021 Fiscal Year
Pay and Classification Plan which consist of the removal of three
obsolete classifications and two reclassifications made from January
1, 2021 through March 31, 2021. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the
Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and
notification of revenue disbursement. (All Districts)
There were no on-line sales, trade-ins and disposed assets had no
net book value over this period
3) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts)
As detailed in the Executive Summary
4) Recommendation to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement
between Collier County and the Collier EMS/Fire Bargaining Unit,
Southwest Florida Professional Firefighters and Paramedics, Local
Page 12
April 27, 2021
1826, International Association of Firefighters, Incorporated. (All
Districts)
The proposed Agreement will have an effective date commencing
date of Board approval through September 30, 2022
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve a Satisfaction and Release of Lien for
New Hope Ministries, Inc., due to the impact fees being paid in full in
accordance with the Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral
Program, as set forth by Section 74-203(i) of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances. (District 2)
For property at 7675 Davis Blvd Naples, FL 34104
2) Recommendation to approve a transfer of Transportation Impact Fee
credits in the amount of $650,576.01, held by Parklands Associates I,
LLLP, arising out of an Amended and Restated Developer Agreement
dated May 10, 2016, recorded in Official Records Book 5274, Page
411 of the Public Records of Collier County. (District 3, District 5)
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the FY20-21 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-87
4) Recommendation to approve clarifications to the Collier Community
Assistance Program to assist sole proprietors under the Small
Business/Not for Profit Loan Repayment program. (All Districts)
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Proclamation congratulating Collier County residents Ms. Katie
Larsen, Ms. Skye Allen and Ms. Olivia Veliz and extending best
wishes to them for successful outcomes at the 2021 Miss Florida
USA® and Miss Florida Teen USA® competition on July 18, 2021 in
Orlando, Florida.
Adopted
Page 13
April 27, 2021
2) Proclamation designating May 6, 2021 as National Day of Prayer in
Collier County. The proclamation will be mailed to Susan Thigpen,
New Hope Ministries.
Adopted
3) Proclamation designating May 2021 as National Foster Care Month in
Collier County. The proclamation will be mailed to Laura Lafakis,
Youth Haven of Naples.
Adopted
4) Proclamation designating May 2021 as Military Appreciation Month
in Collier County. To be presented and accepted by Commissioner
LoCastro on behalf of Members of the Military.
Adopted
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence (All Districts)
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve the use of $500 from the Confiscated
Trust Funds to support the Florida Missing Children’s Day
Foundation. (All Districts)
2) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between April 1, 2021 and April 14, 2021 pursuant to Florida
Statute 136.06. (All Districts)
3) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of April 14,
2021. (All Districts)
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Continued to the May 11, 2021 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
1) Recommendation to take no further action with respect to a public
petition requesting that Collier County enact an ordinance to protect
Page 14
April 27, 2021
firearm owners from federal or state government intrusion. (All
Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $126,650, including statutory attorney's fees for the taking
of Parcel 195FEE, required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Expansion
Project, Project No., 60168. (Fiscal Impact: $126,820, which includes
the statutory $170 Clerk’s fee) (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to sign an
Amendment to Agreement for Legal Services with the law firm of
Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., extending the Agreement for two
years, with three additional one-year renewal terms, with no change in
current rates. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to appoint three members to the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board. (All Districts)
CRA Resolution 2021-88: Reappointing Michael Sherman,
Maurice Gutierrez and Appointing David Slobodien
5) Recommendation to appoint two alternate members to the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-89: Appointing Lee Rubenstein and George
Andreozzi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted – 5/0
A. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County
Page 15
April 27, 2021
Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically
amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map
Series to create the NC Square Mixed-Use Overlay on land in the
Agricultural/Rural designation and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District-
Receiving Lands to allow up to 44,400 square feet of commercial uses, a
12,000 square foot daycare limited to 250 students, and a minimum of 120
and maximum of 129 affordable housing residential dwelling units and
furthermore directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 24.4± acres
and located at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Catawba Street
approximately 1.6 miles west of Wilson Boulevard in Section 29, Township
49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Adoption Hearing)
(Companion to zoning petition MPUD-PL20180002234, NC Square Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development and Affordable Housing Agreement Agenda
Item #17B) (District 5)
Ordinance 2021-17
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance
amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations
for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification
of the herein described real property from the Rural Agricultural zoning
district within the Mobile Home Overlay and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District Overlay-Receiving Lands to the Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay-
Receiving Lands for a project known as NC Square MPUD, to allow up to
44,400 square feet of commercial uses, a 12,000 square foot daycare, and a
minimum of 120 and a maximum of 129 dwelling units with an affordable
housing agreement. The property is located at the southwest corner of
Immokalee Road and Catawba Street approximately 1.6 miles west of
Wilson Boulevard in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 24.4± acres; and by providing an effective
date. (This is a Companion item to Agenda Item #17A) (District 5)
Ordinance 2021-18
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Page 16
April 27, 2021
FY20-21 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-90
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
April 27, 2021
Page 2
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. Here we are. It is
April 27th, and I believe today Reverend Edward Gleason of Trinity
by the Cove will give us our invocation, and I will ask Commissioner
Saunders to lead us in the Pledge.
Item #1A
INVOCATION BY REVEREND EDWARD GLEASON OF
TRINITY BY THE COVE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
REVEREND GLEASON: Almighty God, teach our people to
rely on your strength and to accept their responsibilities to their
fellow citizens; that they may elect trustworthy leaders and make
wise decisions for the well-being of our society and community; that
we may serve you faithfully in our generation and honor your holy
name, and we pray you send down upon those who hold office in this
county the spirit of wisdom, charity, and justice; that with steadfast
purpose, they may faithfully serve in their offices to promote the
well-being of all people.
We offer our prayers of thanksgiving for the service of Leo
Ochs. We offer these, our petitions and desires, through your holy
name.
Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison, and the
proceedings continued as follows:)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would like to take a few minutes
right now at the beginning of this agenda to acknowledge our County
Manager Leo Ochs. This meeting is Leo's final meeting presiding as
County Manager. He is retiring after 35 years, since 1986 with the
county, and almost 12 since September 29th, 2009, of those years as
April 27, 2021
Page 3
County Manager.
Leo expressly asked that his retirement be quiet, no festivities or
long goodbye. So to respect his wishes, we are taking this time to
say thank you for his service and for each commissioner to speak
personally about Leo and working with him. I'm first.
MR. OCHS: Be kind.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: First of all, he is an amazing man
who survived five bosses year after year and, mind you, not always
the same bosses. That is a feat in itself.
To Leo, your sense of humor carried me through many stressful
times. You have always been quick to smile and to look on the
bright side of most situations with humor and grace. You carry
years of valuable government experience with you, Leo, and you
brought that expertise into your role as a decision maker and leader,
never forgetting compassion and patience. It has been a pleasure
working with you, Leo. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, our Vice
Chair.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, first off, how did your
request for a quiet departure go?
MR. OCHS: Just about the same way all my requests go.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have to say this: You
know, Leo, you and I have been friends a long time. I've got a long,
long history with Collier County in multiple arenas along the way,
and I think I probably said it best when I was writing up our last
review when you were coming up for another couple of years. And I
have to say, you have been participatory in creating the community
that we all know and love. You have been an amazing leader for our
employees and the folks that work for Collier County all across the
board. And I have to say I'm extremely proud to have worked with
April 27, 2021
Page 4
you.
And in parting, as we usually do when we say goodbye, take no
prisoners.
MR. OCHS: Leave none standing, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam
Chairman. So you started in 1986. That was the year that I got
elected to the County Commission the first time.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We were both a whole lot
younger and our hair was a whole lot darker.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I've really enjoyed
working with you. I certainly appreciate all the professionalism that
you've brought to the position of County Manager, and you've
brought stability to the county for decades, and that's something to be
very proud of. I know we haven't seen the last of you. I know that
you're going to be involved. I've got a couple committees I'd like to
see you serve on.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I just want to wish you
and your family the best and many years of happy and fulfilled
retirement.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you for your service.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Penny Taylor brought a
motion saying that you wanted a small celebration, but she wanted to
have something a little bit bigger. It only passed 3-2 I just want you
to know.
April 27, 2021
Page 5
Also, if you heard, Leo's been here a long time. When he first
came to the building here, he had sideburns, and he drove a Ford
Pinto. Can I have the first slide, please? No, I'm just kidding.
You know, Mr. Ochs, I'll just tell you, as a -- you know, we're going
to read a proclamation a little bit later about Military Appreciation
Month, and I can tell you, as a, you know, military retired Air Force
officer -- and there's military people here in the room -- we respect
and applaud loyalty and dedication. It means a lot.
And, I mean, if we look at your years of service here, you'd be a
general officer, you know, at the county level, that's for sure. And I
think serving your country or serving your community, it's all about
service, and public service is one of the most noble professions. It
certainly can be thankless, you know, at times, but it can be
extremely impactful.
And what you've been a part of here in Collier County will, you
know, last for many, many years. You've touched so many people
here. I'm sure that we could pack this room with people that would
consider you a mentor, you know, a friend. And in the military, we
always say, your job as a leader is to make more leaders, and I'm sure
the county is full of folks that have been touched by, you know, your
excellence, you know, your experience, and that won't -- that won't
go away anytime soon.
But I also agree with Commissioner Saunders, you know, it's
like, what's with this retirement stuff? There's a lot of things you can
still do, so we expect to -- you know, we'll give you a front-row
parking spot if you need one.
But thank you so much. Your hard work is noticed and much
appreciated.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And I'll echo everything
April 27, 2021
Page 6
that's already been said and add a little bit that, you know, I think,
Leo, you've been one, if not the -- one of the best leaders that the
county has had. I mean, you know, I'm always seeing things in
terms of winning football seasons, right? So, you know, Leo versus
hurricanes, 3 and 0, right?
MR. OCHS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Leo versus recessions, at least 2
and 0, right? And Leo versus a pandemic, you're --
MR. OCHS: The jury's still out.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no. I think you're winning
that one, too.
So undefeated in so many ways in guiding the county through
really difficult, difficult times, making difficult decisions. You
know, I can only imagine the decisions that had to be made by you
during the recession, you know, with people that, you know, that had
worked for the county for many years.
So the county and Collier County and all the residents have been
blessed to have you as its leader. You're a great public servant, and
best of all, I think it's -- you've been a great friend to me, too,
personally. So thank you for all you've done for the county, for the
commissioners. You know, dealing with five -- I'll just speak for
myself -- knuckleheads, this one knucklehead, and helping to guide
us, too, because when we take this office, I don't think anybody can
appreciate the complexity of, you know, how complicated things are
and what a big operation this actually is in so many different ways,
you know, from parks and recreation to -- you know, to utilities and
the beaches and things like that.
So thank you for being a great friend also, and I will personally
say I will not ask you to serve on any committees for at least three
months.
MR. OCHS: Oh, okay. Three months it is, okay. You've got
April 27, 2021
Page 7
it. Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Thank you. You know, Madam Chairman, if I
could --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no, not yet. I think -- I think
we should have a photograph in front of the dais, please.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This isn't your show.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm the chair.
MR. OCHS: But I have to make a few remarks, because I was
planning to do that at the end of the meeting --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not at the end.
MR. OCHS: -- but since you did this now, I'll do it right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know, I know. Okay, okay. All
right.
MR. OCHS: First of all, I want to thank each one of you for the
kindness and the encouragement, the support, all the professional
courtesies that you've extended me over the times that we've worked
together.
You know, nobody appreciates public service more than me, and
I certainly admire all of you for taking on the mantle of public
service. I know our community is much better for all of you having
taken on that commitment.
I also, if I could just take this opportunity to thank all of the
many prior county commissioners, constitutional officers, local
elected and appointed officials that I've had the privilege to serve
with over the last 35 years. All of them in their way, as you all
know, have helped build that legacy of sound public policy-making
and operational excellence that we hope to continue and build upon
as we look forward to the future.
Also, I want to acknowledge our business community and our
not-for-profit leaders in the community. They've done so much to
April 27, 2021
Page 8
help our community grow in a positive way and to prosper. And I
know all of you joined me in your appreciation for the partnerships
that we've been able to establish with our business and our
not-for-profit community.
I think about important issues that this board has taken on with
their help, like affordable housing, community mental health,
economic diversification, workforce training. All these things are
possible in our community particularly because we have such strong
collaborations, I think. And so I'm grateful to them for that kind of
assistance.
And, finally, but most importantly, for the men and women of
our County Manager's agency for the tireless work that they do day in
and day out to provide world-class public services to our residents
and visitors. Any success that I've been able to achieve is directly
attributable to the talent and the professionalism and dedication to
that group. So I'm eternally grateful to them for all that they've
done. And it's really been the highlight of my professional career to
help support and lead those efforts because they're just such
tremendous public servants.
So with that, Commissioners, you know, I'm obviously proud of
the work that we've achieved together, and I'm not going away.
Debbie and I have spent more time and lived longer in Collier County
than we have in our own hometowns, so this is home for us. We've
got plenty to do, and I'll continue to stay engaged and see if I can
plug in to help the community wherever I can, but I wish you all
great success and prosperity in the future. So God bless you all.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Following the photo, will the
county sheriff please remove Mr. Ochs from the chambers.
April 27, 2021
Page 9
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we have a little something for
you, and we suggest you do not open it with the cameras rolling.
MR. OCHS: That's interesting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We'll leave it right there.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Leo, that present in the back,
it needs to be fed in the next hour, so just keep an eye on it.
MR. OCHS: All right, Rodriguez. That's how you delegate.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All right. Now we can go to
work.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now let's get to work.
Item #2A
TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) -
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Okay. Let's go to work. Thank you all very
much. It's been a pleasure.
Commissioners, let's take a look at our proposed agenda changes
for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of April 27th, 2021.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 6A to the June 8th,
2021, BCC meeting. That is a public petition that was requested to
be continued by the petitioner.
The next proposed change is to continue Item 16K1 from the
County Attorney's consent agenda and move that to the May 11th,
2021, BCC meeting. That request was made by Commissioner
McDaniel.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16A10 from the
April 27, 2021
Page 10
consent agenda to become Item 11D under the County Manager's
report. This item was moved at Commissioner McDaniel's request.
It involves a request for a local match by the county to a Naples
Pathway Coalition grant award for the Paradise Coast trail feasibility
study.
And the next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16D5. This
is a staff request for withdrawal of a budget amendment that
Mr. Isackson will work on during your upcoming budget workshops.
We have two time-certain items this morning, Commissioners.
The first is Item 11C that will be heard at 9:30 a.m. That's an
agreement proposed with the BigShots Golf, Incorporated, for the
Golden Gate Golf Course property, and also we have a time-certain
for Item 11A. That is at -- excuse me -- 10:45 a.m. after your
morning break having to do with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
status report on their feasibility study.
And those are all the changes that I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
So let's start with our Vice Chair. Commissioner McDaniel, any
changes or amendments to the -- or declarations?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Declarations?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ex parte.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No changes and one
declaration on 17B. I have had correspondence and phone calls in
regard to that item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I have no
changes to the agenda and no disclosures as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes and no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No changes. On Item 8A
April 27, 2021
Page 11
I've had meetings and calls; 9B I've had meetings.
MR. OCHS: Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt you. We'll do those
disclosures when we hear those items.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So nothing on what
you just mentioned to the changes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Excuse me. No disclosures
on 17B, and the advertised public hearing -- okay. No disclosures
on 17B, and no changes to the agenda.
So do I hear a motion to accept the agenda --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- as presented?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Thank you.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
April 27, 2021
Continue Item 6A to the June 8, 2021 BCC Meeting: Public Petition request from Mr. John
Harlem regarding use of artificial turf. (Petitioner’s request)
Continue Item 16K1 to the May 11, 2021 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to take no further action
with respect to a public petition requesting that Collier County enact an ordinance to protect
firearm owners from federal or state government intrusion. (Commissioner McDaniel’s Request)
Move Item 16A10 to Item 11D: Recommendation to approve a Local Match Agreement with the
Naples Pathways Coalition to reimburse the Coalition up to $60,000 for the Paradise Coast Trail
Feasibility Study and authorize the Chair to execute the Agreement. (Commissioner McDaniel’s
Request)
Withdraw Item 16D5: Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to fully fund the
restoration of the 1909 Haskell & Barker Caboose at the Naples Depot Museum. (Staff’s Request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 11C to be heard at 9:30 a.m. (Commissioner Saunders’ request)
Item 11A to be heard no sooner than 10:45 a.m.
5/12/2021 10:25 AM
April 27, 2021
Page 12
Item #2B
APRIL 6, 2021 BCC/CRA WORKSHOP MINUTES - APPROVED
AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 2B is approval of the workshop meeting
minutes between the Board of County Commissioners and the
Community Redevelopment Agencies. It was held on April 6th,
2021.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Move to approve the minutes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS – ITEMS #16H1, #16H2, #16H3 AND #16H4
READ INTO THE READ
MR. OCHS: We move to today's proclamations that appear on
your consent agenda this morning. I'll read these, as has been our
April 27, 2021
Page 13
custom during the pandemic.
Item 16H1 is a proclamation congratulating Collier County
residents Ms. Katie Larsen, Ms. Skye Allen, and Ms. Olivia Veliz,
and extending best wishes to them for successful outcomes at the
2021 Miss Florida USA and Miss Florida Teen USA competition on
July 18th, 2020 [sic], upcoming in Orlando, Florida.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we do have someone here
today.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, if we could,
I'd like to -- are your -- are your --
MS. LARSEN: They had finals.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't want to call them
opponents; your competitors. Would you mind coming to the mic
and giving us a brief hello and what you're doing.
And just so you know, I've been knowing Ms. Katie for a long,
long time. She was our swamp buggy queen back in the day.
MS. LARSEN: I was, correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She competed with my
daughter for that position, and I'm -- so I've been knowing Ms. Katie
for a long, so I'd really like to hear a few words, please.
MS. LARSEN: Of course.
Good morning, everyone. My name is Katie Larsen. You
usually know me in my official capacity working for Congressman
Donalds.
This summer I will be competing with Miss Florida -- the
Miss Florida organization under the Ms. Universe organization itself.
Unfortunately, Skye and Olivia, my fellow Collier County residents,
had finals and were unable to make it because they're studying. I
wish I was still in college like them. Unfortunately, I'm not. But
I'm very grateful for you guys to issue this proclamation honoring us
April 27, 2021
Page 14
as Collier County residents competing this summer.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you very much, and
we wish you all the best --
MS. LARSEN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and appreciate you
participating.
MS. LARSEN: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Best of luck.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Item 16H2 is a proclamation designating May 6th,
2021, as National Day of Prayer in Collier County. The
proclamation will be mailed to Susan Thigpen of New Hope
Ministries.
Item 16H3 is a proclamation designating May 2021 as National
Foster Care Month in Collier County. The proclamation will be
mailed to Laura Lafakis of Youth Haven of Naples.
And Item 16H4 is a proclamation designating May 2021 as
Military Appreciation Month in Collier County, to be presented and
accepted by Commissioner LoCastro on behalf of members of the
military.
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you very much.
I want to thank Madam Chair and the County Manager, soon to be
ex-County Manager; just kidding.
This is an important proclamation to me, being a retired, you
know, Air Force officer. But it's important to all of us, everybody
that's sitting up here. We all work so hard to support our military.
And I can tell you, I've lived in a lot of towns all over the
country, all over the world, a lot of us have. This is such a patriotic
town, and I think we take great pride in the patriotism of our World
War II veterans who are here who are, you know, unfortunately
April 27, 2021
Page 15
slowly becoming a smaller number. Our Vietnam veterans, if you
didn't know, March 29th was Vietnam Veteran Appreciation Day,
and a lot of big events in town.
So if you'd just indulge me -- and there's some veterans here
who have served their country and some that you need to know
actually work on our own county staff. Sometimes there's veterans
among us that you don't even know, and I'm going to point out a
couple. But if you'd indulge me to read this proclamation. It may
just sound like some words to people who are online and watching,
but I can tell you to the men and women in uniform and the people
here who have worn the uniform, you know, alongside me and
alongside others, these words mean a lot, and this recognition means
a lot.
Proclamation: Whereas, recognizing the United States Armed
Forces and supporting the designation of a National Military
Appreciation Month, raising awareness that the freedom and security
citizens of the United States enjoy today are the result of the
bloodshed and the vigilance given by the United States Armed Forces
over the history of our great nation; and,
Whereas, recognizing the sacrifices that members of the United
States Armed Forces and the family members that support them make
which have preserved the liberties and enriched this nation making it
unique in the world community; and,
Whereas, to foster and to say in such a commitment, it is vital
for the youth of the United States to understand that the service
provided by members of the Armed Forces and their families is an
honorable legacy that protects the freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the
United States as well as citizens of many other nations; and,
Whereas, on April 30th, 1999, the Senate passed Senate
Resolution 33, the 16th Congress, as National Military Appreciation
Month calling on the people of the United States in a symbolic act of
April 27, 2021
Page 16
unity to observe a National Military Appreciation Month in May to
honor the current and former members of the Armed Forces,
including those who have died in the pursuit of freedom and peace;
Whereas, it is important to emphasize to the people of the
United States the relevance of the history and activities of the Armed
Forces; and,
Whereas, the month of May was selected for this display of
patriotism because the month -- this month we celebrate Victory in
Europe Day, VE Day; Military Spouse Day; Loyalty Day; Armed
Forces Day and Week; and Memorial Day.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May 2021 be
designated as Military Appreciation Month in Collier County.
Done and ordered this 27th day of May -- of April 2021, signed
Board of County Commissioners, Penny Taylor, Chairwoman.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: If you all would come
forward. We have the VFW post commander, Dr. JB Holmes;
Command Sergeant Major Burch, who still fits in his uniform and I
think can do 100 push-ups; Ronnie Lee Gannon, VFW auxiliary, is
here.
And you know, let me just point out a few members.
Everybody knows Barry Williams, Parks and Rec, and does a whole
bunch of things, but I bet you some of you didn't know he's a fellow
Air Force veteran who served our country honorably at a very
difficult base, Dover Air Force Base. And I know we have other
county employees who you're seeing here who are all veterans, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How about a smile, Jake.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: We can Photoshop JB out.
I want to present this to you, Dr. Holmes, for all your work at the
VFW post, and he will put that -- and find it a place on behalf of all
April 27, 2021
Page 17
of us, thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: We've got some vets on the
county staff, right?
MR. OCHS: Absolutely, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, ma'am. Thank
you.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION
FOR RECEIVING THE ACCREDITATION FOR QUALITY
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATION FROM THE
INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC PROCUREMENT. ACCEPTED BY
SANDRA HERRERA – PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we move to Item 5A this morning.
This is a presentation to recognize our Procurement Services Division
for receiving the accreditation for quality public procurement
certification from the Institute for Public Procurement. Accepting
the award is our outstanding Director, Sarah Herrera.
Sandra.
(Applause.)
MS. HERRERA: Good morning. Good morning,
Commissioners. It's a pleasure to serve as a Procurement Director.
The team has worked very hard for these two achievements, and I am
very proud of them.
Thank you, Leo and Dan.
MR. OCHS: Well, she's too modest. Let me tell you a little
bit about these things. Yeah, and we'll get your picture as well,
Sandra.
April 27, 2021
Page 18
Commissioners, the accreditation for quality public procurement
that was achieved by our organization is a testament to the
commitment to professional practices and demonstrated abilities.
While the institute represents over 3,000 governmental agencies
throughout the U.S. and Canada, only 159 of those 3,000 are able to
obtain this particular certification, so that's a great achievement.
And also with respect to the other award for the Achievement of
Excellence in Procurement, Collier County is one of only 32 agencies
in the entire state of Florida and one of only 40 counties throughout
the U.S. and Canada to receive that kind of award.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wow.
MR. OCHS: So, again, that's a testament to Sandra and her
team and their dedication to excellence in public services and
procurement, so thank you, Sandra and your whole team.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, my goodness me. They weigh a
lot. You know what, maybe we can go down, gentlemen.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we need another picture.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Procurement is the heart of
government. If you don't procure right, you don't have the people's
trust. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Leo, we might have to
re-think your gift now that I see all this stuff.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, geez.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's not all of it; that's not
all of it.
MR. OCHS: Oh, okay.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations. Fantastic.
Item #5B
April 27, 2021
Page 19
COVID-19 STATUS REPORT – UPDATE GIVEN
MR. OCH: Commissioners, that moves us to Item 5B this
morning. This is a recommendation to accept the COVID-19 status
report from Ms. Kimberly Kossler, your Department of Health
Administrator, and also Mohammad Abbasi will make the
presentation.
MR. ABBASI: Good morning, Commissioners. Mohammad
Abbasi, Florida Department of Health in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MR. ABBASI: So we'll start by looking at emergency
department visits for influenza-like illness syndrome on the left-hand
side of the slide with the number of daily visits for the last 14 days,
and the trend is downward.
And on the right-hand side are the number of visits from
January 2021. And if you see on the right side of the slide, we see a
continuing upward trend starting around the third week of March.
Moving on to COVID-like illness syndrome. And on the
left-hand side, again, the number of visits over the last 14 days, the
trend is downward, and on the right-hand side it's a similar trend as
the influenza-like illness syndrome. We see an upward trend starting
around first week of March, and for the last two weeks, the numbers
seem to have plateaued.
Positivity rate for the last 14 days on the left-hand side. There's
a slight downward trend but, again, if you look at the long-term trend,
we were at a low of 5.5 percent third week of March, and we
continue to increase to a high of 8 percent about a week ago, and now
our positivity rate is around 7.8 percent for the last 14 days.
Hospital capacity, even though the overall hospital capacity over
the last 14 days has slightly increased, but the trend is downward for
the COVID-filled beds over the last 14 days.
April 27, 2021
Page 20
And looking at the number of cases in our hospitals, there's a
steady downward trend starting around third week of January up until
two weeks ago, and then the numbers have gone up slightly, what
seems to have kind of plateaued.
I'll hand it over to Kim to talk about vaccinations. Thank you.
MS. KOSSLER: Hi. Good morning.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MS. KOSSLER: So as far as total cases for COVID reported to
date, we're at 34,948. Deaths related to COVID, 517. The median
age for distribution of cases dropped by 1 to 44.
For our vaccination efforts, we have over 302,000 doses that
have been administered. That's over 184,000 people vaccinated and
129,000 completed series. Our percentage for 65-plus population
with one or more doses is at 84 percent, and our percentage of
16-plus population is at 55 percent. Our current state goal, they
expect us to be at 80 percent for our 65-plus and 50 percent for our
16-plus by June. So we have already met and exceeded that goal,
and I have to attribute that, honestly, to the community partnerships
and the collaborations, because we could not do it without them.
So we have -- for the statewide initiative, to get more private
providers on board, they've begun the process for registering them
and -- on that vaccinationfinder.org website. So more people will be
able to find more areas to go for medical providers that are offering
vaccine.
We also -- in addition to that vaccinationfinder.org, that's the
CDC tool, the Florida Department of Health also has site locators
listed on their website, which is floridahealthcovid-19.gov.
So our main vaccine distribution site is still currently at the
North Collier Regional Park, but we do have plans underway to begin
transitioning from that community pod in May and integrate back to
the Health Department clinics along with utilizing mobile missions
April 27, 2021
Page 21
for targeting populations throughout the community. Examples are
faith-based sites and workplace sites.
So as of April 5th, all Florida residents became eligible to
receive any vaccine that's prescribed from the Food and Drug
Administration. J&J is now back available to the public with the
advisement of the rare risk factors for developing blood clots.
Public events continue to be posted for appointments on Our
Florida Department of Health Collier website. Again, as usual, if
anyone's having any difficulty scheduling an appointment, they can
call our call center line. We're still working seven days a week
currently, and that's 252-6220. We also have an email dedicated for
COVID; that's covid19collier@flhealth.gov.
And we're still doing testing. Testing is still being provided by
us as well as various locations throughout the county. To date, over
194,000 tests have been reported, and we're still seeing an average of
7,000 tests every week.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, we have Mr. Mullins here to
provide some comparative data as he has in the past.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MS. KOSSLER: And I'll just say thank you. I know I haven't
gotten to know you but thank you for all your commitment to public
health and our agency over the years, and congratulations on your
retirement.
MR. OCHS: You're very welcome, Kim, and we're glad to
have you on board.
MR. MULLINS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, John Mullins, Government Affairs Manager, and I'm back
with an updated series of Commissioner McDaniel slides plotting
state Department of Health daily coronavirus report data on three
topics: Positivity rate, hospitalizations, and fatalities.
With this set of charts, we have completed a one-year cycle from
April 27, 2021
Page 22
when the county-by-county information became available. And as a
reminder, and in case there are some viewing these for the first time,
there are going to be two charts for each of the three topics, one being
a Southwest Florida comparison of Collier, Lee, and Charlotte
Counties and the other a wider selection of populous counties. And
regardless of chart, Collier County will be represented by the red line
on each.
Now, the highlighted sections of the daily report are where the
data were collected. And regarding positivity, please keep in mind
that the report states that the rate is calculated excluding people who
have previously tested positive.
Now, on the positivity charts for the Southwest Florida counties,
the colored number at each data point is the total number of tests
listed in that daily report. On the positivity charts for the wider
selection of counties, I've had to omit the number of test results
because it now renders those charts unreadable.
The circle and cross represents the date that a mask order was
put into effect by county, and as depicted on some of the charts,
you'll see a couple of counties had mask orders in place prior to the
public availability of county-by-county data. So starting with the
positivity rates in Southwest Florida, the slide that you have in front
of you, you can see that the positivity rates in Collier and Lee have
increased over the last month, and this data, of course, complements
what the Department of Health has already stated.
Hospitalizations in all three Southwest Florida counties have
also increased; however, fatalities have dropped with the exception of
Lee County.
Now, in some of the more populous counties, there's been a
slight uptick in positivity rate with the exception of Pinellas; a slight
uptick in hospitalizations in all of the included counties; but a slight
decrease in fatalities with the exception of Broward.
April 27, 2021
Page 23
And with that, I will yield to any questions or for Commissioner
McDaniel's evaluation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I don't have an
evaluation. I want to thank you for bringing forward this
information because it -- for me, at least, it gives us an opportunity to
compare how our community is faring in relationship to our
neighbors so -- and I thank you for that.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, that's all we have on Item 5B.
We do have a time-certain item if you'd like to move to that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair, can I just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd like to just give a quick shout
out. No, no, just a quick shout out to the Pelican Bay Foundation
and the North Collier Fire. They partnered to make the -- a large
portion of the Pelican Bay Community Center a vaccination site.
And I'm not sure how many thousands of people have been
vaccinated through there. But I think it was a great example of
community coming together, you know, to tackle this huge logistics
issue that we have.
So thank you to the Pelican Bay Foundation for doing that and
the North Collier Fire District.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, before we go to 9:30, if you don't
mind, we do have one registered speaker under public comments.
April 27, 2021
Page 24
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: I'd hate to have them have to wait the balance of
the morning.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. I would agree.
MR. MILLER: Yes. Your one registered speaker is
Jacqualene Keay.
MS. KEAY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MS. KEAY: I have been using Facebook now for only 14
months, and I am shocked at the level of hate, meanness, and racism I
have seen.
As people hide behind anonymity of their monitors, they need to
understand that words have meanings and consequences. Hate can
only give birth to hate.
Your posts will attract people with similar ideology. As the
saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. The truth of your heart
will manifest in your posts and comments even if you hide that truth
while in the community.
Because of my background in psychology, I spend an exorbitant
amount of time observing people in situational contexts. By and
large, most people are kind with good hearts. Those using words as
weapons are loudest, and though they are few, their numbers are
growing due to radicalization. Now I have found my voice. I will
speak up for those who do not have a voice.
I would like to share a recent incident in which I finally had the
courage to speak up. I would like to share my experience with the
author and friends of the non-profit organization Fallen Officers.
About two weeks ago I saw two posts and comments that I felt were
inappropriate, and I made comments in a complaint. Those posts
were from Fox News. One showed the black mayor who pulled
down the thin blue-lined flag and another showed Daunte Wright's
April 27, 2021
Page 25
picture juxtaposed to Officer Potter's picture, and the post highlighted
the riots. They called it riots.
What possible good could come from posting such articles on a
non-profit site? You can imagine some of the responses to these
posts. One said, leave the fag alone. If he had not been breaking
the law, this would not have happened. Another made light of Mr.
Wright's death. Some felt his death was his fault and he got what he
deserved.
The stereotypical response from Fallen Officers to my concern
are at the core of racism. It is the racist ideology that blames the
victim. Okay. Here's the quote: Here is a simple way of thinking.
Don't break the law, exclamation. Don't resist arrest. Amazing how
groups turn a fellow into a God. I took a picture of that comment
just in case it was deleted.
So systemic and antiblack racism permeates every person in
every walk of life even if those who perpetuate it deny it. So hate is
destructive and pervasive; however, love is the most powerful force
in this universe, and love does conquer hate. People just need to be
aware that some of their words and actions and comments do hurt
other people.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Item #11C
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A LAND LEASE AND
OPERATOR AGREEMENT WITH BIGSHOTS GOLF, A
DIVISION OF CLUBCORP USA, INC., FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A PUBLIC GOLF
COURSE AND ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX AT THE
FORMER GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY FOR
April 27, 2021
Page 26
SUBSEQUENT CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD - MOTION
TO ACCEPT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 11C is a recommendation to
authorize staff to negotiate a land lease and operator agreement with
BigShots Golf, a division of ClubCorp USA, Incorporated, for the
construction and operation of a public golf course and entertainment
complex at the former Golden Gate Golf Course property for
subsequent consideration by the Board.
And Mr. Geoff Willig will make the presentation.
MR. WILLIG: Good morning, Commissioners. Geoff Willig,
for the record.
Last year in December you-all had asked and tasked staff to go
out and issue another ITN for a partner to redevelop the golf course.
Since that time -- and also your direction was to add to the length of
time that we had that out on the street as well as avoid the holidays.
As the last time we had gone out for an ITN for this, we were in the
midst of the Christmas and New Year's holidays.
So we've done that. We were out on the street for 60 days this
time instead of 30 days, and we started the -- we started the
solicitation advertisement in the middle of January.
So through that process, we had -- we had reached out to
3,000 -- or 34,614 firms. We had 180 firms view the proposal, and
also we had worked with the National Golf Foundation who
promoted it to their membership and gave us an additional set of
notifications of 1,737 emails to their membership and folks that
they're in contact with.
Through that process, we received only one response to the
proposal, and this morning we have individuals from BigShots here
that will present their proposal to you and be here to answer any
questions that you might have.
April 27, 2021
Page 27
And following that, I'll get back up here, following your
direction, and have a couple more questions. So I'll turn it over here
to Randall Cousins and Dave Pillsbury.
And give me a moment. Let's -- so I can load up their presentation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, did you
want to say anything? Later, okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: While the petitioner is
coming up, kind of remind the Board -- I think it's been stated -- but
this is really Step 2 of a multistep process. Our first step was the
issuance of the ITN, and I believe the Board unanimously directed
staff to issue that ITN.
The next step after today, if this moves forward, the next step
will be to review and approve or reject a proposed contract. So
we're not here today to actually approve a contract. We're here
today to approve, really, a concept. And so I'm looking forward to
hearing the details.
MR. PILLSBURY: Well, thank you. It's an honor to be here,
and I enjoyed, in particular, the recognition of the veterans. We do a
lot of work with veterans organizations and, you know, we wouldn't
be here today witnessing government at work without the sacrifice of
so many who have come before us, so I'm glad I got to witness that.
My name is David Pillsbury. I'm the CEO of ClubCorp.
ClubCorp is an organization that's been around since 1957. We've
got deep roots across the United States. We started in Dallas, Texas,
at a little club called Brookhaven Country Club, which is right by
635, and we've grown to over 200 clubs across the country. We
have four lines of business. We have our golf and country club
division. The closest golf and country club we have to Collier
County is in Jupiter, Jupiter Country Club.
We also have a second line of business called city clubs, and our
city clubs are basically downtown business clubs, and the closest one
April 27, 2021
Page 28
we have to Collier County is in Fort Lauderdale, the Tower Club in
Fort Lauderdale.
The third line of business are stadium clubs, which is a very
exciting business for us, and it's all, again, membership based. But
they're based out of football stadiums. The closest one we have in
Florida is Florida State University. We've been there for 22 years
actually partnering with the Boosters. So we run the stadium club.
It's called the University Club at Florida State.
The fourth line of business we have is called BigShots Golf, and
we're very excited about BigShots Golf for some reasons that I think
you'll understand here in a few minutes.
So we've been doing this for a long time. Our clubs are mini
community centers. They're a nexus for the community, so we
understand how communities work.
Our clubs are where business is done. It's where celebrations
are done. It's where celebrations of life are done. It's where people
come to escape the day-to-day rigors of their lives to enjoy
fellowship with people that they like and want to be around. And so
we believe that what we're going to be talking to you about today is
just that. It is a centerpiece of a community. And I think that will
begin to take shape as we walk through the presentation.
So it's an honor for me to be here. We appreciate the
consideration. There's been a lot of work over the last year. We'll
talk a little bit about where we were before and how we got to where
we are today.
But I wanted to start with a couple of opening comments. First,
I'd like to congratulate the Commission on what you're accomplishing
with the sports complex. And you might find it odd that I'm starting
my presentation with a congratulations about the sports complex but
let me tell you why I am so impressed with the fact you're doing it.
A, I understand that I'm sure it was not without controversy.
April 27, 2021
Page 29
Probably great controversy because big things don't happen without a
lot of debate and controversy. I know that you're going to spend
over $100 million, a lot of money. But why? Because you're going
to create an economic driver for the community. You're going to
add a community amenity that everyone in this community will
benefit from. You've created a regional iconic asset.
