The URL can be used to link to this page

Documents 04/09/2002 RBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING April 9, 2002 Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News - -------- - - - - -- ------------------ ------ ±---- - - - - -- -- - - -- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHERI LEFARA PC BOX 413016 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 #200213 58432583 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEE State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that she serves as Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County Florida, and that the said newspaper has Aeretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next.Preceding the..first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant furtner sdys that she has neither paid nor promisr'd any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for ;)ubl atLx in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 04/07 An SPACE: 55.000 INCH FILED ON: 04 /08/02 Signature of Affiant /� ` G I Sworn to and Subscribed re me i , % day of y KCL Personally known by me u e.►� ft.jt' Donna Chesney My Commission DD068338 c* Expires September 11, 2005 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA April 9, 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. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 April 9, 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. Father Tim Navin, St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES Approved and /or Adopted with changes — 510 A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.) B. March 12, 2002 — Regular Meeting 3. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation for Collier County Government Days. To be accepted by Jean Merritt, Public Information Director. Adopted - 5/0 B. Proclamation for Organ and Transplant Awareness Week. To be accepted by Ed Morton, CEO of NCH and Jeff McRoberts. Adopted — 5/0 C. Proclamation for Water Conservation Month. To be accepted by Michael Ramsey, Chairman for Collier Soil and Water Conservation. Adopted — 5/0 D. Proclamation for Adopt -A -Canal Month. To be accepted by Cher Compton. Adopted — 5/0 2 April 9, 2002 E. Proclamation for Adopt -A -Road Program. To be accepted by Ms. Barbara Lee, Office Assistant II for Transportation Road & Bridge. Adopted — 510 4. SERVICE AWARDS Presented Five -Year Attendees: 1) Scott Corbett, Transportation Operations 2) James Von Rinteln, Emergency Management Ten -Year Attendees: 3) Michael Sullivan, Emergency Medical Services Fifteen -Year Attendees: 4) Maura Kraus, Natural Resources 5) Judith Scribner, Social Services Twenty -Five Year Attendees: 6) Joyce Ernst, Planning Services 5. PRESENTATIONS Added: A. Recommendation to recognize: Lowell Raines, CAAD Operator, Facilities Management, as Employee of the Month for January 2002, Barbara Lee, Customer Service Specialist, Transportation Operations, as Employee of the Month for February 2002, and Amy Gesdorf- Patterson, Impact Fee Analyst, Office of Financial Management, as Employee of the Month for March 2002. Recognized 3 April 9, 2002 B. Introduction of Carole Senne, New Director for the South Florida Water Management District. Introduced 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS A. Public Comments on General Topics 1) Gil Erlichman re water issues 2) Margaret Rogers re Immokalee Road Expansion Project 3) Bob Krasowski re Landfill improvements 4) Ty Agoston re Concurrency 5) Victor Nydits re lack of confidence in County Government B. Public Petition Request by Mr. Tom Macchia to discuss a change in definition of " Concurrency" when it is applied to roads, water and sewers. Staff to put on future agenda as a regular item — 5/0 C. Public Petition Request by Mr. Mike Carr regarding Congressional Redistricting. County Attorney to represent BCC through Department of Justice with a budget of $30,000 — 5/0 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Approve the Collier County Water Irrigation Ordinance restricting the hours of irrigation in Unincorporated Collier County. Ordinance 2002 -17; Adopted — 510 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of member to the Contractors Licensing Board. Res. 2002 -185 appointing Leonard Cutler — Adopted 5/0 B. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency (EZDA). 4 April 9, 2002 Added: Res. 2002 -186 appointing Lt. Mark Baker, Charlie Esquivel and Carla Ayala — Adopted 5/0 C. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission. Res. 2002 -187 appointing Frank Fry — Adopted 510 D. Board Approval of the FY 01/02 Advertising/Marketing Plan in the amount of $552,500 as recommended by the Tourist Development Council. Approved 510 Moved from Item #16(I)1: E. Collier County Education Foundation's Golden Apple Teacher Recognition Request from Commissioner Coletta for approval to attend Program as a valid public purpose. Approved for Commissioner Coletta (one seat only) — 510 Moved from Item #16(1)2: F. Request for approval for Commissioners to attend 4th Annual Country Jam to represent Collier County as a valid public purpose to interact with constituents and employees Denied 5/0 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Staff Report on plan to improve reliability of County water supply and production. (Tom Wides, Interim Public Utilities Administrator) Approved — 510 11. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS A. To present the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the Board of County Commissioners for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2000. 5 April 9, 2002 Accepted — 5/0 B. To formally present to the Board of County Commissioners the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2001. Presented 14. FUTURE AGENDAS 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Uncle Sam Contest Charitable Cans located around the Complex serve a valid public purpose — 510 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approved and /or Adopted with changes — 510 A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Code Enforcement Lien Resolution Approvals. Res. 2002 -165 through 2002 -177 2) Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Boyne South. 3) Code Enforcement Lien Resolution Approvals. Res. 2002 -178 through 2002 -183 4) Approve Committee selection of Henderson, Young and Company for contract negotiations for RFP 02 -3317 "Consultant Services for Impact Fee Update Studies — Fire ". B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 6 April 9, 2002 1) Approve a Resolution requesting that the MPO recommend to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners be re- designated Community Transportation Coordinator for Collier County. Res. 2002 -184 2) Recommendation to approve the purchase of one (1) 15 CY Dump Truck, Diesel, in accordance with Bid #02 -3336, in the amount of $77,222.00. Awarded to Wallace International Trucks, Inc. 3) Approve the Facilities Relocation Agreement with Florida Power and Light Company in the amount of $98,666 to relocate power line structures on Livingston Road between Immokalee Road and the Lee County Line to facilitate the road - widening project, Project No. 65041. 4) Award Work Order No. NTI- FT -02 -02 in the amount of $80,000 to Native Technologies Inc., for the Gordon River Cleanout Project #31005. C. PUBLIC UTILITIES Deleted: 1) Approve Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for monitoring of the South Gordon Drive T- Groin, $48,000. 2) Authorize amendment to Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability Improvements Design Contract in the amount of $40,000. D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Award Bid #02 -3351 to purchase arts and crafts supplies for lrecreation programs in the amount of $40,000. Awarded to Triarco and S &S Worldwide 7 April 9, 2002 2) Approve a Budget Amendment for Consultant Services for Park Impact Fee Update Study in the amount of $25,000. 3) Approve a Budget Amendment to recognize revenue in the amount of $5810 from insurance proceeds to replace a stolen tractor. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to rescind award to Astor Chemical Co., for potassium permanganate for inability to fulfill contract and award to Carus Chemical Company on Bid #01 -3288 — "Chemicals for Utilities" in the estimated amount of $107,205. 2) Request Board approval to appropriate funds in the amount of $6,500 for a membership in Public Technology, Inc. F. EMERGENCY SERVICES 1) Approve the purchase of one (1) Medium -Duty Advanced Life Support Ambulance from American LaFrance Medic Master Corporation for the amount of One Hundred Thirty -Seven Thousand Thirteen Dollars ($137,013). This vehicle will be purchased under the Florida Sheriff's Association Bid #00 -08- 0905. G. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Void Committee Selection of firms for contract negotiations for RFP #01 -3290 "Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services ". H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved to Item #9E: 1) Request from Commissioner Coletta for approval to attend Collier County Education Foundation's Golden Apple Teacher Recognition Program as a valid public purpose. 8 April 9, 2002 Moved to Item #9F: 2) Request for approval for Commissioners to attend 4th Annual Country Jam to represent Collier County as a valid public purpose to interact with constituents and employees. J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS L. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Attorney's Retention of Process Servers for the County in upcoming eminent domain cases for road projects, exempt the County Attorney from the purchasing policy if and to the extent the purchasing policy is applicable and authorize the Chairman to sign any necessary retention documents. Ortino Investigations & Process Service and Bill Greenberg Special Services, Inc. to be retained 2) Approve the Agreed Order awarding expert fees relative to easement acquisitions of Parcels 169 and 769 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Fred R. Sutherland, Individually and D /BIA Sutherland Paint Horses, et al., Case No. 01- 0756 -CA (Livingston Road Project No. 60071). 3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the settlement in Gallagher v. Collier County, Case No. 00- 0565- CA -01, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, pursuant to which the County would pay $50,000 and all claims against the County would be dismissed with prejudice, said $50,000 settlement was arrived at during a mediation of the matter. 4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the settlement in Bettencourt v. Collier County, Case 9 April 9, 2002 No. 00- 0283 -CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Court in and for Collier County, Florida, pursuant to which the County would pay $150,000 and all claims against the County would be dismissed with prejudice. Said $150,000 settlement was arrived at during a mediation of the matter. 5) Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment in the amount of $20,000.00 to Respondents, Joseph Cali and Samuel Montello, for Parcels 4.3 and 4.4 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Joseph Cali, et al, Case No. 89- 0987 -CA. Project No. 73902. $13,690 to be paid into the Registry of the Court 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. A. RZ- 2001 -AR -1625, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes Inc., representing Leo J. Fragiacomo and Annelise C. O'Donnell, requesting a rezone from RMF -16 to RSF -4 for property located at 227 Cays Drive, further described as Lot 72, Stella Maris, in Port of the Islands, in Section 95 Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. Ordinance 2002 -16 18. ADJOURN 10 April 9, 2002 INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774 -8383. 11 April 9, 2002 2A AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING April 9, 2002 ADD: ITEM #5 (B): Introduction of Carole Senne, New Director for the South Florida Water Management District. (Commissioner Coletta request.) ADD: ITEM 913: Board Approval of the FY 01102 Advertising /Marketing Plan in the amount of $552,500 as recommended by the Tourist Development Council. (Commissioner Coletta request.) DELETE: ITEM 16(C)2: Authorize amendment to Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability Improvements Design Contract in the amount of $40,000. (Staff request.) MOVE: ITEM 16(1)1 TO 9E: Request from Commissioner Coletta for approval to attend Collier County Education Foundation's Golden Apple Teacher Recognition Program as a valid purpose. (Commissioner Henning request.) MOVE: ITEM 16(1)2 TO 9F: Request for approval for Commissioners to attend 4th Annual Country Jam to represent Collier County as a valid public purpose to interact with constituents and employees. (Commissioner Henning request.) 3A PROCLAMA TION WHEREAS, Collier County participates in and celebrates the annual event, County Government Days which is held at the Coastland Center, and, WHEREAS, fulfilling the needs of residents in one of the fastest growing counties in the state is the challenge of Collier County Government; and, WHEREAS, excellent customer service is of the highest priority for o// County staff, this event is another opportunity to inform the community; and, WHEREAS, this event affords the County the opportunity to increase community awareness about the services the County provides and to showcase its �r ,yx 00� tiff rofessiona /ism they display in their work, 4 '. E MA WHEREAS, the NOW DONE AND to it D �Q�imear G'K }�,� ATTEST: Dwrall E. BROOK, CLERK F -zo h, `Y 60f/�I�fEl1T DAYS i a 9thcly of April, 2UO2 deportment 'ssioners of designated PROCLAMA TION 1 36 WHEREAS, 3, OW Floridians await lifesaving transplants; and, WHEREAS, the national organ transplant waiting list has more than doubled in recent years to 80, 000, far exceeding the supply; and, WHEREAS, one of the most beneficial gifts one human being can bestow upon another is the precious Gift of Life - organ and tissue donation; and, WHEREAS, this can be accomplished by educating individuals about organ and tissue donation and transplantation and encouraging family discussion on this vital issue, and, WHEREAS, virtually anyone, regardless of age or previous illness can be a potential donor; and, WHEREAS, organs that can heart, liver WHEREAS, trans p pr�� WHEREAS, April NOW THEREFORE, be it 0 Collier County, Motion include the small intestines; and, and survival and for Month; Tree of Life on of "County Commissioners of 2002 be designated as ORGAN and TISSUE DONOR AWARENESS DAY M COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DONE AND ORDERED THIS 9th Day of April, 2002. E. BROCK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER,CQUNTPY," nORIDA PROCLAMATION 3C WHEREAS, the Col//er County Water Symposium and the Collier Sod d Water Conservation District encourages a// aspects of water conservation among producers and users and to promote and achieve sound water management practices which will protect the environment; and, WHEREAS, the Collier County Water Symposium and the Collier Soil d water Conservation District strive to foster cooperation among diverse water -use industry, utilities, developers, environmentalists, manufacturers, contractors, and educators, as well as governmental and regulatory agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Collier Soil d Water Conservation District's (CSWCD) mobile Irrigation Lob (MIL) saved over 31.4 billion gallons of water during its lifetime, among agricultural, residential, governmental and institutional irrigators, through efficient application of water, and, WHEREAS, the Collier County Water Symposium and the CSWCD consistently promote water conservation by establishing educational networks, supporting research for water use efficiency, developing water conservation guide lines, disseminating water conservation information, serving as a resource for the development Of stotew da par tnor �hrps, .,working one on one in the fie /d, and advocating water �nana9er�c�rt cticer�=whrclt ,are compatible with economic growth, and, R b , M�:� WHEREAS, the Col MP1.40 ;t !' .Sympasiuw o /� ve identified an additional: ►ppaunity to rise ro servlitirit has designated April, typietl /y:the last month,o needs are most aeuf¢, a. Florida's ina /y Woter$G'onservc�tle,r Mk!�ducote consumers about the need for cors�erYadtfQn °.ctnq! th�C,;ways Sri wire `scan help save the WHEREAS, WHEREAS, to setl�+r!i►', WHEREAS, every to col NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaiA Florida, that the Jj16nl`a; ag/ ' urdl,�tfnd lust /tution r;ir loAg u*q low:f1ow plumbing, �f 'own sp inkl s to hf1p conserve . N :h of c;�cuura/ and industry, for )jrrtion; and rs have many landscaping to water when it comes everyone. be designated as of Collier County, WATER CONSERVATION MONTH in Collier County and urge every consumer to become more aware of the need to save our precious water supply and to take appropriate measures to conserve and protect this vita/ natural resource. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 9th Day of April, 20102. T: DWI E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMA TION WHEREAS, the quality of life and the ecological and economic well -being of Collier County's citizens is critically dependant on the continued protection of natural resources within the county; and, WHEREAS, Collier County's access to clean and safe water as well as protection from flooding is enhanced by the South Water Management District's maintenance of the more than 180 miles of canals within Collier County; and, WHEREAS, Keep Collier Beautiful, Inc, encourages Collier County's residents to actively take responsibility for their environment, and, f� DONE AND E. 6Ram CLERK OF 0 . 3E PROCLAMA TION WHEREAS, Collier County started the Adopt -A -Rood program in 1989 and has grown in the interim years from a few early sponsors to more than 80 sponsors covering 207 miles of County roadways, and, WHEREAS, Collier County's Transportation Operations Department provides supplies as orange vests, gloves, /fitter bags, pickup sticks and also erects an identification sign at each end of the adopted roadway. The County's Road 8 Bridge Department picks up the filled fitter bags following pickups and disposes of them at the landfill, and, WHEREAS, volunteers donate collectively 12, 000 hours per year utilizing from two to six volunteers per sponsor. Combined they pick up a total of 50 tons of litter per month, realizing a savings to county taxpayers of a quarter;yd u; mil /iott idol %rs each year. Volunteers f range in age :rrarn1bele� rf 92; and, spnso tH i act with the WHEREAS, i, me county *ck up litter #o�nc�e a; mdn g thusiastica //y fulf / /l�khe obligation`{ .,spohsorpl:�3„ £ to in special /ocur�ruo/ pickup. ' s�icsQyays end' /eonup; and, WEI WHEREAS, o" res ntial pi rrrn�� tt "been dec yM the . y t eons to encourage residents to ave their "neighbat 6 beautificatio/t.p o, ects on � ZIfter,picku ps un3 01ho Adopt -A- Road pai**ogrom �� , NOW THEREFOI",proc %itz by the Boo(,of Co / /ieottnfyloda, tlh� d s. as ommissioners of �3 i/ be designated y and volunteers are rec`�g"7hW l {or the tremendous support they provide to the community. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 9th Day of April, 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ivame & Raaress of any personts) to ne .nounea Fry K s ice: -(1t peore.space as ec ,. ac .separate sheet) Patel M 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34102 submitting to County Manager. Note: for same, is submitted to County Attora copies: ❑ County Manager agenda file: to Clerk's Office B. Other hearings: Initiating Division hea 408- * * * * R * * * R * * ** * * R * * * RR* ** * * -.R R * * ** * * -* * ** * *'R * �*.*'******* IE�* �** 1t1�*:* ;.*'*! * ** * *it7k *abR�:** * #*',*RA *�*ekflk **ikYhlY.l:t:� f fr a••rstsa a a • i0 1 WATER IRRIGATION ORDINANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY; RESTRICTING THE HOURS OF WATER IRRIGATION IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY; PROVIDING TITLE AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING IRRIGATION HOURS AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCE PROCEDURES; PROVIDING PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABH TI'Y; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION INTO THE COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE ORDINANCE NO. 2002- WATER IRRIGATION ORDINANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY; RESTRICTING THE HOURS OF WATER IRRIGATION IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY; PROVIDING TITLE AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING IRRIGATION HOURS AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCE PROCEDURES; PROVIDING PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION INTO THE COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, authorizes Boards of County Commissioners to enact ordinances deemed by the respective Board to be necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, citizens, or visitors of the respective County, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County has determined that the protection of water resources is in the best interest of and for the long -term protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, citizens, and visitors to Collier County, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Corrmiissioners of Collier County has also determined that water conservation is an integral part of protecting current and future water resources, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has deemed that placing certain restrictions on the use of water for irrigation is an effective means of conserving water. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: TITLE. 1.1 This Ordinance shall be called "The Collier County Water Irrigation Ordinance." SECTION TWO: FINDINGS. 2.1 Irrigation places a significant demand on water resources of Collier County, including the potable water supply system; 2.2 That adopting an Ordinance to limit the hours of irrigation will promote conservation and will aid in the protection of water resources and reduce the demand for potable water; 2.3 That restricting the hours of irrigation will not create undue hardship on the users of the water. SECTION THREE: PURPOSE. 3.1 The primary purpose of this Ordinance is to provide the regulatory framework to assist in conservation of water resources through consistent and uniform M 0 application of restrictions on use of water for irrigation in unincorporated Collier County. SECTION FOUR: DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply throughout this Ordinance: 4.1 "County" means Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of County Commissioners and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District and Goodland Water District. 4.2 "Code Enforcement Officer" means any authorized agent or employee of the County whose duty it is to enforce the County's codes. 4.3 "Impervious Surfaces" means surfaces that do not allow penetration of water, including, but not limited to, paved or concrete roads, paved or concrete sidewalks, paved or concrete driveways, paved or concrete parking lots, or highly compacted areas including shell or clay. 4.4 "Irrigation" means the application of water by means other than natural precipitation. 4.5 "Irrigation Systems" means equipment and/or devices which deliver water to landscaping being irrigated including, but not limited to, pumping stations and controls, control structures, ditches, piping, valves, fittings, and emitters. 4.6 "Landscaping" means all residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and governmental areas which are considered as lawns or ornamentally planted, including, but not limited to, sod, grasses, turf, ground covers, flowers, shrubs, trees, mulch, hedges, and other similar plant materials. 4.7 "Low Volume Irrigation Systems" means equipment and devices specifically designed to deliver a volume of water consistent with the water requirement of the plant being irrigated and which delivers the water with a high degree of efficiency directly to the root zone of the plant. 4.8 "Low Volume Hand Watering" means watering attended by one person with one hose equipped with a self - canceling or automatic shutoff nozzle. 4.9 "Low Volume Mobile Equipment Washing" means the washing of mobile equipment with a bucket and sponge, a single hose with a self - canceling or automatic shutoff nozzle, low volume pressure cleaning equipment, or any combination of the preceding methods of washing. 4.10 "Low Volume Pressure Cleaning" means pressure cleaning by means of equipment that is specifically designed to reduce the volume of water used as accepted by industry standards. 4.11 "Pervious Surface" means any ground surface that allows water to soak into or recharge the water table aquifer. E k 8 A 4.12 "Water Resources" means any and all water on or beneath the surface of the ground, including, but not limited to, natural or artificial watercourses, lakes, ponds, and artificial water features, and water percolating, standing, or flowing beneath the surface of the ground. SECTION FIVE: IRRIGATION HOURS; OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 5.1 All water irrigation activities within the specified geographic area(s) and within the boundaries as designated in Section Six, and which are not exempted by Section Seven, shall be restricted to the days and hours as specified in Table 1. Table 1. Collier County Water Irrigation Restrictions Landscaping Irrigation - Established ODD Numbered Addresses 3 days each week; Monday, Wednesday, Saturday; 12:01 AM to 8:00 AM for all types of irrigation; 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM for Low Volume Hand Watering. EVEN Numbered Addresses 3 days each week; Tuesday, Thursday, Sunday, 12:01 AM to 8:00 AM for all types of irrigation; 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM for Low Volume Hand Watering. Landscaping : Irrigation — New '(in lace less than 60 days) ALL Addresses 5 days each week; Monday through Friday, 12:01 AM to 8:00 AM for all types of irrigation; Low Volume Hand Watering allowed anytime. lrri ation System Maintenance Existing Systems 10 minutes per zone per week; person must be present in zone and working on the system during each such operation. New Systems 30 minutes per zone, one time only; person must be present in zone and working on the system during such operation. Pesticide, Fungicide, Herbicide,. Fertilizer App lication ALL Addresses Application shall be coordinated with the scheduled day /time for Landscaping Irrigation; if applied outside of the allowed hours, and "watering in" is specified by the manufacturer of the applied material, a licensed application technician must be on the premises. Other. Outdoor Water Uses ALL Other Outdoor Water Other outdoor water uses, including car, truck, and boat Uses washing and the washing of exterior home surfaces and roofs, shall be allowed anytime with the use of Low Volume Pressure Cleaning Equipment, Low Volume Mobile Equipment Washing and /or water hose equipped with an automatic self - canceling or automatic shutoff nozzle; in all cases, the water used must drain to a pervious surface or to a water recycling /reuse system. 5.2 All water irrigation activities must and shall be operated in an efficient manner so as to not allow water to be applied to any impervious surface. 5.3 All water irrigation systems shall be equipped with a properly installed rain sensor switch. 3 V`8 A 5.3.1 A rain sensor switch shall be required on all new installations of irrigation systems. 5.3.2 A rain sensor switch shall be retrofitted on existing systems within one (1) year of the effective date of this Ordinance. 5.3.3 The rain sensor switch shall be maintained in fully operational condition at all times by the owner /operator of the irrigation system. 5.4 All water irrigation activities prohibited or restricted from time -to -time by a Water Shortage Emergency Order declared by the South Florida Water Management District and published in a newspaper of general circulation in Collier County pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, shall be incorporated in and enforceable by application of this Ordinance. Each such Order shall apply to such geographic areas in Collier County as specified in the respective Order, or if not specified, as otherwise then provided by law. Each Order shall be subject only to such exceptions as are specified in the respective Order, and if not specified therein, as otherwise then provided by law. SECTION SIX: IRRIGATION RESTRICTION AFFECTED AREAS 6.1 The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply only in the unincorporated parts of Collier County. SECTION SEVEN: EXEMPTIONS; VARIANCE PROCEDURES 7.1 The following activities are exempt from all portions of this Ordinance: 7.1.1 Landscaping irrigation from which the source of the water is 100% reclaimed water. 7.1.2 Landscaping irrigation from which the source is 100% saltwater. 7.1.3 Irrigation from Low Volume Irrigation Systems. 7.1.4 Use of Low Volume Mobile Equipment Washing provided all unused water drains into only a pervious ground surface. 7.1.5 Water use as permitted pursuant to a separate Consumptive Use Permit or similar permit issued to the respective water user by the South Florida Water Management District. 7.2 Any individual's or entity's irrigation that is affected by this Ordinance may make application to the County Water Department Director for a variance if strict compliance with the restrictions of this Ordinance will impose a unique, unnecessary, and inequitable hardship on such service. Relief may be granted only upon submitted proof that such hardship is peculiar to that individual, entity, or the affected property; that the problem is not self- imposed, and that the granting of the variance would be consistent with the general intent and purpose of this Ordinance; that the variance is necessary to eliminate the hardship; and that each variance shall vary the minimum that is needed to solve the problem. 4 7.2.1 The County Water Director, or an individual designated by the Water Director, shall be the only individual authorized to grant or deny these variances. A decision to grant or deny the variance should be made within ten (10) working days after receipt of a complete application for the variance. Denial of a variance request may be appealed to the Public Utilities Division Administrator not later then ten (10) days of receipt by the applicant of the Water Director's decision on the initial request 7.2.2 An application for variance, and/or the granting of a variance, shall operate prospectively and shall not affect any then pending enforcement action against the property owner pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance or otherwise. SECTION EIGHT: PENALTIES 8.1 Each violator of this Ordinance shall be issued a twenty -five dollar ($25.00) citation pursuant to Collier County's Citation Ordinance. Persons who commit repeat violations may also be punished pursuant to § 162.2 1, Florida Statutes, as a civil infraction with a maximum civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance shall also be subject to the County's remedies as authorized by § 125.69, Florida Statutes, Section 1- 6 of the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances, or as otherwise then allowed by law. 8.1.1 Each day, or part thereof commencing at noon of the respective day, that a violation of this Ordinance occurs by the same individual or entity may be deemed by the finder of fact to constitute a separate violation. 8.1.2 All monies collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used by the Code Enforcement Department to fund continued and enhanced enforcement of this Ordinance and /or other County Ordinances then under its jurisdiction. SECTION NINE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purposes in the interest of public health and to protect the water resources of Collier County. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION TEN: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinances may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. 5 SECTION ELEVEN: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2002. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA JAMES N. COLETTA, Chairman March 25, 2002 Ms. Pam Perrell Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: Notice of Intent to Consider Water Irrigation Ordinance Dear Pam: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Friday, March 29, 2002, and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, "-I- Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk P.O./Account # 408 - 253212 - 649110 NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AND APPLICATION Notice is hereby given that on TUESDAY, April 9, 2002, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: WATER IRRIGATION ORDINANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY; RESTRICTING THE HOURS OF WATER IRRIGATION IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY; PROVIDING TITLE AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING IRRIGATION HOURS AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCE PROCEDURES; PROVIDING PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION INTO THE COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the 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 based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN � 1 • DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) Ellie J. Hoffman To: paperrell @napiesnews.com Subject: Water Irrigation Ordinance Hi Pam, Please advertise the above referenced notice as indicated on the attached. Thank you and have a great day! Ellie Water Water irrigation.doc Irrigation.doc Ellie J. Hoffman From: System Administrator [postmaster @naplesnews.com] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:49 AM To: Ellie J. Hoffman Subject: Delivered: Water Irrigation Ordinance LLLJ Water Irrigation Ordinance <<Water Irrigation Ordinance>> Your message To: 'paperrell @naplesnews.com' Subject: Water Irrigation Ordinance Sent: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:57:47 -0500 was delivered to the following recipient(s): Perrell, Pamela on Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:49:21 -0500 1 [l' Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News BOAPD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHERI LEFARA Po Box 413016 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 4082532126491 58423797 WATER IRR. ORD. NOTI State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that she serves as Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates Listed. Afflant Further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said CoLLier .ounty, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said CG::�er County; Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for puSLict'ton in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 03/29 AD SPACE: 117.000 INCH FILED ON: 03/29/02 Signature of Affiant _ /^— j Sworn to and Subscribed me thi 4sifh of 2CO_Q Personally known by me Donna Chesney M1' Conwnission DD058338 or w Expires September 11. 20M on ISO V C S t C: X I D. TENT TO DINANCE ATION )AY given to board- v, Admin- ng, Collier ,uernment ast Tomia- es, Florida, of County s will con - :hnent of a Ante. The commence The ttile of Ordinance ^ TIf%M AND DCv=T% o PROVIDING FOR IN= CLUSION INTO THE COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI- NANCES; PROVIDING AN C piesF of the DA. d Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and tlon. A I Interes d I =ee are Invited to attend and be Np E: All persons On wishing to speak terms with the must County Od- ministralor prior to pre- !t sentatlon of the agenda limited to S minutes on any item. The selection n beholff of an �a'pail�zeodtio�n recc group is encoura the �hakti- man, a .spokesperson for a group_ ar organization may be allotted 10 min- :, uses to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materlois Included In the Board agenda Packets a minimum oid3 wweeeks prior to the respective 'public h arIng. In any Y; - molerla in- v ml,� Board shall be late CouidY staff a minimum Of seven dc�Ys Prior to the public haw np• All maters- al used in presentations before the Board will be- com eca of a dim rrlanent Part Any person who decld- e$ to appeal a decision of the Board will need a re- cord of the proceedings pperta"in�ing thereto and mererora may need to " ensure shat a verbatim ` record of the proceedings " is made which recaYyd In- is teed which the r; eevpipdde�ance COMINI IstSSIONERS Y v COLLIER COUNTY, t FLORIDA JAMES N. DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Rv- /s/EIIle Hoffman, 8A !'! ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 17 WATER IRRIGATION ORDINANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY; RESTRICTING THE HOURS OF WATER IRRIGATION IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY; PROVIDING TITLE AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING IRRIGATION HOURS AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCE PROCEDURES; PROVIDING PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION INTO THE COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, authorizes Boards of County Commissioners to enact ordinances deemed by the respective Board to be necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, citizens, or visitors of the respective County, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County has determined that the protection of water resources is in the best interest of and for the long -term protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, citizens, and visitors to Collier County, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County has also determined that water conservation is an integral part of protecting current and future water resources, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has deemed that placing certain restrictions on the use of water for irrigation is an effective means of conserving water. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: TITLE. 1.1 This Ordinance shall be called "The Collier County Water Irrigation Ordinance." SECTION TWO: FINDINGS. 2.1 Irrigation places a significant demand on water resources of Collier County, including the potable water supply system. 2.2 That adopting this Ordinance to limit allowable hours of irrigation is to promote conservation, to protect water resources, and to reduce demand upon all water sources, including sources of water that can be treated to become potable water. 2.3 That restricting allowable hours of irrigation pursuant to this Ordinance will not create undue hardship on the users of water from the affected water sources. SECTION THREE: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY. 3.1 The primary purpose of this Ordinance is to provide the regulatory framework to assist in conservation of water resources through consistent and uniform application of restrictions on use of water for irrigation in unincorporated Collier County. 3.2 This Ordinance shall be applicable notwithstanding any other Collier County Ordinance. SECTION FOUR: DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply throughout this Ordinance: M* j 4.1 "County" means Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of County Commissioners and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District and Goodland Water District. 4.2 "Code Enforcement Officer" means any authorized agent or employee of the County whose duty it is to enforce the County's codes. 4.3 "Impervious Surfaces" means surfaces that do not allow penetration of water, including, but not limited to, paved or concrete roads, paved or concrete sidewalks, paved or concrete driveways, paved or concrete parking lots, or highly compacted areas including shell or clay. 4.4 "Irrigation" means the application of water by means other than natural precipitation. 4.5 "Irrigation Systems" means equipment and/or devices which deliver water to landscaping being irrigated including, but not limited to, pumping stations and controls, control structures, ditches, public or private wells, piping, valves, fittings, and emitters. 4.6 "Landscaping" means all residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and governmental areas which are considered as lawns or ornamentally planted, including, but not limited to, sod, grasses, turf, ground covers, flowers, shrubs, trees, mulch, hedges, and other similar plant materials. 4.7 "Low Volume Irrigation Systems" means equipment and devices specifically designed to deliver a volume of water consistent with the water requirement of the plant being irrigated and which delivers the water with a high degree of efficiency directly to the root zone of the plant. 4.8 "Low Volume Hand Watering" means watering attended by one person with one hose equipped with a self- canceling or automatic shutoff nozzle. 4.9 "Low Volume Mobile Equipment Washing" means the washing of mobile equipment with a bucket and sponge, a single hose with a self - canceling or automatic shutoff nozzle, low volume pressure cleaning equipment, or any combination of the preceding methods of washing. 4.10 "Low Volume Pressure Cleaning" means pressure cleaning by means of equipment that is specifically designed to reduce the volume of water used as accepted by industry standards. 4.11 "Pervious Surface" means every improved or unimproved surface that allows water to readily soak into, or recharge, the water aquifer under such surface. 4.12 "Water Resources" means any and all water on or beneath the surface of the ground, including, but not limited to, natural or artificial watercourses, lakes, ponds, and artificial water features, and water percolating, standing, or flowing beneath the surface of the ground. SECTION FIVE: IRRIGATION HOURS; OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 5.1 All water irrigation activities within the specified geographic area(s) and within the boundaries as designated in Section Six, and which are not exempted by Section Seven, shall be restricted to the days and hours as specified in Table 1. Table 1. Collier County Water Irrigation Restrictions Landscaping Irrigation — Established ODD Numbered Addresses 3 days each week; Monday, Wednesday, Saturday; 12:01 AM to 8:00 AM for all types of irrigation; 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM for Low Volume Hand Watering. EVEN Numbered Addresses 3 days each week; Tuesday, Thursday, Sunday, 12:01 AM to 8:00 AM for all types of irrigation; 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM for Low Volume Hand Watering. Landscaping Irrigation — New (in lace less than 60 days) ALL Addresses 5 days each week; Monday through Friday, 12:01 AM to 8:00 AM for all types of irrigation; Low Volume Hand Watering allowed anytime. Irrigation System Maintenance Existing Systems 10 minutes per zone per week; person must be present in zone and working on the system during each such operation. New Systems 30 minutes per zone, one time only; person must be present in zone and working on the system during such operation. Pesticide, Fungicide, Herbicide, Fertilizer Application ALL Addresses Application shall be coordinated with the scheduled day /time for Landscaping Irrigation; if applied outside of the allowed hours, and "watering in" is specified by the manufacturer of the applied material, a licensed application technician must be on the premises. Other Outdoor Water Uses ALL Other Outdoor Water Other outdoor water uses, including car, truck, and boat Uses washing and the washing of exterior home surfaces and roofs, shall be allowed anytime with the use of Low Volume Pressure Cleaning Equipment, Low Volume Mobile Equipment Washing and /or water hose equipped with an automatic self - canceling or automatic shutoff nozzle; in all cases, the water used must drain to a pervious surface or to a water recycling /reuse system. 5.2 All water irrigation activities must and shall be operated in an efficient manner so as to not allow water to be applied to any impervious surface. 5.3 All water irrigation systems shall be equipped with a properly installed rain sensor switch. 5.3.1 A rain sensor switch shall be required on all new installations of irrigation systems. 5.3.2 A rain sensor switch shall be retrofitted on existing systems within one (1) year of the effective date of this Ordinance. 5.3.3 The rain sensor switch shall be maintained in fully operational condition at all times by the owner /operator of the irrigation system. 5.4 All water irrigation activities prohibited or restricted from time -to -time by any Water Shortage Emergency Order declared by the South Florida Water Management District and published in a newspaper of general circulation in Collier County pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, shall automatically be incorporated into and be enforceable by application of this Ordinance. Each such Order shall apply to such geographic areas in Collier County as is specified in the respective Order, or if not specified, as otherwise then provided by law. Each Order shall be subject only to such exceptions as are specified in the respective Order, and if not specified therein, as otherwise then provided by law. SECTION SIX: IRRIGATION RESTRICTION AFFECTED AREAS 6.1 The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply only in the unincorporated geographic areas in Collier County. 3 SECTION SEVEN: EXEMPTIONS; VARIANCES 7.1 The following are exempt from all provisions of this Ordinance: 7.1.1 Landscaping irrigation from which the source of the water is 100% reclaimed water. 7.1.2 Landscaping irrigation from which the source of the water is 100% saltwater. 7.1.3 Irrigation wholly from a Low Volume Irrigation System. 7.1.4 Use of Low Volume Mobile Equipment Washing provided all unused water drains into only a pervious ground surface. 7.1.5 Water use to the extent authorized by a specific Consumptive Use Permit, or similar permit, issued to the respective water user by the South Florida Water Management District. 7.2 Any individual's or entity's irrigation that is affected by this Ordinance may make application to the County Water Department Director to request a variance if strict compliance with the restrictions of this Ordinance will impose a unique, unnecessary and inequitable hardship on such irrigation. Variance relief may be granted only upon a written application applying for the variance, which application contains proof that the irrigation hardship is peculiar to that individual, entity, or that affected property; that the hardship is not self- imposed; that the granting of the variance would be consistent with the general intent and purpose of this Ordinance; that the variance is necessary to eliminate an inequitable irrigation hardship; and that each variance shall vary the irrigation restrictions only to the minimum extent required to resolve the unreasonableness of the irrigation hardship that would exist but for the variance. No variance shall be granted unless the applicant is able to persuade the Director or his designee of the necessity for the variance. If the initial decision is made by the Director's designee, the only appeal shall be to the Director, and the Director's decision upon appeal to grant or deny the requested variance shall be further reviewable only as specified in subsection 7.2.1, below. 7.2.1 The County's Water Director, or individual designated by the Water Director, shall be the only individual(s) authorized to grant or deny these variances. A decision to grant or deny the variance should be made within ten (10) days after actual receipt of a complete application for the variance. Denial of a variance request may be appealed to the Public Utilities Division Administrator not later then ten (10) days of actual receipt by the applicant of the decision on the initial request. The Division Administrator's decision upon appeal shall be final. 7.2.2 An application for variance, and/or the granting of a variance, shall operate prospectively and shall not affect any then pending enforcement action pursuant to this Ordinance, or otherwise. SECTION EIGHT: PENALTIES 8.1 Each violator of this Ordinance shall be issued a citation that specifies a fine of seventy -five dollars ($75.00), plus any then applicable costs as specified in the citation issued pursuant to procedures of the Collier County's Citation Ordinance. The applicable fine shall be $75.00 notwithstanding that said Ordinance specifies fines that always exceed $75.00. Persons who commit repeat violations may also be punished pursuant to §162.21, Florida Statutes, as a civil infraction with a maximum civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance shall also be subject to the County's remedies as authorized by § 125.69, Florida Statutes, Section 1- 6 of the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances, or as otherwise then allowed by law. The applicable penalties shall be determined by the forum selected to enforce the violation. 4 8.1.1 Each day, or part thereof commencing at noon of the respective day, that a violation of this Ordinance occurs by the same individual or entity may be deemed by the finder of fact to constitute a separate violation. 8.1.2 All monies collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used by the Code Enforcement Department to fund continued and enhanced enforcement of this Ordinance and/or other County Ordinances then under its jurisdiction. SECTION NINE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purposes in the interest of public health and to protect the water resources of Collier County. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION TEN: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinances may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION ELEVEN: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOP ED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 9- day of .f L- , 2002. Ottaet�4sr�r.rT,'r; i E RR f ,'Clerk rim S At ft a,, •,N F1#�3� lerk 1 Approved as to form and legal sufficiency 16 IM Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: J ES N. COLETTA, Chairman 6". .r M0 1 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 2002 -17 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 9th day of April, 2002, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 10th day of April, 2002. DWIGHT E .,-BROgX'4 "'1 "',,, Clerk of Colt ' [ Vii{ perk Ex -of f iciq:' � .,'13oard 't�Q County Cogiit�;isk.'JJ? iare .d' tM By. Teri Mi.thaei;' Deputy Cl rPk,` ''= 3301 East Tamiami Trail • Naples, Florida 34112 -4977 Donna Fiala (941) 774 -8097 • Fax (941) 774 -3602 District 1 James D. Carter, Ph.D. District 2 May 6, 2002 Tom Henning District 3 Fred W. Coyle District 4 Jim Coletta District 5 Mr. Roberto Bolt, President Orange Tree Utility Company 3000 Orange Grove Trail Naples, FL 34120 Dear Mr. Bolt: 8A Neu I am writing to you as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and as a co- consumer of water resources in Collier County, to encourage your support in conserving our common water resources. The use of water resources for irrigation of landscaping consumes a significant percentage of our collective water supply. On April 9, 2002, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed a year -round Irrigation Ordinance. The Ordinance allows irrigation three days per week based on the address of the property. There are other components of the ordinance, including hand- watering restrictions and the installation of rain sensor switches on all irrigation systems. A copy of the adopted Collier County Irrigation Ordinance is attached for your review. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners would like to encourage your active participation in conservation efforts. We encourage you to enact and implement similar limitations on the consumption or water resources through irrigation. I would be very interested in further dialogue on this matter and am available at 774 -8097 for further discussion. In addition, if you have more detailed questions, they can be directed to Mr. Paul Mattausch, the Collier County Water Department Director, at 352 -7002 or by e -mail at PaulMattausch @colliergov.net. Very t my yours, Commissioner, District 5 JC:sf Enclosure 3301 East Tamiami Trail - Naples, Florida 34112 -4977_ Donna Fiala (941) 774 -8097 - Fax (941) 774 -3602 District 1 'k Rt James D. Carter, Ph.D. District 2 May 6, 2002 Tom Henning District 3 Fred W. Coyle District 4 Jim Coletta District 5 Mr. Robert Sheets Florida Governmental Utility Authority 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 250 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Dear Mr. Sheets: I am writing to you as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and as a co- consumer of water resources in Collier County, to encourage your support in conserving our common water resources. The use of water resources for irrigation of landscaping consumes a significant percentage of our collective water supply. On April 9, 2002, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed a year -round Irrigation Ordinance. The Ordinance allows irrigation three days per week based on the address of the property. There are other components of the ordinance, including hand- watering restrictions and the installation of rain sensor switches on all irrigation systems. A copy of the adopted Collier County Irrigation Ordinance is attached for your review. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners would like to encourage your active participation in conservation efforts. We encourage you to enact and implement similar limitations on the consumption or water resources through irrigation. I would be very interested in further dialogue on this matter and am available at 774 -8097 for further discussion. In addition, if you have more detailed questions, they can be directed to Mr. Paul Mattausch, the Collier County Water Department Director, at 352 -7002 or by e -mail at PaulMattausch @colliergov.net. V Am Coletta,Tftail� Commissioner, District 5 JC:sf Enclosure 3301 East Tamiami Trail • Naples, Florida 34112 -4977 Donna Fiala (941) 774 -8097 • Fax (941) 774 -3602 District 1 ORI�� James D. Carter, Ph.D. May 6 2002 District 2 Tom Henning District 3 Fred W. Coyle District 4 Jim Coletta District 5 Mr. Tracy Smith Florida Water Services Corp. P.O. Box 609520 Orlando, FL 32860 Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing to you as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, and as a co- consumer of water resources in Collier County, to encourage your support in conserving our common water resources. The use of water resources for irrigation of landscaping consumes a significant percentage of our collective water supply. On April 9, 2002, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed a year -round Irrigation Ordinance. The Ordinance allows irrigation three days per week based on the address of the property. There are other components of the ordinance, including hand - watering restrictions and the installation of rain sensor switches on all irrigation systems. A copy of the adopted Collier County Irrigation Ordinance is attached for your review. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners would like to encourage your active participation in conservation efforts. We encourage you to enact and implement similar limitations on the consumption or water resources through irrigation. I would be very interested in further dialogue on this matter and am available at 774 -8097 for further discussion. In addition, if you have more detailed questions, they can be directed to Mr. Paul Mattausch, the Collier County Water Department Director, at 352 -7002 or by e-mail at PaulMattausch @colliergov.net. Veyyyuly ft"n Coletta, Chairman Commissioner, District 5 JC:sf Enclosure 9A RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -185 RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEONARD CUTLER TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD. WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -105, as amended, created the Contractors' Licensing Board and provides that the Board shall be composed of nine (9) members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners with a minimum of two (2) members residing within the corporate city limits of Naples and /or the City of Marco Island, or recommended to the Board by the Naples City Council and /or the City Council of the City of Marco Island; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 1999, as required by Section 489.131(10), Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 99 -45, amending Ordinance No. 90 -105, to include at least 3 members that qualify as consumer representatives; and WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy on this Board for the category of Consumer Representative; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from various interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Leonard Cutler meets the prerequisites for appointment and is hereby appointed under the category of Consumer Representative to the Contractors' Licensing Board to fulfill the remainder of the vacant term, said term to expire on June 30, 2003. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: April 9, 2002 S Clerk y iP..aoc�� ,a ..4Vi i�G ?Pc A r' I Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney DCW /kn BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1/ B JAME�S'N. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -186 RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida adopted Ordinance No. 95 -22 establishing the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency pursuant to Section 290.001, et seq., Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 95 -22 provides that the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency shall consist of not fewer than eight (8) or more than thirteen (13) members; and WHEREAS, there are currently vacancies on this board; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency has provided the Board of County Commissioners with its recommendations for appointment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Mark W. Baker is hereby reappointed to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to for a 4 year term, said term to expire on April 4, 2006. 2. Charlie Esquivel is hereby reappointed to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to for a 4 year term, said term to expire on April 4, 2006. 3. Carla Ayala is hereby reappointed to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to for the remainder of the vacant term, said term to expire on April 4, 2005. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: April 9, 2002 ATTEST'i��zee.;�s DWIG1kF; J>Ierk ••. ,- 1 got tu;r, Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney DCW /kn BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -187 9C A RESOLUTION APPOINTING FRANK J. FRY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission was established by Collier County Ordinance No. 85 -51, as amended by Collier County Ordinance No. 86 -76; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended, repealed and replaced Ordinance No. 85 -51, as amended, re- establishing the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended, provides that the Collier County Planning Commission shall be composed of nine (9) members representing the five commission districts; and WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy in Commission District 2; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Frank J. Fry is hereby appointed under Commission District 2 to the Collier County Planning Commission to fulfill the remainder of the vacant term, said term to expire on October 1, 2004. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: April 9, 2002 DW EST: Clerk ' ' }fun : S 11 ► y Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney DCW /kn BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA a .0 9D 7d DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF OCTOBER 25, 2002 A, rr ie'F anW 13B �1 pledge alle fiance to the E �a o the United f States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one ration under Clod, indiv i's i6le, with Ciberry andj"ustice for all. Collier County flies the flag of the United States in memory of those lost in the tradegy of September 11, 2001. Cover: The office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County would like to express their gratitude to the Collier County Office of Public Information for the use of this photograph. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN JAMES N. COLETTA, Jr., VICE - CHAIRMAN PAMELA S. MAC'KIE COUNTY MANAGER THOMAS W. OLLIFF DONNA L. FIALA THOMAS K. HENNING CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER DWIGHT E. BROCK DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING JAMES L. MITCHELL, CIA, CITE, CBA Prepared by the Finance and Accounting Department COUNTY ATTORNEY EXTERNAL AUDITORS DAVID C. WEIGEL KPMG LLP fa �� THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK w 2 w � _ 2 � w > O — � � 2 � � O Q � w � O U 1 ` ~ \ � /}cc 2&j[ 00 0 -C 1 / // \ eeum / / \\ \o co k))2\ / k 2 [ � / �( )2e $ 2 - a)co )a_I \/� CS)w « a) 10 =u =z=CL = ) I - $ !2O )�& «\ } E LL [3c$ E) P, w$\/ \ C. §) 3 a) \ e ƒ ) \ /.9 �~ G($ o )) e�U) � 1' 2 CM0m Mots $A=2J2$G \ (§�} 3 ® ® =!a@§ \ ■f`[M M CL $=e§, 2«_32=2 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT B r YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TransmittalLetter .................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... i Certificateof Achievement .................................................................................................................................................. ............................... xvi IndependentAuditors' Report ................................................................................................................................................ ............................... I GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: (Combined Statements - Overview) Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types, Account Groups and DiscretelyPresented Component Units ............................................................................................................................... ............................... 4 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - All Governmental Fund Types, Expendable Trust Funds and Discretely Presented Component Units ............................................................................................................................. ............................... 10 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) All Governmental Fund Types and Expendable Trust Funds ........................................................................................... ............................... 12 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes inFund Equity - All Proprietary Fund Types .................................................................................................................... ............................... 15 Combined Statement of Cash Flows - All Proprietary Fund Types .................................................................................... ............................... 16 CombiningBalance Sheet — Component Units ...................................................................................................................... .............................18 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - ComponentUnits ................................................................................................................................................................... .............................19 Notes to the General Purpose Financial Statements ............................................................................................................ ............................... 21 COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND AND ACCOUNT GROLP STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES: GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES: General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance — Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) ............................................................................... .............................54 CombiningBalance Sheet .................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 58 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures andChanges in Fund Balances .......................................................................................................................................... ............................... 61 Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) .......................................................................... ............................... 64 Debt Service Funds CombiningBalance Sheet .................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 74 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures andChanges in Fund Balances .......................................................................................................................................... ............................... 76 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (GAAP Basis) ................................................................................ ............................... 78 Capital Pro -jests Funds CombiningBalance Sheet .................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 86 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures andChanges in Fund Balances .......................................................................................................................................... ............................... 88 Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) .......................................................................... ............................... 90 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA _ COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT 138 } YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES: Fnten2rise Funds Page CombiningBalance Sheet .................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 98 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses andChanges in Fund Equity ............................................................................................................................................ ............................... 102 CombiningStatement of Cash Flows ................................................................................................................................. ............................... 104 Internal Service Funds CombiningBalance Sheet .................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 110 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses andChanges in Fund Equity ............................................................................................................................................ ............................... 1 l 1 CombiningStatement of Cash Flows ................................................................................................................................. ............................... 112 FIDUCIARY FUNDS AND ACCOUNT GROUPS: Expendable Trust and Agency Finds CombiningBalance Sheet - All Fiduciary Funds .............................................................................................................. ............................... 117 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - All Expendable Trust Funds ....................................................................................... ............................... 120 Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) - All ExpendableTrust Funds .................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 122 Combining Statement of Changes in Assets andLiabilities - All Agency Funds ................................................................................................................................. ............................... 128 Ac rout Groups and Schedules Schedule of General Fixed Assets by Classification andSource ............................................................................................................................................. ............................... ............................132 Schedule of General Fixed Assets by Function andClassification ............................................................................................................................................................ ............................... 133 Schedule of Changes in General Fixed Assets by Function............................................................................................................................................................................ ............................... 134 Scheduleof General Long -Term Debt ............................................................................................................................... ............................... 136 ® Schedule of Changes in General Long -Term Debt ............................................................................................................ STATTSTTCAT SECTION (I NAT ............................... 137 TDTTFD) GeneralGovernmental Revenues by Source ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 140 General Governmental Expenditures by Function ............................................................................................................ ............................... 141 PropertyTax Levies and Collections ................................................................................................................................. ............................... 142 Assessed and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property .............................................................................................. ............................... 143 — Property Tax Rates - All Direct and Overlapping Governments ....................................................................................... ............................... 144 SpecialAssessment Billings and Collections .................................................................................................................... ............................... 145 Computationof Legal Debt Margin ................................................................................................................................... ............................... 146 Computationof Direct and Overlapping Debt ................................................................................................................... ............................... 146 Ratio of Net General Bonded Debt to Assessed Valuesand Net Bonded Debt Per Capita ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 147 Ratio of Annual Debt Service Expenditures for General Bonded Debt to Total General Governmental Expenditures ............................................................................. ............................... 148 Schedule of Water and Sewer Funds Revenue Bond Coverage ........................................................................................ ............................... 149 Salaries and Surety Bonds of Principal Officials ............................................................................................................... ............................... 150 DemographicStatistics ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 151 Property Value, Construction and Bank Deposits ............................................................................................................. ............................... 152 PrincipalTaxpayers County Wide ..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 153 MiscellaneousStatistical Data ........................................................................................................................................... ............................... 154 MajorIndustries Within Collier County ............................................................................................................................ ............................... 155 Scheduleof Insurance In Force .......................................................................................................................................... ............................... 156 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT 138 YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance and on Internal Control over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards .................................. ............................... 159 Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Each Major Program and Internal Control over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A -133 and Rules of the Florida Auditor General ............. ............................161 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance .................................................................. ............................... 163 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance .................. ............................... ............................168 Scheduleof Findings and Questioned Costs .......................................................................................... ............................... ............................169 ENE ClItCG'�O COVE` Dwight E. Brock Clerk March 26, 2002 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES. FLORIDA 34101 -3044 138 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS To the Citizens, and Members of the Board of County Commissioners, County of Collier, Florida It is with extreme pleasure that we present to you, the citizens of Collier County, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001. The Finance and Accounting Department of the Clerk of the Circuit Court prepared this report. Responsibility for the accuracy of the data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures, rests with the Clerk of the Circuit Court as the Chief Financial Officer of Collier County. We believe the data, as presented, is accurate in all material respects, that it is prepared in a manner designed to fairly set forth the financial position and results of operations of the County as measured by the financial activity of its various funds and account groups, and that all disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain the maximum understanding of the County's financial activity have been included. _ The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is presented in four sections: Introductory, Financial, Statistical and Federal and State Single Audit. The Introductory Section contains a list of principal officials, this transmittal letter, the County's organizational chart, graphic presentations giving an overview of County operations and the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the year ended September 30, 2000. Included in the Financial Section are the general purpose financial statements and footnotes; the individual, combining and account group financial statements, as well as the independent auditor's report on the general purpose financial statements. A history of selected financial and demographic information is included in the Statistical Section. The Federal Single Audit is required under the provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1996 and U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A -133, Audits of State and Local Governments and Non - Profit Organizations. The Florida Single Audit is required by Florida Statute 215.97. Information relating to the Single Audits, including schedules of federal and state awards and independent auditors' report on internal control and compliance with requirements applicable to federal and state financial assistance, are included in the Federal and State Single Audit Section of this report. . This report includes all funds and account groups of Collier County. Collier County provides a full range of services and is a Non - Charter County established under the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is a County -wide report which discloses the results of operations for the following entities: the Board of County Commissioners, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Property Appraiser, the Sheriff, the Supervisor of Elections, the Tax Collector, the Collier County Water and Sewer District, the Goodland Water District and the Collier County Airport Authority. In addition, to the general government activities, we have included component unit entities which are financially accountable to the County, or for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the County are such that exclusion would cause this report to be misleading or incomplete. The component units that are a part of this report include the Collier County Health Facilities Authority, Housing Finance Authority, Industrial Development Authority and the Educational Facilities Authority. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes all funds and account groups of governmental operations that are controlled or dependent upon the County, as determined by budgetary oversight, taxing authority or the County's obligation to fund any deficits that may occur. The Board of County Commissioners is the legislative body for Collier County, and as such, budgets and provides all the funding used by the various County departments and the separate Constitutional Officers with the exception of fees collected by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector. Under the direction of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Finance and Accounting Department maintains the accounting system for the County's operations, including the Supervisor of Elections and the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The Tax Collector, Property Appraiser and Sheriff maintain their own accounting systems. However, for purposes of this Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the operations of the County as a whole, including all of the Constitutional Officers, have been presented. ECONOMIC CONDITIONAND OUTLOOK Collier County, the state's largest county, with 2,026 square miles, is on the southwest coast of Florida, directly west of Miami. With a 2000 population of 251,377 (a 65 percent increase over the 1990 level), the County is considered to be the fastest growing county in the state. The County's economic base is concentrated in tourism and agriculture, fishing, ranching, and forestry with a growing services economy and an emerging high technology sector. Gulf of Mexico beaches and the Everglades National Park are important attractions to this area. The park comprises a substantial portion of the County. Taxable market valuation for fiscal year 2001 totaled in excess of $33 billion, or a very high $132,848 per capita. Unemployment levels in recent years approximate, or are slightly below those of the state. As of June 2001, the unemployment rate stood at 3.5 percent compared to 4.3 percent for the state and 4.6 percent for the nation. Income levels are high, with a per capita personal income of $42,813, which is the highest in Southwest Florida. The County's financial operations are well managed with recurring General Fund operating surpluses contributing to historically strong cash and general fund balance positions. This positive trend is expected to continue as the County maintains conservative budgeting practices and substantial operating flexibility relative to the 10 -mill property tax rate operating limit. The County's millage for operations has been reduced annually for the last five years such that in fiscal 2001 it is at only 35 percent of the statutory limit. In summary, Collier County will continue to experience a healthy economic expansion despite a national slowdown in the tourism sector. Rapid residential and commercial development and an established tourism economy, with a significant number of second homes will continue to contribute to an extremely strong tax base growth that has averaged 13.2 percent annually for the last five years. While Collier County continues to attract affluent retirees, the growing services economy and an emerging high technology sector should continue to attract population growth and development throughout the County. ii 136 MAJOR INITIATIVES During fiscal year 2001, the County continued its commitment to streamline operations to become more efficient while improving services to the community. The County's more significant accomplishments by Constitutional Officer include: The Board of County Commissioners The County Manager's Agency conducts business in accordance with the following Mission Statement: "To deliver to our residents and visitors local government services that EXCEED expectations." In keeping with that service commitment, the Board's most significant highlights, accomplishments, and initiatives are delineated below: Administrative Services Division `� • The Public Information Department staff won a Telly Award and two awards from the Florida Government Communicators Association and, in addition to regular programming, coordinated with Florida Gulf Coast University to produce 12 television shows. Live coverage of meetings and 24 -hour programming are now offered. • The Fleet Management Department opened a new maintenance facility in — Immokalee. • The Department of Facilities Management provided maintenance services to more than 600 buildings (2.2 million square feet of space). • The Purchasing Department began implanting a new financial system and also established a centralized mail receiving facility to safely screen and process mail prior to delivery to county offices. • The Risk Management Department developed a new employee core benefit package and, to promote workplace safety, implemented a loss- sensitive cost allocation system for Worker's Compensation charges. A Wellness program was — emphasized with 600 employee health assessments conducted. • The Human Resources Department was relocated on the main government center campus to be more accessible to the general public and employees. On the county Web site, electronic employment applications are now available. — • The Real Property Management Department acquired 129 acres north of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension for a regional park. The department also acquired property for a water plant expansion and a new EMS station, as well as — right -of -way for the Livingston Road construction project. Community Development and Environmental Services Division • The Operations Department initiated audits of cable franchise fees, resulting in the collection of more than $500,000 in underpaid fees due the county by cable operators. "" iii i38 11 • The Building Review and Permitting Department implemented an on -line permitting system, established a new master plan process, and conducted a series of workshops to inform the public relative to the new statewide building code. • The County's expedited permitting program for economic development, in conjunction with the Economic Development Council of Collier County, assisted ten companies in creating and retaining 278 jobs. Collier County will now also receive $2.1 million annually in Community Development Block Grant funds. • Planning Department staff developed the Activity Center #9 Interchange Master Plan that received the Outstanding Public Report Award from the Florida Planning and Zoning Association. Staff also processed over 100 amendments to the Land Development Code. • The Natural Resources Department built five artificial reefs at four sites in coastal waters. Emergency Services Division The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department developed a wireless system for transmitting data countywide through the use of existing towers and EMS station locations. The Helicopter Operations Department received a Safety Operators Award from the Helicopter Association International for incident and accident -free operation. Flight medics underwent a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandated training program and became certified as "medical crew members" through one of the first of its kind FAA programs in the United States. Public Services Division • The Domestic Animal Services Department moved into its new shelter facility providing double the kennel space for dogs and a colony -style setting for cats. • More than six million visitors enjoyed the County's parks, beach facilities and programs. • Within the Museum Department, building restoration efforts began on several of the buildings located at the historic Robert's Ranch property in Immokalee. The Museum of the Everglades was named to the National Register of Historic Places. • Total circulation in the Library Department exceeded 2.3 million items and more than 1.8 million persons visited the eight library branches during the year. • The Health Department implemented a new beach water quality monitoring program. Public Utilities Division Produced approximately 8.0 billion gallons of drinking water, averaging more 21.8 million gallons of water produced daily. The Solid Waste Department expanded the curbside recycling program to include more than 20 items, increasing residential curbside collection by 18 percent. Electronics recycling and yard waste composting were also initiated. The Wastewater Department treated 5.4 billion gallons of wastewater to drinking water standards and distributed 3.6 billion gallons of reclaimed water and was IV 13B rated number one in the State of Florida in delivering gallons per capita for reclaimed water. -` • The Pollution Control and Prevention Department properly disposed of 170,493 pounds of hazardous waste. • Beach renourishment was completed in the Park Shore section of Naples. Transportation Division • Completed construction of Livingston Road Phase I within budget and ahead of schedule and began construction of Livingston Road Phase II. • Initiated construction to widen Airport Road from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road. The Transportation Planning Department introduced the Collier Area Transit (CAT) public transportation system, and ridership exceeded initial projections — with more than 22,000 passengers per month. Grant funding was secured to expand service to provide for employee trips from Immokalee to Marco Island. • Road and Bridge placed a pavement overlay on 81 miles of roads, and rebuilt 6 miles of rural roadways in Golden Gate Estates. Management Offices The Fiscal Year 2001 Collier County Budget received the Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the thirteenth consecutive year. OMB staff also completed the following management studies /projects to improve the internal operations within the County: (1) computerized spreadsheets to prepare and summarize budget requests; (2) a revised billing methodology for Worker's Compensation charges; (3) an evaluation of the distribution of costs between the General Fund and the unincorporated area of the County; (4) a comprehensive training booklet on the use of the financial system and the budget module; and (5) a review of obsolete taxing districts that resulted in the Board adopting repealing ordinances. Sheriffs s Q ice Mission Statement: "The duty of the Collier County Sheriff's Office is to preserve and protect the lives, property, and constitutional guarantees of all persons. " Under the direction of Sheriff Don Hunter, the Sheriff's Office continues to meet the challenges of an ever - growing community. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 shook the nation and reminded us that we are vulnerable. It has never been more important for local law enforcement to ensure the safety of our community. The Collier County Sheriff s Office continues to protect Collier County. Deputies responded to over 280,000 calls for service and wrote more than 40,000 reports with over 17,200 arrests in calendar year 2001. In 2001, the Sheriffs Office was again able to reduce the crime rate (the valid relative comparison of community safety as adopted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement) by -- targeting resources and focusing on specific crimes. The crime rate is the lowest in 28 years. v 13 0 *1 The Sheriff's Office continues to operate two jail facilities with a total of 754 beds, a juvenile D.R.I.L.L. (Discipline, Respect, Integrity, Learning, and Leadership) Academy, six substations and six remote operational sites. The Sheriff's Office was nationally re- accredited in November 1999, and in October 2001, the Sheriff's Office attained state re- accreditation. The Sheriff's dispatch center is also accredited by the Academy of Emergency Medical Dispatchers. The jail holds Florida Corrections Accreditation Commission accreditation and the national commission of Corrections Health Care has accredited jail medical services. The Sheriff s Office has been successful in obtaining state and federal grants. In 2001, the Sheriff's Office was partially funded by 25 grant programs with 119 positions through contract and grant awards totaling $5.6 million. The cost of law enforcement in Collier County remains low at a per capita cost of $.67 per day. Supervisor of Elections The Collier County Supervisor of Elections, Jennifer Edwards, administers the Collier County voter registration system; qualifies candidates for offices; monitors financial reporting requirements of candidates for offices; and plans, coordinates and conducts elections within Collier County. Major initiatives in 2001 included the selection of a new voting system as a result of legislative election law reform. A Geographical Information System (GIS) was implemented that will assist in implementing the new district lines resulting from the 2002 redistricting. The GIS was utilized in a joint effort to establish the new County Commission and School Board Districts to meet redistricting mandates. A new voter registration system was also implemented to accommodate the county's growing population. In addition, the following items were processed: • 16,253 absentee ballots mailed • 10,641 mail ballots sent • 14,471 new applications • 36,039 voter registration cards requested • 9,346 voter status changes • 7,038 removed due to deceased, moved, inactive • 7,706 address changes requested • 10,120 precinct changes Clerk of the Circuit Court Clerk of the Circuit Court, Dwight E. Brock continues to serve as a "Public Trustee" for the citizens of Collier County. The mission of the Clerk's office is to provide the most efficient service at the least possible cost. Listed below are several of the significant accomplishments of the Office during the 2000 -2001 fiscal year. • Returned to the Board of County Commissioners over 1.8 million dollars in unused fees. vi • Recovered $125,000 in expenses related to the settlement of lawsuit involving unscrupulous brokerage practices in county bond issues. The final amount of recovery is yet to be determined by the court. •. Performed Audits of Alternative Road Impact Fees, payment of Impact Fees by Golf Courses, the Tourism Alliance contract, the Collier County SHIP program, the Waste Management additional costs request, and the cash handling procedures for Public Works Engineering. • Received, for the 15'h consecutive year, the "Excellence in Financial Reporting Award" from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada. • Expanded the Collections Program of the Clerk's Office. By resolution of the r Board of County Commissioners the Clerk's Office is the collection agency of the County. The program now includes a weekly "Collections Court" and collects more than $600,000 in county court fines and fees annually, approximately 80% of all the County Court fines ordered. • Developed a Re- Instate Driving Easily (R.I.D.E.) program to assist citizens to restore driving privileges. • Renovated a portion of the Naples City Hall to provide for a full service satellite office, including the recording of official records. This office will open in early 2002. • Moved the Golden Gate Satellite into the new government services building on Golden Gate parkway providing to the citizens of the Golden Gate community Clerk's service in a more functional location. - In the coming fiscal year the great majority of the office's energy and resources will be directed to fully implementing an imaging program that will provide public record documents through internet connections and implementing the new Financial Management and Accounting system. Property Appraiser During the 2001 fiscal year the Property Appraiser's office once again submitted an equitable assessment roll to the Florida Department of Revenue which was approved without notification of any defects. The total market value for 2001 was over $41.3 billion. This was an increase of 21.9% above 2000, including a record $1.7 billion of new construction. This growth in property value has caused the average value on single - family homes to increase from $210,370 in 1999, to $235,458 in 2000, to $287,412 in 2001. In 2001; • we released the Geographic Information System (GIS) portion of our web site at www.collierappraiser.com for the public to search and view property from an aerial view of Collier County; developed a process for renewing the nearly 1,000 applicants for the recently implemented additional senior homestead exemption; started taking the homestead exemption applications and providing other services from a new government center located in Golden Gate. In addition, in January and February we Vii 3 B were taking applications for homestead exemption at the Coastland mall six days a week, Monday thru Saturday; added, changed or deleted approximately 43,000 recorded ownership changes and sales transactions maintaining less than a week of processing time from recording date to posting in our system; completed the printing and mailing of over 250,000 notices of proposed taxes for every property owner in Collier County; designed a new tangible personal property tax form specifically for rental properties required to file a return. For 2002, we will continue implementing technology to improve the efficiency of our in -house appraisal process as well as improving our web site. Tax Collector In 2001, the Collier County Tax Collector, Guy L. Carlton, continued his efforts to provide convenient, as well as efficient, service to the citizens of Collier County. The Golden Gate satellite office relocated to the new government center on Golden Gate Parkway. This building provides a larger customer area with seating available, and limited driver license services will be offered at this facility. As of August 2001, certain customers who transact business in the Vessels Department can receive their vessel titles immediately, rather than waiting two weeks or longer for them to be sent from Tallahassee. Titles can be printed right in the vessels office for a small fee. In a move to enhance customer service, the Tax Collector agreed to take over all duties in Collier County of the Florida Division of Drivers Licenses next year. Plans are underway to construct a facility on Airport Road to house the main driver license office where road tests, as well as all other testing, will take place. Through the efficient use of his resources the Tax Collector was able to return over $4.5 million in unused fees to Collier County's taxing authorities in 2001. As always, the Tax Collector strives to meet the challenges of an ever - growing Collier County. FINANCIAL INFORMATION Internal Control: The Clerk of the Circuit Court, as the Chief Financial Officer, through the Finance and Accounting Department, is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal controls to ensure that the assets of the County are protected from loss, theft, misuse, and to ensure that adequate accounting data is compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and that the evaluation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. vui 13B All internal control evaluations occur within the above framework. We believe the County's internal control structure adequately safeguards assets and provides reasonable assurance of the proper recording of financial information for both internal and external purposes. Budgetary Control: State of Florida statutes require that all county governments prepare, approve, adopt and execute an annual budget for such funds as may be required by law or by sound fiscal practices. In compliance with this provision, the budgets adopted by the County are either appropriated or non - appropriated in nature and are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting _ principles except as noted in the notes to the general purpose financial statements. Enabling ordinances, such as bond ordinances, in which the expenditure authority extends many years into the future, sets the budgetary controls over funds that have non - appropriated budgets. Budgets are monitored at varying levels of classification detail; however, expenditures cannot legally exceed total appropriations at the individual fund level. Beginning fund balances, available for financing current appropriations, are considered in the budgetary process. As an additional control, the County employs an encumbrance system, which reduces available appropriations within a fund upon the issuance of a purchase order, contract or other form of legal -" commitment. Encumbrances at year -end do not constitute expenditures or liabilities. They are accounted for as a reservation of fund balance in the year the commitment is made. While appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year, the succeeding year's budget ordinance provides for the re- appropriation of year -end encumbrances. Internal Audit: The Clerk of the Circuit Court maintains an-Intemal Audit Department. This Department reviews and reports on the internal control environments of the various departments under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court to ensure they are operating effectively, efficiently, and in a manner that is consistent with management's direction. Cash Management: The Clerk of the Circuit Court strives to keep abreast of current trends in cash and investment management in order to achieve the goals set forth within the County's Investment Policy. The primary objective of this policy is the preservation of capital with significantly lower priority given to earnings. Idle cash balances are invested on a daily basis within the constraints imposed by the Florida Statutes and the County's Investment Policy. For purposes of maximizing interest earnings while not jeopardizing capital, cash balances of all funds are invested in the County -wide cash and investment pool. The County consistently invests the majority of its available cash. Note 2, within the notes to the general purpose financial statements, categorizes the County's investment portfolio by the levels of investment risk assumed by the County. As can be gleaned from the note, substantially all of the County's investments are insured, registered, or physically held in the County's name. The significance of this is that the County has prudently safeguarded its investments to mitigate potential losses, which could result upon the bankruptcy or failure of an investment house or broker. ix i. 3 B � 99 As of September 30, 2001 the combined market value of the Board of County Commissioner's and the five Constitutional Officer's cash and investment portfolios, including discretely presented component units, was $398,264,979, and was comprised of the following: The following table is a historical perspective of Collier County's interest earnings, excluding discretely presented component units, representing five years of data: Interest Earnings Fiscal Years 1996 -1997 through 2000 -2001 Since instituting a cash management program, Collier County has generated millions of dollars in interest income to help support the growth in our County. The weighted average interest rate yielded this year was 6.46 percent. However, it should be noted that $9,062,485 of the interest revenue reported for fiscal year 2001 was generated by marking the County's investment portfolio to its fair value as of September 30, 2001. This exercise is required by generally accepted accounting principles and driven by market factors, and as such may not be indicative of future performance. x Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fund Type 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 General Fund $ 2,042,023 2,266,941 1,793,448 3,103,059 3,965,421 Special Revenue Funds 2,106,648 2,018,633 1,652,209 2,962,275 4,647,650 Debt Service Funds 740,272 591,407 469,663 735,594 929,183 Capital Projects Funds 2,827,754 3,087,079 2,929,981 5,253,116 7,787,627 Enterprise Funds 6,378,106 6,642,177 5,403,395 8,068,908 12,326,617 Internal Service Funds 815,767 797,782 624,151 1,039,233 1,343,823 Trust and Agency Funds 147,207 182,215 151,198 199,285 251,004 Totals $ 15,057,777 15,586,234 13,024,045 21,361,470 31,251,325 Since instituting a cash management program, Collier County has generated millions of dollars in interest income to help support the growth in our County. The weighted average interest rate yielded this year was 6.46 percent. However, it should be noted that $9,062,485 of the interest revenue reported for fiscal year 2001 was generated by marking the County's investment portfolio to its fair value as of September 30, 2001. This exercise is required by generally accepted accounting principles and driven by market factors, and as such may not be indicative of future performance. x 13g General Government Functions: General governmental functions are represented by the General Fund, the Special Revenue Funds, the Debt Service Funds, the Capital Project Funds, the General Long -Term Debt Account Group and the General Fixed Assets Account Group. Revenues for general government functions, excluding operating transfers, totaled $276,673,832 in 2001, an increase of 15 percent over 2000. The amounts of revenue from various sources and the changes from last year are as follows: General Government Revenues Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001 Revenue Source Amount Percent of Total Increase / (Decrease) From 2000 Amount Percent Taxes $ 138,323,866 50.0 $ 16,029,778 13.1 Licenses and Permits 11,196,197 4.0 550,255 5.2 Intergovernmental 48,684,415 17.6 2,549,241 5.5 Charges for Services 19,985,024 7.2 534,658 2.7 Fines and Forfeitures 5,943,657 2.2 1,368,746 29.9 Interest Income 17,329,881 6.3 5,275,836 43.8 Impact Fees 25,406,195 9.1 6,730,040 36.0 Special Assessments 508,984 .l 307,505 152.6 Miscellaneous 9,295,613 3.5 3,244,630 53.6 Totals $ 276,673,832 100.0 $ 36,590,689 Expenditures and other uses for total governmental functions were $286,367,217, an increase of 27 percent over 2000. This does not include transfers made to other funds. County expenditures and other uses by function and the changes from last year are as follows: $ 286,367,217 General Government Expenditures Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001 Function Amount Percent of Total Increase / (Decrease) From 2000 Amount Percent General government $ 47,736,548 16.7 $ 7,600,272 18.9 Public safety 90,195,502 31.5 12,406,564 15.9 Physical environment 12,315,847 4.3 2,224,404 22.0 Transportation 17,664,149 6.2 4,949,210 38.9 Economic environment 2,833,160 1.0 277,995 10.9 Human services 7,002,942 2.4 894,992 14.7 - Culture and recreation 18,841,785 6.6 2,081,343 12.4 Capital outlay 76,850,083 26.8 31,605,459 69.9 Debt service 12,927,201 4.5 (1,372,162) (9.6) Totals $ 286,367,217 100.0 $ 60,668,077 X1 sv Enterprise Funds: Enterprise funds are established to account for the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of facilities and services, which are intended to be entirely or predominantly self - supported by charges collected from the users served. Collier County maintains five enterprise funds, which consist of the following: • County Water and Sewer • Goodland Water • Solid Waste Disposal • Emergency Medical Services, and • Collier County Airport Authority Combined, these operations generated over $73,346,400 of charges for services with Collier County Water and Sewer operations contributing approximately $45,934,000 of the total. The Solid Waste operations generated approximately $19,665,700 of that revenue. Internal Service Funds: Internal service funds are established to account for services provided by departments of the government for the benefit of other departments of the government. Collier County maintained three internal service funds during the fiscal year, consisting of the following: Self- Insurance Sheriffs Self - Insurance, and Fleet Management Combined these funds had fiscal year 2001 operating revenues of $23,373,501 and operating expenses of $24,956,293. Fiduciary Funds: Fiduciary funds, also referred to as trust and agency funds, are established to account for assets held by the County in a trust capacity or as an agency for individuals, private organizations or other government units. Collier County maintains 15 expendable trust funds and 5 agency funds. The largest agency funds of the County are the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Tax Collector's Agency Funds, both used for funds held in a trustee capacity for individuals, private organizations and other government units, and the Pine Ridge and Naples Production Park Fund which accounts for assessment collections and related debt service payments made on behalf of property owners. The total assets for all trust and agency funds totaled $27,702,550 as of September 30, 2001. Debt Administration: Collier County continues to meet its financial needs through the prudent use of its revenues and debt financing programs. As of September 30, 2001 Collier County had $1,560,000 of general obligation bond debt outstanding. In addition, the County also had $40,470,000 of revenue bonds and $1,530,000 of special assessment debt with government commitment in the General Long - Term Debt Account Group as of September 30, 2001. These issues continue to carry strong ratings from Standard and Poor's Corporation and Moody's Investor Service. The County also utilizes loans from the Florida Local Government Finance Commission. These loans are usually xii 138 short-term in nature and are used to finance construction projects with permanent financing at the completion of the construction. Currently the County has $21,934,000 outstanding in this program. During this fiscal year, the County borrowed $15,020,000 through the Florida Local Government Finance Commission for both general government functions and enterprise activities. In addition, Collier County had $3,304,921 outstanding on a $10,000,000 line of credit with NationsBank, and $16,234,613 was loaned to County Water and Sewer through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on a State Revolving Fund Loan. The resolutions of the County's bonds establish certain accounts and determine the order in which certain revenues are to be deposited into these accounts. In addition, there are various other covenants established by the official statements and County resolutions including such items as debt service coverage, reporting requirements and maintenance facilities. Management is confident that it has complied, in all material respects, with each of these covenants. SOURCE: COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT 2001 General Fixed Assets: The general fixed assets of the County are those assets used in the performance of general government functions and do not include the fixed assets of enterprise and internal service funds, which are reported on the balance sheets of those respective funds, or infrastructure assets such as roads, bridges, sidewalks and street lights. Depreciation of general fixed assets is not recognized in the County's financial records. As of September 30, 2001 the County's investment in general fixed assets was $309,132,444, which represented an increase of $33,977,468, or 12 percent over fiscal year 2000. Risk Management: The County's assets and health care of its employees are protected through a risk management program that is administered by the Risk Management Department. Under this program, a self - insurance fund is maintained by charging premiums to all County departments based on certain formulas that are updated each fiscal year. The Risk Management Department, through its coordinated and continuous efforts in monitoring potential risk exposures and implementing sound health and safety control programs, coupled with effective claims administration, is striving to meet the goal of minimizing injury claims which result in costs to the County. xiii Independent Audit: 130 N, The County is required by Florida Statutes to undergo a financial audit performed by an independent certified public accountant. The accounting firm of KPMG LLP was selected by the government audit committee to perform the fiscal year 2001 audit. The results of this audit can be found in the independent auditors' report included in the financial section of this report. AWARDS GFOA Certificate of Achievement: The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to Collier County, Florida for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000. The Certificate of Achievement is a prestigious national award, recognizing conformance with the highest standards for preparation of state and local government financial reports. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report, whose contents conform to program standards. The CAFR must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. Collier County has received this award for the past fifteen years, from fiscal year 1986 to 2000. We believe our current report also conforms to the Certificate of Achievement program requirements, and we are submitting it to the GFOA for consideration. Distinguished Budget Presentation Award: The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada presented an award for Distinguished Presentation to Collier County for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2000. In order to receive this award, a government unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device. The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is valid for a period of one year only. Collier County has received this award for the last thirteen consecutive years. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation and publication of this Comprehensive Annual Financial Report represents a significant effort by the Finance and Accounting Department as well as numerous County personnel who contribute to its production. In particular we would like to express our appreciation to Kelly Jones, CGFO, Raymond Milum, Jr., Maryalice Bailey, Diane Dow, CPA, and Enas Khalil, all Accountants, along with Constance Murray, CGFO, General Operations Manager, Shirley Van Vliet, Technical Assistant, Nancy Fragione and Sandi Emerick, Financial Specialists, and all of the staff of the Finance and Accounting Department. In addition, we would like to dedicate the publication of this report to Sandi Emerick a long -time employee of the Clerk of the Circuit Courts' Finance and Accounting Department who is currently battling a serious illness. xiv Sincere appreciation is also expressed to KPMG LLP, the Board of County Commissioners, the Constitutional Officers, the County Manager, Division Administrators, and the Department Directors for their assistance throughout the year in matters pertaining to the financial affairs of the County. We hope you End this report informative, accurate, and easily readable. If you should have any questions related to this report or if additional information is desired, do not hesitate contacting Jim Mitchell, Director of Finance and Accounting, at (941) 774 -8404. Respectfully, M Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Chief Financial Officer James L. Mitchell, CIA, CFE, CBA Deputy Clerk Director,of Finance and Accounting erek M. ohnssen, CPA Deputy Clerk General Accounting Manager xv 13� The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to Collier County, Florida for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000. This was the fifteenth consecutive year that the government has achieved this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report. This report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our current comprehensive annual financial report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program's requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. xvi 136 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to Collier County, Florida For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2000 A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada to government units and public employee retirement systems whose comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. GE UfFj r Al NrtEO STA Pr sident '�COpPOEAL A Nast pC Y A Executive Director 139 �.t THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PC Box 31002 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 -8902 P.O. Box 1439 Tampa, FL 33601 -1439 Independent Auditors' Report Distinguished Members of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida: 13B We have audited the accompanying general purpose financial statements of Collier County, Florida, as of and for the year ended September 30, 2001, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of Collier County, Florida's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these general purpose financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and the significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the general purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Collier County, Florida, as of September 30, 2001, and the results of its operations and the cash flows of its proprietary fund types for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. As discussed in note 1 to the general purpose financial statements, Collier County, Florida has adopted the provisions of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 33, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report dated February 1, 2002 on our consideration of Collier County, Florida's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be read in conjunction with this report in considering the results of our audit. ....K ?MG LLP t KI LL Pa J.S.liral,[ 111 itY f�ar.rership, s 9 member of K�M6 International, a Swiss associat on_ 336 Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the general purpose financial statements taken as a whole. The combining, individual fund, and individual account group financial statements and schedules listed in the accompanying table of contents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the general purpose financial statements of Collier County, Florida. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards and state financial assistance as required by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non - Profit Organizations and Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the general purpose financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the general purpose financial statements taken as a whole. The information presented in the introductory and statistical sections is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a part of the required general purpose financial statements. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial statements and, accordingly we express no opinion on it. O>MC, LLB February 1, 2002 -- GFNFRALFTTND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL FUND IS TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE COUNTY'S OPERATING REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND THEIR USES IN CONDUCTING THE GENERAL OPERATIONS OF THE COUNTY, EXCEPT FOR THOSE RESOURCES ACCOUNTED FOR IN ANOTHER FUND. THE GENERAL FUND HAS A GREATER NUMBER AND VARIETY OF REVENUE SOURCES THAN ANY OTHER FUND, AND ITS RESOURCES FINANCE A WIDER RANGE OF ACTIVITIES. THE RESOURCES OF THE GENERAL FUND ARE NORMALLY EXPENDED AND REPLENISHED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. SPECIAL RF.VF.NITE FUNDS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROCEEDS OF SPECIFIC REVENUE SOURCES THAT ARE RESTRICTED BY LAW OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. DFRT SE,RVICF. FUNDS THE PURPOSE OF THE DEBT SERVICE FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND EXPENDITURES ON LONG -TERM DEBT, OTHER THAN DEBT PAYABLE FROM THE OPERATIONS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS THE PURPOSE OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES SEGREGATED FOR THE ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR CAPITAL FACILITIES OTHER THAN THOSE FINANCED BY PROPRIETARY FUNDS. FNTFRPRTSF FUNDS THE PURPOSE OF THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR OPERATIONS THAT ARE FINANCED AND OPERATED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, WHERE THE INTENT IS THAT THE COSTS (EXPENSES, INCLUDING DEPRECIATION) OF PROVIDING GOODS OR SERVICES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON A CONTINUING BASIS BE FINANCED PRIMARILY THROUGH USER CHARGES, OR WHERE PERIODIC DETERMINATION OF REVENUES EARNED, EXPENSES INCURRED, AND /OR NET INCOME IS APPROPRIATE FOR CAPITAL MAINTENANCE, PUBLIC POLICY, MANAGEMENT CONTROL, ACCOUNTABILITY OR OTHER PURPOSES. INTERNAL SFRVTCF, FUNDS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCING OF GOODS OR SERVICES PROVIDED BY ONE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, OR TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS, ON A COST - REIMBURSEMENT BASIS. TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSETS HELD BY THE COUNTY UNIT AS TRUSTEE OR AGENT FOR INDIVIDUALS, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS. COMPONENT TTNTTS THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPONENT UNITS IS TO ASSIST THIRD PARTIES WITH THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF VARIOUS PROJECTS THAT STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH, EDUCATION, INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE COUNTY OR PROVIDE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TO THE PUBLIC. GENERAL FIXED ASSF,TS ACCOUNT GROUP THE PURPOSE OF GENERAL FIXED ASSETS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE ASSETS USED IN PERFORMANCE OF GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND EXCLUDES THE FIXED ASSETS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS. GFNERAT, T ONC TERM DERT ACCOUNT GROUP THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COUNTY'S LIABILITY FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND OTHER GENERAL LONG -TERM OBLIGATIONS, WHICH ARE NOT OBLIGATIONS OF THE PROPRIETARY FUNDS. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES, ACCOUNT GROUPS AND DISCRETELY PRESENTED COMPONENT UNITS $ 22,882,846 SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 10,424,975 a � Governmental Fund Types Proprietary Fund Types Special Debt Capital Internal General Revenue Service Projects Enterprise Service Fund Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS Assets: Cash and investments $ 22,882,846 60,146,569 10,424,975 94,959,211 61,604,124 16,607,386 Receivables: Special assessments - - 1,059,370 117,996 - - Trade, net 251,359 - - 5,336,690 58,077 Unbilled revenue - - - - 1,644,269 - Interest 290,712 643,317 102,018 948,134 929,140 136,407 Other - 1,237,468 - 348,650 - - Due from other funds 2,805,981 1,028,575 9,596 280,471 173,071 1,086,887 Due from other governments 1,954,315 3,039,682 38,892 2,274,068 216,065 - Deposits 3,500 - - - 12,320 14,991 Inventory 169,858 218 - 2,243,306 139,532 Advances to other fund 8,620,067 - 680,000 - - Notes receivable - 1,181,990 - Prepaid costs 2,500 1,241 - Restricted assets: Cash and investments - - 105,655,513 Interest receivable - - 587,108 Special assessments receivable: Current - - 730,171 Deferred - - 6,243,533 Accrued interest - - 499,659 Notes receivable - - 279,175 - Due from other governments - - 1,197,297 - Property, plant and equipment (net, where applicable, of accumulated depreciation) - - - 456,401,522 3,144,430 Other assets - - - 2,457,214 - Other debits: Amount available in debt service funds - - - - Amount to be provided for retirement of general long -term debt - - - - - - TOTAL ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS S 36,978,638 67,280,319 11,634,851 99,609,771 646,210,177 21,187,710 4 G Fiduciary Fund Types Account Groups Primary Government Component Units Reporting Entity Trust General and Agency General Long -Term Total Total Funds Fixed Assets Debt (Memorandum Only) Governmental (Memorandum Only) 25,894,156 292,519,267 90,199 292,609,466 27,857 1,205,223 - 1,205,223 _ 5,646,126 5,646,126 _ _ 1,644,269 1,644,269 123,357 - 3,173,085 3,173,085 75,008 - 1,661,126 1,661,126 183,491 - 5,568,072 5,568,072 _ _ 7,523,022 7,523,022 _ 30,811 30,811 1,398,681 - 3,951,595 3,951,595 _ - 9,300,067 - 9,300,067 _ _ 1,181,990 58,000 1,239,990 _ _ - 3,741 - 3,741 - _ _ 105,655,513 105,655,513 _ - - 587,108 587,108 - _ - 730,171 730,171 - _ - 6,243,533 6,243,533 _ _ - 499,659 499,659 _ _ - 279,175 - 279,175 _ _ - 1,197,297 - 1,197,297 - 309,132,444 - 768,678,396 - 768,678,396 - - 2,457,214 - 2,457,214 _ - 10,575,108 10,575,108 - 10,575,108 _ - 70,830,883 70,830,883 - 70,830,883 27,702,550 309,132,444 81,405,991 1,301,142,451 148,199 1,301,290,650 (CONTINUED) G COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES, ACCOUNT GROUPS AND DISCRETELY PRESENTED COMPONENT UNITS (CONTINUED) 4,686,159 SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 3,873,347 146,497 Due to other funds 38 2,155,985 - 60,860 3,152 - Governmental Fund Types Proprietary Fund Types Special Debt Capital - Internal General Revenue Service Projects Enterprise Service Fund Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds LIABILITIES, EQUITY AND OTHER CREDITS Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals $ 7,364,657 4,686,159 442 7,201,123 3,873,347 146,497 Due to other funds 1,680,124 2,155,985 - 60,860 3,152 - Due to other governments 486,465 241,567 - - Due to individuals 5,157 2,184 - Current self - insurance claims payable - - - 3,657,094 Current maturities of notes payable 641,284 - Current maturities of lease obligations - - - - 173,699 39,197 Deferred revenues 40,779 5,022,082 1,059,301 38,374,545 - - Refundable deposits 361,343 - - - Retainage payable 9,740 21,846 - 3,035,862 Advances from other funds - 650,000 431,091 Escrowed impact fees - - - - Due to special assessment bondholders - - Payable from restricted assets: Vouchers payable - 5,716,913 Deferred revenues - 3,019,505 Current maturities of notes payable - 1,724,096 Current maturities of revenue bonds - 4,120,000 Due to other governments - 341,491 Accrued interest payable - 1,704,078 Customer deposits - 285,161 Retainage payable - 2,126,362 Advances from other funds - - 8,218,976 - Long term self - insurance claims payable - - - 4,365,406 Landfill liability - - 3,581,240 - General obligation bonds payable - - - Limited obligation revenue bonds (net) - - 73,178,448 Notes payable (net) - - 37,027,004 - Capitalized lease obligations - - 339,352 51,830 Arbitrage rebate payable - - 24,813 - Accrued compensated absences - - 1,208,713 67,392 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 9,948,265 12,779,823 1,059,743 49,103,481 147,307,634 8,327,416 ,1 Fiduciary Fund Types Account Groups Primary Government Component Units Reporting Entity Trust General -- and Agency General Long -Term Total Total Funds Fixed Assets Debt (Memorandum Only) Governmental (Memorandum Only) 180,610 23,452,835 23,452,835 1,667,951 5,568,072 5,568,072 3,026,674 3,754,706 - 3,754,706 1,895,341 1,902,682 - 1,902,682 _ 3,657,094 - 3,657,094 _ 641,284 - 641,284 _ - 212,896 - 212,896 1,398,681 - 45,895,388 - 45,895,388 7,460,169 - 7,821,512 - 7,821,512 - 362,920 3,430,368 - 3,430,368 _ _ 1,081,091 - 1,081,091 _ 73,596 73,596 - 73,596 7,927,685 7,927,685 - 7,927,685 _ _ 5,716,913 - 5,716,913 - 3,019,505 - 3,019,505 _ _ 1,724,096 - 1,724,096 _ 4,120,000 - 4,120,000 _ _ 341,491 - 341,491 _ _ _ 1,704,078 - 1,704,078 _ _ _ 285,161 - 285,161 _ - - 2,126,362 - 2,126,362 _ - - 8,218,976 - 8,218,976 _ _ _ 4,365,406 - 4,365,406 _ _ - 3,581,240 - 3,581,240 - - 1,560,000 1,560,000 - 1,560,000 - - 42,000,000 115,178,448 - 115,178,448 - - 25,238,921 62,265,925 - 62,265,925 - - 1,470,880 1,862,062 - 1,862,062 - - 330,936 355,749 - 355,749 - - 10,442,334 11,718,439 - 11,718,439 23,630,707 - 81,405,991 333,563,060 - 333,563,060 (CONTINUED) 7 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES, ACCOUNT GROUPS AND DISCRETELY PRESENTED COMPONENT UNITS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 LIABILITIES, EQUITY AND OTHER CREDITS (CONTINUED) Equity and other credits: Contributed capital $ 1 3 � r 291,888,297 Governmental Fund Types Investment in general fixed assets Proprietary Fund Types Special Debt Capital Internal General Revenue Service Projects Enterprise Service Fund Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds LIABILITIES, EQUITY AND OTHER CREDITS (CONTINUED) Equity and other credits: Contributed capital $ - 291,888,297 149,660 Investment in general fixed assets - - - - Retained earnings: Reserved for: Revenue bond retirement - 9,834,237 Renewal and replacement 300,020 - Unreserved 196,879,989 12,710,634 Fund balances: Reserved for: Encumbrances 309,971 7,619,354 4,195 29,954,575 - - Inventory 169,858 218 - - Advances to other fund 8,620,067 - 680,000 Notes receivable - 1,181,990 - Prepaid costs 2,500 - 1,241 Debt service - - 5,862,873 - - Trust fund purposes - - - - - Unreserved: Designated for: Impact fees - 104,109 - Debt service - - 4,708,040 - Future capital projects - - - 19,870,474 - Undesignated 17,930,477 45,592,325 - - - - TOTAL EQUITY AND OTHER CREDITS 27,030,373 54,500,496 10,575,108 50,506,290 498,902,543 12,860,294 TOTAL LIABILITIES, EQUITY AND OTHER CREDITS S 36,978,638 67,280,319 11,634,851 99,609,771 646,210,177 21,187,710 The notes to the general purpose financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 13 13 B Fiduciary Fund Types Account Groups Primary Government Component Units Reporting Entity Trust General and Agency General Long -Term Total Total Funds Fixed Assets Debt (Memorandum Only) Governmental (Memorandum Only) - 292,037,957 292,037,957 309,132,444 - 309,132,444 309,132,444 - - 9,834,237 - 9,834,237 _ 300,020 - 300,020 _ _ 209,590,623 - 209,590,623 61,136 37,949,231 - 37,949,231 - 170,076 - 170,076 9,300,067 - 9,300,067 1,181,990 58,000 1,239,990 _ _ 3,741 - 3,741 - _ 5,862,873 5,862,873 4,010,707 - 4,010,707 4,010,707 _ _ 104,109 - 104,109 _ 4,708,040 - 4,708,040 _ - 19,870,474 - 19,870,474 _ _ _ 63,522,802 90,199 63,613,001 4,071,843 309,132,444 - 967,579,391 148,199 967,727,590 27,702,550 309,132,444 81,405,991 1,301,142,451 148,199 1,301,290,650 9 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES, EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS AND DISCRETELY PRESENTED COMPONENT UNITS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Governmental Fund Types Other financing sources (uses) Proceeds from notes - Special Debt Capital Proceeds from capital leases General Revenue Service Projects Operating transfers in Fund Funds Funds Funds Revenues: (29,146,473) (5,817,829) (35,140) (3,868,915) Taxes $ 93,958,775 34,952,450 1,390,723 8,021,918 Licenses and permits 158,705 11,037,492 - - Intergovernmental 29,273,988 10,609,543 4,307,000 4,493,884 Charges for services 13,071,653 6,599,831 - 313,540 Fines and forfeitures 5,736,169 207,488 - - Interest income 3,965,421 4,647,650 929,183 7,787,627 Impact fees - - - 25,406,195 Special assessments - - 143,107 365,877 Miscellaneous 5,439,650 1,667,120 23,482 2,165,361 Total revenues 151,604,361 69,721,574 6,793,495 48,554,402 Expenditures: Current: General government 41,432,670 6,303,878 - - Public safety 72,538,917 17,656,585 Physical environment 2,430,488 9,885,359 Transportation - 17,664,149 Economic environment 881,550 1,951,610 Human services 6,480,873 522,069 Culture and recreation 5,627,467 13,214,318 - Capital outlay - - - 76,850,083 Debt service 297,007 471,859 12,119,424 38,911 Total expenditures 129,688,972 67,669,827 12,119,424 76,888,994 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 21,915,389 2,051,747 (5,325,929) (28,334,592) Other financing sources (uses) Proceeds from notes - - 14,520,000 Proceeds from capital leases 1,055,280 371,424 - 18,467 Operating transfers in 3,984,017 10,510,644 6,209,468 8,094,453 Operating transfers out (29,146,473) (5,817,829) (35,140) (3,868,915) Total other financing sources (uses) (24,107,176) 5,064,239 6,174,328 18,764,005 Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing uses (2,191,787) 7,115,986 848,399 (9,570,587) Fund balances at beginning of year 29,181,840 47,378,490 9,732,729 60,034,114 Residual equity transfer in 40,320 1,811,685 - 42,763 Residual equity transfer out - (1,805,665) (6,020) - Fund balances at end of year $ 27,030,373 54,500,496 10,575,108 50,506,290 The notes to the general purpose financial statements are an integral part of this statement 10 13B Fiduciary Fund Types Primary Government Component Units Reporting Entity Expendable Trust Total Total Funds (Memorandum Only) Governmental (Memorandum Only) 296,850 138,620,716 - 138,620,716 10,546 11,206,743 11,206,743 57,815 48,742,230 - 48,742,230 226,101 20,211,125 66,524 20,277,649 501,654 6,445,311 - 6,445,311 _ 251,004 17,580,885 1,558 17,582,443 - 25,406,195 - 25,406,195 - 508,984 508,984 760,867 10,0562480 - 10,056,480 2,104,837 278,778,669 68,082 278,846,751 3,295,614 51,032,162 - 51,032,162 1,495,531 91,691,033 - 91,691,033 - 12,315,847 - 12,315,847 65,364 17,729,513 - 17,729,513 - 2,833,160 139,218 2,972,378 139,086 7,142,028 - 7,142,028 57,102 18,898,887 - 18,898,887 - 76,850,083 - 76,850,083 1,661 12,928,862 - 12,928,862 5,054,358 291,421,575 139,218 291,560,793 (2,949,521) (12,642,906) (71,136) (12,714,042) - 14,520,000 - 14,520,000 6,156 1,451,327 - 1,451,327 3,743,841 32,542,423 32,542,423 (597,712) (39,466,069) (39,466,069) 3,152,285 9,047,681 9,047,681 202,764 (3,595,225) (71,136) (3,666,361) 3,869,079 150,196,252 219,335 150,415,587 - 1,894,768 - 1,894,768 - (1,811,685) - (1,811,685) 4,071,843 146,684,110 148,199 146,832,309 11 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES AND EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS 139 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Governmental Fund Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing uses (7,541,678) (3,682,983) 3,858,695 (21,406,047) 8,303,256 29,709,303 Fund balances at beginning of year 11,433,079 27,429,990 15,996,911 39,6677765 50,204,271 10,536,506 Fund balances at end of year $ 3,891.401 23,747,007 19,855,606 18,261,718 58,507,527 40,245,809 12 General Fund (Non -GAAP) Special Revenue Funds (Non -GAAP) Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance Revenues: Taxes S 97,283,000 93,958,775 (3,324,225) 34,548,244 34,952,450 404,206 Licenses and permits 127,200 158,705 31,505 11,383,800 11,372,886 (10,914) Intergovernmental 29,359,520 29,273,988 (85,532) 13,830,006 7,187,357 (6,642,649) Charges for services 13,589,431 13,071,653 (517,778) 5,689,176 6,859,831 1,170,655 Fines and forfeitures 4,577,400 5,736,169 1,158,769 75,000 207,488 132,488 Interest income 2,010,000 3,627,416 1,617,416 1,726,371 4,647,615 2,921,244 Impact fees - - - - - - Special assessments - - - - - - Miscellaneous 4,667,250 5,154,023 486,773 264,300 1,667,120 1,402,820 Total revenues 151,613,801 150,980,729 (633,072) 67.516,897 66,894,747 (622,150) Expenditures: Current: General government 42,096.643 39,956,810 2,139,833 8,463,793 6,195,371 2,268,422 Public safety 72,732,139 72,538,917 193,222 24,238,563 13,074,668 11,163,895 Physical environment 2,605,030 2,430,488 174,542 14,620,709 9,841,116 4,779.593 Transportation - - - 22,2811901 17,615,675 4,666,226 Economic environment 1,091,400 881,550 209,850 7,478,517 2,250,222 5,2281295 Human services 6,719,480 6;480,873 238,607 877,415 517,905 359;510 Culture and recreation 5,998,113 5,627,467 370,646 17,687,280 13,206,623 4,480,657 Capital outlay - - - - - - Debt service 333,733 297,007 36,726 481,577 471,859 9,718 Total expenditures 131,576,538 128,213,112 3,363,426 96,129,755 63,173,439 32,956,316 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 20.037,263 22,767.617 2.730,354 (28,612,858) 3,721,308 32,334,166 Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from bonds - - - - - - Proceeds from notes - - - 3,500,000 - (3,500,000) Operating transfers in 2,939,730 4,021,073 1,081,343 11,752,099 12,032,477 280,378 Operating transfers out (30,518,671) (30,471,673) 46,998 (8,045,288) (7,450,529) 594,759 Total other financing sources (uses) (27,578,941) (26,450,600) 1,128,341 7,206,811 4,581,948 (2,624,863) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing uses (7,541,678) (3,682,983) 3,858,695 (21,406,047) 8,303,256 29,709,303 Fund balances at beginning of year 11,433,079 27,429,990 15,996,911 39,6677765 50,204,271 10,536,506 Fund balances at end of year $ 3,891.401 23,747,007 19,855,606 18,261,718 58,507,527 40,245,809 12 136 178,900 848,399 Governmental Fund Types (66,738,393) (6,012,059) 60,726,334 9,103,300 9,732,729 629,429 Debt Service Funds 74,431,832 Capital Projects Funds (Non -GAAP) 9,282,200 10,581,128 Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 1,421,100 1,390,723 (30,377) 7,222,100 8,021,918 799,818 4,307,000 4,307,000 4,462,500 4,493,884 31,384 _ _ 325,000 313,540 (11,460) 425,800 929,183 503,383 2,600,600 7,787,627 5,187,027 _ _ - 26,655,000 29,056,732 2,401,732 109,600 143,107 33,507 385,600 365,877 (19,723) 27,100 23,482 (3,618) 486,900 2,030,409 1,543,509 6,290,600 6,793,495 502,895 42,137,700 52,069,987 9,932,287 - 186,235,052 76,831,616 109,403,436 13,674,200 12,119,424 1,554,776 4,956 38,911 (33,955) .13,674,200 12,119,424 1,554,776 186,240,008 76,870,527 109,369,481 (7,383,600) (5,325,929) 2,057,671 (144,102,308) (24,800,540) 119,301,768 - 58,378,800 - (58,378,800) _ _ 15,054,000 14,520,000 (534,000) 7,605,300 6,209,468 (1,395,832) 8,621,721 8,174,452 (447,269) (42,800) (35,140) 7,660 (4,690,606) (3,905,971) 784,635 7,562,500 6,174,328 (1,388,172) 77,363,915 18,788,481 (58,575,434) 178,900 848,399 669,499 (66,738,393) (6,012,059) 60,726,334 9,103,300 9,732,729 629,429 92,043,455 74,431,832 (17,611,623) 9,282,200 10,581,128 1,298,928 25,305,062 68,419,773 43,114,711 (CONTINUED) 13 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES AND EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 n Fiduciary Fund Type Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing uses Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year (330,489) 119,120 449,609 (95,837,707) (424,267) 95,413,440 2,003,012 2,206,379 203,367 154,250,611 164,005,201 9,754,590 S 1,672,523 2,325,499 652,976 58,412,904 163,580,934 105,168,030 The notes to the general purpose financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 14 Total Expendable Trust Funds (Non -GAAP) (Memorandum Only) Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance Revenues: Taxes $ 283,000 296,850 13,850 140,757,444 138,620,716 (2,136,728) Licenses and permits 10,500 10,546 46 11,521,500 11,542,137 20,637 Intergovernmental 68,473 57,815 (10,658) 52,027,499 45,320,044 (6,707,455) Charges for services 202,300 226,101 23,801 19,805,907 20,471,125 665,2.18 Fines and forfeitures 380,700 501,173 120,473 5,033,100 6,444,830 1,411,730 Interest income 95,385 181,813 86,428 6,858,156 17,173,654 10,315.498 Impact fees - - - 26,655,000 29,056,732 2,401,732 Special assessments - - 495,200 508,984 13,784 Miscellaneous 97,000 276,630 179,630 5,542,550 9,151,664 3,609.114 Total revenues 1,137,358 1,550,928 413,570 268,696,356 278,289,886 9,593,530 Expenditures: Current: General government 3,671,910 3,289,458 382,452 54,232,346 49,441,639 4,790,707 Public safety 1,035,700 1,025,266 10,434 98,006,402 86,638,851 11,367,551 Physical environment - - - 17,225,739 12,271,604 4,954,135 Transportation 122,100 65,364 56,736 22,404,001 17,681,039 4,722,962 Economic environment - - - 8,569,917 3,131,772 5,438,145 Human services 174,300 139,086 35,214 7,771,195 7,137,864 633,331 Culture and recreation 81,000 57,102 23,898 23,766,393 18,891,192 4,875,201 Capital outlay - - - 186,235,052 76,831,616 109,403,436 Debt service 1,652 1,661 (9) 14,496,118 12,928,862 1,567,256 Total expenditures 5,086,662 4,577,937 508,725 432,707,163 284,954,439 147,752,724 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (3,949,304) (3,027,009) 922,295 (164,010,807) (6,664,553) 157,346,254 Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from bonds - 58,378,800 - (58,378,800) Proceeds from notes - - - 18,554,000 14,520,000 (4,034,000) Operating transfers in 4,226,100 3,743,841 (482,259) 35,144,950 34,181,311 (963,639) Operating transfers out (607,285) (597,712) 9,573 (43,904,650) (42,461,025) 1,443,625 Total other financing sources (uses) 3,618,815 3,146,129 (472,686) 9,794,300 6,240,286 (3,554,014) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing uses Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year (330,489) 119,120 449,609 (95,837,707) (424,267) 95,413,440 2,003,012 2,206,379 203,367 154,250,611 164,005,201 9,754,590 S 1,672,523 2,325,499 652,976 58,412,904 163,580,934 105,168,030 The notes to the general purpose financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 14 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND EQUITY - ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 138 Proprietary Fund Types 15 Internal Total Enterprise Funds Service Funds (Memorandum Only) Operating revenues: Charges for services $ 73,346,447 23,373,501 96,719,948 Total operating revenues 73,346,447 23,373,501 96,719,948 Operating expenses: Personal services 23,154,264 1,336,230 24,490,494 Operating 39,067,768 22,466,640 61,534,408 Depreciation and amortization 14,135,799 1,153,423 15,289,222 Total operating expenses 76,357,831 24,956,293 101,314,124 Operating income (3,011,384) (1,582,792) (4,594,176) Non- operating revenues (expenses): Interest income 12,326,617 1,343,823 13,670,440 Interest expense (6,491,381) (4,005) (6,495,386) Miscellaneous income 2,106,089 744,608 2,850,697 "- Miscellaneous expense (147,871) - (147,871) Loss on disposal of fixed assets (1,759) (235,640) (237,399) Capital contributions 34,255,790 1,284,368 35,540,158 Total non - operating revenues (expenses) 42,047,485 3,133,154 45,180,639 Income before operating transfers 39,036,101 1,550,362 40,586,463 Operating transfers: Operating transfers in 8,137,602 42,285 8,179,887 Operating transfers out (992,541) (263,700) (1,256,241) Total operating transfers 7,145,061 (221,415) 6,923,646 Net income 46,181,162 1,328,947 47,510,109 Retained earnings at beginning of year 154,248,645 11,335,630 165,584,275 Residual equity transfer in 39,098 - 39,098 Residual equity transfer out - (122,181) (122,181) Depreciation of contributed assets 6,545,341 168,238 6,713,579 Retained earnings at end of year 207,014,246 12,710,634 219,724,880 Contributed capital at beginning of year 304,356,686 1,549,795 305,906,481 Depreciation of contributed assets (6,545,341) (168,238) (6,713,579) Disposal of contributed assets (3,084,552) (11) (3,084,563) Transfer out of contributed assets (2,838,496) (1,231,886) (4,070,382) Contributed capital at end of year 291,888,297 149,660 292,037,957 Fund equity at end of year $ 498,902,543 12,860,294 511,762,837 The notes to the general purpose financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 15 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES 138 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 u .�: Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Connection fee collections Proprietary Fund Types 17,154,390 Cash contribution received Internal Total 9,341 Enterprise Funds Service Funds (Memorandum Only) Cash flows from operating activities: Special assessment interest 542,449 - Cash received for services $ 69,127,555 23,631,015 92,758,570 Cash received on behalf of other governments 2,086,315 - 2,086,315 Cash received from retirees for services - 452,648 452,648 Cash payments to other governments (1,993,831) - (1,993,831) Cash payments on behalf of retirees - (322,111) (322,111) Cash payments for goods and services (38,708,711) (22,256,915) (60,965,626) Cash payments to employees (22,815,661) (1,383,206) (24,198,867) Net cash provided by Payments for capital acquisitions (33,199,652) (740,449) operating activities 7,695,667 121,431 7,817,098 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Principal payments on bonds (3,924,000) - Cash operating grants received 32,151 - 32,151 Cash transfers from other funds 9,490,436 42,285 9,532,721 Cash transfers to other funds (992,541) (1,240,281) (2,232,822) Net cash provided by (used for) and related financing activities (7,096,256) 123,242 noncapital financing activities 8,530,046 (1,197,996) 7,332,050 Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Connection fee collections 17,154,390 17,154,390 Cash contribution received 9,341 - 9,341 Special assessment collections 1,214,203 - 1,214,203 Special assessment interest 542,449 - 542,449 Proceeds from disposal of fixed assets 78,354 151,229 229,583 Proceeds from capital grants 1,457,152 - 1,457,152 Proceeds from rentals 42,000 - 42,000 Proceeds from insurance claims 1,283,506 744,608 2,028,114 Proceeds from notes 16,443,492 - 16,443,492 Payments to other governments (147,871) - (147,871) Payments to refund connection fee credits (77,240) (77,240) Payments for capital acquisitions (33,199,652) (740,449) (33,940,101) Principal payments on notes (2,545,351) - (2,545,351) Principal payments on bonds (3,924,000) - (3,924,000) Principal payments on capital leases (122,675) (28,141) (150,816) Interest and fiscal agent fees paid (5,304,354) (4,005) (5,308,359) Net cash provided by (used for) capital and related financing activities (7,096,256) 123,242 (6,973,014) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest on investments 12,456,957 1,367,155 13,824,112 Net cash provided by investing activities 12,456,957 1,367,155 13,824,112 Net increase in cash 21,586,414 413,832 22,000,246 Cash and investments, October 1, 2000 (including $80,969,775 in restricted cash) 145,673,223 16,193,554 161,866,777 Cash and investments, September 30, 2001 (including $105,655,513 in restricted cash) $ 167,259,637 16,607,386 183,867,023 The notes to the general purpose financial statements are an integral part of this statement. (CONTINUED) 16 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 13B r,G, COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating loss Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation expense Amortization of capital improvement projects Amortization of bond issuance costs Amortization of utility plant acquisition adjustment Increase in accounts receivable Decrease in due from other funds Increase in due from other governments Increase in advances and deposits Increase in inventory Decrease in vouchers payable Increase (decrease) in accrued wages Increase in landfill liability Increase (decrease) in accrued compensated absences Decrease in due to other funds Increase in due to other governments Increase in customer deposits payable Increase in self - insurance claims payable Total adjustments Net cash provided by operating activities Non -cash investing, capital and financing activities: Proprietary Fund Types Internal Total Enterprise Funds Service Funds (Memorandum Only) $ (3,011,384) (1,582,792) (4,594,176) 13,752,810 1,153,423 14,906,233 68,464 - 68,464 254,070 - 254,070 60,455 - 60,455 (2,313,268) (17,242) (2,330,510) 15,961 646,361 662,322 (215,346) - (215,346) (13,617) (13,617) (291,170) (32,107) (323,277) (1,170,047) (438,990) (1,609,037) 69,507 (58,293) 11,214 128,120 - 128,120 269,096 (277,084) (7,988) (10,492) (16,270) (26,762) 88,241 88,241 650 - 650 - 758,042 758,042 10,707,051 1,704,223 12,411,274 $ 7,695,667 121,431 7,817,098 The combined enterprise funds experienced a non -cash investing gain due to a change in the fair value of non -cash and cash equivalents of 53,958,052. The combined internal service funds experienced a non -cash investing gain due to a change in the fair value of non -cash and cash equivalents of $347,363. There were non -cash developer contributions of $13,656,143 in the County Water and Sewer District Fund. The operation of the Marco Water and Sewer District was taken over by the City of Marco Island. As a result of this transaction, assets of $5,006,586 were transferred to the City of Marco Island. The Public Works Engineering Department fund was closed during the fiscal year resulting in a transfer out of contributed assets with a historical cost of $223,912 and accumulated depreciation of $188,044. Fixed assets with a historical cost of $173,040 and accumulated depreciation of $95,681 were disposed of as a result of the fund closing. The Department of Revenue fund was closed during the fiscal year resulting in a transfer out of contributed assets with a historical cost of $337,470 and accumulated depreciation of $311,437. Fixed assets with a historical cost of $632,796 and accumulated depreciation of $373,986 were disposed of as a result of the fund closing. 17 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPONENT UNITS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS Assets: Cash and investments Receivables: Notes TOTAL ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS LIABILITIES, EQUITY AND OTHER CREDITS Equity and other credits: Fund balances: Reserved for: Notes receivable Unreserved: Undesignated TOTAL LIABILITIES, EQUITY AND OTHER CREDITS Collier County Collier County Collier County Housing Industrial Educational Finance Development Facilities Authority Authority Authority Totals $ 79,167 7,148 3,884 90,199 58,000 - - 58,000 S 137,167 7,148 3,884 148,199 $ 58,000 - - 58,000 79,167 7,148 3,884 90,199 S 137,167 7,148 3,884 148,199 The notes to the general purpose financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 18 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPONENT UNITS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Charges for services Interest income Total revenues Expenditures: Current: Economic environment Total expenditures Excess of revenues over expenditures Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year 136 Collier County Collier County Collier County Housing Industrial Educational Finance Development Facilities Authority Authority Authority Totals $ 46,891 16,663 2,970 66,524 1,558 - - 1,558 48,449 16,663 2,970 68,082 125,558 13,660 - 139,218 125,558 13,660 - 139,218 (77,109) 3,003 2,970 (71,136) 214,276 4,145 914 219,335 $ 137,167 7,148 3,884 148,199 The notes to the general purpose financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 19 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 21 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS '`'* ` SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 138 INDEX NOTE PAGE NUMBER 1 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 22 2 Cash and Investments 31 3 Trade Receivables 33 4 Interfund Transactions 33 5 Fixed Assets 35 6 Long -Term Debt 36 7 Revenue Bonds Administered by the State of Florida 42 8 Conduit Debt Obligations 42 9 Defeased Debt 43 10 Budget to Actual 44 11 Pension Plan Obligations 45 12 Operating Transfers 46 13 Segment Information - Enterprise Funds 47 14 Fund Equity 47 15 Risk Management 48 16 Landfill Liability 50 17 Deficit Retained Earnings 50 18 Significant Contingencies 51 y` 19 Significant Commitments 51 20 Subsequent Events 52 21 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 130 NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 ' NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES THE REPORTING ENTITY The primary government consists of Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida that was established in 1923 by the Florida State Legislature. The County is governed by a Board of County Commissioners which consists of five members elected within single member districts. In addition, there are five Constitutional Officers; the Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, Sheriff, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Supervisor of Elections. The Constitutional Officers are elected county wide. The Board of County Commissioners budgets and provides all funding used by the separate Constitutional Officers with the exception of fees collected by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the Tax Collector. Under the direction of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Collier County Finance and Accounting Department maintains the accounting system for the operations of the Board of County Commissioners, Supervisor of Elections and the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The Tax Collector, Property Appraiser and Sheriff each maintain their own accounting systems. For financial reporting purposes the operations of the Board of County Commissioners and the Constitutional Officers are combined and presented as the primary government. Component units are legally separate agencies that the primary government is financially accountable for or organizations which should be included in the reporting entity because of the nature and significance of their relationship with the primary government. Financial accountability is determined by the primary government's ability to appoint the voting majority of the entity's board, impose its will on the organization, and the existence of a financial benefit/burden relationship or fiscal dependency. The County's blended component units consist of organizations whose respective governing Boards are composed entirely of the Board of County Commissioners serving ex- officio. These entities are legally separate, however financial support has been pledged and financial or operational policies may be significantly influenced by the County. In accordance with General Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 14, "The Financial Reporting Entity", these organizations are reported as if they were part of the County's operations. The financial position and results of operations of the following blended component units are accounted for in enterprise funds and can be found in the proprietary section of this report: Collier County Water and Sewer District The District was established by Chapter 88 -499, Laws of Florida, to provide water, sewer and effluent services to certain portions of the unincorporated area of Collier County. The District currently operates three wastewater treatment facilities and two water treatment plants. Goodland Water District The District was established by a Special Referendum Election authorized by Collier County Ordinance 75 -5 and Section 125.01(q), Florida Statutes. The District provides potable water service to the residents of Goodland. ON COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 13B ` SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED THE REPORTING ENTITY - CONTINUED The County's discretely presented component units consist of organizations whose five member bodies are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The County is able to impose its will on these entities because of its discretionary ability to remove appointed members from the component units' Boards. GASB Statement 14, "The Financial Reporting Entity", requires that the financial data of these organizations be reported in separate columns to emphasize that they are legally separate from the County. Accordingly, the funds of the following organizations can be found discretely presented in the combined financial statements: Collier Countv Health Facilities Authori The Authority was established in 1979 by Collier County Ordinance 79 -75 for the purpose of assisting health facilities in the acquisition, construction and financing of projects within the County. The Authority has no assets, liabilities or equity and has not generated any revenues or incurred any expenditures. Therefore, no financial position or results of operations are reported in the accompanying financial statements. Outstanding conduit debt issued by the Authority is reported in Note 8, "Conduit Debt Obligations ". Collier County Housing Finance Authori The Authority was formed in 1980 by Collier County Ordinance 80 -66 for the purpose of stimulating the construction of residential housing for low and moderate income families through the use of public financing. The Authority maintains its own financial records, but does not issue separate, stand alone financial statements. Their financial position and results of operations are reported in the accompanying financial statements and the outstanding conduit debt issued by the Authority is disclosed in Note 8, "Conduit Debt Obligations ". Collier Countv Industrial Development Authori The Authority was created in 1978 by Collier County Resolution 78 -94 to facilitate the financing of projects that promote economic growth and increase opportunities for employment in the County. The Authority maintains its own financial records, but does not issue separate, stand alone financial statements. Their financial position and results of operations are reported in the accompanying financial -� statements and the outstanding conduit debt issued by the Authority is disclosed in Note 8, "Conduit Debt Obligations ". Collier Countv Educational Facilities Authori The Authority was created in 1999 by Collier County Resolution 99 -177 to assist institutions for higher education in the construction, financing and refinancing of projects. The Authority maintains its own financial records, but does not issue separate, stand alone financial statements. Their financial position and results of operations are reported in the accompanying financial statements and the outstanding - conduit debt issued by the Authority is disclosed in Note 8, "Conduit Debt Obligations ". 23 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES — CONTINUED THE REPORTING ENTITY - CONTINUED 138 Ile Complete financial information on the individual component units can be obtained from their respective administrative offices or from the Finance Department of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Administrative Offices: Collier County Water and Sewer District 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Goodland Water District 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Collier County Educational Facilities Authority 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Suite 120 Naples, FL 34104 BASIS OF PRESENTATION Collier County Health Facilities Authority 5811 Pelican Boulevard, Suite 210 Naples, FL 34108 Collier County Industrial Development Authority 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Suite 120 Naples, FL 34104 Collier County Housing Finance Authority 5811 Pelican Boulevard, Suite 210 Naples, FL 34108 The accounts of the County are organized on the basis of funds and account groups. Each fund is considered a separate accounting entity with a self - balancing set of accounts. Fund structures, where applicable, have been designed to comply with all requirements of relevant bond resolutions. Account groups are a reporting device to account for certain assets and liabilities of the governmental funds not recorded directly in those funds. The following fund types and account groups are used by the County: GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS General fund - the general fund is the general operating fund of the County. All general tax revenues and other receipts that are not accounted for in other funds, are accounted for in the general fund. The general operating funds of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Property Appraiser, Sheriff, Supervisor of Elections and Tax Collector represent sub funds of the County's general fund that are held and accounted for individually, but presented together with the Board of County Commissioners' general fund. Special revenue funds - special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted by legal requirements, regulatory provisions or administrative action. Debt service funds - debt service funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of principal, interest and other expenditures on long -term debt, other than bonds and notes payable from the operation of proprietary funds. Capital projects funds - capital projects funds are used to account for financial resources segregated for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities other than those financed by proprietary funds. 24 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 13B ` NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES — CONTINUED BASIS OF PRESENTATION - CONTINUED PROPRIETARY FUNDS Enterprise funds - enterprise finds are used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises. The intent is that the costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed primarily through user charges, or where periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is deemed appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability or other purposes. Internal service funds - internal service funds are used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department to other departments of the County or to other governmental units on a cost reimbursement basis. FIDUCIARY FUNDS Expendable trust funds - expendable trust funds are used to account for assets held by the County in a trustee capacity or where legally mandated. All of the principal and income may be expended in the course of their designated operations. Agency funds - agency funds are custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of results of operations. Agency funds are clearing accounts for assets held by a government as an agent for individuals, private organizations and other governments or funds. ACCOUNT GROUPS General fixed assets account group - this account group is used to account for property, plant and equipment not used in — proprietary fund type operations. The general fixed assets account group does not include public domain, infrastructure, fixed assets such as roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems, lighting systems and similar assets that are immovable and of value only to the County. General long -term debt account group - this account group is established to account for long -term debt and other liabilities not accounted for in the proprietary funds. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND MEASUREMENT FOCUS Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures or expenses are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the measurements made regardless of the measurement focus applied. The modified accrual basis of accounting is used in the governmental, expendable trust and agency fund types. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. Available means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter, generally 60 days, to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. Primary revenues including special assessments, intergovernmental revenues, charges for services, rents and interest are treated as susceptible to accrual under the modified accrual basis. Property taxes are discussed later in this footnote. Other revenue sources are not considered measurable and available and are not treated as susceptible to accrual. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred. Exceptions to this general rule include accrued compensated absences and principal and interest on general long -term debt. 25 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES — CONTINUED BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND MEASUREMENT FOCUS — CONTINUED I Big, 3 In applying the susceptibility-to- accrual concept to intergovernmental revenues, the legal and contractual requirements of the numerous individual programs are used as guidance. There are essentially two types of these revenues. In one, monies must be expended on the specific purpose or project before any amount will be paid to the County; therefore, revenues are recognized based upon the expenditures recorded. In the other, monies are virtually unrestricted as to purpose of expenditure and revocable only for failure to comply with prescribed compliance requirements, such as with equal employment opportunity. These resources are reflected as revenues at the time of receipt, or earlier if they meet the availability criterion. Proprietary funds use the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned and expenses are recognized in the period when incurred. The measurement focus applied to governmental fund types and to expendable trust fund types is the flow of current financial resources. Only current assets and current liabilities are generally included on the balance sheet. Fund balance is considered a measure of available, spendable or appropriable resources. The measurement focus applied to proprietary fund types is the capital maintenance or flow of economic resources measurement focus. All assets and all liabilities (current or noncurrent) are included on the balance sheet. Fund equity is segregated into contributed capital and retained earnings. BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY DATA The following are the statutory procedures followed by the Board of County Commissioners in establishing the budgets for the County: 1) Within fifteen days after certification of the ad valorem tax roll by the Property Appraiser, the County budget officer prepares and presents to the Board a tentative budget for the ensuing fiscal year. The budget includes all estimated receipts, balances to be brought forward, and all estimated expenditures, reserves and balances to be carried forward at the end of the year as specified in Section 129.03, Florida Statutes. 2) Within eighty days of the certification of value, but not earlier than sixty-five days after certification, the Board holds a public hearing on the tentative budget and proposed millage rate. At this hearing the Board amends and adopts the tentative budget, recomputes the proposed millage rate, and announces publicly the percentage, if any, by which the recomputed proposed millage rate exceeds the rolled -back rate. If the millage rate tentatively adopted exceeds that proposed, each taxpayer within the jurisdiction is notified of the increase by first class mail, at the expense of the Board. 3) Within fifteen days of the meeting adopting the tentative budget, the Board advertises the County's intent to adopt a final budget and millage rate. 4) A public hearing is held by the Board to finalize the budget and adopt a millage rate. This hearing is held not less than two days and not more than five days after the day that the advertisement is first published. Prior to September 30, the millage levy is adopted by a separate vote. In no event is the millage rate adopted allowed to exceed the tentatively adopted millage rate. This is followed by the approval and ratification of the final budget. 5) The resolution approved at the final hearing is forwarded to the Property Appraiser, Tax Collector and Florida Department of Revenue; not later than thirty days following the adoption of the Resolution, the Board certifies to the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Division of Ad Valorem Tax, that it has complied with the provisions of Chapter 200, Florida Statutes. 26 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 130 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY DATA — CONTINUED 6) The County Manager approves intradepartmental budget changes less than $50,000 that do not alter the total expenditures of the department. All other budgetary changes must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as a matter of policy. The initial adopted budget was amended during the fiscal year in accordance with the Florida Statutes. 7) Florida Statute Section 129.07, as amended in 1978, provides that expenditures in excess of total find budgets are unlawful. However, because the Board approves all budgetary changes between departments, except those approved by the County Manager, the lower of fund or department becomes the level of control. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the fiscal year for all fund types. Budgets have been legally adopted by the Board for all Board funds except for agency funds and those funds described in Note 10, "Budget to Actual ". The Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector adopt budgets for their general funds independently of the Board. The Clerk of the Circuit Court (to the extent of his function as ex- officio Clerk to the Board and the amounts of his fee structure as Clerk to the Circuit and County Courts), Sheriff, and Supervisor of Elections prepare budgets for their general funds which are submitted to and approved by the Board. The Sheriff does not prepare a budget for the Sheriff's Grant Fund. _ Budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for all governmental funds except as described in Note 10, "Budget to Actual ". All unencumbered appropriations lapse at the end of the current year. Capital project costs are budgeted in the year they are anticipated to be obligated. In subsequent years, the unused budget is reappropriated until the project is completed. Proprietary funds are budgeted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, except that capital related and debt transactions are based upon cash receipts and disbursements. Estimated beginning fund balances are considered in the budgetary process. ENCUMBRANCES Encumbrance accounting is utilized in the governmental funds as an extension of the budget process whereby purchase orders, contracts to be executed and other commitments are recorded as reservations of fund balance. It is the County's intention to honor these encumbrances under authority provided in the subsequent year's budget. Fund balance is reserved to indicate this commitment. CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AND INVESTMENTS The County maintains a cash and investment pool which is available to all funds. Interest earned is allocated based on the individual fund's average daily balance in the cash pool. Pursuant to the provisions of GASB Statement 31, "Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools ", all investments are stated at fair value. Cash equivalents are defined as short-term highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less from the date — purchased. Additionally, the individual fund's equity in the cash and investment pool is considered to be a cash equivalent. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE — UNBILLED REVENUE Unbilled charges for services are accrued in the County Water and Sewer and Goodland Water funds by prorating subsequent bills. 27 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES — CONTINUED INVENTORIES AND PREPAID COSTS 1 13B x Inventory is valued at cost which approximates fair value, using the first -in, first -out method. Inventory in the governmental funds consists of expendable supplies held for consumption. The cost is recorded as an expenditure at the time individual inventory items are consumed. Reported inventories and prepaid costs are equally offset by a fund balance reserve which indicates that they do not constitute available spendable resources. Inventories and prepaid costs of proprietary funds are reported as an expense when consumed. GENERAL FIXED ASSETS General fixed assets are recorded as expenditures in the general fund, capital projects funds and other governmental fund types at the time of purchase, and capitalized at cost in the general fixed assets account group. Public domain, or infrastructure fixed assets consisting of certain improvements including roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems and lighting systems have not been capitalized. Gifts or contributions are recorded in the general fixed assets account group at fair value at the time received. There is no depreciation expense recorded on general fixed assets. The County maintains a policy to capitalize fixed assets which cost $750 or more and have a useful life in excess of one year. FIXED ASSETS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS Land, buildings, improvements and equipment are stated at cost. Pursuant to GASB Statement 33, "Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions ", capital contributions subsequent to October 1, 2000 are recorded as revenue at their fair value on the date donated. Facilities constructed using system development impact fees, collected from developers and customers, are stated at cost. The County capitalizes major expenditures for additions and improvements. Major expenditures include items with a cost of $750 or more and with a useful life in excess of one year. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to operating expenses. The cost of assets retired or sold, together with the related accumulated depreciation, is removed from the accounts and any gain or loss on disposition is credited or charged to earnings. Depreciation on fixed assets acquired prior to October 1, 2000 through contributions is recorded as an expense and transferred from retained earnings as a reduction of contributed equity on the balance sheet. Depreciation is calculated using the straight - line method. The estimated useful life of the various classes of depreciable fixed assets is as follows: CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATIONS Capital lease obligations and the related assets of governmental fund types are accounted for in the general long -term debt account group and in the general fixed assets account group, respectively. Capital lease obligations of proprietary fund types and the related cost of assets acquired are reflected in the balance sheet accounts of those funds. For capital lease obligations originating in governmental funds, an expenditure for the asset and the offsetting amount of the financing source is reflected in the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances. W Estimated Fixed Asset Useful Life Buildings 20-40 years Improvements other than buildings 2-40 years Equipment 4 -10 years CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATIONS Capital lease obligations and the related assets of governmental fund types are accounted for in the general long -term debt account group and in the general fixed assets account group, respectively. Capital lease obligations of proprietary fund types and the related cost of assets acquired are reflected in the balance sheet accounts of those funds. For capital lease obligations originating in governmental funds, an expenditure for the asset and the offsetting amount of the financing source is reflected in the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances. W COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED FUND EQUITY 13B . Contributed capital is recorded in proprietary funds that received capital grants or contributions from developers, customers or other funds, prior to October 1, 2000. Reserved retained earnings and fund balance represent those portions of fund equity not appropriable for expenses /expenditures or those portions legally restricted for a specific future use. Designations of fund balance represent tentative plans for expenditures. BOND DISCOUNTS AND BOND ISSUANCE COSTS In governmental funds, bond discounts and issuance costs are recognized in the current period. Bond discounts and issuance costs for proprietary funds are deferred and amortized over the term of the bonds using the interest method and the straight - line method, respectively. Bond discounts are presented as a reduction of the face amount of bonds payable while issuance costs are recorded as deferred charges, which are shown on the face of the balance sheet as a component of "other assets ". DEFEASANCE OF DEBT REPORTED BY PROPRIETARY FUNDS GASB Statement 23, "Accounting and Financial Reporting for Refundings of Debt Reported by Proprietary Activities," is applicable to the proprietary funds. For refundings resulting in the defeasance of debt reported by proprietary activities, this statement requires that the difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the old debt be deferred and amortized over the shorter of the life of the new debt or the remaining life of the old debt as a component of interest expense. The straight -line method is used for amortization of the deferred charge. INTEREST COST Interest cost is charged to expense or expenditure as incurred, except for interest capitalized in the proprietary funds, in — accordance with the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement 34, "Capitalization of Interest Cost ", and FASB Statement 62, "Capitalization of Interest Cost in Situations Involving Certain Tax - Exempt Borrowings and Certain Gifts and Grants," when applicable. TREATMENT OF NONEXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS In 2001, the County adopted GASB Statement 33, "Accounting and Financing Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions ". This statement establishes standards to guide decisions about when to report the results of nonexchange transactions involving cash and other financial and capital resources. This implementation resulted in current year contributions of $35,540,158 being reported as capital contributions on the Combined Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Fund Equity — All Proprietary Fund Types. PROPERTY TAXES Property taxes become due and payable on November 1st of each year and become delinquent on April 1st of the following year. Discounts on property taxes are allowed for payments made prior to the April 1 st delinquent date as follows: November - 4 %, December - 3 %, January - 2 %, and February - 1 %. Tax certificates for the full amount of any unpaid taxes must be sold not later than June 1 st of each year. No accrual for the property tax levy becoming due in November 2001 is included in the accompanying financial statements, since such taxes are collected to finance expenditures of the subsequent period. Property taxes receivable and a corresponding allowance for uncollectible property taxes are not included in the financial statements, as there are no delinquent taxes as of September 30, 2001. WN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES — CONTINUED PROPERTY TAXES - CONTINUED Key dates in the property tax cycle for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001 are as follows: Property Tax Cycle Assessment roll compiled Assessment roll certified Millage resolution approved Beginning of fiscal year for tax levy Taxes due and payable (levy date) Property taxes payable: Maximum discount (4 %) Due date Delinquent (lien date) Tax certificates sold ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES Date January 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 No later than 95 days following certification of assessment roll October 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 30 days after levy date March 31, 2001 April 1, 2001 Prior to June 1, 2001 The County follows the provisions of GASB Statement 16, "Accounting for Compensated Absences ". This statement provides for the measurement of accrued vacation leave and other compensated absences using the pay or salary rates in effect at the balance sheet date. It also requires additional amounts to be accrued for certain salary related payments associated with the payment of compensated absences. It is the County's policy to allow employees to accumulate an unlimited number of hours of unused sick leave and up to 240 hours of unused vacation leave. Effective March 1, 1996 the County modified the policy for sick leave pay upon termination. Employees of record on August 2, 1996 may be granted a sick leave payment upon termination for any service period earned prior to August 2, 1996. No employee hired after August 2, 1996 shall receive payment for accrued sick leave upon termination. Upon termination, employees are granted 100% of allowable vacation hours at the current rate of pay. Accrued compensated absences flowing through governmental fund types are recorded in the general long -term debt account group because it does not require the use of available and spendable resources at the balance sheet date. For proprietary funds, the liability related to vested sick and vacation leave is recorded on the balance sheet as a long -term liability. APPLICATION OF FASB PRONOUNCEMENTS TO PROPRIETARY FUNDS In accordance with GASB Statement 20, "Accounting and Financial Reporting for Proprietary Funds and Other Governmental Entities That Use Proprietary Fund Accounting ", the County has elected not to apply those FASB Statements and Interpretations issued after November 30, 1989, ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results may differ from those estimated. 30 .�. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 138 SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 a_ NOTE 1- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES — CONTINUED TOTAL COLUMNS ON THE COMBINED STATEMENTS - OVERVIEW Total columns on the Combined Statements - Overview (General Purpose Financial Statements) are captioned "Memorandum Only" to indicate that they are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns does not present financial position, results of operations or cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, and such data is not comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations have not been made in the aggregation of this data. NOTE 2 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS The County maintains a cash and investment pool that is available for use by all funds. Each fund type's portion of this pool is displayed on the combined balance sheet under the heading of Cash and Investments. Investment income is allocated monthly to participating funds based on the percentage of each fund's average daily balance in the total pool. In addition, certain -' investments are separately held by trustees in accordance with bond 'indentures and other contractual agreements. DEPOSITS All cash deposits are held in qualified public depositories pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 280, "Florida Security for Public Deposits Act ". Under the Act, all qualified public depositories are required to pledge eligible collateral having a market value equal to or greater than the average daily or monthly balance of all public deposits, multiplied by the depository's collateral pledging level. The pledging level may range from 50% to 125% depending upon the depository's financial condition. Any losses to public deposits are covered by applicable deposit insurance, sale of securities pledged as collateral, and if necessary, assessments against other qualified public depositories of the same type as the depository in default. At September 30, 2001 the County had demand deposits with a book balance and a bank balance of $17,223,151 and $23,458,949, respectively. These demand deposits include discretely presented component unit deposits with a book balance - and a bank balance of $90,199. These deposits were fully covered by federal depository insurance or by collateral, in the County's name as required by Sections 280.07 and 280.08 of the Florida Statutes. INVESTMENTS The County's investment practices are governed by Florida Statutes 125.31 and the County's investment policy which was adopted by County Ordinance 87 -65. The County is authorized to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury, its agencies and instrumentalities, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, repurchase agreements, certificates of deposits and the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund. The Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund (SBA) is maintained by the State of Florida. The County invested in the SBA throughout the year, and had a balance in the pool as of September 30, 2001, as reported below. The SBA met the Governmental Accounting Standards Board's definition of a "2a -7 like" pool as of September 30, 2001. The SBA investment book balance is equal to the share value of the pool, valued at amortized cost, which constitutes fair value at September 30, 2001. As with any investment, the securities held by the County are sensitive to different elements of risk. The major risks are market, legal and credit risk. 31 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 13B , NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 2 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS — CONTINUED INVESTMENTS — CONTINUED Market risk relates to the risk that the market value of an investment will decline during the life of the investment. The level of market risk is determined by such factors as the length of time before the investment matures and the likelihood of an investment being sold before its maturity in order to meet operational requirements. The County continues to hold various U.S. government agency securities, including Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal National Mortgage Association collateralized mortgage obligations that were purchased from 1991 to 1994. At September 30, 2001 the fair value of these investments was approximately $5.9 million, which is 1% above cost. These investments are recorded in the financial statements at fair value. The County currently has the ability to hold these investments as it has sufficient liquidity to meet operational requirements. Legal risk is the exposure to a transaction being determined to be prohibited by law, regulation or contract. Management believes the level of legal risk exposure to the County's portfolio is minimal. Credit risk relates to whether or not the County will be able to recover its investments in a security at the maturity date. The County's investments are categorized to provide an indication of the level of credit risk assumed by the County. Category 1 includes investments that are insured or registered, or securities held by the County or its agent in the County's name. Category 2 includes uninsured and unregistered investments for which the securities are held by the counterparty's trust department or agent in the County's name. Category 3 includes uninsured and unregistered investments for which the securities are held by the counterparty or by its trust department or agent, but not in the County's name. Investments that are not evidenced by securities in physical or book entry form are not categorized. At September 30, 2001 the County's investments, including cash equivalents, were categorized as follows: Credit Risk Category Fair Value Category 1: Cash on hand U.S. Agency Securities $ 211,035,906 U.S. Treasury Obligations 8,109,513 Total Category 1 219,145,419 ,Category 2: 381,001,233 Repurchase Agreements 4,438,600 Total Category 2 4,438,600 Not Categorized: Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund 157,417,214 Total investments, including cash equivalents S 381,001,233 Reconciliation of cash and investments to the general purpose financial statements, as of September 30, 2001: Change funds and petty cash $ 16,645 Cash on hand 23,950 Demand deposits 17,223,151 Investments, including cash equivalents 381,001,233 Total cash and investments $ 398,264,979 Current: Cash and investments $ 292,609,466 Restricted: Cash and investments 105,655,513 Total cash and investments $ 398,264,979 32 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 130 SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 3 - TRADE RECEIVABLES Trade receivables for enterprise funds are net of an allowance for doubtful accounts as follows: Trade Allowance for Net Trade Receivables Doubtful Accounts Receivables County Water and Sewer S 3,590,302 3,590,302 Goodland Water 21,875 - 21,875 Solid Waste Disposal 1,485,230 1,485,230 Emergency Medical Services 10,520,771 (10,314,701) 206,070 Airport Authority 33,213 - 33,213 Total $ 15,651,391 (10,314,701) 5,336,690 NOTE 4 - INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS Advances to and advances from other funds at September 30, 2001 were as follows: FUND Advance To Advance From General Fund S 8,620,067 - Special Revenue Funds: Improvement Districts - 650,000 Capital Projects Funds: Road Construction 30,000 - Other Capital Projects 650,000 431,091 Enterprise Funds: Airport Authority - 8,218,976 Total All Funds $ 9,300,067 9,300,067 Due from and due to other funds at September 30, 2001 were as follows: FUND Due From Due To General Fund $ 2,805,981 1,680,124 Special Revenue Funds: Road Districts - 3,274 Water Management and Pollution Control 32,585 3,965 Unincorporated Areas 405,891 40,580 Grants and Shared Revenues 14,693 1,533,134 Improvement Districts 19,764 49,404 Sheriffs Grants 86,158 - Fire Control Districts 17,358 - Miscellaneous Florida Statutes Fee Collections 1,015 - Lighting Districts 8,017 - 911 Enhancement Fee - 140,106 Tourist Development 440,219 656 State Housing Initiative Partnership - 384,866 800 MHz IRCP Fund Account 2,875 - Total Special Revenue Funds 1,028,575 2,155,985 Debt Service Funds: Parks and General Obligation Refunding Bonds 7,964 - Road and Other Improvements 216 - Stormwater Improvement Assessment Bonds 1,416 - Total Debt Service Funds 9,596 - Total carried forward to next page S 3,844,152 3,836,109 33 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 13B NOTE 4 - INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS - CONTINUED FUND Total brought forward from previous page Capital Projects Funds: County-Wide Capital Improvements Parks Improvements County-Wide Library Parks Impact Districts Road Impact Districts Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Emergency Medical Service Road Construction Water Management Other Capital Projects Total Capital Projects Funds Enterprise Funds: County Water and Sewer Goodland Water Solid Waste Disposal Emergency Medical Services Airport Authority Total Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds: Self - Insurance Sheriffs Self - Insurance Fleet Management Total Internal Service Funds Trust and Agency Funds: Law Library Inmate Welfare Criminal Justice State Court of Administration Confiscated Property Law Enforcement Training Utility Fee Legal Aid Society Federal Equitable Sharing Clerk of the Circuit Court Sheriff Tax Collector Deposits Pine Ridge and Naples Production Park Total Trust and Agency Funds Total All Funds 34 Due From Due To $ 3,844,152 3,836,109 40,822 11,822 47,458 104,269 6,489 5,963 3,848 59,800 280,471 140,126 30,476 2,469 173,071 85,669 1,000,000 1,218 1,086,887 390 3,925 1 57,678 102 7,000 710 278 13,408 183,491 $ 5,568,072 216 13 707 7 117 59,800 60,860 2,267 604 281 3,152 59 162,304 50,423 11,446 10 2,251 120,030 30,438 577,802 713,188 1,667,951 5,568,072 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 13B A NOTE 5 — FIXED ASSETS A summary of changes in the general fixed assets for the year ended September 30, 2001 is as follows: Improvements Proprietary fund property, plant and equipment at September 30, 2001 consisted of the following: Enterprise Funds County Water and Sewer Goodland Water Solid Waste Disposal Emergency Medical Services Airport Authority Total Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds: Self - Insurance i Fleet Management Total Internal Service Funds Total Proprietary Funds Improvements other than Less: Construction Land Buildings Buildings Equipment in Progress Total Balance 10 /1 /00 $ 38,412,482 107,575,120 50,999,637 71,036,093 7,131,644 275,154,976 Additions 6,479,897 14,790,840 9,130,118 10,855,360 17,226,194 58,482,409 Deletions - - - (5,384,015) - (5,384,015) Transfers in - - 15,117 792,653 - 807,770 Transfers out - - - (1,467,397) (18,461,299) (19,928,696) Balance 9/30/01 $ 44,892,379 122,365,960 60,144,872 75,832,694 5,896,539 309,132,444 Proprietary fund property, plant and equipment at September 30, 2001 consisted of the following: Enterprise Funds County Water and Sewer Goodland Water Solid Waste Disposal Emergency Medical Services Airport Authority Total Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds: Self - Insurance i Fleet Management Total Internal Service Funds Total Proprietary Funds 35 Improvements Less: other than Accumulated Construction Land Buildings Buildings Equipment Depreciation in Progress Total $ 4,599,010 115,374,806 364,704,764 8,690,209 (112,525,064) 53,940,509 434,784,234 365 - 1,576,748 - (1,073,661) - 503,452 1,520,754 253,666 10,210,279 1,216,397 (7,065,234) 6,135,862 - 221,588 75,126 3,888,016 (835,479) - 3,349,251 1,289,400 3,470,450 6,682,297 739,405 (2,061,790) 1,508961 11,628,723 7,409,529 119,320,510 383,249,214 14,534,027 (123,561,228) 55,449,470 456,401,522 - - - 179,628 (46,165) - 133,463 - 168,264 - 7,846,154 (5,003,451) 3,010,967 - 168,264 - 8,025,782 (5,049,616) - 3,144,430 $ 7,409,529 119,488,774 383,249,214 22,559,809 (128,610,844) 55,449,470 459,545,952 35 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 6 - LONGTERM DEBT SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT The following is a sununary of changes in general long -term debt for the year ended September 30, 2001: 000's Omitted October 1, 2000 Additions Deletions General Obligation Bonds Limited Obligation Revenue Bonds Notes Payable Arbitrage Rebate Capitalized Lease Obligations Retainage Payable Accrued Compensated Absences Total 13 B ,� September 30, 2001 $ 2,295 _ (735) 1,560 46,115 - (4,115) 42,000 14,644 14,520 (3,925) 25,239 116 215 _ 331 715 1,451 (695) 1,471 - 363 - 363 8,998 1,444 - 10,442 $ 72,883 17,993 (9,470) 81,406 The following is a summary of changes in proprietary fund long -term debt for the year ended September 30, 2001: 000's Omitted 36 Amortized October 1, Debt Debt Amortized Loss on Bond September 30, 2000 Issued Retired Discount Refunding 2001 Revenue Bonds $ 80,761 - (3,924) 150 311 77,298 Notes Payable 24,400 16,786 (1,794) - - 39,392 Capitalized Lease Obligations 147 608 151 - - 604 Total $ 105,308 17,397 (5,869 ) 150 311 117,294 36 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Y; NOTE 6 - LONGTERM DEBT - CONTINUED DESCRIPTIONS OF BOND ISSUES AND NOTES PAYABLE Bonds and notes payable at September 30, 2001 were composed of the following: General Obligation Bonds $5,030,000 1996 Public Park and Recreation Municipal Service Taxing Unit General Obligation Refunding Bonds due in annual installments of $65,000 to $795,000 through July 1, 2003; interest at 4.00% to 4.20 %. $ 1,560,000 Limited Obligation Revenue Bonds $5,000,000 1973 Improvement Revenue Certificates due in annual installments of $25,000 to $350,000 through July 1, 2003; interest at 5.50% to 6.25 %. Race track revenues are pledged for the payment of these bonds. $ 685,000 $8,225,000 1992 Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds due in annual installments of $240,000 to $635,000 through October 1, 2013; interest at 2.70% to 5.80 %. Local government half - cent sales tax revenue is pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 6,030,000 $30,415,000 1994 Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds due in annual installments of $1,090,000 to $2,790,000 through October 1, 2012; interest at 4.35% to 6.00 %. Local government half -cent sales tax revenue is pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 25,100,000 $5,770,000 1995 Road Improvement Refunding Revenue Bonds due in annual installments of $290,000 to $510,000 through June 1, 2010; interest at 3.60% to 5.375 %. Ninth cent and seventh cent gas tax revenues are pledged for debt service on these bonds. 3,870,000 - $2,145,000 1996 Guaranteed Entitlement Revenue Refunding Bonds due in annual installments of $175,000 to $360,000 through October 1, 2002; interest at 4.19% fixed rate. State revenue sharing receipts are pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 705,000 $13,000,000 1997 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds due in annual installments of $965,000 to $2,560,000 through March 1, 2004; interest at 3.70% to 4.35 %. Non ad valorem revenues are pledged for debt service on these bonds. 4,080,000 $1,870,000 1997 Naples Park Area Stormwater Improvement Assessment Bonds due in annual installments of $75,000 to $185,000 through September 1, 2012; interest at 6.45% fixed rate. Stormwater improvement assessment proceeds are pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 1,530,000 y Total Limited Obligation Revenue Bonds $ 42,000,000 Governmental Fund Notes Payable $27,640,000 Commercial Paper issued by the Florida Local Government Finance Commission Pooled Commercial Paper Program, variable rate for the current fiscal year of 2.70% to 4.35 %, collateralized by non ad valorem revenue. $ 21,934,000 $10,000,000 line of credit agreement entered into with Nations Bank. The current outstanding balance has a five year maturity date and bears interest at 5.8 %, collateralized by park impact fees and other legally available non ad valorem revenues. 3,304,921 Total Governmental Fund Notes Payable $ 25,238,921 37 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 139 NOTE 6 - LONG -TERM DEBT - CONTINUED DESCRIPTIONS OF BOND ISSUES AND NOTES PAYABLE — CONTINUED Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds $468,500 1982 Goodland Water District Water Revenue Bonds due in annual installments of $2,000 to $110,000 through September 1, 2021; interest at 5.00 %. Principal and interest are payable from the net revenues of the system and special assessment collections. $ 109,000 $15,960,000 1990 Collier County Water and Sewer District Sewer Assessment Bonds due in annual installments of $290,000 to $1,120,000 through October 1, 2011; interest at 6.10% to 7.15 %. Principal and interest are payable from special assessment collections and the net revenues of the system on a subordinated basis to the 1992, 1994 and 1999 County Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. 440,000 $13,090,000 1992 Collier County Water and Sewer District, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. Due in annual installments of $595,000 to $965,000 through July 1, 2010; interest at 3.20% to 6.375 %. Principal and interest are payable from the net operating revenues of the system, system development fees and special assessment collections. 860,000 $24,225,000 1994 Taxable County Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds due in annual installments of $375,000 to $2,315,000 through July 1, 2010; interest at 3.35% to 6.85 %. Collateralized by a parity first lien on the pledged revenues listed on the $13,090,000 1992 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. 16,315,000 $40,320,000 1994 County Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds due in annual installments of $55,000 to $4,315,000 through July 1, 2021; interest at 3.0 % to 5.25 %. Collateralized by a parity first lien on the pledged revenues listed on the $13,090,000 1992 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. 38,285,000 $6,605,000 1999A Collier County Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds due in annual installments of $35,000 to $1,035,000 through July 1, 2010; interest at 3.00% to 4.25 %. Collateralized by a parity first lien on the pledged revenues listed on the $13,090,000 1992 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. 6,410,000 $22,855,000 1999B Collier County Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds due in annual installments of $950,000 to $1,875,000 through July 1, 2016; interest at 4.00% to 5.125 %. Collateralized by a parity first lien on the pledged revenues listed on the $13,090,000 1992 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. 20,920,000 Total Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds 83,339,000 Unamortized Bond Discount (1,815,943) Deferred Loss on Bond Refunding (4,224,609) Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds (Net) 77,298,448 Less Current Portion of Bonds Payable from Restricted Assets (4,120,000) Long -Term Portion of Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds (Net) $ 73,178,448 W COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -` SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 13 B NOTE 6 - LONG -TERM DEBT — CONTINUED DESCRIPTIONS OF BOND ISSUES AND NOTES PAYABLE — CONTINUED i Enterprise Fund Notes Payable $5,890,100 County Water and Sewer District note payable to private water d sewer company, _ payable through use of water and sewer system development fee creditsby company or its assignees, or, to the extent of unused credits, payable at the current cash value of the credits (minimum of the original face value) in 2006. Non interest bearing note; interest imputed at 7.00 %. $ 2,558 $569,974 County Water and Sewer District note payable to private developers, payable through use of water and sewer system development fee credits. Non interest bearing note. 550,922 $166,580 County Water and Sewer District agreement with private developers payable through use of water and sewer system development fee credits. Non interest bearing agreement. 87,805 — $14,547,667 County Water and Sewer District State Revolving Fund Loan, interest payable at 4.25% repayable in 20 annual payments commencing October 1, 1992, collateralized by a lien on pledged revenues consisting of net revenues (as defined in the loan resolution) from the operations of the County Water and Sewer System, proceeds derived from the levy of special assessments levied upon the properties benefited by the project, system development fees and connection fees. The lien shall be subordinate in all respects to liens placed upon pledged revenues established by bonded indebtedness. 9,178,993 $13,292,898 County Water and Sewer District State Revolving Fund Loan, interest payable at 2.65% repayable in 40 semiannual payments commencing January 15, 1999, collateralized by a lien on pledged revenues consisting of net revenues (as defined in the loan resolution) from the operations of the County Water and Sewer System, system development fees and connection fees. The lien shall be subordinate in all respects to liens placed upon pledged revenues established by bonded indebtedness. 12,019,174 $17,552,933 County Water and Sewer District State Revolving Fund Loan to be drawn down as required for construction commitments, interest payable at 3.05% repayable in 40 semiannual payments commencing November 15, 2001, collateralized by a lien on pledged revenues consisting of net revenues (as defined in the loan resolution) from the operations of the County Water and Sewer System, system development fees and connection fees. The lien shall be subordinate in all respects to liens placed upon pledged revenues established by bonded indebtedness. 17,552,933 Total Enterprise Fund Notes Payable 39,392,385 Less Current Portion of Notes Payable from Unrestricted Assets (641,285) Less Current Portion of Notes.Payable from Restricted Assets (1,724,096) Long -Term Portion of Enterprise Fund Notes Payable (Net) $ 37,027,004 39 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 3 B NOTE 6 - LONG -TERM DEBT — CONTINUED SUMMARY OF DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY The total annual debt service requirements to maturity of long -term debt, excluding compensated absences, retainage payable, capitalized leases, discounts and arbitrage rebate liability, are as follows: LEGAL DEBT MARGIN The Constitution of the State of Florida and the Florida Statutes set no legal debt limit. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Official statements and County resolutions authorizing the general obligation and revenue bonds establish certain accounts and determine the order in which certain revenues are to be deposited into those accounts as well as establish reserve requirements. All required balances were maintained. Water and sewer revenue bonds are payable solely from and secured by a first lien upon and pledge of the net revenues and certain other fees and charges derived from the operation of the County's water and sewer system. The pledge of the net revenues derived by the County from the operation of the water and sewer system does not constitute a lien upon the water and sewer system or any other property of the County. 1, Limited Enterprise Governmental Enterprise General Obligation Fund Fund Fund Obligation Revenue Revenue Notes Notes Bonds Bonds Bonds Payable Payable Total 2002 $ 829,755 6,452,294 8,416,839 4,209,403 3,768,250 23,676,541 2003 828,390 6,120,401 8,553,929 3,755,611 3,126,965 22,385,296 2004 - 6,237,114 8,342,937 3,592,074 3,126,965 21,299,090 2005 - 4,308,450 7,926,550 5,874,273 3,126,965 21,236,238 2006 - 4,311,070 7,922,859 10,619,995 3,126,965 25,980,889 Thereafter - 28,792,385 82,556,181 - 34,699,648 146,048,214 Total debt service requirement 1,658,145 56,221,714 123,719,295 28,051,356 50,975,758 260,626,268 Less interest (98,145) (14,221,714) (40,380,295) (2,812,435) (11,583,373) (69,095,962) Total $ 1,560,000 42,000,000 83,339,000 25,238,921 39,392,385 191,530,306 The amount available in debt service funds to service general obligation bonds, limited obligation revenue bonds and notes payable obligations are $80,638, $10,444,412 and $50,058, respectively. INTEREST CAPITALIZED Interest costs on long -term debt incurred and capitalized during the year ended September 30, 2001 were as follows: Total Interest Interest Cost Net Interest Cost Incurred Capitalized Expense Enterprise Funds $ 6,654,108 (162,727) 6,491,381 LEGAL DEBT MARGIN The Constitution of the State of Florida and the Florida Statutes set no legal debt limit. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Official statements and County resolutions authorizing the general obligation and revenue bonds establish certain accounts and determine the order in which certain revenues are to be deposited into those accounts as well as establish reserve requirements. All required balances were maintained. Water and sewer revenue bonds are payable solely from and secured by a first lien upon and pledge of the net revenues and certain other fees and charges derived from the operation of the County's water and sewer system. The pledge of the net revenues derived by the County from the operation of the water and sewer system does not constitute a lien upon the water and sewer system or any other property of the County. 1, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 138 SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 6 - LONG -TERM DEBT - CONTINUED RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS — CONTINUED The covenants of the resolutions authorizing the County Water and Sewer District Bonds, Series 1992, 1994, 1999A and 1999B include, among other things, an obligation for the County to fix, establish and maintain such rtes and collect such fees, rentals or other charges for the services and facilities of the water and sewer system, and to revisthe same from time to time whenever necessary, so as to always provide in each year net revenues, as defined in the resolutions authorizing the revenue bonds, which together with the system development fees and special assessment proceeds received in each fiscal year shall be adequate to pay at least 125% of the annual debt service requirements for the Water and Sewer Bonds; provided, however, that net revenues in each fiscal year shall be adequate to pay at least 100% of the annual debt service for the bonds. The Goodland Water District Water Revenue Bonds require the County to maintain such rates and fees (including special assessment proceeds) to provide revenue sufficient to pay necessary expenses of operating and maintaining the systems and to meet at least 100% of the annual debt service for the bonds. The bond resolution of the $15,960,000 Collier County Water and Sewer District Sewer Assessment Bonds, Series 1990, provides for the establishment and maintenance of a reserve account in an amount equal to the reserve account requirement, which shall be maintained for the benefit of the holders of the bonds. The reserve account requirement is defined as an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the maximum annual debt service for all outstanding bonds; (ii) 125% of the average annual debt service for all outstanding bonds; or (iii) 10% of the aggregate proceeds of the bonds. In the opinion of management, the water and sewer funds were in compliance with these covenants for the year ended September 30, 2001. LEASE OBLIGATIONS Capitalized leases payable at September 30, 2001 amounted to $2,074,960. These obligations, which are collateralized by equipment and vehicles, have annual installments ranging from $25,027 to $1,008,679 including interest ranging from 3.96% to 6.66% and mature through 2007. Future minimum capital lease obligations as of September 30, 2001 were as follows: 41 General Proprietary Long -Term Debt Funds Total 2002 $ 775,678 233,001 1,008,679 2003 529,178 233,001 762,179 2004 163,025 107,079 270,104 2005 37,569 50,051 87,620 2006 37,569 25,027 62,596 2007 30,178 - 30,178 Total minimum lease payments 1,573,197 648,159 2,221,356 Less amount representing interest (102,317) (44,079) (146,396) Present value of minimum lease payments $ 1,470,880 604,080 2,074,960 41 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 6 - LONG -TERM DEBT - CONTINUED LEASE OBLIGATIONS - CONTINUED l , The County has entered into numerous operating leases. Rental expenditures for leased facilities and equipment for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001 were as follows: Board of County Commissioners $ 1,872,582 Tax Collector 61,396 Total $ 1,933,978 Commitments for future minimum operating lease payments, contingent rentals and subleases are not significant. NOTE 7 - REVENUE BONDS ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA Section 206.41, Florida Statutes, imposes an excise tax on motor fuel sold in Florida. This tax is known as the Constitutional Gas Tax (also known as the 5th and 6th Cent Gas Tax). This tax is collected by the State Department of Revenue and transmitted to the State Board of Administration. The State Board of Administration makes payments necessary to reduce the bonded indebtedness issued pursuant to the provisions of the State Constitution for road and bridge purposes. Excess taxes are transmitted to the State Department of Transportation, which can appropriate funds for work done in Collier County and also transmit funds to the County itself to fund highway capital improvements. In accordance with the above, the State Board of Administration administers Collier County Road Bond Certificates of Indebtedness dated 1979, of which $4,690,000 is outstanding as of September 30, 2001. This issue is not recorded in the general long -term debt account group because the principal and interest are required to be paid solely from the gross revenue of the Constitutional Gas Tax administered by the State Board of Administration. These bonds are not an indebtedness of Collier County. NOTE 8 - CONDUIT DEBT OBLIGATIONS Component Unit Conduit Debt The Industrial Development Authority, Housing Finance Authority, Health Facilities Authority and Educational Facilities Authority, all component units of Collier County, issue debt instruments for the purpose of providing capital financing to independent third parties. Industrial development revenue bonds have been issued to provide financial assistance to public entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial and commercial facilities. Housing revenue bonds have been issued for the purpose of financing the development of multi - family residential rental communities. The health facility revenue bonds were issued to provide financing for the construction of a health park facility. The educational facility revenue bonds were used to provide financing for the construction of educational facilities. These bonds were secured by the financed property, a letter of credit or a corporate guarantee. The primary revenues pledged to pay the debt are those revenues derived from the project or facilities constructed. Neither the issuer, nor the County is obligated in any manner for repayment of the bonds. Therefore, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. 42 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 13B NOTE 8 - CONDUIT DEBT OBLIGATIONS — CONTINUED As of September 30, 2001 the outstanding principal amount payable on all component unit conduit debt was $177,805,513 and is made up of the following: Industrial development revenue bonds $ 56,781,513 Housing revenue bonds 73,185,000 r Health facilities revenue bonds 42,905,000 Educational facilities revenue bonds 4,934,000 Total $ 177,805,513 — $17,335,000 Pine Ridge Industrial Park and Naples Production Park Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1993 During September 1993, the County issued, on behalf of the property owners within the Naples Production Park and Pine Ridge Industrial Park Districts, $17,335,000 of special assessment bonds. The bond proceeds from the issue were used to repay amounts previously borrowed under the County's line of credit arrangement. Special assessments are pledged by property owners within the Districts. The County is not obligated to repay the special assessment debt if sufficient assessment funds are not available. The County functions as agent for the property owners in collecting the assessments, forwarding the collections to bondholders, and initiating foreclosure proceedings, if appropriate. The special assessments received and the related debt service payments are accounted for in an agency fund on behalf of the property owners. As of September 30, 2001 these bonds have an outstanding principal amount of $10,310,000. NOTE 9 - DEFEASED DEBT The County has defeased certain outstanding bond issues by placing the proceeds of new bonds in irrevocable trusts to provide for all future debt service payments on the defeased debt. Accordingly, the trust accounts and the defeased bonds are not included in the County's financial statements. At September 30, 2001 the following issues were considered defeased: Defeased Bonds General Long -Term Debt Original Debt Outstanding 1986 Capital Improvement Program Revenue Bonds, Sub -Series 5 Mode A $ 12,245,000 8,165,000 Total Defeased General Long -Term Debt S 12,245,000 8,165,000 Defeased Bonds Enterprise Fund Debt Original Debt Outstanding 1983 County Water and Sewer District Refunding Bonds 1992 County Water and Sewer District Revenue Bonds, Series 1992 (partially defeased $6,055,000) Total Defeased Enterprise Fund Debt 43 $ 22,000,000 14,260,000 13,090,000 6,055,000 $ 35,090,000 20,315,000 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 13B NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 10 - BUDGET TO ACTUAL Accounting principles used to prepare the budget are different from those used to prepare the financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The following table reconciles the amounts on the Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget to Actual (which is presented on a non -GAAP budgetary basis) to the amounts on the Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (which is presented on a GAAP basis). Excess of revenues and other financing sources over expenditures and other financing uses (GAAP basis) $ (2,191,787) 7,115,985 (9,570,587) 202,764 .E General Special Capital Expendable Fund Revenue Projects Trust Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over expenditures and other financing uses (budgetary basis) $ (3,682,983) 8,303,255 (6,012,059) 119,120 Basis difference: Proceeds from capital leases 1,055,280 371,424 18,467 6,156 Capital lease expenditure (1,055,280) (371,424) (18,467) (6,156) Advance to other fund 1,663,205 - - Repayment of advance (172,009) - 172,009 Interfund loan repayment - 79,999 (79,999) Note receivable - 40,000 - - Deferred revenue - (1,316,368) (3,650,538) - Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over expenditures and other financing uses (GAAP basis budgeted funds) (2,191,787) 7,106,886 (9,570,587) 119,120 Entity difference: Property Appriaser non - budgeted items: Revenue 420,580 - - Expenditures (420,580) - - Non- budgeted funds: Adoption Awareness - 9,099 - - County Drug Abuse - - - 489 Inmate Welfare - - 43,051 Impact Fees Escrow - - - 64,408 Euclid and Lakeland Assessment - - - 4,775 Federal Equitable Sharing - - - (29,079) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over expenditures and other financing uses (GAAP basis) $ (2,191,787) 7,115,985 (9,570,587) 202,764 .E COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 130 SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 11 - PENSION PLAN OBLIGATIONS RETIREMENT PLAN Substantially all full time and part time employees of the County are eligible to participate in the State of FI' da Retirement System (the System), a cost sharing, multiple employer defined benefit plan administered by the State of Flo a, Division of Retirement. The System is a defined benefit plan for all state, and participating county, district board, community college and university employees. The County follows the provisions of GASB 27, "Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Governmental Employers ", as described in the following disclosure. PLAN DESCRIPTION Employees who are regular risk members and retire at or after age 62 with 10 years of credited service, or with 30 years of service regardless of age, are entitled to a retirement benefit, payable monthly for life, equal to 1.6 percent of their average final compensation for each year of credited service. Final average compensation is the employee's average of the five highest years of salary earned during credited service. Vested employees may retire before age 62 and receive benefits that are reduced 5 percent for each year prior to normal retirement age or date. The System also provides death and disability benefits as well as annual cost -of- living adjustments to plan participants and beneficiaries. The Florida Legislature established the System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes and Chapter 22B, Florida Administrative Code. The Florida Legislature has sole authority to amend benefit provisions. Special Risk Class members qualify for normal retirement with 10 years of special risk service and are age 55 or with 25 years of special risk service at any age. The monthly benefit payable is equal to 2 -3 percent of their average final compensation for each year depending on the percent in effect during the service period. Vested employees may retire before age 55 and receive benefits that are reduced 5 percent for each year prior to normal retirement age or date. The Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) is a program that provides an alternative method for payment of retirement benefits for a specified and limited period for members of the System, effective July 1, 1998. Under this program, the employee may retire and have their benefits accumulate in the Florida Retirement System Trust Fund, earning interest, while continuing to work for a System employer. The act of participating in the program does not change the individual employee's employment conditions. When the DROP period ends, a maximum of 60 months, employment must be terminated. At the time of termination of employment, the employee will receive payment of the accumulated DROP benefits, and begin receiving their monthly retirement benefit (in the same amount determined at retirement, plus annual cost -of- living increases). The System publishes an unaudited annual report that provides ten -year historical trend information regarding progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due. The most recent report available is for the plan year ended June 30, 2001. The report may be obtained by writing to Research Education and Policy Section, 2639 -C North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1560, or by calling (850) 488 -5706, or accessing their internet site at www.frs.state.fl.us. FUNDING POLICY -- The System is non - contributory for employees and the County is required to contribute at an actuarially determined rate. During the fiscal year, the effective rate was 10% of annual covered payroll. The contributions of the County are established by the State Legislature and therefore subject to amendment. The County's contributions to the System for the years ending September 30, 2001, 2000 and 1999 were $13,627,022, $12,802,209 and $14,903,385, respectively. 45 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 12 - OPERATING TRANSFERS Operating transfers for the year ended September 30, 2001 were as follows: FUND General Fund Special Revenue Funds: Road Districts Water Management and Pollution Control Unincorporated Areas Grants and Shared Revenues Improvement Districts Sheriff s Grants Fire Control Districts Miscellaneous Florida Statutes Fee Collections Museum Lighting Districts Community Redevelopment Tourist Development Total Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds: Parks and General Obligation Refunding Bonds Road and Other Improvements Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 1997 Isle of Capri Renovations and Expansion Stormwater Improvement Assessment Bonds Line of Credit Total Debt Service Funds Capital Projects Funds: County-Wide Capital Improvements Parks Improvements County-Wide Library Parks Impact Districts Emergency Medical Service Road Construction Water Management Other Capital Projects Total Capital Projects Funds Enterprise Funds: County Water and Sewer Marco Water and Sewer Solid Waste Disposal Emergency Medical Services Airport Authority Total Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds: Public Works Engineering Department Department of Revenue Total Internal Service Funds Trust and Agency Funds: Criminal Justice State Court of Administration Confiscated Property Total Trust and Agency Funds Total All Funds 46 Transfers In $ 3,984,017 6,394,900 88,816 1,183,019 718,386 557,348 205,679 311,364 52,968 753,200 7,960 154,252 82,752 10,510,644 7,795 3,560,157 1,447,400 1,416 1,192,700 6,209,468 4,619,971 893,840 129,860 1,817,348 633,433 8,094,452 99,055 29,648 7,758,900 250,000 8,137,603 42,285 42,285 3,743,841 3,743,841 $ 40,722,310 Transfers Out 29,146,473 768,872 403,174 2,939,904 106,830 44,208 59,800 332,034 1,163,007 5,817,829 28,785 424 5,931 35,140 442,306 480,627 1,497,700 17,062 1,373,200 11,876 46,144 3,868,915 478,028 339,447 172,066 3,000 992,541 263,700 263,700 422,900 174,812 597,712 40,722,310 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 13 - SEGMENT INFORMATION - ENTERPRISE FUNDS 000's Omitted 130' County Marco Solid Emergency Water Water Goodland Waste Medical Airport and Sewer and Sewer Water Disposal Services Authority Total Operating revenue $ 45,934 318 19,666 5,892 1,536 73,346 Depreciation and amortization 12,672 - 81 446 381 555 14,135 Operating expenses (excluding depreciation and amortization) 27,169 112 323 19,283 13,468 1,867 62,222 Operating income (loss) 6,093 (112) (86) (63) (7,957) (886) (3,011) Income (loss) before operating transfers 45,248 (215) (42) 2,140 (7,749) (347) 39,035 Operating transfers in 99 - - 30 7,759 250 8,138 Operating transfers out (478) (340) - (172) (3) - (993) Net income (loss) 44,870 (555) (42) 1,998 7 (97) 46,181 Current capital contributions, net (8,716) (3,066) (19) (31) (305) (331) (12,468) Property, plant and equipment: Additions 21,868 - - 217 67 20 22,172 Deletions (366) (2,996) - (18) - (77) (3,457) Net working capital 135,720 - 658 24,014 1,515 1,715 163,622 - Total assets 594,462 - 1,185 31,687 5,221 13,655 646,210 Total long -term liabilities 110,855 - 104 3,681 691 8,247 123,578 Total fund equity 462,049 - 1,057 26,526 4,174 5,097 498,903 NOTE 14 - FUND EQUITY Contributed capital - Balances represent capital grants and contributions received from developers, customers and other governments or funds. Retained Eamines Enterprise funds - Reserved for revenue bond retirement: Balances are reserved in conjunction with the issuance of County water and sewer and Goodland water revenue bond issues. They have been funded by initial deposits from the bond proceeds and by transfers from the operating accounts of the appropriate funds. The use of monies in the sinking fund is restricted to the payment of principal and interest on long -term debt. Enterprise funds Reserved for renewal and replacement: Balances are reserved in conjunction with the issuance of County water and sewer bond issues. They are funded by transfers from the operating accounts of the appropriate funds. - The use of monies in the renewal and replacement fund is restricted to funding the cost of extensions, enlargements, additions and replacement or major repair of capital assets. Enterprise funds - Unreserved: Balances are not reserved for specific purposes. Internal service funds - Unreserved: Balances are not reserved for specific purposes. 47 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 14 - FUND EQUITY — CONTINUED Fund Balances Reserved Reserved for prepaid costs: Balances represent insurance, travel and other expenses paid in advance and which are not considered available and spendable resources. Reserved for inventory: Balances represent items which are not considered available and spendable resources. Reserved for advances to other funds: Balances represent long -term advances made to other funds which do not constitute expendable and available financial resources. Reserved for long -term notes receivable: Balances represent long -term loans made to individuals which do not constitute expendable and available financial resources. Reserved for encumbrances: Balances are segregated for expenditure upon vendor performance. Reserved for debt service: Balances represent monies legally restricted to the payment of principal and interest on long- term debt. Reserved for trust fund purposes: Balances are reserved as legally mandated or as otherwise stipulated by a donor. Fund Balances Unreserved Designated for impact fees: Balances represent affordable housing impact fees deferred by the Board of County Commissioners to be funded by the County in the future. Designated for debt service: Balances are designated for the payment of principal and interest on long -term debt. Designated for future capital projects: Balances are designated for future capital project expenditures. Undesignated: Balances are not designated for specific purposes. NOTE 15 - RISK MANAGEMENT COUNTY'S SELF - INSURANCE The County is exposed to various risks of loss related to tort; theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees and natural disasters. A self - insurance internal service fund is maintained by the County to administer insurance activities relating to workers' compensation, health and property and casualty, which covers general, property, auto, public official and crime liabilities. Under these programs, the self - insurance fund provides coverage up to a maximum amount for each claim. The County purchases commercial insurance for claims in excess of coverage provided by the self - insurance fund and for all other covered risks of loss. Claim Type County's Coverage Excess Carrier's Coverage Property claims $100,000 each $100,000 - $335,224,806 Auto liability claims $100,000 each $100,000 - $1,000,000 Employee health claims $175,000 each $175,000 - $1,000,000 Workers' compensation claims $150,000 each $150,000 - $400,000 13� COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 15 - RISK MANAGEMENT – CONTINUED COUNTY'S SELF- INSURANCE – CONTINUED The aggregate loss exposure on workers' compensation and property and casualty claims is $2,000,000. Settled claims have not exceeded the insurance provided by third party carriers in any of the past four years. All divisions of the County, excluding the Sheriff, participate in this program. Charges to operating departments are based upon amounts believed by management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for the — estimated operating costs of the programs. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001 the operating departments were charged approximately $13,977,000 for workers' compensation, health and property and casualty self - insurance programs. The claims loss reserve for workers' compensation, health and property and casualty of $6,180,500 reported at September 30, 2001 was calculated by third party actuaries based upon GASB Statement 30, "Risk Financing Omnibus ", which requires that a liability for claims be reported when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of that loss can be reasonably estimated. The estimated liabilities for unpaid losses related to workers' compensation and property and casualty, were discounted at 4.5 %. _ SHERIFF'S SELF - INSURANCE The Sheriff participates in the State -wide Florida Sheriffs Self- Insurance Fund for its professional liability insurance. The fund is managed by representatives of the participating Sheriff offices and provides professional liability insurance to participating Sheriff agencies. The Florida Sheriffs Self- Insurance Fund provides liability insurance coverage subject to the following limitations: $2,100,000 for any claim involving a single individual, $2,200,000 for any incident which involves multiple claims and aggregate, $2,300,000 ultimate net loss per Sheriff during any policy period. Effective January 1, 1994, the Sheriff elected to participate in the Florida Sheriffs Self - Insurance fund program for workers' compensation coverage. The Florida Sheriffs Association Workers' Compensation Insurance Trust (FSAWIT) is a limited self - insurance fund providing coverage for the first $250,000 of every claim. Re- insurance is provided through a third party insurer for all claims exceeding $250,000. Prior to this date the Sheriff was a participant in the county-wide self - insurance internal service fund maintained by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to administer these insurance activities. Premiums charged to participating Sheriffs are based upon amounts believed by Fund management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for the estimated operating costs of the program. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001 the Sheriff was charged approximately $1,339,899 for the workers' compensation self - insurance program. Coverage is provided on an occurrence basis. Also effective January 1, 1994, the Sheriff established a self - funded employee health plan. An internal service fund was established to account for the activities of the plan. Excess coverage has been purchased which provides specific claim coverage for any one incident exceeding $150,000 up to $1,000,000 and aggregate limits coverage of $1,000,000 for total claims paid by the Sheriff which exceeds $6,785,113 for any coverage year. Payments to the internal service fund are based on actuarial estimates of amounts needed to pay prior year and current year claims. 