Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/12/2002 RMarch 12, 2002 REGULAR MEETING OF March 12, 2002 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:02 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: James Coletta VICE-CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning James D. Carter, Ph.D. Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA March 12, 2002 9:00 a.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1F YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 March 12, 2002 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Reverend Mary Anne Domer, Church of the Resurrection 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.) B. February 12, 2002 - Regular Meeting C. February 19, 2002 - Workshop Minutes 3. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation recognizing Family and Consumer Sciences Programs. To be accepted by Jan Bennett. B. Proclamation to recognize Friends of the Museum. To be accepted by Mr. Jim Underwood, President, Friends of the Museum. C. School. To be International Learning Academy to be recognized as a Second Chance High accepted by Valaree Maxwell, President and twelve of her students. e SERVICE AWARDS Five-Year Attendees: 1) Gumersindo Esperon, Transportation 2) Heriberto Hartnack, Veteran Services 2 Mart:h ~12, 2002 am Ten-Year Attendees: 3) Carrie Morningstar, Emergency Medical Services 4) Roger Tompkins, Transportation Fifteen-Year Attendees: 5) Robert Wiley, Stormwater 6) Maria Sillery, Stormwater Twenty-Five Year Attendees: 7) Jan Bennett, University Extension PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS A. Public Comments on General Topics B. Public Petition Request by Mr. Jack Bowerman, III, to discuss Policy Requiring Turn Lanes. C. Public Petition Request by Mr. Colin Kelly, to discuss the Sand Web System and Available Funding. D. Public Petition Request by Mr. Bob Murray, to discuss Corridor 41 from Airport-Pulling Road to Collier Boulevard. E. This item has been deleted. F. Public Petition Request by Mr. George Chami, President, J. Peaceful LLC, regarding permitting issues for the Town Market Project in Olde Cypress. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. NUC-2001-AR-1856 3 March 12, 2002 Greg Carlisle, requesting a non-conforming use change from a school to a fitness center, including a pool and playground, for property located at 6800 Golden Gate Parkway, further described as Golden Gate Estates Unit 29, Tract 36, in Collier County, Florida. 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item has been deleted. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition RZ-01-AR- 1743, Vincent A. Cautero of Wilkison and Associates Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to the "RSF-5 (4)" residential single family zoning district with a density cap of four (4) units per acre for property located at the Northeast comer of Little League Road and Lake Trafford Road in Section 31, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 50.82 acres more or less. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDA-01- AR- 1133, Richard L. Woodruff of Wilson Miller Inc., representing The Moorings, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Moorings Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of eliminating the specific project description language by adding a general project description that allows for flexibility in determining the mix of congregate and nursing care facilities along with the accessory uses that include an assisted living and independent living units. Other changes include adding a list of permitted uses and accessory structures derived from the project description and revising the parking requirements, updating the master plan to depict the existing developed areas and the future development areas while increasing the maximum building heights for property located on the East side of Goodlette-Frank Road (CR 851) and approximately a quarter mile South of Pine Ridge Road in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. De This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-02-AR- 1978, Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson and Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, representing Gateway Shoppes, LLC, requesting a rezone from "RSF-3", Residential Single Family to 4 March 12, 2002 "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Henderson Creek PUD for the purpose of 500 residential dwelling units via an affordable housing agreement for property located on the South side of the Tamiami Trail (US 41) and approximately one-half mile East of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ae Appointment of member to the County Government Productivity Committee. Be Appointment of member to the Health and Human Services Advisory Committee. C. Appointment of members to the Hearing Officer Advisory Committee. D. Presentation by Vote Conservation 2002. (Commissioner Coyle) 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT Ae THIS ITEM TO BE HEARD AT 11:45 A.M. Report to the Board by Keith Arnold regarding the Legislative Session. Be Adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 2002-97 authorizing Condemnation of Right-of-Way and/or Easements required for the construction of four-lane and six-lane improvements to Goodlette-Frank Road between Pine Ridge Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, Capital Improvement Element No. 65 (Project No. 60134). Estimated Fiscal Impact: From $85,000 to $100,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services Division) Ce Presentation and approval of Transportation Financing Plan. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services Division) Do Adoption of FY 03 Budget Policy. (Michael Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and Budget) Ee Approval of staff's recommendation to pursue collection of uncollected and under collected impact fees for certain self-described adult-only communities. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development March 12, 2002 11. Division) AIRPORT AUTHORITY 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. FUTURE AGENDAS 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Ae COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Code Enforcement Lien Resolution approvals. 2) Final acceptance of Water and Sewer Utility connections for Pine Ridge Sports School. Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Pelican Strand Replat - lC". 3) 4) S) Request to grant final acceptance of those roadway improvements in Lely Resort, specifically the following road segments: Grand Lely Drive, Lely Resort Boulevard from Grand Lely Drive to Wildflower Way, and Wildflower Way, and accepting the maintenance responsibility for those roadway improvements. Final acceptance of Water and Sewer Utility Connections for Sherwood Park, Phases Two and Three. 6 March 12, 2002 6) Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Lago Villagio", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. 7) This item has been deleted. 8) Approval of an Inteflocal Agreement between Collier County and the Immokalee Fire Control District authorizing the County to collect impact fees on the district's behalf in the exchange for a one percent administrative fee, resulting in approximately $1,000 in new annual revenue to the County. 9) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Maplewood Unit Two". Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the agreement between the Board of County Commissioners, the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Collier County Clerk of Courts for provision of secretarial services to the Community Redevelopment Agency by the Clerk of Courts. 11) Board of County Commissioners serving as the Community Redevelopment Agency. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency approve the agreement between the Board of County Commissioners, the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Collier County Clerk of Courts for provision of secretarial services to the Community Redevelopment Agency by the Clerk of Courts. Approval of a request to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to extend the County's contract for a Community Development Block Grant under the Economic Development category to assist with the construction of a manufacturing incubator facility at the Immokalee Regional Airport Industrial Park and Foreign Trade Zone. B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) That the Board approve the Vehicle Lease Agreement between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Intelitran and 7 March 12, 2002 authorize the Chairman to enter into the Agreement. 2) Approve a Budget Amendment and Change Order Number 1 for the 13thStreet SW Bridge design-build Construction Contract No. 01- 3223, Project No. 60012, Purchase Order No. 201211 for $91,342.08. 3) Approve the transfer and/or funding of four positions from the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Fund (113) to the Transportation Services Division Fund (101) with a cost of $430,000 for FY02 from Permit and Development Fees. 4) Approve agreements and accept drainage easements for the benefit of the Wiggins Pass Drainage Basin. Acquisition cost for title and recording fees expected to not exceed $800.00. 5) Accept right of entry documents for the cleanup and maintenance of a portion of the Gordon River Channel. Acquisition costs for title and recording fees expected not to exceed $200.00. 6) Request for speed limit reduction from 30 miles per hour (30 mph) to twenty-five miles per hour (25 mph) on all local streets in Lely. The replacement of signs at a total cost of approximately $200.00. 7) Approve the lease agreement with Collier County School Board for the use of Vineyards Elementary School Media Center to conduct public information meeting for the design and permitting of Vanderbilt Beach Road. Collier County Project No. 63051, CIE No. 24. 8) Approve request to terminate Reuven Haim Builders, Inc. Developer Contribution Agreement with Collier County for Radio Road improvements, and release developer and Collier County from the remaining obligations and benefits of the contract. 9) Approve a standard construction contract in the amount of $856,318.70 with K.E.R. Enterprises Inc., D/B/A Armadillo Underground for the construction of a large storm drain for the Wiggins Pass Road Outfall Project along Gulf Harbor Drive (Project No. 31212) Bid No. 02-3330. 8 March 12,2002 C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Approve $70,000 Budget Amendment for funding of the Agreement with Michael L. Voorhees, Ph.D., to update the maps of the Wellfield Protection Zones of the County's Ground Water Protection Ordinance. (Roll over from FY01 to FY02) 2) Approve Work Order #WD-112 with Kyle Construction Inc., for construction associated with the Pelican Bay Fire Protection Water Supply System Improvements, Phase I, Project Number 74023, in the amount of $146,723.50. 3) Approve and accept an easement agreement for the acquisition of utility easements for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Wellfield Expansion Project, not to exceed $3,100. D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Authorize the Chairman to execute an agreement with a performer for the fourth annual Country Jam Concert on April 12, 2002, in an amount not to exceed $55,000. 2) Approval of an agreement with Texasee Touring Inc., for the performance of Lonestar for the fourth annual Country Jam Concert in the amount of $52,500. 3) Approve award of RFP 02-3334 a revenue contract for coffee bar concessions at the Collier County Public Library. (Minimum annual revenue of $4,800.00). E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners convey a Grant of Utility Easement to Sprint-Florida Inc., for the installation of a fiber-optic sonet ring around the Main Government Complex. 2) Authorize a re-organization of Real Property functions thru separate divisions to better meet the County's business needs and approve the associated budget amendments. 9 March 12, 2002 3) Approval of Budget Amendment to re-appropriate $72,000 previously approved by the Board for the installation of underground conduit to upgrade telephone and data transmission services at the Government Center. 4) Recommendation to award Bid 02-3337 for contract printing to various vendors for an estimated annual amount of $40,000. F. EMERGENCY SERVICES 1) Approve Notice of Intent to accept Hazard Mitigation Grant Funding from the Florida Department of Community Affairs in the amount of $7,272.62 as the result of freezing conditions in January 2001. 2) Approve the purchase by the Isles of Capri Fire and Rescue Control District of a used, Class "A" Fire Truck from the City of Marco Island Fire Rescue Department for $31,887 using impact fees and approve the necessary Budget Amendment. G. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Confirm that the advertising of individual County Commissioner Meetings throughout the community serves a public purpose and authorizes the use of Public Information Staff to prepare notices for such meetings. 2) Approval of Budget Amendment Report-Budget Amendment #02- 203, for additional drainage work, pipe repair, and pipe replacement for the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage in the amount of $18,100. H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Approval of budget amendment to convert an Airport Authority Capital Grant to an Operational Grant. I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner request for approval for payment to attend function serving a valid public purpose. (Commissioner Carter) 10 March 12, 2002 J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS L. COUNTY ATTORNEY 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. Ae That the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopt an Ordinance to impose a mandatory court cost of $3.00, funding the Teen Court of Collier County pursuant to Section 938.19, Florida Statutes in the amount of $38,100. Be Approve a Resolution to create the Price Street-Barefoot Williams Road Water Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) District; authorize funds for engineering services; approve the amendment of the contract to AEC National/Wilkinson in the amount of $26,495 for engineering services. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 11 March 12, 2002 Item #2A March 12, 2002 REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start off with the invocation from the Reverend Mary Anne Dorner from the Church of the Resurrection. Please rise. REVEREND DORNER: Let us pray. Lord, we'll take a moment of silence to remember all those who, six months ago yesterday, died in the terrible tragedy of 9/11. We remember those who died, their family, friends, and co-workers. God, help us as we heal to be yet more determined to live in freedom and justice and in a nation where we're free to gather in peaceful assembly to share our concerns and to work together for the common good. We lift before you this day all the people of Collier County. We thank you for the diversity of people who call this place home, whether for a day, a season, or a lifetime. We ask your blessings on those who will receive special recognitions and service awards this day and for all those who will present their needs and petitions before our county commissioners. We pray for our commissioners that they make wise decisions and right judgments as they exercise the authority we have given them to act on our behalf. I thank you, God, for all who have gone before us, those who are -- have worked to make Collier County a good and beautiful place in which to live. Help us to continue to protect and improve our environment as we raise up our community. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Page 2 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, changes? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. We've got a fairly lengthy change list to work you through this morning, so I'll just start you at the top. The first item is Item 8-D, as in "David." That item has been requested to be continued at the petitioner's request. That is a petition commonly known as the Henderson Creek PUD. That item is being continued to the March 26th meeting, which is two weeks from today. And just for the public that's here, if anyone is here for the Henderson Creek PUD, that item will not be heard today but will be heard on the 26th of March. Next item is a continuation of 16-A-4 from your consent agenda, and that was acceptance of some roadway improvements within the Lely Resort. That item is also being continued to the meeting of March 26th. The next item-- two, Mr. Chairman, are not on your change list but were late changes this morning. Items 16-A-10 and 11, which were the CRA agreement items are being requested by staff to be continued to the meeting of March 26th. There were some minor amendments to those agreements, and rather than try and distribute and point out where those changes were -- we didn't have a struck- through and underlined copy for you. There isn't a timing issue that requires us to approve it today. We're going to request that those two items be continued -- MS. FILSON: Look (indicating). CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, you lost your train of thought. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir, I did. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well -- MR. OLLIFF: I've been here a long time, Page 3 March 12, 2002 Mr. Chairman. to speak this morning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: isn't. I hadn't seen that before. I hope that one's registered I'm not going to argue with it if it COMMISSIONER CARTER: some of the other speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Carter. Probably more entertaining than We won't go there, Commissioner MR. OLLIFF: The next item is a request to move Item 16-B, as in "boy," 3 from your consent agenda to the regular agenda. That would become Item 10-F. That is a request to move four positions from the community development and environmental services division to your transportation division associated with permitting and developing -- development fees. That move is being requested by Commissioner Carter. The next item is a deletion-- that's Item 16-B, as in "boy," 7 -- off of your consent agenda. That was a lease agreement between the Collier County School Board and Collier County regarding the Vineyards Elementary School Media Center. That item has been requested to be deleted by your staff. Next item is also a move from consent to regular. It's Item 16-B, as in "boy," 8, which will move to Item 10-G on your agenda. This is a contract. It's actually a developer contribution agreement regarding Radio Road improvements. That's being moved at Commissioner Coyle's request. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me comment on that, Tom. My question was answered yesterday, and I would like to leave that where it is, if that's okay. MR. OLLIFF: 16-B-8 will remain, then, on your consent agenda as 16-B-8. Then next item is the deletion off of your consent agenda of 16- Page 4 March 12, 2002 D, as in "David," 1. That was contracts for the annual country jam concert. That's at staff's request. The next item is also a move of Item 16-H-1 off of your consent agenda to Item 10-H -- actually, now will be 10-G on your regular agenda, and that is a budget amendment converting certain funds within the airport authority capital grants to operational grants. That move's being requested by Commissioner Henning. The last thing, Mr. Chairman, I have a series of notes. The first is a request that Item 9-D, as in "David," which is the item under the Board of County Commissioners regarding the proposed referenda for green space, that that item be heard at 1:30 p.m. There's also a request that Items 10-C and D, which are the staff items under the county manager's report that deal with the transportation funding plan and budget policy, be heard directly following the 1:30 item, and that is to accommodate certain productivity committee members who -- as I understand it, who want to be able to be here to make some recommendations to the board. There's also a note from the county attorney, and I'll go ahead and make this note for the record, that the Board of County Commissioners on Item 16-A- 11 on your consent agenda will be acting solely as the community redevelopment agency and not as the Board of County Commissioners in its consideration or approval of that item. MR. WEIGEL: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, did you have some comments to make? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner, just one. And that is, on the consent agenda, 16-D-2, I wanted to make a correction for the record. I think it can be taken care of in an adjustment right now. That's your consent agenda, and it has to do with an approval of Page 5 March 12, 2002 an agreement with Texasee Touring, Inc., for performance of Lonestar for Fourth Annual Country Jam Concert in the amount of $52,500. That is the agenda title for 16-D-2. The document that appears in your agenda backup has been revised in its review and approval by the county attorney. All references to alcohol have been removed in regard to performers' requests for certain amenities during their period here. And page 8, paragraph R regarding to a purchaser assuming liability has been deleted also. So if you will note that the document that you have prepared for your approval and signature has those changes in that. You may certainly leave that on the consent agenda with that amendment or with that change noted, 16-D-2. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How does that relate to 16-D-l, the removal of this? MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me, 16 -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: 16-D- 1 authorized the chair to execute an agreement with a performer for the Fourth Annual Country Jam Concert on April 12, 2002, in the amount of $55,000. MR. WEIGEL: Those are two different performers, two different agreements. 16-D-1 there is not an agreement in the package whatsoever if my understanding -- 16-D-2 has an agreement that is not in its final form, and I was telling you what the final approval form was based on staff and county attorney review, which was now what was published in the packet. MR. OLLIFF: There would have been two separate performers, two separate contracts. The one contract is remaining on the agenda. Mr. Weigel's made the amendments to that agreement. The first one we removed primarily because we didn't have a specific performer on that and we were -- we need to nail that one down a little tighter for you. Mr. Chairman, I had two additional notes for changes -- Item Page 6 March 12, 2002 16-C-3. While it's included in the body of the executive summary, the recommendation needs to note that that recommendation or the approval of that item is subject to the review and approval of the county attorney's office, as far as some real-property-related items. And, lastly, just under staff communications, I wanted to just make a note for the record that we will be providing with -- for you an update on the tourism development program administration process. Bleu Wallace will be here to give you just an update on what is our proposed process for filling positions and including the industry. And, as well, I believe we are going to show you certain, what they call, vignettes or clipettes or some of the advertisements that are running already as part of that program that I think Commissioner Fiala has already seen and has requested that the full board get an opportunity to see. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would move for approval of the regular consent and summary agenda after you get exparte disclosures and public speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One thing before we go on, Commissioner Carter, we have one person, I guess, to speak on the summary agenda item. MS. FILSON: We have two now on 17-B. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 17-B. What's the pleasure of this commission? Shall we go ahead and pull those items or should we hear those speakers up front first and then make our decision? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we need to hear them because there was no objections when it went on the summary agenda. That's why it's there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What we'll do when we get to -- are there any other speakers for the John Duff items? We'll bring Page 7 March 12, 2002 them forward at that time, but why don't we hold on our final motion until we hear those two speakers. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What we will do is go down through the commissioners to find out if there is any disclosures on the part of the summary agenda that we have in there. Yes, did you have a comment? MR. OLLIFF: I just need to make sure I understand. We're going to go ahead and leave 17-B, but we're going to take the public speakers and then -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I thought we'd vote on the -- accepting the agenda after we hear the public speakers on the summary agenda. MR. OLLIFF: Right. Yes, sir. That's perfect. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the final -- but I thought we'd go down the line here and -- starting with Commissioner Carter to see if he's -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No disclosures. How about the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: None, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I, myself, have none. COMMISSIONER HENNING: None, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, let's go ahead and hear the speakers on the summary agenda item. MS. FILSON: First speaker is Iris Finger, and she will be followed by-- how do you pronounce that? Jorge Rodriguez. Iris Finger. MR. MUDD: Sue, she's coming. Page 8 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. If you would be so kind as to take your cell phones and mm them off or put them on vibrate mode, I would really appreciate it. MS. FILSON: Do you want me to pass those out for you, ma'am? MS. FINGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please begin. MS. FINGER: Okay. My name is Iris Finger. I live at 186 Price Street. I have the McGee's Foley. The story is that they put a pipeline into Tall Oaks that dead ends, and they didn't realize, I guess, that 115 units at Victoria Falls is going to go in and drain that water line. They had to do something to repair the situation. So, I guess, they looked around for a letter from Mr. Rodriguez that had been laying on McGee's desk for two years. The plan of action was to bring the government to the people. We had a meeting at the east library, the small room. They used a JFK group think method. The reference from the engineer was a Ph.D., and, in fact, he has a B.S., in Civil Engineering. He took a woman with him, I think convinced the women on that street, such as myself, that this was a good thing to make the loop and also to tell us that it would increase our property values, which in case it really doesn't because we really don't need the water put in because we have our own systems in there, and the only time we would use the water was for maybe showers, et cetera. Personally, I would never drink it because it has chemicals in it. But, as I said, they -- they look for someone to run around and get petitions, and Mr. Rodriguez seemed to be the person. If you look at my Reference A where the water line dead ends at the Tall Oaks and you'll see the loop going down. The next page is a perfect example of a man that owns 82 1/2 feet frontage, is charged-- going Page 9 March 12, 2002 to charge him $7,712.12 to put in his line for 82 feet. The next item confirms what I just told you about the looping to -- to maintain the pressure from your own office and then the McGee letter there with his Ph.D. And then we -- on the 25th they decide to have this meeting, which was very little time to prepare. I thought it was, like, 30 days. This is what I think that we should be doing with the county dead ended problem. I think that you should give us $1 million at the end of this meeting from our documentary stamps with an interest- free loan. We can put in our own water line and save a lot of money. We can probably put in a gated community, and we could do all kinds of community improvements such as a senior citizen center, make some walkways, et cetera. And after all, it's fair because you did it November the 23rd, 1999. And think about it, we can take that million dollars, put it in money market fund and every two years we can renew it with you and actually pay you back out of the interest. So we could always maintain that million dollars. We did not have the second meeting as promised after the petition. We did not have 30 days to prepare for this meeting, and the total neighborhood was not involved, only half the street of Price Street to fix the problem that the county did to begin with. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Jorge Rodriguez. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. My name is Jorge Rodriguez. I'm the gentleman that is the bad guy, but we've been -- we've been -- I am one of the owners of the properties on Price Street, and we've been working on this since 1999, and we've been trying to get it all the -- all the neighbors to get involved, and we have signed petitions, not -- this is not one of the first ones, but we have signed two or three of them already. We have them on file -- the county has us on file. Every neighbor in this area has been notified. I have Page 10 March 12, 2002 letters from the county here that they have send us, and they didn't just send them to me. They send them to all the neighbors because of the situation that has been coming up. They finally gave us the meetings to come. Everybody was entitled to come and speak, and we did all that. This is not a county problem about the loop. This is not a problem about the habitat, Humanity for Habitat, that division that is going up. It's not some of the problem. It's that the neighbors wanted water and this is -- we went through all the steps. We got all the signatures. The county had-- we have signatures. I think there's 32 units -- 34 units, and we have -- I think it's 24, 25 units. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read in here that you had 33 units, 23 signed in a positive, 7 signed -- 7 never answered, and only 3 signed in negative, is what the backup material says. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Exactly. Exactly. So those people that didn't signed, they never wanted to get involved, but there's some new owners in this street, and they already have signed. I know that we can't count the last person that bought -- he bought because he bought about a month ago, but they all wanted water. We're only trying to improve our neighborhood. We all have clean-up -- we have a gentleman here, Pete Ikenelli (phonetic), that put his own men on the street one day to clean the whole street up and we're -- we're trying to better our community, and that's what we want. We have terrible water. We spend more money in water to soften it, to clean it, that monthly you have a bill of between $80 to $250 every month. I can pay that for water and not have to worry about it. I have a tape recorder in my house every morning, "Honey, would you check the water?" And I'd like to turn that off one of these days. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a couple questions? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. Page 11 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hope you don't mind. You say you started this process in '97.9 MR. RODRIGUEZ: '99. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this is something that you have notified all the neighbors about; is that correct? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. We have petitions signed, and I personally went to all the neighbors and signed. The people that didn't want -- like, Ms. Finger didn't want it, and she didn't sign it. There is some neighbors that didn't want it at the time, and then they signed for it because they knew that it was improvement for our area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two more questions. What is -- what does that mean, "loop"? I don't understand. MR. RODRIGUEZ: What it is, is that -- for to build -- to put a water -- may I? You cannot put a water line and end it. You should be able to turn it so it continue to turn around. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to need for you to speak into a mike, though. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, the reason that you want a loop system is so you don't have bad pressure, so the pressure in the line is equal all the way around. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thanks. Last question, does Ms. Finger have to be on the system? I mean if she doesn't want to be, can we skip her? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I -- may I suggest, you may want to just pull this off and then we get into more details. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I want to pull this. This is an MSTU. They went through the process. It takes 50 percent plus 1, so it's 33 properties. That means all they need was 18 for approval. They have 23 for approval; therefore, they have met the criteria. And this may be an internal discussion in the Page 12 March 12, 2002 neighborhood, but they did what we asked them to do. Therefore, I don't see any reason to pull it, and I am going to include it in my motion. My motion still stands for approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I agree, Commissioner Carter, and I'll second your motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Carter and a second by Commissioner Henning. there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those -- I'm sorry. the gun too fast? aye. Is Am I jumping COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No. No. I totally agree. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it 5-0. Thank you. Page 13 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETINC, March 12, 2002 Continue Item #8 (D) to March 267 2002 BCC Meeting: Petition PUDZ-02-AR.1978, Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson and Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, representing Gateway Shoppes, LLC, requesting a rezone from "RSF-3", Residential Single Family to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Henderson Creek PUD for the purpose of 500 residential dwelling units via an affordable housing agreement for property located on the South side of the Tamiami Trail (US 41) and approximately one-half mile East of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.) Continue Item #16 (A) 4 to March 267 2002 BCC Meeting.' Request to grant final acceptance of those roadway improvements in Lely Resort, specifically the following road segments: Grand Lely Drive, Lely Resort Boulevard from Grand Lely Drive to Wildflower Way, and Wildflower Way, and accepting the maintenance responsibility for those roadway improvements. (Staff's request.) Move Item #16(B)3 to 10(F): Approve the transfer and/or funding of four positions from the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Fund (113) to the Transportation Services Division Fund (101) with a cost of $430,000 for FY02 from Permit and Development Fees. (Commissioner Carter request) Delete Item #16(B)7: Approve the lease agreement with Collier County School Board for the use of Vineyards Elementary School Media Center to conduct public information meeting for the design and permitting of Vanderbilt Beach Road. Collier County Project No. 63051, CIE No. 24. (Staff's request.) Move Item #16(B)8 to 10 (G): Approve request to terminate Reuven Haim Builders, Inc. Developer Contribution Agreement with Collier County for Radio Road improvements, and release developer and Collier County from the remaining obligations and benefits of the contract. (Commissioner Coyle request.) Delete Item 16(D)1: Authorize the Chairman to execute an agreement with a performer for the fourth annual Country Jam Concert on April 12, 2002, in an amount not to exceed $55,000. (Staff request.) Move item #16 (H) 1 to 10 (H): Approval of budget amendment to convert an Airport Authority Capital Grant to an Operational Grant. (Commissioner Henning request.) **Note** 1) A request to hear Item 9 (D) at 1:30 p.m. (Commissioner Coletta request) 2) A request to hear items 10 (C) and 10 (D) following item 9 (D). (Commissioner Coletta request) 3) The Board of County Commissioners shall be acting solely as the Community Redevelopment Agency and not as the Board of County Commissioners in it's consideration or approval of Item 16 (A) 11. (David Weigel, County Attorney). 4) Recommendation #1 on Item 16(C)3 should have the following added: "upon review and approval by the County Attorney's office". March 12, 2002 Items #2B & 2C MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 12, 2002 REGULAR AND FEBRUARY 19, 2002 WORKSHOP MEETINGS- APPROVED COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I move for the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 12, February 19 workshop minutes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion by Commissioner Carter, a second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. Item #3A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES PROGRAMS - ADOPTED From there we go right to proclamations. And, Commissioner Fiala, you're up first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, wow. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your time here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I am right here, and I would like the university extension service to come up, please. Can I tell a little stow before I go any further? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Forgive me. I think I Page 14 March 12, 2002 might have missed something. Do we have any other speakers on the consent agenda? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's all right. This is Jan Bennett, and I just want just a little story about Jan many, many, many years ago. Jan called me. I'd never met her before. She called and she said, "You have -- you have children in preschool, don't you?" I said, "Yes." She was trying to interview some preschool kids. Can you imagine? This kid is now a nuclear scientist, and here she was interviewing him back when he was four years old, and it was that long ago, came to my house and interviewed him. And you're still doing things for people here and now. Bless your heart. I just want to say how proud I am to know you. Thank you. Let me go on and read this proclamation. WHEREAS, the Family and Consumer Sciences program of the university extension service in Collier County includes workshops and personal counseling to those residents who desire a better knowledge of financial matters; and, WHEREAS, these activities have resulted in learning experiences and accomplishments that have received state and national recognition; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County feels this program contributes to the overall benefit of their constituency and strengthens our community; and, WHEREAS, the legal checkup program helps residents determine their legal health through a comprehensive review of their legal affairs; and, WHEREAS, the Collier County has the first extension service in the entire nation to successfully collaborate with AARP on this program; and, Page 15 March 12, 2002 WHEREAS, Collier County has been chosen as a model in the development of a national partnership; and, WHEREAS, the board has been notified that Jan Bennett, university extension service professional, has been asked to share the legal checkup program as an invited speaker at March's National Initiative Conference for extension in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; and, WHEREAS, these proceedings will be videotaped and distributed to extension personnel across the country and segments will be streamed into the national website. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County that we recognize Jan Bennett for excellence in programming, and all citizens of Collier County are urged to join this board in giving appropriate recognition to her achievements. Done and ordered this 12th day of March 2002. I move for approval. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. Motion for approval and a second, and is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're so proud of you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to need you to turn around and face the camera. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Her hands are cold. She must be nervous. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stand right about in the center here Page 16 March 12, 2002 and face the camera for this photo opportunity. Thank you. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to take the picture with the animal. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's going to happen quick enough. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is -- what is that animal? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not a chicken, I can tell you that. Commissioner Coyle. Item #3B PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING FRIENDS OF THE MUSEUM - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a proclamation to recognize the Friends of the Museum to be accepted by Mr. Jim Underwood, president of Friends of the Museum. Jim, would you come up. We will have an opportunity for you to speak in just a minute. Proclamation. WHEREAS, the Friends of the Collier County Museum was established in 1986 to complement the efforts of the museum staff and fund-raising activities which continually improve the quality and quantity of museum exhibits, collections, and programs; and, WHEREAS, the friends of the Collier County Museum is a nonprofit organization of dedicated members and volunteers; and, WHEREAS, the friends have actively encouraged broader community support and interests in the county's museums through volunteers who contributed more than 9,000 hours of service and assisted over 18,800 local students in Fiscal Year 2001; and, WHEREAS, current and future projects of the Friends include Page 17 March 12, 2002 the Children's Discovery Cottage, Craighead Native Florida Garden, George G. Huntoon Gallery featuring the Baum Wildlife Collection, Everglades City Museum Lecture Hall, Robert's Ranch restoration in Immokalee, and the Traveling Exhibit Hall; and, WHEREAS, the Collier County Museum depends on its friends to succeed in preserving the history of Collier County for residents and visitors of today and tomorrow. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed this 12th day of March of 2002 that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, recognize the Friends of Collier County Museum and volunteers as dedicated and supportive members of the Collier County Museum. Done and ordered this 12th day of March 2002, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. James N. Coletta, Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. All in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Congratulations. Say a couple words to us. We'll need for you to face the camera for just one second. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir. You need to get right up there. There you go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you'd like to say a few words, you can take the mike. MR. UNDERWOOD: Okay. Why not? On behalf of the board of the Friends of the Collier County Museum and the museum staff, I accept this proclamation and would like to recognize the important contributions of the core of volunteers without whose help it would be difficult to operate our system of museums, as well as the support of more than 500 families who make up our membership. Page 18 March 12, 2002 Of course, the museum would hardly exist if it were not for the committed dedication of Director Ron Jamroe who brought the dream of a system of community museums to reality. I'd also like to recognize the efforts of Curators Dave Southall, Jennifer Gueda, Jennifer Perry, and Secretary Debra Gardner who keeps things working. I should not forget Lee Mitchell, our staff horticulturist, who tends and cares for our nationally recognized native botanical garden. Of course, much of the credit for the museum's success is due to the past and future support of the Board of County Commissioners who have understood the importance of preserving our heritage and making it accessible to our citizens. Your leadership and encouragement for our efforts is one reason why Collier County is such a terrific place to make your home. You understand that the real community is more than real estate -- excuse me, more than real estate and roads. To have a clear idea of where we are going, we must remember where we've been. A community that preserves the knowledge of its past and celebrates its roots in time has permanence, stability, and most of all an identity. For your support of our museum system and its programs, we thank you, and our community thanks you and our children, grandchildren and our great grandchildren. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Carter, you're on. Item #3C PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING INTERNATIONAL LEARNING ACADEMY AS A SECOND CHANCE HIGH SCHOOL- ADOPTED Page 19 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right. We have a graduation class. It is my pleasure to read this proclamation this morning. I would like the mascot to come up and stand in the center along with the graduates. And, Commissioner Fiala, if you're real nice, maybe the mascot will let you wear the headpiece. to identify the -- it's a dragon. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know -- I'm not going to try Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I almost said "Puff the Magic Dragon" because that had some connotations about other-- okay. Here they are. They're a great group, and it is my pleasure to read this proclamation. WHEREAS, International Learning Academy is not-for-profit, non-denominational, fully accredited alternative private high school for college-bound students and nontraditional learners; and, WHEREAS, we do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or marital status; and, WHEREAS, since April 1998 -- 1998, over 300 people of all ages and nationalities have earned their high school diplomas through us; and, WHEREAS, ILA is a self-paced, non-pressure school, all final exams are untimed; and, WHEREAS, the majority of our students work full-time jobs while attending ILA; and, WHEREAS, 80 percent of our students have continued with the post secondary education through colleges, universities, technical schools and the United States Military; and, WHEREAS, many of our students were former disenchanted mainstream statistics; and, WHEREAS, we work with the Department of Juvenile Page 20 March 12, 2002 Justice and their clients; and, WHEREAS, March 23rd, 2002, we are holding our first major fund raiser since our inception in 1997; the Inaugural International Learning Academy Learning Ball 2000; and, WHEREAS, our Graduation Ball 2000 will be held at the new Hyatt Regency in Bonita Springs to benefit our student scholarship fund, operation expenses, student programs, and hopefully a new building. Each invitation will be hand-delivered in the form of a diploma by 12 of our student delegates representing the Class of 2002 in their caps and gowns. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the International Learning Academy be recognized as an alternative private high school for nontraditional learners. Done and ordered this 12th day of March 2002. Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. Maybe you'd like to say a few words to us this morning? MS. MAXWELL: You bet I would. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then step over to the microphone, please. MS. MAXWELL: Did you get the picture of all of us together? We need this Kodak moment. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Wide-angle lens. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you begin, Valaree, I just Page 21 March 12, 2002 wanted to acknowledge the fact that I've known you since before this all started, and you have overcome some unbelievable obstacles. I seen your pain, your suffering. You and your daughter, Natalie, have been unbelievable in how you held in there. I seen that you've been to the point that -- I won't even mention where you were, but you were at the bottom, and you managed to pull out of this, and it's amazing what you have done and how many children you have helped. Please take the podium and in your own words. MS. MAXWELL: You would have to have done that. Doggone it, Jim. Okay. Wipe the tears. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: yOU. Sorry. I didn't mean to do that to MS. MAXWELL: That's all right. Jim is correct. I've known him before he was a county commissioner. He knew me when I was sleeping on the floor just, like, to keep this school going. Didn't want anybody to know. Code enforcement would have gone crazy, but we did it. We prevailed. And look at these kids. They're wonderful. This is what it's all about. You know, a very wise man said to me -- Corbin Wyatt-- that one size does not fit all, and we know that. And if that were the case and if it were true -- let's say we all wore the same size shoe. Oh, my God. I could tell you right now, I wouldn't want to be wearing some of your shoes, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be wearing some of their shoes. These guys have an incredible job. When the light is green, everybody loves you, and then here comes the red light and what happens -- well, we know what happened with that. But, anyway, the most important thing is, I want to thank you so much for giving this proclamation to us, and we need the community's help. Now, listen up, everybody. I worked hard for these kids. I can take the punches. You can give them to me all you want. I don't Page 22 March 12, 2002 care. These kids can't take it anymore. They need help. Not everybody's going to fit into one size. Not every program's going to work. I have a program that's for everybody. My oldest student is 50. My youngest student is 16. And I have people in between. Some are parents. I have one student that's 37 years old that attended Naples High School. And the reason she dropped out 20 years ago is the same reason they're dropping out today. She want a new car, so she went to work, and she worked for that car payment and that insurance. Before she knew it, she was too pooped to go to school. Now, here she is 20 years later earning her high school diploma. Amazing, huh? But this is how you can help, and I would like all of you to know that these young people have invitations for all of you, and I'd like to see you there to show your support for our school. This 23rd, two weeks -- less than two weeks at the new Hyatt in Bonita Springs we're holding our inaugural graduation ball, and it is our first one, and it's to benefit this school. It's a grand affair. You have to, you know, dust off your shoes, put on your fancy duds, doll up your hairdo and come out and dance a jig or two with all of us. We have a five-piece band. We have the harpist, the drinks, the sit-down dinner, the whole nine yards. And we have some wonderful raffles that we're going to be raffling off, and one of them compliments of Germain Auto Group. I hope you like that, Mr. Germain. They have provided us with a brand new 2002 -- get this. This is pretty sexy, red on red T-Bird. Yes, folks, we're raffling off this T-Bird. It's 100 bucks a pop. We're only selling 1,000 tickets, so the odds are pretty good, 1 in 1,000. We also have two trips, one to Cabo for two, plane fare, and one to Park City for two, if you like to ski, a week, the whole bit. And we need other people to get involved, maybe some sponsors out there, maybe people that are listening who may have some gifts that we can use for a silent auction. We need a building. Page 23 March 12, 2002 Right now, folks, we are located off of Bayshore Drive. I have two offices about there. In between us is an AA building. Okay, come on. I've got kids here, you know, and I need to put them somewhere else where they're not in an environment that could be a little bit leery at times. And most important -- you know, of the 303 people that have graduated through this program -- since I really started 1997 with a wing and a prayer just to try to do something to help the community, I'm not an educator. I'm just a mom and a businessperson, but I tell you what, I've become an educator because these kids educated me, and they are educating all of us. You guys are educating people. We're all educating each other. This is what education is. It's not a question of having a degree on the wall that says, I'm an educator. It's a question of, what do you have in your heart to give to educate others, and that's what I've been doing. I'm not the best, and I'm hoping with your help we can find the right kind of people, get them on board, take this program and run with it. I'm opening up a school in Bonita Springs in May. The Bonita Springs Chamber of Commerce, they're incredible. They called me up, what can we do? Where can we put you? What do you need from us? I'm not used to this. No one ever calls me up and asks me for anything. You know? We're also opening one in Hialeah because I have found and discovered the majority of the young people in this country that make up the large group of 42 percent nationally, folks, that do drop out -- okay, the Hispanics make up the largest group and, by golly, this program has been wonderful for them. I need your help. I thank you so much for this proclamation. Jim, I love ya. Donna, I watched the two of you turn into superstars. You know? And I feel as if I've grown up with some of Page 24 March 12, 2002 you, and I probably won't grow old with a lot of you, but the most important thing is, these kids are amazing. And now I'd like to have -- I'd like to introduce you to some of them. Guys, you know what to do. I'm going to call your names, and you'll know what's going on. Jesse Jenkins, stand up. Jesse is 17 years old. He's planning to attend cosmetology school. Then he plans to go into the U.S. Air Force. Josh Malo, 22 years old. He's entering the United States Marine Corps. Daniel Valdez, 18 years old. He's planning to attend trade school for mechanics. Preston Wolfe, 18 years old. Plans to continue his ski and bike- racing career. Jennifer Diaz, 17 years old. Planning to attend International College. Susan Huergo, 18 years old. Planning to attend Edison Community College. Alaina Morris, 16 years old. Planning to attend Edison Community College. Rachel Strikland, 17 years old. Entering the United States Marine Corp. Moriah Tuck, 18 years old. Planning to attend the University of South Florida. And we're missing a few more, and one of whom is also entering the Air Force. We have our invitations to you and these young people -- you know what to do -- we would like to humbly invite you to attend our inaugural graduation ball to benefit these wonderful young people of today and our adults of tomorrow. Commissioners, Chairman, community members, thank you so Page 25 March 12, 2002 much. It's been my honor. (Applause.) MS. MAXWELL: And Wooga, he's also the class of 2002. forgot Wooga, Larry Lewis. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Valaree. MS. MAXWELL: Thank you very much. Item #4 EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS- PRESENTED CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see. The next thing is the service awards and Commissioner Henning, you're going to be leading the charge. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as the commissioners are making their way down to the floor, I'll call your first two attendees. They are recipients this morning of five-year awards. The first is Alex Esperon with your transportation division, and the second is Heriberto Hartnack from your veteran services department who we know and love as Eddy. (Applause.) MR. OLLIFF: Your next awardee this morning is Roger Tompkins, also from your transportation division who is here to receive a ten-year award. (Applause.) MR. OLLIFF: The next two recipients this morning are fifteen- year attendees. They are Robert Wiley of your storm water department and Maria Sillery or Tess Sillery from your storm water department as well. (Applause.) MR. OLLIFF: Last, Mr. Chairman, we have a rare opportunity Page 26 March 12, 2002 this morning to be able to recognize a 25-year employee of Collier County, Ms. Jan Bennett with your university extension department. (Applause.) MR. MUDD: Commissioners, and that's your last presentation. Item #6A PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public petitions and comments under general topics. First public petition -- MS. FILSON: You have a speaker under public comment first, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then please go to that. MS. FILSON: Tony Migliazzo -- Migliazzo, thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this was a-- this was a holdout. It was a staff mistake during the -- during the rural fringe. Tony had spoken when we were out at Max Hasse, and he had put in an application to speak, and we were trying to get all the speakers the first time, and -- and we overlooked Tony in that process, and we wanted to make sure that he had an opportunity to speak at the next board meeting, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tony, I'm so glad you made it back. MR. MIGLIAZZO: I told you I'd be here. I know you guys are to the point where you've heard about enough TDRs and property rights, and we trust our decision is in your hands, but I'm not here to speak about that today. There's one topic that we've never -- never has been brought up, and me being a contractor and self-employed in this county, I'm a little concerned about my future and my brother's Page 27 March 12, 2002 future as far as how many more years of work are we going to have by this executive order that has come down from the governor. That's -- that's my only concern, really, is that. I understand our property rights are our property rights, and you guys are at the point where it's probably getting a little bit nauseating, that you've heard enough about TDRs and you're going to do this and you're going to do that. My concern is generally for the construction industry. If you look in the phone book, there's over 300 general contractors in this county, not counting subcontractors such as myself. And my main concern is, how long is our development -- do I have ten years? In 15 years is my company going to have enough work that I can hand it down to my children? I mean, that's -- that's my concern. And Ms. Fiala, your-- your-- your grandchildren's future is at stake here also and the livelihood of my brother and many other people that are in the same boat because these people have never been notified because they don't own property in the rural fringe. They're just a contractor that holds a license that -- in 10, 15, 20 years, is there going to be development still going on? I mean, I asked Mr. Cornell after the meeting that we've had all this information that all this development is bad, but I asked him one simple question. Has anybody ever done a survey after these projects are in as far as what wildlife has come back? Have they promoted any wildlife there? And he told me that was a very interesting question because nobody's done that. Nobody's done anything to see if development in the rural fringe areas, such as these golf courses, are they really -- are they that bad? Are they really doing that much damage to the wildlife? No one has an answer for that. They can only speculate and say that you're -- you're running the wildlife off. If you've been in some of these projects, for lack of a better word, they're plush. I mean, it doesn't get any nicer than what -- I Page 28 March 12, 2002 mean, the water's there. The animals come back. We have the fortunate fact that when our guys get in the equipment in the morning, something's been crawling around at night. If there's a sandwich left there, it's gone in the morning. So a ghost didn't come and get it. There's plenty of wildlife that comes back to these projects. And my only concern to you guys is that -- I know you made your decision. It's gone to the state and it's going to come back, that if it comes back and they ask you to tighten up your decision, that you keep that in mind, the future of the construction industry alone. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm glad to see you made it back. Commissioner Coyle's going to make some comments and imagine the rest of us would like to add something to that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, we can't hear enough about private property rights here. MR. MIGLIAZZO: Right, and I understand that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Private property rights are fundamental to our democratic form of government, and I just want you to know that I and all the members of this commission are committed to assuring that your property rights are not diminished unless you're compensated fairly for that. MR. MIGLIAZZO: Right, and I understand that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if that doesn't happen, then-- then I'm not going to vote for taking any property rights away. Now, the second part of your question is, I don't know that we can ever forecast when the building boom will be over, but I can tell you from my experience in the City of Naples -- the City of Naples was, quote, built out a long time ago, but what's happening now is reconstruction. MR. MIGLIAZZO: It's our life's work. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's just as intense as it was Page 29 March 12, 2002 five years -- probably more so than five or ten years ago. I suspect that what we will find is that as long as we keep this county a desirable place to live, there's going to be a lot of employment in the construction business. It will -- we have a lot of property that still is to be developed, and the development rights are not going to be removed, to the best of my knowledge. And when that happens, you always have redevelopment, and -- and I think that happens in almost every -- every city. So I don't think you have a great concern about losing your livelihood. I think -- I think you're going to do quite well. MR. MIGLIAZZO: All right. I -- I appreciate that. Like I said, that was my only concern, is that I understand our rights are our rights and people are blue in the face speaking about it, and I know you're going to do the best you can to defend our rights. Like I said, my concern was as far as future development. I mean, 33 percent of the income in this county comes from the construction industry. That's the income, not how many people it employs. Like I say, those people have -- the rural fringe to them, they don't even know what's going on. That's like -- I'm just trying to look out for my future, my family's future and my children that are soon to come. I've been a resident here for 30 years, so I've seen things grow quite a bit. And I'm only 32, so I'm not ready to retire by all means. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Believe me, your concerns are our concerns. I also recommend that you stay active in the different organizations out there that represent your industry such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Contractors Association, Specialty Contractors Association. And keep -- keep active with it at all points in times so that you can monitor this as it comes down over the next 10, 20 years. I thank you very much for coming today. MR. MIGLIAZZO: Okay. Thanks. I appreciate your time and letting me speak again. Page 30 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have received one more speaker for public comment. And, additionally, I have three speakers for the different items under public petitions, and I didn't think you allowed speakers under public petitions. Do you want to give them an opportunity to speak under public comment? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let them come under public comments, but they can't come back again and again -- in other words, use this as one step and then come back for each item as they come across the agenda to be able to address it one more time. If they want to be able to speak now so they can leave, that's fine. What's the subject matter? MS. FILSON: Well, the next one is public comment, Barbara Burgeson. And then I have a speaker-- two speakers for 6-B and one for 6-C. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ms. Burgeson is speaking on one subject, and I don't think it comes under public comment. MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. She was -- I got the wrong number. So we have three additional speakers, two for 6-B and one for 6-C. Would you like them to speak now or after public petition? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll allow them to speak now if they realize that this is the opportunity that they're using to speak now so they can go about their daily routine. Item #6B MR. JACK BOWERMAN, III, RE POLICY REQUIRING TURN LANES - ED KANT TO MEET WITH JACK BOWERMAN, III MS. FILSON: Okay. Mr. Jack Bowerman. He will be followed Page 31 March 12, 2002 by Don Smith. MR. BOWERMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Glad to be here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For the record -- MR. BOWERMAN: My name is Jack Bowerman, 828 Sanctuary Road. I'm not here to ask the commissioners for a million dollars or a million-dollar loan interest-free, but I am asking for your help. It was our desire to dig a small two-acre pond behind our property on 828 Sanctuary Road, and through the course of the conditional-use permit and everything else, we started talking with the transportation department, and they were not very cooperative in that we presented to them that we would be hauling the fill off site from these lakes and that would produce an income so my wife and I can put a down payment on trying to build a house. And through the course of discussions, they said, "Well, you need a turn lane. You need to put a turn lane on Immokalee Road." Well, the turn lane is going to cost about $70,000, and I've -- I've been in that area about six years. I've never seen an accident on Sanctuary Road and Immokalee Road. So we -- we -- we came back, and we said, "What if we -- what if we cut down the trucking? What if we only make five trips per day?" You know, because originally we had said eight to ten trucks per day just to haul it off site. And we received no answer. So I'm just coming to the commission for help and wondering if there's any way we can establish some type of criteria. It seems like it's -- it's somebody's opinion, and I know that's not probably how it's supposed to be. Is there a set criteria; okay, this many cubic yards requires a turn lane? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There is some criteria to it, but let's hear it directly from Mr. Kant. Page 32 March 12, 2002 MR. KANT: Good morning, Commissioners. Edward Kant, for the record, transportation operations director. I apologize for my voice. I'm just getting over something, so I'll -- I'll try to speak softly. I had never met with Mr. Bowerman, but I was assigned to review this petition, and I got the materials that Mr. Bowerman submitted. While the aerial that I put on the visualizer is a little bit small, Mr. Bowerman's property are these two lots right in here (indicating). This is the lot, I believe, which fronts on Sanctuary Road that Mr. Bowerman wanted to get his excavation permit on. I just did a few numbers on the mathematics, and based on the information that Mr. Bowerman has submitted, he wanted to take about twenty to 25,000 cubic yards out over a period of a year which would have, in fact, required that he run about eight to ten trucks a day which would be about one an hour. I talked with the folks up at the Corkscrew Sanctuary, the Audubon Sanctuary, and this time of year they get as many as a thousand visitors a day, including a lot of buses and tour groups. We have been looking at that intersection for quite a while. We're very concerned about that, and frankly, I think that the addition of that particular number of trucks to that vehicle stream is a little bit excessive. And I have to tell you that my initial thought was that he probably was going to need turn lanes on both Sanctuary Road in front of the site as well as at Immokalee Road; however, that issue didn't come up. I also felt that in a random stream of traffic, if we were to try to limit, say, to one or two trucks, that might not be as objectionable. On the other hand, that becomes an enforcement and oversight issue. We have no way of monitoring that. So this is a rather unique situation, I think, because of juxtaposition of Mr. Bowerman's property, the Corkscrew Swamp Page 33 March 12, 2002 Sanctuary Visitors Attraction and the geometry of that intersection at Immokalee and Sanctuary Road. We also have a number of farming operations that are coming up and down Sanctuary Road. While we want to make an improvement that is on our prioritized list, it may be several years before we can get to that improvement. Frankly, Mr. Bowerman, if he's been there for years now -- and I don't want to sound callous, but if he's going to wait until we get to that intersection, then that may resolve that issue, but I cannot tell you when that will be. We do not have it programmed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may? MR. KANT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I respect your opinion and whatever your recommendation for the safety and welfare of the people out there with Immokalee Road being in the condition it is, but would there be any way consideration could be given -- and if you say no, I won't pursue this any farther -- where possibly this was done during the summer months of June, July, August, and maybe half of September and then it was limited to hours when the traffic on Immokalee Road is less? In other words, it's got a heavy demand from, like, 6 in the morning to about 8, 8:30, and then it picks up again around four o'clock until, like, 6:30. Would it be possible to operate between those hours and not be a detriment to the traffic situation? MR. KANT: I -- I can't argue with that approach. On the other hand, I have no way of monitoring that or implementing any kind of checks and balances. What I would request, again, is we can -- we can sit down with Mr. Bowerman. I don't know if he plans to do this himself or hire it out to somebody that just does fill and excavation. Frankly, when I looked at the application, I was a little bit skeptical of what he's trying to do. He's looking at 16 feet of depth in a two- acre pond. That's a bit steep. We don't have a lot of details. I also -- Page 34 March 12, 2002 because Mr. Bowerman's -- the southern piece of Mr. Bowerman's property may front on this crossroad right here (indicating) -- I'm not sure of that. We may be able to mitigate some of that if we can limit the number of trucks and limit the way the trucks get in and out of there. I don't know the condition of that road. Those are all private. So there are a lot of issues that make it look as if we're trying to be overly stringent, and I'm just trying to exercise caution on behalf of the public. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I want you to do that. That's your job and your responsibility, and what I gave to you a minute ago was merely suggestions. Your final decision I'll respect. I don't want to do anything to endanger the welfare of the people who live out there. MR. KANT: We will. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there an approved excavation permit? MR. KANT: Not that I'm aware of, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is one required? MR. KANT: Yes, sir. If he's going to haul out that volume of material off site, that's considered commercial excavation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have we -- do we have any information concerning the confining layer for the aquifer, how deep that is? MR. KANT: I wouldn't have that information, sir. That would come through community development where the excavation permits are -- I'm only looking at the right-of-way permit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how -- how expensive and difficult would it be for Mr. Bowerman to get an excavation permit? MR. KANT: I'm afraid I can't answer that, sir, because I don't deal with that. Page 35 March 12, 2002 MR. BOWERMAN: Excuse me. We are in the process. The reason I'm coming before the commission is the transportation department has basically cut it off because they said you have to put a $70,000 mm lane on Immokalee Road, and that has even killed the permitting process. We're not -- we're not, by any means, over the permitting process. We're in discussions. And, frankly, the transportation department never got back to me. I asked them. I said, "Can we go down to one -- one or two trucks, three or four trucks?" Never heard back. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think at this point where we are is that there's some options out there that may possibly be for you. One would be, you know, when Immokalee Road is done at that point in time. Of course, that's way in the future, and you're looking at the present. The other is that maybe some constraints -- what you need to do is go back and talk to them. I'm sure that they're receptive. They've always been receptive to everybody in the past. Go look at all the options and make a final decision, but once again, we can't -- we've got to weigh the safety and welfare of the people out there. Immokalee Road is a real problem, and we have to make sure we don't do anything to degrade the service level of that road in any way. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's important that you follow this in a logical sequence. If you get the excavation permit, you're going to know at that point in time just how deep you can dig that pond or lake. That's going to determine the number of trucks, and that will determine your time frame. I think once you have a better idea of how many trucks you're likely to have, how many truckloads you're likely to have to dig the pond, then -- then perhaps we can work out some schedule that makes some sense. I think there's an entirely different conclusion if you're talking about 12, 16 trucks a day rather than two or three a day. Page 36 March 12, 2002 And I think that if-- if you get that permit, we know more specifically how many loads you're taking out there, maybe then we can work together and develop a schedule that will get there. MR. KANT: Commissioners, I will commit to meeting with Mr. Bowerman and trying to work something out with him, and hopefully we'll be able to work it to both our satisfaction, both the public and Mr. Bowerman's, but at this point we just can't make any commitment. MR. BOWERMAN: Yes, sir. Okay. That sounds great, and I appreciate it. As long as there's no requirement for the turn lane, that CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. We can't promise you anything of the sort. This is open for discussion with them. MR. BOWERMAN: Well, when he says he will negotiate, he can say this turn lane is $70,000. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I -- I hear you loud and clear, but if it's required for the safety and welfare of the people out there, then so be it. But meanwhile he's going to talk to you about how you can modify it to maybe work around it, but meanwhile you're going to meet with him. We can't make that decision here and we won't, but I thank you very much for coming in this morning. MR. BOWERMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: And for the board's sake, we will provide a follow-up report as to the conclusion of that negotiation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Next speaker. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. Don Smith, and he will be followed by Robert Jenkins. MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Page 37 March 12, 2002 my name's Don Smith. This is in reference to turn lanes. I own property on Domestic Avenue to the north of Enterprise Avenue and to the south which comprises four and three-quarter acres. I've owned it for 28 years. I've operated Naples Open Air Storage on the premises since then. I have an engineer working on an SDP for a building permit on the Enterprise Avenue side of my property. The transportation department wants to three-lane Enterprise Avenue so it would be a connector road to Livingston Road. This area is a industrial park. There's tractor trailers that have to back into the warehouses that have been in the industrial park for years, and in order to -- for the tractor trailers to back in, they'll take 10 to 15 minutes to back in off the road. If you put a -- make that as a connector road, as a three-lane road, it's going to create congestion and a lot of problems with the -- with the people driving through there. I like the idea of an entrance -- a connector road to Livingston Road there would be people that exit or enter into the industrial park only, not to make it as a connector road. I have already donated property on Enterprise Avenue for the -- when they repaved the roads -- I believe it's 1989 or '90 -- for ditches, right-of-way and pavement at a cost to me to $125,000. I don't see why I should have to donate more land to the county so they can three-lane it, and if that is so, I will not be able to build another building in the back which I already Thank have two tenants ready to sign leases as soon as I get permits. you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Any other comments? I can answer anything. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to hear from transportation. MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. We have not made any decision on how we're Page 38 March 12, 2002 proceeding other than to note that we're in the process of developing a study of functional classification of our arterial and our collector roads here in the county. It would appear that Progress and Enterprise are a direct connection between Airport and Livingston Road and signals at both ends are prime candidates as we struggle to develop or to make something that looks like a grid system here in Collier County. So that is something we are looking at. I assume that the gentleman is speaking about that study. And in our evaluation of that, we have not made a commitment or a decision, but I can say that those two facilities, obviously, are a -- prime candidates for further review in that study for partial collector road status. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will you be hearing-- having public hearings on this issue before it's brought to the county commission for-- MR. FEDER: We will try to make sure that we get with folks on any of the affected corridors, give them the opportunity for any input, and we will then take your guidance on how we establish that. But we do need to have the ability to define what our arterials and collector roads are and then to work with this board on either retrofit or protection in the future for those corridors. It may be very difficult, but I will take the direction of this board to take every single one of those corridors and go through a separate public hearing process, if you will. I think rather we bring the plan to you, we -- we hold some public hearings, and have that opportunity on the overall plan for such input. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We would be buying this property, correct, not taking it from them? Is that -- MR. FEDER: Well, I have a question right now. I must admit, Page 39 March 12, 2002 I'm not sure where the issue originated from, and the gentleman may be able to tell me who he's talked to and what the issues were. But what I can tell you, we looked at what we have for right-of-way out there today. If, in fact, we designate this for a potential collector road on the system, then we have to evaluate, how can we work with it before we make that final determination to bring this to you as to how can we retrofit it, what would the options be, what would the cost be; and, therefore, does it serve not only the function and purpose but the ability to handle that in a manner that's consistent with being a collector road in this system. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I didn't understand. Would we be buying it? MR. FEDER: In answer to your question, I don't know. I don't know the answer to that, Commissioner. Until we identify these -- these roadways and then evaluate what it'll take to bring them up to a collector-road status or to utilize them on the system, I can't answer your question. MR. OLLIFF: I'll also tell you that we always look for donations first of properties, especially for roadways that provide additional enhancements and in some cases benefits for the property owners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I might add that the donations always helped to move the process along 'cause that's one less thing that we have to get bogged down into as far as legal cost and the time it takes to do it. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. MR. SMITH: At present I'm paying 28,000 -- $29,000 a year real estate taxes, including my assessment on the property, and it's property that I can't utilize. I've been paying taxes on it for 28 years. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand, sir, but it sounds like you're in the process right now of moving in the direction we want to Page 40 March 12, 2002 go, from what we just heard. MR. SMITH: Okay. And to me, as a connector road for Livingston Road, which isn't far away, if they take them south on Airport Road to Radio Road, and Radio Road connects better there instead of putting more traffic through the industrial park. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And when we're going through these different studies, you'll be -- be advised of when it is, and we'll ask for your input then. MR. SMITH: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Robert Jenkins, and he will followed by Ty Agoston. MR. JENKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. Robert Jenkins. I was interested in the sand web device, sand web system you've got going on. I think it's a real good idea. It's proven successful, what I've seen, but it's funny that this young man here wants to do his -- take the dirt out of his yard at eight to ten truckloads a day is causing such a concern when all sand coming in is going to be thousands and thousands and thousands of truckloads being brought in to be put onto the beach. That's ironic to me. Anyway, getting back to the sand web system, I was talking to a guy from Europe, and we were speaking of the red tide and its occurrence and things, and he said that he had heard there's a theory of it, that the sand in the Sahara Desert gets up into the system, falls into the Gulf of Mexico, and because of the proteins and everything involved, causes or may cause the red tide. The same thing that I was asking, if you take sand from the center of the state that hasn't got the salt in it, that hasn't got this type of thing, put to -- it onto the beach, it gets washed back out into the water, could that also cause the algae bloom which is killing all the fish. It seems to be a great deal of Page 41 March 12, 2002 occurrence lately of red tide and specifically in the areas that we've already put sand on the beaches. I think it's less environmentally impactive to have this sand web system taking sand out of the Gulf of Mexico, from the Gulf of Mexico to replace the sand that was on the beaches. It's much less expensive, much less environmentally impactive than to have all these thousands of dump tracks coming in, I just think isn't a good idea. So I think -- I stand in support of the sand web system and hope that we do implement that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name, Ty Agoston, and I live and vote out of the District 5 or an endangered Golden Gate Estates. I was going to stay home and take care of my garden this morning, but I read the newspaper article. It kind of prompted me to come down. As I have said before, I'm from New York City, and I'm reasonably familiar with shell games. In case you're not, that's when people set up a little stand on a comer with three shells with a cube of sugar under and shift them around, and they offer you 20 bucks for you to spot the right shell with the sugar cube. It appears that the New Yorkers would take a very good lesson at what the county government is doing to them in terms of shell games. Today's newspaper article is talking about green space tax. We have had a referendum on green space tax a number of years back and the voters have spoken that they do not want one. They don't want to pay for it. Now, there are many people with many opinions, but the fact of the matter is, is that the issue was voted down. So here comes the shell game. You have employed pretty much the same mechanism with the rural fringe advisory committee where you did not get the Page 42 March 12, 2002 anticipated recommendations from the committee. You brought in two additional committees where you did get the recommendations you were looking for. I heard that Mr. Carter made a remark that, no, we do not think in the morning when we get up how we're going -- I'm not going to use the word -- the public in the county. Well, that particular day, Mr. Carter, you guys did collectively. As far as I know, most of you, if not all of you, are registered Republicans. It appears that you're really Republicans in name only, or some of you, because it's a continual trust for taxation and spending. It used to be a little jiggle against Democrats as tax-and-spend people. We appear to be doing exactly the same. I have to believe that some of your conscious must bother you for what we the doing to the three thousand-some people in the rural fringe where we have promised them something that may come to something in a number of years and forcing them not to be able to build on their lands. You know, this is unheard of, and it's happening in Collier County, which is a much-better-than-average-income community. If the county -- and most of you represent a demographically mature district. If the county wants to save green space, it should pay for it, but it should be a clear indication on the voters' part that they want to spend that money. Apparently, that intent is not there. What you do get is a lot of talk about liking green space and would like to have the old amenities in the county and no roads and no people. Well, it's not going to happen. You're collecting taxes on property holders who may not live here, who may not vote, but they would like to use their property, and they hope that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights provides them the opportunity without you being here trying to hustle them out of it. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a question, please? Page 43 March 12, 2002 MR. AGOSTON: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought what the newspaper article said this morning was that these people wanted to put it to the voters. I -- I hear you saying, we're going to vote on it, but I understand they want to put it on a referendum for a vote. MR. AGOSTON: Ms. Fiala, the issue has been decided by the voters. What you are proposing now is to repackage the issue in a possibly more sellable fashion. And I've been involved in advertising all my life, and I know that you go and repackage issues long enough, you will find a weak spot somewhere, but is that really your role? Is it your role to hustle the public? Because that's what essentially you're doing. You did get a measure that people do not want it so ... COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman-- Mr. Agoston-- MR. AGOSTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: In all due respect, sir, where have you ever read in the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, that you could not bring an issue back on any ballot at any time as a freedom? I don't care how you package it. If you're familiar with the legislative process, they're going to repackage anything they want to any time they want to take it through the system, but I never heard that that was against the Constitution. In fact, I thought that was what freedom was all about. Of course, I understand you came from a country where they only voted on things once. MR. AGOSTON: You know, Mr. Carter, there are a lot of lawyers in this country, and I have a few of my own, and wordsmiths are absolutely excellent in repackaging. Now, whether the public buys this or whether they move the status of politicians a little below used-car salesmen as the last Gallop poll indicated -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Probably why I've never seen Page 44 March 12, 2002 your name on a ballot. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, may I make a suggestion? I know. I know. We're going to have this item coming up before us in short order, and we'll be able to hear what all the particulars are. Mr. Agoston, we appreciate very much your input. MR. AGOSTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Coletta. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker? We're on to public petitions right? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bowerman. MR. OLLIFF: We already covered that item. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Already spoke. Okay. Then we're going to - Item #6C MR. COLIN KELLY RE THE SAND WEB SYSTEM AND AVAILABLE FUNDING- DISCUSSED MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Colin Kelly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Kelly, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: May I use your overhead, sir? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It sure is. It's your time, sir. (Commissioners Carter and Fiala leave commission room.) MR. KELLY: Would you like me to wait till the commissioners come back or would you like me to go ahead and proceed? Excuse me, would -- may I ask the question again, please? Would you like me to go ahead and speak or wait for the commissioners to come back or-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where they are now, they have-- Page 45 March 12, 2002 they have audio. They can hear you. MR. KELLY: Okay. Very good. MR. WEIGEL: You have a quorum in the room. MR. KELLY: Very good. Very good. Thank you very much. My name's Colin Kelly with Parker Beach Restoration, 100 Aviation Avenue. I want to thank the commission for indulging me one more time. Most of you I met with, except for Mr. Henning, and I apologize to him, although we did have a brief opportunity to speak, and I think he gave me his opinion of what I'm going to speak upon. I believe I have somewhat of a grasp of your understanding of this issue. Unfortunately, I feel I have failed to convey -- in conveying my points to you, and I feel that is -- that is my shortcoming. It is my sincere hope that I can enable both this commission and your staff to see more clearly the reason for my petition. If you will indulge me once more, I will attempt to clarify myself and hopefully, with your permission, address and put to rest your objections and fears as you have expressed them to me. I apologize if I have not been as eloquent as I -- I could have been in getting my point across to this commission. In the past, perhaps my Northwest Florida education limits me, but Barry Goldwater said, "Modesty and pursuit of righteousness is not a virtue." And the business that I'm in, unfortunately, does not allow me the modesty that I would prefer, and -- and so forgive me if I speak directly, but if you'll allow me, I will state my case as plainly and as briefly as I possibly can and as concisely. (Commissioners Carter and Fiala return.) MR. KELLY: Very simply, the cost of the sand web system at Park Shore, you brought in 10,000 cubic yards of sand at approximately $20 a cubic yard which was a total of around $200,000. On 18th Avenue South with sand web system -- oh, by the Page 46 March 12, 2002 way, that entailed 1,111 back-and-forth trips with 18-cubic-foot-- yard dump trucks over city and county streets. The location south of you with no trucks across the city streets or county streets, we put an equivalent 10,000 cubic yards on the beach at $8.50 a cubic yard or $85,000. The taxpayers' money is the taxpayers' money. It doesn't matter if it's federal money, state money, or local money. Some poor taxpayer and his wife had to struggle and deprive their family of these dollars, and we are -- we should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money. We are accountable for that. There is accountability. You currently have seven permits to truck in 50,000 cubic yards of sand that you intend to do, 400,000 cubic yards. I simply like to petition this court -- I mean, excuse me, this commission -- that out of these seven permits, that we be -- that this county ask for a permit modification to include the sand web system so that we may also provide this county with an inexpensive source of compatible material for the beach. The sand -- Mr. Mudd used his best available arrow in his quiver when he came to Collier County to help restore our beaches, and no one's faulting that, but the fact is, the sand web system to a side-by-side comparison beat it. We win. We win economically. If you give us two permits -- two -- two (inaudible) of that permit, we will save the taxpayer $1 million. Someone somewhere could use this -- a taxpayer could use that $1 million. And given the clear -- clear choice between one or the other, when you can save the taxpayer $1 million for 100,000 cubic yards of sand, I think that's significant to someone. My understanding is that trucking in sand will cost somewhere between $20 and $24 a cubic yard. I don't know if that figure's ever gotten nailed down yet. We will commit to this county commission at $8.50 a cubic yard and we feel a continual source of natural sand to put back on the beach. I ask you, why would Collier County Page 47 March 12, 2002 hesitate? You certainly cannot refute the numbers. They speak for themselves. That -- that is a certified and surveyed fact, and you have 10,000 cubic yards in one place and 10,000 in the other, and you can do it for $115,000 less. This is a letter from Senator Charlie Klary which is the senate whip and is chairman of the appropriations committee. Now, I think you-all understands what that means. That means that they, as you do, make sure who gets money and what department gets money in the state. Without their approval no one gets any money. Now, he mentions in his -- in his letter to David Strews (phonetic), the secretary of the DEP, that DEP staffers have been slow to respond and even slower to give approval on permit applications for any projects involving innovative technology submitted in the last several years. He goes on to say (as read): "The DEP has been slow to respond to requests that would have yielded data on innovative technology." So then he goes on to say, "Without the countless delays and foot dragging" -- now he calls it foot dragging -- I'm not going to be modest. Now, this is your senator of this state and the senate whip saying, without the countless delays and foot dragging by DEP, staff maybe --"maybe the projects now considered innovative or experimental would have already been approved for mainstream use." I think that's a significant statement from your legislator. That resulted in a letter from David Strews of the DEP that says (as read): "The new directive of the DEP is to, No. 1, immediate permitting of beach restoration projects; No. 2, expedite state funding; and, No. 3, to review how Florida's commitment can deliver better and faster results." The state says enough experimenting, enough-- this is -- no one alive probably knows more about the sand system other than Bill Parker than me. Bill Parker, because it took 15 years to get here, has Page 48 March 12, 2002 -- has sacrificed his health and with a heart attack has had to essentially go away. If Bill -- if this system goes away, it's a loss to the taxpayer because this is useful technology that benefits the taxpayer. It's a win-win situation for everyone. Perhaps not everyone. It's a win-win situation for the taxpayer. If this -- if this technology goes away, the taxpayer loses. Some family doesn't have as much food to feed their kids as they would. That's may be a little dramatic, but that's what it gets down to. The state is saying enough. We're going to permit it, and we're going to fund it. So having met with each one of you -- and I think I have a handle on your reservation, fears, and apprehensions, but wait and see until the experiment is over. The state's saying the experiment is over. They'll permit it. They'll fund it. We're saying the experiment is over. We put tangible sand on the beach that, quite honestly, beat the equivalent of trucking in sand, so why wait to see if the experiment is over? What it creates is, we've held the risk of moving over into another calendar year which we cannot be putting sand on the beaches by November as you plan to do with trucking in sand at the tune of-- if you'll allow me, I'll be real brief here -- at the tune -- if you bring in that 400,000 cubic yards of sand, that's 44,000 trips of dump trucks, 18,000 -- 18-yard dump trucks back and forth over city and county streets. So I would like to say that the test is over. Comparable to the money you're spending, we beat it, and by amending the existing permitting for seven different locations for 50,000 cubic yards each, if we were given two, we'll save the taxpayer a million dollars. I don't care if that's -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need you to wrap it up. MR. KELLY: I will. Here's my final statement that everybody wants to see what happens to the sand once the nets are removed. Page 49 March ! 2, 2002 Well, I think that we all understand the difference between trucked-in sand and -- and nature's sand, but we will make a guarantee to Collier County. We'll make this guarantee, that after three years -- we'll monitor for three years -- any sand that we lose more than you will for monitoring your trucked-in sand, we'll pay you back or guarantee you $8.50 a cubic yard rebate on that sand. If you lose more -- conversely, if you lose more of the trucked-in location where you trucked in the sand, you pay us a dollar a cubic yard. So that's my offer. I would like, again, to petition this commission to -- to modify the existing permits to include sand sources from the sand web system. It's a very simple decision for this commission. It's not a hard, laborious process. All you have to do is modify -- ask for a modification of your existing permits to include -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Colin Kelly, I thank you very much. We have questions from the commission, I guess, directed to staff, starting with Commissioner Fiala, to whoever you wish to address it to. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to Mr. Kelly. I had asked you about Hideaway Beach, if you could give me an opinion on that. We're kind of running behind right now, so I don't want to drag this out any longer. I do want to hear that answer, but just check with me later on, please. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kelly, you do not owe me an apology. Appointments, they come and go. You're a resident of Collier County. I always welcome your input. Just one question: When is your experiment going to end? MR. KELLY: Supposed to end -- when we -- well, the state's decided it's ended. They said it's taken 15 years. We -- we remove Page 50 March 12, 2002 our nets in April, the last of April. Now, to answer that, our concern, quite honestly, if we don't go ahead and start modifying the permit, that we could be pushed over where by November we would not have everything done, and then it would be another year for us. That's -- that's catastrophic to a small company. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You answered my question. Thank you. MR. KELLY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just one question. The statement was made; we could modify to include sand web system. Is it possible, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: You can -- the Coastal Advisory Committee is looking at -- and I've asked Mr. Kelly to please address them to get on their calendar, because they're basically looking at the projects for 2003 right now because they have to bring those grant applications to the tourist development committee in line with the budget process that we have, and that's the appropriate process to go through. We've been asking the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, okay, about the sand web system. And I -- and I've seen Mr. Kelly's information from the senator, and I've also seen different things, but I will tell you, from -- from the perch up high in Tallahassee, the word isn't getting down to local areas, okay, as far as, will you permit another project for sand web. We asked them if they would reimburse us for the Naples project that's got sand web on it which has a year-and-a-half to two-year monitoring program after the nets get done to supposedly make this experiment over, and they've been hesitant to do that. First of all, we were told that they wouldn't reimburse us for the cost for the City of Naples sand web system because Mr. Kelly brought us information that says there's $3 million out there in -- in revenue that we can go get because it's a - Page 51 March 12, 2002 - because it's a -- it's a nonstandard trucking kind of thing and it's good for the environment. They basically told us, no, they wouldn't reimburse us in that process. So it's not because staff hasn't been trying to push the sand web system. And I've said publicly and I've been quoted in the Naples news that there is -- I think there is a place for the sand web system in our toolbox to put sand, especially in those areas that are hard to get to. And I think it -- it -- based on the experiment and the results that we get, that it could be beneficial. We're caught between a rock and a hard place, but I think the appropriate forum to address this issue and to put it on the process is the Coastal Advisory Committee, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't need to mention rocks when we're talking about beach. MR. KELLY: You know, Commissioners, in response to that, I have -- I have presented this to the Coastal Committee, and here's your new budget, and it doesn't have anything -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Kelly, I'll give you about 30 seconds, but I'm going to have to ask you to sum it up so we can move on. MR. KELLY: I'll sum it up. We're not on the budget. I have made a presentation to the beach committee. As you can see, wood groins, structures for T-groins, we're not on the budget. But I'm going to sum it up by saying that Mr. Mudd can speak to all the DEP he wants. I'm sure he has a lot of connections with the DEP because he's been a great problem-solver for this county, but we're saying, you apply for -- all you do is apply for that permit modification and see what happens. Now Mr. Mudd can tell me -- and I've heard this repeatedly from Mr. Mudd -- that it can't be done. We're asking, very simply, apply for the permit modification, and then -- then I'll accept his answer. Page 52 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, we have a regular process we do have to go through, but I thank you very much for your input today. MR. KELLY: Thank you very much. Item #6D MR. BOB MURRAY RE CORRIDOR 41 FROM AIRPORT- PULLING ROAD TO COLLIER BOULEVARD- STAFF DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO THE ISSUE AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH A PROPOSAL CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The next petition is from Bob Murray. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, at some point you're going to need to take a break for your minute-taker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we do that now. We'll take a five-minute break and come right back. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats, please. Mr. Murray, would you go ahead, please. MR. MURRAY: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for having me this morning for this petition. I am representing the East Naples Civic Association, and with me is my co-chairman, Mr. Ron Cummings, and our president, Mr. Ken Drum. And with your permission, I would like this to be a presentation by several of us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have an allotted ten minutes, and so how you spend it, it's fine by me, sir. MR. MURRAY: Thank you so much, sir. By way of starting, Mr. Ron Cummings will open remarks. MR. CUMMINGS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I will take just five seconds and say, looking at the Page 53 March 12, 2002 three of us, I get this feeling that we're talking hear-no-, see-no-, speak-no-evil group. So we'll try to do a little bit better than that. I am Ron Cummings. I'm a resident of East Naples and have been for some 13 years and currently the co-chairman, as Bob pointed out, of the economic development committee for the East Naples Civic Association. I and my fellow members are here today to request your assistance in a development of a comprehensive master plan overlay for Corridor 4 ! or, if you will, Tamiami Trail, running some 7.4 miles through East and South Naples starting, if you will, at Airport Road out to and including Collier Boulevard. To this end, we request a joint task force or a partnership be formed between our civic association and county government resources to establish a comprehensive study program which will ultimately provide recommendations leading to the renewal and development of Corridor 41. I think, as most of you are aware, the goal of the East Naples Civic Association has been and remains the overall general welfare of our community. Over the years, in meeting our responsibilities of our organization, we have participated in a wide spectrum of community projects, roads, sidewalks, parks, recreation facilities -- excuse me -- as well as many civic and/or social programs. Success in reaching a specific goal sometimes has eluded us. We do, however, intend that the Corridor 41 project will be successful. On occasions our community has experienced situations or events that we feel negatively impacted our neighborhoods. As a matter of-- as a master plan overlay we believe will minimize such occurrences in the future. Today we have the direction, the determination, and certainly defined goals. The demographics of our area support our concern regarding the management of future growth. Today we want and need libraries, post office, perhaps a hospital, restaurants and other such service establishments as opposed to more Page 54 March 12, 2002 pawnshops, tattoo parlors. Comprehensive overlay plan we feel is a must for us. We are prepared to sponsor this venture, but we need government help. In closing, may I say my co-chairman, Bob, who has introduced us all, has a favorite saying regarding this project, and I think it sums it up. It's a task we're striving for. I totally agree and I hope you do. Thank you. MR. MURRAY: And, Commissioners, let me again state to you that I'm speaking in behalf of the East Naples Civic Association but in larger degree for the communities that are running the length of our Corridor 41. Let me also provide you a resume that will show, at least partially, how we began this process. There are an awful lot of folks that grouse about the issues of the failed town center and a number of the areas particularly along that ribbon of tar. The frustration is very real and spoken about a great deal, and you folks in government do, I know, what you can to help within that. But we as ENCA in frustration decided we must do something with you and particularly with you, with the communities making certain that while we know that growth is inevitable, we want that growth to be a controlled growth, a good growth, one that benefits all of the citizens, and we mean that sincerely, all of the citizens. So one day I went out with my camera and I took about 147 pictures -- oh, I'm sorry -- and while I'm sorry that they're rather small, you folks have all seen these pictures. You have them in a packet that was given to you, I believe. Each of these pictures indicates something that we're not entirely happy with. Another set -- I'm sorry -- another set -- I don't mean to rush, but you've all seen these places, and because you've seen them, you know they're there, but you've never really had the opportunity to focus on them in this sense, and that's what we're doing. We said, let's get together with Page 55 March 12, 2002 the county staff and we did. We met and we had a most enjoyable and effective meeting because the county staff, recognizing the problem, put some resources and resources available to us. We spent the time with county staff becoming educated because we don't claim any expertise in any fashion. Our education has led us to a point where we felt we could provide you with a document that you have that suggests a plan that we can work to make this growth possible in a way. We offer our services. We have no money, but we have energy. We have time. We have enthusiasm. We will sponsor seminar programs. We will alert the community. We will do what is necessary to make a partnership. I don't want to grouse anymore. I want to see things change, and I'm willing to make that happen. If I can answer any questions -- I want to show you before I go to that, though, one other set of photos. These are photos that depict some of the good things that are along Corridor 41, and there are some good things. Lely Resort is a lovely place. The Sabal Bay Community will likely be a nice place. There are communities that are in need of renewal, and those communities such as Naples Manor must participate in this. They must have the benefit of this. Businesses that may be marginal we want to help by getting banking together and providing them opportunities to join in the spiral of growth that we speak to. And so I -- I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. I know the documents that you have before you speak of many things. Dover Cole is one of the issues that we also relate to. It doesn't lend itself to the entirety of Corridor 41, but it certainly lends itself to some portion of it. Architectural standards and other standards that may exist need to be looked at by people who are more Page 56 March 12, 2002 competent than we, certainly. And to that degree, we ask that you instruct your staff, you provide, please, some funding to enable this to begin by allocating it either to -- directly to staff or perhaps initiation of a contract with a consultant, someone to get us started, and then we plead that next year we will have a budget item that makes this go forward. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excellent presentation. Commissioner Fiala first and then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. I read every bit of material that you gave us. It was excellent, just excellent. All - - since we've gotten into office, even before we got into office, one of the biggest complaints that we've all had, not only us as commissioners but people in the community, is that growth hasn't been planned and -- and-- and people are talking about rampant uncontrolled growth. Well, here's an organization that stepped up to the plate and said, we can see that the growth is beginning to happen here, and before it inundates us, we want to make the positive step. We want to guide this to enhance the community rather than devastate the community. I'm just so pleased, and I realize that we have some staffing problems right now because we're on an extremely limited budget and we have this 90-day freeze and so forth, but we've got to help these people because they're ready and willing to help us to -- to -- to shape the future of this community and, I might add, forever, because everything that we do now is what the East Naples residents will have to live with in the future, and we must handle this responsibly. I, for one, really want to work with East Naples Civic Association. Certainly I have a passion for this area. Obviously, I live here, and I've been a member of East Naples Civic, but you've got a group here that is -- it is growing to be a very dynamic part of East Naples and -- and I as a commissioner want to be a part of that Page 57 March 12, 2002 growth. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well put, Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bob, my understanding is that you don't want government to fix the problems in East Naples. You want the county to partnership with you in a guidance process on how to come to redevelopment and set some standards to provide opportunities for different kind of services for the people of East Naples. MR. MURRAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Therefore, I support your petition. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I commend you for taking the step forward to gain back your community in East Naples. MR. MURRAY: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So it's the sentiments of the board that we direct staff to start looking into this? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have an additional question of staff. We have consultants working with other communities right now doing essentially the same kind of thing. Is there any way that we can get some of those same consultants involved to help the East Naples Civic Association for the purpose of developing this kind of plan without incurring great additional expense? MR. OLLIFF: I think the magnitude of this particular overlay proposal is -- is large, and it is probably going to be a fairly significant undertaking in order to do that. It's going to require a significant amount of citizen participation I would foresee in order to Page 58 March 12, 2002 make it come about right. You could amend some of your existing contracts to include some additional work associated with this, but I will tell you, just based on the magnitude of what I think this project is going to be, you're probably going to be better off in my recommendation going out to a separate RFP process. And perhaps even from a workload standpoint, it might not be a bad thing to have a separate consultant working on this, because most of your other projects are northern-end projects and there's not a lot of synergy, if you will, between this and those. The other comment that I would make, Mr. Chairman, is -- is -- the board does need to recognize -- and I've met with the East Naples Civic Association people, and I think they have done a yeoman's job of crystallizing the issue for you and bringing this forward, but I do need to make the point that your planning staff is currently, in my opinion, overmatched already in terms of the planning project that it has. And keep in mind that you have the rural fringe which is not over. As a result of that, you have the TDR program, which has to be developed over the course of the next 12 months, which is going to be a significant undertaking. The rural lands continues to work its way towards you, and -- and that is a project that is probably eight times as large as the rural fringe was. You have the Naples Park overlay master plan being done, the Vanderbilt Beach moratorium study, the Vanderbilt Transportation Corridor Study. And the board is also -- as part of its strategic plan, has just committed to do a thorough end-to-end review of its Growth Management Plan and Land Development Codes. So I'm telling you, I think we're outmatched already. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're asking for an additional person? MR. OLLIFF: Well, I'm telling you that if we're going to approve this -- and I will not tell you that I don't think this is an Page 59 March 12, 2002 important project for East Naples because I will tell you, I think their timing is perfect, because I think you are going to see a lot of redevelopment occur there whether we get involved or not. As it redevelops, if there is a plan in place for how it's going to redevelop, I think the community will benefit from that plan for years to come as opposed to if it just redevelops in a haphazard way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely. Look at it now when it's left on its own. Yes. And all of these boarded-up buildings that you see pictured in -- in these pictures, and the people are going to begin to look at them with a glint in their eye, and we want to make sure that as that glint appears, we encourage economic development to enhance the community and as -- as well as architectural standards that we can follow so that as the development and redevelopment takes place, it will be something that -- that will enhance this whole area and all of us can live with in the future. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Schmitt would like to speak. Would you prefer to speak first, sir? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator, Community Development Environmental Services. I just want to follow what my boss has pretty much stated as well. When you look at the workload, this is something that we're proposing to do in budget for '03. It's -- it's something that certainly we just don't have the staff to take care of today. Currently we have approximately 50 active petitions in house. Those are petitions that will be coming before you in the next several months, and when you have a staff of five principal planners in current planning and two principal planners -- and two senior planners in comprehensive planning, take -- take that staff who really is -- are the folks who will work this issue, as Mr. Olliff stated, we're really looking at really some fundamental changes in our Growth Management Plan, and that is the Rural Page 60 March 12, 2002 Fringe Amendment and Rural Lands, and as we go through that process, much of what we're talking about today as we update and look at both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, which you asked us to do, I think we'll start looking at some of this as well on some of the issues that you just talked about, Commissioner Fiala, as far as architectural standards and other aspects. We recognize -- I certainly recognize the need for a master plan to look at the various aspects of the 41 corridor, but it's something I would request we defer until the '03 budget cycle so we can determine whether or not the funds are available and where those monies would come from, whether from the General Fund or elsewhere. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's start off with Commissioner Coyle and then Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Carter was first. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're so polite, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coyle, I think maybe you go to your 41 tent experience, I don't know, but if I may. I'm observing two or three things on this. Number one, I think we need as a community to make a total commitment to this concept. The realities, though, are, from the county manager and what our director of community development just told us, we don't have the staff, we don't have the funds. We do have limited funding to bring to the party. We have to find a way to build a public-private partnership that can make this work. There's some major landowners on that corridor that I would embrace in this process. I would look to the state, to Dudley Goodlette, to Representative -- Senator Saunders to look for grant processes. I think we need to pull everywhere that we can because we don't have the finances locally nor do we have the Page 61 March 12, 2002 staff, but we could -- we do have the ability to put all this together because we understand the system could make it work. So, believe me, as I said in my office to your group, as I'm saying to you now, that we totally commit to this within a reasonable time frame in which we can integrate these parts, and Commissioner Coyle, a lot of experience with 4110 which I'm sure he could add to this process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I very strongly support your comments, Commissioner. The -- what I think we should probably do is -- is direct staff to come back with -- to us with a proposal as to how we can fund this. I think it is a worthwhile project, and I can't state it better than Commissioner Fiala. I think she said what the entire board would like to say. I would just suggest that we ask that - - the staff to take a look at the requirements and give us a proposal to proceed. And my -- my feeling is -- and we should proceed as quickly as we can once we know what resources are available, but I think grants and public-private partnerships are just perfect for this sort of thing, and I'm convinced we can put those things together. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't believe this will require a motion, just direction. MR. OLLIFF: I don't think so either. I will tell you that I -- we had intended, I think, to recommend that we bring this back as a formal item, but I think clearly the writing's on the wall from the board that the full board supports the idea. I have already asked Joe to do a resource assessment, if you will, the current workload versus what resources he has available. We'll bring that back because I believe the petition today was actually to include this in your fiscal year '03 budget for a budgeted project to begin in October. We will bring back something as part of your budget workshops that should be scheduled in the month of June. And if the board wants to and if Page 62 March 12, 2002 there is an opportunity for us to even go through the RFP process perhaps in the summer so that when we hit the fiscal year in October, if there's an opportunity for us to actually start running in the new fiscal year, we'll try and do that as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. MURRAY: I can only say that East Naples Civic Association will give you whatever you need to make it work to make our community a better place. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We owe you a debt of gratitude, Mr. Murray, and your committee also. MR. MURRAY: Thank you so much. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I want to note for the record, I'm going to hold him to that commitment because there is going to be a lot of work. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell him-- MR. MURRAY: That will be fine. Thank you, sir. Item #6F MR. GEORGE CHAMI, PRESIDENT, J. PEACEFUL LLC, REGARDING PERMITTING ISSUES FOR THE TOWN MARKET PROJECT IN OLDE CYPRESS- STAFF DIRECTED TO MOVE FORWARD REGARDING THE ISSUING OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITH THE CAVEAT THAT ALL CODE ISSUES AND PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES BE RESOLVED AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD ON MARCH 26, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see. The last public petition is Mr. Chami. MR. CHAMI: For the record, my name is George Chami, and I live 7675 Santa Margarita Way, Naples. I would like, first of all, to Page 63 March 12, 2002 really thank you a lot for hearing me today in my pleading for my case. My problem, I start the project in June 2000. The project is Town Market on Immokalee Road just across the street from the high school. In June 2000 1 requested a meeting with the staff, and it was pre-ap meeting to go over the project itself. The project itself is totally unique concept, never done before nationwide. The project itself includes the bank, which is 1,500 square feet with two drive- throughs, include four food outlets including Rib City, including Subway, Noble Roman's Pizza, Uncle Joe and Sunrise Cafe. As well we have coffee shop, which is full-serve coffee shop, expresso, cappachino, all the way. We have a full-service bakery, which is not only for in-sales -- for in-store sale but as well for distribution for outside. We have customers like Bonita Bay, like Tiburon, like Pelican Marsh, like Naples Beach and Golf Resorts, which is very nice accounts. We have a cleaner inside, we have a fish store inside, we have a coffee center, we have a business center, we have a mini- market, we have gas, and we have a car wash. Our major concern at that time to the staff was to see if the staff would determine the project as being a gas station or as being a retail. Obviously, if it was gas station, it would be very hard and -- very hard for us to do it on the financial side since the land should be bigger land for the landscaping, for the parking, as well as for the impact fees. The staff loved the project. The staff seen the project as being definitely not as a gas station but definitely retail facility having the gas as being an incentive use. After the meeting we met as well with the impact fees coordinator. We showed him the same drawing. We showed the staff, which is the site plan. The site plan includes very clearly, without any default, the gas. We mentioned the gas to the impact Page 64 March 12, 2002 fees coordinator. We showed him what the project was all about, and we asked him the same question. The determination came exactly the same as being determined by staff, that we had meeting in the SDP. We went to the signage people, and the signage staff the same way determined the project as being multi-use retail facility and not gas station. We start construction. We paid our impact fees, and we start construction in May 29. We are supposed to open for business, unfortunately, exactly five months ago on November 12. We have some delays. In January I receive a phone call from staff informing me that the pole sign permit is to be revoked. I have meeting with staff to try to clarify the issue. For me it was a very simple issue clarifying the whole issue. On February 5th I met with Mr. Joe Schmitt as well as this staff trying to clarify all the items. During my previous discussion, I showed Mr. Schmitt basically the different steps including impact fees. To my surprise, the staff decided to open the impact fees by saying two wrong does not make it right. So since we have the sign is to be perceived as gas station impact fees, should be perceived as gas station as well. Finally, we were only able to have all the items being put on the table to see what the main issues are ten days ago on March 1 st. The issues were very simple. We had at that time on -- on March 1 st the signage was being issued -- the permit was issued by error. The impact fees were being issued by error. The PUD is to be amended since it was also being approved for my zoning -- for my project by error. The parking calculation were also being issued as -- as multi-use retail facility, and definitely if we have to go to convenience store, we have to add eleven parking spot Page 65 March 12, 2002 or around eleven parking spot and definitely is in error now. If we have to same thing on landscaping -- the landscaping has been approved by staff as being for retail with some consideration for gas. Me -- on Immokalee Road we have 25 feet buffer area. All the adjacent road have between 15 and 10 feet buffer area. Staff at that time approved it that way since gas is an incidental use. So on March 1 st the landscaping was wrong, since if it was a gas station, the only authority who can really approve such shrinkage in this buffer is the board of commissioners. Yesterday I had for the first time finally a letter from the county staff. Now basically what we have in our hands, the parking is fine. Even if we're looking at it as a gas station, we're missing our eleven spot, but we're still fine looking at it as retail. The landscaping, which was need, the county board of commissioners to approve it now is fine. We don't have an issue on the landscaping. The PUD amendment now is fine. We don't have anymore any problem, but we still have a problem on the signage. We have a problem on the impact fees. The impact fees are extremely expensive. If this was the case the day one we discussed it, I would not be having done this spot at all. What's extremely sad- - and this extremely, really worries me and really make me extremely unhappy to say it, for the first time yesterday I was being accused by staff of hiding information. I heard it from commissioners -- some commissioners where staff told them that the SDP never included gas. Unfortunately, I have my engineer-- fortunately, I have my engineer who was with me at every single step and who is more than happy to answer for you every questions. We showed the gas. We were open on every single item. To me, to be yesterday on paper saying that we hide information, we haven't shown everything, I want to gamble -- I hate gambling, by the way -- I will not be playing the game where we go invest $150,000 for drawing, for everything, and Page 66 March 12, 2002 suddenly just before going to permit we have to pay and if we are gambling, we will not be able to come with the money if we have to pay another 100,000 or $120,000 more of impact fees. If I want to gamble, I will go to Vegas. I will not play this kind of game. You pay now or you pay later. It's not matter of not being a problem. All the way until yesterday I was being told that I did everything right, but the past experience -- the past mistakes does not make it right for the county to allow me to go ahead with the project. Yesterday I was being accused of hiding information. I never hide anything. I made the project as it should be done. There was a pre-ap meeting. We had very competent staff who looked at the project. They are still with the county, and they are great people. And right now the project is very simple. If I have to pay the impact fees, we are looking at it as -- on one side as being a gas station and the other one as being retail. There is no more consistency on this particular issue. If this discussion was 20 months ago, it would be fair, it would nice, it would be no problem. Very nice to have the semantic about the project. This is gas. This is retail. It would be my decision at the time to go ahead or not with the project. Right now I am not even a week to open the project. This project was supposed to open even by the July schedule, end of February for the last six weeks and I'm very serious. It's a nightmare. For six weeks I don't even know if I have a project or not. Yesterday I had a series of condition to do to be able to get the project back, but one of them is to pay $75,000 which this impact fee -- addition impact fees are wrong in nature, methodology, and in everything. They are totally wrong. We cannot look at the parking as retail, landscaping as retail, and then we say, no, now we're putting in new set of eyes and now we're looking for your building a week or two weeks or three weeks before CO and saying now you are -- we Page 67 March 12, 2002 look at you as convenience store. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need to ask you to wrap it up, sir, and then we'll take the questions to Mr. Schmitt. MR. CHAMI: I'm really -- I really looking for you as my last recourse. Definitely you're my last -- last recourse. This issue would put me in bankruptcy, would put me on the street. This is my whole life savings. I put in this $4 million project. I don't understand how at the last minute we are changing the rules. What will happen a year from now? Another staff comes in and say, "We're changing the rules again." What will happen with the parking problem? We're open for business and people come back and say, "Oh, we made a mistake on the parking. We have to revise." When should we stop? I really plead my case to you. I need to open for business. It's very important. Season is going at the end. I need to be able to open and make revenue for my family, as simple as this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development Environmental Services. I certainly appreciate the predicament that Mr. Chami is in. We met in January to review the project, and I'll tell you how this came being about. It was -- we first met over the incident of being issued -- he came in to ask for permit to construct a sign, and upon applying for the permit to construct the sign, it was deemed that the sign was not the correct size for the type of project that he was building. But this goes back probably 20 months ago when he first sat with the staff on a -- on a -- his first initial kind of lay down where he laid down the project and -- and discussed what type of project he was building. And the advice he got from the staff, regrettably, was not the right information. And based on that, I appreciate Mr. Chami made his business plan and the things that he developed were predicated and founded on the advice Page 68 March 12, 2002 he got from the staff. Those members of the staff are no longer with us. I won't go into the details on that, but be that as it may, he got -- he got advice from the staff and proceeded to develop and design his project accordingly. The issue here came with the sign. This is a gas station. He was told originally he could have an 80-square-foot sign. That's 80 square foot when you look at the sign here on the visualizer, 80 square foot of print area and a 1 O-foot-high pedestal -- on a 1 O-foot- high pedestal. When he came in for the permit, he was advised that that was not the right sign. He was only authorized -- because it was deemed a gas station -- a convenience store with gas station, that he was only authorized 60 square feet, 8 foot high. We advised at that time that given the circumstances -- and I advised him, given the circumstances and the background and the history of this, that I would certainly present to you-all the extenuating and mitigating circumstances around the predicament he was in and that under the Land Development Code 2.5.5, he could request a variance and petition the board for a variance for the sign. And that was the advice. It was at that meeting that we also -- that I uncovered the fact that he was not assessed the proper impact fees. Again, we can go into the history of that, but the fact is, he was not assessed a -- proper impact fees. The 20 months ago or whenever the fees were initially assessed, it was deemed a retail store. Now my impact fee coordinator was not part of the site development process. He's not in that process. He basically is given information as to what it is under the guidance of land use. It has nothing to do -- under the guidance of type of retail or type of facility it is and he deemed it was a retail facility because the information that he had at that time did not indicate there was a gas station or gas pumps as part of this project, and he originally assessed approximately $65,000 in impact fees. Page 69 March 12, 2002 After the meeting I turned to my impact fee coordinator and I said, "Obviously, the county erred." It's certainly not within my statutory authority to waive those impact fees. I said, "You need to go back and recalculate the impact fees based on the current information that we have, that it's a gas station," and, frankly, looking at it from a multi-use aspect. So we looked at it from a multi-use aspect, looked at all the uses within this structure and assessed that he -- that Mr. Chami owed an additional $95,000 in impact fees. Now, yes, that is significant. Mr. Chami came in to see me on the first -- first of March. We discussed this issue for over two hours. I made a commitment to him that I would relook at this at a much more detailed approach. I asked the county attorney's office and my impact fee coordinator to relook at this in a more detailed analysis of multi-use, and we deemed that, in fact, with the way we looked at it is the best we could using the current parameters as defined in the Land Development Code, that we came up with a reassessment of $75,000, so in essence, reduced the amount owed from ninety-five to seventy-five. I had a meeting with Mr. Chami yesterday and pointed that out to him, and frankly, the impasse is the issue of impact fees. Frankly, the impact fees are owed. The calculation was made based on a retail store and further information and a reassessment deemed from a land- use perspective that this is a convenience store. And when we looked at that, that's how we got to the decisions today on the sign and the authorization and the size of the sign and also from a land -- from a perspective of assessments we looked at it from a multi-use perspective when we assess the impact fees. So that's where we are today. The other issue and issues with parking and issues with landscaping decisions that were made 20 months ago, we looked at those. The staff is satisfied with what we have. There are some Page 70 March 12, 2002 discrepancies, but they are acceptable. This is a picture of the islands. These pictures -- this -- this was not portrayed when -- when the -- my impact fee coordinator did not -- when he took the official assessment. Two other issues, frankly, remain or the other issue that remains -- if I can put on the visualizer-- we noted the color. The color of the facility is not in compliance with the Land Development Code, and in my letter I so noted to Mr. Chami that, in fact, under the Land Development Code provisions 2.8, that these colors do not comply with the architectural standards. I went back through the history and looked at this. The submittal that was submitted, though there is similarity, there are some dissimilarities and there -- there -- I'm-- still have no clear answer as to whether or not there was an actual architectural approval of these colors, but the fact of the matter is, the colors do not comply. So what am I doing? I'm going back and trying to correct a wrong. The decision was not to perpetuate the wrongs and the decisions that were made by past officials. And if you want to draw a line in the sand -- unfortunately Mr. Chami is impacted by this, but what we have to do is -- is correct both the assessment and the impact fees and advise Mr. Chami of the issue with the sign. Now, I can get into more detail as far as specifics because this is part of the old Cypress PUD, and it involves the use of whether or not we're going to have a -- directory signs and those kind of things when we're talking about the signage issue. Subject to your questions, I guess that's pretty much it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, I do have a couple of questions and comments. One, this board has been actively pursuing past impact fees that were never collected. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think that's an option for us to Page 71 March 12, 2002 go there. I really don't. The other part about the -- the sign, the sign was already ordered due to an error on our part. Is there a possibility that we might -- and this is purely a question -- might be able to waive the cost for the filing for a variance and still go through the variance procedure, which we need to do? But I know the cost is $2,000, and it doesn't appear to be Mr. Chami's error that this was made. But still -- I still realize the fact that we need a variance to be able to make it work. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll defer that to the county attorney, whether or not we can waive the fee. I -- I just don't know. MR. WEIGEL: I believe the board in the appropriate forum-- obviously, not here today -- can, in fact, before with the facts, make a determination of a waiver based upon the circumstances and find it in the public interest to do so, if it chooses to do so. MR. OLLIFF: And I guess I would point out that because this is the development services fee-driven fund, that in the past we've not waived fees, but we've actually transferred money from the county general fund over to the community development fund to cover that cost. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have had a real problem with impact fees, and I'm not in any way going to do anything that discourages the staff from trying to collect, but one of the overriding concerns is, I think the government has to be fair. In the absence of any information which indicates that you tried to be deceptive in any way and in view of the fact that your structure has been standing there for some time and is easy for people to see, particularly the inspectors that come out here, I believe the government does have some responsibility here, and I don't know how to solve it. I am very reluctant to -- to establish a precedent that -- that permits us just to waive impact fees because somebody on the staff made a mistake at Page 72 March 12, 2002 one point in time. We have the authority to overrule that, but Mr. Chami's problem, as I understand it, is that until this is resolved, he can't open his store. And -- and I'm asking if there is some way to permit him to proceed while we continue to work this issue out. I know he has some outstanding inspections that have to be done, and certainly those can be done relatively quickly, but I'm just wondering if there is some way to permit him to open his store while we're working out this issue on impact fees. MR. SCHMITT: The only option I know of is have him pay the impact fee under protest and then continue with the process, but I do know that there are several inspections outstanding, probably most significant, fire inspection which -- which will probably take a while to both schedule and execute because, of course, those are under the control of the -- of the -- not under my watch, but they're part of the fire commissioner's responsibility. The issue here is, yes, pay the fees and then basically under protest, one answer. In the letter that I sent, we offered that -- that basically we would do everything we can to help him to get his operation or his establishment open, but there were still some outstanding issues that had to be resolved, frankly, again, the impact fees and the issue -- now the signage issue. Certainly that is something he can come back, appear before the board and request a variance. And as I described in my opening statement, that would be something that certainly I would give the history behind this and explain. And there are some uniqueness -- unique aspects of the site that may allow this, but also there is an opportunity to get with the developer of the old Cypress PUD and salvage the sign that he purchased and -- and use that as part of the directory sign for the entire PUD. And we advised yesterday that he could come in with a PUD amendment, a signage amendment to describe the whole -- the Page 73 March 12, 2002 entire usage of sign within that PUD. There are some problems, though, because the Land Development Code says that it has to be at least eight individual businesses and this PUD right now consists of only two. As you saw on the sign, some of those internal businesses would be advertised on the directory sign and, again, there is -- there is some -- well, it-- actually, a variance would have to be requested as part of that as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, keep in mind this is a public petition and it's not in -- our responsibility here to try to solve it this morning. The decision before the board is whether or not to schedule this as an item to be brought back on a future agenda for a formalized decision. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think maybe we're looking in that direction with the exception of the impact fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Olliff, this is a economic issue for this man in trying to get his business going. Being a person having to pay impact fees and personally if I -- if the county came to me and said, "Well, we want more impact fees from you," I would have to consider whether I even want to build my building or open my business. And I'm not sure if you're in the same situation as far as financially feasibility to do business. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much, Commissioner Henning. Basically, it's me who brought the impact fees issue to Mr. Joe Schmitt. I told him basically that impact fees looked at me as retail. It was nothing to do with Mr. Schmitt looking at them. It was me who told him this. If I had to hide something, I would not absolutely have brought this information. The other issue, staff approved my project. I still -- with the county they never passed -- still with the county. They -- also the sign which I went to permit, I was permitted for the sign, and the sign Page 74 March 12, 2002 was being revoked. I believe certain issues here -- all we're looking for with the impact fees is, are we looking for this building as convenience store, and then you're right. The impact fees are what they are. We have to recalculate them, or are we looking at what the staff looked at this whole issue from day one and I was with my engineer. What I meant was the impact fees met with -- he is sitting here. You can ask him and direct the question to him. Did we show the gas? Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Chami, these are items we're going to bring back at a point in time the staff has prepared for the agenda. Once again, this isn't something we're going to solve here. We're looking to direct staff-- possibly direct staff in the direction in which to go. At that point, I'm going to ask Mr. Schmitt if he's had any final comment. Then I'm going to ask the commissioners to direct staff. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, in fact, the original assessment, whether it was a multi-use facility, whether it was a convenience store or retail, it was assessed based on retail without considering at all that there were gas station or gas pumps involved. Once it was learned that the gas pumps were included, it created the multi-use concept that we use to either -- could be a convenience store or some other aspect, but it still drove -- the driving factor and the principal underpinnings of this whole recalculation was based on the knowledge of the -- of it being a gas station or a facility that provided serve -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again -- MR. SCHMITT: -- sold gas so we had to reassess the fees. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you, Mr. Schmitt, and once again, this would be something that we'd want to have brought back to us if the commission so agrees. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want -- I want some things on Page 75 March 12, 2002 the public record, because I'm going to tell you as a citizen, this stinks. We violated public trust, and I really don't like what's going on here. I'm not blaming you, Mr. Schmitt, but if you think I'm a little hot under the collar, you got it right. And I want it on public record as I read it. I want to make sure it's stated, did staff come to an agreement that this was a multi -- multi-use retail facility with a gas station being an auxiliary use? Was that ever communicated to this petitioner? I don't care who made the decision, but did our staff do that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Directions for staff. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it depends on what piece of-- you're -- you're talking about. There's land use, and then there's impact fees, two different, separate-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand, but he came in for a SDP, site development plan. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Did we tell him that? And then secondly, did Mr. Tindell identify this as a multi-use facility, and did Mr. Tindell calculate this on that basis? MR. SCHMITT: He did on the second calculation. On the first calculation, it was retail under 50,000 square feet. That was the principal basis. It didn't even include any gas pumps. Pulled the file, the site development plan showed the building and the building alone. Had no indication, no showing at all of-- of any type of retail activity as selling gas. So the -- the impact fee coordinator assessed it based on retail under 50,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER CARTER: When did the -- MR. SCHMITT: I can understand you being hot under the collar, but the fact is, I cannot waive those fees. That's something you will have to do. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand. But I want to Page 76 March 12, 2002 know what we're doing here. And everybody says, "Well, we'll bring it back. We've got time." This man is going under. This man has put $4 million into a project, invested I don't know how much of his own money. We're not talking a WCI or somebody that can absorb this kind of thing. We're talking about a person who in good faith, as I understand it, is trying to open a business. Did we somewhere along the line violate the trust that people put in government in order to get him to open his business? Now, if we have to negotiate out an impact fee, do it over time, that's a board decision. I don't want to waive impact fees. I don't want to set precedent, but I see some situations which I don't like as a citizen. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, do you want to direct staff and we'll see which direction everybody else -- MR. SCHMITT: On the visualizer is -- is what was in the file for the site plan for the assessment of the impact fees. As you can see, all it shows is the building. And I understand Mr. Chami. Mr. Chami is saying that staff reviewed the entire SDP that included all the aspects of the business, but -- but the impact fee coordinator is not involved in that review process. The impact fee is a separate and distinct area that totally just looks at a -- a usage piece, not land use, but a mixed use. That's how it was calculated. COMMISSIONER CARTER: When this happens, perhaps-- perhaps, I think, a team approach with that person is in there so he understands what he has to calculate. It's the throw-it-over-the-wall concept. It ain't my shop, so I don't have to worry about it anymore. MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner Carter, I appreciate that. In my short time here, I'm trying to change those things. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I know, sir, and believe me, I'm not personalizing this. I guess I'm really frustrated for the years that I Page 77 March 12, 2002 have sat here as a commissioner when I see these situations come up. Sometimes I know it's people trying to crowd -- crowd the line. They're trying to take something, and they've done things wrong in the past, but I don't believe this man has done anything wrong. MR. SCHMITT: Nor do I. Nor do I. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And so I want to find out, how do I get him open? How does he start his -- how does he get open? The question about fire inspection, I would appeal to them, if they can some way put this into the schedule so he can get his business open, he can start making money, start paying off his debt and negotiate out these other issues with the board. I know it takes some time, but that concerns me a great deal. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just going to say, maybe we can proceed to get his fire inspection going. You said it's quite a timely thing. Meanwhile put him on the agenda if that's what needs to be done, but I would suggest that maybe we take these impact fees and somehow defer them to be paid, like, in six months or so that the man is already in business and can -- and has a way to pay them. MR. SCHMITT: Again, I understand that. As far as the inspection, that's between him, his builder, and, frankly, the builder's scheduling the inspections. That's -- that's -- that's something that needs to be done. That's not a question here. It just has not been scheduled nor has been requested. But as far as options for impact fees, I'm at the mercy of the board and, frankly, the county attorney's office on how to set up a procedure to do that because none exists right now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go ahead-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Chairman Coletta, if you're asking in my judgment a direction is to work through that issue with Page 78 March 12, 2002 the petitioner and come back with some latitude for us to consider on a timetable if there are additional fees which he could pay those so he can get operational. So you'll need to meet with petitioner. You'll need to work through this because we don't have that system and that we can get these other pieces approved so this man can do what he needs to do. As far as the buildings, I wasn't aware our architectural code you don't -- couldn't do that, because I see other properties that are painted but maybe they're in the city and not in the county, so I don't know about that issue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I bet I could help you with -- I took a look at the colors that were there. It looks like it was in exact reverse from the pillars to the building. Colors were an outstandingly bright color than the -- were supposed to be. And the building was supposed to be -- what do you call it -- a mute color, a beige. That in itself, too, we can -- we can try to be able to make the man whole by giving him X number of years, three, five, six, seven years, to redo the building in the color that would be sufficient. But why don't we leave this up for staff to bring it back to us. Are we in agreement to have staff bring this back? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think there should be a statement of intent by the board. Our intent is not to delay Mr. Chami in being able to open his business. And I think that's -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree, Commissioner Coyle, and I would like as part of direction, that he can go -- he can proceed to get his CO through the process so that we can negotiate these other items so that he can open his business. And I don't want to get into making exceptions to a Land Development Code. I saw Mr. Olliff give me that look. I want to work it out, and I know he wants to work it. And there might be a way -- I'm sure there's a way we can do it. And I know, Mr. Schmitt, you will make every effort to make Page 79 March 12, 2002 the changes so that we don't have more of this. In no way am I saying that you're not doing a good job. You're doing an excellent job, and you're just finding some real rotten apples in here that we've got to deal with. MR. SCHMITT: Probably to move past this, I think the only thing I could recommend is that the board make a motion to waive the impact fees or-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just direction. Just direction. MR. SCHMITT: Not to waive the fees, but just a -- somehow there's -- the impasse here is issuing the CO, and there's a hold on that until the impact fees are paid. And that's the two things that are holding up the certificate of occupancy, are the inspections and the impact fees. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Olliff-- I'm sorry, Mr. Weigel, and then from Mr. Weigel to Mr. Coyle. Then I do want to move on. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. We're waving to each other here. In regard to the CO, the CO could issue with a caveat -- and we'll work very closely with Mr. Chami, his representative, his counsel if he has same so that we'll have an understanding so that can go forward, but have a caveat that based on the discussion we've had today and what the county attorney office will do, among many other things, is look solution-oriented in regard to the impact fee, not only the amount and the allocation, but in regard to potential payment options. We hope to bring back a few, and we'll work very closely with the clerk in that regard so that we don't bring back something that can't be done. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle, do you have the last word? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. I'll try to be brief, and I just want to make my comments to the staff. We understand you have -- have to deal with what's in the book, Page 80 March 12, 2002 and we have latitude, and sometimes we will make decisions based upon extenuating circumstances that are not consistent with yours. And I just want you to understand that -- that we don't want to discourage you from doing what you're doing because you need to continue to search out these discrepancies and errors and bring them to our attention, but we do have some latitude here, and sometimes with extenuating circumstances we will have a difference of opinion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear that I understand the direction, because when we leave here, it always gets a little more confusing. We are being directed to find a way, if it is at all possible, to get him through to a CO, assuming that we don't expose ourself in any way to a nonpayment of impact fee issue or a code issue of any kind. Staff's got the option to try and find that between now and next Tuesday. By next Tuesday, however, I believe we're getting direction to bring back whatever options are possible that will allow Mr. Chami to be able to continue to go forward assuming we stay within the code and assuming that the full amount of impact fees are provided to the county as an ultimate solution. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there also is discrepancy on what was submitted to staff, so I think that we need to hear that -- MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- or see it. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're going to move on now to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Before we start, I want to mention that we got a 1:30 certain so we're going to be breaking at lunch at 12:30 and Page 81 March 12, 2002 Mr. Olliff-- MR. OLLIFF: I'm also going to make note, Mr. Chairman, that you have an 11:45 time certain as well, which it is exactly 11:45 on the button and- Item # 10A REPORT BY KEITH ARNOLD REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION- PRESENTED CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we'll go to the time certain. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which one is that, Mr. Ollif~ MR. OLLIFF: Item 10-A was a report to the board by Keith Arnold regarding the legislative session. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. And if I may, I have some handouts, which I will provide. I think there is five there, and I have a couple other copies I'll make available for staff and for the public record. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. MR. ARNOLD: County management asked me to give a brief update, and I will try to do that and -- despite the thickness of the report before you, as to the events in Tallahassee at this point. Obviously, we're nearing the end of the 2002 legislative session, and I think most notably when we look at the issues that the legislature is constitutionally charged to deal with, specifically the budget and specifically reapportionment, those two large and overriding political issues have yet to be accomplished. The result has been that out of over 2,500 bills which have been introduced for this legislative session, only 17 bills have passed the legislature thus far, and it looks Page 82 March 12, 2002 as if things are getting ready to slow down a little bit more. The House has passed their budget and has sent it over to the Senate for review at that -- review in the Senate chamber. The Senate at this point has not passed their budget. They have passed a reapportionment plan. So it's made it very, very difficult for the traditional negotiations in terms of a conference committee to go on between the House and the Senate. Things at least improved last Friday with the new revenue- estimating conference numbers. Approximately $644 million was released through the revenue-estimating process. Those monies will be split almost two-thirds for this fiscal year -- in other words, for fiscal year 2001-2002. Keep in mind, our fiscal year for the state runs from July 1st through June 30th. So, in essence, roughly $400 million has been freed up for the current budget year. Another 250 million or so has been increased for the estimates for the succeeding fiscal year, which will be 2002-2003, thereby allowing legislators some greater flexibility in some of the issues that they're dealing with. Specifically on your issues, most predominantly we've been working on a variety of transportation issues, and certainly I just experienced it coming down Airport Road, and there is construction, as you know, on North Airport just north of Golden Gate, and I sat in traffic for a lot longer than I have. I recognize we're at the height of the season. But you have money in the budget in the House side for $7.4 million for that intersection improvement at Golden Gate and Airport Road. The Senate has money in the budget for Tops funding, but it's distributed to the districts on a discretionary basis, and of course, that's not what we would like to achieve in Tallahassee. There's some indication that as the Senate moves forward in their budget modifications, that they will consider restoring Tops funding for this Page 83 March 12, 2002 year and thereby restoring funding for the Golden Gate Interchange. Obviously, that's the challenge we have at hand, and that's one that we'll continue to keep you apprised of. But in the House budget, we're looking pretty good there. In the Senate budget we have a ways to go. As it relates to a variety of other issues that I know you're concerned with at the local level, specifically reapportionment, I was asked by county staff to address that briefly. The House plan looks like it's coming along. And when I say "the House plan," I'm talking about the Florida House of Representatives' plan for the Florida House of Representatives. That plan is coming along. It's passed the legislature -- passed the House, excuse me, and there is not a whole lot of opposition to that plan. Those particular House districts are not all that different from today's reapportionment plan. What you see in today's reapportionment plan -- a plan that was created in 1992. With the addition that there will be another House seat most likely in the Eastern Collier County, an open seat where there is no incumbent, and so it looks like Collier County will be gaining in representation in the Florida House. The Senate plan for the Senate is somewhat different, and that plan is a bit more controversial. It splits Collier and Lee counties in a variety of different ways, but generally speaking, most plans that have emanated out of the Senate at this point would divide Collier County right about at 1-75 east and west. There would be a coastal Senate seat of Coastal Collier County and Coastal Lee County. There would be a new Senate seat which would be Eastern Collier, east of the interstate which would run into Eastern Lee County, Western Broward County, Western Palm Beach County. So it's a four-county seat that basically loops around, if you will, almost in a U shape underneath Lake Okeechobee into Palm Beach County. Likewise, the congressional plan, which I know many of you Page 84 March 12, 2002 have passed resolutions on, are very concerned about, continues to split Collier County east and west, basically along the same sort of parameters as the Senate -- Senate plan for an eastern and western seat. A Coastal Collier, Coastal Lee seat and then a Eastern Collier seat which would be tied in with Western Dade County. That plan is moving along in both the House and the Senate, and so it looks as though that is something that is very real at this point and something that if you're determined to deal with it with the local legislative delegation, it's something we're going to want to have to do together. Just briefly on a couple of the other issues. Transportation has been consuming an awful lot of our time in Tallahassee right now. The -- the bills which have been filed by Representative Goodlette dealing with indexing of local option gas tax, the bills which have been filed by he and others dealing with the reduction of the administrative fee for collection of the gas taxes are stalled in the House at this point. They are also stalled in the Senate. Keep in mind that those bills have negative fiscal consequences to the state, and the state, in light of their own budgetary dilemma, has -- has been very reluctant to support legislation which would decrease funding to the state and perhaps make more flexible funding alternatives available to local government. Such is the case that we're seeing in the Growth Management Bill. The Senate has taken a very proactive stance of growth management and has allowed you as a board to impose the additional penny sales tax by a super majority vote. In your case that would be 4 out of 5 votes. The House has been very reluctant to embrace that concept, and so that one has a ways to go at this point. Finally, I know, Commissioner Fiala, you had asked about the SHIP funding. There was a proposal -- I apologize for the acronyms. In Tallahassee we get caught up in acronyms. SHIP funding is, believe it or not, state housing funding, state housing improvement Page 85 March 12, 2002 program grants. There was a proposal initially by the governor to use housing bond dollars to fund Everglades's restoration. That left most of us, including yourself and others, scratching our heads as to the logical nexus. There generally has to be a nexus between revenues received from taxable entities and what those revenues are used for. And in this particular case, housing monies were being diverted for Everglades's restoration. The governor quickly abandoned that proposal, and it has not been taken seriously by the legislature, either the House or the Senate, and so it does not look like a viable proposal at this point, and so I think the bond monies which you anticipate receiving for low-income housing you will continue to receive. I know that's something you had expressed an interest with. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And thank you for your help. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, there is a comprehensive report before you. I'll be happy to share that with you. I'm cognizant of your time constraints you have this morning. Depending upon your wishes, Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to take some questions at this point or-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a quick one. Regarding redistricting, the governor is going to be coming down here to a Lincoln Day dinner, and we'll have an opportunity, if we can attend, to talk with him. Do you think that that would be a good subject to -- to speak with him about at that time? MR. ARNOLD: Absolutely. Keep in mind, as we look at reapportionment, the constitutional authority of the governor extends only to congressional reapportionment because of the separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch. The governor does not have review over legislative reapportionment, i.e., Florida House lines and the Florida Senate lines. He does have veto authority and a tremendous amount of input, I would argue, on Page 86 March 12, 2002 congressional reapportionment. I would encourage you to speak to him about such. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Henning has a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Explain to me the -- the Florida Senate seat. Is it almost -- the way you described it, almost like a new Senate seat district lines? MR. ARNOLD: There's two Senate seats which affect Collier County. One is coastal seat, which basically is the City of Naples out beyond the Naples city limits, out somewhere around here, either Airport Road or 1-75. Keep in mind, there's no officially adopted Senate map yet. There has not been a map passed by the Florida Senate for Senate reapportionment. What I'm describing to you looks like the most probable map based upon the frequency of this map reappearing in every alternative. Senator Blackfalla (phonetic) from St. Petersburg chairs Senate reapportionment, and in the maps I've seen that have come from his office, you have a coastal seat in Collier County which basically includes the incorporated area, North Coastal Collier County, Coastal Lee County, about half of the City of Cape Coral and about half of the City of Fort Myers. They're divided equally almost in half. That would be a coastal Senate seat. The other seat, which looks to be an open seat where, i.e., there is no incumbent, to my knowledge, in that seat or no incumbent that's not term limited out -- let me restate that -- would be basically a U- shaped seat that goes up into Lee County, Eastern Lee, portions of the African-American community in Lee County, portions of Lehigh Acres and Eastern Lee County, down along the interstate, Eastern Collier County-- in other words, Golden Gate, over to Broward County, takes in about half of the county of Broward County. But a Page 87 March 12, 2002 point worth noting -- very much worth noting, half of the county geographically is included in Broward, for Broward County is included in this district, but not one resident in Broward County lives in this district. In other words, it takes in basically everything over to Sawgrass -- Sawgrass Expressway, Broward County and then goes up and grabs a tremendous amount of Western Palm Beach County and a significant population in Western Palm Beach County. I would argue to you that that's a Palm Beach seat. Some may argue that Eastern Collier, Eastern Lee could -- could mount a pretty formidable challenge to a Palm Beach-based candidate. Seems improbable, but it is possible. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just have one quick question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Carter, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARTER: House Bill 715 on the billboard, we got a notice that seems to be steaming along to get out and go ahead and take a vote on it. Do you have any prognosis that we can beat that thing back one more time? Because what they're trying to do, as they do every year, is take away local rule on this. Counties now can make their own decision. If the billboard industry gets their way, they will build them wherever anybody will allow them, and then the only way a county can take is through eminent domain, which is frightfully expensive. They are relentless, you know. They're like -- they're like the plague; they come back every year. So does red tide, whatever you want to call it. But anyhow, do we have a chance to beat this back again? MR. ARNOLD: That's a good question, Commissioner Carter. This bill is a perennial bill which has been in the legislature for 15, 18, 20 years. More recently it's been taken more seriously by the legislature. The bill does, in fact, preempt local government Page 88 March 12, 2002 authority over billboard ordinances, not exclusively but certainly to a substantial amount where it would impair your ability to regulate billboards, regulate their removal. And should you decide as a county commission that you would want to remove some -- either in the context of zoning changes or updating the local comprehensive plan or a variety of other mechanisms, basically, you have to treat the billboard itself as real property. In other words, there theoretically would be condemnation proceedings the county would have to authorize against the owner of the billboard, thus creating an economic value in the billboard itself and creating, obviously, the flow of dollars from the county to the billboard company to pay for its removal. This bill passed the legislature last year, unfortunately. It was -- it was contained in transportation -- a larger transportation package. The governor, however, was sympathetic to the wishes of the counties and vetoed the legislation. This legislation, though, this year has already passed the House. In fact, in the update I gave you, this was printed on Friday, and this was changed as of yesterday. The House has embraced this one more time and has passed those responding to the billboard companies. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What was the vote in there? MR. ARNOLD: It was overwhelming. It was about 100 to 17, something of that nature. COMMISSIONER CARTER: People forget who elected them, don't they? MR. ARNOLD: It's a difficult issue, Commissioner. The Senate has not passed it yet, and I'm hopeful that the governor will remain opposed. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Got our work cut out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Arnold, I have a two-part Page 89 March 12, 2002 question for you. One, in your best judgment, what do you think is the likelihood that Governor Bush will veto the vision of Collier County? And, secondly, what happens if he did? How much time is necessary to complete this reapportionment process? MR. ARNOLD: Well, keep in mind, Commissioner Coyle, when you're talking about a gubernatorial veto, again, because of the separation-of-powers issues, the governor only maintains veto authority over congressional reapportionment. I have not seen a governor veto a congressional plan ever and so -- obviously, I'm speaking of Florida, the Florida experience since the '60s when we've gone through this process. Presumably, there's other-- there's other cases throughout the nation where it has happened, but in Florida I've not seen it. Obviously, that would throw reapportionment into a real constitutional and statutory sort of and political quagmire. The courts ultimately have the final authority in looking at congressional and state boundaries in the context of any reapportionment plan and determine whether or not they meet the constitutional requirements both at the state level, and then ultimately the federal courts have the obligation to determine whether reapportionment meets the constitutional requirements at the federal level. If he vetoed it, you're looking at an extended legislative session and let me just point out, I believe that the two constitutional requirements of a legislature, there's over 2,500 bills passed-- excuse me, introduced this legislative session. Only two of them are they required by the Constitution to pass. One is reapportionment. The second is the budget. Neither of those are passed, and neither look likely right now that they are going to be passed by the end of the legislative session. Maybe reapportionment for the House and the Senate, maybe. The budget is -- is in turmoil because of the difference between Page 90 March 12, 2002 the House, the Senate, and the governor over tax-reform issues. It's not likely they're going to reach a compromise on that issue this week or early next week, in my judgment, and so it's very likely that you're going to see a special session dealing with at least the budget. If congressional and legislative reapportionment doesn't come together in the next week or ten days, it's likely you're going to see a special session also on reapportionment. To answer your question, Commissioner Coyle, I think the governor, if there's a plan -- if there's a plan that passes the House by 61 votes and passes the Senate by 61 votes, I think the governor's going to be hard pressed to veto it because it is extremely difficult achieving a majority in the first place on reapportionment, and -- and my guess is he would defer to the courts at that point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And-- and if-- if this is taken to the courts for a decision, what is the likely time frame associated with that decision? Is it likely that -- that this reapportionment would be effective for the next election? MR. ARNOLD: That's a-- a very good question. Believe it or not, court review -- despite the elections, court review can go on for a period of three to four, in some cases sometimes even five, years. Obviously, the federal courts take a little longer than the state courts. They have to look at a lot of legal issues and constitutional issues dealing with minority representation, geographical conciseness, appropriateness, et cetera, of whether or not the districts maintain fidelity, if you will, to the -- the actual numbers that are required to be in a House, a Senate, and a congressional seat. So court review can take a matter of years. Generally, in fact, I guess always the courts have said you can go forward with elections, and if we decide to change those districts, we'll let you know. In many, many cases they do change those districts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I was really getting at, Page 91 March 12, 2002 is whether or not the reapportionment would remain in effect or whether it would be held in abeyance. So you're saying it would be -- it would remain in effect during the judicial hearings? MR. ARNOLD: Usually that's the case. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: And I can assure you, Commissioner Coyle, all reapportionment, irrespective of where the boundaries are, will end up in court. That is a given. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you're a congressman today, but who knows how long. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, and I will -- I have a final copy which I'll give to the county attorney's office here, but for the public record-- but for those of you who would like to go over some of the individual matters, feel free to call me and I'll get with you on them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Item #7A PETITION NUC-2001-AR- 1856, GREG CARLISLE, REQUESTING A NON-CONFORMING USE CHANGE FROM A SCHOOL TO A FITNESS CENTER, LOCATED AT 6800 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY- CONTINUED TO LATER IN THE MEETING The next one is going to be the Board of Zoning Appeals. Before we begin swearing everyone in, we are going to be breaking off at 12:30, and what I propose to do is allow anyone that wishes to speak on 7-A before we hear it -- because the possibility will be that we won't be coming back to the item until Page 92 March 12, 2002 about 2:30. We'll have to continue it. So I'll give anyone that wishes to speak on that item to go forward with the swearing in and for everyone in making our declarations the opportunity to be able to speak now before we break for lunch, or they can wait until after we finish the total presentation and then speak at that time, not both, but one or the other. And with that, would you go ahead and swear in all those people that wish to participate. Please stand if you wish to participate in this particular petition. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Do you have anything to disclose, Mr. Carter, starting at your end? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have not met with the petitioner this time, but I have met with him in the past on this subject property. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have met with the petitioner a few months ago as well as received some e-mails and photos. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I received the same, and I also attended the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association meeting yesterday. And there's an item, I believe, on all our e-mails that you probably haven't seen yet that came late last night from Glen Wilts. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I saw that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with the petitioner and the petitioner's agent, Mr. Cuyler, and I have viewed some correspondence from neighbors. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dito from Commissioner Coyle, and I also have a folder here of exparte communication from - - it's available for review, anybody that wishes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Before we start, how Page 93 March 12, 2002 many speakers do you have altogether on this particular item, Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: Seven. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anyone that wishes to speak at this time or would like to wait until the end of the presentation? MS. FILSON: This gentleman indicated that he would like to speak now, but I didn't get his name. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please go ahead, and anyone else can follow right behind. MS. FILSON: Are you Gregory? MR. MANNING: Joseph Manning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Manning. MR. MANNING: My name's Joseph Manning. I reside on 68th Street Southwest, which is the street that is located beside of where the proposed gym or fitness center is to be located. I've been residents of Collier County since 1989. I'm a small business owner now. I've resided on 68th Street for seven years on the south side, which is the same side that the Royal Palm Academy was and where the proposed gym site is. I've seen a lot on that street. Right now we're very unhappy with the condition of the building, the trash, the dumping, the ceramic toilets being thrown behind it. We had fires in the past from homeless people living in the old building. It's just an eyesore and it's -- unless somebody does something with it -- I understand there's zoning problems with the building from when it was built long ago and a whole quandry of problems, but the residents that I've talked to on the street are -- I mean, we're sick of seeing it just sit there in an unimproved state with -- with -- I mean, not even a mower being run over it. It's proposed -- I guess it's approved now for that interchange to come in, and this is going to be a building sitting there right in the path of the entranceway to Naples. It's terrible. There's graffiti on the building now. It's just in disrepair. Page 94 March 12, 2002 I'm not sure if I, you know, approve everything that's being done now or proposed now as far as a gym is concerned. I've seen pictures of it, and it really looks nice. And as far as, you know, there's a precedent set with the -- with the Royal Palm Academy. The only thing they did was come in and pull a couple of trailers in behind the ugly pink building. So -- and then you let a bunch of kids go to school there right next door to where a bunch of people playing -- I'm sorry. There's something wrong here. (Microphone feedback.) COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Just -- just pull it down. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Katie's coming to fix it. MR. MANNING: Okay. My wife always said I was annoying, and I'm annoying myself right now. I mean, right next door we're playing bingo with a whole bunch of people playing bingo in an old skating rink. I don't see really a problem with a gym being there as long as the traffic's being taken care of out front and it's being kept up like it should, which it seems like the guy's put a whole bunch of money into the place. So as a resident, specific support, I don't know, but something has to be done about this building. Some variance has to be given so this building can be of use to the public instead of a big, giant eyesore. And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Manning, before you go away, a question: Do we have any homeless people in the recent past that has been utilizing that building, to your knowledge? MR. MANNING: I -- I -- I walk around the building quite often with my dog in the evenings, and I see the back door being broken and then recently being broken out of it, and so it looked like some people had been in there and some chairs had been set up. And also I have personally witnessed urination and parking and beer bottles and a little partying and everything else going on in the building. It's -- I Page 95 March 12, 2002 mean, if nothing else, there's got to be some kind of requirement to clean it up and lock it down for fire prevention and for -- I mean, there's going to be crime and there's going to be everything else there. Something has to be done to the building. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, in your opinion, it's a public nuisance as it is today? MR. MANNING: Absolutely a public nuisance as it is today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. MANNING: Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gregory Carlisle. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, could I -- could I just clarify something? We are going to hear this petition before lunch, is that what -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we're not. Probably won't get through the whole thing. We're breaking off at 12:30. At 1:30 when we come back, we have a time certain. So there'll be a lapse in time between -- that time, 12:30, probably until about 2, 2:30, depending on how long it takes the item -- time-certain item. MR. CUYLER: Okay. From the petitioner's side, nobody else wants to speak at this point. If we could have Mr. Reischl give his presentation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me just make sure that there is no one else in the -- there is one lady that wishes to speak now. MR. CUYLER: Ms. Burgeson. But from our side nobody now, but if we could have Mr. Reischl -- maybe I could make some opening comments and we could present everything when we get back. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: However that works best. COURT REPORTER: Sir, could I have your name? MR. CUYLER: It's Ken Cuyler, C-u-y-l-e-r. Page 96 March 12, 2002 MS. FILSON: Shall I read all the names? I don't know which ones are the petitioner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It wouldn't be a bad idea. MS. FILSON: Okay. Gregory Carlisle, Armenio Ortego, Leo -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please come forward. MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Katie Tuff and then Barbara Burgeson. MR. MEDIAVILLA: Mr. Coletta, members of the board, for the record, my name is Leo Mediavilla, and I'm here as a private citizen to support Greg Carlisle's request for a nonconforming-use change. I've been a resident of Collier County for 28 years. I lived in Golden Gate for 11 years, and I currently reside in Lely. And I've been a member of the fitness club, the current fitness club for nine years, and two years ago Greg Carlisle took over the gym. And I have to tell you, he brought it to wonderful heights. He introduced management, and he is a man of integrity and honor, and I really would be excited to see a gym. You know, it's been said that in Collier County this is the fountain of youth, the Garden of Eden, and I truly believe that, but I can tell you that there's another kind of fountain of youth, and that's one that brings exercise to all of us, and I will support anytime a request to bring a facility that will bring fitness and wellness to Collier County. So I just have to tell you that Greg has been outstanding, and I really support him. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Katie Tuff. She will be followed by Barbara Burgeson. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it's your option, Ms. Tuff, to speak now or wait until after we finish. MS. TUFF: I'd like to hear the whole presentation first. MS. FILSON: Barbara-- Barbara Burgeson will be followed by Page 97 March 12, 2002 Ken Cuyler who wishes to wait. MS. BURGESON: I would-- for the record, Barbara Burgeson. I'll take about five minutes. It might make sense for me to speak after Ken and Fred; however, I have a doctor's appointment, and my son has a doctor's appointment, and I have to leave at one o'clock. So I'll leave it up to you as to whether you think I should wait or go now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll be getting back to the item probably somewheres between 2 and 2:30. MR. BURGESON: I better go now then. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And speak a little closer to the mike when you're talking, please. MS. FILSON: I'll hand these out for you. Your clock's running. MS. BURGESON: As a matter of record, my name is Barbara Burgeson. I live on 66th Street Southwest, which is one street over from the proposed request for a nonconforming use of change for the fitness center at 6800 Golden Gate Parkway. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments that were both just presented to you that that building is an eyesore and that a fitness center is a wonderful thing; however, I propose that we support staff's recommendation that this not be approved, and I've given you two pages. I've highlighted and underlined the items that I feel strongest about, and I'll go over those, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you. The proposed use, as -- as I review it, is not allowed under the current review criteria for nonconforming uses in our Land Development Code. It is not more appropriate for our neighborhood and would have a great -- greatly negative impact on the area for the following reasons: First, the previous private school that had limited and a finite traffic issue was something that we -- we understood. It was -- it was a traffic issue in the morning for dropoff and mid afternoon for pickup. The proposed change for the fitness center Page 98 March 12, 2002 would create a huge increase in traffic, seven days a week throughout the day. And when the parkway is at nearly a standstill -- when I come home in the evenings, many times between 5:15 and six o'clock, it can be completely stopped with traffic -- is typically when the larger or a large amount of people would be coming to the fitness center, and I feel that that increase in traffic with that exact location at that time is -- is not appropriate and does not qualify this property for a change in nonconforming use. Second, the approval of any commercial uses that do not qualify, I think, in our Land Development Code as a nonconforming-use approval should have to go through two processes. One, I think that they should have to go to the Golden Gate area master plan restudy committee for at least their input. This is a committee that the commission has created and is currently working on overlays for all the Golden Gate area, Golden Gate master plan areas. They should have input to that change. The second process is that I believe this has to go through a Growth Management Plan amendment prior to it being approved because the current nonconforming use and criteria I don't believe allows it to be placed there without that Growth Management Plan amendment. I believe that a fitness center on this parcel should go through both the Growth Management Plan amendment prior to this approval also, not as a condition of this approval. I've spoken with 16 people on my street and on the street on 68th Street next to me. Everyone agrees that this would be detrimental to our neighborhood. It's not the fitness center they're against per seas -- in terms of a product -- they are -- they are for what the building could do in terms for the neighborhood -- but the fitness center in terms of the detrimental uses or the detrimental conditions that it could place on our neighborhood. A fitness center somewhere else, not on that parcel, is appropriate. Page 99 March 12, 2002 The -- one of the issues about them not coming here and speaking to you is -- I spoke to a number of people, and they all said it's staff-- and they read staffs report, and I spoke to them about Fred's report. If staff has given these clear reasons why it cannot be approved, they felt -- if it's very difficult to get people to go out of their way to write a positive letter in support of something -- it's very easy if this had been a recommendation for approval, for them to have come here to voice their objections to that. And they said that they felt that they were comfortable with the staff report, the way it was, and they had -- a number of them said they would try to call either Fred or the commissioners. I'm -- I'm not sure if they did. I just have no control over that. It's a highly intensive commercial use approved where I think our Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan issue does not allow it, and I'm concerned that it would set a precedent for additional commercial uses in that area if this should be approved. The traffic issues are my major concern on this property. Accidents relating to cars cutting across traffic that make the U-turn at 66th have increased greatly since the bingo hall was approved, and additional commercial uses almost immediately next door would only exacerbate an already dangerous traffic situation in our neighborhood. And I have to -- just as one last summation, an e-mail that was -- actually just came through the county offices to me recently as a result of a request and clarification to one of the commissioners was just issued from our staff-- not our staff, but the Collier County Transportation Planning staff stating to the public that they responded to that (as read): "It is the intent of the county to keep the area surrounding 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway Interchange residential consistent with the current land use." They go on to describe that if you put in larger commercial parcels in here and approve those that Page 100 March 12, 2002 you'll end up with problems -- the congestion problems that we see at Pine Ridge and 1-75, Immokalee Road and 1-75, and Collier Boulevard and 1-75. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll have to ask you to wrap it up, Ms. Burgeson. MS. BURGESON: Okay. And they summed that memo up to the public by stating that (as read)' "It's the intent of the county to preserve the capacity of this interchange by maintaining the existing land use and character of the surrounding areas." So I ask you to please support staff in not approving this request for nonconditional-use change here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Burgeson. Was there anyone else to speak at this time? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. As you've somewhat heard so far, this is a request for a nonconforming-use change, and I'm sure you're all familiar with the location at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and 68th Street Southwest. The site is zoned estates which is a residential zoning district. There was a previous nonconforming-use change on this site for the school. Since the school has been in operation, there was another nonconforming-use change that came before the board, and that was denied. The Growth Management Plan does permit nonconforming- use changes; therefore, this request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The Land Development Code permits the Board of Zoning Appeals to change the use if there are three determinations made. Those determinations are that the use is of the same character, that the use is equally appropriate or more appropriate than the existing use, and that if adverse effects on the neighbors are not Page 101 March 12, 2002 greater than the existing use. Staff's analysis, as you saw in the executive summary, finds that the uses are not of the same character. A school is conditional use in residential zoning districts. A fitness center is permitted in all commercial and industrial zoning districts. The fitness center, we believe, is not equally appropriate to a school for the same reasons I just stated. And also although we did not require the petitioner to submit a traffic analysis to keep his expenses to the minimum at this time, in general traffic -- traffic impacts for a commercial use are more intense, and even if they were equal, they would be spread throughout the day rather than clumped at school beginning and school end. I received one phone call in opposition, two letters in opposition, one letter in favor. I have a packet here. If you would like to see them, I can distribute them to you. Basically, the main concerns were traffic for the opposition, and for the letter in favor, for the eyesore that was mentioned by the previous speaker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. MR. REISCHL: Staff recommends denial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if I have this straight, we have three criteria that we need to go by today. MR. REISCHL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whether to approve it or deny or whether to agree with staff or disagree with staff. MR. REISCHL: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this is not a conditional use. It's not a Growth Management Plan amendment or comp plan amendment as we all know it. MR. REISCHL: No. That's an alternative method; however, Mr. Carlisle decides to go forward with a nonconforming use. And you're right, it's not a conditional use. The nonconforming use is a Page 102 March 12, 2002 separate entity. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if-- if it was a nonconforming use, would architectural standards still play in factor o f this? MR. REISCHL: He will have to go through the site development plan process, so yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any -- any nonconforming use would have to still meet the site-development requirements which is - - architectural standards is one of them? MR. REISCHL: It's an existing building, so the code says to the greatest extent possible. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's not a beauty-contest judgment or anything like that. It's just three different criteria that we must go by today? MR. REISCHL: Right. You can agree with my analysis or disagree with my analysis. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we break for lunch-- MR. CUYLER: I'll be as quick as an attorney can be, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler with Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson representing Greg Carlisle who's sitting in the front row and Fitness Quest. I do not represent the property owners, so all of the things I say about this ugly building and other people say about it cannot be attributed to the property owner, having said I do not represent him. In response to Mr. Henning's comment, you'll notice that we do not have our land-use experts to give expert testimony to you today. This is not a highly technical land-use matter. In fact, it doesn't even go to the Planning Commission. You don't even get a Planning Page 103 March 12, 2002 Commission recommendation. You have broad criteria on this, and I think that the commission has broad criteria is because these are unusual situations, and they tend to be a little unwieldy, and that discretion is left with the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Burgeson said that this was not consistent with the comprehensive plan. In fact, it is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The underlying land use is not consistent, but the comp plan as well as your zoning code allows for nonconforming uses. And we need to go ahead and get something out right now because I know there's been a little discussion amongst the neighbors about this being an illegal building and being unable to do things with it. I don't think the county has ever taken the position that this is an illegal structure. You have a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use. Those are two things. But with regard to the structure, Mr. Henning, yes, you can make the property owner mow the grass, and you can make the property owner keep vagrants out of it, but you can't make it look any better. It is still going to be an ugly building on the parkway on the way to Golden Gate and on the way vice versa to the City of Naples and Collier County. A nonconforming structure, by its definition, it does not conform to the district. It is not perfectly suited for the district. That is by definition. If we didn't have that issue, then we wouldn't be talking to you today. To tell you how old this building is, I first saw the mini-mall building before I was admitted to the Florida Bar, and I'm not a young attorney. So this -- this building has been around forever. It's never improved, and I have come to the conclusion it's never going to improve. The only way something is going to be done with this building -- and I appreciate Ms. Burgeson's comments; you know, we'd like something there; we'd like it to look pretty, but we just don't Page 104 March 12, 2002 want this. The problem is, people aren't lining up to do something with this building. You've got to give someone an economic incentive to go in there and put their money on the line and do something with this building. And I would think that one thing you would like is somebody who has a business track record, somebody that's proven that they can do something in business to go in there and show you before they come in with a comp plan or a rezone, if that's what you're looking for, and show to you and show to the neighbors they can, in fact, be a good neighbor and that they are going to be -- there's going to be some traffic there, but Mr. Carlisle's going to tell you that -- and show you that the majority, if not all, of the neighbors on the street have signed a petition saying that they're in support of this. And there have been problems from the school aspect with regard to traffic. It's all bunched up in the morning when people are trying to get to work, and it's all the -- bunched up in the afternoon when people are trying to come home. So I think we have to acknowledge that the structure's going to exist. I think we're providing you with an opportunity as opposed to a problem, an opportunity to do something about a building that is -- is clearly an eyesore. And nobody has done anything in the last 12 years. The school operated there, but they didn't improve the premises. They didn't do anything for the building. They didn't make it look any better. They didn't help the facade. They didn't do any landscaping so -- and nobody's done that in the last 15 years, and nobody's going to do it until you give somebody a chance to get in with an economic incentive to do that. This petitioner is willing to put his money on the line, and he's willing to put his business on the line to do those things. He has a track record. And let me, in -- in closing -- because we are going to have Mr. Page 105 March 12, 2002 Carlisle go through the petition and the neighbors and the people he's contacted. But for purposes of these introductory comments, let me indicate something, and that is, one of your criteria is that the facilities have to be of the same nature. In 1996, on your staff report, you'll note that there was a nonconforming use for an indoor golf course, pro shop, and dining facility that was never commenced, and then there was a school that was approved as a nonconforming use. The school was found to be of the same nature, obviously, as the golf facility and the dining facility. It couldn't have been the other criteria that the new use has less impact because that impact never came about. It never started. So I would submit to you that with regard to of-the-same-nature argument, that it's already been determined that a commercial facility is of the same nature for one time as the school facility. And I think what that goes to is your ability as the governing body to take a look at neighborhood situations, see that they don't work, see that there's an issue, see that there's a problem, and try to craft something that addresses those. And this one is not going to get addressed by that building falling down. It's not going to happen. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question before we break? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we break, Mr. Coyle first 'cause he's been waiting, and then we'll go to you Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My concern is probably a bit more fundamental. We've got a building that everybody agrees is unattractive, and it is not well cared for, and it's being used for inappropriate activities, I presume, from the testimony of the prior speaker. How will a growth plan amendment or comprehensive plan amendment change that? If we were to rezone it to residential to be completely compatible with the surrounding residential area, how does that remove the building, and how does it get it used for a different purpose? Page 106 March 12, 2002 MR. REISCHL: There's no need to rezone it. It is -- the underlying zoning now is residential, but a Growth Management Plan amendment could possibly allow commercial uses in that area. That's the alternative besides the nonconforming-use change. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that doesn't address the one issue that was brought up that this use isn't appropriate for residential areas. See, my problem is, on the one hand, there's an argument that says the use isn't appropriate for that area. Then you have to ask the question, what are you going to use that building for? Is it going to be used for a residence? Not likely. Now -- so it seems to me that -- that any kind of amendment that we make is not likely to move that building away. MR. REISCHL: That's true. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we can make any kind of amendment we want to make to the comprehensive plan, and that building's going to still be there ten years from now, and it's still not going to be used ten years from now. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Coyle, if I might very quickly note that the staff's recommendation, as you read in your report, was to come back with a comp plan amendment and a zoning amendment which we take to be something that they would seriously consider. I would hope they wouldn't put that in there if there was going to be no chance to favorably recommend that to the board. The way we look at it, one advantage that the Board of County Commissioners has under this scenario is if you approve the nonconforming-use change, you have the ability to view what is happening on the property for some period of time before the petitioner comes in with those petitions. And then you have the ability to say, you know, we don't -- we don't think it should -- should go any further than that. Just keep the nonconforming, or it's been working out great. All the neighbors are here to say it's a great deal and we're going to support that. Page 107 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it seems to me that our choices are relatively simple. Since we can't make the building go away through any kind of comprehensive plan amendment, we are tasked with the job of trying to find something that will be better for the neighborhood than we have now, which is an empty building that has not been maintained, and I don't see how we do that through a comprehensive plan amendment. It appears to me that we would have to do that by looking at the uses that are proposed for the building and trying to make a reasonable decision with respect to that use. Now, am I missing something here? MR. REISCHL: No. That's the point of this petition, is to either accept my analysis or come up with your own analysis that, yes, this use is of the same or lesser intensity as the previous use. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let -- I'm not sure that we're talking about previous use. Aren't we really saying -- saying that -- that the -- aren't we really trying to determine whether or not the gymnasium, if it were permitted there, would have less of an impact upon the neighborhood than leaving an unoccupied, unmaintained, unsightly building here? MR. REISCHL: Not really. We're looking at the use of the land and not the structure. It's a nonconforming-use change. MR. CUYLER: And I would suggest the analysis is whether it looks better than an unsightly, ugly building with a school behind it. It's the previous impact. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Cuyler, you stated that the only way that this building is going to improve is if another business came in there to improve it. That is zoned estate residential; right? Now, under estate residential can a church come to the Board of Commissioners under a conditional use to have a church there? MR. CUYLER: Your staff says no. Page 108 March 12, 2002 MR. REISCHL: No. Conditional uses in Golden Gate Estates have locational criteria, and this site does not meet the locational criteria. It could come to you as a nonconforming-use change. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- I'm not finished yet, thank you. So if a church comes in there as a -- the same -- same thing, same process, wouldn't they have to abide by any other criteria that your client has to conform to, site-development plans, architectural standards, landscaping codes? MR. CUYLER: Yes. And they, of course -- not to be argumentative -- but, I mean, they, of course, would have an impact on the neighborhood, depending on whether they had night services, school services, Sunday, Saturday services. And the other thing is, I'm kind of a believer of a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So to answer my question, a business doesn't necessarily have to come in there. A not-for-profit church can also -- MR. CUYLER: There are -- there are potentially other uses, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just to straighten that out. Being a former county attorney, I'm sure you know the Land Development Code. Is there something in there such as language for public nuisance? MR. CUYLER: Yes. And-- and I will concede to you, you can do certain things to make that a less offensive structure and lot, but you can't get rid of-- if Mr. Combs -- and I don't know Mr. Combs real well, but if you read the paper yesterday, you probably got a sense -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I believe everything I read in the paper. Thank you. MR. CUYLER: You and I are in complete agreement on that Page 109 March 12, 2002 one. You can do certain things, but if he wants to leave an unsightly, ugly building there that's not painted, the county can't do anything about it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So one of the public speakers came up and stated that it is a public nuisance, in his mind, where there are homeless people there. It is unsightly. It is litter. So if it is creating a public nuisance because of homeless people breaking in there and the owner refuses to secure it, don't you think the board can do something about that similar to what they did with Mr. Parks in Golden Gate Estates? MR. CUYLER: I think the board can try. I think the board is obviously going to give the owner an opportunity to cure those things before -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. I can't recognize you from the chair there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I know you're -- I think you want to break here, but it seems to me Commissioner Coyle kind of hit it on the head. Look, you can put the petitioner on public record. He can tell you everything he's going to do to improve that building. You, therefore, have a standard of improvement. And then he can come back through a process if you want to amend or propose amended land use, zoning change for that facility, but he would have made the economic investment. He would have demonstrated that this is a nonconforming use, but look how much better it looks to the neighborhood. Our risk is what he tells you, do you feel comfortable enough to go there, or the other option you have is what Commissioner Henning is saying, is you pursue under Land Development Code's nuisance properties, drag this guy through some system to get him to do something different, but he can probably do minimal improvements because you've still got an ugly building that Page 110 March 12, 2002 isn't going anywhere. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just a fast comment. I think with 1-75 slated to open an interchange on the Parkway, even though we've heard a couple comments or I've had a couple comments in my paperwork and backup that people would like it to stay residential, I doubt that a busy street like that with an interchange for 1-75 would attract many residential homes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to raise a couple too. from a school to a flea market. So I have a concern there. Since we are raising good questions, Petition was filed on 1999 to change It was denied. Why was it denied? MR. REISCHL: The commission made a determination, a finding that it was not of the same intensity. It was a greater intensity than a school. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I got a question for you, Mr. Kyle (sic). Why didn't they apply for a nonconforming use to the Golden Gate master plan restudy committee? MR. CUYLER: I can't answer that. I'm not sure he was involved with this project at that time. Was that a number -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. It's a study that's going on right now. MR. CUYLER: Why did he not go and talk to them? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. MR. CUYLER: I'll let Mr. Carlisle address that, what he has and has not done, particularly in light of your schedule, and if I could just reserve a couple minutes at the end, half as much time as I used. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you going to adjourn? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was going to adjourn, but I want to make sure everybody has a chance. I have no problems continuing right on, but then we won't have a break until about 4:30. In that case Page 111 March 12, 2002 there, we're adjourned. I see the hunger in your eyes. (Lunch recess taken from 12:45 p.m. Item #9D PRESENTATION BY VOTE CONSERVATION 2002 - STAFF DIRECTED TO GIVE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; HOLD A FUTURE WORKSHOP; AND NOTIFY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF POSSIBILITY OF BALLOT QUESTION CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We will reconvene. The next item would be 9D, Presentation by Vote Conservation 2002. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't have any backup for that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. MS. GOETZ: Good afternoon. Thank you very much. My name is Ellin Goetz. I am appearing here today as chair of Vote Conservation 2002, which is a grass roots initiative, formed of volunteers to conduct a community wide campaign to support a referendum to establish a special tax to fund the acquisition of natural resource lands in Collier County. Joining me today are other members of this Vote Conservation 2002 that I would like to introduce. Sue Mullens, who is with the Nature Conservancy Tallahassee office, is working with us to help guide us. Nature Conservancy has worked with many, many counties all around Florida to do very similar programs, and we have a list, which we may provide you of other initiatives across the state. Kathy Prosser (phonetic) with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Nancy Payton is walking to the back with Florida Wildlife Federation to get that list that I mentioned. Brad Cornell, Collier Audubon. Lenore Reich, League of Women Voters and Clarence, who is in the Page 112 March 12, 2002 back, Big Cypress Basin. First I want to thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to come before you today and we have three requests that we are going to make from you. The first is to receive technical assistance. We would like a letter from the Board of County Commissioners authorizing county staff to assist with information that is now needed to pursue more specific details of this initiative, and specifically we ask for assistance from the County Attorney's Office, from the Natural Resources staff and from the Budget Office and to this point we have been working for about a year as a private citizens' initiative to gather information and we are at a point where we need interaction with the county and with county staff so we are coming to you today. We are requesting perhaps that you issue such a letter directing staff to do so. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think it would require a letter so much as a directive. Mr. Olliff, did you want to weigh in on this? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir, I don't think so. I believe a direction from the Board at the end of their presentation, just letting us know what it is that you want the staff to do and to bring back will be sufficient. MS. GOETZ: The second of the three requests that we are making of you today is that you entertain the notion of a future workshop with us to really spend some time on a future agenda so that we can present very detailed information to you about ideas and issues for your response and interaction. We are going to need some assistance from the staff at this point to go further in our efforts, so that's why we have request number one to you, and we would then respond to you at that workshop with specific information. The third request is that you consider requesting of the Supervisor of Elections to notify them that the possibility exists of Page 113 March 12, 2002 such a referendum issue on the ballot in November so that any planning that needs to be done for that might occur. That really in a nutshell is the three issues, technical assistance from the staff, a future workshop on your agenda and to notify the Supervisor of Elections of this ballot issue, and then I would be happy to entertain any questions you might have, as would members of the group that are here today. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions on behalf commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No questions, but I have a statement. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Henning, would you like to go first? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what we are asking for, I understand the assistance from staff and then you are asking for a workshop with the Board of Commissioners. MS. GOETZ: If you feel it would be valuable, which we do feel you have questions, I mean, there are going to be questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. GOETZ: And we felt that might be the best way to deal with those questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and I can agree with that, but I would like to move slow, and the last one is asking the Supervisor of Elections to prepare the ballot question and I think that is at this point maybe a little bit premature. Maybe going through the workshop is when we can develop that kind of--- MS. GOETZ: Yeah, certainly the language would be developed, but what I was -- what we are more interested in is making sure we didn't miss some opportunity to get on --just so the technical aspects of whatever it takes to set that up -- and not be missed. That's all. Not any specific language but just notify them that this potentially could be on the ballot in the fall. Page 114 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. GOETZ: Hold space on the ballot, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Reserve space. MS. GOETZ: Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, reserve space. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe we got a 180 day window that we have to do this in prior to the election? MS. GOETZ: Yes. That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I would love to hear your statement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I hope it's as profound as you expect. I think there are two issues here. If this issue is to come before the voters, I am confident that it's the intent of the Vote Conservation 2002 group to assure that the discussions and the decisions be made in the sunshine and I'm sure that's why you are here now and why you would like to have a workshop to discuss these issues, and I think that's entirely appropriate that we provide the time for you to do that. The other issue is assistance. I believe that it's the Board of County Commissioner's responsibility to assure that anything that is likely to be placed on the ballot be properly drafted and constructed and to assure the appropriate controls that are essential, if in fact this passes, to assure that the county administers the taxpayers' funds appropriately and wisely and, again, I think that the technical assistance is appropriate under those circumstances. The other question and I think I understand where Commissioner Henning would like to go on this, is whether the Board of County Commissioners should ask that this be placed on the ballot or whether you would go through the petitioning process in order to get it placed on the ballot without getting our approval. So I think he might be right that that is something you might want to do during the workshops as this thing takes a little better Page 115 March 12, 2002 form, but I am supportive of this effort and letting the voters decide how they should proceed on this issue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may comment, one of the comments that you made in the presentation that I truly love was grass roots movement and I commend you for that. It's a grass roots movement that will carry the items through when it comes up for referendum for consideration. As far as a hard fast petition through the election office, I think we might want to rethink that a little bit because of the criteria that are put on to it. It would be ever so imposing, but a general petition circulated by the different groups to go out there in the community, to use it as a means just to show that there is support and also, too, once a person puts their name on a petition, they more or less bought into something, and possibly, too, they could use it for a fund raiser because an item such as this magnitude in order to get it in front of the public is going to need some funding for advertising and, of course, that has to come from the private sector, it will not come from this commission, but I think we have got some good direction here and some real good thought process going into it. MS. GOETZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Cormnissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a comment also. I'm certainly glad you are starting this initiative. Again, I am on CREW board. For anybody who's not familiar with CREW, it's Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, and what they are trying to do now is purchase lands in order to protect the quality of water and our aquifers recharge the aquifers for generations to come, and funds are extremely important to protect our future and somebody needed to take this initiative and I am really glad you are. Thank you. MS. GOETZ: Thank you. Page 116 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So at this point we want to consider directing staff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I will take that directive. I will make that direction, if it's all right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I would like to direct the staff or direct Tom to direct staff, I can't direct staff myself--- MR. OLLIFF: I understand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: To please work closely with this group, the Vote Conservation 2002, give them assistance as well as the County Attorney's office, giving them assistance as they prepare to do this. Also prepare or slate a future workshop within the proper timeframe so that we can get moving on this and they meet their 180 day time limit, as well as notifying our elections office that there will possibly be a ballot on the fall election ticket. MS. GOETZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, this isn't going to require a formal vote, and we'll hear from you, Commissioner Coyle, and we also have some speakers to speak on the subject also, but go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just think it's appropriate that we make sure that in the assistance process, that we not become an advocate for the process as sometimes we have in the past on tax issues that have actually undermined the effectiveness of them and I would just like to make sure that the government is neutral on this issue and that the assistance we provide is the assistance that is necessary to assure a proper and legal issue on the ballot that would be effectively administered by the County if in fact the vote passes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: It may be timely just to mention that as the process goes forward towards the discussion and ultimately creation Page 117 March 12, 2002 of a ballot question, the ballot question, I think as everyone knows, is ultimately the decision of the Board of County Commissioners. The petition process, based upon the 1996 policy, does have some reasons to be in place and the reason it was in place was so that the petitions that are circulated would have some review and management at the county level at their inception so that the petitions would not come back to the Board at a later point in time, perhaps asking for something different than the Board was looking to consider, although it's always the Board's prerogative to ultimately determine what it will do with the petition, number of petitions, the formality of how the petitions would have been created and submitted, the depth of information that's provided in the petition before it solicits a response or an address, a signature, and the petition process also had for its integrity a review process for the review of signatures and things of that nature. You don't have to do that but there were some policy reasons for that to be there, so I wanted to mention that. The ultimate decision of what the question will be will be this board, irrespective of an informal petition process that goes out there, so it may take a temperature, it may be different than the question that you would ultimately determine to have. Secondly, to the extent that with the three requests that the Board honors those requests and in essence recognizes this committee, this group of citizen interests, to come together and work on a project the Board has endorsed, as Mr. Coyle I think in part indicated may well put them in the purview of a type of committee working for the Board, which means that the committee itself, not these Board members anymore than they already are, but the persons themselves as a part of the committee may fall under the Sunshine Law requirements, which is three basic requirements: Reasonable notice of meetings, adequate public facility where the public can be Page 118 March 12, 2002 present and minutes of the meeting being taken, and as we know from time to time those constraints can be significant, albeit legislative for the honorable purpose of open government. So in working with this committee, County Manager, County Attorney, we will find that we will need to advise them as they go forward and they may find some strictures on what heretofore has been an informal type of discussion and organization that they had and it may become a little more formal for them by coming into this scenario as they requested. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So if I am understanding that right, that if they get involved with us, they're going to go into the Sunshine Laws. If they don't get involved with us, they can organize and meet and do whatever they want. MR. WEIGEL: That's true. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: They can always come back to you later. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What is the pleasure of the Commission? Do we -- one way or another it sounds like we are doing harm, but then again, too, are you prepared to do everything under the Sunshine? MS. GOETZ: We do operate according to those three points that he elucidated right now, which is the meetings are in a public place, they are noticed -- not through the county obviously, but they're in a publicly accessible place and we do have minutes. We would prefer, of course, to not be restricted by those other things that he hasn't really mentioned. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's all or none. MS. GOETZ: I know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not an option you may pick from. MS. GOETZ: I think we do need the technical assistance of the county staff to move forward, so if that means that we operate in the Page 119 March 12, 2002 Sunshine, we operate in the Sunshine and we have formed a PAC, as you know, and that will be responsible for fund raising activities. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, does that raise any complications in the fact that they'll be wearing two different hats, as a PAC member and --- MS. GOETZ: PAC members are not necessarily members of-- they are members of Conservation Collier, but they do not have to be. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Be careful on that, Commissioner Coyle. MR. WEIGEL: And you are. This Board has not discussed PAC or given its imprimatur to the PAC. I read about it in the newspaper today, apparently it's an independent activity for its own purposes and I would advise and suggest to the Board not to be involved with PAC. Mr. Coyle indicated, I think speaking on behalf of the Board, of the neutrality at this point in time if the process goes forward and, again, in regards to Sunshine Laws, when we talk about meetings being open, it also means if two or more members of the committee are talking to each other on the telephone, in the restaurant, all the perception issues that we frequently talk about here, too, so just to let you know and we will keep you advised on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I make a comment? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we have to be very careful about those issues and I appreciate the conservative positions we are taking on them. If the extent of the assistance here is to help in drafting what would be an appropriate ballot question, does that in itself expose this organization to the requirements of the Sunshine Law? There would be no participation with respect to advertising or supporting this ballot question, that if they only ask for assistance in Page 120 March 12, 2002 drafting the ordinance and/or the ballot question, would that expose them to the Sunshine Law issues? It appears to me that those are things we have to do anyway. If this were passed, we would have to do an ordinance, we would have to write an ordinance to implement it, we would have to review and approve the ballot question, and those are things that we do whether we have a relationship or whether they ask us to do it or not. MR. WEIGEL: Right. It seems to me, Commissioner, that what you'd really be doing is you would be advising staff to go ahead and do these things and to the extent that this group or any other group wants to work with staff, County Manager, County Attorney Office, they would be invited to do so but you are not recognizing any individual group to be essentially helping you achieve a product or project result a little bit later on, so it is a difficult distinction there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we limited it to the drafting of a proposed ordinance and the drafting of a ballot question, would that be sufficient? MR. WEIGEL: I think it would be in this case, if your direction is for staff to bring it back to you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: And not this group, like an advisory committee coming back to you and saying we like this, we don't like this, we have these suggestions or these additions, of that nature. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the staff could bring that back to us? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, we could. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how about the -- there would be no problem with respect to receiving a briefing by this organization in an open session of the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, would there? Page 121 March 12, 2002 MR. WEIGEL: Not at all, and in fact the risks I talked about are ostensibly risks of that committee and not you as a board, but we want to look out for everyone here, to the extent we can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the objectives of the committee are to make sure that everyone knows what you are recommending and how you are planning on going about it and the issue with doing that at a board meeting was addressed because they wanted to make sure that everybody understood what they had in mind and how they might propose it. As long as we stay out of the process of formulating the policy and making recommendations and participating with the group in supporting this issue, it would appear to me we would not fall or we would not expose them or us to any Sunshine issues. Am I oversimplifying this issue? MR. WEIGEL: No, I don't think so, but I will just indicate that if I understood what this Board may do and not do today is that in not recognizing this group as a group that's working with this board but still offering up staff to work as we do with the public generally on important issues and assist the board in the project, it would be on the record I would state that as opposed to the Planning Commission or the Tourist Development Counsel or any of the approximately 50 advisory committees that this board has, that we would be providing public service to them but we would not be advising them as counsel to that committee and they may still wish to seek their own independent counsel from time to time. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That makes sense to me, Commissioner Coyle. If everybody -- well, if we do just the technical assistance like we would if anyone else, as the counselor said, they have their independence, they can formulate, meet, do what they need to do and then they can come back to us and we are not involved, therefore there are no Sunshine law violations. Page 122 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'm thinking about is the process that was followed during the city elections with respect to charter amendments. Those charter amendment questions had to come before the city council for review and approval before they go on the ballot, yet the city council had no -- nothing to do with respect to the people who were proposing those kinds of things. I think if we conduct ourselves in the same manner we would be reasonably safe with respect to Sunshine Law issues, because -- and I'd like to confirm, I'd like to make sure that my statement is true, that we would have to do these two things no matter what happens and no matter who brings it to us, we would have to draft the question and we would have to prepare an ordinance for the implementation if it were approved. MR. WEIGEL: That's precisely correct. You would be doing that whether staff brought it to you or you imposed it upon yourselves for staff to assist you to have the product before you. MS. GOETZ: Those actions would be through the County Attorney's Office I assume, but we also are asking for National Resources and the Budget Office, Technical assistance on certain issues. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that information that would be available under the Freedom of Information Act, budget issues and information or--- MS. GOETZ: This is Sue Mullen. MS. MULLEN: Hi, you guys. I'll try not to re-invent the wheel here. We have done this in quite a few counties in Florida and typically what we need specifically from the Budget Office is with regard to mileage rate increases, based on your taxable property, what mileage rate increase would turn out to be what and how would that affect property owners. That's exactly what we need from the Budget Page 123 March 12, 2002 Office. From the Natural Resources Office, we just basically need corroboration of all the research and data that we have collected with regard to what natural resources are important enough in this county that we want to tax ourselves to protect. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just ask --- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You won't need a person to participate in your meetings, you are merely ask -- making a request of government to provide information that would otherwise be available under the Freedom of Information Act. MS. MULLEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that basically what you're saying? MS. MULLEN: Yes, sir. The only exception would be that a document that contains this specific millage rate increases like proposed increases incremental increases may not exist. Someone on your staff may have to prepare that for us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we do that all the time, I think. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: David, what do you think? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that it's different than a public records request. It's a public information request, which would require whichever office to have to create something, it's a new duty. I have these duties imposed upon me right now in the sense that I have had requests for information which I have to compile, or people will complain, so it goes with government, I'm afraid. MR. OLLIFF: But that's a whole lot more in line with providing information than it is in participating in the process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's the key part, we probably could not and should not have any staff member Page 124 March 12, 2002 participating with the committee and doing the planning but if you wish to make requests of us to provide you information, we would do that just like we do for any other citizen. Is that sufficient? MS. GOETZ: Yeah, I think so. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Just to follow up, these are extremely good points to bring out, and I would hope that each one of you in your newsletters monthly as you get back to your people, very succinctly tell them how we are working with you and that we provide this service to every group and, you know, so that everybody understands fully and nobody can read something into it that isn't there. Thank you. MS. GOETZ: Good advice, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Does this require a motion or just staff direction? What is the requirement? MR. OLLIFF: I think the safer route would be a motion, but I think in this particular case the one issue that makes me ask for a motion is probably the notification to the Supervisor of Elections Office more than the other items because the other items have morphed themselves, if you will, more into an information request which certainly doesn't need more direction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we don't have to do that one yet, do we? That's something that can take place a little later on or are you requesting that it be done now, Ellin? MS. GOETZ: Our only concern was that space be reserved, not anything to do with the actual language or anything more specific than that, and if it's not necessary --- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's probably something that we can check into for our next meeting to find out if there is going to be an issue with that. Page 125 March 12, 2002 MS. GOETZ: Great. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a direction. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One speaker. Are you through, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a direction, I think, is the -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I would think. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm looking forward to sitting down in a workshop setting to hear all the issues with this ballot, proposed ballot question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And our speaker is? MS. FILSON: Leonore Reich. MS. REICH: Commissioners, I'm the chair of the Natural Resources Committee of the Collier County League of Women Voters and the state league as well as the Collier County league are strongly committed to conservation of land and I just wanted to add my voice as a member of the committee to, again, emphasize that the league is very much interested in the success of this and also is the only civic group at this time to be a member of this committee and we hope to have more in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. There we have it. We-- is that sufficient direction to go forward now? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Moving on, we have one more item before we turn to the regular agenda. Item # 10C PRESENTATION AND APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCING PLAN- ACCEPTED Page 126 March 12, 2002 That's the 9D, excuse me, 1 OD, adoption of the FY03 Budget Policy. MR. OLLIFF: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I believe we were going to hear 10C and D following this one, the first one being the transportation financing plan and the budget policy since they work hand in hand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We certainly can. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I'll be fairly brief, I will introduce Mike Smykowski, Budget Director, to discuss this issue. On December 18th, Board took action as part of your annual update and inventory order, AUIR Report for the capital improvement element, transportation element and Growth Management Plan. At that time you had four options presented to you for funding the approximately $257 million shortfall over the next five years in transportation. We presented to you a new work program that showed what we accomplished the first year 2001 and added to New Year 2006. To meet that the Board made the decision to go with bonding of the gasoline tax as well as a portion of the sales tax to represent 75 percent of that shortfall and 25 percent of pay as you go. What Mike Smykowski and bond counsel working with the management staff have done is identify the financing alternatives to implement that funding decision of the Board, and with that I would like to introduce Mike Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, Budget Director. On December 18, 2001, the board considered a number of financing options that were presented at the transportation workshop relative to AUIR discussions to meet growth management concurrency Page 127 March 12, 2002 requirements. The example of what was considered at that point initially were, one, a pay as you go option both inclusive and excluding the $44 million in enhancements, a full bonding scenario with the $44 million in enhancements, a full bonding scenario ~ without the $44 million in enhancements, and the fourth item that Mr. Feder referred to, a 75 percent bonding of the shortfall with 25 percent funded on a pay as you go basis, which is essentially through -- on a cash basis as appropriated in the annual budget process as opposed to CD long term financing for that component of the program. At that workshop, the Board selected option four, the 75 percent bonding and the 25 percent pay as you go option, and that excluded the $44 million in enhancements. After subtracting the $44 million enhancements, there is a $257.2 million shortfall over the five year period and the financing sources include $147 million in gas tax revenue bond, $45.9 million in sales tax bond and $64.3 million on pay as you go funding, and that, again, totals out to the $257.2 million, which is equivalent to the shortfall that was identified over the five-year period. It's also important to recognize that we had the financial advisor prepare the bonding capacity of both the gas tax and the sales tax and the bonding capacity of that $147 million is based on all the current gas taxes that are currently imposed and that includes your five and six cent local option gas taxes which some of which have expiration the 2015 range, so to get that full bonding capacity on the gas tax side it requires continuing with all the currently imposed gas taxes that Collier County currently imposes. In terms of the transportation AUIR update, what was needed was a board policy decision that provided a financially feasible option to satisfy the requirement of the Annual Update and Inventory Report process relative to transportation. The result was a Page 128 March 12, 2002 commitment to meet transportation concurrency requirements by bonding gas and sales tax and supplement it with ad valorem taxes. That again being the pay as you go component. Consequences of the transportation financing plan include the following: It does impact our ability to finance other capital projects, including the courts and constitutional officers building on campus, that was deleted from the bond issue that was issued earlier this year, the preliminary design for that building, recognizing that funding in the near term would be difficult to achieve. In addition, the emergency services complex is another major capital project that's looming on the near term horizon. There is also potentially higher interest rates on impact fee bonds without a secondary pledge. The board was concerned, the option they chose in terms of financing retained the bulk of the sales tax bonding capacity for emergencies in the event of catastrophic things like hurricanes and/or also just other potential needs out there. As a result, a proposed jail expansion, which is in the planning stages and the North Regional Park off Vanderbilt Drive is also in the planning stages currently -- what we will probably end up having to do is bond those projects with impact fees of the primary pledge without a supplemental pledge or secondary pledge of sales tax or other available non ad valorem revenues as a result of the future concerns and the financial markets because their interest rate imposed on those bonds because gas or because impact fees, excuse me, would be the primary repayment pledge, would result in a higher interest rate incurred. The third component and most important probably is that it requires continued increases in taxable value to fund the pay as you go component and/or the equivalency of the debt service and we'll talk about that in detail in a few moments, but essentially the pay as you go component is the component that would be funded out of the Page 129 March 12, 2002 general fund. In the event taxable value did not grow at the anticipated rates and we'll talk about the historicals and what the outlook is or the assumptions that were used in this analysis were, in the event those did not occur, obviously you would be facing either services level reductions in the general fund and/or a mileage rate increase or a combination thereof between the two. There are a number of variables impacting the timing and the amount of bonds issued in this process. Obviously, transportation is looking at a major capital program but there are potential hindrances that would impact the timing of the projects. Those would include environmental permitting issues on any given project, especially as we get into wetlands mitigation, potential delays in right of way acquisition on any of the given projects, production constraints of the available paving contractors that are currently working in this town, neighborhood concerns relative to roadway alignments, and potential conflict with the utility construction projects as well in terms of relocation of water and sewer lines. Obviously, those all impact when you might issue bonds. The concern obviously is we don't want to issue a large bond issue for 50 or $70 million only to find, you know, a month out that suddenly we have encountered delays in rights of way and there is a snag in environmental permitting and you have the carrying costs or the interest expense associated with those bonds and you are seeing delays in the projects in terms of the construction schedule. The next item we'll talk about is the desired financing mechanism. One, we're looking for flexibility, obviously, in the timing of the issuance of debt; efficiency in the issuance of multiple revenue bonds that decrease the risk of earning yield less than the interest paid on the bond during the initial construction period. Their thing is typically a road construction project typically takes 18 or 24 Page 130 March 12, 2002 months, obviously we don't want to borrow money and incur interest expense any earlier in the process than we have to. We may use some short-term instruments during the construction phase to minimize or avoid interest expense and the potential project timing issues. The decision of the internal finance committee, which is consisting of staff with some level of financial expertise in the county in conjunction with our financial advisor who will make financial decisions based upon current market conditions, obviously at the time when we are prepared to issue those, any of those bonds, and whatever is in the best long term interest of Collier County at that point in time we'd make that decision accordingly and each of those would be brought back to the board, obviously, for ratification prior to issuance of any debt. What you have in front of the screen now is the road financing plan summary and it shows the major financing sources. In FY02, obviously you have an accumulated cash as well as $72.8 million that is the first increment of the revenue bonds issued. In FY03, you have depleted cash, the ongoing revenues from gas tax and impact fees are estimated at $24.7 million, you have the second phase of the financing using up the remaining balance of the gas taxes to the tune of $81.9 million. In green at the bottom you also see the first debt service payment on that $72.8 million that was issued or would be issued in FY02 and, obviously, since the road financing program looked at all available revenue sources prior to calculating the remaining deficit, then if we're -- since we are choosing to finance primarily, you don't have many options, obviously, other than a full pay as you go program. The first layer has to be added in as the increment to be added to the budget because you have an existing shortfall and then you're strapping on that additional layer of debt service above and beyond that shortfall. Page 131 March 12, 2002 The estimated debt service on that $72.8 million is approximately $5.9 million, so that becomes the general fund support of the road construction program in FY03. In FY04, you have ongoing revenues of 25.1 and, again, the board opted to bond 75 percent of the shortfall, so the remaining -- and that amounted to approximately $193 million. Well, you've used approximately a hundred-fifty three or four in FY02 and FY03. The remaining bonding capacity that's still outstanding is 38.2 million. However, you still have in FY04 a remaining shortfall of $30.1 million. Obviously, if you opted to go completely pay as you go, that would be a 30,000 or $30 million increment that would have to be added to the general fund. Obviously, an increment of that magnitude is something that you probably would not want to absorb in one year. I guess that's an understatement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any question about that? (Laughter) MR. SMYKOWSKI: In addition, recognizing as well that the transportation, the pay out curve is typically 18 to 24 months. Obviously, we wouldn't want to tax and then you wouldn't actually pay out that cash for another 18, again, to 24 months, so the staff recommendation in this regard is to -- and you see 30.1 million in FY04, 10.8 million in 05, and 23.4 million in 06 in the dotted area, and that's shown as commercial paper, and essentially what we're doing is we would borrow short term over a five year period for each of those increments to spread that cost and avoid having a $30 million spike in one fiscal year, so essentially what you are doing is spreading the cost of that last marginal piece over a five year period to better manage it and in terms of being able to absorb that in the general fund budget without putting a catastrophic strangle hold on available revenues and living Page 132 March 12, 2002 within existing mileage. MR. OLLIFF: In other words, Mr. Chairman, it would be nice if the road construction needs or the expense side of the equation were a flat line and steady from year to year, but it's not, so what we're recommending is that we use short term borrowing in order to be able to smooth, if you will, some of those spikes out so that they are manageable from the ad valorem tax side, and then that's what he's showing you in this particular graph, particularly in fiscal year 04. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And then at the bottom in green you also see the growing of general funds of the road construction program over time as you layer on those additional financings. It goes from 5.9 in FY03 to 12.5 in 04, so that the margin is about six-and-a-half million so it roughly doubles but then because of the magnitude of that 30. ! million that you are smoothing over in FY05 it increases to $23.1 million, so that's going to be obviously a tough year in terms of general funds because new money that may come on the tax roll obviously is first and foremost. The board's top priority is the transportation and funding of road construction, so that will -- essentially they'll take away available dollars from other programs and obviously as the county continues to grow, then there will be greater needs in a whole host of service areas and put upwards pressure on the general fund. This just gives you a graph that shows historically the increases in taxable value in Collier County. Going back to FY94, you see obviously the 20.5 percent that was realized in FY02, is somewhat of an anomaly itself and while it would be welcome, obviously we can't count on that level of increase. You look FY00 is 14.3; FY01 is 13.6, and, you know, you look back to the mid-90s, it was in the single digits. Obviously, though, in the near term we're expecting, as the county continues to grow and there is large commercial property still Page 133 March 12, 2002 being added, the new Ritz, the new Ritz Carlton, et cetera, we would expect to see sizeable increases in taxable value, at least in the near term for the next few years. Our assumptions over the next three years, anyway, were 15, 13 and 11. I will also be clear and in terms of discussions with the property appraiser, I had the misfortune, I guess, of being here in February and March and telling you what I think the taxable value might reasonably look like in the upcoming year and whereas the property appraiser who does that for a living is not required by law to provide that preliminary until June 1 and a final certified value until July 1, so at this point we're banking largely on recent history for those assumptions, and as I indicated earlier, obviously, the extent to which those taxable values, if it were less than 15 percent, obviously that would have greater impacts in terms of service level or potential need for a general fund mill age increase. This slide actually shows the marginal impact associated with each layer of financing that's added and the cumulative impact to the general fund, again, growing from approximately 5.9 million in FY03 to 12-and-a half million in 04, 23 million in 05, 25.5 in 06 and almost 31 million in 07, so it does grow over time. Obviously, this would resolve the five-year road construction plan. The issue is, obviously, though, beyond that point, what else might be looming on the horizon because you would at that point have bonded all your gas taxes and a portion of your sales taxes as well, so this does solve that five year window, but by using that smoothing to avoid that catastrophic increase in general fund taxes in a single year, you're also pushing some of those expenses into future years as well and obviously what's going to be required in terms of transportation projects in FY07 through FY010 is really anyone's guess as well. This just shows a comparison of the general fund support of the Page 134 March 12, 2002 road program with and without the enhancements. Obviously, the enhancements amounted to $44 million. You have to layer on an additional $44 million of pay as you go. The $30 million hit in FY07 would become $41 million, so I think the Board obviously made a prudent decision in terms of kind of getting back to basics, funding the basic core road infrastructure in this program and I note we're hopeful in terms of looking to MSTUs to pick up some additional costs, but putting some of the core pre-wiring in and et cetera that would allow for some of those additional services that individual communities might desire or ask for. With that, that concludes my presentation. It's -- obviously this has significant impacts. It also ties in to a budget policy because I have a three-year analysis of the general fund. In preparing the budget policy, just looking at available revenues and primarily what new costs would be added to the budget as a result primarily of capital projects, new libraries coming on line, sheriff deputies coming off grants, et cetera, and also obviously general fund support of roads, so they kind of go hand in hand. With that I'd--- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers on this? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have two speakers. Mr. James Gibson and he will be followed by Janet Vasey. MR. GIBSON: Our intention was to speak after the budget policy presentation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have two separate items. MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were on the budget policy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have an inflation factor built into the needs for transportation? MR. SMYKOWSKI: On the expense side, no. That is Page 135 March 12, 2002 something that Mr. Feder is currently looking at, but we also did not include a growth factor in terms of impact fees as well, either from -- we took a very conservative stance in terms of road impact fees and did not assume any rate increases in the near term but also you have to -- it be a give and take and obviously we would hope that those two items would wash, essentially, but Norman will be obviously developing the FY03 budget component for this program as we begin on the budget process very shortly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me ask a question about the impact fees and, in fact, some other fees. If these should be logically discussed under the next section please tell me, but we have not taken into consideration any increase in EMS service fees and we have not taken into consideration any increase in impact fees, and not the increase in the impact fee levels nor the increase likely to result from drawing additional permits, drawing more permits than we had forecast; is that true? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there are two elements with respect to impact fees where we stand an opportunity to recognize significant upside potential as far as income is concerned. One is if we substantially increase road impact fees this year quickly, that will provide us some additional income, and the other is if the rate of permits being pulled meets or exceeds the current projections, we will derive additional income from that source. Are those correct statements? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Those are absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And we were very conservative on the impact fee side. I've been here year after year and the question is how long can the boom continue and how long will the construction, Page 136 March 12, 2002 at what point do you see a drop off and we've been wrong many a year now, saying, you know, it just can't continue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You will be long gone by the time that happens. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder? MR. FEDER: Commissioner-- very quickly for the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. To the issue, first of all, we have not inflated the costs, so when I give you a five year work program that costs us, say, 10 million today, I'm collecting impact fees consistent with that increment of that 10 million cost. As we go to upgrade the impact fee process, that is being looked at right now and if we evaluate it, we can not have that cost be more than the cost to provide the service at that point in time so, again, it's not necessarily a windfall in that nature, but there is an ability to keep that cost consistent with the cost of delivery of that unit of service required. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'm concerned about and I urge you to try to find a way to address the following problem: Impact fees collected today for the construction of roads tomorrow or next year or the year after that, don't take into consideration the increases in property costs for us to buy right of way. It seems to me that we have got to devise some way to do that, even if it includes adding a CPI inflator in the impact fee calculation process. MR. FEDER: We are looking at that. Again, as I update the impact fees very shortly and go to apply, they will be the full cost, assuming approval of this board. Also, we are looking at an inflation factor, as you say, CPI, for the in between years that we do the full evaluation to update the cost, so we're going to take that into account and, as you point out, Commissioner, very correctly so, probably the area that will change Page 137 March 12, 2002 the most, because of what we are finding in our costs, will be the right of way costs that we're experiencing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you need a motion on this now, Mr. Olliff, to accept the Transportation Capital Financing Plan drafted by staff?. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir and recognize this is not a set in stone plan that stays fixed until '07. The board obviously will have opportunities as we review the budgets each year to be able to manage and massage this plan as the environment dictates. What we are really looking for is for you to understand conceptually what and how we intend to try and finance the road construction program for this county, recognizing again that this was the board's number one priority for this organization and recognizing that there is going to be a significant impact to your general fund in order to build roads and that is a new step for this county. And I need to point out for the record, too, that the first year which Mr. Smykowski indicated was a $6 million impact to the general fund is actually a $9 million impact to the general fund because the monies that used to go to road and bridge to support the operations there are also being supplanted so that gas taxes will be used in that regard, so you're actually going to end up with a $9 million off the top, if you will, transfer from general fund to the road transportation capital side of the house, so you have got about a nine, twelve, twenty-three, $25 million road in front of you, if our numbers hold still, but I will also tell you as Commissioner Coyle saw in the plan that I think we've -- doing our job, I think we're going to provide to you a very conservative financing plan. There are some upside opportunities as the years go along. COMMISSIONER COYLE: IfI could ask one follow up Page 13 8 March 12, 2002 question. With respect to the interest earned on the special revenue funds and some of the enterprise funds, have we taken that into consideration with respect to re-investing it in those funds, in developing the budget? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, not at this point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. That would be a windfall if that could come to fruition. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we know it does, at least to the extent we've got money in there, in those funds. Investment funds produce interest income, don't they? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. MR. OLLIFF: They will to some extent, but as you start pledging your income to debt service, it's going to come in one door and then pretty much go out the same door as we cash flow this thing along. There is not going to be a whole lot of generation of reserves in this transportation plan because we simply don't have that luxury. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One final question, and I just don't understand completely how the governmental budgeting process works, but is there any opportunity for the government to get a line of credit against which we draw as we need these funds to build rather than floating a bond issue? Our bond expert is back there, have you looked at that or is it possible? MR. OLLIFF: It's a great question, I think Bill has got a great answer for you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. MR. REAGAN: For the record, I'm Bill Reagan, Senior Vice President, William R. Huff & Company. That's exactly what we are proposing. If this program goes according to plan, that is just a line of credit, we just used a fancy Page 139 March 12, 2002 aye. word calling it variable rate plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we don't run into a real problem if we miscalculate the timing of the project, we're not paying interest on money that we don't need at that point in time. MR. REAGAN: That's correct. In fact, what we're hoping to do, if Norm came to you and said I need $10 million by October 1st, we would probably draw down, borrow it at a low interest -- low floaters, excuse me -- and re-invest it and try and hedge it a little bit ourselves to have that go back in the fund as you described before. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. REAGAN: And we should never have a problem having $50 million sit there and not make our yield. So that's what I'm trying to avoid for you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, then I would move we accept the Transportation Capital Financing Plan developed by staff with an annual review or as necessary. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion on behalf of Commissioner Carter, a second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying (Unanimous response) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, five to zero. Okay, now we go to the second half of this. Item # 1 OD ADOPTION OF FY 03 BUDGET POLICY- APPROVED WITH Page 140 March 12, 2002 CHANGES; PUBLIC HEARING DATES ESTABLISHED FOR SEPTEMBER 5 AND 18, 2002 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. That moves us to Item 1 OD, which is adoption of the Fiscal Year '03 budget policy. In order for staff to begin preparation of the FY03 budget that direction is needed from the board on major substantive policy issues, and the purpose of today's discussion is for the board to reach consensus on those policies, upon which the '03 budget would be based. The Executive Summary itself as indicated is broken down to essentially three elements. The first element, pages two through four, are new budget policies that require board policy direction from the board. The second is standard budget policies that the board has endorsed for a number of years and I would propose not to go through those individually but treat them on an exception basis if board members have questions relative to those, and the third element, as I indicated, as part of the Transportation Financing Plan, OMB staff prepares a three year analysis of both the general fund and the unincorporated area general fund which make up your principal ad valorem tax supported funds in Collier County, and the purpose of that is two fold, for the board to understand current year budgetary issues as well as understand the long term consequences of financial decisions you'll be making in the current fiscal year. With that, I would turn to Page 2. The first item is a bit perfunctory and administrative in nature but is important nonetheless. The budget submission dates for the sheriff, clerk and supervisor, in accordance with statutes, are June 1. We also need to establish public hearing dates and the reason that's important and we do that early is, frankly, as a courtesy to the other taxing jurisdictions within Collier County. The School Board Page 141 March 12, 2002 has first priority in establishing the proposed public hearing dates. Their final budget hearing is scheduled for September 17th, 2002. I've recommended Thursday, September 5th, and Wednesday, September 18th, as the dates for the Collier County Public Hearings for the Board of County Commissioners budgetary process. The purpose of scheduling them on separate dates, obviously, is so that members of the public can attend budget forums for all of the jurisdictions that impose taxes on them so that they can hear and understand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Were you looking for approval of each item as we go through? MR. SMYKOWSKI: On those items, yes, sir. MS. FILSON: Those dates are already on your calendars, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once more? MS. FILSON: Those dates are already on your calendars. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will move for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion, questions about the scheduling? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it five to zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We will also need to establish June budget workshop. We can do that working with the board members as we have done in the past and we don't need to do that today. The important thing are the public hearing dates. The next item is budget presentation format. In terms of a program, budget process, the board expressed interest, obviously, in Page 142 March 12, 2002 reviewing programs. Staff has endeavored to enhance the currently existing programmatic review and there is a sample on Page 16. Each program would include a brief description, a desired outcome and probably most importantly the total cost and offsetting revenues available with each program. We are trying to make this what we call our form one. The programmatic description becomes more of a management tool both internally for use by the division administrators, department directors, as well as the county manager and for you as a board collectively. By putting the available revenues directly on the sheet, you will understand directly the costs and impact. If you chose to eliminate a program, you would know exactly the net cost or reduction to the ad valorem taxes as proposed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of the things I would like to see, if it is at all possible, the productivity committee were working with us on this whole scenario of the budget and I would like to, with the permission of my fellow commissioners, have the two members of the productivity committee come up front and be able to answer questions also with us as we work through this process, rather than save it for five minutes at the end, when we reach all our conclusions when we're past that point and we're going to go back and change our minds? Does that make sense to you? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine with me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Janet, Jim, could I get you to come up front, please? Take a position at the mic. One more time, you have been tremendous in helping us through this process. I assume you have been to every commissioner. I know I benefited greatly from the help I received yesterday and I would really appreciate you staying right there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I was going to mention at the end but being that you brought the productivity committee up, I Page 143 March 12, 2002 will just go right into it and say I think this is such a workable arrangement. I'm not quite sure why we didn't do it before, but I look forward to doing it every year and working with the productivity committee. They come from such a completely different angle and help us weed things through and cast different light, so I am just delighted that we are all working together on this. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We have worked with them in the past, Commissioner Fiala, but I think this is a more formalized process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, if I might, while Mike is on the budget format, I would like to point out we --- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you state your name for the record again, Jim? MR. GIBSON: Jim Gibson, Chairman of the Productivity Committee. While Mike is talking about the budget format, one thing I would like to add is essentially our committee came up with about a five point program to look at the budget review policy and incorporate certain steps and certain analytical tools in that process, and one of the ones we looked at very carefully and we thought about was the prioritization project for budget programs and how they would rate and that is a new service element as well as existing programs and we're very pleased to see that the Budget Office has incorporated these items in their format documents. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We had a three and-a-half hour meeting with Mr. Gibson and Ms. Vasey to discuss pros and cons of issues and we shared fully what our intention was and that was a good suggestion in terms of the relative priorities and we took them up on that. Page 144 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please proceed. MR. OLLIFF: I think Mr. Smykowski just covered sort of a budget program format and if there is any comments from Janet or Jim on the actual format, maybe we can take those a section at a time since I think that's the reason for having him rush to the microphone. Do you have any comments on the program budget format? MS. VASEY: Oh, the whole thing now? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, no. Just the presentation format, budget presentation format. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're going to go topic by topic and I think if you have a counterpoint or suggestion --- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: By the time we reached you, the way we were planning to do it, you would have been out of the picture with your comments and just saying, gee, why didn't you listen to us, we could have done it differently. MS. VASEY: Okay. Janet Vasey, for the record. In addition to that budget format on Page 16 that you just saw, I would like to hand out another handout to you and talk a little bit about the companion form and the changes that we'd like to see on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one question, not that it's totally that important, but has this already been discussed with staff or is this something new that just came today? MS. VASEY: No, we have discussed it with Mike. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Has that been integrated on Page 16 on review -- well, it's a sample form. MS. VASEY: No, it wasn't in their package. This is the change that we are recommending. As you look at the budget generally on the right hand side you would see the program form, which is what you just saw on Page 16 Page 145 March 12, 2002 and if you'll turn to our Page 5, you'll see the companion sheet that goes with that and this is where it breaks out the personnel costs, the operating expenses, and the capital outlay and we did have some suggestions for that form. What we would like to do is normally the budget year current services is based on the prior year budget and then they just inflate that and that's your start point for the budget year. There is two changes we'd like to see made. Instead of using the prior year budget, we'd like you to use the prior year forecast, because last year or what's last year in the budget year is the current year right now, so the current year right now is not really going to be very close to the budget year, you cut out a lot of money, about $3 million out of programs, you have got a higher lag going on and so we think that the appropriate start point for the budget year is what you actually performed, the monies that you actually used in the current year. Otherwise, you would have a start point that might include much higher personnel levels than you're currently experiencing and we have an example in there. You could have a department that has a hundred people that was budgeted for the current year, but then because some of those were new programs in the current year and there was the hiring freeze, you really only had 90 people on board the whole year. Under the former -- under the current rules for the budget year, you would have the hundred people budgeted and you would never really look at what they are doing or evaluate it if that's still a needed requirement and we're suggesting that your start point is the 90 people and then the hundred, the other ten people to get to a hundred would show up, then, under new programs because it really is a new program in the budget year. So that's our feeling on that. Also, in an effort to get at some lower priority programs that the county is doing, you know, there is always something that's a lowest Page 146 March 12, 2002 priority in a department, we'd like to recommend that you take a percentage, like three percent or five percent of the current program in each department, and you ask them to identify what their lowest priority work load is and take that out of the budget and then we'll examine what that is, we'll find out how many people it is, how much money it is, what the relative -- what the work load of that is, and what is the consequence of not doing that work and that way we may be able to find some lower priority programs then that could be eliminated when we are looking through the whole program because I can assure you we will find some new programs, you know, some of the expanded programs that are recommended, will be of a higher priority than some of the lower priority work load that you are currently doing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You are not saying take it completely out of the budget, you're just saying put it separate in a separate line item so that we can make those determinations? MS. VASEY: Exactly. If you look at the form on Page 5, what used to be the budget year will be FY02/03, we're calling it the base level instead of the current services level, and that would be this new lower level. Then in the expanded service you get -- you would have all those other things coming back and then totaling the total budget, and then in the narrative under expanded, you'd have a breakout for the amount that was reduced from the program and the amount that is the new program that's being added in, and when those are fully explained and discussed, then you can evaluate those to make a decision whether you want to continue them or not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you agree that this can't work for all departments. Giving an example would be Community Development to where they're tasked to look at plans, site development plans, dealing with zoning issues, but it can work with something like Parks and Rec., the museum and other things like --- Page 147 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I jump in on this one? Because I did give it quite a bit of thought. What this does is it gives a sign to be able to compare apples and oranges and go right down the list. It doesn't mean we have to accept anything; it gives the setting of the priorities going down through here. You can keep all the priorities that you think will be the best interest of government. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't my question. MS. VASEY: It is our recommendation that you do it on every - - in every department. Normally, you focus on the ad valorem department because that's where you can save the ad valorem money that would go to the, you know, to the roads or whatever else you want to fund as a higher priority. However, somebody pays for everything and to use your example of Community Development, if Community Development could drop out some lower priority, unimportant kind of things that they are doing and become more efficient, well, that could result in lower permits and lower permits are actually paid by people who are building new houses or new commercial buildings. So we would say that, yes, you should look at all of that and weigh it when you get all the information back in, and even public utilities, your water and sewer, if that can be handled more efficiently and lower priority items can be dropped out, somewhere along the line every three or four years whenever you look at the rates for utilities, we might not have to have an increase if that organization is functioning more efficiently. So we would say somewhere along the line everybody is paying, even in offices like Leo supervises with the public services, your human resources, your purchasing, those kinds of things, those costs are spread to all other organizations on your cost allocation model and so if you can make those organizations more efficient then less Page 148 March 12, 2002 cost would be spread to everyone else, so we would say that you really should be looking at everything. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask a question. I think it's a very innovative approach, by the way, but a common sense approach. One of the things I was wondering is how do you figure it's going to equate to a department, say, like Community Development who right now is undergoing such a tremendous reorganization, they're way down in staff, obviously, they can't even keep up with the work that we're giving them, and they really need to reorganize in order to work more efficiently to break apart the different departments, which is going to be a whole new thing, I'm sure, as Joe Schmidt works on that, but how will that affect this budget process? Will it look like -- well, I won't answer that. MR. GIBSON: If I might, Commissioner, there is really two parts to that. The first part is by the prioritization theory that we are espousing, I think the Chairman mentioned mixing or kind of evaluating apples and oranges at the same time, and that's what a prioritization process will do cross-county, so if an agency in relative terms because of certain dynamics has a higher priority across the board in all its functions, that will show up. By the same token, we haven't addressed it in our intentions, certainly it's not to take all of Mike's thunder away or talk about the whole issue here, but you did mention reorganization or organization and that's another one of five points that we think this would be the opportunity to review, consider organizational possibilities and rethink there and not just in one department, where possibilities exist. We're streamlining efficiently, we think. The budget cycle will be an excellent opportunity to undertake Page 149 March 12, 2002 that as well and that would be another one of our recommendations. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just in response to that, I agree with the goal that they have in mind, and my recommendation to you would be that we get there a different way. Generally, you look to me to manage the organization and there are certain departments and functions that you and I both, when we review them, know that, frankly, they are overworked and understaffed and going through this exercise is frankly almost an exercise that just adds more work to their work load currently. Generally, what we have done and this I think gets at the same goal that the productivity committee is recommending here, what we have done with expanded services is we have prioritized those internally so that we have recommended, number one, all the way through number 50 or whatever the list may be, if the board in turn would like to see what a recommended reduction list equal to two percent, three percent, four percent, eight percent, would be out of certain funds within the budget, then I would like to have the prerogative to be able to go through and recommend to you, then, these are our lowest priority programs and were you to make those reductions here is the places where we would recommend to you that you make those reductions, and that way we can try and focus a little bit as opposed to doing it carte blanche across all boards, across all funds, across all departments and sections and I think it gets you to the same place. If you are looking to make at least some conscience decisions about program areas that you can make some reductions in, I would hope that you could look to your management team to provide you with those recommendations. MS. VASEY: What I would suggest on that is the process that we have set up allows you to see all the information, too, and allows you to pick and chose among some of the relative priorities. Page 150 March 12, 2002 We have as another page in our documents the relative prioritization that would be very similar to what Tom is talking about. If you would like to turn to Page 6, this would be the final output that sounds very similar to what Tom is suggesting, that we have -- what we call the funding prioritization process where all of your things from our base level, you start with the base level of what is actually funded, then you prioritize some of these programs that you cut out, you would add in some of the new expanded programs that you would like to see, you show what all these priorities are, and then when the tax -- when the property values are known, then we can identify what the tax levels would be for each one of these levels. In your prioritization, you can draw a line that says this is no tax increase and then you can see the items that are funded and the items that are not funded and -- at the margin -- and then you can look and see, well, if I have a one percent tax increase, I can add back these items, and then those items would be the ones that you would put back in because you think they're important enough to have a tax increase to get, and so that's the kind of process that -- that's the kind of information that this would provide you, to see the whole thing and how it can be put back together. The initial prioritization would be ranked by your county manager and then you can pick and choose at that point and say, I want, you know, this is more important to me than that, this is more important than that and here is where I want to draw my line. It might be a half percent decrease in tax rate, but you would see the full spectrum of information and then you can draw the line and you can affect the priorities but your county manager will be the one that was giving you the information and then you're making the decision. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. The thing I like best about this plan and why I think it's a winner is, number one, it gives Page 151 March 12, 2002 us a closer look, something we don't have very often. I think a lot of times we're in the dark until something is presented to us and it's already massaged completely. This way it gives Tom the ability to tell us what he feels is right, and certainly we respect his opinion. At the same time we get to see everything that is there so that we know if there is something that is extremely important to our particular district or our people or whatever or not important at all, we also at least can look to see what else is available. I love the idea myself. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, I'd like to hear from you. MR. OLLIFF: Well, in essence, Mr. Chairman, I have got two working months to get from where we sit today to having a budget for you to be able to look at and organizationally I can probably only accommodate so much change in order to get there. Going from where we are to a full program type budget is going to be a mouthful to begin with. Trying to work with the productivity committee along the way over the course of that next 60 days in order to get some recommendations out of the productivity committee as well for you to be able to review under budget workshop is going to be difficult. I guess what I am proposing is a split the baby type proposal where rather than the first part of their proposal, which every department is doing sort of an across the board reduction list and then we have to go through all of those and an enormous prioritization effort, that is an enormous project to do, that we provide for you some percentage funding prioritization process like they've got on Page 6 in some essence, and, frankly, I'm asking as well that you don't ask me to get involved in prioritizing constitutional officers along with your agency either. I've got a rough enough job trying to prioritize things within your shop, let alone trying to figure out whether the sheriffs department needs to be number six or number 12 Page 152 March 12, 2002 and I think I will leave that to you, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, can we take it step by step? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For the basic budget numbers that we start with, it makes since to me, I don't know about the rest of the commission, if we use the adjusted budget that we had this year after we made all our cuts, rather than going back to the beginning of the year, before we made our cuts, and then build from there what we have to do. Am I saying that right? MR. GIBSON: Yes. MS. VASEY: Using the forecast. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: There is a lot of different ways to get there and I value what I'm hearing from both sides. I think you can incorporate both of it in there. I don't care where you start. You are going to tell me what you spent, you are going to tell me what the reality is, what you've got to do in the future, so whether you adjusted it back, you only had nine people versus ten, we start there, or we start where we were and we decided we only need nine then it's a flat picture coming out the other side. There is a lot of ways to work the numbers. I see taking Page 6, I see taking Page 2, and perhaps under the priorities you can tell whether it's a plus or minus increase in terms of the budget. I'm looking for simplification and also recognize a job that they've got to do in the next 60 days and integrate both of these into the process, let's make sure that we don't get to the point where we think you want to see how much you spent for pencils. This is --- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we are there. Page 153 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: We better hadn't be, because this is a macromanagement process from the board, not micro, so however we get there, I think the two sides can work together. I value what I am hearing on both sides, but easy does it here. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think the goals are the same. The desired end is the same. A thorough programmatic review not only of expanded services but what existing current services that are being provided and there may, again, be some give and take between a new proposed service replacing something that we are doing today and I think we get there with the programmatic format that we have outlined. Putting it in current service as we currently define it gives it no greater protection because it's in one column than the other column, I think ultimately the decisions will still boil down to the same, is do we want to be in the business of doing program A or program B, yes or no, and if the answer is no, obviously I think that's ultimately what we are trying to get at and I think in terms of my perspective on the productivity committee, ultimately I think they can assist or make, in terms of recommending programmatically items that they feel are lower priority and perhaps we should not be in the business of doing, as opposed to focusing more on the format issue itself. I think, again, the desired end is the same. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michael, question, how are they going to establish the lower priority item if you don't have that coming within the department itself?. I mean they don't understand what widgets are so they might be at a total loss. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Staff, we have integrated their recommendation to include the relative program priorities from the staff perspective -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Page 154 March 12, 2002 MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- right on the page. That was one of the accommodations we made as a result of our meeting and I think ultimately the goal is what services are we providing today and what services should we be providing tomorrow and what is going to have to be foregone in between. MS. VASEY: Could I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do. MS. VASEY: If you want to split the baby -- no, we don't want to split the baby -- if you wanted to divide this up and reach maybe a compromise position, we probably could go along with some help from the County Manager's Office on his list of the lowest priority items that are currently being done. However, I feel pretty -- I feel very strongly that you should start the budget year with what you're actually doing in the current year, and then take a look at any new things that are being proposed from there. That, to me, is a very, very basic concept, because you're not doing it now so let's take a hard look at it before you agree to it in the budget year. MR. OLLIFF: And, Janet, my only concern with that is the staffs themselves at the operating level developed the forecast numbers and I don't want them to be given some incentive to develop high forecast numbers in order to be able to put their budget request for next year in a better position in terms of the review process. The forecast information is going to be there anyway, the board is going to be able to see that. The forecast number, however, is one that is an estimate, an estimate of how much we are going to spend in the current year and that has got a lot of room for movement. The budget number, the approved budget number is a fixed number that the board has already seen, reviewed and approved and it's kind of locked in stone. If I end up basing the budget on what is a contrived or Page 155 March 12, 2002 developed number to do our comparisons with, I can't promise you that you are going to get an apples to apples comparison because the forecast and the way they've done it in administrative services may be completely different than the way they did it in water or waste water. That's the only reason I don't want to try and go there. You will have the forecast numbers to be able to see as part of the budget, they're on these columns and that's my only concern about starting from the forecast. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think what Tom is telling us is that we hold him responsible for managing these departments and he would like to have the responsibility for budgeting for them, but on the other hand, you're also asking us to set some budget policies and I am confused as to how we would deal with this, if we are not starting from the existing level of expenditure, actual expenditures, for existing activities and projects. The approved budget for this fiscal year is I believe substantially higher than what we expect to operate under because you were able to trim out a lot of costs in the past few months, and if we were able to trim out those costs, I don't understand why we should add those costs back in and use that as a base budget for FY03. I would like to ask that you take a look at that and I'm not interested in placing additional burdens on you, I know you guys are overworked as it is, but if-- I don't know how you put this thing together internally, but it doesn't seem to be a big leap to take the existing level of expenditure and use that as your base level budget for preparing FY03. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, the second thing, I think, though, in that 16 million that we cut out, ones with the deferral Page 156 March 12, 2002 process so I would want that factored in so we got reality to that, Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And perhaps that's where I was coming from. Not to discount anything that the productivity has done, because you've done a great job. Maybe some of the things you want to accomplish we can take into future years, but I agree with you, Commissioner Coyle, this staff is right up to here and it's sometimes drowning and I don't want to do anything to push them under the water. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this particular policy that is the base line budget for the beginning of the FY03 budgeting process, is that an issue that you need to have resolved in itself?. In other words, do you want a motion for that? I don't want to put you in a bind -- MR. OLLIFF: No, but --- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- but I want to make sure we are approaching it from a reasonable basis. MR. OLLIFF: I agree. The board does need to decide on this one because we are going to be sending out budget instructions probably within the week, and so I need to know what it is I'm telling the staff to prepare. If you want to do it based upon forecast, I will just tell you my feeling is you're not going to get an apple to apple, I think you can recognize and we can provide you the cut list and where those were made if we need to take that into account when we're looking at certain budgets and funds, but I just -- I think when you look at year to year to year comparisons it's going to be all of a sudden we've changed the process in this year and I am concerned about what it's going to do to the staff's mission when they start developing forecasts and then it's going to put an extra burden on their staff to try and Page 157 March 12, 2002 police the forecasts even more than they do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We might be able to police it if we had it in the presentation to us, the six months actual, and then the forecast for the year. That would provide us some opportunity to make judgments as to whether the forecasts were reasonable in view of past expenditures. MR. OLLIFF: I'm not sure what the lag time is, it's usually 30 days on some of that financial information, so whatever is the most recent financial information we will try and make sure that you have that in hand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I would put that in the form of a motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to incorporate the rest of this in your motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure whether I do or not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Budget presentation format. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would that be in the --- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm a little reluctant to ram a format down your throat if you don't feel that you're capable of handling it, as long as we get to the same point, as long as we can prioritize these things we can see what the priorities are, and we'll have the opportunity to draw a line, say, at three percent or four percent or five percent and say we don't want those things. MR. OLLIFF: And I want you and the productivity committee to know, there is nothing -- there is not a sacred program out there and I'm looking for, honestly, I'm looking for recommendations on what the Board wants to fund and what it doesn't want to fund, in order for us to meet the millage goals that you have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, from my standpoint, I think there are two points. One is that I don't know how much each of those programs costs. Page 158 March 12, 2002 MR. OLLIFF: You will. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I can't decide what I would like to see. The second is it possible that the productivity committee, as Mike had suggested or maybe you suggested, can make some recommendations concerning some of the programs they are aware of that might be prioritized lower. MR. OLLIFF: I'm expecting to see every single program that you're going to see and hopefully to make some recommendations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any problems with that? MR. GIBSON: Before we leave the issue of using the forecast, I would like to try to enunciate something that might be helpful in this regard. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you get close to that mic? It's hard to hear you. MR. GIBSON: If you except as the definition of forecast not that estimate which the agencies themselves project they will spend, if you chose, for example, to accept as the definition of the forecast the adopted budget less the former reduction the Board has already made, plus vacant positions that are being held vacant that aren't available now, if you make -- if you take the adopted budget, take those two reductions and call that the forecast and the base line and start there, then there is a commonality of interpretation county-wide. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see. Okay. MR. OLLIFF: And I will tell you that every department forecast is effected by seasonal issues, some departments use more water in the dry season, so, you know, it depends upon how the season has gone in that case and I -- we have always relied on the professional staff to be able to try and forecast based upon the current year to date expenditures what their actual forecasts are going to be and in certain departments it is different. The Parks Department is going to expend a significant amount of money during the summer before you ever -- Page 159 March 12, 2002 before we have any actuals, and in that particular case if I use straight-line year to date expenditures it's not going to be an accurate forecast. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what I had anticipated. I had approached it slightly differently, but I like the concept. I had approached it from the standpoint that given the first five or six months of actual expenditures a department head could then forecast reasonable expenditures for the remaining months of the year based upon whatever seasonal fluctuations they are aware of and can quantify, but if they did that for the budget process last year, they have already made that forecast. So if we took the actuals and subtracted them from the total budgeted amount less the reductions in the budget, we would have a pretty good indication of what our expenditures would be for the remainder of the year. I'm making it so overly complicated. MR. OLLIFF: I think so, and in fact I think what Jim has recommended is something that we can probably find a way to do, which is basically take into account and show the board the reductions that have been made as part of our reduction plan already, as each and every cost center is reviewed and we can do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. VASEY: To answer your question on our involvement in the prioritization and identifying lower priority projects, we had anticipated that perhaps a subgroup of our committee would work with the county manager during his reviews and hear what the departmental heads had to say and be able maybe to address that issue, if that's possible. MR. OLLIFF: We'll talk about that one. I'm not sure that they will be as frank with me if they are there, and I might have to have some separate meetings in addition to if they were there. I would be more than willing to work with my management Page 160 March 12, 2002 team, you directly and your subcommittee, the Budget Office in order to be able to review all of the recommendations and the budgets and the program areas. My hope is that they do make some recommendations in terms of some of these program areas because like we have talked about before, county managers in the past have had to face constituencies for most of these programs alone and, frankly, I would love to have the support of some of the productivity committee as we're making some recommendations for program reductions because given the way the budget is shaping up, I'm not sure there is going to be any way to fund the upcoming budget without doing some internal cannibalization, if you will, in order to be able to keep ourselves at some reasonable millage rate. MS. VASEY: We would defer to however Tom would like to work with us on that. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we can restate the motion, it has been so long ago, so maybe we can move this forward. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're dealing with the second item there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we approve as a policy the use of the budgeted figures, from beginning of this fiscal year, less the reductions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The amended budget. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER MS. VASEY: And COYLE: The amended budget. HENNING: Okay. COYLE: As the basis for budgeting FY03. HENNING: And I'll second that. taking into account the personnel vacancies. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion, we have a Page 161 March 12, 2002 second. For discussion, there is one other thing, too, I wanted to consider. In the past I've seen where certain functions were moved from one department, put into another, which made it very difficult to follow the budget. I would like to see something in the way of footnotes in the future budgets indicating that took place so that we're not looking at something, what a wonderful improvement, we cut this budget by 25 percent and maybe it's put into two other departments' budgets. If you would add that to your motion, I would appreciate it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning, your second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. (Laughter) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give me a sharp pen. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other questions, discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it, five to zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next item as proposed in the budget policy is a review, an annual review of E.M.S. Charges for services. On Page 3, obviously, there is a table identifying the rate structures for Part 13 5 E.M.S. Helicopters and those are -- those that are under strict licensing requirements and training requirements which allows us to charge for service as an air carrier, for ambulance service as an Page 162 March 12, 2002 air carrier. You see our current med flight of $500 when the Medicare prevailing rates is almost 1,700 and the bulk of the -- these are all private providers, I might add -- but they begin at three-thousand and thirty-eight up to 3,900. Mr. Paige, the E.M.S. Operations director, did provide me yesterday with a couple comparable Part 135 helicopters for public agencies, Martin County Fire Rescue, which is $3,200 lift off fee and Palm Beach County, which is $3,126. Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to move this on, we need to charge for the service that we provide our residents, so I commend you of trying to get closer to comparing it with another like service and somehow we need -- you need to get us there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is our cost for providing this service? I think that's a better basis for determining what the charge should be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16 million. COMMISSIONER COYLE: A year? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How many flights do we make a year? MR. OLLIFF: He's talking just helicopter operations. I think really what we're looking for in terms of this policy is a recognition that we're out of line and that as part of the budget that we present to you that we want to present a major fee revision that is going to take into account what is our actual operating cost, what is the Medicaid rate and what should we be charging and it's probably going to be at least 1,695, which I think probably may or may not cover our cost, but if it doesn't, then somewhere between 1,695 and the 3,200 or Page 163 March 12, 2002 3,500 rate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what you're telling us is what you want to do is adjust it to the point where it covers our cost? MR. OLLIFF: At least. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would support that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to move staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. MS. VASEY: May I speak a moment on that? I met with Commissioner Coyle yesterday on our proposal and he asked me what I thought about the helicopter business, and I hadn't really looked at it that hard, but I did look at it last night and I'm-- my health insurance is under Military Tricare, which is the same kind of thing that Medicare does, and I can tell you that if I broke my arm on Marco Island and was helicoptered to the hospital, NCH, Tricare or Medicare would not pay $1,700 for that. They would say you should have gone by ground and that's all we're going to pay. So I think you have to be real careful on this one, whether the helicopter is being used as a medical necessity, you know, if it's a matter of life and death and you're helicoptered, yes, I think I could get Tricare or Medicare to pay for it, but if it's not a life and death kind of thing, they'll want to know why we didn't go ground transportation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would ask the same question, you know, and as a patient, I think I would ask the same question. Why you are sending a helicopter to take me when I can go in the ambulance? MS. VASEY: Well, exactly, and then when the insurance company doesn't pay, you are going to have very unhappy campers on Marco Island or elsewhere that now have a bill that isn't going to Page 164 March 12, 2002 be paid, and I went back to reviewing the budgets four or five years ago. I asked the same kind of question about helicopters, and as I recall the answer to that thing was we do the helicopters and charge the same amount as ground transportation because we need to keep our E.M.S. Units in place. If you take an E.M.S. Unit off of Marco it's, you know, 45 minutes to get to the hospital, 45 minutes or more to get back, so it's out of location for like two hours, and then you have to have your other units coming over to back it up, then your response time goes down. So the helicopter is being used really to maintain our E.M.S. Unit on location so they can do the response times that are needed, so when it's sort of for our convenience, that's why we have to charge at the other rate. At least, that was the discussion years ago and I don't know what has changed, but I'm a little concerned about this having looked at it and I don't know whether the EMS looked at it or what, but I think before you would go to this you would really have to look at some of these issues, my recommendation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, staff is going to be bringing this back to us when we get to the actual budget itself, we're asking for their recommendations, but I will tell something, if it was one of my loved ones and they were on Marco Island, I would want them transported by the fastest means possible. I might not be happy about the bill, but I will tell you I wouldn't argue about it, I would be very happy to the fact that they made it to where they had to go. You know, it's one of those judgment calls that is going to have to be done. Safety, health and safety and welfare of the public that's something foremost in my mind. The dollars are important what we charge, but the thing is if an ambulance is not available, should we offer that as an option to the paying customer that's injured on the pavement, they want to wait an hour and-a-half for an ambulance or to take the helicopter. Page 165 March 12, 2002 You only have so many ambulances at one time on Marco Island. If two of them are both gone and that's the maximum amount you ever need, you can't possibly carry a third one, the cost would probably way exceed what it would cost for the helicopter ride occasionally happening, too. Myself, I would prefer keeping the bill there to cover what the Medicaid would be, but I'm looking for staff to come back on that. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that we need to go into the budget discussion today. I think we'll bring you back some options and some justifications and rationale when we review the E.M.S. Budget. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, I got a motion and I got a second. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it, four to zero. Commissioner Carter is gone for the moment. Next item? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next item, Commissioners, is compensation administration. Obviously, the philosophy of the county as a government is to provide market based compensation programs, meeting the following goals: Obviously, recruitment of knowledgeable skilled employees, encouraging continuous training and professional development, recognizing and rewarding individual and team achievement. The staff recommendation is to appropriate four percent of the personal services budget for FY03 compensation plans adjustment, with a secondary goal of a typical employee with family health Page 166 March 12, 2002 coverage and meeting expectations in terms of their job performance, would receive a raise net of the increased cost of employee health care contributions that would be roughly equivalent to the cost of living. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When you're talking about compensation plan increases, you're talking about salary increases? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Explain to me one more time, make sure I've got it straight, about how the last salary increase was administered. MR. OLLIFF: I am glad you asked. Last year was the second year of a two-part pay plan adjustment. It was the first comprehensive pay plan adjustment that this county had done in probably six, at least six, maybe seven years. The Board approved a pay plan adjustment two budget years ago. That was at five percent above the average market around Collier County. The idea being implemented over two years, with an average inflation rate expected somewhere at two and-a-half percent, we would be exactly at the market rate when the pay plan was finally completely implemented. Last or this current year was the year that that pay plan is currently finally implemented and I believe we should be at the market rate, and I think in fairness it was done agency wide for all the constitutional officers as well, and I think if you can talk to any of them I think they were having the same turnover problems that we were. Some of them, you know, the 20 to 24 percent range in terms of turnover. We had 120 vacant law enforcement positions at the time and I think the pay plan adjustment did what we needed it to do, which was to help stabilize the work force. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. Page 167 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, this compensation example that you are giving is employees' health insurance? MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you talking about for a family or just that one employee that we're going to talk about? MR. OLLIFF: Family coverage. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: What we're talking about as a goal of our pay plan adjustment is to have your average employee who does their job every day, meets expectations, health care costs are rising and we are going to increase the cost that the employee has to contribute for their own health care. If the board's percentage of the cost is going to increase, so is the employee's percentage of that cost. What we are trying to do is at the end of the day insure that that employee, who simply does their job, reports every day, that their net increase is at least equal to the cost of living increases that we in this area have experienced and that is roughly 2.1 percent. We're trying to keep them even. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if they do their job, then I guess they are employed and if they don't they're not going to be employed by the county? MR. OLLIFF: Either they are not employed by the county or we are doing some remediation work to try and make sure that their performance turns around. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so it's across the board, not just a merit thing? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: In fact, employees who do not, what we call meet standard here, do not get merit increases. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is not merit, this is Page 168 March 12, 2002 across the board for all the employees. MR. OLLIFF: This is four percent of gross payroll and then what we are looking for is for the board to allow us to administer that as we see best in terms of both merit, cost of living adjustments, and other compensation programs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you explain it to me, please? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think what Tom is asking for is a pool of money equal to four percent of the personnel costs -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in the County and then based upon the performance of individuals he will break it up. Some people will get nothing, others might get five or six or seven percent, based upon their performance level. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have I described that correctly? MR. OLLIFF: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any comments from Janet or Jim? MS. VASEY: Well, we did want to have the discussion on the pay plan and the five percent over. That does sort of clarify it. The only question I would have is when you calculate the 2.1 percent inflation, does that include in the calculation of the number 2.1 percent, does that include health care, is that part of the C.P.I.? MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Oakes says no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think C.P.I. Does consider that, doesn't it? Doesn't it consider all factors of inflation? MS. LEAMER: If I can answer that, Joanne Leamer, administrative services administrator. I think the question was when we calculate the 2.1 percent cost Page 169 March 12, 2002 of living adjustment, will that be done on the base salary or all of the costs associated with compensation? MS. VASEY: You have the 2.1 percent calculated as a local factor. In the calculation of that number, I know it includes groceries and housing and all of that, does it also include health care? Is that compensation included? MS. LEAMER: That I'm not sure. You are talking about the national C.P.I. Index that we are using? MS. VASEY: Well, I thought you were using the local one. MR. OLLIFF: We use the most local, which I think is the Greater Fort Lauderdale, Miami S.M.S. And I am sure it does incorporate that, but I will tell you that locally we have to adjust health care based upon our actual plan increases, which historically at least as long as I've been the manager here have been running somewhere between 12 and 15 percent and I do, then, and I know the commissioners that have been here know that since I've been the manager is the first time that we actually started to charge the employees for health care coverage and I am trying to move this county to an industry standard, which is about 80/20 in terms of employer to employee cost and that is a difficult transition. If we continue under the budget policy that we have in front of you today, we will move from an employee contribution rate of about 12 percent to about 14 percent, so I continue to creep the employee contribution towards that 20 percent because it is ultimately our goal to get that to 20. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think why Janet was asking that is if the C.P.I.s included health insurance, then we need to adjust that, that's all. MS. VASEY: Then you would be giving it twice. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. VASEY: So just look at that whenever you have it. Page 170 March 12, 2002 MR. OLLIFF: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. Sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to get too involved in this right now. We'll have time to talk about it later, but I would ask that you give some consideration to the fact that if you are giving merit increases, I don't believe you are giving them at the beginning of the fiscal year; is that true? You are giving them at the time of the person's evaluation or are they given all at the same time, at the beginning of the fiscal year? MR. OLLIFF: We have allowed certain departments to opt to either do all of their evaluations at the same time or on an anniversary date; however, the merit is paid at the beginning of the fiscal year in October. So all merit is not in some cases -- and I know it's good management practice to do the evaluation and immediately thereafter do either the reward or punishments, so that's as closely associated with the evaluation as possible and we've not done that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that something you want to consider or you feel the method you have got now is more efficient? Think about it. MR. OLLIFF: No, the reason we do it and then there is some rationale to the madness sometimes around here is that our ability to be able to control merit on a budget basis is tied to our ability to issue it all at once. If I have to distribute merit throughout the year according to annual evaluations, then I either have to control it through a forced bell curve or I don't-- or I lose the budget control of it, so it was more important for us to control the dollar cost of our merit program than it was for us to associate it directly with the annual evaluation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have merit raises? Page 171 March 12, 2002 MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: For each? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONERCOYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where are we with this, gentlemen? Do we have a motion yet? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to accept the compensation administration. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any other discussion or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, four to zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next item is proposed use of gas taxes. As Mr. Olliff indicated earlier in the FY02 budget we allocated $3 million of gas taxes to roadway maintenance. In FY03 that will all be allocated to road construction as a revenue policy that is the staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion approved? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got a comment? We got a motion and we got a second, by the way, so go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just a question. We're saying in this policy that gas tax revenues shall not be used for roadway maintenance activities and I understand while you are making the statement you are presuming there won't be any left over, but if in fact the gas tax revenues are increasing more rapidly than we Page 172 March 12, 2002 budgeted, so there is the possibility that we will have excess gas taxes during this fiscal year. Are you saying no? MR. OLLIFF: Well, obviously, your bonds, the primary source of bonds is going to be gas tax supported bonds, so if we end up with significantly more gas tax revenues then we will probably --- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'll bond more? MR. OLLIFF: Right, on that side of the house because that allows us to bond less on the sales tax side, which is your only really variable funding source that you have got to be able to use for anything else. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh. MR. OLLIFF: So we want to try and move all of the restricted funds first to fund and support transportation bonds. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments? MS. VASEY: Just a general one, if I could. In looking at the plan that you approved at the last session, just a few minutes ago, that plan actually has ad valorem tax dollars paying your debt service, so your gas tax money is still out there for the use of your regular program, isn't it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, you've allocated all of the gas taxes to -- in calculating the net shortfall in the road campaign. Now, the equivalency of the debt service is the required support of the general fund to the road construction program, but on -- technically, gas taxes will be -- are the pledge and will be the repayment source, you are essentially backfilling for that additional layer that you are strapping on associated with the debt service, that is the required general fund support of the road program. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Page 173 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, go for it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you have more gas taxes than you anticipated when you decided to bond those funds, what would you do with those additional gas taxes? MR. SMYKOWSKI: They would go to the road capital program. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the road capital program could be used on maintenance, if you've already bonded sufficient funds to do the new road construction, am I wrong? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He is trying to think of a polite way to tell you yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Capital improvements is building. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's road construction, correct, and we are allocating all of the gas taxes to that entity. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of what gas taxes and how many gas taxes? MR. SMYKOWSKI: All of the available gas taxes that Collier County imposes upon consumers. MR. OLLIFF: Could you make that decision? Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry? MR. OLLIFF: Could you make that decision? The answer is yes. If we ended up with a surplus of gas taxes, the road transportation program was completely funded based on the revenues that we had already received, and you decided that rather than moving more of that money into capital construction you wanted to offset some ad valorem support of the maintenance side, you could make that decision. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's where I was going. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me add one more piece, you are talking about the revenue piece going up, it's increasing, and I Page 174 March 12, 2002 will also say to you because Norm brought up earlier that everything is brought to present value, costs and revenues, when your revenue stream is going up, your costs are also going up, too. Now, if the revenue stream exceeds, increases more than the cost exceeds, then, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I understand that. It's just that we have calculated cumulative conservative estimates into that process, which is a good seque to do it, I'm not criticizing it. All I am saying to you is that if the gas taxes go up more than we anticipate, and we raise our impact fees and we are able to cover things like E.M.S. That were previously covered over the general fund, the possibility exists that we will have some excess funds that we didn't anticipate. MR. OLLIFF: The possibility exists. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, and that's all I'm saying, and if we have the opportunity we could use those funds. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and we have a second. Any other questions, discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate --- (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it, four to zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next item, use of interest earnings in general to support the road construction program. We were hopeful to actually have some resolution to that. We had a conference call scheduled. Obviously, there is some conflicts as to the applicability of that ordinance and how widespread it could be and we're working that out and obviously as you move forward we will certainly keep the board informed of the resolution of that issue. Page 175 March 12, 2002 MR. OLLIFF: Obviously, whatever interest earnings we can use to offset the current general fund support of the Clerk of Court's Office, we will incorporate that in your fiscal year '03 budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just for clarification, this was the Clerk of Court that brought this to us and we thank him for his innovative financing, but I would like to see some kind of a local agreement between the board and the clerk of where this money should go in the event that this does transfer and we can use the interest. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, wouldn't it just become general revenue? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It goes to the -- what we're saying is recognizing the clerk was right, that these funds are in the control of the clerk of court for his disposal, what he is saying is, you can put it into general funds -- that's what his preference is -- for roads. MR. OLLIFF: Right, and I think his entire proposal was based on a recognition that we are cash strapped for money to be able to build roads with and that's why he proposed what he did, but that's a bridge we don't have to cross today. That's a bridge we can cross when we find out what revenues we can use and --- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't have the legal opinion on whether we can do that yet, do we? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. Next item is sheriff's funding. Obviously, the sheriff has acknowledged that his resources are distributed on a countywide basis. As such, they are allocated as such in the county general fund. This issue came up at the Friday night meeting, town hall meeting in Marco Island and the sheriff actually addressed it rather eloquently, I think, and to the satisfaction of the Marco Island residents in attendance who applauded when he finished, I might add. Page 176 March 12, 2002 MR. OLLIFF: Wow, that must have been eloquent. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to make a motion to approve that sheriff funding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you mean? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The allocation of the sheriff's budget to the general fund that is paid for on a countywide basis. MR. OLLIFF: In other words, we will continue to fund the sheriff out of 001, the general fund. COMMISSIONER FIALA: As he put it so eloquently, a countywide service for a countywide tax. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: questions, discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: aye. We have a motion, second, any All those in favor indicate by saying (Unanimous response.) MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next item, maximization of impact fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, now, we are not quite done yet. I'm sure Commissioner Fiala would like to ask that question also. What about the affordable housing impact fee that we were going to be talking about? Shouldn't that be mentioned in here if it became available? MR. OLLIFF: It's up to the board, if you want to pursue that. We've not -- I think it's actually called a linkage fee when you move it into the affordable housing realm, and we were actually looking to see if the Workforce Housing Horizon Committee was going to bring that forward as a recommendation, one of the options that they bring Page 177 March 12, 2002 forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can ask somebody to handle that. I would like to hear from them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I have to tell you honestly, we have not gotten that far. We are definitely discussing it, but we haven't gone as far as the recommendation yet. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is there some way we might be able to give that, mentioning the fact that if it does come up we can include it or isn't that necessary? MR. OLLIFF: You can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We are talking about establishing an impact fee? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: For affordable housing? MR. OLLIFF: Typically, they are called linkage fees and typically they are linked to commercial development only, the ones that I'm familiar with, so the rationale is that new commercial development generates a need for additional workforce housing and that way we can charge a type of impact fee. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So that is not in the package, Commissioner Coyle, if you were looking for it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. We do or do not now charge an impact fee for affordable housing? MR. OLLIFF: We do not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do not. MR. OLLIFF: And I guess the chairman is simply indicating that if we want to at least reference the fact that there is a possibility that the Work Force Housing Committee may bring this forward as a recommendation so that we sort of put the entire public on notice that there is this possibility out there we can include that in the budget Page 178 March 12, 2002 policy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You are not committed by this particular vote, it just keeps it alive. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to express my support for an impact fee for affordable housing, but CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion can be amended to accommodate that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So we would be looking at new impact fees for general government facilities, court system related facilities, as well as workforce housing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I take it that you amended yours to allow for that also? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't make the motion. it.CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Henning did, I thought you seconded COMMISSIONER HENNING: He did. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I did. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. We are getting better at this as we go along, aren't we? Is there any -- we've got a motion, we have got a second. Is there any other discussion or questions? (No response.) aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, five to zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman that concludes my presentation unless there are specific questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only thing, the impact fees, the maximize impact fees we did not take a vote on that, so I guess what, Ed being the motion maker, is that we are lumping maximizing Page 179 March 12, 2002 impact fees and new recommended impact fees all in one motion? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir, we took your motion to mean that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. So we're all done? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. If there are no further questions, I thank you. I realize this is a long discussion, but it's important as we kick off the budget process to get good direction from the board as we begin that road. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: You may want to offer one last opportunity for Jim or Janet if there is any closing comments on the budget process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, thanks. MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, ifI might, at the outset, we discussed basically five points of budget policy that the committee felt needed to be explored, and we really touched in great detail three of these points to this discussion. The other two I would like to reference is I think there needs to be a real look-see and a real scrubbing of the reserves and the carry forwards and that's something we'll be doing independently as well as in conjunction with Mike's crew. That would be point number four. And, of course, Tom talked earlier about I guess the sensitivity of the constitutional officer situation. The only point we would like to have you all bear in mind is they do utilize 50 percent for the property tax dollars so to concentrate extensively on only half of the 50 percent without at least asking constitutional officers to maybe pitch in and do their part in terms of this review process will be helpful. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about a motion to direct the chairman to write a letter to the constitutional officers informing them of the process that we're going into in order to cut the budget and to pay for the roads and we would sincerely hope that they would support our efforts by cutting their budget. Page 180 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: By 20 percent. (Laughter) MS. VASEY: Actually, what we were thinking of doing was once we get the rules pretty well laid out of how we're going to operate with that base level, then we'll go and talk to each one of the constitutional officers or their staff and see if we can get them to participate in this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pony up? MS. VASEY: Well, just to participate in the process and then we'll help. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are going to have a prayer meeting of the constitutional officers here soon to go through the budget process, and I think that would be an excellent time, if you would all be present, to reinforce the fact that we do -- you all are responsible for 25 percent of this, and we know that they are working hard to work with us so that we can find ways to get this all together. MS. VASEY: Thank you very much. MR. GIBSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: reporter is about run out of--- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: ten minutes. Mr. Chairman, I think our court We're going to take a break. Take (Short Recess Taken.) Item #7A- Continued from earlier in the meeting RESOLUTION 2002-142, RE PETITION NUC-2001-AR- 1856, GREG CARLISLE, REQUESTING A NON-CONFORMING USE CHANGE FROM A SCHOOL TO A FITNESS CENTER, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6800 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY- Page 181 ADOPTED WITH CHANGES March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Proceed. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl for the--- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fred, before you begin, I would just like to say on the record, when we were giving disclosures before, I forgot to mention that I spoke with Margie Student on this subject and I need to have that on the record as well. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Again, for the record, I wanted to -- my executive summary tended more towards the land use position, the discussion seems to be going a little more towards the structure area. I just wanted to state for the record that the code does state that if a non-conforming structure is destroyed to an extent greater than 50 percent, that it would have to be rebuilt to current code, which in this case would be single family residential with current set backs, and also that -- I mentioned this before but just to maybe put a little more emphasis on it that the site development plan would have to be brought up to landscape, architectural and other aspects to the greatest extent possible and, again, don't forget you're dealing with a site that is developed to a certain extent, so this is not like it's going to look like an SDP that was just approved last year. I mean, it's to the greatest extent possible. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before they can get their C.O.? MR. REISCHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may. The taxes, the assessed valuation of the land, is it assessed at basically the surrounding residential area or is it assessed at something way above that because of its commercial application? MR. REISCHL: I included that in your executive summary. I don't recall it offhand, but it's from -- the sheet from the Property Appraiser's website and unfortunately I didn't look at the surrounding Page 182 March 12, 2002 property, but I wouldn't pay that much for a piece of land on Golden Gate Parkway. I'm not an expert in property value. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. What I was trying to get at is has this gentleman that owns the land been paying a high-assessed tax based upon a business potential of the land all these years or has he been paying the equivalent of a residential property assessment? MR. REISCHL: The property appraiser's website classified it as improved commercial. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the man has been paying for commercial all these years, though; right? MR. REISCHL: Well, at least from the last years I have from the website, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm just trying to draw some sort of connection of how this whole thing came together. You got anything to add to that? Maybe you got more facts. Have you been doing that just this year? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe he needs to go back to the property appraiser and work that out. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a possibility, too. I'm just trying to weigh all the facts that are here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's kind of conflicting of the county saying it is estate residential and he's being assessed for commercial. MR. CUYLER: My client indicates his understanding is it has been commercial, but certainly with this facility we would expect that it would be commercial. That is something we would anticipate. From day one it has been taxed as commercial. The client had gone to the -- Mr. Carlisle had gone to the Property Appraiser's Office and checked that. Just -- I don't know if Fred is through, I know you remember every word that I said this morning, I'm not going to go over that Page 183 March 12, 2002 again. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ask us a question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I heard you say that you were older than this building? MR. CUYLER: But it's close. What I am going to have to do, if Fred is through with his preliminary presentation, I think Mr. Carlisle would like to talk to you and tell you the people that he's talked to, show you some visuals of what he expects to do with the property and what he is willing to commit to do with the property as part of an approval that you would make and just have you have a chance to talk to him as well. MR. CARLISLE: My name is Greg Carlisle and I would like to thank you for meeting with me. I met with you all individually before on this topic and meeting with us again, I'm here to petition you to allow us to move a fitness facility into 6800 Golden Gate Parkway. Our fitness facility serves the immediate and surrounding areas of Collier County, business is performed at an orderly, family oriented fashion. In the past we have had little to no security issues or actually no security issues. A fitness facility produces very little garbage and virtually no sewage. Our use of the property would produce no outside music. We would not require delivery trucks and the property will not create parking problems because the existing site allows for more than ample parking spots for what we are proposing. The traffic flow of the members and the guests are spread out throughout the day, so it's not coming in at one time. In talking with the immediate neighbors, the previous use of the property as a school generated a tremendous amount of traffic during certain periods of the day, specifically in the mornings and the afternoon. The neighbors felt that the fitness facility would have less Page 184 March 12, 2002 of an impact on that street from a traffic standpoint than the fitness facility would. Collier County is known throughout Florida, United States and the world for its exquisite buildings with timeless architectural design. Golden Parkway will soon become the major gateway to the City of Naples and all of Collier County. Fitness Quest is proposing to architecturally redesign -- and I'm sorry, Mr. Combs (phonetic) -- but the ugliest and biggest eyesore in a major thoroughfare in the county and turn it into a building and landscape that will truly reflect the ambiance of Collier County. Do you have a shot, Fred, of what we're -- before and after? This is what it looks like now, and it's -- this is what we are proposing to do with it. I have hired the firm of Capozzo Designs to draw this. It will have windows all the way across the front. Those are false dormers on the second floor. My wife and I interviewed every neighbor on the street and the property just last night that owns property adjacent to 6800 Golden Gate Parkway and on 68th Street. Each and every neighbor we interviewed voiced and signed a petition that I have here supporting our use as a fitness facility. The neighbors interviewed is Mike Manning, and I spoken to him last night, as stated earlier, are living with the eyesore and in the past I agree with Commissioner Henning that it is, it has been a nuisance and I don't believe that Mr. Combs knew of-- in my mind, I think everybody agrees it's ugly, but I don't believe he knew that vagrants were living in there, that the public was using it for dumping. I hate to say this, but there are signs of gang activity on the outside of the building and the inside of the building in the significance of their signatures, the gang signatures. Now, I brought this to Mr. Comb's attention, public nuisance, and we have somewhat extinguished it in the fact that I have turned Page 185 March 12, 2002 on the electricity in the building, having the building secured with a security system, so if there are any people living in there we're notified, and also we've installed outside flood lights, so if anyone wants to dump on the property, the flood lights will come on and it will shine on their floor, and since I've done this within the last six months, we've had no problems to speak of. I do have some gym equipment in there and believe that, off the record, it's valuable but it would have been stolen if the building had been broken into. We are before you to gain your vote of confidence, allow us to redesign and construct the building and business that will enhance all of Collier County. Right now, my wife and I are in the process of designing and building on the two-and-a-half acres directly behind the gym. That's the property that's going to be most impacted by the gym or by a fitness facility or anything commercial there, so we'll do whatever we can to conform to the civic association. I met with the civic association back in October on the advice of Commissioner Coletta and felt when my wife and I left that they were receptive of what we had to say. I left them several unanswered calls. It's my understanding they never received the calls or there was a change in leadership and we were calling the past president instead of the current president, but we're more than willing to work with the community. If they're not comfortable with this design, with a design that they feel would best suit it. This is an old Florida design. The designer designed Bayfront, which you might or might not be familiar with. Also, I contacted Bonnie Mackenzie on Commissioner Coletta's advice again and she is on the master-- Golden Gate Master Plan Committee and in speaking with Ms. Mackenzie and one of her other people on the commission, they informed me that -- this property here did not fall into their master plan, and I'm not an attorney or planner, but I did as much research on this as I could, and so they Page 186 March 12, 2002 said that they could not voice an opinion and I understand Ms. Ferguson's concern, who you heard from earlier, who lives on 64th Street. We did not petition 64th Street because we did not feel that we would impact 64th Street as much as we would 68th and 66th. Everyone on 68th and 66th were petitioned last night and did sign our petition based on what we're telling you right now, that they would support it and I do have their names. In addition, I wish Ms. Ferguson was here but we have one of our gym members that does live on 64th. His name happens to be on the petition of 300 other people that are outside of the immediate area that signed the petition. I called him at the meeting and he was never contacted by Ms. Ferguson, so living on her street he does support it and does not support it. I've got his name and address, but that's all I can do, and I know we're short on time but I thank you and we're willing to work with the community, do whatever we can to conform, take an eyesore and make it something that I would be proud of, to be proud to live behind. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. Don't go yet. MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Carlisle, you went around to the neighbors and provided them some information? MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir, we did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also architectural renderings? MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir, we did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And some literature from the Naples Daily News? MR. CARLISLE: Correct. Page 187 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was there also some indication of how the board members felt you put in writing? MR. CARLISLE: In your case, I put that you were opposed to it because in the meeting that we met -- I met with, as I said, the rest of the commission and the rest of the commission I came away from the meeting that they were open minded to it. I'm sorry, sir, but I felt that you were closed minded to it, feeling that the building would just eventually be torn down and that you could have it condemned. I've had two engineers in the building, I've hired a building contractor to look at the building. That building has been there since 1974, it withstood Hurricane Andrew. Mr. Combs is a stubborn man. I mean, you've all dealt with Mr. Combs and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but he's going to do whatever he can to make certain he does the bare minimum to keep that building up and will do, I mean, as long as he's probably alive and I'm not -- I'm just telling you the way I see it. I might be entirely wrong and I might be out of line, but that was the perception that I had and you did tell me you didn't support it and that's why I put that on there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will get back to that -- MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but one of the things I did ask you to do is sit down with the committee members of the Golden Gate Interchange Committee --- MR. CARLISLE: And--- COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish? MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just got off the phone with Mayor Mackenzie and she is still looking forward for you to doing that. MR. CARLISLE. Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To meet with that committee Page 188 March 12, 2002 and I explained to her what we're tasked today is an interpretation whether this is an equal or lesser intense than the previous use and that matter would have to be under a comprehensive amendment to the Growth Management Plan, and I appreciate your time taking out to do that to go to the neighbors and inform them what your going to do, but it's kind of precluding of what we're tasked today. You understand that? MR. CARLISLE: I understand, but I did contact Mayor Mackenzie and she told me it was outside her scope of what they were looking at. I'm just telling you what Mayor Mackenzie and one other person on the board told me and she was contacted back in October. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And she's still looking forward for you to come to the group and explain what you want to do. MR. CARLISLE: She said that if I came to the group that I was really wasting my time because they had no voice --- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me, are we confusing the master plan, Golden Gate Master Plan with the interchange plan? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. Not the interchange plan. What she was -- her thoughts were this was outside the scope of her committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Carlisle, I just got done talking to her, I just wanted to relay that to you. MR. CARLISLE. Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I don't think it's, again, fair to me for you to go to the residents around there saying that I'm against it. What -- again, what we're tasked with here today is is it equal or lesser than the previous use. Do you agree with that? MR. CARLISLE: I agree with that. My one -- by the way the Page 189 March 12, 2002 code reads. On the other hand, I think if we go back of all the uses that that building has been granted throughout the years since '74, it's been granted -- it's been granted use as a non-conforming use, as a restaurant, as a feed store, as -- I mean, the list goes on and on and on, and one of the reasons that the building has deteriorated the way it is today is because the County Commission will not allow or in the past has not allowed the Combs to go in and really get a business established and going in there because of these issues. Now, he was granted use, I believe, before the church or before, excuse me, the school for the golf use was -- would be the same intensity as the gym and I think the argument here is did it ever convert back, and I don't know that I agree, I don't know that I disagree with you. I think that's something that you guys -- that that's what we're petitioning for here, to decide, and also to decide, hey, does it make sense for the community to have to look at that building for the next however period of time or do we want to go in and improve it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I agree with that, but under a comprehensive amendment that I think that would be the proper avenue to go to the neighbors and say, you know, this is what I want to give you. MR. CARLISLE: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we can't -- we shouldn't consider that kind of information today. That's what our staff is saying is this a non-conforming versus another non-conforming; okay? So I just want to tell you that I thought it was unfair to me for you to do that. MR. CARLISLE: Sir, I gave you every opportunity to try to work with me on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To agree with you. MR. CARLISLE: I met with the civic association. Page 190 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand. MR. CARLISLE: Right, and to work with you on working something out. Not -- and as I explained to you earlier when I met with you, we're under a time line. To change the comp. Plan takes over two years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, one more question. Donna Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. Having listened to all sides of this, having looked at the building and been in the building and patronized businesses that were in there back in '74, '75, '76, I think that the community, the surrounding community is ready for a fresh change. I believe that you're right about -- I mean, I know that you're right about the comp. Plan change, so what I would like to suggest is that we move forward and allow this man to build his fitness center here with the condition that we -- that the fitness center applies for an amendment to the Growth Management Plan and then that's followed by a re-zone. MR. CUYLER: Is there a timeframe associated with that? How soon he would have to apply? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he would have to start applying now. MR. CUYLER: For the next cycle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because it's going to take him a while, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, Commissioner, you are saying that it's in a similar use to a school?. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't say anything like that, I just said that I think it would be good for the neighborhood. I think the building is an eyesore. Sorry--- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I agree with you. Page 191 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I don't believe, as stated back about 12:30, that being that 175 is going into that area and it is going to have a look such as this, the old Florida look, the surrounding interchange area and I doubt that an interchange like that right on Golden Gate Parkway would ever incur more residential development, especially places with little children because you don't want your kids playing on a major thoroughfare like that, I think that it's right to go commercial. I think it fits in perfectly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's just the opposite of what we were talking about last year, is that we want to make that a non- commercial use. Not trying to get off the subject of what we're tasked here today, but I disagree, there are new homes. If you drive down 175 and if you look to the east when you drive by, when you're going by Golden Gate, I think you see homes there, not businesses. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know there's some homes there, I just feel that this would be a good use for this thing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a motion or just discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we have speakers. It is a motion, by the way, and you're right we do have speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can go for a motion and second and then we can have the speakers and have discussion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is a motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion, do we have a second? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will second for discussion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. At this point, Commissioner Henning -- this is important -- I want you to go ahead and anything you want to comment on before speakers is fine or afterwards, too. You've got the floor. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can listen to speakers. Page 192 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The speakers are Gregory Carlisle. MR. CARLISLE: I just spoke. MS. FILSON: Okay. Herminio Ortega. He will be followed by Kaydee Tuff. MR. ORTEGA: Good afternoon, board members, ladies and gentlemen. I've been a resident here for 15 to 20 years and most of that time I've been passing by that location. I remember when the building used to be a feed store, I used to visit it with my grandfather, and I think it's time for a change and why not a fitness club. I think it's positive, I think it's something good for the community. What is the community? The inhabitants. Exercise, mind, body, that's all good, so I can't see how leaving it the way it is when what this gentleman is trying to do is considered a blessing to this community, to get put on the shelf. I think it's a positive thing and we ought to go through with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Kaydee Tuff and she will be followed by Ken Cuyler. MS. TUFF: My name is Kaydee Tuff, I'm on the board of the civic association for Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Pull the mic down just a little bit, Kaydee. MS. TUFF: There. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. TUFF: Better? I think the question that's in front of us today is not whether Greg's project is a good one or not. I think you can just look at those pictures and see that there's no question one looks much nicer than Page 193 March 12, 2002 the other. The question is of the use and that's the concern of the civic association. Our board discussed this, we did not have a vote on it, we have a consensus on it. The use is definitely going to bring it up. The idea behind these uses is to bring it lower and lower finally to the use, which it is zoned for, which is residential, estates residential. Bringing it from school to fitness center will definitely bring it up. A school cannot be located in commercial areas. Schools can be located in residential areas, whereas fitness centers must be located in commercial areas. This is a residential area. Bringing that use up to fitness, should this project not go through, Heaven forbid, in reality the project could have some problems, he may end up selling the property, now we've highered that use and now we've opened the door to something that's going to be a more intense use and we definitely are against that. That is to bring this down, to return it to its original zoning. I guess other than that, we had some concerns. Greg came to our board meeting, he gave a good presentation, he had sketches. Once again, sketches are not binding. You never really know what you're gonna get until it's there and we've learned that the hard way in Golden Gate. I guess that's what I have to say, thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question, Kaydee. That's right next door or right close to the bingo parlor, isn't it? MS. TUFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is kind of commercial, also? I mean, I thought as long --- MS. TUFF: It also has the same usage of when it was a skating rink, they believed that bingo parlor was equal. I don't think they felt it was lower but they felt it was equal. Now we've got school on this other parcel. I don't believe and I don't believe anybody sitting up Page 194 March 12, 2002 there can believe that a fitness center is equal or lower, and that's what you all are supposed to be looking at today. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ken Cuyler. He will be followed by Michael Randri (phonetic). MR. CUYLER: I will do the final. MS. FILSON: Michael Randri. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, while he's coming up, just to let you know that on a non-conforming structure alterations are limited to 20 percent per year so they could do these improvements, but it would have to be limited to 20 percent per year over the course of-- now, granted, the assessed value is $500,000, so that would be, what, $100,000 per year. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there some way if this board plus approve something of this nature that we could waive that? Because, I mean, what value would that be to only improve 20 percent of the whole building each year? MR. REISCHL: I can check with Mr. Weigel on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be ridiculous. Seeing a picture like they were showing and to make our judgment -- thank you for bringing that up. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just indicate that the purchase price on this is $1.5 million, so I think there will be a new value established if this goes forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean it's 20 percent of the value, not 20 percent of the property? MR. REISCHL: It's 20 percent of the assessed value and the 2001 records that I have it was five-hundred-thousand-something. MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Michael Randri and he will be followed by Mario Orbegoso. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate your patience. MR. REISCHL: $505,000. Page 195 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we'll come back to that. Let's go with the speakers right now. They've been waiting very patient. Go ahead, sir. MR. RANERI: Good afternoon, how are we doing? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For the record your name is? MR. RANERI: My name is Michael Raneri. I'm here on behalf of Greg and Fitness Quest off of 2975 South Horseshoe Drive. I've been a member there for about a year and right now I've been in and out of Naples for a couple years, but when I was young I used to come visit my grandparents and we used to go skating at the skating rink that is now the bingo hall, and it's a good place to have a gym. I'm a volunteer fire fighter for Golden Gate and I understand the traffic concerns and increased population, over crowdedness to the Parkway, et cetera, but right now Golden Gate's growing and we're just remodeling Station 71 off of Golden Gate Boulevard, they wouldn't be remodeling it and plans for 72, for Station 72 and 73 in the future. It's a growing area and this is -- we need -- I think we need a gym. Greg is passionate and he has a dream and he wants to see this go through and I feel that if you have a dream and you're willing to do whatever it takes, it doesn't matter, you know, just please don't, you know, take this from him. You know, let him -- give him a chance to work it and I believe that it will be fine, and I'm a member and I'll do whatever it takes. I don't care if it's working on the parking lot in the back or redoing the floor or something, we'll work on it, we'll get it approved by you guys and you guys will come look at it and make sure we're all up to codes. We'll do what it takes to, you know, have it up to par, and as a fitness center, fitness is about getting your body together. You know, it's not just about getting big, it's about, you know, committing yourself and I believe that working out and having a gym in Golden Page 196 March 12, 2002 Gate will really benefit a lot of maybe the people that had put gang signs on the building. That would be good, that's a positive thing. You know, we could work with the community. I'm willing to do it, I'm a volunteer. I'm going to school right now, you know. Just give us a chance and we'll turn Golden around, Golden Gate around, you know, we'll make it good for you. Just a little something. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go away, I would like to have you come to the next civic association meeting and start getting involved. MR. RANERI: That's good, you know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We need new community leaders starting to get involved at the base level. MR. RANERI: You have got to start somewhere. It's a great building, great site and there is not a lot of traffic, we don't get a lot of accidents up that way. It's not going to be a problem, you know. You got good guys working in Golden Gate right now, so just give it some thought. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mario Orbegoso. I think I messed that name up. The final speaker will be Ken Cuyler. MR. ORBEGOSO: Good afternoon, my name is Marco Orbegoso. I come here to support the fitness center. I'm a disabled person and six years ago I have a major accident, a drunk driver smashed me in between the two cars. After that accident, I have so many problems, I have a leg amputee, I have a brain damage, I have a back problem and my life was a disaster. I don't come in to say this just give me my life again, but was my tool to redo my life again to have a freedom to do whatever I do right now, to work again, to see everybody, to swim and then I think that that project is going to benefit many people like me, because right now since I don't have to say that but I'm going to say that we Page 197 March 12, 2002 have like 30 disabled persons to go to that gym for free, like me, and I think this is very important for this community when things like this happen and it's like persons like me like the drunk driver smash me in between the two cars, and he's doing very good job with disabled persons and I'm proof of that, is what I have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Ken Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to wrap up rather briefly. The first thing, since I'm an attorney, I guess it's appropriate that I address the legal issue. I want to make sure that you are comfortable there is nothing legally precluding you from approving this. If you want to, you can look at Page 2 of your staff report. They have the analysis that they go through, one; the proposed use may be another non-conforming use of the same character or to a more restricted non-conforming use. As I indicated earlier, the golf course facility to the school must have been determined of the same character. That had to be the analysis because it could not be a more restricted use because that golf facility never started up, so it couldn't have been -- the school could not have been a lesser intensity because the golf facility was nothing, so we can meet that criteria. It is of the same character because it's the same thing; we're talking about basically the same thing. And secondly, we're talking about equal or lesser use. That is not what it says. It says proposed use is equally or more appropriate to the district than the existing non-conforming use. That gives you more discretion than simply analysis of equal or lesser. For any number of reasons you can find this more appropriate to the district. And then the third criteria is the relation of the structure to Page 198 March 12, 2002 surrounding properties is such that adverse affect on occupants on neighboring properties will not be greater than if the existing non- conforming use is continued. The petition and Mr. Carlisle's comments about going to everybody and, Mr. Henning, we apologize if anything was indicated about your prior position on this, but that indicates that at least the residents and inhabitants and the neighbors feels this is the appropriate use and more appropriate than the school and something else they think it's more appropriate than the next use that may try to come down the road, that this looks like something good, they don't come very often. Sometimes the commission, and I know you do this all the time, you have to trust people, you have to look at somebody, get a feel for whether that person is telling you the truth, whether that person is going to stand behind the commitment. If you want to make the pictures part of an approval, Mr. Carlisle is more than willing to do that. Yes, sir? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You just brought up a point that I was going to touch on. Suppose we were to be granting this approval to Mr. Carlisle, how do we have a guarantee, like Kaydee Tuff said just a little while ago, we never get what we started off, we were promised, we end up with a site totally different and I know what she's saying and I know what some of the examples are that she's referring to. What guarantees can you give us that we'll get what we're looking at, this person will go back and work with the civic association or any other organization in Golden Gate to make sure this is something to add to the ambiance of the area? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Carlisle assured Ms. Tuff outside and he will come up to the podium and assure you as well that the elevation Page 199 March 12, 2002 that's shown we'll be happy to put that in the record and the condition in the resolution says the building will look substantially like this elevation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But if it doesn't happen, what recourse do we have? MR. CUYLER: Well, you have, if I were your attorney, which I am not, I would tell you that the Code Enforcement can go, like any other commitment, that you can, number one, stop permits and, number two, go to Code Enforcement and have them prosecute the case and put a lien on the property until it comes into compliance with what you found it to be. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The other thing I have, and I'm sure Commissioner Henning has got some questions, too, the amount of the valuation of the building, is it high enough to allow for 20 percent of that money to be able to be used for repairs or is there a conflict there? MR. CUYLER: Well, from our side there is no conflict in terms of the amount of money he is willing to put into it. Landscaping is not going to be included in the building repairs, so that is something that's outside that assessment process that Mr. Reischl was just talking about and that's probably a big nickel on this particular project. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This particular location has had a number of different uses over the years. Would this be written in such a way that the only thing that could go in there would be a health center? I mean, there is no possibility it's going to be subdivided and turned into a whole bunch of small offices? MR. CUYLER: No, it cannot. Your resolution will say exactly that. And let me say one final thing and then if Mr. Henning has any - - and this is very touchy and I need to be very careful about saying Page 200 March 12, 2002 this, I wish we had Mr. Henning's support, I hope Mr. Henning votes for this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue and finish up. MR. CUYLER: But, and I know that he is the commissioner from the district we are talking about, and it concerns me that he has questions about it, but this is a community issue as well as a Golden Gate issue. I drive by that building twice a month. A lot of people drive by that building. It's, you know, it's a community issue. I know that Commissioner Henning goes all out for Golden Gate and as well as the rest of the county, but I would submit to you that this is everybody's issue, not just a Golden Gate issue, and with that, Commissioner Henning, I'll answer any questions that you might have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just one comment, I think the question needs to come from staff, is, again, we're tasked with a certain thing. We're not tasked -- it's not a beauty contest. Like I stated, we're up here for a certain purpose. I, just like everybody else, want to see changes for that area in beautification because it is the interest of the community as a whole because, you're absolutely right, it is the entrance of the City of Naples, but those comments and where we want to get I think is a growth management amendment issue and not this issue, and I just need staff to help me out on Mr. Cuyler's comments of a non-conforming use. The golf course never was there, just like other uses, people came before the board and said they wanted to do this and it just never happened. Can we -- do we compare that? MR. REISCHL: I didn't in my analysis. Whether you do or not would be your choice. My analysis was from the previous use because that is the use that was granted as a non-conforming use of that parcel, so my analysis looked at a school going to a fitness center. Page 201 March 12, 2002 Mr. Cuyler's analysis was cited a different way. MR. CUYLER: I didn't make myself clear, Mr. Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. CUYLER: I wasn't going from the golf use to the fitness use, what I was saying is the golf use to the school use was obviously determined by the Board of County Commissioners to be of the same character and the reason I say that is because there's only two bases to evaluate that first prong on, it's either of the same character or -- and I'll read it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm not questioning the character of the previous board, the integrity that I am tasked with today is, I guess, like you said from the school to the fitness. So that's one of the criteria that we need to consider of that, and I guess that's why I'm stuck. MR. REISCHL: And that's your decision, again. You have my analysis in front of you and you've listened to speakers and it's your decision. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right at this moment in time we do have a first. Commissioner Carter, do you have some comments? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, if I might and then I know Commissioner Coyle has got some questions. For the public record, I would like the petitioner to come to the microphone and state that what he is going to do will be a part of the record, because one of the negatives I have, will you get what you think you're gonna get or is this a picture and it turns out to be the ugliest picture in town, so I need some comments and tell us this is what you will get if we allow this to happen. MR. CARLISLE: I'm willing to put this up for whatever, work with the civic association or whoever you deem necessary, to put up a building that will conform, that you feel will conform to the gateway Page 202 March 12, 2002 to Naples. The only assurance I can give you that I know of legally, I mean, I'm willing to put up ten, fifteen, twenty-five, whatever, if that's -- I need to talk to my attorney, I'm talking out of my hip pocket, but I would put a bond up or something that would be --- MR. CUYLER: We can actually, if you are comfortable with this, and with the understanding that if the civic association wants a change we will go the way they want us to do it, we'll attach this to the resolution for approval. MR. CARLISLE: In talking to the representative with the civic association, there is some concern that I spoke with her on outside, that I think is just misunderstanding and they were under the impression that the windows there were facades. Those are actually windows. And the other concern is that it wasn't conforming to a one-story building, and it is conforming. It has 16-foot ceilings. So it's something that we want to work closely with them on and I mean we want their support, we want to gain them as members and it's not a -- we all want to work together and Trini and myself are building behind there and whatever I can do to make you comfortable, sign something, I'm more than willing to do that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second thing, would you be willing within two years, if this is approved, to come back for a rezone if you demonstrate to the community that this is a positive plus meets the approval of the Golden Gate Association et cetera, the neighbors that this is really great, we like them, would you be willing to come back for that? MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir, I would. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. CARLISLE: Commissioner Henning, I apologize, I did not mean to antagonize you or-- Page 203 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you didn't. MR. CARLISLE: -- put anything down. I thought that was your position. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you made that a political decision and I'm just trying to tell you what we're tasked to do here today. MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. Again, I didn't mean anything by it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: For the Board's consideration, I have done the plus and minuses, I think the gentleman has addressed the minus issues I had. Regardless of the speakers that came here today, well, I think they all agreed it's an ugly building, it's an eyesore, they'd like something different, regardless of where they were on the position, so I think that's a plus. It indicates to me the community wants something to change. It is part of a gateway to Naples, again, which is reflective, I think, of the community's desire not only to look good but to have it look good coming into Naples. There is a willingness to rezone afterwards, if all the improvements are done to the satisfaction of the community. As legal counsel Cuyler said, there is no legal impediments to making this decision today. The petitioner is building a home behind the structure, and it's usually been my experience that a person that invests not only in their business but builds a home that they've got to look at the business would certainly be a little strange if they built something that was ugly that they'd have to look at all the time, so I think that's a plus that there is that kind of a commitment. And the questions of parking and landscaping I believe will be addressed, as I understand it, in a positive way to meet the standards of the county and the community. So I see those as pluses to the project, that's why I second Page 204 March 12, 2002 Commissioner Fiala's motion for acceptance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. In a moment you'll need to close the public hearing so you can finish your discussion and come to a decision. Ms. Fiala's motion I think was very well taken. I want to make sure that it's clear for the board and for the staff and for the petitioner and his attorney, and I believe that that motion was a motion to approve the non-conforming use that was before you today and the discussion, particularly that of Mr. Carter, Dr. Carter right now, add to this, if you wish, purports to address the three pronged analysis, which is on Page 2 of the executive summary, under the capital title "Analysis" there. It talks about the proposed use may be another non-conforming use of the same character or more restricted non-conforming use proposed to you as equally or more appropriate to the district than the existing non-conforming use and, number three, that the relation of the structure to surrounding properties is such that adverse affect on occupants and neighboring properties will not be greater than if the existing non-conforming use is continued. Those seem to be at least part of Dr. Carter's discussion right here. I would ask in your discussion as a board when you close the hearing that you may --- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll close the public hearing. MR. WEIGEL: Well, not quite yet, whenever you want to. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm trying to help you along here, sir. MR. WEIGEL: Okay, but that you do address that a little more closely, but her motion had a couple other important points to it also, and that was that the petitioner agree to and that the board declare that they're looking for the petitioner to come back to have the comprehensive plan amended for this parcel and an appropriate Page 205 March 12, 2002 rezone stemming from that amendment, and I would like for the petitioner or his counsel to address that before you start your deliberation in a closed hearing. MR. CUYLER: We're fine with that being added in to the resolution of approval. MR. REISCHL: If I could ask for clarification on that, I believe the next cycle starts next month so would this be '03? MR. CUYLER: If we can possibly make it we'll get it into the next cycle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And you'll incorporate that in your motion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: As well as the second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion, we have a second, we closed the public hearing. We have the motion, we have the second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's not vote just for a minute, please. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Coyle has some statements. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's start with Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think they're questions. I'm struggling also with these criteria. I'm always going to be sensitive to the concerns of the commissioner in whose districts these things are located, and I just want to make sure that I have some things clearly set in my mind before I reach a decision here. What is the existing use of this building? MR. REISCHL: The approved use is school. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, existing. MR. REISCHL: Our driving by is that it's vacant. Mr. Carlisle said the school still does use it for some purposes, not educational. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it a warehouse? MR. REISCHL: I haven't been inside. Page 206 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do they use it to store stuff?. MR. CARLISLE: The school was using it up until about six months ago. They had items stored in there, and we had all their items removed. Hopefully -- we do have some fitness equipment in there with the permission of Mr. Combs, as the owner, to let us use it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But for all intents and purposes it was used for storage by the school; is that true? MR. CARLISLE: I wouldn't say necessarily just as storage. If you go into the building, it looked like they were using it kind of as a gymnasium. There's hopscotch or what do you call that stuff, where you go in -- you know what I'm referring to. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jump rope. MR. CARLISLE: Activity center is I think what they were using it for. Maybe on rainy days when you couldn't go outside. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They weren't teaching classes in the building? MR. CARLISLE: No, sir. They had two, actually three mobile buildings brought in, and two of them were classroom and one of them -- two of the buildings were used as classrooms, is my understanding, and the other was used as an office area. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the buildings really were not being used as schools? MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. MR. CUYLER: I only want to speak with the board's permission, I don't want to irritate the board, but I just want to indicate that the -- you will notice on Page 2 it says any non- conforming use of a structure or of a structure and premises in combination may be changed to another non-conforming use, so the Code contemplates the teaching of the children in the trailer outside on the premises as well as whatever use they made of the building, Page 207 March 12, 2002 and I'll also indicate that over the years you will find that whatever it is was in the building is often gone by the time you get these types of petitions, so a lot of times the question will be, well, there is nothing there right now, is that what I'm comparing it to? I would suggest that's not what you're comparing it to. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. Now, the other issue relates to rezoning. One of the speakers has said that they want this area downzoned, not up-zoned. If we have a motion, which requires that this be rezoned to commercial, then it becomes permanently commercial, does it not? MR. REISCHL: Yes, but that's your decision. COMMISSIONER COYLE' Unless we rezone it again at that point in time. Let's presume that this particular facility is approved and the petitioner then applies for a rezone and it is rezoned to commercial to make it conforming use, then what we have done is at least semi- permanently until we change our mind again, we have zoned it commercial, which is not what the residents really wanted. So now the question becomes how do you make it residential. MR. REISCHL: It is residential. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. REISCHL: The underlying zoning --- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I mean, really, how do you make it residential? You don't want to go out and live in that building, do you? MR. REISCHL: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So my question is how do we make it residential and if I could find a way to make it residential, I think I probably would like to do that. MR. OLLIFF: There is not an easy way, but that is the entire purpose and that's why I want to make sure the board understands the Page 208 March 12, 2002 whole broad picture of what you're doing here. The philosophy for this corridor was the board decided we don't want this to be another strip commercial area. That's why this became a non-conforming use, to try and drive this property use back to a residential type use on this property. That's why I will tell you that I believe the direction the board is heading is philosophically different from the mission that we've gotten from the board on this particular property all along. What you're doing now is improving and perhaps even intensifying the commercial use and if you go all the way to re-zoning, then you've actually fixed it as a commercial use. The question is, how do you get it back to residential? There is not a good way and the only way is a very difficult process and that's what this non-conforming use is. You basically make it difficult for the current property owner to do much other than the current use of this property or a less intensive use of this property in order to try and move that property from its current use back to whatever it is that you're trying to make it go to, and that's not a quick process and we've got a number of properties all over this county that are non- conforming uses that are in similar states of disrepair that we're trying to drive into a lower zoning category through the same process, so there is no silver bullet in order to get us from here to there, but that's what this whole difficult, long process has been about, trying to get it back to the estates type zoning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess if I could -- if I felt that what we were doing is at least temporarily resolving an eyesore problem in the neighborhood, I would feel more comfortable about it than to make a permanent change, because I understand the ultimate objective, but I also feel there is a concern that this building isn't going to get much better in the short term and if the petitioner can improve it in the short term, then perhaps the community has a gain. Page 209 March 12, 2002 But I think you've answered my question, it's not an easy process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you are saying is approve it as a non-conforming use without a comprehensive amendment to turn it back to commercial? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'm leaning towards, yes. MR. REISCHL: Actually, because you will have to consider the Growth Management Plan Amendment and subsequent rezone, if you do not approve those two, then this will remain as a non-conforming use. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what are the implications of that? MR. REISCHL: It can be used as a fitness center or another petition could come to you for an item of the same or lesser intensity. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that could be in the commercial zoning districts that the fitness center is applied to today. MR. REISCHL: A fitness center is tough because fitness center is even allowed in the industrial district, so if you're looking at a comparable use there -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it --- MR. REISCHL: -- all the commercial uses and all the commercial districts and industrial also. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a conditional or an allowable use in residential? MR. REISCHL: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So actually that's what we are doing, then, we are intensifying, in my mind, the property by allowing a commercial use where a school or a daycare is allowed in a residential use. That's where I'm stuck at and, believe me, I want to improve this property, but I don't think it's the right avenue and Page 210 March 12, 2002 morally and ethically, I just have a real problem with approving it under that condition. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, may I offer something to you in terms of particularly what Commissioner Coyle was saying? We would be willing to -- obviously that was a board condition in terms of-- if you want to remove that condition, that's fine, we would only approach -- we would work with the civic associations, since that seems to be the focus of what the community would or would not want in terms of commercial in that area, we would work with them if they said, you know, we're not going to support it, don't do it, then we wouldn't do it. If they said we will go with you and we will say that we think that's okay, things have been going okay, then we would file under those circumstances on our own without a condition from the board, if you wanted to do that. And the last thing I will say is a daycare is nice, a church is nice, all those things are nice, all those things are conditional uses in residential areas, but they're not in front of you and they haven't been in front of you in the last 15 years, so you have a chance to have a decent use that the neighborhood seems to like and also clean up the property. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Cuyler, I think an asphalt batching plant is probably better than what's there right now, but that is totally way out of line. I just have one ex-parte communication, Mayor Mackenzie and David Weigel and I spoke during our break. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make one final comment? I don't know how the motion maker feels about my comments about a permanent rezone of this. I think if we did not permanently rezone it, I think there might be better chance of more support. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would take that out of my motion. Page 211 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will remove it, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. So I will eliminate the portion where I said it's approved on condition of, that they go in for Growth Management Plan change and eventually a rezone. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Without further ado, I think we can close the public hearing. MR. REISCHL: Just to clarify the motion, you want this attached to the resolution? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir, I did. MR. REISCHL: And if I could make a suggestion to have landscaping per code and not to the greatest extent possible. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is the difference? I'm sorry, per code rather than --- MR. REISCHL: Well, to the greatest extent possible, if they have a little five foot strip there, they would have to bring that five foot strip -- put some plants in it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: In other words -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not variance after variance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they would have to at least come up to code but they could do more if they wanted. MR. OLLIFF: To the greatest extent possible is gray, to the code is black and white. We know what to hold them to. COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Laughter) Thank you. They can't use green landscaping? No, gray only. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Before you, Mr. Chairman, before you take -- you call for the motion, I totally empathize with the position you're in, Commissioner Henning -- is he still here? Page 212 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, he's hiding. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you trying to say you can't see through me? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I couldn't see through Mr. Coyle. And I really understand where you are; it's a tough spot to be in. I think what we're trying to do here is provide an opportunity to meet the concerns of your constituency and not put you in a difficult position where we are trying to change something that shouldn't be changed, but to take care of the situation today at the greatest amount of flexibility. I hope that's what our motion is stating that you feel relatively comfortable with it. If you don't, I for one would certainly understand that you may not support the motion for whatever reasons that you have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I thought I made my reasons very clearly, is -- and I agree with your statement about making an ugly duckling into something a lot more palatable to the community, but again I think that has to do -- go through a certain process and I don't understand the position of my colleagues of taking a look at the criteria that we need to go under and, you know, other things that have come to mind has nothing to do with what we are tasked to do here today. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Because I feel that we have met our obligation as a board in the motion, however it goes, and still not compromise what could be done in the future. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This will require a supermajority, if I stand correctly. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Four out of five. MR. OLLIFF: Simple majority. Page 213 March 12, 2002 MR. REISCHL: I believe it's three. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. I stand corrected. MR. REISCHL: Also, I don't know if we ever got a clarification on that 20 percent limitation on improvements per year. Did you want to limit them to that 20 percent or did you have the authority to go beyond that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would say if we are looking for anything I think my fellow commissioners would agree we are looking for something to be done on a massive scale at one time. MR. CUYLER: We'll do whatever the law requires. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The 20 percent per year would be drawing this out to the point of the pain would be too great. COMMISSIONER CARTER: They're not. They want to get it all done at once and make it look nice. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you agree that should be the requirement? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you incorporate that in your motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I will. COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRMAN COLETTA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. I will put it in a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor indicate by Page 214 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, it's four to one and dissenting vote is Commissioner Henning. Thank you. MR. CUYLER: Thank you for your time and patience. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll take a momentary break while you get set up there. Item #8B ORDINANCE 2002-11, RE PETITION RZ-01-AR-1743, VINCENT A. CAUTERO OF WILKISON AND ASSOCIATES, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO THE "RSF-5(4)" RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LITTLE LEAGUE ROAD AND LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD, CONSISTING OF 50.82 ACRES MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The next item -- let's find out where we are here. Advertised public hearings. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 8-B. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. 8-B. And this will require anyone that wishes to speak to stand and be sworn in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll start with you, Commissioner Henning, for disclosures. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't remember speaking to anybody on this particular topic, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nor do I. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I -- I guess I got them all because that's mainly my district. I -- I talked to a landowner to the Page 215 March 12, 2002 east of that property that leases it, cattle grazing. I talked to the petitioner. I talked to his attorney, and I talked to water management. And that should about cover it. And we're looking for disclosures. Commissioner Fiala, for 8-B. That's the one there in Immokalee, the Lake Trafford Road. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've -- I've just spoken to Marjorie Student on that one, and I can't remember if I've spoken to Vince Cautero or not. I don't think I even did. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. Maybe you did. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's all right. For the record, you'll always be safe. I talk to Sam all the time, so I'm going to include you in this one, Sam, and Maryanne and Vince and I, I think, have chatted about this too. And anyone else I met at the grocery store, Rotary Club, EDC, anywhere that I might have mentioned this, I want it all covered in the public record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just to cut to the chase a little bit, I believe you've had an opportunity to review the package materials. There is no one here registered to speak on the item. If the board has any questions for either the petitioner or the staff, we'd be happy to answer those. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion for acceptance. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion for acceptance and a second from Commissioner Carter. Any discussion or questions? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it, 5 to 0. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Long wait for that aye, huh, Sam? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Did we have any speakers, Ms. Filson? Page 216 MS. FILSON: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Item #8C No. March 12, 2002 We were careful on that. ORDINANCE 2002-12, RE PETITION PUDA-01-AR-1133, RICHARD L. WOODRUFF OF WILSON MILLER INC., REPRESENTING THE MOORINGS, INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOORINGS PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD (C.R. 851) - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Okay. 8-C. This is the one there on -- where are we here? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Moorings Park. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Moorings Park. Right. And that'll require anyone that wishes to speak to stand and be sworn in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, isclosures on the part of the commission, starting with Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. I met with the petitioner, and I have letters and I have e-mails. I've had phone calls. And prior to this round, I had correspondence and conversations with members of the neighborhood surrounding Moorings Park. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've met with Richard Woodruff, two Moorings employees, Marjorie Student, Rich Yovanovich, and I've received some cards -- I mean some e-mails. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I met with the petitioner and -- and his attorneys and received e-mail. Page 217 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I've met with the petitioners and Dr. Woodruff, and I have been contacted by a number of residents. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've been contacted by the petitioner and a representative, and everybody -- everything else is in the file. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Ray Bellows with the current planning staff. I'm presenting a petition to amend the Moorings Park PUD. The amendment proposes to delete the specific language dealing with the project description and uses to allow for a general project description that allows for flexibility in determining the mix of congregate and nursing care facilities. Other changes include adding a list of permitted uses and accessory structures derived from the project description, revising the parking requirements, updating the master plan to depict the existing developed areas and the future development areas while increasing the maximum building heights. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road and the south of Pine Ridge Road. The existing PUD is partially developed, and I have an air photo here showing some of the development. It's primarily on the northern end of the site. The site currently contains two existing eight-stow buildings, three-stow garden apartments, and a health center, along with other one-stoW structures within Tract A, which is generally this area of development. The PUD master plan is being proposed to change with this amendment, and I have a copy of the proposed master plan. The areas in yellow are the future development areas, Tracts B and C. Tract A is where the existing development is. Tracts B and C are undeveloped. Tracts B and C are proposed to have development Page 218 March 12, 2002 standard changes that would apply to increase the maximum building heights to allow two five-story residential buildings or four-story buildings, each over one story of parking, with a maximum building height of 55 feet. Those would be located in Tract B. Tract C would contain one eight-story structure not over parking, as proposed, with a maximum height of 86 feet. The traffic impact statement indicated that we're not really intensifying the increase of uses. The PUD allows for assisted living facilities, and the Land Development Code provides a floor area ratio of 0.45. The project is substantially below that and would not exceed that with this amendment. The Growth Management Plan indicates that the project is located in the urban residential mixed-use district, which allows for residential uses along with nonresidential uses. That would include community facilities such as assisted living facilities. Since we're not increasing the intensity of uses, this petition has been found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. In regards to the regulation of height, the Growth Management Plan does not provide a specific criteria for height restrictions. In the City of Naples, they have an overall height limitation that was passed by a separate ordinance. Collier County does not have that kind of height restriction. There is no zoning overlay that would limit the height of the structures within this area, such as what the Board of County Commissioners recently adopted for Goodland, to restrict building heights. So staff, in reviewing this petition, in judging for the increase in height, the only real criteria was found in the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code provides that PUDs such as this can have development standards that are similar to the most appropriate conventional zoning district. The most appropriate conventional zoning district in the LDC is the RT residential tourist Page 219 March 12, 2002 district. That permits for assisted living facilities. It also permits group healthcare facilities such as proposed here and existing here. It also allows for multifamily residential structures such as in this development. That has a maximum height limitation of 100 feet. Given the fact that this PUD has two existing eight-story structures, staff has determined that that would be the most appropriate similar conventional zoning district, and we based our analysis of compatibility with the adjacent properties. That leads me to this next photograph that we have. It's an aerial photograph with the -- we placed concentric rings around the site. These rings designate distances. These -- the building you see here is one of the two existing eight-story structures. This is the first one, and this is the second existing eight-story structure. We have rings that denote distance. The green ring is approximately 600 feet away from the nearest residential dwelling from this eight-story structure. For the proposed eight-story structure here, we're going up into the blue line, which is approximately 800 feet away. So the proposed eight-story building will be further away than the existing two-story -- two eight-story buildings. The proposed five-story buildings would be located along this strip of land in here. The current PUD has a master plan that allows for single family, which would be limited to one story, in this area predominantly. The master plan I looked at, I believe, was the latest version. It also allowed for a couple three-story buildings to be placed in -- in what would be called Tract B now. Staff, in making an analysis of compatibility, drove through the adjacent residential neighborhood to the east, and I have photographs of-- of the views from those areas. I've been contacted by residents within there, and they were fearing that their views would be blocked by the proposed structures. This is a view from that neighborhood, and that's of the -- one of the existing eight-story structures. There is Page 220 March 12, 2002 a large landscape buffer as part of the golf course that provides a lot of trees and buffering between the Moorings and this residential community. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. Was that an eight- story or a five-story? MR. BELLOWS: That's the eight-story structure. In determining compatibility, it was very difficult because if the project abutted the residential community, we would have health and safety, welfare issues dealing with light and circulation and shadows casting upon the residences, but we're separated by a golf course community here. And, as you can see, it's going to be a couple hundred feet wide across, creating a tremendous buffer between the two projects. So it comes down to the only real impact is visual, sunsets, and -- certainly sympathetic to that. Staff has not received any credible evidence that this project, as proposed, would diminish property values anywhere within this neighborhood. Staff has received many letters of-- and personal visits from the residents concerned about views and -- and the previous PUD that did limit the structures to at least one- or two-story structures. There is no definitive criteria that I can use to say what is appropriate height of buildings, other than just a -- it's basically a gray area of compatibility. But based on my professional opinion and the spacing between the golf course, staff is recommending that this petition be approved. The other changes concerning uses will not change from the currently approved PUD. The Planning Commission heard this on February 21st, and they recommended approval by a 4-to-1 vote, subject to additional conditions and stipulations. And the first one is that the assisted living facility be limited to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.3 5. Currently the LDC provides for .5, so they're tightening up that restriction on floor area; the proposed eight-story structure within Page 221 March 12, 2002 Tract C be set back no less than 900 feet from the nearest residential property line within the Country Club of Naples subdivision. So the building that would be located in here would have to be 900 feet from the nearest property line. Their other condition that they stipulated was the maximum building height for the proposed eight-story building within Tract C be reduced from 95 feet to 86 feet. This is to be more in keeping with the actual architectural plans that are being developed for the structure. In addition, they wanted to eliminate the wording in Section 4(B)(2) in the PUD document that allows for accessory uses which are comparable in nature to the list of permitted uses. This means if the petitioner wanted to provide a different use that's not specifically listed, they would have to come to the Board of County Commissioners to get that approval for that use. The one planning commissioner that voted in opposition to the petition expressed concern about the height of the structures and -- and offered an alternative that maybe the eight-story structure could be cut in half for two four-story structures. But that did not pass, and they voted to approve the petition as submitted with those stipulations. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What did you say about the four- or five-story buildings? recommendation? MR. BELLOWS: What did you say was the final That they would have two five-story buildings on Tract C and one eight-story building -- or Tract B and two -- and one eight-story building on Tract C. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those two five-story buildings, are they four stories over one story of parking? Is what this is? MR. BELLOWS: It could be five residential floors or four Page 222 March 12, 2002 floors of residential over one story of parking, with a maximum height of 55 feet. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could they -- could all three buildings ever be six floors each? And that way it would -- it would probably quell some of the concerns of the neighbors feeling that they couldn't see over eight stories. And I guess the eight stories still includes an elevator shaft on top of the eight stories, which would even bring it higher. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So maybe if it were-- if each building were six stories, that way you still got as many units, and you've still got the same footprint for each one. It's just that it's a more even balance. MR. BELLOWS: That's definitely an option that we looked at. The applicant has a plan of development based on the market values, and that's certainly something that they should be able to address to you if they prefer to go that route. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions from the commissioners? How many speakers do we have? MS. FILSON: Six. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Six? Why don't we go ahead and call the first speaker. MS. FILSON: Do you want to hear from the petitioner first? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you want to hear from the petitioner first, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. What would you rather have? I just didn't see you there. I figured you must have left. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I must have left. For the record, Page 223 March 12, 2002 Rich Yovanovich. I was actually hoping to get a quick motion to approve like Mr. Cautero did, but I guess I couldn't be that lucky. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Dream on. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. With me I have Guenther Gosch, who's the CEO for the Moorings; Regina Driesbach, who works also with the Moorings; Dr. Woodruff, who's the planner on the project; and Phil Krieg, who's the architect. We have had an opportunity to meet with -- with all of the commissioners, and I think some of you even watched the Planning Commission tape. And we've had opportunities to meet with the neighbors on multiple occasions, and Dr. Woodruff will take you through the history of how the-- the proposal has been scaled back in an effort to take into consideration the concerns of the adjacent neighbors and to minimize any impact there. What I did want to highlight for the commission real quickly is that we're not asking for any additional units. We're staying with the exact same number of units that we have in the existing PUD. The existing PUD came about in 1979, so obviously market conditions have changed since 1979 as to the types of buildings that would serve the residents of Moorings Park, which is a continuing care facility, meaning you'd come in basically living in the independent living facility, and you stay with us until -- until the end and -- and receive care all the way through to a skilled nursing facility on premises. What we are doing, as Ray indicated, is we are trying to -- to modify the existing building types to make them more marketable to the services that people of the older -- older -- the older members of our community really need to serve them. We've modified the parking requirements to bring them up to the current standards. We are including definite height standards in our PUD, which didn't previously exist. They were measured by floors. We have been found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by your staff. And -- Page 224 March 12, 2002 and also prior to that, through the zoning reevaluation process, our project was found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I think one important point-to-point out is the letters in yourpacket of objection were back in August, and that was back with the first proposal when it was three eight-story buildings and one stow of parking, for nine-stow buildings, and that has been dramatically changed. As you know, we're talking about five -- two five-stow buildings, which could either be four stories over one of parking or five residential floors; and one eight-stow building with no parking, further set back -- set back further. And we are in agreement with all of the conditions that were imposed or recommended by the Planning Commission in their transmittal of a recommendation of approval. What I'd like to do now, just to cut my presentation short, have Mr. Gosch come up real quickly and give you the overview of Moorings Park, how it's operated. And then Dr. Woodruff will come up and give a brief presentation of our original proposal and where we are today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we considering the use at Moorings Park today? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're just considering building height. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That, I think, is the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we stick to that issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MR. GOSCH: Good evening. For the record, my name's Guenther Gosch. I'm the CEO and president of Moorings Park. I've been with Moorings Park for nine years. Moorings Park has been in the Naples community for 22 years. We are a not-for-profit corporation. Our mission is to provide health and independent living and support services for the 525 people that live with us, and we Page 225 March 12, 2002 employ 485 people that provide those services. We have become successful in the community and built a reputation and are known for our integrity and our contribution to the community. We wish to continue to build additional independent housing according to the plan that was first approved 20 years ago or more and is in line with our overall strategic plan. Moorings Park is an organization that commits to taking care of folks that come to us for the rest of their lives. That is in many cases, in excess of 20 years. We have a business plan that -- unlike most that really has to have a 20-year window -- a 20-year horizon. For that reason, back in the early '80s we only built out part of the campus. We recognized at that time that things would change, situations would change in the future, and this is the time when we feel .that we can anticipate and react to the needs that have been presented to us by the community and to expand our services. We're asking to do that in a different configuration than was previously approved by the commission, and we're here today to do that. Thank you very much. DR. WOODRUFF: Good evening. For the record, Richard Woodruff, director of planning services for WilsonMiller. In the interest of time, there are several slides I was going to show you that I will not. However, I would like to respectfully request that if after public testimony I determine that some of the material I have deleted would have clarified certain things, I would like to be able to address that. As Commissioner Henning said, the primary issue here is height. What I'd like to do is with the assistance of the county manager, since he's technically competent and I'm not with this, ask if he would put these on the visualizer. In June of 2001, we held a neighborhood meeting. This was before you had your public participation requirements. We have always valued, and today value, the relationship with the neighbors. It is unfortunate whenever the Page 226 March 12, 2002 county commission or any elected body have to sit basically to consider the issues of one group of neighbors versus the other. And I will tell you that even though we may be on different sides, they are good neighbors. We're going to continue to be good neighbors, as they are, regardless of the outcome. In looking at the petition itself, the original proposal was for three eight-stow buildings over one of parking. They were going to be nine-stow buildings. When we went to the neighbors, the neighbors said, "That's just simply too tall." And what they were really concerned about, as you will notice as we go through these, is the eight-stow buildings were lined up along the golf course. We changed -- at their request we said, you know, "You've got a point." So we changed from three nine-stow buildings to two five-story buildings and one eight-stow building. The eight-stow building was intended to be all residential floors. We took the parking out from under it. The five-stow buildings we left so that we can either have one floor of parking and four of residential or all five floors of residential. But in either case that building will be measured the same way and will have the same height. The second thing that we did, originally all buildings were lined up along the golf course, and the neighbors said that we just absolutely don't want those buildings that close. The two five-stow buildings, as you're going to see in a moment, are basically on a peninsula between the lake system, that is part of the water management system of Moorings Park, and the country club, so we really can't slide that building east or west, those two buildings. However, the third building is located further south, and we agreed that we would move that eight-stow building back 300 feet. Now, for a building that is roughly 86 feet tall to be set back 300 feet basically means we're talking the height of the building and setting it back 3 1/2 times the height of the building. Page 227 March 12, 2002 Originally -- if you'll notice Point 3, originally the parking was under each building. Now it's surface, except we do have that option we discussed. Also to reduce height, Point No. 4. Originally all of the units were going to have 12-foot ceilings because most of the folks who come from the Naples community into Moorings Park, they are used to interior adornments to their living units. They are used to cathedral ceilings, vaulted ceilings, all those type things. In order to hold down height, we cut those down so that all of the units will now be between 9 and 10 feet. Some of the floors -- some of the units will be 10 feet, some of them will be 9 feet, some in between. Originally we had planned on sloped roofs on all the buildings. From my standpoint as a planner, I would rather look at a building that has architectural flavor than a building that basically is a flat top. The neighbors were concerned about height. In recognizing that, we eliminated the sloped roofs. We went to a flat roof with some architectural embellishments, thereby reducing. I will tell you personally I don't think the buildings are as attractive. On the other hand, height is an issue. We compromised by making them flat roofs. Also -- those were our concessions to the neighbors. The staff brought up the fact that the current planned unit development did not have height measured in feet; it has it measured in floors. And let me explain to you why that is an important issue. The chapel, which is built and most of you have seen it, is a one-story building; however, it's 53 feet tall. Now, that's similar-- as you'll notice, the architect is not nearly as good-looking as I am, but he is 5 or 6 inches taller, but we're still considered to be one person -- actually, two people. It's late in the day. Sorry about that. And that was on record. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not going there, Doctor. DR. WOODRUFF: We're not going there. But Ray Bellows made a point that he could not support floors, that we needed to get Page 228 March 12, 2002 down to numbers, we needed to get down to feet and how those feet would be measured. So we have changed the petition so that all buildings -- we may talk about them building a five-story building or an eight-story building. In reality we're talking about a 55-foot building or an 85-foot-8-inch building with certain embellishments. Also, Ray endorsed -- let me move that back this way. Ray endorsed all of the comments that we had done and agreed to with the neighbors. Then we went to the Planning Commission. Originally we had said that the southernmost building would be set back 300 feet. That 300 feet was measured from our common property line between the Country Club of Naples, the golf course, and Moorings Park. So we're setting back 300 feet to the west. The Planning Commission wanted to see if it would be possible to increase that, so they said, "Okay. We want you now to set back 900 feet from the closest single-family lot line in the Country Club of Naples." Now, to give you a frame of reference, instead of being 300 feet from our property line on the east side, we're now about 420. So they wanted 900 feet, and we said fine. The problem with that is the further west we go, the closer to Goodlette Road we get. And we do have to remember there are residential uses across Goodlette Road that could be impacted. Number 9, the planned unit development that was approved in 1979 did not include anything regarding floor area ratio. Floor area ratio is not a new concept in planning. However, at the time that planned unit development was adopted, that concept was not in your zoning code. That's what it was called back then; today we call it the Land Development Code. The zoning code at that time talked about number of units, and we have in our planned unit development, from the very beginning and not being changed today, 414 dwelling units, 180 nursing units. And those numbers, we're not requesting they be changed. Page 229 March 12, 2002 Even so, the Planning Commission said, "We recognize you don't have a floor area ratio. Will you agree to putting one in?" Floor area ratio is the ratio between the acreage and the square footage in your buildings. Your code, which we now call the LDC, Land Development Code, does permit a ratio of 0.40. The Planning Commission, in their motion, said, "We're going to limit you to 0.35." Now, we believe that, you know, that was their right to impose that. The attorney just swallowed hard. I'm not sure he would agree it's their right. The point being it doesn't really impact the number of units we can build. In your current code, if we were coming in on a vacant piece of property, what floor area ratio does is it helps you finally figure out how many units you can build. Well, in our case we know how many units we can build, and we're not asking to change that. And then the Planning Commission also said instead of eight- story buildings being 95 feet, after discussing it with the architect, we have now an eight-story building at 85 feet 8 inches to the flat roof. Now, those are basically the changes that have occurred. Why have I taken you through that? First and foremost to show you that the petitioner has tried at every venue to find a compromise. We do believe that the compromise that we have is a reasonable compromise. The issue comes down to what we will call the issue of height versus view. I'd like to put on the visualizer now a couple of views. These were not taken by a professional photographer. They were taken by me, and they were taken yesterday about lunchtime. It was a sunny day. There was no telescopic lens. These were taken as the eye sees them. This is a building that exists today. It's an eight-story building. And what I'm going to do is move north so you can see that, yes, although this part of your view is blocked of the eight-story building, that as you move -- because you don't have a total hedge of Page 230 March 12, 2002 vegetation-- there are some residences who will see more of the building; there are others who will see less. This building sits about 600 feet west of single-family homes. It sits as an eight-story building. Now, as you walk north, you now can see more of the building. But, as you notice, it's not sticking up above all the tree line as an eight-story building. You walk further north, you can certainly see more of the building. Then the southern eight-story building, walking back the other way, this is what it looks like. And, as you can see, the vegetation that is in the golf course -- which doesn't belong to Moorings Park, and it doesn't belong to the single-family homeowner. It belongs to the country club. What does that vegetation do? It does what we call in the industry intercepting sight lines. It creates a buffer. And you can see that trees that are only 20, 25 feet tall can intercept the view of a building that's 80 feet tall, that's eight stories. Down on the southern end -- and it is certainly a correct statement: The southern end does not have any tall structures because it's vacant. However, there is a tall structure down there that is called a water tank. It's a ground storage facility. I will point it out for you. It is this white top. Now, I couldn't get my wife to climb the ladder to measure the actual height of the facility, but I will tell you I believe that it's between 40 and 45 feet in height. I think that's a reasonable estimate. If anyone has a better estimate, then I will certainly welcome them to testify to that. That structure sits -- if you extend our property line, it sits south of our property. Let me put up a map real quick that will show you that. It is this water tank right here. Now, this line, which is a white line, is actually a service road -- is actually a service road because that is the raw water transmission line that the city has. What we have originally said is that our building will sit, after meeting with the neighbors, 300 feet Page 231 March 12, 2002 back, so it would sit here. When the Planning Commission asked for it to go back further, it now will sit here. This structure is roughly 40 to 45 feet in height. You can see where it sits versus where our proposal will sit. These are views that the neighbors -- and if you'd take that -- thank you very much. These are the views that the neighbors cherish, and we are certainly not going to tell you that having a view is a bad thing. It's a good thing. We do not want to be a bad neighbor. We believe, however, that that view can be intercepted and is currently being intercepted by vegetation that is on the golf course. I would remind everyone the vegetation that you see in the background and the tall vegetation that's there, that's all no longer acceptable landscaping. It's called exotics. So regardless of whether we build one-stow or eight-story buildings, the county code requires all of those exotics to come out. What we are asking you to do today is give us authority to build three buildings that will be, as the petition says, two five-stow buildings, one eight-stow building set back as the Planning Commission wanted, and then any other structures we build in there will be 35 feet or lower. We have made part of the public record that we not only will meet the county standards for landscaping, but if you have been through Moorings Park, you know that Moorings Park is a lushly landscaped area, and we will do everything in our power to have a proper landscaping plan that softens our buildings. Thank you for your courtesy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Dr. Woodruff. Now speakers? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Tom Huff. He will be followed by Rich Yovanovich. He will be followed by John Wolski. MR. HUFF: Got to be for short guys. My name is Tom Huff. My wife and I live at 85 Cypress Point Drive in Naples. We have lived here for 12 years. I am opposed to the change to the PUD being Page 232 March 12, 2002 discussed. There's no question that Moorings Park has tried to be a good neighbor in this situation. They have held meetings and made changes based on our wishes. The problem is that their changes don't go far enough. An eight-story and two five-story buildings are not acceptable to some of us who live in the Country Club of Naples subdivision, especially those of us living on Cypress Point Drive, since we are affected the most. Our objection, obviously, is to the height of the buildings. The five-story buildings are as much of a concern as the eight story. The problem with these buildings is that they sit right on the property line with the country club. Actually, there's a 20 -- I believe it's a 28-foot setback. These buildings cannot be moved, as Dr. Woodruff said, because there's a lake just to their west. The existing eight-story buildings on the north portions -- portion of the Moorings Park property have no effect on my property. Recently our street has been a hotbed of activity with a new two-story house being completed and two houses completing major renovations. Other homes have had work done on them also. This level of activity is not happening in other portions of the subdivision. I anticipate major renovations to consi -- to continue since we are in a great location. In fact, I believe that in the not-too-distant future, homes will be demolished to be replaced by newer, larger, and more expensive homes. I also believe that if Moorings Park builds as they want, that this home-building boom on Cypress Point Drive will not happen. This will have a negative impact on the value of the homes in our area. I also object to the height of the buildings for aesthetic reasons. I won't go into a lot of dissertation on this since it seems obvious it's more desirable to see the sky and/or sunsets out of our windows instead of high-rise buildings. These buildings will ruin the residential feel of our neighborhood. Page 233 March 12, 2002 The above objections are for personal reasons; however, I think there is a big picture item involved here. If this is approved, I believe it further tarnishes the PUD and/or zoning system. By any unit of measure, this is a major change. It's not just tweaking the existing PUD. The magnitude of the change is so large that it makes the existing PUD meaningless. What we are talking about here is a whole new set of rules for this property. This is not a reasonable change. People rely on PUDs and zoning laws to give them some sort of protection for their property and lifestyle. This is a regaining- the-public-trust issue. Now, having said all that, I think that what we need to do here, in my opinion, is come to a compromise. The -- I believe that there is a compromise position. For instance, I could live with the proposed five-stow buildings being four stories and that -- the eight-stow building being made two stories (sic) of five stories each. A caveat of this would be that Moorings Park would provide landscaping to mitigate our view of the building. I think that's very important that we reach a compromise on this that -- I think somebody once said when neither party is happy, that's the sign of a good deal. So we need to work on something. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. John Wolski, and the final speaker will be Mrs. Betty Sund. MR. WOLSKI: Good afternoon, or should I say good evening. My name is John Wolski. I live at 21 Cypress Point Drive, which is located almost directly across from the proposed eight-stow building. When I bought my lot 2 1/2 years ago, I did my due diligence and found that the subject Moorings Park property was zoned one stow. There's a little bit of confusion there still, whether or not it's one or two or three stories, but my research found one stow. We subsequently built our home. I could have bought an existing home on the north end of the subdivision but opted not to because I didn't Page 234 March 12, 2002 want to look at eight-story buildings out my back yard. In addition to the quality-of-life issue, I'm also very concerned about the potential negative impact to my property value. You're starting to see -- as Tom said, we are starting to see major remodels on my street. And in discussions with area Realtors, they have indicated to me that teardowns are quite possible. Renovation within the subdivision is occurring on streets not -- I repeat, not -- facing the existing eight-story Moorings Park structures. It is the least preferred golf course view in the subdivision. If I could, I'd like to try to put in perspective the height of an eight-story building. I'm sure we've all driven westbound on Golden Gate Parkway approaching Goodlette Road. When the road curves, the First National Bank building catches your eye like a ton of bricks. It's there. I understand that the administrators of Moorings Park have a fiduciary responsibility to the residents. However, we homeowners also have a responsibility to ourselves and our families to maintain our quality of life and to hold or increase our property values. As such, I am opposed to the PUD amendment in its current form. I, like Tom, am also open for compromise. Quite frankly, I just don't want an eight-story building out my back door. Two fours, maybe two fives, depending on configuration with landscaping, but I just don't think it's fair to us who bought predicated on single one or -- one- to three-story -- I'm, again, not sure -- that we have an eight-story building put in our back yard. Any questions or comments? Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: The final speaker is Mrs. Betty Sund. MS. SUND: Good afternoon, Honorable Commissioners. My name is Mrs. Betty Sund, and I reside at 1117 (sic) Cypress Point Drive. My husband and I purchased our home in 1980, which is roughly 22 years ago. And we are also currently and have been Page 235 March 12, 2002 members of the Country Club of Naples golf course. When we purchased our home in 1980, we were informed by our Realtor, as our previous speakers pointed out, that we were zoned a low density at the Moorings Park area and low height. In other words, we understood it was a one-story PUD. But this is how the Realtors explained this to us. We have enjoyed our view of the golf course facing west, directly west, for all these years. And we overlook two fairways and a wall of wonderful trees and exotics, as I just found out, that buffer our view from high buildings further down the road, and also they create a wonderful buffer for noise coming off of Goodlette Road. As you know, this is well traveled, especially during peak times. I speak for many of our neighbors, not just for myself, as well as for the 500 members of the Country Club of Naples. I'm an avid golfer, and you know how us ladies can talk. I play on the course and enjoy the beautiful and natural tree line surroundings of our wonderful neighborhood. Many of us consider our community as an oasis, quote -- this is my quote -- in Naples due to our rapid growth with all the new construction being north and east of us. We are considered now the center of Naples, and this is one of the reasons we have not moved in 20 years' time. Twelve years ago my family and I decided we needed more space, and we built on a huge addition because we loved our community that much, and our view. Commissioner Fred Coyle had a wonderful and informative article in the Naples Daily News on March 3rd. He wrote about management growth and how the present commission -- and I quote -- inherited poor planning and bad decision-making, unquote. He further reiterated that changes in the decision-making process and rules must be devised to recognize the private property rights of landowners, unquote. And this is what I am. I am a landowner as well as a member of the Country Club of Naples. Page 236 March 12, 2002 I wish to address the rights of landowners at this time and have attended all the meetings with Moorings Park and have asked many questions and been in contact and had many conversations with our planning commissioners, Mr. Bellow (sic), and also, of course, Moorings Park. Our neighbors have sent numerous letters and phone calls to Mr. Bellows as well as our commissioner, James Carter, regarding our concerns of height limitations of Moorings Park development. And this is basically where most of us are concerned, the height. It is Moorings Park's desire to maintain a good-neighbor policy and maintaining their current parklike atmosphere and, thus, ask for variance of the PUD for up to eight stories. And, Commissioner Fiala, you just brought up a very interesting point. We were told initially that the eight-stow buildings were to be 80 feet in height, when I further learned at the Planning Commission meeting this did not include either ornamentals -- ornamental structures at the end or for a elevator shaft. Now this building is up to 105 £eet high. I'm learning very much as a concerned citizen. I will be facing the current projected five-stow buildings which, to the flat roof, is 55 feet, which is very tall from where I am. However, with the elevator shafts, this adds another 15 £eet plus, or ornamentals, which brings it up to 70 feet. We, as residents of the Country Club of Naples and, of course, the 500 golf course members, also desire to maintain a country club and natural green golf course setting, as well as Moorings Park does. We wish -- we do not wish to look at high buildings and lose sight of our beautiful sunsets which I have enjoyed for 20 years and have had no obstructed view. We request kindly, the commission, that Moorings Park build along the gol£ course no higher than our homes in the Country Club of Naples, with other buildings no higher than the present PUD allows. We are further requesting that the new landscaping be appropriate in quality and quantity to the present buffer and lighting Page 237 March 12, 2002 that is compatible with our residential neighborhood and golf course. Thank you for your consideration and I have two pictures I wish to show you. I have -- I have handed out some of these to you. I don't know if you can see it on your monitor. One of my dear friends superimposed the Moorings Park buildings -- proposed buildings on our country club, and I think this is a little bit better for the general public to see. I'd like to point out, the initial eight-story building will be built on this tract. The two five-story buildings, which are roughly 70 -- 69 feet in height, are facing the Country Club of Naples, Cypress Point Drive, where most of us live. My home is the fourth house here, so I would be directly looking at a 69-feet story (sic) building, or rather two; and, of course, to the south of us, the proposed eight-story, which will be 105 feet, if this is what you so desire. Also, Moorings Park people took their pictures. I don't know what view they used, but this is directly looking from (sic) an existing eight-story building from the nearest home right next to the ninth fairway, looking west. As you can see, it is impossible to buffer an eight-story building. I don't know what angle they took it from, but I took it from where the community, the neighborhood, directly looks at these buildings. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to entertain them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rich, before you start, I didn't mean to offend you with my comment. You know, I'm just trying to stay on task with the subject instead of-- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And it -- and what it does -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm a lawyer. You can't offend me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What it does is help -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You didn't. Page 238 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, I think, first of all, I want to point out something, that there are only three people here to speak on this petition, which I think goes to show we have done an extraordinary effort of addressing concerns as we've gone along. We -- we are prepared to make one final attempt to hopefully compromise this a way to where we can all be mutually satisfied and mutually dissatisfied, as Mr. -- as Tom said. We -- we can live with four five-story buildings. Okay. We can live -- we can live with that. We cannot -- I mean, I know there was the offer of two five-stories and two four-stories. That doesn't really work for us. We think we can -- we can live with four five-story buildings with the same 300-foot setback on Parcel -- basically what happens is Parcel C would now have two five-story buildings in lieu of one eight-story building. The nearest five-story building would be a minimum of 300 feet from the property line. We would do enhanced landscaping to further break up the view of the buildings. And we would -- we've committed to working with the golf course to see if we can do some additional plantings on the golf course to further break up the view. But, you know, obviously, the golf course isn't here to speak to that issue, so I can't commit to any improvements on the golf course, but we -- we are committed to - - to working with the golf course and doing some additional landscaping. So I would hope that -- you know, we -- we've -- I think we've done what the process, you know, is designed to. We've met on many, many occasions, eliminating most of the concerns. We got down to -- it seems that there's an issue of a -- the eight-story versus two fives, and we can live with that. I hope we can keep the two fives. It didn't seem to be an issue at the Planning Commission. So if we can do the four five-story buildings, we would be willing to Page 239 March 12, 2002 modify our petition to that extent. And the height of those buildings, remember, is -- 55 feet 8 inches; right -- 55, 8 to the flat of the roof. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, what goes above that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Then we have a 3 1/2-foot parapet, which would bring it to about 60 feet, and then we do have an elevator tower. It would be as far west as possible on the building. It could be -- it's a single tower. It could be 14 -- right now the PUD says 20 feet. It could be 14 or so feet for that tower, but it's not the entire roof that's a tower of elevator shafts. And it's as far west as possible, so it's pretty unobtrusive. So we're not talking about 75-foot buildings; we're talking about 60-foot buildings, essentially. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ready for comments or questions? Could we see that -- that photograph again of the eight-stow buildings from the current residents' homes? MR. YOVANOVICH: From the current residents? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: The one that-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Show me where a five-stow building would be on that photograph. In other words, just count up the number of floors there, and show me where -- how much would be visible. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would end right where my -- not much at all. Right here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and you could solve the rest of that with landscaping so that they couldn't be visible at all? COMMISSIONER HENNING: They have some technical difficulties right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: That should be -- that should be five floors right there. That's five. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You would -- you would be willing to put in the necessary landscaping so that that -- a building Page 240 March 12, 2002 that tall could not be seen from the residents? DR. WOODRUFF: Richard Woodruff for the record. First of all, the -- the concept of creating landscaping where it -- where it can't be seen is -- is a yardstick that no one can accomplish. You -- we are certainly committed to softening -- and we were going to do that anyway, whether that's a requirement or not. Moorings Park landscapes their developments very well. So we will put landscaping all along the area between the building and our common property line. But I think the concept of the hiding the building is negative for two purposes: Number one, from our residents' purposes, we believe that we have a right to look at the golf course, just as the single- family homes have a right to look at the golf course. Neither one of us own it, but we should not be penalized for the fact that they get to look at it, and we don't. However, we certainly want to make sure that they don't become -- that those five-story buildings or eight-story buildings, that they don't become something that is an eyesore. And we will commit to far exceed the county's standards on landscaping, but we would not want the standard to be that you can't see our buildings. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I believe that you guys have really gone out of your way to compromise with these folks. It's going to cost you an extra -- quite a bit of extra money to put in another footprint to keep the buildings low, and it -- it seems like you've met every one of their requests or demands, and it sounds -- it sounds pretty good to me. I don't even have a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may make a comment too, and then we'll go right to you, Commissioner Henning. The -- we talk a lot about affordable housing, but here's something that's an absolute necessity. True, it's on the upper end of the scale but-- Page 241 March 12, 2002 MR. YOVANOVICH: You scared me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't mean to compare it quite the same. But still, living facilities for -- but we might be able to go visit someday. But living facilities, you know, for -- for people that need the care are an absolute necessity. It's got to be done. If we don't start with one end of the scale, we're never going to get to the other end too. I'm very supportive of what you're doing. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that I'll be dead. I -- I don't have enough years left in my lifetime to be able to afford to live in Moorings Park, but that's neither here nor there. I'm -- I'm concerned of the aesthetics of the community of-- of not having a roofline like we see in the City of Naples, you know, a tile roof instead of having an elevator shaft sticking out. And my son and I drove around the City of Naples and -- in their redevelopment areas looking at, you know, what is acceptable to -- to the community. And we kind of determined that four- and five-story tall was not offensive. And this is something -- hopefully, we're going to get into the discussion during the Land Development Code of-- about height restrictions and what is acceptable, what is the character that we want to perceive here in Collier County. And that's what my son and I came up with, anyway. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd -- I'd love to chime in on that. That's -- that's a great idea. In my mental picture, all I could think of was a flat roof with something sticking on the top, which didn't sound really pretty. I -- I like the idea of concealing it, I mean if the -- if the builder likes it, but I think -- I think you make a good point. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think -- I think it's not what the builder likes; it's what is acceptable for the community. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, it is going to increase the height of the building. Page 242 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not -- not necessarily. It could -- it's possible to design a roof that would -- would be essentially the same height as the elevator shaft and then slope downward to the edges of the -- of the roof, if that's what you're looking for. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I think that's -- you know, that's what they intended to do in the first place. I really think that if-- and I think Commissioner Coyle's right on target with it. You can probably slope the roof. You can tile it. You can make it attractive, and it's going to look far better than five flat roofs with -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the elevator shafts would be hidden under the roof; correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, that was our original proposal, and we -- we did this to bring the height of the building down. And I know we're having some quick -- quick -- with the residents we're trying to figure out -- there would -- it would -- it would probably add about 10 feet, would you say, Phil? Phil's the architect. He can -- come on up. MR. KRIEG: My name is Phil Krieg, K-r-i-e-g. I'm the architect. There's several approaches to it. If you do a full roof over the full span, then it could get 20, 25 feet, depending on the slope, in addition to another 25 feet. If we did what was called a mansard roof, which is just at the edges, then it can be any height that we would choose, depending on the roof slope, similar to what you see in the French Quarters, you know, mansard roof that's just -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so you could design it so that it won't be any higher than the top of the elevator shaft. MR. KRIEG: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So a mansard roof, if-- if the board was to make a motion to include that, everybody, I think, Page 243 March 12, 2002 would -- could feel comfortable with that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you, if you've got a question, to come up to the mike. This is your official representative; is that correct? MR. HUFF: Hardly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. For the record-- MR. HUFF: My name is Tom Huff for the record. You know, we still are concerned about the height. And the architect, if he could keep that as low as he can -- I think he can still get what you're looking for and what we're looking for without going all the way to the top of the elevator shaft. What we'd like to see is maybe -- a normal parapet's 3 1/2 feet. That's code. And, you know, if maybe something was in the 5- or 6-foot area, you'd still have the elevator shaft sticking above that. But, again, when we're talking about-- I forget what Dr. Woodruff's term was. When we're talking about looking at it from the ground, you-- you know, if that goes up a few feet, I don't think you're going to see the elevator shaft at all. Maybe that's the criteria we want to look at. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you. But one of my concerns isn't only your view, but it's everybody else's view that's coming up to the building, that lives there in the Moorings Park. How is it going to look for them too? And so I think we got to weigh everybody's consideration on this. I think the idea of a -- of a roof that -- that peaks at a convenient height that meets all the aesthetics of the area would be probably something a little bit more appealing than a flat roof, which is harder to maintain, and up close it would not look as -- it would look like a commercial building. MR. KRIEG: Yes. I agree. COMMISSIONER COYLE: As long as that convenient height doesn't add substantial height to the building. MR. KRIEG: Roughly, if we came up at a 10-12 or an 8-12 Page 244 March 12, 2002 slope, we probably are looking at another 10 feet. The elevator -- which is from the 55 foot 8 inches of the roof deck, so it would be 65 foot or thereabouts. We could lower the soffits. There's all kinds of tricks we can do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Let's start from the top of the elevator shaft. MR. KRIEG: All right. The top of the elevator shaft, which is in just one location on the building -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. MR. KRIEG: -- that would be anywhere from 12 to 14 feet above the flat portion of the roof-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. KRIEG: -- as an override, so that's at around 72, 74 feet. Ninety percent of the roof is at the 60 feet. MR. HUFF: Can I interrupt for a second? Wouldn't it only be at the 69-foot level? Because your flat roof is at 55 feet; the top of the parapet is 65 feet. MR. KRIEG: Correct. Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: MR. HUFF: Sixty-nine feet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's going to be where? Sixty-nine max. MR. KRIEG: To the top of the elevators. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Top of the elevator shaft. Now, if you were to place a roof there, you've got a choice of doing a mansard roof, which would be essentially the same height, give or take, you know, whatever construction space you'd need there; or you could go up slightly higher and have a standard, what, 8-12 did you say? MR. KRIEG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. A standard 8-12 slope, and you'd go up another 5 or 6 feet probably. Page 245 March 12, 2002 MR. KRIEG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the maximum height, if you did a sloped roof or an 8-12, you are at 75 feet. MR. KRIEG: Seventy-five feet would be at the elevator penthouse. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, sir. MR. KRIEG: We could be lower around the dominant portion of the building, say 70 or 68 feet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that better for you? MR. HUFF: Not really. We'd -- we'd rather see the slope of the top of the roof be lower than the top of the elevator shaft. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess -- MR. HUFF: And I think -- I don't think anybody will ever see it unless you're in an airplane. I mean, the residents won't see it. I'm -- I know he has the talent to figure out where that sightline is. And I don't personally see any problem with the elevator shaft sticking outside the roof if nobody can see it. I'm talking about from the ground. Obviously if you get up into the air, you're going to be able to see it. Am I speaking too much for you? MR. KRIEG: No. If-- if what we say is that the top of the roof for the general portion is, say, 65 feet? MR. HUFF: Yeah. MR. KRIEG: I don't know what's acceptable. I mean, it could be anything because it's a mansard. It's whatever you would choose. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's just a height limitation you're going to have at the end, is what we're looking at, and I would assume that we're going to be using earth-tone colors. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me see if I can simplify it and maybe give you a little flexibility to work with this thing. If I understand what's being said here, the height including the -- the elevator shaft for a five-story building seems to be reasonably Page 246 March 12, 2002 acceptable as long as the roof doesn't exceed the top of the elevator shaft, maybe preferably lower than the elevator shaft. Then you'd be okay. MR. HUFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be better. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I got something real simple that we can do, is -- as far as the mansard, and there's plenty of examples down U.S. 41. And if we can have a sight distance by a glance that you cannot see the elevator shaft. So if you want to throw that -- is it 300, 500 feet from a glance of not seeing -- and you had one example of a ring where the affected neighbors would be. Where was that ring drawn? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was 600 from the current eight-story buildings of the closest neighbor. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Okay. So-- MR. YOVANOVICH: So the standard -- let me see if I can paraphrase it. The standard would be the height of the roof shall not exceed the height of the elevator shaft. Is that basically what you're - COMMISSIONER COYLE: Preferably lower. MR. YOVANOVICH: Preferably lower. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to put that in a -- well, we can't. We still got a public hearing. Is there any other questions? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I suppose you put some filigree around the shaft, it looks like a belltower; right? So now you -- now it looks -- it doesn't look like -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It looks like a church steeple. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It looks like a church maybe. I think the man is creative. He can put some stuff around it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just -- I just don't want to make sure -- I want to make sure I'm not violating any height requirement in the Page 247 March 12, 2002 -- in the PUD. So whatever you tell us, we're with you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thirty-six feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. Starting at 55 feet or above. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One more time. These heights can get confusing. Let's make absolutely sure we know what we're talking about. From the existing grade? DR. WOODRUFF: The grade of the first finished floor is going to be determined by the water management requirements. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. Okay. DR. WOODRUFF: So from the grade of the first finished floor, we're saying 55 feet to the roof, that the elevator shaft sticks up an additional 14 feet, and that we are to have a mansard or sloping roof so that you cannot see the elevator shaft when you're 600 feet away. MR. HUFF: We would -- I -- you know, I almost have to defer to you, but we still like the lower roof if we can possibly get it. And I think that maybe if that's the way you want to do the resolution or whatever you have to do, but maybe the architect, when he gets into it, can figure out another way to do it to achieve what you are really looking for, but maybe making the roof lower. I think that when he works out his details -- maybe I have more confidence in him than I should, but I think that, you know, maybe we're -- you want to make maximums and then -- with the idea that when the drawings are done, if possible, to drop it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We -- we really can't design the building here, and -- and I think if we -- if we set the maximums and give them some flexibility to work in that area -- and I'm sure they're going to come back and show you what they look like, I hope. And then -- then you'll have a chance to take a look at it and see what you think. MR. HUFF: I really don't like the idea of the sightline 600 feet because I think that is going to make the roof almost all the way to Page 248 March 12, 2002 the top of the elevator shaft. So that's just a personal opinion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Olliff, is that your contribution? MR. OLLIFF: That's my cont -- I want to make sure that I understand you're talking about somebody standing 600 feet away, that the line of sight from that person to the top of the elevator shaft would be blocked by the mansard roof. COMMISSIONER HENNING: At a glance. MR. OLLIFF: At a glance. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not a stare. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not the eagle eye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: About the only thing we're missing here is what about an osprey building a nest on top of the elevator shaft. Would we be in violation? No. Forget that. Let's not go there. Let's close the public hearing and move forward on this. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: hearing? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What, to close the public No, no, no. That's been done. We don't need a motion to do that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: make the motion. It's his district. COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'll let Commissioner Coyle I'll make a motion to approve. Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With all the-- all the -- COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: With the stipulations of the amendments of the height, with the roof or -- or mansard not to exceed the -- the height of the elevator shaft. And if we don't want to get into a sight distance to make it simple, that's -- that's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the -- basically that's the four Page 249 March 12, 2002 five-story buildings. And on Parcel C the five-story building is set back 300 feet, is what I proposed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That -- that's what I need to get clarified, because we previously had one building that was set back 900 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it was 420 feet from our property line. What we're saying is we'll bring the five -- we'll do the two five- story buildings with -- with no building closer than 300 feet from our property line. That's what I -- DR. WOODRUFF: Just for the record, may I put back up an aerial so we can look at that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you tell me on this aerial where those buildings would be located? DR. WOODRUFF: Yes, sir. I will try to. The -- the buildings - - because we do have to design water management in here also, one building -- this is a -- once again, the raw water transmission line. One building will be generally set in here, and the 300-foot dimension that we were talking about would be measured from this property line back a minimum of 300 feet, because we cannot be on top of that raw water line. So one building would be in this area. We're not sure whether the other building would be staggered over here or whether it would be in this area. It may have to wind up being in here. There -- there are two things that are going to control the final location of the buildings. There is a requirement, as some of us painfully know, that you cannot put a retention lake within 300 feet of a wellhead. There is a wellhead that sits -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We know that real well, don't we? DR. WOODRUFF: Yes, sir. There is a wellhead that is right here. So in developing the water management system, we are going to have to look over in this area or somewhere over this way. So what we are suggesting is that the 300-foot distance be from the Page 250 March 12, 2002 common property line of the golf course and the country club -- I'm sorry -- the golf course and Moorings Park; that all other setbacks be the setbacks as required in the planned unit development document. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, there were some -- some other stipulations in the CCPC recommendations. How -- which ones of those will -- will be applicable now that these changes have been made? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- and staff's stipulations. MR. YOVANOVICH: The floor area ratio of.35 that we reduced from the .45 would remain. Now, instead of the eight-story structure being set back 900 feet, we talked about the two five-story structures. The maximum height on the eight-story building no longer is applicable. And we would eliminate the Section 4(B)(2) provisions in the PUD, which is the provision that would allow the development services director to approve any other comparable use. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- we need to include the maximum height of the five-story buildings here. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was already -- that's already in the PUD. COMMISSIONER COYLE: today? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. As we've discussed it Fifty-five feet eight inches, yes. Fifty-five feet eight inches, plus fourteen feet for the elevator shaft? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And then the roof so you wouldn't see it. MR. OLLIFF: The only other issue that I can recall being discussed, Mr. Chairman, was the enhanced landscaping package, and I don't know whether that's still on the floor or not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're still wrapping up this motion. Page 251 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Yes. I -- the landscaping's going to be absolutely essential because you have to take out those exotics. And when you take out those exotics, there's nothing there, so you have to have a good landscaping plan for this. MR. YOVANOVICH: And there's also a provision in the PUD that there will be -- we have about 20 other units, but they all have to be less than 35 feet in height. So that's always been in the PUD and never been an issue. DR. WOODRUFF: One thing that might help on the landscaping is we have shown here Tracts B and C. And the initial construction -- and John spoke to this. I think he is concerned about that view. Our initial plan is to begin construction on Parcel B. That is the portion that is in here. Now, I haven't read the county code specifically on this, but if we could consider that when we begin construction that the exotics only have to be removed in Parcel B, that would actually leave the view that they have until a number of years from now when we start the construction on Parcel C. That's a legal question. I don't know whether you-all -- I think a technical reading of the code says we're supposed to remove all exotics over the entire 83 acres. That's something you can decide. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you haven't so far, why couldn't we let you keep them there a little longer? DR. WOODRUFF: You're the one who enforces your laws. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I need legal counsel's input, and we also ask them what the situations were where we're forcing the exotics out, so I think we need to know where we are here. MR. WEIGEL: The later it gets, the less technical I get, I think. But-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: It is now 9:30, sir. Go ahead. MR. WEIGEL: Noted. I think what we see here, though, is that Page 252 March 12, 2002 the board and the staff, with our code, are seeing a bit of a policy decision coming into play. And this isn't the first time that we've had to face this, and that is with PUDs as opposed to absolute parcels, looking at our code and the exotics removal ordinance, that it appears we're coming face to face again with the phasing issue and reality. And, as was indicated by Dr. Woodruff, in part it has to do with our staff and our board and the county attorney office and the public recognizing the reality of-- of a relatively uniform approach. It's very difficult for the staff to have everything removed countywide. We work on a complaints basis, to the -- to a significant extent. But at the same time, I think that if the board recognizes here a phased concept, staff, county attorney will take this into -- into mind and probably bring back to you some policy discussions on exotics generally later on this summer. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What the hell did you say? MR. WEIGEL: I'm telling you that -- I'm not getting technical here. I'm saying that if you -- if you agree and -- and kind of a phased approach here, we will -- we will be bringing back to you a discussion on this matter from a countywide standpoint and not purely for this project that's before you now. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir, because I know we've got other situations. And I don't want to do one thing in one place, then we have 25 people in front of us that says, "But when you did the Moorings Park" -- we've got to have consistency, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What -- what are the exotics that are there? MR. OLLIFF: Brazilian pepper. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Australian pines. MR. YOVANOVICH: And Brazilian pepper. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can -- can I provide a Page 253 March 12, 2002 revised motion, please? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's still yours. You haven't got a second yet (sic), so you can revise it to your heart's content. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that the -- the petition be approved with a .35 floor area ratio; with four five-story buildings. Buildings are not to exceed 69 feet 8 inches in height. There will be enhanced landscaping, and the removal of the exotics will be phased with the construction by parcel. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. MR. OLLIFF: I'd ask you to go ahead and be a little more specific on the enhanced landscaping. We call that -- a Type B buffer is generally what it's called. So there is a Land Development Code that relates to that, and so there's a specific code that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I so modify. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would the motioner and the second include this: That we get Brazilian peppers out of there? I am really not concerned about the Australian pines so much. They'll blow over, but I -- that's a nonissue for me. But if we got the Brazilian peppers out of there, they -- the birds really spread those seeds around. So if we could get those all cleaned out and leave the Brazilian pepper -- I mean, leave the pines, I have no problem with that in a phased process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The lady wants to make a comment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have the public hearing closed. DR. WOODRUFF: May I ask for a clarification on the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You might not get it but -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give it a try. DR. WOODRUFF: In the five stories, that gives us still the Page 254 March 12, 2002 flexibility of either building five residential floors or four residential over one of parking? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. DR. WOODRUFF: We still have that option? COMMISSIONER COYLE: As long as the maximum height isn't exceeded. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about the Brazilian pepper? We're back to that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are you okay with that, Dr. Woodruff?. I'd like to see the Brazilian peppers taken out of there -- DR. WOODRUFF: We can do that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- and we can -- DR. WOODRUFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- leave the Australian pines on a phased project. DR. WOODRUFF: We can do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got that in the motion, and we got it in the second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anything else to this particular motion? Any other comments, suggestions, questions? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 1 and-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: 5-0. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, 5-0. MR. YOVANOVICH: Tom's -- Tom's sketch is not part of our PUD, correct? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. Page 255 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't see why you wouldn't want to use that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we want to take a break? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's take a five-minute break. (A break was held.) Item #9A APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE- TO BE RE- ADVERTISED AND MR. STOUT TO BE INCLUDED CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 9-A, appointment of a member to Collier County Productivity Committee. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, may I read one statement here on this? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may. Go ahead, Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's -- it's on page 2, and it's in regards to the ordinance. And it says -- and they put it in here, I think, for a very strong reason, that -- it says they shall pass (sic) special -- the people going there will have the expertise and experience related to managing large organizations, but the membership shall be balanced and representing views of the community. The next paragraph says we already have 2 members of an organization on there. This would make 3, which would be 3 out of 11. I think the productivity committee is sending us a message, and I would recommend to the board that we just readvertise to see if we could continue to keep the balance there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that, and then we'll open it for discussion. Commissioner Henning. Page 256 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I would like some history on the purpose and intent of the language in there, of any particular organization, you know, because they could be all Christians and -- or the majority of them could be Christians, so that would preclude somebody from being on there, or they could be of other faiths. So what was the spirit of the ordinance? MR. OLLIFF: I think the intent was the -- the idea of any particular 501 (c)(3)-type corporation or organization, whether it be too many Jaycees or too many Kiwanians or too many Rotarians or whatever it may be. As long as there is too much representation from one organized group of people, recognized organized group, if you will, it may taint the recommendations coming out of that advisory committee. And in this particular case, I think this issue was raised by the productivity committee themselves, and I think they are trying to protect their own recommendations from having any -- any perception of not being completely unbiased and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or they're all Democrats. MR. OLLIFF: Either/or. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't know if the Republican party made any endorsements to -- for somebody to sit on the committee. I mean, it's hard for us to get -- to fill certain positions on -- on advisory boards. So if your inclination is to readvertise that, then I would hope that we can also put into the readvertisement of-- this one person into the -- the pile. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He might be the only one that comes out. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think -- I think the thing that might have precipitated this particular complaint or statement is that there are only 8 members on the productivity committee, not 11. And when you have -- have 3 people from a single organization, perhaps there's a perception that it doesn't represent a balanced view of the Page 257 March 12, 2002 community. I -- I happen to disagree with that position, quite frankly, but there's -- because I think in order to make that statement, you have to make the statement that -- that Republicans don't have a balanced view of the community, and I think-- think that's incorrect. And you'd have to say that Democrats don't have a balanced view of the community, and I think that's wrong too. But I -- I do believe that we need to fill this group out, and we need to get that whole 11 -- 11-member board filled up. And I would -- I, too, would agree that we should advertise this, but I wouldn't want to discriminate against this one person because of that. MR. OLLIFF: We'll make sure that he's in the group that's considered. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not discriminating against him because of his party affiliation. This is not about party affiliation. It is about an organization of which members of a certain party belong to. And I just think for balance we ought to look -- I don't want to -- and it has nothing to do with him personally. But I saw the signal, and I just thought we ought to discuss it as a board. MS. FILSON: There are currently three vacancies on this board, and I am advertising as I speak. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we are having problems -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: We're having problems everywhere. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know, in getting -- getting people on -- on this advisory board. MR. OLLIFF: We'll make it a special effort to -- to do -- to do some additional advertising and notice on -- on these positions because it is important. It's the start of the budget season, and this committee's going to need to get involved and hit the ground running. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion, and we have a second. Is there any other discussion? Page 258 March 12, 2002 All those in favor indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And commissioner Henning is the dissenting vote, 4 to 1. Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. need to ask a question. What we just voted on was to advertise? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Advertise and keep this person on the list to see if we couldn't expand the list and see what we have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But we did not reject this person. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, sir. I would like to have six or seven candidates so we can fill the whole thing out to see if it would go away. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- and the reason I voted against it, if we got -- you've got three members from one organization, that's not even near the majority; it's a minority. So that's -- that's why I voted against it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One thing, Commissioner Henning, just -- just for example, would you feel the same way if it was three members from TAG on there? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's still -- you're talking about 11 members. And when you're only talking about 3 from a certain organization, I don't see where they can have a controlling interest. That's just my general feelings. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. Did I miss it? No. I don't think you -- I just Page 259 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the thing is perception out in the public. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's exactly-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's interesting. No matter how honest we know they are, perception -- and sometimes it can be written into things in a way that wouldn't be complimentary. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2002-143, CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF MARK GIANQUITTI, REPRESENTING THE NAPLES AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ON THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ADOPTED CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's move on. 9-B, confirm an appointment of member to the Health Human Service (sic) Committee representing -- representative from Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. I move to accept. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 5 to 0, passed. Item #9C RESOLUTION 2002-144, APPOINTING DAVID JOHNSON, NANCY PAYTON, KATHLEEN CURATOLO, LINDY ADELSTEIN, BRUCE ANDERSON, MICHAEL COE AND JAMES MUDD TO THE HEARING OFFICER ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED Page 260 March 12, 2002 9-C, appoint seven members to the Hearing Officer Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And all I want is equal representation on this, and I want to thank Commissioner Carter for suggesting not to have a county commissioner on this. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we have four people, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- by the process that's already there, and I think -- I would not want to touch what these people have recommended. I mean, we asked them, and they gave a recommendation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to make that a separate recommendation so we can boil it down to the last three? COMMISSIONER CARTER: So I'm all right with Deputy Manager -- Administrator Jim Mudd, EAC representative Michael Coe, DSAC representative R. Bruce Anderson, and CCPC nominee Lindy Adelstein. Those four I'm fine with. My recommendations -- again, I'm always looking for balance. David K. Johnson would be a layperson. If I go with Nancy Payton, which is one -- one person that represents one group, I would come back and recommend Kathleen Curatolo. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that gives us David Johnson, Nancy Payton, and Kathleen Curatolo? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And that's all seven. Any other-- we got a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've already got a second. Page 261 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Okay. We'll go ahead now. Is there any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. Item # 1 OB RESOLUTION 2002-145, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2002-97, AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR-LANE AND SIX LANE IMPROVEMENTS TO GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD- ADOPTED What's the next item? MR. OLLIFF: Next item is 10-B, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-B. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. On 10-B I'll be very brief here in the hour. I'm asking you to adopt a resolution amending Resolution Number 2002-97. That was a resolution authorizing the condemnation in fee simple and other easements as required for the six-laning and four-laning of Goodlette-Frank Road from Pine Ridge up to Vanderbilt Beach Road. In this case we're asking an amendment of that resolution that you did on February 12th specifically to address the Calusa Bay entrance where we have a sidewalk issue, some other work that needs to be done on site distance to address the overall project in that area. With that in mind, I'd ask you to consider moving on the recommendation. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval. Page 262 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. We have a motion for approval and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying say. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes- Item # 1 OF TRANSFER AND/OR FUNDING OF FOUR POSITIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION FUND (113) TO THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION FUND (101) WITH A COST OF $430,000 FOR FY 02 FROM PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT FEES - APPROVED MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. And with the board's indulgence, since I'm up here and I've got my two girls home from college, I'm going to ask if 10-F can be taken at this time. I realize I'm-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go right ahead. MR. FEDER: Taking that out of order. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's really 16-B, isn't it? MR. FEDER: It is, yes. It's 16-B-3, and I was asked to just identify there that what we're working with is we're developing a section within transportation operations to deal with right-of-way permits. That's people that utilize the right-of-way to put in turn lanes and other items as required, quite often closing off sections of the highway for periods of time. That's the right-of-way use permit that they request. In the past we haven't had a lot of control over that. We also haven't had a lot of inspection of what's been done. Working with Joe Schmitt it was agreed that that coming over to transportation Page 263 March 12, 2002 would provide us a better opportunity to exert some control and effort there for the public and for efficiency. The other two positions that would come out of development review funds to establish that transportation review function, particularly as we get ready for the real-time concurrency management, a principal planner/engineer as well as a planning technician. If there are any further questions on that, I'd be happy to respond. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd move for approval. Sir, thank you for the explanation. And I just wanted our listening audience to have that opportunity to understand the consolidation and improved efficiency so that we can move forward in an expeditious way on our road construction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion from Commissioner Carter, second from Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) MR. FEDER: Thank you for your indulgence. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. Item # IOE UNCOLLECTED AND UNDER COLLECTED IMPACT FEES FOR CERTAIN SELF-DESCRIBED ADULT-ONLY COMMUNITIES- STAFF DIRECTED TO COLLECT ALL PAST DUE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES FROM THOSE FACILITIES THAT DID NOT HAVE A RECORDED DEED RESTRICTION PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Okay. We're back on track again for 10-B. Page 264 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: E. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. 10-E. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Impact fees. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. The impact fees, school impact fees. MR. TINDALL: Good evening, for the record, Phil Tindall, impact fee coordinator. I'm here to briefly introduce this item, and I can also answer any operational or historical background questions you might have on the item. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we have any speakers on this? MS. FILSON: We have one speaker who's registered twice, Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Does that mean he wants double time? MR. YOVANOVICH: Two clients. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no questions for-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, two clients. MS. FILSON: Moorings Park and-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, why don't we take that on. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't mean to interrupt Mr. Tindall. MR. TINDALL: Not at all. I mean, I can -- I'm sure you reviewed the executive summary. I could give you a quick background, or we could go straight to comments, whatever your preference is. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just to summarize for the staff, I will tell you that it is your county attorney's opinion, I believe it is the school board attorney's opinion, it is the school board's recommendation, and it is your staff's recommendation that even though this issue is uncomfortable, that -- frankly, I think that we need to go pursue the collection of those school impact fees. I think Page 265 March 12, 2002 Mr. Yovanovich is probably going to make an argument the other way, but that's -- that's the position that's being recommended for you today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I have some questions for our staff. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. And if you'll wait a minute, Richard, we'll get right to you in a few minutes. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On whose dime is this going to be? I mean, who's going to -- if we go into litigation, who -- where is the monies going to fund that litigation? MR. OLLIFF: If we get sued, then Collier County ends up supporting itself in its own legal fees. And in most cases the decision or the outcome of the court case determines in large part who ends up bearing the ultimate burden of the legal fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they're not coming out of the impact fees to defend the county. And the school board-- what you're saying is the school board is not going to help us if we do go to court. MR. OLLIFF: It depends on who gets sued. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the county is going to get sued because the county collects the impact fees, even though that the school board has the benefit of impact fees for the school board. That's a concern I have. The next concern that I have is, is there a statute of limitation on when we can collect these impact fees? Like, say, that in 1984 there is a adult living facility saying -- you know, are we going back on them or-- I guess the bottom line is, is there a time line when we can go back? That question I need answered. MR. TINDALL: We have asked the county attorney's office to look into that for us. It is something that the other side of the argument would bring up at the appropriate time if we were to get Page 266 March 12, 2002 into litigation. I'm sure the county attorney staff could give you some input on that as far as -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I'm looking for. MR. TINDALL: -- whether it's applicable. MS. ROBINSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Jacqueline Hubbard-Robinson, for the record, assistant county attorney. On the two questions that you raised, the first one is the cost of litigation. I believe at the school board meeting -- and David was also there -- the school board voted unanimously to participate in the collection of these outstanding fees. The impact fee ordinance, both the prior one and the existing one, allow for the lawful use of the impact fees. The prior ordinance, under which most of these liabilities occurred, specifically has a provision in it that provides that if the county has to collect the fees, they will come out of the school -- out of the educational facilities impact fees. The school board indicated the other day that they were going to participate fully in the pursuit and defense of these issues. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ROBINSON: Now, as to the second question, it's our position anyway not to really discuss, in any detail anyway, our litigation strategy. However, I would indicate to you that the issue of statutes of limitation are affirmative defenses, so they would be raised by the other side. The Court would determine, based upon the facts that are presented to it, whether or not a particular statute of limitation would apply. And there are various statutes of limitation that may apply: Four years, five years, perhaps even longer, depending upon the ultimate facts that are presented to the Court. So that's an open question, in our opinion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may. Page 267 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did provide a couple of handouts that I think are important. One is a memo from Patrick White to Mr. Tindall dated September 17th, and the question of the statute of limitations has been answered by your county attorney's office, and there's a four-year statute of limitations. Therefore, it's my opinion that you can only go back four years. Another handout is an executive summary where I highlighted for you-all -- this executive summary is the executive summary pertaining to when you adopted the specific exemption in your education impact-- in your education impact fee ordinance. And I marked for you an important paragraph, and that reads as follows: "Understanding that adult-only communities neither contribute to the demand for new school facilities nor benefit from their construction, the consultants excluded adult-only communities from their tabulations. Since the Adoption of the Ordinance, Staff has not assessed Educational Facilities System Impact Fees for residential construction at these adult-only communities." What that means is at the time the impact fee ordinance was adopted, adult communities -- such as Moorings Park, who I represent today, and Ashton Gardens, as I represent today, since they are adult-only communities -- never were anticipated to receive services. And this goes back to what Commissioner Goodnight said in the -- in the joint meeting, is it was her recollection, when she sat on this board, that they were not included. And that was an issue that she was not aware -- was not sure of, but your own -- own executive summary made it clear that it was not considered -- they were not considered to be receiving any services. That is exactly how this ordinance has been administered from day one. Communities like Moorings Park and Ashton Gardens who provide adult-only facilities have never been charged impact fees. Page 268 March 12, 2002 Now, I think that's the appropriate -- and I've said this before. That's the appropriate application of the law. If there is no impact, you should not charge an impact fee. Now, I want to go through -- I read the executive summary, and there's a -- there's a provision in there that there's a million eight of unpaid impact fees. Well, only a million three applies to education impact fees. Now, when you go and you exclude all of these property owners that are -- they're trying to collect which -- for more than four years, in other words the statute of limitations has run, we're talking about $534,000 that we're fighting over, 200,000 of which is Ashton Gardens, which recorded the deed restriction prior to CO. The reason it wasn't recorded prior to the building permit is because the county applied its normal procedure, which was to review these facilities and exempt them. We are caught in the -- you know, we're in a Catch-22. We didn't know that the county was going to require a recorded deed restriction, so we pulled our building permit. We relied on what the county said. They said, "You don't owe us anything." The county said, "We were wrong. We made a mistake. We should have charged you because you didn't have a deed restriction." Had they said we were wrong at the time we pulled our building permit, we could have recorded the deed restriction. We did record the deed restriction in Ashton Gardens before CO, and that's important because you can't charge impact fees for an adult-only community if there is no possibility of students living there, school-age children living there. There is no possibility of school-age children living in Ashton Gardens on nine of the buildings. On three of the other buildings, which we did receive refunds for, we had provided copies and was discussed with Mr. Tindall how we do business, and it was by contract. The contract said students can live there. Page 269 March 12, 2002 That's -- based on the best information Mr. Tindall had available, he made that the -- the call that, yes, we should apply our normal procedure, which is to exempt adult communities from paying education impact fees and refunded money to our clients. We have recorded a deed restriction on those three buildings as well and provided an affidavit that shows that nobody younger than 73 has ever resided in those buildings. So we have shown there's never been an impact before the deed restriction, and there's no possibility of an impact after the recording of the deed restriction. At some point the county commission needs to apply some common sense to this issue. This is an issue that, as you will recall when we had the joint meeting, I think the school board was a little skittish on whether or not they wanted to go full-fledged with this. I was not at the -- the meeting the other night. I didn't even know it was occurring. I wish I would have been invited, but I wasn't at that meeting. But what I read in the paper -- which is dangerous, I admit. And -- but the paper said that based upon the dollar amount out there, the school board may have changed its opinion. But I don't know that the school board ever knew about the statute of limitations. I don't know that the school board ever knew that it was only $534,000 that you could possibly collect. I will tell you that any competent layer will raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense the minute that lawsuit is filed. And I will tell you -- that was only five minutes of my ten. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I'm trying to find out. Was that five minutes, or was that ten? MS. FILSON: That was five minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you that when that lawsuit -- let's say the county does decide to file a lawsuit to try to collect these fees and say I am on the other side. I'll raise that affirmative defense. I feel pretty confident that the judge is going to grant my motion to Page 270 March 12, 2002 dismiss it, and I also feel pretty confident the judge is going to say, "That was a frivolous lawsuit on the county's part because they knew that there was a four-year statute of limitations." And I think I'll get my attorney's fees for knocking that case out. I will also tell you that this is not one of those cases where the winning party gets their attorney's fees paid. The winning party doesn't get their attorney's fees paid. So even if you win, part of what you're trying to collect, the $534,000, you will lose because you will be spending part of that money to collect it. I don't think you'll win because I think in these particular cases we will be able to prove to the Court that there was no impact and there was no possibility of an impact based upon how we operated these facilities. Now, I will tell you I am also here to represent Moorings Park, and you are pretty familiar with Moorings Park. Their existing PUD says it's a retirement community. The case cited by your county says if there's a land-use regulation that limits who can live there, you can't charge impact fees. It says retirement community. I don't know that many school-age children that are retired, so there is a land-use restriction in place for Moorings Park. The county at this point is holding up building permits for Moorings Park on a renovation of an existing building that was built in 1982 and a replacement of an existing garage that was built about the same time. Now, a renovation does not mean new units. We can't pull our building permits over this education impact fee ordinance because the county is attempting to collect impact fees for our skilled nursing facility, which is also exempt because it's a skilled nursing facility. There's no children there. This -- this issue has gone on long enough. It is clear to me that this board has the authority to decide whether or not to pursue the collection of those fees. If this board believes that there is another mechanism to prove there has been no impact and there will never be Page 271 March 12, 2002 any impact, this board can say to staff, this is what we need. And I've said to you before, I think what you need is you need that recorded deed restriction. This way you know from this date forward there will never be any children living there. And second of all, you need -- you need to put the burden on me to represent my clients and provide proof that no children have ever lived there. Then that way you know there were no children in the past. If there's been no children in the past and there's no children in the future, there will be no impact. And, as we all know, you can only charge impact fees if there's an impact. If there's no impact, you cannot charge an impact fee. It's also important to note that both Moorings Park and Ashton Gardens pay ad valorem taxes through the school system, so they are contributing to the school system. Moorings Park also does -- you know, does many contributions to the school system, so they contribute. By the way, Moorings Park does have a legitimate argument that they don't have to pay ad valorem taxes but, because they're responsible citizens, have always stepped up to the plate and paid those ad valorem taxes because it was the right thing to do. Neither one of these clients are trying to avoid impact fees. If there were an impact, they would be glad to pay them. I don't think any of you and I know -- I haven't heard from anybody on the staff that's told me what benefit our clients will receive by paying these education impact fees, direct benefits, and the law requires that there be a direct benefit for it to be a valid impact fee ordinance. Now, remember, there's validity as adopted and validity as applied, and I think the ordinance is being unconstitutionally applied to Ashton Gardens and, to this extent, to Moorings Park by denying them building permits because they are -- they're not paying impact fees. I don't know how, on Moorings Park, you have any legitimate Page 272 March 12, 2002 claim that any impact fees are due on buildings that were built in 1982 since the ordinance didn't come into effect until 1992. So I would respectfully request that those permits be released ASAP because we've got contractors ready to go. And, also, I would -- I would encourage you to -- I don't know that the school board said that they would fund the litigation. I don't know that the school board had all of the facts in front of them. I don't know that you have all of the facts in front of you. I -- I got a summary of the outstanding communities that there's an issue, and I marked off how many of them were prior -- more than four years ago, and 14 of the 22 are more than four years ago. And, as I said, the total number on the education impact fees is $534,000, not a million three. And I think that needs to be factored into the decision as to what the commission wants to do. And also take into consideration Ashton Gardens, how they tried to comply and were able to comply before occupancy. And, therefore, I think some special consideration should be given to that project as well, and I think it's within your jurisdiction to do that because you chose in your ordinance to pick building permit as the date of collection. You could have chosen certificate of occupancy as the date to collect the fees. Now, one is a lot easier to administer than the other, but you did have the flexibility. And I see that I'm getting the hurry up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich, you've got a very good argument. I'm looking forward to hearing from our attorney. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a few comments, and that is the school board meeting the other day, they had a few questions for us. But what we did tell them was that the process that exists under our impact fee ordinance is an administrative collection process, which that's what we're looking for an endorsement from the board at this point in time is to go forward administratively. We Page 273 March 12, 2002 don't file any lawsuits typically until we have your permission to file lawsuits. But the procedures in our impact fee ordinance are, one, where staff would go forward and file a -- send a letter, call it a demand letter; first a request, then a demand, formal. It sets things in motion procedurally under the ordinance. And the recipients of those collection letters, you know, have an opportunity to respond and have a couple options under the ordinance in regard to the claim that the county would be making for the school impact fees. Based upon the action or inaction they take by virtue of the ordinance takes us further in -- into the administrative procedure. There would come a time, but not for a significant period of months, before the board might be asked permission -- authorization by staff, by the county attorney, to go forward and file lawsuits or to file liens on the property in regard to what we believe is an un -- unrequited claim. So we don't go out, you know, shooting guns, blazing into court immediately. And so we're not -- although we're always concerned about the use of attorney time and staff resource, our own staff resource which has limitations, the fact is is that -- and Mr. Yovanovich indicated at the school board joint meeting with you, the workshop, that it may well be that the shot that's fired litigation-wise will be a lawsuit that comes from the people upon whom the claims are made. Now, that may or may not be all of them out there at the present time. They don't all sit in the same status, the same factual situation, as Ashton Gardens or the Moorings Park that Mr. Yovanovich addresses to you today. In regard to statutes of limitations, well, that's an affirmative offense -- defense that may be raised in court if we get to court. The fact that there may be an obligation to be paid doesn't mean that someone will always rely upon the technical ability to have a court Page 274 March 12, 2002 declare its validity in a courtroom setting. We may not be in a courtroom setting. We may be coming back to you saying that some property that we've talked to, who's had a factual situation particularly to itself over years, is making an offer of settlement, things of that nature, in an administrative way before we ever get to lawsuit. There's a lot out there that needs to be handled, and we think we can handle it pretty adroitly in a businesslike way, keeping everyone informed in the process. Additionally, and one other comment here -- well, that's pretty much it. I'll wait for questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I would like to get a clarification of something from Mr. Yovanovich. You said there were buildings constructed, and there are impact fees assessed against those buildings, and they were constructed prior to the ordinance itself. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that true? MR. YOVANOVICH: There are -- there are buildings right now that we're attempting -- in Moorings Park where we're attempting to get a permit to do a face-lift, for lack of a better -- and to replace an existing garage. We can't get those permits because the county -- we are at a standstill in the industry because staff doesn't know what to do about fees related to different buildings. For instance, I have -- we have an ALF in Ashton Gardens. We're under construction. We need to get a permit for a hood that will be part of the kitchen. I can't even get that permit released without the county taking the position that I've got to come up with $218,000 to pay for all these other buildings, unrelated buildings, based upon this education impact fee issue. There is a -- so we're -- that's where we are. This issue's been going on for about a year and a Page 275 March 12, 2002 half, maybe even longer. It's not a new issue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How -- how does staff respond to this, and what is the justification for establishing an impact fee for something that was built before the ordinance? MR. TINDALL: Yes, sir. Specifically with the case of Moorings Park, we found that our records that we had weren't quite as adequate as for some of the other developments. And we had to actually contact the development there, their administrative offices, and get some information, based upon their records, about when certain things were built. And we were, to some degree, depending upon that. And that's why you'll see any -- any summaries of information having to do with dollar amounts will have a large "draft" stamp on the top, because in some cases, as with Moorings Park, we're going to have to do some additional research. I will tell you that in the vast majority of these developments, we are much more comfortable with the numbers we have and-- and the factual information. It is possible what he's saying is true. We just need some confirmation of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, I sent an e-mail probably over two weeks ago confirming those facts. We still don't have our permit, and I'm just saying -- MR. TINDALL: (Inaudible) land records. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that's an example on this issue. And it needs to be -- we're being held up. On my other facility, I've got contractors that have reached the point of where they're going to have to walk off the job because we don't have anything for them to do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, here's -- here's my problem. I am concerned that -- that we are punishing someone for something that we're not sure they did. Now, if-- if you're -- you should have paid impact fees on those -- those buildings and -- and there's substantial evidence to indicate that you should have, then I -- I agree Page 276 March 12, 2002 with the assessment. The -- the problem I think I see is that in some cases we're not sure if the impact fees we have assessed against Mr. Yovanovich's clients are, in fact, real. And I would only ask that if they're not real or we have -- have reason to doubt that we can substantiate them, that we not hold up their permits to go forward with whatever renovations they're -- they're undertaking here. It might be that we would continue to pursue the impact fee issue -- and I don't have a problem with that -- but to hold someone up on -- on the basis of something we suspect but cannot prove is a bit of a stretch for me. MR. TINDALL: That's fine, sir, from our standpoint. I do want to try to give you some comfort that the only case in which there's some question about the factual information is with that one instance in Moorings Park. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. And-- and I -- I'm right with you there. It's -- it's just that I have no problem -- if we've got evidence that these things are owed, I have no problem with proceeding with it and then see how it turns out. But I -- I don't want to punish people for something that we can't -- we're not really sure about. MR. TINDALL: I understand. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, it seems this morning we worked through a similar situation, and I believe that we should not hold up Moorings Park, and we should make this subject to review until it gets resolved through, I like to say, putting people around the table and having a discussion. And they may work it out and come back to us with an acceptable solution. I do want to collect impact fees that are due us when I know that we have the right information to justify what we're doing, but I don't want to go into those gray areas and stop somebody from doing something, as you're pointing out, when we really don't know. I don't think that's what Page 277 March 12, 2002 government is all about. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you, Commissioner Carter. And I myself, last year when this issue first came up, took it as a personal crusade to try to collect them all until I contacted the Florida Association of Counties and talked to our attorney there. I was told very plainly that if this -- if they had a deed restriction, that the Supreme Court entered into this and that we would have no case. At that point in time, I -- I took a step back. Now, I'm not too sure everything still applies. I think you're right. There's doubt. I think everybody here has some doubt about what's taken place here. The one thing we do agree is we want to collect all fees that we legally can collect, but we don't want to unduly harm your customers and, of course, our constituents. So I -- I would suggest that possibly we want to give direction to staff to move forward on the issuing of permits and then bring this back -- give it a continuance for the rest of it to bring it back for consideration after our attorney has met with -- MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. Yes, you may. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I believe the important thing here is that we reaffirm our commitment to collect impact fees that are due. If-- if we waiver on that, we send the wrong message, I think, for the staff as well as for the public. But -- but I think the rest of that is -- is important. We need to make sure that when we are telling someone that they owe impact fees, that we need to be able to prove it. And -- and so if-- if we could-- could reaffirm our commitment to collect impact fees whenever, wherever we think they are due but at the same time work with people who challenge these things and try to resolve those things as we go forward, we'll -- we will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and -- and then go after the impact Page 278 March 12, 2002 fees we can really prove. Does -- does that -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're hitting the-- you're hitting the nail right on the head. But now we got to address this situation. What are we going to do at this point in time? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I would -- I think Rich might have a comment. But I -- I would suggest that until we have proof of the impact fees they owe, that they should be given the permits to proceed with whatever they're doing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Coyle, what -- what I'm - - what I'm asking for is -- and this is always dangerous. As I heard someone earlier say, quoting Corbin Wyant, that one size does not fit all. There are some circumstances, such as Ashton Gardens, where we had meetings with staff and said, "What do you need from us to prove the exemption?" And your staff did the best they could. And they said, "We think that the information you've provided us, Mr. Yovanovich, is good enough," and based on that they refunded some money. Now, that resulted in nine permits being issued without a deed restriction. I was able to fix that problem prior to CO by recording the deed restriction. So Ashton Gardens, had -- had we not gotten our building permit without having to pay the impact fees, we could have fixed it before the triggering of that, which would have locked us out. I think what you -- what I'm looking at is, okay. There are some circumstances out there where Ashton Gardens is being required to pay education impact fees, even though it was able to record the deed restriction before anybody moved in. I'm asking the commissioners to give some direction to staff in those circumstances. They tried. They communicated with the county, said, "What do we need to do?" The county said, "This is what you need to do." The county comes back and says, "We're wrong." Don't punish my client because the county may have made a Page 279 March 12, 2002 mistake. We were able to fix it before anybody moved in on those buildings. So what I'm saying is one size does not fit all. In those oddball cases, like Ashton Gardens, say to your staff, "We're not really interested in collecting those education impact fees because they did comply with the Supreme Court by recording the deed restriction." So that's what I think I'm asking for as far as direction goes, because the minute you start the collection process, you're going to write a letter, and we're all going to say, "Thank you, but we're really -- we're going to pass on the opportunity to give you this money." You're going to record a -- you're going to record a lien on our property, which is now going to create a title problem for some of these people. And they've got one of two things they can do: They can wait for you to foreclose on that lien, or they can sue you to get the lien off their property. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only problem I have here is that we're not being asked to make a decision on Ashton Gardens or Moorings Park. I think we're being asked to make a decision on a policy, and I don't know how we can make a policy based upon the special circumstances of your two clients. Now, I -- I can see why we would want to sit down with you and work out the problems, and we certainly have to do that. And I can see why you would like to come back to us and petition us to do something like that. But right now it seems to me that we're being asked to -- to make a decision about a policy. And if-- if we fail to make a decision about that policy, then we're opening the doors for lots of other unfavorable, unintended consequences. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm actually asking for is I don't want to waste my time by coming back with a public petition to have -- have the same result happen, where you say to me, "Well, Mr. Yovanovich, we're not willing to consider your unique Page 280 March 12, 2002 circumstances." If the board is willing to let me come back with my unique circumstances and possibly direct your staff not to collect those fees from Ashton Gardens, I'll be happy to spend my time doing that. But if-- if the board's not interested in that, I -- you know, it's a waste of my clients' time and money for me to come back and do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, we seem to be at an impasse on this. Can you help us reach the -- where we need to be so we can move this thing forward? MR. OLLIFF: It's probably too late in the day for me to come up with anything brilliant. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're a very clever county manager. MR. OLLIFF: I'll -- I'll tell you that the decision in front of the board, to me, is fairly simple. The Court established a standard, the standard being a recorded deed restriction. The board's decision is to go after those projects who didn't have a recorded deed restriction at the time their building permit was issued; or, if you want to make a more liberal interpretation, and say if the project had a recorded deed restriction prior to the CO; or if you want to tell us that even the more liberal interpretation is if somebody wants to give us an affidavit indicating that no one has ever lived there that was minor age or school age and they are willing to record a deed restriction, that is sort of the third more liberal option. And the fourth is to tell us to not worry about it. Frankly, I'll tell you that my -- the only two that I would even recommend that you consider are the first two: Either we take the more stringent approach and say either they had the deed recorded at the time we issued the building permit or prior to the CO, because at least a reasonable argument can be made that there was never an impact to the school system in that case. Page 281 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to take that and mm it into a motion. And we can amend it if we need to, but I want to get this thing off dead center and move it forward. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's basically what -- I think, Mr. Chairman, what the staff recommendation is, is that we set a policy to (sic) uncollected or undercollected impact fees for self- described adult-only communities. If you want to tag it to take any past situation involving these categories, it would be analyzed and brought back to the board on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I could incorporate that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But I don't know if that answers the question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm confused a little bit now. Let me -~ let me see if we can do this, see if I understand it. We give you direction to collect all past due impact fees for those facilities that did not have a deed restriction prior to the issuance of a CO. MR. OLLIFF: Then we will administratively go back, and we will send notices, and we will go out to collect those and file liens on those that don't pay them. Now, I will tell you that -- that we will probably end up having a judge decide the matter. And this is the reason why I say that it is fairly simple, in my mind: Because your county attorney's office tells you that you have a reasonable legal argument about going after those impact fees, if we are going to err in this argument, I would suggest to you that we want to err on the side of collection of the impact fees and let a judge tell us we're wrong because -- and understanding that your county attorney's office is telling you you have a reasonable legal argument here, because if you don't, then the lost impact fees, if you will, end up getting paid for out of ad valorem or general fund tax monies. And I think the better place to be, obviously, is to make growth and development pay for growth and development on the school system. Page 282 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would agree. With respect to that -- that recommendation, is that acceptable? COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's acceptable to me. In just looking at Robert's Rules, the chairman made a motion. I don't know if they're both the same. He may withdraw his. You may make yours. We could get a second, and the board could -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll withdraw my motion. Go ahead and make yours. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion would be that the -- to give direction to the staff to collect all past due impact fees from those facilities that do not have -- did not have a recorded deed restriction prior to CO. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Chairman, I did hand out to you a settlement -- well, they now tell me it's a settlement letter doing that very thing. So I'm assuming that the county attorney's office is comfortable with that approach, that you use CO, because that's a September 19th letter, which was cc'd to the -- which was cc'd to the county attorney's office, that also recommended what you're discussing, is if you had it prior to CO, they would not be collected. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to second Commissioner Coyle's motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. We got a motion. We got a second. Now -- now discussion from where we were. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going this way (indicating)' No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's kind of hard to tell from this direction. Okay. All those -- all those in favor-- MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- indicate by saying aye. Page 283 March 12, 2002 (Unanimous response.) MR. OLLIFF: And just for clarification, we're taking that motion to be specifically oriented to school impact fees. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Item # 1 OH BUDGET AMENDMENT TO CONVERT AN AIRPORT AUTHORITY CAPITAL GRANT TO AN OPERATIONAL GRANT - APPROVED CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The next one is 10-G. COMMISSIONER FIALA: H, which is 16-B-8. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 16-B-8. Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is the item of the Airport Authority capital grants that I pulled, Mr. Chairman. I spoke to John Drury, our airport director, and he's agreeing to what I'm suggesting, is -- the $44,000 grant, is give that to the Airport Authority for their operations, but that 11,000 matching that came from the county, is to put that back into the general fund and, if there's any further need for operational expenses, that he comes back to the board of commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Drury, anything to add to that? MR. DRURY: For the record, John Drury, executive director of the Collier County Airport Authority. As I understand our discussion, that the $11,000 would go back into the Airport Authority's reserve, which is in the general fund the way you set up the budget for this year; and that should the Authority require reserve money or the 11,000, we would come back and explain what -- why that was needed. That -- is that what we -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I said general fund. I Page 284 March 12, 2002 meant our general fund. I don't know what the difference -- it's neither here nor there. You still have to come back to the board of commissioners and request that, justify it. MR. DRURY: As I understand, the reserve is in the general fund, and that would go into the general fund, and that would be ... CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I ask what the purpose is, what we're trying to accomplish? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That we just hold on to $11,000 of what's requested by the Airport Authority, and the 44,000 goes to the Airport Authority. And Mr. Drury and I are in agreement on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm just trying to get a full understanding. This $11,000 is money that's never been accounted for, or was this part of your budget? MR. DRURY: It was part of your budget. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So now we're going to take $11,000 from your budget and move it into our fund, is that correct, into our general fund? MR. DRURY: You're going to hold on to it until the Authority comes back at a later date and explains to you the impacts of 9/11 and what that had and what funding would be required from -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you can work any kind of deal you want, but I don't see the purpose of what we're doing here. What's the advantage to taking $11,000 out of their budget? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is not. It's a capital improvement. It's a grant and there is a matching grant that the board of commissioners gave them $11,000. That money is not going for the project that -- that we were told. Instead of the -- the grant money is going to their operational budget, the $44,000. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the -- the money is not being applied as it was supposed to be applied. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Page 285 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I wanted o know. MR. OLLIFF: And there's nothing wrong with that because what happened was the -- because a lot of airports have been affected post-9/11, John and many other airports were given some flexibility to be able to take what were previously capital grants and move them over into their operating side in order to be able to offset some of their operating cost losses. Commissioner Henning is simply saying that we originally granted them 10, $11,000 for this capital project. If he's going to need money at the end of the year in order to meet his operating needs, let him come to the board and ask for that $11,000 separately under a separate executive summary, and he can do that. He can come directly to the board any given Tuesday and ask for that if he needs it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just one -- one more question. The grant, does -- is the county obligated to repay that back? MR. DRURY: No. The grant is a grant. It's given to you. The project that we are displacing to a later year is a wetlands mitigation project, and that will be placed at a -- in a later year and has -- we've already actually requested it be put in next year's grant request, and it looks pretty favorable. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just kudos to the governor for recognizing the possible need for Airport Authority's operational budget because of 9/11 by authorizing this amendment to state grants. And so with that, I make a motion that we approve with the amendment of eleven -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- thousand goes back in the general fund. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That was in the form of a motion, Commissioner Henning? Page 286 March 12, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a second, Commissioner Carter. Is there any other questions? All those in favor indicate by saying say. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 1 (sic). you, Mr. Drury. Thank Item #6A COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS MS. FILSON: Commissioner Chairman -- Commissioner Chairman? It's getting late. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's getting late. It is. I think we have one more, don't we? Was that it? MS. FILSON: That was it. However, I have a late public comment speaker. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On any particular topic? MS. FILSON: Public comment, it says. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought we had that earlier this morning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We did, but we're going to accommodate this man as our penance for the day. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're welcome. MR. KRAMER: Perhaps I can add a little levity. My name is Jim Kramer. I sent an e-mail message to Tom Henning four days ago, and this is it. There were two blond fellows working for the city council. One would dig a hole, and the other would follow behind Page 287 March 12, 2002 him and fill the hole in. They worked furiously all day without rest, one guy digging a hole, the other guy filling it in again. An onlooker was amazed at their hard work but couldn't understand what they were doing. So he asked the hole digger, "I appreciate the effort you're putting into your work, but what's the stow? You dig a hole, and your partner follows behind and fills it up again." The hole digger wiped his brow and sighed. "Well, normally we are a three-man team, but the bloke who plants the trees is sick today." Sounds like our city and county government work, one of my friends say? I was here a month ago, gentlemen, on a towing overcharge. I had gone to the city. They had recommended I come to you. I presented the same that I presented to you at the city. They now send me back to you with this comment: The violations are of the county ordinance, and the violations took place on county property. Therefore, I have to get your code enforcement to cite these people before the city can do anything about removing them. That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Kramer, I -- I can understand your frustration. It's probably government at its worst.' Mr. Olliff, could you speak with the mayor to find out if some simple thing like this couldn't be resolved without a person running back and forth between two government bodies, taking up a lot of people's time to get something resolved which I think is rather simplistic? MR. OLLIFF: I will personally take this one on, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sorry for the misunderstanding that possibly myself and the city had on this issue. I was told one thing and obviously -- MR. KRAMER: George called it a Catch-22. I call it the Catch-2002. Page 288 March 12, 2002 Item # 15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, Mr. Olliff, do you have anything? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Wallace, do you have something to add today? MR. WALLACE: Very, very briefly, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. MR. WALLACE: Today I distributed a status report on the tourism manager recruitment. I'm sorry. For the record, Bleu Wallace, director, community development operations. We have the draft -- have drafted the job description of the tourism manager position, and we're sharing that with the hospitality community. I wanted to assure the board members that the hospitality community will be -- will be involved in every phase of the recruitment process. I have four members now reviewing the job description to provide input. I hope to post this position by the end of the week and also will include the hospitality community in the application screening process and also in the interview process. While I'm on the subject of tourism, I wanted to share with the board some -- what some of the tourism dollars has purchased. Right now in nine northern markets and four Florida markets, I have three 30-second spots that are being directed at New York, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Boston, Philadelphia, and New Jersey. And also in Florida, there's Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and West Palm Beach, and they're one right after another, 30 seconds each. Kelly Swackard (phonetic) Roy has developed these along with the tourism alliance, and I think you're going to be proud of them, as Page 289 March 12, 2002 they're trying to get people to come to Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to add, the last one's going to wake everybody up. MR. WALLACE: And ifI can wake -- ifI can wake Kady Arnold up, maybe I can get her to play these. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, is there any-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we've got to watch the movie. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm watching it. (Video is playing.) COMMISSIONER CARTER: Remind you of your high school days, Tom? (Video is playing.) MS. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Bleu. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just -- just one minute, Bleu. I just want to say just -- I've attended some of these tourism meetings, and they're just so pleased with how not only willing, but encouraging, you are to work with the industry. They're -- they're delighted to have a part in this process. I know that they're looking forward to -- to some plans as to what we'll do in the interim while -- while the hiring process goes on and when -- when Prutos (phonetic) leaves and until the new person's on board. But they feel they're in capable hands, and I just wanted to tell you on the record, thank you from all of us. MR. WALLACE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: MR. MUDD: I wouldn't think of it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I need to -- one thing. Page 290 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But you would. Go ahead, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman and -- and board members, I need to try to get an endorsement from you. It's the first time we've ever have had a water festival water -- it's a water symposium -- in our particular county. And last October the Board of County Commissioners, which is also the governing board of the Collier County Water and Sewer District, was informed of the water festival in 2002 and approved an expenditure commitment of $12,500, which was a cost-share amount with the South Florida Water Management District, in particular the Big Cypress Basin, so that they could fund the coordinator for this particular effort. And that position has been filled, and that's -- and that's fine. The purpose of the festival is to inform and educate industrial professionals, educators, and students and the general public about water resources and to promote water conservation. As the time draws closer to the May festival, the board may consider stating its endorsement of the May 2002 water festival and symposium including the contributory efforts of staff and Commissioner Carter toward an innovational, successful community event. And when I say "endorsement," basically we're talking about finding a public benefit to this particular effort, and I need to get -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So moved. MR. MUDD: -- a general consensus and an endorsement, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that, and we'll probably come back with a proclamation of some sort because this is the first annual, international water symposium hosted by Collier County for all of Florida. And I have to tell you right now it is moving along terrifically, and you will see a lot of neat things in the next 30 days about how the public, private, government sectors, all walks, school boards, everybody worked so hard to make this a Page 291 March 12, 2002 success. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor in -- oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: expenditure item? Good work, Jim. Comments, questions? Is this a -- you're asking for-- MR. MUDD: No. We -- you've already approved the expenditure for $12,500 to be -- as a cost-share for the -- for the coordinator, and that was done last October. What I'm trying to get right now is there's some staff people that are involved. I mean, Jean Merritt's part of the group. Paul Mattausch is part of the committee. I'm part of the committee. Commissioner Carter is working in that particular endeavor. And just make sure that it's -- that it's endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners so we can -- we're not spending money, but there is some staff time involved, to make sure that it-- it's in the best benefit of-- public benefit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other questions? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5 to 0. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Just one thing. My employment contract indicates that if I ever travel on behalf of the county outside of the state, I need to come to you for preauthorization. And I've passed out a brochure in regard to public law office management. If you actually look at the fine print inside, you'll see it covers some pretty interesting things that touch us, all of our offices, from time to time, or will potentially. And I would pledge to you if you approve, that I'll come back and share this information with whomever will hear me out. Page 292 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll make a motion that we approve this as a public purpose. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Is there any comments or questions? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, was there anything else? That was 5 to 0. MR. WEIGEL: No. That's it, I think. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'm going to take stage front first for the first comment. For those people out there that don't know what this is all about underneath my nose, on the 23rd of this month, there's going to be a play put on in Chokoloskee at the Smallwood Museum, The Killing of Mr. Watson, based on the book by Mr. -- by Matthiessen. And I get to play Mr. Watson. If you want to come out and see a commissioner shot, come on out. I'll be in full costume. We'll have a lot of black powder flying all over the place and a real good time, and it's a fund-raiser for the Smallwood Museum. COMMISSIONER FIALA: When is it again? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's on the 23rd. It's a Saturday. I don't know the exact times. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Wear a flak jacket in case somebody misinterprets your statements. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll take that to mind, Commissioner Carter. And for that, I'll let you go next. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Two things. One, John Drury sat here all day, and that concerns me that that might have been an opportunity -- I mean, I don't have any problem with the discussion, but I would hope in the future that an executive like that could work Page 293 March 12, 2002 with our executive and the commissioner involved to perhaps give some summary statement to us so that we wouldn't tie up a key officer of this county for 12 hours to wait to get on an agenda for five minutes. No criticism of Commissioner Henning. I'm just saying in the future I think all of us need to consider how valuable the time of our staff is and be careful that -- if we could, do something through our administrative efforts instead of taking up the commissioner's -- taking up the executive's time. The second one is a -- is a sad announcement that I'm making, is that my sister-in-law has had cancer for over two years. She passed away early this morning. I'm sure you extend our sympathy to my wife, Jane, who was her younger sister. They were very close, and it's going to be a pretty difficult time for her. So I thank you for your indulgence, and I'm sure if you see her that she would appreciate a warm fuzzy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Jim. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much. I just wanted to mention something that's very important to me. I'm right now serving as the interim chairman for the CRA. And, as most of you know, at least in this room, there are two CRAs, the one that's -- the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle is one CRA, and the other one is Immokalee. I have the privilege of sitting on the Bayshore CRA. I sit in on their meetings just because I find them fascinating. And not only that, but they're in my area of town. And one has just become part of my district, actually. The triangle has become part of my district recently. And they are -- they are very excited about what they're doing. In fact, they're thrilled about what they're doing. They feel they're moving forward. Page 294 March 12, 2002 But they would like us to be meeting officially as the CRA so that they can report to us, get direction from us. I have spoken with Tom and told him of this committee's excitement, and-- and we're going to try and schedule the meeting so that it doesn't put anybody out and yet it can correspond with, say -- the MPO meeting is the one I've suggested to Tom so that we just come in an hour earlier or an hour and a half, however -- whatever pleases you. We can meet first -- we're all here that day anyway -- and then we can go right on to the MPO. And I'm hoping that will -- that will sit well with all of you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're asking us all to be at your CRA meeting? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, to serve as the CRA board. We're officially the CRA board, and we have to rule independently from our BCC meeting. We have to rule independently on actions that they want to take. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand now. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for asking. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three things. And point taken, Commissioner Carter. I think that could have been taken care of with just an amendment to the item on there. One thing that -- that really bothers me is my ability to serve as a commissioner in dealing with land-use items when we meet with developer and -- and petitioner and some citizens, their input of-- of things that really doesn't pertain to the land use or what we should go by the Land Development Code. So it -- it kind of gets juggled with some political things, and so that's something I was wrestling with. And because of what Mr. Carlyle (phonetic) gave to the residents out there as -- as far as the packet, I think I've made up my mind that I will not meet with any developer or their land-use attorney or residents on land-use items, and that way it -- we -- I can Page 295 March 12, 2002 just stay on focus on the issue on hand instead of any political issues. And Commissioner Bryant did that when he was the commissioner, and I always thought about that of-- when he did that. And, in fact, him and I discussed that. And because of this exercise today, I think it's a wise choice on my decision -- for me. The second one, I want to apologize to Denise Olden (phonetic) for not getting back to her on an article that she was trying to put in the paper yesterday, and -- and that one is the parking ordinance that we amended in the residential area, parking on improved surfaces. What I understood is we were trying to get the neighborhood back to where a neighborhood should be, and my -- my impiction (sic) of that Was four cars in a driveway is not a problem. But when you've got two cars in a driveway and two cars parked in the front lawn in the green area, that's not acceptable. And if we did something to limit the number of cars as far as what is said in the water bill of 2 1/2, then I don't think that we have served the community correct. So I need some direction from our staff of what we need to do to straighten that out. The second thing on that is I think that we could have been a little bit more cost-effective. Instead of sending out to all the residents in the water bill, that we could have been -- more targeted areas of concern, such as Naples Park, Golden Gate -- well, Golden Gate doesn't have a service from -- by the county, but Naples Manor does. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just about five or six things. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me take your glasses. COMMISSIONER COYLE: First of all, I-- I would like to get your support to have a joint meeting with the Naples City Council periodically. I know that in the past relationships haven't been quite Page 296 March 12, 2002 as close and productive as they should be and for good reason. And I would-- would like to try to improve that, and I'm open to any suggestions you might have with respect to frequency. But, like Commissioner Fiala, I think right after an MPO meeting would be convenient because two members of the city council sit on that -- that organization. Whether you want to do it annually or quarterly, it doesn't make much difference to me, but I think some regularly scheduled get-together would help a lot. And I think that we -- we would find that the city and -- and perhaps we could include Marco. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we have done that on an annual basis separately with Marco City, separately with Naples City, figuring they had different agendas, and that's why we kept them separate. As a commissioner, I don't have any problem. I've always encouraged that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't remember meeting with the city or -- either city since I've been on, so I bet it's time again to do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we could do that, when-- when would you like to do it? Would you like to schedule it for sometime in the next month or so? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd prefer we did it after the legislative session when we got some transportation issues and not drag in anything that would interfere with the process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. How about after the legislative session? COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about after the budget hearing? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It might be better to do it before the budget hearing because we might want -- the budget might be impacted by some of the discussions we might have. I don't know. What do you think, Tom? He doesn't want to meet. Page 297 March 12, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, he does. We can't wait for it. MR. OLLIFF: Historically we've had one meeting with each of the councils on a rotating basis. We did try and reserve the budget process and allow the city staff, in most cases, to bring forward city requests as part of the regular budget workshops and budget public hearing process. My only concern would be if we have a separate meeting now or prior to the budget, then we end up talking about city-county budget issues three and four and five times, given workshops, public hearings, and joint meetings. I do believe there are a number of other issues outside of the budget, and perhaps if we want to leave the budget process for budget issues and we want to have a separate workshop for nonbudget issues, that might be an opportunity to do something. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be okay with me. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. I think you're-- it-- yes. Granddaughter, it's yes. I agree, nonbudget issues in a workshop if it's prior to the budgetary process because there's an open opportunity to do that. As long as everybody plays by the rules, I'm fine with that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. One other-- other comment. And I -- I wasn't here when the decision was made, and I don't profess to know very much about it. I'm a little reluctant to bring it up because it was mentioned in the newspaper this past weekend, I believe, but it's something I felt for a long time. I can never get my hands around this tourism involvement. I don't know what we're doing in the tourism business. I don't know why we're hiring somebody to manage advertisement. I -- I really would prefer that somebody else do that, and the people that are best qualified to do it would be the -- the people involved in the tourist business. I mean, they should be experts at advertising or they can hire experts. And -- and I understand that we -- we have to manage the funds, Page 298 March 12, 2002 but maybe we don't need to collect the funds. If we didn't collect the funds, we wouldn't have to manage them, and the -- the hotels and other people who depend upon the tourist business could -- could set up their own organization and -- and do the job. I have a feeling that -- that no matter how hard we try, it's going to be a very difficult thing. And if anything goes wrong, if we don't get enough tourists, it's going to be because our department is not advertising properly. But I certainly am not in a position to make a decision about what is a good advertising program and how we should spend the money to do these things. But, once again, I wasn't here when the decision was made. I don't have the background in it. So I -- I just throw that out for your consideration. It might be a lot easier if we dealt with just beach renourishment and TDC funds for that purpose rather than dealing with advertising dollars. But I don't expect a decision. I just -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand your position, Commissioner Coyle. It's been a long, ugly road on that, and in my brief tenure here, it's never been resolved effectively. I do know -- I do believe this: That if you get a professional in house that -- remember, tourism is the number one industry in this county. It's like -- when people say, "I don't want any more tourists," that's like telling me, "Let's quit building cars in Detroit." I mean, you can't take away your number one revenue stream number, and that's for the state of Florida. The number two industry, as we know, is the building industry. So instead of fighting it, what we want to do is manage and work with it for market penetration in combination with the tourism industry. Now, when Lee County set it up in house, they were very effective in working with the industry and with county government to maximize the use of those dollars, whatever is set aside and determined by the Board of County Commissioners in order to make Page 299 March 12, 2002 that work effectively. That's why I supported bringing it in house, trying to get this streamlined so that we can be more effective in doing this. And that's why I supported bringing it internally and working with it. I'm also an advocate of putting as much as you can back into your number one resource, and that's called the beaches. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Gentlemen, with that, I think we've all had our say. It's been a great day. I thank all the players out there. Adjourned. ***** Commissioner Carter moved, seconded by Commissioner Henning and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16Al RESOLUTIONS 2002-128 THROUGH 2002-136, PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIENS FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES Item #16A2 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY CONNECTIONS FOR PINE RIDGE SPORTS SCHOOL AND RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 2002-137 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN STRAND REPLAT- 1C" Page 300 March 12, 2002 Item # 16A4 - Continued to March 26, 2002 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN LELY RESORT, SPECIFICALLY THE FOLLOWING ROAD SEGMENTS: GRAND LELY DRIVE, LEY RESORT BOULEVARD FROM GRAND LELY DRIVE TO WILDFLOWER WAY AND WILDFLOWER WAY Item #16A5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY CONNECTIONS FOR SHERWOOD PARK, PHASES TWO AND THREE AND RELEASE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A6 FINAL PLAT OF "LAGO VILLAGIO", WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS Item # 16A7 - Deleted Item #16A8 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE IMMOKALEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TO COLLECT IMPACT FEES ON THE DISTRICT'S BEHALF IN EXCHANGE FOR A ONE PERCENT ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, RESULTING IN Page 301 March 12, 2002 APPROXIMATELY $1,000 IN NEW ANNUAL REVENUE TO THE COUNTY Item # 16A9 RESOLUTION 2002-138 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "MAPLEWOOD UNIT TWO" Item #16Al0- Continued to March 26, 2002 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS FOR PROVISION OF SECRETARIAL SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BY THE CLERK Item #16Al 1 -Continued to March 26, 2002 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS FOR PROVISION OF SECRETARIAL SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BY THF, CLERK Item #16A12 RESOLUTION 2002-139, REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 302 March 12, 2002 BLOCK GRANT UNDER THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY TO ASSIST WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MANUFACTURING INCUBATOR FACILITY AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK AND FOREIGN TRADE ZONE Item # 16B 1 VEHICLE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND INTELITRAN FOR UTILIZATION IN THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM Item #16B2 BUDGET AMENDMENT AND CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO CONTRACT 01-3223 WITH KELLY BROTHERS, INC. AND AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLC FOR THE 13TM STREET SW BRIDGE DESIGN BUILD CONSTRUCTION- IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,342.08 Item #16B3 - Moved to Item #10F Item # 16B4 DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WIGGINS PASS DRAINAGE BASIN- ACQUISITION COST FOR TITLE AND RECORDING FEES NOT TO EXCEED $800 Item #16B5 Page 303 March 12, 2002 RIGHT OF WAY ENTRY DOCUMENTS WITH THE CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. (AKA COLLIER COUNTY CONSERVANCY, INC.), JOAN F. TOBIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DORRETTE K. FLEISCHMANN, DARLENE STONEBURNER LOFGREN, TRUSTEE, AND MARIO MELUCCI FOR THE CLEANUP AND MAINTENANCE OF A PORTION OF THE GORDON RIVER CHANNEL Item # 16B6 RESOLUTION 2002-140, REDUCTION OF SPEED LIMIT FROM 30 MILES PER HOUR (30 MPH) TO 25 MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH) ON ALL LOCAL STREETS IN LELY Item # 16B7 - Deleted LEASE AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE USE OF VINEYARDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING FOR THE DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD Item # 16B8 TERMINATION OF REUVEN HAIM BUILDERS, INC. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY FOR RADIO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Item # 16B9 Page 304 March 12, 2002 CONTRACT WITH K.E.R. ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A ARMADILLO UNDERGROUND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGE STORM DRAIN FOR THE WIGGINS PASS ROAD OUTFALL PROJECT ALONG GULF HARBOR DRIVE - IN THE AMOUNT OF $856,318.70 Item # 16C 1 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FUNDING OF THE AGREEMENT WITH MICHAEL L. VOORHEES, PH.D. TO UPDATE THE MAPS OF THE WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONES OF THE COUNTY'S GROUND WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE Item #16C2 WORK ORDER #WD-112 WITH KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE PELICAN BAY FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 1 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $146,723.50 Item # 16C3 FORMAL APPRAISAL REPORT WAIVED; EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT- NOT TO EXCEED $3,100 Item # 16D 1 - Deleted Page 305 March 12, 2002 AGREEMENT WITH AN ADDITIONAL PERFORMER FOR THE FOURTH ANNUAL COUNTRY JAM CONCERT ON APRIL 12, 2002 Item #16D2 AGREEMENT WITH TEXASEE TOURING, INC., FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF LONESTAR FOR THE FOURTH ANNUAL COUNTRY JAM CONCERT ON APRIL 12 AND 13, 2002- IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,500 Item # 16D3 RFP 02-3334, REVENUE CONTRACT FOR COFFEE BAR CONCESSIONS AT THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY HEADQUARTERS - AWARDED TO PARADISE CONSULTANTS INC. WITH A MINIMUM ANNUAL REMITTANCE OF $4,800 TO THE COUNTY Item # 16E 1 CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT TO SPRINT- FLORIDA, INC., FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FIBER-OPTIC SONET RING AROUND THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX Item # 16E2 RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT TO BETTER MEET THE COUNTY'S BUSINESS NEEDS Page 306 March 12, 2002 Item # 16E3 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RE-APPROPRIATE $72,000 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND CONDUIT TO UPGRADE TELEPHONE AND DATA TRANSMISSION SERVICES AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER Item # 16E4 BID 02-3337 FOR CONTRACT PRINTING - AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY- FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $40,000 Item # 16F 1 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ACCEPT HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT FUNDING FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,272.62 AS A RESULT OF THE FREEZE IN JANUARY, 2001 Item # 16F2 PURCHASE BY THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE & RESCUE CONTROL DISTRICT OF A USED, CLASS "A" FIRE TRUCK FROM THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT FOR $31,887, USING IMPACT FEES Item # 16G 1 Page 307 March 12, 2002 CONFIRMATION THAT THE ADVERTISING OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY SERVES A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND PUBLIC INFORMATION STAFF TO PREPARE NOTICES FOR SUCH MEETINGS Item # 16G2 BUDGET AMENDMENT 02-203 FOR ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE WORK, PIPE REPAIR AND PIPE REPLACEMENT FOR THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MSTU Item # 16H 1 Moved to Item #1 OH Item # 1611 PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75 FOR COMMISSIONER CARTER TO ATTEND THE 2002 HUMANITARIAN AWARD LUNCHEON ON MARCH 21, 2002, WHICH SERVES A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE Item # 16J 1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Page 308 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE FOR BOARD ACTION: 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: Ao Bo Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period: 1. Disbursements from February 9, 2002 through February 15, 2002. 2. Disbursements from February 16, 2002 through February 22, 2002. 3. Disbursements from March 2, 2002 through March 8, 2002. Minutes: 1. Notice of meeting for February 28, 2002. Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 8, 2002, Minutes of January 11, 2002. Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Agenda for February 14, 2002; Minutes of February 4, 2002. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 19, 2002; Minutes of January 14, 2002. o Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 13, 2002; Minutes of January 9, 2002. HAR 12 2002 H:Data/Format March 12, 2002 Item #17A ORDINANCE 2002-10, IMPOSING A MANDATORY COURT COST OF $3.00, FUNDING THE TEEN COURT OF COLLIER COUNTY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 938.19, FLORIDA STATUTES IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,100 Item # 17B RESOLUTION 2002-141, CREATING THE PRICE STREET- BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD WATER MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT (MSBU) DISTRICT There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:55 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S)OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL DWI6~,~'.. ~. ~;i~4~:~, CLE~ Page 309 These minutes approved by the Board on as presented ~/ or as corrected March 12, 2002 ~/- ~?- ~v- , TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN FORD, JACKIE OULETTE, AND BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARIES PUBLIC Page 310