I have five kids. They all played club sports. They would
have all played in your complex had they still been playing. My last
one's still playing volleyball at FIU.
So that's a bold move that will change the face of Collier County
for years to come far beyond any of us, and that's really what we're
here to talk about as it relates to the Golden Gate project.
Here's a golf course that's gone fallow. It's basically a weed
patch that's being mowed for the surrounding residents so it's not an
eyesore. And you had the vision to buy this piece of real estate, and
I'm sure that was not without controversy. It was a big investment.
But now the county owns this golf course, this property, this valuable
real estate forever, for as long as the county wants to own it.
So the question is, what do you do with it? Well, there's been
some great progressive thinking about how to use pieces of the land
to add important community assets, affordable housing, potentially
veterans. I don't know very much about all the considerations you
guys have undertaken for the use of that land. It's very valuable
land, and hopefully there's not a scenario that prevents the county
from continuing to own that land going forward. So that land will
simply appreciate over time.
What we're here to talk to you about is an alternative use for a
part of that land, and it's been an exciting opportunity. And I want to
explain to you why by giving you a bit of a backdrop here that you
might not be aware of.
There's been an amazing confluence of events in the world of
April 27, 2021
Page 30
golf and entertainment over the past decade. And you might
wonder, well, what does that mean? Well, this is a sport where,
unlike any other sport, 45 weeks a year this sport is on television
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Maybe to the chagrin of
some, but to the great joy of others.
Now, why is that important? It's important because golf has
become part of Americana. It's certainly part of Florida's DNA. It's
certainly part of Collier County's DNA.
One big problem: Access and friction. What does that mean?
Well, 25 years ago TopGolf came to the United States, and TopGolf
came with a new idea, an idea that you could create a game, make
this fun, so it's not just hitting golf balls. There's a game. An idea
where all you had to do was bring a credit card. So what did that
do? It took the friction out.
So for someone that was interested in golf, all they had to do
was bring their credit card, and they could experience the joy of the
game and the fraternity of being with your friends, and incredibly
diverse, by the way. You go look down a tee line at one of our
BigShots facilities or a TopGolf, you see every age group. You see
every ethnic group. They're all there. Why? Because they're
curious about this great game, but they're not willing to go buy a set
of clubs. They may not even know how to make a tee time. They
might not know what a tee time is. They might not know where to
go to play golf. Who do I talk to? That's for the insiders in golf, the
people that already play, and they're important, too.
But golf has excluded a lot of people because of the friction.
Well, there's been a confluence of forces started by TopGolf. Now,
you've read about this. Tiger Woods has his new putting concept.
They're going to open five or six facilities throughout Florida for
putting, indoor putting. There's Putt Shack, which is coming from
the UK, which is indoor putting and entertainment. Again, you play
April 27, 2021
Page 31
in groups of four. It's people together enjoying one another's
company and enjoying the sport without the friction of having to go
through all those steps you have to go through to play golf.
There's Drive Shack. They're going to build 20,000-square-foot
indoor putting facilities. TopGolf continues to grow. And then, of
course, there's BigShots. Now, why is that? It's because there's this
confluence of forces. People are looking for wholesome, family
outdoor entertainment, and they're curious about golf because they or
someone they love had been watching it on television for 20 years.
So we have an opportunity here to put all of this under one roof.
Now, what does that mean? Well, we're not just doing indoor
putting. We're not just doing outdoor putting. We're not just doing
gamification. We're doing it with the best technology available.
We're not just doing food. We're doing food right. Scratch
kitchens, farm to table, affordable, delicious food, and we have the
chance to deliver high-quality, affordable golf so we can take these
people who hit that one shot -- you know, when you go play TopGolf
or BigShots for an hour and you've never played golf before, you've
never picked up a club before, but you hit that one shot, and you go,
wow, I think I might be able to do this again. I could replicate this.
Well, the problem with TopGolf, they have no transition plan.
There's nowhere for me to go. How do I convert people that are
interested kids, young adults, women who say, look, this sounds like
a fun sport. What do I do next?
Well, by having BigShots putting and golf all under one
umbrella, we can connect the dots. We can truly create an integrated
amenity the likes of which does not exist in America. Nicklaus did
his first 12-hole golf course; it's in Tennessee. We know about
TopGolf. We know about all these putting concepts, but we have a
chance to put it all under one roof for the benefit of the community,
to create an economic driver, and to create an iconic asset that will be
April 27, 2021
Page 32
the envy of cities all over the United States.
I'm being interviewed right now by the New York Times, and we
talked about this. I said, look, we're a candidate for this project.
This is a game-changer project, we believe.
Now, you own the property. Golf, unfortunately -- it's
interesting, when you look at all the growth of TopGolf and putting
concepts, you wonder, how come new golf courses aren't being built?
Because they don't make economic sense. It doesn't work, which is
why all these alternative concepts are popping up, but then there's
nowhere for these people to go to learn to play the game, yet golf is
part of our DNA as a county and as a state.
So it seems to me this is a continuation of what you started,
which is to invest in the community in a compelling way, not without
controversy, not without tough decisions, but by creating an asset
that's your asset that is improved by the county as it relates to the
golf, as it relates to the BigShots and the putting. We make that
investment. You don't have to make that investment.
We then pay you rent so you don't have an ongoing operating
expense like you do with the sports complex which, again, I think is a
brilliant move. This is self-supporting. It's a sustainable project.
These are the kinds of public/private partnerships that we think really
make sense for communities.
What I'd like to do is just walk you through a quick overview of
what this project looks like and highlight a couple of key points that
we'd like you to consider as you think through the decision as to
whether or not this project should move forward.
So this is really a convergence of forces. We think we've got an
incredible entertainment concept with BigShots which we'll talk
about in a second, but you also have the experience -- I'm the fifth
CEO in the history of this company. This is a stable legacy
company. We are not a startup. We are not, you know, just going
April 27, 2021
Page 33
to show up. We come and partner with you. We're here to stay, and
it's important for you to know that. And then, of course, we think
we've got a real opportunity with the golf course.
So this is this 12-hole concept, and it's important to just take a
second and reflect on why 12 holes, because people say, well,
I -- golf courses are 18 holes. Why would we do a 12-hole golf
course? It doesn't make any sense. Well, what did I just spend 10
minutes talking about? Friction. Part of what makes golf difficult
for people to play is time.
So the way we re-think golf is by reducing the amount of time it
takes to play, which takes friction out, which means you can play
three holes. You can come and play BigShots for an hour and then
take your same group of four people and go play three holes or six
holes or nine holes. Or even 18 holes, because we're going to have
multiple tees. So you can play a hole twice without playing the
same hole.
Jack Nicklaus, who will be our partner on this, is so excited
about this 12-hole concept. In fact, he has done his first 12-hole golf
course; it's in Tennessee. And he's excited about this because he
believes that these 7,500-yard golf courses that are incredibly
intimidating are one of the reasons why people don't pick up the
sport, why your residents don't pick up the sport.
Well, A, they need to have access; B, they need someone to take
the friction out when they make that transition to play; and, then, C,
they need to be able to play three holes, six holes, nine holes,
whatever they have time to play, and that's what's brilliant about the
12-hole concept.
So, you know, we have a company full of 18-hole golf courses.
We have 212 18-hole golf courses. I'm more excited about 12 holes
than I am about our 18-hole golf courses because I think we have a
chance to bring golf to a new community. And then, of course,
April 27, 2021
Page 34
you've got BigShots, which we'll talk about next.
So what is it? So this is what we call eatertainment. It's a new
word, right? And eatertainment is where people gather to share a
culinary experience with entertainment. Now, you can have
either/or in lots of places. Casual dining and what's called fast
casual dining has grown 10, 15 percent a year for the past seven or
eight years minus the pandemic.
Entertainment has grown at 6 or 7 percent a year, but the
combination of the two is relatively new, and TopGolf has really
broken the glass ceiling that we see so clearly now, which is this is
how people want to spend their leisure time.
Our venue features both indoor and outdoor, so it's an all-season
experience. We have heaters. We have misters so that the hot
summers won't keep people from enjoying the experience and neither
will that rare cold snap that we have here in the Naples marketplace.
BigShots is built around fun, and no friction.
This is just an example of kind of what it looks like. This is
people enjoying food, sitting in lounge chairs. This is at a bay, at a
tee station. We would have 62 of these bays. And then we'd have a
bar, and we'd have dining, and we'd have private event rooms for
meetings, and we'll have lesson space and activities during the day
for some other very important constituents that we'll talk about here
in just a second.
This is for everyone. So this is not for an elite class. This is
not a private club. This is all-access. This is about bring your
credit card and have fun. It's also about people that have been left
behind. In particular, kids that have been left behind, and we are so
lucky to have a national organization called the First Tee. It's been
around for 25 years. I've been very involved. I was their keynote
speaker at the 10-year anniversary. I care deeply about this
organization.
April 27, 2021
Page 35
And there is a tremendous chapter here in Collier County for the
First Tee. What does the First Tee do? They take kids that
otherwise would not have the opportunity, and they teach them life
skills, core values, and healthy habits using golf as the vehicle. It's
not really about golf. It's about teaching these kids how to live, and
it works, and it works because they're now doctors and lawyers all of
whom have come through the First Tee.
Well, the First Tee right now doesn't have a home, and we
would like to make this their home. And this is a proactive
community outreach program for kids that might not otherwise have
the opportunity to enjoy this sport.
And I could tell you stories about players that are trying to make
it on the PGA tour that came to the First Tee or, maybe even more
importantly, the doctor or the lawyer whose values were shaped by
their experience as a kid in the First Tee program. You go through
levels of graduation all the way up to par, birdie, eagle, double eagle,
and those are -- those correspond with your ability to pass certain
tests around your understanding of life skills. Not golf skills; life
skills. Golf is a game about honor and trust and telling the truth and
following the rules and doing things that make our society go around,
and the First Tee helps embed that in these incredible young people,
and so we're excited to call this facility home for the Collier County
First Tee.
I mentioned ClubCorp. You know, I just think it's important to
drive home here that, you know, we're not a couple guys out of a
garage here with an idea, and BigShots is alive. It's real. We
opened in Fort Worth two weeks ago. We're opening in Springfield,
Missouri, May 15th, we broke ground on January 27th in Bryan,
Texas, for BigShots Aggieland at their sports complex, interestingly
enough, that the county and the city are building there in
collaboration with the university.
April 27, 2021
Page 36
So as I mentioned, the golf course would be championship
caliber. In other words, if you are a good player and you want to
play from the back tees, you're going to have a great golf experience.
This is not meant to be what has come to be known as sort of the
multiple golf course. This is high quality. This is execution at the
highest level where each of you and everyone in this room would be
very proud to say this is my home club. This is my home course.
This is a county golf course, and we could be proud of the conditions
of this golf course.
The reality is the golf course isn't going to make a lot of money.
If it breaks even, we'd be thrilled, but we think, obviously, the
BigShots Golf, where we're investing our capital, we think there'll be
a return on that investment, or we wouldn't be in that business.
So reduced green fees, obviously. We would have
resident/nonresident rates. We'd have peak and off peak times.
We'd have discounts for senior citizens. We would do all those
things that are logical to do to occupy the golf course when people
that are working, for example, who are not retired don't have time to
play. So a lot of financial incentive to get people to play during the
weekdays and so forth. So prime time would be saved for people
that have time. Don't have time to play and have the means to pay.
So the facility, just to remind you -- I think you probably
remember most of this, but just in case you don't -- this is a two-story
facility. Just by comparison, if you've seen TopGolfs, they're three
stories. They're monstrosities. They're 105 bays. This is a more of
a boutique version. It's much smaller with the 60 hitting bays.
It's a -- it feels like a sports entertainment facility; lots of
televisions, lots of sports on TV, a lot of sound. It's got a real kind
of vibe to it in terms of, you know, music playing. It's a great place
to want to hang out.
I mentioned private dining on the first floor and flexible event
April 27, 2021
Page 37
space on the second floor and then, obviously, food and beverage
service throughout the facility including out on the putting -- on the
putting course. We'll have 36 holes of putting at this facility. And
it's not just, you know, a flat putting on course. This is interesting
and fun, not quite miniature golf, but entertaining, something that
people want to come back and enjoy which, again, is taking what
many of these other concepts are doing inside and making it sort of
indoor/outdoor here as part of a broader entertainment complex.
This is a visual of what it looks like. So if you were to go to
Fort Worth today, this is what you would see. It's beautiful. It will,
I think, be a terrific visual amenity to the Golden Gate community.
Inside it's what you would expect, you know. It's like kind of a
sports bar, very casual, nice finishes, contemporary in its look and
feel.
This is a little bit of a perspective on the putting. The
see-through there where the umbrellas are, behind that, those are
garage door -- type doors that open, so there's a lot of open space.
So during the beautiful months here in Naples, that would all be open
for dining by the entire community.
This is just an example of what a bay looks like. So this
is -- the tech is all embedded in a radar tracking device. We use
Doppler radar to track all the activity from the balls. This, as you
see, is the Doppler tracking device there, and we track all the data.
So for the nerds that really like golf, you get every piece of data you
can imagine on your swing and on moment of impact, and you'll have
an app that you'll be able to carry all your data with you.
One thing that's pretty interesting is you can compete live with
other BigShots facilities. So we have one in Vero Beach. You can
compete live with Vero Beach, live with Fort Worth, Texas, which is
really fun, particularly for the millennial crowd. That's a really
enjoyable part of BigShots.
April 27, 2021
Page 38
This is actually Vero Beach, so this is what we call generation
one. This is -- these things evolve, you know; as each iteration
occurs, they get better and better and better. This is only a 30-bay.
This is the small version, and you can see the putting course down
below.
This is actually -- these are actually shots of Vero Beach and of
Fort Worth. And these are actually the games. So what happens,
just to -- kind of hard to wrap your head around it. What you do is
you hit a shot, and you look down at your screen, and on the screen
you're hitting through these virtual targets. So, for example, as you
look to the lower right, the balloons and you see an airplane, those
are all moving. So, obviously, if you hit a moving target, you score
more points.
And the way we built the games is we have a game that's called
ping pong -- I'm sorry, it's called -- it's called pinball, you know,
when you ball the -- the reason why pinball is because we didn't want
it to be skill based. All you've got to do is pull the hand back, and
the pinball releases and bells go off, and you start scoring points.
So the seven-year-old kid can beat his dad who might be a one
handicap, because it's not skill based. And then as you go through
each of the games, they become more and more skills based, so
everybody has fun. That's the point, and that's what keeps people
coming back.
So that's really the quick flyover. There's obviously a lot of
detail. The city [sic] staff has been terrific. I think they understand
in much more intimate detail all the different elements, but I think it
would be a good idea for us to pause and just ask what your questions
might be. I'm sure there are several, and I'd be happy to answer
those questions, and if I can't, Randall Cousins is here with me, and
he's intimately involved with your staff on the project and can answer
whatever questions I can't handle.
April 27, 2021
Page 39
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just two quick questions and
then a quick comment.
One of the complaints I've heard is that this could create noise in
the neighborhood. Now, it looks like everything's directed away
from the neighborhoods, the lighting and everything. Can you
comment on the type of lighting and what could be expected in terms
of any noise that would be emanating from this facility.
MR. COUSINS: Yeah. We actually intend to comply with the
existing light and noise pollution regulations. We're very aware that
there's a community at the back end of this parking lot, and it's very
important for them to have a good experience as well.
From a lighting perspective, the lighting for driving ranges has
really come a long way. You don't want to -- basically, any light
spillage is wasted light. And so, you know, at night when you're on
these ranges, you want to be able to see that ball track, but anything
beyond that and, you know, the lighting that's necessary in the
parking lot would just be extra, so we're very aware of that concern
and are working that into the design.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. What about
noise? Again, it looks like everything's kind of directed towards 951
and Golden Gate Parkway, but any particular concerns about noise?
MR. COUSINS: As I said, we fully intend to comply with the
existing noise regulations. And you're exactly right, the bays where
you would be standing and hitting golf balls is towards that
intersection, and so your back would be to that community, that Par 1
community. So we don't think there's going to be a significant
amount of noise.
MR. PILLSBURY: I think, actually, most of the -- most of the
noise will be actually contained within the sports bar area. The
actual hitting bays itself, there's some background music, but it's
April 27, 2021
Page 40
really the talking and the conversing among the patrons.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then one last question.
You mentioned First Tee. Is there anyone here from First Tee?
MR. PILLSBURY: Is Cindy here?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can you spend just a little bit
of -- a couple minutes on what type of relationship you would have
with First Tee and what their reaction is.
MR. PILLSBURY: Yeah. So the First Tee, they're looking
for a home, and they would actually build a small structure on the
property as part of the project, which would be their -- their
headquarters, and it would be their classroom, and then they would
use, on a complementary basis, BigShots. They would get access to
the golf during off peak times for the kids, but they would do all of
their programming for Collier County out of this facility and out of
their structure that they would build and they would fund on their
own.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Hi, Mr. Pillsbury. Thanks
for that presentation.
Wow, have I gotten a lot of emails on this, okay.
A couple of statements I just want to make. Everybody that's
worried that 12 holes isn't really golf, I've been all over the country,
and a lot of us have, so I'm speaking for a group. Twelve-hole golf
courses exist. I mean, I've played one in Colorado, and when you
got to the second tee box on Hole 3, which was now Hole 13, it was a
totally different golf course. So I mean, you know, we've all gotten
a lot of emails, oh, don't ruin it with a 12-hole course.
I'm glad that Commissioner Saunders opened up in the
beginning saying we're not -- we're not voting on construction
tomorrow. So people really need to hear this. We're going through
April 27, 2021
Page 41
a very methodical process, but I'm here to echo what you said about
12-hole courses. I'm not saying it's the approved solution, but when
trying to make a footprint fit, you're trying to -- you know, you own a
calculator. You're trying to do the algorithm. You know, you can
do anything, but you can't do everything.
So I understand that concept, and it exists. Like you said, I do
know Jack Nicklaus just built a course, but plenty of other people
have.
Here's just a couple of -- you know, so that you can see where
I'm coming from. My biggest concern is compatibility and synergy
with what's already around there, so I'll leave it at that. And I know
we share that concern. It's already been asked; noise, things like
that.
You know, shoehorning in something that's this amazing, but
maybe the community, it doesn't -- you know, it's a great thing in a
certain location. We need to figure out if this is it.
Here is my biggest concern, so we just honored veterans here,
and I appreciated your comments. I am getting an unbelievable
amount of emails from veterans, because I'm a retired Air Force
colonel, some of them in the room here saying, vote for golf so we
can get our VA nursing home. And so we've got to make sure, you
know, you -- and rightly so, you didn't present anything about a VA
nursing home, but there is -- there are slides out there that show a
little square that says VA nursing home, and it's a placeholder, you
know. I'm not sitting here saying anybody's promised anything, but
there is a perception out there that this is all tied, in some people's
minds, to a VA nursing home.
One of the things that I've said -- and I met with some of your
group and some others. Some people think VA stands for veteran.
Is doesn't. It stands for Veterans Administration, and I haven't heard
that the VA based out of Washington, D.C., that I have a lot of
April 27, 2021
Page 42
experience with is coming down here to build a veterans nursing
home.
So I don't say that they can't, and I'm not -- these aren't negative
comments by any stretch, but it's really to separate rumor from fact so
that people watching this aren't saying, wow, if you-all don't vote for
golf course, you hate veterans. The home's not in design, and I
haven't heard that the Veterans Administration has us number one on
the list to partner with us for a veterans nursing home. I hope they
do.
But, you know, and those like Commissioner Saunders were
saying, we're doing very methodical steps here. But I just want to
get that, you know, on the record.
The other thing is having a bit of a healthcare background being
the, you know, COO of Physicians Regional here and also being the
base commander of several military bases with very large hospitals,
having a nursing home has a whole medical piece that goes with it.
You can't just draw a box, say VA nursing home, and some people
think that just means veterans home, but VA actually means Veterans
Administration, like I said.
But then the other component piece -- and I know that's not your
job so I'm not here saying, you know, build the VA nursing home,
you know, BigShots, and then come in with your -- but it's really
more for the people who are watching this, who are hearing this and
maybe don't know so much about it but they think, just vote on this
so we can have our nursing home. I'm getting a lot of emails like
that, and that's where we're just trying to separate rumor from fact.
In some of these earlier conversations, there were conversations
about possible workforce housing on this footprint. And so, you
know, I don't know if this absorbs some of that or not. And we're
going to go through methodical steps, but I just want to make sure
that folks out there know BigShots isn't building workforce housing
April 27, 2021
Page 43
and a Veterans Administration nursing home. These are other things
that could be done on this property. Maybe it's a totally separate
project. We'll wait and hear how that comes.
But I can't tell you the number of emails that I've gotten from
fellow veterans that just say, please vote on golf so that we can have
our VA nursing home and, you know, that's not actually -- you know,
that's apples and chairs. So just to say that, and make sure that
you're not implying -- and I don't believe you are, so I'm not saying
that.
But that folks do understand what we're trying to do on this very
complicated piece of property that we want to maximize without
promising some things that aren't coming. I mean, I've had people
that have said, you know, build a nursing home and workforce
housing first and then squeeze the golf in. I mean, these are notes
that I think we've all sort of gotten.
So, you know, I just wanted to mention that. Make you -- I'm
sure you're aware of it. But also, you know, VA doesn't mean
veteran. It means Veterans Administration. And, you know, I can
tell you, if the folks in DC got wind that all of a sudden, you know,
we're advertising that possibly, or people are perceiving -- we're not
advertising, but people might have a perception when they see that,
that somehow we're getting the next VA hospital, VA nursing home,
that's a stretch.
But I appreciate the presentation here. It's obvious that you've
done a lot of architectural work and design -- like you say, you all
have done this before -- to figure out how this could best fit if we
were to move forward, you know, with it and whatnot. But I just
wanted to sort of caution on the veterans piece and the workforce
housing people, because to some people this is great. They care a lot
more about the other piece, and they think it's all together -- and
maybe it will be all together. Maybe we'll decide, hey, you know,
April 27, 2021
Page 44
it's all or nothing kind of thing. But that's an important piece to, you
know -- to, you know, an elderly community here, veterans, that are
in this community here and maybe aren't following this as closely as
we are. So I just wanted to mention that.
Thank you, sir.
MR. PILLSBURY: Commissioner, thank you for the
clarification and, I mean, our job is to try and give you the best
community asset and minimize the use of real estate so you have
alternative uses for that real estate that you can pursue.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: For other --
MR. PILLSBURY: For other purposes, for whatever you see is
best, the highest and best use for your community.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But there are some that think
if we said yes to this, all those other things automatically come. And
they're -- you know, they're misinformed, and so we're trying to make
sure that people do understand what we're doing here. So thank you,
sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just -- I'm sorry. I'm going to break
in here. Just so that you're clear and the public is clear, there are
three separate entities at this point being considered for this piece of
land. One is going ahead. It's the affordable housing. That's to the
south. Then we have BigShots Golf, which is here before us, and we
have the nursing home, which is more than a wish of a commissioner,
and I think I'd like to turn to Commissioner Saunders so he can
explain his history with this issue.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just real quickly, and
Commissioner McDaniel and I visited the VA in Washington, D.C. --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And in Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- so everyone's aware of the
proposed project. But this was a project that would be funded
partially through the one-cent sales tax that the Commission placed
April 27, 2021
Page 45
on the ballot a couple years ago. I think there's -- I'm not sure of the
number. I think it may be $30 million that's in that pot of money for
a project. And this -- the veterans nursing home is not connected in
any way whatsoever with this. If we turn this project down on
BigShots, it has nothing to do with the veterans nursing home.
That's a separate project, a separate parcel. And we're in line to get
the approval at some point. The hope is that the state Department of
Veterans Affairs will approve Collier County for the next veterans
nursing home based on the fact that we are providing the local match
for that project. Totally unconnected.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My hope is that both of these
projects will go through.
And I'll talk to -- or turn to the Chairman in terms of the
workforce housing project. That's already underway. A separate
parcel. It's funded, and it's on its way. So we've got these three
projects that are on the table, but they're not connected to each other.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I just wanted to add, I think
the importance of my comments were I want to make sure people
understand that your golf doesn't make those other things automatic.
They are three separate. So, I mean, you know, I've gotten
one-liners that just say, please vote for the golf, and, you know, they
don't know anything about it, so we can get the others. And so, you
know, I confirm every single thing that I've just heard here, but to the
public, I hope a lot of people are watching that realize they are three
separate projects. Saying yes to golf and even it happening doesn't
automatically -- it's not tied. I hope it all does, but it's not tied, I
think, is the key thing, and you know that. We all know that. I
want to make sure that this is the first big public hearing where
there's quite a few out there that don't, and we've been flooded with
emails from some people that have sort of said that that think it is,
April 27, 2021
Page 46
that if we -- so thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So -- right, there's three different
ideas for this property. And I don't know if the County Manager or
Mr. Willig or somebody can give us an idea of -- there's some aerial
photographs showing the current layout of the golf course, what's
proposed. And my question is, is maybe we can just point out the
areas where we're thinking about these other uses, because one of the
things I heard was that First Tee would be creating their own facility,
and I'm kind of interested in knowing where that would be. And I'll
just -- I'll just -- you know, I've had my reservations from the
beginning, which I still have, about the county ending up in the golf
business, and so where that building would be if that's even just
conceptually, would, I think, be helpful for me.
MR. WILLIG: Commissioners, so I'll try to use the telestrator
here as best as my John Madden skills can handle.
In the bottom part here, that yellow box, that's where -- south of that
even is where we're -- through the ITC, intent to convert, we had
anticipated putting the essential services housing piece.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. WILLIG: The state veterans nursing home, in the ITC
process, we've identified this area up here to the north and to the east
of current hotel property as where we would locate the veterans
nursing home.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And so --
MR. OCHS: Show him where the First Tee.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. If you've got your -- yeah,
where would the First Tee theoretically be?
MR. PILLSBURY: It would be right there. There would be
about an 8,000-square-foot building at the end of the parking lot.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, at the end of the parking lot,
April 27, 2021
Page 47
okay.
MR. PILLSBURY: Yeah, right there. And, obviously, that
needs to be approved and reviewed and all that stuff. So that would
come on down the road. That wouldn't be in the first phase.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. So, essentially, there's
what are now Holes 4 and 5 along 951 -- or, sorry, Collier Boulevard.
I'm dating myself -- is where the workforce housing goes. Okay.
And so my question is, what -- number one, is where Hole 16 -- 15,
16, and 17 doesn't look to be as part of the layout.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This is 12-hole --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is the new one. This is --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, that's what I'm saying, right.
And so on their 12-hole, there's what is now 15, 16 and 17 not being
used. Is -- is there any -- is that land that you don't want to lease?
I'm just trying to figure out what it is --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You need an overview.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- what we're going to be left with,
if anything.
MR. WILLIG: In terms of at least the intent to convert, this
section up here, 16 and 17, we had kind of identified that as
potentially a space for some government building in the future but,
obviously, that area is flexible, and should BigShots decide, hey, we
want to loop in, come in around here using 15 and some of 17 to
make a hole, that could be done. So there's no --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So that's still a part of what's going
to be negotiated in this -- if we approve this ITN?
MR. WILLIG: Yes, and I'll turn it over to David.
MR. PILLSBURY: Yeah. What we would do -- thanks,
Geoff.
I think what we would do is we would have Jack Nicklaus
April 27, 2021
Page 48
actually -- have you guys say, here's the land that we want to
preserve, so come up with the best layout for 12 holes you can within
this envelope. So that's what you want to do. You don't want to let
an architect start with a blank canvas. You want to say, here are
your constraints. So you guys tell us, hey, we want to preserve this
land for the future -- I mean, you own all the land, so you have all of
it for the future, but you might want to use part of it sooner than later,
shorter than the leasehold term. So we would then design around
your land requirements.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. It seems like a bit of a
chicken and the egg issue for me, but -- okay. I just wanted some
clarification as to what parts that aren't covered by the 12-hole
proposal that we're looking at would -- whether that's going to be part
of what's negotiated or not. So at this point, I guess, the answer to
that question is we don't know?
MR. PILLSBURY: Well, this is a -- this is a land map based
upon the feedback we've gotten from the county --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. PILLSBURY: -- as to the land that you're trying to
protect.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. PILLSBURY: I think the key point here, Commissioner,
is that -- is that we're flexible. If you guys decide differently that
there's another parcel that you would like to protect, we can reroute
the golf course. I mean, obviously, there are some constraints.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
MR. PILLSBURY: But we've got a fair amount of flexibility.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I understand. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, and then I
think we're -- we are going to take about a 10-minute break.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, and I don't mean to interrupt --
April 27, 2021
Page 49
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- but you have just set conditions. You've got
14 registered speakers, you have a 10:45 with the Army Corps that
we'll try to push back a little bit, but --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Yes; yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to take your
break before I go?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. You're on the gun. You're
on the clock right now; it starts.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Go.
Thank you, Mr. Pillsbury, for coming here today and the
presentation. I can't remember --
MR. COUSINS: Randall.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Andrew?
MR. COUSINS: Randall.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Randall; forgive me.
One of the comments I want to make, and I want to say because
I figure you're going to be the one that's here on site every day. He'll
be gone doing whatever he does for ClubCorp.
If we do, in fact, approve this project, there's a community 360
degrees around this BigShots facility. You're pointing that -- that
proposition is pointing that at an intersection, but there's two square
miles of very rural low-density housing out there on the other side of
951.
And you're not dating yourself, Commissioner Solis. It will
always be 951.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 951.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So just remember that as we
go forward.
For you, sir, thank you.
I love the concept of BigShots. I think it's just a hoot. I love
April 27, 2021
Page 50
it. I love the game of golf. You said it correctly; it is, in fact, a way
of life for people to learn life skills, not just play a game.
And, for the record, hit it as it lies.
MR. COUSINS: That's it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've got to share with you, I
have concerns about the investment that's being requested with regard
to the taxpayers' money. I need that to be solidified, what my ROI
is, what type of -- what type of time frame am I looking at for that
rate of return to, in fact, come back to our community.
I'm not a fan of BigShots on this site, just so you know. I have
expressed this concern to you on a regular basis that this is a lot on
one piece of property. And, irrespective of what Commissioner
LoCastro says, I'm not a fan of 12 holes; never have been.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I didn't say a fan.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm not saying there isn't
room for something new. Look what our game has evolved to in the
recent past. Please understand that; I'm not going to stomp my feet
here, but I'm not a fan. So with that -- of the 12-hole facility.
There's some really, really nice 9-hole facilities that aren't jamming
so much in that I think we might could have a look at. So with
that -- that's my questions for you or comments.
And, Jeffrey, if you don't find, maybe -- because it's
continued -- it's come up here multiple times, and I thought you were
heading there, Commissioner Solis. I wanted to ask how we're
coming with the rezone. There was a discussion about us -- Jeffrey,
are you -- is he --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I've asked him to pull up the
overview of the golf course.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. Our entire proposal
of a PUD, what we're -- we're zoning this whole piece of property for
these potential multiple uses, and how are we coming through with
April 27, 2021
Page 51
that? That might help clarify, Commissioner LoCastro, some of the
comments that we're making about one or the other or so on, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I could make
a little bit of clarification on the golf course aspect of it and the
associated BigShots facility. Our County Attorney has opined that
the existing zoning is sufficient for that -- those uses on that part of
the parcel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The rezone will only be for
the --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Veterans --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, the workforce
housing, the veterans nursing home, and if there's any other facility.
Those parcels will have to be rezoned, but there's no rezone required
for this overall project.
Am I correct, Mr. Klatzkow? That's my recollection of your
comments.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I believe you have a staff
interpretation to that effect in place.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry?
MR. KLATZKOW: You've a staff interpretation that the
proposed use is an accessory use to the golf course, so it's fine.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay? All right. So
just -- Mr. Willig, just to explain a little bit what we're looking at just
so everybody can get the idea.
MR. WILLIG: Yeah. So, again, I'm using my John Madden
skills. This, about here, is what the county owns,
excluding -- excluding this part in the middle. Also, at about that
spot we have a current telephone tower in the Comcast facility right
next to our -- the water plant that was acquired by the county, and to
April 27, 2021
Page 52
the south here is where the current maintenance facility is.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Affordable housing, where is that
going to be built?
MR. WILLIG: So we've identified about 30 acres down here.
That would be the essential services workforce housing piece.
We've got -- in the ITC document, that section up there is where
we've identified for the state veterans nursing home, and then over
here is where we've identified space for a potential government office
building.
The maintenance road that runs through will have to maintain
access to that, again, because of the Comcast and telephone -- or the
tower that is there that the county doesn't own and is -- has its own
easement.
The piece that we're considering today for the BigShots piece
and golf course piece would encompass this area excluding the Par 1
and also the maintenance -- the water and cell phone tower, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much for that.
Okay. So just so that -- you know, I'm always optimistic. Can
we hear a motion? Are we ready to make a decision whether we
want to look at this again and send staff back for negotiation, or -- I'm
just bowing to everyone. Actually if there is a motion, we can vote
on it. Then we can give these gentlemen, you know, time to leave,
and we'll take our break and then come back with Army Corps.
MR. OCHS: You still have some speakers, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, that's right, 14 of them. So
those -- I'm going to ask you -- and I'm not -- I want to hear from all
of you. Three minutes is your time to speak. We are going to hold
that exactly to three minutes. If you agree with the speaker that has
come before you, if you would just say I agree for the reasons stated
so that it's not repetitive, we would appreciate it, but everyone has
three minutes to speak.
April 27, 2021
Page 53
So at this point, let us take a break, I think, for our dear Terri
who's looking a little pale here, and we'll come back; 10 minutes.
Okay. So let's make it 10:45. Let's come back at 10:45.
(A brief recess was had from 10:35 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I think now
we're going to go into public comment on this matter.
MR. MILLER: I'd like to remind our public speakers here in
person you can alternate between the two podiums.
Our first speaker is Dr. JB Holmes. He will be followed by Gary
Hodgson, and then Dave Marren.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Hodgson, if you're here, you can
be waiting at another podium.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Holmes will be first.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Holmes, you can be right here.
MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Hodgson, if you'll wait, you'll be
second here.
MR. HODGSON: Thank you.
MR. HOLMES: Commissioners, Madam Chair, my name is
Dr. JB Holmes, Commander, Golden Gate Veterans of Foreign Wars.
I'm here today to talk to you about the golf course -- proposed golf
course project, and I appreciate Mr. Pillsbury's comments. They
were very, very interesting, so thank you, Mr. Pillsbury.
MR. PILLSBURY: Thank you, sir.
MR. HOLMES: I've also worked with Geoff Willig on this
project, and we know that the veterans nursing home -- state veterans
nursing home, Mr. LoCastro, so we get it right -- state veterans
nursing home costs an average of $50 million, and our portion of that
would be 35 percent, and we've already set aside $30 million of that
from the 1 percent sales tax. So we're -- it would be more than
covered financially. But it would be the only, really veterans
April 27, 2021
Page 54
healthcare facility in Collier County. So it is badly needed.
And I'd also like to talk about the golf course. And as
Mr. Pillsbury said, we have left people behind in this, and we have
left veterans behind. There's no facility where we can actually go
and golf. And golf is one of our -- one of our largest fundraisers.
The largest fundraiser for the VFW, for the American Legion, and for
the Marine Corps league. It's our largest fundraiser of the year.
So -- and last year, of course, as we know, everybody suffered from
COVID-19. We didn't make -- we were closed for 16 months and
then open and closed again for another two months or so.
So it was a very, very difficult year, but we managed to fund all
of our projects. But we were -- at the end of that time period we
were running on a, virtually, day-to-day basis to fund our donations
and our charitable operations.
So if we don't have the golf course, the golf tournaments that we
run are our biggest fundraiser, as I said previously.
And we fund, in Mr. McDaniel's district, the Lake Trafford
Memorial Cemetery, the veterans cemetery out there. We have
funded that completely, and we've maintained it for 10 years since it
was abandoned by the county. We replaced all the headstones, put
in a flagpole and a garden and benches and fences, little, nice picket
fences, all at our own expense. And at Christmas we put the wreaths
on all the graves out there. And right now we're spending almost
$3,000 to replace the crosses and Stars of Davids on all the graves all
at -- are funding all at our expense.
And it goes on and on the many, many projects that we do.
Mr. LoCastro can speak to that; as a member of the VFW, he can
speak to that; that the projects we do in the hospitals and scholarships
throughout the county and our ritual team, it's very extensive. And
we need those -- we need to have that funding from the golf course.
I see my time is up, so thank you very much, Commissioners. Have
April 27, 2021
Page 55
a great day.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Gary Hodgson. He'll be followed by Dave
Marren and then Cece Zenti.
MR. HODGSON: Good morning, Commissioners, Madam
Chair, and your staff.
We really appreciate today the chance to interact with you. My
name is Gary Hodgson. I am the coordinator for the Green Space
Alliance in the neighborhood that we call -- recently been known as
Collier County -- I'm sorry, as the Golden Gate Country Club.
The course hosted early LPGA tournaments. As a matter of
fact, Jan Stephenson won her first tournament here in 1976, as it was
then called the Sheraton Golden Gate and Country -- Golden Gate
Inn and Country Club.
So over the decades, the course has provided an affordable golf
course venue for Collier County residents and visitors who could not
afford to fork over a large percentage of their incomes to meet
membership fees and fee requirements at other courses. But in
addition to affordability, there's been a few other blessings the golf
course brought with it to this diverse community of working families.
The First Tee, the Kiwanis, the community center, and the
professional staff at the golf course would teach local young people
core values such as honesty, respect, and responsibility. Golfers
from the community would annually sponsor fundraising events for
scholarships to local high schoolers to help with their educational
aspirations.
And let's not forget the beautiful parks. The beautiful oaks and
the many palm tree varieties that Davis [sic] Engineering actually
inventoried in an effort to ensure the presentation and the
preservation as part of the natural habitat that we treasure.
