BCC Minutes 06/07/2022 W
1
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 7, 2022
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners and the City of Naples City Council, in and for the
County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9
a.m. in JOINT WORKSHOP SESSION at Administrative Building “F,”
3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
BCC Chairman: William L. McDaniel Jr.
Andy Solis
Rick LoCastro
Burt Saunders
Naples City Council Penny Taylor
Teresa Heitmann, Mayor
Michael McCabe, Vice-Mayor
Ted Blankenship, Council Member
Raymond Christman, Council Member
Terry Hutchison, Council Member
Paul Perry Council, Member
Beth Petrunoff, Council Member
ALSO PRESENT:
Amy Patterson, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Jay Boodheshwar, Naples City Manager
Tanya Williams, County Public Services, Director
Trinity Scott, Transportation Management Services, Department Head
Bob Middleton, Naples Utilities Director
Andy Holland, City Streets & Stormwater Department, Interim Director
Jake LaRow, CHS Operations Manager
Maggie Lopez, Financial Operations Manager, CHS
2
Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video
recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department, or
view it online.
Call to Order
BCC Chairman BCC Chairman McDaniel called the meeting to order at 9 a.m.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. WORKSHOP TOPICS
2.A. 2008 Interlocal Agreement, Set To Expire Sept. 30, 2022 – Tanya Williams, County Public
Services Director
BCC Chairman McDaniel told the Board and Council they could ask questions and make
comments during presentations.
Ms. Williams presented a PowerPoint presentation: and said that Kim Grant, Director of Operations
& Veterans Services, and Jeff Newman, Operational Services Manager for Public Services, helped
her put together a brief presentation. The current, amended and extended City-County Beach
Parking Interlocal Agreement is set to expire on September 30, 2022. As part of the Interlocal
Agreement that started in 2003, the City and County operate beach patrols and maintenance
programs. The City provides at least 1,048 parking spaces for those with valid parking stickers and
the County provides 1,527 parking spaces. The original agreement was set for five years and
expired in 2008, when a new agreement was established. The term was expanded from five years
to 10 years, with an expiration date of September 30, 2018.
Both the City and the County wanted to extend the agreement, so it was extended another five
years. At that time, the County agreed to a $1 million annual payment to the City, with an annual
adjustment beginning in 2011. The City agreed to expand access to the City’s parks, recreational
facilities and programs to residents of unincorporated Collier County. On December 17, 2017, the
agreement was amended to include an increased $1.5 million annual payment to the City, with no
adjustment factor. At that time, the County agreed that beach stickers would no longer be sold to
non-Collier County residents and that agreement was extended and amended through September
2022. At this time, Collier County staff recommends maintaining the existing, amended Interlocal
Agreement terms for another four years.
By maintaining the existing amended Interlocal Agreement, several benefits continue:
It distributes the cost of beach patrols and maintenance programs to the respective entity.
The County’s $1.5 million remittance to the City equals over 53% of all beach and water
revenue being permitted.
It provides the best value and quality beach access to Collier County residents.
Vice Mayor McCabe asked what does 53.3% of all beach and water revenues from all sources
mean?
3
Ms. Williams said it means that of all revenues generated, $1.5 million equals 53% of those
revenues, so you’re getting back 53% of the revenues as part of your $1.5 million.
Vice Mayor McCabe said that to him, it doesn’t equate, 53.3% of the general revenues?
Ms. Williams said they are just for beach and water revenue, just for your parking revenue and
your beach access.
Ms. Williams asked Mr. Newman to explain further.
Mr. Newman said that if you look at what we took in during FY2021 for beaches and parking, the
overwhelming share of beach and water revenues come from parking. There are some other minor
streams. For instance, if we rent something out on the beach, like a marriage ceremony. But
overwhelmingly, it’s parking. If you take all revenues that we generate in parks for our beach and
water at County parks, $1.5 million in FY21 was about 53.50%.
Vice Mayor McCabe said that’s what he thought, but why is that relevant?
Mr. Newman said he included that information to show that although we charge out-of-towners
who don’t have beach parking stickers at our parks, it shows how that $1.5 million works into the
parks’ revenue stream.
Vice Mayor McCabe said it’s saying it’s 53.3% of the parking revenues that the County takes in,
but it’s for the City’s beach parking in parks, so how does that equate?
Commissioner Saunders said he misunderstood, as well. He thought we were talking about what
is the gross revenue from this of the City in terms of your parking, so he assumed this number
reflected 53.3% of the City’s gross revenue. The relevant question is what is your gross
revenue? And what percentage of that gross revenue is this $1.5 million? What is the City’s gross
revenue from parking operations that are subject to this agreement? For example, if that number is
$3 million, then that 53% percent of that would be our payment. That’s what he assumed it was.
Vice Mayor McCabe said the more relevant comparison for the City’s parking and Parks would
be what does $1.5 million represent to the cost of the City, the beaches, renourishment, parking, to
maintaining, and the raking of the beaches and parks, to our fulfillment? When he saw 53.3%, he
didn’t know why that number was there.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said we’re here to discuss that and to move forward.
Commissioner Taylor agreed. The issue is what’s the cost to maintain our beaches today, what is
your cost and what is our cost and what is the revenue? Because more needs to be done. We need
more oversight on the beaches. We need to figure out that number and go from there.
Vice Mayor McCabe said he doesn’t see why the County’s cost is relevant because we’re talking
about County residents using City facilities and the County’s cost is covered by the City’s
residents paying the ad valorem tax, the same as any other County residents. So, the question
4
should be what is the City’s cost, and then looking at the share of the County residents, what that
would represent. Then make sure the costs we have are being borne by the County’s residents.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said having this discourse will be very instrumental in coming up with
a palatable agreement.
Heitman asked to clarify “all sources.”
BCC Chairman McDaniel said County staff is taking notes to get answers to all the questions.
Vice Mayor McCabe said there are 156,218 beach parking stickers. Of that, 151,008 is the
County, so 96.66% of the parking stickers for our beach ends and only 5,210 are the City, so as
we’re looking at this and understanding what the percentage of access is, we’ll never be able to get
down to the percentage of actual use. When we’re saying roughly 97% of the beach stickers are the
County, that needs to be weighed into this conversation.
Commissioner Saunders said he suspected that was substantially higher than $1.5 million, which
he finds objectionable. He has four beach stickers and rarely goes to the beach, so 96% doesn’t
mean anything.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said this discussion is so they can have an open and honest discourse
and reach a consensus.
Council Member Hutchison said we’re discussing an Interlocal Agreement, and currently the
discussion is about identifying costs. His “ask” would be that as we look at costs today, we should
also include projected costs over any period of time in a proposed extension. Also, please provide
a definition for “water revenue.”
Commissioner LoCastro said it sounds like we don’t have an argument over the agreement itself,
but we need a deeper dive into the statistics, the money, the revenue, the sourcing and all that as
we come up to the September 30 timeline. Is there anything in the agreement that anyone takes
exception to, other than wanting a breakout with statistics?
Council Member Perry asked how the extension was set for four years, not five or 10.
Ms. Williams said it was just decided to extend it for four years.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said the number is irrelevant now. They could determine a time for an
extension once they approve an Interlocal Agreement.
Commissioner Taylor said that prior to the agreement, the City and County were butting heads a
lot. The City strongly suggested asking for $1 million a year for parking and the County
agreed. That had to do with the parking passes, etc. Prior to that, it was loggerheads. She didn’t
know why there wasn’t another 10-year agreement. It makes no sense, unless the County decides
they don’t want to use the City’s beaches. How many accesses are in the City right now?
Ms. Williams said 40.
5
Commissioner Taylor said she doesn’t think the City or County wants to give up access to 40
beach accesses because the County has about five, so it behooves us all to come together to
understand that the beach is a shared resource, and it’s very important to keep it up and to keep our
quality of life. Our quality of life is dependent on how people use the beaches and it’s not to have
glass on the beach, dogs on the beach, barbecues or tents on the beach. This can’t happen.
Council Member Blankenship said they can come to a reasonable agreement on cost-sharing.
We’ve had significant cost increases since the pandemic. We increased the beach patrol, pelican
patrols, increased cleaning on the Pier, and increased cleaning and trash pick-up at Lowdermilk
Park and all the beach ends, so we can factor that into the budget and come up with a reasonable
approach. The real issue we need to think about is long-term parking. We’ve got tremendous
growth in our area and only so many beach parking spaces. That’s where we’re going to need
creative help, either from us, from City and County staff, on how we’re going to address providing
access to the beach for all our residents when there’s not enough parking in the area.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said he liked the statement he made about them being “all of our
beaches.” If we approach this discussion with that as a premise will be able to come to a
consensus.
Commissioner Saunders said he understood. Where the City Council seems to be going on this is
all those maintenance costs they have. Whether we have this agreement or not, you’re going to
have those costs, so he wanted to find out what the City’s gross revenue is from parking meters
and see what that $1.5 million, what that percentage, would be. As staff is evaluating this, please
come back with what our alternatives are in increasing our parking facilities on the beach because
we do have several facilities and maybe we could increase those. Clam Pass Park is an example of
an area we’ve talked about, so we may need to go in that direction. He’d like to see the City’s
gross revenue for parking, which is really what’s relevant here. How much you’re spending, how
much revenue you have, and how much this $1.5 million reflects that because your costs are going
to remain. Your costs are not going to change.
There shouldn’t be a perception that the County is a cash cow here. We have to be very careful
about how we spend our money, as well. This $1.5 million was a very fair agreement and he’d like
to see that rate continue, but he understands the City needs to look at its numbers.
Council Member Christman said he recognizes they have Interlocal Agreements for Parks and
Recreation, particularly the beaches, which is the most visible Interlocal Agreement we have and is
in the minds of all. Is this the only Interlocal Agreement we have between the City and
County? He didn’t believe it was. When we planned for this joint workshop, some of the
discussion by Council was to take a look at all the Interlocal Agreements we had with the County,
or even to talk about Interlocal Agreements that don’t exist that maybe should for issues such as
affordable housing. It would be useful for staff to provide a full summary of Interlocal Agreements
that are in place so we have an understanding of that.
Ms. Patterson said they’re in the process of putting that together.
Mayor Heitmann said she set the tone. She doesn’t think this is an adversarial meeting It’s a great
6
opportunity to discuss, to work on and solve issues. We’re not coming against you and wanting,
but seeking information to solve some issues.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said they all concur. This meeting is long past due to have an open
discussion and discourse with our community at large. You’re a part of ours, we’re a part of yours.
Commissioner LoCastro said he wanted to get back to something Council Member Perry said.
It’s extremely important how frequently we look at these agreements. When we’ve been looking at
accounting agreements, some get looked at every 10 years and then a 10-year point hits and
nobody looks at it and then we’re at the 17-year point. The County is so dynamic and growing so
quickly and money is changing hands so fast. One minute we have a marina that’s barely being
used and producing no revenue, and now it’s a huge cash cow. They’re looking at these more
frequently, even if it’s just to look at it and say, “You know what, it’s perfectly set the way it is”
and then we go another four years. We really need to nail that down in an agreement. We’ve been
remiss here in the County a few times where we missed a few and when the agreement came to us,
it was pretty dusty.
Even by our own admission, we’ve sat here and said, “We would have better served the County if
we’d really attacked it at the 10-year point when we’re supposed to, or maybe sooner.” So really
nailing down that term, what’s the magic number, four or five? We need something definite
because you’re dealing with real dollars here and things that are changing very quickly. As you
said, this area is growing so quickly that in four years it might need a total overhaul, maybe even
sooner if we’re watching it. We might want to have an emergency meeting and really take a look at
this, or any other agreement.
Vice Mayor McCabe said is the agreement itself, as it’s structured today, sound and should we
move forward? Yes, but with one caveat. During the last go around, they took out an escalator
clause. The escalator clause or something similar should be put back in because that would capture
the kind of conversations that we’re having today. It’s important because if you look at the
escalator clause, if it was in there, and you project it into 2023, to this next fiscal year we’re going
to make an agreement for, and you compared the metrics, we would have had an 84.6%
increase. Instead of $1.5 million, we’d be talking about $2,769,292, so it’s not a small deal. It is a
big deal.
As Mr. Commissioner Saunders touched on, we’re not talking about hoarding County money, but
we just need to make sure we really understand what we’re talking about. In the City of Naples,
our residents pay into the County, just like any other County residents. Then City of Naples
residents pay additional taxes for the services and all that we have. County residents don’t, so what
we’re talking about is making sure that County residents share in paying for what the City
residents have, in addition to what the County has. We’re not drawing a line and saying, “Give us
more County money.” We’re literally saying, “For the residents of City of Naples, give us the
money we’ve already given for the additional services that we have for the City.” It’s no more
complicated than that.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said we’re all entitled to our opinions. Commissioner Saunders has an
opinion that he doesn’t disagree with. You’re certainly entitled to spend as much money as you
want, but in order to do it, and if you have a discretionary expense that you’re putting out as a
7
maintenance expense with a theoretical escalator clause that you want to put in here and it’s not a
ratified expense, then we need to have a discussion about that. With our carte blanche, there’s
more money, but at the same token, he wants it to be equitable.
Vice Mayor McCabe said absolutely, so this is a good conversation to set up, What will take
place post-meeting?