49 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 s u NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ,j "w SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 15 - RISK MANAGEMENT — CONTINUED CHANGES IN SELF - INSURANCE CLAIMS PAYABLE Changes in the self - insurance claims payable for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 were as follows for the County and Sheriff self-insurance programs: Balance October 1, 1999 Current year claims incurred and changes in estimates Claim payments Balance September 30, 2000 Current year claims incurred and changes in estimates Claim payments Balance September 30, 2001 NOTE 16 - LANDFILL LIABILITY Property and Group Workers' Casualty Health Compensation Total $ 1,865,000 2,284,532 2,909,000 7,058,532 415,624 12,537,970 1,292, 854 14,246,448 (704,624) (11,580,502) (1,501,854) (13,786,980) 1,576,000 3,242,000 2,700,000 7,518,000 1,169,931 14,571,137 1,204,024 16,945,092 (1,006,931) (14,233,637) (1,200,024) (16,440,592) $ 1,739,000 3,579,500 2,704,000 8,022,500 On May 1, 1995 the County entered into an agreement with a company for the privatization of the County's landfill operations. Under the contract, the company is responsible for the daily operations, capital improvements, closure, postclosure and financial assurance requirements of the active cells within the Naples and Immokalee landfill sites. At this time there is no reason for management to believe that the contractor will not be financially capable of meeting the closure and postclosure responsibilities of the contract. Collier County is responsible for the postclosure costs relating to two cells at the Naples landfill site, and one cell at the Inunokalee landfill site. None of the cells that Collier County is responsible for has accepted waste since December 1989. The County is also responsible for staffing and operating the scale house at each site. In accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule "Solid Waste Disposal and Facility Criteria" and GASB Statement 18, "Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Closure and Postclosure Care Costs ", a liability has been established representing amounts estimated to be spent on postclosure relating to the three cells for which Collier County is responsible. The Solid Waste Disposal fund currently holds an amount in restricted cash and investments for the postclosure landfill liability. The County's estimated liability in connection with the landfills is included in the enterprise fund balance sheet. The landfill liability will be reassessed on an annual basis, and any increase due to inflation, changes in technology or additional postclosure care requirements will be recorded as a current cost. The County has an escrow account in the amount of $10,000 to comply with Rule 62- 701.630, Florida Administrative Code for Immokalee Landfill #1. These funds are restricted for the exclusive use of the Immokalee Landfill # 1 site's long -term care. There were no deposits or withdrawals to this account in fiscal year 2001. NOTE 17 - DEFICIT RETAINED EARNINGS The Airport Authority enterprise fund has a deficit retained earnings balance of ($2,344,132), and total fund equity of $5,096,811. 50 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 30 �- SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 18 - SIGNIFICANT CONTINGENCIES LITIGATION The County is involved as defendant or plaintiff in certain litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of operations. In the opinion of legal counsel, the range of potential recoveries or liabilities will not materially affect the financial position of the County. STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS -- Grant monies received and disbursed by the County are for specific purposes and are subject to review by the grantor agencies. Such audits may result in requests for reimbursement due to disallowed expenditures. Based upon prior experience, the County does not believe that such disallowances, if any, would have a material effect on the financial position of the County. ARBITRAGE REBATE In accordance with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, any interest earnings on borrowed construction funds in excess of the interest costs are required to be rebated to the federal government. The County Water and Sewer fund and the Airport Authority have estimated liabilities of $23,710 and $1,103 respectively. The arbitrage rebate on General Long -Term Debt _ is $330,936. NOTE 19 - SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENTS CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENTS _ Project Expended as of Future Authorization September 30, 2001 Commitments Parks $ 3,548,941 2,463,387 1,085,554 -° Roads 82,904,853 41,099,538 41,805,315 Utilities 90,152,810 47,533,012 42,619,798 Landfill expansion and closure 408,854 120,753 288,101 Buildings 8,269,631 4,741,948 3,527,683 Airports 3,675,156 1,519,253 2,155,903 Beach restoration 3,514,058 1,535,268 1,978,790 Stormwater drainage 1,051,970 382,869 669,101 Total $ 193,526,273 99,396,028 94,130,245 ROAD AND REGIONAL PARK IMPACT FEE AGREEMENTS The County has acquired right -of -ways and received beach parking and road construction services from developers in exchange for impact fee credits. Amounts granted for impact fee credits were based on the market value at the time the property, improvement or services were received. The developers, their successors or assignees may utilize the road impact fee credits for future development activities. No time limits are set for use of the credits. As the credits are consumed, impact fee revenue is recognized. At September 30, 2001 the County had outstanding school impact fee, road impact fee, park impact fee and fire impact fee agreements with developers of $172,206, $8,341,498, $73,283 and $180,361 respectively. 51 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 NOTE 20 — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS On January 24, 2002 Collier County issued the $47,430,000 Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2002. The County issued these bonds for the purpose of providing funds to reimburse, finance and refinance the costs of acquisition, construction and equipping of various capital improvements within the County including voting machines, public safety improvements, general governmental buildings, improvements to a County jail, parks and recreation improvements and library improvements as well pay certain costs of issuance of the Series 2002 Bonds. The Series 2002 Bonds are being issued on a parity as to the lien on and security with the County's Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1992, currently outstanding in the amount of $6,015,000 and the County's Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1994, currently outstanding in the amount of $25,030,000. 52 GENERAL FUND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL FUND IS TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE COUNTY S OPERATING REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND THEIR USES IN CONDUCTING THE GENERAL OPERATIONS OF THE COUNTY, EXCEPT FOR THOSE RESOURCES REQUIRED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN ANOTHER FUND. THE GENERAL FUND HAS A GREATER NUMBER AND VARIETY OF REVENUE SOURCES THAN ANY OTHER FUND, AND ITS RESOURCES FINANCE A WIDER RANGE OF ACTIVITIES. THE RESOURCES OF THE GENERAL FUND ARE NORMALLY EXPENDED AND REPLENISHED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. Revenues: COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) GENERALFUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Interest income Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: General government Legislative Board of County Commissioners Executive County manager administrative Financial and administrative Budget and management Administrative services Human resources administration Clerk to the board Property appraiser Tax collector Legal counsel County attorney Comprehensive planning Natural resources Judicial Circuit court costs Courtroom operations & maintenance County court cost State attorney Public defender Clerk to the courts Other general government Other general administrative Facilities management Supervisor of elections Real property management Total general government Budget Actual $ 97,283,000 93,958,775 (3,324,225) 127,200 158,705 31,505 29,359,520 29,273,988 (85,532) 13,589,431 13,071,653 (517,778) 4,577,400 5,736,169 1,158,769 2,010,000 3,627,416 1,617,416 4,667,250 5,154,023 486,773 151,613,801 150,980,729 (633,072) 764,024 704,463 59,561 574,300 490,457 83,843 434,100 415,909 18,191 2,983,602 2,829,942 153,660 844,687 873,315 (28,628) 4,545,457 4,168,982 376,475 4,872,381 4,860,944 11,437 5,700,074 5,691,799 8,275 2,151,657 2,065,285 86,372 186,100 183,444 2,656 463,200 410,964 52,236 1,695,200 1,719,201 (24,001) 54,363 21,741 32,622 290,900 279,939 10,961 260,900 228,196 32,704 7,036,243 6,165,816 870,427 1,877,056 1,781,300 95,756 4,953,272 4,936,426 16,846 1,641,000 1,43 8,841 202,159 768,127 689,846 78,281 42,096,643 39,956,810 2,139,833 54 c. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE _- BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 55 Budget Actual Variance Public safety Law enforcement Sheriff S 54,796,451 54,321,122 475,329 Detention and /or correction Sheriff 16,048,600 16,416,368 (367,768) Emergency and disaster rescue services Emergency management administration 541,688 550,494 (8,806) Ambulance and rescue services Helicopter 656,000 564,368 91,632 Medical examiner Medical examiner services 689,400 686,565 2,835 Total public safety 72,732,139 72,538,917 193,222 Physical environment Conservation and resource management Agriculture administration 1,427,930 1,301,303 126,627 Aquatic plant control 1,164,200 1,116,995 47,205 Other physical environment Immokalee cemetery 12,900 12,190 710 Total physical environment 2,605,030 2,430,488 174,542 _ Economic environment Veterans services 191,100 182,427 8,673 Housing and urban improvement 900,300 699,123 201,177 Total economic environment 1,091,400 881,550 209,850 Human services Hospitals Health Care Responsibility Act 37,600 12,671 24,929 Health Animal control 1,256,080 1,129,015 127,065 Health department 922,100 883,491 38,609 Mental health Mental health 900,000 900,000 - Welfare Client assistance 3,302,700 3,290,439 12,261 Other human services Public services division office 301,000 265,257 35,743 Total human services 6,719,480 6,480,873 238,607 (CONTINUED) 55 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Culture and recreation Libraries Library administration Outreach services Parks and recreation activities Recreation programs Total culture and recreation Debt service Total expenditures Excess of revenues over expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses Fund balance at beginning of year Fund balance at end of year Budget Actual Variance $ 3,492,300 3,257,702 234,598 259,100 231,315 27,785 2,246,713 2,138,450 108,263 5,998,113 5,627,467 370,646 333,733 297,007 36,726 131,576,538 128,213,112 3,363,426 20,037,263 22,767,617 2,730,354 2,939,730 4,021,073 1,081,343 (30,518,671) (30,471,673) 46,998 (27,578,941) (26,450,600) 1,128,341 (7,541,678) (3,682,983) 3,858,695 11,433,079 27,429,990 15,996,911 $ 3,891,401 23,747,007 19,855,606 56 i SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 13B ROAD DISTRICTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED AND EXPENDITURES TO CARRY ON ALL WORK ON ROADS AND BRIDGES IN THE COUNTY EXCEPT THAT PROVIDED FOR IN CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS. WATT'R MANACFMFNT AND POLLUTION CONTROL - TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED COUNTY -WIDE TO PROVIDE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL. TNINCORPORATED AREAS - TO ACCOUNT FOR REVENUES DERIVED FROM AND EXPENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY. GRANTS AND SHARED RFVENTTFS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE REVENUES RECEIVED FROM FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GRANTS. IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED WITHIN MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIED IMPROVEMENTS AND /OR THE MAINTENANCE OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. SHERIFF'S GRANTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE REVENUES RECEIVED BY THE SHERIFF FROM FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GRANTS. FIRE CONTROL DISTRICTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED WITHIN MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICTS FOR FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL. MISCFI T ANFOTT4 FT ORTDA ;TATIJTF.S FFF COLLECTIONS - TO ACCOUNT FOR FEES COLLECTED FOR STATUTORY PURPOSES. MUSFTTM - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAXES AND ADMISSION FEES USED TO FUND THE OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM. LIGHTING DISTRICTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED WITHIN MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICTS FOR STREET LIGHTING. 911 ENHANCEMENT FEE. - TO ACCOUNT FOR FEES LEVIED ON EACH TELEPHONE ACCESS LINE IN THE COUNTY FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE 911 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM. PTTRLTC RF,CORDS MODERNIZATION - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE STATUTORY SURCHARGE ON RECORDING DOCUMENTS TO BE PAID TO THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE MODERNIZATION OF THE CLERK'S OFFICIAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. ADOPTION AWARENESS - TO ACCOUNT FOR REVENUES RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF CHOOSE LIFE LICENSE PLATES TO BE SPENT ON ADOPTION AWARENESS. COMMTNITY RFDFVET,OPMFNT - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. TOTTRTST DF.VFT.OPMENT -TO ACCOUNT FOR THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX. STATE HOTT4ING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP - TO ACCOUNT FOR STATE REVENUES RECEIVED TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FOR VERY LOW TO MODERATE INCOME PERSONS AND THOSE WHO HAVE SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS. Roo MHZ TROP FUND ACCOUNT - TO ACCOUNT FOR MOVING TRAFFIC VIOLATION SURCHARGES RECEIVED TO FUND THE COUNTY'S INTERGOVERNMENTAL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM. ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables: Interest Notes Other Due from other funds Due from other governments Inventory Prepaid cost Total assets LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals Due to other funds Due to other governments Due to individuals Deferred revenues Retainage payable Advances from other funds Total liabilities Fund balances: Reserved for: Encumbrances Inventory Notes recievable Prepaid costs Unreserved: Designated for: Impact fees Undesignated Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 $ 251,829 Water 2,722,519 Grants and 68,861 5,516 3,274 Road Management and Unincorporated Shared Improvement Sheriffs Districts Pollution Control Areas Revenues Districts Grants - - - 1,891,322 $ 983,321 2,072,391 24,893,768 521,617 4,193,680 791,776 8,947 25,620 350,213 2,043 45,840 - 219,926 154,650 448,546 255,036 1,137 2,382 - 32,585 405,891 14,693 19,764 86,158 49,628 - 202,935 2,207,465 - 360,118 $ 1,261,822 2,285,246 26,301,353 3,000,854 4,260,421 1,240,434 $ 251,829 110,683 2,722,519 433,673 68,861 5,516 3,274 3,965 40,580 1,533,134 49,404 - 720 - 234,542 4,819 86 - 2,184 - - - 1,891,322 509,067 1,234,918 1,480 14,440 3,530 - - - - - 650,000 - 255,823 116,128 4,905,587 2,484,223 768,351 1,240,434 16,747 103,050 2,199,029 516,631 482,354 - - 104,109 - 989,252 2,066,068 19,092,628 - 3,009,716 1,005,999 2,169,118 21,395,766 516,631 3,492,070 $ 1,261,822 2,285,246 26,301,353 3,000,854 4,260,421 1,240.434 58 136 " 17,914 11,529 44,316 9,024 1,400 19,314 11,529 44,316 9,024 - 1,166 140,106 - 355,096 495,202 1,166 670 Miscellaneous 3,419 911 Public - Fire Control Florida Statutes 106,051 Lighting Enhancement Records Adoption Districts Fee Collections Museum Districts Fee Modernization Awareness 255,693 135,591 192,337 375,788 1,430,363 1,813,269 9,092 5,046 745. 1,933 6,793 11,707 - 7 - 2,529 - 83,311 17,358 1,015 - 8,017 - - - 10,000 - 24,676 218 - - 278,315 139,880 204,270 390,598 1,550,057 1,813,269 9,099 17,914 11,529 44,316 9,024 1,400 19,314 11,529 44,316 9,024 - 1,166 140,106 - 355,096 495,202 1,166 670 22,300 3,419 218 - - 258,113 106,051 156,535 381,574 1.054,855 1,812,103 9,099 259,001 128,351 159,954 381,574 1,054,855 1,812,103 9,099 278,315 139,880 204,270 390,598 1,550,057 1,813,269 9,099 (CONTINUED) 59 ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables: Interest Notes Other Due from other funds Due from other governments Inventory Prepaid cost Total assets LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals Due to other funds Due to other governments Due to individuals Deferred revenues Retainage payable Advances from other funds Total liabilities Fund balances: Reserved for: Encumbrances Inventory Notes receivable Prepaid costs Unreserved: Designated for: Impact fees Undesignated Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances r COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 $ 859,931 45,587 State Housing 800 MHZ 656 Community Tourist Initiative IRCP Fund - Redevelopment Development Partnership Account Total 2,184 - 1,031,679 $ 158,552 19,611,321 2,247,964 460,046 60,146,569 766 164,221 15,313 4,123 643,317 - - 1,181,990 - 1,181,990 73,722 - 50,704 19,247 1,237,468 440,219 - 2,875 1,028,575 1,181,990 - 184,860 - 3,039,682 - - - - - 218 - - - 2,500 2,500 $ 159,318 20,215,761 3,680,831 488,791 67,280,319 $ 859,931 45,587 103,611 4,686,159 656 384,866 - 2,155,985 - - 241,567 - 2,184 - 1,031,679 5,022,082 2,396 21,846 - - - 650,000 862.983 1,462,132 103,611 12,779,823 4,201,432 73,722 - 7,619,354 - - 218 1,181,990 - 1,181,990 - 2,500 2,500 - - - - 104,109 159,318 15,151,346 962,987 382,680 45,592.325 159,318 19,352,778 2,218,699 385,180 54,500,496 $ 159,318 20,215,761 3,680,831 488,791 67,280,319 •1 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Interest income Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Current: General government Public safety Physical environment Transportation Economic environment Human services Culture and recreation Debt service: Principal Interest Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from capital leases Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year -- Residual equity transfer in Residual equity transfer out Fund balances at end of year m 61 (CONTINUED) Water Grants and Road Management and Unincorporated Shared Improvement Sheriffs Districts Pollution Control Areas Revenues Districts Grants $ 3,008,269 1,187,791 16,552,893 1,954,812 25,385 540 11,011,567 - - 229,855 303,816 107,171 3,935,799 - 4,700,074 206.899 1,982,845 2,843,942 - 249,450 - - - 153,588 - - 118,486 229,014 2,031,657 15,110 416,105 70,710 8,694 108,170 77,460 6,412 - 3,659,604 3,712,700 32,808,988 4,028,369 2,626,779 4,700,074 - - 5,431,078 413,998 - - - 9,515,293 232,039 - 4,905,753 - 2,943,737 26,352 2,807,648 10,239,928 202,443 3,847,885 2,428,123 41,005 _ _ 267,118 - - 522,069 - - - 8,755,260 697,879 692,891 344,319 7,995 41,074 983 1,817 25,554 1,137 5,845 140 259 - 10,609,801 3,155,312 27,596,435 4,588,701 3,543,620 4,905,753 (6,950,197) 557,388 5,212,553 (560,332) (916,841) (205,679) 48,474 33,856 173,938 4,164 7,695 - 6,394,900 88,816 1,183,019 718,386 557,348 205,679 (768,872) (403,174) (2,939,904) - (106,830) - 5,674,502 (280,502) (1,582,947) 722,550 458,213 205,679 (1,275,695) 276,886 3,629,606 162,218 (458,628) - 4,087,359 1,892,232 15,960,495 354,413 3,950,698 _ - 1,805,665 - - (1,805,665) - - $ 1,005,999 2,169,118 21,395,766 516,631 3,492,070 61 (CONTINUED) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES ` } ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 13B Other financing sources (uses) Proceeds from capital leases 91,522 Miscellaneous 7,695 - 911 Public 52,968 Fire Control Florida Statutes Operating transfers out Lighting Enhancement Records (332,034) Districts Fee Collections Museum Districts Fee Modernization Revenues: ing sources over (under) expen- Taxes $ 1,122,056 ditures and other financing (uses) (13,154) 907,948 1,045,007 (257,608) 226,856 98,137 Licenses and permits - 40,595 - - - 6,020 Intergovernmental - - 6,176 - - - Charges for services 2,493 61,133 - 159,954 381,574 1,054,855 1,812,103 358,997 Fines and forfeitures - 53,900 - - - - Interest income 42,321 7,661 15,225 58,090 96,087 92,385 Miscellaneous 38,609 17,651 - 5,193 - - Total revenues 1,205,479 140,345 21,401 971,231 1,141,094 451382 Expenditures: Current: General government - 105,557 - - - 353,245 Public safety 1,537,751 - 914,238 - Physical environment - - - Transportation 904,765 Economic environment - Human services - Culture and recreation - 652,641 Debt Service: Principal 27,757 1,817 Interest and fiscal charges 11,803 - 259 - - - Total expenditures 1,577,311 105,557 654,717 904,765 914,238 353,245 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (371,832) 34,788 (633,316) 66,466 226,856 98,137 Other financing sources (uses) Proceeds from capital leases 91,522 - 7,695 - Operating transfers in 311,364 52,968 753,200 7.960 Operating transfers out (44,208) - (59,800) (332,034) Total other financing sources (uses) 358,678 52,968 701,095 (324,074) - - Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) (13,154) 87,756 67,779 (257,608) 226,856 98,137 Fund balances at beginning of year 266,135 40,595 92,175 639,182 827,999 1,713,966 Residual equity transfer in 6,020 - - - - - Residual equity transfer out - - - - - - Fund balances at end of year $ 259,001 128,351 159,954 381,574 1,054,855 1,812,103 62 w 130 M rJll State Housing 800 MHZ Adoption Community Tourist Initiative IRCP Fund Awareness Redevelopment Development Partnership Account Total 9,173,674 34,952,450 11,037,492 h•Y 9,064 - 1,317,588 - 10,609,543 _ 635 419,533 473,904 6,599,831 _ _ _ - 207,488 35 5,066 1,362,601 123,381 34,426 4,647,650 - - 1,302,035 - 32,186 1,667,120 9,099 5,066 11,838,945 1,860,502 540,516 69,721,574 _ _ - - 6,303,878 _ 551,511 17,656,585 4,107,622 - 9,885,359 _ - 17,664,149 - 1,684,492 1,951,610 _ - 522,069 2,415,647 - 13,214,318 636 328 426,726 90 46 - 45,133 6,523,995 1,684,866 551,511 67,669,827 9.099 5,066 5,314,950 175,636 (10,995) 2,051,747 _ - 2,692 1,388 371,424 154,252 82,752 - 10,510,644 - (1,163,007) - (5,817,829) - 154,252 (1,077,563) 1,388 5,064,239 9,099 159,318 4,237,387 177,024 (10,995) 7,115,986 - 15,115,391 2,041,675 396,175 47,378,490 1,811,685 (1,805,665) 9.099 159,318 19,352,778 2,218,699 385,180 54,500,496 63 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS s °? FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Interest income Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Current: General government Public safety Physical environment Transportation Economic environment Human services Culture and recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from notes Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Road Districts (Non -GAAP) - Water Management and Pollution Control (Non -GAAP) Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance $ 3,000,000 3,008,269 8,269 1,227,000 1,187,791 (39,209) - 25,385 25,385 35,300 540 (34,760) 215.000 229,855 14,855 345,217 303,816 (41,401) 177,800 206,899 29,099 2,066,900 1,982,845 (84,055) 41,500 118,486 76,986 92,400 229,014 136,614 27,500 70,710 43,210 - 8,694 8,694 3,461,800 3,659,604 197,804 3,766,817 3,712,700 (54,117) - - - 3,674,563 2,909,881 764,682 10,782,009 10,191,454 590,555 207,726 202,443 5,283 342,984 344,319 (1,335) 7,946 7,995 (49) 25,364 25,554 (190) 1,131 1,137 (6) 11,150,357 10,561,327 589,030 3,891,366 3,121,456 769,910 (7,688.557) (6,901,723) 786,834 (124,549) 591,244 715,793 6,394,900 6,394,900 57,600 88,816 31,216 (740,000) (768,872) (28,872) (443,100) (403,174) 39,926 5,654,900 5,626,028 (28,872) (385,500) (314,358) 71.142 (2,033,657) (1,275,695) 757,962 (510,049) 276,886 786,935 2,258,352 4,087,359 1,829,007 1,347,764 3,154,681 1,806.917 $ 224,695 2,811,664 2,586,969 837,715 3,431,567 2,593,852 64 Unincorporated Areas (Non -GAAP) Grants and Shared Revenues (Non -GAAP) Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 16,394,344 16,552, 893 158,549 11,348,500 11,346,961 (1,539) - - 44,700 107,171 62,471 9,193,082 4,241,776 (4,951,306) 2,529,900 2,843,942 314,042 - - 60,000 153,588 93,588 - - 503,000 2,031,657 1,528,657 - 15,110 15,110 N 146,800 108,170 (38,630) 11,200 77,460 66,260 31,027,244 33,144,382 2,117,138 9,204,282 4,334,346 (4,869,936) 6,025,980 5,322,571 703,409 994,038 413,998 580,040 19,000,007 9,449,862 9,550,145 1,911,365 712,828 1,198,537 - - - 26,600 26,352 248 6,689,900 3,847,885 2,842,015 3,438,083 2,428,123 1,009,960 100,000 - 100,000 2,837,000 267,118 2,569,882 - - - 877,415 517,905 359,510 9,828,483 8,755,260 1,073,223 984,843 697,879 286,964 39,290 41,074 (1,784) 989 983 6 5,871 5,845 26 141 140 1 41,689,531 27,422,497 14,267.034 11,070,474 5,065,326 6,005,148 (10,662,287) 5,721,885 16,384,172 (1,866,192) (730,980) 1,135,212 3,500,000 - (3,500,000) - - 2,390,500 2,527,019 136,519 902,771 893,198 (9,573) (4,846,828) (4,283,904) 562,924 - - 1,043,672 (1,756,885) (2.800,557) 902,771 893,198 (9,573) (9,618,615) 3,965,000 13,583,615 (963,421) 162,218 1,125,639 14,576,123 17,988,027 3,411,904 1,000,091 354,413 (645,678) 4,957,508 21,953,027 16,995,519 36,670 516,631 479,961 (CONTINUED) NMI COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ` ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 1.1 Improvement Districts (Non -GAAP) Fire Control Districts (Non -GAAP) 66 Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance Revenues: Taxes $ 2,024,100 1,954,812 (69,288) 1,164,100 1,122,056 (42,044) Licenses and permits - - - - Intergovernmental - - - - - - Charges for services 237,100 249,450 12,350 1,300 2,493 1,193 Fines and forfeitures - - - - - - Interest income 132,200 416,105 283,905 9,800 42,321 32,521 Miscellaneous 12,000 6,412 (5,588) 19,800 38,609 18,809 Total revenues 2,405,400 2,626,779 221,379 1,195,000 1,205,479 10,479 Expenditures: Current: General government - - - Public safety - - - 1,503,291 1,446,229 57,062 Physical environment 3,644,798 2,799,953 844,845 - - - Transportation 148,587 41,005 107,582 Economic environment - - - Human services - - - Culture and recreation 839,038 692,891 146,147 - - - Debt Service: Principal 1,806 1,817 (11) 36,279 27,757 8,522 Interest and fiscal charges 257 259 (2) 15.860 11,803 4,057 Total expenditures 4,634,486 3,535,925 1,098,561 1,555,430 1,485,789 69.641 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (2,229,086) (909,146) 1,319,940 (360,430) (280,310) 80,120 Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from notes - - - - - - Operating transfers in 537,700 557,348 19,648 427,400 439,364 11,964 Operating transfers out (198,300) (186.830) 11,470 (178,186) (172,208) 5,978 Total other financing sources (uses) 339,400 370,518 31,118 249,214 267,156 17,942 Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) (1,889,686) (538,628) 1,351,058 (111,216) (13,154) 98,062 Fund balances at beginning of year 4,236.773 4,571,498 334,725 141,291 266,135 124,844 Fund balances at end ofyear $ 2,347,087 4,032,870 1,685,783 30,075 252,981 222,906 66 Miscellaneous Florida Statutes Fee Collections Museum (Non -GAAP) Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance -- _ - - 148,568 6,176 (142,392) 53,176 61,133 7,957 - - 15,000 53,900 38,900 - - - 1,271 7,661 6,390 1,000 15,225 14,225 _ 20,000 17,651 (2,349) - - - 89,447 140.345 50,898 149,568 21,401 (128,167) 151,915 105,557 46,358 - - 832,668 644,946 187,722 1,807 1,817 (10) _ - 258 259 (1) 151,915 105,557 46,358 834,733 647,022 187,711 (62,468) 34,788 97,256 (685,165) (625,621) 59,544 52,968 52,968 753,200 753,200 _ - (59,800) (59,800) 52,968 52,968 - 693.400 693,400 - (9,500) 87,756 97,256 8,235 67,779 59,544 59,200 40,595 (181605) 26,100 92,175 66,075 49,700 128,351 78,651 34,335 159,954 125,619 (CONTINUED) 67 13B I� Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Interest income Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Current: General government Public safety Physical environment Transportation Economic environment Human services Culture and recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess ofrevenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from notes Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 914,238 1, >. COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES 904,765 BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 1,267,000 Lighting Districts 911 Enhancement Fee 1,015,596 Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance $ 903,900 907,948 4,048 890,100 1,045,007 154,907 295,800 161,862 (295,800) 16,300 58,090 41,790 54,000 96,087 42,087 - 5,193 5,193 - - - 920,200 971,231 51,031 1,239,900 1,141,094 (98,806) Expenditures: Current: General government Public safety Physical environment Transportation Economic environment Human services Culture and recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess ofrevenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from notes Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year 68 1,267,000 914,238 352,762 1,015,596 904,765 110,831 110,831 1,267,000 352,762 914,238 1,015,596 904,765 (95,396) 66,466 161,862 (27,100) 226.856 253,956 7,960 7,960 (335,800) (332,034) 3,766 (335,800) (324,074) 11,726 - - (431,196) (257,608) 173,588 (27,100) 226,856 253,956 492,096 639,182 147,086 875,500 827.999 (47,501) $ 60,900 381,574 320,674 848,400 1,054,855 206,455 68 Public Records Modemization Community Redevelopment Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 250,000 358,997 108,997 70,500 92,385 21,885 5,066 5,066 320,500 451,382 130,882 - 5,066 5,066 -- 1,137,500 353,245 784,255 154,360 - 154,360 1,137,500 154,360 - 154,360 784,255 353,245 (817,000) 98,137 915,137 (154,360) 5,066 159,426 154,360 154,252 (108) _ - 154,360 154,252 (108) (817,000) 98,137 915,137 - 159,318 159,318 1,234,800 1,713,966 479,166 - - 417,800 1,812,103 1,394,303 159,318 159,318 (CONTINUED) 69 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Interest income Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Current: General government Public safety Physical environment Transportation Economic environment Human services Culture and recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from notes Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Tourist Development (Non -GAAP) State Housing Initiative Partnership (Non -GAAP) Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 2,786,601 - - $ 8,944,700 9,173,674 228,974 (3) 763 328 435 - - 3,587,639 2,298,563 (1,289,076) - 635 635 - 679,533 679,533 732,400 1,3 62,601 630,201 57,000 123,381 66,381 - 1,302,035 1,302,035 - - - 9,677,100 11,838,945 2,161,845 3,644,639 3,101,477 (543,162) 7,274,748 4,104,930 3,169,818 4,541,517 1,983,104 2,558,413 5,202,248 2,415,647 2,786,601 - - - 633 636 (3) 763 328 435 89 90 (1) 109 46 63 12,477,718 6,521,303 5,956,415 4,542,389 1,983,478 2,558,911 (2,800,618) 5,317,642 8,118,260 (897,750) 1,117,999 2,015,749 80,700 163,452 82,752 (1,243,274) (1,243,707) (433) (1,162,574) (1,080,255) 82,319 - - (3,963,192) 4,237,387 8,200,579 (897,750) 1,117,999 2,015,749 12,208,225 15,115,391 2,907,166 897,750 956,675 58,925 $ 8,245,033 19,352,778 11,107,745 - 2,074,674 2,074,674 70 13B'. 800 MHZ IRCP Fund Account Total Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 34,548,244 34,952,450 404,206 11,383,800 11,372,886 (10,914) - - 13,830,006 7,187,357 (6,642,649) 373,000 473,904 100,904 5,689,176 6,859,831 1,170,655 - - - 75,000 207,488 132,488 15,000 34,426 19,426 1,726,371 4,647,615 2,921,244 27,000 32,186 5,186 264,300 1,667,120 1,402,820 415,000 540,516 125,516 67,516,897 66,894,747 (622,150) - - - 8,463,793 6,195,371 2,268,422 556,900 551,511 5,389 24,238,563 13,074,668 11,163,895 - - - 14,620,709 9,841,116 4,779,593 22,281,901 17,615,675 4,666,226 7,478,517 2,250,222 5,228,295 877,415 517,905 359,510 17,687,280 13,206,623 4,480,657 432,497 426,726 5,771 49,080 45,133 3,947 556,900 551,511 5,389 96,129,755 63,173,439 32,956,316 (1411900) (10,995) 130,905 (28,612,858) 3,721,308 32,334,166 - - 3,500,000 - (3,500,000) 11,752,099 12,032,477 280,378 (8,045,288) (7,450,529) 594,759 - 7,206,811 4,581,948 (2,624,863) (141,900) (10,995) 130,905 (21,406,047) 8,303,256 29,709,303 313,700 396,175 82,475 39,667,765 50,204,271 10,536,506 171,800 385,180 213,380 18,261,718 58,507,527 40,245,809 71 13B 111 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK F_ DEBT SERVICE FUNDS PARKS GENERAL OBT,TGATION REFUNDING RONDS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE REFUNDING OF THE 1986 PARKS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. RACE TRACK REVIENUE CERTIFICATES - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT OF CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDING THE EXPANSION OF THE COLLIER GOVERNMENT CENTER. GITARANTF.F.D F,NTTTI,F,MFNT RFVFNIT. BONDS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE REFUNDING OF THE 1977 GUARANTEED ENTITLEMENT REVENUE BONDS AND NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS. GAS TAX REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE REFUNDING OF THE 1986 ROAD IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS. SALES TAX RF.VF,NITE REFUNDING BONDS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTHOUSE EXPANSION AND THE PARTIAL REFUNDING OF THE 1985 REFUNDING SALES TAX BONDS. ROAD AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON THE COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM. SPECIAL OBIIGATION RFVF.NTTF. BONDS SERIES 1997 - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE REFUNDING OF THE COMMERCIAL PAPER LOANS. ISLE OF CAPRI RENOVATIONS AND EXPANSION - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS. STORMWATFR IMPROVEMYNT ASSESSMENT RONDS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE REFUNDING OF THE COMMERCIAL PAPER LOANS. LINE OF CREnrT - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG- TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR THE NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK. ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables: Special assessments Interest Due from other funds Due from other governments Total assets LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals Deferred revenues Total liabilities Fund balances: Reserved for: Encumbrances Debt service Unreserved: Designated for debt service Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET ALL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Parks General Guaranteed Gas Tax Obligation Race Track Entitlement Revenue Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Revenue Refunding Revenue Bonds Certificates Bonds Bonds Refunding Bonds $ 68,334 423,524 414,342 622,137 6,967,889 4,340 5,259 3,706 6,861 62,313 7,964 - - - - $ 80,638 428,783 418,048 628,998 7,030,202 - 376,100 - 554,380 3,632,393 80,638 52,683 418,048 74,618 3,397,809 80,638 428,783 418,048 628,998 7,030,202 $ 80,638 428,783 418,048 628,998 7,030,202 74 Special Stormwater 4,292 10,424,975 Road and Obligation Isle of Capri Improvement Line - 1,059,370 other Revenue Bonds Renovations Assessment of 96 102,018 Improvements Series 1997 and Expansion Bonds Credit Total 6,089 1,396,694 521,674 4,292 10,424,975 - - 1,059,370 - 1,059,370 473 12,960 - 6,010 96 102,018 216 - - 1,416 - 9,596 38,892 - - 38,892 45,670 1,409,654 1,588,470 4,388 11,634,851 442 1,059,301 1,059,743 442 1,059,301 1,059,743 - 4,195 4,195 - 1,300,000 - - - 5,862,873 45,670 109,654 524,532 4.388 4,708,040 45,670 1,409,654 528,727 4,388 10,575,108 45,670 1,409,654 1,588,470 4,388 11,634,851 75 Expenditures: Debt service: Principal retirement Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Residual equity transfer out Fund balances at end of year 735,000 315,000 130 345,000 1,785,000 COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA COL , 60,575 COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES 829,863 375,575 ALL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 556,155 3,583,844 58,052 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 34,480 37,340 515,893 Parks General Race Guaranteed Gas Tax Obligation Track Entitlement Revenue Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Revenue Refunding Revenue Bonds Certificates Bonds Bonds Refunding Bonds Revenues: Taxes $ 853,023 - - 537,700 - Intergovemmental - 350,400 374,100 - 3,582,500 Interest income 34,892 42,403 31,938 55,795 517,237 Special assessments - - - - Miscellaneous - - - - Total revenues 887,915 392,803 406,038 593,495 4,099,737 Expenditures: Debt service: Principal retirement Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Residual equity transfer out Fund balances at end of year 735,000 315,000 335,000 345,000 1,785,000 94,863 60,575 36,558 211,155 1,798,844 829,863 375,575 371,558 556,155 3,583,844 58,052 17,228 34,480 37,340 515,893 7,795 (28,785) (20,990) 37,062 17,228 34,480 37,340 515,893 43,576 411,555 383,568 591,658 6,514,309 $ 80,638 428,783 418,048 628,998 7,030,202 76 _ 13B " 2,974,000 Special - Stormwater 951,311 8,775,311 Obligation Isle of Capri Improvement Line 110,565 Road and other Revenue Bonds Renovations Assessment of 2,127 Improvements Series 1997 and Expansion Bonds Credit Total - 73,735 (1,188,312) (5,325,929) 1,390,723 - - - - - 4,307,000 4,033 105,777 197 136,193 718 929,183 - - - 143,107 - 143,107 23,482 - - - - 23,482 27,515 105,777 197 279,300 718 6,793,495 2,974,000 1,240,000 - 95,000 951,311 8,775,311 588,093 203,614 2,127 110,565 237,719 3,344,113 3,562,093 1,443,614 2,127 205,565 1,189,030 12,119,424 (3,534,578) (1,337,837) (1,930) 73,735 (1,188,312) (5,325,929) 3,560,157 1,447,400 - 1,416 1,192,700 6,209,468 - - (424) (5,931) - (35,140) 3,560,157 1,447,400 (424) (4,515) 1,192,700 6,174,328 25,579 109,563 (2,354) 69,220 4,388 848,399 20,091 1,300,091 8,374 459,507 - 9,732,729 - - (6,020) - - (6,020) 45,670 1,409,654 - 528,727 4,388 10,575,108 77 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALAE3 jy BUDGET AND ACTUAL (GAAP BASIS) ALL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Intergovernmental Interest income Special assessments Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Debt service: Principal retirement Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess ofrevenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Parks General Obligation Refunding Bonds Budget Actual Race Track Revenue Certificates Budget Actual $ 883,400 853,023 (30,377) - - - - - 350,400 350,400 12,000 34,892 22,892 18,500 42,403 Variance 23,903 895,400 887,915 (7,485) 368.900 392,803 23,903 735,000 735,000 - 315,000 315,000 - 98,800 94,863 3,937 60.600 60,575 25 833,800 829,863 3,937 375,600 375,575 25 61,600 58,052 (3,548) (6,700) 17,228 23,928 - 7,795 7,795 - - (33,900) (28,785) 5,115 (33,900) (20,990) 12,910 - 27,700 37,062 9,362 (6,700) 17,228 23,928 (27,700) 43,576 71,276 382,800 411,555 28,755 $ 80,638 80.638 376,100 428,783 52.683 78 Guarar Budget 374,100 8,500 382,600 teed Entitlement Revenue Bonds Gas Actual Variance Budget 537,700 374,100 - - 31,938 23,438 26,000 406,038 23,438 563,700 Cax Revenue Refunding Bonds Actual Variance 537,700 55,795 29,795 593.495 29,795 335,000 335,000 - 345,000 345,000 - 40,100 36,558 3,542 212,000 211,155 845 375,100 371,558 3,542 557,000 556,155 845 7,500 34,480 26,980 6,700 37,340 30,640 7,500 6,700 34,480 26,980 37,340 30,640 352,300 383,568 31,268 547,700 591,658 43,958 359,800 418,048 58,248 554,400 628,998 74,598 (CONTINUED) 79 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANC 3 B BUDGET AND ACTUAL (GAAP BASIS) ALL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Intergovernmental Interest income Special assessments Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Debt service: Principal retirement Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds Road and Other Improvements Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance $ 6,373,600 7,030,202 656,602 7,900 45,670 37,770 3,582,500 3,582,500 - - 225,000 517,237 292,237 4,033 4,033 - - - 27,100 23,482 (3,618) 3,807,500 4,099,737 292.237 27,100 27,515 415 1,785,000 1,785,000 - 3,927,500 2,974,000 953,500 1,802,200 1,798,844 3,356 1,149,200 588,093 561,107 3,587,200 3,583,844 3,356 5,076,700 3,562,093 1,514,607 220,300 515,893 295,593 (5,049,600) (3,534,578) 1,515,022 5,049,600 3,560,157 (1,489,443) - - - 5,049,600 3,560,157 (1,489,443) 220,300 515,893 295,593 25,579 25,579 6,153,300 6,514,309 361,009 7,900 20,091 12,191 $ 6,373,600 7,030,202 656,602 7,900 45,670 37,770 Ell 13B -: Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 1997 Isle of Capri Renovations and Expansion .a Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 40,000 105,777 65,777 200 197 (3) 40,000 105,777 65,777 200 197 (3) 1,240,000 1,240,000 - - - 206,000 203.614 2,386 6,600 2,127 4,473 1,446,000 1,443,614 2,386 6,600 2,127 4,473 (1,406,000) (1,337,837) 68,163 (6,400) (1,930) 4,470 1,447,400 1,447,400 - - - - - - (400) (424) (24) 1,447,400 1,447,400 - (400) (424) (24) 41,400 109,563 68,163 (6,800) (2,354) 4,446 1,258,600 1,300,091 41,491 6,800 8,374 1,574 1,300,000 1,409,654 109,654 - 6,020 6,020 (CONTINUED) 81 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES 130�? BUDGET AND ACTUAL (GAAP BASIS) ALL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Intergovernmental Interest income Special assessments Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Debt service: Principal retirement Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess ofrevenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Stormwater Improvement Assessment Bonds Budget Actual Variance 95,600 136,193 40,593 109,600 143,107 33,507 205,200 279,300 74,100 Line of Credit Budget Actual Variance 718 718 718 718 95,000 95,000 952,300 951,311 989 121,500 110,565 10,935 247,400 237,719 9,681 216,500 205,565 10,935 1.199,700 1,189,030 10,670 (11,300) 73,735 85,035 (1,199,700) (1,188,312) 11,388 1,416 1,416 1,108,300 1,192,700 84,400 (8,500) (5,931) 2,569 - (8,500) (4,515) 3,985 1,108,300 1,192,700 84,400 (19,800) 69,220 89,020 (91,400) 4,388 95,788 330,200 459.507 129,307 91,400 - (91,400) S 310.400 528,727 218,327 - 4,388 4,388 82 Total Budget Actual Variance 1,421,100 1,390,723 (30,377) 4,307,000 4,307,000 - 425,800 _ 929,183 503,383 109,600 143,107 33,507 27,100 23.482 (3,618) 6,290,600 6,793,495 502,895 9,729,800 8,775,311 954,489 3,944,400 3,344,113 600,287 13,674,200 12,119,424 1,554,776 (7,383,600) (5,325,929) 2,057,671 7,605,300 6,209,468 (1,395,832) (42,800) (35,140) 7,660 7,562,500 6,174,328 (1,388,172) 178,900 848,399 669,499 9, 103,300 9,732,729 629,429 9,282,200 10,581,128 1,298,928 83 13B " 13B THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS COUNTY -WIDF. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS, DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TO BE FUNDED BY A COUNTY -WIDE ONE MIL LEVY. PARKS ]IMPROVEMENTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF PROCEEDS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF PARKS GENERAL REFUNDING BONDS. PROJECTS INCLUDE LAND ACQUISITION, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN COMMUNITY PARK SITES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY. COTINTY -WIDE, LTHRARY - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF LIBRARY IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM ALL QUALIFYING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THESE IMPACT FEES MUST BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF COUNTY -WIDE LIBRARY FACILITIES. PARKS IMPACT DISTRICTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICTS OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PARK IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM ALL QUALIFYING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE IMPACT FEES MUST BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF COMMUNITY PARKS BY DISTRICT. ROAD IMPACT DISTRICTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICT OF ROAD IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM ALL QUALIFYING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE IMPACT FEES MUST BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TRANSPORTATION RELATED FACILITIES BY DISTRICT. CORREC'ITONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FF.F - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM ALL QUALIFYING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE IMPACT FEES MUST BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION /CONSTRUCTION OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES. FMF.RGF,NCY MF.DTCAL SERVICE, - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM ALL QUALIFYING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE IMPACT FEES MUST BE USED FOR ACQUISITION /CONSTRUCTION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES. ROAD CONSTRUCTIO -TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF LOCAL OPTION, STATE ALLOCATED GAS TAX AND COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM PROCEEDS. PROJECTS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. WATER MANAGEMENT - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS RAISED SPECIFICALLY FOR WATER MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. PRIMARY FUNDING IS AD VALOREM TAXES. OTHER CAPITAL PROTECTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR MAJOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FINANCED FROM RESOURCES OTHER THAN PROCEEDS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF LONG -TERM DEBT AND THE ONE MIL LEVY. t COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET 13B ALL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: County-Wide 125,386 3,358,495 Parks Road S 482,324 Capital Parks County -Wide Impact Impact - 13 Improvements Improvements Library Districts Districts ASSETS 26,074,009 Retainage payable 85,434 7,876 394,768 174,439 Cash and investments $ 3,568,307 1,738,386 5,587,592 10,634,047 42,829,171 Receivables: 567,974 53,396 1,188,160 6,742,652 28,642,146 15,332,713 Special assessments - - - - 43,974,859 Interest 28,162 10,813 44,038 109,015 380,402 Other 51,469 8,868 361 1,576 4,258 Due from other funds - 40,822 11,822 47,458 104,269 Due from other governments 23,655 - 58,418 44,299 656,759 Advances to other funds - - - - Prepaid costs - - - Total assets $ 3,671,593 1,798,889 5,702,231 10,836,395 43,974,859 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: 2,043,618 125,386 3,358,495 1,589,357 Vouchers payable and accruals S 482,324 45,520 542,613 614,080 1,595,976 Due to other funds 216 - 13 707 7 Deferred revenues - - 250,766 5,953,426 26,074,009 Retainage payable 85,434 7,876 394,768 174,439 972,154 Advance from other fund - - - - 9,186,710 Total liabilities 567,974 53,396 1,188,160 6,742,652 28,642,146 Fund balances Reserved for: Encumbrances 2,043,618 125,386 3,358,495 1,589,357 6,146,003 Advances to other funds - - - - Prepaid costs - - Unreserved: Designated for future capital projects 1,060,001 1,620,107 1,155,576 2,504,386 9,186,710 Total fund balances 3,103,619 1,745,493 4,514,071 4,093,743 15,332,713 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 3,671,593 1,798,889 5,702,231 10,836,395 43,974,859 86 13B Correctional Emergency 7,201,123 - - 117 Other 60,860 Facilities Medical Road Water Capital 3,035,862 Impact Fee Service Construction Management Projects Total 329,910 461,467 - 5,107,376 1,687,731 18,239,846 4,384,496 1,182,259 94,959,211 - - - - 117,996 117,996 37,711 16,858 258,328 43,067 19,740 948,134 - 28 153,877 127,181 1,032 348,650 6,489 5,963 - 3,848 59,800 280,471 134,481 31,441 1,324,195 - 820 2,274,068 - - 30,000 - 650,000 680,000 - - - - 1,241 1,241 5,286,057 1,742,021 20,006,246 4,558,592 2,032,888 99,609,771 519 3,497,788 412,841 9,462 7,201,123 - - 117 - 59,800 60,860 4,893,830 1,133,002 - - 69,512 38,374,545 - - 1,374,650 11,349 15,192 3,035,862 - - - - 431,091 431,091 4,893,830 11133,521 4,872,555 424,190 585,057 49,103,481 62,317 147,033 15,103,691 1,266,849 111,826 29,954,575 - - 30,000 - 650,000 680,000 - - - - 1,241 1,241 329,910 461,467 - 2,867,553 684,764 19,870,474 392,227 608,500 15,133,691 4,134,402 1,447,831 50,506,290 5,286,057 1,742,021 20,006,246 4,558,592 2,032,888 99,609,771 87 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES ALL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for services Interest income Impact fees Special assessment Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Capital outlay: General government Public safety Physical environment Transportation Human services Culture and recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from notes Proceeds capital leases Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Residual equity transfer in Fund balances at end of year County -Wide Parks Road Capital Parks County -Wide Impact Impact Improvements Improvements Library Districts Districts _ 16,316,988 711,356 115,955 - - - 247,811 - - 935 222,899 84,486 337,889 915,504 3,137,539 _ - 2,260,182 5,468,233 16,315,488 - 270 (12,850,179) - 1,500 222,899 448,522 2,598,071 6,383,737 19,455,462 3,471,887 8,800,407 69,436 - _ _ 16,316,988 711,356 - " - 286,451 5,759,777 6,353,855 19,992 13,937 - - 13,073,078 286,451 5,773,714 6,353,855 16,316,988 (12,850,179) 162,071 (3,175,643) 29,882 3,138,474 7,915,000 - 6,605,000 - - 4,619,971 893,840 (442,306) - (480,627) (1,497,700) 12,092,665 893,840 6,124,373 (1,497,700) - (757,514) 1,055,911 2,948,730 (1,467,818) 3,138,474 3,861,133 689,582 1,565,341 5,561,561 12,194,239 S 3,103,619 1,745,493 4,514,071 4,093,743 15,332,713 . Correctional Emergency Other 3,854,938 Facilities Medical Road Water Capital 10,145,637 Impact Fee Service Construction Management Projects Total " 8,021,918 - - 8,021,918 4,345,594 32,335 - 4,493,884 - - 64,794 - - 313,540 311,766 141,908 2,230,863 316,862 87,911 7,787,627 159,395 1,179,147 - - 23,750 25,406,195 - - - 365,877 - 365,877 - - 1,899,672 10,843 253,076 2,165,361 471,161 1,321,055 16,562,841 725,917 364,737 48,554,402 _ _ 383,051 3,854,938 159,395 1,162,085 - 23,750 10,145,637 - - 2,217,766 334,056 2,621,258 30,472,678 - - 46,789,666 _ - 711,356 - 327,145 12,727,228 4,361 - - 4,361 - - 621 - - 34,550 159,395 1,162,085 30,477,660 2,217,766 1,068,002 76,888,994 311,766 158,970 (13,914,819) (1,491,849) (703,265) (28,334,592) _ _ _ 14,520,000 18,467 - - 18,467 - 129,860 1,817,348 633,434 8,094,453 (17,062) (1,373,200) (11,876) (46,144) (3,868,915) - (17,062) (1,224,873) 1,805,472 587,290 18,764,005 311,766 141,908 (15,139,692) 313,623 (115,975) (9,570,587) 80,461 466,592 30,230,620 3,820,779 1,563,806 60,034,114 - - 42,763 - - 42,763 392,227 608,500 15,133,691 4,134,402 1,447,831 50,506,290 89 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 13B COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for services Interest income Impact fees Special assessments Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Capital outlay: General government Public safety Physical environment Transportation Human services Culture and recreation Debt service: Principal Interest Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from bonds Proceeds from notes Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year County -Wide Capital Improvements Parks Improvements Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 55,300 175,000 13,200 222,899 209,699 30,000 287,600 - (287,600) 50.000 300,800 222,899 (77,901) 310,300 115,955 60,655 247,811 72,811 84,486 54,486 270 (49,730) 448,522 138,222 5,136,315 3,471,887 1,664,428 9,628,927 8,800,407 828,520 93,400 69,436 23,964 874,243 711,356 162,887 - - - - 912,724 286,451 626,273 - 19,992 (19,992) - - 15,732,885 13,073,078 2,659,807 912,724 286.451 626,273 (15,432,085) (12,850,179) 2,581,906 (602,424) 162,071 764495 7,614,000 7,915,000 301,000 - - - 4,619,971 4,619,971 - 855,800 893,840 38,040 (442,306) (442,306) - - - - 11,791,665 12,091665 301,000 855,800 893,840 38,040 (3,640,420) (757,514) 2,882,906 253,376 1,055,911 802,535 3,748,268 3,861,133 112,865 636,324 689,582 53,258 $ 107,848 3,103,619 2,995,771 889,700 1,745,493 855,793 90 County-Wide Library (Non -GAAP) 5,759,777 Parks Impact Districts (Non -GAAP) 14,148,389 Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 100,000 337,889 237,889 401,500 915,504 514,004 2,000,000 1,822,450 (177,550) 5,975,000 6,170,745 195,745 - - - 100,000 - (100,000) 2,100,000 2,160,339 60,339 6,476,500 7,086,249 609,749 9,226,772 5,759,777 3,466,995 14,148,389 6,353,855 7,794,534 - 13,937 (13,937) - 9,226,772 5,773,714 3,453,058 14,148,389 6,353,855 7,794,534 (7,126,772) (3,613,375) 3,513,397 (7,671,889) 732,394 81404,283 6,605,000 6,605,000 - (1,193,000) (480,627) 712,373 (1,413,300) (1,497,700) (84,400) 5,412,000 6,124,373 712,373 (1,413,300) (1,497,700) (84,400) (1,714,772) 2,510,998 4,225,770 (9,085,189) (765,306) 8,319,883 1,960,172 1,352,431 (607,741) 9,444,189 5,624,700 (3,819,489) 245,400 3,863,429 3,618,029 359,000 4,859,394 4,500,394 (CONTINUED) 91 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND B A CE BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for services Interest income Impact fees Special assessments Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Capital outlay: General government Public safety Physical environment Transportation Human services Culture and recreation Debt service: Principal Interest Total expenditures Excess ofrevenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from bonds Proceeds from notes Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Road Impact Districts (Non -GAAP) Correctional Facilities Impact Fee (Non -GAAP) Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance - 935 935 - 1,388,400 3,137,539 1,749,139 115,000 311,766 196,766 15,505,000 17,848,944 2,343,944 2,400,000 2,321,871 (78,129) 1,500 1,500 - 16,893,400 20,988,918 4,095,518 2,515,000 2,633,637 118,637 - 285,534 159,395 126,139 39,093,120 16,316,988 22,776,132 - 39,093,120 16,316,988 22,776,132 285,534 159,395 126,139 (22,199,720) 4,671,930 26,871,650 2,229,466 2,474,242 244,776 (22,199,720) 4,671,930 26,871,650 2,229,466 2,474,242 244,776 37,915,173 23,646,810 (14,268,363) 2,283,430 2,489,525 206,095 $ 15,715,453 28,318,740 12,603,287 4,512,896 4,963,767 450,871 92 13g Emergency Medical Service (Non -GAAP) Road Construction (Non -GAAP) Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 30,454,211 66,360,225 7,222,100 8,021,918 799,818 4,361 - - 4,110,400 4,345,594 235,194 _ _ - 150,000 64,794 (85,206) 36,000 141,908 105,908 369,300 2,230,863 1,861,563 750,000 869,054 119,054 - - - _ _ _ - 1,899,672 1,899,672 786,000 1,010,962 224,962 11,851,800 16,562,841 4,711,041 2,303,327 1,162,085 1,141,242 96,814,436 30,454,211 66,360,225 4,361 4,361 - - _ - 595 621 (26) 2,303,327 1,162,085 1,141,242 96,819,392 30,459,193 66,360,199 (1,517,327) (151,123) 1,366,204 (84,967,592) (13,896,352) 71,071,240 - - 58,378,800 (58,378,800) 835,000 (835,000) - - - - 428,900 129,860 (299,040) (222,900) (17,062) 205,838 (1,373,200) (1,373,200) 612,100 (17,062) (629,162) 57.434,500 (1,243,340) (58,677,840) (905,227) (168,185) 737,042 (27,533,092) (15,139,692) 12,393,400 1,223,527 1,118,421 (105,106) 29,523,907 30,230,620 706,713 318,300 950,236 631,936 1,990,815 15,090,928 13,100,113 (CONTINUED) 93 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 13B COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for services Interest income Impact fees Special assessments Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Capital outlay: General government Public safety Physical environment Transportation Human services Culture and recreation Debt service: Principal Interest Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from bonds Proceeds from notes Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year 94 Water Management Other Capital Projects (Non -GAAP) 383,051 Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 23,750 6,600 6,220,284 2,217,766 4,002,518 573,776 296,800 32,335 (264,465) - - 108,700 316,862 208,162 38,500 87,911 49,411 - - 25,000 23,668 (1,332) 385,600 365,877 (19,723) - - - - 10,843 10,843 49,300 118,124 68,824 791,100 725,917 (65,183) 112,800 229,703 116,903 94 558,755 383,051 175,704 _ _ - 30,350 23,750 6,600 6,220,284 2,217,766 4,002,518 573,776 334,056 239,720 - 334,700 327,145 7,555 2,217,766 4,002,518 429,579 1,068,002 1,497,581 6,220,284 (5,429,184) (1,491,849) 3,937,335 (1,384,781) (838,299) 546,482 2,063,500 1,817,348 (246,152) 653,550 713,433 59,883 (19,000) (11,876) 7,124 (26,900) (83,200) (56,300) 2,044,500 1,805,472 (239,028) 626,650 630,233 3,583 (3,384,684) 313,623 3,698,307 (758,131) (208,066) 550,065 3,772,384 3,820,779 48,395 1,536,081 1,597,831 61,750 $ 387,700 4,134,402 3,746,702 777,950 1,389,765 611,815 94 Total Budget Actual Variance 12,248,138 7,222,100 8,021,918 799,818 4,462,500 4,493,884 31,384 325,000 313,540 (11,460) 2,600,600 7,787,627 5,187,027 26,655,000 29,056,732 2,401,732 385,600 365,877 (19,723) 486,900 2,030,409 1,543,509 42,137,700 52,069,987 9,932,287 5,695,070 3,854,938 1,840,132 12,248,138 10,145,637 2,102,501 6,887,460 2,621,258 4,266,202 135,907,556 46,771,199 89,136,357 874,243 711,356 162,887 24,622,585 12,727,228 11, 895,357 4,361 4,361 - 595 34,550 (33,955) 186,240,008 76,870,527 109,369,481 (144,102,308) (24,800,540) 119,301,768 58,378,800 - (58,378,800) 15,054,000 14,520,000 (534,000) 8,621,721 8,174,452 (447,269) (4,690,606) (3,905,971) 784,635 77,363,915 18,788,481 (58,575,434) (66,738,393) (6,012,059) 60,726,334 92,043,455 74,431,832 (17,611,623) 25,305,062 68,419,773 43,114,711 95 F zllw�F THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ENTERPRISE FUNDS COUNTY WATER AND SEWER - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER AND SEWER AND EFFLUENT SERVICES TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY'S UNINCORPORATED AREA. MARCO WATER AND SEWER - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF SEWER SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF MARCO ISLAND. GOODI,AND WATFI - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF POTABLE WATER SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF GOODLAND. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAI. - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES TO USERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF EMERGENCY AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDICAL SERVICES TO USERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. AIRPORT ATTTHORTTY - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF LANDING FACILITIES AND THE SALE OF FUEL AT THE AIRPORTS. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 98 County Water Marco Water Goodland Solid Waste ASSETS and Sewer and Sewer Water Disposal Current assets: Cash and investments $ 39,823,950 - 557,902 19,749,139 Accounts receivable: Trade, net 3,590,302 - 21,875 1,485,230 Unbilled revenue 1,640,463 - 3,806 - Interest receivable 698,384 - 5,771 203,050 Due from other funds 140,126 - - 30,476 Due from other governments - 215,346 Inventory 2,070,276 - Prepaid costs 12,320 - - Total current assets 47,975,821 589,354 21,683,241 Restricted assets: Cash and investments 101,030,355 60,714 3,596,285 Interest receivable 548,867 - 37,049 Special assessments receivable: Current 725,845 4,326 - Deferred 6,219,062 24,471 Accrued interest 497,035 2,624 Notes receivable 279,175 - - Due from other governments - - 178,711 Total restricted assets 109,300,339 92,135 3,812,045 Property, plant and equipment: Land 4,599,010 365 1,520,754 Buildings 115,374,806 - 253,666 Improvements other than buildings 364,704,764 1,576,748 10,210,279 Equipment 8,690,209 - 1,216,397 Construction in progress 53,940,509 - Total property, plant and equipment 547,309,298 1,577,113 13,201,096 Less accumulated depreciation (112,525,064) (1,073,661) (7,065,234) Net property, plant and equipment 434,784,234 503,452 6,135,862 Other assets 2,401,170 - 56,044 Total assets $ 594,461,564 1,184,941 31,687,192 98 Emergency Medical Airport Services Authority Total 1,434,707 38,426 61,604,124 206,070 33,213 5,336,690 - - 1,644,269 16,203 5,732 929,140 - 2,469 173,071 - 719 216,065 119,861 53,169 2,243,306 - - 12,320 1,776,841 133,728 72,158,985 94,094 874,065 105,655,513 1,192 - 587,108 - - 730,171 - 6,243,533 - 499,659 - - 279,175 - 1,018,586 1,197,297 95,286 1,892,651 115,192,456 - 1,289,400 7,409,529 221,588 3,470,450 119,320,510 75,126 6,682,297 383,249,214 3,888,016 739,405 14,534,027 - 1,508,961 55,449,470 4,184,730 13,690,513 579,962,750 (835,479) (2,061,790) (123,561,228) 3,349,251 11,628,723 456,401,522 - - 2,457,214 5,221,378 13,655,102 646,210,177 (CONTINUED) 99 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY Current liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals Due to other funds Current maturities of notes payable Current maturities of leases payable Total current liabilities Current liabilities payable from restricted assets: Vouchers payable and accruals Deferred revenue Current maturities of notes payable Current maturities of revenue bonds Due to other governments Accrued interest payable Customer deposits Retainage payable Total current liabilities payable from restricted assets Long -term liabilities: Advance from other fund Landfill liability Revenue bonds payable, net Notes payable Leases payable Arbitrage rebate payable Accrued compensated absences Total long -term liabilities Total liabilities Fund equity: Contributed capital Retained earnings (deficit): Reserved for: Revenue bond retirement Renewal and replacement Unreserved Total retained earnings (deficit) Total fund equity Total liabilities and fund equity County Water Marco Water Goodland Solid Waste and Sewer and Sewer Water Disposal $ 2,424,535 2,267 641,284 54,211 3,122,297 5,667,093 2,798,205 1,724,096 - 4,115,000 - 340,482 - 1,703,624 - 2,334 - 2,084,005 18,434,839 17,873 1,171,523 - 604 - 18,926 17,873 1,191,053 5,000 454 - - 267,832 21,712 5.454 289,544 - - 3,581,240 73,074,448 104,000 - 37,027,004 - - 71,681 25,026 23,710 - - 658,357 - 340 74,616 110,855,200 - 104,340 3,680,882 132,412,336 - 127,667 5,161,479 280,511,334 - 715,191 510,028 9,791,637 - 42,600 - 300,020 - - - 171,446,237 - 299,483 26,015,685 181,537,894 - 342,083 26,015,685 462,049,228 - 1,057,274 26,525,713 $ 594,461,564 - 1,184,941 31,687,192 100 13 Emergency Medical Airport Services Authority Total 184,537 74,879 3,873,347 m_ - 281 3,152 - - 641,284 97,019 3,543 173,699 281,556 78,703 4,691,482 - 49,820 5,716,913 74,816 146,484 3,019,505 - - 1,724,096 - 4,120,000 1,009 341,491 - 1,704,078 14,995 285,161 - 20,645 2,126,362 74,816 232,953 19,037,606 - 8,218,976 8,218,976 - 3,581,240 73,178,448 37,027,004 237,960 4,685 339,352 - 1,103 24,813 453,529 21,871 1,208,713 691,489 8,246,635 123,578,546 1,047,861 8,558,291 147,307,634 2,710,801 7,440,943 291,888,297 - - 9,834,237 - 300,020 1,462,716 (2,344,132) 196,879,989 1,462,716 (2,344,132) 207,014,246 4,173,517 5,096,811 498,902,543 5,221,37.8 13,655,102 646,210,177 101 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND EQUITY 3 yl 1 ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 15,553,660 111,641 293,570 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 12,672,308 - 81,113 County Water Marco Water Goodland Solid Waste 404,536 and Sewer and Sewer Water Disposal (86,185) Operating revenues: Depreciation of contributed assets (5,859,007) - (19,329) Charges for services $ 45,934,247 318,351 19,665,724 47,411 Total operating revenues 45,934,247 318,351 19,665,724 (5,656) Operating expenses: Personal services Operating Depreciation and amortization Total operating expenses Operating income (loss) Non - operating revenues (expenses): Interest income Interest expense Miscellaneous revenue Miscellaneous expense Gain (loss) on disposal of fixed assets Capital contributions Total non - operating revenues (expenses) income (loss) before operating transfers Operating transfers: Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total operating transfers Net income Qoss) 11,615,588 - 29,853 1,085,146 15,553,660 111,641 293,570 18,198,124 12,672,308 - 81,113 445,572 39,841,556 111,641 404,536 19,728,842 6,092,691 (111,641) (86,185) (63,118) Depreciation of contributed assets (5,859,007) - (19,329) (30,671) 10,081,739 21,148 47,411 1,985,230 (6,112,537) - (5,656) (1,934) 1,786,941 696 2,715 189,031 - (147,871) - - 23,256 22,465 - (1,543) 33,376,387 - - 32,919 39,155,786 (103,562) 44,470 2,203,703 45,248,477 (215,203) (41,715) 2,140,585 99,054 - 29,648 (478,028) (339,447) (172,066) (378,974) (339,447) (142,418) 44,869,503 (554,650) (41,715) 1,998,167 Retained earnings (deficit) at beginning of year 130,770,286 554,650 364,469 23,986,847 Residual equity transfer in 39,098 - - - Depreciation of contributed assets 5,859,007 19,329 30,671 Retained earnings (deficit) at end of year $ 181,537,894 - 342,083 26,015,685 Contributed capital at beginning of year S 289,227,229 3,066,084 734,520 540,775 Depreciation of contributed assets (5,859,007) - (19,329) (30,671) Disposal of contributed assets (18,392) (3,066,084) (76) Transfer of contributed assets (2,838,496) - - Contributed capital at end of year 280,511,334 715,191 510,028 Fund equity at end of year $ 462,049,228 - 1,057,274 26,525,713 102 Emergency Medical Airport Services Authority Total 5,892,200 1,535,925 73,346,447 5,892,200 1,535,925 73,346,447 9,779,714 643,963 23,154,264 3,688,614 1,222,159 39,067,768 3 81,3 91 555,415 14,135,799 13,849,719 2,421,537 76,357,831 (7,957,519) (885,612) (3,011,384) 149,346 41,743 12,326,617 (10,870) (360,384) (6,491,381) -- 88,593 38,113 2,106,089 - - (147,871) (45,302) (635) (1,759) 16,565 819,919 34,255,790 208,332 538,756 42,047,485 (7,749,187) (346,856) 39,036,101 7,758,900 250,000 8,137,602 (3,000) - (992,541) 7,755,900 250,000 7,145,061 6,713 (96,856) 46,181,162 1,151,024 (2,578,631) 154,248,645 - - 39,098 •- 304,979 331,355 6,545,341 1,462,716 L 2,344,132) 207,014,246 3,015,780 7,772,298 304,356,686 (304,979) (331,355) (6,545,341) (3,084,552) ` - (2,838,496) 2,710,801 7,440,943 291,888,297 4,173,517 5,096,811 498,902,543 103 136 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 104 County Marco Water Goodland Solid Waste Water and Sewer and Sewer Water Disposal Cash flows from operating activities: Cash received for services $ 44,386,542 45,411 317,583 18,756,725 Cash received on behalf of other governments 1,977,464 108,201 - - Cash payments to other governments (1,885,630) (108,201) Cash payments for goods and services (15,656,963) (147,400) (285,057) (19,518,512) Cash payments to employees (11,375,410) (1,210) (29,870) (1,022,601) Net cash provided by (used for) operating activities 17,446,003 (103,199) 2,656 (1,784,388) Cash flows from non - capital financing activities: Cash received from operating grants - - - 27,456 Cash transfers from other funds 126,688 - 29,648 Cash transfers to other funds (478,028) (339,447) - (172,066) Net cash provided by (used for) non - capital financing activities (351,340) (339,447) - (114,962) Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Connection fee collections 17,154,390 Cash contributions received - - Special assessment collections 1,193,779 8,112 12,312 Special assessment interest 538,993 1,272 2,184 - Proceeds from disposal of fixed assets 75,954 - - 2,400 Proceeds from capital grants - - Proceeds from rentals 42,000 Proceeds from insurance claims 1,283,506 - Proceeds from notes 15,943,492 Payments to other governments - (147,871) Payments to refund connection fee credits (77,240) - - Payments for capital acquisitions (31,413,997) - - (196,357) Principal payments on notes (1,210,351) - - Principal payments on bonds (3,920,000) - (4,000) Principal payments on leases (38,919) - (13,587) Interest and fiscal agent fees paid (5,263,978) - (5,675) (1,934) Net cash provided by (used for) capital and related financing activities (5,692,371) (138,487) 4,821 (209,478) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest on investments 10,136,485 26,854 48,170 2,056,993 Net cash provided by investing activities 10,136,485 26,854 48,170 2,056,993 Net increase (decrease) in cash 21,538,777 (554,279) 55,647 (51,835) Cash and investments, October 1, 2000 (including $80,969,775 in restricted cash) 119,315,528 554,279 562,969 23,397,259 Cash and investments, September 30, 2001 (including $105,655,513 in restricted cash) $ 140,854,305 - 618,616 23,345,424 104 Emergency Medical Airport Services Authority Total 4,046,088 1,575,206 69,127,555 - 650 2,086,315 - - (1,993,831) (1,834,593) (1,266,186) (38,708,711) (9,733,986) (652,584) (22,815,661) (7,522,491) (342,914) 7,695,667 4,695 - 32,151 7,758,900 1,575,200 9,490,436 (3,000) - (992,541) 7,760,595 1,575,200 8,530,046 - - 17,154,390 9,341 9,341 - - 1,214,203 - - 542,449 - - 78,354 79,252 1,377,900 1,457,152 a - - 42,000 - 1,283,506 500,000 16,443,492 - (147,871) - (77,240) (77,784) (1,511,514) (33,199,652) (1,335,000) (2,545,351) - - (3,924,000) _ (67,625) (2,544) (122,675) (10,870) (21,897) (5,304,354) (67,686) (993,055) (7,096,256) 145,088 43,367 12,456,957 145,088 43,367 12,456,957 315,506 282,598 21,586,414 1,213,295 629,893 145,673,223 1,528,801 912,491 167,259,637 (CONTINUED) 105 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating income (loss) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided by (used for) operating activities: Depreciation expense Amortization of capital improvement projects Amortization of bond issuance costs Amortization of utility plant acquisition adjustment Increase (decrease) in accounts receivable Increase (decrease) in due from other funds Increase in due from other government Increase (decrease) in inventory Increase (decrease) in vouchers payable Increase (decrease) in accrued wages Increase in landfill liability Increase (decrease) in accrued compensated absences Increase (decrease) in due to other funds Increase (decrease) in due to other governments Increase in customer deposits payable Total adjustments Net cash provided by (used for) operating activities Non -cash investing, capital and financing activities: County Marco Water Goodland Water and Sewer and Sewer Water Solid Waste Disposal $ 6,092,691 (111,641) (86,185) (63,118) 12,357,783 81,113 377,108 - - - 68,464 254,070 - - 60,455 - - (1,548,953) - (768) (908,251) (30,438) 45,411 - (748) - - (215,346) (230,432) 5,874 164,416 (35,239) 2,699 (1,233,504) 50,879 (1,210) (63) 11,226 - - 128,120 189,299 - 46 51,319 (5,601) (520) (60) 342 91,834 - - - 11,353,312 8,442 88,841 (1,721,270) $ 17,446,003 (103,199) 2,656 (1,784,388) The combined enterprise funds experienced a non -cash investing gain due to a change in the fair value of non -cash and cash equivalents of $3,958,052. There were non -cash developer contributions of $13,656,143 in the County Water and Sewer District Fund. The operation of the Marco Water and Sewer District was taken over by the City of Marco Island. As a result of this transaction, assets of $5,006,586 were transferred to the City of Marco Island. 106 Emergency Medical Airport Services Authority Total (7,957,519) (885,612) (3,011,384) 381,391 555,415 13,752,810 - - 68,464 - 254,070 - - 60,455 107,159 37,545 (2,313,268) - 1,736 15,961 - - (215,346) (71,279) 4,667 (291,170) (27,837) (40,582) (1,170,047) 6,929 1,746 69,507 - - 128,120 38,799 (10,367) 269,096 (134) (4,519) (10,492) - (3,593) 88,241 - 650 650 435,028 542,698 10,707,051 (7,522,491) (342,914) 7,695,667 107 13B THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS l30 SELF - INSURANCE - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE SELF - INSURANCE COSTS OF PROVIDING COVERAGE FOR PROPERTY, GENERAL AND VEHICLE LIABILITY; TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH BENEFITS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS; TO ACCOUNT FOR PAYMENT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS, IN LIEU OF INSURANCE. PIMLI( WORKS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL ASPECTS OF COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL PROJECTS AND TO ACHIEVE TIMELY AND COST EFFECTIVE RESULTS, WHILE PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING THE TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICE REQUIRED. DEPARTMENT OF REVENITE - TO PROVIDE COST EFFICIENT BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCESSES, ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT AND CONTRACTUAL REVENUE MANAGEMENT FOR COUNTY DEPARTMENTS. SHERIFF'S SELF- INSURANCE, - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH BENEFITS TO SHERIFF EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS; TO ACCOUNT FOR PAYMENT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS, IN LIEU OF INSURANCE. ELFFT MANAGEMENT - TO ACCOUNT FOR FUEL, OIL, LUBRICANTS, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF COUNTY VEHICLES AND THE USE OF CERTAIN COUNTY OWNED VEHICLES BY COUNTY EMPLOYEES. ASSETS Current assets: Cash and investments Accounts receivable: Trade, net Interest receivable Due from other funds Deposits Inventory Total current assets Property, plant and equipment: Buildings Equipment Total property, plant and equipment Less accumulated depreciation Net property, plant and equipment Total assets LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY Current liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals Current maturities of leases payable Self - insurance claims payable Total current liabilities Long -term liabilities: Leases payable Self - insurance claims payable Accrued compensated absences Total long -term liabilities Total liabilities Fund equity: Contributed capital Retained earnings: Unreserved Total fund equity Total liabilities and fund equity COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET ALL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Self- $ 7,660,978 18,847 99,992 85,669 14,991 7,880,477 Public Works Department Engineering of Department Revenue 13B l� Sheriffs Self- Fleet Insurance Management Total 4,305,243 4,641,165 16,607,386 _ 84 39,146 58,077 _ - 36,415 136,407 - 1,000,000 1,218 1,086,887 - - 14,991 - 139,532 139,532 5,305,327 4,857,476 18,043,280 - 168,264 168,264 179,628 - 7,846,154 8,025,782 179,628 - - 8,014,418 8,194,046 (46,165) - (5,003,451) (5,049,616) 133,463 3,010,967 3,144,430 $ 8,013,940 5,305,327 7,868,443 21,187,710 $ 59,370 - 9,858 77,269 146,497 35,654 - - 3,543 39,197 1,815,094 - 1,842,000 - 3,657,094 1,910,118 - 1,851,858 80,812 3,842,788 47,145 - - 4,685 51,830 4,365,406 - - - 4,365,406 28,887 - 38,505 67,392 4,441,438 - 43,190 4,484,628 6,351,556 - 1,851,858 124,002 8,327,416 2,199 - - 147,461 149,660 1,660,185 - - 3,453,469 7,596,980 12,710,634 1,662,384 - 3,453,469 7,744,441 12,860,294 $ 8,013,940 - 5,305,327 7,868,443 21,187,710 110 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND EQUITY 13B ALL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Public Works Department Sheriffs Self- Engineering of Self- Fleet Insurance Department Revenue Insurance Management Total Operating revenues: Charges for services $ 13,980,933 161,765 126,636 4,921,577 4,182,590 23,373.501 Total operating revenues 13,980,933 161,765 126,636 4,921,577 4,182,590 23,373,501 Operating expenses: Personal services 490,315 - - - 845,915 1,336,230 Operating 14,934,791 - 5,451,882 2,079,967 22,466,640 Depreciation 17,618 190 - 1,135,615 1,153,423 Total operating expenses 15,442,724 190 5,451,882 4,061,497 24,956,293 Operating income (loss) (1,461,791) 161,575 126,636 (530,305) 121,093 (1,582,792) Non - operating revenues (expenses): Interest income 813,229 39,713 - 191,705 299,176 1,343,823 Interest expense (3,643) - - (362) (4,005) Miscellaneous income 716,955 27,653 744,608 Gain (loss) on disposal of fixed assets (467) (77,359) (258,910) 101,096 (235,640) Capital contributions 1,453 - 1,282,915 1.284,368 Total non- operating revenues (expenses) 1,527,527 (37,646) (258,910) 191,705 1,710,478 3,133,154 Income (loss) before operating transfers 65,736 123,929 (132,274) (338,600) 1,831,571 1,550,362 Operating transfers: Operating transfer in - - 42,285 - 42,285 Operating transfer out (263,700) (263,700) Total operating transfers - (263,700) 42,285 - (221,415) Net income (loss) 65,736 (139,771) (89,989) (338,600) 1,831,571 1,328,947 Retained earnings at beginning of year 1,593,966 261,952 89,989 3,792,069 5,597,654 11,335,630 Residual equity transfer out - (122,181) - - - (122,181) Depreciation of contributed assets 483 - 167,755 168,238 Retained earnings at end of year $ 1,660,185 - 3453,469 7,596,980 12,710,634 Contributed capital at beginning of year $ 2,693 890,268 26,033 - 630,801 1,549,795 Depreciation of contributed assets (483) - (167,755) (168,238) Disposal of contributed assets (11) (11) Transfer out of contributed assets - (890,268) (26,033) (315,585) (1,231,886) Contributed capital at end of year 2,199 - 147,461 149,660 Fund equity at end of year $ 1,662,384 3,453,469 7,744,441 12,860,294 ill COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS 13B ALL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 (CONTINUED) 112 Public Works Department Sheriffs Self- Engineering of Self- Fleet Insurance Department Revenue Insurance Management Total Cash flows from operating activities: Cash received from other funds for goods and services S 13,895,264 54 4,209 5,543,885 4,187,603 23,631,015 Cash received from retirees for services 308,494 - - 144,154 - 452,648 Cash payments on behalf of retirees (322,111) - (322,111) Cash payments for goods and services (14,563,688) (23,184) (29,620) (5,516,704) (2,123,719) (22,256,915) Cash payments to employees (484,984) (35,110) (29,279) - (833,833) (1,383,206) Net cash provided by (used for) operating activities (1,167,025) (58,240) (54,690) 171,335 1,230,051 121,431 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: 42,285 - - 42,285 Cash transfers from other funds (1,2405281) Cash transfers to other funds (1,240.281) - Net cash provided by (used for) noncapital financing activities (1,240,281) 42,285 (1,197,996) Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: 151,229 151,229 Proceeds from disposal of fixed assets - Proceeds from insurance claims 716,955 27,653 744,608 Payments for capital acquisitions (14,066) (7 ,383) ( Principal payments on capital leases (25,597) (2,544) (2 (28,449) (28,141) Interest and fiscal agent fees paid (3,643) (362) (4,005) Net cash provided by (used for) capital and related financing activities 673,649 (550,407) 123,242 Cash flow from investing activities: 819,841 53.893 4,096 191,705 297,620 1,367,155 Interest on investments Net cash provided by investing activities 819.841 53,893 4,096 191,705 297,620 1,367,155 Net increase (decrease) in cash 326,465 (1,244,628) (8,309) 363,040 977,264 413,832 Cash and investments, October 1, 2000 7,334,513 1.244,628 8.309 3,942,203 3,663,901 16,193,554 Cash and investments, September 30, 2001 $ 7,660,978 - - 4,305,243 4,641,165 16.607,386 (CONTINUED) 112 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS 13B ALL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES The Public Works Engineering Department fund was closed during the fiscal year resulting in a transfer out of contributed assets with a historical cost of $223,912 and accumulated depreciation of $188,044. Fixed assets with a historical cost of $173,040 and accumulated depreciation of $95,681 were disposed of as a result of the fund closing. The Department of Revenue fund was closed during the fiscal year resulting in a transfer out of contributed assets with a historical cost of $337,470 and accumulated depreciation of $311,437. Fixed assets with a historical cost of $632,796 and accumulated depreciation of S373,986 were disposed of as a result of the fund closing. 113 IF- Public Works Department Sheriffs Self- Engineering of Self- Fleet Insurance Department Revenue Insurance Management Total Operating income (loss) $ (1,461,791) 161,575 126,636 (530,305) 121,093 (1,582,792) Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash provided by (used for) operating activities: Depreciation expense 17,618 190 - 1,135,615 1,153,423 Increase (decrease) in accounts receivable (15,905) 54 4,168 - (5,559) (17,242) Increase (decrease) in due from other funds (85,669) - 41 721,417 10,572 646,361 Increase in advances and deposits (13,617) - - - (13,617) Increase in inventory (32,107) (32,107) Decrease in vouchers payable (369,388) (13,515) (24,665) (19,777) (11,645) (438,990) Increase (decrease) in accrued wages 2,899 (35,110) (29,279) 3,197 (58,293) Increase (decrease) in compensated absences 2,432 (161,765) (126,636) 8,885 (277,084) Decrease in due to other funds (1,646) (9,669) (4,955) - (16,270) Increase in self - insurance claims payable 758,042 758,042 Total adjustments 294,766 (219,815) (181,326) 701,640 1,108,958 1,704,223 Net cash provided by (used for) operating activities $ (1,167,025) (58,240) (54,690) 171,335 1,230,051 121,431 Non -cash investing, capital and financing activities: The combined internal service funds experienced a non -cash investing gain due to a change in the fair value of non -cash and cash -- equivalentsof$347,363. The Public Works Engineering Department fund was closed during the fiscal year resulting in a transfer out of contributed assets with a historical cost of $223,912 and accumulated depreciation of $188,044. Fixed assets with a historical cost of $173,040 and accumulated depreciation of $95,681 were disposed of as a result of the fund closing. The Department of Revenue fund was closed during the fiscal year resulting in a transfer out of contributed assets with a historical cost of $337,470 and accumulated depreciation of $311,437. Fixed assets with a historical cost of $632,796 and accumulated depreciation of S373,986 were disposed of as a result of the fund closing. 113 IF- FIDUCIARY FUNDS 138, C AC LAND SALES, ROADS AND CANALS TRUST FUND - TO ACCOUNT FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,300,000) IN PRINCIPAL AND SETTLEMENT FEES RECEIVED FROM A 1977 SETTLEMENT WITH GAC PROPERTIES, INC., AND INTEREST THEREON TO BE EXPENDED FOR THE RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN UNACCEPTED ROADS AND TO DEVELOP FACILITIES OTHER THAN ROADS AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA. IMPACT FEE ESCROW TRUST FUND - TO ACCOUNT FOR IMPACT FEES HELD IN TRUST RELATING TO PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. UTILITY FEE TRUST FUND - TO ACCOUNT FOR FEES TO BE USED TO EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY REGULATE PRIVATE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES OPERATING WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REMAINING FIDUCIARY FUNDS: ANIMAL CONTROL PUBLIC LIBRARY LAW LIBRARY INMATE WELFARE COUNTY DRUG ABUSE CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION CONFISCATED PROPERTY LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING EUCLID AND LAKELAND ASSESSMENT LEGAL AID SOCIETY FEDERAL EQUITABLE SHARING CLERK OF COURTS SHERIFF TAX COLLECTOR DEPOSITS PINE RIDGE AND NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK 13B THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 117 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET ALL FIDUCIARY FUNDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS Animal Public Law Innate County Criminal State Court ASSETS Control Library Library Welfare Drug Abuse Justice Administration m Cash and investments $ 73,538 36,708 8,951 1,021,704 907 79,589 150 Receivables: Special assessments - - - - - - Interest 758 499 7 1,285 Other 600 - - - - - Due from other funds - 390 3,925 157,678 Inventory Total assets $ 74,896 37,207 8,951 1,022,094 914 84,799 157,828 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals $ 50 669 - - 107,405 Due to other funds - - 59 162,304 50,423 Due to other governments - - - Due to individuals Deferred revenues Refundable deposits Escrowed impact fees Due to special assessment bondholders Total liabilities 50 669 59 162,304 157,828 Fund balances: Reserved for: Encumbrances - - - - Trust fund purposes 74,846 36,538 8,892 859,790 914 84,799 Total fund balances 74,846 36,538 8,892 859.790 914 84,799 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 74,896 37,207 8,951 1,022,094 914 84,799 157,828 (CONTINUED) 117 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET ALL FIDUCIARY FUNDS (CONTINUED) ; SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 s �1 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals S - Law, 8,898 Due to other funds Euclid and - Confiscated Enforcement GAC Land Sales, Impact Fees Utility Lakeland Legal Aid ASSETS Property Training Roads and Canals Escrow Fee Assessment Society Refundable deposits Cash and investments $ 92,705 6,972 791,876 841,337 1,135,680 62,093 23,036 Receivables: - - - Total liabilities 309 1,401,803 Special assessments 1,150 42 6,825 8,082 11,044 580 289 Interest 54,661 - - - 66,469 - - Other Due from other funds - 102 - 775.823 7,000 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 710 Inventory - 1,220,193 62,982 24,035 1,398,681 - - Total assets $ 93,855 7,116 2,197,382 849,419 1,220,193 62,982 24,035 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals S - 230 8,898 Due to other funds 11,446 - 10 Due to other governments - _ Due to individuals Deferred revenues 1,398,681 Refundable deposits 2,892 Escrowed impact fees - 73,596 _ Due to special assessment bondholders - - - Total liabilities 11,446 1,401,803 73,596 8,908 Fund balances: Reserved for: 54,661 6,475 - - Encumbrances Trust fund purposes - 82,409 7,116 740,918 775,823 1,204,810 62,982 24,035 Total fund balances 82,409 7,116 795,579 775.823 1,211,285 62.982 24,035 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 93.855 7,116 2,197,382 849,419 1,220,193 62,982 24,035 118 i AGENCY FUNDS Federal Clerk 61,591 - 1,767 Pine Ridge 2,251 Equitable of 577,802 Tax 1,667,951 and Naples 976,139 Sharing Courts Sheriff Collector Deposits Production Park Total 49,086 6,476,173 149,199 4,458,491 2,767,679 7,818,282 25,894,156 - - - 5,380,004 - 27,548 27,857 7,460,169 - - 24,349 68,447 123,357 - 7,739 200 7,927,685 7.927,685 75,008 6,476,173 149,477 278 2,792,228 - 13,408 183,491 - - - - 46,835 1,398,681 49,086 6,476,173 149,477 4,466,230 2,792,228 7,927,685 27,702,550 119 - 61,591 - 1,767 180,610 2,251 120,030 30,438 577,802 713,188 1,667,951 - 976,139 - 2,050,535 3,026,674 - 57,448 1,837,893 1,895,341 - - 1,398,681 5,380,004 2,077,273 7,460,169 - - 73,596 7,927,685 7.927,685 2,251 6,476,173 149,477 4,466,230 2,792,228 7,927,685 23,630,707 - - - - 61,136 46,835 4,010,707 46,835 - 4,071,843 49,086 6,476,173 149,477 4,466,230 2,792,228 7,927,685 27,702.550 119 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures interest income Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: General government Public safety Transportation Human services Culture and recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from capital leases Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS 13B ` Animal Public Law Inmate County Criminal State Court Control Library Library Welfare Drug Abuse Justice Administration 10,546 57,815 39,623 88,818 - - - - 481 425,393 6,321 3,641 1,556 8 10,028 - 18,310 446,084 28,752 56,490 21,951 90,374 446,084 489 435,421 86,567 _ - 106,883 - - 2,810,142 _ - 403,033 1,020,266 66,221 - - 57,102 106,883 3,830,408 403,033 57,102 66,221 9,731 35,151 (16,509 ) 43,051 489 435,421 (3,743,841) 3,743,841 (422,900) - (422,900) 3,743,841 (9,731) (35,151) (16,509) 43,051 489 12,521 84.577 71,689 25,401 816,739 425 72,278 $ 74,846 36,538 8.892 859,790 914 84,799 120 - 136 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS 121 Law Euclid and Federal Confiscated Enforcement GAC Land Sales, Impact Fees Utility Lakeland Legal Aid Equitable Property Training Road and Canals Escrow Fee Assessment Society Sharing Total 296,850 296,850 _ 10,546 57,815 7,000 90,660 226,101 66,713 9,067 - - - 501,654 9,867 299 56,004 64,408 91,240 4,775 2,857 251,004 225.068 4,500 38,153 760,867 76,580 9,366 281,072 64,408 399,590 4,775 93,517 38,153 2,104,837 - - - - 378,589 - - 3,295,614 5,000 - - 67,232 1,495,531 65,364 65,364 - 72,865 139,086 - - 57,102 1,454 1,454 207 207 5,000 65,364 380,250 72,865 67,232 5,054,358 76,580 4,366 215,708 64,408 19,340 4,775 20,652 (29,079) (2,949,521) - - - - 6,156 - - 6,156 3,743,841 (174,812) (597,712) -• (174,812) 6,156 3,152,285 (98,232) 4,366 215,708 64,408 25,496 4,775 20,652 (29,079) 202,764 180,641 2,750 579,871 711,415 1,185,789 58,207 3,383 75,914 3,869,079 82,409 7,116 795,579 775,823 1,211,285 62,982 24,035 46,835 4,071,843 121 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 1. -7-8 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Interest income Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: General government Public safety Transportation Human services Culture and recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS Animal Control Public Library Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 85,100 84,577 (523 ) 72,900 71,689 (1,211) $ 55,500 74,846 19,346 10,500 10,546 46 26,000 39,623 13,623 - 4,000 6,321 2,321 3,000 3,641 641 - - - 17,000 18,310 1,310 40,500 56,490 15,990 20,000 21,951 1,951 70,100 66,221 3,879 - - - - - - 81,000 57,102 23,898 70,100 57,102 23,898 81,000 3,879 66,221 (29,600) (9,731) 19,869 (61,000) (35,151) 25,849 (29,600) (9,731) 19,869 (61,000) (35,151) 25,849 85,100 84,577 (523 ) 72,900 71,689 (1,211) $ 55,500 74,846 19,346 11,900 36,538 24,638 122 138 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS (CONTINUED) 123 Law Library Criminal Justice Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 84,900 88,818 3,918 - - - - - - 375,000 425,393 50,393 2,000 1,556 (444) 900 10,028 9,128 86,900 90,374 3,474 375,900 435,421 59,521 106,900 106,883 17 - - - 106,900 106,883 - 17 - (20,000) (16,509) 3,491 375,900 435,421 59,521 - (422,900) (422,900) - - - (422,900) (422,900) - (20,000) (16,509) 3,491 (47,000) 12,521 59,521 21,100 25,401 4,301 47,000 72,278 25,278 1,100 8,892 7,792 - 84,799 84,799 (CONTINUED) 123 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 130 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Interest income Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: General government Public safety Transportation Human services Culture and recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest and fiscal charges Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS State Court Administration Confiscated Property Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 68,473 57,815 (10,658) - 66,713 66,713 - - 3,785 9,867 6,082 - 28,752 28,752 - - - 68,473 86,567 18,094 3,785 76,580 72,795 3,184,910 2,810,142 374,768 - - - 1,030,700 1,020,266 10,434 4,215,610 - - 385,202 3,830,408 (4,147,137) (3,743,841) 403,296 3,785 76,580 72,795 4,226,100 3,743,841 (482,259) - - - - _ - (184,385) (174,812) 9,573 4,226,100 3,743,841 (482,259) (184,385) (174,812) 9,573 78,963 - (78,963) (180,600) (98,232) 82,368 1,437 (1,437) 180,600 180,641 41 $ 80,400 (80,400) - 82,409 82,409 124 13B -, EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS Law Enforcement Training GAC Land Sales, Roads and Canals Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 5,700 9,067 3,367 - - - - 299 299 23,700 56,004 32,304 - - - 80,000 225,068 145,068 5,700 9,366 3,666 103,700 281,072 177,372 5,000 5,000 - - - - - - 122,100 65,364 56,736 5,000 5,000 - 122,100 65,364 56,736 700 4,366 3,666 (18,400) 215,708 234,108 700 4,366 3,666 (18,400) 215,708 234,108 8,800 2,750 (6,050) 473,475 579,871 106,396 9,500 7,116 (2,384) 455,075 795,579 340,504 (CONTINUED) 125 13B -, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANC BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) JrF EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS (CONTINUED) 30r FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Interest income Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: General government Public safety Transportation Human services Culture and recreation Debt Service: Principal Culture and recreation Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financ- ing sources over (under) expen- ditures and other financing (uses) Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS Utility Fee (Non -GAAP) Legal Aid Society Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance 1,185,789 91,889 18,700 3,383 (15,317) $ 283,000 296,850 13,850 24,035 24,035 7,400 7,000 (400) 84,000 90,660 6,660 56,500 91,240 34,740 1,500 2,857 1,357 - 4,500 4,500 - - 346,900 399,590 52,690 85,500 93,517 8,017 380,100 372,433 7,667 - - - - 104,200 72,865 31,335 1,446 1,454 (8) - - 206 207 (1) - 381,752 374,094 7,658 104,200 72,865 31,335 (34,852) 25,496 60,348 (18,700) 20,652 39,352 (34,852) 25,496 60,348 (18,700) 20,652 39,352 1,093,900 1,185,789 91,889 18,700 3,383 (15,317) $ 1,059,048 1,211,285 152,237 - 24,035 24,035 126 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS Total Budget Actual Variance 2,003,012 2,206,379 203,367 283,000 296,850 13,850 10,500 10,546 46 68,473 57,815 (10,658) 202,300 226,101 23,801 380,700 501,173 120,473 95,385 181,813 86,428 97,000 276,630 179,630 1,137,358 1,550,928 413,570 3,671,910 3,289,458 382,452 1,035,700 1,025,266 10,434 122,100 65,364 56,736 174,300 139,086 35,214 81,000 57,102 23,898 1,446 1,454 (8) 206 207 (1) 5,086,662 4,577,937 508,725 (3,949,304) (3,027,009) 922,295 4,226,100 3,743,841 (482,259) (607,285) (597,712) 9,573 3,618,815 3,146,129 (472,686) (330,489) 119,120 449,609 2,003,012 2,206,379 203,367 1,672,523 2,325,499 652,976 127 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES ALL AGENCY FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 ` Balance Balance October 1, 2000 Additions Deletions September 30, 2001 Clerk of Courts Assets: Cash and investments $ 6,440,682 228,297,227 228,261,736 6,476,173 Due from other funds 1,064 - 1,064 - Total assets $ 6,441,746 228,297,227 228,262,800 6,476,173 Liabilities: Due to other funds $ 76,211 626,160 582,341 120,030 Due to other governments 1,173,748 68,287,243 68,484,852 976,139 Refundable deposits 5,191,787 14,777,966 14,589,749 5,380,004 Total liabilities $ 6,441,746 83,691,369 83,656,942 6,476,173 Sheriff Assets: Cash and investments $ 140,541 4,092,963 4,084,305 149,199 Receivable: 22 - 22 - Other Due from other funds - 290 12 278 Total assets $ 140,563 4,093,253 4,084,339 149,477 Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals $ 48,223 375,708 362,340 61,591 Due to other funds 29,620 397,652 396,834 30,438 Due to individuals 62,720 2,988 8,260 57,448 Total liabilities $ 140,563 776,348 767,434 149,477 Tax Collector Assets: Cash and investments $ 2,821,617 453,281,446 451,644,572 4,458,491 Receivable: Other 12,482 - 4,743 7,739 Total assets $ 2,834,099 453,281,446 451,649,315 4,466,230 Liabilities: Due to other funds $ 560,882 19,492,023 19,475,103 577,802 Due to other governments 1,891,888 26,307,296 26,148,649 2,050,535 Due to individuals 381,329 15,835,671 14,379,107 1,837,893 Total liabilities $ 2,834,099 61,634,990 60,002,859 4,466,230 128 129 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES ALL AGENCY FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 138 Balance Balance October 1, 2000 Additions Deletions September 30, 2001 Deposits Assets: Cash and investments $ 2,217,342 793,365 243,028 2,767,679 Receivable: Interest 24,483 24,349 24,483 24,349 Other 200 - - 200 Total assets $ 2,242,025 817,714 267,511 2,792,228 Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals $ 3,750 221,331 223,314 1,767 - Due to other funds 514,074 199,114 - 713,188 Refundable deposits 1,724,201 587,034 233,962 2,077,273 Total liabilities $ 2,242,025 1,007,479 457,276 2,792,228 Pine Ridge and Naples Production Park Assets: Cash and investments $ 7,121,405 12,633,209 11,936,332 7,818,282 Receivables: Interest 78,234 718,705 728,492 68,447 Special assessments 25,175 1,805,618 1,803,245 27,548 Due from other funds 13,801 13,408 13,801 13,408 Total assets $ 7,238,615 15,170,940 14,481,870 7,927,685 Liabilities: Due to special assessment bondholders $ 7,238,615 2,245,492 1,556,422 7,927,685 Total liabilities $ 7,238,615 2,245,492 1,556,422 7,927,685 Total - All Agency Funds Assets: Cash and investments $ 18,741,587 699,098,210 696,169,973 21,669,824 Receivables: -- Interest 102,717 743,054 752,975 92,796 Special assessments 25,175 1,805,618 1,803,245 27,548 Other 12,704 - 4,765 7,939 Due from other funds 14,865 13,698 14,877 13,686 d Total assets $ 18,897,048 701,660,580 698,745,835 21,811,793 Liabilities: Vouchers payable and accruals $ 51,973 597,039 585,654 63,358 Due to other funds 1,180,787 20,714,949 20,454,278 1,441,458 Due to other governments 3,065,636 94,594,539 94,633,501 3,026,674 Refundable deposits 6,915,988 15,365,000 14,823,711 7,457,277 Due to special assessment bondholders 7,238,615 2,245,492 1,556,422 7,927,685 Due to individuals 444,049 15,838,659 14,387,367 1,895,341 Total liabilities $ 18,897,048 149,355,678 146,440,933 21,811,793 129 13B THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK GENERAL FIXED ASSETS ACCOUNT GROUP 138 THIS SELF BALANCING GROUP OF ACCOUNTS IS USED TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE FIXED ASSETS UTILIZED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS AND EXCLUDES THE FIXED ASSETS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF GENERAL FIXED ASSETS BY CLASSIFICATION AND SOURCE SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 General Fixed Assets: Land Buildings Improvements other than buildings Equipment Construction in progress Total general fixed assets Investment in General Fixed Assets: Prior to 10/1/84 (unidentified) 10/1/84 to 9/30/88 After 10/1/88 from: General fund Special revenue funds General obligation bonds Revenue bonds Federal and State grant funds Proprietary funds Developer customer contributions for enterprise funds Total investment in general fixed assets Board of County Commissioners 3 B Sheriff Totals $ 44,892,379 - 44,892,379 122,365,960 - 122,365,960 60,144,872 - 60,144,872 48,896,556 26,936,138 75,832,694 5,896,539 - 5,896,539 $ 282,196,306 26,936,138 309,132,444 S 33,324,002 33,324,002 57,469,732 - 57,469,732 54,619,374 23,019,118 77,638,492 46,854,445 - 46,854,445 7,884,626 - 7,884,626 79,747,088 - 79,747,088 75,159 3,917,020 3,992,179 1,832,437 - 1,832,437 389,443 - 389,443 $ 282,196,306 26,936,138 309,132,444 132 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF GENERAL FIXED ASSETS BY FUNCTION AND CLASSIFICATION SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 133 Improvements Other Than Land Buildings Buildings Equipment Total - Board of County Commissioners: General government $ 11,653,741 45,822,510 9,725,409 14,568,816 81,770,476 Public safety 1,306,258 36,555,321 1,978,075 12,712,355 52,552,009 — Physical environment 2,955,157 1,909,270 5,065,723 2,545,807 12,475,957 Transportation 18,771,237 664,926 612,022 5,981,122 26,029,307 Economic environment - - - 78,084 78,084 Human services 189,592 14,481,799 14,808 748,263 15,434,462 Culture and recreation 10,016,394 22,932,134 42,748,835 12,262,109 87,959,472 Construction in progress - - 5,896,539 - 5,896,539 Total Board of County Commissioners $ 44,892,379 122,365,960 66,041,411 48,896,556 282,196,306 Sheriff: Public safety $ - - - 26,936,138 26,936,138 Total Sheriff $ - - - 26,936,138 26,936,138 Total General Fixed Assets: General government $ 11,653,741 45,822,510 9,725,409 14,568,816 81,770,476 Public safety 1,306,258 36,555,321 1,978,075 39,648,493 79,488,147 Physical environment 2,955,157 1,909,270 5,065,723 2,545,807 12,475,957 Transportation 18,771,237 664,926 612,022 5,981,122 26,029,307 Economic environment - - - 78,084 78,084 Human services 189,592 14,481,799 14,808 748,263 15,434,462 Culture and recreation 10,016,394 22,932,134 42,748,835 12,262,109 87,959,472 Construction in progress - - 5,896,539 - 5,896,539 Total general fixed assets $ 44,892,379 122,365,960 66,041 All 75,832,694 309,132,444 133 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN GENERAL FIXED ASSETS BY FUNCTION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 13B General General Fixed Assets Transfers Transfers Fixed Assets 10 /1 /00 Additions Deletions In Out 9/30/01 Board of County Commissioners: General government S 79,504,908 4,820,515 2,404,605 292,649 442,991 81,770,476 Public safety 44,646,182 8,679,052 124,670 47,370 695,925 52,552,009 Physical environment 11,195,959 1,410,781 79,220 30,557 82,120 12,475,957 Transportation 20,217,992 5,617,201 109,071 396,889 93,704 26,029,307 Economic environment 51,134 34,755 7,805 - - 78,084 Human services 14,642,647 806,932 22,607 7,490 - 15,434,462 Culture and recreation 73,095,295 15,292,452 308,434 32,815 152,656 87,959,472 Construction in progress 7,131,644 17,226,195 - - 18,461,300 5.896,539 Total Board of County Commissioners $ 250,485,761 51887,883 3,056,412 807,770 19,928,696 282,196,306 Sheriff: Public safety $ 24,669,215 4,594,526 2,327,603 26,936,138 Total Sheriff $ 24,669,215 4,594,526 2,327,603 26,936,138 Total General Fixed Assets: General government S 79,504,908 4,820,515 2,404,605 292,649 442,991 81,770,476 Public safety 69,315,397 13,273,578 2,452,273 47,370 695,925 79,488,147 Physical environment 11,195,959 1,410,781 79,220 30,557 82,120 12,475,957 Transportation 20,217,992 5,617,201 109,071 396,889 93,704 26,029,307 Economic environment 51,134 34,755 7,805 - - 78,084 Human services 14,642,647 806,932 22,607 7,490 - 15,434,462 Culture and recreation 73,095,295 15,292,452 308,434 32,815 152,656 87,959,472 Construction in progress 7,131,644 17,226,195 - - 18,461,300 5,896,539 Total general fixed assets S 275,154,976 58,482.409 5,384,015 807.770 19.928,696 309,132,444 134 GENERAL LONGTERM DEBT ACCOUNT GROUP 13B' THIS SELF BALANCING GROUP OF ACCOUNTS IS USED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE UNMATURED LONG -TERM INDEBTEDNESS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT THAT IS NOT A SPECIFIC LIABILITY OF ANY PROPRIETARY FUND OR TRUST FUND. GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT INCLUDES LIABILITIES ARISING FROM DEBT ISSUANCES AS WELL AS NONCURRENT LIABILITIES ON CAPITALIZED LEASE OBLIGATIONS AND ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES THAT ARE NOT CURRENT LIABILITIES PROPERLY RECORDED IN GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS. AMOUNT AVAILABLE AND TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE PAYMENT OF GENERAL LONG -TERM OBLIGATIONS Amount available in debt service funds for: General obligation bonds Limited obligation revenue bonds Notes payable Total amount available in debt service funds Amount to be provided for retirement of general long -term debt: General obligation bonds Limited obligation revenue bonds Notes payable Arbitrage rebate liability Capitalized lease obligations Retainage payable Accrued compensated absences Total amount to be provided for the retirement of general long -term debt Total amount available and to be provided GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT General obligation bonds Limited obligation revenue bonds Notes payable Arbitrage rebate liability Capitalized lease obligations Retainage payable Accrued compensated absences Total general long -term debt COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Board of Clerk of County Circuit Property Tax Commissioners Court Sheriff Appraiser Collector 1 3 B Supervisor of Elections Total $ 80,638 - - 80,638 10,444,412 - - 10,444,412 50,058 - 50,058 10,575,108 - - 10,575,108 1,479,362 - - 1,479,362 31,555,588 - - 31,555,588 25,188,863 - - 25,188,863 330,936 - - - 330,936 1,470,880 - - - - 1,470,880 - - - 362,920 - - 362,920 3,180,341 620,164 5,859,834 289,989 446,704 45,302 10,442,334 63,205,970 620,164 5,859,834 652,909 446,704 45,302 70,830,883 $ 73,781,078 620,164 5,859,834 652,909 446,704 45,302 81,405,991 $ 1,560,000 1,560,000 42,000,000 42,000,000 25,238,921 - - 25,238,921 330,936 - - 330,936 1,470,880 - 1,470,880 - - - 362,920 - - 362,920 3,180,341 620,164 5,859,834 289,989 446,704 45,302 10,442,334 $ 73,781,078 620,164 5,859,834 652,909 446,704 45,302 81,405,991 136 Other general long -tern liabilities: Notes payable Arbitrage rebate liability Capitalized lease obligations Accrued compensated absences Total other general long -term debt Total Board of County Commissioners Clerk of Circuit Court Accrued compensated absences Total Clerk of Circuit Court 137 14,644,232 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 3,925,311 _. SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT 138 214,667 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 330,936 715,002 1,451,326 Balance 1,470,880 Balance 513,337 10 /1 /00 Issued Retired 9/30/01 Board of County Commissioners 4,620,759 30,221,078 66,552,507 General obligation bonds: 9,470,759 73,781,078 1996 Parks general obligation refunding bonds $ 2,295,000 735,000 1,560,000 Total general obligation bonds 2,295,000 735,000 1,560,000 Limited obligation revenue bonds: 1973 Improvement revenue certificates 1,000,000 315,000 685,000 1992 Capital improvement revenue refunding bonds 6,345,000 315,000 6,030,000 1994 Capital improvement revenue refunding bonds 26,570,000 1,470,000 25,100,000 1995 Road improvement revenue refunding bonds 4,215,000 345,000 3,870,000 1996 Guaranteed entitlement revenue refunding bonds 1,040,000 335,000 705,000 1997 Special obligations revenue refunding bonds 5,320,000 1,240,000 4,080,000 1997 Naples stormwater assessment bonds 1,625,000 95,000 1,530,000 Total limited obligation revenue bonds 46,115,000 4,115,000 42,000,000 Other general long -tern liabilities: Notes payable Arbitrage rebate liability Capitalized lease obligations Accrued compensated absences Total other general long -term debt Total Board of County Commissioners Clerk of Circuit Court Accrued compensated absences Total Clerk of Circuit Court 137 14,644,232 14,520,000 3,925,311 25,238,921 116,269 214,667 - 330,936 715,002 1,451,326 695,448 1,470,880 2,667,004 513,337 - 3,180,341 18,142,507 16,699,330 4,620,759 30,221,078 66,552,507 16,699,330 9,470,759 73,781,078 581,365 38,799 620,164 581,365 38,799 620,164 (CONTINUED) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT (CONTINUED) 130 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Balance Balance 10 /1 /00 Issued Retired 9/30/01 Sheriff Accrued compensated absences $ 5,018,316 841,518 5,859,834 Total Sheriff 5,018,316 841,518 5,859,834 Property Appraiser Retainage payable - 362,920 - 362,920 Accrued compensated absences 261,707 28,282 289,989 Total Property Appraiser 261,707 391,202 - 652,909 Tax Collector Accrued compensated absences 425,047 21,657 446,704 Total Tax Collector 425,047 21,657 - 446,704 Supervisor of Elections Accrued compensated absences 44,033 1,269 45,302 Total Supervisor of Elections 44,033 1,269 45,302 Total $ 72,882,975 17,993,775 9,470,759 81,405,991 Total general long -term debt: 1996 Parks general obligation refunding bonds $ 2,295,000 735,000 1,560,000 1973 Improvement revenue certificates 1,000,000 315,000 685,000 1992 Capital improvement revenue refunding bonds 6,345,000 315,000 6,030,000 1994 Capital improvement revenue refunding bonds 26,570,000 1,470,000 25,100,000 1995 Road improvement revenue refunding bonds 4,215,000 345,000 3,870,000 1996 Guaranteed entitlement revenue refunding bonds 1,040,000 335,000 705,000 1997 Special obligation revenue refunding bonds 5,320,000 1,240,000 4,080,000 1997 Naples stormwater assessment bonds 1,625,000 - 95,000 1,530,000 Notes payable 14,644,232 14,520,000 3,925,311 25,238,921 Arbitrage rebate liability 116,269 214,667 - 330.936 Capitalized lease obligations 715,002 1,451,326 695,448 1,470,880 Retainage payable - 362,920 - 362,920 Accrued compensated absences 8,997,472 1,444,862 10,442,334 Total general long -term debt $ 72,882,975 17,993,775 9,470,759 81,405,991 138 STATISTICAL SECTION 3 (Unaudited) STATISTICAL SCHEDULES DIFFER FROM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BECAUSE THEY USUALLY COVER MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR AND MAY PRESENT NON - ACCOUNTING DATA. THESE SCHEDULES REFLECT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA, AND FINANCIAL TRENDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 13B''! COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES 13Y SOURCE (1) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) Fiscal 7,412,054 Licenses and Inter- Charges for Fines and % 57.4 4.7 Year Taxes Permits governmental Services Forfeitures Other Totals 1992 $ 74,147,765 5,977,117 19,349,053 7,453,536 3,119,650 7,825,356 117,872,477 % 62.9 5.1 16.4 6.3 2.7 6.6 44,190,531 1993 75,594,053 5,580,335 23,925,093 7,602,666 3,212,998 7,957,014 123,872,159 % 61.0 4.5 19.3 6.2 2.6 6.4 1994 78,828,364 6,339,920 24,573,018 10,921,919 2,903,353 7,611,622 131,178,196 % 60.1 4.9 18.7 8.3 2.2 5.8 1995 84,081,182 5,953,988 25,803,749 10,515,405 3,029,529 8,764,572 138,148,425 % 60.9 4.3 18.7 7.6 2.2 63 1996 81,242,733 6,195,006 27,729,698 11,835,016 2,599,487 8,531,631 138,133,571 % 58.8 4.5 20.1 8.6 1.8 6.2 1997 91,122,244 7,412,054 32,781,746 11,996,430 3,436,721 11,882,261 158,631,456 % 57.4 4.7 20.7 7.5 2.2 7.5 1998 96,526,309 8,478,129 34,074,733 13,222,009 3,987,134 12,472,341 168,760,655 % 57.2 5.1 20.2 7.9 2.4 7.2 1999 100,786,748 9,597,795 40,462,312 15,585,360 4,184,515 11,344,973 181,961,703 % 55.4 5.3 22.2 8.6 2.3 6.2 2000 113,784,336 10,645,942 41,652,298 17,453,401 4,574,911 12,8129241 200,923,129 % 56.6 5.3 20.7 8.7 2.3 6.4 2001 130,301,948 11,196,197 44,190,531 19,671,484 5,943,657 16,815,613 228,119,430 % 57.1 4.9 19.4 8.6 2.6 7.4 (1) Includes General, Special Revenue and Debt Service Funds. Operating transfers in have been excluded from all years. Source: Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 140 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION (1) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) Fiscal General Public Physical Economic Human Culture and Debt Year Government Safety Environment Transportation Environment Services Recreation Service Totals 1992 S 26,009,525 46,173,847 12,298,916 5,972,493 1,269,338 4,934,702 5,662,942 9,642,135 111,963,898 % 23.2 41.3 11.0 5.3 1.1 4.4 5.1 8.6 1993 26,564,661 48,062,340 10,299,424 6,800,597 375,767 5,269,998 6,655,960 28,743,210 132,771,957 % 20.0 36.2 7.7 5.1 0.3 4.0 5.0 21.7 1994 29,882,425 48,108,704 6,820,768 7,582,423 417,488 5,562,963 7,911,078 10,807,144 117,092,993 % 25.5 41.1 5.8 6.5 0.3 4.8 6.8 9.2 1995 28,696,575 49,748,170 6,859,981 7,827,462 973,404 5,311,490 9,340,755 7,644,760 116,402,597 % 24.6 42.8 5.9 6.8 0.8 4.6 8.0 6.5 1996 29,176,061 53,574,998 18,063,485 9,352,063 1,672,577 5,549,492 12,243,918 13,646,380 143,278,974 % 20.4 37.5 12.6 6.5 1.2 3.9 8.6 9.5 - 1997 29,027,587 61,972,518 8,770,943 11,295,736 1,488,424 5,383,713 14,448,397 10,007,288 142,394,606 % 20.5 43.5 6.2 7.9 1.0 3.8 10.1 7.0 1998 32,655,958 65,379,929 8,574,843 11,306,889 1,651,652 4,953,181 13,526,082 12,413,354 150,461,888 % 21.7 43.5 5.7 7.6 1.1 3.3 9.0 8.1 1999 35,646,320 74,248,408 7,336,258 11,247,297 3,206,496 5,385,002 14,310,985 10,959,488 162,340,254 % 22.0 45.7 4.5 6.9 2.0 3.3 8.8 6.8 2000 40,136,276 77,788,938 10,091,443 12,714,939 2,555,165 6,107,950 16,760,442 14,299,363 180,454,516 % 22.3 43.1 5.6 7.0 1.4 3.4 9.3 7.9 2001 47,736,548 90,195,502 12,315,847 17,664,149 2,833,160 7,002,942 18,841,785 12,888,290 209,478,223 % 22.8 43.0 5.9 8.4 1.4 3.3 9.0 6.2 (1) Includes General, Special Revenue and Debt Service Funds. Operating transfers out have been excluded for all years. Source: Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 141 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) Ad valorem taxes levied apply only to governmental funds under the control of County Commissioners. Property tax levies, based on assessed values as of January 1, become due and payable on November 1 of each year. A 4% discount is allowed if the taxes are paid in November, with the discount declining by 1 % each month thereafter. Accordingly, taxes collected will be 100% of the Tax Levy. Taxes become delinquent on April I of each year and tax certificates for the full amount of any unpaid taxes and assessments must be sold not later than June 1 of each year. Property taxes receivable and a corresponding reserve for uncollectible property taxes are not included in the financial statements as there are no delinquent taxes as of September 30, 2001. Sources: Tax Collector Annual Report and State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. 142 County Taxes Collected Percent of Total Fiscal Commissioners Tax Discounts Plus Taxes Collected Plus Levy Cost Year Population Tax Levy Collections Allowed Discounts Discounts to Tax Levy Per Person 1992 168,500 69,915 64,040 2,114 66,154 94.62% 414.89 1993 174,664 68,224 62,416 2,119 64,535 94.59% 390.61 1994 186,641 69,983 63,833 2,219 66,052 94.38% 374.96 1995 186,641 71,087 64,772 2,284 67,056 94.33% 380.88 1996 197,400 78,816 71,876 2,525 74,401 94.40% 399.27 1997 202,903 88,547 80,873 2,871 83,744 94.58% 436.40 1998 210,095 94,353 86,060 3,083 89,143 94.48% 449.10 1999 219,685 97,419 88,636 3,191 91,827 94.26% 443.45 2000 229,821 108,490 98,830 3,597 102,427 94.41% 472.06 2001 251,377 122,929 111,976 4,086 116,062 94.41% 489.02 Ad valorem taxes levied apply only to governmental funds under the control of County Commissioners. Property tax levies, based on assessed values as of January 1, become due and payable on November 1 of each year. A 4% discount is allowed if the taxes are paid in November, with the discount declining by 1 % each month thereafter. Accordingly, taxes collected will be 100% of the Tax Levy. Taxes become delinquent on April I of each year and tax certificates for the full amount of any unpaid taxes and assessments must be sold not later than June 1 of each year. Property taxes receivable and a corresponding reserve for uncollectible property taxes are not included in the financial statements as there are no delinquent taxes as of September 30, 2001. Sources: Tax Collector Annual Report and State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. 142 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ASSESSED AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) Source: Property Appraiser Recapitulation Report. 143 EXEMPTIONS Ratio of Total Widow Taxable Assessed to Fiscal Assessed Governmental Disability Assessed Total Estimated Year Value * and Institutional Homestead and Other Valuation Actual Value 1992 S 16,409,800 1,158,919 929,009 14,096 14,307,776 100% 1993 16,740,669 1,191,083 988,629 14,575 14,546,382 100% 1994 17,682,048 1,313,051 1,039,154 16,788 15,313,053 100% 1995 18,617,175 1,523,849 1,093,553 17,579 15,982,194 100% 1996 19,684,394 1,588,934 1,146,728 18,071 16,930,661 100% 1997 20,953,662 1,634,173 1,217,637 18,720 18,083,132 100% 1998 22,552,225 1,720,842 1,280,311 21,996 19,529,076 100% 1999 24,594,905 1,885,947 1,341,129 25,235 21,342,594 100% 2000 27,947,279 2,081,540 1,413,081 30,457 24,422,201 100% 2001 31,584,941 2,296,674 1,510,735 35,511 27,742,021 100% Property is assessed as of January 1, and taxes based on these assessments are levied and become due on the following November 1. Therefore, assessments and levies applicable to a certain tax year are collected in the fiscal year ending during the next succeeding calendar year. *The basis of assessed value required by the state is 100% of actual value. Source: Property Appraiser Recapitulation Report. 