The 110 acres, at least 110 acres, that we believe should be
April 27, 2021
Page 56
allocated for the course is home to owls, eagles, woodpeckers,
osprey, wood storks, great blue herons, ducks, fish and, of course, the
many squirrels, snakes, and the occasional alligator that make up the
environment from which we all benefit.
I hate to think of what would have happened if the golf course
had been paved over when the last hurricane hit our community.
Who knows how extensive the flooding may have been and the cost
to recuperate and recover. Once this green space has been lost, there
is no chance to correct that mistake. It will be gone forever.
But here's the good news that many of you already know.
America has seen a resurgence in golf. According to Business Week,
in an article called Course Correction, rounds of golf in 2020
increased 14 percent over the rounds of golf in 2019.
And the National Golf Foundation says the vast majority of
rounds were played on public facilities, and so I want to ask
with -- ask --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. HODGSON: -- you vote in favor of the golf course as a
component of this renovation project.
Thank you very much for --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next is Dave Marren. He'll be followed
by CeCe Zenti and then -- oh, wait. That was Dave Marren, was it
not?
MR. HODGSON: No, that was Gary Hodgson.
MR. MILLER: Okay. I'm sorry. Next is Dave Marren,
followed by CeCe Zenti and then Kaydee Tuff. My apologies.
MR. MARREN: Good morning, Commissioners and staff.
My name is Dave Marren, and I represent Par 1 Homeowners
Association, the doughnut hole in the center of the golf course or the
property that's under discussion today.
April 27, 2021
Page 57
I've spoken at these meetings many times to voice my personal
and Par 1 Homeowners Association residents support of a
private/public golf facility at the former Golden Gate Golf Course.
I'm here again to continue to give voice to Par 1 residents, local
community residents, and the many Collier County golfers who do
not belong to private clubs. These residents include essential
workers and their families, retirees and kids who, when the Golden
Gate Golf Course was open, had the opportunity to learn the game
and were taught the integrity golf demands of all players. Once the
club closed, this learning experience and character-building
opportunity went with it.
I believe there are many soft and hard benefits that will flow
back to all Collier County residents if you choose to go forward with
a golf course on this property, as I truly hope you will.
Golf is a sport that embraces diversity, whole-family
participation, and teaches integrity. Golf is not dead, especially in
Collier County. The latest statistics shows increases in both new
participants and total rounds played. The same is true for almost
every county in Florida.
Look at the pace of housing development along 951 or Collier
Boulevard. The population increase is anticipated in the county and
especially in this district. Most of the new development will not
have a golf course as an amenity. A good portion of new residents
will be golfers, and they will want to golf, which will only serve to
drive the availability and cost of golf up for everyone at the few
public courses in Collier County.
In season, rates at these public courses run over $100 per person
to golf. Most essential workers, their families, and many other
county residents will continue to be priced out of the opportunity to
golf in Collier County. Those green fees and tax dollars will flow
out of Collier County.
April 27, 2021
Page 58
I have personally experienced playing at courses ClubCorp owns
and manages in my former hometown. These courses are well
maintained and professionally managed. They also serve a diverse
population at reasonable community pricing. I would expect nothing
less of ClubCorp in Collier County.
I ask each of you commissioners to fully consider this agreement
you will be deciding on be structured to ensure a positive economic
and quality-of-life impact on the local community, the county's
diverse population both current and future, and fill a significant gap
in the recreational needs of Collier County residents and their
families. I also ask the commissioners to vote yes on this issue to
work with ClubCorp, local county residents, and move forward with
a golf component on this project.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is CeCe Zenti. She'll be
followed by Kaydee Tuff, and then Richard Klaas.
MS. ZENTI: Good morning. Madam Chair, Commissioners,
my name is CeCe Zenti, and I reside at 4226 27th Court Southwest.
I've owned that condo for 20 years, and I overlook the tenth fairway
at the Golden Gate Golf Course.
As Vice Chair of the Golden Gate Economic Development Zone
Advisory Board and the secretary of Par 4 Condo Association, we
view this vote today as critical as we move forward to revitalize the
Golden Gate Parkway corridor.
The proposed project of a golf course and entertainment package
would be an excellent opportunity to preserve a tradition, the Golden
Gate Golf Course, and could be the anchor to the corridor at the
intersection of Golden Gate and Collier Boulevard. The project
proposed today by ClubCorp offers an attraction unlike anything
currently available in Collier County and provides an opportunity to
reintroduce Golden Gate City to Collier County and beyond.
April 27, 2021
Page 59
Golden Gate Golf Course was the home of First Tee in those
early years. What a reunion to have First Tee once again making
their home on this golf course for all the Collier County kids.
Because I serve on the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Board, like you, I am acutely aware of the need to provide programs
for the kids of all ages in Golden Gate and Collier County, and for
the Golden Gate kids to be within walking and biking distance of this
amenity is a huge win for these youths.
Our constituency, yours and ours, is most interested in your
thoughts and action today. In closing, we want to thank you for
rescuing this parcel from 720 housing units. We thank you for
taking your time to listen, meet with, and respond to our emails. We
are most grateful for the opportunity to petition decision-makers who
welcome our comments.
I/we would be remiss if I did not acknowledge all the Collier
County staff we have contacted. All have been most gracious, and
in -- and we do thank them for that. We sincerely ask for your
support today and look forward to a positive vote for Collier County
and Golden Gate revitalization.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kaydee Tuff. She'll be
followed by Richard Klaas and then Dave Bekkerus online.
MS. TUFF: Thank you. My name is Kaydee Tuff. I'm the
president of the Golden Gate Civic Association. I also serve on the
Golden Gate Economic Development Advisory Board.
Russell and I were watching television on Saturday, and we saw
the pickleball tournament. It's the national championship. And I
thought to myself, what an amazing moment for East Naples, just
having that -- that being the limelight and the national attention.
And, of course, that all happened because the commissioners
April 27, 2021
Page 60
believed in the potential of a recreational opportunity.
And I believe that's what we have here today. As president of
the Golden Gate Civic Association and a member of the Economic
Development Advisory Zone, I'm excited that ClubCorp could kick
off some much-needed renovation for our community.
It's hard for a community to lose a golf course, and I think you
don't know what that's like until you're one of the people that live
near it, on it, or use it. The loss goes way beyond property values.
Losses, that it's been a home to a national LPGA tournament
championship, a vibrant First Tee program, and hundreds and
hundreds of charity golf tournaments.
We believe that ClubCorp's proposal will save
taxpayers -- actually, it will save them money on construction and
maintenance costs that might be used in other uses. It retains county
ownership and, unlike a passive park, it will create some income.
If your concern is the money that you would be spending, I'm
asking that you allow our community to raise the funds. We've done
this before. We have a strong history of funding our own
infrastructure. We don't want to have to do this, but we've done it
before.
We have two municipal taxing districts and more recently our
Economic Development Zone. The Golden Gate Civic Association
believes in this proposal and its potential not only for the community
but for all of Collier County, the residents and most especially the
people that will move into your essential services building and the
seniors that will be living there. It's an opportunity for all of Collier
County.
Please approve ClubCorp's proposal to give our community -- or
give our community time to raise the funds ourselves.
We thank you for this opportunity. And I'd just like to end
with, Commissioner McDaniel, you're not a fan of a 12-hole golf
April 27, 2021
Page 61
course, but I'm sure that a lot of tennis players weren't big fans of
pickleball when it started, right? And now we have a national
championship happening right here in our community, and maybe
one day we'll be on national TV for our BigShots Golf championship.
You never know. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Richard Klaas. He'll be
followed by Dave Bekkerus and then Dave Scott. Bruce Bekkerus,
excuse me. And then Dave Scott.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Who's following
Mr. Klaas?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Klaas is followed by Bruce Bekkerus and
then Dave Scott. Those are online.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Online, okay.
MR. MILLER: This is our last in-person speaker.
MR. KLAAS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Dick
Klaas. I think you've all heard enough from me in the last few
weeks.
I'm just here with Mr. Pillsbury. So I'm more than interested in
you doing the right thing here today, and I think you will. So thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: We'll move to our online speakers now. Our
first speaker is Bruce Bekkerus. He'll be followed by Dave Scott
and then Gary Luginbuhl.
Mr. Bekkerus, I see you're with us. You have three minutes,
sir. You may proceed.
MR. BEKKERUS: Good morning. I'm joining you from
Moorhead, Minnesota, today. I do own property in the Pars.
I'm very excited about what I've seen here today. This has been the
most clear information that I've seen on this project, and I hope that
you as commissioners vote in my best interest.
April 27, 2021
Page 62
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: All right, then.
Our next speaker is David Scott, followed by Gary Luginbuhl
and then Leonard Scara.
Mr. Scott, you're being prompted to unmute yourself. And
there you are. Mr. Scott, you have three minutes.
MR. SCOTT: Yes, a couple questions. First one is, can
you -- the commissioners and the listening public here, can you
picture a seven-story apartment building for affordable housing
dominating the environment over in the corner of the golf course? It
seems to me to be rather large and a monstrosity. I don't see any
other seven-story building in the Golden Gate community anywhere.
And I would like to see a four-story apartment building going
over there. I think it would blend in better with the landscape and
the overall environment of Golden Gate.
Secondly, the -- currently the vacant golf course land is being
used as a public park. If the golf course is approved, what
provisions are being made for the hundreds of people in a
non-golfing community using that area now? Perhaps some of
that -- Holes 15, 16, and 17 can be used to support a public park in
that corner.
And, lastly, what kind of promise do we have that the -- if the
golf course is voted down, that the commissioners are going to
continue to carve out the available land and use it for other
developments?
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gary Luginbuhl. He'll be
followed by Leonard Scara, and then Richard Connolly.
Mr. Luginbuhl, you're being prompted to unmute yourself. If
you'll do so at this time, sir. Mr. Luginbuhl, if you can unmute
yourself, it is your time to speak.
April 27, 2021
Page 63
We're going to try to move on, Oscar. Let's try Leonard Scara.
Leonard Scara, you're being prompted to unmute yourself. If you'll
do so at this time, sir. Mr. Scara, you have three minutes. Please
begin.
MR. SCARA: Thank you very much. My name is Leonard
Scara, and I have been a resident of the Pars for the last 35 years.
My reason to visit you folks today was to see, you know, what
progress is going made. I'm very interested in what's happening with
the golf course property. And all I really wanted to say here is I'm
very impressed by your attention in this matter and that you're going
to actually consider all this to be very, very important.
And that's it. Thank you very much. I wish you luck on your
vote, and I would encourage you to approve the golf course vote.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Next speaker will be Richard Connolly
followed by Russell Tuff, and then we will try to get back with
Mr. Luginbuhl.
Mr. Connolly, are you with us, sir? I see you. There you are.
You have three minutes, sir. Go ahead.
MR. CONNOLLY: Thank you very much. And I appreciate
your time and effort to this matter.
My name is Richard Connolly and basically I want to agree with
what everybody said previously for the need of the golf course. But
I just -- you know, you're voting on the land, but you're also voting
on somebody's dreams. And, you know, my dad was a member of
the Pars, and I got to go down there and play with him. You know,
I'm going to retire down to the Pars this year and become a full-time
resident, and it's been my dream to play with my kids also.
So it's something that's very important to me, and I just hope that
you take the time to do that. You know, the essential working
April 27, 2021
Page 64
housing -- you know, the workers in that essential housing, a lot of
them are first responders, and we know how stressful that job is at
this time.
And I'm a retired police officer myself, and golf has always been
a way for me to get away from everything. So I'm sure that they
would find it to be a very affordable place and easily accessible for
them to enjoy some quality time out on that course.
So thank you so, so much for your time and effort. I really
appreciate you all being here.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Russell Tuff. After that
we'll try Gary Luginbuhl one more time.
Mr. Tuff, you have three minutes, sir. Please begin.
MR. TUFF: Good morning, Commissioners. And I'm old like
you. I've been here for over 30 years and still call it 951.
And, you know, we've all lived through all the ups and downs of
the area. We've seen the community flourish, and we even had our
own Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce. We had our own visitor
center. We had our active civics. And then the economy tanked,
and that all changed.
And we fought hard to change our community. You know, we
had multiple families living in many houses, and then the economy
tanked again in the 2005 area, and all of a sudden we could afford
young couples moving in, retirees coming in. The community has
increased its value and its property. It's just a
wonderful -- wonderful things that are happening now.
And some of that -- you know, we had the Golden Gate Golf
Course, and we had good owners of the Vocisanos, and they were
good folks until the new folks, the younger generation's coming over.
We've seen a serious decline, and that's a big -- heart of our
community.
And one of the things that -- you know, we passed the
April 27, 2021
Page 65
development for the west side of Golden Gate Parkway, and what
gets put in those commercial areas is dependent on what the
residences is and what other business opportunities there are. And
right now we have a great opportunity.
One, if we don't have good amenities and a wonderful place for
people to live for the workforce housing, it won't become that. It
will become affordable housing, and it will be people that are not
necessarily going to advance the economics of that area.
It's also an opportunity zone. It's a small investment to make to
help that happen. And the commercial, we all want that commercial
to be good, and this is a gem of a piece to have that happen. This
community has been neglected in the past. We had -- we couldn't
get fire service, so we banded together; formed our own fire district.
We couldn't get a community center, so we banded together, taxed
ourself again for the community center. We couldn't get ourselves
beautified through the county, so we set up our own beautification,
and now we have beautiful things in our community.
And what I'm asking is to invest in this community, invest in
what will be the anchor, the workforce of your community, and make
it a wonderful, pleasant place for them. The type of people that we
bring in will enhance our school districts, and it will enhance our
community in great ways. And you have that opportunity sitting in
your hands right now, and I would ask you, please invest in this
community.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I'd like to try Mr. Luginbuhl one
more time.
Gary Luginbuhl, you're being prompted to unmute your
microphone. Please do so at this time, sir, if you wish to speak.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Nothing. Thank you, ma'am.
April 27, 2021
Page 66
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it. All right.
So the public comment portion of this will be closed.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I don't know if there's
any more comments from the Board. I'm going to go ahead and
make a motion. I think we all heard enough in terms of where we
are right now. And I just want to remind the Board, there are a lot of
holes in this project right now. Those holes will be filled -- I don't
mean golf holes. Those holes will be filled when a contract comes
back to us for our approval. So a positive vote today is not a vote to
sign a contract with anybody. It's a positive vote to move forward to
negotiate the terms.
There's some terms that I think need to be resolved. Right now
there's an ask of $7 million for the county to put into the golf course.
I'm assuming there's some flexibility on that. That's a number that
needs to be negotiated.
No matter what we do with that property, if it's going to be a
passive park, a golf course, whatever we do with it in that regard, it's
going to cost taxpayers' dollars. We now have in front of us a
proposal where we will be spending some taxpayer dollars to
improve a golf course that we own, but we'll get a rate of return on it.
We'll get a percentage of the gross revenue of the overall project.
Now, the golf course may lose money. That doesn't matter to
us. We'll still get 3 percent of the gross revenue to the golf course,
and the maintenance and all of that will be on the -- on ClubCorp.
There will be no expenditure from the county going forward.
So with the understanding that there's some issues that need to
be resolved, I'm going to simply read the recommendation from staff:
To authorize staff to negotiate a land lease and operator agreement
with BigShots Golf, a division of ClubCorp USA, Inc., for the
construction and operation of a public golf course and entertainment
April 27, 2021
Page 67
complex at the former Golden Gate Golf Course property for
subsequent -- subsequent consideration by the Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So there's a motion on the floor. Is
there a second? I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Could I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Go ahead. Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I just wanted to say
briefly -- I mean, actually, Commissioner Saunders said exactly what
I wanted to also make clear is that we're going through some steps in
three separate projects.
I do want to throw a shout out to Mr. Klaas who has just been so
available, has answered so many of our questions. I mean, I can
only speak for me, but he's a great representative who understands
this whole project, and I think the reason why I didn't have as many
questions is because he spent time in my office. And I hope he's a
big part of this. He's local, understands things, and so thank you
very much, sir.
Just a very brief question, and it might keep us all from getting
100 emails from people. There will be six holes that have two tees.
So if somebody wants to play 18 holes, they don't have to play six
holes again. They could play 18 holes, correct, Mr. Pillsbury?
MR. PILLSBURY: Absolutely, Commissioner. There will be
multiple tees on every hole. So the idea is to create lots of different
combinations so that you never have to play the same hole again.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: You know those diehard
golfers are going to send us all emails.
MR. PILLSBURY: Oh, 100 percent. And listen, that's why
Jack's so excited about this project. I mean, it's an architectural
challenge, right, to create a different golf hole. So the sightlines are
very different from a different tee box, so it really actually feels like a
different golf hole.
April 27, 2021
Page 68
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. PILLSBURY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I'm going to support
the motion this morning and, of course, the second, just -- but I said
what I said before. I still have those same reservations and concerns.
And just so you know, Commissioner LoCastro, every time I walk up
to the tee, it's a new hole even if I've already been there.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, me, too.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So it's a -- I certainly
commend Commissioner Saunders for the efforts that he's made in
Golden Gate with the Enterprise Zone and everything that we're
doing in Golden Gate City proper, and I think this would be a
wonderful addition to what you've already started and accomplished
for that community. So I'm going to support the motion for now,
and, of course, as my concerns get addressed and answered, we'll
make a decision when we bring that back.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm going to support the motion as
well. I think the -- you know, I like the idea of bringing something
to the community.
My reservations are the same -- and I'll just say that one of my
biggest concerns is, is that you know, as a former litigator, I always
have to look at the downside, and the downside seems to me that if
the county ends up having to -- gets the property back, let's say, for
whatever reason, then we have a property that we've already invested
money in for golf that maybe hasn't worked again and a building that
really only has one use. I mean, the building isn't going to have any
other kind of use. So these are the things that I'm concerned about
that, in this negotiating process, I want someone to at least keep in
April 27, 2021
Page 69
mind while we're negotiating these -- the term for whatever
agreement's going to come back to the Board.
That's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. We have a motion on
the floor and a second, and we are following the directions of staff in
their executive summary as spoken by Commissioner Saunders.
Again, we are not approving this. We're asking for more details and,
as Commissioner McDaniel says, the devil's in the details. So thank
you very much.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, may I make a suggestion?
This is an outlier deal with a lot of holes in it and a lot of
ramifications. I'd like the ability to, as this thing's being negotiated,
to be able to go to Commissioner Saunders with different proposals,
have Commissioner Saunders give out the feedback to it.
This is going to be -- again, a lot of holes in this deal. It's an
outlier deal. And I think you'll get a better deal if staff and I can do
that, assuming Commissioner Saunders is agreeable to this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm very comfortable with that, sir.
You understand this probably better than most given your
background in the law.
MR. KLATZKOW: I've been negotiating deals for many,
many years, and I'm telling you this is going to be a difficult one.
April 27, 2021
Page 70
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'm comfortable.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any issue in
terms of being -- I'm not sure if that would be, like, a liaison from the
Board to your office or how that would ever work, as long as you
make sure there are no Sunshine issues, no public records issues, that
sort of thing. I'm okay with participating with you in negotiating or
helping to come to terms. I don't have an issue with that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Anyone else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, so be it. That's the way it will
continue.
MR. WILLIG: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I want to thank the Board, at
least take a quick second. It was mentioned at one point that Golden
Gate City had been somewhat ignored from time to time and that they
had to do a lot of things on their own to get the amenities that were
necessary. There are almost 30,000 people living in Golden Gate
City. There are over 29,000 people living there now, and this is the
last step in a process to really improve the quality of life in that
community. And so I want to thank the Board for at least going this
far to begin the negotiations. I think this will be a -- I use a term that
somebody else had said, a game changer for that community plus it
will be an amenity for the entire county that will be something that
will work very well with our sports complex and other things we're
doing. So I just want to thank the Board for your consideration this
morning, and I want to thank the folks with BigShots and ClubCorp.
That was an excellent presentation and really cleared up a lot of stuff.
So I'm looking forward to hopefully coming back -- I want to set a
deadline. I want to come back the second meeting in May. Now,
April 27, 2021
Page 71
we may not have an agreement by the second meeting in May, but I
want to set that as a deadline --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that the --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- to plan on coming back.
If it takes another couple weeks, that's fine but let's shoot for the
second meeting in May to have the agreements that are necessary to
have this put in place. That's going to put a burden on everybody,
but let's get 'er done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Let's get it done.
Item #11A
PRESENTATION FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS ON THE STATUS OF THE COUNTY COASTAL
STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY;
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO SIGN A NON-BINDING LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE
RECOMMENDED PLAN IDENTIFIED IN THE COLLIER
COUNTY STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FINAL REPORT;
AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE FINANCIAL &
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SIGN A
NON-BINDING LETTER OF FINANCIAL SELF
CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FOR
AGREEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZE BOTH LETTERS TO BE
PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - MOTION TO ACCEPT
PRESENTATION, AUTHORIZE COUNTY MANAGER TO SIGN
THE NON-BINDING LETTER AND HAVE STAFF WORK WITH
DR. SAVARESE REGARDING A TASK FORCE – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes us to Item 11A. This
April 27, 2021
Page 72
was your other morning time-certain here -- excuse me -- time-certain
hearing item. It's a recommendation to accept a presentation from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the status of the county Coastal
Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study; also to authorize the
County Manager to sign a nonbinding letter in support of the
recommended plan identified by the Corps; authorize the Corporate
Financial Management Services director to sign a nonbinding letter
of financial self-certification; and authorize both letters to be
provided to the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Ms. Amy Patterson will begin the presentation this morning.
Amy?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If I may, just a few remarks. I have
spoken to some of the public and certainly staff about this issue, but I
really want to put it on the record in this meeting at this time.
I asked for this to come forward purely for informational. I
never wanted a nonbinding letter of support. I never expected
documents to be signed.
This is the first meeting, public meeting with the full board that
we have ever had since this plan has been brought forward in being
created. That means whether there is an agreement for a nonbinding
support, this is really very informational. I know a lot of you have
concerns, some valid concerns about this. But in no way do I expect
this to be signed, sealed, delivered. And I think staff is going to
repeat this again just so everyone is clear. There is no "this is it,"
"this is the plan." This is really a public meeting so that everyone
can take a look at this plan.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And just in that vein, is there -- is
there a clock ticking for us on this? There is a clock ticking?
MR. OCHS: Yes. And Ms. Patterson will explain that in the
April 27, 2021
Page 73
presentation, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, she'll explain that.
Because even though whatever action we discuss today, I'm
wondering if this isn't important enough that we have a workshop on
this. I mean, this is the -- I realize probably the long distant future of
the county -- because this is something that will be decades in the
making, but I'm just throwing that out there that maybe it's important
enough that we have a workshop to discuss this where we can focus
on this and not have other things on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay. Good morning. Amy Patterson,
for the record. I'm the Director of the Capital Project Planning,
Impact Fees, and Program Management.
As Commissioner Taylor indicated, we're here at her request to
have the Army Corps give a presentation on where this process is,
and the second part is to discuss these nonbinding letters of support.
As Commissioner Taylor also completely accurately said, this is
just a step in the process. This is not a determination on what
ultimately will be constructed, if anything.
So how we wanted to take this forward is we're going to turn it
over to the Corps by Zoom. They're going to walk you through
where we are and tell you some really important information about
this process, and then staff will be back up to talk about the
nonbinding letters of support and answer any questions of the Board
at that time.
So with that, we'll hand it over to the Corps.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Good morning.
MR. HUGHES: Good afternoon or, excuse me, good morning.
Dan Hughes. I am the Chief of the Planning Resources Section for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I'm residing in Norfolk District,
April 27, 2021
Page 74
and I really appreciate the opportunity to give this briefing today and
answer any questions that the County Commissioners may have on
this project.
You know, it has been about two-and-a-half years of work
working with the county and, you know, we're here today to answer
any questions, and if there are any follow-up meetings or anything
that is additionally needed, we're more than happy to sit down with
you and talk about any path to the project as we go through it.
Okay. Let me see if I can get my screen to share here so
everyone can see. Okay. Just to note, I also have a couple of other
people in the room with us. And -- Ashton Burgen (phonetic) is the
project manager for this project. I also have some of my lead
planners, my engineers with us as well. And, you know, if required,
I can bring in their expertise, and they can introduce themselves for
that. Can everyone see the presentation fine?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. HUGHES: Okay. Okay. All right. So let's -- okay.
So, I mean, our purpose here is to provide just a general project
update to the County Commission, address any questions, you know,
and, if possible -- we'll talk more about the letter of approval. I
understand what the County Commissioners said there at the
beginning. You know, it's not something that we're looking -- you
know, we need signed at the end of this meeting. Certainly, we can
continue to work with you-all and answer any questions for it.
Some of the basic information is that, you know, who are reports
[sic]? When our reports are approved by the chief of engineers,
General Spellmon up at headquarters. Before the -- you know, as
part of that process, you know, for the transmittal to Congress, they
do like to see that there's a letter of support, some sort of, you know,
understanding the county understands its final commitments. But
please also understand at this time a letter of approval or financial
April 27, 2021
Page 75
support does not actually commit the county to actually any type of
construction or actually any funding at that time. That comes much
later when we actually move closer to actual project construction.
We'll just start with the bottom line up front as we use within the
Army Corps of Engineers. You know, our recommended plan is a
combination of structural measures, and structural measures -- these
are structures that we're going to be building to keep water out of
those areas. Nonstructural, these are areas where we can, you know,
help reduce damage to structures, but we do intend that -- you know,
there may water that gets into those areas.
We're going to be looking at some portions of beach
renourishment, beach stabilization, and also some of the critical
infrastructure throughout the community, fire stations, police stations,
things like that.
Total first cost, that's in today's dollars for the project, is roughly
$2.1 billion. And that is a significant amount of funding on both
sides. We understand that. But it also comes with a long-term
commitment. You know, we're working, you know, cooperatively
over the next 50 years.
For the beach side of the project, this includes eight cycles of
nourishment, so about every seven years, with the last one being a
little shorter, we're going to be working, you know, with the county
to renourish those beaches to make sure that the berm area or the
wearable features of those berms are renourished and that the dunes,
which are our protective feature, are stabilized.
You know, looking at some of the average annual benefits every
year, you know, it was about 1 point -- or excuse me -- 158 million.
The average annual cost is about 100 million a year. When we look
at this, our benefit-to-cost ratio, that's our BCR, we look at it as
it's -- right now it's sitting at about 1.6 for the project overall.
Overall, you know, when we do our budgeting and our planning, we
April 27, 2021
Page 76
do apply contingency for things that could not be accounted for in the
study. Things -- you know, changes in prices of, like, fuel, material
cost, things like that. So the project does have a 31 percent
contingency applied to the overall $2.1 billion, okay, so that's what
that adds up to in there.
The overall study authority comes from our 2000 -- 2007 Water
Resources Development Act. So this is Section 4033, which allows
the Corps of Engineers to actually work with Collier County to study
hurricane storm damage reduction in the vicinity of Vanderbilt
Beach, Park Shore, Naples beaches.
You know, what really got this study off the ground was the
budget -- the bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. During this time there
were a lot of storms going up and down the East Coast, and so at that
time Congress passed this 2018 supplemental bill which actually
fully funded this feasibility study. You know, the feasibility studies
are designed to be a three-year project and $3 million in costs.
That's what Congress has set in law for the Corps of Engineers to get
through these processes. But with this in 2018, they actually gave us
the full funding. Typically, these are cost shared at 50/50 where the
Corps would provide $1.5 million, and the local sponsor would also
pay $1.5 million for the overall project.
The study started out with looking at focused areas both in the
north county and then in the southern portion of the county around
Marco Island. And, you know, we continue to see this in -- you'll
see that as we go through this -- you know, and please pay attention
to these shaded areas that are numbered 1 through 6. These are areas
that we believe we could focus in on our concentration areas. As we
move through the study, we developed these areas for analysis in
places that we could work with.
Okay. The background is to analyze and evaluate the county's
exposure to coastal storm risks and develop alternatives, see if we can
April 27, 2021
Page 77
manage risk to residents, industries, businesses that are critical to the
nation's economy. That's why the Corps of Engineers always
participates in these things. You know, we want to make sure that
we can help the county create a long-term strategy for resilience.
Some of the things to remember is that, you know, there are
things that we can partner with. Some of the things, you know, in
areas that we can work with Collier County, but the Corps of
Engineers can't be, like, the 100 percent solution. You know, there
are areas that, you know, due to, you know, cost share or the
benefit-to-cost ratio in some of these projects that, you know, the
Corps of Engineers cannot participate in and cannot recommend for
the support of those areas, you know, strictly because, you know, it's
basically outside our ability to cost share on those project areas.
Overall, you know, we believe that this creates a good first step
for overall resilience with the county. It's a good partnership and
allows us to partner on areas where we can and then will allow the
county to focus on areas where we can't partner on. Okay.
Also associated with the study, we conducted an environmental
impact statement. It's been prepared. It's still in the draft process.
You know, once this study is complete and signed by the chief of
engineers, eventually it will go through a couple of other
headquarters and other federal agencies for review, and then once we
get authorization from the Office of Monetary Budget, the assistant
secretary of the Army will sign the Environmental Impact Statements
for the project.
The overall project, you know, is based within our concept
of -- I'm getting a little feedback there -- within the concept of
examining problems, opportunities, objectives, and constraints.
Now, I just want to highlight the overall objectives here for that.
You know, we're really focusing on coastal storm risk associated with
damages and economic loss from wave action and flooding
April 27, 2021
Page 78
inundation. And so when you get these storms coming ashore, they
have the power to overtop beaches, go back into the community, and
flood and damage those communities back there.
We want to try to manage that risk to critical infrastructure
because we realize that after the storm, you know, when we're pulling
ourselves all back together, critical infrastructure is what's needed
most, you know, police stations, fire stations, areas that are critical
for the reopening of government and services to the community at
large.
We want to manage the risk of damage impacts to
environmental resources, you know, understanding that there are vital
resources and environmental conditions that exist in Collier County
that are very unique to the area, to the region. We want to make sure
that we're looking out for those, trying to reduce any impacts that we
can.
Finally, we also want to make sure that we're managing risk to
life, health, and safety during storms. So we want to be able to look
at our projects and say, you know, if we build this here, does this
increase risk to public safety, or does it decrease the risk to public
safety? And so we want to make sure that we're always decreasing
the overall risk, you know, and make sure that we're protecting
people's lives with the structures that we can create.
Okay. Existing conditions, we throw in here just so that -- you
know, we do work with the county, with the county staff to
understand the existing conditions, but I'm sure -- I'm going to skip
through this. You guys are probably the people most in know of the
county's existing conditions but at the same time, you know, the
county is at risk of damages. You know, I think we all remember
Hurricane Irma, you know; there was significant amount of damages
that occurred from that, but that was still not a direct hit. You know,
as it came by, it caused significant damages for -- to the county, but if
April 27, 2021
Page 79
we -- you know, we're always looking out for those ones that are
going to come truly perpendicular from the coast, come across the
Gulf of Mexico, things like that. Those could be very scary storms,
as we saw with Hurricane Katrina, when they come directly at a
coastal environment or like most recently in Mexico Beach up in the
Panhandle where a storm can really start to push a lot of that water
directly at a beach.
Okay. Some of the things we also take into account with our
studies is sea level change. You know, we utilize -- you know, in
Naples there is a gauge for recording average sea level rise and things
like that. We're utilizing what we call the -- you know, the Army
Corps' intermediate curve. We look at sea level change and so that
when we design our features, we incorporate the additional heights
for our expected sea level change.
And so this project really tracks -- you know, a lot of our
designs are utilizing the intermediate curve. And so when we design
them for today's standards and we say, you know, this is going to be
X feet high, we then want to make sure that we add in the 1.6 feet
additional height, because we want to make sure that our project can
handle, you know, increases in sea level rise, but it also -- we also
tend to also look at, you know, our studies from much further out.
And so a lot of our designs are also designed so that they could
be adapted, and we do adaptive manage it so that if we do start
tracking over the next 50 years at the high curve where that 1.6 could
jump to four feet, that we can adaptively manage these projects and
increase the heights, as needed, to structures or to do elevations and
things like that that we need to do.
The study looked at a variety of alternatives. You know, one of
the things we did realize, you know, initially this study was primarily
focused in on beach stabilization and really looked at a really coastal
effort. But as the study began, we also started to look at what we
April 27, 2021
Page 80
call back bay components. You know, when looking at, you know,
what happens to the shoreline but immediately, you know, as you get
those coastal barrier islands, what happens if the water gets past those
into the bay and into those communities behind it or what if the water
comes in through the inlets and, you know, basically overfloods those
areas in the back area?
And so we looked at the entire county initially for just the beach.
We just wanted to do a beach watch. We looked at, you know, all
the way from the top of the northern end of the county all the way
down through Marco Island and looked at each beach segment to see
what we could do for that.
Then we also started to look at what we could do for these what
I call back bay components, where we would look at if we want to do
the beach and we want to do a structural component. Now, keep in
mind, a structural component in this case is meaning that we're going
to be utilizing a beach dune, our beach stabilization to create sort of a
levy effect on the beach with that dune, but we also want to make
sure that we have structural components that don't allow the water to
seep [sic] low through the navigation inlets. We would put a
structural element there or a gate that could be closed and operated at
times of these critical storm surges. So that, you know, normally the
gates would be open most -- you know, most days. If you've got a
hurricane approaching, you know, there'll be a plan created for when
the gates would close. But the idea is to seal off the beach and the
inlet to prevent water from going past that area, okay.
But keep in mind, you know, with these, there's also -- we're
required to look at opportunities for nonstructural, because we realize
that our structural elements that we build -- if we want to build a gate
to close off an inlet or we want to build a beach defensive line, these
can be pretty significant in cost. And so we also look at
nonstructural areas to see where, if we can't afford to do those
April 27, 2021
Page 81
structural features or there's just not enough economic benefits or
damages that would be reduced in those areas or the -- just sheer
price of putting those structural features in outweighs the actual
project benefits, then we look at nonstructural features where we can
do elevation floodproofing. You know, we can elevate a home to
get it up and above the water, things like that.
But then we also look at combinations of it, because we realize
when we're looking at sort of a countywide analysis of this, structural
isn't going to work everywhere. We can fill in some places with
nonstructural, and there might actually be places where we can do
neither, and we have to pay attention to those things. And so we
created these combination plans.
Initially at an earlier junction in the plan, at one time we did
have this alternative called 4A, but it's really been -- it's been
excluded. The actual current recommended plan is Alternative 4,
which is a combination of structural and nonstructural measures
utilizing beach and dune, structural gates in areas where we can, and
then nonstructural in other areas where we cannot do those structural
elements, okay.
I just want to give you guys -- start giving you some more depth
onto this and how this all comes together. You know, it really starts
with looking at -- you know, we start looking at beaches and how
we're going to protect them. We start looking at our borrow areas.
You know, currently the county has invested and utilized some of
these borrow areas, these offshore borrow areas. T1 and T2, they're
approximately 30 nautical miles offshore of the City of Naples.
Unfortunately, there aren't any -- currently aren't any identified
closer borrow areas. So this did represent a significant amount of
costs, transportation cost of this material to the beach. But we are
looking at about almost nine million cubic yards of sand that's going
to be deposited on these county beaches for the protection, okay.
April 27, 2021
Page 82
We do know that, you know, the sand should be available for the
next 50 years. There should be plenty of sand out there. We've
worked with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, as a
partner on there, and they're one of the cooperating agencies on these
studies. They'll be utilizing our NEPA documents for their own
certification and use of these borrow areas when we get ready to do
this.
Our economic modeling. The Corps utilizes certified models.
There are a lot of economic models out there that people often come
to us and say, well, my economic model shows this, you know, and
then you go to a different region, and they bring in some other
professor and say, well, the economic shows this. At the Corps of
Engineers, we have standard economic models that we utilize, and
they get certified by experts, and they go throughout the nation and
do independent peer reviews and things like the economic models.
So the economics that we apply here in Collier County are the
same economic models that we're using over in Miami-Dade, the
same ones that we're currently using down in the Florida Keys
projects, the current ones that we're using over in San Francisco or up
in Maine. So they apply to the nation, and they get developed that
way.
You know, currently as I already stated, we're utilizing the
intermediate sea level curve. We utilize a structure inventory based
on the Collier County assessor data and Florida DEP statewide
building footprints so that when we go in there and look at the
buildings, you know, we can get their certified elevations if
there's -- if they're available to make sure that we have the proper
elevation for these structures so that when we -- our models say that
water's coming in, we get the correct height that the building is at so
we can see how the flooding then meets those waters and what type
of damages have been applied.
April 27, 2021
Page 83
For benefits we're required to utilize a 50-year period of analysis
although, you know, many of these projects that we do with the
Corps of Engineers, you know, they are designed to last more than 50
years. And so they -- you know, the county, at the end of the 50
years, can continue to utilize these projects, can continue to gain
benefits from these projects, but our economic analysis, you know,
what we report up to Congress, utilizes a standard 50-year period of
analysis.
In looking at some of our beach analysis and structural dune
measurements, we did try to optimize it. We tried to find the best
height or the best fit, you know, where there's a best price point,
unfortunately. And we look at both 10 feet, 12 feet, and 14 feet for
the dune heights that we plug into these economic models so that we
can then find out what the damages and benefits are for the project
and what also is the residual risk to these projects.
Because as we all know, that when we have a 14-foot-high dune,
there will still be residual risk to Collier County. You know, the
effort here is to, you know, provide the most benefits to the most
frequent types of storms, but there can also be significant storms that
can still overtop these features, and it does create residual risk, and
we do try to stress these within our reports, and any time that we
present to anybody, that we always caution everybody that there
are -- even when these projects are built, there are always residual
risks.
You know, some of these storms out there, these storm surges
can be monstrous. You know, we're all familiar with Hurricane
Katrina and its 35 feet of storm surge -- or 38 feet of storm surge.