Commissioner Taylor said it might be advisable to have an ad hoc committee work out details
and bring something back to each of our boards, because that is something that she doesn’t think
we’ve ever done. She doesn’t think it’s in the ordinance. It’s clear that the beaches are in the
County’s interests, everyone’s interests. Rather than getting into the nitty gritty, we should pick
one and you pick one and bring staffs together and really go into it, understanding the tenor of
what you’ve heard here.
BCC Chairman McDaniel agreed, saying he liked the idea, the holistic approach.
BCC Vice Chair BCC Vice Chair Solis asked if they could hear today what the City’s total
revenue is for parking.
Mr. Boodheshwar said in about three months, he’ll be able to assess that question and others. We
don’t have anyone here today from finance. But as we gather all this data, that is important in our
assessment, we’ll have that piece of information.
Ms. Williams said the last benefit is that the Interlocal Agreement would provide City residents
with access to South Marco Beach, Tiger Tail Beach, Barefoot Beach Preserve, Barefoot access,
Clam Pass, North Gulfshore Beach access and Vanderbilt Beach, a total of seven County beaches.
The discussion has already started and notes have been taken, so she awaits the Board’s directive.
Council Member Blankenship said one other element of data that would be helpful to look at is
parks utilization. We’ve talked a lot about the beaches, but not so much about the parks. We have
data that show a lot of County residents continue to use City parks. Even though you have invested
tremendous amounts in County parks, we’re still seeing the utilization and it would be interesting
to see if you have data that shows how many City residents are using County parks. That would be
helpful to know so we can factor that into this Interlocal Agreement because the $1.5 million, or
whatever the number ends up being, is supposed to cover some shared park costs and beach costs.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said we’ve had discussions about the Seagate parking garage and so
on. He wants to explore an inland parking garage to digitize all our beach accesses, so the people
who want to come to a beach can look at a screen to see if there’s parking available. He wants
them to be able to go to a parking garage, pay, get in, get in a van and go to a City or County
beach. It will reduce infrastructure impacts and reduce parking in the City of Naples.
Council Member Blankenship said we talked about the same thing because Lowdermilk Park, for
instance, fills up and people drive around or sit in line trying to find a parking space.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said they’ve had people parking in private yards or rights-of-way and
they’ve had very serious circumstances.
8
Vice Mayor McCabe said he doesn’t agree with factoring in what share of City residents use
County parks. City residents are paying County taxes and, therefore, should have access to County
parks. It’s the opposite that’s not taking place, so City residents are already paying for County
facilities, services, etc., in their ad valorem taxes, so we shouldn’t be factoring that in. It’s when
County residents come to the City, that’s the conversation.
Council Member Hutchison said for staff, the “ask” would be to share the variables the County
uses to arrive at its net expense and beach costs. Let’s compare what we’re using. You may find an
opportunity there. And let’s look at what reasonable access to the beach really looks like, parking
on the beach ends and near-shore parking lots. What’s the impact on people parking in our rights-
of-way, in front of the residences and what’s that expense?
Should we discuss solutions with shared-costs and providing mobility? He wasn’t sure if that’s
ever been discussed, beach parking enforcement and numerous other beach-related variables.
Outside our world, what are the best practices? There are a lot of beaches around the country. We
can look at best practices and adopt those to come up with a good template for our residents and
visitors well into the future.
Mayor Heitmann said we also should look at boat ramp fees and how many spaces we actually
have. The pandemic showed us that our access for boaters has increased. We might want to look at
that to make sure we have enough.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said they’d looked at the County ramps a lot and would be happy to
share what the County is doing.
Commissioner Taylor asked the Chair if they had the consensus of both boards to appoint an ad
hoc committee to come back with some information that can be disseminated. If we’re on break, it
can be disseminated through e-mail, so we can prepare for the Interlocal Agreement in September.
Mayor Heitmann said she could be the liaison for the City Council and the BCC chair when they
go on summer break.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said he’d be happy to be a liaison and be on the ad hoc committee.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said no decision making is coming from this. We’re just gathering
information, putting it all together, and then we’ll bring it back to our individual boards.
Mayor Heitmann asked what the time frame was.
Commissioner Taylor said the agreement would be voted on during the second BCC meeting in
September.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said it would be September 13 and our last meeting before break will
be July 12.
2.B. Septic To Sewer Initiative - [Bob Middleton, Naples Utilities Director]
9
Mr. Middleton presented a PowerPoint presentation said he’s presenting an update to the City’s
septic sewer program, a good program for eliminating the potential for septic tank overflows that
contaminate our waterways. In 2006, the City completed a study of the unsewered areas within the
City’s sanitary sewer system service area. The shaded area is the City’s sanitary sewer service
area. A lot of that area is outside the City limits, in Collier County. The plan identified seven areas
that did not have sanitary sewer and were on septic tanks.
The first project that we took on was Area 7, the Bemberry Drive area, which was constructed in
2015. The next project was Areas 4 and 5, within the unsewered area. Construction of the sanitary
sewer system there is complete. The County stormwater system is almost complete, except for
some punch-list items. So far, connections to that system are about 95% complete, with the
connections from the homes to the sanitary-sewer system.
We’ve got four areas remaining. Areas 1-6, which are bounded on the north side by Pine Ridge
Road, the southern end is the green area known as Area 6, Creech Road, and is bounded by U.S.
41 and Goodlette Road. Area 7, the first project we completed in 2015, is behind the post office on
Goodlette Road, north and west of the post office. It cost $852,000 to connect 50 properties there.
These are paid for by assessments, so Area 7 residents were assessed the construction cost for the
sanitary sewer system with no grant help, just City residents paying about $15,000 per
connection. Residents also were responsible for paying for the connection and abandonment of the
septic tank, so we’re learning how that worked through that first process, and we’re a bit better on
Areas 4 and 5. Hopefully, we’ll continue to get better during this process.
BCC Chairman McDaniel asked if the City had any struggles financially and had issues due to
that.
Mr. Middleton said yes, sir, that’s the main reason for this discussion, because he wants to make
everybody aware of it. In the area we called Phase 1, the west Goodlette Frank Road project, or
Gulf Acres-Rosemary Project. It was to provide sanitary sewer systems in Areas 4 and 5. In
November 2017, the City and County entered into an Interlocal Agreement in which the City
would construct a sanitary sewer system to eliminate septic tanks and replace the water-
distribution system. The City provides drinking water to residents of this area, so the water system
needed to be replaced at the same time because it couldn’t withstand the construction activities for
installing the stormwater system and the sanitary sewer system.
Along with that, the County was going to upgrade and replace the stormwater system in this area,
which was prone to massive flooding, especially during Hurricane Irma. It was a good move to
replace or upgrade the stormwater system to get that water off those properties during a storm. He
likes the Interlocal Agreement, where the City and the County work together, because there are
several benefits to doing that construction at the same time. When two different entities own
utilities, if they can get together and do that work all at one time, that minimizes the construction
agony, and there was a lot of agony doing this construction, not only for the residents there, but for
City and County staff.
When they dig up that right-of-way, which was 60 feet, we went down through those streets and
10
dug it up to install and replace all the utilities. The cost-sharing is an advantage for both
sides. Under this agreement, the County took the lead on procurement. They took care of hiring the
design consultant and bidding the project out, and this project was done through a three-party
construction agreement. The City and the County had an agreement with the contractor where the
City paid for their cost and the County paid for their cost for the improvements.
The total project cost for Areas 4 and 5, which includes the construction of the sanitary sewer
system, the water system and the stormwater system, was $13.7 million for the County. The
sanitary sewer was assessed to the residents and when we went into this, the construction cost for
just sanitary sewer was $5.7 million to connect 331 properties. As we got into meeting with
residents, several were not happy about getting hit with a $25,000 assessment for those costs and
that number of connections. That assessment includes not only the construction but the design cost,
engineering cost, and any other fees associated with setting up that assessment. That was all
charged back to the residents. There was so much public outcry on this when we got into the public
hearings to set the assessment, that the City Council said, “Let’s stop, we need to find money to
help these residents out.” That’s when we joined together with the County, which agreed to pay for
the $313,000 design cost.
The City and County had grants with the Water Management District for this project. The City had
$800,000 in grants and the County had $875,000 in grants. The County said it would give up its
grant request and give it to the City, which was $1.67 million. Just with those two offsets, we were
able to reduce the assessment from $25,000 down to $13,300, which was much more palatable to
the residents. Plus, we gave them several options on how they could pay off the assessment.
We still had a few that were not happy with having to pay that. But they had the option of paying
that off upfront, $13,300, with no interest or fees, just pay it off; or they could have it attached to
their ad valorem taxes over a 20-year period, with interest; or they didn’t have to pay it off at all,
but at the end of the 20-year assessment, they would have to pay that plus the interest, about
$50,000 at the end.
Commissioner Taylor said they didn’t have to pay it off if they sold their house. If they
homeowner wanted to do this, but they saw an appreciation on their house and wanted to realize
that appreciation and that debt was carried to the new owners.
Commissioner LoCastro asked what most residents did.
Mr. Middleton said they paid it off. There was a silent majority out there because the septic tanks
were in extremely bad shape. For the cost they were going to have to pay, the payment option was
an advantage to some. Plus, to replace the septic tank was about $15,000. So, either you pay the
City once to connect to the system and eliminate the septic tank or have the recurring costs of
replacing the septic tank every 20 years, so there was an advantage.
Then the City applied through the State Legislature for a line-item appropriation. This project got a
lot of attention with the help of the County and our lobbyist in Tallahassee and we were granted a
$1.2 million line-item appropriation from the Legislature to offset the cost of the sanitary sewer
system. The City also applied for a DEP grant, a 319 Grant that pays to offset the cost of the
abandonment of the septic tanks in connection to the system and the City threw in $400,000 to
11
match that. We were able to combine those three sums of money, which is about $2.1 million. We
hired a contractor to do the actual connection work to abandon the septic tanks and make the house
connection to the sanitary sewer system. The residents didn’t pay anything out of pocket and it’s
their responsibility to make the connection because it’s on private property.
Today, of the 331 properties, we’re about 95% complete. We’ve got 11-15 remaining connections
to be made, and that’s going to be on Ridge Street, so we hope within the next two months to have
that project completed and move on to the next one.
If you didn’t have the opportunity to ride through this area before construction and ride through it
now, it looks very nice. The right-of-way is opened up and the road is brand new. The sanitary
sewer system runs down the middle of the road and you can see the difference in the swales on the
side of the road for the stormwater system. Everything stormwater in this area runs to the east, to
the canal along the road, so everything is pitched that way to move the water.
A water line is on the north side of Ridge Street. To the west, you can see the improvements of the
stormwater system, the roadway, the driveways were replaced. We did a phenomenal job on
restoration. There is still some more work to do, some line-item things, but it was a pretty
successful project.
For Phase 2, we’ve got four more areas to do. In 2019, the City and the County agreed to another
interlocal agreement to do the design and construction of the four remaining areas. In March of
2021, the City Council awarded a contract to the design firm. We’re at 60% design right now and
we should be at 100% by this August. We’ve got some tentative amounts based on that engineer’s
estimate on what the cost would be. The design of the sanitary sewer system for the entire area is
$806,157 and this will be a special assessment. We will charge residents for the design and the
construction through the assessment program. This area represents 869 total connections and the
City has budgeted $32 million over the next five years. We’ve got it spaced out because we
estimated it’ll be about a year to two years to construct and do all the improvements in that
area. That includes replacement of the water system, a new sanitary sewer system and the County’s
improvements to the stormwater system.
We’ve broken this project down into three projects in Phase 2. Project 1 is to work in Areas 3 and
6, based on the unsewered master plan. The construction cost for the sanitary sewer system alone
is $10.7 million. Areas 3 and 6 and represent 285 connections. To give a cost comparison, the
construction of the sanitary sewer system for Areas 4 and 5 was $5.7 million for 331 connections
and did not include $2 million for the connection cost. What we’re doing differently on this one is
we are including in the construction costs the abandonment of the septic tanks and connection to
the system. That represents $2 million out of that $10.7 million.
BCC Vice Chair Solis asked what exactly does abandonment mean?
Mr. Middleton said there’s a procedure that you have to go through that’s identified by the State
Health Department and now DEP. You have to crush the tank, pump out the contents and fill it
with suitable material. In some cases, that’s select soil and others, we may pump it full of flowable
fill or concrete. The cost for that is anywhere from $2,000-$5000 per property.
12
If you remove the cost of the connection, $2,000 from the $10.7 million, you’re at $8.7 million for
285 connections versus $5.7 million, which we just completed. It’s $2 million-$3 million more for
doing the work now so that’s an increased cost the residents are going to have to absorb, and
hopefully our engineer is way off on his estimates, but we know what prices are doing right
now. Based on that cost with no grants applied, it’s $40,000 per connection per resident, and that’s
at the 60% design drawings. We’re hoping that will be reduced, but I am not looking forward to
that discussion with the residents.