143 �3B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPERTY TAX RATES - ALL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) Basis for property tax rates is 1 mill per 51,000 of assessed value. Property is assessed as of January 1 and taxes based on those assessments are levied according to the tax rate in effect that tax year and become due on November 1. Therefore, assessments and tax levies applicable to a certain tax year are collected in the fiscal year ending during the following calendar year. Beginning fiscal year 1994, the millage rates for capital projects are included in the General Fund millage rate. Sources: Collier County annual adopted budget and the Property Appraiser Recapitulation Report. 144 COLLIER COUNTY OTHER Special Debt Capital County Fiscal General Revenue Service Projects School Independent Year Fund Funds Funds Funds Total District Districts Total 1992 3.3295 .7664 .1126 0.6580 4.8665 7.9570 1.4629 14.2864 1993 3.2580 .7726 .1094 0.5474 4.6874 8.0000 1.4455 14.1329 1994 3.6729 .7823 .1106 0.0000 4.5658 8.0860 1.5648 14.2166 1995 3.6028 .6834 .1062 0.0000 4.3924 8.3227 1.5028 14.2179 1996 3.4918 .7091 .0989 0.0000 4.2998 8.6000 1.5353 14.4351 1997 3.7266 .7567 .0490 0.0000 4.5323 8.6918 1.5420 14.7661 1998 3.6838 .7604 .0452 0.0000 4.4894 8.4298 1.5941 14.5133 1999 3.5540 .6689 .0420 0.0000 4.2649 8.5173 1.4801 14.2623 2000 3.5086 .6419 .0355 0.0000 4.1860 7.7661 1.4654 13.4175 2001 3.5050 .6624 .0318 0.0000 4.1992 7.7334 1.4607 13.3933 Basis for property tax rates is 1 mill per 51,000 of assessed value. Property is assessed as of January 1 and taxes based on those assessments are levied according to the tax rate in effect that tax year and become due on November 1. Therefore, assessments and tax levies applicable to a certain tax year are collected in the fiscal year ending during the following calendar year. Beginning fiscal year 1994, the millage rates for capital projects are included in the General Fund millage rate. Sources: Collier County annual adopted budget and the Property Appraiser Recapitulation Report. 144 138 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BILLINGS AND COLLECTIONS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) Excludes Pine Ridge and Naples Production Park assessments for which the County acts as agent for the bondholders. Source: Collier County Assessment Recapitulation Report. 145 Current Current Ratio of Total Fiscal Assessments Assessments Collections Outstanding Year Due Collected to Amount Due Assessments 1992 S 2,135,998 5,570,154 261% 23,837,372 1993 2,232,546 2,970,481 133% 21,707,800 1994 1,919,042 3,207,550 167% 18,963,490 1995 1,953,081 2,307,329 118% 17,128,145 1996 2,106,154 2,956,584 140% 15,471,790 1997 1,864,401 31964,276 212% 15,474,223 1998 1,676,357 2,767,775 165% 13,599,305 1999 1,507,448 21549,513 169% 11,820,791 2000 1,370,036 2,307,460 168% 10,115,228 2001 1,251,057 2,015,425 161% 8,678,586 Excludes Pine Ridge and Naples Production Park assessments for which the County acts as agent for the bondholders. Source: Collier County Assessment Recapitulation Report. 145 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPUTATION OF LEGAL DEBT MARGIN September 30, 2001 (Unaudited) The Constitution of the State of Florida, Florida Statute 200.181 and Collier County set no legal debt limit. COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT September 30, 2001 (Unaudited) Percent Amount Net Debt Applicable to Applicable to Governmental Entity Outstanding (1) Collier County (2) Collier County Direct: Collier County General Obligation Bonds S 1,479,362 100.00% 1,479,362 (1) Excludes amounts available in Debt Service Funds for payment of interest and principal. (2) Applicable percentage is determined by the ratio of assessed valuation of property subject to taxation in the overlapping unit to the valuation of property subject to taxation in the reporting entity. Source: Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 146 _ 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RATIO OF NET GENERAL BONDED DEBT TO ASSESSED VALUES AND NET BONDED DEBT PER CAPITA LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) Debt Service Ratio of Net Net Bonded *� Fiscal Taxable Valuation Gross Bonded Monies Net Bonded Bonded Debt to Debt Per Year Population (In Millions) Debt Available Debt Assessed Value Capita 1992 168,500 $ 14,308 10,879,000 96,965 10,782,035 0.08% 63.99 1993 174,664 14,546 10,021,000 47,489 9,973,511 0.07% 57.10 1994 186,641 15,313 9,102,000 66,636 9,035,364 0.06% 48.41 1995 186,641 15,982 8,115,000 105,423 8,009,577 0.05% 42.91 1996 197,400 16,931 7,240,000 100,720 7,139,280 0.04% 36.17 1997 202,903 18,083 6,100,000 88,980 6,011,020 0.03% 29.63 1998 210,095 19,529 3,680,000 53,462 3,626,538 0.03% 17.26 1999 219,685 21,343 3,000,000 53,373 2,946,627 0.02% 13.41 2000 229,821 24,422 2,295,000 43,576 2,251,424 0.01% 9.80 2001 251,377 27,742 1,560,000 80,638 1,479,362 0.01% 5.89 r r-` Sources: www.mvflo(da.com /i)ooulation Property Appraiser Recapitulation Report. Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 147 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RATIO OF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL BONDED DEBT TO TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) (1) Includes General, Special Revenue and Debt Service Funds. Source: Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 148 Total Ratio of Total Interest General Debt Service Fiscal and Fiscal Total Expenditures to General Year Principal Charges Debt Service (1) Expenditures 1991 $ 841,000 838,439 1,679,439 100,461,533 1.67% 1992 802,000 788,493 1,590,493 111,963,898 1.42% 1993 858,000 737,046 1,595,046 132,771,957 1.20% 1994 919,000 681,009 1,600,009 117,092,993 1.37% 1995 987,000 622,924 1,609,924 116,402,597 1.38% 1996 1,110,000 587,002 1,697,002 143,278,974 1.19% 1997 1,140,000 366,607 1,506,607 142,394,606 1.05% 1998 2,420,000 247,438 2,667,438 150,461,888 1.78% 1999 680,000 150,055 830,055 162,340,254 0.51% 2000 705,000 122,855 827,855 180,454,516 0.50% 2001 735,000 94,863 829,863 209,478,223 0.40% (1) Includes General, Special Revenue and Debt Service Funds. Source: Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 148 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER FUNDS REVENUE BOND COVERAGE (1) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) (1) Coverage applies to the County Water and Sewer District, Marco Water and Sewer District through 2000, and Goodland Water District. (2) Operating revenues plus other income and operating transfers in. (3) Total expenses and operating transfers out, excluding depreciation, amortization, extraordinary losses and bond interest. (4) Net revenue divided by total debt service requirements. Source: Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 149 Net Revenue Debt Service Requirements Fiscal Gross Available for Year Revenue (2) Expenses (3) Debt Service Principal Interest Total Coverage (4) 1992 $ 29,161,021 12,026,998 17,134,023 1,434,958 7,237,098 8,672,056 1.97 1993 32,166,459 13,142,832 19,023,627 2,128,293 7,352,527 9,480,820 2.01 1994 35,638,564 15,142,535 20,496,029 2,441,659 7,033,492 9,475,151 2.16 1995 37,250,837 17,051,916 20,198,921 4,230,737 6,226,952 10,457,689 1.93 1996 38,691,604 18,135,792 20,555,812 4,095,477 6,767,030 10,862,507 1.89 1997 43,408,125 19,356,555 24,051,570 3,782,654 6,372,175 10,154,829 2.36 1998 45,541,765 19,112,573 26,429,192 5,975,610 6,119,384 12,094,994 2.20 1999 49,104,496 21,128,773 27,975,723 3,877,329 5,626,920 9,504,249 2.94 2000 53,623,839 29,161,075 24,462,764 4,991,217 5,490,994 10,482,211 2.33 2001 56,501,950 34,539,980 21,961,970 5,146,926 5,227,250 10,374,176 2.11 (1) Coverage applies to the County Water and Sewer District, Marco Water and Sewer District through 2000, and Goodland Water District. (2) Operating revenues plus other income and operating transfers in. (3) Total expenses and operating transfers out, excluding depreciation, amortization, extraordinary losses and bond interest. (4) Net revenue divided by total debt service requirements. Source: Collier County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 149 James D. Carter, Ph.D. James N. Coletta, Jr. Pamela S. Mac'kie Donna L. Fiala Thomas K. Henning Dwight E. Brock Don Hunter Jennifer J. Edwards Abe Skinner Guy L. Carlton Thomas W. 011iff * Excludes perquisites. 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SALARIES AND SURETY BONDS OF PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 (Unaudited) Annual Amount of Name and Title of Official Salary Surety Bond Chairman, Board of County Commissioners $ 58,447 5,000 Vice Chairman, Board of County Commissioners 58,447 5,000 Member, Board of County Commissioners 58,447 5,000 Member, Board of County Commissioners 58,447 5,000 Member, Board of County Commissioners 58,447 5,000 Clerk of the Circuit Court 107,967 5,000 Sheriff 111,658 10,000 Supervisor of Elections 90,458 5,000 Property Appraiser 107,967 10,000 Tax Collector 107,967 250,000 County Manager * 126,404 Blanket Bond Source: Collier County Payroll Department. 150 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) N/A = Data not available Sources: (1) www.myflorida.com \population -based on 2000 census report (2) University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, (3) Collier County School Board, based on full time equivalent enrollment (4) Florida Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Division of Employment. 151 Per Fiscal Percent Capita School Unemployment Year Population (1) Increase Income (2) Enrollment (3) Rate (4) 1992 168,500 4.3% $ 27,509 24,152 8.9% 1993 174,664 3.5% 28,574 25,437 8.5% 1994 186,641 6.9% N/A 24,364 8.2% 1995 186,641 0.0% N/A 27,634 6.9% 1996 197,400 5.8% 30,201 24,428 6.4% 1997 202,903 2.7% 30,906 32,572 5.9% 1998 210,095 3.5% 32,878 31,222 4.6% 1999 219,685 4.6% 34,830 31,829 3.8% 2000 229,821 4.6% 36,210 33,363 3.8% 2001 251,377 9.3% 44,862 34,616 3.5% N/A = Data not available Sources: (1) www.myflorida.com \population -based on 2000 census report (2) University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, (3) Collier County School Board, based on full time equivalent enrollment (4) Florida Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Division of Employment. 151 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPERTY VALUE, CONSTRUCTION AND BANK DEPOSITS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Unaudited) (1) Includes Duplexes, Mobile Homes, Multi - Family and Single Family Structures. (2) Department of Community Development - Permit/unit report by type of structure (new structures only). Number of units of non - residential construction is not available. (3) Value is stated at market value. (4) Florida Banker's Association. Source: Collier County Department of Community Development and the Florida Banker's Association. 152 Construction and Property Values Commercial /Industrial Residential (1) Fiscal Number of Value Number of Number of Value Bank Deposits Year Permits (2) (In Thousands) (3) Permits (2) Units (2) (In Thousands) (3) (In Thousands) (4) 1992 339 $ 77,169 2,870 4,552 369,141 2,067,215 1993 320 51,958 2,254 3,415 303,851 2,097,133 1994 298 62,211 2,684 4,073 397,861 2,707,107 1995 266 47,724 14,191 4,323 475,769 2,870,991 1996 275 60,789 14,555 5,001 529,834 3,112,346 1997 345 87,748 16,718 6,481 608,996 3,463,731 1998 350 125,889 18,541 6,691 763,252 3,767,516 1999 368 133,441 20,503 8,335 857,745 4,102,784 2000 393 157,340 22,030 8,101 1,017,208 4,658,978 2001 266 111,882 21,257 7,683 965,055 5,153,782 (1) Includes Duplexes, Mobile Homes, Multi - Family and Single Family Structures. (2) Department of Community Development - Permit/unit report by type of structure (new structures only). Number of units of non - residential construction is not available. (3) Value is stated at market value. (4) Florida Banker's Association. Source: Collier County Department of Community Development and the Florida Banker's Association. 152 1 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PRINCIPAL TAXPAYERS COUNTY -WIDE 2001 TAX ROLL (Unaudited) Amounts for taxpayers with similar names have not been combined. Source: Property Appraiser's taxpayer listing in order of taxes levied. 153 2001 Property Percent of Taxes Total Owner /Taxpayer Levied Taxes Levied Florida Power & Light Company $ 1,712,165 0.38% Sprint- Florida Incorporated 1,645,999 0.36% HMC BN LTD Partnership 1,538,867 0.34% City National Bank of Miami 1,152,193 0.25% Coastland Center Joint Venture 1,117,938 0.25% Collier Development Corporation 803,532 0.18% Marco Island Utilities 702,886 0.15% Lutgert TR, Raymond L. 646,527 0.14% CC- Naples Inc 617,213 0.14% Naples Golf & Beach Club Inc 575,325 0.13% Total $ 10,512,645 2.32% Total Property Taxes Levied $ 386,654,045 Amounts for taxpayers with similar names have not been combined. Source: Property Appraiser's taxpayer listing in order of taxes levied. 153 13B 7A COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICAL DATA SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 (Unaudited) Date of establishment: 1923 Education: Form of Government: Constitutional County Number of Schools: Number of teachers Present area: 2,026 square miles High schools 5 1990 152,100 Construction permits: (4) Middle Schools 8 Pennits issued 25,713 Elementary Schools 22 Population: 1993 174,664 Vocational Technical 2 Date Residents Number of administrators 228 Number of non - instructional 1,830 1988 135,300 Number of teachers 2,095 1989 143,700 1990 152,100 Construction permits: (4) 1991 161,600 Pennits issued 25,713 1992 168,500 Estimated construction costs $ 1,164,229,771 1993 174,664 1994 186,641 Police Protection: (2) 1995 186,641 Number of stations 7 1996 197,400 Number of employees: 1997 202,903 Certified law enforcement 557 1998 210,095 Certified correction officers 191 1999 219,685 Civilian employees 302 2000 229,821 Certified Judicial employees 26 2001 251,377 Fire Protection: (1) County Employees (Dependent Districts): Number of stations 2 As of September 30, 2001 2,993 Number of employees 12 Number of volunteers- approximate 10 Elections: Number of registered voters 123,572 Miscellaneous County Information: Miles of streets 1,463 Number of voters turned out for Number of street lights (3) 1,859 last general election 95,350-77.1% Number of traffic lights 157 Number of county maintained parks 43 Number of libraries 8 Number of volumes in libraries 397,655 (1) Excludes Independent Fire Districts. (2) Excludes City Police and State Troopers. (3) Excludes Lighting Districts. (4) New Structures and Renovations. Water and Sewer Department: Number of water and sewer customers 45,745 Daily water consumption peak season (gallons) 24,735,877 Miles of water lines 618 Miles of sanitary sewers 731 Miles of primary and secondary drainage facilities 154 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA MAJOR INDUSTRIES WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 (Unaudited) Industry Firms Employee Count Hotels and other Lodging 63 4,259 Health Services 499 8,619 Business Services 630 6,507 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 1,031 6,203 Amusement and Recreation Services 150 3,937 Services - other 990 4,616 Services 3,363 34,141 Eating and Drinking Places 459 6,482 Food Stores 147 4,254 Auto Dealers and Service Stations 129 1,942 Home Furniture and Furnishings 253 1,411 Retail Trade - other 394 2,486 Apparel and Accessory Stores 194 1,523 General Merchandise Stores 27 2,289 Building Hardware and Garden 77 1,431 Retail Trade 1,680 21,818 Federal Government 22 647 State Government 43 843 Local Government 21 8,780 Government 86 10,270 Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 399 6,119 Construction 1,210 12,825 Manufacturing 222 2,771 Transportation, Communication and Public Utilities 281 2,418 Wholesale Trade 461 3,070 Mining 6 31 Other 2,579 27,234 Total 7,708 93,463 * Average number of people employed in 2001. Source: Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security; Bureau of Labor Market Information ES -202 report. w 155 13B COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE IN FORCE SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 ■ r Type of policy and $5,000,000 occurrence/ Northfield Expiration Annual Type of coverage Limits of Liability Company Date Premium Property (1) $5,000,000 Northfield 10/01/2001 $ 572,000 General Liability (2) $2,000,000 per occurrence Northfield 10/01/2001 *Included in (1) Automobile Liability including products and Northfield 10/0112001 *Included in (I) Accidental Death completed operations Hartford Insurance Co. 10/01/2001 $ 9,483 $6,000,000 (all third party Airport Liability coverages in this section) Old Republic Insurance Co. 10/01/2001 $ 10,467 Aircraft Liability $2,000,000 (Products and AAU 10/01/2001 $ 65,968 Completed Operations) Excess DIC $5,000,000 Crum & Forster 10/01/2001 $ 212,872 Pollution Liability $1,000,000 Northfield 10/01/2001 included Public Officials $17,000,000 Royal Surplus Lines 10 /01 /2001 included Bonds (3) $22,000,000 Underwriter at Lloyds 10/01/2001 included Public Officials Error & $5,000,000 occurrence/ Northfield 10/01/2001 *Included in (1) Omissions aggregate Excess Property $330,224,806 X $5,000,000 Crum & Forster 10 /01 /2001 $ 325,168 Excess Crime $4,000,000 Crum & Forster 10 /01 /2001 $ 4,829 Automobile Liability $1,000,000 Northfield 10/0112001 *Included in (I) Accidental Death $75,000 Unlawful and Hartford Insurance Co. 10/01/2001 $ 9,483 Intentional Death Airport Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence Old Republic Insurance Co. 10/01/2001 $ 10,467 Aircraft Liability 2,000,000 occurrence AAU 10/01/2001 $ 65,968 including Passenger Boiler & Machinery $25,000,000 Hartford Steam Boiler 10/01/2001 $ 8,519 Pollution Liability $2,000,00054,000,000 Greenwich Insurance 10/01/2001 $ 75,124 Public Officials Various amounts on Various Various Various Bonds (3) Designated Officials Excess Workers' Compensation Statutory-WC Safety National 10 /01 /2001 $ 38,364 Contingent Medical Malpractice $1,000,000 Hull & Company 04/18/2001 $ 6,658 Annual premium on Auto Liability does not include Sheriffs Department. (1) Includes real, personal, auto physical damage, inland marine equipment, extra expense, EDP, watercraft, valuable papers and records, business interruption, rental value, contractors' equipment, computer equipment and software, flood, earthquake and crime. (2) Includes Public Officials Errors & Omissions, Medical Attendants Malpractice. (3) Public Officials Liability. Source: Collier County Risk Management Department. 156 SINGLE AUDIT/FEDERAL AND STATE SCHEDULE OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THE SINGLE AUDIT/FEDERAL AND STATE SCHEDULE OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE SECTION PRESENTS GRANT COMPLIANCE REPORTS FILED BY COLLIER COUNTY WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENT, RESPECTIVELY. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT' BLANK • 13E PO. Box 31002 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 -8902 P.O. Box 1439 Tampa, FL 33601 -1439 Independent Auditors'. Report on Compliance and on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of General Purpose Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards _. Distinguished Members of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida: We have audited the general purpose financial statements of Collier County, Florida as of and for the year ended September 30, 2001, and have issued our report thereon dated February 1, 2002. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether Collier County, Florida's general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Governmental Auditing Standards. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered Collier County, Florida's internal control over financial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the general purpose financial statements and not to provide assurance on internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving internal control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be material -- weaknesses. However, we noted other matters involving the internal control over financial reporting, which we have reported to management of Collier County, Florida in a separate letter dated February 1, 2002. This report is intended solely for the information and use of Collier County, Florida Board of County Commissioners, management and federal and state awarding agencies and pass - through entities, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. O>MC, LCP February 1, 2002 159 song - MM 13B P.O. Box 31002 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 -8902 P.O. Box 1439 Tampa, FL 33601 -1439 Report on Compliance With Requirements Applicable to Each Major Federal Program and State Financial Assistance Project Distinguished Members of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida: Compliance We have audited the compliance of Collier County, Florida with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -133 Compliance Supplement, and the requirements described in the Executive Office of the Governor's State Projects Compliance Supplement, that are applicable to each of its major federal awards programs and state projects, for the year ended September 30, 2001. Collier County, Florida's major federal awards programs and state projects are identified in the summary of auditors' results section of the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to its major federal awards programs and state projects is the responsibility of Collier County, Florida's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Collier County, Florida's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; OMB Circular A -133, Audits of States. Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations and Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General. °- Those standards, OMB Circular A -133, and Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General, require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal awards program or state project occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about Collier County, Florida's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our -- opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of Collier County, Florida's compliance with those requirements. .... 161 KPMG LLB KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited 6abilrty partnership, is a member of KPMG Internavonal a Swiss association. I36 In our opinion, Collier County, Florida complied, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to above that are applicable to its major federal awards programs and state projects for the year ended September 30, 2001. However, the results of our auditing procedures disclosed instances of noncompliance with those requirements, whici) are required to be reported in accordance with OMB Circular A -133 and Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General and which are described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs at Items 2001 -1 and 2001 -2. Internal Control Over Compliance The management of Collier County, Florida is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to federal awards programs and state projects. In planning and performing our audit, we considered Collier County, Florida's internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal awards program or state projects in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A -133 and Chapter 10.550, Rules o_f the Auditor General. Our consideration of the internal control over compliance would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that noncompliance with the applicable requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants that would be material in relation to a major federal awards program or state project being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving internal control over compliance and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of County Commissioners, management and federal and state awarding agencies, and pass - through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties. February 1, 2002 K�>MC, LCP 162 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Federal or State Grantor /Pass- Through Grantor Program Title CFDA #/ CSFA # Grant/Contract Number Expenditures Corporation for National and Community Service Direct Programs: Retired and Senior Volunteer Program 94.002 3405167/05 $ 58,035 Total Corporation for National and Community Service 58,035 Environmental Protection Agencv Indirect Programs: State Revolving Fund 66.458 CS I 20597090-Collier Co. 212,129 State Revolving Fund 66.458 CS120597100- Collier Co. 17,370,047 Total Environmental Protection Agency 17,582,176 Federal Emereencv Management Agency Indirect Programs: - Florida Department of Community Affairs: Flood Mitigation - Leonard Residence 83.548 00- FM- J1- 09 -21 -15 -001 40,500 Shelter Retro -fit 83.548 01- HM- 6L- 09 -21 -15 -007 8,380 Terrorism Annex 83.548 0 1 -EO-N2-09-21-22-013 28,800 Barron Shelter Retro -fit 83.548 02- HM- 6L- 09 -21 -15 -008 20,748 v Total CFDA 98,428 Emergency Management Performance Grant 83.534 0 1 -CP-04-09-21 -01 -011 38,461 Total Federal Emergency Management Agency 136,889 National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Indirect Programs: Florida Department of State 45.31 00- LSTA -1 -01 45,699 Total National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 45,699 United States Department of Agriculture Indirect Programs: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Forestry State Grant 10.662 Isle of Capri Fire District 2,386 Total Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2,386 Florida Department of Education: School Breakfast 10.553 01 -0338 11,389 School Lunch 10.555 01 -0338 19,197 Summer Food Service Program for Children 10.559 04 -804 365,730 Total Florida Department of Education 396,316 Total United States Department of Agriculture 398,702 United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Direct Programs: Sea Turtle Awareness 15.FFB 1448-40181-98-G-125 585 Indirect Programs: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Artificial Reef 15.605 FWCC 00167 25,000 Total United States Department of Fish and Wildlife 25,585 (Continued) 163 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 CFDA #/ Federal or State Grantor/Pass- Through Grantor Program Title CSFA # Grant/Contract Number Expenditures United States Department of Health and Human Services Indirect Programs: Florida Department of Elder Affairs - Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc.: Special Programs for the Aging - Title III, Part B - Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers Special Programs for the Aging - Title III, Part B - Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers Total CFDA Special Programs for the Aging - Title III, Part C -1 - Nutrition Services Special Programs for the Aging - Title III, Part C -1 - Nutrition Services Special Programs for the Aging - Title III, Part C -2 - Nutrition Services Special Programs for the Aging - Title III, Part C -2 - Nutrition Services Total CFDA Florida Department of Revenue: Child Support Enforcement Total United States Department of Health and Human Services 93.044 OAA203.00 $ 41,288 93.044 OAA203.01 37,017 65,074 FT- 01- 24 -07 -01 58,367 106,362 93.045 OAA203.00 PL- 0313(38) 5,819 93.045 OAA203.01 81,545 14,385 93.045 OAA203.00 20.505 6,066 93.045 OAA203.01 FL -90- X403 -00 15,513 20.507 FL -90 -X000 720,103 41,783 93.563 HZF14 9,280 157,425 United States Department of Housina and Urban Development Indirect Programs: Florida Department of Community Affairs: Community Development Block Grants - Small Cities Programs 14.228 00-DB-6B-09-21 -01 -E05 208,747 Community Development Block Grant 14.218 B- 01 -UC -12 -0016 58,371 Total United States Department of Housing and Urban Development 267,118 United States Department of Transportation Indirect Programs: Florida Department of Transportation: DUI Enforcement Traffic Crash Report Total CFDA Highway Planning and Construction Highway Planning and Construction Total CFDA FTA Grant Section 5307 Section 5307 Total CFDA Immokalee Circulator 1 Immokalee Circulator 2 Immokalee Circulator 3 Total CFDA Total United States Department of Transportation 164 20.600 J8- 01- 06 -07 -01 37,017 20.600 FT- 01- 24 -07 -01 58,367 95,384 20.205 PL- 0313(38) 248,418 20.205 PL-0313(39) 81,545 329,963 20.505 AH707 19,932 20.507 FL -90- X403 -00 532,611 20.507 FL -90 -X000 720,103 1,252,714 20.509 AF 291 3,409 20.509 AG 064 51,163 20.509 Al 078 74,846 129,418 1,827,411 (Continued) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 13B Federal or State Grantor/Pass- Through Grantor Program Title CFDA #/ CSFA # Grant/Contract Number Expenditures United States Department of Justice HCE316.203.00 12,815 Direct Progams: 13,994 Office of Community Oriented Policing: CCE203.302.02 12,576 COPS Universal 16.710 95CCWX0265 $ 1,175,894 COPS MORE 00 16.710 2000CMWX0058 126,503 COPS in Schools 16.710 1999SHWX0314 433,967 COPS in Schools 16.710 2000SHWX0839 163,772 Total CFDA 1,900,136 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) 16.572 99APVX0568 277,394 Office of Justice Programs: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 16.592 98 -LB -VX -4249 256,566 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 16.592 99 -LB -VX -7088 277,168 Total CFDA 533,734 Equitable Sharing of Federally Forfeited Property 16.000 Collier County 67,232 Indirect Programs: Florida Office of Attorney General: Victim of Crime Act (VOCA) 16.575 V7002 100,602 Florida Department of Community Affairs: Juvenile Arrest and Monitoring 16.579 01- CJ- 9M- 09 -21 -01 -223 143,318 Street Gang Prevention 16.579 01- CJ- Jl- 09 -21 -01 -001 67,275 Total CFDA 210,593 STOP Violence Against Women Grants Program 16.588 00- DV- Fl- 09 -21 -01 -042 69,000 Total United States Department of Justice 3,158,691 TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS Florida Department of Communitv Affairs National Weather Service Transmitter Emergency Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund Emergency Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund Total Florida Department of Community Affairs Florida Department of Elder Affairs Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc: -° Home Care for the Elderly Home Care for the Elderly Total CSFA Community Care for the Elderly Community Care for the Elderly Total CSFA Alzheimer's Disease Initiative Total Florida Department of Elder Affairs 165 $ 23,657,731 52.008 97- CP- 07- 09 -21 -01 -104 $ 47,278 52.008 00- CP- 05- 09 -21 -01 -011 7,364 52.008 01- CP- 04- 09 -21 -01 -011 101,549 156,191 65.001 HCE203.311.02 1,179 65.001 HCE316.203.00 12,815 13,994 65.010 CCE203.302.02 12,576 65.010 CCE304.203.00 188,646 201,222 65.004 ADI306.203.00 238 215,454 (Continued) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND 3 B . STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Florida Housine Finance Commission State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program Total Florida Housing Finance Commission Office of the Governor Economic Development Grant - Loop Road Total Office of the Governor 166 52.901 FY O1 52.901 FY 02 31.002 99/0011A 1,725,645 46,211 1,771,856 139,472 139,472 (Continued) CFDA #/ Federal or State Grantor /Pass - Through Grantor Program Title CSFA # Grant/Contract Number Expenditures Florida Department of Environmental Protection Beach Erosion Control Program 37.003 01 -CO1 $ 201,611 Derelict Vessel 77.005 99 -150 3,250 Solid Waste Recycling and Education Grant 37.011 REO1 -09 54,275 Solid Waste Tire Grant 37.015 WTO1 -11 111,280 Litter Control and Prevention Grant 37.009 LCOI -09 16,765 Total Florida Department of Environmental Protection 387,181 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Emergency Medical Services County Award 64.005 C99 -11 70,121 Emergency Medical Services County Award 64.005 C00 -11 9,131 Total CSFA 79,252 EMS - Training 64.003 EM001 3,450 Total Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 82,702 Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Juvenile Arrest and Monitoring 1 80.004 OB048 23,448 JAR Monitoring 80.004 PC220 20,404 Total CSFA 43,852 DRILL Aftercare 80.006 H7025 124,200 DRILL Aftercare 80.006 U3K01 369,563 DRILL Residential 80.006 H9005 837,949 Total CSFA 1,331,712 Total Florida Department of Juvenile Justice 1,375,564 Florida Department of Management Services Wireless 911 72.001 Collier County 2000 100,741 Total Florida Department of Management Services 100,741 Florida Department of State Roberts Ranch Planning 45.017 S1051 6,167 Riverpark Community Center 45.026 0 1- CLTA -02 23,479 Total Florida Department of State 29,646 Florida Housine Finance Commission State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program Total Florida Housing Finance Commission Office of the Governor Economic Development Grant - Loop Road Total Office of the Governor 166 52.901 FY O1 52.901 FY 02 31.002 99/0011A 1,725,645 46,211 1,771,856 139,472 139,472 (Continued) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 lull TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 167 $ 5,511,918 CFDA #/ Federal or State Grantor /Pass - Through Grantor Program Title CSFA # Grant/Contract Number Expenditures Florida Department of Transportation TDC Grant 55.001 Al 659 $ 268,713 TDC Grant 55.001 AK 271 89,571 Total CSFA 358,284 Bulk Storage Hangar 55.004 206414 -1 -9401 41,185 Conceptual ERP 55.004 407953 -1 -9401 130,142 EDA Grant 55.004 04 -01 -04619 78,109 Everglades North Aircraft Turn Out 55.004 WPI #1823345 4,789 Everglades Obstruction Removal 55.004 WPI 1823342 32,446 Everglades Obstruction Removal Phase I 55.004 WPI #1823341 5,358 Everglades South Aircraft Turn Out 55.004 WPI #1823335 28,903 Everglades Terminal Crass Tie Down 55.004 WPI #1823344 2,854 Immokalee Runway Lighting 55.004 WPI #1823353 1,250 Immokalee Sineage 55.004 WPI #1823352 800 Immokalee T- Hangars 55.004 WPI #1823357 56,007 Immokalee Weather Observation Station 55.004 WPI #1823355 4,464 Marco Relocate Seg Circle 55.004 404461 -8401 91 Marco Remove Contaminated Soil 55.004 WPI #1823365 33,985 Marco Runway Lights 55.004 WPI #1823367 24,835 Marco T- Hangars 55.004 WPI #1823325 55,849 Marco T- Hangars (Second Set) 55.004 WPI #1823366 85,752 Mitigation 55.004 404460 -1 -9401 70,202 Total CSFA 657,021 State Block Grant 55.010 AJ 346 141,897 Customs Facility - Fast Track 55.014 AJ 847 27,238 Total Florida Department of Transportation 1,184,440 Office of the State Court Administrator Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officers 22.001 Collier County 10,856 State Court Grant - Article V 22.003 Collier County 57,815 Total Office of the State Court Administrator 68,671 TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 167 $ 5,511,918 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 139 - -NW NOTE 1— BASIS OF PRESENTATION The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance includes the Federal and State grant activity for Collier County, Florida and is presented on the modified accrual basis of accounting. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non - Profit Organizations and Section 215.97, Florida Statutes. Therefore, some amounts presented in this schedule may differ from amounts presented, or used in the preparation of, the General Purpose Financial Statements. NOTE 2 — LOA_NS OUTSTANDING Collier County, Florida had the following loan balance outstanding at September 30, 2001. This loan balance is also included in the Federal expenditures presented in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Program Title State Revolving Fund Federal CFDA Number 66.458 168 Total Outstanding $ 38,751,100 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 13B Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year ended September 30, 2001 (1) Summary of Auditor's Results (a) An unqualified opinion was issued on the general purpose financial statements. (b) There were no reportable conditions or material weaknesses in internal control disclosed by the audit of the general purpose financial statements. (c) There was no noncompliance which is material to the general purpose financial statements. (d) There were no reportable conditions or material weaknesses in internal control over major programs. (e) An unqualified opinion was issued on compliance for major programs. -- (f) There was one finding which is required to be reported under Section 510(a) of OMB Circular A- 133 and one finding under Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General. ® (g) Major programs: CFDA # /CSFA# Federal programs: Federal Transit Grant 20.507 State Revolving Loan 66.458 Highway Planning and Construction 20.205 State programs: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) Trip and Equipment Grant Program 55.001 State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program 52.901 Delinquency Intervention Facilities 80.006 Economic Development Transportation Fund 31.002 Aviation Development Grants 55.004 (h) A $300,000 dollar threshold was used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs. (i) The auditee did qualify as a low -risk auditee under Section 530 of OMB Circular A -133. (2) Findings Relating to the General Purpose Financial Statements Reported in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards None. (3) Findings and Questioned Costs Relating to Federal Awards Finding 2001 -1 U.S. Department of Transportation: Highway Planning and Construction 20.205 169 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Year ended September 30, 2001 13B Criteria: Where employees are expected to work solely on a single Federal award or cost objective, charges for their salaries and wages will be supported by periodic certifications that the employees worked solely on that program for the period covered by the certification. These certifications will be prepared at least semi - annually and will be signed by the employee or supervisory official having first hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee. Where employees work on multiple activities or cost objectives, a distribution of their salaries or wages will be supported by personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation which meets the standards in subsection (5) unless a statistical sampling system (see subsection (6)) or other substitute system has been approved by the cognizant Federal agency. Such documentary support will be required where employees work on: (a) more than one Federal award, (b) a Federal award and a non - Federal award, (c) an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity, (d) two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases, or (e) an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Salaries and wages of employees used in meeting cost sharing or matching requirements of Federal awards must be supported in the same manner as those claimed as allowable costs under Federal awards. Condition: There is no periodic certification that the employees worked solely on that program for the period covered by the certification. Known and Likely Questioned Costs: None Context /Effect: The County did not follow these procedures for this grant. Recommendation: We recommend that Collier County establish procedures that require the individual who has payroll costs charged to the grant program to complete the certification that the employees worked solely on that program for the period covered by the certification. 170 R COUNTY FLORIDA 13 COLLIE , Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs _ Year ended September 30, 2001 (4) Findings and Questioned Costs Relating to State Awards Finding 2001 -2 State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP): CFSA #52.901 Criteria: The annual report submitted to the State by September 15 of each year, requires that -- the County report all program activity by State fiscal year in terms of dollars expended, encumbered or unencumbered by strategy. - Condition: The County's Housing and Urban Improvement Department submitted the annual report to the State, which reported several instances of dollars that had been expended when in fact the expenditure had not yet occurred. These amounts should have been _ reported as encumbered, since the dollars were allocated for. Known and Likely Questioned Costs: None Context/Effect: Program reports submitted to the State do not reflect actual program activity. Recommendation: We recommend that the County implement procedures to accurately report program activity in the correct category. 171 13B :"�� THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 16A1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - _1, 65 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 6 of the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: BARON, MIMON LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, Lely Country Club, MUIRFIELD, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 75, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2079 FOLIO #: 55200240000 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above- described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above- described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. 5,�olutionssed an duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collie � y;• � ;', "t Is 9 day of , 2002. M CAa i rays s ATTEST' < YR'tlJ• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DW `I T 'B.I2 -- C-44 COLLIER COUNT LOR A ,, BY -AhOok- ti ,C BY: 134 i�tC1k +`4' J,,�`'` Jam N. Coletta, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: QlLA A------ Thomas . Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 2973922 OR: 3027 PG: 2689 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10:27AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FBI 10.50 Retn: COPIES 2.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 OR: 3027 PG: 2690 16A1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN BARON, MIMON 2375 TAMIAMI TR N STE 300 NAPLES, FL 34103 REF. INV.# 2079 FOLIO # 55200240000 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, Lely Country Club, MUIRFIELD, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 75, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 6, and constituted a violation of county regulations on December 10, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY -FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - 1 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 8 of the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: DOMINGUEZ, JULIO LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Block 175, Unit 5 Part — GOLDEN GATE, according to plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 122 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $345.00 REFERENCE #: 2065 FOLIO #: 36247840000 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above- described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. ,�tit�tt�tri� r /Resolution passed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier,,q,, '� lea, thisday of , 2002. AT?T BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS K. Clerk COLLIER COUNT FLOR A BI'` 4 BY: INA ' r It as *a 1 Ja s N. Coletta, Chairman i964twe Mly. �rrisuae� Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: r,, Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 2973923 OR: 3027 PG: 2691 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10:27AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEB 10.50 COPIES 2.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 * ** OR; 3027 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN DOMINGUEZ, JULIO DATE: APR — 9 2002 74 ASHLEY ST BRIDGEPORT, CT 66101617 REF. INV.# 2065 FOLIO #: 36247840000 LIEN NUMBER: PG; 2692 16A1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Block 175, Unit 5 Part — GOLDEN GATE, according to plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 122 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 8, and constituted a violation of county regulations on November 09, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: EXOTICS: ACCUMULATION OF PROHIBITED SPECIES ON UNIMPROVED LAND LOCATED WITHIN 200' OF IMPROVED, SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of TWO HUNDRED FORTY -FIVE ($245.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of FOUR- HUNDRED FORTY -FIVE ($445.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A1 ., RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 16 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 12 of the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: SAMUEL R. GUINTA, JR., JOYCE M. PITTEN, SANDRA K. NELSON, GUINTA, DENNIS C., CHERYL L., TERRENCE B., & CHRISTOPHER A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 12, Block 2, SUNNY TRAIL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof on file and recorded in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 43. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2070 FOLIO #: 75460400000 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed and dull adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of ;,ts:tttr/ Collies �` f;, }grida, this � day of 2002. �aar rrwr� � i! , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I''w_ =F clerk COLLIER COUNTY LOR QL BY: ��r�Y+ ttffii�l +N;,t t9nature Approved as to form and le al sufficienc Jam . Coletta, hairman 1l yEft trfgq • s J r g Y 1nn pjuu�� Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 2973924 OR; 3027 PG; 2693 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10:27AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RIC FBI 10,50 COPIES 2.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 OR: 3027 PG: 2694 16A1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN GUINTA JR ET AL, SAMUEL R DATE: APR — 9 2002 % GUINTA INVESTMENTS 4155 SACRAMENTO BLVD MEDINA, OH 44256 REF. INV.# 2070 FOLIO #: 75460400000 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 12, Block 2, SUNNY TRAIL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof on file and recorded in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 43. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 12, and constituted a violation of county regulations on October 29, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES IN HEIGHT. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO- HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 0 16A1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - L 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 36 of the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2056 FOLIO #: 62570960003 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above- described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above- described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. ,i.i 1(fi(T)�fs Resolution ppssed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collies'y,;lUrida, this �- day of , 2002. .a'_41A l M, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS QWI014T . BRQQK,,Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, F ORID BY: tty Vgg,_ Att08t 4�� f rya • a Jame o 'rat" Approved as to form and 2973925 OR: 3027 PG: 2695 legal sufficiency: RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of COLLIER COUNTY, FL :42 knz�s n 04/30/2002 at 10:27AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK I AEC FBI 10.50 Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Aetn: COPIES 2.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION *** OR: 3027 PG: 2696 * ** BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. 8235 WILSHIRE LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34109 REF. INV.# 2056 FOLIO #: 62570960003 16A1 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 36, and constituted a violation of county regulations on November 15, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two- hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 16 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 37 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2057 FOLIO #: 62570970006 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. Thi ,Resolution passed and dulx adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier Co l� ' g #*,,(Ahis q- day of 2002. A'E`''.. • , <> BOARD OF COUNTY COMMJSSIONERS DWICCI'E`}3I��;,�CC�erk COLLIER COUNT LO A BY- BY: Dept't>~ .. Ats%` a_prum : Jam Ks N. Coletta, Chairman ` itwre esly. Approved as to norm and legal sufficiency: QJ14 A- Thomas J. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 2973926 OR: 3027 PG: 2697 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10 :27AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FBI 10.50 COPIES 2.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR B %T 7240 OR: 3027 PG: 2698 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. DATE: 8235 WILSHIRE LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34109 16A1 APR ® 9 2002 REF. INV.# 2057 FOLIO #: 62570970006 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 37, and constituted a violation of county regulations on November 15, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL w 16A1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 17 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 38 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2058 FOLIO #: 62570980009 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above- described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above- described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. s,,JZesolution passed and dull adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier ,+a; this day of�, 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMNYSSIONERS D C!eTk COLLIER COUN'�,YY11FLO A ` r.. . � a� � • � �0 � Defy r �' t rlaan f Ja s N. Coletta Chairman � ,s,�"""''StgtetMre only. 29739'27 OR; 3027 PG' 2699 Approved as to form and RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL legal sufficiency: 04/30/2002 at 10:27AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK pcj�� RBC FBI 10.50 COPIES 2.00 CLERK Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney R: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION OR: 3027 PG: 2700 * ** 16A1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. 8235 WILSHIRE LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34109 REF. INVN 2058 FOLIO #: 62570980009 DATE: APP - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 38, and constituted a violation of county regulations on November 15, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -171 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 15 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2054 FOLIO #: 62570420006 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above- described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. Collio -� AVTI�� BY ution passed and dui adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of this day of ��, l�vt�, 2002. -BROC - 'lErk BOARD OF COUNTY COMM SSIONERS COLLIER COUN, LO A BY: D6p* Cjq*,A k"*t4$t at t0 Cha1nUn' S James N. Coletta Chairman ealy. 2913928 OR: 3027 PG: 2701 Approved as to form and RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL legal sufficiency: 04/30/2002 at 10:27AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK e-_� RBC FBI 10.50 V\,-, pfl�v_ COPIES 2.00 Thomas d. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Retn: CLERK TO THB BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR SIT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION * ** OR; 3027 PG: 2702 * ** BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. 8235 WILSHIRE LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34109 REF. INVN 2054 FOLIO #: 62570420006 16A1 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 15 and constituted a violation of county regulations on November 15, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A1I RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 17 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 14 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2055 FOLIO #: 62570410003 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above- described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. Ic This Resolution passed and dui adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier Coun� ,.t&pda, this day of , 2002. tu ATTI S,S5 >. '"' " "•-0 ;r BOARD OF COUNTY COMM SIONERS DW`Ft1;K ;.C"k COLLIER COUN LORIO A BY BY- �> _ Cle _. , James N. Co airman ,r,,,= `.`.,• �•�`. , 1K 29139 OR, 3027 PG: 2703 �,ti�,�� Cha 1 nran � s Approve c�'alx, 0"IIAV ure only. RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL legal sufficiency: 04/30/2002 at 10:27AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FBI 10.50 COPIES 2.00 Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR B %T 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION * ** OR: 3027 PG: 2704 * ** BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN H. JAVIER CASTANO & SHERRY L. 8235 WILSHIRE LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34109 REF. INVX 2055 FOLIO #: 62570410003 16A1 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, NAPLES PARK, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 2, page 107, public records of Collier County, Florida, less and except the North Ten (10) feet of, when measured at right angles to the North line of the following lots: Lots No. 36,37 and 38 in Block 17 of NAPLES PARK, Unit 2. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 14, and constituted a violation of county regulations on November 15, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -17 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 6 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: Joyce, Wallace L., Lawrence H., Hubbard, Joan J., Larson, Barbara J., Haroskewicz, Patricia J., Corso, Judith J. & Joyce, Lauren. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5 and 6, Block D, South Tamiami Heights, as recorded and platted in Plat book 3, Page 44, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2077 FOLIO #: 74412240002 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier Q%tttyyvk Ipri da, this day of , 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DV1rr ` t erk COLLIER COUNT LOR A 7 1 B - .��-. BY: ,.It N to Cho1roan S Ja . Coletta, Chairman �Y �•, 9AAvre only. : 2973930 OR: 3027 PG: 2705 Approv�d.as;Wi foiin and RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL legal sufficiency: 04/30/2002 at 10:27AK DWIGHT 1. BROCK, CLERK RIC FEE 10.50 Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Retn: COPIES 2.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EKT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION * ** OR: 3027 PG: 2706 * ** BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN Joyce, Wallace L., Lawrence H., Hubbard, Joan J., Larson, Barbara J•, Haroskewicz, Patricia J., Corso, Judith J. & Joyce, Lauren 506 QUINNIPIAC AVE NORTH HAVEN, CT 06473 REF.INV.# 2077 FOLIO # 74412240002 16A1 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5 and 6, Block D, South Tamiami Heights, as recorded and platted in Plat book 3, Page 44, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 6, and constituted a violation of county regulations on December 17, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -17 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 5 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: Joyce, Wallace L., Lawrence H., Hubbard, Joan J., Larson, Barbara J., Haroskewicz, Patricia J., Corso, Judith J. & Joyce, Lauren LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5 and 6, Block D, South Tamiami Heights, as recorded and platted in Plat book 3, Page 44, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2078 FOLIO #: 74412200000 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of {zcli +..•••., 9r+� Collier, 7=: day of Qp��, 2002. 1pq- A:.� ., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DV lark COLLIER COUNTY LORI BY" ��' p.'� C. BY: Jam t0 C!N l r W , . Coletta, Chairman s �� .. N \VY \\ `3tgwtture only. ��orm 2973931 OR: 3027 PG: 2707 Approved as to and legal sufficiency: RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL L �m P4/ 04/30/2002 at 10:27AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RIC FBI 10.50 COPIES 2.00 Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION OR: 3027 PG: 2708 16A1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN Joyce, Wallace L., Lawrence H., Hubbard, Joan J., Larson, Barbara J., Haroskewicz, Patricia J., Corso, Judith J. & Joyce, Lauren 506 QUINNIPIAC AVE NORTH HAVEN, CT 06473 REF.INV.