So, you know, something of that size could easily overtop the
14-feet-high dune. But, you know, the typical storms, the ones, the
1s, the 2s, you know, that's more -- you know, they're more frequent.
That's what we're looking at to try to provide benefits for so that we
April 27, 2021
Page 84
don't have to create a -- you know, because as we design for those
significant heights, there's also a significant cost increase to these
projects, okay.
So overall, our recommended plan, it's a mixture of structural
features that includes storm surge barriers at inlets, there will be a
mixture of sector gates, sluice gates, tainter gates. These are various
types of gates that are designed -- you know, the larger the gate is,
you know, where we're expecting a lot more pressure on the system
as storms go by, those would be, like, a tainter gate.
Some of the sluice gates, you know, up on the Gordon River, we
could probably deal with, you know, some sluice gates in those areas
because there's not as much water pressure on the overall system,
okay.
Included in there is pump stations. When we do seal these
areas off, when we try to hydrologically separate these areas within
the plan, we want to make sure that we're paying attention to water
on the other side, because there will also be significant rainfall events
associated with the storm surge, and we will want to make sure that
we have pumps in place to put water back on the other side of these
facilities.
At Wiggins Pass there would be two jetties to help stabilize that
inlet for the construction of the gates. We'd be looking at almost
over 11 miles of beach and dune, berm fill, beach stabilization.
And then on our nonstructural measures, we'd be looking to
work with the public. And the nonstructural is always -- for this part
it would be voluntary for the public. And so we looked at the study,
and we can see that we can do about 290 structures where we could
recommend that we could work with the property owners to provide
some sort of elevating of the structure, lift it off the ground, put it up
on new piers, get it to a higher elevation in case there is storm surge
that comes into the area so that as water comes in, the structure's
April 27, 2021
Page 85
elevated, and the water should be underneath the structure and, you
know, the contents, that damaging factor to people's homes where
you frequently see after a lot of these storms where, you know, the
contents of people's homes, you know, they're taking out all the
drywall, but they're also taking out all their personal belongings,
dumping them on the side of the street because, you know, when that
water comes in, it comes in with a lot of silt and a lot of damaging
forces.
We'd also be looking at floodproofing about 490 structures.
When we floodproof structures, it's generally to about three feet in
elevation that we can floodproof structures. Currently there are no
structures that would be recommended for acquisition or demolition.
Okay. And as I said before, the total project first cost, that is in
today's dollars, is about $2.1 billion. You know, there is a -- every
seven-year, a renourishment cycle that we would be partnering with
the county on to maintain these beaches, to maintain these dunes
associated with the project.
Now I just want to get into a little more of the specific by-area
details to help you understand what we're going to be working with.
These are basically the planning areas or portions of the county that
we're looking to do structural features. These are areas that when we
first went down -- if you recall some of these areas, we went down
the entire beach of the county. We looked at Planning Area 1, 2, 3,
4, you know, and 6, and looked at all the beaches to say, if we could
just do the beach alone, that the beach would have significant benefits
if we just worked on the beach.
And then if we looked at, well, could we close it off with a gate,
are there significant benefits for that? So that was done early on in
the project.
What carried through with the project based on the economic
benefits are areas -- planning areas -- what we call Planning Areas 1,
April 27, 2021
Page 86
3, and 5, as you can see these portions of the county.
You know, so what we'd be looking at in Planning Area 1 is we
would start off -- and, you know, our goal is to make sure that water
doesn't wrap around or get around the beach protected feature. And
so there are some dunes and walls and lower berms that will be
needed to help us prevent that wraparound structure so, you know,
when you're lugging up there, you know, at the very top, you know,
we'll have a wall coming down the wall -- down the road.
We'd be having a surge barrier at Wiggins Pass. You know, our
beach and dune berm fill material there, and then on Vanderbilt there
we would also be coming another flood wall that would run in on the
interior, because if water does get into that area, we want to make
sure that it doesn't backtrack around the protected features that we
(indiscernible).
And this is also what we'd see within Planning Area 3 on
Seagate Drive. You could have a flood wall, a gate at Doctors Pass,
and then down on the beach berm and fill down there at the end. On
Planning Area 3 we did extend the beach dune berm a little to prevent
the wraparound. That was actually more cost effective than running
a wall into the interior of the community. And so we were -- that
little shaded green area that you see at the very southern area of
Planning Area 3, that's designed to prevent wraparound into those
communities so that water doesn't get around the Planning Area 3.
Then in Planning Area 5 which, you know, you're probably
familiar with the Gordon River, Tamiami Trail, they're installing
flood wall and gates to prevent storm surge from going fully up the
river.
Further south, you know, we did initially look at if there were
ways to put a gate closer there. But as you know, the further south is
the environmental preserve, Fish and Wildlife Service in the cobra
zone that prevents us from building anything in those areas. So, you
April 27, 2021
Page 87
know, we can definitely see that water has a route in through that
area. It's really limited us to where we could work in this area, but
we felt that there's a good area right there on Tamiami Trail where we
can create a significant feature, but this also gives us the benefit to
that whole Planning Area 5. They're looking at over 17,000
structures in that area, including the Naples Airport.
So each of these, when we're talking about structural solutions,
you know, we're looking at almost 40,000 structures that are behind
some sort of structural feature or structural protection, okay, for the
overall project.
Portions of the community where we could not participate and in
those structural features are areas -- Planning Area 2, 4, and 6.
These are the areas. So, you know, 4, when you look at it, as we
discussed, the Gordon River, water's going to get up in there. We
did not have a way to significantly block it. And so we do -- you
know, water will have the ability to travel up the Gordon River
through the inlet or from further south down into the wildlife
preserve there. Water -- as you can see, there's already breaches in
those -- that barrier island. Water's going to get into those areas, so
we were looking at what we can do for nonstructural elevations,
floodproofing, things like that.
And then in Planning Area 2, we did look at this area as well for,
initially, on the beach. You know, we determined we could not
close off the pass there, but we did want to make sure that we looked
at the possibility of any floodproofing or elevations.
This area actually is, you know, one of the more higher areas
within the community, and it does have that nice mangrove front out
in front of it which does provide some of the protection for it in our
analysis.
And then down on Marco Island, you know, we did look at the
structures there for elevation and floodproofing and what we could do
April 27, 2021
Page 88
down there in that area, to look at -- that included, like, Goodland and
Isle of Capri, you know, to include some of those areas in there.
And so we wanted to be able to do a nonstructural for those areas so
that we can work with these communities or those structures that are
most at risk or could receive damages, and they could most benefit
from this project.
Also included within the project is our critical infrastructure.
Now, when we first looked at -- you know, we worked with
emergency operations. We worked through Gary McAlpin in the
beginning. Gary's a great help to this overall project. Miss him; sad
to be retired. But we worked out -- we initially identified over 88
structures -- critical infrastructure that we wanted to protect.
From that, some of them are already behind the natural -- the
structural protection, and so then we look at those areas where we
have nonstructural and make sure that we can then go in and offer
floodproofing for those critical infrastructure in those areas, okay.
So we'd be looking at 32 facilities. We would look across the
county if we're doing some sort of floodproofing to make sure that
these critical infrastructures are more resilient to flood damage and
storm surge.
Turning to some of the environmental work that we've also been
working on. You know, throughout our environmental -- our EIS
that we've been working on, we've been partnering with various state,
local agencies, you know, some of the main partners that we've been
working with for, like, the federal level are the EPA; National Marine
Fisheries Service; you know, also is Fish and Wildlife Services, they
should be on this; BOEM, Bureau of Ocean Emergency Management
to look at the offshore borrow areas and things like that that we'd
need.
Currently within our environmental impact analysis, you know,
we do anticipate there are some minor impacts that will be created
April 27, 2021
Page 89
from the structural construction. Mangroves, about 10-and-a-half
acres. Hard bottom habitat, you know, we do realize that there is
hard bottom just offshore and off of Naples, and so we've been
working really closely with Florida DEP to make sure that we
minimize any impacts to hard bottoms for those.
There's also, within the bay, some submerged aquatic
vegetation. Vegetated dunes, you know, when we go in there, the
current dunes within those structural areas we'll be -- yes, we'll be
cutting out the current vegetation, but when we come back and when
we build up that dune, we'll be replanting those dunes with more
vegetation.
We also do make sure that we also take into account sediment
transport. You know, going past some of these inlets, making sure
that the sand is able to continue to migrate down the coast or the way
that it typically migrates across some of these inlets.
So, you know, as part of our beach analysis, you know, for
instance, you know, if we're doing work in Planning Area 1, you
know, the southern end of 1, you know, the beach renourishment in
those should be able to continue to feed some of the beaches to the
south in Planning Area 2 and down in Planning Area 3.
Also associated with this, whenever the Corps of Engineers does
work on beaches, there is a public-use requirement. As you guys are
very familiar, you know, the State of Florida claims ownership for
most of the -- up to the high-water mark from the beaches. As part
of any work that we do on our beaches, the Corps of Engineers is
required to make sure that -- because we're spending public funds
throughout the nation, you know, people throughout the nation would
be -- you know, their taxes pay for all of these projects that we do so
that we're all in this together -- we do require that there is public use.
And so specifically within the Planning Areas 1 and 3, we would be
looking at -- the county does have to require some sort of easement
April 27, 2021
Page 90
for public access for these projects.
So if we're going to be building, you know, or redoing the beach
in Planning Area 3, we would need to resolve some of these
beach-access issues through either easements or right-of-ways,
whatever we can obtain, so that we can guarantee that the public has
the right to get to the beach.
Now, the STOA (phonetic) understands, we do -- we're very
familiar with working for this. You know, there's been a lot of
beaches within the state of Florida that, you know, the Corps has
worked and currently renourishes on annual cycles and things like
that. You know, it's just one of those things that we all have to
continue to work on.
Okay. Our recommended plan does -- as I stated before, does
have residual risk to it. And it is important that everybody
understands that, you know, while we can participate in some of
these areas, you know, while we can design protective features, there
are still residual risks, and there will be still work to do on the overall
county resilience to make the county safer from these coastal storms,
okay.
And so after our plan, there's still 64 percent of the future
damages, so we do anticipate that, you know, windstorms come into
these areas. Some of them will have the ability to overtop some of
these features. You know, there will still be structures that get into
some of these areas. There will still be water that can get into some
of these areas where we could not partner with -- with the county on,
you know, and there's still significant numbers of structures that
could be exposed to inundation even with implementation of the plan.
You know, either these areas where we could not justify the cost to
benefit. There's also some structure types that we cannot work with.
For instance, it's very difficult within the Corps of Engineers to
elevate mobile homes, just in the nature of the construction of those
April 27, 2021
Page 91
things.
But we do believe that, you know, we are contributing to the
overall resilience of the community and, you know, while we can
partner on our portion, it does leave work to be done that the
community does need to continue to work with, okay.
Nonstructural measures will reduce damage to structures
expected to sustain damage. So some of them, you know, while we
do -- if we floodproof a building, when we floodproof it, basically
we're going to make it safe up to about three feet. You know, if
it's -- water comes in and hits, like, a four feet level, it could still
receive damages above that floodproofing.
And there are limits that we can do on floodproofing because at
certain points the weight of the actual water, you know, that we're
trying to hold out with that floodproofing and those materials puts too
much pressure on the structured walls and can actually push a
structure in.
So we always want to make sure that we're very careful with any
floodproofing activity that we do to make structures, you know,
floodproofable to certain levels, but there still could be residual
damages when that water exceeds those levels, okay.
So -- and then, as I have repeated, it's not designed to be the
complete singular solution to eliminate coastal storm risk. There is
still significant risk to the community from coastal storms. We
always encourage people to heed the word of their Emergency
Management, Emergency Operations, you know, local officials when
any storm is approaching. Please be -- you know, for everyone that
is listening, you know, we may be out there just days before finishing
up construction of a project, but we still need to heed the words and
be safe, because there's always residual risk. We want to make sure
that the community always understands these residual risks and does
not always -- you know, does not think that they're 100 percent
April 27, 2021
Page 92
guaranteed safe. You know, we are trying to reduce damages, we
are trying to reduce life loss and things like that, but sometimes these
storms can still overpower these systems that we put in place.
I'm getting there. I've got about three more slides.
Just looking at some of the things that we've gone through, these
are internal core milestones the Corps of Engineers used to track our
studies. We started out with a cost-share agreement which was -- in
this case it was very simple, because there is no cost share. It was
fully funded by the federal government.
We had a tentatively selected plan on March 26th. At that time
the draft report was released to the public. We'd gone through an
agency decision milestone where we presented to leadership within
the Corps of Engineers to say, this is our recommended plan, and
then we have an upcoming state and agency review where the report
will be put out for public consumption again. It will be -- a copy of
the report will be sent to the County Commissioners as well. It will
also be sent to the Governor of Florida, various federal agencies, you
know, to review the overall project and do that.
Once we finish out with our state and agency review, we are
looking at trying to finalize the report and get it in preparation for our
Chief of Engineers General Spellmon's signature on that report and
so that we can then align the study and put it in place, align it for our
next what we call Water Resources Development Act. Congress
passes a Water Resources Development Act once every two years;
sometimes it's three years. The longest I think it's ever gone is
maybe seven years. But they pass these budgetary acts that then
implement or authorize the Corps of Engineers to proceed with the
implementation of these projects. And so that's what that actual
report is designed to do. It's to provide Congress sufficient
information so that they can give us either a yea or a nay on whether
or not they want to do this project, they want the Corps of Engineers
April 27, 2021
Page 93
to work on this project. Generally, it's -- you know, we have a good
BCR of 1.6 that should allow this project to be included into the next
WRDA bill, and that would actually keep us in line so that we can
then be eligible for construction funds.
And so when I say that, only Congress can authorize us to move
forward or authorize the actual project. And so they have to tell the
Corps of Engineers that, yes, they accept the report, the conditions,
they accept the recommended plan, and that it's okay to then move
forward, and then we can then -- the Corps of Engineers can start
putting our budget requests into our annual budget cycle to actually
get construction authority to actually build and implement these
projects. And so they do take a little time to go through.
Currently, the project is on. You know, as I stated up front,
we're mandated onto a three-year schedule by Congress, $3 million in
three years, to go through this process and create these studies and
recommend a recommended plan up to them for approval, okay.
The next slide is really the last one. I just wanted to give you
guys just a little bit of what happens afterwards. And so we're
looking at our Water Resources Development Act in 2022. That's
the next possible one that this project would qualify for. And then,
again, that's up to Congress. If they don't pass one in '22, they could
pass one in '23 or '24, but we want this project ready for when that
next WRDA bill becomes -- when it starts to be developed, we want
to make sure the project is ready to be included in there so that
Congress can authorize and accept the recommended plan.
Subject to their authorization and appropriations of funding from
Congress, we would then move towards what we call a design
agreement, which we would be looking at around 2023. And so that
would begin -- that is when you'd first start to see some financial
requirements from Collier County. As part of that executed
agreement, you know, we'd be starting the design. Currently our
April 27, 2021
Page 94
design -- and because we're limited to the three-year studies -- it used
to be that these studies used to take about 22 years to complete, and
they would be extensive, and we would study them to death,
basically. But in 2012 everything changed, and we were limited to
three years and $3 million to get these projects executed as quickly as
possible.
And so with that, we would then want to start looking at how
quickly we can get through this project and executed design
agreement. So once Congress authorizes the project in WRDA, we
can then look towards executing a design agreement with the county,
and we'll enter into a period of what we call preliminary engineering
design. We will start designing some of the features. You know,
we do realize we'll be looking at -- you know, in talking with the
county staff, that the interest would be within the beach work first,
starting on some of the beach nourishment activities while we design
some of the gate enclosures, things like that.
So we'd be looking at executing a project partnership agreement.
Now, this is really where you start to get into a large-scale funding
commitment is that project partnership. We'd be looking -- if
everything stays on track, looking at about 2024 where we would
start to require those significant cost shares for that portion of the
project that we want to implement, okay.
So please keep in mind that even though Congress -- we're
asking Congress to authorize this entire project. The Corps of
Engineers realizes $2 billion -- as a corporate engineer, I don't have
$2 billion right now to work on this project, you know. We're going
to get the funding just like everybody else, in incremental phase-able
construction portions, and so that's why we also have some of these
planning areas to help us break up the portions of the county into
constructible units where we can then work, we can get our budgetary
requirements, the sponsor can get their portion of their funds lined up
April 27, 2021
Page 95
so that we can work together most efficiently and then work our way
through the project.
But at any given time, you know, if you want to do Planning
Area 1, then you focus in on Planning Area 1. It does not mean you
have to do any work in Planning Area 2. It does not mean you have
to do Planning Area 3. Those would be subject to additional
partnership agreements and when the county is ready to build them
and when the Corps of Engineers also can appropriate those funds
forward.
We would be looking at getting a new start designation for
construction in 2025; June 2025. And that's when we'd actually start
issuing the first contract for construction activity, okay.
Overall, within our current analysis, we'd be looking at
completing all construction by 2035. And you can see how this
is -- it's a phased implementation because we all realize -- you know,
if we did have the funding available and we wanted to do it all at
once, that would be a lot of work, but it could be done. But at the
same time, we typically do a lot of these projects in phased
implementation. And so over a decade, we would be working with
Collier County to implement different portions of this project in the
order that Collier County wants to work on these portions of the
project, okay.
At this time, I mean, that concludes my presentation. I'm happy
to answer any questions. I can leave the slide show up. I could go
back to any of the slides that you'd like to see or discuss, and
whatever's convenient.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do have a question. Thank you
very much for this presentation.
The project, the design, what percentage of deviation do you
expect that you can tolerate in order to get funding? Meaning, I've
heard that the neighbors can come back and you can work with the
April 27, 2021
Page 96
neighbors and just because the project is as it is today, that it is going
forward, that there's room for it to change.
Can you -- can you tell me what percentage of the design do
you -- would you tolerate with the Army Corps, tolerate in terms of
modifying the design; 10 percent?
MR. HUGHES: So that is -- that's a good -- that is a great
question, and it really is, you know, project based. I mean, currently
our designs are situated at a feasibility level of concept. That means
around less than 10 percent of design.
And so we do have a lot of design work still to do to bring each
of these areas up to where we, you know, have a 100 percent design
whereby we would issue a contract for those specific areas.
Now, even as we go from 10 to 100 percent, there is going to be
changes. We're going to have to look closely at areas where we plan
to build walls, build gates, and make sure those areas are the correct
alignment and things like that. So there's always variation in any
construction.
Okay. Now, there can be some areas that can -- there is some
flexibility on some areas where we also will look at to say, you know,
does this make sense? You know, prior to construction, we go to
process what we call value engineering where we look at it and say,
does that really make sense? We could do a lot more if we did it this
way, and we could, you know, make slight design changes for that,
okay.
But also considering that, you know, we're looking at an end
construction date of 2035. There are many processes within the
Corps of Engineers where we can go back and look at these projects
again. Once they are authorized by Congress, once you have this
authorization, we can then use what we call Section 216 of -- I think
it's WRDA 2014 that allows us to go back and reinvestigate areas and
see if there's something has changed. We can say, you know, if the
April 27, 2021
Page 97
economics have changed for that community or we've noticed
something different or, you know, the engineering has changed and
science has changed, we've learned something new, we can go back
and look at these areas again, and you can continue to do this, you
know, based off this project.
Now, there would be cost-share requirements and get -- you
know, making sure that -- you know, that we're working together on
this. But there is -- I mean, so there's some flexibility within design
itself. There's going to -- it's required to have some sort of flexibility
to make sure that we get the best design possible when we're at 100
percent. But even after we design a feature and we've implemented
that construction of that feature, it doesn't mean that we can't come
back at a later date throughout the partnership, you know, the 50-year
partnership of these projects, and look at them again.
Some of the projects that the Corps of Engineers is currently
doing on, like in Pinellas County and on Miami-Dade -- Miami
Beach, excuse me -- Miami Beach. You know, those projects are
over 50 years old and coming -- their end date -- our partnership's
coming up, and so they're reevaluating them again, because those
were just -- those are really beach stabilization more for
recreation-type benefits, and now they're looking at them under
coastal storm protections to see how they can improve those projects
and make sure that they're up to date.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a lot more questions.
MR. HUGHES: Does that answer?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, you did. I have -- I'm going
to -- I'm going to turn, if none of my colleagues -- oh, for some
reason I've got something going on here. Anyway, so just put your
hands up, Commission.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I've got a number of
April 27, 2021
Page 98
questions. One is, are there other areas right now that already, say,
through this initial process and into construction in this same
process?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Somewhere else, right.
MR. HUGHES: Partnering with the Corps of Engineers?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
MR. HUGHES: You know, currently I know the Corps of
Engineers is working in Flagler County. We have a long history of
working with Pinellas County. As I said, that project's been in
existence over 50 years. You can see the initial, you know, where,
you know, the entire beach disappeared and it was nothing but a
seawall in front of some of these major hotels and stuff like that. So
in the '70s they partnered with the Corps of Engineers to rehabilitate
those beaches, rehabilitate that environmental condition.
The same with Miami Beach; they had some really bad stuff. I
mean, we worked -- you know, right now I'm based out of the
Norfolk district. For over a decade I've worked out of the
Jacksonville office, you know, and I worked on St. Johns County,
Flagler County, Broward County, Miami-Dade, you know, Lee
County, and Pinellas County, you know, major coastal communities.
But at the same time, you know, this coastal storm protection is
something new within the Corps of Engineers. In the past we really
looked at beach stabilization as, you know, trying to protect the
structures that are immediately adjacent to the beach, you know, that
first row of housing, you know, that's really going to get the really
big brunt impact of it.
But the Corps of Engineers is starting to realize that, you know,
these coastal storms and that associated storm surge goes much
further inland and creates havoc in interior communities, which, you
know, I think everyone saw on the news what happened with Mexico
April 27, 2021
Page 99
Beach in that unfortunate community where it, you know, really went
back into those neighborhoods.
We saw a lot of -- we saw a lot of also this destruction on
Hurricane Sandy up in New Jersey where it ripped right through
some of the dune features that the community had or the natural
dunes, and it crossed those bays and went into town into the next
community in. And so we've really started expanding our work to
address these coastal storm surge events. And so, yeah, it's been a
change over the last decade to our reach and what we're trying to
protect.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, again, in terms of this
particular process, looking at the storm damage in a much broader
area than just beachfront, I mean, I'm just trying to get a sense of
where is this happening -- where else is this happening, how is it
happening, so that at least I have something to look at.
MR. HUGHES: Currently -- yeah, currently, my staff are
working on three Florida counties right now. We're working in
Miami-Dade. You know, you probably heard it on the news where
we're proposing a floodwall downtown Miami. We're also working
with Monroe County in the Florida Keys. The Florida Keys is a
very unique place. We can't create any type of beach-type defenses
because it being an island -- and this is some of the same thing with
Marco Island is that, you know, the water is going to come in and
wrap around, but the Keys are even worse off because the water
could be coming from the Gulf or the Atlantic side. And so, you
know, it creates a lot of -- a lot of potential damage. And so we're
doing a lot of non-structural work with the Florida Keys and Monroe
County. Those are three activity projects that we're working on right
now out of my office right now.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And just focusing in,
obviously in District 2, the Area No. 2, which is, essentially, the
April 27, 2021
Page 100
Pelican Bay area, I made some notes, and I just want to make sure I
understand what they mean. Number one is that there was a
reference in your slide presentation that -- right, this is the one -- that
there's only five structures that would be impacted in District 2. Is
that what that means?
MR. HUGHES: Those are structures where we can --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean Planning Area 2.
MR. HUGHES: -- identify -- correct. In Planning Area 2,
these would be structures that we've identified where we can justify
our cost-to-benefit ratio. It does not mean that there's only five
structures that would be impacted.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. It's cost-to-benefit ratio.
MR. HUGHES: And we have to take into -- yeah. And so,
like, when you have large-scale, you know, modern condominiums
that are closer to the shore and things like that, a lot of their first
floors are typically parking garages or a lobby and things like that,
and that helps gets the residential units much higher in the air.
And so, yeah, storm surge is going to come in, but the amount of
damages, the structural damages are not, for us -- for partnership with
the Corps of Engineers, the structural damage does not necessarily
outweigh the cost of implementing those structural features.
And so, yeah, it's pretty pricy to bring the sand to the beach to
create beach structures, things like that. And so we have to -- so we
look at the large areas to say, you know, what is the overall damages
that would occur in this area if we don't do anything? And then if
we do something, what are the damages reduced, okay. And that
damages removed is what creates the economic benefit when we can
say, you know, the benefit totals about 100 million annually or
something like that. Then we have to weight that to the actual cost
of implementing that feature. So in some areas, yes, where we might
get 100 million annual benefits, we got 110 million annually in costs.
April 27, 2021
Page 101
And so for the Corps of Engineers, our benefit-to-cost ratio falls
below 1.0, which then prevents us, by our own regulations, from cost
sharing in those areas.
So it doesn't mean that they're -- we don't identify or see that
there's risk or residual risk to these communities. It's just that our
participation, by our own regulations, is very limited to what we can
partner in. So that's why I always state, you know, this isn't the
complete end-all for community resilience, but we can partner in
where we can partner in and bring those federal dollars to Collier
County to help solve a portion of the problem so that then Collier
County can continue to work on the overall problem, you know,
at -- you know, in these other areas as well as we need to.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Let me just run through a
couple of other questions, because a couple things jumped out at me
in Planning Area No. 3, which as I recall was the -- can you go to 3.
That's the Vanderbilt Beach area. Am I right on that?
MR. HUGHES: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, it's south. It's south.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sorry. That's -- no, it's No. 1.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, No. 1.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Number 1, as I recall, there was a
reference about needing additional access --
MR. HUGHES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- in those areas in order for some
of these projects to move forward. Is that -- is that a condition --
MR. HUGHES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- to any of this happening or --
MR. HUGHES: That is a condition to this happening. Yeah,
unfortunately, that is -- you know, because we do assign recreational
benefits to help the project out, but at the time, by law, when the
April 27, 2021
Page 102
Corps of Engineers puts sand on a beach, we have to be able to
guarantee that there is public access, which has been a law on the
books. It was more designed for when we were doing beach
stabilization for recreational and economic improvement, but the law
still is there and still mandated, even though we're really -- we're
stabilizing the beach, we're really trying to prevent coastal storm
surge. And so our uses change, but the regulation is still there, and
we still have to comply with that. So, yes, there is a slide there, you
know, that -- I think you were referring to this slide here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
MR. HUGHES: That -- you know, we basically -- all the
circles we go through and we look at it and say, is there some sort of
public access; we worked a lot with Gary and Andy to go through
that. And we identified some areas where the county would need to
obtain easements for right of access to that beach for us to work in
those areas, okay.
You know, a good case of this recently that was probably in the
news was up in Flagler County. You know, they did have difficulty
obtaining some of these easements. Some individual holdouts on it,
but eventually they were able to obtain the necessary easements to
exercise that construction authority in time.
And so it is something that we do recognize is controversial.
That's why I've made sure that this was on our slide show, but this is
a required commitment for the county, or the county needs to
understand that we do need these access issues to do these beach
projects.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Solis, it's Leo.
You can see two of those three are up in Barefoot Beach, not
necessarily on Vanderbilt Beach proper.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. No, I see that. They go all
the way up to Barefoot.
April 27, 2021
Page 103
MR. HUGHES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: May I just ask a question to
piggyback on what you said. Are these beach accesses permanent
then, because --
MR. HUGHES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- it's not something that's going to be
lifted once the improvement --
MR. HUGHES: No. As long as this project is in existence for
50 years with each of these renourishments, we would expect that
access to remain. At the end of the 50 years or anytime where the
county chooses, you know, it doesn't want to do the project, then that
would be up to you-all if you wanted to terminate those easements,
things like that.
But at the same time there's also tremendous amount of
economic benefit to those coastal communities. And so by
providing beach access, you know, we're also implementing a -- you
know, in front of these areas, you know, a renourishment every seven
years on these projects, stabilizing that dune as a protected feature,
because we all know the power of these storms. Once they get into
these dune systems and, you know -- it is -- you know, I was living in
Florida in St. Pete in 2005, and with those bad series of hurricanes
that came through -- remember Hurricane Charley and everything
coming through there, you know, you had so many repetitive storms
week after week that, you know, there's not time to get out there and
fix some of these dune features. And these dunes, you know, they
take time, the vegetation to stabilize and things like that.
And so, you know, we are working together to create these
stable features in front of people's homes, those valuable properties
out front, you know. And so there is -- I would think there is some
sort of incentive to participate and work with the local community to
obtain necessary easements. You know, we do recognize, you
April 27, 2021
Page 104
know, how the property is owned, and, you know, the access that the
State of Florida has.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And just -- let me just
finish up real quick on that same note.
So the access requirement is essentially a statutory one for the
Corps to contribute to say beach renourishment?
MR. HUGHES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the -- is the extent of that
access -- that's all defined in statutes --
MR. HUGHES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- and promulgated in rules?
MR. HUGHES: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So --
MR. HUGHES: Generally, it requires a small amount of
parking and some sort of, you know, easements where a person can
traverse down to the beach to that amount. You know, in working
with the county and working with Gary and Andy, we realize the
county does have significant parking features throughout the county.
It has also a significant bus system through the county that -- you
know, that it could be reasonably assumed that a person could get off
a bus and easily find an access to a beach. So I'm not necessarily as
concerned about the parking as an actual access where someone
could walk from the road down to the public area and portion of the
beach.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And are the -- I mean, because in
Planning Area 2, there's parking areas and access points basically at
two beach access --
MR. HUGHES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- at the two ends. And while
there is maybe some access to the estuary on the land side, landward
side of the beach, the two parking areas are at either end. So I'm
April 27, 2021
Page 105
just -- I want to understand how any of this would affect Planning
Area 2 given that it is a large area of the coast with an estuary that
water would get into, obviously, if there was a major storm surge.
MR. HUGHES: Well, currently Planning Area 2 is not
designed for a structural element. There would be a non-structural
there. So there's no -- there's no access requirements within
Planning Area 2, if that was your question.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There's no access
even -- because -- well, then maybe I've confused myself. I thought
that in order for there to be some participation from the Corps for
nonstructural work, i.e., beach renourishment, that there had to be
access.
MR. HUGHES: For beach renourishment -- okay, so there's
no -- there's no planned -- beach nourishment planned for Area 2.
So this is all nonstructural in Planning Area 2.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And that's what I'm trying
to understand. There's no beach renourishment planned in this plan
that we're talking about, and that's because why? I'm just trying to
connect the dots for myself and others.
MR. HUGHES: Yeah. There are multiple reasons, you know,
but it really comes down to the cost versus the benefits of it. And so
in our analysis, looking at that, it is a tremendous amount of cost to
bring material to that area, but then the damages that are reduced that
creates the damages, basically, are lower than the other areas where
we are able to apply structural features. And so the cost of the
material -- if we wanted to close off that, put a gate structure there,
the cost of that gate, those costs would not outweigh the economic
damages presented.
And so we have a BCR that is really below the threshold that
we're required to have that is 1.0 of benefit-to-cost ratio. And so in
this case, you know, the -- when we were doing the analysis on this
April 27, 2021
Page 106
for Planning Areas 2 and 4 and 6, you know, each of those, the costs
of creating those features really outweighed the benefit that we would
get, but then also in Planning Area 6. We do have a significant issue
with water coming from multiple directions.
And so, you know, establishing just a beach for damage
reduction, water's still going to get into those inlets by itself, you
know, and there's a lot of, actually, canals on Planning Area 6 that
will get a lot of water in those in that area. And so a nonstructural
solution would work best for that area.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I had. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sir, I'm Rick LoCastro, the
commissioner that represents District 1, so a big chunk of that is
Marco, Isles of Capri, and Goodland.
So, I mean, you've answered some of my questions. Now,
some of them have me very concerned that, you know, the cost of a
structural solution is more than what -- you know, it outweighs what
the damages are going to be type of thing but, you know, I sit there
and go, wow. I know you've got some nonstructural solutions, but
there's an awful lot, like I said, around Marco.
Realizing you can't protect everything, my question is: Can
you just elaborate -- I'm sorry? Can you just elaborate a little bit
more on focusing on Marco, Isles of Capri, and Goodland as to what
you think the beneficial nonstructural solution would be. I mean,
there's a lot of people listening, and I don't want them to get the --
MR. HUGHES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- wrong impression that
we're writing those areas off because it's not cost effective.
MR. HUGHES: No.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So could you elaborate a
April 27, 2021
Page 107
little bit, sir.
MR. HUGHES: Exactly, okay.
So when you look at those areas, I mean, certainly, like, you
know, in Planning Area 6, you do have a healthy beach, you know,
that does reduce damages, and that's coming in, but at the same time,
you know, we look at that and say, can we do a structural feature
there? How could we block water from getting there? And that's
what structural means. We're going to stop the water from getting
around on us.
But when we really look at this area, you know, Marco Island is
an -- it's an island for a reason. You know, the water can come in
from multiple sides, even especially to the south, which is a -- you
know, which is a preserve area there. It's very difficult to block off.
And then the internal canal system itself that it has, when water
comes in -- so if we were able to block it off from one direction, the
water can still come in from another direction.
But then when we look at the coastal community there, there is a
lot of new development. Like I explained before, those coastal
high-rises, you know, they have garages in the basements. They
have that -- you know, that lobby, you know, second, third floor
sometimes, you know, over these garages. That really reduces their
structural damage that we're going to see.
But then when we look around Marco Island, there's a lot of
individual properties on Marco Island itself. And you can tell the
difference -- when you drive around your community, you're going
to -- it's easily -- you're easily able to see homes that are older versus
homes that are brand new because the development -- the code for
builders has changed significantly over decades, and you can see
houses that are much higher -- they have a much higher elevation
because the foundation that they've been placed upon is significantly
higher.
April 27, 2021
Page 108
So you have elevation requirements on a pad that these houses
are going to be put upon that are much higher, and that gets them up
out of that initial water levels. But then when you look at some of
your older homes within your community, those are the ones we want
to target because they are built basically on grade, you know, on
natural elevation, things like that. And we want to make sure that
we can do some work on some of those homes to get them elevated,
to get them up higher out of the water to reduce the damages that they
could be exposed to.
And then there's also a lot of businesses that are in the
community that also built somewhat on grade level, and so we want
to offer floodproofing in those areas to be able to help those
communities. You know, the water will come in. Hopefully it
doesn't exceed that floodproofing level, and so it should remain tight,
you know, and then those businesses and those commercial structures
can reopen after a storm passes.
And so the overall goal is, yes, where we can -- where we see
that there are homes at risk that we can partner in, we want to identify
those, but at the same time that is also going to be voluntary for these
areas. You know, generally we do it in areas where we've done
nonstructural. We've ranges between 70 and 90 percent participation
out at communities because it can be a good opportunity for homes to
get homes elevated and protected and realigned for the next 50 years
of coastal protection for that area.
And so we did look at some of those areas. I remember Isles of
Capri, visiting the fire station there; it's right on the water. But even
that, it's been elevated already. So, you know, the county has
already taken steps through its building code and also recognition of
some of these Code of Law issues.
Now, I think we've seen, you know, the Florida Building Code
drastically changed after Hurricane Andrew for elevations and
April 27, 2021
Page 109
building requirements. And so what we do see, though, out there in
these communities is a mix of pre- and post-Andrew construction.
And so generally a lot of the pre-Andrew construction, you know,
those are opportunities where we can see where we can work on
those homes and help these people, you know, get a little safer, get a
little more resilient.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So in every instance, Isles of
Capri, Goodland, and Marco specifically, all your recommendations
are nonstructural answers?
MR. HUGHES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Correct?
MR. HUGHES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. HUGHES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. HUGHES: Because of the difficulty associated with
where they are situated and the geographic features. So they don't
have, like, a really inland area that we can tie into or prevent that
water from wrapping around. It is very difficult. This is one of the
major challenges that we are faced with in the Florida Keys, you
know, that with all the islands there, the water's going to keep -- has
the ability to come from multiple directions and push it different
areas, and so we just can't seal it off completely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. HUGHES: That's where we fall back to nonstructural.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Dan, if you could go to
the slide that talked about the contemplated percentage of protection.
MR. HUGHES: I'll see if I get the right one.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: At the end.
MR. HUGHES: Residual risk. Okay. Residual risk.
April 27, 2021
Page 110
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There you go. And that's the
one I wanted to -- I wanted to have just a brief comment about, and
it's something for all of us, for all of the districts and for all of the
community. This is -- this is such a difficult moving target for
anyone to actually ascertain and determine how much can be spent
and where it can best be spent, because nobody knows when our
good Lord's going to send us another storm and what direction it's, in
fact, going to come from.
And your top line there talking about -- we're only talking -- you
know, we'll reduce the aggregate damages by a maximum of
36 percent. If, in fact, this is all done, if, in fact, Congress passes the
bill, if, in fact, it goes through and gets to construction and bid and
done by 2035, if, in fact, all that's in place -- so my question, or my
thought, is with regard to this: I mean, we certainly want to move
forward. We really appreciate the Corps' help and assistance to help
us help ourselves, and that's my ask or discussion. As you're moving
through here, we have an enormous amount of regulatory bodies that
we have to get through on a local basis to assist us with our borrow
areas, as you refer to them, and being so excessively far away and the
enormous amount of expense we have to go through for the hopper
dredges, which is the only mechanized ability to relocate that sand,
help us with our offshore permitting requisites to allow for some
assistance on our own and also, if you can, help us with the EPA
permitting, which is the same regulatory agency, just in allowing us
to go forward with our own nonstructural beach renourishment and
dune construction facilities that we can do where we know we need
them. That's all, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We've got it. We've got those
permissions. Okay. So I think we're going to break for -- we're
going to rejoin here back at 12:45. We're going to take public
comment at that time. Commission, if you would let the County
April 27, 2021
Page 111
Manager know -- we're going to have a working lunch today, because
we're not going to get through this day. We've got a couple other
issues.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did you say 12:45, so we've
got seven minutes?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right, right now, and then
we're going to take a break, yes, sir. So please let the County
Manager know about lunch.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, I'm sorry. Are you -- did you say you're
going to do public comment before you --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Before lunch?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, that was the plan.