Grants are available, but they’re not guaranteed for this project. We’ve applied for a line-item
appropriation through the Legislature and that has been approved. It’s in the State budget now for
$500,000. They’ve changed the rules on how we can apply for State funding and will only provide
funding for work done within their fiscal year, which is July through June. When we applied for
this, we were assuming that we would start construction in early 2023, but that would only give us
six months of construction within that fiscal year, so we would probably have $1 million worth of
work done by then, so it’s typically a 50% grant. They provided $500,000. We think we’ll be
successful in future grants.
Congressman Byron Daniels has applied for a Federal Community Funding Project grant on the
City’s behalf and we’ve requested $5 million. We have received comments back from the federal
level asking questions about the how to justify this. He doesn’t know where they are with it, but if
we could get a $5 million grant, we’ve just cut that $40,000 in half to $20,000.
Plus, with other grant opportunities, we’ve been in conversations with the Big Cypress Basin
through the Water Management District and will more than likely get grant funding there. But it’s
going to be around $500,000-$800,000. We’ll take anything. We also applied for a 319 Grant
through DEP to cover the connection cost, and we think we’ll get about $500,000.
We will send out public notifications to residents this summer, including costs, and will probably
set up some public meetings with City and the County staff to represent the project and have plans
and drawings set out for residents to see their properties and how it’s going to be connected or
affected. Those will probably be good meetings, except for the discussion about what their costs
will be. The design of the project will be completed this fall, probably August. The initial and final
assessment hearings will begin later this year, but for the final assessment, we’ve got to have a
pretty good number to have the maximum assessment included in that final assessment. If we don’t
have the final assessment high enough and the project costs exceed that amount, the City’s on the
hook for that cost, so we want to be accurate on our cost.
Commissioner Taylor asked if you could go the other way.
Mr. Middleton said yes, and that’s what typically happens after a project is constructed. We know
the true construction cost and then the assessment is recalculated. If people paid a higher amount,
then they’re reimbursed.
Council Member Petrunoff said the prime rate is going up and it’s going to go up again. The way
these are priced, are they variable or is it a fixed rate that’s applied to residents?
Mr. Middleton said it’s a fixed rate.
13
Council Member Petrunoff asked if we have any sense of how much it costs, or have we done
any calculations on reduction in pollution to explain this? What is the benefit of this project? What
are the failed septic systems doing to waterways?
Mr. Middleton said that’s done through water-quality monitoring. We’ve got a good area to do
water-quality monitoring. One of the tasks in the Big Cypress Basin’s grant agreement with the
City is that we have to do water-quality monitoring. We’ve already started monitoring of the water
coming out of the system prior to the septic tanks being online, so we have the history on that.
Now that the septic tanks are going away, then we’re required to monitor for an additional two
years to see what the impact reduction is going to be.
Council Member Petrunoff asked when they will get our first reads on this, given that you’re
95% done with Phase 1.
Mr. Middleton said we have to sample again in September.
Council Member Petrunoff asked if they’ll get a reading in October or November on this.
Mr. Middleton said yes. For construction, the City will bid the project and we’re going to change
the way we did it from the previous time. We did not pre-qualify a contractor. We’re going
through a contractor pre-qualification process to pre-qualify any contractors that will be eligible to
bid on this job and you know why we’re doing that. We’re anticipating construction to begin in
early 2023. In Area 3, the northern boundary is Solana Road, the southern boundary, including the
boundary on the south side, is Cypress Woods Drive. We’ve just completed the septic sewer at
Hollygate Lane, so we’re moving north and it’s bounded by U.S. 41 and Goodlette Road. This
represents 260 connections.
Area 6 is Creech Road. The north half of Creech Road is in the County and they are not on sanitary
sewer. They’re on septic tanks, so they represent 25 connections. For Project 2, to the north, Area
2 represents 305 connections. The estimated construction cost for the sanitary sewer is $10.8
million and includes the connection cost. Grant funding is anticipated, but not guaranteed. This
area is south of Granada Boulevard and includes Morningside Drive on the south side and it
represents 305 connections. The last area to the north is Area 1, which is $10.4 million based on
this year’s dollars, and is 279 connections. That’s a $40,000 per-connection cost without any
grants now. It includes the connection cost. The area in the middle is not shaded because at some
time before my existence at the City, somebody installed sanitary sewer in that area, so they are
lucky beneficiaries to be living there right now. This shaded area represents 279 connections and
it’s south of Pine Ridge Road, north of Granada Boulevard between U.S. 41 and Goodlette Road.
Mayor Heitmann thanked Mr. Middleton, his staff and County staff. This is really a fine example
of a City-County partnership in taking care of the necessary infrastructure that was missing for a
very long time and it is protecting our impaired waterbodies for the future. That’s what the City
has been working on with our Lakes Management Program. It’s extremely important that we are
also a partnership in State appropriations and are lobbying the federal government for our water
management. It took a team to do this and she’s very proud of this project because she has hope
that we can clean up some of our water bodies that are impaired.
14
Commissioner LoCastro said he hopes that Isles of Capri residents watched this because in his
district, that’s a huge footprint now. That’s pretty much all septic and it’s been postponed for so
many years. We all appreciate the timeline it takes from the idea to actually flushing the toilet and
having it being connected to sewer, and it’s big. We would have benefited on Isles of Capri by
having this discussion in the very early stages of talking to Isles of Capri residents. You were
saying there’s misinformation, the minute they hear that there’s a possible assessment, forget
it. But the rebuttal is if your septic tank explodes tomorrow, you’re going to pay regardless of how
many grants there are. And when it comes to water, you’ve raised a great question, but it’s really
about prevention. It’s about making sure that doesn’t happen because it has happened in some
communities. Some preliminary work that we’ve done to get our notes together was a great
reminder for him when he talked to residents and own staff: We want to learn from best
practices. The one thing that we have found out is grant money was much more plentiful a while
ago. That train may have left the station. That’s an exact quote from a contact in Tallahassee who
works on this. If you’re up against issues with septic tanks, you might not be able to wait for the
grant money and we have more than a few septic tanks that are having issues now in Isles of Capri.
Right now, we’re trying to at least do the homework. Very little of that has ever been done. It was
started and then when a lot of pushback came from residents, nobody wanted to take a bite of that
apple and it was just like, “Oh we’ll talk about it in 10 years” and the septic tanks aren’t any
cheaper and the connection isn’t any cheaper now.
We also have the added complexity of Marco Island. They have a partial responsibility with sewer
connections, a complicated partnership in trying to bring everybody to the table. My takeaways
here are exactly what the mayor has said: It’s a lot of great work and we want to learn from this.
There will be other areas in our community, but Isles of Capri is a big footprint with a lot of
connections, a big project. We’re in the very early stages of trying to educate the community that
they really shouldn’t push back anymore on this. We’re having a lot of success doing that by
giving them the right information, but the negative is when they ask about the assessment. He’s
glad to hear some grant money is available. But nothing is guaranteed. It’s a lot less guaranteed
now than it was when money was flowing more freely and it was less of a challenge to get, when
environmental help was easier to get.
Council Member Petrunoff asked if the new developments being built in the County are required
to hook into the public septic system.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said not at all, but the higher-density projects, yes.
Commissioner Saunders said he believes it’s State law that if you have access to a municipal
water and sewer system in a new development, you have to hook up, so as the Chairman said,
we’ve got areas where we don’t have that service. If it’s available, they have to hook up.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said one of the things we’ve been working hard on is capital-asset
replacement and maintenance out of revenue streams we currently have. If you haven’t
implemented those practices yet, start. It will certainly help your process when you’re taking care
of your own house and not looking to somebody else talking about free money falling from the
sky. We hadn’t had those practices in place for a long, long time in Collier County because we’re
close to $2 billion in assets that need to be managed, both subsurface and surface.
15
So if you haven’t really looked into those things yet, add that to your repertoire. Start talking about
your user fees, how you’re managed. We have experience in Everglades City with what’s going on
down there. With regard to the necessity and the want for grant monies, the folks that have access
to larger pots of money, if they see that you’re taking care of your own house upfront, there’s a
greater propensity for help along the way.
BCC Vice Chair Solis said he was glad to hear that staff has been working so well together. In
North Naples, in North Collier County, we’ve had one of these projects going on for years. All of
Naples Park has to be switched and we’re doing all of that at the same time, so he hopes there’s a
lot of communication because when that process started five or six years ago, the way we’re going
about the work has changed significantly. The staff has done so much to work with the residents
and how to minimize the pain of digging up the roads and living with unpaved roads, especially in
the rainy season, so he’s glad to hear that that’s working well. He hopes County staff is sharing all
of that experience because from Naples Park we have to go to Palm River, we have to go to Bonita
Shores and southeast, as well. It’s going to Golden Gate City, right? So that process is continually
being refined and he hopes we’re sharing what we can share with you.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said when he first became Commissioner in 2016, we were 50%
developed. You asked about new growth and development. We were 50% developed in Golden
Gate Estates and still utilizing the normal septic systems that are currently used today, and we all
know there’s highest and best technology availed. He’s data-driven. He looks for data-driven
decision making, so he deployed County Pollution Control to get data in eastern Collier County
and 50% build out. The other 50% is coming and we are good even with the new construction
that’s coming all the way to 951, from the human effluent hitting the water system with the
existing septic systems that we have. So, for those who are listening who live in Golden Gate
Estates, unless the municipality puts water and sewer up the front of your street where you have
the option of connecting, you don’t have to. There isn’t going to be a septic-to-sewer move in
Golden Gate Estates. There’s no economy for it. The density is so low at one unit per 2¼ acres,
Mother Earth does her job. That’s just for information purposes going forward.
Council Member Hutchison said you went over various areas and that in spring of 2023,
construction is going to start in one of those areas. Can you summarize from now until when the
project work will be completed for all areas?
Mr. Middleton said if we start in 2023, it’ll be 1½ years, maybe longer. Area 1 would probably be
completed in 2027-2028. If we weren’t able to maintain the schedule, late 2029.
Council Member Hutchison asked if he’d identified what the greatest or most likely threats are to
cost increases during that timeframe.
Mr. Middleton said materials, delivery of materials and staff.
Council Member Hutchison said, And a delta of what?
Mr. Middleton said just on this project right now, what we’ve completed and what we’re going
into, is a $2 million increase.
16
BCC Chairman McDaniel asked if it was the equivalent number of connections.
Mr. Middleton said not really. The one we just completed was 331 and what we’re going to is
285, but it’s a little bit less and it’s $2 million up.
Council Member Hutchison said that for those participating in this meeting, as well as for the
public watching, we’re going through these septic-to-sewer conversions for a reason. It’s water
quality. The City properties are all sewer. Are there County residential properties that are not
within the area described in your presentation, yet they remain on septic systems and they are
contributing to water-quality issues in and around the City of Naples?
Mr. Middleton said we have a section off Airport Road, north of Golden Gate Parkway, but
they’re fairly large lots, and he believes they’re still on septic tanks. The difference is, as the
Chairman mentioned, these are large areas of property with a septic tank, so the potential for them
to be contaminating surface water there is a lot less. This area we’re talking about, these are septic
tanks 20 feet apart. It’s just one large septic tank. The density is so high there compared to this
other area off Airport Road, but they’re really not even on our radar right now.
Commissioner LoCastro said it’s the same as we have in the Isles of Capri. The density is
unbelievable, and we’re already seeing an indication of service problems. You can talk to some
citizens and they say, “When I flush my toilet, I don’t get the same sort of suction I got.” We’re
seeing little characteristics of septic tanks, not necessarily contaminating the water, but starting to
get to their life expectancy and that’s a bad sign.
Mr. Middleton said it depends on high tide.
Commissioner LoCastro said yeah, absolutely.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said the key is density. If you’ve got a spatial differential, Mother
Nature can do her job.
Commissioner Taylor asked if it also depends on lot coverage, of impermeable structures.
Mr. Middleton said it sure does. That’s how a drainfield works. You have to have room for
that. Once the waste leaves the tank, it overflows into the drainfield and that’s what dissipates the
treated water into the earth.
Commissioner Taylor said it’s dependent upon the moisture from above, which is inhibited when
they build mega houses and cover lots, no matter how big they are, like they’re doing in Pine
Ridge. Pine Ridge is going from very modest to major mansions and that whole area is on septic.
Vice Mayor McCabe said as everybody says, this is an extremely important project to address the
water quality for everyone. Given you’re looking at Phase 1 and now we’re talking about Phase 2.
If you look at what happened in Phase 1, Collier County really jumped in and helped out with it.
They did the design cost, they did the bidding and then they did the construction contracting
costs. But in Phase 2, it’s not represented as such, as yet. It’s not formalized or finalized, so an
17
“ask” is for the County to jump in and do this, as well. And as Council Member Hutchison said,
this is for County residents. This is not the City. This is what the City’s sewer map includes, but
these are not City residents.
The second “ask,” when we’re doing this, we’re tying it into what you’re doing, as far as your
stormwater, etc., construction improvements in this area for your residents. When we look at the
right-of-way restoration, Bob showed some excellent pictures, how it looks post versus pre looks
fantastic. When you’re tearing up the roads, if you did your project alone, you would bear the cost
for right-of-way reconstruction. When we’re doing it in conjunction with you to replace these
sewer lines, we’re doing a cost-sharing.
