Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/08/2022 RFebruary 8, 2022 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, February 8, 2022 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: William L. McDaniel, Jr. Rick LoCastro Burt L. Saunders Andy Solis Penny Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Mark Isackson, County Manager Amy Patterson, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 February 08, 2022 9:00 AM Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; – Chair – CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District 1; – Vice Chair Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4; – CRAB Co-Chair 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 WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, Page 2 February 8, 2022 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 Kirt Anderson of Naples Community Church 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.) B. January 11, 2022 - BCC Meeting Minutes 3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS A. EMPLOYEE B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS Page 3 February 8, 2022 C. RETIREES D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH 4. PROCLAMATIONS 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for February 2022 to PBS Contractors. The award will be accepted by Russell Budd, Owner, and Tim Dupre, President & CEO. Also present is Bethany Sawyer, Vice President of Membership, The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA 8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. This item has been continued from the January 11, 2022 and January 25, 2022 BCC Meetings. 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 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) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 4 February 8, 2022 A. This item has been continued from the January 25, 2022 BCC Meeting and is being further continued to the February 22, 2022 BCC Meeting. This item is the first of two hearings. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, to change the name of the Bayshore Mixed Use Overlay District to the Bayshore Zoning Overlay District and the name of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District to the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay District, to rename the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area; to add prohibited uses, add appearance standards for outdoor display and storage, add a boundary map for the Bayshore Zoning Overlay District and for the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay District, add architectural standards for single family homes, and change other development standards. [PL20210001222] (This Item is a companion item to Items #9B and #11A) (District 4) B. This item has been continued from the January 25, 2022 BCC Meeting and is being further continued to the February 22, 2022 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to adopt Ordinance, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, relating to the density bonus pool within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and specifically amending the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of the Future Land Use Element, to change requirements for the use of the density bonus pool; directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. (This Item is a companion item to Items #9A and #11A) (Adoption Hearing). (District 4) 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Request that the Board discuss whether to limit outdoor concerts to certain venues, including the Sports Park and the County Fairgrounds. (Sponsored By Commissioner Taylor) (All Districts) 11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. This item has been continued from the January 25, 2022 BCC Meeting and is being further continued to the February 22, 2022 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to direct staff to advertise and bring back for a public Page 5 February 8, 2022 hearing at the February 22, 2022 Board Meeting, an ordinance of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2003-37, as amended, including Ordinance No. 2003-58, by amending Section 110-30 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances to exclude the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area from the prohibition of enclosing swales in public rights-of-way; providing for inclusion into the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; providing an effective date. [PL20210001222] (This Item is a companion item to Items #9A and #9B) (Eric Johnson, LDC Manager) (District 4) B. Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (“RFP”) No. 20-7811, “Immokalee Area Improvements - TIGER Grant,” to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., for a total not to exceed amount of $22,869,280.20, and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached agreement. (Project No. 33563) (Trinity Scott, Growth Management Deputy Department Head) (District 5) C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners endorse and approve the County Manager’s new senior leadership nominees, further organizational changes, staffing complements, approach, and responsibilities, to take effect immediately, and approve all necessary budget amendments. (Mark Isackson, County Manager) (All Districts) D. Recommendation to discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the Board’s preferred strategy for recruiting a County Manager. (Amy Lyberg, Human Resources Division Director) (All Districts) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Page 6 February 8, 2022 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for Amendment 2 to the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) IX - Immokalee Complete Streets Grant Agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Grant Award #693JJ32040007 in the amount of $8,339,989 and authorize the necessary budget amendments. (Stormwater Bond Fund 327, Growth Management Fund 310, Growth Management Grant Match Fund 712) (District 5) 2) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Maple Ridge at Ave Maria Phase 7B, (Application Number PL20210001851) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the performance security in the amount of $6,170,322.92. (District 5) 3) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the amended final plat of Ranch at Orange Blossom, Phase 5A, (Application Number PL20210000781) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the performance security in the total amount of $1,225,419.25. (District 5) 4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Isles of Collier Preserve Phase 6, Application Number PL20150000492, and authorize the release of the maintenance security in the amount of Page 7 February 8, 2022 $753,370.53. (District 4) 5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities and accept the conveyance of a portion of the potable water and all sewer utility facilities for the Heritage Bay Government Center - Phase One, PL20210002893. (District 3) 6) Recommendation to approve granting two Quit Claim Deeds to remedy incorrect and unapproved recordings in the public records and to accept the conveyance of a road right of way, drainage and utility easement (Parcel 487RDUE) required for the future widening of Everglades Boulevard. Estimated Fiscal Impact: $200. The primary funding source is impact fees with the secondary funding source being gas taxes. (All Districts) 7) Recommendation to approve the design and installation of speed tables on Pompei Lane, at a cost not to exceed $40,000 (Project 60240). (District 4) 8) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking and authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with Johnson Engineering, Inc., related to Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 21-7930, “CEI Services for Immokalee Road at Randall Boulevard Intersection Improvements,” for an estimated amount of $650,000 (Infrastructure Sales Surtax) and to bring a proposed agreement back for the Board’s consideration at a future meeting. (District 5) 9) Recommendation to approve and execute an Interlocal Agreement between Collier County and the City of Naples concerning Landscape Maintenance for certain County medians within or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Naples at no cost to the County, authorize the Chairman to sign and execute the Agreement. (All Districts) 10) Recommendation to approve a Developer Agreement (DA) between Bryan W. Paul Family Limited Liability Partnership (Developer) and Collier County to provide public access to the Big Corkscrew Regional Park from Oil Well Road through Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD). (Projects No. 80039 & No. 70194) Page 8 February 8, 2022 (District 5) 11) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with an accrued value of $293,973.75 for payment of $4,728 in the code enforcement action titled Board of County Commissioners v. Okeechobee GGE Trust, relating to property located at 58 Enchanting Blvd., Collier County, Florida. (District 4) 12) Recommendation to approve a work order with APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC, to provide professional engineering services for calculation of debris removed from Collier Creek due to Hurricane Irma under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $4,993.00 from Fund 195, authorize the Chairman to execute the work order, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (All Districts) B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the chairperson to sign one (1) mortgage satisfaction for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership loan program in the amount of $1,500 and approve the associated Budget Amendment to appropriate repayment amounts totaling $1,500. (SHIP Grant Fund 791) (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to accept a donation of goods from the Friends of the Museum of the Everglades of gift shop inventory valued at $2,031.75. (Museum Fund 198) (District 5) 3) Recommendation to approve funding not to exceed $151,650 to complete the partnership project between the County and the Marco Island Historical Museum to create a lobby exhibit including a historic skiff and other nautical artifacts, approve reimbursement to the Marco Island Historical Society (MIHS), and approve the required budget amendment. (Museum Fund 198) (District 1) Page 9 February 8, 2022 E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve an Assumption Agreement assigning all rights, duties and benefits, and obligations to Ferguson Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Sunstate Meter & Supply concerning Agreement #20-040- NS “Large Meters”. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Gulfside Medical Training Institute to provide EMS department supervised skills training and experience to students enrolled in Emergency Medical Services Technology Programs. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to approve an Assumption Agreement assigning all rights, duties and benefits, and obligations to KCI Technologies, Inc. concerning Agreement #18-7432-ST, “Professional Service Library - Structural Engineering Category.” (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts) F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS 1) Recommendation to renew a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for a Class 2 ALS non-emergency inter-facility ambulance transports to Just Like Family Concierge Medical Transport Services (D.B.A. Brewster Ambulance Service) to allow post-hospital inter- facility medical ambulance transfer services. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to approve proposed modifications to the allowable uses within the Grants Application Guidelines for C-2 Non-County Owned Museums as well as for Category B Marketing and Promotion Grants by adding an additional allowable use that includes funding consideration for an exhibit or activity and related promotion/marketing that will be showcased at an event or location whose primary purpose is the promotion of tourism. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to approve a one-time increase to the Tourist Development Tax Grant Applications funding amount for FY’23 Non- County Owned/Operated Museums (formerly Category C-2) in the Page 10 February 8, 2022 amount of $250,000 by reallocating existing Grants Reserves within TDC Non-County Owned Museum Fund (193) in order to encourage support of a FY’23 Hispanic Arts and Cultural festival and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the FY21-22 Adopted Budget. (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Facilities Management Agreement with Sports Facilities Management, LLC (“SFM”) to extend the time period that the parties can bring forth a proposed amendment addressing the possible incorporation of facility naming rights for the Paradise Sports Complex as an additional service under the agreement. (All Districts) 6) Recommendation that the Board approve and authorize its Chair to execute a Ground Lessor Consent and Estoppel required for CC BSG Naples, LLC (“BigShots”) to receive financing necessary to develop and use the former Golden Gate Golf Course pursuant to the Board approved Collier County Standard Form Long Term Lease and Operating Agreement, as amended. (All Districts) 7) Recommendation to approve the use of parking spaces at the Naples Regional Library and Naples Depot Museum by The Naples Players for use by staff and volunteers. (District 4) G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Interlocal Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County and the City of Naples Airport Authority for emergency and on-call support services as needed. (District 1, District 5) H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Page 11 February 8, 2022 J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the periods between January 13, 2022 and January 26, 2022 pursuant to Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts) 2) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of February 2, 2022. (All Districts) K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Health Facilities Authority. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board. (District 3) 3) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to appoint three members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $94,300 with Pro Se Respondent for the taking of Parcel 1174RDUE required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project No. 60168. (All Districts) 6) Request by the Collier County Health Facilities Authority for approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue bonds for healthcare facilities at Moorings Park Grande Lake. (All Districts) 7) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $155,000 plus $42,199 in statutory attorney and experts’ fees and costs for the taking of Parcel 1134FEE required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project No. 60168. (All Districts) Page 12 February 8, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18. Adjourn INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383. February 8, 2022 Page 2 MR. ISACKSON: Good morning, Commissioners. Chair McDaniel, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. I was up here trying to get my computer going and wasn't taking care of where my microphone was located. So I wanted to wish everybody a good morning. Before we start our proceedings, we're going to have an invocation and pledge. The invocation will be led by my friend Kirt Anderson, and the Pledge will be led by Commissioner Taylor, if you would do us the honor this morning, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Item #1 INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE – INVOCATION GIVEN PASTOR ANDERSON: Let's pray together. Our father, attend to these leaders as they attend to the needs of our community, and remind all of us disagreements are necessary. Only in an open and free society can we shake fists and shake hands. And it seems that in this season of contention, these servants of our community are damned if they do and damned if they do. Encourage this commission, county committees, boards, and staff as they do the best they know how, they labor on. And when they are done, may the air be signed with their honor. We pray in the strength of your precious name, amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, my friend. I should probably announce that Pastor Kirt is the Pastor of February 8, 2022 Page 3 Naples Community Church, just for the record; I didn't say that out loud. He's my friend. Kirt and I used to -- I think you still do coach, don't you? PASTOR ANDERSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Up at North Collier, Kirt and I coached for probably five years together. So when he says what he says, he knows what he's talking about. PASTOR ANDERSON: And I fired him. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Let's move on, sir. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGUAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES Item #2B BCC MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 11, 2022 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, proposed changes for the Board meeting of February 8, 2022. The only item I have, Commissioners, is to continue Item 16K3 to the February 22nd, 2022, BCC meeting. That's a recommendation to reappoint two members to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. That request for continuance is at staff's request. A couple of agenda notes, Commissioners. And I will thank Mike Bosi for giving me a much reduced version of the land-use item February 8, 2022 Page 4 so that I don't have to laboriously read on those particular items on the agenda. 9A is the item's been continued from the January 25th, 2022, BCC meeting and is being further continued to the February 22nd, 2022, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending the Collier County Land Development Code to change the name of the Bayshore Mixed-Use Overlay District, the Gateway/Triangle Mixed-Use District, the Bayshore Gateway/Triangle Redevelopment Area to add prohibited uses, add appearance standards, add a bond re-map of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay, and add architectural standards for single-family homes and changes to other development standards. 9B, companion to that, and 11A companion to that, was also moved to the February 26th [sic], 2022, meeting. That's all I have, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. Thank you. Thank you. Well, before we move on here, Item No. 2 is our approval of today's regular, consent, summary, and any ex parte that we may, in fact, have. So let's start with Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have nothing to disclose on the consent or summary agenda. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And any changes to the agenda? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no changes and no disclosure as well. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No changes, no correspondence or disclosures for anything on the consent agenda. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And I have no disclosures February 8, 2022 Page 5 on the consent agenda. There was no summary items. So -- and I would like -- I would like to have, and -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have nothing to declare. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Commissioner Solis, for the record, has nothing to declare. I'll come to you in a second, as soon as you get your ducks in a row. I would like to move 16F6 up to the regular agenda and have a little discussion about that, if we could, please. MR. ISACKSON: That would become 11E, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 11E, okay. And quick, Commissioner Solis, I know you were -- you're a minute behind. No declarations or any adjustments to the agenda? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. With that, then, I'll call for a motion for the approval of the minutes and today's agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we go. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the agenda as amended and the minutes. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed, same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.     Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting February 8, 2022 Continue Item 16K3 to the February 22, 2022 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. (All Districts) (Staff’s Request) Note: Time Certain Items: 2/21/2022 3:36 PM February 8, 2022 Page 6 Item #5A PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2022 TO PBS CONTRACTORS. ACCEPTED BY RUSSEL BUDD, OWNER, AND TIM DUPRE, PRESIDENT & CEO. ALSO PRESENT IS BETHANY SAWYES, VICE-PRESIDENT OF MEMBERSHIP, THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that would move us to 5A under presentations. It's a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for February 2022 to be PBS Contractors. The award will be accepted by Russell Budd, owner; Tim Dupre, president and CEO; and also present is Mr. Mike Dalby, president and CEO of the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we go. You going to come up? Do you want to say a few words? MR. BUDD: My spokesman will. MR. DUPRE: So good morning. My name's Tim Dupre, president and CEO of PBS Contractors. I'd like to start off by thanking the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and the Board of County Commission for honoring us with this great recognition. PBS Contractors focuses on building better lives for our teammates, our clients, and our community. So to be recognized for our efforts in that is a great honor, and we really appreciate it. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Come back again when you can February 8, 2022 Page 7 stay longer. MR. BUDD: Always a pleasure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, you've got to go to work, don't you? MR. BUDD: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that moves us to Item 8A. This item was continued from the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know what, before we go there -- MR. ISACKSON: Go ahead, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- do we have any petitions or comments for items not on today's -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. MILLER: Not on Item 7, no, sir. ARTIST OF THE MONTH – MICHELLE TRICCA CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Before we go to 8A and that hearing, I want to introduce our Artist of the Month. So if you folks -- this is at the Chair's prerogative, and it's unusual, but our Artist of the Month is here and has asked to say a few words. Michelle's been around our community for quite some time and has done the face of Immokalee. And those pictures are in the back. And I believe you've done some others, so I'm thinking you'll probably tell us. So good morning, by the way. MS. TRICCA: Thank you. I'm Michelle Tricca. I'm a Naples-based portrait photographer, and I'm invited to be back here exhibiting my work in honor of Black History Month. So this is a selection of portraits from the Face of Immokalee, which is a humanitarian public mural that I began in January of 2019. February 8, 2022 Page 8 And it was at that time unanimously approved of by the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency. Through a series of boldly displayed expressive portraits, this quality arts experience aims to champion an under-recognized, economically challenged community in privileged Collier County, and it will bring art and cultural to a new level for Southwest Florida. I'm a career artist, but the most gratifying work for me is championing others through my art. I don't believe a high-dollar ticket should be the only means by which someone can enjoy art, so I'm creating an outdoor art experience for all to enjoy regardless of geography, economic, or social status. The Face of Immokalee celebrates the soul of Immokalee, recognizing these people who are unseen. They are the stars of the show. This humble community of migrant farmworkers is of abundant character and personality. They're the reason for the nutritious foods on our plates. Sadly, many of them can't even afford to feed their own families after melting all day in the sweltering fields. They're unseen and unrecognized. So it's my job as a visual artist to bring this to light to show them in the light, to bring light to the homogenized concrete walls in this town, to bring life to space physically and metaphorically. I'm partnering with Littman Family Farms and am grateful for their support of my vision. They're providing the walls, fences, and semi-trucks as a canvas for my work. An anomalous part of this installation are the semi-trucks, which will act as a mobile exhibition, the first of its kind in Collier County. This will bring the exhibit throughout the county to people who weren't expecting to see it. So, basically, the portraits that -- will be larger than life, larger than the images that you see here will be exhibited on the semi-trucks, and they'll be able to drive not only throughout Collier -- not only through Immokalee but throughout Collier County and throughout the coast February 8, 2022 Page 9 and all the back roads bringing the exhibit to people who wouldn't normally get up to Immokalee. COVID threw nearly a two-year hiatus on portrait making, and I resumed this past December. The project is halfway funded. I have a fiscal sponsor, the American Society of Media Photographers Foundation, which has allowed tax deductible donations from individuals and corporations. I've received a grant from the Glitter Foundation, and I recently qualified for a $25,000 grant through the Florida Department of State Art and Culture Program. The Face of Immokalee is one of the highest scoring of all 26 artists throughout the state who applied, so I'm extremely grateful for that. Why are the images so big? The bigger, the bolder, the better is my core value as a photographer. I value images that you can feel physically and metaphorically. Photography is a universal language with universal appeal. It's responsible for making connections, altering perceptions, and opening minds and engaging the heart. Why is public art important and how does it benefit community? Public art has the ability to decrease stress, elicit awe, infuse joy, develop shared identity, reinforce self-efficacy, and reduce the homogenized civic services and provide positive behaviors. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Michelle? MS. TRICCA: Our influence -- yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That buzzer was your three minutes. MS. TRICCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please -- MS. TRICCA: I have two more sentences. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, yeah. I want you to continue. Forgive me for interrupting, but I wasn't sure -- I just February 8, 2022 Page 10 wanted to let you know, so... MS. TRICCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. MS. TRICCA: Art influences society by changing opinions, instilling values, and translating experiences across space and time. Historically and universally, art affects the fundamental sense of self. Some of these kids in the portraits that you see were my mentees through the Immokalee Foundation, and they're now studying at their first-choice universities. Anyone is welcome to contact me about the project. My business cards are on the wall up there, and there's a little bio about the exhibit, and I have some renditions of how the images will look once they're installed. Thanks for letting me share. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. Appreciate you coming today. Michelle's done -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Michelle's done a wonderful job for our community. I know she's floated around Immokalee at the CRA meeting and looked for philanthropic dollars to assist to be able to put out her portraits. So I really appreciate what you've done for our community. Thank you. Okay. Now we'll go to 8A, sir. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURREN OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. ISACKSON: Well, Chair McDaniel, thank you for February 8, 2022 Page 11 pointing out my oversight on Item 7. Let's make sure, if we can, that there aren't any public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda, Troy. I don't know if anything's come in. MR. MILLER: I just was handed one from Vincent Keeys, and I don't believe this is something that's on the agenda today. It's marked as workforce housing. But I don't see Vincent. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He was here, and then I think he got up and left, and then we have to decide whether we're going to let him talk. Oh, there he comes. And no worries on that. I knew I was coming out of order in order to let Michelle have a few minutes, and so -- good morning, sir. MR. KEEYS: Good morning, Mr. Chair, County Commissioners. It's good to be here this morning, staff. I want to just stop by to remind us that there is a crisis out there; the housing crisis is still in need of us to serve the community. And so I wanted to stop by and just place that reminder. So we are looking forward to all of the support and help that you can provide on this subject. And the second item, of course, is to recognize African American History Month, which is American history. And so for that, I just wanted to remind everyone and ask for your support. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. Good seeing you, sir. MR. KEEYS: Good seeing you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Now we can go to 8A. Item #8A RESOLUTION 2022-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL February 8, 2022 Page 12 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 - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS MR. ISACKSON: Thank you Commissioners. Item 8A has been continued from the April 27th, 2021, and January 25th, 2022, BCC meetings. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members, and should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. It's a recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners -- the Board of Zoning Appeals for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a communications tower on land zoned Rural Agricultural A on five plus-or-minus acres, a 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. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. Well, we're going to -- before -- do you want to do the swear-in first, and then we'll do ex parte. Let's do that first. Everybody's who's going to speak in today's hearing, please rise, raise your right hand, and repeat after our worthy clerk. February 8, 2022 Page 13 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. All right. Let's do ex parte. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I have had meetings with the applicant and untold emails from all of the parties and their counsel. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I've had meetings with both sides, emails, and phone calls. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Telephone calls, correspondence, meetings, I met with Mr. Brugger directly, and certainly numerous emails, as this has gone on for about a year now, and also telephone calls. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The same. I've had numerous telephone calls, meetings, emails on both sides of the issue. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I am the same; meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls. Having said that, we will proceed. MS. JAHN: Good morning. I'm Mattaniah Jahn, 935 Main Street, Suite D1, Safety Harbor, Florida, 34695. I have taken an oath. I also have Maria Jimenez with Verizon as well as Jhonathan Montenegro with Verizon Real Estate to discuss any questions you have on the Alpine tower from Verizon's perspective, and Kelly Shanahan with RPM Engineering, should you have any questions on the structural integrity of the Alpine tower. I come before you today with staff and CCPC recommendations of approval for a conditional use to allow a 225-foot-tall guyed-style communication tower on Parcel 32634720009. February 8, 2022 Page 14 And the parent parcel is currently vegetated. Let me see if this presentation -- so I'm showing you an aerial. It's a very wide angle showing the Benton Road area. The Belle Meade overlay is off to the west, and you can see the Rural Estates up to the north and the east. Up is north in this aerial. You'll see there's two boxes, a green one and a blue one. That's all property owned by our landlord, and you'll see a green marker. That is the proposed guy tower. I'm going to call it the Capital tower through most of this presentation. This is a closer view, and you can see the Benton Road area. Benton Road runs east/west and also north/south. This portion over here is often called Woodlands Estates Road. It's Woodlands Estates up further to the north, and this portion's generally considered to be Woodlands Estates. Access to the area is over the canal of the 28th Street bridge. This is a closer aerial showing the location of the guy tower relative to the parent parcel. The particular parent parcel we're developing on is this five-acre tract right here. And then you can see the other properties owned by the landlord. The driveway will proceed east and then north up to Benton Road. There's mature cabbage coverage all over the property helping to provide buffering. We're actually going to be preserving 90 percent of the vegetation on the parent parcel. And then as you proceed east down Benton Road, that turns into pine and cypress canopy, and that helps provide additional buffering. The parent parcel's zoned AMHO with a future land-use designation North Belle Meade. The parcel is in the RFMUD sending district, but the development rights have not been severed. And this application is procedurally a little different than most, because if we were not in the overlay, this would actually be an administrative approval under your code from a compatibility February 8, 2022 Page 15 standpoint. This meets all the requirements of your tower code as far as development standards and separations. What brings us into the conditional-use process is the fact that we have the environmental overlays that heighten the review a little bit. The guyed -- as you can see, the guyed tower is located in the southwest corner of the lot. This is Sheet A1 from the plans, and this just shows the site plan line work overlaid on an aerial. You can see that driveway proceeding south from Benton Road and then east over to the guyed tower. You can see a circle on here. That is the fall zone radius. So in the unlikely event of a failure, it won't just -- the guyed tower won't just fall over. It will actually fold over upon itself and be contained on the parent parcel. You can also see hatching throughout here. That's the native vegetation preserve. Your code requires 90 percent preservation rate. Currently, this parcel does not have any preserve protections on it, so we'll be bringing that under compliance with your code. Another thing to -- this is Sheet C1, so it's the same thing just without the aerial under it just to show the line work more clearly. One thing that's interesting is the separations, just to help put things this context. Now, your residential separation under the code is 50 percent tower height for agricultural zoned land, but I actually plotted a -- the two-and-a-half times tower height separation that you use in platted residential areas just to show how much space is out here. And, again, you've got these parcels all here that are under the parent -- that are under the landlord's control, and this red circle is the two-and-a-half times tower height separation. And you can see that there are no houses -- those are all plotted here at the yellow lines -- within that radius. We actually exceed even your most stringent standard. We're looking at ranges between 3.2 times tower height and 4.8 times tower height. February 8, 2022 Page 16 Moving into residential need, the guyed tower is designed for Verizon as the anchor tenant, and it will be able to collocate all national carriers. So it's designed for four carriers total. Altius, an Internet broadband company, is also going to be collocated on the guyed tower. This is Sheet C3, the elevation, just showing that the guyed tower has been designed for those collocations. There's also a collocation affidavit in the record where Capital is committing to make these collocations available at market rates. And then I'm also showing you Sheet C2, which is the compound just showing that the guyed tower's been designed with the necessary equipment space for collocation. So Verizon will be located at the top. This is unusual -- this site's a little unusual because we actually have two additional service providers that are collocating straight off the bat. AT&T, they're going to be making a commercial deployment as well as a FirstNet deployment on this property. I'll go into that a little bit. But FirstNet is the first responder network that AT&T is providing on a national basis. It's a federal program. And then, finally, we'll also have Altius, which is providing wireless Internet. AT&T and Altius will be collocated below Verizon, and AT&T's deployment will be part of FirstNet. Just to orient a little bit on RF need. Modern communication towers serve two functions. They generally fill gaps in coverage, and they offload capacity stream from neighboring towers. You may have heard me say this before, but the carrier -- the cellular carriers fight the same concurrency battle that all of our local governments fight in that they are trying to keep up with ever-expanding traffic. So communication towers are like roads. They can only handle so much traffic, and then they max out. In this situation, Verizon actually has a deployment on a February 8, 2022 Page 17 neighboring tower that's owned by Alpine Communications to the northwest, and they're unable to expand that deployment further. And the traffic on that deployment is max out. I have Maria Jimenez. She'll be up shortly to discuss the capacity loading and why they need to modernize their deployment. Please also keep in mind the FCC is in the middle of rolling out 5G nationwide. All of the carriers are in the process of retrofitting their networks to provide 5G service. This is a national infrastructure program, essentially, that's being conducted through the carriers. With that, I'm going to bring up Maria Jimenez with Verizon to discuss their RF need for the area. So, Ms. Jimenez, would you please come up here, and you can stand right here. Let me get this over to you. MS. JIMENEZ: Thank you. Good morning. MS. JAHN: Would you please state your name and address for the record. MS. JIMENEZ: Maria Jimenez, 20901 Taft Street, Pembroke Pines, Florida. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that. MS. JIMENEZ: 20901 Taft Street, Pembroke Pines, Florida. MS. JAHN: All right. And what is your education and profession? MS. JIMENEZ: I have a bachelor degree in engineering and telecom. MS. JAHN: Are you familiar with the Capital Telecom project -- MS. JIMENEZ: Yes, I am. MS. JAHN: -- located on Benton Road in Collier County, Florida? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes, I am. February 8, 2022 Page 18 MS. JAHN: And this may be in Verizon's file under the name 9059682, Naples Park North. MS. JIMENEZ: Yes, I am. MS. JAHN: Okay. And how are you familiar with it? MS. JIMENEZ: I'm the RF design engineer for the area. MS. JAHN: All right. I am showing you a map. Do you recognize it? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. MS. JAHN: And how do you recognize it? MS. JIMENEZ: This is the area of existing site and a proposed site currently servicing the area. MS. JAHN: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me. It's very difficult to understand you, so if you could just -- MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If you could maybe point -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, that's a little bit better. MS. JIMENEZ: Sorry. It's probably my mask. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It probably is. MS. JAHN: Would you like me to wear a mask that way you can take one off? MS. JIMENEZ: No, it's fine. It's okay. I hope this is fine. I'm sorry about that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, that's quite all right. MS. JIMENEZ: Thank you. MS. JAHN: And just to orient us, which direction's north on this aerial? MS. JIMENEZ: Up. MS. JAHN: Okay. And what is the yellow dot? MS. JIMENEZ: It's the proposed site. MS. JAHN: And I'm pointing an arrow at that yellow dot right February 8, 2022 Page 19 now. And what are the blue dots that I'm pointing the purple arrows at? MS. JIMENEZ: Those are existing sites and service. MS. JAHN: Okay. So are those Verizon -- current Verizon towers in the area? MS. JIMENEZ: Correct. MS. JAHN: Okay. And what is the blue dot labeled B? I'm pointing a single purple arrow at it. MS. JIMENEZ: That's our site 7899 on air in service. MS. JAHN: Is that the Alpine tower? MS. JIMENEZ: Correct. MS. JAHN: Okay. Let's talk about the history of this collocation. Has Verizon performed any upgrades to it over the years? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. We have the one in 2011 and one in 2016. MS. JAHN: Okay. And with that most recent upgrade, the one in 2016, this timeline relates to the letter from Jhonathan Montenegro that you have in the file. In that letter it shows that the collocation was first deployed in 2006. You have an upgrade in 2011 which corresponds with the permit history when they made modifications to the Alpine tower, and that also corresponds with all the structural modifications. That's the last time the tower was structurally modified. But then there's also a 2016 upgrade that happened afterwards. And, Ms. Jimenez, would you please tell me a little bit more about that 2016 upgrade. Was your team able to deploy all of the antennas and cabling and radios that you needed in order to meet your need at the time? MS. JIMENEZ: Unfortunately, no. February 8, 2022 Page 20 MS. JAHN: Okay. And as it stands today, is that collocation on the Alpine tower able to adequately provide service to the area? MS. JIMENEZ: It's missing some additional upgrades for frequencies for additional capacity. MS. JAHN: Okay. And going with our road analogy, what are frequencies essentially like? How do those compare to a road? MS. JIMENEZ: We can compare the additional capacity to lanes on a highway, and we can actually have around six or seven at this point; however, we are using two and three-quarters with the limitations on the tower. MS. JAHN: Okay. So instead of it being a seven-lane highway, it's two and three-quarters of a lane? MS. JIMENEZ: Three-quarters. That's the analogy, yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. And just talking about the actual traffic that's coming across this deployment and your general traffic that triggers you to need to do work and upgrade a deployment or search for a new tower, what capacity threshold triggers the need for more equipment to add those additional capacity lanes in an area? MS. JIMENEZ: We have a threshold of .7. MS. JAHN: Okay. And right now on that scale, so 0.7, you're at -- or 0.7 is the trigger. What is the actual traffic on that collocation there, Point B, the Alpine tower? MS. JIMENEZ: Sorry. The threshold is .8, and we are at 7 on the capacity trigger. I'll correct that. MS. JAHN: Okay. And just to make sure I understand this correctly, the threshold is 0.8? MS. JIMENEZ: Correct. MS. JAHN: And is the capacity 0.7 or 7.0? MS. JIMENEZ: 7.0, almost 10 times the need of capacity. MS. JAHN: Okay. Does your deployment on the Alpine tower currently provide even full 4G service, much less 5G? February 8, 2022 Page 21 MS. JIMENEZ: We do provide 4G service limited to the equivalent to two point three-quarters of a lane. We have a spectrum [sic] available, and we cannot use it due to the limitations on the tower. MS. JAHN: Okay. So you don't even have a full 4G deployment there, and that's because you can't put a full deployment out on that tower? MS. JIMENEZ: Correct. MS. JAHN: And what do you need to change about your co -- about your deployment out there in order to be able to adequately serve the area around Benton Road and extending out from it? MS. JIMENEZ: We will need to add antennas, cables, habi [sic] cables, and radios. MS. JAHN: And, Commissioners, you have that in your record. That information was actually transmitted over to Alpine as part of your code's inquiry procedure for towers over 185 feet. They sent both a, at the time, interim full 4G deployment loading, and then they also had a 5G loading. That was a year ago, so we've moved up. Are we at that 5G loading now? MS. JIMENEZ: No, at this point. MS. JAHN: I mean, are you at the need for a 5G loading right now? MS. JIMENEZ: Absolutely, yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. And that is in your record. So we could go discuss individual antennas if you want, but it's in your record. All right. So moving on. I'm showing you a map that's red and green; do you recognize it? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes, I do. MS. JAHN: And how do you recognize it? February 8, 2022 Page 22 MS. JIMENEZ: This is the reliable and unreliable coverage. The label's a little bit backwards, but that's what it is. MS. JAHN: Okay. And we do apologize for the scrivener's error. Again, which direction is north? MS. JIMENEZ: Up. MS. JAHN: Okay. And does this map generally correspond to the one that we were just looking at? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. What are the red areas? MS. JIMENEZ: The red areas are unreliable coverage. MS. JAHN: And the green areas? MS. JIMENEZ: Reliable coverage. MS. JAHN: Okay. And, Commissioners, just to give us some -- because we're talking about capacity, and that's hard to map, so we have to come back to these -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Excuse me one second. MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The scrivener's error is the reverse of this map at the top. That's very important for you to highlight during this conversation. I mean, you don't just call it a scrivener's error and then make the correction at a later time. I mean, this is very misleading to the public when people are just looking at this. So please clarify that again. MS. JAHN: My apologies, sir. Okay. So on this map, what color is reliable coverage? MS. JIMENEZ: Green. MS. JAHN: And on this map, what color is unreliable coverage? MS. JIMENEZ: Red. MS. JAHN: And just for the benefit of the record, the label, February 8, 2022 Page 23 unfortunately, shows red is reliable and green is unreliable, but as you just heard, green is liable and red is unreliable. All these maps that you'll see today, unfortunately, have that same error where that label is reversed. All right. So just to show the areas that are currently being served by the Alpine tower, you have the Benton Road area, the Woodlands Estates area, Frangipani community, the Rural Estates, and Alligator Alley. All right. Ms. Jimenez, I'm showing you a map that is red and green with blue and yellow dots on it; do you recognize it? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. MS. JAHN: And how do you recognize it? MS. JIMENEZ: That is the coverage without the full site [sic]. MS. JAHN: All right. Does this correspond to the previous maps that we've been looking at? MS. JIMENEZ: The area, yes. MS. JAHN: And, again, what is green? MS. JIMENEZ: Reliable coverage. MS. JAHN: And what is red? MS. JIMENEZ: Unreliable coverage. MS. JAHN: All right. And which direction is north? MS. JIMENEZ: Up. MS. JAHN: All right. So what is this depicting? MS. JIMENEZ: It's showing the coverage of the proposed site on -- with the radios and the full load on the tower. MS. JAHN: Okay. And does this fix the capacity shortage in the 4G service in the area? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. MS. JAHN: And does it add 5G service in the area? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. And, Commissioners, just to show the February 8, 2022 Page 24 mapping real quick here, I'm adding some arrows, and then I'll back up real quick just to compare. There's a small -- generally they're trying to mimic the coverage that they currently have, but there is a small expansion of coverage even though the primary task of this tower is something that you can't map, capacity and modernization. And you can see that on the previous map and then, again, here is the expansion. Ms. Jimenez, I'm showing you a map that is red and green with blue and yellow dots on it. How do you -- do you recognize it? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. MS. JAHN: And how? MS. JIMENEZ: This is the coverage map with our existing in-service site. MS. JAHN: Okay. And what is green on this map? MS. JIMENEZ: It's reliable coverage. MS. JAHN: And what is red on this map? MS. JIMENEZ: Unreliable coverage. MS. JAHN: Okay. And does this map, the areas depicting, correspond to the previous maps we've been discussing? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes, ma'am. MS. JAHN: All right. And so does this map -- the change in this map where the green disappeared, does this show the rough area where you have the capacity shortage for this project? MS. JIMENEZ: Correct. MS. JAHN: And did it show the area where you lack 5G coverage? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. MS. JAHN: All right. Again, does this area that turned red for illustrative purposes even have full 4G service currently? Does it even have full 4G? MS. JIMENEZ: No, no. We can utilize and upgrade the 4G February 8, 2022 Page 25 service. We could, but there are some limitations on the existing tower. MS. JAHN: Okay. All right. And when you say "you could," what do you mean by that? MS. JIMENEZ: Adding cables, antennas, and radios on the tower. MS. JAHN: Okay. So if you can expand your deployment, then you have the -- you have the radio licenses to actually do it? MS. JIMENEZ: We do have the spectrum available, yes, ma'am. MS. JAHN: And, Commissioners, again, just to orient us to the area, here is the Benton Road area, here's the Woodlands Estates area, here's the Frangipani community, the Rural Estates, and Alligator Alley. So you can see the area that's being served. The purpose of this map is just to show the areas that are currently having the capacity and modernization problems. So this is just to show that since you can't really map capacity. All right. Ms. Jimenez, thank you for your time. Commissioners, do you have any questions for Ms. Jimenez about RF need? She's not -- the way Verizon's organized, she's not here to talk about real estate. I have Jhonathan Montenegro for that, but if you want to talk about RF need, she can answer any questions that you have at this time. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have no -- well, I didn't have anybody lit up, but now I do. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would you briefly go back to the maps and just go through and highlight the coverage right from the beginning? This last map called coverage of existing network without proposed site. So I just want you to go back to when you started with the reliable/unreliable. And I don't need you to -- just February 8, 2022 Page 26 give me the title and just go through it again so I can see how it moves, please. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. So this first map is coverage of the existing network as it stands today. So this is their deployment on the Alpine tower. Is that correct, Ms. Jimenez? MS. JIMENEZ: Correct. MS. JAHN: All right. And, again, you can see the communities that are currently served by the Alpine tower. Okay. The second map, what is this, Ms. Jimenez? MS. JIMENEZ: It's the new site coverage. MS. JAHN: Okay. And that new site, is that the Capital tower? MS. JIMENEZ: Correct. MS. JAHN: All right. So does this show the coverage that would be provided once Verizon moves over to the Capital tower? MS. JIMENEZ: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Do you need to generally mimic the coverage footprint that you currently have in the area? MS. JIMENEZ: Absolutely. MS. JAHN: And why? MS. JIMENEZ: Because we have existing services. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We have a what? MS. JIMENEZ: We have existing service. People, when we need to -- if we need to move or do any upgrade to any site, we at least have to cover the same area -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gotcha, okay. MS. JIMENEZ: -- not to affect the customers. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was not -- I did not understand what you said, so I appreciate you sharing that. MS. JIMENEZ: No problem. MS. JAHN: All right. Can you move very far? Like, what February 8, 2022 Page 27 would happen if you moved a mile-and-a-half in any direction? MS. JIMENEZ: Then that will change the coverage area dramatically, and then -- I would say in this, no more than half a mile I can move the site. MS. JAHN: And that goes back to something you may have heard me say before. Cell towers are inherently local. You can't put a radio tower -- they're not like an AM/FM tower like the one I grew up -- the radio station I grew up in Sarasota where the station from City Island in Sarasota can reach 40 miles north to St. Petersburg and 30 miles south to Venice at least, and you have one tower. Cell towers are inherently local. They cover these much smaller areas that you're seeing on the map. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Jimenez. I'm going to go through AT&T's RF need real quick. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You okay with that, Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I want you to go to the end. MS. JAHN: My apologies. My apologies. I still owe you Map 1. All right. Finally, what is this map, Ms. Jimenez? MS. JIMENEZ: It looks at the coverage of existing network without the proposed site. MS. JAHN: Okay. And what's the point of this map being provided? MS. JIMENEZ: Just to show what the existing site is covering at this point. MS. JAHN: And the map that we're talking about is coverage -- is labeled "coverage of existing network without proposed site," just for the record. All right. And I apologize for sending Ms. Jimenez off. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not to worry. It's okay. February 8, 2022 Page 28 MS. JAHN: Did we adequately answer your question? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, thank you. Thank you. MS. JAHN: Are there any other questions for Ms. Jimenez before I have her sit down? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Maybe, but we'll call her back if we want her. MS. JAHN: Understood, sir. She's yours all morning. MS. JIMENEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're okay for now, though. MS. JAHN: Okay. Now I'm going to go into AT&T's RF need. All right. So as I stated, this is a FirstNet site for AT&T. I normally don't give a presentation on FirstNet, but -- because some AT&T sites have them and some don't, and this site has it. So just as a quick little education for FirstNet, it was created after 9/11. The federal government says, hey, we need to have some type of national coordinated first responder network instead of trying to use a patchwork of local systems, which we still have and give us redundancy, but this is supposed to be a national network that overlays and augments. This was funded by Congress in 2012, and there's a nationwide and a Florida FirstNet plan. So this site has been identified by AT&T as part of their Florida FirstNet plan and, basically, it provides a separate set of antennas giving off a separate signal that first responders can connect to with their equipment. It also allows FirstNet connections to override the -- override the commercial traffic on the regular AT&T deployment. This is AT&T's letter of intent to collocate on the Alpine tower. You have this in the record. I mean, on the -- my apologies -- on the Capital tower. You have this in the record. And this is from February 8, 2022 Page 29 March 11th, 2021. And then I'm showing you a map that has red, yellow, and green, and this is from the RF package that AT&T gave for their collocation on the Capital tower. This is all in your record. But up is north, and this is generally showing the same areas that you saw with the Verizon -- with the Verizon maps. When you look at this, green is reliable coverage, then you have, just going by the key here, yellow is less reliable. Then you get to red, which is marginal even outdoors, and then magenta, which is over in the North Belle Meade area, is basically no coverage at all. And you, again, can see the Benton Road area, the Woodlands Estates area, the Frangipani area, the Rural Estates, and Alligator Alley. So for AT&T, this is purely just a coverage site. Here is the coverage from the Capital tower. And, again, green is reliable indoor service, then you go to yellow, red is poor outdoor service, and then magenta would be nothing. And, again, you can see the communities that it's serving as well as Alligator Alley. Finally, you have Altius. They didn't provide coverage maps, but they do intend to collocate on the Capital tower. All right. So the next thing that is since this tower's over 185 feet tall, we have to show you that there is no existing old towers that are available. We have to make a reasonable showing that it's impractical to collocate on it. We have that -- we have our analyses in the record, but I'm going to bring Kelly Shanahan up just to talk through it instead of trying to throw the report at you on screen. So, Kelly, would you please stand up and come to the lectern. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if you wish, Mattaniah, you can use both podiums if it makes it easier for you to communicate with your folks. You're fine with doing it, okay, or you can move February 8, 2022 Page 30 the microphone. MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. Are you still able to hear me? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. MR. MILLER: Well, here in the room we're able to hear you, but we're not able to hear you very well on broadcast. MS. JAHN: Got it. I will go over to -- MR. MILLER: Thank you. MS. JAHN: I will send Kelly to the other lectern, please. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And there is a hand-held mic there right next to you if you wish to stay close. It's up to you. MS. JAHN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't use them both. MS. JAHN: Yes. All right. So, Mr. Shanahan, would you please state your name and address. MR. SHANAHAN: My name is Kelly Shanahan, and I work out of my home office at 150 Rumford Ave in Mansfield, Mass. MS. JAHN: Okay. And what is your profession? MR. SHANAHAN: I'm a licensed professional engineer practicing primarily in the telecom industry. MS. JAHN: And what engineering -- do you work for an engineering firm? MR. SHANAHAN: I do. I work for RPM Engineering, and prior to that I worked for EBI Consulting. MS. JAHN: Okay. What is your education and experience? MR. SHANAHAN: I have a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in civil engineering. I have practiced in telecom for over 10 years now. And I'm a licensed professional engineer who was first licensed in 2015 in my home state of Massachusetts, and I got my Florida license in 2017. MS. JAHN: Okay. Are you familiar with the tower project by February 8, 2022 Page 31 Capital Telecom Holdings called the Benton Road relo? It may also be in your files as Naples Park. MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: And how are you familiar with it? MR. SHANAHAN: I was engaged by Capital Telecom to provide analysis on the nearby Alpine tower. MS. JAHN: Okay. I'm showing you an aerial map. What does this area depict? MR. SHANAHAN: This depicts the general area of both the existing Alpine tower, which is in the upper left corner, and the green dot represents the new proposed tower. MS. JAHN: Okay. And is up north? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Commissioners, this generally corresponds to the aerials that you've been seeing earlier today. Mr. Shanahan, does this orange arrow right here point to the Alpine tower? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. And does this orange arrow that I just added labeled "Benton Road relo" point to the Capital tower? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Okay. Mr. Shanahan -- let's see. And I'm showing you an elevation. Do you recognize it? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. This is a schematic elevation of the existing Alpine tower, and it was produced by the analysis software that I'm using to analyze the tower. MS. JAHN: Okay. And in basic words, would you please just describe the Alpine tower's design. MR. SHANAHAN: It's a steel guyed tower with a lattice extension at the top. MS. JAHN: Okay. How tall is it, roughly? February 8, 2022 Page 32 MR. SHANAHAN: Roughly, 1,020 feet, I believe. MS. JAHN: Okay. Mr. Shanahan, do your calculations for the Alpine tower take into account the entire loading that's proposed for the Capital tower? So that would be Verizon's full deployment, the AT&T deployment, and the Altius deployment. MR. SHANAHAN: Yes, in addition to the existing radio tenants. MS. JAHN: Okay. Are there any changes in the Alpine tower's condition that you've become aware of since our April meeting? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. I have become aware that the tower leg strength is a stronger grade of steel than I originally believed. Changes to the equipment loading were made known to me. I was made -- better foundation -- new foundation information was made available to me to reanalyze, you know, the way that I was considering the foundation. But to the best of my knowledge, there have been no structural modifications made since 2011. MS. JAHN: Okay. And let's talk about those 2011 structural modifications. Just to orient ourselves real quickly on the history of the tower and play it against that Verizon history in the record with the 2006 deployment, the 2011 Verizon upgrade, and then you have that 2016 final upgrade that was partial. So in the April ERI letter, they stated that Alpine added structural modifications in April 2011. Are you familiar with those modifications? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. They reportedly re-plumbed the tower and strengthened the diagonals in several sections. MS. JAHN: Okay. And what do those modifications mean for the tower? MR. SHANAHAN: The modifications mean increased structural capacity at the modified sections. February 8, 2022 Page 33 MS. JAHN: Okay. And that was as of 2011? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Just to orient our timeline relative to what Verizon's been doing, do these blue arrows correspond to the 2011 structural modifications? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. And this is, again, the same slide. I've added blue arrows to it. And to make -- and to make sure that I'm on the right page with you, do you understand these modifications to be for the 2011 Verizon collocation work? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: All right. Let's move on to Alpine's August 27, 2021, ERI -- ERI letter and their current analysis on the Alpine tower. Have you reviewed the Alpine letter dated 8/27/2021 with the ERI structural report dated 8/26/21? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Have you reviewed the ERI tower and foundation calculations dated June 22nd '22 [sic], and April 23rd, 2021? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: All right. And what are their conclusions about the Alpine tower's strength? MR. SHANAHAN: The calculations show the existing tower is adequate to support the proposed loading. MS. JAHN: And in coming to that finding, how does their analysis differ from yours? MR. SHANAHAN: So I think a big difference between my analysis and theirs is that I'm treating my analysis as an analysis of the existing conditions, you know, treating -- considering only the modifications that have already been made as of 2011. I believe February 8, 2022 Page 34 they're treating the analysis as a modification design and, as such, some of the diagonal braces have a larger diameter than I believe to be currently constructed. In addition to the difference in bracing sizes, there's also a difference in the way that we consider a structural parameter called the K-factor, which represents the end -- the way the ends of the braces are connected. MS. JAHN: Okay. And just to see if I'm understanding this correctly in lay terms, when you say "the designs are different," you're currently modeling this of the tower as it is today and then listing what it needs? MR. SHANAHAN: Correct. Well, I'm not listing what it needs to bring it into compliance. I'm only listing what is currently overstressed when I analyze the new loading on the existing tower. MS. JAHN: Okay. And then they're analyzing the tower with -- not as it is today but with additional modifications and upgrades? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Let's talk about cross-brace size. And you said their calculations -- my apologies. They're showing bigger cross-braces? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: All right. And are these the -- are these the cross-braces -- I'm adding red chevrons here. Did these various chevrons that I've added, over 85 feet at the tower, correspond to those modifications that have been baked into Alpine's analysis? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. And, Commissioners, I would stress that these are currently theoretical modifications. We have a list of permits. The only permit that's not included in this list is a permit to add a thousand-gallon fuel tank out on the February 8, 2022 Page 35 site. But the two yellow permits, 86-3663, is the original construction of the Alpine tower, and then 2011-060350 is from, looking at the records, the modifications for the Verizon work in 2011. This also corresponds to Alpine's own letter from May the 10th, 2021, where they state that there have been no structural modifications since 2011. So nothing new's been bolted onto the tower since 2011. Okay. Mr. Shanahan, if you remove these braces Alpine's proposing and go back to just analyzing the Alpine tower as it stands today, what does the math tell you? MR. SHANAHAN: There will be overstresses in several sections of the tower. MS. JAHN: All right. Let's go on to that second part, that K-factor. What is a K-factor? MR. SHANAHAN: It's a structural parameter used in the calculation of the allowable compressive strength of a member, and what it does is describe the way the ends of the member are connected, and the amount -- the ability of that member to rotate. MS. JAHN: Okay. And are there different K-factor braces -- K-factors for braces that are bolted to a tower than there are for braces that are welded to a tower? MR. SHANAHAN: Generally speaking, yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. And why are they different? MR. SHANAHAN: Like I said, they take into account the ability of the end of the member to rotate. Generally, a welded member can't rotate the same way that, say, a brace fixed with a single bolt can rotate. So the K-factor of 1.0 represents that ability to rotate freely, you know, without a single bolt, and you'd use a K-factor lower than 1 to represent a condition where there's some resistance to rotation. February 8, 2022 Page 36 MS. JAHN: Is this basically a measure of flex in the tower? MR. SHANAHAN: Sort of, yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Just trying to take it back to lay terms. I know it's not as nuanced as an engineer would think of it. But, basically, are bolted braces more flexible than welded braces? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. And does a stiffer brace mean a stronger tower? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Commissioners, I'm just showing some excerpts of TIA code that were included in Mr. Shanahan's report, and this is just talking about the K-factor that has to be used. What is the K-factor that you used in your analysis? MR. SHANAHAN: I used a K-factor of 1.0 for the braces, which neglects their ability to rotate. MS. JAHN: Okay. And prior to Alpine's documents that they released in January -- I believe it's January 24th, 2022, so sticking with their April -- or their August analysis, what K-factor were they using? MR. SHANAHAN: K-factor of less than one. MS. JAHN: And what is that K-factor for? MR. SHANAHAN: That's to represent some partial fixity at the end of the brace from a weld or from a double-bolt connection. MS. JAHN: Okay. So you used a K-factor for a bolted tower. They used a K-factor for a welded tower, essentially? MR. SHANAHAN: Sort of, yeah. MS. JAHN: Again, I'm reducing. What does this slide just show, real quick? MR. SHANAHAN: This is what I'm using to substantiate my use of a K-factor of 1. Basically what that segment says is that for the tower construction we have, which is a brace with two bolts at the February 8, 2022 Page 37 end, when this bolt is -- when that connection is made only to a gusset plate, not to the tower leg, you cannot consider it to be partially restrained against rotation in the out-of-plain direction. MS. JAHN: Okay. So that tells you what K-factor to use? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. And what is this an excerpt from? MR. SHANAHAN: This is from the tower code, the TIA222H code, which is adopted by the 2020 Florida Building Code. MS. JAHN: And for those of us who don't live, eat, and breathe towers, what's the TIA code? MR. SHANAHAN: It is the tower code. MS. JAHN: For structural? MR. SHANAHAN: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. I'm sorry. It's the structural code. MS. JAHN: Okay. I'm showing you a slide with a picture and then also with a diagram on it. What does it depict? MR. SHANAHAN: This shows the way that the Alpine tower is constructed. You can see that the ends of the braces are connected to gusset plates with two bolts, but they are not connected directly to the tower leg. MS. JAHN: Okay. And when you -- when you apply the 1.0 K-factor, what are your findings? MR. SHANAHAN: When I analyze the tower with a K-factor of 1.0, I find significantly more failing diagonals than Alpine's analysis and also than I found when I reran the tower using a K-factor of lower than 1.0. MS. JAHN: Okay. And I'm adding red chevrons with labels that say "failing diagonals." Do these correspond to your report? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes, the September 2021 report I issued. MS. JAHN: Okay. So your most recent report? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. February 8, 2022 Page 38 MS. JAHN: And, again, what is this showing? MR. SHANAHAN: Showing a substantial number of failing diagonals throughout the tower. MS. JAHN: How many diagonals are failing under your report? MR. SHANAHAN: Under the heaviest loading scenario, including the full Verizon deployment, that's 195 diagonals. MS. JAHN: Okay. And when you say "heaviest loading scenario," what do you mean by that, just in real terms using names? MR. SHANAHAN: Sure. I mean all the existing radio tenants that are going to stay; I mean the full AT&T collocation, the full Altius collocation, and the full Verizon deployment. MS. JAHN: Okay. That's 195 diagonals. All right. So, Mr. Shanahan, just to summarize, how many diagonal cross-braces are failing? MR. SHANAHAN: A hundred ninety-five. MS. JAHN: Okay. Do you have any other remarks on the Alpine tower or its foundation? MR. SHANAHAN: Under the heaviest loading scenario that we just discussed, I found that the inner guy anchors are overstressed. MS. JAHN: Okay. I'm going to back up this slide real quick so that way we have our -- a clean view of it. What are these diagonal lines extending out from the tower? MR. SHANAHAN: Those represent the guys that stabilize the tower, and there are two radiuses of anchor points. MS. JAHN: Okay. And which one is the inner anchor? MR. SHANAHAN: The one located in the middle of the page. MS. JAHN: Okay. Am I pointing the mouse at it? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. So under the full loading, you're finding that these foundations are insufficient? February 8, 2022 Page 39 MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Thank you. Are these failures significant, Mr. Shanahan? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. The structure needs to be brought into compliance with all the applicable codes before any new loading can be added or any loading can be changed. MS. JAHN: And are -- as a structural engineer, do you consider the repairs to this structure significant to bring it into compliance with the TAI code? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. All right. So that's the conclusion of what Mr. Shanahan has to say about structural analyses. We could go into more detail, but I'm trying to not -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. MS. JAHN: -- romp too off. I'm trying to touch on a very heavy subject as lightly as possible. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you for that. MS. JAHN: Thank you. Yes, sir. Does the Board have any questions for Mr. Shanahan before he sits down? And, again, he is yours all day. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have one quick question, and it has to do with what I thought I heard with a representation from -- because there's a timeline here between your analysis and when Alpine did their analysis and diagnosis. Was there work performed -- I have two questions. Was there work performed after you did your initial analysis that would allow them to abide by a different outcome than yours? MR. SHANAHAN: No. It's my understanding that the last modifications made to the tower were in 2011. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And then, two, did they -- and so your understanding is no work's been done since you February 8, 2022 Page 40 did your -- since you did your report? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Number two, how were you gaining access to the tower to do your inspections? MR. SHANAHAN: All the information was made available from Alpine's engineers. So I was relying on their inputs and outputs to create my math. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. So it's based upon -- so the subsurface structural anchor points and things were given to you by their engineer -- MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- and you did your analysis from that without a physical inspection? THE WITNESS: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. MS. JAHN: If I may follow up on that. So without a physical inspection, what does that do to this analysis? Does it show any deterioration that could have occurred in the field? MR. SHANAHAN: No. I made a standard assumption that most of us engineers make which is that the tower is in good condition and structurally sound and has been well maintained, and all those assumptions and limitations are stated within my report. MS. JAHN: Okay. And so would it be fair to say that your analysis is -- basically shows the towers on the best day? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. All right. That's it for Mr. Shanahan. Please take a seat. I'm going to run through some items from the record real quick and try to get moving here. So Florida -- you have in the record a letter from Florida February 8, 2022 Page 41 Tel-Con, and they are the company that performed the 2011 modifications to the Alpine tower. So they've been on the tower and done work, and this is what they do. And they reviewed Mr. Shanahan's model as well as the members that are called out in his report that are needed to bring the tower into compliance to the TIA code, and they provide various estimates on screen here. And this is for the different loadings. Loading -- Mod Scenario 3 is the one that shows all of Verizon, AT&T/FirstNet, and Altius; that's 1,091,300. But even if you were just doing the minimum Verizon deployment, you're at 861,000. That is separate from the guy anchor foundation modifications of an additional $18,400. I'm also going to direct you now to 5.09 -- or 05.09.D.3. This is a section of the code that was made -- we discussed this rather extensively last time. This has the notice provision where we're supposed to go out and perform the inquiry that we did over the summer with Alpine saying, what's the state of your tower? What's -- here's our loading. What's the state of your tower? Which we did. And once you finish that, you come down to Paragraph 3 -- or Paragraph D here. And it says that shared use of towers of the height of a hundred -- 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 antennas and ancillary equipment. And you go through the notice process and ask for the data and do your analysis. And then after that it says, if it's been determined that -- when you come down to Sub 3 -- that the tower owner will allow structural changes, whether the tower can accommodate the proposed antenna if reasonable structural changes are made. If so, the applicant shall specify what structural -- the applicant shall specify what structural February 8, 2022 Page 42 changes would be required and an approximation of costs of such changes from the applicant under your code. This is just the black letter. If the costs of the required changes are financially impractical, such tower shall be deemed unavailable to the applicant, full stop. That's the way your code treats your existing towers. The applicant makes a showing of what repairs are needed, and the applicant provides an approximation of cost, and if that's impracticable, like, say, 800,000 to a million dollars, then that tower becomes -- goes away under the code. It legally doesn't exist as an alternate. All right. This is Verizon's letter from Jhonathan Montenegro. He is here. Mr. Montenegro, I don't have -- in the interest of time, I don't have a direct presentation for him, but I'm going to bring him up so that way he is here and available for any questions that you may have, and we'll try using the hand mic here, so that way we can keep you -- can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Try it again. MS. JAHN: Can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. MS. JAHN: All right. Would you please state your name and address for the record. MR. MONTENEGRO: Yes. My name is Jhonathan Montenegro. I reside at 7083 Copperfield Circle, Lake Worth, Florida, 33467. MS. JAHN: Okay. And do you recognize this letter? MR. MONTENEGRO: I do recognize that letter, yes. MS. JAHN: And how do you recognize it? MR. MONTENEGRO: I put this letter together, along with my team, to basically present to the Board to make our case to allow this tower to get built. MS. JAHN: All right. And what is your position within February 8, 2022 Page 43 Verizon? MR. MONTENEGRO: I am currently the senior real estate manager, and I oversee all macro new installs as well as macro modifications in the Florida submarket, which consists of over 4,000 cell towers. MS. JAHN: Okay. And just to get back to real-world terms, for those who don't eat, breathe, sleep cell towers, what does macro mean? MR. MONTENEGRO: Macro means existing big towers, if you will. Not small cells, not those light-pole-type deals, but full-blown towers. MS. JAHN: Okay. And this right here, what is this what I'm showing you, this new with the excerpt on it? MR. MONTENEGRO: This is basically a paragraph stating our support for the Capital tower and stating why we want to go on that tower. MS. JAHN: And, Commissioners, I am adding some highlights. The structural modifications required for the equipment would exceed the cost to construct multiple towers. Because of the challenges with the Alpine tower, Verizon will continue to require a replacement tower site near the Alpine tower in the event the Capital tower were to be denied. Are those your words? MR. MONTENEGRO: Yes. MS. JAHN: Okay. Mr. Montenegro is available for any questions that you may have, if you'd like him to discuss impracticality. He can't go into too deep of details, but we can talk about what the -- what investing money into the Alpine tower, what sinking money into it would do to the market. As a matter of fact, what would that do? MR. MONTENEGRO: Yeah. So I can speak in the business terms, right. The typical way that we approach any of these towers February 8, 2022 Page 44 or any of our modifications is we take a look at what the plan, the RF plan for this tower would be, how much it would cost to install, and how much it would -- and that has a rent and a modification, if necessary, cost tied to that, as well as what it would do for our customers. So then a business decision needs to be made based on lease terms, based on business terms across the board as to how we proceed. So in this case the tower was too expensive to modify. It was failing significantly. We hadn't been able to touch the tower in a very long time, and our customers in the area were suffering because of that. So as a business decision, we decided to bring in a third party to build the tower for us so that we can deploy all of our seven lanes of highway, as Maria put it, so that we can benefit the customers in the area. MS. JAHN: And just to bring us back to the real world as far as business decisions, when you're looking at the Southwest Florida market, do you have an unlimited amount of money, a money tree that you can go pick funds off of to build your deployments? MR. MONTENEGRO: No, not even close. I mean, we have a very careful budget that's laid out year over year, and based on that budget for the whole state of Florida, for the whole submarket of the Southeast and for the whole country, then we get a piece of the pie, if you will, in order to invest it into certain locations. MS. JAHN: Okay. If you put more of that into one site, does it take money away from other projects? MR. MONTENEGRO: Yes, it does. So we would lose our ability to either do modifications to existing towers to add more new equipment. And when I mean modifications, I mean technical modifications, not structural modifications, and it would also take away from building brand-new towers, whether they be macro cell sites or small cells. February 8, 2022 Page 45 MS. JAHN: Okay. All right. That's all I have for my questions for you. Do you have any questions for Mr. Montenegro at this time? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think, Ms. Jahns [sic], you spoke earlier saying that the Verizon -- if the new tower is built, they have three or four other national carriers you're going to add to this tower; is that correct? MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn again. And Verizon's not adding those other carriers. Those carriers are coming to the Capital tower on their own accord. So immediately, straight off the bat, the Capital tower has Verizon because they're the ones who needed the tower first, but AT&T would jump on as well for their commercial and their FirstNet deployment, and Altius is also planning to jump on to the tower immediately for wireless broadband. The other side of that coin is that Capital is designing this tower giving it the structural capacity under the code where it could support all four national carriers if they all need to collocate on this. So it's one tower to serve -- with the ability to serve all carriers, and they're going to make those spaces -- they've committed in the record of your conditional use to make those spaces available at market rates, not some heightened rate or anything like that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm going to save the bulk of the questions till the end, but I just want to ask this one. Does the current Alpine tower have the FirstNet, you know, the first responder equipment on it? Or that would be an add that we haven't had before? MS. JAHN: So the current Alpine tower has nothing AT&T on February 8, 2022 Page 46 it. It doesn't have their commercial or their FirstNet. They have not collocated. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: The FirstNet's something that's an AT&T product? MS. JAHN: Correct. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right, okay. MS. JAHN: It's an AT&T -- it's an AT&T service. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So how -- you know, I guess in laymen's terms, let's just say for the sake of argument all of a sudden the FirstNet equipment was put on the Alpine tower or it was put on yours -- we haven't made that decision yet -- how would that -- and you might not have this expertise. It might be somebody else from our county staff. I'm just wondering how that would bolster or improve our first responder response. I mean, is the simple answer, greater coverage, stronger signal that they don't have now? I mean, obviously, it would be some sort of improvement. I'm just wondering how much of an improvement. And if it's a huge improvement, then why hasn't AT&T put that equipment on the Alpine tower, you know, previously? And you may or may not know that answer. I'm just really focused on that. MS. JAHN: Yeah. So just talking from my knowledge of the history of this site and of AT&T's network, as someone who's been attached to 200 tower projects over the past going nine -- going on nine years, the AT&T system is a separate system that is separated from your local county system. You have a proprietary county system, and then you have AT&T's FirstNet system, which is a federal government program. So wherever you see the AT&T coverage, that's basically the coverage area for this FirstNet deployment going back to those AT&T maps. AT&T is currently not collocated on the Alpine tower, so they currently have no service February 8, 2022 Page 47 whatsoever out there. So there's no commercial service; there's no FirstNet service. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I don't know why Verizon's hurting for money. I mean, my bill's huge every month. So I don't know what you guys are doing with the money. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, that's a great lead-in to my question, and it comes back around to the question of the cost associated with the expansion or the enhancements to the tower. Who determines your ROI? Because, I mean, at the end of the day, this sounds to me like an expense-oriented decision that you're making with regard to the cell service and the capacity that can, in fact, be provided. There's evidence here that shows that it's -- in order to accommodate all three of the large carriers, it's close to a million-dollar expense. Under the terms of the agreement and the lease, who bears that expense, the owner of the tower and passes it on -- well, I'm looking at you. MR. MONTENEGRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Because you were the one that was going on about the business decision that you made with regard to the expense associated. So traditionally, who bears that expense? MR. MONTENEGRO: Yeah. So per the lease that we have currently with Alpine, that cost lies on the carrier, so in this case it would be Verizon. And the letter that Mattaniah showed earlier on that showed the cost, it showed that just doing the one modification for Verizon, not accounting for the other three or four, was $800,000 plus. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I saw that, yep. MR. MONTENEGRO: And just to kind of put it in context, a typical modification that we would barely approve, you know, just from an overall business perspective, would be $150,000. That would be kind of the max that we would approve before looking to February 8, 2022 Page 48 relocate to another location. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Because at the end of the day, it boils back to your annual lease payment for what you have to do -- or for the tower that you're associated with? MR. MONTENEGRO: Yes and no, because I think we also -- when we're looking at the interest of our customers in the area, right -- you mentioned RI -- it's a very complicated calculation to make for ROI because it depends on how many customers are in the area, what the growth is in the area. But overall, allowing or being able to bring 5G to this area basically relies on us being able to go on a new tower, yeah. MS. JAHN: I'm sorry. I was going to jump in with a question. Have you completed your answer? MR. MONTENEGRO: You can go ahead and ask me. MS. JAHN: Just to talk about budgets again, is this project that you're working on on Benton Road an isolated project for Verizon? MR. MONTENEGRO: No. MS. JAHN: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's isolated from me, though. MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand their business determinations throughout the state and where they're expending their money, but I'm also looking at the impact for my community and this new tower request that's going in my community, not Verizon's ROI over the entire state and where they're investing their money and what rate of return they think they deserve to receive for their capital expenditures. MS. JAHN: Understood, sir. And your code does turn on whether these modifications are impracticable, just drawing back to your code. But, Mr. Montenegro, do you have other projects in Collier February 8, 2022 Page 49 County that you're trying to use budget on to serve the rest of the Collier County population? MR. MONTENEGRO: Yes, we are. There are. As you very well know -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I do. MR. MONTENEGRO: -- you know, we've had conversations. We're trying to upgrade the current -- the current towers that we have in the area as well as add new ones wherever possible. So spending whatever money it takes to do something like this on one tower will take away from being able to do things in other areas. MS. JAHN: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Does the Board have any other questions for Mr. Montenegro while he is here? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm going to save mine for the end. I have some, but we're going to hear from Alpine, obviously. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of course, and staff. MS. JAHN: All right. Mr. Montenegro, you can sit down. MR. MONTENEGRO: Thank you. MS. JAHN: And I'm just going to wrap this up really quick in the interest of time. So neighbor interactions, we've held two community meetings, one in July 2019 and one November 2020. We had neighbors attend and staff from Alpine attend. There was discussion along the way about maintenance of Benton Road. That led to conditions that are in this approval requiring Capital to pay its fair share for the maintenance of Benton Road. Along the way you may have seen emails from a Dan McMahon. He is a neighbor who lives over a mile off to the northeast off of Woodlands Estates Road, and his concern is the portion further to the south where Benton Road and Woodlands February 8, 2022 Page 50 Estates Road overlap each other. He wanted to make sure that the -- that maintenance was provided for that section. And we -- even though the condition of approval was always contemplated to do that, we modified that condition of approval to specifically state Woodlands Estates Road in the face of the condition. Another thing with Mr. McMahon, we've had ongoing -- we've had discussions with him on and off. So, like, for example, we made a modification to the way that we manage the preserves. That way it doesn't have burns because he was sensitive -- there was sensitivity due to unfortunate losses in the wildfire that happened out there. Running through environmental compliance, you will see in the record the Preserve Management Plan. This preserve's 90 percent of the native vegetation on the property. This corresponds -- this is the Preserve Management Plan from the record, and this corresponds to the other plans that you've seen, so you can see the tower in the southwest corner of the property, and then you can see all of the hashing for the preserve itself. This has been reviewed by your staff. It's in compliance with your preserve management code. This is also -- I am showing you the U.S. Fish and Wildlife concurrency for listed species on -- and you can see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife stamp up there showing that they have determined that there's impacts to endangered species. There is a continual monitoring process as they get closer to construction where they have to walk the site. At the last hearing, Meredith Budd and Bradley Cornell, so with the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Florida Audubon, both commented at the hearing. One of the things that you sent us back for, Ms. Taylor, was to go through and hash this out and address their concerns. And their concerns went back to limitations on marker lighting so that the lights that are on the tower, making sure those February 8, 2022 Page 51 would not attract birds. Lighting in the compound, so any work lights that are down there, which the impounds aren't lit, but if there's any type of a work light over a stand. And then also inspection for birds' nests prior to construction. And so we committed on the record, and it's in your report that the lighting -- the marker lighting on the tower will be limited in its candelas. They also committed that if there's any type of work lighting put down in the compound, it will be on timers or motion sensors so that way there's not just lights on. And then they also committed that Capital's biologist will visually inspect the development footprint within the 30 days prior to any clearing actions, going out there and doing clearing for the project for birds' nests containing eggs or juvenile birds. And if they find any, then they will follow the Migratory Bird Treaty Act's procedures for dealing with that. Then the only other thing that came up with -- with Ms. Budd and Mr. Cornell is they would like Capital to switch to a lattice-style tower that doesn't have guy wires. So right now you have a guyed 1,016-foot-tall tower out there, and the Capital tower's proposed to be guyed. They are going to be providing -- the way it's currently shown on the plans is that it's a guy tower, and they are going to be providing the code-required bird diverters so they meet the requirements of your code. If the Board would like that to be switched to a lattice tower instead of a guyed tower, Capital will -- is agreeable to do that. I just kind of walk in with the lattice design and keep my job. All right. I'm going to take and skip the conditional use elements. You have that all analyzed. And, again, this goes back to if -- from a compatibility standpoint under your zoning code, this would normally be permitted. So I'm not going to take up your time February 8, 2022 Page 52 with that. That concludes my direct presentation. I'm sure Alpine has stuff that they're going to be talking about, and we'll come back up and discuss it. I reserve remaining time for rebuttal. I and my team are available for any questions that you have at this point. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I see no one with any questions. And before we go to Alpine's presentation, we're going to give Terri a break. How much you want, 10 or 15? THE COURT REPORTER: Ten is fine. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. We'll be back at 10:35. (A brief recess was had from 10:24 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.) MR. ISACKSON: Chair McDaniel, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about that? How about that? Where's the County Attorney at? He made a comment yesterday something about McDaniel unbound with nobody -- oh, Commissioner Taylor's here, so I can't go unleashed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You just called the meeting to order. You can't go unleashed. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I could do whatever I want. I said 10:35. If you all don't get back here, we'll be voting on this just with who I have. I think we're back to four of us anyway. I don't know where Commissioner Solis went. Let's go ahead and hear -- I believe we're going to hear from the Alpine folks now, or do you want to hear -- do you want to hear from staff first? Alpine first? Yes, let's do the Alpine folks, okay. MS. FINK: Okay. Good morning. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning. Good morning. Forgive me. MS. FINK: Good morning. Good afternoon, Commissioners, Counsel, and members of the audience. My name is Linda Fink, and February 8, 2022 Page 53 I'm here with Forsyth and Brugger. We're a law firm in Naples, Florida, who represents the Alpine tower. With us today we also have John Robinson, who is the engineer and vice president of structural engineering for Electronics Research, who's taking care of the Alpine tower over all these years, and we have also Al Baxa, who's chief engineer, and some other engineers and Alpine staff that can come up and speak on anything that anyone has questions about today. And as you're already aware, we represent WAVV FM, Alpert Tower here in Collier County. We've prepared this presentation to reiterate our objections to the Capital Tower Telecom Holdings development of a 225-foot above-ground level telecommunications tower as applied for, which seeks approval of the conditional use and would allow the development of the tower. We respectfully ask for your consideration today of the facts as to why an additional tower located only several hundred feet away from the existing tower is unnecessary and not in harmony with the current Land Development Code, Section 5.05.09, communications towers. As stated by Mr. Klatzkow at the Collier County Planning Commission this past March, the key issue to be determined pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code turns on whether or not an existing tower can accommodate an applicant's proposed equipment if the existing tower agrees to allow structural changes to accommodate that proposed equipment, which is standard in the industry and, finally, if the costs of any structural changes are financially feasible. If you read the code as it pertains to communications towers, the code's purpose is to keep the natural landscape from being peppered with cell phone towers. This is precisely why an applicant shall not be approved unless the applicant demonstrates that no old tower February 8, 2022 Page 54 within the effective radius can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary equipment. This intent is actually stated under 5.05.09.A, and I quote, to minimize adverse visual impacts of towers and antennas and to minimize the need to construct new towers. The purpose of the code is also to preserve the environmental integrity of the area. The proposed tower location is within a Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District overlay in the North Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area. This area is what is called Sending Lands, which are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include uplands and habitat for listed species. Based upon this, the planning and development codes were written to retain a rural, pastoral, and parklike appearance. In that spirit, attendees at the July 19th, 2019, neighborhood information meeting voiced their opposition to the proposed Capital tower and, as was stated by one neighborhood speaker, we don't want to live in an antenna farm. Again, an applicant shall not be approved unless the applicant demonstrates that no old tower within the effective radius can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary equipment. The Commission's decision as to whether to allow the Capital Verizon tower to be built is not to be taken lightly. Not only is it important to uphold the purpose of the Collier County land code, but for our clients, Alpine Tower's very reputation is in the hands of the commissioners and may determine the future of Alpine Tower. A decision that the tower is structurally inadequate and, therefore, unavailable to Verizon may very well discourage new tenants or make apprehensive existing tenants, and Alpine Tower is certain that a determination by this commission that the Alpine tower is structurally inadequate will be used by Capital Tower in future February 8, 2022 Page 55 negotiations for the placement of new tenants. Although Alpine Tower's engineers' electronic research have submitted very clear rebuttals to each of Capital Telecom's alleged contentions that the Alpine's is structurally inadequate, it is the very nature of the engineering aspect of this dispute that makes it difficult for laymen, the majority of us, to know which side is factually correct. And so that's why we're here today, to shed some nonengineering light on what's been transpiring over the past months since Capital has submitted the loading requirements specifically on May 17th, 2021. Capital Telecom has sought to paint the Alpine tower in an unfavorable light and make an end run around the Collier County land-use code starting with the application process when, although our land code requires it, no inquiry was made to Alpine as to whether or not the tower could accommodate Verizon, AT&T, and Altius' antenna loading requirements. Instead, the application stated conclusively that the Alpine Tower is unavailable to Verizon for the purposes of its updated antenna deployment. To support this contention, Capital attached to its application a 2018 Alpine tower failing structural report performed on Verizon's behalf. This report allegedly presented conclusive evidence of a failing Alpine tower. Capital's engineers allege that the Alpine tower legs were overstressed, making it appear as though the tower was unable to support the proposed loading; however, their analysis was based upon incomplete and outdated information. The Alpine tower was fabricated by Kline Iron and Steel Company, and in 2019, Alpine engineers purchased the original Kline manufacturer's drawings, which are the correct data source for any foundation analysis. On April 27th, 2021, in front of this commission we addressed February 8, 2022 Page 56 Capital's faulty structural report when we presented Alpine Tower's April 19th, 2021, analysis review performed by Alpine's engineers which pointed out incorrect values of gust effect factors applied to the top of the cantilevered portion of the tower. But when applying the correct gust factors, the tower is shown to be well within capacity to support the loading requirements proposed by Verizon, AT&T, and Altius. That day we also addressed and corrected other misstatements made by Capital at the March 18th, 2021, Planning Commission. Capital had stated things such as the tower is not using modern antennas that have higher traffic and coverage capacity and that the tower is over 40 years old and outdated. All misleading statements. First, the tower is a structure that acts as a placeholder for cellular companies to attach their equipment. The tower is not providing any communication service from its actual structure. When people complain of a lack of coverage in an area, it has nothing to do with the tower per se. It's the provider's equipment like Verizon or AT&T that is mounted on a tower that provides the service and upgrades in service, not the tower itself. Reliable and unreliable coverage is due to the carrier's equipment mounted onto the tower. Verizon may lack coverage because their equipment is lacking. Second, this tower has been analyzed under the applicable Verizon -- version of the American National Standards Institute and the Telecommunications Industry Association standard, which is the standard for all communications towers, and the Florida Building Code, for every equipment change proposed since the tower was built in 1986. The Alpine tower has been upgraded to maintain compliance with all applicable design standards at the time of any equipment change. This is standard practice in the industry, and this practice is February 8, 2022 Page 57 recognized by the land code, as the land code itself states, an applicant must inquire if an owner will allow structural changes to accommodate an applicant's proposed equipment. Regarding the proposed equipment to be placed on the Alpine tower, it is worth mentioning that although Capital had stated in its application back in 2018 that Alpine Tower was not structurally adequate to accommodate Capital's loading requirements, Capital's correspondence on May 17th, 2021, when Capital finally did provide the loading requirements to Alpine Tower, states that Capital was unable to send this inquiry prior to this date as it did not receive the last of the final deployment load-out information until May 17th, 2021. How, then, is it that in December of 2018 Capital could definitively state that Alpine lacks structural capacity if Capital was unaware itself of the load-out requirements? Capital, on behalf of Verizon, had already made up its mind that they wanted to build their own tower, and that was going to be the end goal. Alpine Tower and their engineers set the record straight, and there are logical explanations as to why Capital's engineering analyses are wrong in showing that the Alpine tower is structurally inadequate. Contrary to what Capital alleges, Alpine Tower is ready, willing, and structurally sound and able to place all three loading scenarios onto the tower. Capital may have a letter of intent from about a year ago as to AT&T; however, AT&T has already paid their deposit to be collocated onto the Alpine Tower and the parts for reinforcement have already been fabricated and on their way to be mounted onto the Alpine Tower in these next few weeks. Despite contentions by Capital that the Alpine Tower is structurally inadequate to handle the loading scenarios, AT&T independently found the opposite. It is worth noting that AT&T's February 8, 2022 Page 58 equipment system includes a network disaster recovery program that is one of the largest and most advanced of its kind, including what AT&T has dubbed FirstNet, a nationwide wireless communications platform dedicated to first responders and the public safety community. It is backed by Congress and aligns with Homeland Security's National Incident Management System. The purpose is to rapidly restore communications to areas affected by disasters. AT&T was also just recognized as the 2021 Company of the Year by the United States public safety solutions industry. AT&T has a nationwide network of data centers collocated with existing 911 databases across the U.S. which provide pre-deployed call processing with capacity to support twice the current volumes. AT&T's engineers did not find Alpine Tower outdated and structurally unsound. Rather, AT&T chose to place their state-of-the-art equipment onto the Alpine tower in support of their long-term strategy to provide their products, platforms, and solutions. Just as important, the structural modifications for AT&T's equipment were found to be financially feasible, have already been fabricated by Alpine's engineers, and are scheduled to be installed. Despite what Capital would have you to believe, the modifications to accommodate the loading scenarios do not run from 800,000 to over a million dollars. Estimated cost for Verizon's Loading Scenario 1 is approximately $44,000, while Verizon and Altius's Loading Scenario 2 runs approximately $77,000. AT&T is not included on these budget scenarios because AT&T is already in process of being added. Capital engineers have submitted such an exorbitant estimate for modifications to the tower due to using an incorrect length for the fabricated diagonals that brace the tower's structure in conjunction with what is called a K-factor. A K-factor is a measure of how rigidly the ends of a structural member are connected to another February 8, 2022 Page 59 member. Their error is in using a diagonal length in their calculations that is longer than the true length of the diagonals on the actual tower, which are, in reality, cut much shorter so that they can be bolted to the gusset plates. When the true brace lengths are used to calculate, there are significant gains in strength, as a shorter brace is stronger and less likely to buckle than a longer brace of the same diameter. Alpine tower's foundations are not overstressed. The tower's inner and outer anchors possess sufficient steel reinforcement and are not in need of any modification. In addition, the Alpine tower members are well within capacity to support the analyzed loads. These are the pieces that form the structure of the tower itself. In addition, despite repeated evidence to the contrary, Capital continued to allege that the anchor bolts of the tower were structurally inadequate under the current TIA 222 standard. This contention resurfaced in almost every correspondence since May but was finally put to rest and acknowledged by Capital that the existing tower bolts are adequate under the current building code. Most important, Alpine takes issue with the basis of the Collier County Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval of the Capital Telecom tower for both the March 18th, 2021, recommendation of approval and the Planning Commission's subsequent recommendation of approval after the April 27th, 2011, BCC hearing. The March 18th, 2021, Planning Commission's recommendation for approval was, as aforementioned, based upon an application which did not comply with the Collier County land code, as no inquiry was made as to the tower's availability and capacity to load the equipment. February 8, 2022 Page 60 Furthermore, Capital's analysis attached to said application in support of the contention that the tower lacked structural capacity had no opposition at the time and was since proven faulty. The recommendation of the Planning Commission merely reiterated the applicant's answer to staff comments dated July 10th, 2019, regarding Alpine Tower's objection letter. In fact, at the March 18th Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Paul Shea voted not to approve the proposed Capital tower stating, and I quote, as an engineer I can guarantee you that that tower can be made structurally adequate to carry whatever is going on. Commissioner Karl Fry then stated he supported what Mr. Shea had said and only voted yes because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. No technical evidence had been presented at the time by Alpine because, as we all know, at that time Alpine had not been approached by Capital and was, therefore, placed at a significant disadvantage at that planning board meeting. It was also stated by Commissioner Fry, why would we have two towers when we could -- when one could do the job? The executive summary provided to this commission in anticipation of the January 25th, 2022, meeting, now today, states that the Planning Commission's conclusion to recommend approval is based upon a letter from Verizon dated October 20th, 2021, which establishes the need for the Capital tower. The Verizon letter addressed to Mr. Raymond Bellows states in pertinent part, based upon the structural integrity and load capacity of the existing Alpine tower, it is the conclusion of Verizon that the existing Alpine tower does not provide the capacity to handle the load of the requested equipment arrangement and, thus, establishes the need for the additional Capital tower. It is incredulous that the determining factor for the Planning February 8, 2022 Page 61 Commission's recommendation of approval is Verizon's own self-serving determination that the Alpine tower lacks capacity to handle Verizon's equipment. Let us not forget that it is Verizon who hired Capital to petition this commission in the first place to allow the construction of the tower. There have been countless submissions by Alpine Tower to this commission rebutting Capital's contentions that the tower is structurally unsound. The Planning Commission's decision is not founded upon any engineering submissions nor any sworn testimony at the last BCC meeting but a letter written to Mr. Ray Bellows, zoning manager for Collier County, from Jhonathan Montenegro, senior manager of real estate for Verizon. In the same letter, Mr. Montenegro states the need for additional coverage was first determined back in 2018, and so Verizon had an internal review and structural analysis performed by third parties by which Verizon determined the Alpine tower was not a feasible candidate to place its equipment on. Note that Alpine Tower at that time was never given the opportunity to perform an analysis of Verizon's proposed equipment. Mr. Montenegro states, structural modifications required for that equipment would exceed the cost to construct multiple new towers, and given that, in 2018, Verizon requested Capital Telecom to find a location to construct a new tower near the Alpine tower capable of supporting its equipment. In December of 2018, Capital filed its application. The third-party internal report that Mr. Montenegro of Verizon refers to is the aforementioned structural analysis report, the failing report, completed on July 17, 2018, attached to Capital's application. This is the same structural analysis report that Capital Tower engineers rebutted and was found to be faulty. Evidence of any extraordinary cost in the form of a proposal or February 8, 2022 Page 62 budget was never a part of Capital's application. It was prepared on October 7th, 2021. It follows that the cost deterrent was not a factor at all in Verizon's decision to seek approval of a new tower to begin with. In addition, as previously stated, these costs are based upon faulty information contained in Capital's latest engineering report for which Alpine's engineers had submitted a detailed rebuttal on January 24th, 2022, as to why their conclusion that the tower is structurally inadequate is wrong. Note that since the neighborhood meeting when Alpine found out that -- Verizon's intent to build a new tower, Alpine had contacted Mr. Montenegro of Verizon a number of times being that Verizon is an existing tenant on Alpine tower right now. They called to discuss; however, Mr. Montenegro had refused to return Alpine's calls. Capital has been attempting to mislead this board into thinking that this structure is not structurally adequate or that it will be too expensive to make the structural changes to the tower to accommodate the proposed antenna loading. This is simply untrue. Capital even went so far as to insinuate that the Alpine tower is not, in fact, a Kline Iron and Steel manufactured tower. In a letter dated July 8th, 2021, Capital asked Alpine to show that the Kline drawings were used for both the building permit and construction of the Alpine Tower instead of merely being an iterative design on file. Make no mistake, the Alpine tower is a tower designed and manufactured by Kline Iron and Steel Company, the pre-eminent tower manufacturer of the time, the manufacturer of the tower atop the World Trade Center, the Goldman Sachs tower in Jersey City, the Colonial Life Arena in South Carolina, and hundreds more nationally and globally, including mention in the Guinness Book of World Records for the design, fabrication, and construction of the tallest structure in the world, the 2,063-foot KTHI-TV guyed mast station February 8, 2022 Page 63 tower in Fargo, North Dakota, only to be surpassed by a recent few, namely the Burj Khalifa in Dubai and the Tokyo Sky Tree. The KTHI tower is still in service today. Because of Kline's reputation, Norm Alpert contracted Kline to design and build the WAVV tower which was completed in 1986, erected in the spring of 1987, and on air Memorial Day 1987. It has survived and been unaffected through every hurricane that has passed through Collier County since that time of completion. Recently, a tornado passed over the tower with no damage or effects whatsoever to its structure. As proof that the Alpine tower is a Kline tower, Alpine submitted a letter evidencing the Kline proposal and the order placed for the Kline tower as well as a copy of the letter stating that the tower is set for delivery. The tower is over 1,000 feet tall and structurally solid. Let us not forget the importance of a decision and 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. The purpose and intent of the land code is to set standards for construction and facility sitings and is intended to minimize, where applicable, adverse visual impacts of towers and antennas through careful design, siting vegetation screening to maximize the use of specified new communication towers and thereby to minimize the need to construct new towers. As is unambiguously apparent, the driving factor of the land use code is to preserve the integrity of the existing land, addressing both aesthetic concerns and legitimate safety and environmental concerns. Residents have voiced they do not want the landscape peppered with February 8, 2022 Page 64 cells towers, and they do not want an increased risk in fires, not to mention obvious environmental concerns, habitat loss, or disturbance. For Alpine Tower, its owners, employees, and operators being long-time members of this community, it is all that and more. It is also the very reputation of the Alpine tower at stake. We would like to thank this board for their time and attention in this matter, and we submit that Electronics Research analysis reports speak for themselves, the Kline drawings and calculations speak for themselves, AT&T's commitment to collocate onto the Alpine tower speaks for itself, and, ultimately, the Alpine tower speaks for itself. Alpine tower is structurally adequate to accommodate the proposed loading scenarios and, therefore, pursuant to the Collier County land use code, Capital Telecom's application for conditional use should be denied. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. MS. FINK: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for me? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor, she's waving her hand. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not for you, but maybe engineers. I need -- MS. FINK: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I need someone to discuss briefly the argument put forth by Capital regarding the joints and how they're -- they come together, and -- MS. FINK: Absolutely. I'll call up Mr. Robinson, who's vice president of ERI. And if you could, Mr. Robinson, just give a brief description of your position and your credentials. Thank you. MR. ROBINSON: Good morning. My name's John Robinson. I'm the vice president of structural engineering for Electronics Research, Incorporated. February 8, 2022 Page 65 My past job history, I've worked for them 23 years, going on my 24th. Overall, I probably have 30 years' experience working on structures like these. I want to thank the Collier County Commissioners for allowing me to speak on behalf of one of our good clients, Alpine Broadcasting. The three things I want to point out, per Mrs. Taylor's request, number one, when they were -- when Mr. Shanahan was up here, he said there was incorrect member sizes in our tower analysis. Well, those members were the planned AT&T that should be on the tower within the next three weeks, Al? MR. BAXA: Yes. MR. ROBINSON: Next three weeks. Those modifications will be installed. When we took on this project for Alpine on this analysis, we included those because they were planned, and we considered them existing. The second, on the K-factors, I want to -- I want to point out on the K-factors Mr. Shanahan said he used a K-factor of 1. We agree with that, but we used a K-factor less than 1 to account for the smaller, unbraced -- actual unbraced length per the Kline drawings which resulted in a stronger diagonal, and it reduced the amount of reinforcement needed to accommodate the revised -- the revised -- excuse me -- Verizon and Altius communications loading. There was two different scenarios. I think Ms. Fink explained those and explained the prices on them. They reduced that significantly from the quote that the -- that Capital presented. And the third thing on the foundations, we find those foundations adequate using the geotechnical report that was designed for the tower and all the original foundation drawings. Is there any questions? February 8, 2022 Page 66 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. There was some description about the bolts and the way the members are connected to each other and that there's more flexibility in one rather than the other which renders the other more unstable, I think that's the way this went. Can you speak to that, please. MR. ROBINSON: Yes. That's what's forcing the K-1, as Mr. Shanahan was explaining. It's connected to a gusset plate, which is not directly connected to a leg; therefore, you can't take any partial stiffness in those two bolts, and you use a K-factor of 1. That's for a perfect pin flexible connection. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so? Understanding that this is Greek to me, what's your conclusion? The way that these members are fastened together are solid? MR. ROBINSON: Yes, that's a very strong connection. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that the length of the members, because they're shorter than perhaps longer ones, therefore, they had more strength. That I can understand. MR. ROBINSON: Yes, yes. Those connections are proper. They have the strength. And, again, if you didn't take that into consideration, you could use a K-factor for the end connections, lowering one, and make it more stronger. But due to the fact they're connected to that plate and they can move in and it's -- I'm -- you know, you've got to look at it in two dimensions. You've got to look at it within the -- that the diagonal buckling within the face -- tell me if you don't understand. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I understand that. MR. ROBINSON: And out of face, in the out-of-face controls. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, okay. And who decides -- who decides -- AT&T came and are going to be sited on the Alpine tower. Do you work -- who works with AT&T to determine what they need in order to brace up the additional February 8, 2022 Page 67 equipment on the tower? MR. ROBINSON: Since we are the tower engineer for Alpine, and Alpine came to us and asked us to analyze that per the loading that was given to us. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. ROBINSON: The loading was given to us by -- Al, can you help me? By MasTec, who was the project manager on this. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So they came to you as the consultant? MR. ROBINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And do we know if AT&T is putting 5G on your tower? MR. ROBINSON: Yes, and including the FirstNet. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Well, he just answered one question. So if AT&T puts additional equipment on the Alpine tower, it will include FirstNet? MR. ROBINSON: That's to my understanding, sir, yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I'm just going to start hitting you with the questions since you're here. I know just enough information to be dangerous, because I had a million of these towers on my bases. Your diagonal cables, are they bolted, welded, or both? MR. ROBINSON: You mean the guy wires? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: The guyed wires, yeah. MR. ROBINSON: They are pin connections. They are connected at the tower with a plate coming out, and there's a -- there's a socket that goes in there, and a pin goes through. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But there's no welding, right? MR. ROBINSON: The plate is -- the plate is usually full February 8, 2022 Page 68 penetrated weld to the tower leg, and then it's connected to the guy -- the top of -- these are drilled shafts. I assume there's a case on head -- what we call case on head, which is plates coming out, and it's connected the same way with a -- with a hairpin -- since these are large wires, with the hairpins that we can adjust the tension on the cables. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. But none of those have any welds or anything, right? So they're fully adjustable? MR. ROBINSON: No, they're -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: How about the anchor bolts at the foundation of the tower; those are all -- that's all bolts, no welds? MR. ROBINSON: There shouldn't be any welds, no. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. It was stated before, materials are on the way for upgrades to the tower. Do you or any representatives from Alpine -- so when are they coming? What's the timeline to do all the upgrades? And what's the total cost? I think it was -- I think you said 40-, 70,000, that, you know, it wasn't a million. I just want a little bit more fidelity in arrival of materials, timeline to upgrade the tower, how much you're spending, and then, you know, my last question after you answer all that will be, would that make the tower sufficient enough to do everything that Verizon and AT&T and even other folks want? I mean, they're disputing that, but I want to hear you say, yes, absolutely. MR. ROBINSON: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So materials arrive when? MR. BAXA: Materials arrive by the end of this week. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. What's the timeline to finish the upgrades? MR. BAXA: It should be done in about two weeks from now. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What's the total cost? February 8, 2022 Page 69 MR. BAXA: Total cost is $44,000. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And what primarily is being done? MR. BAXA: Primarily, they are replacing some of the diagonals in the tower and some of the bracing. THE COURT REPORTER: Can I get your name? MR. BAXA: My name is Al Baxa. I am the chief engineer for Alpine broadcasting WAVV 101 radio and on air. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And you said, again, what was the timeline to do all that upgrade; a week? MR. BAXA: Yeah. The upgrade itself will take about a week once they start. The crew expects to get here, I think, sometime toward the middle of next week. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. This probably isn't for you, but maybe just somebody from Alpine can make a note of this, and then when they come back to the podium, just so we're not sort of running back and forth. But it was stated Alpine was at a, quote, significant disadvantage at the Planning Commission. So I wanted a little bit more detail on why you made that statement. So it doesn't have to be right this second, but maybe just make a note of that. The Capital folks said they're adding a 1,000-gallon fuel tank at the bottom of their tower. Do you have that at the bottom of yours? MR. BAXA: They're talking about the bottom of our tower, and that was put in by Collier County Sheriff's Department. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MR. BAXA: Which is also collocated. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It's already there, then? MR. BAXA: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Already there. MR. BAXA: They had a permit for it, and the -- February 8, 2022 Page 70 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But if they got their tower, they're going to -- they're going to do the same thing, right? They're not going to move the fuel tank from yours to theirs. They're going to add another one. MR. BAXA: Well, Collier County Sheriff's Department is not going to move to that other tower. They're going to stay on our tower, along with other government agencies. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I mean, one of the -- one of the big disputes here is you're doing an upgrade that's way less than a million dollars, you know, according to Capital, but you contend that the upgrades you're going to do in a week are going to make that Alpine tower more than acceptable to the equipment that Verizon and any others want to put on it? MR. BAXA: It will make it acceptable to the equipment that AT&T is putting -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: How about Verizon? MR. BAXA: That would require additional, which would be, I think, what -- what was it, 70 -- MR. ROBINSON: Depending on which loading scenario, $44,000 for the first, and then with the added Altius communications, 70-. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And you're prepared to do that, or they are, to fund that, right? However, the argument is Verizon -- I mean, I'm not going to speak for them, but they thought a million dollars’ worth of upgrades need to be made to your tower in order to -- and that's where you all disagree, right? MR. BAXA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And then, Mike Bosi, just for you -- don't come to the podium yet, but I assume you will, or somebody from the staff. I mean, I read every single document, every single attachment. Buried in one of them was a line saying February 8, 2022 Page 71 that every three years the county inspects this tower and that the next inspection was March 2002 [sic]. I want to know if that's correct. If in March -- if in a month is the next inspection and whether that's true or not. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you mean '22? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, 2022. What did I say? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You said 2002. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 2002. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, yeah, 2022. And then, if that's correct, what were the results of the inspection in 2019, which -- if we do it every three years, or was that -- it was in the documents that I believe Verizon provided, so just sit on that because I think it's important to know, have we been out there every three years? Are we about to go out there in three weeks or four weeks to inspect the Alpine tower as it states the county does? I think it's important for us to know that to get our own assessment on the condition of the tower. But if you -- MR. BAXA: If I could address that. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely. MR. BAXA: We hire a crew to come out and do the inspection. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MR. BAXA: And the inspection is going to be done by the crew that is doing the modifications to the tower when they are here. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So it's not the county? It's no one -- MR. BAXA: It's not the county. The county does not. We just need to submit an inspection report to the county. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So that inspection will be done after these upgrades that are going to take about a week? February 8, 2022 Page 72 MR. BAXA: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Mike, I guess just nod up or down. Does the county have anything to do with this inspection? Because in the letter or the report, it said, Collier County will inspect that tower. I mean, I can dig it out and find it. That's a misstatement, right? MR. BOSI: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. That's all I've got for now. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You good? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yep. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A couple of questions. One -- and I haven't seen it. And if it's in here somewhere, if somebody could point it out to me. There's been statements made about AT&T and their commitments to the Alpine tower. Is there -- are there any documents anywhere that Alpine has provided that are evidence of that? MR. BAXA: I guess I could get back up here. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, does anybody -- is anybody from AT&T here? MR. BAXA: No, there's no one from AT&T here. But AT&T has been working through a subcontractor, MasTec, and they have paid for the power -- the tower studies to be done by ERI for the availability on our tower. It's been determined by their own engineers that the tower is available and sound. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Where's the evidence of that? MR. BAXA: I don't have the paperwork. We're in the process of getting a lease signed within the next, hopefully, couple of weeks with AT&T. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there's no -- you don't have a February 8, 2022 Page 73 lease right now with AT&T? MR. BAXA: No, but we do have a financial commitment. They have already paid a substantial investment toward the -- toward the tower. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Who -- but what's -- what's AT&T's commitment right now on the Alpine tower? I mean, are they currently located on the Alpine tower? MR. BAXA: No, they're not in the area at all. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But you don't have a lease with them yet? MR. BAXA: Not yet. It's going through their legal department, and we should have something -- I got a letter in January saying we should have something within six weeks. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So just -- I want to understand. So as of right now, other than them having paid some deposit for the upgrades, there's no commitment for AT&T to locate on the Alpine tower and install this FirstNet system; there's no lease agreement to that effect? MR. BAXA: There is not a lease agreement yet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And so -- and also in terms of costs -- because the cost of the upgrades is something that is relevant to the analysis -- are there -- I mean, who provided the estimates as to the cost of the upgrades? MR. BAXA: That was done by ERI. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So this gentleman here did that? MR. BAXA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And those costs are based upon the modifications that ERI thought was appropriate, correct? MR. BAXA: Uh-huh, correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Did you do any analysis of what February 8, 2022 Page 74 the cost -- or render any opinions as to what the cost would be to do the upgrades that Capital has proposed? MR. BAXA: Yes. MR. ROBINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And how much are those? MR. ROBINSON: Depending on which loading scenario, they range from $44,000 to $77,000. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. MILLER: Sir, I need you to be on microphone. MR. ROBINSON: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So those numbers you provided were in relation to Capital's -- MR. ROBINSON: Yes, for Verizon. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- for those improvements? MR. ROBINSON: And Verizon and Altius Communication. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All three of those? MR. ROBINSON: Yeah. They were two different loading scenarios that they -- that Capital submitted to Alpine which they sent to us to analyze. And then the -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the obligation to pay for those upgrades on the Alpine tower would be Verizon's and anybody else? MR. BAXA: Yeah. MR. ROBINSON: Yes. MR. BAXA: We have agreed to split the cost with AT&T on the upgrades, and AT&T has paid their half of it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The cost for the AT&T enhancements was 44,000 plus-minus, and the proposed estimate was 77,000 for the AT&T and Verizon upgrades. MR. BAXA: No, for Verizon and Altius. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, okay. So it was an additional 30,000 over? I'm assuming part of that 70,000 is the 44- that's February 8, 2022 Page 75 already being spent. MR. ROBINSON: I think Verizon had more equipment on the second one than they did their first one. I have to go back and review the analysis report. MR. BAXA: In any manner, it's less than $100,000 for everything. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: For everything, okay. MR. BAXA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Do you have an AT&T letter of intent to locate on your tower? MR. BAXA: I don't have that letter, no. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Do you not have it with you, or it does not exist? MR. BAXA: It does not exist. I have a commitment from MasTec, which is the subcontractor. They're the one that AT&T is going through. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: To do the upgrades? MR. BAXA: To do the upgrades, yes, and also they are in the process of getting the site ready for AT&T's equipment. They're getting the utilities in line, and there's a pad already in existence that they're going to be using for their building. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I don't have anything else. MR. BAXA: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: When is this supposed to happen, the AT&T? MR. BAXA: The -- for the tower upgrades, the steel is supposed to be arriving later this week, and the upgrades are supposed to start toward the middle of next week. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And then when do you expect a lease agreement with AT&T? February 8, 2022 Page 76 MR. BAXA: I would expect a lease agreement within the next couple of weeks, within the next few weeks. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I wondered if -- with the indulgence of the Chair if we could speak to the attorney who spoke before. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd like to wrap up, if you don't mind. I don't want to get into back and forth. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd just like to wrap up with Alpine, and then we'll go back with the applicant if that's okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You don't want me to speak -- ask her now? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, her. With Alpine? Of course, yes, yes. I thought you were talking about -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ms. Jahn. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There's two lawyers in here. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just briefly, would you go through that timeline again -- it was very important -- when Capital submitted their first request, the response of the county. Just give me the time -- just give me the dates, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. MS. FINK: May 17th, 2021, is when we first received, on behalf of Alpine Capital's loading requirements for the three different loading scenarios. During this whole process, AT&T committed to collocate onto the Alpine tower. So in the engineering analysis submitted, the engineers already formulated, however they do their math, that that loading scenario of AT&T would already be placed onto the tower. And so the estimates for the costs of reinforcements that Verizon and Altius would need would come after that and don't have anything to do February 8, 2022 Page 77 with -- the prices do not have anything to do with AT&T because, basically, we just figured AT&T's already on. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I apologize. I may have misspoke. I want to know the progress of the Verizon application to the county, which I think you said was in October of 2018; is that correct? MS. FINK: The application for the Verizon -- the initial application was back in December 18th, 2018. The planning committee was on March 18th, 2021. And the reason why we were put at a disadvantage was because at that time Alpine had never been approached until May 17th, 2021, as far as what loading scenarios were going to be proposed. So we were totally without any type of engineering analyses to rebut anything that they would say at that meeting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. That's what I needed. Thank you. MS. FINK: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro. Don't go away. We might have a question for you. Commissioner LoCastro? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I do. I think it was Commissioner Solis that was asking some specifics about AT&T and what they've agreed to on the Alpine tower. So obviously you have some sort of agreement, handshake. They've got a contract. They have expended some funds. But I'm looking at Attachment O provided by the other side, and they have a letter from -- from AT&T that -- it's a letter of intent, basically, that not only did they support the new tower, but they're enthusiastically awaiting for it to be approved so they can put all equipment on the new tower. Do you contend that if the new tower was disapproved, then they would just put all their new equipment on February 8, 2022 Page 78 your tower? If the new tower is approved, they're going to yank it off your tower and put it on the Capital tower? Because, I mean, I've got a two-page letter here from their principal engineer to Capital saying, you know, all positive things in support of the new tower. So what's that relationship? MS. FINK: Exactly, and that's about a year ago -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. MS. FINK: -- that that letter -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, it's February of 2021. MS. FINK: So since that time, you know, we've fabricated the pieces to go onto the tower. I mean, they're made, custom made. It's not like you can just go out to Home Depot and make these reinforcements. They're going to be on their way and placed onto the tower probably within the next week, they've said, so... COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: For AT&T? MS. FINK: For AT&T, yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I really want to bring this up, because it is a year -- it's an older letter, so that's what I wanted to hear you say is that even though you don't have the letter, that your current agreement sort of supersedes what they're saying here. And the other side, if you disagree with that, then, you know, I'd like to hear a comment. This letter is kind of important to figure out what side of the ball AT&T is on. We know what side Verizon's on, but -- and then AT&T the other advantage is, they talk about it in here, the FirstNet service is tied to AT&T. So whatever tower AT&T is on, we get that extra benefit of a stronger first responder, you know, radio signal or whatever the exact words were, so that's kind of important depending on, you know, which tower, but... MS. FINK: That's correct. And from my understanding, it's just going through legal right now, and the terms have been agreed February 8, 2022 Page 79 upon. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So I thought I had heard you say that as far back as December of 2018 you were already under the assumption that AT&T was on your tower. That's -- MS. FINK: No, that's incorrect. 2018 -- December 18th, 2018, is when Capital first applied for the conditional use, when they first submitted their application. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Then -- okay. I thought that I heard you say that at that time you were already talking to AT&T and that -- MS. FINK: Not that I know of. I'm -- I can't answer that question. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. When in time did you start discussing with AT&T upgrades to the Alpine tower? MS. FINK: Al? Al is the liaison for that, so I'll let him answer that. MR. BAXA: Our first talks with AT&T were probably in the summer of 2019. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In the summer of 2019? MR. BAXA: 2020, I'm sorry. Summer of 2020. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Summer of 2020? MR. BAXA: Right. Late summer of 2020 is when they first approached us. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But, again, as you sit here today, you don't have a lease or a letter of intent; you have an agreement or some representations from MasTec? MR. BAXA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. BAXA: Yeah. February 8, 2022 Page 80 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You good? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yep. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we're done with our questions for now. MR. ROBINSON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Let's go to our staff. I'd like to do that now, if you guys are -- if everybody's okay with that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. When this last came before the Board of County Commissioners, I wasn't with the county, but I did review the minutes. And there was some discussion at that hearing as to whether the county -- because there was dueling engineering reports. You had different perspectives from Alpine's representatives and from Capital's representatives in terms of the structural capacity and could it accommodate the additional loads that would be required of the three additional carriers to the tower. And there was a suggestion that the county would go outside and hire a third-party engineer for an arbitration. It was decided by the Board of County Commissioners, and I think wisely so, that that's really not what they should be spending our money on. But just to bring this back with the -- with updated information from each of the individual engineering perspectives and from each tower company as to whether there was actual capacity or not capacity. I will say I did take some exception from the way that it was described in terms of the Alpine tower. As it exists right now, the Alpine tower could not accommodate the additional loads without reinforcement. And when it comes down to it, that will be the heart of what the decision for the Board will be. But before we get into that, I did want to introduce Jonathan Walsh, our building official, to February 8, 2022 Page 81 be able to shed a little light in terms of what the county does and doesn't do related to telecommunication towers. I think it will bear some -- some new information or some additional information as to what the county does and what the county doesn't do related to telecommunication towers. MR. WALSH: Jonathan Walsh, Collier County building official, for the record. I'm a licensed engineer in the state of Florida and in state of New York. I don't have the expertise that these gentlemen do with regards to cell towers, but I have been around the block, and I have seen some reports. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We do know that. MR. WALSH: I appreciate that. The comments that have been made thus far I have some exception to. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: By who? There's been a lot of comments made on both sides. MR. WALSH: I'm going to get to that. With regards to modifications, there's been several dates, several comments, several improvements noted by both sides, all of which I cannot substantiate that have been properly permitted. The only properly permitted document I have is from 1997. The other improvements, modifications, structural, electrical, are lacking permit-wise. The last structural modification I have to the Alpine tower is from 2011. So anything that's been modified after that date has not been properly permitted. I do not have a permit on record for the modifications that are being proposed within the next week, so I have no idea what those changes are, what they could imply, what they couldn't imply. I agree wholeheartedly with Mike that this is the battle between two people, the engineers, you get them into a room, they could have difference of opinions. It always happens. February 8, 2022 Page 82 I can't -- I wouldn't make a professional comment on where they stand on who's right and who's wrong on their analysis. That's between the two of them. As Mike noted, our responsibilities is to review a set of plans for the modifications noted. To date, the only one I have of record is from 1997. That's the one that's only been through the process, been permitted, and been closed out. After that date, I have no idea what's been done. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So that answers my question, which I was about to ask, in the recommendation that staff concurs with Verizon's engineer's analysis on the capacity of the Alpine tower's ability to handle the new equipment. You only have that data actually to be able to make that determination as of today? MR. WALSH: Correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They don't have the data. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do what? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They don't have the data. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He doesn't -- the only data that he has is from 2011, which then lines up with the Verizon engineer's analysis that the capacity on the Alpine tower is insufficient to support the Alpine equipment, and that was where I was -- I was looking at the staff recommendation here for the approval of this and hearing that there's other data that's still out there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So we're -- you know, and I don't say this -- I don't say this disrespectfully, but we're playing engineer here, but we have an engineer. So why hasn't the county gone out and looked at this? MR. KLATZKOW: You don't -- you do not have the -- you do not have a structural engineer on your staff that's skilled in cell towers, nor should you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. February 8, 2022 Page 83 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's not our job. MR. WALSH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It goes to what Commissioner Taylor's saying. I thought I just heard that there's -- no permit has been applied for for these upgrades that we were hearing about are being made imminently. MR. WALSH: According to the permit record that I have right now on that parcel, I have only a 2011 void and a 2011 suspended permit. Neither one of them have been closed out for any structural modifications that were made back then. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And there's nothing pending right now? MR. WALSH: Not in the system right now, no. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So all this equipment could show up in the next three days and still no -- an application for a permit still needs to be applied for and submitted and approved before the work can be consummated? MR. WALSH: Correct. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, could somebody from Alpine come forward and comment on that? I mean, that's a pretty big issue. I mean, anyone. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For MasTec. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. MasTec's the subcontractor for AT&T, sure. Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If they're the contractor, they should be pulling permits. MR. BAXA: Yes, with regards to the permits, I will get in touch with MasTec and find out why the permits have not been pulled yet for the tower modification. February 8, 2022 Page 84 As far as the 2011 modification, that was the responsibility of Verizon's contractor to make sure that that was -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Closed out. MR. BAXA: -- closed out. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner LoCastro, you have a question -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- for staff? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have a quick question and -- because what I'm lining up with here -- and I'm looking at a Planning Commission meeting that occurred in March of 2021. I'm looking at an application for the new applicant that started in advance of that. I'm looking at determinations by our staff with regard to the application and the available data that was provided to the Planning Commission in March of 2021, and then -- and now I'm hearing about new data and -- that's being represented by Alpine that didn't occur until after that date when the Planning Commission rendered its opinion of approval. May -- May of 2021 another. There was more data that came out in July of '21 -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Fink. I was writing down these dates -- and then more information that came out in October of 2021. So I guess my question is: Do you -- would you -- would you rather have more time to be able to review this data and ascertain whether you want to continue to maintain your opinion that's been represented to us today? MR. BOSI: No, sir, I wouldn't. What happened was the original application from Capital in 2018 provided a structural analysis of the Alpine tower that was not coordinated with Alpine. And they had a Planning Commission meeting. The information that was submitted, the justification for the need for the new tower was February 8, 2022 Page 85 based upon that report. The Planning Commission took action upon that report. Alpine was not made aware of the Planning Commission meeting, I guess, in time to attend. They heard about the Planning Commission meeting, attended the Board of County Commissioners meeting towards where they provided a contesting of the Capital report of their individual tower. And then since then there's been information that's been exchanged by their engineering firms, by Capital's engineering firms to contest and to counter -- to counter the various claims that are being made. What I can tell you is Verizon and AT&T are not interested in individual towers. They are tenants of vertical real estate companies. I find it curious that Verizon for three-and-a-half years has spent a tremendous amount of time and resources when Alpine is indicating that they have the structural integrity to be able to handle the individual loads that are within -- that are going to be required by the Verizon antenna array; that AT&T has submitted a letter of intent to go onto the Capital tower but, yet, they've also tried to, accordingly to their statement, that they are also willing to go onto the Alpine tower, but they do recognize they will need reinforcements to do so. There is a third party, Altius, wants to go onto the Capital tower and has committed to it, but if they were to go onto the Alpine, there would be -- there would be a need for additional reinforcements. The code says -- and it's a difficult position, but the code says that the proposed tower coordinates -- the proposed tower would coordinate with the existing tower. Here's the load specifications, here's the cost estimate, and the Board of County Commissioners makes the final evaluation. Is it -- is it a financial impracticality for the tower -- or for the providers to have to pay for the upgrades to go onto the Alpine tower? And we've got a very huge difference in delta, between February 8, 2022 Page 86 70,000 to close to $900,000 difference. Where does that lie? I don't know. As a professional planner, I'm not sure where the difference is. I just know that -- and I spent a couple years as a telecommunications representative for American Tower. Traditionally, tower companies don't get into arguments with their tenants, but for some reason Verizon and Alpine have found this disagreement. Verizon's engineers have indicated there's concern over the structural integrity and that the cost to upgrade is prohibitive. Alpine's representatives are saying that they're not prohibitive, and they've actually decided to split the costs with AT&T. Maybe if they would just split the cost with Verizon, maybe there would be a better arrangement, and there wouldn't be a need for another tower. But I only have the facts of the hands in what is provided. The documentation as to Capital has three users that want to go on that tower. There are two more national carriers that do not have a location or presence in this location. So two additional carriers will be coming to this area. I don't know if Alpine's going to be able to accommodate those two additional carriers on top of three additional carriers, but I can tell you there's going to be a need for that within this area at some point in time. And I will remind the Board of County Commissioners that over 82 percent of our 911 calls come from wireless phones. All carriers are required by the FCC to provide E911 service, and AT&T has provided -- with the FirstNet responders is providing for additional safety service considerations. There's a lot going on. There's a lot that the Board has to evaluate. When it comes down to it, where is -- where is the fiscal practicability of what's being asked of these carriers to either locate on Alpine or, if it's too impractical, then there's justification for the Capital tower. I don't think additional time's going to shed any other difference February 8, 2022 Page 87 of an outcome because this outcome, from -- just from what I've read in the minutes of the first -- or the last Board of County Commissioners is eerily similar where it's this position and this position, and somewhere in the middle is probably where that truth is. What I do rely upon is the commitment from Verizon and the commitment from AT&T that we have in writing. Now, I know that they've said that they have coordination with MasTec and AT&T, and that may have it, but that's -- that's just conversation right now. I don't have that in front of me. I don't have that to be able to provide to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gotcha. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi, we didn't coordinate -- they didn't coordinate with the current cell phone tower. Capital did not coordinate with them, or Verizon, whoever was supposed to, according to our code. It was, according to what I'm reading, three years. MR. BOSI: They coordinated after the Board of County Commissioners meeting of last year. That's when the coordination came. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And yet they applied in 2018. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So there's -- I agree with you, this does not -- this is -- this is not what I would call friendly business. MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is -- this is -- this is war. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: With a big spread. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Mr. Bosi, I appreciate your comments. I'd like to ask the February 8, 2022 Page 88 engineers for Alpine to comment on Mr. Bosi's comment that in the future there are going to be potentially three other national carriers that are going to want to locate in that area, and I'd like an opinion as to whether that Alpine tower could be modified for three additional carriers and at what cost, just rough estimates. MR. ROBINSON: Sir, that would have to -- we would have to get the loading of what they want to put on the tower, where they want to put it, and a structural analysis would have to be performed to see what impact -- what would it take to do that. I have no idea what -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me rephrase this a little bit, because you've been the engineer for 25 years, I think you said. So you know this tower intimately. You have a rough idea, I would think, as to what loading would be required from a national carrier. I'm just asking an opinion as to whether or not the Alpine tower could accommodate three more carriers in general based on what you know about the tower and generally is required. MR. ROBINSON: I think it could accommodate them, but it may take extensive reinforcement. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that was the second part of the question. MR. ROBINSON: It would take extensive reinforcement, which would -- I don't have a good idea on a cost, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We wouldn't be talking about $40,000 or -- MR. ROBINSON: No -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- $70,000 or -- MR. ROBINSON: -- it would be more than that. It may be $500,000 -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. ROBINSON: -- depending on what we would have to do February 8, 2022 Page 89 to the tower. You're probably looking at reinforcing legs, because we've got some legs at their capacity. Again, there may be some more diagonals I have to replace. The reinforcement on the legs, depending on how much overstress there is, where we could use a simple bolt-on reinforcing or would have to weld additional material to the legs, which is very expensive. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. ROBINSON: Did I answer your question? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. MR. ROBINSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mike, so I wanted to just clarify the comment I made about the county inspecting the towers, because we've, you know, gone back and forth saying the county doesn't have a responsibility to do that or whatever. So this is the letter that came from the attorneys for WAVV to the Board of County Commissioners, and in it they said they had 11 issues, and they spelled out all these issues, and I'll just go to the one, because I think it is important. And it says here in print we have all these responsibilities, the county, but it sounds like they're either -- contracted out because we don't have the expertise. So I want to just get your opinion. Is this paragraph correct. And it was Issue 7 on Page 5. And it says, see Exhibit D, and when you go to Exhibit D, it's the 2019 inspection. But by the signature it looks to me like it's a contractor that either the county hires or WAVV does or both, so we can get to that. But I just want to make sure that it's clear that the county hasn't dropped the ball on inspections, or maybe we have or -- I want to give you comment. But it says here, the 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 February 8, 2022 Page 90 2022. We assume this statement is based on the -- and then it gives a little bit of a report, blah, blah, blah, and then it says, see 2019 attachment. And then when you go to that attachment -- and what they're basically saying is there's an inspection coming up, which, I mean, they're inferring that our inspection in March of 2022 would confirm that this tower is in good shape. It's due in inspection. And when you go to Exhibit D -- and it was inspected three years prior in March of 2019. It was signed by Don Barber, manager, Universal Tower Service, so I'm assuming that must be something we contract. Do we pay for that? Or I guess just comment on -- I wanted to find that, because it is -- it is key as to what the county's role is in making sure these towers are safe, they can -- they can absorb a load or they can't or, you know, do we subcontract it out? So, Mr. French, what's your comment on that? MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, Jamie French, deputy department head for Community Development with Growth Management. Commissioners, under Section 5.05.09 within your Land Development Code, it talks about towers and the inspections. There's definitely been a lot of talk today about towers and what the county's responsibility is. But I'm going to -- I'd like to point out to you on the visualizer Section 3.108 of the Florida Building Code, this is your responsibility as the authority having jurisdiction under a multistate licensed -- the Engineering School of Manhattan building official that we have in Collier County, this is his job. This is all he does. They are the owner of the tower. They are solely responsible for everything that goes onto the tower, every permit, whether it's by contract, whether it's by real estate, no different than any other business. It is their responsibility. February 8, 2022 Page 91 It is also their responsibility under their LDC to hire a tower engineer, which they've got -- Ms. Fink has identified who their tower engineer is. He is required every three years, because this is a guy-wire tower, to issue a report to us that says, I am still compliant with this. I am still compliant with the Florida Building Code, and my tower is safe. The reason why they're stating March is because three years ago in December they were late, and we opened a Code Enforcement case on them, and we notified them. So March is a good date, but it's a date from the last time that they gave us their report, which technically their date is already overdue. It was due to us in December, and it is their responsibility to provide that information. So we're only going by what the Code Enforcement cases are in there, what permits that we have. But it is their responsibility to provide these tower reports. And it's five years on non-guy-wire towers. So we monitor this on a regular basis both through our Land Development Services team, our Building Department team, as well as through our Code Enforcement Board team working collaboratively with these property owners and these towers. And we rely on their tower engineers to provide us with good reports. And the bottom line is, we simply review the report. What they provide here is the TIA; that's the Telecommunications Industry Association standards. That coordinates with other federal agencies on how these towers should be built, how they should be maintained. We simply look for an engineer's report under his license that says, I'm good, because -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: This late report from March of 2019, you know, using your words that it was three months late -- MR. FRENCH: It was. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- signed by Don Barber, owner of Universal Tower Service, is an inspector that they secured, February 8, 2022 Page 92 and then their responsibility is to send this report to us. And if you look at it, it says, safe, safe. Is there anything wrong? No, no, no, no, no, right? So this is a requirement then that we file, and it keeps -- it's not -- it's not -- you know, the paragraph above where it says, the county, the county, the county, that actually is a misstatement, right? I mean, I read it to you verbatim, and it said, the county will inspect this tower every three years. That's not actually true? MR. FRENCH: It is considered an inspection when we review that report from the engineer. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That report. Okay. I got it. MR. FRENCH: That is the inspection. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It's a little semantics, but it's not. MR. FRENCH: But as provided to you on this overhead, this is the only mention. So when you hear a lot of Florida Building Code references, that's a lot of references to this small section, because this is the only place it exists in the entire building code. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a quick question for the engineer from Capital, if you could. And it's basically the same question I asked the Alpine engineers. I don't recall in the presentation whether there was reference to the three additional national carriers that might want to locate on the Capital tower. Is the current plan of construction sufficient to handle the current needs of Verizon and AT&T and the other one in addition to three additional ones? Is the tower going to be built to that capacity? MR. SHANAHAN: That's -- I'm sorry. Are you talking about the new tower? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The new tower, yes. The February 8, 2022 Page 93 tower you're -- MR. SHANAHAN: I have not run any calculations on the design of the new tower. Perhaps Ms. Jahn can speak to that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn, again, for the record. And we are at the point in the process where calculations for the Capital tower would not be presented. That goes to the Building Department. The question is whether the Alpine tower has capacity currently, but going back to whether the Capital tower will have capacity for future collocations, those collocations -- and if I may please have my PowerPoint presentation back. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: While you're pulling that up, just something for your back pocket to just answer at some point is -- and I forgot who said it. Maybe Mike said it. The delta between the requirements that you think the Alpine tower needs and what Alpine is saying, you know, the difference between 70,000 and almost upwards of a million, I would love to hear your rebuttal to that because, I mean, that is such a wide spread. I mean, if $70,000 can be made to the Alpine tower and then everything can be added to it -- and what we actually heard is everything could be added to it, they're claiming, of what's being requested now. If we had three new carriers that came in, they would have to do something much more substantial, which is a dollar figure we don't know. But at some point I'd love to hear your rebuttal to their, you know, hey, in a week we're doing some upgrades, and then we can do a few smaller ones that cost 70,000, and then the tower's ready to go. You obviously disagree with that aggressively. At some point I'd like to hear, you know, what analysis you can back up showing that that delta is actually correct. MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. Okay. This is Mattaniah Jahn, again. February 8, 2022 Page 94 And getting back to Commissioner Solis -- or Commissioner Saunders' question about future capacity to collocate, this is Sheet C3 from the plans that are in the record. This becomes part of the conditional use that you approve, and it literally calls out collocation spaces for four national carriers. There is also a collocation affidavit in the records saying that they'll make -- that they'll be designed for that and make that available. So that gets baked into the conditional use. And if Capital were to say -- let's say they designed a tower for one user, right, and that's all you can hang on it, and if you wanted to take and put more on, right, you'd have to rebuild it, they'd be in violation of their conditional use. So while I don't have the exact calculations yet, because that comes at building permit stage, the requirement that they have that capacity is baked into your zoning approval. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So they would have capacity for four. We already know three that are going to go on there. So you'd have capacity for one more? MS. JAHN: I can have Mr. Shanahan talk about that, but Altius' loading is not as heavy as a full carrier loading. So, Mr. Shanahan, would you please discuss about Altius' loading and whether that would remove the collocation capacity for one of these carriers. MR. SHANAHAN: Sure. I don't recall offhand what specifically Altius was proposing to put on the tower, but I do recall that it was lower than what I think of as a traditional telecom array. As we're displaying here, you know, let's say four antennas per sector, all the associated radio equipment, any surge suppression, et cetera. I know it was much lower than that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask a different -- another question, then, that may clarify this for me, February 8, 2022 Page 95 because I'm looking to the future. You know, if we do have three more carriers, it's going to be nice to have them located somewhere fairly quickly. So you know -- in terms of the Capital tower, you know it's going to be built for four carriers, and one of those carriers that's going on there now may have less loading than the other three. What type of -- and this is just a rough guess, just an estimate on your part. How much remodeling/reconstruction would be required to add additional carriers to a new tower, to the new tower the Capital is building? The engineers for Alpine indicate it would probably cost -- and, again, just a rough guess was somewhere north of a half a middle. What do you think it would take to retrofit the Capital tower for additional carriers? Is it going to be built so that that's a fairly easy thing to do? MR. SHANAHAN: I believe so. I'm very hesitant to offer commentary on a tower that I haven't performed calculations on, but -- so it has four slots currently. AT&T is one. Verizon is one. Altius is one, but it's lower. That leaves one full array for either -- T-Mobile or Dish Network are the two big carriers who have not yet intended to collocate, to the best of my knowledge. Any further carriers -- generally, also, the carriers prefer the highest -- they call them rad centers, because that allows, you know, the fewest obstructions. Again, this is sort of out of my wheelhouse, but typically the tower's populated from the top down. So if a fifth carrier were to be added -- say T-Mobile's already there and then Dish wants in on the tower, it would go lower. Generally lower arrays are going to put less loading on the tower in general. And because of the reduced loading up at the Altius array, perhaps there's, you know, more reserve capacity than there might otherwise be. But that's, at this time, all the commentary I can offer on that. MS. JAHN: And, Commissioner Saunders, if I may, Mattaniah February 8, 2022 Page 96 Jahn again. You may have seen a gentleman in a -- this gentleman right here step up a couple times. Come forward. So this is Vince Casiero. He is a principal of Capital Telecom. And he is willing to commit to design this tower for five or six carriers, and that can go into the conditions of approvals, if that's your concern. Mr. Casiero, please state your name, address and -- MR. CASIERO: Yes. My name is Vincent Casiero. I work at 210 Mountain Avenue in Springfield, New Jersey. And to answer your question, we have -- as we've been discussing, we have designed it for five carriers. One of the carriers, Altius, which is less loading. But right now we haven't, obviously, designed or ordered this tower because we're waiting for approval. So we can add another full carrier to this tower when we design it and submit it to the Building Department. So that's very doable. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And you'd be willing to have that as part of a conditional-use approval? MR. CASIERO: Yes, we can add another RAD center to make it six. One, two, three -- five; I'm sorry, five. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You have the three nationals that are going there. You'd have the smaller one, Altius, and then you'd have two more you could put on there? MR. CASIERO: We would have a total of five, right. We have the three that we currently are talking with, and then we could can add another two. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And Altius is one of the three? MR. CASIERO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, okay. I misspoke. MR. CASIERO: And they are lower loading, less loading. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you'd have two more nationals that could come on board? February 8, 2022 Page 97 MR. CASIERO: Yes, exactly. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I do have a question from what the engineer said. If you populate it from top down, it could be that you might have room for it, but the carrier, the national carrier, may decide not to do it because they're too low on the tower; is that correct? MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. Speaking as someone who does towers for a living for eight years, going on nine, yes, the lower -- the lower collocations are less desirable to a carrier; however, that's a very different story when you're talking 120-foot-tall urban infill tower that's going between other towers where that bottom collocation is down at 70, 80 feet and a 225-foot-tall tower where the -- a fifth collocation would be in the neighborhood of 180 feet above ground center, which is taller than the average tower that I apply for these days. My average application is 120 to 150 feet. So even the bottom collocation is, essentially, a full tower's worth of height. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So this is the Eiffel Tower of towers in the Golden Gate area? MS. JAHN: It is meant to duplicate the coverage that Verizon currently has. It's a low-density site. And if you'd like, I'd have Ms. Jimenez come up and talk about that. But the general principle is the more users, the shorter the tower becomes because those users -- it shrinks the coverage, and you're serving a higher concentration of users in a smaller area. When you have a rural area, you can put the tower higher, because that concentration of users is lower. So you can reach out to that same number of users, let's say it's 5,000 people, but it's over, you know -- I'm going to use round numbers -- 100 acres instead of 25 because, again, going back to what Ms. Jimenez said, February 8, 2022 Page 98 towers -- and towers are like roads. They only have so much capacity, so you use it on a set geographic area whether that is very dense because there's a lot of users near by or a larger area like here because of the low density of the Benton Road area, Woodlands Estates, Frangipani, and the Rural Estates. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. JAHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So the gentleman that was at the microphone, sir, I forget what your name was, but I wanted to ask you a question. MR. CASIERO: Sure. Vince. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, Vince, this tower's design that could have five carriers on it, if you added, hypothetically, a sixth or a seventh, obviously, there would have to be some work done for the attachment point for the equipment. Would anything need to be done to the tower itself? Can that tower -- would it need a more robust, you know, base, more guyed wires or anything, or it would just be a matter of adding more attachments, you know, should more clients come? Could this tower hold six or seven or eight without much needing to be done to the tower itself, the structure? MR. CASIERO: Well, if it was designed for five carriers initially, that -- and they were fully loaded, that would be the capacity of that tower. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And that's what it is right now? MR. CASIERO: Well, right now it's four. We would add the fifth. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. MR. CASIERO: If another carrier came along, at that point we would have to analyze that loading, see what the stresses would be on February 8, 2022 Page 99 that existing tower, and depending -- and maybe some modifications to the tower or the guy anchors. It's hard to say right now. But, you know, we can make this even stronger if we need now, but I think five would pretty much carry -- cover the need that's out there today in the environment. Of course, T-Mobile and Sprint have merged, so Sprint is really not a carrier any longer looking for locations. T-Mobile is. And DISH Network is another carrier that is looking for locations that we are looking for on other projects. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. That answers it. Thanks. MS. JAHN: And, Commissioner LoCastro, if I may just provide a little bit of industry context. You may remember that the T-Mobile merger with Sprint seemed to go on forever and ever and ever, and they said it was going to happen, and then it kind of stopped in 2019, and it eventually happened. That's because there are only four national carriers. And at the time, it was T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. And the FCC was saying, wait, we're going to go down to three national carriers. That doesn't really look like a market. That looks like an oligopolistic market. The result of that was that DISH was built up and brought in with a mandate to become the fourth carrier. So you don't have seven, eight, nine, whatever, national carriers out there. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. MS. JAHN: You've got four. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Do the carriers ever, though, add -- you know, they add additional equipment like a booster or something like that where they strap something on when that tower isn't -- so they're already a client of yours, but they have to add something or they put on a heavier piece of equipment that, you know, causes the tower to need a further analysis for the extra weight February 8, 2022 Page 100 or whatnot. So you still only have four clients, but over time, you know, they add heavier equipment or something additional. Does that happen frequently? MS. JAHN: So Mattaniah Jahn again. If you'd like, I can have Ms. Jimenez come up. But, basically, what happens is they swap out equipment. So they'll take one antenna down and put a new one up like that. So this is built to the current -- so this will be built to the current code, so it will be very robust. I don't know if 6, 7, 8G could get beyond there. I mean, that's the nature of life. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right, okay. MS. JAHN: But look how long it took just to get 5G. It took years. So we're dealing in hypotheticals that are well over a decade down the road, multiple decades down the road. The important thing is that there's capacity here for the current need. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. I just want to make a statement more for the Chairman. So you've answered it. I just want to -- I don't want Alpine to sit there thinking that we're just sitting here having this big conversation with you-all. I mean, I personally, and I'm sure my colleagues as well, then want -- there's a whole lot of stuff that's being put out there by you-all. And then also, too, I see Brad Cornell in the audience. I don't want to miss the environmental impact, you know, as far as the difference between guyed wires and lattice. I don't think any of us want to -- and that will come at the end. But I just wanted to prep that. And so I see Brad out there, so don't leave. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll get that, too, when we get to the public comment. I'd like to hear from staff. Mr. Bosi, I think, has something he'd like to say. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director again. I just wanted to remind the suggested condition of approval, that February 8, 2022 Page 101 staff is requesting with the recommendation of approval, would be not for a guyed tower but for a self-supporting lattice tower based upon the environmental concern, the migratory birds, where we sit within those migrations. The guyed wires have the tendency to be more environmentally non-friendly to the migratory birds and, because of that, we are suggesting that it be a self-support lattice tower, and -- so whatever -- so whatever, if the decision was for approval of that condition, we could impose it, that that self-support -- that self-support tower be structurally designed to be able to accommodate the number of users that the Board feels as appropriate. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And you've agreed to -- you said earlier that, maybe it's not your preference, but lattice is in the equation. If that's -- I don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but correct? MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn, again. And, yes, for the purposes of the record, Capital is willing to switch this to a lattice design if that's the pleasure of the county, and staff's obviously shown that that's their pleasure, and, of course, if it's the pleasure of the Board, I mean, I think we're functionally there right now with a lattice design, but that is available to you as well as committing to the higher collocation spaces. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Five carriers? MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other questions? MR. BOSI: And, Chair, I just wanted to reiterate the conditions of approval that we've also incorporated related to the maintenance of the road east -- or west of the bridge to the driveway of the parent parcel as well as modifications to the lighting as was suggested by the applicant. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll get to the -- I still have some February 8, 2022 Page 102 questions on the road before we -- before we render an opinion, preferably. Mr. Brugger? MR. BRUGGER: Could I respond to Ms. Jahn's schematic up here. John Brugger on behalf of Alpine Tower. She's showing locations with Verizon at the top at 225. She acknowledged that service areas, quality of service, are guided in part by the height of the antenna location. Her second location's at 210 feet, I believe. AT&T, in negotiating with Alpine, selected to go to 250 feet thinking that they would have better service and be able to better contact their other antennas in the area. So that permit application will be coming in when the parts arrive, but it's at 250 feet, which doesn't fit on her tower. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How tall is the Alpine tower? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: A thousand plus. 1,019; a thousand plus. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the Capital tower will be how high? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two hundred twenty -- 220. MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn. It will be 220 to the top of the steel; 225 to the top of the antennas. And I would also, just to reorient you on the record, Alpine -- or AT&T's collocation, their letter of intent is for, I believe, 200 feet. I can switch back to that real quick. And their propagation maps show that. So the only propagations for AT&T in the record are based on a 200-foot collation and not -- not this 250 that's appeared by statement. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are we all done with our questions? February 8, 2022 Page 103 (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Let's move to public comment. How many public speakers do we -- before we go there, it's 12 o'clock, and Terri's looking at me crooked. MR. MILLER: We have five. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We have five public speakers. How you doing? Do you want a break, or do you want to get through this? THE COURT REPORTER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. MR. MILLER: Your first speaker -- and I'm going to ask the speakers to use both podiums so we can facilitate this quicker. Meredith Budd will be followed by Brad Cornell and then Daniel McMahon. MS. BUDD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Meredith Budd on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation. The Federation, along with my colleague, Brad, who you'll hear just after me with Audubon, met several times with the applicant and are pleased with the applicant's commitments to comply with important elements that are in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's communication tower siting and design guidelines. Those elements that we're really pleased with include ones that Mattaniah Jahn mentioned in her presentation: Flashing lights, limiting the ground lighting by using some motion sensors, planning vegetation removal outside of bird nesting seasons, and we are also really strong advocates for the self-supporting tower, as the lattice tower is more compatible with wildlife with migratory birds. Staff has recommended that the condition of approval be done with the self-supporting lattice tower, and that's something we're very pleased with as well. We support staff's recommendation and are glad that Capital is willing to do that as well. February 8, 2022 Page 104 The Federation has worked with staff and supports the recommendation. It is feasible given the height. It's in the North Belle Meade Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Natural Resource Protection Area, and so you guys do have the authority to make those protective measures for wildlife and compatibility. So we ask you to support staff's recommendation to ensure that if this tower is approved that it is done so with the condition of using the lattice tower self-supporting. So thank you so very much. Appreciate it. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by Daniel McMahon. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brad Cornell on behalf of Audubon Western Everglades and Audubon Florida. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this. We've been following this for a year, almost a year. Florida -- and the reason we're following it is because the entire peninsula of Florida is part of the Atlanta flyaway for migratory birds going north and south seasonally, and communication towers in North America kill 6.8 million birds every year, and we have already lost almost three billion birds since 1970. We cannot afford to be building our infrastructure that's not compatible with nature, with wildlife, and with migratory birds. So that's the reason for focusing on the design of the tower. In March of 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service updated their Communication Tower Siting and Design Guidelines, and that is what we took to you-all last spring and also to the applicant, and we have been very appreciative of both your staff and the applicant's collaborative approach to hearing our concerns and accommodating as much of them as they could. The four issues are: Height, these should be below 200 feet; steady burn lights are bad for migratory birds; guy wires are very bad February 8, 2022 Page 105 for migratory birds, and those bird deflector devices don't work because most migration is at night, and those are only working during the day. And also unnecessary towers, duplication, too many towers in the landscape. So if there's one tower that can suffice, that's what we want. We're agnostic and we're neutral on the issue of engineering. We don't know anything about engineering and, apparently, it's up for debate, a lot of debate, today. So the solutions are putting flashing lights on this tower that are below 2,000 candela, not too bright and flashing. No steady burn lights, and they have committed to that, and we want to see that in the conditions. A lattice structure, a self-supporting structure without guy wires, and they have committed to that. That's good. Motion-activated ground lighting, excellent. Please make sure that's part of the conditions. We're not able to address the height issue, but 225 is close to 200. It's much better than the 1,000 that's on the Alpine tower that has guy wires. We'd rather see the Alpine tower be dismantled and this be the only tower for this region. Again, fewer towers and no guy wires and the lighting appropriately. The other thing that I would point out is the need to address the -- looking for nesting birds in a site before they do clearing. There's a long driveway access road. And also you had a fire in May of 2020, a catastrophic wildfire, and you've heard about that in testimony. They should be managing this property for the vegetation to mechanically clear and make sure you don't have a buildup of combustible or, you know, like, cabbage palms that are going to contribute to another catastrophic wildfire since prescribed fire is not possible. Thank you very much for considering our comments. February 8, 2022 Page 106 MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Daniel McMahon. He'll be followed by John -- all I can read is B. I can't read the rest of your writing, sir. MR. McMAHON: I have three issues. First is the tower. I object to the tower being located just a few hundred feet from the existing tower, and it's also a little confusing, because I was initially told that there would only be four carriers, and now we're talking about five or seven or different numbers. I was also told that 5G was not going to be put on the tower for now. It would just remain the same 4G, and that was in an email from Ms. Jahn. Also the analyses that were done, it seems like one was done by Capital; it was done off site and based on assumptions. And the other one was done on site by Alpine. My next issue are the notices. The landowners with interest on Benton and Woodland Estates Road were not notified about the commercial usage of their roads for any of the hearings. A sign was placed at the back of the neighborhood at the end of Benton Road. Only a few select people were notified of it. I did not get any notices of it. The meetings that were held were held over 15 miles away from the neighborhood, even though there is a meeting place in the neighborhood. I did request that the county notify all affected parties since the permit or the proposal does include the usage of two private roads, Woodland Estates and Benton, but the county did not. As far as the roads, the proposal uses Woodland Estates Road, which is a road that I live on. The BCC executive summary of January 2012 for the third amended agreement with South Florida Water Management in litigation involving Woodland Estates Road had stated that the residents of Woodland Estates Road could determine who uses the roadway. Capital's 30-foot easement in the proposal is also not wide February 8, 2022 Page 107 enough for the roadway and a utility easement in the same place. I'm the person who actually provides the maintenance on Woodland Estates Road. Having utility lines on the road and -- having utility lines on the road will make it much more difficult for me to maintain the road. Right now we have a huge problem with nonresident ATV and 4x4 truck traffic speeding on our road, digging it up, tearing apart the road. The county and the CCSO have not been very helpful in controlling it. Saturday night a truck went into the canal from Woodland Estates Road. Neighbors say they were going extremely fast. They went over a three-to-four-foot-tall berm. It's hard to keep on repairing the damage from trespassers and nonresidents. Also, after years of ownership, the current owners of the property for the tower have not contributed anything to the maintenance of the road in time or money. It's unclear how the fair share would be determined in the future. Most of us out in the neighborhood are retired and/or farmers or both. We don't use the roads on a daily basis. For those reasons, I think the proposal should be at least postponed until we can have better communication, or not approved. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. MR. McMAHON: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John -- I'm going to give this a shot -- is this Brugger? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to speak under -- MR. BRUGGER: I wanted to follow up on what Linda said. MR. MILLER: And John will be followed by Ronald Harring. MR. BRUGGER: I just wanted to state that AT&T is going on the Alpine tower. They've put up the funds. They've had MasTec review the calculations that were prepared by ERI. AT&T wants to February 8, 2022 Page 108 be at a higher height. I don't know -- and they aren't going to put in 5G. I don't know whether it's part of their Net One program to be at the higher altitude, but it will be a Net One location. And so the letters that Ms. Jahn's passing around are all outdated. They're a year ago. AT&T decided to move forward and put it where they want it. If you don't believe that, I request you delay the decision until the permits are applied for within the next couple weeks and see the results. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your final registered speaker is Donald Harring. MR. HARRING: The latter part of last year my wife and I were looking at the Naples Daily News. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: State your name, Don. It's me. Up here. MR. HARRING: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Say your name, please. MR. HARRING: Donald R. Harring. I'm a retired New York City police sergeant. Last year, around November, December, we saw a notice in the newspaper about a Collier County Planning Commission meeting to be held at the wedding barn, which is located on Benton Road. We assumed that that would be the tower and more information, but when we got there we found there's an additional Verizon tower now in the planning. It's approximately two-and-a-half miles to three miles from the current location of the Alpine tower. So I don't understand, when they put the map up there and they said coverage, it's wrong. The coverage that they're going to have is far extensive than what they're apparently talking about. And that -- at that meeting my wife and I signed the attendance sheets. There were four people there, and four people approved that tower. February 8, 2022 Page 109 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And where do you live in relationship to this tower? MR. HARRING: My property is adjacent to WAVV -- to Alpine Engineering's property. I am the last property on Benton Road, legal resident. And for them to build a road going down to their proposed site, they have to cross 15 feet of my property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: To the proposed new tower? MR. HARRING: Yes. The property line that goes between my property and their property is a section line between Section 24 and 25. Just north of 25 there's an easement for the telephone and for the electric lines, and then it's Benton Road. And Benton Road is on my land, and so is that easement. The easement, I grant permission to the utilities as far as a phone and as far as the electric to be on that piece of property. I do not grant permission for construction or development of new utilities going there. And the easement, by definition, is controlled by the owner of that piece of property. It's just a lending of the use of that land to another user. Oh, your lattice tower has to hold up to an F1 or F2, because when we had Irma out there, we had two tornadoes came through our neighborhood. I lost 12 sheets of plywood off my roof and 12 trees off my property, six palms that were taken directly out of the ground. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good. Thank you, Don. Well, I think with that, we'll close the public hearing portion of this, public speaking portion of this. And do we want to go back and ask questions or -- oh, Ms. Fink? Do we want to -- I think we probably should call for maybe final comments from both. I'd like to wrap this hearing up before we go to lunch, just so you know. That's my ultimate goal here, and we will take lunch, so... COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I concur that we hear February 8, 2022 Page 110 from both. I mean, it disturbs me when I hear one side say, you know, they felt like they were at a significant disadvantage at the Planning Commission, and that may or may not be arguable, but we're here now. This is a big decision. And I was going to say I'd like to hear Alpine, to come to the podium, but you beat me to the punch. So I think we'd like to hear closings from both sides -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- wouldn't you say? Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please. Do you want to go first, Ms. Fink? MS. FINK: Sure. Yes, it is a big decision today. This recommendation, this decision falls under your decision, your purview, and the goal is to keep the land in harmony with the applicable codes and regulations and the community's interests. As we stated before, it's the service carrier that determines the equipment that goes on that gives the service, not the actual tower. This tower is a Kline fabricated and manufactured tower. And we just wanted to say that it's -- as I said before, it's a tower that can handle whatever collocations are necessary. And AT&T had found independently that they were in agreement with our engineers, and they're placing their equipment on our tower, and they've already fabricated the parts. So although we don't have a letter and maybe we don't have a permit pulled right now, I'm sure that is forthcoming, because I don't believe AT&T's going to place their equipment on without the permitting pulled. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can't do it. MS. FINK: So that will be forthcoming. But the fabrications have been paid for; they're on their way, and I believe that the tower speaks for itself really. February 8, 2022 Page 111 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ms. Jahn. MS. JAHN: Good afternoon. Mattaniah Jahn, again. There was a lot of stuff brought up, so I have witnesses for rebuttal. Do you want to do this now or after lunch? I know you want to finish this up now, but I have witnesses for rebuttal. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not going to take lunch until we finish this hearing. MS. JAHN: Okay. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Unless Commissioner Taylor really gets -- MS. JAHN: And I apologize. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How many witnesses? MS. JAHN: There's a lot to go through here. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I -- so the public comment section is closed? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's closed? Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're basically in the final arguments, if you will, from Alpine and from Capital. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Do we need -- do we need more witnesses? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't really -- I don't necessarily feel that we do. I mean, if you have something that -- if you have something that you wish to rebut, I'd like to hear that, but... MS. JAHN: Well, let me see if I can rebut this without witnesses. So first things first, there's been discussion about modifications, right. And there's all this talk that the custom-made parts are being fabricated and put on in order to structurally modify this tower, and February 8, 2022 Page 112 your building officials haven't had a chance to look at a design and review that? What if these 36 cross members end up being the wrong size or engineered incorrectly? That -- this is the same as changing out beams in a building. Your -- your Building Department gets to look at that and gets to check the math and say this is the right size cross member and the like. So I'm highly incredulous that there are -- that there are cross members that are being modified and will show up next week and be built and all of a sudden there's going to be a permit. That's just not how the real world functions unless you're trying to violate the code and do an illegal -- an illegal building modification, but you don't go changing out structural members without going in and submitting. The discussion that they were somehow disadvantaged because the inquiry process back and forth about structural modifications happened after the Collier County Planning Commission, that's a notice argument, essentially, and Law School 101, people who show up and complain can't raise notice because they're there. And not only that, they've had the full benefit of your code, the whole back-and-forth, and not only that, with the added benefit of being under the watchful eye of this board and the county staff, which normally would not happen under the code. Normally this would go back and forth without you all CC'ed, without staff CC'ed watching this. So the code has been satisfied. To the discussion about the Collier County Planning Commission, even taking -- so you have the inquiry process, but the underlying analysis on compatibility under your code stays the same, and at the end of day, they're giving a recommendation body. Procedurally applications can -- and I'm sure they do come before you with a recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission, and you are the final decision maker. You have the final hearing and make the final decision. So I respectfully submit that that Planning February 8, 2022 Page 113 Commission hearing is proper. As far as Jhonathan Montenegro, if I can have him come up, because they said that they called him a bunch of times and he never returned their calls, and I think that's something that does warrant hearing direct from him if I may have your indulgence for the purposes of rebuttal. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure. MS. JAHN: Okay. Mr. Montenegro, please come up. Please state your name again for the record. MR. MONTENEGRO: I'm Jhonathan Montenegro. MS. JAHN: All right. And, Mr. Montenegro, there was discussion by the opposition that they had placed several calls, that Alpine had placed several calls with you, and you did not respond to them. Do you recollect any phone calls with Alpine Towers? MR. MONTENEGRO: So there was one call, and I can't remember if it was a voicemail and I returned the call or if I had the direct conversation with Mr. Al Baxa. I got the call and -- this was back in May of 2020, because I sent an email to one of the people on my team basically forwarding the message on to take action. And the premise of the call was basically just to start working to renew a lease. This lease is not up until 2030, so it's very early in the process for us to renew a lease. But I reached out to my person who handles lease renewals, forwarded it off to them, and I think it was basically agreed upon that because it was so far out that we weren't going to really pursue it. But other than that, I haven't received any phone calls. I don't have any voicemails or anything along those lines. I get probably close to 100 calls a day from landlords and numbers that I don't recognize along with another 200 spam calls come in, so most of the time I don't answer if I don't know the number, but if I do have a voicemail, I will ensure to return the call, so I can assure you that that wasn't the case. February 8, 2022 Page 114 MS. JAHN: Okay. And that was just one call from them? THE WITNESS: Correct. MS. JAHN: All right. Thank you. Let's see here. There's been discussion about this AT&T collocation. You've picked up on this, Commissioners. There's no competent substantial evidence of a collocation on the Alpine tower in our record. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We understand that. MS. JAHN: So if their position's true and they've been talking with AT&T since last year, where is the letter of intent? The collocation application, the little form that you fill out just to initiate the structural review process, emails, anything -- I mean, if I was the attorney for Alpine and one -- I think the first thing I would do is say, hey, look, here's this collocation. I've got the document. I'm going to put it on the Elmo. That's not there. Nothing. Just like there's no structural modifications, no permit, this all shows up right here. The other thing I'll remind you about the structural analysis, since we don't -- you know, without having to bring Mr. Shanahan back up, Alpine was calculating the math for that tower the same way we were until January the 24th. This new approach of saying you have to go do these side calculations to adjust for the 10-inch difference in these cross members -- 10 inches, not even a foot -- showed up the day before the last time this was supposed to come to hearing. And they've had our -- we submitted our report, our response to them, last October. There's been months to respond and rebuke and rebut us, and it didn't show up until the very end, and I think that says something right there. And when you look into the record and look at the history of this one, there's been this back-and-forth, you know, Alpine -- or Capital, once we started the inquiry process, we asked for these -- we asked for information on the tower, and we gave our loading. February 8, 2022 Page 115 And the reason that letter says I didn't -- you know, I just got it in 2017. By the time we were -- or in May the 17th, 2021. By the time that we were there, we had an RF package and loading scenario from Verizon that was from 2018. So Verizon, in good faith, updated their loading and said, this is what we are going to put on this when this happens. Here -- we're not hiding the ball. Here's everything we need, Alpine. So that came in just before I sent the letter. I had received a letter from Ms. Fink saying when are you going to send the -- when are you going to send us these documents? You know, the County Commissioner told -- the County Commission told us that we need to do this exchange. So I explained it by saying, I got the last of the loading documentation to back up what I'm saying about loading just prior to sending you this letter, and that's what Ms. Fink's picking up on in her statement -- or picked up on and based her -- ended up sparking her statement. I know there was a lot talked about this being a Kline tower. I drive a Dodge Charger. It's a 2017. Nice reliable car. Gets me anywhere in the state I want to go. The only reason I pull over and stop is for gasoline because, thankfully, I don't -- have yet to violate any motor vehicle laws. But I don't stop for mechanical breakdowns. My father's 1991 Dodge Grand Caravan was also a Dodge, and it had five transmissions. They're both Dodges. They're not the same. I don't know what the status of a tower in Fargo, North Dakota, is, and that's, frankly, not relevant to this -- to this discussion today. What is relevant is the Alpine tower as it is today and as it is documented. That is what's relevant to your inquiry today. Let's see. Sorry, I just have so many notes here. So Mr. Harring got up and said that we'd have to cross over his land. I have an exhibit for this, but I take issue with that, because February 8, 2022 Page 116 we've plotted -- we've done a lot of title research on Benton Road and Woodland Estates Road. And there are -- this is an exhibit in the record showing the easements. There's easements going down that road, and right here, No. 2, is Mr. Harring's property. Number 4 is the access point. Parcel No. 4 is the access point for the Alpine tower. And one thing that you'll notice -- let me zoom in here -- is that the easements -- and you can see the OR book and page. And if we want to go pull them, we can go get the actual plan sheet so that it's more legible. There's two easements side by side. So if you were to completely discount the Harring easement, which is granted to the public -- and an easement isn't a lend. It's actually a property interest that's conveyed. You hold it as sure as you hold dirt. So the public owns an interest in traveling over this road. But even if you were to completely throw that out off the front of your dais, there's a whole 'nother easement over the -- over the landlord's property there, so there is no way his statement holds up. I know Mr. McMahon was talking about some things involving -- involving Woodlands Estates Road. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Maintenance. MS. JAHN: Yes. You have a commitment to fair-share use based on the use of it. And the way that's currently structured is that the persons who manage -- the family that manages this roadway is performing the work. They're up in the north here. And that keeps the money local instead of bringing in an outside company. There are very specific commitments in the conditions of approval to maintain that road during construction to make sure construction doesn't cause damage, and that's directly on Capital and their build team, and then beyond that it's based on fair use. I will tell you that right now you could build a house, a single-family home on the Capital property, the land -- the land that February 8, 2022 Page 117 they're on as of right. It doesn't come before you. And you end up getting all those trips that come down the road without any commitment whatsoever towards maintenance, any written commitment, and you put a lot more load on that road. A cell tower's one trip per carrier per month, typically, in a pickup-truck-sized vehicle. So the construction component doesn't matter, and the actual doesn't count because that's tied into zoning approval that has to be fixed, and then the typical usage is far less than what's currently vested on that land. So you're actually leaving the road in a better condition than it would be from a use standpoint, because you cannot build a house on that property once the tower is constructed. One of our -- I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm complaining. We did notice in compliance with your code, which is a thousand-foot radius, I believe. I'll have Mr. Bosi correct me on that, or staff, if I'm wrong. And we put up the two notice signs per your code, and we did that as your code requires. One of those signs was actually stolen at one point and moved down to the bridge, and we had to put it back to stay in compliance with your code for notice purposes so that way we can come to hearing today, but one other thing that I'll keep in -- I'll bring your attention to, you have -- over in the Estates, if you were to zone a cell tower -- I recently went through this -- you have a one-mile notice radius in the Estates because it's the Estates, and they get a one-mile notice radius. The last tower I did had over 2,200 people responding to it, right. Mr. McMahon is beyond a mile. He wouldn't -- even if this was in the Estates and we were doing this, he would not have received notice under the code. And their gate is here. I know this from personal knowledge. Woodland Estates Road's gate saying "this is a private road and you can't come on it" starts here after the February 8, 2022 Page 118 Benton Road intersection. I know I'm leaving stuff behind, but -- I would, again, direct you back to the competent substantial evidence in your record, I would direct you back to your code which says the applicant makes a showing, a reasonable showing that it's not -- that it is not -- that it is impracticable to use that property. As far as the difference in the delta, on the one hand you have Alpine, again, not documenting it saying, well, it's going to be 40- to 71 -- $70,000. For Capital, they have the company that did the last round of upgrades providing an estimate for budgeting purposes. Capital didn't dream that up; that came from the company that's been out there and climbed that tower. I know you said there were structural reports. There's an inspection report. All that talks about is maintenance, and you've seen it before. It's this one-page thing. It's not signed by an engineer. It doesn't talk about capacity. It's, is it still there? Is it still painted? Has it still got lights? But, again, I would draw you back to the standard in the code that this bases off of the applicant's estimate, and you have consistent evidence in this record showing that that tower's impracticable to locate on. With that, I and my team are available for any questions that you may have, and I would respectfully request that you follow the evidence, follow your code, and approve this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. There is a question here. Commissioner Solis, was that -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and you touched on it at the end, and I recall bringing this up when we heard this the first time, and that is, what's the burden? I mean, you're the applicant. And I think you had a copy of the ordinance, or maybe the County Attorney February 8, 2022 Page 119 does. MR. KLATZKOW: The burden is always on the applicant. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. But I think the ordinance had some specific language in it. MR. KLATZKOW: What the ordinance states -- and I've got it in front of me -- if the cost of the required changes are financially impracticable, the tower shall be deemed unavailable to the applicant. The determination is up to the Board. You've heard evidence on both sides. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And who determines impracticable. MR. KLATZKOW: You do. This is not the first time you get two people saying wildly different things. Courts happen to have it all the time. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I guess the question is, and your position is that the burden of proof is reasonable competent substantial evidence. What's your position that your burden is? MS. JAHN: Yeah. So, I mean, legally the burden of proof is competent substantial evidence, which is analogous to substantial evidence under the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, roughly, which the federal courts have reduced down to say more than a mere scintilla. We've gone way beyond that. You have one side here that's making statements. You have another side here that's documented this up. And every time a new factor has been thrown at us, we've gone back and analyzed it under our code -- under the TIA code, which is the code you use for towers. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to go again? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. MS. JAHN: I'm sorry. I'm giving you a $5 answer to a $1 question. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I think -- and just to try to February 8, 2022 Page 120 move things forward, I mean, looking at the evidence that's been presented and the arguments on both sides, you know, I'm in favor of supporting the application because a lot of what we heard from -- I mean, when I hear that Alpine has AT&T, you know, ready to collocate but they don't have anything to -- any evidence of that other than statements which are hearsay, right? And we have Capital that has a letter of intent to locate. You know, all of these things add up in my mind and lead me to the conclusion that I think Capital has met its burden. We heard talk about costs, we heard talk about how maybe some more changes to the Alpine tower would cost up to a half a million dollars. You know, I just -- I don't know how I can reach any other conclusion based upon what's been presented. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ma'am, did you have something you were going to say? I don't know if the Chairman wants to -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm -- where'd Commissioner Saunders go? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He went to lunch. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I turn my back on him once, and he gets up and leaves. MS. FINK: Well, I did have two emails from MasTec's AT&T's representative and an email just from February 1st to say that they were doing their on-site walk at the tower, if you-all wanted to see that proof. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's an email that says they're doing an on-site walk. I mean, you know -- anyway. I'm -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have one. It's not of either of you, and it really has to do with Mr. McMahon, if you don't mind coming back to the podium for me. One of the huge concerns I have -- and I understand Ms. Jahn's representation about the February 8, 2022 Page 121 implications of construction being outweighed for a single-family. I know. I live on a mile-long dirt road myself. I own an E12, so -- and was on it for five hours Sunday. What would -- from a commitment from the applicant standpoint would substantiate assistance with the offsite for the ongoing maintenance? MR. McMAHON: Essentially, something more concrete from them. As of right now, they're mentioning the person who maintains the road who lived on the north side of Benton Road. He does not maintain Woodland Estates Road. The people who live on Benton Road don't use Woodland Estates Road. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. They come in off of 28th. MR. McMAHON: Twenty-eighth Avenue Southeast extension, yes. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- and then they cut back to the west from Woodlands. MR. McMAHON: So I'm the only person who's actually been providing maintenance on the road, and -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's up on your end. Are you talking about the southern portion? MR. McMAHON: All the way to the bridge. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. All the way to the bridge. MR. McMAHON: I was the person who initially constructed the majority of Woodland Estates Road. I just haven't had anything real clear from them as to how this would work, and then there seems to be just a lot of conflicting information. If there were more coordination -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They have a pretty clear description of what they will do preconstruction, existing photographs, and certain amount of aggregate and maintenance and February 8, 2022 Page 122 so on, which I think, perceptively, will carry us through the construction stage. It's after the fact with regard to the ongoing maintenance of Benton, which isn't solely your responsibility. But we don't have a homeowners' association or an MSTU where everybody pays 50 bucks a year and then the roads are taken care of. Somebody had a really good idea like that once, but we don't have any place specifically for that to actually be accommodated. So that's -- and I appreciate it. MR. McMAHON: And that's one difficulty in the neighborhood, because there's several miles of roads and different roads. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Appreciate you sharing with me. Thank you. MR. McMAHON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are we closed? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we're done. I don't have any other further questions. Thank you. All right. Ladies and -- lady and gentlemen. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I want to -- I'm going to -- just to get the discussion going, I'm going to make a motion, because I think we're probably all ready to vote on this. I'm going to make a motion for approval with several conditions, and I'm basing that motion on the -- what I consider to be the evidence presented by the applicant and also the staff and the Planning Commission. The motion for approval is conditioned upon having flashing lights, and I think you've agreed to that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, fixed lights, not flashing, I think is what was said. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Flashing lights, I believe. February 8, 2022 Page 123 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Flashing? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Motion-activated ground lights. No guyed wires, so it will be a lattice structure. You'll have the three carriers plus Altius, if I'm saying that right, and one additional carrier. So you'll have five carriers altogether. So I'll make that motion to approve based on those conditions. And let the record reflect that the petitioner has agreed to those conditions, or at least there's a nod in the affirmative, if you would state that. MS. JAHN: This is Mattaniah Jahn again, and we agree to all the proposed conditions of approval that Mr. Saunders just mentioned as well as the ones in -- any additional that are in the staff report. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll just -- can I say something before I -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You didn't light up, but go ahead. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: First off, I'm going to agree with the motion on the applicant, but I think a few things are worth saying. I think a great deal of thanks should go to WAVV for providing that tower over so many years and what it's done for that community. You know, you sit here and -- I know that this is a difficult one, and I have friends that work for them, but we're up here making a decision for the county. I think the new lattice tower -- you know, our job is also to look at future potential and not, you know, how long can we keep a certain, you know, tower or whatever it is, you know, up and running. The environmental protection pieces, I know, is something important to all of us. So being able to get the lattice tower and all February 8, 2022 Page 124 the other things with the lights and whatnot. I'm not saying, you know, that Alpine couldn't do all those things, but when I keep reading, you know, back what I see here and it says, what's the cost effectiveness? I mean, how much do you wind up spending? I do think that based on some experience I have with towers, some of the numbers about, well, we can spend 70,000 here and a few thousand here, wow, that wasn't my experience in upgrading towers. And I will just say to WAVV a couple things that I was really disappointed on. You know, when you turn in an inspection three months late, when you come here and say all this great stuff that AT&T is going to do but you don't have a letter -- I bet if AT&T was here right now and knew you guys didn't have permits, they wouldn't be happy. So I don't say that to throw spears at you, but to talk to people before they come up here to pitch something to us, have your ducks lined up. I mean, for us to tell you you didn't have permits is embarrassing. You know, you should have known that. And so like I said, I have friends that are at the station, we all do, but the business of being prepared up here is something that doesn't help you. And those are -- it's not one thing. It's a bunch of things. I think the future add-ons would not be cost effective for the WAVV tower, and that's why I think having a tower that has the future potential to not only add on but be structurally, you know, much more sound. So, you know, my vote's going to be to support the applicant as well. I don't know what that does to the WAVV tower if they lose customers. Somebody had made the comment of that tower should be taken down, and I think that's not something we decide here. But if all their customers switch over to your lattice tower and they don't have any customers, I wouldn't want that empty tower just sitting February 8, 2022 Page 125 there as an eyesore, but that's a whole separate discussion. But, you know, my vote's going to be to support the applicant. I just wanted to say why. But I thank WAVV for, you know, being able to maintain that tower for so many years and give that area the coverage that it's had, you know, over all these years, but I think it's time to move forward. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to say anything before I call for the vote? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This has been very difficult, very difficult. I have friends also at WAVV and also thank them very much for their service. But if we think about the future -- and the future is here -- and what's coming, and it's coming fast like a locomotive, it really is -- we have to -- we have a responsibility to prepare for the future, and the honesty of your engineer when he responded about the cost -- the potential cost of adding more carriers to the Alpine tower, you know, that was -- that was a very important decision-making thing for me, and it is to your credit. You folks are very honest, and this has been a war. I don't think it's been a fair war at all. And I don't like it. It's -- I just don't like it, but -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is what it is. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- I think the evidence is there, and I would agree with the motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If I'm not mistaken, this does require a supermajority vote. He usually gives me the definition of in perpetuity is three, but today it's four. I have just a couple of comments I'd like to make, and straight up, I'm going to support the motion. I also really want to thank the WAVV folks along the way, but this isn't a secret. This necessary infrastructure for our community's been coming for a long, long time. We -- I would like to make some suggestion to senior staff that we direct our Zoning and Planning Department to review our Land February 8, 2022 Page 126 Development Code regarding communication towers at large. We -- I think, when we heard this originally way back when, when you had failed to follow our code and notify the other tower that you were actually considering to come, and we sent you on your way and you came back again after you had subsequently fulfilled that, we have to review our LDC internally to be able to accommodate for the future and not get into this discussion back and forth of impracticable. That's a really, really difficult thing. MR. KLATZKOW: You're only here because this is a conditional use. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand that. MR. KLATZKOW: Staff puts through all the other cell towers in the county. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand that. I got it. I do, in fact, understand that. And if it hadn't of been -- it was brought up by the applicant that if it hadn't have been for the requisite of the conditional use, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. So to that end, I would like to -- and I, for you -- I was looking for you, Mr. McMahon. I was -- there is a plan in place to better accommodate folks that access their properties on private roads. So we'll get to that here in another couple of months if everything goes well. So that's all I have for now. The motion's been made and seconded with those conditions that are a matter of record. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. February 8, 2022 Page 127 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed, same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. 5-0. MS. JAHN: Thank you for your time today. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yep. It is now 12:56. We're going to take a lunch break and be back at 2:00. I'm going to give you an extra four minutes. (A lunch recess was had from 12:56 p.m. to 1:58 p.m.) MR. ISACKSON: Chair McDaniel, Commissioners, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Good afternoon, everybody. I hope you had a nice lunch, and now we're ready to go. MR. ISACKSON: Well, Commissioner Taylor is sponsoring Item 10A, and the commissioner's not here, so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Conspicuously absent, is she not? So let's go -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I make a motion we deny. MR. ISACKSON: Do you want to go to 11B real quick, sir? Do you want to go to 11B real quick? Trinity, you ready? Item #11B AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”) NO. 20-7811, “IMMOKALEE AREA IMPROVEMENTS – TIGER GRANT,” TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USE, INC., FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $22,869,280.20, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTAHCED AGREEMENT (PROJECT NO. 33563) – APPROVED February 8, 2022 Page 128 MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, 11B is a recommendation to award Request for Proposal No. 20-7811, the Immokalee area improvements TIGER Grant to Quality Enterprises USA for a total not to exceed $22,869,280.20, and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached agreement. And Ms. Trinity Scott, your Growth Management Deputy department head, will present. MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon. I have a very quick presentation that, if you would indulge me, I'd like to go through just to talk a little bit about the history of this project. What is TIGER? We always refer to this as the Immokalee TIGER project. TIGER is an acronym that stands for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery. It's a very highly competitive grant program that supports multimodal projects that are difficult to fund through traditional federal programs. Collier County submitted for the Immokalee TIGER grant not once, not twice, but three times. The tenacity of Lorraine Lantz in the Transportation Planning section for this grant was amazing. And in 2018, with only $487 million available, US DOT received 452 applications requesting a total of $6.1 billion. Eighteen of those applications were from the state of Florida; 41 recipients were rewarded, and there was only one from the state of Florida, and that was this Immokalee project. We received 13 -- just over $13 million of federal funding towards this project. I like to note that Lee County was funded a similar project a few years earlier, and they only got 11 million. So just for the record, we like to, you know, give that jab to Lee County. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're not keeping score, though. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. MS. SCOTT: We do in our house. The project is in Immokalee proper kind of surrounded by State Road 29. The purpose of the project was to grow the existing February 8, 2022 Page 129 pedestrian network and add new facilities to accommodate bicyclists, enhance access to jobs and other essential services for the residents of Immokalee, and we procured this project as a design-build project. Within the project area, there are five schools, community park, multiple health and community services, as well as multiple shopping and job access within the area. So this project is going to add approximately 20 miles of new sidewalk. It incorporates significant stormwater improvements that are consistent with the Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan, improves the Collier Area Transit bus stops, provides for a permanent CAT transfer station, and adds roadway and intersection lighting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And when the children go back and forth to school, they don't have to walk in water. MS. SCOTT: Yes. We went through the design-build process in September 16th of 2021. The selection committee met, and they ranked Quality Enterprises as the number-one-ranked firm. Quality Enterprises is currently doing two existing design-build projects with the county right now with the Growth Management Department. One is Veterans Memorial and the other is Whippoorwill, both of which have been very successful projects. The project bid was $22,869,280.20, which is .2 percent higher than the engineer's opinion of probable costs. We will be putting $9.7 million of local funds towards this design-build project. We anticipate construction starting this spring, and it's approximately a two-year construction duration for the contract. I have to say a special thank you to the team for this project, because it really took the entire team to bring this project through from conception all the way to our agreement with Federal Highway to where we are today. You notice in this slide I have the people's names highlighted, not the divisions that they work with because this really touched so many different divisions here, and I would not be February 8, 2022 Page 130 able to stand here today without the help of many, so I want to thank them, as well as our multiple partners who wrote letters of support for the grant. So today I have the honor of asking you to award the Request for Proposal No. 20-7811, Immokalee Area Improvements TIGER Grant, to Quality Enterprises, for a total not-to-exceed amount $22,869,280.20, and authorize the Chair to sign the attached agreement. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move. I think it's so important. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about if you let me make the motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Make the motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If you don't mind. And Commissioner Saunders was first. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I just want to make a quick comment. I do want to congratulate staff and the team for doing a great job. Occasionally, commissions do a little traveling at county government expense. I happened to be on one of those trips to Washington, D.C., a couple years ago; Commissioner McDaniel and I were on that trip. And I want to thank Commissioner McDaniel. He was an advocate for this project, met with Senator Rubio. There were half a dozen other folks that we met with and the folks that were involved in this grant process. And I wanted to kick Commissioner McDaniel a couple times because he was so emphatic and so positive about the project. Just kidding about wanting to kick him. He's bigger than me. But I just want to say that sometimes those trips do pay off, and you did a great job with that. But staff really did the heavy lifting on it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Staff did. And thank you. I February 8, 2022 Page 131 mean, you know, Mario Diaz Balart can't go unnamed here. He was -- he was driving the bus behind our capacity to be able to fulfill this request. Our senior staff did an amazing job. It's easy to be us when you have staff like we have that is doing the heavy lifting to be able to get to a point and bring forward a project like this. I mean, if you -- and I hope you do review the benefits of this project to that community, our community, my home, as Immokalee is so called. It's long overdue. And when you're behind, you can't get caught up quick enough. But I just want to say thank you to the Board for your support. Commissioner Saunders was with me when we were up there beating on doors in Washington, D.C., and it's -- I'm honored if you will, Commissioner Taylor, allow me to make that motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Of course. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I'd like to make the motion for approval. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm just waiting for the District 1 TIGER grant. Are we talking about that tomorrow? Okay. MS. SCOTT: Friday, at the town hall. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Perfect. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded. With no further discussion, all in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. February 8, 2022 Page 132 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed, same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Trinity. Item #10A BOARD DISCUSS WHETHER TO LIMIT OUTDOOR CONCERTS TO CERTAIN VENUES, INCLUDING THE SPROTS PARK AND THE COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS – DISCUSSED MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that brings you to Item 10 on your agenda. 10A is a request that the Board discuss whether to limit outdoor concerts to certain venues, including the sports park and the county fairgrounds, and this item is spored by Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I apologize for not being here at 2:00. What I did when this -- this issue came up -- and, basically, it is very much a citizen-motivated issue -- I turned to our County Manager and -- or County Attorney and asked him to give me -- legally. I mean, we're a county of, what, 300,000 people. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Almost 4-. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Surely we've got definitions of concerts, and what have we done in the past. And so I think what I'd like to do is put this up on the screen and turn this over to -- to Mr. Klatzkow. And I want those who are listening to this to be reassured this has nothing to do with amplified music. This has to do with concerts, gatherings of large people, how we treat them now, and how I'd like to see this go forward. And I don't expect anyone to February 8, 2022 Page 133 make a decision, but I think staff could -- depending on if there is an agreement up here, staff would take a look at it, and we'd see it again. We'd have a second pass at this. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. This is about outdoor concerts, not anything else as far as noise goes. As you can see, we've got multiple provisions in our codes dealing with outdoor concerts. Right now it's been a staff function where an applicant will come forward, put the application to staff, staff reviews the application, makes sure that the Sheriff is okay with it and porta potties and everything else. And then you have your outdoor concert. We've got a provision for Board approval, but I haven't seen one of those in so long I couldn't tell you. It is a ministerial process and, quite frankly, it's worked out well. But we have -- we have been growing, and we're starting to get complaints from residents dealing with noise. And so I spoke with Commissioner Taylor. I said, one of the reasons we built the sports park and put all that money into it was as a venue for outdoor concerts, and would you like the opportunity to, in essence, move outdoor concerts from the rest of the county to try to get it into the sports park. And that's the basis of the conversation. Whether or not the Board wants to see these things or keep as staff function or whether the Board wants to think about moving our outdoor concerts to more controlled areas like the sports park or even the fairgrounds. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: After all, we have a jumbotron at the sports park. I think Ben Allen Band had, what, 2,000 people out there during the summer. So my thought was is that if there is a consensus up here to have staff look at this -- I'm not sure it should always be administrative. My thought was that, you know, that the public needs a second pass February 8, 2022 Page 134 at this, all right, or needs a pass at this. So maybe this comes to us as consent, and then we can decide as individual commissioners whether we want to pull it for a public discussion. So that's -- that's kind of where I'm going with it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I don't think I'd ever vote against having staff take another look at something unless it's something we've beaten to death, and this is one that's starting to -- you know, it is starting to bubble up. But a couple of comments. You know, up until we redrew the map, Sugden Park was in my district, and I can tell you I went to pretty much every concert there. That's one of many that we have around town. And, you know, the 2,000 people that are out there that are enjoying it is -- it trumps the three emails I got from the same three people every time that thought that it was too noisy. And I always checked with Jim Bloom afterwards to see if he got any complaints and, you know, he didn't. I'm not saying that those citizens -- but I just want to make sure we don't do a knee jerk because three or four citizens, you know, filled up our in-boxes. I also have a little bit of problem -- this is more to the staff. This isn't really to Commissioner Taylor or any of our, you know, thoughts here. But if the staff is going to chew on this, I do have a little bit of a concern if you come back and say, well, we built a $120 million sports park, so every concert needs to be there. I can tell you, there's people that live around that sports park, and I'm sure if three days a week there was 5,000 people going to an event, traffic, safety, you know, and even noise is an issue. I've gotten more complaints from Celebration Park pound for pound, dollar for dollar, you know, a handful of food trucks, than I've gotten from Sugden. So I think it's wise to have the staff take a look February 8, 2022 Page 135 at it. I think, you know, the comment about letting citizens know we're not just sort of like brushing this away, but when the staff comes back, I mean, I'd like to see some balance. And the sports park is an option now, but I'd hate to see everything defaulted there, because I bet if you lived right down on the corner and, you know, had to deal with, you know, 5:00 traffic three days a week because Ben Allen was playing or something -- and I'm not saying we're defaulting to that, but I think we have lots of venues across the county that are valuable and conducive depending on the size of the event and whatnot, and I think it gives our citizens a lot more choice when things are sort of spread out rather than saying, oh, you know, you live up in, you know, North Naples or, you know, Bonita Springs. Hightail it over to the sports complex because every time Collier County has something fun, that's where it is. But on the flip side, you know, there's certain things, I think, that, you know, some venues are suited for and some aren't. I think if the request or the motion is, hey, we'd like to see the staff dig into this, I think they know enough now to maybe take a closer look. I do agree that just a quick administrative, you know, permit approval, and then we find out after the event, wow, somebody forget to call the Sheriff, there wasn't enough porta potties, there was this or that. So a tighter look. I don't know that I'd be really supportive of every time there's an event -- and you're not asking that. You know, I'm seeing this spread sheet for the first time. Every time there's a concert, you know, they have to come in here to the commissioners and get approval. I mean, I trust the staff to be able to maybe do a little bit tighter due diligence since we know that this has been an issue. But we've had very successful, you know, concerts at Sugden Park for the Fallen Officers and, yeah, I'd get one or two emails when it was in my district, and maybe now, you know, Commissioner Taylor has February 8, 2022 Page 136 gotten those, but, you know, I walk that park once a month for the concerts, and the 2,000 people that are there are like, wow, I've never even been to this park and now it's awesome, it's wonderful. And the permit does allow them to, you know, play music to a certain time. And so unlike Celebration Park where we've had complaints they've gone over time and overly loud and all that, I'd really like our staff to focus on that. But the venues that we've had around the community I think have been extremely successful. And so -- but, yeah, I would concur, let the staff take a look at it but, you know, my comment to staff would be, let's find some cohesion and use, you know, all of our facilities and not just default, you know, everything to the sports complex. And I know that's not what you're saying. You know, I think some things are a perfect fit there, and then other things, you know, maybe aren't. But, you know, I'm here to tell you the events that we've had in District 1, I've got overwhelming, you know, positive and very few, if ever -- I think the last three concerts in Sugden Park the Sheriff's Office didn't even get a call, so -- did meet a couple people, you know, thought it was a little bit loud, but I've gotten a lot more complaints from Celebration Park than I have at Sugden and other places. But I'd concur to have the staff take a look at it and bring it back to us so we can see where the loose ends might be, how we can tighten things up. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think this is definitely something we need to look at. But a couple of things. I mean, number one, I think we have to have some type of metric for determining how big a concert it has to be, right? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because the Ritz-Carlton every February 8, 2022 Page 137 year does their big concert that's been very well received, and they're respectful, I think, of the neighbors. So I don't know that we can have a bright line saying absolutely none outside of the sports park. I think we'd get some pushback on that. But I think -- I think that it raises maybe even a broader issue that I have been kicking around with Mr. French and Rich Hampton, that was the lieutenant in charge of District 2 from the Sheriff's Department, and that is how these things get coordinated with law enforcement -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- and traffic control, and, you know, EMS and all of that, because that has been -- and I know in District 2, has been a big problem in the past because the best place everybody wants to have, for example, as a race is down Gulf Shore on Vanderbilt Beach in the winter, and, you know, these things get planned before there's a permit pulled. And I, you know, would hear from the Sheriff's Department that it really puts -- yeah, Mr. French is over there nodding his head. He knows what I'm talking about. And it seems to be a recurring thing. There's got to be a better way of trying to coordinate this because, yeah, we want to have those races in the winter, but the winter's also when it's the most congested. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Busiest. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And to close down, you know, Vanderbilt Beach Road, you know, for a race out -- you know, a cycling race or something, there has to be some timelines, I think, on how far in advance these things get applied for or else they can't happen, because it just puts everybody in a bind. I know the Sheriff's Department, as many people -- additional deputies as they're always looking for, it means extra hours, and it's really a problem. So I think we should look at this, but I think we also need to look at just kind of the broader issue of how we plan and permit events -- February 8, 2022 Page 138 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. That's right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- in general. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree. I mean, this is so broad. I mean, it's good, and it's important. And I have a synopsis here that Ms. Ashton wrote about the definitions, but I think -- I think the date is 2011. We need to dust this off, because things have changed so much and as we've grown, neighborhoods have grown. And in many, many cases people's lifesavings are in their home, and they bought this home, and then all of a sudden there's a concert or something, and they're not happy about it. So I think there's a balance, but it is a quality-of-life issue. And I think maybe as we go forward and have staff look at it and compare it to other areas, I think we could come up with some answers and just tighten it up a little bit. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I -- can I go? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to go again? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I just want to add -- and it's not to get into a debate with Commissioner Taylor or anybody else. But, you know, there's 2,000 people that went to Sugden Park last Saturday, and their lifesavings in this town as well, and one of the things they say to me is, wow, finally something to do here. So we've got to remember all citizens matter. So the three or four that beat a big drum that they can hear music from their pool patio is important but also, too, we have to look at the masses. And, you know, I default back to, you know, let's be careful about sort of overusing the sports park. And that's probably a bad term, because it could use all the use it could get. But you've got people that live around there right now that the sports park's been pretty quiet and dusty. If we made that the default place for all of, you know, the bigger festivities, we could have an issue there. But, I mean, like you say, the conversation in here is to let the February 8, 2022 Page 139 staff take a look at it. Initially, on the surface, though, I don't think I would support a public hearing for outdoor festivals. I would hope that our staff would be smart enough to do those extra due diligent things, and if they had some questions for us, but to make that the default position every time there was an outdoor festival, I think, is overreach and more than we need. I know that we have a great staff that maybe just needs to tighten things up a little bit. And if they thought they had something that was over and above, they always have that option to come to us and say, you know, somebody's requested something that's a one-time big, huge deal. But we have activities in Collier County, you know, pretty frequent and so -- I mean, that's why we have a staff to do it. And also it could slow down the process a lot. Somebody's trying to get something approved and, you know, they're waiting for the commissioners to, you know, gather or whatnot. It could be overkill. But like I said, those are just statements, not necessarily a, you know, position. Like I say, we're not voting on anything. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I speak, I guess, from my past experience of 10 years on the City Council, and people learn pretty quickly how to navigate the process. They know timing. They know -- there's a calendar, a very active calendar that talks about the number of activities at Cambier Park and on Fifth Avenue and running on Gulf Shore Boulevard and lanes closing, and they have to provide all sorts of detailed plans. And you know what? They think it's worth it. So I think -- I think going forward -- I am not saying that everything goes to the sports park because, frankly, sports also will be at the sports park. But, my goodness, you have a jumbotron. You have extreme parking places everywhere. You've got a beautiful stadium. You've got seating. I mean, what else could you want? February 8, 2022 Page 140 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and just -- and I'm glad you clarified it, because when I -- there wasn't a lot of backup with this. And Commissioner Solis has expressed regularly the balloon effect, and when you squeeze the balloon, something pops out somewhere else. And you named the Collier County Fairgrounds as an alternate site as well. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That has had complaints. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, it does. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Maybe not the proposed new place for the fairgrounds. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, time with tell with regard to the new place or not. My concern when I read this was real property rights. People have the right when they own a piece of property to request to have a festival even if it's a one-time event. And I like the thought process of it being reviewed over and above the staff's review. I think that will allow us to be alerted by our constituents that are impacted by these events that are coming forward. And we're -- and it's evident that over time the amateur -- you know, Paradise Coast will ultimately become the go-to venue because of all the amenities and parking and with the $90 million we're doing in infrastructure improvements at I-75 and 951. Inevitably things will orient in that direction. But as a comment -- and as you've already said, we're not voting on anything today. I just want to be cautious that we're not inhibiting real property rights that travel along with the people that have the right to ask for an outdoor event or concert, along those lines. But having that additional review will move it further up on the public's radar and allow us to be able to express and maybe address some concerns. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. February 8, 2022 Page 141 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So maybe we have a -- is it as clear as mud? We look at this and decide if we're happy with the definitions. MR. ISACKSON: We'll bring back an executive summary with some pertinent points, and we'll see if we can get to where you need to go. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's great. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. 11C, I think, is where we're at. Yes. MR. MILLER: Commissioner, I know we didn't take a vote on anything, and I'm sorry I missed this attending to something here. Al Schantzen did want to speak about 10A. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Al, I'm awful sorry about that. He hasn't really taught me which -- come up on. He hasn't really taught me which button I need to hit, and when I did, I erased the public comment section. I saw it there and forgot. MR. SCHANTZEN: No problem. For the record, Al Schantzen, resident of Collier County since the '70s and the Bayshore area since the '90s, and I'll be heard. Back in the day, in the '70s, we used to ride on the beach with our dogs and stuff like that and have a good old time. Then our forefathers were wise enough to say that's probably not good for the peace and tranquility of the surrounding residents there. And I like the conversation that you're having is that we need to take a look at what we have going here and fast forward to today's discussion on the open-air concerts, open air. You know, if it's closed venue and everything else, that's totally something different. But when they're adjacent to residential areas, to be sensitive to the residential areas because we have the responsibility for the future that's coming at us at a very fast clip as you stated earlier. So I like February 8, 2022 Page 142 the idea of you reviewing this policy. And so using the same foresight and wisdom as our previous elected officials, consider the peace and tranquility of the surrounding residential areas that you're working with, and look at the more suitable events, frequency, and timing when they start, when they stop, and things like that. And I greatly appreciate you taking a look and into the future, such as we did. We can't drive on the beach no more, but we still have dogs. Appreciate it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And cars. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And thank you, Troy. I appreciate that. I think I know what I'm supposed to do to not erase the next public comment, so... MR. ISACKSON: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11C BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ENDORSE AND APPROVE THE COUNTY MANAGER’S NEW SENIOR LEADERSHIP NOMINEES, FURTHER ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES, STAFFING COMPLEMENTS, APPROACH, AND RESPONSIBILITIES, TO TAKE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – MOTION TO APPROVE AS INTERIM POSITIONS AND EXISTING POSITIONS WILL BE PRESERVED SO THAT THE NEW INCOMING COUNTY MANAGER CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED – APPROVED MR. ISACKSON: That brings us to Item 11C. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners endorse and approve the County Manager's new senior leadership nominees, further organizational changes, staffing complements approach, and February 8, 2022 Page 143 responsibilities to take effect immediately, and approve all necessary budget amendments. Commissioners, it's my honor and privilege to recommend for your confirmation four individuals in this organization that are certainly deserving of the nominee that I've brought -- nominations that I've brought forward. Mr. Dan Rodriguez for the position of Deputy County Manager; Ms. Trinity Scott for the position of department head, Transportation Management Services; Mr. Jamie French, department head, Growth Management/Community Development; and Ms. Tanya Williams, department head in our Public Services Division. When I became the County Manager, I had asked Trinity and Jamie to serve in deputy roles in the organization in their respective disciplines down at growth management, and I think it's worthy right now of separating those two functions given the immense activities that are going on in each one of those particular areas, especially given the growth rate in the county, the amount of capital work that's going on, and the amount of permitting activity that's occurring in the county. So with these appointments, and hopefully the Board's confirmation, we would also split up Growth Management into those two specific disciplines that I mentioned. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Ms. Amy Patterson will continue in her current role as Deputy County Manager and will have the dual County Manager -- or Deputy County Manager structure, and Mr. -- and Dr. George Yilmaz will continue in his capacity as the department head for our Public Utilities Division. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And there you have it. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any issues with the moving of folks around. I want February 8, 2022 Page 144 to make a suggestion that we -- we're obviously going to be looking for a new county manager. That's going to happen rather quickly, and I want a new county manager to be able to have some flexibility when he or she gets here. So I would suggest that we make these appointments as interim appointments, preserve the positions that these employees are in right now so that if they're moved back, those positions are still available. But we did the same thing, I think, when Mr. Ochs was leaving and he did some changes, and we made those interim appointments so that at that time Mark could do whatever he needed to do to get the organization the way he wanted it. So I would make a motion to approve this with the condition that these are interim positions; that the existing positions will be preserved so that a new manager coming in can make some adjustments as may be needed. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll second that motion. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think that's -- I'm very comfortable with the way -- the motion and the suggestion. I think if Mr. Isackson hadn't announced his retirement, we wouldn't talk about interim, but right now we need to be respectful of who's coming in, so I would agree. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I concur. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I just would remind my colleagues -- I concur easily -- just what a talented staff we have here internally. I mean, you know, we're going to talk about something else here in a little bit. So I would just remind you we're almost, you know, overwhelming passing interim, but it just shows you the talent that we have on our staff, and luckily we were wise enough to compete our County Manager internally to get somebody as February 8, 2022 Page 145 successful and as hard working as Mr. Isackson has been. I would argue that in the short time he's been in the seat, you know, compared to others that have been in the job a lot longer, he's accomplished more in -- you know, in his year and knows the staff better than anyone. And so I think this is just a testament that we have superstars on our staff. He knows them better than anyone. I hate to lose him, but I would agree that whoever comes in here afterwards, whether they're internal or external, are going to -- are going to inherit these four amazing people, and I think they should have the latitude to make changes, but I think they're going to find that Mark has picked, you know, the four best people here to move. And I also like how you've restructured, you know, some things. I mean, you've continually made little movements and adjustments to ensure that we have, like, a chain of command that really functions as best as it can, so I applaud you for that. And these four folks here are already proven winners, you know, to me. So I concur with the appointments interimly, you know, out of respect for whoever's coming in, but I have no doubt that they'll be inheriting, you know, four amazing leaders. MR. ISACKSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed, same sign, same sound. (No response.) February 8, 2022 Page 146 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. 11D. Item #11D DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE BOARD’S PRFERRED STRATEGY FOR RECRUITING A COUNTY MANAGER – MOTION TO ENGAGE OUTSIDE FIRM BASINGER AND FOLLOW THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SALARY – APPROVED; MOTION TO NOT EXCLUDE INTERNAL CANDIDATES – APPROVED MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. That moves us to Item 11D, which is a recommendation to discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the Board's preferred strategy for recruiting a county manager. Ms. Amy Lyberg, your Human Resources director, will present. MS. LYBERG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Amy Lyberg, Human Resources. At the last meeting you provided direction for us to go back out and take a look at what options would be available for you for an executive search firm. Some information was transmitted to you early this week, or actually the end of last week, with three quotes that came back to the county. Based on our search, we have three firms that have submitted their proposals for consideration: Colin Basinger & Associates; GovHR USA; and The HR Lady are the three that we came back with, or that you have for consideration. And we are seeking some input from you on the direction that you would like to move in completing this recruitment for the County Manager. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I'll speak up. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I pushed my button, but that's February 8, 2022 Page 147 okay. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, you did push your button. Forgive me. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know what, as Chair, I prefer to let you folks all speak, and if somebody else doesn't have my Billie idea, then I'll say it. So, Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Go ahead. No, go ahead, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I, quite frankly, don't believe we need to hire a recruiting firm. I think we should -- I think we should advertise the position as we did before. We have done this already within a little bit over a year, and we did it successfully. We went through -- it was a rather arduous process; not that this isn't going to be either. We were successful. We hired, in my opinion, one of the best county managers we've ever gotten. It wasn't his fault that he took ill, and it wasn't his fault -- our fault that he decided to retire because of the circumstances that prevailed. And I'm, quite frankly, having difficulty in reinventing a wheel on a process that we just did less than a year ago and there did it successfully. Commissioner Saunders, you brought up a couple weeks ago the point of the expense associated with it, and you weren't necessarily incorrect. I mean, I think the highest bidder we had here was 35-, 38,000. MS. LYBERG: The highest bid was 34,500. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thirty-four thousand, and that's about 50 percent of one of the miles of our landscape median annual maintenance, and I think you said maybe it was 30 percent or so. February 8, 2022 Page 148 So bottom line, the expense isn't necessary -- necessarily why I'm objecting to it, although I don't see the need for us to do that. I think -- I think the -- our staff certainly has the capacity of doing this for us and accumulating the applicants that are out there, so there's my two cents. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Amy, I want to commend you for just the incredible job you did a year ago, you and your staff. I mean, when we put the task on you, in record time we all had binders and resumés and, you know, sometimes people can say, tongue in cheek, oh, throw it on some websites or whatever. This is Naples. I think you can print this ad on the back of a cocktail napkin, stick it in a bottle, throw it in the Gulf of Mexico, and we'll get 50 applicants. It's our job to then wave through those people. But, you know, I really mean it when I say that you jumped on it very quickly, had people in our offices immediately, internal and external. And so I think we have one of the best headhunter companies in Collier County right here, and it's called our HR Department. Your payroll is $1.2 million. And I don't say that as a negative. I just say that, you know, you've got a staff that are experts, you know, at this. We had internal and external candidates, and we replaced one of the longest -- I think maybe the longest standing county manager ever, totally, you know, internally. It's been stated, if a candidate was in, say, like, Oklahoma, and we were doing this in-house, that they might look at it and go, oh, I'm not -- you know, I'm a superstar but I'm not going to apply because, you know, it looks like they probably -- they probably have already somebody internal, and they're just going through the motions. Here's what I would tell you. The kind of candidate I'm looking for who lives out in Oklahoma is somebody that says, wow, I'm glad February 8, 2022 Page 149 they're actually advertising it internally, because I think I'm the best person for the job, and I want to go in there and compete against people that have worked in Collier County for 15 years and show them that I'm amazing. That's what Paul Hiltz did to be the CEO of NCH. I think he had only been here on vacation, and that's how he got the job from people that had worked in Collier County for 30 years. So I think your team led by you already showed us 12 months ago, when we had a lot less time, I believe, to do this. And so I want to -- if I -- if there's a candidate out there that's scared away because, oh, it's internal and they might already have someone, I don't want to interview that person, then that person doesn't have the type of tenacity that a Mark Isackson has. That person should welcome coming in here and saying, throw all your locals at me. I'm going to show you that I have the intangibles that they don't have. So if somebody's scared off, don't waste their time having me interview them. I want people that have, you know, enthusiasm and they're fighting for the job. And that's what I have found in the corporate world when we've done searches internally. And I have used headhunter, you know, companies before, but usually it was more of as the last resort or it was such a unique position or a new position. But I agree with Commissioner McDaniel. I think that, you know, we have plenty of time. We have a superstar staff. And I sure hope we don't disrespect our local staff here by excluding them from any type of competition because, just like we already approved four people to step up and move forward, I think it would be insulting to lock out the local staff. And I have full confidence that you are an amazing headhunter executive, and I'm ready to get started on the process again and have you lead the charge. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And just as a point of discussion, it February 8, 2022 Page 150 is my intention today to have two votes, minimumly, on this and, one, whether or not we engage a recruiting firm and how and then, two, whether or not we open this up for internal candidates or not. So I'd prefer that we move that discussion along right now with -- I mean, certainly, the motion maker can do whatever they want to do, and three votes you get to go. But I would like us to have a little discussion on both of those subject matters, so... Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I did read what Ms. Lyberg sent to us in the comments of one headhunting agency that basically reaffirmed what the County Attorney told us at our last meeting, that when you have an internal candidate and you've gone out for a search, it does dissuade folks from applying because they think it's basically a setup. I mean, those are my phrases, not what was written to us. They -- and so I'm -- I don't think we should mix the two. I think it needs to be -- it doesn't mean -- it doesn't mean that -- we've got -- we've got a little bit of time. You know, maybe -- maybe we take a couple weeks and go out and -- or maybe it's three weeks, whatever, internally, but if it doesn't work, then we go out external and we do not -- we have to separate them. We have to separate them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, we'll have the discussion about separating the applicants. Personally, I would rather we have that -- my proposition that I'd suggested was a similar process to what we did before that worked and advertise the position. Start the -- and start the ball rolling in that regard and then -- and then make a decision within a couple of weeks on a recruiting firm, and then -- and then have a discussion separately about whether or not we open it up for internal candidates or not. So it's certainly going to be at the pleasure of the Board, but February 8, 2022 Page 151 that's the way I'd prefer to handle it. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I haven't changed my position on whether or not we should hire an outside firm. I think these two -- or these three, two of them are clearly experienced in this area, the governmental, you know, management area. So one of them has experience in Collier County. Again, I think that having a third party vet a list of candidates -- and we can talk later about who those are, but having a third party do that that has a very good, you know, list or group of candidates is the right thing to do. I mean, I think that trying to do this internally puts our staff in a strange position, and I just -- you know, $34,000 in the grand scheme of things is a drop in the bucket, and it gives us some objectivity and some separation in the process. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I mean, I disagree with that, but I wanted to just make a comment. I think -- I read what the headhunter company said, and that's always -- that's part of their commercial, like, you know, you want to bring us in so you don't miss out on these superstar candidates that you guys are too stupid to get on your own. I think the less -- the less confident candidates are the ones that it shoos off. The people that are superstars, they'll send their resumé to Amy Lyberg. They don't need to -- they won't only do it for a headhunter company. So I think the people that get dissuaded by a headhunter company thinking we've already selected aren't candidates that I think are superstar folks. And, you know, one of the things I'll close with was, so we decided last time -- and maybe it wasn't unanimous to have our own, you know, HR Department head this up. What did they do wrong or did poorly last time that now has us thinking something total February 8, 2022 Page 152 different, or what's changed? I mean, this is one position. And I thought you did it expertly last time. And I remember interviewing people from all over the country, not four people from Lee County and two internally. I mean, I thought we had a good, you know, inventory of candidates to choose from. So I'm with Commissioner McDaniel. I don't think anything's changed. I think we hashed this out last time. And I was actually even more impressed in the internal process than less. So I didn't see anything wrong with the process last time that makes me now worried that we're not smart enough to do this. It does take a lot of time. But when you're hiring a position that the paycheck's going to be quarter of a million dollars and one of the most important positions in the county, it actually should be a really difficult and hard process, but I think we have an HR Department that can do it, and I think we're all smart enough to interview people that you bring to us, just like we did last time. I didn't settle on somebody internally. And if you remember, we had finalists that were from all over the place. It wasn't all internal candidates. So I don't think anything's changed. My position's going to be that, you know, we move forward just like we did last time. I guess it's going to be a majority vote, right? It doesn't need to be a supermajority, right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct, just three votes, and that's the definition of in perpetuity. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I agree with Commissioner Solis and Commissioner Taylor that we need to do a -- use a professional firm to do a search. After this motion passes, then we're going to discuss whether or not we want to have internal candidates. That's going to be a more difficult conversation. So I'm February 8, 2022 Page 153 going to support going -- hiring one of these firms. I'm not sure which one is being recommended at this point. Do you have that -- did you have a recommendation? MR. ISACKSON: Yeah. Just a couple of comments there. You know, we've -- Amy, correct me if I'm wrong, we've used Basinger before -- MS. LYBERG: We have. MR. ISACKSON: -- in some of our searches. They are heavily invested in Florida. They've done a number of -- had a number of clients in Florida. So, I mean, if there was a recommendation coming forth, I would suggest you go with Basinger. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the firm I'm most familiar with, and I know they did some searches for Marco Island, I believe, so they're familiar, obviously, with this area. I think staff did a great job. You did what we asked you to do last time. You solicited recommendations -- or applications. We had a whole bunch of those. There were a couple, quite frankly, that were not in-house that I thought were qualified, but we didn't get a big pool of qualified candidates from outside. We did get a few, but we didn't get -- we didn't get very many, and that's kind of my concern. I think we need -- this is on the second issue, and I'll say it again when we get to that, but I think we need to get some fresh eyes taking a look at our county organization. And so when we get to that second part, that's going to be a little bit more difficult, but I -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I've got an idea on that second part I want to chat with you about, so -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, you want to do the first part and then -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. And I've got two more February 8, 2022 Page 154 commissioners, and then we'll go to the vote. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry. I didn't want to do that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, Jiminy Christmas. All right. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I was going to -- it seemed like we were saying we weren't going to mix the two issues, but then we were. But if we can just vote on the first one, then -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- my comment goes to the second issue. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Then make the motion on the first, and I have a comment on it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion, if no one else is jumping there, that we retain the services of Basinger as our search firm. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded. I have a comment and a thought that I would like to throw -- I don't support the motion. I'm going to vote against it, but I'm going to ask a question, and this is for us to discuss. I don't concur with the rationale that internal employees has a lot to do with applicants. The thought that I had was it's a well-known fact what our current County Manager's being paid. We've had discussion with regard to the pay scale. How do you feel about not putting in a salary base and allowing the applicants to tell us? If you want a real rock star, if you want to get the CEO of General Electric or one of these great big companies, if you want to get somebody that's a supposed superstar, let them tell us what they're willing to work for us for, and then we can have that February 8, 2022 Page 155 debate as we're going through the hiring process. We may have -- there may be somebody that's just an overwhelming wow that we would -- we would pay a different salary amount to. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't know how we would word it, but when I look at the City of Naples, whose city manager is close to the salary of the County Manager of Collier County with a $2 billion budget, I would agree. I think we need to -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and my thought was, rather than name a price, let's not name a price and allow the applicants to tell us. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't know how that works. MR. ISACKSON: I think -- Commissioners, generally when you're recruiting for a CEO, you just put in there "salary negotiable" and you just leave it at that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's how you do it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if you're of the mind -- that's my personal opinion with one of the biggest prohibitions, because if we have somebody that's a wow candidate that won't take a job for the offer of 230,000, they're not going to apply. And to me that's a bigger prohibition than internal candidates. I agree with Commissioner LoCastro that if you're a superstar, you don't care who the competition is; you're going to come along. So if the motion marker would give that consideration to leave that salary negotiable in the offering. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Salary negotiable. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The salary's negotiable, that's fine. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm still going to vote against it because of principle. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis looks troubled. February 8, 2022 Page 156 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You are lit up. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm just thinking, if -- I think I'd be more amenable to that if we at least put in a range, because just to leave it blank based upon -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why don't we let the search firm that we're getting ready to hire tell us what's the best way to do that -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's fine with me. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- because they'll be familiar with salaries all over the state. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If we left it negotiable on the offering, again, it frees us up. I mean, if somebody comes to us and wants to work for $10 million, they're going to have to be something for us to be able to -- because we're over here kibitzing over 34-, 35,000 for a search firm. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They're going to have to be something for us to be giving consideration to. But I wouldn't want to preclude someone -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me amend the motion. It simply says that we appoint Basinger, and we take advice from him as to what's the best way to advertise for this position in terms of salary, and then we can make that decision later. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I agree. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You still want to comment? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let me explain to you how search firms work. We shouldn't come up with any -- and if we're February 8, 2022 Page 157 going to pay somebody $34,000, let's -- I don't think we come up with what their strategy should be. So if we want to get our money's worth out of them, they come in here and meet with us. And, you know, if we need the benefit of all of their unbelievable experience that we actually don't have, according to some folks up here, then I think we just shut up and let these experts who can only recruit the best and the brightest across the country because we can't, and we should just really be quiet and sit in a conference room and have them recommend to us how they should do it. That's why you're paying them 34,000 of taxpayer dollars to come in here and hire a county manager and delegate the responsibility of finding the finalists for us. So I won't vote on anything that gives the search firm any direction. First of all, I don't want a search firm. I think it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. But I think, you know, if we're forced to have one, then I don't think we give them any kind of stipulations. I think we come in here and we just say, so, you know, earn your 34 grand. What's the best way to go forward? If they've done this a million times and we haven't, I don't know how we give them any direction. We tell them, obviously, the kind of person that we're looking for and the responsibilities, but they drive the process. That's what you're paying them taxpayer dollars for. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I was really surprised at how inexpensive these search firms are. I'm used to 100-, 150-, 200,000 fees, but I'm looking probably at something else. This is standard fare in terms of -- MS. LYBERG: When we went out last year, Commissioner, and looked at this, the prices are pretty comparable to what somebody -- you know, when we were looking for quotes last time. February 8, 2022 Page 158 They're a little higher, but we're finding that, more than a percentage of the salary, they are doing a fixed price to do these. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That won't be the final bill from them, though. They'll have an expense account. We'll pay for all kinds of other things. This will be upwards of 50,000 plus. And I agree, it's not a billion dollars, and that's if somebody that is an unbelievable county manager for the next 20 years, then we got our money's worth. But that's their fee. You need to read the fine print or -- I don't know if you got an actual contract from them. I mean, the spreadsheet was helpful, but did they actually send us a 15-page contract? MS. LYBERG: They actually sent a detailed quote. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. In the details there, you'll find they'll have a lot of expenses. We will pay for all the hotel rooms and whatnot for their people. That's normally common. If not, then we're getting a super deal. But usually they come here -- and we sometimes might even pay per diem. And so -- and sometimes this could be a two-month process, a 60-day process. So it could be very expensive. I think they were close to six figures on Marco Island. Now, they did it twice, so maybe they were even over six figures. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That will make it go higher real quick. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded -- just let me repeat, if I may. It's been moved and seconded that we engage Basinger and for now we let them tell us -- I mean, let them make recommendations with regard to the salary as to whether to hold it negotiable or not. And I appreciate your indulgence even though you know I don't support the motion. It's -- I think that irrespective of how we did it, February 8, 2022 Page 159 whether we engage a -- I'm totally in favor of doing a national search, and we accomplished that without engaging a firm, but I understand both sides of the equation, so... I really think that the greatest opportunity for us to potentially come up with a superstar is to allow them to tell us what they think they're worth. So with that motion, with that, it's been moved and seconded that we engage Basinger. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed, same sign, same sound. Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 3-2; Basinger it is. Now the next subject is whether or not we allow for internal candidates that are current county employees to apply or not. And so I'd like to make a -- Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, I understand the concern about some kind of a chilling effect, but I'm going to agree with Commissioner LoCastro on this. I mean, I think if there's an external candidate that's not going to, you know, put their name in the hat because there's internal ones, you know, then they're not -- they're not all in for me. And I think we have an example of this that, that wasn't the case in terms of the school board. I mean, there were a lot of -- when the new superintendent was sought years ago, there were a lot of internal candidates, a search was done, and -- you know, and Kam Patton was hired. So I don't think -- I just don't think that that's -- we should -- we should keep internal candidates which will make it very, very competitive out of consideration because it may have -- it may have some chilling effect. I just don't think that's the February 8, 2022 Page 160 best thing to do. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If you make that motion, I'll second it. Do you want to make that a motion? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, I'll make that a motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'll second it. So now we are into discussion. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll go ahead and support the motion, though I do think it does have a chilling effect. But I can count to three, so I'll help make this more unanimous and support the motion. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can I ask you a question? So when you all say "chilling effect," you're saying a chilling effect on outside candidates, like somebody in Wisconsin gets a chill. See, I see it a different way. I think you've just chilled every single person on the county staff, and I don't -- I don't think that's our intention here. But I think if I was sitting in a county position right now either in this room or watching on TV, I would think, wow, they haven't even looked at my resumé, they never interviewed me, I never got a chance to talk to this $34,000 headhunter company, and already the five commissioners, or however many, have decided I'm not qualified. I'm worried about that chilling effect against somebody that's worked here loyally and dedicated for five, 10, 15, 18 years rather than chilling out a stranger in Wisconsin who I've never met who I might not even hire. I'm more worried about chilling out three or four people in this room or people in this building or those that work for us in the county than I am some stranger. And just like Commissioner Solis, you know, agreed with me, if somebody's in Wisconsin and they're chilled, don't send us your resumé. I need somebody that can come in here and take the bull by the horns and be a leader. February 8, 2022 Page 161 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just, by the way, it is February and -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It's chilly. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- in Wisconsin, it's cold. They're chilled. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. But, you know, I mean -- and I think we all think a lot of the staff, so I'm not here throwing stones or anything but, you know, I don't want to send the wrong message to our staff here. And I think I'm worried more about that chilling effect of, wow, I didn't even get to compete because I was already told I wasn't qualified and they think strangers they've never even met are going to be more qualified than me. So that's my concern. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we allow for internal candidates to be received by the recruiting firm. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, you supported it? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, so it was 5-0. Okay, 5-0. We're going to allow for -- we're going to entertain internal employees. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: See, the thaw has already February 8, 2022 Page 162 started. MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, I think we'll try and target Basinger, at least in the proposal that they submitted, that they'd be available at the beginning of March, but if that's not -- if that's not soon enough, then we could probably make an inquiry. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, that's a good -- that does raise a question. Do we want to make a decision as to how long we're going to run the offering? Do we want to try to set a time limit up to stop it at a certain point with a certain amount of applicants or time frame? MR. ISACKSON: I think you let the recruiter come up here and make a presentation to you and give you all the details of their services and what their suggestions are. The real question is, is -- that first meeting in March, I think it's March 8th, is what we're targeting right now. But if the Board has a desire to try and get him in here earlier, we can make that inquiry. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have an opinion. I think they should start tomorrow. I don't want -- and with all due respect, I understand that I've been outvoted with that. I just -- we're -- we talk about five months being a long time. It's not a long time. And so I think the sooner we start -- we've agreed to engage Basinger. I think we should engage Basinger and have them open the position up feasibly as quickly as possible. That's my personal opinion. I don't see any reason to wait till the first meeting in March to bless them again. MR. ISACKSON: We'll make the inquiry and see if we can get him here at the February 22nd meeting. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How do you folks feel about it? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The sooner the better. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. There we go. Thank you, Amy. Amy just breathed a big sigh of relief. February 8, 2022 Page 163 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I bet. MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11E BOARD APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE ITS CHAIR TO EXECUTE A GROUND LESSOR CONSENT AND EXTOPPEL REQUIRED FOR CC BSG NAPLES, LLC (‘BIGSHOTS’) TO RECEIVE FINANCING NECESSARY TO DEVELOP AND USE THE FORMER GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE PURSUANT TO THE BOARD APPROVED COLLIER COUNTY STANDARD FORM LONG TERM LEASE AND OPERATING AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED – MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that brings you to Item 11E, which was formerly Item 16F6. It's a recommendation that the Board approve and authorize the Chair to execute a Ground Lessor Consent and Estoppel required for CCBSG Naples, LLC, BigShots, to receive financing necessary to develop and use the former Golden Gate Golf Course pursuant to the Board-approved Collier County standard form long-term lease and operating agreement as amended. And Commissioner McDaniel moved this item to regular. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I'm the one that brought this up. And I'll just give a few quick comments and then call on you folks, and then we'll talk about it some more. But it -- in my brief review of the agreement, in my limited knowledge, without -- oh, Jiminy Christmas. You need a napkin? And in my limited knowledge with regard to contracts and financing and so on and so forth -- yeah, we had a -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Minor. February 8, 2022 Page 164 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- minor spillage. Don't tell Troy it went down in there. It fell down in by where the computers live. So the bottom line here is, I found some what I perceive to be as anomalies in the agreement. And we all got the email from our Clerk of Courts with what her renditions were. There -- to me there were -- you know, and I'm just reading right off of what she has said. The two that jump out at me -- I don't really have a lot to do with the terms of the existing lease. The lease is what it is, but there were representations made in the offering or in the request for the estoppel that I think put us in a precarious position. Representations made about construction, completion of obligations that haven't -- I don't believe they've been fulfilled. I also had reservation on in the event of a default, we're the lessor, and we're -- the way I read it, we're relegating those responsibilities over to the lender in advance of our lessor's rights. And I'm making a more global assumption with regard to a default. If there's typically a default coming with a mortgage, there's one coming with the lease at the same time. And then -- and then, of course, the last thing -- well, not the last thing, but the one other thing that I found issue was that there -- it could be contended -- you know, I've had issue with the BigShots location -- there's some more paper towels for you, sir. I've had issues with the location of the BigShots and its proximity to Golden Gate Estates residents and how it faces north and east towards those people over there. It could be contended, the way I'm reading this, that if county starts to move on them with regard to violations, that that could come back as well as some sort of a mechanism to move through the default. So those were my -- those were my reasonings for pulling this up. Commissioner Saunders, you're first. February 8, 2022 Page 165 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, may I speak ahead of you? We all know that this was generated by the Clerk of the Courts, Crystal Kinzel, because she painstakingly expressed her concerns, you know, to me and to all of us. We know it was in writing. But I wanted to ask her if she could come up, if she was able to get an attorney to verify her concerns. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not yet. I'd like Commissioner Saunders to go first, and then I'll call on you if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You asked to go first, and he acquiesced, but I'd like to hear -- I'd like to hear from Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, because I did have a conversation with the Clerk. And I want to first thank her for the detail that she's gone through this. And I can probably say fairly confidently that she spent more time on this than I did, and she raises some really good questions, and -- but I want to go through those, because I think she and I have had a good conversation about it. I hope I alleviated some of her concerns, but we'll go through this and see how it goes. So let's -- I want to start off by saying this is our project, you know. This is a county project. It's a perfect, in my view, public/private partnership. If we don't do this, then I think we're going to lose the -- I know we'll lose the financing if we don't do this estoppel letter. And the -- this is the one -- I think the one and only shot we'll ever have to get public golf in Collier County. We have an opportunity to have a golf course that is paid for by the county -- it's a golf course that we own -- but it's being operated by a very professional organization. February 8, 2022 Page 166 If the golf course loses money, nobody comes to us for any payments. As a matter of fact, we get 3 percent of the gross revenue of the golf course whether it makes a profit or not. And so I wanted -- I just wanted to remind everybody that this really is our project. Now, the reason that the bank is looking for some security is the bank is putting up somewhere between 12 to $15 million into a building that's on property owned by the county. They're not going to get a security interest in the property, so they want security in the building that they are paying for. And so that's why there's -- you used the term kind of a "precarious position." Well, if there is a default, the entity that's losing money is the bank, not Collier County, because this whole estoppel letter deals only with the building. But let me spend just a minute going through some of the key points that the Clerk raised, and these are very good points, and I think we can deal with them. One of them was that the lessor shall not disturb the possession, interest, or quiet enjoyment of any permitted sublessees of lessee for any reason or in any manner which would materially and adversely affect the lender's rights under the leasehold. Now, the Clerk, I think, very accurately pointed out, well, this may create a problem with Code Enforcement, and that's her note. Well, the reality is that governments cannot contract away their police powers. That's against public policy. So no matter what the document says, Code Enforcement can go out there anytime there's a code violation. So I'll ask -- I've made that statement, but I'll ask the County Attorney -- I think probably the best way to do this, I'll make some comments and ask the County Attorney if those are correct, because that's a very important issue that the Clerk has raised. February 8, 2022 Page 167 MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So my view is we can't contract away police powers. This does not prevent Code Enforcement from going out to the site; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: I fully concur. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. We were talking about the events of default, and the bank is going to step into the shoes of the lessee. If there are insurance proceeds, if there are other issues, the bank is going to step into the shoes of the lessee because the bank is putting up the $15 million. Is that a fairly accurate statement in terms of why this is structured that way? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. And you can elaborate. I mean, I'm not trying to get yes or no answers from you. But you can help me out a little bit if you want to elaborate. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a standard form security agreement for a ground lease transaction. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can I ask you a question? Can I ask a question? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Because, again, you made a couple of statements, or one statement that I'm quizzing on right now, and that is the mortgage is on the entire piece of property, the golf course, including the building. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That I don't believe is correct. MR. KLATZKOW: We own the land. The building's going to be owned by BigShots. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We followed our County Attorney's advice that we cannot mortgage -- we cannot put a lien on our property. February 8, 2022 Page 168 MR. KLATZKOW: As a matter of law, you cannot lien the courthouse, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So there is no lien on the county's property? MR. KLATZKOW: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Which is the reason why the bank has to be protected on the building. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it may be just -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And maybe -- correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe the distinction is that BigShots is mortgaging their lease. They're giving a security interest in the lease. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's exactly right. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If the bank forecloses on that, then the bank steps into the shoes of the lessee. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They're not getting our property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But that includes the leased property where the golf course is existing. It's not just on the building. And that was where I was hanging up with what he said before. It's the entire leasehold property that we're the lessor of. MR. KLATZKOW: If BigShots goes under, somebody has to operate the building -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- and the facility. This proposed agreement before you is the bank's way of saying, okay, if BigShots goes under and we have a significant investment in this, we get to step into their shoes, run the business ourselves, and look for somebody else to come in, which is precisely what we would do anyway. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. February 8, 2022 Page 169 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that was just my clarification. I was -- I understood it to be a mortgage on the leasehold, and the leasehold included the golf course itself. So I just -- that was my understanding. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, there are -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You are a real estate lawyer, by the way. I'm not going to -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, there are a couple misstatements. And I don't really think they're misstatements. It's just that this is a form letter from the bank. We're not going to be able to change it in any substantive way. But there are a couple things, and I told the Clerk that I would bring these up. There's a statement in here that the structure has been completed. Well, the bank knows the structure hasn't been completed because the bank hasn't loaned the money yet. Now, they put that in there for whatever reason, but it's a meaningless statement. They also put in there that the current leasehold rental payment is zero. Well, everyone knows that the leasehold -- or the rental is actually going to be 3 percent of the gross revenue of the golf course. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: After year three. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, it's going to ramp up to that. It's going to start off, I think, at -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Year six, because I think it's -- the way they're -- if I -- my recollection is the current lease is three years abatement of rent for -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's quicker than that. I think there's a year or two abatement of rent at the most. I don't recall the details. But, anyway, the point I wanted to make is that we're not going to be able to make changes in this document. It doesn't put us in a precarious position. The bank has to have this or there's no deal. February 8, 2022 Page 170 And so I'm going to ask the Board to approve this document today. I know the Clerk may still have some issues. I think we had a good conversation. It got a little passionate there for a while because she's very passionate about her position on this, and I certainly appreciate that and understand it. But I think that those concerns have been alleviated in terms of this particular letter. So I'm going to make a motion to approve the letter today and ask the Board to recognize that this is our project. This is -- this is a project that we have voted on for the last two years. There's nothing surprising here. But this is the last step in the financing. If we get this letter done today, the financing will be approved immediately, and then we're off to the races in terms of getting this project done. The reason that this is so urgent is that -- or the timing is so urgent is that there have been several delays in this project already. Nobody's fault. There was a title defect. It took us a month and a half to correct a title defect. We didn't know -- we didn't get perhaps what we thought we were getting when we purchased the land. That's all been clarified, but that resulted in a delay. If we want to have this golf course open and operating in calendar year 2022, this calendar year, this has to get done. It has to get done right away. Again, last step in financing doesn't put us in a precarious position. So I've got a motion to go ahead and approve this today. And I've put on the record that the building's not finished, and the rent isn't zero, which are the only two things that I think were, perhaps, incorrect. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's -- Commissioner -- Commissioner Taylor, you were there, and then -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And I'll second your motion for discussion. And, you know, what I'm hearing is, you February 8, 2022 Page 171 know, the intricacies of attorneys, and that's one of -- you know, law. The law, especially when you talk about county-owned taxpayer-owned property is very specific and very -- you need to know what you're doing with this when you start looking at it. It's not as clear -- it's clear to an attorney, but it's certainly not clear to me. But after I'm listening to the way this has been constructed, it makes great good sense on the part of the financing institution to construct it like that. And what I was going to ask of Ms. Kinzel -- she was going to get an outside attorney to opine on this before this was brought forward, so I was surprised that it didn't happen. That's what I was going to ask. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She did. Now she's coming up to justify what they said. This -- she didn't make these comments up. I believe the majority of these came from her -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Internal, internal. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Her internal counsel. MS. KINZEL: Hi, Commissioners. Crystal Kinzel, for the record. Thank you for bringing this at least forward to the general agenda. Yes, Commissioner Saunders and I have had great conversation today. I understand his position. I know that you are the policymakers. I certainly never put forward comments lightly. They've been reviewed by my in-house attorney as well as outside counsel. But I don't have to make a payment on this contract. I put forward all my cautionary comments to you all. Those still stand. They don't go away. But Commissioner Saunders has put on the record his comments as legal and as has your attorney. So the decision is yours. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. February 8, 2022 Page 172 MS. KINZEL: Okay. But the comments were valid. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MS. KINZEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I knew they -- I knew -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the estoppel letter as presented, correct? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed? Aye. 4-1. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. That brings us to Item 15, staff and commission general communications. I just have one item, and it's an update on our workshop schedule. My office has been in contact with both the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island, and we're attempting to try and shoot for Tuesday, March 1st, to have the folks in a joint roundtable with the Board; one in the morning and one in the afternoon. And we're still working those details, but... February 8, 2022 Page 173 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Did you say March 1st? MR. ISACKSON: Yes, Tuesday, March 1st. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's a workshop for what? MR. ISACKSON: This is the City of Marco Island and the City of Naples; one in the morning, one in the afternoon. So we're still trying to work through the logistics. But I just wanted to point that out. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't make it too early, I'm good. Let's see. County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The only thing I have is to give a shout out to some staff. I received a letter from a resident of Naples Park, residents for 30 years, and wanted to give a shout out to Steven Lopez-Silvero or Silvero? Silvero. And let me just read it real quick, because I think it's worth reading. It says, my husband and I have been residents of Naples Park for nearly 30 years, and I'm writing to tell you of a recent situation involving our storm grate. Much of the park and the infrastructure is aging, and our grate was needed to be replaced for some time. Supply and chain issues made it difficult to find a replacement. Steven Lopez-Silvero of your Code Enforcement Department contacted and learned of our difficulty locating a new grate in the proper size. Steven was resourceful and found a used grate in the park from an area that is going through the stormwater upgrades and replacements. This resolved the issues requiring a grate, but there's more to the story. Steven not only sourced the grate. He came to our home, replaced the grate, and even picked up a beer bottle that was thrown in our yard. In my mind, Steven is what a good neighbor should be. The February 8, 2022 Page 174 community, government and its residents, seasonal or permanent, will prosper if we work together for the common good. So I think this is just another example of our staff doing a great job and going the extra mile for our residents. So thank you to Steven Lopez-Silvero. That's all I have. MR. ISACKSON: Commissioner, let's make sure that it gets in the employee's personnel jacket. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. And that's a really nice thing to bring up. So oftentimes, especially with Code Enforcement, it's a thankless job. So it's really nice to hear that, on a regular basis, our staff is going above and beyond, so... Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I've got a few comments. I got a couple of bad letters against Mr. Isackson, so we'll get those in his employee personnel file as well. No. I want to give you an update. Yesterday we had a very long Affordable Housing Committee meeting, very successful. We've got new board members. We have a new board chair, and we had a lot -- we had citizens attend. So the short and the long of it is on February 22nd, our next meeting, our new Affordable Housing Committee chair will give a short presentation here. I thought maybe instead of a workshop, I told him to just give us, like, the 50,000-foot view of what we're doing, where we're going, if we all think, wow, I never even heard half of that stuff, if we need a workshop, then we could do something after, but to at least come in. There are a lot of exciting programs that are coming from the state. There's a lot of programs we're doing here at the county that we all agreed in the meeting that they're great programs, but we don't February 8, 2022 Page 175 think a lot of residents know about them. I mean, there's five in particular that you can apply for to possibility get, you know, different amounts of money to help with your rent and utilities. So we sort of kicked those into after burner. And I'm going to send all of you through your assistants the five big slides, so if you want to put them in your newsletter or send them out in a shot to people, we really need to flood the airwaves so that citizens know we actually are doing something. Some of the things citizens think we can do, just write people blank checks, you know, that sort of thing is not doable, but to educate them between rumor and fact. And I think what I'll be able to send you is a good encapsulation of five different programs that we need to advertise as aggressively as possible. I want to give a shout out to -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Before you go there, it is a presentation. And -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, on the 22nd? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, it's a presentation. So -- and just to specify, it's not a public hearing per se. People -- we're not taking a vote on anything that day. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, just information. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And let the Chair know that I won't limit him to three minutes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I got it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Seven. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, okay. And also, too, we're going to vet it to make sure it's valuable and it's not rambling or whatnot, and then we can decide if, you know, we need something deeper. Dan Rodriguez has just done a great job, really, overhauling our veterans services office, which I'm really close to. We are helping so many veterans out of that office. We've always had superstars in February 8, 2022 Page 176 there, but sometimes it takes a little bit of elbow grease and a little bit of enthusiasm, and Dan's done that. So, Dan, thank you. I saw all your emails. I mean, I get emails from veterans in every district who don't know who their commissioner is. And it doesn't matter who it is. They have a lot of serious issues, and that office is just doing a great job. I mean, I got a bunch of thank you notes from veterans that said, wow, the minute you put me in touch with somebody -- I mean, they fixed a two-year-old problem, you know, in record time. And I know you've done a lot to really raise that office and make sure they're responsive. They've been very visible in the community. So, you know, I would just say to any of you, if you're having a town hall meeting, you might want to reach out and have somebody from the Veterans Services Office come and speak and join you on stage, because I know we have veterans in every -- you know, every corner of our county. But just awesome work. They really have done some incredible things. And Dan's really a good person to push those to. It doesn't mean, you know, if you don't know anybody in the Veterans Services Office, but he sort of is triaging -- he sort of, I think, knows best at who in that office has the expertise to sort of handle different issues. I mean, I don't know if I'm -- at least it's worked for me. So thanks, Dan. And then, lastly, I'd just like to say this has been a tough, you know, few weeks and maybe a tough year for police officers and sheriffs, you know, across the country. You know, we've lost quite a few here recently. And Sugden Park this past Saturday, they had record number of people that were supporting the Fallen Officers Foundation who supports families and children left behind of officers who have been killed in the line of duty. Anybody that went out to Fifth Avenue, the Naples -- City of February 8, 2022 Page 177 Naples Police Department was very visible, and there was a lot of people out there. And, you know, you hear about all these tragic things that happen all over the country. I just think whether it's our uniform personnel from the police department or our Collier County Sheriff's Office and everybody else in between, those out on Marco Island and whatnot, they just do a really great job. So when a lot of other counties are throwing stones right now across the country and there's just a lot of tragedy, I think we're very fortunate here, and, you know, my hats off to those that are in uniform. And we had a lot of big events this last couple of weeks and, you know, those can turn into tragedies really quick if you don't have all the right people on the ground. And our police and our Sheriff's Office did a phenomenal job this weekend, as they always do. And, you know, knock on wood, hopefully we won't have any, you know, life-ending tragedies the way that, you know, you're hearing, you know, across the country. But thanks for what you do. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just one thing. On March -- let me get the date here -- 28th, the year is 2020, the agenda item was to reconsider the renaming of the Collier County Courthouse -- to un- name it the MLK Courthouse Building and rename it same as Collier County Courthouse, which is great. Name the Supervisor of Elections building as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King building. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's already done. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But there's no sign up. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Well, Vincent came up and saw me at the break, so we're going to get that done. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So that's what I'd like to see, if we've got a nod up there to get the sign. I've talked to Jennifer February 8, 2022 Page 178 Edwards. She said it's fine. When you go by the Supervisor of Elections building, her name is on it. Let's just get Martin Luther King -- Dr. King's name in that sign. Let's just change it, if we're in agreement here. Okay. That's it. That's all I've got. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: When Vincent came up and talked to me, I said, send me an email, we'll get it done, so... COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You okay with that? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I already went. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. Are you good with the idea? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, yeah, yeah. No, I was down here nodding my head going "yes." CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I wasn't looking at you when you were head bobbing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I saw the nod. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Gotcha. Is that all, Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything to add today. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You don't? Neither do I. So with that, we are adjourned. ***** **** Commissioner Taylor moved, seconded by Commissioner Solis and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted**** February 8, 2022 Page 179 Item #16A1 AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENT 2 TO THE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY (TIGER) IX - IMMOKALEE COMPLETE STREETS GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION GRANT AWARD #693JJ32040007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,339,989 AND, AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #16A2 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF MAPLE RIDGE AT AVE MARIA PHASE 7B, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20210001851) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,170,322.92 – LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST Item #16A3 RECORDING THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF RANCH AT ORANGE BLOSSOM, PHASE 5A, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20210000781) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,225,419.25 – LOCATED IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 February 8, 2022 Page 180 Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 2022-24: A RESOLUTION FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 6, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150000492, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $753,370.53 Item #16A5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER AND ALL SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR THE HERITAGE BAY GOVERNMENT CENTER - PHASE ONE, PL20210002893 – FINAL INSPECTION FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABE ON DECEMBER 10, 2021 Item #16A6 GRANTING TWO QUIT CLAIM DEEDS TO REMEDY INCORRECT AND UNAPPROVED RECORDINGS IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (PARCEL 487RDUE) REQUIRED FOR THE FUTURE WIDENING OF EVERGLADES BOULEVARD. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $200. THE PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE IS IMPACT FEES WITH THE SECONDARY FUNDING SOURCE BEING GAS TAXES February 8, 2022 Page 181 Item #16A7 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF SPEED TABLES ON POMPEI LANE, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $40,000 (PROJECT #60240) – IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Item #16A8 SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., RELATED TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 21-7930, “CEI SERVICES FOR IMMOKALEE ROAD AT RANDALL BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS,” FOR AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $650,000 (INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX) AND TO BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING – ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. Item #16A9 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES CONCERNING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FOR CERTAIN COUNTY MEDIANS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF NAPLES AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AND EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT February 8, 2022 Page 182 Item #16A10 A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT (DA) BETWEEN BRYAN W. PAUL FAMILY LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BIG CORKSCREW REGIONAL PARK FROM OIL WELL ROAD THROUGH ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (PROJECTS #80039, #70194) Item #16A11 RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $293,973.75 FOR PAYMENT OF $4,728 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. OKEECHOBEE GGE TRUST, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 58 ENCHANTING BLVD., COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA – FOR CODE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 Item #16A12 A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC, TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CALCULATION OF DEBRIS REMOVED FROM COLLIER CREEK DUE TO HURRICANE IRMA UNDER CONTRACT NO. 18-7432-CZ FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $4,993.00 FROM FUND 195, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK February 8, 2022 Page 183 ORDER, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM Item #16D1 THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN ONE (1) MORTGAGE SATISFACTION FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500 AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE REPAYMENT AMOUNTS TOTALING $1,500 – LOCATED AT 956 TRAFFORD ISLES CR, #108 IN IMMOKALEE Item #16D2 A DONATION OF GOODS FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE MUSEUM OF THE EVERGLADES OF GIFT SHOP INVENTORY VALUED AT $2,031.75 Item #16D3 FUNDING NOT TO EXCEED $151,650 TO COMPLETE THE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL MUSEUM TO CREATE A LOBBY EXHIBIT INCLUDING A HISTORIC SKIFF AND OTHER NAUTICAL ARTIFACTS, APPROVE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY (MIHS), AND APPROVE THE REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENT Item #16E1 February 8, 2022 Page 184 AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ASSIGNING ALL RIGHTS, DUTIES AND BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS TO FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A SUNSTATE METER & SUPPLY CONCERNING AGREEMENT #20-040-NS “LARGE METERS” Item #16E2 AN AGREEMENT WITH GULFSIDE MEDICAL TRAINING INSTITUTE TO PROVIDE EMS DEPARTMENT SUPERVISED SKILLS TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS Item #16E3 AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ASSIGNING ALL RIGHTS, DUTIES AND BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS TO KCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. CONCERNING AGREEMENT #18-7432- ST, “PROFESSIONAL SERVICE LIBRARY - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CATEGORY” Item #16E4 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL Item #16F1 February 8, 2022 Page 185 RENEW A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR A CLASS 2 ALS NON-EMERGENCY INTER- FACILITY AMBULANCE TRANSPORTS TO JUST LIKE FAMILY CONCIERGE MEDICAL TRANSPORT SERVICES (D.B.A. BREWSTER AMBULANCE SERVICE) TO ALLOW POST-HOSPITAL INTER-FACILITY MEDICAL AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICES Item #16F2 MODIFICATIONS TO THE ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE GRANTS APPLICATION GUIDELINES FOR C-2 NON-COUNTY OWNED MUSEUMS AS WELL AS FOR CATEGORY B MARKETING AND PROMOTION GRANTS BY ADDING AN ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE USE THAT INCLUDES FUNDING CONSIDERATION FOR AN EXHIBIT OR ACTIVITY AND RELATED PROMOTION/MARKETING THAT WILL BE SHOWCASED AT AN EVENT OR LOCATION WHOSE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS THE PROMOTION OF TOURISM Item #16F3 A ONE-TIME INCREASE TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX GRANT APPLICATIONS FUNDING AMOUNT FOR FY’23 NON-COUNTY OWNED/OPERATED MUSEUMS (FORMERLY CATEGORY C-2) IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 BY REALLOCATING EXISTING GRANTS RESERVES WITHIN TDC NON-COUNTY OWNED MUSEUM FUND (193) IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE SUPPORT OF A FY’23 HISPANIC ARTS AND CULTURAL FESTIVAL AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM February 8, 2022 Page 186 Item #16F4 RESOLUTION 2022-25: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY21-22 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16F5 AN AMENDMENT TO THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH SPORTS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC (“SFM”) TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD THAT THE PARTIES CAN BRING FORTH A PROPOSED AMENDMENT ADDRESSING THE POSSIBLE INCORPORATION OF FACILITY NAMING RIGHTS FOR THE PARADISE SPORTS COMPLEX AS AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE UNDER THE AGREEMENT – EXTENDING THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE PRESENTATION TO THE BCC TO MAY 24, 2022 Item #16F6 – Moved to Item #11E (During Agenda Changes Per Commissioner McDaniel) Item #16F7 THE USE OF PARKING SPACES AT THE NAPLES REGIONAL LIBRARY AND NAPLES DEPOT MUSEUM BY THE NAPLES PLAYERS FOR USE BY STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS – FOR APPROXIMATELY 35 PARKING SPACES Item #16G1 February 8, 2022 Page 187 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY AND ON-CALL SUPPORT SERVICES AS NEEDED Item #16J1 TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN JANUARY 13, 2022, AND JANUARY 26, 2022, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item #16J2 REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 2, 2022 Item #16K1 RESOLUTION 2022-26: REAPPOINT A MEMBER TO THE HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY – REAPPOINTING DAVID WOLFF WITH TERM EXPIRING ON MARCH 13, 2026 Item #16K2 RESOLUTION 2022-27: APPOINT TWO MEMBERS TO THE February 8, 2022 Page 188 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD – APPOINTING LIZZETTE HOMAR-RAMOS AND REAPPOINTING KAYDEE TUFF BOTH EXPIRING ON DECEMBER 31, 2024 Item #16K3 – Continued to the February 22, 2022, BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT TWO MEMBERS TO THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Item #16K4 RESOLUTION 2022-28: APPOINT THREE MEMBERS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD – REAPPOINTING KATHLEEN K. ELROD AND CHLOE BOWMAN, BOTH TO A THREE-YEAR TERM AND APPOINTING JOHN FUENTES AS A REGULAR MEMBER EXPIRING ON FEBRUARY 14, 2024 Item #16K5 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $94,300 WITH PRO SE RESPONDENT FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 1174RDUE REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60168 Item #16K6 February 8, 2022 Page 189 RESOLUTION 2022-29: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS FOR HEALTHCARE FACILITIES AT MOORINGS PARK GRANDE LAKE Item #16K7 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,000 PLUS $42,199 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 1134FEE REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60168 ***** February 8, 2022 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:26 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DIS UNDER ITS CONTROL 6f) , WILLIA L. McDANIEL, JR., CHAIRMAN ATTEST CR 'STAL_K. KINZEL, CLERK 4-114> These minutes approveddbbY the Board on 3q-c a- as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 190