MR. OCHS: So back at 12:45.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 12:45, yes. Sorry, I got that --
(A brief recess was had from 12:39 p.m. to 12:45 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now we're going to proceed to public
comment.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Your first public comment is
Erik Brechnitz. He will be followed by Steve Barrett, and then
Douglas Hagerman.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if you're in the chambers, please
use two podiums here. You have three minutes. If you're online, I
think Troy will --
MR. MILLER: I've only got one online, I do believe.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Everyone else is here. So if
you -- the second speaker is who?
MR. MILLER: That was Steve Barrett.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. If you'd take your place at the
April 27, 2021
Page 112
second podium, please, to be ready. Thank you very much.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Madam Chairman, before I get started, I
have a handout for the Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If you would give it to --
MR. MILLER: I'll take care of it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- here, and we can pass it forward.
Thank you.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Thank you. Also, with your indulgence
and with respect, Madam Chairman, I'm representing all of Marco
Island today.
My presentation isn't long, but I might go over just a few
seconds, and I would appreciate maybe giving a little extra time to
finish up.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I can give you an extra
minute, sir, and that would be it.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't mean to be stingy on this, but
I think you understand the time constraints.
MR. BRECHNITZ: I get it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Great. So first of all, you were -- the
motion that you're not making any commitments today is true.
There's no financial commitments that the county board is making
relative to this plan, but what you are -- if you approve it, you are
approving the plan, and there's very little change that will be made.
So this is really an important decision and an irrevocable decision for
parts of the county that have issues with this plan.
The City of Marco Island supports the objective of this study.
It's important to develop a regional plan to address the vulnerabilities
and excessive flooding from storms and also potential sea level rise.
Marco Island is the county's only barrier-island community. We
April 27, 2021
Page 113
have 17,500 people that reside on Marco Island permanently. We
have 50,000 that are there seasonally, and at 17,5-, we are only 5,000
in population smaller than the City of Naples. So it's a significant
part of Collier County.
We don't support this tentatively selected plan that was
presented to you by the Corps primarily because it excludes beach
resiliency, dune features, and any other structures in its
recommendation for Marco Island. As a matter of fact, the
northwest portion of Marco Island, which exceeds two-and-a-half
miles of beach, was not even studied in the Corps' study.
Now, the Corps of Engineers gave you the answer for that.
There is no public access every quarter mile on that piece of beach,
and I get that. If this were a renourishment project, if this were a
project for recreation, we understand that. As a matter of fact, that
portion of the beach has been renourished by the residents routinely
for the last 22 years, but this is not a renourishment program for
recreation. It's a resiliency program. It's to protect the structures
that are there. And in this two-and-a-half miles of beach that wasn't
even looked at, there are over 400 single-family residences and
numerous multifamily residences there. Literally, billions of dollars
of assessed valuation exists that weren't even looked at.
As far as the cost-benefit analysis is concerned, using a
cost-benefit analysis for beach nourishment in Naples is not the same
as Marco Island. We have borrow areas that are less than a mile off
our shore. We renourish beaches routinely for $16 per cubic yard as
opposed to the 40 or 45 dollars or $50 that Naples pays to truck it in.
So our -- if the cost-benefit study was the same kind they used for
Naples, it is flawed.
Some other things I want to get to is that the -- it is unlikely that
any of these structures that the Marco Island -- or that the Corps of
Engineers want to renourish and raise up, they're all old structures,
April 27, 2021
Page 114
and they're not likely to happen. They just -- they'll -- they just
won't take the pounding of raising them up.
The only reason Marco Island wasn't considered for structures is
because it is a barrier island and, as the Corps noted, it is covered on
all sides. But the major part of our flooding comes from the west
and the high tides that come in. And we need our western beaches
protected; that is critical.
And I know my time is up, Madam Chair, but if this plan is
accepted today, there won't be an opportunity for federal funding to
add the needed features for Marco Island and, as a result, unless the
county plans to direct other funds to address coastal resiliency on
Marco Island, I urge you to have the county staff and the U.S. Corps
of Engineers reassess the plan for Marco and take into consideration
the huge amount of property damage that would be done if structures
are not provided.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. And I think
you're opposing it because, number one, as stated, but the second
reason you're opposing it is your correspondence to the Army Corps
has gone unanswered.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Yes. We have not -- we have not had a
satisfactory answer. The answer that we gave was -- is that it
was -- there was no -- the cost benefit didn't make sense. I have not
seen any numbers to support that position.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. BRECHNITZ: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Steve Barrett followed by
Douglas Hagerman, and then Brett Cohan.
MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much for this opportunity.
My name is Steve Barrett.
MR. MILLER: Can you adjust the mic, sir. Closer to you,
April 27, 2021
Page 115
thank you.
MR. BARRETT: Okay. Thank you for the opportunity. My
name is Steve Barrett. I currently serve as president of the Naples
Cay Condo Association board. Naples Cay, shown here on the
monitor, is a community of eight buildings on the Gulf tucked
between Clam Pass on the north and Seagate Drive to the south.
Behind us to the east is the Seagate neighborhood, four streets all
separated by canals. Four hundred households in total virtually
surrounded by water.
Now, our community has had major concerns with this plan
since last August. First, there's no evidence that less costly options
were ever explored or evaluated. At over $3 billion, this is an
engineering wonder that will take years to build and cost over a
million dollars a year to operate and maintain while only reducing
our coastal storm risk management exposure by 36 percent.
Second, the cost-benefit analysis contains no accounting for
indirect costs and negative social and cultural impacts, including
permanent aesthetic impairments, quality-of-life declines, and
potential tourism drops during what will now be a 10-year
construction period.
Finally, and most disappointingly, there has been no response
from the Corps or county staff to legitimate concerns and questions
raised by communities up and down the coastline. Zero, zip, nada.
We hear lots of assurances like, don't worry, the TSP is just a
10 percent conceptual design; there's lots of time for changes; the
county has never committed to actually begin the project, even after
authorization. Now, I would ask, is that really the case?
So here we are seven months later, still no responses, no
changes to the plan. Instead, we're hearing today that something
must be signed by the County Manager, a document in its current
form that cites the county's intent to continue down this path.
April 27, 2021
Page 116
Well, that's incredible and, frankly, it's an insult to all the county
citizens led to believe they'd actually have some input on this massive
and potentially transformational project.
When the TSP draft was released to the public last year, it was
accompanied by a video of the Corps' Colonel Kinsman. His final
sentence: We want your input to make this a better project.
Well, if that's still believable, we respectfully submit this input.
First, do not sign anything today. Hit the pause button on this
project.
Number 2, address and respond to all the community input
already received.
Number 3, explore alternative storm risk reduction approaches
that are lower cost or more incremental. Focus on the dunes, our
first line of defense.
And, finally, build some trust within the Collier County
community. Actually meet with residents to discuss issues and
concerns and collaboratively explore options and possible solutions.
Much more engagement and follow-up is needed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm going to
have to -- thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker Douglas Hagerman. He'll
be followed by Brett Cohan and then Jim Hoppensteadt.
MR. HAGERMAN: Good afternoon. Doug Hagerman here.
I also live in Naples Cay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You may want to straighten
your -- there you are.
MR. HAGERMAN: There we go.
First point today. Rather than protecting us, the TSP
significantly harms Naples Cay. We're located north of Seagate
Drive, which is roughly this blue line. This is our community right
here. These are the Seagate homes.
April 27, 2021
Page 117
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's got to be a microphone
somewhere.
MR. HAGERMAN: Oh, it's a microphone, okay. Okay.
Thank you. Okay. Good. How's that?
All right. So the blue wall is the 14-foot-high, 4,500-foot-long
seawall that we'll drive past every day to get to our community, but
that doesn't protect us, because what it's really doing is preventing the
water from going through our community and around backwards into
Area 3.
The berm comes up the beach here and stops just short of our
community. It connects at a right angle with that wall, so that's what
we will -- that's what we will be subjected to if this plan is
constructed.
This is a picture taken from out over the Gulf. You see our
community on the left unprotected, and you see that black angle.
That's the dune and the wall. So they're protecting everything south,
even though we're really in exactly the same boat to the north -- north
of those structures.
So as a result, you can see from those pictures that we have all
the gain -- I'm sorry -- all the pain and none of the gain. We can
expect significant inundation when the water pours through our lower
elevation around the areas south and north of us, yet we get to live
next to that wall and those dunes every day.
So my second point I'd like to make, this study completely
missed the ball on Area 2. The TSP abandons Area 2 without
actually analyzing the structural protection of it. There is no
cost-benefit analysis of structural protection of Area 2 in the
document, even though we're very similar to the areas to the north
and the south of us. We've been trying to raise these issues since
August. In September we submitted a detailed comment letter, and
no response has been received.
April 27, 2021
Page 118
At the very beginning of the report, it says that the objective is
to recommend a project that would be -- quote, reduce the coastal
storm risk throughout the study area. In actuality, harming Area 2.,
this plan fails to meet that objective.
The idea of protecting only some portions of the coast and trying
to wall them off from the inundated parts is folly, and that's because
consistent and continuous is a fundamental principle of coastline
protection. If part of the coast is going to be protected, all of it
should be. You need a plan that furthers the well-being of the whole
community, and this plan fails that test. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brett Cohan. He'll be
followed by Jim Hoppensteadt, and then Neil Dorrill.
MR. COHAN: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is
Brett Cohan. I'm going to be very brief, because I agree with
everything that the past two speakers just said.
Commissioner Taylor, thank you very much for starting this
meeting off by advising that this is -- should have been just an update
and not an approval process with a letter.
Commissioner Solis, you asked some excellent questions during
the presentation, and now I -- one of the points is, that's already been
discussed, is the cost-benefit ratio. And I know what was explained
to all of you, and you've nodded your heads, but we've asked these
same exact questions about how they came up with the cost-benefit
ratio, and they haven't been answered -- we haven't gotten the
answers to our questions. So please be aware of that.
And please consider also your opening comment, Commissioner
Solis, about maybe a public workshop on this, too, because a lot -- I'd
say the majority of the residents throughout the county don't know
what's being discussed right now. So, thank you very much, all.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jim Hoppensteadt. He'll
April 27, 2021
Page 119
be followed by Neil Dorrill, and then Michael Savarese.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Commissioners, thank you very
much. Clearly, this is a critical issue for Collier County, not only for
storm resiliency but sea level rise and a lot of other water-intrusion
issues.
That's where it's so difficult to understand why in a plan there's
holes left. You heard Mr. Hughes say that inland inundation is a
concern, and yet, Area 2 is a big gaping hole between Areas 1 and 3.
Area 2 has the exact same topography as Areas 1 and 3. And, in
fact, we have greater public access. We have one of 200 five-star
hotels in the country. Tourism is the number-one source of revenue
for Collier County, and Pelican Bay offers the most parking and the
most beach access.
We also -- there's also a 530-acre estuary that the county owns,
and the county owns 57 percent of the beach in Area 2. It's also the
only coastal Natural Resource Protection Area in the mangroves.
None of that's been accounted for. None of that's been incorporated
into any cost-benefit analysis.
The loss of the Ritz, the loss of Naples Grande, two of the
largest hotels in the county, are in this planning area, not considered,
and yet they've identified in the plan 515 structures that they say need
to be either raised or acquired. I don't know where these 515
structures are.
But in a community that has a value of roughly a million dollars
a structure, they've identified 515 that need some type of
nonstructural approach. It doesn't make any sense from a holistic
standpoint -- and the report says their objective is a holistic
standpoint -- not to continue shoreline and berm mitigation and
enhancements all up and down the coast. It doesn't make any sense
for Area 2. It doesn't make any sense for Area 4. There's no reason
that these things can't be enhanced.
April 27, 2021
Page 120
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Neil Dorrill. He'll be
followed by Michael Savarese, and then our first online speaker,
Rachel Rhode.
MR. DORRILL: Commissioners and Mr. Hughes, I'm here
today on behalf of your advisory board, the Pelican Bay Services
Advisory Board. It is somewhat unusual for them to have an
elevated level of concern to ask their staff to come down here with
respect to some of the same things you've heard today. They're
previously on record in having provided an associated list of concerns
and questions as it relates to not only the economic but the
environmental impacts specifically that the primary stated objective
of this study is to reduce risk and damage, economic loss, and
environmental impacts due to wave energy and storm events.
But with respect to Planning Area 2, none of their concerns have
yet had an opportunity to be responded to or acknowledged and,
specifically, some of the things that you have heard. The Board of
County Commissioners is the largest landowner within Planning Area
No. 2. Five hundred sixty acres of adjacent or contiguous areas of
upland beach or conservation area within the only Natural Resource
Protection Area on the West Coast of Florida, two of South Florida's
largest beach resorts and hotels, two of the largest public beach and
associated parking facilities, and in the case of critical infrastructure,
one of the largest sewage master pump stations in the unincorporated
area are all within the velocity zone of this target area.
So I think I'll just stop there to indicate that PBSD's previously
on record, on your behalf, unresponded to, desirous of being a partner
but very, very curious and concerned as to why some of these key
areas within Planning Area 2 remain to be fully addressed.
Thank you.
April 27, 2021
Page 121
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Savarese, and he
will be followed by Rachel Rhode and then Ronald Nordmann.
DR. SAVARESE: Thank you. Commissioners, thanks for the
opportunity to speak.
I just wanted to say -- oh, I'm Mike Savarese. I'm a faculty
member, a professor of coastal resilience at Florida Gulf Coast
University. I know many of you and interacted with you.
I'm here not to speak as an advocate for or against the Corps project,
so I feel a bit like a fish out of water after hearing the concerns
voiced about Planning Area 2.
I saw during the conversation among you the frustration
associated with that residual risk of 64 percent that's still out there.
What I want to share with you is just some thoughts as to how that
residual risk can be addressed in a proactive way.
The speaker for the Corps mentioned earlier that the project
that's going forward is a -- is not meant to be the singular solution for
solving all of the county's problems, and I think that's the frustrations
you're hearing here associated with particular planning areas; how do
you deal with a barrier island that is completely surrounded by water
and so on.
What I can tell you is that the NOAA projects that are moving
forward and that are ready to be implemented, the tools themselves,
will help address those other relative risks, the ACUNE work
that -- ACUNE is the acronym that stands for the package of
tools -- will allow the county to look at other types of vulnerabilities
and explore other kinds of solutions.
I can also tell you, that wasn't mentioned in the Corps
presentation, is that as the Corps project transitions into the design
phase, assuming it takes that path, it moves from the Norfolk office to
the Jacksonville district office. And I can tell you the ACUNE
April 27, 2021
Page 122
working group, the people from U.S. Geological Survey, University
of Florida, Florida Gulf Coast University, and all the end users that
have been involved in city and county government are going to be
integrated in with the Army Corps, and the Army Corps at the
Jacksonville district office has agreed to work collaboratively with us
to help find other solutions and other kinds of perceptions, if you
will, of the implications of the Army Corps project as well as the
ACUNE project, so I view that as very promising.
The last thing I'd like to say -- and I guess this is a
recommendation. It's not coming as an advocate. It's just coming
as someone who's worked with people in government for a long. I
genuinely believe there hasn't been a generous and open conversation
about this.
Commissioner Solis, you had mentioned a workshop. Rather
than a workshop, maybe what you should think about is maybe a task
force, a task force that comes -- that brings people together, both the
public, government, staffers, as well as scientists and the Corps, and
address this problem head on, how do you come up with a pluralistic
solution to Collier County's resilience and consider the Corps project
in concert with other possibilities. And I would argue, again, in my
non-advocate voice here, that that could happen, that task force could
happen with the Army Corps project moving forward or without.
And I would offer up the Water School services if you need help in
thinking about a task force and facilitating one. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rachel Rhode. She'll be
followed by Ronald Nordmann.
Rachel, you're being prompted to unmute yourself, if you'll do so at
this time. Rachel Rhode, R-h-o-d-e.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I'm not seeing a response from her. Oscar,
April 27, 2021
Page 123
let's move on to Ronald Nordmann.
Ronald Nordmann, you're being prompted to unmute yourself at
this time. There you are, sir. You have three minutes.
MR. NORDMANN: Thank you.
The Army Corps of Engineers gentleman told us about $2
billion coming into Collier County as current dollars. What wasn't
mentioned was the money that would be asked for by Collier County
residents in terms of taxes over the course of the next 50 years. It's a
number that I believe, in current dollars, is $1.1 billion or $60 million
per year.
I think that we need to address not only what the government
intends to spend on this project but what the taxpayers of Collier
County need to put up over the course of the next 50 years. Thank
you.
MR. MILLER: And we'll try Rachel Rhode just one more time.
If you're there, Rachel?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: She is not responding, ma'am.
That's all of our public comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much. So
now I don't have a screen up here, so I'm open for comments. Yes, I
think it's important to hear -- for the public viewing, the three
commissioners at this end have coastal communities. We
understand --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So does this one, by the way.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. Down in Everglades
City.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My little community is not
even on their map.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Well, that's -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, well.
April 27, 2021
Page 124
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There we go.
Okay. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So going back to my original
question, and that was, is there a clock ticking? And I'm assuming
that the clock that's ticking is three-year, $3 million time frame which
this has to be done pursuant to the Corps legislation. Is that what
we're talking about?
MR. OCHS: I'm going to ask Mr. Hughes to confirm that.
MR. HUGHES: Correct. I mean, there currently is. You
know, our studies are designed to be three years in length. You
know, if there are significant issues, or sometimes some studies
do -- are just so massive. You know, like, they did all of Texas
coastal. That was a 10-year study. But it had to seek a waiver and
cost waiver for it.
But the regulations are for three years and $3 million, and that's
what every project is striving to maintain and get this work done,
because it's imperative to get these projects authorized by Congress
so that we can get them built on a reasonable schedule.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Just so I understand the
downsides, if this isn't presented to Congress in this three-year cycle,
then what happens?
MR. HUGHES: Yeah. Well, we're really shooting for
(indiscernible). I mean, one, we do have to be compliant for us
because, you know, our headquarters, you know, they control our
funding, and so, you know, the funding is designed to last three years.
And so we would just, simply, you know, finish up with the funding
we have.
But at the same time, our ultimate goal that we're shooting for is
this Water Resources Development Act, which is slated for FY '22.
So hopefully that would be the first opportunity. If we can get this
project approved by General Spellmon, it would then be going to the
April 27, 2021
Page 125
list of completed projects and hopefully approved and authorized
under that WRDA bill. If not, if it does not get approved, you know,
if we are not able to get it into that WRDA bill, it would then be
subject to the next WRDA bill that would come along, which they
do -- like I said, they do come along every other year. Sometimes
it's three years. The longest I've seen is seven years. You know, so
there is variation within that. It's all -- you know, that's up to
Congress to decide.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And my last question is, so we've
heard from some concerned residents, some concerned organizations
about gaps which they feel are in this plan that would either damage
them or leave them out of, you know, the work that's going to be
done and funded. I mean, how do we resolve these issues -- we're
elected to represent the folks, certainly some of the ones that spoke
from the Planning Area 2, and, you know, how do we resolve these
issues? Is there a solution to these issues or -- and I'm assuming that
unless -- unless the County Manager signs these nonbinding letters
that it can't be submitted to Congress? You have to have those to
submit this to Congress?
MR. HUGHES: Correct. I mean, to get to -- actually to the
various stages of review, you know, to get it to General Spellmon's
desk, those letters are required --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. HUGHES: -- as part of the submission packet that we
have.
But, please, just keep in mind, I mean, there are portions that we
can participate in and areas that we can participate in. If there are
areas, you know -- and I really am excited that, you know, a lot of
people have come out. I understand their concerns on some of these
areas, and I appreciate their recognition of the risk that their
communities face, but at the same time, there are limits to what at
April 27, 2021
Page 126
least the Corps of Engineers can participate in, you know, and
hopefully, whether -- you know, what this ultimately does is -- you
know, overall Collier County has a storm risk associated with it.
There is going to be storms. There will be a day where there is
a -- something bigger than Irma that comes directly at Collier County.
It's just a matter of when. So the risk is there.
What the Corps can do is help make the community more
resilient by bringing those portions of the federal dollars for the areas
that we can participate in.
There are always going to be areas that we cannot participate in.
We would encourage the county to use savings from the overall.
You know, if we can contribute on this area for 65 percent, you
know, federal funds, maybe there is a gain there in the overall
community that Collier County can then utilize for other projects to
implement on its own to help it manage its own resilience efforts and
start to plug some of those gaps in overall project resilience.
Okay. So while we're in, like, Planning Area 2, we are offering
some nonstructural work there that we think we can do in that area.
It does not preclude Collier County from doing the same design or
the same features within that area if it wants to on its own. You
know, prior to this study, Collier County does have a long history
since 1996 of renourishing its own beaches, and it has benefited from
those. I think we saw some benefits during Hurricane Irma from
those resilience efforts and beach stabilization efforts, you know,
creating those wearable surfaces in those areas.
So there are things that we can participate on and cost share
with, and certainly we work with the community to improve, but
there always are going to be areas that Collier County is going to
have to continue to work in -- on its own to maintain that full higher
level of resilience that we'd like to see in every community.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you.
April 27, 2021
Page 127
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you.
First of all, I don't think anybody here is throwing the Army
Corps of Engineers under the bus. I mean, there's been a lot of work
that's been done here, and so I think it's commendable.
But, you know, we heard from multiple unrelated citizens that had
some significant concerns. Most notably not being heard, and that
concerns me greatly.
And I think we can do anything, but we can't do everything. So
I know we can't build a wall totally around all of Collier County to
keep every single thing out. But I think there's a difference between
risk and gaps. And hearing that there's a lot of concern that areas
maybe weren't looked at or maybe weren't as aggressively looked at
or maybe citizens just didn't get the feedback because they voiced
some concerns, I think, bears consideration.
A few things that I heard here that I really -- I really liked. First
of all, I don't think anybody wants to get the letter to the General late,
especially me. I mean, being retired Air Force, I know what that's
all about. We don't want to slow anything down.
But I think everybody here wants to make sure we measure
twice and cut once and really give this more than just a college try. I
think doing a deeper dive and maybe -- you know, I'm just making a
proposal here, but somehow better consolidating citizen input.
Maybe everybody blasted a bunch of feedback notes to the Army
Corps and, you know, I know what it's like to be overwhelmed by
those. So I'm not saying I have the approved solution. But if we
wind up doing a deeper dive discussion, whether it's a concerted
effort to have some sort of meeting or strategy team or whatever we
call it, I think those comments getting to you-all and getting the
answers back, and if there's some way we can better consolidate it so
you're not just getting, you know, random feedback from citizens
April 27, 2021
Page 128
that's overwhelming in the Army Corps is something to discuss.
And I think, lastly, what I liked hearing -- and I don't remember
the speaker's name but, boy, we're so fortunate to have the FGCU
Water School here, and even though I know they're continuing to get
bigger and better and whatnot, to be able to utilize that incredible
resource in some way, shape, or form as part of this plan seems to be
a no-brainer.
So I've got some concerns. I'm not here to rubber stamp
anything, and I know that's not what we're asking to do, and I
certainly don't want to slow things down. But feedback I heard from
citizens mirrors my own concerns, which is more discussion to make
sure that we know the difference between risks and gaps; that we also
leverage the FGCU Water School, if that can be a big plus for us, and
then also make sure that citizen comments that may have found their
way to Army Corps but citizens were hoping for a reply or hearing
their concerns voiced in the report somehow, maybe we could make
another stab at that or come up with a better way to make sure that,
you know, all communities feel well represented and that they're
heard before we just start drawing the maps.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, one quick comment, and
it just has to go with, similarly, to what you folks have already said.
We're not here today to vote on anything other than accepting
this report as it sits today. I really like Dr. Savarese's suggestion of a
task force. I think that might be an entity that we can establish to
help consolidate the comments from the community and funnel those
directly in a common voice, necessarily, especially with the Water
School's assistance in helping us arrange that.
So I'm in support of moving forward but certainly, as
Commissioner LoCastro said, it's imperative that our community is
April 27, 2021
Page 129
heard, because there's a lot of -- though we have similarities, there's a
lot of diversity at the same time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Just so -- a point of clarity. The people that spoke are not average
citizens. These are leaders within communities: Naples Cay,
Seagate, City of Marco Island, and Pelican Bay. They have -- and
also the Pelican Bay Services board, and the gentleman who spoke
for that was a former County Manager.
They're not here with their time because this is something that is
something that they're not concerned about. This -- the reverberation
and the lack of communication from the Corps has been rippling
through this community since December.
It is unfortunate, when I read -- and I looked clearly -- and thank
you so much for your presentation. It's very clear that you didn't
respond because you're not going to do anything. And I understand
that. But could the Corps design, for these areas, without getting
federal money, i.e, the county would pay for it; is that a possibility,
so that you would -- the federal money would go aside, and you'd
look at these areas and work with the communities involved?
MR. HUGHES: That is correct. I mean, the Corps of
Engineers, I mean, we frequently partner -- you know, with the
communities that we're partnering with, sometimes they actually have
projects that they want to do just adjacent to ours, and, you know, we
can work with them. There are certain regulations that do allow us
to work on projects at 100 percent. You know, if county wanted to
pay for, you know, the study 100 percent or the analysis or the action,
you know, and the construction, I mean, that would all be there. But
then there's also opportunities -- and, you know, like, I know we've
talked with Andy and we've talked with the staff at Jacksonville for
the actual implementation of the construction, if there were areas that
the county wanted to look at as part of its own nourishment program,
April 27, 2021
Page 130
you know, about coordinating with those with us so that the work can
occur at the same time so we can capitalize on cost savings for our
project sponsor.
You know, we frequently see this within our dredging industry
where, you know, we'll know that we'll have a big project being
mobilized. And the cost of a dredge mobilization is actually a pretty
significant cost. To actually get a dredge offshore, you know, as
you're probably aware from your own renourishment activities, it's
pretty expensive. But, you know, if our project is always going to
already be there renourishing, that allows those local communities to
actually go ahead and contract with those agencies, if they can, and
save on mobilization costs and just pay for the work that needs to be
done.
And so there are ways to do what we call betterments to projects
where if the county wants to add certain features in, those could be
considered, but there's also opportunities to, you know, work with the
companies that we're contracting with and, you know, we
would -- we definitely would encourage, if there is any way to
piggyback into some of these projects to create community savings
during the mobilization of these activities, that would be great and,
you know, certainly, the Corps of Engineers nationwide would be
committed to that, not just -- you know, it doesn't matter whether it's
Norfolk or Jacksonville. You know, we frequently do this
throughout the nation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, you know, when this -- when this
was presented and there was always conversation about the federal
government coming in and helping with beach nourishment -- and
when I first got on the Commission in 2014, that was my first
question, what happened? What happened? Why didn't -- why are
they -- up the road are they doing it, and why isn't Collier County?
You know, in my limited experience with beach renourishment,
April 27, 2021
Page 131
I was envisioning wider beaches and some dunes and some plantings.
This is night and day.
Would the Corps partner with Collier County to do that kind of
beach renourishment, recreational beach renourishment, making our
beaches wider, no structures, you know, no 12- to 14-foot dunes and,
you know, thousands of feet of walls; would they consider doing that
as a partner not with federal money or with little --
MR. HUGHES: We can certainly partner -- yeah, without the
federal funding, you know, for us, the cost sharing, those are tied to
those specific, you know, greater goals --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Plans.
MR. HUGHES: -- of reducing those damages. But for just,
you know, creating a wider beach itself, you know, the county can
always ask the Corps of Engineers to do it, but it would cost the
county at 100 percent to have the Corps of Engineers do it. And
sometimes there's -- you know, sometimes, you know, we have a lot
of the great technical engineering ability. You know, we're the
largest engineering firm in the world. But at the same time, you
know, sometimes things can be done cheaper locally. I mean, that's
just the way it is sometimes.
And so, yes, I mean, there are certain ways that we can do that.
I mean, within the beach profile itself, you know, we look at the berm
or the place -- you know, the berm where most people would think,
this is where I lay down my blanket to recreate, you know, that's a
wearable surface. And so we look at that, but we're really modeling
to prevent those damages. And so our importance is a little further
back up that beach on that vegetated dune where we're going to see
that's going to be where the water gets stopped. I mean, some of the,
you know, shoreline erosion will occur in that berm, but we'll come
back and we'll restore that portion of it. Now, if the county wanted
to exceed portions of that, yes, the county can probably exceed those
April 27, 2021
Page 132
at 100 percent cost to the county.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair.
MR. HUGHES: You know, some of the things we need to keep
in mind -- and when we're looking at the berm and making a wider
beach, we wanted to be very careful, especially in the northern part of
the county where we're looking at, you know, those offshore
resources, those hard-bottom impacts that are just off shore. Do we
want to make sure that the -- you know, the berm which extends out
to that toe, we want to make sure that there's -- you know, we're not
eating up that hard bottom, because the mitigation costs associated
with the impacts of those hard bottoms are very significant but, at the
same time, you'd run into a lot of difficulty with permitting such
actions with Florida DEP because, you know, hard bottoms is a
valuable resource for the environment as well, and so you want to be
cautious of that interface and snug up that beach where we need to
and things like that. So that goes into a lot of the engineering work
that's behind the scenes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So I'm just trying to focus in on
what the decision point is that we're being asked to make here, and
it's -- one, it's more than just accepting the report. It's also directing
the County Manager to sign these letters saying that we will
participate financially, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's --
MR. OCHS: They're pre -- as I understand it, those are
prerequisites --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Prerequisites.
MR. OCHS: -- to getting this study completed on time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So it seems to me that the decision
point is, do we direct the County Manager to sign those and thereby
April 27, 2021
Page 133
keeping us within the three-year, $3 million process to be eligible for
funds for whatever's in the plan, theoretically, right now, or do we not
do that and remove the whole thing from this cycle, right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, that's --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I say that, and now I feel like
what I should have started with: Are we going to throw the baby out
with the bathwater? Is that -- so that's my question going back to
where I started for staff.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what we're here today to do?
MS. PATTERSON: Correct. And these letters to be signed by
the County Manager are nonbinding. They're keeping the process
moving, but it is not a commitment of funds. We still have the
flexibility to leave this process at any time, but what this does is it
gets us to the next step in the process --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MS. PATTERSON: -- to ultimately to the chief signing off on
this 10 percent feasibility to move it onto the next phase, as
Dr. Savarese was describing also, so that we can then move through
the authorization and appropriation process, still giving plenty of
time, as outlined by the Corps, to continue the public outreach to
refine the plan. And they're speaking of even changes when you're
going through engineering, through the design, and ultimately into
construction because of that -- looking for that value.
So as a staff, we've renewed our promise to the stakeholders to
continue to work through their issues. I hear their frustration, and
we understand that, and we want to be collaborative to the greatest
extent possible while not stopping the process.
April 27, 2021
Page 134
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So what I'm hearing,
number one, is that this -- I'm having a flashback to, like, the MPO
process where we start putting things in a plan that's 40 years long,
okay, to get the funding there when we need it. So that's kind of
what this process is.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Only 25 years.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty-five years, okay, whatever
it is.
But secondly, if there are aspects of something that's in the plan
as the design is developed and it's problematic for us, the county, I
mean, we're not -- we're not forced to go forward in any way with a
project that we don't necessarily agree with, because we have to put
up the matching funds. If we don't put up the matching funds, it
doesn't go anywhere.
MS. PATTERSON: Correct. We'll get to a place where we
have to sign a funding agreement, and that's going to be where the
rubber hits the road. And if we're dissatisfied at any time up to that
point, we don't have a financial commitment.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And then third, what I
heard Mr. Hughes say was that -- that to the extent that there are
areas of the plan that the Corps cannot use this process to fill, I mean,
we as the county still can address these areas with our own funds, and
the Corps will work with us. There may not be a match, because the
match has constraints on it.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. That's also the process
with Dr. Savarese and the ACUNE tools where he's going to
collaborate with Jacksonville to look at other solutions for these areas
and for the county in general. So we do have multiple partners
running parallel paths here and coming into a collaborative process.
April 27, 2021
Page 135
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So the long and the short
of it is, then, for me, I think, that do we stop the whole process and
take ourselves out of potentially a $2 billion funding source, or do we
keep the process moving forward and work to fill these gaps that I
think are there? And I agree with the folks from planning
district -- or Planning Area No. 2, including Seagate and Pelican Bay
and all that, that are problematic. I mean, if there are easements that
we have to obtain for access in areas that aren't -- that aren't a
preserve or some other area that it would be easy to do, I mean,
there's some real hurdles in a lot of this stuff, so none of this is going
to be set in stone. You know, I think we
should -- unfortunately -- well, I shouldn't say unfortunately. I think
we can't -- it's not a perfect plan, but it's $2 billion worth of funding,
and we have to -- I don't know that -- we can't throw the baby out
with the bathwater, right?
MS. PATTERSON: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I'd like to
make a motion that kind of summarizes where I think we have to be,
and that is to accept the report, authorize the Manager to sign the
letters, and direct staff to work with Dr. Savarese and help us create a
task force. I'm not sure who would be on that task force, but to
report back to us how we can set that up so there's much more public
involvement, much more public education as to what we're going to
do, but we cannot stop this project --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- under these circumstances
today. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you're going to move next to some
gates, right?
April 27, 2021
Page 136
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're going to buy your -- I don't
know. There's a -- I know what you're saying, but this is so
draconian. It's so contra to what we are about as a community. I
never dreamed we would have to be signing nonbinding letters of
support at this point. I really just wanted to bring it out to
get -- maybe to create a task force, which I think is a great idea,
because I knew there was a lack of communication.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But if we don't sign those
letters now, that sounds like it kind of puts an end to the process, and
I don't think we're prepared -- we can always put an end to the
process -- we're not committing to do any of this -- but I don't think
we're in a position to end the process right now. And I think we can
still work with the Corps to amend that process as we go forward as
long as we're not killing the project today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So then --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the whole point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I just have a quick question for the
Corps again. How interdependent are these planning? Maybe you
do one and you just -- or maybe let's get it where it's -- 3 and you
decide, uh, the people don't want to do 4. How interdependent are
these planning areas?
MR. HUGHES: So each of the planning areas are designed to
work as separate functioning units, and that's where we have,
like -- between 1, 2, and 3, you have those walls that run inland a
little to hydrologically isolate those areas.
And so they are designed to work. So if you just wanted to do
Planning Area 1, you could do it, you know. If you just want to do
3, or if you just want to do the nonstructural throughout those
communities, you can do that as well, you know. And so that's the
way it's designed to work. You know, if you wanted to concentrate
April 27, 2021
Page 137
on Planning Area 5, we could work in there. But that's how they're
designed to work --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. HUGHES: -- is separable elements, but that also aligns
with, you know, phasing for construction the federal [sic] lines there,
to allow all us to -- all of us to acquire the funding necessary to work
in each of those areas.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm not a big fan of signing
letters and then saying, however, but, comma, we still have these
other five things to do, sort of like with the Big Cypress Basin.
But can you give us a little detail that -- I mean, on the timeline.
I mean, if we didn't sign the letters today, just say hypothetically,
would we have a window of time to put together a task force and,
basically, I don't want to say make all sides happy, but give us more
confidence that we truly are not missing out on a financial
opportunity.
I mean, at the end of the day today, do you need a copy of the
letter today, or what is our window of time? And could we squeeze
in some discussion, or is the second option of, you're signing the
letter, it's nonbinding; we hear you with the task force and all the
other things that will happen simultaneously and aggressively so that
the letter's working for you and it's not slowing anything down, but
some of the answers that are going to come from the task force are
going to catch up to that letter and keep things moving forward.
What's your reply to that?
MR. HUGHES: Correct. I mean, overall on our schedule, we
had requested the letter in May, and so that's why we had -- you
know, working with Andy at -- you know, to arrange this meeting to
provide any information that was needed and associated with that
April 27, 2021
Page 138
letter. It's designed to be in a packet in May so that in late July we
can get authority to rerelease the report to -- you know, to everyone
again.
And that report will also address a lot of the public comments as
well, and there will be a comment matrix in the back for that. But in
order to get authority to release that report, I do need the letter in
hand for support for that. So I'm not sure exactly, you know, how
much time a task force would be, if it was a matter of, you know, a
week or so, yeah, but we do kind of need a letter of some sort of
support as soon as possible.
You know, my experience with task forces is that, generally,
you know, when you're looking at it, it's generally six months to a
year. That time we do not have. That would delay the overall
project schedule because, again, we are looking to get this to the chief
of engineers at the end of September so that he can sign it in October.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But if we sign the letter
now --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: If we sign the letter now and,
granted, you know, I don't know that we're looking to do a task force
tomorrow but definitely not a year. But value came out of
aggressive discussion using the FGCU Water School and other type
of options, task force or what have you, could we catch those
comments up to that July time frame to strengthen our position with
much more detail and citizen comments that have been heard without
negatively affecting this entire process?
MR. HUGHES: Yes. You know, to make it short, I mean,
certainly we are always -- you know, especially with state and
agency's review, you know, that actual review is going to come out
of -- you know, those letters will come out of headquarters, and they
will be looking for additional comments, especially from the County
April 27, 2021
Page 139
Commission on things that they're interested in, comments from
Collier County, you know. And so that can be any of those -- any of
those questions or informational requests can be incorporated into the
final report, but we are moving towards that final stage of the
documents and moving towards a final recommended plan that can be
implemented.