This would be another way that the City could help out. With this $32 million project the City is
taking on for County residents, instead of cost-sharing for replacement of the right-of-way, the
County takes on responsibility to replace the County road, given they were going to take it up
anyway. That would be a benefit to County residents, but it will also help the City out with this
project going forward. It could also help out in some of the numbers that we’re talking about
County residents getting hit with, the assessments for this. The more that we look at this project
very specifically for its goal, the positive nature of it for all residents, the positive nature with
which your County residents will be benefiting from it, and then looking and trying to make sure
that we as the City, which is taking it on, taking on what we need or have to do, but also have the
County helping us out and ensuring that the County residents are getting the benefits. So that
would be a pushback or an “ask” that I have, to look at Phase 2, and for the County to come to the
table, do the designing, the engineering, the construction and contracting. And look at when we say
right-of-way replacement, that the County does that because it is a County road for County
residents and you’d be tearing it up, so that would be an answer.
Commissioner Taylor said she didn’t know if everyone was aware of this, but the City does make
a premium on the service that they supply to County residents and the City could decide to
abandon it, and we could take that over. She believes the County would be happy to do that.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said so again, there’s another way of getting to where we need to go.
Vice Mayor McCabe said this is a good conversation, to be available.
Commissioner Taylor said that on the first go-around, the County applied for and received the
grant and dedicated it to the City, so this has always been a partnership. As we approach this,
because the variables are so great with the construction costs and inflation, etc., it’s important to
keep an open dialogue as we go forward, understanding that it is a huge cost for both entities, but it
is a necessary cost.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said and it goes back to what he was saying at the beginning. With
regards to your Capital-Asset- Replacement maintenance, you’ve got asbestosis water lines that are
running everywhere and what’s our plan for those replacements? It’s not yours, it’s ours. So how
are we budgeting for those known replacements that are coming, are we communicating at the
same time, so departmentally, we’re not fixing rights-of-way and doing the storm water and then
saying, “Oh, wait a second.”
18
Commissioner LoCastro said Amy Patterson has so much historical data and knowledge. If you
have some comments to make that would be beneficial to this group, we know you have
background historical info. He believes she has something to add, correct?
Ms. Patterson said absolutely. To clarify, we would not be doing this project without the City. It
would be irresponsible, specifically for water quality, for us to go improve the stormwater, to
move polluted stormwater more quickly. That was almost the genesis of our first partnership. We
had catastrophic flooding in the area. Residents were distraught because of the level of funding,
even before Hurricane Irma. But we had to keep telling them we had done as many small fixes as
we could to the stormwater, and without a significant change with septic to sewer, there was
nothing more we could do, so the restoration cost became a negotiation point. We’re always
looking for ways to improve.
Secondly, on funding, we’ve already had conversations about how the County can help, more
specifically how we can partner better and be more successful. We were pretty successful in the
first round of grants. But where else can we go? Septic-sewer is a very hot topic right now all over
the State. We know that septic doesn’t work well in areas like this and we’re facing the same
challenge in Golden Gate City, but we will be partnering to the greatest extent possible and have
already agreed that it is counterproductive for us to compete against each other for grants. So,
stormwater will stand alone and we will fund as we do our stormwater projects while we dedicate
our efforts to a joint pursuit of grants to the benefit of reducing assessments.
[A break was taken between 10:26 and 10:40 a.m.]
2.C. STAFF GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
2.C.1. Affordable Housing – Jake LaRow, Manager, Housing, Grant Development & Operations
Mr. LaRow presented a PowerPoint presentation: said that he wanted to acknowledge Maggie
Lopez, Financial Operations Manager with CHS. She is here in case he gets a question and doesn’t
have the numbers. She’s our guru and he thanks her for helping with this. And Joe Trachtenberg,
chairman of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC), is here. At the conclusion, he
wants to invite Joe up to speak a little bit.
This is collectively a number of programs that we have rolled up into Collier County assistance
programs. We’ve been presented to the Board a number of times over the last couple of months,
related specifically to our Emergency Rental Assistance Program, most recently on May 24.
Emergency Rental Assistance Program: Through the month of May, for the first time ever,
Community Human Services, in conjunction with the Clerk’s Office, dispersed more than
$500,000 in rental assistance to qualified needy families in the community. As of yesterday, we
stand at approximately $5.8 million disbursed. The number in front of you is the amount remaining
that isn’t already dispersed or encumbered. What that means is families that have already qualified
for future rental assistance, we’re counting that money in terms of future expenditures.
Household Assistance Local Fiscal Recovery: This is commonly known as the American Rescue
Plan. The County received about $75 million and we will be taking another amendment to the
19
Board shortly. Of that $75 million, approximately 10%, about $7 million, has been set aside for
rental and mortgage assistance. Those familiar with the CARES Act funds that were implemented
and administered in 2020 and 2021, the income targeting largely mirrors that in terms of we’re
trying to make assistance available at higher income ranges than is allowed under Treasury rules
under the ERA program.
Emergency Solutions Grants: This is an entitlement program we receive grants for annually. Under
the CARES Act, we received a supplemental allocation of approximately $3 million. Of that, we
have $568,000 remaining for rental assistance for households at risk of homelessness or that are
homeless. ESG funds typically target households at 30% AMI or below, but with this particular
tranche of funds, we’re able to assist households up to 50% of AMI.
The Emergency Home Energy Assistance Program: This is pretty self-explanatory. It’s for
households with someone age 60 or older that have past-due electricity bills.
Vice Mayor McCabe said when it says funding available, she thought he said these numbers
include what’s already encumbered, or is this not unencumbered?
Mr. LaRow said this is not encumbered.
Vice Mayor McCabe said so the $8.7 million for Emergency Rental Assistance is not
encumbered, correct?
Mr. LaRow said yes, and that’s inclusive of both ERA 1 and the ERA 2.
Vice Mayor McCabe asked if there was a time limit on when that funding expires.
Mr. LaRow said yes, ERA 1 is September 30, 2022, and ERA 2 is December 30, 2025.
Vice Mayor McCabe asked what the division was between ERA 1 and ERA 2.
Mr. LaRow said we received about $9 million for ERA 1 and $11 million for ERA 2.
Vice Mayor McCabe said it’s potentially expiring and he wanted the public to understand.
Ms. Lopez said there was a big number that was put out there to the public, $6 million was the
unexpended portion of ERA 1. Out of that $6 million, there were funds that are encumbered, so
what this number is reflective of is unencumbered ERA 1 and ERA 2 funds
Vice Mayor McCabe said with the ERA 1 does the not spent go away on September 30?
Ms. Lopez said that’s correct. Out of those funds, that’s about $2 million. We have been seeing a
major reduction in that because, as Jake explained, we spent over half a million in expenditures
last month, so that will shrink.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said we’re real close to consuming that entire amount.
20
Vice Mayor McCabe said that’s his point because we’ve heard this on the radio and the news.
There’s been a major push and we really don’t want that to go away. He’s glad to hear that. For
those out there listening, make sure that you hear that.
Commissioner LoCastro said we’re more than chipping away at that $2 million, which is
obviously the goal.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said we’ve even had discussions about encumbering and still using it.
Council Member Petrunoff said given that it’s an emergency, what is the turnaround? What are
your metrics around turnaround? These families are often in crisis. How quickly is it, as far as
reviewing the application, or getting the dollars in their hands?
Ms. Lopez said we’re moving as fast as we can. Fortunately, our Board has approved us using
additional personnel to dedicate to that. We’ve been using volunteers, we’ve been continuing to do
outreach events. We have one that I’m scheduling for next week. She’s getting details worked out.
We’re constantly putting that effort in to review those applications and get them processed as
quickly as possible. When we first initiated the program, 120 days was our goal turnaround time.
Now it’s seven to 10 days. We have incorporated a pre-screening process, so an application gets
reviewed as soon as it is submitted. We really are trying to aim for our metric to be within 48 hours
to return all the documents required to move their applications forward.
Council Member Petrunoff said so it’s no longer 120 days, it is now seven to 10?
Ms. Lopez said that is the standard, but yes, we understand that it’s an emergency and it needs a
quicker turn around than that, especially because many families that we’re seeing needing
assistance are getting three-day eviction notices, so 120 days is not helpful to those households.
Commissioner Saunders said our Clerk, Crystal Kinzel, audits all of these in this program. Her
turnaround is very, very quick. She’s dedicated some staff to make sure that within a very short
period of time, a few days from the date that they get a completed application, they can approve
the funding. So, we’re working in that direction to get it as fast as possible.
Ms. Lopez said we meet weekly with Clerk of Courts staff to review all the documentation and
answer any questions they may have.
Vice Mayor McCabe asked if other funds were expiring.
Mr. LaRow said the Emergency Solutions Grants ends September 30, 2022. The ERP funds have
a longer shelf life. That’s expended by 2024 or encumbered by 2024.
Commissioner LoCastro said that we have an AHAC meeting once a month, which was
yesterday. He was on a Zoom call with all the elected officials that are on AHACs statewide. One
of the things we talked about is the misinformation out there. There’s a lot floating around, but
folks that say, “Wow, I applied on this date and then I got paid on this date and it was about 190
days.” We count when we get an actual valid application. Some people apply and we say we need
these three documents now and we never hear back from them.
21
One of the things we’re doing with additional staff is being much more aggressive calling
applicants back to say, “We need a copy of your lease.” We just can’t give you free money based
on you writing a number on a document. Where the clock starts is to help them as aggressively as
possible get a completed, valid application and quickly process payment.
Elected officials who represent AHACS statewide are all having a very similar challenge. He likes
what Collier County has been doing, which is using many different resources to speed up that
clock, but it’s really to get that valid application and then have it get paid. People on social media
are complaining that they applied in January and never heard back. Well, you did hear back and
you were missing four documents, so we can’t give you $5,000 just because you put your name on
the back of a postcard.
That Zoom call provided a lot of good information that made him feel even better about what
we’re doing here. He wants to give them some of that feedback. A lot of it was timing. We’ve been
really working hard to tighten it.
Mr. LaRow said these are the individual assistance programs we want to highlight because they’re
the ones that are quickly turning out to help folks in need. In relation to the interlocal discussions
and agreements that were mentioned previously, we do have annual entitlement grants, two of
which are between the City and the County. One of them was most recently approved by the City
at its April 6, 2022, meeting, the Local Housing Assistance Plan, LHAP.
The SHIP Program/Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP: This is a three-year agreement. There
was a lot of great discussion and some feedback from the Council at that meeting, so we’re going
to revisit it and take those notes into consideration for future discussions. Now we can improve
that process with the collaboration working and with Council Member Blankenship’s presence at
the AHAC meeting yesterday. LHAP becomes effective July 1, 2022.
Urban County Consortium: This is another interlocal agreement. The Urban County Consortium is
our CDBG program. That’s another entitlement grant we receive and that agreement was effective
last year. The City of Naples participated and we also go to the City of Marco Island because they
are a potential participant with their Urban Consortium. That’s a three-year agreement and we have
a couple of years before it comes up again.
Here are some quick numbers in terms of the sharing resources that go to the County versus those
that are invested in the City of Naples. From 2001, the historical figures we’ve received for the
County show there is approximately $50 million in CDBG funds. Of that, just a little over $3.3
million has been distributed within the City of Naples. The bulk of that comes through public
infrastructure projects. The most recent one was for street lighting, which was almost $700,000 of
our allocation last year that went for that project. About $100,000 went to some down-payment
assistance homeowner rehab programs for several years.
SHIP: We recently received our money, the allocation that we’re going to receive for this next
year, which is down $564,000 from what we anticipated and we had distributed previously for
planning purposes. Of that, approximately 95% is the County share. That share is determined by
22
the State and it’s purely population-based. Over the last 10 years, approximately $200,000 of SHIP
funds have been distributed to assist households within the City of Naples. Likewise, those through
down-payment assistance programs, home owner rehab and new construction systems, eight
households total.
A quick overview on the SHIP program and strategies:
Homeowners looking to repair their homes to make them more livable.
Some are looking to purchase a home through down-payment assistance programs or new
construction.
Demolition and replacement of manufactured homes.
We have two years to commit and three years to expend. The State does have pretty tight
timelines, so we have to be flexible and nimble when we develop our plan. We can’t exceed
income limits per household size. The BCC approved the Urban Land Institute study and adopted
the Community Housing plan in the fall of 2017.
Those items in green were actions that were taken independently, not as part of the original
considerations, such as government wages and minimum wages. The Board did act on some wages
for County staff at the beginning of this year, and State action on the minimum wage. Those in red
are actions recommended through the Community Housing plan, but at the time were either
considered and not pursued by the Board or declined outright.
Regulatory-Relief Initiatives: These focus on density. With housing, specifically affordable
housing, density a key component to make projects viable and feasible. These initiatives were most
recently heard by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2022, and they voted to recommend
moving those to the Board and it’s scheduled for a hearing on June 28, 2022, for transmittal.
Land Development Code: The corresponding Land Development Code amendments will likely be
heard by the Development Services Advisory Committee mid-summer or late summer and those
will be paired up in the fall as companion items for Board’s consideration and potential adoption.
The other four boxes are items that were discussed and the Board provided direction to staff at that
meeting on the 22nd. The AHAC met over several months and in their advisory role to the Board,
they wanted to make a permanent source of financing, either through the Local Housing Trust
Fund or some other mechanics to support affordable housing. One of the directions from the Board
at the time was to direct staff to evaluate a mileage equivalency to bring back to the Board. The
Board’s budget workshops on June 16 and 17 may contain that discussion.