So there is some room, but we are running out -- we're running
into the time clock and running towards -- through the summer and
getting this finished up by September.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
So I don't think there's any other comments. Before we vote on
the motion, I just received an email from Brad Cornell, who's
Southwest Florida Policy Associate of Audubon, and I'm just going
to read this out loud because for -- somehow he wasn't registered on
the speaking, Troy.
So he said, I am registered to speak on Zoom under public
comment for 11A but somehow it was missed, so if I may. Audubon
has submitted two letters last September on TSP which have not
received any response by the county or the Corps. I urge the county
not to sign the support letters yet. Benefits are not realized for all
Collier citizens. They need better socioeconomic equity; too heavy
on gates, walls, and concrete; needs more natural and nature-based
features like mangroves, wetlands, seagrasses, reefs, et cetera.
The Army Corps should coordinate with ACUNE of UF and
FGCU. Audubon supports the idea of a task force backed up by the
Water School. Thank you very much.
So we have a motion on the floor and a second to accept the
recommendation of staff to sign nonbinding support letters as well as
having staff work with the Water School and Dr. Savarese.
DR. SAVARESE: May I say something? I'm worried that my
suggestion -- I'm not allowed to?
April 27, 2021
Page 140
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just working with Dr. Savarese
regarding a task force. Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Dr. Savarese's comments
may be important because --
DR. SAVARESE: I think they are important.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, you need to come up here, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And while he's coming up,
the purpose of -- in my making the motion wasn't to say that this
report is something that should be implemented. It's simply to keep
the time frame moving. We've been advised that this is nonbinding
and that we can back out at any point in time, but by keeping it going
we have the opportunity to improve the report and answer some of
the questions that our citizens have raised on Marco Island, Seagate,
Pelican Bay. And that's the purpose.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And control it even after the
fact by the funding match. If the -- if we don't go forward now, it
stops and we -- and I did have my hand raised for a brief comment,
by the way. I'm not just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- editorializing here.
This is nonbinding. We have the control -- I'm sorry for
pointing at you. We have the control mechanism for going forward
or not if we don't like what happens by not producing the match, so I
don't think we're getting in trouble.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Dr. Savarese.
DR. SAVARESE: Yeah. I worry that my suggestion of
creating a task force is viewed as the ultimate problem solver for this
issue. It's very complicated. And a task force is not going to be a
simple or quick kind of a process. It's going to take a while. I
would argue it would have been nice if the task force existed a year
ago and these conversations were already had.
April 27, 2021
Page 141
So please do not vote on this motion thinking that the task force
is going to solve your problems in a couple of weeks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, no.
DR. SAVARESE: It's not going to happen.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We know that.
DR. SAVARESE: And I made an offer of assistance for my
own mind, not from the institution. I know the Water School is
interested in facilitating. But it really involves commitments from
other people. I envision the Water School may be facilitating the
conversation we have. We have professionals that have those kinds
of skills, consensus-building skills. But it's really a commitment of
people's time; your time, staff time, public's time. So it's not a -- it's
not a quick and easy fix. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I want -- I want to just say
that I understand what you're saying, and I'm glad that we gave you
the time to come to the podium and clarify that, or else maybe you're
going to get a call from the FGCU president saying he wants to talk
to you in 10 minutes.
But I think -- to get back to Commissioner Saunders' point, I
think we do have time to at least -- even if it's short, maybe not a
full-blown task force that would have unnetted a bunch of things for a
year, but to make sure citizens are heard, we catch those comments
up to the letter, and we have the strongest possible package, you
know, going forward that's more representative of those areas where
we think there's significant gaps and/or citizen voices haven't been
heard or feedback hasn't been included. So we have a lot of
homework to do in a short amount of time, but --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And just another comment as
April 27, 2021
Page 142
we go to vote on the motion. I'd like for staff to explore contracting
with FGCU if that would be something to benefit any task force we
put together, and kind of report back to us over the next couple of
four weeks or whatever as to -- you know, is there a role for us to
play with FGCU in evaluating these things, and I think Dr. Savarese
could probably assist in answering that question.
MS. PATTERSON: No problem.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Ready to vote?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, we're not yet? Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One last thing is, I think -- the
more I think of this, stopping the process really impacts the areas that
would benefit from the $2 billion worth of improvements.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right? I mean, we can't forget
that if we stop this, then the other planning areas that are included in
a lot of this work, I don't know that we've done them any favors if we
were to stop it. So, yeah, I'm going to support the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Motion on the floor and a
second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Thank you very much. We're going to break for lunch. We will
resume our meeting at 2:46.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A whole hour?
April 27, 2021
Page 143
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is -- 2:46, is that an hour? Half an
hour. Half an hour. Pardon me. What am I looking at? Oh, no,
no, 2:16. 2:16, right?
(A luncheon recess was had from 1:46 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
Item #8A
A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER ON LANDS ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A)
WITHIN THE MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (MHO) AND
DESIGNATED RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE-SENDING LANDS
WITHIN THE NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA
OVERLAY AND NORTH BELLE MEADE OVERLAY IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2.01.03.G.4.A AND
2.03.08.A.4.A(3)(A) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE ON .95± ACRES OF A 5.0+/- ACRE
TRACT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE NORTH-
SOUTH EXTENSION OF BENTON ROAD, IN SECTION 25,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. [PL20180002327] - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
JUNE 22ND BCC MEETING – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We move now back to Item 8, Board of Zoning
Appeals. Item 8A requires ex parte -- ex parte disclosure be
provided by our commission members, and all participants are
required to be sworn in.
This is a recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board
of Zoning Appeals establishing a conditional use to allow a
communications tower on lands zoned rural agricultural within the
April 27, 2021
Page 144
mobile home overlay and designated Rural Fringe Mixed-Use
sending lands within the Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay
and the North Belle Meade's Overlay in Collier County. This
parcel's located on .95 plus-or-minus acres of a five-acre tract located
on the east side of the north/south extension of the Benton Road.
Madam Chair, it would be appropriate for ex parte disclosure at this
time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I have had meetings,
phone calls, and I think an email or two.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the same;
correspondence, emails, and telephone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I've had meetings and phone
calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I had an email from Ms. Clark and
a Zoom call with Ms. Jahn.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I've had meetings,
correspondence, and emails.
So would -- those who wish to testify need to rise and be sworn
in. Raise your right hand, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. OCHS: We'll begin with the petitioner.
MS. JAHN: Good afternoon. I'm Mattaniah Jahn, 935 Main
Street, Suite D1, Safety Harbor, Florida, 34695.
I have a PowerPoint presentation that's being pulled currently
for my -- for my presentation.
I have Santiago Torres with Verizon Wireless should you have
any questions about Verizon's RF need; Kelly Shanahan with RPM
April 27, 2021
Page 145
Engineering should you have questions about the structural integrity
report in our file on the Alpine tower; and also Vince Casiero with
Capital Telecom should you have questions about the project; and
they have all taken an oath.
I come before you today with staff and Planning Commission
recommendations of approval for a conditional use to allow a
225-foot-tall guyed style communication tower on Parcel
32634720009.
Do you have a mouse here? I do. Perfect.
So this is a far aerial showing the project, and in this aerial, up is
north. The green marker that you see is the proposed Benton Road
relocation tower, and then you can also see a green and a magenta
box. Those are parcels that are under ownership or control of
Capital's landlord.
This is a closer aerial, again, up is north. The color coding for
the parcels are the same. The green marker is the tower. You'll see
that the parent parcel is vegetated. It's covered with sabal -- it's
covered with cabbage palms, and it is down at the end of Benton
Road on the western end.
And then this is the closest fitted -- closest view. Again, up is
north, and the color coding is the same.
So to the north of the project is a single-family house, Benton
Road, and then one more single-family house. To the south is a
driveway to a -- that goes to a single-family house that's off to the
east, and then more vegetated acreage owned by Capital's landlord.
To the east is vegetated acres, and then there's two houses; one to the
southeast and one to the northeast. To the west are Benton Road
extension and then vegetated acreage.
Mature cabbage palm coverage exists throughout, helping to
break up view sheds, and as you transition east along Benton Road,
that does turn into taller pine canopy once you get out past Lamb's
April 27, 2021
Page 146
Lane, approximately.
And the parcel is zoned agricultural with a mobile home overlay
and a future land-use designation of North Belle Meade. The parcel
has an RFMUD sending district overlay, but development rights have
not been severed from this property.
This site is a little different than most as far as treatment under
your code because normally communication towers are permitted in
agricultural zoning when you meet the setbacks, which we do in this
case. So if we were not in the RFMUD, we would not be coming
before you. We would be administrative zoning; however, the
conditional use is triggered by the environmental overlay. So this
conditional use, while we are going through the conditional-use
process, it's triggered by the environmental overlay rather than needs
to modify the built -- based on the built environment.
This is Sheet A1 from the plan set, and it just shows the
location, the guyed tower in the lower right-hand corner of that
five-acre parcel that we are on. You can see that there are two other
parcels that we run access across up to Benton Road.
Ninety percent -- as required by your code, 90 percent of this
five-acre parcel had been placed under a managed -- or will be placed
under a managed preservation plan and conservation easement. And
then this is Sheet C1 showing the same thing without the aerial
underlay.
You'll also notice that on this plan there is a circle surrounding
the tower. That is the -- and it is located here, if you can see my
mouse. That is the fall zone radius. So in the unlikely event of
failure, the guyed tower will not just collapse; it would actually fold
over upon itself.
This guyed tower meets or exceeds the code-required lot line
setbacks in all directions as well as the code-required separations in
this instance. Your code requires 50 percent of tower height from
April 27, 2021
Page 147
the -- from lot lines -- from the lot lines.
One thing that is interesting is that your code does have a
two-and-a-half times tower height separation in it for higher density
residential -- for high-density residential areas, areas with six or more
development units per acre, and we actually exceed that -- even that
separation, even though it doesn't apply to us, to all built residential
structures in the area.
This is just a separation aerial that I put together on Google
Earth, and it shows the approximate distances. And you can see the
nearest house to the north is 1,065 feet or 4.8 times tower height; the
nearest one to the northeast is 1,038 feet or approximately 4.7 times
tower height; to the southeast, 710 feet or 3.2 times tower height; to
the south is 851 feet or 3.8 times tower height, and to the southwest is
857 feet or 3.9 times tower height.
This is an elevation showing the guyed tower. And, again, it
shows that top of steel at 220. It does show antennas extending up to
225.
This shows that the tower will be designed for collocation. It's
designed to collocate up to four carriers, and I'll be going into that in
a second, because we are actually coming to you with two carriers
committing to collocate on this tower which, again, is a bit unusual.
Verizon will be collocated at the top of the guyed tower, and then
AT&T will be the second carrier collocating on this tower. Also of
note, Altius Broadband will be collocating to place wireless Internet
antennas on the tower. Capital's making the remaining space on the
tower available at market rate.
As Verizon's located at the top, this is the minimum height to
achieve their RP objective. They're trying to emulate a collocation
that they currently have at the -- at a tower located to the northwest.
So they're just trying to match and replicate that except with modern
antennas and equipment. And then AT&T and Altius will be located
April 27, 2021
Page 148
at lower heights on the guyed tower.
This is a plan -- this is Sheet C2 from the plan set just showing
that the compound, the equipment area at the base, it's enclosed by a
concrete wall, is provisioned for collocation. There's adequate
equipment area down there.
If you've heard me present before, you've heard me say that
modern communication towers serve two functions. They fill in
gaps in coverage and they offload capacity strain from neighboring
towers. Towers are like roads in that they can only handle so much
traffic before they start to dysfunction and ultimately max out.
This tower is primarily going to be providing capacity strain relief,
but it does also achieve some improvements in coverage out at the
perimeter of its coverage area.
The baseline goal for Verizon in this instance is to modernize
their deployment so that way that they can have the equipment
necessary to handle capacity and also have forward compatibility as
we move into our next phases of cellular coverage.
I will also note that FCC Order 18-133 at Paragraphs 37 through
40 did state that a lack of capacity can create a significant gap in
coverage. And the logic's kind of simple, right? You could have
great signal strength, but the tower can't take your connection. You
don't have coverage.
You heard me say that Verizon's currently collocated on a tower
owned by Alpine Communications to the northwest and that they
need to modernize their deployment.
So this is the RP package that was submitted, and I'm going to
skip ahead to the area map. And in this map, up is north. And the
blue dots that you see on this map are existing Verizon collocations.
You'll see one red dot down to the southwest near Alligator Alley.
That's one tower that Verizon's not collocated on. Our yellow dot in
the middle is the proposed Capital guyed tower, and then the blue dot
April 27, 2021
Page 149
marked B is the Alpine tower.
As you can see from this aerial, Verizon's collocated to the
northwest at Dot E., the southeast at Dot C, and the southwest at Dot
D. Again, they aren't collocated on Dot F, but that tower is so far
away that it would not be able to mimic the coverage that's being
provided at the Alpine tower.
That existing Alpine tower is approximately .34 miles to the
northwest and, unfortunately, it cannot be used for Verizon's
deployment anymore. The Alpine tower lacks the structural capacity
necessary for Verizon's modernized deployment.
Essentially, what's happened in the industry is that
equipment -- the antennas have gotten bigger and heavier, so they
present more wind load. The radios that they use that used to be at
the base are now up at the top next to the -- next to the antennas, and
that adds weight and wind loading, and that equipment itself has also
gotten bigger and heavier.
This is the RF map from the package. And I apologize for the
scrivener's error on the color coding, but this shows the current
coverage that is provided from the Alpine tower. And I added some
community labels since the last time I presented this just to help with
context. So you can see the one label pointing to the Benton Road
area, and next you can see another arrow pointing to Woodlands
Estates area. It also serves Frangipani area and then, finally, the
rural estates to the north and the east. This tower also does reach out
and provide some coverage along -- provide coverage along Alligator
Alley as well.
And since -- and as this works, you can see from the layout of
the network that this tower also removes capacity strain. Any
improvements in this tower removes capacity strain from the
collocations to the southeast and the northwest, so it causes a ripple
effect on those towers in that they perform better and have more
April 27, 2021
Page 150
resources in them to serve their areas.
This is the coverage after Verizon moves over to the Capital
tower. And you can see that the coverage has expanded a little bit
because coverage is a secondary benefit of this tower. Again, just
for -- and just to highlight that, since I know there have been some
questions about it, these blue arrows point to the areas where
coverage has been improved. If you like, I can flip back and forth
between the two slides. But you can see that there are increases in
raw coverage. The other thing that's happening, though, that doesn't
show up on maps is the capacity off -- the capacity that the actual
deployment improves, and that's just something that doesn't really
present on maps.
I'm now moving on to AT&T. And, finally, there is one last
coverage map shown without either the Alpine or the Capital tower,
and that's just to give some context as to the area that is covered by
this. So this shows -- just to help show the raw area that's covered
by this deployment in either configuration.
All right. This is the search ring for -- that Verizon gave
Capital Telecom. And then this is the -- this is a collocation letter
from AT&T dated March 11th, 2021. In March, AT&T committed
to collocate on the Capital tower, and this is going to be introducing
coverage for them for the first time.
So I'm showing you the AT&T propagation maps, and in this
map you can see different color codings. Green and yellow are
reliable service, and then red and magenta are unreliable service.
The blue plus sign in the middle is the Capital guyed tower.
And, again, I've added arrows just to give some context. And you
can see the Benton Road area shown in red -- generally in red,
Woodlands Estates is also generally in red, Frangipani has some
yellow coverage, and then the rural estates also have red. And then
you can see with the after that there is a significant improvement in
April 27, 2021
Page 151
coverage, first at the Benton Road area, the area that the tower is
primarily serving. Also the Woodlands Estates area, Frangipani, and
finally the rural estates. And, again, this is coverage that AT&T
currently does not have.
One thing to note is that AT&T listed on their letter of intent
that their optimal height would be 250 feet above ground level.
They're actually taking a 50-foot decrease in height to collocate on
the Capital tower. They're coming down to 200 feet above ground
level.
Also, this will be an AT&T first net site, and what that means is
it has extra antennas and equipment on it that provides a national first
responder or wireless network and, basically, it allows first
responders to preempt commercial traffic on the network so that way
they can have connectivity for things like dispatch and the rest, and
that's a federal program, ultimately. It's a public/private partnership
that was awarded to AT&T, and they have requirements to deploy
sites throughout the U.S., and this is going to be one of those.
Finally, I'm showing the -- I'm showing the letter of intent for
Altius Broadband, and this is -- as I said, they will be collocating on
the Capital tower.
Moving on to neighboring tracts. We held two NIMs; one in
July 2019 and one in November 2020. In the July 2019 NIM we had
neighbors attend as well as staff from Alpine. The Alpine staffers
basically said that their tower has plenty of capacity on that, and our
neighbors then saw our towers unnecessary. So we did have some
neighbor opposition at the beginning of this project that lasted
through a portion of it. There was also concerns about using Benton
Road. This is a private road, and it's kind of a situation where
different -- there's no one really appointed to -- there hasn't really
been a formal maintenance structure. So, unfortunately, that means
it has been undermaintained. There is a family, the Alvarezes, who
April 27, 2021
Page 152
are heading up maintenance currently.
But the particular concern at the July 2019 NIM wasn't so much
Benton Road itself, but it was particularly focused on Benton Road
extension, the portion to the west that turns south when you look at
the maps. And, originally, Capital had -- Capital had developed
a -- had a driveway that went to Benton Road extension. It was a
short driveway. And what I'm showing you right now is a map of
Benton Road. When I say "Benton Road," I'm including a portion of
Woodlands Estates Road on the eastern side and then Benton Road
extension to the west.
And as part of that redesign -- in between the two NIMs, Capital
actually redesigned the site a bit to provide a much longer access
drive back to Benton Road proper so that way they would not be
crossing over Benton Road extension, which is generally considered
a much more sandier road.
Around that same time, Alpine Communications filed an
objection letter, and that included, among other things, that their
tower had capacity for Verizon's upgrade collocation. You'll
probably hear them say that they don't feel they were reached out to
about upgrading the collocation and then also they were saying there
was no legal access along Benton Road.
And they were correct in that there are -- there were two breaks
in the easements for Benton Road shown at these two red markers on
your screen, and nobody west of that second red marker had legal
access off of Benton Road, none of the property owners. In the
intervening time period, Capital actually found these property owners
and obtained access easements from them that provide access not just
for Capital but for other members of the public. All right. And,
again, this is the area I'm highlighting as not having had legal access.
This blue line in the arrow shows that shorter driveway I've been
talking about. This green line with the arrow next to it shows the
April 27, 2021
Page 153
longer driveway that Capital's currently proposing, and then this
shows the legal route for our project.
We also had a second neighborhood information meeting in
November 2020. We had more neighbors attend at that point as well
as more Alpine staffers. And, again, the Alpine staffers maintain
that their tower had capacity.
The time concerns came up about Benton Road maintenance,
environmental impacts of the guyed tower, and RF emissions. As
far as RF emissions go, I will draw the Board's attention to the
Telecom Act of 1996 and the fact that it does prohibit local
jurisdictions from making decisions about communication towers
based upon the environmental effects of RF emissions.
I jumped into this a little bit when I was talking about the NIMs,
but Alpine filed an objection letter in July 2019 -- you'll see that on
file -- claiming that Verizon did not talk to them about updating their
collocation and that Benton Road is a private road with no legal
access. I ran through the legal access issue just now.
Verizon's currently in landlord/tenant relationship with Alpine.
And I'm not privy to the lease, but I do know their standard policy is
to upgrade collocations before embarking upon, in this case, a
two-and-a-half year journey for zoning, because that's the simplest
way to serve your customers.
More importantly, you have a failing structural analysis in the
record that was provided with this application in 2018 and also a
2020 follow-up letter from Kimley-Horn basically saying we looked
at your math, and we agree it is correct math.
Alpine also raised a concern about RF interference; however,
there is an AM screen in the file, as well as a noninterference letter
from Verizon. Basically, the FCC requires that they -- they perform
intermodulation studies before and after constructing a tower. The
FCC requires that they cannot interfere with other broadcasters;
April 27, 2021
Page 154
otherwise they jeopardize their licenses, which is the foundation of
their business.
We ran through the parent parcel access rights and that Capital
fixed these.
Let's see. You will also likely hear from Mr. and Ms. Harring.
They're my neighbors to the north on the north side of Benton Road.
So they are -- they are -- the distance that I gave you to the nearest
house to the north, they are further, and Benton Road is in between.
Let's see. At the Planning Commission, you did hear -- the
Planning Commission did hear from Mr. McMahon after the
commission meeting because of commitments that we make on the
record. He actually came up to me and thanked me for making those
commitments, and it seems that everything is in good shape there.
At the neighborhood information meeting, if you listen to the
recording, you would have heard from Mr. and Ms. Alvarez.
They're our neighbors along Benton further to the east, and they're
the ones who have basically shouldered the burden of maintaining the
road, and their equipment was damaged by a fire that happened
during the pendency of this application.
And Capital has actually reached out to them, met with them to
arrange to support their efforts to maintain Benton Road, including
some equipment repairs as well as an ongoing maintenance on a pro
rata basis for Benton Road.
Let's see. Moving on to housekeeping. You have in the record
an FAA determination of no hazards to air navigation. This will
require red lighting for the FAA, but those lights logically point up to
the planes; a listed species survey; as well as a NEPA report showing
no impact to -- no environmental impact from this tower.
Capital also stipulated to the following on the record at the
Planning Commission hearing: Capital will maintain the road,
Benton Road, including the portion of Woodlands Estates from the
April 27, 2021
Page 155
canal to the tower driveway in the condition that it currently is during
construction. At the end of the construction, Capital will grade and
compact Benton Road, including that portion of Woodlands Estates
Road from the canal to their driveway, and that sets, basically, a
baseline for continued maintenance. And afterwards, Capital will
pay its fair share of the maintenance cost for the road from the canal
to its driveway.
Finally, I'd like to touch on the public safety aspect of this
tower. These are your -- these are 911 call statistics for Fiscal Year
2017 then also 2018, and what it shows is in Fiscal Year '17/'18,
80 percent of all calls received by the Collier County Sheriff's Office
came from wireless numbers, and what that shows is that reliable
wireless connectivity isn't a luxury; it is a necessity.
During the Planning Commission meeting, I did go through all
of the conditional use factors and discussed them. In the interest of
time, I will skip those today and defer you to both my project
narrative as well as your staff report that is in the file.
We would respectfully request that you approve the guyed tower as
recommended by your Planning Commission and your staff, and I
reserve remaining time for rebuttal. That's -- and that concludes my
direct presentation on this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions, Commission?
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to go first, or do
you want me to?
Does the tower meet all of the FCC requisites for alternative
power and fuel sources in the event of a large power outage?
MS. JAHN: I do know that Verizon is anticipating to put a
generator on site, so it will have backup power to have continuous
operation. So continuous operation a requirement for the tenants.
Capital doesn't design that into the tower itself beyond making
April 27, 2021
Page 156
the -- designing the tower to meet the existing codes. Did I answer
your question?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm not quite sure.
MS. JAHN: Okay. So to facilitate the tower to operate
continuously -- let's say power was lost to the area -- the tenants put
their own generators in.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh. So Capital provides a
tower. The tenants take care of the power issue to support their
antennas?
MS. JAHN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not done by the landlord
of the tower?
MS. JAHN: Correct. It's much like, say, a shopping plaza.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I gotcha. I understand now.
Thank you.
MS. JAHN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have two quick questions.
Even though the tower's far enough east from Benton Road, why
wasn't more of the property used to even put it deeper into the
property just for aesthetics or visibility? I'm sure there's a reason.
It's more out of curiosity. I'm not saying it's wrong where it is. I
was just curious, when you look at all the property you have, why
wasn't it further away from the road and also further away from the
Alpine tower? It seems like there's a lot more acreage to work with
there. Why that particular location?
MS. JAHN: Yes. So I will -- let me see if I can switch back
here. Can I get to that screen where I can see all my slides and
quickly move between or --
MR. MILLER: Leo will help her.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Troy.
MS. JAHN: Okay. So I'm Mattaniah Jahn, again. And I'm
April 27, 2021
Page 157
just taking you back to the aerial that I showed in the beginning, and
this shows landlord property. And you can see the green marker
again shows the location of the guyed tower. Now, one of the things
that -- one of the things that's going on that's a design constraint is
that Verizon is trying to mimic the coverage that they currently have
from the Alpine tower. So they can't move too far away from it.
For example, that's why that one red dot I showed you wouldn't work.
They have to be actually rather close to it. So they couldn't move off
into the Estates or something like that.
The other thing is that with this -- with this siting, it actually
keeps it away from the majority of residential -- or houses along
Benton Road, because we're down at the western end. As
opposed -- as to why it's on the west side versus the east side, I think
there was -- they were hoping to keep access simple.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Short road.
MS. JAHN: But again, placing it here keeps it as far away from
those houses that are off to the east as well and helps it to better
mimic the --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: You've already said in time
of a bad storm or something, collapsability, it wouldn't collapse on
the road. The area that it could fall would never cover the road, you
know, in case of emergency or something like that. It would never
block the road no matter how it fell because of the way that it's
constructed?
MS. JAHN: Correct. It's designed to be contained within
that --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: In that circle, right. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
April 27, 2021
Page 158
MR. OCHS: Staff presentation?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon. For the record, Ray
Bellows with Zoning Services.
The petition before you today is a conditional use that's allowed
in the -- pursuant to Sections 2.01.03.G and 2.03.08 of the Land
Development Code. It's consistent with the conditional use criteria
as spelled out in your staff report, and staff is recommending
approval subject to the conditions outlined in your executive
summary.
I can answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. All right. Now we'll --
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, we have nine registered
speakers for this item. Your first speaker is Linda Fink. She'll be
followed by Donna Alpert and then Al Baxa. I'd like to ask the
speakers to please use both podiums.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You'll be given three minutes, and so
if -- whoever starts first and then --
MR. MILLER: Ms. Linda Fink can come here. If Ms. Donna
Alpert could wait at the other podium, that would be great.
Thank you, ma'am. You have three minutes.
MS. FINK: Hello. My name is Linda Fink. I'm with Forsyth
and Brugger. Jack Brugger and I represent Alpine Towers located
here in Collier County.
We have with us Donna Alpert, Al Baxa, Doug Lampert. He's
a staff engineer with engineer -- with Electrics Research, Inc., who
can answer any engineering or technical questions that you might
have. We have him on the phone, I believe. His firm does
everything from build towers, manufacture antennas, and to perform
April 27, 2021
Page 159
analysis for existing towers.
In making -- as you're all aware, in making a decision or
recommendation that falls under the purview of the Collier County
Land Development Code, the objective of the Board of County
Commissioners, along with the Collier County Planning
Commission, is to be sure that any particular project is in harmony
with all of the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that
the community's interests are maintained.
That creed, I submit, is the purpose of our Land Development
Code, and we will show how the project submitted by Capital
Telecom Holdings is, in fact, not in harmony with the code; more
specifically, Section 5.05.09, communications towers.
Collier County Land Development Code, Chapter 5, Section
5.05.09.D states in pertinent part, shared use of towers, a tower with a
height in excess of 185 feet above natural grade shall not be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates that no old or approved tower
within the effective radius can accommodate the applicant's proposed
antenna and ancillary equipment.
As stated by Mr. Klatzkow at the Collier County Planning
Commission meeting on March 18th of this year, the key issue to be
determined for approval pursuant to the code turns on whether or not
the proposed equipment could be put onto an existing tower. This is
a prerequisite for approval. The applicant must demonstrate that no
old or approved tower within the effective radius can accommodate
the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary equipment. Mr. Finn
conceded that the staff has not looked into this issue at all.
Independently, and without approaching Alpine Tower, Capital
Telecom did their own structural analysis report in July of '18
conducted by EBI Consulting. This structural analysis report that is
the basis and support for Capital's contention that Alpine Tower is
out of date and inadequate to accommodate Verizon's load and
April 27, 2021
Page 160
capacity is faulty. We will present evidence that EBI Consulting
applied the wrong wind factor in their structural analysis.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can --
MS. FINK: If I can continue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can continue.
MS. FINK: If you turn to Electronics Research Structural
Analysis Review submitted as our Exhibit E to our Letter of Concern,
it shows on Page 11 a comparison chart. Just a bit of background
information, the cantilevered sections of a tower are supposed to be
analyzed with a higher wind factor than the main part of a tower to
account for the whipping effects of the wind at that higher altitude;
thus, the cantilevered parts are analyzed separately from the rest of a
tower with a high wind factor.
Alpine's cantilevered section starts at 943 feet above ground to
the very top of the tower to 1,016 feet at the summit. We submit that
ABI [sic] Consulting applied this higher wind factor on the overall
tower model and, therefore, the stress percentages are correct -- are
incorrect. These incorrect stress percentages are the reason why the
conclusion was made that Alpine Tower cannot support the loading
capacity of Verizon's new antenna; however, when Mr. Lampert,
staff engineer at Electronics Research, applied the higher wind factor
to the whole tower, he achieved similar results to EBI Consulting's
results, as you can see on the comparison chart on that Page 11.
The first column is the EBI Consulting analysis result applying
the high wind factor for the leg percent capacity, the middle is from
Lambert's result also applying the incorrect high wind factor, and the
last column is Mr. Lampert applying the correct wind factor. You
can see the difference in the results. It follows that how can Capital
Telecom demonstrate that Alpine Tower cannot accommodate the
applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary equipment if the wrong
factors were applied during analysis?
April 27, 2021
Page 161
The second part of the Land Development Code Chapter 5,
states, for the purpose of discovering availability for use of towers
within the effective radius, the applicant shall contact the owner of all
old and approved towers within the effective radius that can possibly
accommodate the needs of the applicant. A list of all owners
contacted, the date of each contact, and the form and content of each
contact and all responses shall be part of the conditional use
application. Alpine Tower was never contacted by the applicant to
discuss availability.
The applicant in the instant case has, therefore, not complied
with Section 5.05.09.D.1 requiring the applicant to contact owner of
all old and approved towers within the effective radius that can
possibly accommodate the needs of the applicant. Instead, Capital
Holdings unilaterally had a tower analysis performed back in July of
2018, then had that incorrect analysis reviewed by Kimley-Horn in
November of 2020 trying to make an end run around the
requirements of the code.
The code goes on to state that if it had been determined that the
tower owner will allow structural changes and the tower can
accommodate the proposed antenna if reasonable structural changes
are made only if the costs of the required changes to be made are
financially impracticable, would such tower be deemed unavailable
to the applicant?
The code anticipates structural changes being made to existing
towers to accommodate additional antenna if necessary. Alpine
Broadcasting is not unfamiliar with making such structural changes
to its tower when necessary, and although to date neither Electronics
Research nor Alpine Broadcasting has been provided with a list of
proposed equipment or an order for a structural analysis to assess
new equipment impact on the tower, Alpine is confident that
Verizon's new antenna could be supported by the existing tower with
April 27, 2021
Page 162
minimal reinforcements.
I would like to address certain statements made by Capital
Telecom in her presentation. One, Capital contends that
WAVV -- the WAVV-FM tower is not built to modern
specifications. The existing tower has been analyzed under the
applicable version of the ANSI/TIA-222 standard and Florida
Building Code for every equipment change proposed since the tower
was built in 1986. When necessary, the tower capacity has been
upgraded with reinforcements to maintain compliance with the
applicable design standards at the time of the equipment change. To
state that the WAVV-FM tower is not built to modern specifications
is false.
Kimley-Horn's review dated November 11, 2020, of the
structural analysis of the WAVV-FM tower conducted by EBI
Consulting in July of 2018 was based upon references to a previous
structural analysis by Electronics Research dated March 2011 and
calculations dated April 2011. These resources were the sole basis
of Kimley-Horn's conclusion that the WAVV-FM tower does not
have adequate capacity to support the design loading pursuant to the
2017 Florida Building Code and ANSI/TIA-222-G standard;
however, the review states that Kimley-Horn cannot confirm the
accuracy of the ERI analysis, only that the EBI Consulting analysis is
appropriate based on available information.
Capital Telecom contends that the proposed communications
tower will be providing coverage to an area that did not have
coverage before. A new tower a few hundred feet from the existing
site is highly unlikely to provide coverage to a currently unserviced
area. One may assume this reference is to an upgrade in service, i.e.,
5G, by this statement. Upgrades to 5G service have been
accomplished at several existing Verizon sites in that ERI has
analyzed without construction of a new tower.
April 27, 2021
Page 163
To clarify, it is an upgrade on the equipment that is mounted on
the tower that provides a service upgrade, not the tower itself.
Capital Telecom contends that the WAVV tower does not have the
capacity to serve coverage needs. We assume this statement is based
on the faulty Kimley-Horn review of EBI Consulting's Structural
Analysis Report that was submitted to the Collier County as part of
Attachment K, application backup materials Exhibit B.
The WAVV-FM tower has not been analyzed by ERI for
Verizon since 2011, at which time a small amount of bracing
reinforcements were required to bring the tower into compliance with
the applicable design standard at the time, which Verizon agreed to
have fabricated and installed by ERI.
The tower has a fair amount of reserve capacity remaining in it,
but the impact of any equipment changes has to be assumed on a
case-by-case basis to determine if there are structural issues that
require modifications to the tower. Changes in loading at one
elevation on a guyed tower will affect member stresses throughout
most if not all of such a structure. This is standard practice in the
industry.
Capital Telecom contends that the WAVV tower is not using
modern antennas that have a higher traffic capacity. Each tenant
supplies their own antenna for its use on the tower. Given the
structural integrity of the existing tower, WAVV-FM is confident that
the choice of antenna Verizon desires to deploy could be supported
by the existing WAVV tower with minimal reinforcements.
To date, ERI has not provided a list of Verizon's proposed
equipment or an order for a structural analysis to assess the new
equipment's impact on the tower; therefore, further comment cannot
be made on that issue, and it is misleading to say otherwise.
Capital Telecom Holding contends that the WAVV-FM tower lacks
structural capacity for Verizon's new deployment. Again, each
April 27, 2021
Page 164
tenant supplies their own antenna for use on the tower.
While it may be correct that the tower does not have the capacity
to support Verizon's new deployment without reinforcements of some
kind, WAVV-FM is very certain that the overstresses reported in the
EBI report are incorrect and an extreme overstatement of the work
that would be required. The location of the reported overstresses is a
strong indicator of this. The overstresses reported in EBI's analysis
are near the top of the main tower, not at the 220-foot level where
Verizon's equipment is to be located.
It cannot be stated enough times, this tower has been reinforced
to meet applicable code at the time of every tenant's equipment
change or addition, and at this point WAVV-FM has no reason to
believe the tower could not be reinforced to support Verizon's
loading, whatever that might be.
Capital Telecom states that the pink, red, or magenta shown in
the maps is unreliable coverage. This is misleading, as it infers that
WAVV tower does not provide reliable coverage. While a change to
the equipment proposed by Verizon to deploy may fill coverage
issues, adding a site a few hundred feet away in an area as devoid of
topographic features as this area in South Florida is unlikely to result
in a gain in coverage. More likely, this is an equipment issue which
could be easily addressed by choice of antenna to be deployed on the
existing WAVV tower.
Capital Holding contends that WAVV -- that the WAVV tower
structurally fails from a code standpoint.
The Collier County communication tower inspection checklist
that is included in Exhibit D in our letter of concern dated March 4,
2019, speaks for itself. This tower checklist is performed by Collier
County every three years for guyed towers to ensure that the tower is
in good repair.
The next inspection would be performed in March of 2022. We
April 27, 2021
Page 165
assume this statement is based on the faulty Kimley-Horn review of
EBI Consulting's Structural Analysis Report that was submitted.
Moreover, ERI has performed a structural analysis for Verizon in
2011 in which reinforcements were designed and installed to
accommodate their proposed loading charges, all of which conform
to the then current code standards.
Capital Telecom contends that it will provide improved
coverage for Verizon over the WAVV tower. Again, each tenant
supplies their own antenna for use on the tower. WAVV-FM is
confident that the choice of antenna Verizon desires to deploy could
be supported by the existing WAVV tower with minimal
reinforcements.
In addition, unless Capital Telecom is proposing a replacement
structure design to a higher risk category designation than Risk
Category 2, which is the current designation of the WAVV-FM
tower, the reference to 911 service and improved coverage is
misleading, as there is no gain in coverage by adding a new tower
that the existing tower could not handle.
Capital Telecom states that the proposed tower would improve
coverage capacity and compatibility for Verizon and provide new
coverage for AT&T as well as providing wireless broadband service.
This is misleading, as the WAVV tower could service all of these
needs.
Verizon is currently on the WAVV-FM tower. ERI completed
a structural analysis for AT&T to perform an equipment upgrade on
the WAVV tower. A small amount of reinforcements would be
required to allow the installation of AT&T's equipment; however,
this standard is -- this is standard practice, and similar reinforcements
to the WAVV structure have been performed throughout the tower's
lifespan.
Small amounts of reinforcement have been fairly
April 27, 2021
Page 166
regularly -- have been required fairly regularly whenever a tenant
increases their loading significantly or when major changes to the
tower design standard come into effect, and this structural analysis
for AT&T was done in February of 2021.
Capital Telecom Holdings contends that WAVV -- the WAVV
tower would not be able to support the proposed load shown in
Mr. Kelly Shanahan's report, specifically the tower legs in several
sections would become overstressed. Again, this is -- this -- we
assume this statement is based on the faulty Kimley-Horn review of
the EBI Consulting Structural Analysis Report.
The WAVV tower has not been analyzed for Verizon since
2011, at which time a small amount of bracing reinforcements were
required to bring the tower into compliance with the applicable
design standard at the time.
To specifically address the misstatement that the existing tower
would not be able to support the proposed load in Mr. Shanahan's
report, there are no tower-leg issues in the area pointed out in that
report, and any overstresses that they report are due to an improper
application of the 222-G or 222-H standard in their analysis.