Evaluation of County-owned or publicly owned land was another direction from the Board on June
28th, so that is currently going through staff with real property management in Growth
Management trying to identify properties that are the most viable for potential development for
affordable housing. That is slated for discussion on June 28, as well.
The infrastructure sales tax has been in place for some time. He believes it was approved in 2018.
The Board on the 22nd approved a budget amendment, essentially putting that $20 million for the
Affordable Housing Workforce Land Trust in a separate account. The next step here is that on June
28, staff will be bringing that item to the Board with suggestions on how to move forward to
23
identify potential uses for the $20 million. The only potential use for that is acquisition of land, so
we can’t finance construction or any type of other related cost. That is one of the major restrictions
that we have to acknowledge when we develop recommendations to consider.
Vice Mayor McCabe said when you say acquisition of land, does that mean barren, no structures,
just acquisition of property, period?
Mr. LaRow believed the Legislature said acquisition of land, only land.
Attorney Klatzkow confirmed that.
Vice Mayor McCabe said so if you purchase a piece of property, but you only go for what the
estimated land value is, can that be used?
Attorney Klatzkow said yes, it could.
Vice Mayor McCabe asked if you have a piece of property worth $24 million, but the land itself
is assessed at $8 million or $10 million, it could be used for this purpose, for the land portion of it?
Attorney Klatzkow said yes.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said they have $20 million allotted.
Vice Mayor McCabe said he just wanted to understand what the potential was.
Mr. LaRow said the blue box is identification of a consultant to complete a Nexus study for
linkage and an affordable housing impact fee. That was a recommendation that came out of the
AHAC subcommittee that was presented to the Board on the 22nd. The direction was for the Board
to bring back a recommendation for consultant. As that currently stands, staff is still evaluating
proposals that were submitted.
These are a number of developments that are coming online, already leasing up, and some that
have had some impact already.
Allura: The development has affordable housing commitments that were entered into and agreed to
through the Board. He worked with the Collier County Public School Systems on marketing and
advertisements for school district employees because of the location, which is adjacent to or near
North Naples Middle School. They’re doing an incremental lease up, with the last of the six
buildings being fully leased by August 15, 2022.
The Harmony on Santa Barbara (the Bembridge PUD): The developer was at our last AHAC
meeting, Chris Shear with McDowell Housing Partners. He indicated that the project is currently
40% constructed, so they are on track to be occupied in November or December of this year and
that just broke ground in early March of this year. That one has a long-term ground lease, so the
County owns the land underneath. We also have a developer agreement. That project was initiated
through an invitation to negotiate in 2019. As a result, through that partnership with removing the
cost of land from that development, they were able to secure other financing through the State,
24
low-income housing tax credits, etc., to successfully construct that project.
Cadenza and Allegro at Hacienda Lakes: Those also are being constructed by the same developer,
McDowell Housing Partners from Miami. Those are sister properties and are slated for completion
the first half of next year. One still must close on financing, but we anticipate that to occur shortly.
BCC Chairman McDaniel questioned whether Cadenza and Allegro were on County owned land.
Mr. LaRow said they were not on County owned land.
BCC Chairman McDaniel asked what AMI stands for.
Mr. LaRow said it stands for Area Median Income, which is $96,800 here.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said he wanted him to specify that because they are getting a lot of
phone calls because housing is based on AMI and the public doesn’t know what AMI or that
amount is.
Mr. LaRow said they’ll have flyers translated into Spanish and Creole by the end of the week to
publicize the developments.
Council Member Hutchison asked about the programs and amounts that are unencumbered. Is
the number for the Emergency Rental Assistance program at $8.7 million?
Mr. LaRow said that was correct and it’s allocated until the end of September, $2 million of it is
unencumbered and that was inclusive of both ERA 1 and ERA 2 programs.
Council Member Hutchison asked if any of the funds are at risk of expiring and not being used.
Mr. LaRow said $2 million is unencumbered. We haven’t spent it.
Council Member Hutchison said that’s a significant amount of money.
Commissioner LoCastro said that’s a significant amount of money. We still have applications
waiting and we’ve received more applications. We’ve been doing a lot of education. We feel
strongly that $2 million is being chipped away at every time we get an application.
Council Member Hutchison said he hopes there’s an opportunity for us to collaborate moving
forward and make sure we effectively communicate the opportunity we have for these funds. Many
people come to his 7-Eleven stores and tell him they need this type of assistance. If there is
messaging we can do on gas receipts, clothing receipts, etc., we should do it. The City is willing to
collaborate with messaging and to do our fair share.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said the flyers are a wonderful way to disburse that information. Of
that money that’s there, $2 million, the burn rate is $500,000 a year.
Council Member Hutchison said that’s real help going to the community.
25
Commissioner LoCastro said your offer is an extremely valid one. We’re going to be putting
some fliers in utility bills in July and August. NCH has been providing information in a weekly
newsletter, how to apply, etc. We’re asking Arthrex and others to disseminate this information.
We’ve been trying to flood smaller organizations. We even had TV ads.
Council Member Hutchison said people are consumed with how they’re going to make these
payments, if they can get mortgage assistance. Consider messaging boards, something easy. Need
mortgage assistance, etc.? Those are ways we can effectively communicate.
Commissioner Taylor said to sum it up, we’re in a crisis. There’s no question. At this point, the
State is not helping us as a County. We’re just reacting. That’s all we had, a time frame to react.
Kristi Sonntag’s office has increased its employees by 12 as of our last meeting and we’re getting
volunteers from Leadership Collier. Everyone is in high gear. No one dreamed there would be so
much need out there.
Commissioner Saunders said 450 units will be going online quickly. What about the 400 plus
units at the Golden Gate Golf Course?
Mr. LaRow said we’ve been working with Jennifer Belpedio. We’re 99% into that with the long-
term ground lease. There are other elements of the project related to infrastructures or
transportation items that have been raised.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said it’s an important distinction, that Allura, Cadenza and Allegra are
private developments, with a percentage of affordability added in and The Harmony and Golf
Course projects are County-owned projects in perpetuity and they don’t really. We lengthened the
whole period from the previous 15-year to a 30-year because of what we were seeing transpiring.
We changed the entire ROI on that from a development criterion, these projects with our County-
owned land and to purchase land there. The other will be held in perpetuity. Does it need changes?
Mr. Trachtenberg said he spoke to Steve Kirk last week, the CEO of Rural Neighborhoods. He
hoped to break ground in early 2023. Right now, a lot of this is in the hands of staff, who are
resolving several issues. That’s the developer’s projected timetable and he’s building between 350
and 400 houses. The final number is to be resolved.
Vice Mayor McCabe said that given $2 million expires in September, what is the average award?
Ms. Lopez said it was $9,000 and last month, it went up to $10,000. That’s the average initial
request. The ERA can pay up to 18 months of assistance, so they’ll come in averaging that off the
bat. ERA can pay up to $10,000 initially and we’re hoping that the additional 259 applications
come in at the average that we previously saw, $9,000 for initial requests. That would get us to that
$2 million. Since our last Board meeting two weeks ago, we’ve already received over 100, so
we’re well on our way to meeting that target to reduce that $2 million.
Vice Mayor McCabe said he wants to make sure the public understands the average award and
the $2 million available. You’re talking about a little over 200 individuals or families and making
sure that we’re using that money. At your rate of applications, it sounds like we are going to be
26
there. But let’s make sure we overachieve and start using not just the money that’s expiring in
September, let’s make sure we’re using ERA, too.
Ms. Lopez agreed. One of the things that we want to make sure and educate the public on is that
when we talk about COVID impact, it’s not just having COVID yourself or a family member. It’s
having housing instability during the COVID pandemic. A lot of people would be very surprised
that they fit into that category. An increased cost in housing with not getting an increase in
household income puts you in financial instability and housing instability.
Commissioner LoCastro said the biggest misconception is when they come in and say, “I didn’t
have COVID, so I didn’t even apply.” We’re trying to educate the public. He put it in his
newsletter. We all have. We’re trying to get it out by saying, even if you’re unsure, if you apply,
this is significant money. It might be worth filling out the paperwork to make sure because you
have a COVID impact. It’s not the same as if you were in the ICU or the hospital for COVID.
That’s probably the biggest misconception. Our education process is why we’re seeing more
applications. People are realizing they could have applied, but the scary thing is that this money is
not in perpetuity. Some people have been paid for well over a year and have been benefiting from
these programs, but they have a shelf life at some point, so that becomes the scary thing.
Vice Mayor McCabe said as Commissioner Taylor said, we are in a serious crisis. This money
could expire and we might not spend it. We need to ramp up this information. This is very
encouraging, that what is being done has accelerated it and we will be on a path to use it. For those
who are listening or those who know someone, please make sure that you get out and if you have
the need, apply because the money is there. There’s no one sitting at these tables or sitting in this
room who wants that money to not be spent.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said the unencumbered money is at risk of a clawback from the federal
government. He even asked if there’s a clawback if we encumber it. He doesn’t want to obligate
our taxpayers on $6 million. It was a half a million or some lower amount that would be worth
taking the risk to ensure that the money doesn’t go away and goes to the people who need it.
Vice Mayor McCabe praised everyone for doing a great job and accelerating it.
Mayor Heitmann asked Mr. LaRow where we are in the conversation with the school board, as
far as acquiring property and affordable housing. Are we partnering with them?
Mr. LaRow said he attended a very long school board meeting two weeks ago and spoke about
these topics. School Board Chair Jennifer Mitchell, who also sits on the AHAC, has been having
those discussions with Superintendent Patton. They’re discussing it at an upcoming board meeting
on June 14.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said he spoke with her yesterday.
Mr. Trachtenberg, Chairman of the AHAC, said he applauds Jennifer Mitchell, AHAC member
and chairman of the school board, for aggressively pursuing an attempt to free up some excess land
that the school board has and that they’ve been extremely reticent in the past to even consider
utilizing for possible affordable housing. He’s very hopeful that Jen is going to have success. For
27
the record, we’re not suggesting that they give up future schools, but there are several 4- to 6-acre
excess plots available that could be utilized where schools already have been built. There are areas
where schools aren’t contemplated and we really think this is a very smart thing to do.
He agrees with everything you said. Commissioners, and Commissioner LoCastro especially, have
done a tremendous job helping to get the word out on the money that’s available, but we need to
keep in mind this is 18-month money. That’s the maximum. Let’s not confuse this with solving the
affordable housing crisis. This is going to provide relief for some people that are in deep pain, but
it does nothing in terms of helping us get to where we ultimately need to be.
In his job, it gives him great hope to see this group meeting today, with this body of leaders
present. It’s really an acknowledgement that we do have shared problems and he hopes meetings
like this will lead to shared and combined solutions. He believes they already have. While the
geographic lines that define the City and the County are clear to the people in this room, it’s
curious how mystifying this is to a significant portion of our population. Most folks in the County
get their mail delivered to Naples. I guess it’s natural that they think that’s where they live. The
interdependency between our City and our County goes far beyond names. We share many
wonderful assets and we equally share many vexing problems. Our issues with water quality are
always at the top of the list. What’s happening in the Gulf, Naples Bay, Gordon River, all of our
tributaries, will likely have more impact on the commercial future of this region and our wellbeing
than any other single area. We share common problems of traffic as our region grows and so many
sought-after resources are located in the City.
We’ve to got better address the movement of people from the less populous areas into the City and
back out again. We share responsibility for the growing crisis of lack of affordable housing. In this
respect, we’re not unique, and that’s actually a good thing. Cities and counties like ours all over
Florida and all over the United States are facing the same problems. Land and building costs are
rising, interest rates are going up and the people we need to provide essential services can no
longer afford to live within reasonable commuting distance to their jobs. Ignoring these problems
is a bad decision by government leaders.
We must be cognizant that what brings people to want to live here requires availability of the
support required to maintain these desired lifestyles. This doesn’t just include our policemen, our
firemen and EMTs. It’s not just our teachers. It’s not just our health-care workers. The majority of
people who perform these diverse but vital jobs that we require make about $15 an hour. That’s
well under 50% percent of our newly announced AMI. They staff our stores, they clean our pools,
they mow our lawns, they collect our trash, they prepare and serve our food, they repair our cars,
etc. Most of the people who work with you every day in the City and County offices fit in that
wage category. Try to imagine life without them. He can’t. So, the good news, as he mentioned
before, is we’re not alone facing these problems. The playbook on what we collectively must do is
really clear.
In a nutshell, it’s about spending money to help acquire land. It’s about changing fees and zoning
and density rules to allow the finances of these projects to actually work. It’s about being more
creative with new approaches to buildings in terms of size and shapes and multiple uses. It’s about
speeding up the processes. We can’t afford to spend four to five years from inception to
groundbreaking or moving, so we’re playing catch-up and the hole is getting deeper. It’s also
28
working together to resolve traffic issues because these things go hand in hand.