Further, the EBI analysis from 2018 is outdated in that the 222-G
standard is no longer the correct design standard nor is the Florida
Building Code, 6th edition, the correct version of the building code.
As of January 1st of this year, the 222-H standard and the FBC
7th edition are the applicable design standards for this site.
Lastly, the loading in the EBI report is not correct, and there
have been several equipment changes since 2018.
Design standards change as steel design methodology and wind
engineering increase in knowledge. The 2018 structural analysis
completed for Sprint under the 222-G standard passed and was
compliant under the 2017 Florida Building Code. The structural
analysis of the tower completed for AT&T revealed the need to add
April 27, 2021
Page 167
reinforcement pursuant to their loading modifications and the Florida
Building Code; however, this would be taken care of with an order
for a reinforcement design and, once performed, the new loading
capacity would be met as well as compliance with the current code.
The overstresses are minor and readily fixed. Updating is standard
practice in the industry.
Lastly, Capital Telecom contends that the WAVV tower is over
40 years old, built to older codes and, thus, outdated and, therefore,
there is a need for a new tower versus the existing WAVV-FM tower.
The WAVV-FM tower was built in 1986. It is currently 35
years old. While it is true the tower was built to an older version of
the design standard, the tower owner and the various tenants over the
years have done an excellent job of keeping the structure up to
current standards by installing reinforcements as needed to
accommodate loading changes as they occur. This is standard
practice in the industry.
The tower was built by one of the most reputable tower
designers and fabricators of that time, providing a structure that has
met the needs of many different tenants and types of service over the
years while generally requiring only minimal reinforcements. The
tower is fairly easy to reinforce when necessary since all the bracing
members are bolt-on and, thus, able to be fairly easily changed out
when needed.
The applicant in the instant case has not complied with
5.05.09.D.1 requiring that the applicant contact the owner of all old
and improved towers within the effective radius that can possibly
accommodate the needs of the applicant.
The code takes into account structural changes that may be
necessary to accommodate antenna. Only if financially
impracticable would the existing tower be deemed unavailable to the
applicant. As well, it should be noted that in the instant case the
April 27, 2021
Page 168
applicant is not a cell phone service provider looking to
accommodate its antenna; rather, the applicant is a proposed cell
tower itself hoping to lease space to potential cellular service tenants.
We have also attached an environmental comments report prepared
by Synecological Analysis, environmental evaluation and advocacy,
for your review regarding the proposed location of the new tower.
I would like to have Brown Collins, who is an ecologist with
Synecogical Analysts, comment. He has more than 48 years of
experience in Southwest Florida, his CV is attached to our letter of
concern, and he'll be speaking on the environmental impacts.
Thank you very much for your time.
MR. COLLINS: Madam Chair, can I just -- I don't know how
you want -- I didn't realize these people were all in a group with this
one organization and that they weren't going to be -- do you want
them all to speak, or do you just want them to me speak as they want?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think the -- this is the other side, so
they should speak -- I think the attorney will bring them up. I think
there's a -- Ms. Alpert, I'm sorry. I think I brought you up too
quickly. I do apologize. But I think you would like to have a
rebuttal at this point?
MS. JAHN: Madam Chair, Mattaniah Jahn again. If there's
going to be additional members of the public speaking, if you intend
to have them speaking, then I would hold my rebuttal until the end.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Thank you.
MS. FINK: If the commissioners have any questions for our
engineer, Mr. Lampert, he is available for technical questions on the
phone.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I don't see any. Thank you.
MS. FINK: And I'll call Brown Collins. Thank you.
MR. COLLINS: Good afternoon. My name is Brown Collins.
Brown like the color is my first name. I'm with Synecological
April 27, 2021
Page 169
Analysts. It's a local environmental consulting firm.
And I was asked to look at the record, and to the extent I could
evaluate the site in the -- you know, around conditions. And it was
sort of odd looking at it, because I've spent a long-time permitting
facilities, and there's usually a logical route to get to the end of where
you're going.
And if this was where's Waldo, I haven't found it yet, because in
sort of short order, the applicant is asking for a conditional-use permit
in proximity to a capable nearby facility in a Natural Resource
Protection Area in proposed critical habitat unit for a federally listed
species on what seems to be a site that was cleared with no approval
from anybody in one of the most fire-prone areas of the county.
That's without any federal alternatives discussion as required under
the Clean Water Act. So it just doesn't logically impute to me.
I am familiar with the general area. I did not access the site, but
I checked across the -- you know, I drove by. I looked. I checked
the surrounding area. And I -- you know, I just don't understand it.
Normally, on at least the towers that -- and I'll average probably in
my practice a tower, maybe two towers a year of the size of the
Alpert Tower.
And normally you go through a progression, and this is certainly
one of them, but there normally is parallel processes from the state
and the federal agencies. The applicant here got a 10-2, certification
from the state, which is fine, because of the nature of their facility,
but so far as I can tell, there were no state wetlands staff on site. A
10-2 certification, the staff will normally check between 5 and
10 percent of the permits issued under that. So perhaps someone
was there, perhaps someone wasn't.
I checked with the local office of the Corps of Engineers to see
if there was any record in the federal permit chain for any Clean
Water Act evaluation of this facility, and they said they had no record
April 27, 2021
Page 170
of one.
There's lots of information in the environmental record here.
At the gross level, the further you go down the cone of reference, the
less specific information there is about this. There's a very detailed
treatment of the Florida bonneted bat but no notation subsequently in
the record that this is now included in the proposed critical habitat
unit, and critical habitat units are a parallel and equally important to
the Endangered Species Act. So the act -- you know, first you
identify the species, then you create the critical habitat units to give
sustainability to the species and hopefully some umbrella of safety
and protection for it, and I don't think that was noted.
There is a very good floristic evaluation of the site they -- it's
sort of like reading the botanical phone book. You go down and say,
who and who and who lives here? But in terms of the ecological
character of the site, the history -- in the letter that I submitted, the
Brugger firm, there's a photo of cleared trees on the site, which just
happens to be where the tower is. And with doing this progression
of activities, there's a considerable probability this area, prior to a
series of fires, would have been considered a wetland, because many
of the sites near by -- the Willow Run Mine is a good
example -- where you get fires so hot it will burn the base of the palm
tree below ground level, and they're typically replaced with things
like bracken fern and cabbage palm, which is what you have on this
site.
So that's -- you know, that's my logical route and brief
environmental summary of what gives me pause here. If you have
questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Thank you very much.
MR. COLLINS: You bet. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So is that -- anyone else to present?
MS. JAHN: Madam Chair, may I ask for a point of
April 27, 2021
Page 171
clarification?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MS. JAHN: Members of the public objecting to an application
get three minutes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's correct.
MS. JAHN: We've gone far beyond that just with --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I considered him an expert, but
maybe that was misconstrued. No?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is fine. This is a battle of two
tower owners, and one tower is saying that you should use my tower,
and the other tower is saying I can't use your tower because it's no
darn good, and it's as simple as that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So it's okay --
MR. KLATZKOW: It was fine. You've heard from the two
tower owners. The public generally gets three minutes.
MR. MILLER: I do believe I have some actual just public
comment splintered in with this. So when you're ready for that, let
me know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So have you finished your experts?
MR. BRUGGER: I'd like Mr. Baxa to speak as to some recent
activity that's going on.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And his qualifications are?
MR. BRUGGER: He is the tower engineer.
MR. BAXA: I am the broadcast engineer. I'm the chief
engineer for WAVV-101 Radio. I'm also the site manager for the
Alpine tower.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. BAXA: And I have been in negotiations with AT&T as
recently as last week with regards to them locating on our tower.
As was stated earlier, the optimum height for AT&T would be at
250 feet, which the new tower could not provide, but Alpine can
April 27, 2021
Page 172
provide that for AT&T.
A tower study has been done by ERI for AT&T, and the Alpine
Tower can accommodate AT&T as well as Verizon.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have questions. I think
you're the subject-matter expert I've got my questions for.
MR. BAXA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: One question was already
answered, but I just wanted you to confirm it. So the tower -- the
current WAVV tower's 35 years old, correct?
MR. BAXA: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What you just stated about
AT&T and Verizon, that the WAVV tower can accommodate it but
with some additional construction to get it to that height.
MR. BAXA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Has WAVV budgeted that
into their budget? Are they -- you know, even --
MR. BAXA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- though, like you said, it
could handle it, would WAVV be willing to do it? Have they
already --
MR. BAXA: Absolutely, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And then buried in
your conversation, I picked out one little piece that I hope I get right.
But you had said there was an inspection done in 2011 showing that
reinforcement was suggested. I was just wondering if it was done --
MR. BAXA: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- in 2011.
MR. BARRETT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And then in your
conversation, too, you said, with minimal structural reinforcement,
April 27, 2021
Page 173
we could address any overstresses by future customers. So I guess
that sort of dovetails into a previous question I asked. You're
prepared to do those?
MR. BAXA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And then lastly, has you
lost -- has WAVV lost any customers on that tower yet? I know
you're going back and forth with new tower, old tower, but has
anybody taken their antenna off of your tower waiting for the new
one?
MR. BAXA: No, no nobody has yet. Verizon is still on the
WAVV tower. Of course, Nextel is no longer on the tower. When
the analysis was done by EBI, they still had the Nextel antennas on
the tower, which had been long gone. As we all know, Nextel is out
of business.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MR. BAXA: And so they no longer exist, so -- which, again, is
another reason why the EBI tower study is flawed.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: How long would it take to
add that additional height that you need for Verizon? And what
would the cost be?
MR. BAXA: Yeah, it's not a matter of height.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. BAXA: It's just a matter of doing structural
reinforcement. I believe that the total would be about 30- to
$35,000.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BAXA: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Yes, Commissioner
McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Before you go
April 27, 2021
Page 174
away -- and maybe you or Jack, one. I heard -- for you, ma'am.
Linda, forgive me, will you come up, please. I have a question for
you.
MR. BAXA: Are you done with me?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think I'm done with you.
MR. BAXA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. During your
presentation, Linda -- and, again, that's where it became fairly evident
to me what our County Attorney said, that we have two competing
towers here that are looking for business.
I guess my question is, you made several representations that,
upon request with a simple modification of structural enhancement,
Verizon could have what they want, AT&T could have what they
want. Why isn't that already done?
MS. FINK: I don't know. The Capital Telecom has never --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, they don't have to
come talk to you. I'm talking --
MS. FINK: No, they don't, but I don't know their private
dealings, them and Verizon having some side deal. I have no idea
what goes with their dealings. I just know that per the code we're
supposed to be approached as an existing tower to see if we have the
capability of putting what they propose as a new antenna on before
any new tower is approved.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I see. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Brugger.
MR. BRUGGER: I'd like -- if I could, John Brugger. Linda is
with my firm, and she did the research on the paper she submitted.
Verizon never approached for an upgrade on the tower. Their last
upgrade took place in 2011.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
MR. BRUGGER: AT&T, Ms. Jahn's suggests that she's got a
April 27, 2021
Page 175
letter of intent, but twice in April AT&T has met with the Alpert
Tower about -- they want the additional height. As they
said -- Ms. Jahn said, they intend to drop them down below 200 feet.
They want the -- it appears -- we haven't got a signed deal yet, but
they've been meeting regularly during April to upgrade their
equipment. They do have, although we haven't received it yet, the
specs. I believe, Al, is that correct, for upgrading the tower --
MR. BAXA: Yes.
MR. BRUGGER: -- that AT&T has come forth with. They
haven't been delivered to us yet, but the tower would be upgraded to
allow AT&T to work at the height that they want. There would be
no problem.
If Verizon comes forward and presents their equipment to ERI,
our tower equipment engineer, which can be checked by theirs, EBI,
to determine the cost of an upgrade if they want to put heavy
equipment on -- and as Ms. Fink said, the coverage area is not
controlled by the height of the tower necessarily. If they want more
height, Alpine Tower's got a thousand feet. It's about the equality of
the equipment.
They want to upgrade their equipment; that's going to upgrade
the coverage area. But, again, the code says you go to the existing
towers first before you just put another tower in next door.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My question -- thank you,
Jack.
My question comes to the County Attorney -- if I may, Madam
Chair. My question for the County Attorney is is if -- was there
sufficient documentation to show that code was followed with regard
to the new tower request?
MR. KLATZKOW: The applicant has the burden of proof on
this. The applicant has to demonstrate to you that there's no old or
approved tower that could do what they want to do. They've
April 27, 2021
Page 176
submitted all the evidence to you, all right, and you need to make a
ruling on it one way or the other.
Staff does not have the expertise to take a look at the two expert
reports and say this one's good and this one's not good. They're just
not in the tower business.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With specific representation
from the Alpine folks with the -- with the theoretical violation in the
code that they weren't approached in an appropriate manner, was that
done or not? That's not our job to ascertain --
MR. KLATZKOW: It is precisely your job, because this is a
quasi-judicial hearing, and you get to make the -- you get to make the
determination.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So then staff would make a
recommendation of approval of an application for a conditional-use
change if there wasn't sufficient documentation to show that the code
wasn't followed?
MR. BRUGGER: That's what's occurred.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry. I'm being distracted by a cell
phone.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm not being argumentative.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, sir. You've got two things going
here. Usually what we're talking about is a conditional use, and it's
relatively easy for staff to review it, and then the Board reviews it.
Here you've got a twist on it because it's more than just a conditional
use. There's a prerequisite in the LDC that in order to have the
applicant even come forward, they have to demonstrate that there's no
other tower that can do this. Again, it's a burden of proof. If you
believe from what you've heard that the applicant has met its burden
of proof, that they cannot use their tower, all right, then you
would -- you deny it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And this isn't resonating with
April 27, 2021
Page 177
me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no. You're talking about
two things. What was stated by Mr. Brugger is that the applicant
was required to come to the existing cell tower --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's their contention.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- owners to announce that they were
going to do that. They indicated that that has never happened. Is it
required that the applicant show that they come -- that they actually
have contacted or some kind of proof?
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me put the LDC provisions up.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Kind of. And that's -- and
that flows in line with what our County Attorney said earlier, that this
is two competing towers.
We're being asked to approve a conditional use. Our code
alleges -- or our code says you have to give -- that the new applicant
for the new conditional use has to give sufficient notice to the
previous tower, and they're representing that that wasn't done. That
has nothing to do with the capacity and enhanced service and all that
other stuff. And then there are -- there are lease arrangements that
are involved with Verizon and AT&T that haven't been effectuated
on the new Alpine tower that are necessarily in the works, but that's
not why we're here today. We're here to talk about this -- and I
wanted clarification from you --
MR. KLATZKOW: It falls under D. It's the applicant must --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: D.1.
MR. KLATZKOW: The applicant must demonstrate that no
old or approved tower within the effective radius can accommodate
the applicant's proposed antenna. For purposes of discovery
availability for the use of towers, the applicant shall contact the
owner, you know. So it's the applicant's burden. The twist on this
one is that this provision assumes that Verizon would be the tower
April 27, 2021
Page 178
owner as well. Here you've got two independent tower companies,
all right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh.
MR. KLATZKOW: And so I don't have anybody from Verizon
here that I see -- and I might be mistaken -- to say whether or not
Verizon actually contacted the old tower owner and asked.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But it's not Verizon -- and
forgive me. I don't --
MR. KLATZKOW: It is not Verizon's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm a little bit tired, but
I -- and maybe I'm not asking the question properly. This isn't a
Verizon or an AT&T issue. This is an applicant that is applying for
a conditional use in our community.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's represented by the
current tower owner that they were not properly initiated per this
portion of our code. They weren't properly communicated with per
this -- per this condition of our code. That's their representation.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I have a staff
recommendation coming to me that says they recommend approval of
this conditional-use request.
MR. KLATZKOW: You will need to ask staff whether or not
they reviewed that issue.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha.
MR. BRUGGER: Please note, the statute -- or the ordinance
says "shall."
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand -- I got that, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: You also have the applicant that you can
ask the direct question to, you know, did you contact the owner?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, again, now that
April 27, 2021
Page 179
we -- now that I see what's, in fact, going on here and that I have two
competing tower owners with a bunch of different tenants that are
hooked to the same tower, they're both going to say, necessarily,
whatever they need to. I need to hear from my staff that's making
the recommendation that our code was adhered to.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's right there. He's right there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
Yes, that was an issue for staff, and we did verify that this
communication did occur, and we had proof that the communication
was made.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it was in the parameters
of our code?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Now, before you go away,
environmentally -- there was environmental representations made by
Brown. Did we review any of the environmental requisites on the
application for the conditional use?
MR. BELLOWS: It was routed to our environmental staff, and
I'd have to look closely what their response was. But we did have a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And what -- what communication?
You said you had proof. What was the proof?
MR. BELLOWS: It was part of their application package that
they --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They said they did?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, there was a letter, I believe.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Environmental Services.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I don't mean the Environmental
April 27, 2021
Page 180
Services. I mean the actual contact from applicant to the --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. It was my understanding in the file
that there's a letter.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I didn't see that.
MR. BRUGGER: I'd like to see the letter. It doesn't exist.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I didn't see it.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to double-check.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you get somebody to
do that right now while we're going through this?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. BRUGGER: And, again, the proof that our tower does not
meet standards is based on a 2011 study which they
worked -- reworked using an incorrect formula.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And understand, sir, my
decision's not based upon their representations of the quality of your
tower or size, shape, color, any of those lines. My decision here is
with whether or not they followed our code, and my staff's making
the recommendation similarly that came to us from the Planning
Commission. Their representations about your property really
doesn't matter anymore than your representations about theirs to me.
MS. FINK: May I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
MS. FINK: I have a copy of the transcript that was from the
last meeting, from the March meeting.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Planning Commission
meeting?
MS. FINK: Yes. And on Page 62 of the transcript, stated by
Mr. Klatzkow, the key issue to be determined for approval pursuant
to the Florida Land Development Code turns on whether or not the
proposed equipment could be put onto an existing tower. The
applicant must demonstrate that no old or approved tower within the
April 27, 2021
Page 181
effective radius can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna
and ancillary equipment. And Mr. Finn conceded in that transcript
that the staff had not looked into this issue at all. I have copies of
the transcript with me if everyone wants a copy.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So a question to Mr. Klatzkow, or I
guess the County Manager. How would staff verify that? They
would have to bring in their own experts.
MR. KLATZKOW: Is Mr. Finn here?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Who is Mr. Finn?
MR. KLATZKOW: He's your staff person.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, the staff person that
reviewed the application.
MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. May I be heard?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we just -- you definitely can be
heard. Let's close this one, and then we'll -- you will have the floor,
ma'am.
MR. FINN: Yes, for the record, I'm Tim Finn, Principal
Planner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Did you review the
codes requisite for the current applicant to communicate with the
existing tower that's 200 feet away?
MR. FINN: I did not.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Who did?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Who did or who would?
MR. FINN: This petition was under two previous planners.
When I had got this petition initially back in December, it was
assumed that they had done the work.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Finn, do we know for a fact whether
or not anybody from staff reviewed this issue? It's yes or no.
MR. FINN: No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll move for a continuance
April 27, 2021
Page 182
until we get that figured out. We can't -- I can't make a -- I can't
make a decision on this if -- with the staff recommendation for
approval if I can't substantiate that that was fulfilled. I don't
think -- I don't think it would be prudent for me to make that
decision.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that's -- you know, I think
that's very wise, I think, at this point. Because staff has claimed
something in the executive summary that they can't substantiate, I
think we have to ask for a continuance.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would agree.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would just add that, one, I don't
know if -- it's probably up to the applicant whether or not they would
want a continuance. I would suggest that that's probably a very
prudent thing.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not up to the applicant.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: For the Board.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We can continue something even if
the applicant --
MR. KLATZKOW: Given the circumstances, if the Board
wants -- I don't know -- how much time, Mr. Finn, do you need to go
through this to make a verification?
MR. FINN: I'll have to defer to my manager, Ray Bellows.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, if we can continue it, I would
be in favor of that, but I would also add that the applicant has the
burden to show that the tower is, essentially, not suitable. And so
what I'm going to want to hear is from the applicant's engineers as to
why this tower is not suitable.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And there's a whole lot of other
things that it seems to me that the burden is on the applicant to show
April 27, 2021
Page 183
that I haven't heard yet, so --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, they do have it in the written
literature, and I actually had a meeting with Ms. Jahn -- I'm
interrupting you, but I don't mean to. But even at that point, it's he
said/she said. If we don't have our own independent engineer
verifying it --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I agree.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- then we're nowhere.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was going to be my
comment to what you're saying. I mean, again, it's -- their engineer
represents that there are deficiencies in the existing tower. The
existing tower says no, we can -- with $35,000, we can fix it and
make it go.
We have staff -- we have staff engineers that need to be
reviewing these things, I think, to be able to make an assertation as to
whether or not they fit the code and approval of the conditional uses
as requested. I know a lot about engineering but not enough to
compare two different engineers' reports on something. That needs
to be done by our staff.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that you have the technical
expertise on staff. I mean, Leo? This is a very technical issue.
Staff can come back and tell you whether or not they believe the
applicant spoke with the existing tower owner, but I don't know if we
have the technical expertise on staff for something like this. This is
very specialized stuff. I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're absolutely
surrounded, Mattaniah. So just be still.
MR. COHEN: Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head, Growth
Management, for the record. We would have to go to an outside
firm in order to do that type of work.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And so --
April 27, 2021
Page 184
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And this is maybe an
oversimplified question, and it goes along with what Commissioner
Solis was talking about: How can I get a recommendation of
approval from my staff if that wasn't ascertained to be fulfilled within
the code? If the burden of proof is on the applicant and that burden
of proof wasn't fulfilled, or ratified by my staff, how could I get an
approval -- or a recommendation of approval?
MR. COHEN: What I would say is that we will need to go
back and take a look at the basis for that. What you've heard from
our staff is that was not looked at, and what you're weighing is what
we weighed, which was the he or the she and the she on both sides
and made that value judgment. But if we want to move a step
further to take a look at the technical aspect of it, it would be my
opinion that we pause, allow us to bring someone else in and do that
value judgment on our behalf.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we need to.
Ms. Jahn, do you want to --
MS. JAHN: Just to follow up, Mattaniah Jahn again. And just
to follow up on the documentation regarding the request, you won't
see a request from Capital because conversations about collocation,
since this is a build-to-suit site, happen between the carrier --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Say that again, please.
You -- say that again, please. You won't find written
communication from Capital to Alpine because?
MS. JAHN: That conversation happens between the carrier and
the existing tower owner.
The other thing that's going on is that this -- your code is based
on the idea of a new entrant coming into the area saying, I want to
add a tower, so your code logically says, go ask the existing tower
April 27, 2021
Page 185
owner if they can modify their tower.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That would be AT&T or
Verizon in this particular -- or some other company that was actually
a provider?
MS. JAHN: It wouldn't be Verizon in this instance; it would be
T-Mobile. The idea that a carrier themselves are going to apply for a
tower is out of step with the current state of the industry. The vast
majority of towers are built in a build-to-suit standard, which means
that the carrier says, in this case Verizon, says, Capital, we can't
upgrade our collocation here. You need to find us a tower of this
height.
The approach to this, since we are running backwards to the fact
pattern assumed by your code, because your code assumes a new
entrant, let's say it's T-Mobile coming in to add a tower, because I'll
just pick on them. Instead, it's Verizon currently being on that tower
and having intimate knowledge of the status of that tower moving off,
we don't exactly fit in your code.
So what we provided was a structural analysis showing just how
badly this existing tower fails, and I am ready to have Mr. Shanahan
provide more -- provide testimony on that. That said, if you need
from a procedural perspective for Capital to send a letter to Alpine
saying, here's the loading that's been in the record for the past -- since
July -- since October 2018, can you make it work on your tower, we
will do that, and we will request a continuance.
I do submit that the idea that they had no idea what the loading
is, is a bit disingenuous because it's been in the record in that
structural analysis since we applied for since -- in 2018.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think the issue is, is that your
engineer says this, and the Alpine Tower says this. I think the issue
is we need to know, and we need an unbiased expertise -- expert
opinion separate from both entities to verify or to negate what is
April 27, 2021
Page 186
being brought to us. This will make our decision-making a lot easier
and, frankly, accurate.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, could I
inquire?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are there any other public
speakers, or is this --
MR. MILLER: As near I can tell, I have four people that are
not affiliated with these organizations that are waiting to speak.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The reason I ask is I would
recommend that we finish the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm fine with that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then we continue this to
the next meeting for the sole purpose of hearing the engineering
issues there, then make a decision as opposed to any other evidence
or testimony.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm comfortable. And that the
engineering issues will be held at the next meeting, not right now.
At that point then both will be brought up, and then we can have it
examined.
MS. JAHN: Okay. So by "engineering," you mean that each
side -- each -- Alpine and Capital will present their structural
analyses and why they disagree; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, but you -- well in advance our
expert will be examining the written documents on both -- for both
towers, on the engineering of both towers.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I would defer to Thaddeus on that. I
don't know that that's enough time to go out and get an expert, two
weeks.
MR. BRUGGER: Excuse me. I don't believe we've got a
complete equipment list of what the antenna hang on the tower. She
April 27, 2021
Page 187
says it's in their 18th [sic] study, but it didn't list the equipment so we
could determine what's needed. AT&T has provided us with that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So given that, then I think we
definitely need to hear the rest of the public comment and then allow
you both to work this out, because if we're going to bring in an
expert, we need to understand -- we need to have -- we don't need
you to come back and say, well, this isn't completed. This isn't
complete.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair -- and I'm
totally okay with finishing up with the public comment and going on
with the -- and bringing this back in a couple weeks. But just
rereading this right here where -- that's up on the screen, it's -- you
know, we -- there apparently, as represented by the Alpine Tower
folks, wasn't the notice sent to them to accommodate that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because the applicant --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then a whole bunch
more.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. There was a technical reason
for that, but I think the big --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Technical reasons or not, I
don't mean to -- I'm not arguing with you, please. I'm just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There wasn't --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There wasn't even
though -- even though a substantive period of time has transpired, it's
supposed to be -- that time clock doesn't start to tick, the way I
interpret that, as -- for and until that notice is sent to the existing
tower owner that a use change or a facility change is about.
MS. JAHN: If you are feeling procedurally -- Mattaniah Jahn,
again.
April 27, 2021
Page 188
Commissioner McDaniel, if you are feeling procedurally
snagged, we will send that letter. It's going to come -- as far as
loading goes, the loading is provided in the form of, I believe, square
inches of loading. But we will request a continuance and provide
that letter so that way we can document your file.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and that starts the
first process. That, apparently, would then take care of that issue
there maybe, and then we also -- then we get to get in and talk about
the rest of the engineering and the other things that have now popped
up on the screen. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just add that
there's -- Paragraph No. D.1 continues, and then there's a whole
bunch of other provisions that are relevant to the decision that we
have to make.
You know, I would suggest that the applicant -- I don't think the
applicant can say, well, I'm not -- I'm not a provider, so I don't need
to provide some of this information. It says that the applicant -- for
purposes of discovering availability for use of towers within the
effective radius, the applicant shall contact the owner of all approved
towers within the affected radius that can possibly accommodate the
needs of the applicant. And later on it talks about the applicant
providing the specifications for what is going to be hung on the
tower.
So, you know, I don't -- I don't think that we can make a
decision if all those dots aren't connected, and to say that, well, the
owner of the tower that's the applicant isn't going to hang anything on
its own tower and that way there's a --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They don't have to do that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They don't have to do that. I don't
think we can make a decision that way.
MR. BRUGGER: Thank you. And she suggested --
April 27, 2021
Page 189
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, Mr. Brugger.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
MS. JAHN: Mattaniah Jahn, again.
The approach -- the theory of this application is that the Alpine
Tower cannot possibly accommodate Verizon's upgraded collocation
because it fails so badly, and that's -- the documentation brought for
that was the structural analysis, and that's why we are -- procedurally,
where we are at.
Again, if you want us to request a continuance for a set period of
time so that way we can provide you that request -- I don't know if
they will answer it in time, but we will provide the request, and we'll
provide time, then we will.
But, again, our approach to this, because we don't fit readily
within the logic of this, is that it fails so badly it can't accommodate
Verizon, and that's how we got to this place today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And where we are today is
we have to have -- we have to under -- we have to have a third party
review that, and that would be -- that would be the county, and it's
going to take about a month, probably.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There has to be -- and on top
of that, there has to be some -- again -- and I don't -- I'm not arguing
with you, but you're applying your own logic to our code with regard
to your requisites for what you want to actually accomplish, and I'm
not sure your logic applies to this code as I see it. I understand your
contention. I understand your reasoning. But I'm not sure I concur
with your logic for why you didn't feel you needed to fulfill the
notification processes that are delineated right here.
MS. JAHN: Mattaniah Jahn, again. I understand,
Commissioner McDaniel, and we will go through the notification
process.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I --
April 27, 2021
Page 190
MR. BRUGGER: John Brugger for Alpine Tower. We'd like
a list of the equipment, and we'd be glad to provide them with our
analysis after it's done by our engineers with the correct formula.
But we need a list of equipment, not a pressure per square inch.
Distance off the tower, other things could affect the stress load.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'll just -- can I just add one
last thing -- and this will be all I have to say -- is we're sitting -- this
is a quasi-judicial proceeding, so we're sitting here kind of as judges.
I'm a little concerned with now going out and hiring our own
engineer and spending money on that. My feeling is, as a litigator,
was the two parties -- well, especially the applicant has the burden,
has to come and convince us that their engineer is right. Yes, we're
not engineers but, you know, I just -- I think we could start spending
a lot of money that maybe we shouldn't spend and haven't spent in the
past.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with you. We
should not be hiring and doing that, but we can evaluate an
engineering report --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- from both parties and then
make a decision. I agree with you, we should not be spending a
whole lot of money to have -- three engineers would then be
involved, and that makes no sense to me.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I don't -- I agree. I
don't want to shut anybody down here and not look at all the different
processes, but if the burden of proof was supposed to come to this
meeting and it didn't happen, I mean, technically, I could tell you I
could -- I feel like anybody here could make the motion and say
"disapproved."
I'm disappointed that the staff that went through all those steps
didn't catch something like this, but this is part of the process. But I
April 27, 2021
Page 191
certainly wouldn't support us -- like what Commissioner Solis and
Saunders both said, I agree that, you know, I don't think the burden's
on us to bring out outside engineers and whatnot. I think the
burden's on the applicant. And if they haven't made it -- I mean, I've
actually heard enough right now to actually vote on it.
But if we want to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, which
we do; we're trying to be accommodating and whatnot. There's
missing pieces here. I don't think we go through too many gyrations
on the staff's point. I think the burden's on your side, and
information needs to be provided on your side.
I do have one question for Mr. Klatzkow. Let's say that the
applicant comes to WAVV and WAVV says, yep, our tower would
need reinforcement but we can do it, but then the -- but AT&T or
Verizon says, yeah, but we don't want to put our antenna on a
35-year-old multiple reinforced tower. Would they have
the -- would they have the latitude to -- would that be enough to say,
we know you can do it, but we don't want to hang our expensive
piece of equipment on something that's being reinforced several
times, and it's 35 years old?
MR. KLATZKOW: Your code is imperfect. It's also
outdated. I don't know what else to tell you. I mean, I think this
boils down to how much they want to charge Verizon compared to
the other one, and we haven't heard that. I haven't heard from
Verizon talking about they can't possibly accommodate us because of
the weight. I've just got, really, testimony from the two people who
are wanting to rent out their spaces.
So it's an imperfect code, and this just doesn't fit within our
code. It was never contemplated. Your code did not contemplate a
dispute like this; it just didn't.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I anticipate this will -- that depending
on how this happened, what goes forward, we might look at more of
April 27, 2021
Page 192
these kind of disputes. So I think it behooves us to do it properly. I
would disagree in this case. I think we need to -- I don't expect us to
spend a lot of outside money but -- or taxpayers' money for an expert
but, my goodness, staff has verified something that they don't even
know that they can because it's been two years, and there's been such
an upheaval in Growth Management, no one has tracked it.
So I think it behooves us to hire that outside engineer and just
get an evaluation of it, and then to bring that back. And I don't know
if staff can change its recommendation based on that
recommendation or it stands as presented, Mr. Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: They can come back and change their
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I think they need to do their
homework.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The homework needs to be
done whether it's -- excuse me, Commissioner Saunders. We're
having a little bit of communication issues, so -- I saw him reaching
for his button, and I think --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, it doesn't -- we don't have a
button.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In terms of us hiring an
engineer, we've heard from two -- I think three of us that we don't
want to hire an engineer.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We can sit up here -- she can
get their engineering analysis done, they can report that, they can get
their engineering analysis done, and then we'll make a decision as to
who we believe has carried the burden. That's the normal way of
doing it, and that's what -- and I think maybe 30 days. Is that -- we
have two meetings in May. The second meeting in May to bring this
back. No public hearing, just the issue of can their tower handle
April 27, 2021
Page 193
your client's equipment.
MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn again. I presume 30 days
will be okay, but if I may just have a couple minutes to get with my
client.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, meanwhile, I think we'll go into
public comment.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's your suggestion.
MR. MILLER: And forgive me if these aren't public
commenters, but I believe they are. Mr. Donald R. Harring.
MR. HARRING: Yes, I have a question.
MR. MILLER: Sir, you're going to have to come to the
microphone.
MR. HARRING: My name is Donald R. Harring. I'm retired.
I moved to Florida in 1986. I met Norman Alpert at the time when
he was looking for easements in order to put in Benton Road. At the
time we were discussing the fact that he had so many problems
getting the easements, and he had to acquire a piece of property. It
was owned by Katz, who was located in Canada at that time.
And if you bring up that PowerPoint presentation with the two red
lines on it, can I get that?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sir, you have three minutes, sir.
You have probably two minutes.
MR. HARRING: That easement, that little red dot, that was
part of Katz' property. When Norman sold me 10 acres, which was
Katz' property, he retained a 30-foot-by-30-foot section of Benton
Road which he never sold. That belongs to him or his heirs.
I was the first ownership after the time when he sold it, and then I
sold it after that missing that 30-by-30-foot section. So that red dot
was never approved.
April 27, 2021
Page 194
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kenny Lawry, and then
we have Bradley Cornell and Meredith Budd online.
I hope I'm getting your last name right, sir.
MR. LAWRY: Commissioner McDaniel, how you doing?
Distinguished guests.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm doing well. How are
you?
MR. LAWRY: Not bad. Long time no see.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't hardly see you with
the --
MR. LAWRY: Yeah. You remember me? We got burned
out last year.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I remember you, sir. How
you making out?
MR. LAWRY: Not bad. Appreciate all the help. Thank you.
I have a question for the lady there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I'm sorry. You have to direct
your questions to me.
MR. LAWRY: Do you guys know if the upgraded collocation,
when they put these new -- or when they transfer their stuff from
their old tower to the new tower, is that going to be upgraded? Is it
going to be 5G? Is it going to be -- do you guys know any of that --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We don't know --
MR. LAWRY: -- or is it just going to be the old equipment,
unbolted, removed, and put on the new tower? Is that going to give
it better quality --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We don't know.
MR. LAWRY: -- you know, Verizon -- I mean, because that's
who I have, Verizon. I live right down the road from there. So I'm
thinking all this pomp and circumstance, if it's not going to be
April 27, 2021
Page 195
upgraded, they're just going to upgrade the collocation area and not
the actual transmitter to give people better coverage, than what's the
whole point?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You have a point well taken, sir, and
you can ask when this meeting's finished. I'm sure you can direct
your questions to Ms. Jahn, and she'll be able to --
MR. LAWRY: You guys don't know?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not part -- first off, we
usually don't answer questions --
MR. LAWRY: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- to the public. Send me an
email, and I'll answer.
MR. LAWRY: All right. Thank you, sir. Have a good day.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Or call me, either one.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bradley Cornell, and he
will be followed by Meredith Budd.
Brad, I see you're there. You have three minutes.
MR. CORNELL: Thanks very much.
Madam Chair and Commissioners, this is Brad Cornell. I'm here on
behalf of Audubon Western Everglades and Audubon Florida.
I wanted to comment on this communication tower relative to
migratory bird issues primarily. Florida is a major migratory
flyway, including this area, and 6.8 million migratory birds a year are
killed by com towers, and most of those deaths could be prevented by
better siting, design, or other reasonable steps to avoid and minimize
the impacts.
So the way to do that is follow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service guidance on com towers that was written in April 2018, and
they say towers should not have guy-wires in the design. You
should use a lattice structure or a monopole and, as evidence of that,
April 27, 2021
Page 196
the Big Cypress Basin is currently working on installing a new tower
that's 300 feet near Lake Trafford with no guy-wires.
Also, there's a problem with steady burn lights that attract birds
and cause them to fly until they exhaust themselves and drop or hit
the guy-wires or the tower. The way to get around that is to use
flashing lights. So the current proposal has L810 sidelights that are
steady burn. They should be L810F, which flash on the sides, and
then that complements the currently proposed top light, which is also
a flashing light.
Another strategy which should be implemented is the use of
aircraft detection lighting systems which basically turns off the lights
when there are no airplanes around. The lights actually detect the
radar used by airplanes at night, and that's good for neighbors and it's
good for birds and the tower. And the other lighting thing is to
downshield and use a motion detector on all the ground lights, you
know, the security lights around the ground facilities. That's really,
really important for wildlife buffering.
I just want to also flag the need to not do any vegetation clearing
during bird nesting season which is, you know, spring and summer.
That's for obvious reasons; not to be killing baby birds in the nest.
So Audubon asks that these really reasonable and prudent steps be
taken to prevent needless migratory bird deaths from that com tower.
We really appreciate your consideration of those design conditions.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, my final public commenter on
this item is Meredith Budd.
And, Meredith, there you are. You have three minutes.
MS. BUDD: Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. Meredith Budd on behalf of the
Florida Wildlife Federation. Thank you for the opportunity to
April 27, 2021
Page 197
comment today here virtually.