Most everyone recognizes the need for this kind of housing. They just don’t want it near them. So
it’s also about us all standing up and explaining to the people who live in the County why we must
proceed to build affordable housing, sometimes near them. He’s pleased to be able to report today
that we are making progress. These Commissioners are doing good. There are a lot of new ideas
coming up and more to come. There’s more awareness that there are other things that we need to
do, so he’s here on behalf of AHAC to thank you for your commitment to assure that Naples and
Collier County remain at the top of the list of where people want to live.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said we appreciate your assistance. It’s nice having that kind of
leadership.
Mr. Trachtenberg said it’s a joy for him.
Commissioner LoCastro said if you saw Joe Trachtenberg’s resume, he could be sitting in a lot
bigger jobs elsewhere, doing a lot of other things, but he’s really dedicated himself. He applied to
be a member and then we had the AHAC Chairman job open. And he raised his hand and got a
unanimous vote. He has added so much acceleration to our AHAC board. Maybe every day hasn’t
been a joy, but we’re dealing with a tough topic here. Yesterday, we had our monthly AHAC
meeting and one of the things we’ve talked about at AHAC meetings, which started a year ago,
was beefing up the attendance. It’s not just about, do you have a quorum, but who’s really in the
room, so we’ve worked hard to invite citizens and the press. We had a guest speaker yesterday
who was a senior official from the Florida Housing Coalition, the group that he had a Zoom
meeting with just a couple of hours after our meeting, so it was timely. We’re adding a lot more
meat to those AHAC meetings, getting a lot of great ideas and hearing from disgruntled citizens
and business leaders who think they can help us advertise things. A lot is coming out of those
meetings. Not only did we have one of your Council members attend, but we also have added
permanently to our meetings, when possible, somebody from our Planning Commission. We have
several more attendees now from our County staff, so it’s not just the housing team, it’s the folks
who work in Growth Management, the folks who are talking to these contractors on a regular
basis, Mike Bosi, Jamie French, Trinity Scott. These are key folks that add to our AHAC meetings,
which has lengthened the meetings, but the meat that’s coming out of those meetings is significant.
He didn’t realize how significant and how valuable the meetings have been until the Zoom meeting
that included every elected official on AHACs statewide. It was run by the Florida Housing
Coalition and virtually every county, with a few exceptions, attended. Some of the things that
came out of that meeting are not so much what we’re doing, but what some counties aren’t doing.
We were comparing notes.
We can always do better, but it was amazing how many significant counties, counties the size of
ours, chimed in when we all got a chance to speak. One of the questions by the moderator from the
Florida Housing Coalition was, “How many AHAC meetings have you had?’ It was great to be
able to say the first Monday of every month, without fail, and we’ve even had a couple of
additional discussions. Other counties said they’d had one this year. This is critical. Some of his
takeaways are that we are doing a few of the right things, but we definitely can do better. There
were some counties that asked basic questions about the ERA program, how much is left and when
it had to be turned back, yet here at our meetings, this is a topic of common discussion.
29
We talked about best practices and some of the things that have come out of our ad hoc meetings,
such as putting flyers in the utility bills, TV commercials and how some of our main companies,
such as NCH, have been advertising aggressively. Those weren’t things he heard from other
counties, such as using County land for affordable housing. So that’s where the whole
conversation stopped and everybody chimed in. The County doesn’t own land, taxpayers do, so
when you make it sound like, “I wonder what we’re going to do with our land,” somebody who
lives 10 miles away that helped buy that land through their taxes might not be so excited about
building affordable housing. When he spoke about one of the initiatives we’re proud of, is that
when we see these developments being built, we always ask the question, “Should a certain
percentage of these units include affordability, whether it’s 10-30%?” It varies. When I talked
about that, few counties chimed in and said they were doing that. Everyone is looking for the 20
acres to build the giant high-rise with 600 units for the working class.
When someone cited that as an example, another County representative talked about what we
always call NIMBY, Not In My Backyard. A colleague from another county said they don’t use
that term anymore. They use the term CAVE, Citizens Against Virtually Everything. So when he
talked about how we’re trying to find more of a balance and how we’re trying to take smaller or
medium bites out of the apple by spreading it out and making it part of what we talk to a contractor
about, he was really surprised that ohers didn’t say, “Oh yeah, we’re doing that as well.” It was
sort of a silence. We can do more. On June 28, we’ve got our Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee making a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, so there will be a lot of
information.
Anything that you can push in our direction, either to Jake, Joe or myself, we’re all on the same
team and we’re really working hard to brainstorm. One of the things that that came out of the final
conclusion of the Zoom meeting with elected officials statewide is there is no one solution. There
are going to be more than a few counties that wind up returning some money. You could just tell
by what little they talked about, that they’re not trying to make their program much more
aggressive. They’re still trying to figure out a few things. It was a good overview for me to talk
with others in a similar boat to see if we were doing everything possible.
We are open to anything but if you had been at the AHAC meeting yesterday, it was almost
standing-room only. These are sometimes three-hour meetings that Joe runs and a lot of great
information comes out of them. The senior official from the Florida Housing Coalition who was
our guest speaker yesterday talked about things we’re already doing. He also talked about counties
of equal size and what they’re doing or not doing. There was no epiphany of, “Oh, we’ve got to
really jump on this one particular thing we missed the ball on.” We’re open to any ideas that you
have. There are no borders. It’s all Collier County to the average citizen. His worry is exactly what
Joe said, that there are some people that have benefited for well over a year and have gotten funds
from these programs, but if they haven’t been putting money away or the housing market stays the
same and more federal dollars don’t come, the big explosion will be when checks stop coming.
Some of the negative feedback we get from folks living here is that units are expensive. But some
of the checks we were cutting were for some people that live above affordability. He wants to give
a shout out to our Clerk of Courts, Jake and Kristi Sonntag. We’re working very hard to make sure
that money just doesn’t fly out of this building. Anytime you apply for federal dollars, it should be
30
a little difficult. It shouldn’t just be that we cut you a $10,000 check for the next 18 months. So we
figured out a lot of ways to speed up the process with more people, but some of those suggestions
have been to make the application process easier or shave steps out of it. This is a federal program
that we’re executing and we want to make sure we’re doing it properly. Thanks to Joe and his
team, we’re wide open to anything he might hear from citizens, people who want to attend our
meetings, whether it’s a landlord or somebody in the business community who could give us some
feedback or help us in any way. We certainly would be open to it.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said he’s a huge proponent of data, and transparency forces
accountability. One of the first things Commissioner LoCastro did was go through all the projects
we’ve approved. Virtually every single project, multifamily, both ownership and rental, have a
affordability component built into them and he went back through and brought forward with
transparency, those that are being held, those that aren’t and what was being done because there’s
a lot of missing information. That’s one of the first things that he did with his AHAC involvement.
It’s allowed our Board to look at and see the efficacy of what we’re putting forward. We’re
approving units with a percentage of affordability. How many are actually on the ground now?
How many are actually being held in affordable status? How many are actually being put forward
to be utilized? So, thank you. That’s really helping my decision-making going forward here.
John Harney, of AHAC and Habitat for Humanity, said we’ve been talking about apartments
this morning, and that’s what this is about. The National Association of Realtors reported today
that with the increase in mortgage payments, composed of the increase of housing prices and the
increase in the rates, the average payment is going up by $600 on a new home mortgage. That’s
going to drive a lot of people to apartments who have been looking at houses. We need more
apartments. That’s what this whole problem is about.
This isn’t going to be about building more condos or building more luxury homes or building
homes, single-family homes. It’s going to be about apartments. That’s how we’re going to solve
this problem because that’s where the numbers are needed. We’re way behind, we’re thousands of
apartments behind right now. If we add up all the numbers that Jake was talking about and some
other numbers that I don’t think he mentioned, there are about 2,000 apartments in the
pipeline. That’s not much when you need more like 10,000 right now. Apartments are largely
going to be on major streets, and we always talk about traffic costs of infrastructure. These major
streets already have water lines, they have sewer lines, they have electric. Streets are built
up. People are not driving so much anymore. Uber is used instead of cars all the time. No car if
you live in a city, so a lot of these infill developments that we do with apartment buildings are
really going to make a big difference on traffic.
The traffic that we have out there, the cost of infrastructure that we have out there, they’re all
embedded. We’ve already paid for those, so it’s not going to add to our overall cost. If you look at
overall affordability for somebody, the cost of using a car is very substantial, about $9,500 a year.
For people struggling to meet their monthly rent payment, not having to use a car by building infill
and by building smaller buildings, lower then 3-, 4- ,5- stories, and scattering them around the
City, instead of concentrating, that will keep people out of cars and in the City, where they’re
going to their jobs.
There was some mention about the number of people in the County who are making $15 an hour.
31
It’s actually more like 60% of our residents are making less than $30,000 a year. It’s a huge
number and it’s all those categories that Joe was talking about. The part Habitat can help with is
we can build single-family houses. We can build duplex-type villa houses, triplexes, quads,
townhouses, condos. We’ve done all these or we have plans for every one of these right now, so
Habitat exists in a very small part of this because we’re selling homes. But we have current plans
to work with a market-rate apartment builder on the same property we will be building those
condos on their property, so what’s going to happen there is that …
Council Member Blankenship said he didn’t want to repeat any ideas, but he has a couple. We
have a unique opportunity in the County and the City to significantly increase our funding in the
coming year. From what he’s heard, our property taxable values are going up by double digits this
year, so he knows the County and the City have other needs that we all have to make tough
decisions on and balance out. But we have a really good opportunity to set aside some significant
funding on an ongoing basis to tackle the affordable-housing crisis, so hopefully in our budget
discussions and your budget discussions over the summer we can make that a priority.
The second idea is syncing up our bike plans across the County for transportation. The public-
transit plans have been recently updated and we’re in the process of updating the City’s pedestrian
and bicycle plan. To the extent we can look for gaps to close, that will help. As Mr. Harney said, a
lot of people can’t afford cars or want to give up cars. Maybe the bus schedule doesn’t work for
them, but biking could. For people biking in from East Naples into Naples to work, there are some
challenges. One is the Gordon River Bridge and we’ve been having discussions with FDOT on
ways to improve that. Maybe there are some other examples like that we could work on together
that cross the lines between the City and the County to improve bike trails and build better
networks moving forward. So hopefully we can empower our staff to work together on that to see
where we can cooperate and build better networks for our citizens.
Mayor Heitmann asked if they could consider changing the day of the AHAC meetings because it
conflicts with City Council meetings and workshops. Council Member Blankenship and others
would like to attend.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said her concerns are noted.
Mayor Heitmann asked, What mechanisms are in place now to ensure that future commissioners
don’t change the good work that we put into place until we accomplish these goals? How do we
make sure we solidify this?
BCC Chairman McDaniel said needs are going to change. One of the maneuvers he put in place
is the extension of the period from 15 years to 30, to be held in perpetuity for government expense,
land cost, government facilities projects and subdivisions. They are held in perpetuity because the
need existed in 1981, when he came here and it changed again and again for the last 40 years. And
it will change again in 10 more years, so there has to be latitude by elected officials that are
coming forward to be able to adjust and meet the community’s need based on the prevalent
circumstances.
John talked about transportation changes and people working more from home and with the advent
of AI and AV, the transportation requisites are going to shift in the next 20 or 30 year, so we need
32
to provide for as much of the need as possible. Is it perfect? No. Are we making moves in the right
direction? Absolutely, and having the flexibility for those adjustments in the future are there.
Mayor Heitmann said absolutely, and she supports that. There should be something in the comp
plans that can’t be changed so we achieve these goals. But as we know, these positions will come
and go. To have those mechanisms in place would be very important.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said we had a discussion with the folks from ULI when they came and
talked to us in 2017. They talked about a supply-demand ratio, our population growth issue and
said we needed to be putting 2,000 units a year into the system. Since he became a commissioner,
he’s approved 9,500 units and shortly after we had our first meeting back in April and May, Jamie
shared with him that we will approve 9,500 units and only 1,600 are on the ground. There’s a 36-
month timeframe from a developer that has a pre-app meeting until they get a CO. There are far
more in the inventory process than what John shared, so there are 10,000 units or 8,000 units that
have yet to hit the ground, and a lot of this has to do with supply and demand. When you have that
voluminous of a reduction in the supply, it puts a lot of pressure on, and then you add in the
population increases and such, which is exacerbating the circumstances.
Council Member Christman said some people offer ideas about how the County might be able to
provide greater financial contributions to the City for things like beaches and septic to sewer. Let
me turn it around. We obviously have a tremendous problem with affordable housing, especially
affordable rental housing. There’s more we can do in the City, but there are some really practical
limits because of the geography that is the City, the availability of land and the cost of land. We
can do some things, but there are practical limits. We recently commissioned and received an
affordable housing study that showed that 6% of all the people that work in the City live in the
City. That’s everyone from lawyers, to doctors, to health-care workers. The reality is that there will
be more opportunities to find sites for affordable housing outside the City than inside the
City. Within a certain geographic area, people who might live in those affordable housing projects
may well work in the City, so there’s a value in at least remaining open to partnerships between the
City and the County where development could occur outside the City, but within a certain radius,
three miles, five miles, the City could be a financial partner in that development. We should
remain open to that because of the benefits it would provide to the community at large. It’s the
kind of thinking we should remain open to and find out whether there could be some opportunities
for those kinds of partnerships.