I'm also commenting on the communication towers as it relates
to conflicts with migratory birds. These towers, as we all know,
serve important roles for our technologically-based society. They
facilitate TV, radio, wireless communication, but they do pose a
deadly threat to birds.
As Brad mentioned, there are different types of towers. And
what is being proposed before you today is a guyed-wire tower, and
the guy-wires, which help to support tall towers, are difficult for birds
to see, especially at night or in bad weather when those towers are lit,
as Brad had mentioned. So birds circling the towers easily collide,
and they're easily injured or even killed by the impact.
The Federation actually submitted comments back when the
item was brought to this Planning Commission to allow
communication towers in the RFMUD back in 2019 making notes
that if this use was allowed, which it was to be consistent with federal
guidelines, that it would be imperative for the communication towers
to be consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for
birds. These guidelines specifically state in terms of guy-wires,
quote, we recommend using free-standing towers such as lattice
towers and monopole structures, end quote.
They do note that if the guy-wires are used, excluder [sic]
devices can be implemented, and the applicant's doing that, but the
main recommendation is to avoid the guy-wires completely.
And a study was published in the Journal of Wildlife Management
that shows that bird fatalities may be prevented by 69 to 100 percent
by constructing unguided towers instead of guyed.
As Brad mentioned, our Big Cypress Basin has an existing -- or,
excuse me, is proposing a new tower that's 300 feet tower unguided.
They actually have an existing tower by Faka Union, also unguided.
So it is possible, it is feasible, and it's being done. So for the
April 27, 2021
Page 198
current proposal, especially being located in North Belle Meade, it
would be inconsistent with the intent of the RFMUD overlay in the
North Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area for this tower
to pose such a risk to wildlife in these sending lands. It doesn't mean
we're opposed to the communication tower, just to the proposed use
of the guy-wires.
So I urge you today to require that the applicant, or when you do
make your final decision, to require that the applicant be truly
consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation
to avoid guy-wires just like our Big Cypress Basin has done and will
continue to do with their future communication towers.
Again, it's possible, it's feasible, and there's no reason why the
applicant can't use unguided towers.
So thank you so very much for your time, and I appreciate you
listening to my comments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: That was your final public comment, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So we will continue this to
the second meeting in May, Ms. Jahn. Does that work for you?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Does she get to pick, or do
we?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We do. I'll make a motion
that we continue this to the second meeting in May, and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to hear from Ms. Jahn.
MS. JAHN: Based upon the additional information that was
brought up by Ms. Budd and also by the other environmental group,
let me just check one more time on timeline. I might request a
60-day continuance possibly, if that would be okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. JAHN: Let me just do a quick check on that time.
April 27, 2021
Page 199
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I assume that the public
hearing has been closed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, the public hearing is closed, and
I think our --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Why don't we just continue
this indefinitely and allow them to come back when they're ready.
That way there they're not --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Because she's going to let us
know in about 30 seconds, and then if you continue it indefinitely, I
think you have to readvertise, and I think there's complications with
it.
MR. KLATZKOW: We've closed the public hearing, so I'm
not too concerned about the advertising now. It's just for them
coming back at you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there's a bunch of time frames
in the ordinance as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thirty days here, 30 days there.
MS. JAHN: If I may beg your indulgence. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. There's -- I was just
reading the next page of the ordinance, and there's a whole bunch of
other provisions that relate to all this, and there's even -- there at the
bottom of what's on the visualizer, there's 30 days after the applicant's
inquiry about what the tower can hold, and there's just a whole bunch
of stuff in there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The old tower not renting to
the new tower, and --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- so on and so forth.
MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. I would like to request a
April 27, 2021
Page 200
60-day continuance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. JAHN: So we will be back then.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We'll see you in --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That would be our second
meeting in June.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: June.
MR. OCHS: June 22nd.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make the motion for a
continuance for 60 days.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, could I just
ask the applicant, you're going to give some consideration to the issue
of the guy-wires and all of that; is that one of the reasons why you
need the 60 days?
MS. JAHN: Yes. So this -- we are going to look into that and
likely also bring back the consultant who prepared the actual NEPA
report. I know we did have Andrew -- Andy Woodruff here to talk
about on-site conditions and the like. But, yes, we will be digging
into that as well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No pun intended.
April 27, 2021
Page 201
MS. JAHN: Well, it has bird diverters to it. It already
complies, but...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Motion on the floor and a
second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MS. JAHN: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.
I think our court reporter is deserving a break. What I'd like to
do, because it is 4:00, let's give her half an hour. I mean, I'm
working her pretty hard. Ten minutes here, half an hour here. You
don't need -- how much time do you need?
THE COURT REPORTER: Ten is fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Ten minutes. So it's -- help
me everyone. 4:17.
(A brief recess was had from 4:07 p.m. to 4:17 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
Item #11B
AN UPDATE ON COVID-19 RELATED RELIEF FUNDING AND
ONGOING COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE ANY FUNDING AGREEMENTS NECESSARY FOR
THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT CORONAVIRUS STATE
April 27, 2021
Page 202
AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND - CONTINUED TO
THE MAY 11TH BCC MEETING AT STAFF’S REQUEST –
CONSENSUS
MR. OCHS: Staff's requesting to continue Item 11B to your
next meeting, May 11th. That's the COVID-19 Relief Funding
Status Report. In the interest of time, I think if the Board would
indulge us, we'd just make that report next meeting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Comfortable? We're comfortable.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm fine with that.
Item #11D
A LOCAL MATCH AGREEMENT WITH THE NAPLES
PATHWAYS COALITION TO REIMBURSE THE COALITION
UP TO $60,000 FOR THE PARADISE COAST TRAIL
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: And also, if the Board would indulge us, we'd like
to move 11D forward at this time. 11D was previously 16A10 on
the consent agenda. This is a recommendation to approve a local
match Naples agreement with the Naples Pathways Coalition to
reimburse the coalition up to an amount of $60,000 for the Paradise
Coast Trail Feasibility Study and authorize the Chairman to execute
the agreement.
This item was moved from the consent agenda at Commissioner
McDaniel's request. Sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I just want to
make it very clear, I'm not in opposition of this proposition and, of
course, you know how I feel about studies. But I am not in favor of
April 27, 2021
Page 203
this matching contribution coming from the General Fund. I
think -- I think it could and should either come from the MPO and/or
the TDT tax, and that's the reason I pulled it forward.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I know there are time
constraints, and I know that -- well, that's what I know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you want to make a motion?
MR. OCHS: Well, the funding for the match, I believe, Trinity,
is currently earmarked for the Transportation Capital Fund?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. That comes out of
General Fund, though.
MS. SCOTT: Yes. It is out of the funding that -- through our
budgeting process that we allocate towards pathways wasn't anything
additional that we asked for. It was out of our line item for
pathways.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Is it up to 60,000 or it's 60-?
MS. SCOTT: It is up to $60,000. So as they progress with
their consultant, if it's less, then we're only paying I believe it's
17 percent of each invoice up to $60,000. So that is our maximum
contribution.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So does that change your mind now
that you know that there's a line item within transportation that is
allocating money to pathways?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It doesn't change my mind.
I still think it ought to be paid out of TDT funds. I understand. I
mean, I got a big long email yesterday from the coalition with regard
to the where-ins and where-outs, and this is -- this is a time-sensitive
issue, but I still feel the way that I feel, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have public speakers?
April 27, 2021
Page 204
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. I have three registered speakers
for this item. Michelle Avola will be followed by George
Dondanville, and then Matt Smith.
MS. AVOLA: Good afternoon. Michelle Avola from Naples
Pathways Coalition, for the record.
And, yes, you-all did hear from me yesterday, so you probably
are up to speed on the things that I will be sharing with you.
But just as a reminder, the Paradise Coast Trail, this is going to
be a game changer for the entire region. Collier County has so much
to gain from this project. And the fact that we have been able to get
$250,000 signed into the budget in mid-pandemic last year, that
needs to be encumbered by before the end of this fiscal year, which
the clock is ticking, and the $250,000 from the state and then $30,000
from the City of Naples with a $60,000 investment from the county
where, really, the county has really the greatest benefit to be -- to be
had.
Safety, obviously, is close to my priorities. Health and
wellness, sustainable, expands transportation options, but the
economic impact of this investment is off the charts. When you look
at property values, when you look at business increases, when you
look at your tax revenue -- and, yes, tourism will certainly be a
benefit as well to have a destination trail for Collier County. It's not
going to just benefit tourism, however.
And this is going to be a project and a process for a number of
years, and the TDC will have time to get involved and invest in this,
as will the MPO. But the urgency of this right now is the $250,000
is contingent on this local match. We've raised over $100,000, but
it's been spent on the first consulting contract that got us to this point,
developing the strategic vision, working with the county and the
MPO to be able to develop a study corridor that has legs that can be
built. And working with Trinity's office for going on three years
April 27, 2021
Page 205
now for this project, looking at where this project will benefit the
county, starting in the heart of Naples, then going out to the new
Paradise Coast Sports Complex, further up to Ave Maria and
Immokalee, north and south corridor from Bonita Springs all the way
down Collier Seminole State Park with the desire to connect with
Marco Island in the future, this is going to benefit the entire county.
Sixty thousand dollars is a small investment for the return we're
going to gain. Thanks.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just was going to ask a question.
So they're requesting 60,000 from the county. There's 30- from the
city?
MS. AVOLA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's 90-.
MS. AVOLA: We're providing the other 10-.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Other 10-. Okay. Perfect.
Thank you. That's all.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George Dondanville, and
he would be followed by Nat Smith.
MS. AVOLA: George had to leave.
MR. MILLER: George had to leave. Then Nat Smith.
Mr. Smith, you will be our final registered speaker for this item.
MR. SMITH: Good afternoon. Thank you.
Nat Smith, Naples resident, taxpayer, bicycle rider, grandparent,
veteran, NPC board director as well. Welcome the opportunity to
speak to you.
I spoke at the City Council meeting, Naples, where the city
approved that day their contribution to the feasibility study. Going
to make the same two points I made that day supporting this study.
First of all, it's a study. We're not asking Collier County to commit
April 27, 2021
Page 206
to anything other than a feasibility study, which I feel is good
planning.
I didn't do as well on my math SATs as I did in the English, but
this seems to me like a screaming bargain. It's what, when I was in
the business world, we called OMP, other people's money. The
county is being asked to contribute 17 percent. Other folks are
putting up the other 83. It's a good deal because the county will get
100 percent of the economic benefit. And, you know, you can start
with wellness, tourism revenue, recreational use, outdoor exercise. I
guess the second point I made to the City of Naples is that Baker Park
has been a home run. The pandemic has shown that people are
desperate for outdoor recreation, and that's what we are trying to
promote. The Paradise Coast Trail will allow a mindful, responsible
way to plan ahead for the future. It sets the stage for all sorts of
possible futures. It's good planning. So I would respectfully ask
you-all to approve county funding for the feasibility study today.
Let's not miss this opportunity. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
All right. The public comment part of this issue has been
closed. Do I hear a motion? Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll move for approval.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second it. 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.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
April 27, 2021
Page 207
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2021-19: AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE RURAL
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES (RGGE) SUB-ELEMENT OF THE
GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) AND GGAMP
FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND RGGE MAP SERIES,
SPECIFICALLY TO ESTABLISH THE IMMOKALEE ROAD -
ESTATES COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW USES
PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND BY CONDITIONAL USE IN THE
COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE ZONING DISTRICT (C-3),
AND SELECT USES IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-4)
ZONING DISTRICT, AT A MAXIMUM INTENSITY OF 200,000
SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AND
FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE
ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 19.13 ACRES AND
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF RANDALL
BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
27 EAST – ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2021-20: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41,
AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
April 27, 2021
Page 208
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT
TO ALLOW UP TO 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL
USES FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS BCHD I CPUD ON
PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE
NORTH OF RANDALL BOULEVARD ON THE WEST SIDE OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING
OF 19.13± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE – ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Now we move to Item 9A and 9B. These are
companion items. They'll be heard together but voted on separately.
Let me begin with Item 9A. This is a recommendation to approve an
ordinance amending the Rural Golden Gate Estates sub-element of
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan Future Land Use Map specifically to establish the Immokalee
Road Estates commercial subdistrict to allow uses permitted by right
and by conditional use in the commercial intermediate zoning district
C-3 and select uses in the general commercial C-4 zoning district at a
maximum intensity of 200,000 square feet of gross floor area and
also to transmit the adopted amendments to the Florida Department
of Economic Opportunity.
The subject property comprised of approximately 19.13 acres is
located on the west side of Immokalee Road approximately one-half
mile north of Randall Boulevard. This is an adoption hearing and, as
April 27, 2021
Page 209
I mentioned, Item 9B is a companion rezoning item which will
require participants to be sworn in and also for the Board members to
provide ex parte disclosure.
So, Mr. Klatzkow, would it be appropriate for the Board to make
sure ex parte at this point?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Let's start with
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I do have disclosures:
Meetings, correspondence, and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I will also have the
same thing: Correspondence, emails, and telephone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I had meetings and phone
calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I had a Zoom meeting with the
owner's -- the applicant's representative, and an email.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I've had meetings and
correspondence.
So all those who are going to give testimony, please rise and
raise your left hand.
THE COURT REPORTER: Right hand.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, right hand. Late in the day, isn't
it?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Never heard that before.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, raise your left hand.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Noel Davies
April 27, 2021
Page 210
with the law firm of Davies Duke. I'm here on behalf of an affiliate
entity of Barron Collier Companies.
The project team is here today, and the subject property is
located just north of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Randall
Boulevard.
This is a four-parcel assemblage across the street from the
Orangetree neighborhood. Three of the parcels abut the six-lane
portion of Immokalee Road as it runs north/south, and we also have a
western finger parcel that abuts Fourth Street Northeast.
We were previously before you back in October for our
transmittal hearing on the GMPA, and you unanimously approved
our request for 200,000 square feet of commercial uses. We're back
today for our adoption hearing along with the companion PUD
application.
This is the existing future land use and proposed land-use
designations and also the existing zoning and proposed PUD zoning.
Again, we're requesting 200,000 square feet of commercial uses,
including C-3 uses plus certain very limited C-4 uses, which are
listed on this slide.
We are providing an interconnection to the north and to the
south. Per your request at transmittal, we have a signed
shared-access agreement with Mr. Crown, our future neighbor to the
south. This agreement will provide the interconnection between the
two properties.
We have been working closely with our neighbors on Fourth
Street Northeast since the beginning of the process. We agreed to
prohibit access to our site from Fourth Street. The only access point
will be on Immokalee Road.
And recently we were able to work through the details or an
arrangement with our neighbor immediately to the north of the
western finger parcel, Mr. Themel, to allow him to purchase a portion
April 27, 2021
Page 211
of that finger parcel and use it for a second personal driveway.
This was all memorialized last week. And I do want to thank your
staff and County Attorney's Office for working so quickly with us on
it.
This slide shows the revised GMPA and PUD language to
accommodate Mr. Themel's request and has been blessed by the
County Attorney's Office and your staff.
We did also make some changes to our master plan. Incident to
that arrangement with Mr. Themel, we shortened our water
management lake, and you'll see open space on this version of the
master plan on the western 365 -- excuse me -- 361 feet of that
parcel.
Your staff is in support of our request. The only point of
disagreement with staff is the hours of outdoor amplified sound.
The applicant is requesting midnight on weekends for parcels
abutting Immokalee Road, and staff would like to condition that to
10:00 p.m. on weekends.
That concludes the brief version of my presentation, Madam
Chair. I'm happy to answer questions, and the team is here as well.
Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You've got one question. One
question.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What if I raise two hands?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: He can have one question
with six parts.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And I want to thank
you for cooperating with Mr. and Ms. Themel. That was admirable
what the applicant did --
MR. DAVIES: Absolutely.
April 27, 2021
Page 212
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- to help mitigate the
impacts of that retention pond next to their home. They actually
called me last night and spoke about that.
I was inquisitive about your capacity to limit a structure on
someone else's piece of property in order to fulfill in your open-space
requisites that were required for your PUD, and my -- and I'm told
that you can do that, so that's an allowable request.
But my question is, is could I ask -- what I would like to know
is -- because I know -- I've had multiple conversations with the
applicant about contiguous properties that might be acquired to add to
and so on. I would like if you are able at some time in the future to
meet the minimum open-space requirements for your PUD, that you
lift that restriction on those folks so they could at least -- they could
legally build a guest home on this piece of property, and that would
allow them better utilization of that. If the applicant would -- I'm not
conditioning my approval on that. That's just an additional nicety, if
you will.
MR. DAVIES: No, absolutely. And if I may, Commissioner,
we'd be more than happy to work with Mr. Themel with respect to
that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: That is -- the reasoning is the open-space
requirements. If something should arise in the future where there's
additional open space available such that that restriction could be
removed, we'd be happy to work with Mr. Themel on that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I had -- I spoke with
them about that last night, and they were satisfied with that, so...
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I've got a question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mr. Davies, are you
April 27, 2021
Page 213
agreeable to the 10:00 p.m., or where does that stand?
MR. DAVIES: At this point we're still requesting the midnight
on weekends just for the parcels that abut Immokalee Road.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Amplified or not amplified?
MR. DAVIES: Outdoor amplified sound is the language.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You know -- and, again,
this -- we talked about this. If I may, who's going to get the phone
calls when the -- I won't be answering the phone on weekends after
10:00, just in case anybody calls. But I have -- we have had
concerns in the past. We have had complaints in the past when
similar type uses have gone in and have had outdoor amplified sound
after 10:00. So I would -- I would caution in regard to the
applicant's request to go -- to go to midnight, and I wouldn't
be -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to go a little
further. I don't have a problem with indoor amplified music till
midnight, but I have a problem with outdoor amplified music till
midnight. So I will support this petition if we go to the 10:00 p.m.
on weekends, not the midnight, for outdoor amplified music. I've
heard complaints from different parts of the county with -- the sound
does travel a long way, so that would be my only condition --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It sure does.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- for voting to approve this.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That would be my same
stance as well. I mean, just in the short time I've been in this seat,
outdoor sound past 10:00 is not a common occurrence around here,
so this would be --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- you know, a very unique
situation and, I think, overkill.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, you know, the other
April 27, 2021
Page 214
thing to take into consideration, this is the first of many to come.
We know the applicant to the south is coming in with a
several-hundred -- 300-unit or multifamily housing condominium to
the south -- directly to the south of this, and that could provide an
issue as well, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They can have non-amplified music,
but amplified, no.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Outdoor.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not music. It's TVs. I think that's
really the core of it. So you have an -- so you have, like, a sports bar
with an outdoor seating area, and then the sound just transmits. It's
just really not music. It's TVs.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, it's not a band or --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, it's sound at large
does -- it could be music, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Once you approve this, it
gives you a lot of latitude.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It opens the gate. I am
supportive of holding it to -- indoor up until midnight is fine, but
outdoor amplified should quit at 10:00.
MR. DAVIES: And if I may, Madam Chair, I was able to
confer with my client just briefly. If that's the will of the
Commission with respect to this application, then we're not going to
stand in the way of a motion with respect to that, having the
10:00 p.m. for outdoor amplified sound.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do we have any public
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, we do. Shannan Themel is with us
online.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mrs. Themel.
April 27, 2021
Page 215
MR. OCHS: Troy, if you could just -- Madam Chair, could I
just check with Ms. Jenkins to see if we need anything from staff's
perspective on the record?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
MS. JENKINS: Good afternoon. Anita Jenkins, your Division
Director.
Staff is recommending approval on 200,000 square feet for your
Growth Management Plan. It is your adoption hearing today. And
we do agree with the limitation of 10:00 p.m. for outdoor noise.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
Thank you, County Manager.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We're going to --
MR. MILLER: Shannan Themel, you're with us online. If
you'll unmute at this point, we're ready for your comment. There
you go, you have three minutes.
MS. THEMEL: Okay. Hi there. I just wanted to say that we
did reach the agreement with Austin with BCHD as well as with
Nick, and we are on board with their project that they will be
continuing on to do and also just wanted to thank Bill for working
with us as well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's it?
MR. MILLER: Yeah. That's our only public comment on this
item.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm going to make a motion
for approval as per -- as per our recommendations with the
adjustments to the time of outdoor amplified sound.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Klatzkow, excuse me, do we need to do
separate motions?
April 27, 2021
Page 216
MR. KLATZKOW: Sometimes we do; sometimes we don't.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was going to be my
question. Can I include both of the items in one, or do you want --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Yes, you can include both items.
They're contingent on each other.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like to do that, if
we're not violating any procedure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, it's fine. Does the second
motion marker agree to the amendment?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So there's a motion on the
floor and a second for both items. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you for your patience.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, gentlemen.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, mercifully, I believe we're on
Item 15, staff and commission general communications. Nothing
April 27, 2021
Page 217
more from me, ever. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Leo's going to drop the mic.
MR. OCHS: That's it. Where is that thing? Thank you all
again.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Leo, it's been a pleasure.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Jeff. Same to you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was going to share some
information from the TDC, but I think I'll save that to the next
meeting. But the good news is the numbers are heading in the right
direction, and the hotels are getting busier, and it's all looking very,
very promising.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll just say, you know, today
was a great day. There were a lot of positive things that happened
here today. I think pretty much everything, Leo, starting with you.
I remind everybody about Military Appreciation Month in May. We
have an awful lot of veterans that work right here in our building,
some who came forward, so please thank them for their service.
Just a reminder about our -- you know, we've got three great
projects that I know we're all committed to aggressively working
with to make happen, and that's the golf that we heard about today,
the veterans nursing home or housing, and then workforce housing.
So, you know, just help to spread the word about -- and correct the
record so that, you know, the public knows exactly what we're
working to do.
The Army Corps of Engineers certainly left us with a few
homework assignments but looking forward to moving that forward.
April 27, 2021
Page 218
And one last announcement. Tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. at the Marco
Executive Airport terminal we're going to be cutting a ribbon on our
new terminal there. I know Commissioner Taylor and myself,
maybe some others, you know, are going to be there. We've got a
good crowd. Donna Fiala's going to be out there. We've got a
whole group of people. So if you would like to see the new airport
terminal, it's a huge addition to our county, a huge upgrade, and we're
going to have a really nice ceremony there tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. I
hope to see you there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything to add
other than to send Leo on his way with best wishes and, again, thank
you for all your service.
MR. OCHS: My pleasure. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I only have one item,
and it has do -- we were talking -- I was alerted because of the
circumstances because of the no heavy trucks on Logan Boulevard
issue that we've been talking about that -- and you'll recall I've had
rather -- I've been rather disgruntled about the utilization of Massey
Street that comes down off of Immokalee Road and Woodcrest and
goes into that circle at Treeline, and we put no heavy trucks,
and -- but what ended up transpiring -- and I just found out about this,
was we put "no dump trucks on public roads "-- I was concerned
about Massey because it's a private road, and we're utilizing it for
public use. We put "no dump trucks" on Treeline and Woodcrest,
and a couple of dump trucks got speeding -- or got tickets for
violating those signs. And it's certainly -- I want to make it clear, it
was never my intent to prohibit dump truck traffic on Woodcrest or
Treeline which are public-paid-for roads. It was only prohibiting
April 27, 2021
Page 219
that heavy truck traffic on Massey.
And so I'd like staff -- if I could, I'd like to have staff look into
that and, if it's possible, fix that so that we -- it was never my intent.
If you'll recall, I wanted to put a gate just south of Mockingbird, the
division there that's off of Massey. I was wanting to put a gate to
block Massey off just to keep everybody out, because it's a private
road. And so we cured an issue but created another one by putting
signs up on our public roads.
MR. OCHS: We'll get 'er fixed.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Just -- one more.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, you said one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Goodbye, my friend. Thank
you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just one short item. I received an
email -- I think we all did today -- about Ms. Gaynor's memorial
service, which is on May the 2nd at Hodge --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Hodge's.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- Hodge's Memorial Gardens outside
at 3:00. One of the -- they are going to be asking organizations if
they'd like to put a card, you know, representing the organization and
say something about Ms. Gaynor's contribution. If you allow me, if
you trust me to do that -- I just got it this afternoon so -- or else I
would have brought it to you. So if we're in agreement, that's what
I'll do.
In which case, thank you, sir. Thank you for everything that
you've done.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And go hug that grandbaby.
MR. OCHS: I will.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Meeting's adjourned.
April 27, 2021
Page 220
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Leo, we'll see you in 90 days
at one of the committee meetings as a volunteer, right?
**** Commissioner Solis moved, seconded by Commissioner
Saunders and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2021-85: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF CHATHAM WOODS, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20150002912, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE
OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTANCE THE
CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
UTILITY FACILITIES FOR WINDING CYPRESS PHASE 3B,
PL20190002096 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER,
OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTANCE THE
CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
UTILITY FACILITIES FOR CRANE POINT AND BIMINI ISLE
UTILITIES CONVEYANCE, PL20190002294 AND AUTHORIZE
April 27, 2021
Page 221
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE
THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A4
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A ROAD RIGHT-
OF-WAY, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (PARCEL
322RDUE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION. [PROJECT NO. 60168] – FOLIO #37490480009
Item #16A5
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND (PARCEL
1107FEE) REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION. [PROJECT NO.
60168] – A PORTION OF FOLIO #37492160107
Item #16A6
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN, WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $962,377.79 FOR PAYMENT OF
$1,877.79 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TITLED,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. DOMENIC P.
TOSTO, AKA DOMENIC TOSTO, TR., AND JOANNE M. TOSTO
TR., OF THE FAM. LIV. TR., RELATING TO PROPERTY
LOCATED AT FOLIO NO. 01199120006, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - THE VIOLATIONS CONSISTED OF LITTER,
NEGLECTED MAINTENANCE, AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS
OF AN ABANDONED PROPERTY COMMONLY REFERRED
April 27, 2021
Page 222
TO AS THE “DOME HOUSE.” WHICH IS NO LONGER WITHIN
COLLIER COUNTY’S JURISDICTION
Item #16A7
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE
BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,700 WHICH WAS POSTED AS
A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER
PL20190002704 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH ESPLANADE
GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES – HATCHER
PROPERTY
Item #16A8
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 20-7821,
“DESIGN AND PERMITTING FOR COMPREHENSIVE
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,” AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
TOP RANKED FIRM, TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC., SO THAT
STAFF CAN BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR
THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING
Item #16A9
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING FOR REQUEST
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ("RPS" NO.20-7818), “UPPER
GORDON RIVER IMPROVEMENTS,” AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
TOP-RANKED FIRM, JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., SO
April 27, 2021
Page 223
THAT STAFF CAN BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK
FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING
Item #16A10 – Moved to Item #11D (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16B1
A LANDSCAPING LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH MOORHEAD
MANOR MOBILE HOME PARK HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION TO PROVIDE IRRIGATION, LANDSCAPING
AND MAINTENANCE WITHIN THE DESIGNATED AREA ON
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4260 BAYSHORE DRIVE,
NAPLES FLORIDA, 34112 WITHIN THE BAYSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU BOUNDARY AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE
PAYMENT
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2021-86: AUTHORIZING THE CANCELLATION
OF 2021 TAXES UPON A FEE-SIMPLE INTEREST IN LAND
COLLIER COUNTY ACQUIRED BY WARRANTY DEED FOR
CONSERVATION COLLIER AND WITHOUT MONETARY
COMPENSATION
Item #16C2
EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DIAJEFF LLC, A DELAWARE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND ALISAN LLC, A
DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, EACH AS TO
April 27, 2021
Page 224
AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST, AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEED $1,800 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT FOR PROPOSED WASTEWATER
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. [PROJECT NO. 70141] –
LOCATED ON PALM DRIVE, FOLIO #00393600007
Item #16C3
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 20-7803, “FUEL
STORAGE TANK SYSTEMS TESTING AND SERVICES,” TO
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONTRACTORS, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENTS –
AWARDED TO GUARDIAN FUELING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
(PRIMARY) AND JF ACQUISTIONS, LLC (SECONDARY)
Item #16C4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $700,000
REALLOCATING FUNDS FROM WITHIN EXISTING WATER-
SEWER OPERATING BUDGETS TO FUND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE AND REPAIRS WITHIN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT’S WASTEWATER DIVISION – FOR THE
REPAIR OF THE 36” DISCHARGE FORCEMAIN AT MASTER
PUMP STATION 302
Item #16C5
AWARD OF INVITATION TO BID NO. 21-7855, “ORANGE
TREE WASTEWATER PLANT WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS,”
TO ATLANTIC CONCRETE & MECHANICAL, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $126,063, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN
April 27, 2021
Page 225
THE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT. [PROJECT
NO. 70173] - ADDING AN ADDITIONAL CATWALK
CONNECTION FROM THE TREATMENT BASIN AREAS TO
THE HEADWORKS STRUCTURE
Item #16D1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE INTEREST
EARNED FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2020 THROUGH
DECEMBER 2020 ON ADVANCED LIBRARY FUNDING
RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
TO SUPPORT LIBRARY SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT FOR
THE USE OF COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTS
Item #16D2
THE SUBMITTAL OF AN FY20/21 GRANT APPLICATION FOR
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 FOR THE
PURCHASE OF A 40 FT. FIXED-ROUTE BUS THROUGH THE
FEDERAL TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Item #16D3
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,170,800.39 TO SUPPORT COVID TESTING
AND CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES UTILIZING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD
April 27, 2021
Page 226
Item #16D4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE INTEREST
EARNED ON THE CORONAVIRUS AID RELIEF FOR THE
PERIOD JULY 2020 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2020 ON
ADVANCED FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TO
SUPPORT PROGRAMMATIC EXPENSES UNDER THE CARES
PROGRAM – INTEREST EARNED WAS $22,346.94
Item #16D5 – Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO FULLY FUND THE RESTORATION OF THE
1909 HASKELL & BARKER CABOOSE AT THE NAPLES
DEPOT MUSEUM - ADDING $51,991.41 IN RESIDUAL MONIES
FROM COMPLETED PROJECTS AT THE NAPLES DEPOT
MUSEUM AND $47,956.95 FROM THE DEFERRED GARDEN
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT AT COLLIER MUSEUM AT
GOVERNMENT CENTER
Item #16D6
AN AGREEMENT WITH DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $450,000 TO
OPERATE A DRUG COURT PROGRAM UTILIZING FUNDS
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE
PROGRAMS ADULT DRUG COURT DISCRETIONARY
PROGRAM - AS A CONDITION OF THE AWARD, DLC WILL
CONTRIBUTE MATCH FUNDS IN THE FORM OF
PARTICIPANT FEES AND IN-KIND SERVICES GENERATED
April 27, 2021
Page 227
BY THE DRUG COURT TEAM WHILE OPERATING THE
PROGRAM
Item #16D7
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 20-7788,
PARATRANSIT DEMAND RESPONSE SOFTWARE, TO
ECOLANE USA, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $322,962.98
FUNDED WITH FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)
SECTION 5339 AND SECTION 5307 GRANTS AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT –
INCLUDING (5) FIVE YEARS OF MAINTENANCE, SERVICES,
WARRANTY AND LICENSING FEES
Item #16E1
MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2021 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND
CLASSIFICATION PLAN WHICH CONSIST OF THE REMOVAL
OF THREE OBSOLETE CLASSIFICATIONS AND TWO
RECLASSIFICATIONS MADE FROM JANUARY 1, 2021
THROUGH MARCH 31, 2021
Item #16E2
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF
PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE
DISBURSEMENT
Item #16E3
April 27, 2021
Page 228
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL
Item #16E4
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER EMS/FIRE
BARGAINING UNIT, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS, LOCAL 1826,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS,
INCORPORATED – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F1
A SATISFACTION AND RELEASE OF LIEN FOR NEW HOPE
MINISTRIES, INC., DUE TO THE IMPACT FEES BEING PAID
IN FULL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATION IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM, AS
SET FORTH BY SECTION 74-203(I) OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES – LOCATED
AT 7675 DAVIS BLVD.
Item #16F2
A TRANSFER OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CREDITS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $650,576.01, HELD BY PARKLANDS
ASSOCIATES I, LLLP, ARISING OUT OF AN AMENDED AND
RESTATED DEVELOPER AGREEMENT DATED MAY 10, 2016,
April 27, 2021
Page 229
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 5274, PAGE 411
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY –
RELATED TO THE COMPLETION OF LOGAN BLVD
EXTENSION FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD TO BONITA BEACH
ROAD
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2021-87: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FY20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F4
CLARIFICATIONS TO THE COLLIER COMMUNITY
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO ASSIST SOLE PROPRIETORS
UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS/NOT FOR PROFIT LOAN
REPAYMENT PROGRAM
Item #16H1
PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING COLLIER COUNTY
RESIDENTS MS. KATIE LARSEN, MS. SKYE ALLEN AND MS.
OLIVIA VELIZ AND EXTENDING BEST WISHES TO THEM
FOR SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES AT THE 2021 MISS FLORIDA
USA® AND MISS FLORIDA TEEN USA® COMPETITION ON
JULY 18, 2021 IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA – ADOPTED
Item #16H2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 6, 2021 AS NATIONAL
April 27, 2021
Page 230
DAY OF PRAYER IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE
PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO SUSAN THIGPEN,
NEW HOPE MINISTRIES – ADOPTED
Item #16H3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2021 AS NATIONAL
FOSTER CARE MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE
PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO LAURA LAFAKIS,
YOUTH HAVEN OF NAPLES – ADOPTED
Item #16H4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 2021 AS MILITARY
APPRECIATION MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. PRESENTED
AND ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO ON
BEHALF OF MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY – ADOPTED
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
April 27, 2021
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. DISTRICTS:
1) Cedar Hammock Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 02/08/2021; 03/08/2021
Meeting Minutes 02/08/2021; 03/08/2021
2) Naples Heritage Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 01/05/2021
Meeting Minutes 01/05/2021
3) The Quarry Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 11/16/2020
Meeting Minutes 11/16/2020
B. OTHER:
1) Collier County Housing Authority:
Completed Audit for the year ended September 30, 2020
2) Collier County Water & Wastewater Authority:
Legal Notice regarding the Authority’s April 19, 2021 Meeting and
Final Order 2021-01
April 27, 2021
Page 231
Item #16J1
THE USE OF $500 FROM THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS
TO SUPPORT THE FLORIDA MISSING CHILDREN’S DAY
FOUNDATION – BEING HELD IN TALLAHASSEE, DATE NOT
SET
Item #16J2
RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN APRIL 1, 2021 AND APRIL 14,
2021 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J3
BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINED VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF APRIL 14, 2021
Item #16K1 – Continued to the May 11, 2021 Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION WITH
RESPECT TO A PUBLIC PETITION REQUESTING THAT
COLLIER COUNTY ENACT AN ORDINANCE TO PROTECT
FIREARM OWNERS FROM FEDERAL OR STATE
GOVERNMENT INTRUSION
April 27, 2021
Page 232
Item #16K2
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$126,650, INCLUDING STATUTORY ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR
THE TAKING OF PARCEL 195FEE, REQUIRED FOR THE
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXPANSION PROJECT,
PROJECT NO., 60168. (FISCAL IMPACT: $126,820, WHICH
INCLUDES THE STATUTORY $170 CLERK’S FEE)
Item #16K3
AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
WITH THE LAW FIRM OF HOPPING GREEN & SAMS, P.A.,
EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT FOR TWO YEARS, WITH
THREE ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR RENEWAL TERMS, WITH
NO CHANGE IN CURRENT RATES - SETS FORTH THE
CRITERIA UNDER WHICH PAYMENT WILL BE MADE WHEN
SERVICES ARE REQUESTED
Item #16K4
CRA RESOLUTION 2021-88: RE-APPOINTING MAURICE
GUTIERREZ, MICHAEL SHERMAN AND APPOINTING DAVID
SLOBODIEN TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE
LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
Item #16K5
RESOLUTION 2021-89: APPOINTING LEE RUBENSTEIN AND
GEORGE ANDREOZZI AS ALTERNATE MEMBERS TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
April 27, 2021
Page 233
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2021-17: AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP
SERIES TO CREATE THE NC SQUARE MIXED-USE OVERLAY
ON LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION
AND RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT-RECEIVING
LANDS TO ALLOW UP TO 44,400 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL USES, A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE
LIMITED TO 250 STUDENTS, AND A MINIMUM OF 120 AND
MAXIMUM OF 129 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING
TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 24.4± ACRES AND LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND
CATAWBA STREET APPROXIMATELY 1.6 MILES WEST OF
WILSON BOULEVARD IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(ADOPTION HEARING) (COMPANION TO ZONING PETITION
MPUD- PL20180002234, NC SQUARE MIXED USE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AGREEMENT - AGENDA ITEM #17B)
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2021-18: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-
41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
April 27, 2021
Page 234
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE
RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE
MOBILE HOME OVERLAY AND THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED
USE DISTRICT OVERLAY-RECEIVING LANDS TO THE
MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)
WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT
OVERLAY- RECEIVING LANDS FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS
NC SQUARE MPUD, TO ALLOW UP TO 44,400 SQUARE FEET
OF COMMERCIAL USES, A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE,
AND A MINIMUM OF 120 AND A MAXIMUM OF 129
DWELLING UNITS WITH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AGREEMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND
CATAWBA STREET APPROXIMATELY 1.6 MILES WEST OF
WILSON BOULEVARD IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 24.4± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. (THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO
AGENDA ITEM #17A)
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2021-90: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FY20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET
April 27, 2021
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:44 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
PENNY TAYL `- , CHA RMAN
ATTEST,
CR a K. KINZEL, CLERK
atik, dec„vatt_
• giP,tttil as to Chairman's_...
ygnature only.
These minutes appro by the Board on a 5la-1 , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS
COURT REPORTING BY TERRI LEWIS, FPR, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 235