Commissioner Saunders said he appreciated him saying that. These projects work much more
efficiently when there was a partnership for the 400 units at Golden Gate Golf course. It’s a
partnership. Naples Community Hospital is looking to do a partnership to try to develop more
housing for nurses and that’s working, so any kind of a partnership with the City would be
appreciated. But that becomes a funding issue. He’d love to have more conversations with you
about that. That type of partnership will work and will make things move much more quickly.
Council Member Petrunoff said you mentioned GMP and density. Can you talk more about
density, where we’re headed?
Commissioner Taylor said it’s where a developer wants to take us. Density is in the Growth
Management Plan under affordable housing, so when they want to exceed the density
33
requirements, say 12 units per acre, you would say, “OK, you can exceed it if you do 20 per unit
and you set aside X percentage toward affordable housing.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
Hold periods for affordable-housing unit set asides were extended from 15 to 30 years.
PUDs with affordable housing have been successful.
There were negotiations on the percentage of units, AMI and grades of affordability; that’s
becoming more of a conversation as zoning applications come forward.
One of the changes to the RLSA, the far eastern lands, was that the land owners agreed to
put into the Growth Management Plan for that area, that a certain percentage of land must
be set aside for affordable housing.
The County and citizens are checking to ensure that nurses, EMTs, firefighters and others
are living in the affordable units that were approved to ensure those requirements are met.
The County had a similar meeting with the Marco Island City Council and they agreed they
should continue the conversations.
Density bonuses, if developers provide affordable housing, are now at 20% for workforce
affordable housing and developers have agreed to that.
Density bonuses will generate a lot of workforce affordable housing over the years.
Developers don’t want to lose money on a development, but density bonuses also make it
harder for a developer to get the prices they originally intended to make it profitable.
The Conservancy is concerned the rules could change for the eastern lands.
The RLSA is a voluntary program that incentivizes clustering housing and increasing
density to reduce the impacts on the overall area.
One developer agreed to go set aside 30% for affordable housing due to the market we
have, but that’s going to change.
The County needs to ensure they don’t accept a plan that doesn’t belong in a neighborhood
just because it has an affordable component.
Attorney Klatzkow said that between your comp plan and zoning, you’ve got vested rights for a
certain number of units. Let’s say it’s 18 units per acre. If you wanted to say, “If you want
additional units on that, a percentage of those have to be affordable housing.” This is a pure policy
decision. A developer can always say, “No. I know what my vested rights are.” But if they want to
put on greater density than is allowed, we can certainly ask for a proportion of that density to be
affordable housing. After that, as BCC Chairman McDaniels noted, it’s become a numbers game
with the developer as to the price points, and given today’s construction costs, what they could
actually do.
Commissioner Taylor asked him to opine on the State’s position on affordable housing
incentives.
Attorney Klatzkow said you’ve got vested rights for a certain number of units. The State’s
position is that you have to make a developer whole, which is no policy at all, so they put the onus
on local governments. If we’re going to require development, do inclusionary zoning, etc., then
whatever the developer’s loss and profit is, you’ve got to make it up to him. That’s what the
Legislature has done, so we can no longer dictate to a developer that you’ve got to put in X
number of affordable housing units. We can do it as an incentive: We’ll give you extra units if you
34
do this. But you cannot dictate anymore.
Commissioner Taylor said there was no real affordable housing component required in the rural
villages.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said that’s not true. (The following was added from the affordable
housing discussion during 2.C.2.) We have approved three rural villages that then got converted to
a town in eastern Collier County and there is a housing-affordability component within that.
Commissioner Saunders said he doesn’t disagree with what you just said, but the requirement
may be somewhat illusory. For example, the Conservancy has said that there’s language in what
we’ve approved for those villages dealing with workforce housing that may sound good on the
surface, but it may be illusory in terms of whether it will actually be workforce housing. He plans
to discuss that language at our June 14 meeting, so you are right that there is language there, but it
may need to be strengthened.
Commissioner Taylor said there is no requirement.
2.C.2. Water/Quality Resiliency – [Trinity Scott, deputy department head, County Growth
Management Department/Andy Holland, Interim Director, City Streets & Stormwater Department]
Ms. Scott said Jerry Kurtz, our Road and Stormwater Maintenance Director, as well as Beth
Johnson, our Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Director, are here.
To quote our County Manager: Stormwater is where it’s at. The County has a very large
stormwater management system. We have the system in place to protect our individual and
personal properties, as well as to ensure our roadway network is available for health, safety and
welfare. Stormwater management is essential for us to protect our natural environment with regard
to our water quality.
The County has regulatory requirements. We must follow the Clean Water Act and perform
stormwater management activities in compliance with our stormwater-discharge permit. We have a
very diverse system, a very large system. We have over 370 miles of storm-sewer pipes that must
be cleaned and maintained, 687 miles of roadside swales, 648 centerline curb miles of streets to be
swept. We collect lots of storm debris annually, as well as cleaning inlets, and we have major
control structures.
The following is a sample of projects being undertaken by our Capital Project Planning Impact
Fees and Program Management Group. Some of the projects that we’re looking at not only look at
constructability (can it be constructed?), but how do we maintain it in the long-term. We have a lot
of infrastructure in the ground that unfortunately, 40-50 years ago, when that was put in place, no
one really thought about whether we have an access road to be able to get to clean out a
maintenance area. So those are things that we’re taking into consideration now, so that we’re not
being penny wise and pound foolish.
The Freedom Park Bypass Ditch: The project is substantially complete. Freedom Park is an
extensive water-quality area that the County looked for the water quality performance of the
Gordon River. Along the northern end of Freedom Park is a bypass ditch that was taking water
35
directly into the Gordon River. What we have done with our Freedom Park Bypass Ditch Project is
increase the conveyance channel to allow more water to flow through it, but those flows are now
redirected to a spreader swale, thereby severing that direct connection. So now this water is going
to flow through those wetlands and be able to enhance the water quality before it’s ultimately
discharged into the Gordon River, so we’re really excited about this project.
The Golden Gate City Master Plan: Golden Gate City is very diverse. Some folks are on water and
sewer, some of are just on water, while some are on sewer and some are on septic. It’s like a little
patchwork quilt. We have survived the Governor’s line-item veto into the State budget and we will
receive a $500,000 Legislative appropriation that will be matched, $500,000 by the County to
develop a master plan, phasing and funding strategy to be able to look at stormwater, including the
outfalls, water, septic-to-sewer, roads, sidewalks system, lighting, perhaps even looking at FPL.
Essentially what we’ve done with the Goodlette projects, where we’ve kind of taken this holistic
approach for the project management, we’re going to be doing the same thing with Golden Gate
City and really figuring out a master plan to be able to convert that.
Mr. Holland said the City’s Stormwater Management is governed by its Stormwater Master Plan,
which was last updated in 2018. It’s updated every 10 years. It’s our guiding document for
stormwater programs, projects and policies. Most recently, one of the great things that came out of
that master plan update was our stormwater ordinance code changes, where we increased the
retention requirements for all developments in the City, including single-family homes.
The Beach Outfall Project: This has not been an easy project. Nothing about this project has been
inexpensive, but it is a very important project. It’s been called the most important water-quality
project in the City, so the goals there are to improve storm resiliency and reduce flooding.
He drove along Gulfshore Boulevard on Saturday morning after the storm and there were several
feet of water on the road. That’s a common occurrence on Gulfshore Boulevard related to these
pipes discharging directly into the Gulf of Mexico. This is the condition of the beach outfalls.
There are nine existing pipes on the beach that directly discharge stormwater into the Gulf of
Mexico. This is what it looks like after a rain event. You can see soil runoff discharging into the
Gulf in the shore area. It’s a lot of tannins and leaf debris that is broken down and other pollutants
from the City stormwater system.
These pipes also cause beach erosion, so as that water is flowing, it’s scouring the sand and then
the dry sand from behind fills that scour in. Water quality has been a huge component of this
project from day one. There are extensive water-quality improvement components planned for this
project, such as improving the sea turtle habitat. We’ve lost turtle hatchlings inside the wood
pilings. We need improved beach access for beachgoers. We’ve had injuries, cuts, and scrapes and
things from kids playing on the pipes and the boards.
The City Lake Management Plan: It covers approximately 30 lakes citywide. About 20 of them
receive runoff from the public right-of-way. That 30 lakes don’t include golf course lakes, like
Bears Paw Estuary. Our Lakes Management Plan prioritizes which lakes to improve. There is a
ranking of priorities based on a combination of different water-quality parameters, bacteria,
nutrients, total suspended solids. Currently in that high priority list is Swan Lake. These three
36
green stars are actively under construction and are wrapping up. Red stars show where we’ll be
going out for design this year.
Commissioner LoCastro asked if the water is filtered. Does a can go through the pipes?
Mr. Holland said there is no filtering. Some grates do catch debris, and our crews scrape them
after every rainstorm, but finer mesh filters would cause flooding. The Swan Lake Water-Quality
Study pilot program is a very comprehensive look at water quality in Swan Lake, which is in
Parkshore. The Venetian Village shopping area is just off to the left on the other side of that
bridge. This is a large drainage basin that includes areas of U.S. 41. The Park Shore Plaza, where
Burlington Coat Factory and Fresh Market are, discharges into Swan Lake. We believe that a
portion of the gray area, of the County area, Morningside, also discharges into Swan Lake. This is
a really close look at pre- and post-storm water quality treatment or water-quality sampling, pre-
and post-treatment water-quality sampling.
We’re currently applying a bacterial product that’s supposed to eat the muck at the bottom of the
lake. This is to avoid dredging, but another thing we’re doing is sediment testing because that
biological doesn’t address heavy metals in the sediment. That’s ongoing, and we have a lot of
preliminary data that we’re sorting through now.
This is another lake that’s actively under construction now and wrapping up. That’s a littoral shelf
that was just graded. A lot of our lakes are older and the banks are very, very steep, so by
recreating that slope and putting plantings there, you get a good water-quality benefit. There’s also
a new pervious trail there.
Swales: We don’t have ditches in the City. The County has a lot of deep drainage ditches, three-
and four-feet deep. The City relies on swales that are roughly six inches deep. We’re installing a
lot of inlet filter baskets. That’s what we’re proposing for that Beach Outfall Project to capture the
debris, garbage and dead animals that end up in the stormwater system. Vegetation maintenance is
a really effective means of reducing nutrients, so cattails, as they grow, they’re taking up nutrients.
If we harvest them, and we can do it all over again, that’s a way to reduce nutrients in these ponds.
Street Sweeping: In 2021, we purchased a brand new second street sweeper. Sweeping is well
known to be one of the most effective best management practices for removing nutrients and
bacteria from stormwater systems. The City also has a fertilizer ordinance and the blackout period
went into effect June 1st.
Resiliency: The City conducts basin assessments. All the red circles are completed or ongoing
basin assessments. In this project, we’re taking a look at the City’s existing level of service and the
existing stormwater infrastructure in these drainage basins and modeling that to see how we’re
doing and then applying sea-level rise and applying a higher level of service, a higher stormwater
event and seeing what we need to do to address those flooding concerns in the future.
This is one of the results/deliverables of those basic assessments. All the red areas are flooding
areas during a 25-year, three-day storm event. A lot of these areas are also very low lying. We
have roadway elevations in the threes and fours, so they’re very impacted by tides and sea-level
rise. The device you see on the right is a backflow preventer. They’re actually simple, but pretty
37
ingenious devices that prevent the tide from backing up into the stormwater system. The picture on
the bottom right is an actual installation of one of those. It’s inside the pipe.
He’s joining with Natalie Hardman, the City’s new natural resources manager. She started in April
and came from the DEP. She’s going to help with a lot of natural resources issues. This is one of
her projects, the Oyster Reef Restoration. We have three sites. Two are complete and we’re
planning on doing the middle one in 2023 at Site 2 in Naples Bay. There are actually three
manatees in the photo.
Vulnerability Assessment and Climate-Adaptation Plan: The City completed its vulnerability
assessment in 2020 and we’re working on starting our adaptation plan, how to address concerns
related to sea-level rise.
Commissioner Taylor asked how this solves the problem of not polluting the Gulf of Mexico,
when the pipes that you’re constructing, the stormwater is still dumped into the Gulf of Mexico,
but just a different distance.
Mr. Holland said we are installing 100 or more inlet filter baskets, like he showed you in the
miscellaneous improvements slide. The pump station has a nutrient-separating baffle box, which is
a series of baffles that won’t let things into the pumps. And we’re increasing the retention of the
three-lake system – North Lake, South Lake and Alligator Lake, which all flow to one of the
bigger outfalls, so we are doing a lot of things upstream to improve water quality prior to it
reaching the pump station and getting pumped farther out.
BCC Chairman McDaniel asked if they’d had any luck on the bioreactor we visited.
Council Member Blankenship said he was going to bring that up as an example of where we
could work together on improving water quality. We all want to improve the quality of the Gordon
River in Naples Bay. He and BCC Chairman McDaniel and others had the opportunity to see what
Bonita Springs is doing with its bioreactor. That might be an opportunity for us to collaborate, if
we get our staff to work together on deciding where or how it might work, so we could have a pilot
project to improve the water quality of Naples. He’d love to do that.
BCC Chairman McDaniel the preliminary data coming out of that bioreactor that the City of
Bonita Springs built to assist in the stormwater management was off the charts for the nutrient-
reduction component. They actually found that they build it as a free-standing unit and it requires
continuous flow, so they’re in the second phase of installing a pump to pump out of the Imperial
River to supply that continuous flow when there isn’t rain, in order to keep the efficiency of the
project actually working. He’d love to do that. We talked before about the septic-to-sewer and west
of 951. That canal is a direct feed into the Gordon River to Naples Bay, so anywhere along those
lines if our staffs are listening in, he’d love to see us explore that and have a look at a joint venture
on a couple of those just to help with the effluents that are in that canal system.
Council Member Blankenship said we have a new Natural Resources Manager and City
Manager, so the time is right to take on that important initiative.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said that relatively speaking, it’s not expensive. The total project cost
38
was $1.5 million, even with the pump at $750,000 to build and another $750,000 for the pump to
move water in and out of the Imperial River. There was an enormous amount of reduction in
nutrients. It was off the charts. Any other questions on stormwater-water quality?
Council Member Christman said that a couple of years ago, the State passed the Clean
Waterways Act, a big piece of water-quality legislation that’s still going through implementation.
They’re finally getting around to developing a new stormwater-management rule. He’s sure
County and the City staff are aware of this. It just went through a technical advisory committee
process and now it’s going to go through a public process. The last time the State tried to do
something like this was over 10 years ago and it never got to the finish line then, so it’s been ages
since we’ve had an updated stormwater management regulations and it’s truly important for the
whole State, including Collier County and the City of Naples. He wanted to flag that because at the
Commission level and on the City Council level, we ought to be learning about it and engaging in
it to make sure that it comes out in a way we’d like to see.
Vice Mayor McCabe said that as Andy said, we in the City of Naples passed a stormwater
ordinance requiring property owners to retain the first inch of water on the property. Does the
County have anything like that. He asks because, as development happens in the City of Naples,
it’s not new development, it’s redevelopment. You’re tearing down a house that is at 25% lot
coverage. You’re putting up a house at 60% lot coverage. That means there’s not as much going to
be absorbed, so it runs off, which means you’re increasing the volume of stormwater continually
and exacerbating the problem that’s already there. So, the City of Naples took a look at it and said
we’d take it to the next level to make sure that as projects are being developed, retention happens
onsite, so that we’re being proactive about not continuing the increase.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said the short answer is yes.
Vice Mayor McCabe said that’s an important component of making sure that we are using the
land for what it is, the filter system that it was designed to do, so that as the water runs off into our
gulfs, etc., it is done right.
Mayor Heitmann asked if the County has a fertilizer ordinance.
Commissioner Saunders said yes, we have one that’s different from the City’s. We don’t have a
blackout period. We brought in fertilizer experts from the University of Florida and their
recommendation was not to have a blackout period. He spoke to a Marco Island City Council
member and they have a blackout period. That council member had listened to the testimony we
had and said that he wished that they had not done that, so we may need to take another look at it.
But that was the basis of ours. We brought down some well-known nationally known experts to
tell us how best to draft that and that was their recommendation.
2.C.3. Army Corps of Engineers Update – [Amy Patterson, County Manager]
Ms. Patterson said that about a year ago, we were having a discussion about the Army Corps
Project, which is three years and $3 million in the making. There was a lot of controversy involved
in that, some mixed feelings from the community, particularly related to the walls, floodgates and
things like that. As we all know, the Army Corps has asked for more time. They had a number of
39
issues, including some environmental concerns, the feasibility and cost of the project, and wants to
take this up their chain of command to look at options and then have a chance to come back to
Collier County as a whole, the Cities and the County and all of our constituents, to see if there is a
different way to approach this. So as of now, the Army Corps is still evaluating options.
Many of you have probably seen the October letter that laid out four different options. The most
attractive to all is probably the beaches only, higher, wider beaches and some flood-proofing of
structures and some protection of critical infrastructure, but much less impactful, as far as the
footprint on infrastructure and the hardened structures. We believe that the Corps is leaning there.
They are continuing to work this through their channels, so I’m here today to tell you we’re
continuing those conversations with the Corps.
We’re nowhere near ready to commit to anything with the Corps, including continuing on. They
need to figure out if this is something they’re even interested in pursuing, and secondly, what does
that look like, timewise, and what does it look like moneywise? At that point in time, when they
come forward with a proposal, that will be the time we begin public engagement. That includes
with our Commissioners, with you, as City Council, Marco Island, Everglades City and all the
interested stakeholders.
We have very significant takeaways from the last process, including how we engage with the
public, so reassurances to all of you sitting here, as well as any of the viewing public, that this is
not going to be done in isolation or in the dark. We’re not going appear and say, “We’re engaged
with the Corps and just deal with it.” There will be a very open and public process that we go
through and as soon as we have additional information, we’ll begin that engagement with you as
the elected officials.
Commissioner LoCastro said that from his military commander days and being a base
commander, he worked with the Army Corps a lot. Here are a couple of takeaways. They always
recommend crazy, outlandish things when money is no object. We heard from the public, “Oh my
God, you know these big giant concrete steel walls on the beach?” The Army Corps recommends,
we decide. But here’s one thing to keep in mind. If we give them too much pushback and say
we’re not interested, it’s crazy and outlandish, the Army Corps is in popular demand across the
country.
Maybe we don’t want the funds because they’re sometimes tied to federal funds or all kinds of
things. But to have the option and to say “no” to an Army Corps of Engineers report, even with the
outlandish things, your chance of getting the federal dollars or even a discussion is almost zero.
You know what the misinformation from the past report is and we’ve gotten them to sort of tone
down that page because they’re wasting time on these crazy, giant things. In the end, you cherry
pick the things you want to do, or you do nothing.
He had big reports coming out of the bases he commanded, and we thought nothing in this report is
doable now or affordable now, but at least we have it. And then you stick it up on the shelf, and at
least it was good analysis. A lot of times buried in the reports aren’t crazy projects, but really good
research. The takeaway is we’re not going to build a 20-foot wall, but what they just identified for
us was an area of our community that is fragile and vulnerable, so you do want to embrace their
science and their help and not necessarily put a bad taste in their mouth. Most importantly, we
40
need to make sure the public understands that even if we get a report this thick with things that are
a billion dollars, the Army Corps just recommends and we decide. They don’t force feed anything.
Getting that information out, he hopes this second draft of the report is a bit more palatable and
much more presentable to the public than the last ideas that were floating around.
You want to be really careful about kicking the Army Corps to the curb because we may need
them for all kinds of things, and we don’t want to be on that list where they say they came down to
Collier County, spent years and millions of dollars and man hours and were on the front page, but
the County didn’t even want our report. That doesn’t help any community.
BCC Chairman McDaniel said that’s a long way of saying that we’re going to engage with the
Corps. We’re going to take as much of the information and data that we can get from the Corps
and then make the decisions accordingly for what’s best for our citizens.
Council Member Christman said he has the pleasure of representing City Council on the County
Coastal Advisory Committee, so he brings that perspective to this. It’s interesting that we ended
and began the meeting at the same place, talking about beaches. The Army Corps study is broader
than just beaches. It talks about sea-level rise and resiliency and climate change, but ultimately it
impacts the beaches. What people aren’t aware of is that Fund 195, the money that comes from the
Tourist Development Council for beach renourishment each year, goes into Fund 195. Today,
there is $46 million in unexpended money in that account that was built up over the years because
the annual contribution to it has not been fully spent.
This year, we are not contemplating any beach-renourishment projects anywhere in the County,
including the City. If that ultimately holds, meaning there’s no hurricane disaster this summer, that
money has to be used. We’ll have over $60 million in that fund. He’s bringing this up because of
the beach-renourishment issue. The care and feeding of our beaches is really such an important
issue for us to continue to try to work together on because you’ve got some money sitting in the
County-administered account, but 75% of publicly accessible beaches in the County are in the
City, so we have a mutual interest in finding a way to work together on this in terms of what we
need to do and how monies that are already within our hands might be used over a period of years
to make sure that we’re dealing with beach nourishment and inlet management. The Doctor’s Pass
project is an example of that. We need to try to work together to do the right thing in that area.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nancy Lewis said she wanted to add a point of clarification regarding the villages. The Affordable
Housing, specifically Bellmar Village and Longwater Village, 80 or 88 acres were set aside to
accommodate affordable housing. Up to 880 units for either the County to purchase or an
affordable developer to come in and build on at $22,300 per acre and the developer was exempted
from the impact fees. The other affordable components are from 12 to 16 units per acre. Most of
the affordable units have been given 25 units per acre.
Commissioner Saunders said that’s why he called the commitment illusory because we have to
have someone buy that property and develop it and that may not happen, so we might want to
tweak that language. He’ll be bringing it up to the Board.
BCC Vice Chair Solis said one of the big components and driving forces of the Mental Health and
41
Addiction Strategic Plan was NCH. They announced last week that they were closing their
psychiatric facility, so we will no longer have that as a resource in Collier County. They’re just
going to push the folks that they would have taken in and treated to the David Lawrence Center.
That’s going to stress the system even more on what we’ve been working so hard to do. That
caught me by surprise and it caught Scott Burgess by surprise, as well.
We have committed to building the central-receiving facility, which is the place where all the
mental health and addiction services will start, and take that function out of the jail and build some
capacity for the future. Part of the discussion has been whether that can be a mental-health hospital
facility, as opposed to just a central-receiving facility. It seems that issue has become greater now
because of this decision by NCH. He’d like to come and speak to City Council. We’re in the
middle of the budgeting process, but more so now than ever, we need to get the entire community,
the City included, to help us build the facility that we need to build. The County has committed
$25 million of its surtax funds to help us do that. It’s going to cost more than that. Construction
costs are going through the roof, so we’re going to far exceed that.
It’s going to be a facility that serves everyone. It’s good fiscal policy, it’s good for public safety
and this has thrown a curveball into what we’ve been trying to do. It’s significant because now we
won’t have a hospital facility. Physicians Regional doesn’t provide those services and now NCH
announced they’re not going to do it, either. That’s a significant issue, especially for seniors. We
had The Willow come in and they’re trying to change some of their facility. They are licensed and
it was certified as a psychiatric hospital. But they need some other certifications. They’re working
on that, so he’s not going to say that they we won’t have some capability in that regard for people
who need psychiatric care and medical care. This issue really affects seniors because up until now,
it’s been predominantly seniors who are on Medicare who need psychiatric and medical
care. We’ve been sending them to Park Royal Hospital in Lee County. That’s how we’ve handled
that. This is going to create a bigger issue and he hopes to engage the City in helping us solve it
because there really is no answer, other than a total community buy-in and dealing with it, a
commitment.
Commissioner LoCastro said the $25 million facility is now about $6 million more to build the
same size facility, so the easy answer always is that we’ll just build a smaller facility for $25
million. It was a 56,000-square-foot facility and now it goes down to 40,000 square feet. A lot was
packed in at 56,000 square feet and now with NCH’s announcement, 56,000 square feet is more
important than ever. We don’t want to address it down the road. This central receiving facility is so
critical. To build it smaller when the need has grown? We want to act before we start and put a
shovel on the ground incorrectly.
Commissioner Saunders said there are a lot of things that we’re working with the City on. When
we put it out to the voters, the 1-cent sales tax, we generate $490 million over a seven-year
period. Once that $490 million is reached, the sales tax sunsets, so it could be six years instead of
seven. About $70 million of that is distributed to the three cities. He doesn’t know how much the
City of Naples gets.
Vice Mayor McCabe said $25.5 million.
Commissioner Saunders said that’s money that maybe in 2017 would not have been anticipated.
The tax was approved in 2018. There may be a way. Commissioner LoCastro, to move money
around a little bit in that fund, not the City fund, but the County fund. There is some flexibility
there, and that's a County Attorney question, but we may have some projects that we can change.
He mentions that because he (Saunders) got a bit testy saying you don't want to look at the County
as a cash cow. Beach parking, for example, is a small-ticket item when you start looking at
everything we're doing. He appreciates the ability to work with the City. In years past, it wasn't
always that way. The City was not getting treated properly by the County. We changed that a long
time ago and the working relationship has been extremely good. He wants to thank you for the
ability to continue that good working relationship and emphasize that there are some big-ticket
items that we're involved in and the mental-health issue may be one where maybe there's some
flexibility on your part with that $25 million plus that you're getting. We have a lot that we're
involved in together.
Commissioner Taylor thanked the mayor and the Council because there's been a marked change
and a very positive way with her leadership on the Council to foster and nurture these kinds of
relationships, which is so critical to our future.
Mayor Heitmann said that on behalf of Council, our manager and staff, we thank you for making
this efficient, and for your partnership in many programs and in moving forward. It's necessary
and important to our residents that the City and County work together. We look forward to
continuing the conversations.
BCC Chairman McDaniel agreed for his colleagues and County staff and said they should not
wait too long before meeting together again.
4. ADJOURN
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 12:51 p.m.
COLLIER • 01. ' I ARD OF
COUOYA•414 ISSIOAtoop
•
WI AM L. MCDANIEL CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
Attest as to Chairman's
4.' . signature only,
These minutes were a proved by the Commission/Council on DO?
as presented , or as amended
42