# 2078 FOLIO # 74412200000 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5 and 6, Block D, South Tamiami Heights, as recorded and platted in Plat book 3, Page 44, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 5, and constituted a violation of county regulations on December 17, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL {. Y 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 17 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED 16A1 WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 856 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: PALM RIVER ESTATES, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot(s) 851,852,853,855,856 and 857, Palm River Estates, Unit 2, per plat in Plat Book 3, Page 96, public records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2017 FOLIO #: 65274720009 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above- described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, FAR 44,,this � day of �, 2002. ATTEST:, ;f.,. �';r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT, �� „`;'ddrrl' COLLIER COUNT FLORI A BY--4a1E+c.� �^ a , ' .e BY: Depu ark - to Chi jrfta•s Ja N. Coletta, Chairman Approved as'Ya>., 2973932 OR: 3027 PG: 2709 legal sufficiency: RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL (� 04/30/2002 at 10 :27AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK 1� RBC FBI 10.50 Thomas 6. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Retn: COQIIS 2.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION OR: 3027 PG: 2710 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN PALM RIVER ESTATES, INC 321 VIKING WAY NAPLES, FL 34110 REF. INV.# 2017 FOLIO #: 65274720009 16A1 DATE: APR _ 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot(s) 851,852,853,855,856 and 857, Palm River Estates, Unit 2, per plat in Plat Book 3, Page 96, public records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 856, and constituted a violation of county regulations on September 19, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 17 6 16A1 .y A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 22 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: J M K INDUSTRIES, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 22, Block M, Embassy Woods Golf & Country Club at Brettone Park, Phase One, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 47, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $445.00 REFERENCE #: 2066 FOLIO #: 31055005252 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and /or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed and duly, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier Cotifi%*If da,' this -i*� day of (�,p,a,� 2002. �� r frr. / AT'i"F".: -„ " b� - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI5SIONERS DW kiF31s R lk,' krk COLLIER COUNT , LORI B BY: y.Cler .:•� �� Jam N. Coletta, Chairman � 2973933 OR: 3027 PG: 2711 ,`i�gn�t�re only. Approvecf''a�'t'c`1` 6To and legal sufficiency: RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL a2��_ �JJAi�_ 04/30/2002 at 10:27AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FBI 10.50 Thomas C. Palmer, .Assistant County Attorney Retn; COPIES 2.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION OR; 3027 PG; 2712 16A1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN J M K INDUSTRIES INC. 2375 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. NAPLES, FL 34103 REF. INV.# 2066 FOLIO #: 31055005252 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 22, Block M, Embassy Woods Golf & Country Club at Brettone Park, Phase One, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 47, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 22, and constituted a violation of county regulations on November 29, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: EXOTICS: ACCUMULATION OF PROHIBITED SPECIES ON UNIMPROVED LAND LOCATED WITHIN 200' OF IMPROVED, SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of TWO - HUNDRED FORTY -FIVE ($245.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of FOUR- HUNDRED FORTY -FIVE ($245.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL RESOLUTION NO. 2002 177 16AI A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 1 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: WATSON, LARRY J. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 76, GOLDEN GATE, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in plat book 5, pages 65 through 77, inclusive, public records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2064 FOLIO #: 35780000007 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier CQ}lpRR#ylorida, thisday of , 2002. AT °�' ' "•.` ,� "'; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VjOG; (Clerk COLLIER COUNT LORI ,lty Chk�. ' aM 10 pN t Jam . Coletta, Chairman � Approved,4s,', Q,floim and legal sufficiency: pv�� Thomas C. almer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 2973934 OR: 3027 PG: 2713 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10 :27AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FBI 10.90 COPIES 2.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 OR: 3027 PG: 2714 16A1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN WATSON, LARRY J. 219041 ST TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116 REF. INV.# 2064 FOLIO #: 35780000007 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 76, GOLDEN GATE, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in plat book 5, pages 65 through 77, inclusive, public records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 1, and constituted a violation of county regulations on November 19, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You hale failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 116A3 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -17 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 8 of the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: DOMINGUEZ, JULIO LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Block 175, Unit 5 Part — GOLDEN GATE, according to plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 122 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $300.00 REFERENCE #: 2089 FOLIO #: 36247840000 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above- described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution 99 ssed and dulv adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Colliez,Ct**'tY,r�lorida, this ---day of Q44A , 2002. s 1 'T'p4,ty erk Approve4s er( BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) fCIerk COLLIER COUNT FLOR A .0 BY: Atol N to CM irftn * s Ja N. Coletta, Chairman " \'. �3 gnstnre only. rm and legal s e__ . y: b Thomas 0. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 2973916 OR: 3027 NO- 2677 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10 :27AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RIC FBI 10.50 COPIES 2.00 Reta: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 1240 * ** OR: 3027 PG: 2678 * ** r" ma BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN DOMINGUEZ, JULIO DATE: APR - 9 2002 74 ASHLEY ST BRIDGEPORT, CT 66101617 REF. INV.# 2089 FOLIO #: 36247840000 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Block 175, Unit 5 Part — GOLDEN GATE, according to plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 122 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 8, and constituted a violation of county regulations on December 28, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: LITTER: PROHIBITED DUMPING, ACCUMULATION, STORAGE OR BURIAL OF LITTER, WASTE OR ABANDONED PROPERTY. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of ONE - HUNDRED ($100.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of THREE- HUNDRED ($300.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. r F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A3 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 17 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: GRAHAM, MONROE & DAISY B. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 44: Description of land in the North 1/2 of Copeland Village lying in the NE 1/a of Section 13, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. Commencing at the East 1/a corner of Section 13, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida; thence North 68 04'26" West 987.57 feet, said corner being the place of ending of s -837 as described in Deed Book 42, Page 142 and also the PLACE OF BEGINNING of a 50 foot wide strip of land for county roads as described in Deed Book 42, Page 303,Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence South 42 06'West 37.00 feet; thence North 52 14'West 134.40 feet; thence North 0 51; East 97.00 feet to "intersection point C" described in said Deed Book 42, Page 303, thence along the centerline of "c" street north 88 39' West 364 feet; thence North 1 21' East 25.00 feet for a PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing North 121' East 100.00 feet; thence South 88 39' East 105.00 feet; thence South 1 21' West 100.00 feet; thence North 88 39' West 105.00 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2101 FOLIO #: 1134600003 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. flj� Resolution passed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, a Q�,�� h, }. r'4y T A 2002. pI>✓5� = BOARD OF COUNTY OMMIS NE S DWI+ I' E. ; C�-rk COLLIER COUNT , FLORIDAF BY: " e r t u t y � C ; l s r ;; is to i " , m . Coletta, Chairman `signature only Appro`ved'astb' form and 2973917 OR: 3027 PG: 2679 legal sufficiency: RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10:27AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK Thomas C. almer, Assistant County Attorney RIC FEE 10.50 COPIES 2.00 Retn : CLERK TO THE INTEROFFICE SIT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION BOARD 4TH FLOOR * ** OR: 3027 PG: 2680 * ** 16A3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN GRAHAM, MONROE & DAISY BELL DATE: APR — 9 2002 PO BOX 122 COPELAND, FL 33926 REF. INV.# 2101 FOLIO #: 1134600003 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 44: Description of land in the North 1/z of Copeland Village lying in the NE 1/a of Section 13, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. Commencing at the East '/a corner of Section 13, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida; thence North 68 04'26" West 987.57 feet, said corner being the place of ending of s -837 as described in Deed Book 42, Page 142 and also the PLACE OF BEGINNING of a 50 foot wide strip of land for county roads as described in Deed Book 42, Page 303,Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence South 42 06'West 37.00 feet; thence North 52 14'West 134.40 feet; thence North 0 51; East 97.00 feet to "intersection point C" described in said Deed Book 42, Page 303, thence along the centerline of "c" street north 88 39' West 364 feet; thence North 121' East 25.00 feet for a PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing North 12 1' East 100.00 feet; thence South 88 39' East 105.00 feet; thence South 1211 West 100.00 feet; thence North 88 39' West 105.00 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed, and constituted a violation of county regulations on October 25, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO- HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL pF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A3 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -18 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 20 of the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: JOHNSON, MARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 20, Block 1, South Immokalee Heights, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 29, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $1,200.00 REFERENCE #: 2083 FOLIO #: 74030640000 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above- described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ?day of Q—, 2002. i,,iifZFed� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I��IE3HT E >i, Clerk COLLIER COUN34, FLOR A ti eStty C1P° . Ja s N. Coletta Mw Chairman ' '•. ,a � j taa as to Cha l ran e s , Aptfive�$4'�re only. 2973918 OR: 3027 PG: 2681 legal�`afn.'` RECORDED In OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL / 04/30/2002 at 10 :27AH DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK V RBC FIB 10.50 Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Retn: COPIES 2.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION OR: 3027 PG: 2682 16A3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT JOHNSON, MARY 1764 AQUARIUS CT. FT. MYERS, FL 33916 REF. INV.# 2083 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN DATE: APR - 9 2002 FOLIO #: 74030640000 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 20, Block 1, South Immokalee Heights, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 29, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 20, and constituted a violation of county regulations on October 29, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18 ". LITTER: PROHIBITED DUMPING, ACCUMULATION, STORAGE OR BURIAL OF LITTER, WASTE OR ABANDONED PROPERTY. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of ONE - THOUSAND ($1,000.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of ONE - THOUSAND TWO- HUNDRED ($1,200.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 160 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 181 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 857 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: PALM RIVER ESTATES, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot(s) 851,852,853,855,856 and 857, Palm River Estates, Unit 2, per plat in Plat Book 3, Page 96, public records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $245.00 REFERENCE #: 1742 FOLIO #: 65274760001 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above- described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution nassed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collipg"@ lQorida, this day of 2002. '•. -r BOARD OF COUNTY COMM SSIONERS VI;,Clerk COLLIER COUN LOR A 13s BY: t Cl� �Rttest t, y... , R t0 Chs # anon' s Ja s N. Coletta, Chairman I N\' 988ture Approvrs '" form and legal sufficiency: Ov Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 2973919 OR: 3027 PG: 2683 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10 :27AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RIC FBI 10.50 Retn: COPIES 2.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR B %T 7240 * ** OR: 3027 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN PALM RIVER ESTATES, INC 321 VIKING WAY NAPLES, FL 34110 REF. INV.# 1742 FOLIO #: 65274760001 PG: 2684 *** 16A3 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot(s) 851,852,853,855,856 and 857, Palm River Estates, Unit 2, per plat in Plat Book 3, Page 96, public records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 857, and constituted a violation of county regulations on December 7, 2000, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FORTY -FIVE ($45.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FORTY- FIVE ($245.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 160 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -18 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 856 the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: PALM RIVER ESTATES, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot(s) 851,852,853,855,856 and 857, Palm River Estates, Unit 2, per plat in Plat Book 3, Page 96, public records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $245.00 REFERENCE #: 1744 FOLIO #: 65274720009 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above- described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Co11ie �Ci t5t± r rlorida, this' day of Q�p _, 2002. "kn qtr ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMM SSIONERS V It © Clerk COLLIER COUNT LOR A ~B f� ' juty . =.a',,° A�ftlt at to � j�R • 2 Jam s N. Coletta, Chairman w +��`;;�;., " "" Vt98atvre wy. 2973920 OR: 3027 PG: 2685 Apprdnl"t'b form and legal sufficien RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10:27AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FBI 10.50 Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Retn: COPIES 2.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION OR: 3027 PG: 2686 16A3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN PALM RIVER ESTATES, INC 321 VIKING WAY NAPLES, FL 34110 REF. INV.# 1744 FOLIO #: 65274720009 DATE: APR - 9 7002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot(s) 851,852,853,855,856 and 857, Palm River Estates, Unit 2, per plat in Plat Book 3, Page 96, public records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot 856, and constituted a violation of county regulations on December 7, 2000, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18" You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FORTY -FIVE ($45.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FORTY- FIVE ($245.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL '. , i. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -18 3 16A3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that lot(s) 16 of the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit. NAME: GILLIS, ALBENA J. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 16, Block 259, Unit 7 Part - Golden Gate according to plat thereof recorded in plat book 5 page 139 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 2006 FOLIO #: 36451080009 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, the Resolution and Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution gassed and duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 4"—day of(�a�,A, 2002. ATTS`;'� rf/�r�rr BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS D(, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA •- J�.�.CJ ..0 •C- • BY: - Attest !_ to CiNlr on'f Jam s1 o ,•• }_ vnetwre only. AprQ�asikis`griii and legal suf'ficii ih6'y: Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 2973921 OR: 3027 PG: 2687 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 04/30/2002 at 10 :27AK DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK RBC FBI 10.50 COPIES 2.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 * ** OR; 3027 PG; 2688 * ** BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN GILLIS, ALBENA J. 20201 PLYMOUTH RD APT 1005 DETROIT, MI 48228 REF. INV.# 2006 FOLIO # 36451080009 16A3 DATE: APR - 9 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 16, Block 259, Unit 7 Part — Golden Gate according to plat thereof recorded in plat book 5 page 139 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed on lot16, and constituted a violation of county regulations on October 15, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL MEMORANDUM Date: April 10, 2002 To: Robert Herrington, MPO Manager Transportation/Planning From: Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Resolution 2002 -184 1681 ' Enclosed please find two original documents, (Agenda Item # 16B 1) as referenced above, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, April 9, 2002. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 774 -8406. Thank you. Enclosure (2) RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 18 4 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RECOMMEND TO THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BE RE- DESIGNATED COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR FOR COLLIER COUNTY. WHEREAS, Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes requires that the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Commission ( "MPO "), serving as the designated planning agency for the Transportation Disadvantaged program recommend, every three years, a qualified Community Transportation Coordinator ( "CTC ") to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged ( "CTD "); and WHEREAS, The Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Competitive Procurement Manual, compiled in accordance with Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, allows the MPO to nominate a governmental agency to serve as the CTC; and WHEREAS, The CTC is responsible for ensuring that coordinated transportation services are provided to the transportation- disadvantaged population in the designated service area (Collier County). Accordingly, the CTC arranges for this provision of transportation services in a manner that is cost - effective, efficient, and reduces fragmentation and duplication of services; and WHEREAS, in 1999 Collier County Board of County Commissioners was designated the Community Transportation Coordinator for Collier County and currently serves as the Community Transportation Coordinator; and WHEREAS, Collier County Board of County Commissioners deems it appropriate and in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare to continue in it's designated role as the Community Transportation Coordinator for Collier County. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: I. The Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization recommend to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners be re- designated Community Transportation Coordinator for Collier County. 2. The Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization notify the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged of the recommendation in accordance with this resolution 4d Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes. PASSED `APO FD by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,'.. 2002. ATTEST,,: .iha1rA's BOARD OF CO TY CO MISSIONERS J. :> By: A • y: Dwigh, ! xec , C erk Commissioner James Coletta Chairman, Collier County BCC Approved as to form and Legal Sufficiency: Jenni fer A. Belp Assistant County Attorney 1683 MEMORANDUM Date: April 10, 2002 To: Dale Bathon, P.E., Principal Project Manager Transportation From: Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Facilities Relocation Agreement with FPL; Project No. 65041 Enclosed please find two (2) original documents as referenced above (Agenda Item #16133), approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 9, 2002. Kindly forward the agreements to the appropriate parties for the required signatures and return one fully executed original to Minutes and Records. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 774- 8406. Thank you. Enclosures (2) FACILITIES RELOCATION AGREEMEN T 16B3 (Government Entity) THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this e day of Af �.- 20 O Z by and between Board of County Commissioners for Collier County Florida, hereinafter called the Applicant, and FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Dade and Palm Beach Counties, Florida, hereinafter called FPL. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the Applicant intends to construct Livingston Road, Phase IV County Project No 65041 and will require the relocation of certain incompatible and conflicting portions of FPL's Facilities and equipment, and WHEREAS FPL will incur costs in the Relocation of FPL's existing and proposed Facilities which costs would not have occurred but for the Applicant's construction, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the Applicant and FPL and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree that FPL shall Rearrange the FPL Facilities and the Applicant shall reimburse FPL for the actual cost of such Relocation as follows: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Agreement the following terms, whether used in the singular or plural, shall have the meanings set forth below when used with initial capitalization: 1.1 Betterment is any increase in service capacity of the Replacement FPL Facilities, not attributable to Contractor's construction, over the service capacity of the FPL Facilities prior to Relocation and any upgrading of a Replacement FPL Facility above FPL's current minimum standard practices, as specified in Article III of this Agreement, that normally would be used on projects financed solely by FPL. Betterment does not include: (a) any increase in service capacity required by federal, state or local law which applies to FPL Facilities as of the date of construction of the Replacement FPL Facilities; (b) any increase in service capacity resulting solely from the replacement of devices or materials which at the time of construction of the Replacement FPL Facility are no longer manufactured, processed, or installed and used by FPL in projects financed entirely by FPL, (c) any upgrading of a Replacement FPL Facility requested by the Applicant, (d) any upgrading of a Replacement FPL Facility required by any agency responsible for regulation of FPL Facilities, (e) any upgrading of the Replacement FPL Facility which is necessitated by the Applicant's construction, if the replacement is the same as that used by FPL on FPL's own projects, or (f) any upgrading that will result in a reduction in the overall project cost. 1.2 Conversion is the replacement of existing overhead facilities with underground facilities. 1.3 Credit Ratio is the credit given to the Applicant in the form of a percentage derived by dividing the sum of the Betterment and the Non - Reimbursable Work Credit by the Total cost of the Relocation: Credit Ratio = Dollar Amount of Betterment + Non - Reimbursable Work Credit Total Cost of Relocation - The Land and Land Right Cost 1.4 Date Cost Estimate Received, for purposes of this Agreement, shall be deemed to be the day that the cost estimate was hand-delivered or transmitted by facsimile, or if mailed, five days from the date of postmark. 1.5 FPL's Facility or Facilities shall be, but shall not be limited to, any structure consisting of manholes, conduits, poles, wires, cables, substations, system protection equipment or other appurtenances, and associated equipment, and used by FPL in connection with the transmission and/or distribution of electric power. 1.6 Relocation and /or Relocate includes the terms "rearrange or rearrangement" and is the work performed by FPL under this Agreement and any activity made necessary by Applicant's construction which conflicts with or affects FPL, its Facilities, or service. Relocations shall include conversion of transmission facilities and shall include, but shall not be limited to, permanent or temporary support, protection, relocation, rearrangement, design, redesign, abandonment or reconstruction of the FPL Facilities and all other work required to provide continuity of service to FPL's customers which is a result of a conflict. 1.7 Replacement FPL Facility is any facility which will be constructed under the terms of this Agreement as a consequence of Relocation of an FPL Facility or portion thereof. 1.8 Salvage is the credit to the Applicant for the reusable materials recovered or removed by FPL less the Salvage Adjustment Credit. ARTICLE II - IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS CONVERSIONS 2.1 Known Conflicts. The Applicant shall reimburse FPL for costs associated with the Relocation of the FPL Facilities more particularly described and located on property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. page 1 of 6 Governmental Facilities Relocation Agreement (rev. 2/8/00) 2.2 Other Conflicts. The identification f 1603 o any other conflicting facilities of FPL requiring Relocation shall be undertaken by FPL pursuant to a subsequent written agreement between FPL and the Applicant. 2.3 Distribution Conversion. If an Applicant has requested a conversion of distribution facilities as part of a Relocation of Facilities, the FPL Distribution Facilities Conversion Agreement which is approved by the Florida Public Service Commission shall be attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Indemnity and Insurance provisions of this Agreement shall apply to all Distribution Conversions which are part of a Relocation. In addition, all other terms and conditions of this Agreement which are not expressly modified by the Addendum attached hereto shall remain in full force and effect. If there is a direct conflict between this Agreement and the attached Addendum, then the Underground Distribution Conversion Tariff and the Underground Distribution Conversion Agreement shall prevail as to that specific term or condition. _ = Underground Distribution Facilities Conversion Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein. _X This Project does not involve a conversion of electric distribution facilities. ARTICLE III - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT FACILITIES 3.1 Design Standards. Engineering design standards and material specified shall meet FPL's Current Design Standards. In addition, the design of Relocations will be in conformity with all laws and regulations. 3.2 Construction Standards. Materials and construction procedures shall meet FPL's Current Construction Standards. In addition, Relocations or Replacement Facilities will be accomplished in conformance with all laws, codes and regulations. ARTICLE IV - REPLACEMENT RIGHT -OF -WAY 4.0 Replacement Right -of -Way. The Applicant shall provide FPL with replacement rights -of -way in one of the following manners: _ (a) The Applicant shall reimburse FPL for costs associated with the identification and acquisition of replacement rights -of -way, including, but not limited to, FPL's attorney fees for costs in prosecuting or in connection with any condemnation actions for the acquisition of necessary rights -of -way. _ (b) The Applicant shall convey or grant to FPL replacement rights -of -way sufficient to permit FPL to accomplish Relocations of the FPL Facilities and to operate and maintain the Replacement Facilities in accordance with FPL's customary practices. Such conveyances or grants of replacement rights -of -way shall be accomplished at no cost to FPL and in a form and substance satisfactory to FPL. 4.1 Location of Replacement Right -of Way. The Location of the aforesaid replacement rights -of -way are generally set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. ARTICLE V - COST ESTIMATES CREDITS AND BILLING 5.1 Full Cost. The Applicant shall pay FPL for the full cost of Relocation of the FPL Facilities. The work to be performed by FPL will be in accordance with the construction drawings attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5.2 Cost Estimate. The Applicant shall be responsible for the total cost of the project. The estimated cost to Relocate the FPL Facilities is (a) or (b) below: a. Relocation: $ 98.666.00. This cost estimate is set out in detail in Exhibit C attached hereto; or b. Relocation Conversion: Relocation: $ 98.666.00 (Exhibit C) Distribution Conversion: + $ 0 (Addendum) = Total Project Cost Estimate: $ 98,666.00 The Applicant understands and agrees that the amount set forth in Exhibit C is an estimate only. The Applicant shall be responsible for the total cost of the project. The cost for the Relocation portion shall not exceed 110% of a valid Relocation cost estimate, except as provided herein. page 2 of 6 Governmental Facilities Relocation Agreement (rev. 2/8/00) 5.3 Duration of Cost Estimate. 1683 A cost estimate is valid only: a. Prior to construction, for 180 days from the date of the estimate is received by Applicant (this includes the estimate attached as Exhibit C and any subsequent estimate) or b. As long as the scope of work (Relocation) upon which the estimate is based has not been changed; whichever first occurs. 5.4 Re- estimates Scope of Work Changes. 5.4.1 Pre - construction. If the construction of the Relocation of the FPL Facilities has not commenced within 180 days of the date that the latest cost estimate is received by Applicant or if the scope of work ( "Relocation ") has been changed on any individual work order, prior to any construction, the estimate is invalid. A new estimate is required. FPL shall provide a re- estimate of the work prior to commencement of the Relocation by FPL. The Applicant shall agree in writing to pay the re- estimated cost and shall be responsible'for the full cost of Relocation, not to exceed 110% of the re- estimate. 5.4.2 After Start of Construction. If after the start of construction, the Applicant requests a change in the scope of work (Relocation) of FPL Facilities or if FPL determines that there is a need for a change in the scope of work (Relocation) and such change causes either the credit ratio to change or the reimbursable cost of the project to change by 10% or more, FPL shall provide the Applicant with a new estimate as soon as practicable. The Applicant shall provide FPL with written approval of the re- estimate. The Applicant shall be responsible for any increased cost due to unknown or unforeseen physical conditions at the site which differ materially from those originally encountered. Increased costs due to differing site conditions are in addition to the estimated amount and are not subject to the 110% cap on estimated costs. 5.5 Credits. 5.5.1 The Applicant shall receive a credit for Betterment and Salvage. 5.5.2 The Applicant shall receive a credit for the payment of any non - refundable deposit required for estimates for underground installation included within a Relocation according to the terms of the FPL Distribution Conversion Tariff and FPL's Underground Distribution Conversion Agreement. 5.5.3 The Applicant shall receive a credit for payment made to FPL for a detailed cost estimate, if payment is required by FPL prior to issuing such estimate and if the Facilities Relocation Agreement has been entered into within 180 days of the date that estimate was received by the Applicant and the Relocation performed. 5.5.4 The Applicant shall receive no credit for payment for an estimate, and such payment shall not be refunded: (a) if the Applicant-has not executed a Facilities Relocation Agreement within 180 days of the date that estimate was received by the Applicant, (b) if a subsequent estimate is required or (c) if the Applicant terminates the Agreement. 5.5.5 Any estimate provided to the Applicant after the initial, detailed estimate shall be done at additional cost and expense to Applicant. Applicant's payment for estimates shall be credited or retained by FPL as provided above. 5.6 Billina and Payment. FPL shall bill the Applicant for cost incurred not more frequently than once monthly. The Applicant shall have twenty (20) days from the date of an invoice to approve the invoice and any accompanying information supplied by FPL. Failure to provide FPL with written notice to the contrary within the twenty (20) day period shall constitute approval by the Applicant of the invoice against which payment must be remitted in full to FPL Within forty -five (45) days of the date of the invoice. If payment by the Applicant is not postmarked within forty -five (45) days of the date of the invoice, then a late payment charge shall be assessed in the amount of one percent (1 %) of the amount of the billing per month, or the highest amount then permitted by law. 5.7 Final Bill. Upon completion of the work, FPL shall at the earliest date practicable furnish to the Applicant a final and complete billing of all costs incurred in connection with performance of Relocation of the FPL Facilities less any prepaid credits for additional cost estimates. 5.8 Refund and Effect of Termination. 5.8.1 Consistent with the terms of this Agreement, FPL shall refund to the Applicant any amounts which the Applicant has paid to FPL beyond the full cost of Relocation. 5.8.2 In the event that this Agreement is terminated due to the cancellation or indefinite suspension of work in furtherance of the Applicant's construction, the Applicant shall be responsible for the costs of Relocation already incurred, including but not limited to all engineering, design, equipment, and materials cost, labor costs, and if any, the costs of replacement facilities already installed, necessary to place FPL's Facilities into a permanent condition suitable to provide continuous, reliable electric service to the public in accordance page 3 of 6 Governmental Facilities Relocation Agreement (rev. 2/8/00) 1603 with all applicable laws, regulations and FPL's usual practices as set forth in Article III herein. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or abrogate FPL's legal duty, to mitigate damages. ARTICLE VI - AUDITS 6.1 Audits. All cost records and accounts of FPL directly related to the work performed under this Agreement shall be subject to audit by the Applicant for a period of one year from the completion date of all work performed under this Agreement. Such audits shall be performed by the Applicant and in accordance with the following considerations: (a) the Applicant shall provide FPL with thirty (30) days written notice requesting an audit, (b) the specific time of audit must be mutually agreed to, (c) information required for audit purposes shall be accounts andrecords kept by FPL directly related to Relocation and reimbursable costs, (d) the Applicant may request only information reasonably required by it concerning Relocation and such request for information shall be in writing and shall include the purpose of the audits, (e) FPL shall make available the requested information at its offices during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, (f) the Applicant shall bear any costs associated with any audits, including FPL costs, if any, and (g) information available under this Agreement shall not be used in violation of any law or regulation. ARTICLE VII - GENERAL CONDITIONS 7.1 Benefit of Agreement: Assignment. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the Parties to this Agreement but shall not inure to the benefit of any third party or other person. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either Party except upon receipt of the prior written permission of the other Party. Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7.2 Nonwaiver. The failure of either Party at any time to require performance by the other Party of any provision hereof shall not affect the full right to require such performance at any time thereafter. Waiver by either Party of a breach of the same provision or any other provision shall not constitute a waiver of the provision itself. 7.3 Limitations of Liability. Neither Party shall be liable in contract, in tort (including negligence), or otherwise to the other Party for any incidental or consequential loss or damage whatsoever including but not limited to loss of profits or revenue on work not performed, for loss of use or underutilization of the Party's facilities, or loss of use of revenues or loss of anticipated profits resulting from either Party's performance, nonperformance, or delay in performance of its obligations under this Agreement. 7.4 Indemnification. Subject to the limitation set forth in Section 768.28, Fla. Stat., the Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless FPL, its parent, subsidiaries or affiliates and their respective officers, directors and employees (collectively "FPL Entities ") from and against any liabilities whatsoever, occasioned wholly or in part by the negligence of the Applicant or its employees, for injury to or death of person(s) and property damage arising or resulting in connection with any activity associated with work or service under this Agreement. 7.5 Insurance. If the Applicant utilizes its own personnel in the construction or maintenance work around the subject Facilities, the Applicant will cause FPL, its parent, subsidiaries and affiliates and their respective officers, directors and employees to be named as additional insured on the Applicant's General Liability policy for "bodily injury", "property damage ", "personal injury" or "advertising injury" arising out of the operations of the Named Insured. 7.6 Contractor Indemnification. The Applicant further agrees to include the following indemnification in all contracts between the Applicant and its general contractors who perform or are responsible for construction or maintenance work on or around the subject FPL Facilities: "The Contractor hereby agrees to release, indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the Applicant and FPL, its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates or their respective officers, directors, or employees, from all claims, demands, liabilities and suits whether or not due to or caused by negligence of the Applicant or FPL for bodily injuries or death to person(s) or damage to property resulting in connection with the performance of the described work by Contractor, its subcontractor, agents or employees. This indemnification shall extend up to but shall not exceed the sum of $1,000,000.00 for bodily injury or death of person(s) or property damage combined single limit and $3,000,000 occurrence aggregate. In the event the Contractor is insured for liability with limits in excess of these amounts, Contractor's said obligation shall extend up to but shall not exceed the limits of that insurance. Contractor's costs of defending Applicant and FPL, including attorneys' fees are excluded from and are in addition to the aforesaid limitation of liability for injury, death and property damage." page 4 of 6 Governmental Facilities Relocation Agreement (rev. 2/8/00) 1683 7.7 Contractor Insurance and Notice. The Applicant agrees to require its contractors to obtain insurance to cover the above indemnity and further agrees to verify with its contractors that such insurance is in full force and effect. The Applicant shall provide FPL Group Inc.'s Risk Management Department with notice of the name and address of Applicant's contractors as specified in section 7.6 above, prior to the commencement of the Relocation of FPL Facilities by FPL. 7.8 Modification or Termination of Agreement. This Agreement may be modified, amended, or terminated at any time by written agreement of the Parties authorized and executed with the same formality as this Agreement. FPL's Underground Facilities Distribution Conversion Agreement, if attached hereto, is approved by the Florida Public Service Commission and may not be modified or amended by the Parties. 7.9 Effect of Headings. The headings set forth herein are for convenience only and shall not be deemed to modify or affect the rights and obligations of the Parties to this Agreement. 7.10 FPL Consent to Relocations. FPL agrees to the Relocation of the FPL Facilities to the extent necessary to eliminate Conflicts with the Applicant's construction in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Applicant shall make all necessary arrangements and agreements with any person or entity which has facilities attached to the FPL poles for the Relocation of those facilities at no expense to FPL. 7.11 Delegation of Power and Duties and Notice. The following persons are designated as the authorized representatives of the Parties for the purposes of this Agreement and all notices or other communications to either Party by the other shall be made in writing and addressed as follows: To the Applicant: Dale A. Bathon, P.E.. Principal Proiect Manager (Name and Title) - Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Department 2675 South Horseshoe Dr. , Suite 401 Naples, FL 34104 With Copies to: For FPL: Eduardo Garcia Transmission Relocation Coordinator FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. BOX 14000, (TLE -JB) Juno Beach, Florida 33408 7.12 Force Maieure. (a) Neither Party shall be liable or responsible for any delay in the performance of, or the ability to perform, any duty or obligation required by this Agreement in the event of a force majeure occurrence. Such occurrence shall include, but shall not be limited to acts of civil or military authority (including courts or administrative agencies), acts of God, war, riot, or insurrection, inability to obtain required permits or licenses, blockades, embargoes, sabotage, epidemics, fires, unusually severe floods or weather, strikes, lockouts or other labor disputes or difficulties. The obligation of either Party to pay money in a timely manner is absolute and shall not be subject to the force majeure provisions. Force majeure as used herein means, without limitation, any cause or event not reasonably within the control of FPL or the Applicant. (b) In the event of any delay resulting from a force majeure circumstance, the time for performance hereunder shall be extended for a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delays. (c) In the event of any delay or nonperformance caused by a force majeure circumstance, the Party affected shall promptly notify the other in writing. 7.13 Severabilitv. In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the Applicant and FPL shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the affected provisions of this Agreement. The validity and enforceability of the remaining independent provisions shall not be affected. page 5 of 6 Governmental Facilities Relocation Agreement (rev. 2/8/00) 1663 7.14 Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by the Parties and shall continue in effect until completion of all Relocation work by FPL unless otherwise provided herein or earlier termination in accordance with this Agreement. 7.15 Comolete Agreement. This Agreement shall be signed by the authorized representatives of both Parties and constitutes the final written expression of all the terms of the agreement between the Parties and is a complete and exclusive statement of those terms. Any and all prior or contemporaneous course of dealing, representations, promises, warranties or statements by the Parties or their agents, employees, or representatives that differ in any way from the terms of this written Agreement shall be given no force or effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Relocation Agreement, to be effective as of the date first above written. APPLICANT: Board of County Commissioners By: James N. Coletta Title: Chairman Date: Q a— Aw,Rr1"Iar: (Seal) Title ATTEST:;. ""• r �� DWIGHT "E�3 x, 'U.ty , �•' . Aj `4�rrerrrri�ur�� A to rm & legal $urfis� / / Assis t County Attorney ` FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY: 31tie: Director Date: page 6 of 6 Governmental Facilities Relocation Agreement (rev. 2/8/00) This Estimate FLORIDA POWER 4 LIGHT COMPANY Valid through SIIMMARY ESTIMATE OF COST 07/28/02 FOR: COST ONLY ESTnULTE CONST /LI1(E-LIXE EST. Relocate structure 138M5 & 138M6; Replace with SPC County Livingston Road, Phase IV, County Project No. 65041 REMOVALS INSTALL L MAINT. SALV CR RMV COST: ITEM ITEM COST TOTAL (A) ENGINEERING Labor Transportation A Misc Expenses Applied Engineering Sub -Total (B) LAND i LAND RIGHTS (RT OF WAY) Labor Transportation i Misc Expenses Purchase and /or Easements Payment to Contractor Sub -Total (C) CONSTRUCTION 4,379 Labor - 1,814 : Transportation 6 Misc Expenses Material Payment to Contractor 6,193 Sub -Total (D) OTHER MAINTENANCE 12,878 43,312 17,935 15,059 12,878 76,306 * Handling, Tax t Ins and Pension i Welfare at Approved Rates. $877 REV 3/94B Engineer Nil Submitted by t is lyG � i� °�, -A - .4 16B3 Labor 2,324 Transportation i Misc Expenses 963 Material Payment to Contractor Sub -Total 3,287 6,195 : TOTALS 92,471 Recapitulation of Cost Estimate Total Installation and Transfer Cost 92,471 Removal Cost 6,195 Salvage Credit SUBTOTAL 98,666 Less Credit Ratio of 0.008 ( Net Replacement Cost ) 98,666 * Handling, Tax t Ins and Pension i Welfare at Approved Rates. $877 REV 3/94B Engineer Nil Submitted by t is lyG � i� °�, -A - .4 16B3 W H N m W J J H W 2 F- S� cc CO M r M 2 co M r N W V a J CL W Z O M Z a CL W a m Cl) V � V `Z LJ ^r M V W J J CO.) . - co WX��hii T 71 16B3 LC t� 16B3 V m c a IU N_ dl` Zi m ao E N cl ti oT N T in a i co ''Lo" z rn ✓ '` ,f ,h X Cc 4 S � w Y,. � S 3 4 • s rn rn w 1664 �,*;, DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF OCTOBER 25, 2002 16C 1 2002 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES REGARDING MONITORING OF THE SOUTH GORDON DRIVE T -GROIN INSTALLATION , THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this 5 day of 52002, by and between the City of Naples, hereinafter referred to as "GRANTEE" and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY." RECITALS: WHEREAS, COUNTY has adopted a Tourist Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as "Plan") funded by proceeds from the Tourist Development Tax; and WHEREAS, Plan provides that certain of the revenues generated by the Tourist Development Tax are reserved for beach renourishment and pass maintenance projects within Collier County; and WHEREAS, GRANTEE has applied to the Tourist Development Tax Council and the Board of County Commissioners to use Tourist Development Tax funds for management of Gordon Pass, specifically for monitoring the South Gordon Drive T -Groin project; and WHEREAS, COUNTY desires to fund the South Gordon Drive T -Groin monitoring project proposed by the GRANTEE. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND PREMISES PROVIDED HEREIN, AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCOPE OF WORK: GRANTEE prepared a detailed application and proposal outlining the pass maintenance project to be accomplished, along with a project budget, as part of the grant application process, hereinafter referred to as "PROPOSAL," attached as Exhibit "A." GRANTEE shall provide the project activities outlined in the PROPOSAL within the budgeted amounts provided in the PROPOSAL. GRANTEE shall not be reimbursed for any expenditures not included in the PROPOSAL nor be reimbursed for amounts in excess of those provided in the PROPOSAL unless an amendment to this Agreement is entered into by GRANTEE and COUNTY. 2. PAYMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT: The maximum reimbursement under this Agreement shall be Forty -Eight Thousand Dollars ($48,000). GRANTEE shall be paid in 16C 1 accordance with the fiscal procedures of COUNTY upon submittal of an invoice and upon verification that the services described in the invoice are completed or that goods have been received. GRANTEE shall determine that the goods and services have been properly provided, and shall submit invoices to the County Administrator or his designee. The County Administrator or his designee shall determine that the invoice payments are authorized and the goods or services covered by such invoice have been provided or performed in accordance with such authorization. The line item budget attached as Exhibit "A" shall constitute authorization of the expenditure described in the invoices provided that such expenditure is made in accordance with this Agreement. Each invoice submitted by GRANTEE shall be itemized in sufficient detail for audit thereof and shall be supported by copies of corresponding vendor invoices and proof of receipt of goods or performance of the services invoiced. GRANTEE shall certify in writing that all subcontractors and vendors have been paid for work and materials from previous payments received prior to receipt of any further payments. COUNTY shall not pay GRANTEE until the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners pre- audits payment invoices in accordance with the law. GRANTEE shall be paid for its actual cost not to exceed the maximum amount budgeted pursuant to the attached Exhibit "A ". 3. ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES: Only eligible expenditures described in Section 1 will be paid by COUNTY. Any expenditures paid by COUNTY which are later deemed to be ineligible expenditures shall be repaid to COUNTY within 30 days of COUNTY's written request to repay said funds. COUNTY may request repayment of funds for a period of up to one year after termination of this Agreement or any extension or renewal thereof. 4. INSURANCE: GRANTEE is required to submit a Certificate of Insurance naming Collier County, and its Board of County Commissioners and the Tourist Development Council as additionally insured. The certificate must be valid for the duration of this Agreement, and be issued by a company licensed in the State of Florida, and provide General Liability Insurance for no less than the following amounts: BODILY INJURY LIABILITY - $300,000 each claim per person PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY - $300,000 each claim per person 2 16C 1 PERSONAL INJURY LIABILITY - $300,000 each claim per person WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY - Statutory The Certificate of Insurance must be delivered to the County Administrator or his designee within ten days of execution of this Agreement by COUNTY. GRANTEE shall not commence activities that are to be funded pursuant to this Agreement until COUNTY has received the Certificate of Insurance. 5. CHOICE OF VENDORS AND FAIR DEALING: GRANTEE may select vendors or subcontractors to provide services as described in Section I. COUNTY shall not be responsible for paying vendors and shall not be involved in the selection of contractors or vendors. GRANTEE agrees to disclose any relationship between GRANTEE and the subcontractors or vendor, including, but not limited to, similar or related employees, agents, officers, directors and/or shareholders. COUNTY may, in its discretion, object to the reasonableness of expenditures and require repayment if invoices have been paid under this Agreement for unreasonable expenditures. The reasonableness of the expenditures shall be based on industry standards. 6. INDEMNIFICATION: The GRANTEE shall hold harmless and defend COUNTY, and its agents and employees, from any and all suits and actions including attorney's fees and all costs of litigation and judgments of any name and description arising out of or incidental to the performance of this Agreement or work performed thereunder. This provision shall also pertain to any claims brought against COUNTY by any employee of the named GRANTEE, any subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed or authorized to perform work by any of them. GRANTEE'S obligation under this provision shall not be limited in any way by the agreed upon Agreement price as shown in this Agreement or the GRANTEE'S limit of, or lack of, sufficient insurance protection. 7. NOTICES: All notices from COUNTY to GRANTEE shall be in writing and deemed duly served if mailed by registered or certified mail to GRANTEE at the following address: Jon C. Staiger, Ph.D., Natural Resources Manager City of Naples 735 8th Street South Naples, Florida 34102 3 16C 1 All notices from GRANTEE to COUNTY shall be in writing and deemed duly served if mailed by registered or certified mail to COUNTY to: County Manager Second Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 GRANTEE and COUNTY may change the above mailing addresses at any time upon giving the other party written notification pursuant to this Section. 8. NO PARTNERSHIP: Nothing herein contained shall be construed as creating a partnership between COUNTY and GRANTEE, or its vendor or subcontractor, or to constitute GRANTEE, or its vendor or subcontractor, as an agent or employee of COUNTY. 9. TERMINATION: COUNTY or GRANTEE may cancel this Agreement with or without cause by giving 30 days advance written notice of such termination pursuant to Section 8 and specifying the effective date of termination. If COUNTY terminates this Agreement, COUNTY will pay GRANTEE for all expenditures incurred, or contractual obligations incurred with subcontractors and vendors, by GRANTEE up to the effective date of the termination so long as such expenses are eligible. 10. GENERAL ACCOUNTING. GRANTEE is required to maintain complete and accurate accounting records and keep tourism funds in a separate checking account. All revenue related to the Agreement should be recorded, and all expenditures must be incurred within the term of this Agreement. 11. AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS: GRANTEE shall maintain records, books, documents, papers, and financial information pertaining to work performed under this Agreement. GRANTEE agrees that COUNTY, or any of its duly authorized representatives, shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement, have access to, and the right to examine and photocopy any pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of GRANTEE involving transactions related to this Agreement. 12. PROHIBITION OF ASSIGNMENT: GRANTEE shall not assign, convey, or transfer in whole or in part its interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the COUNTY. rd 16C 13. TERM: This agreement shall become effective on 01 February 2002 and shall remain effective until 30 June 2002. 14. AMENDMENTS: This Agreement may only be the amended by mutual agreement of the parties and after recommendation by the Tourist Development Council. 15. This Agreement shall be recorded in the public records of Collier County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTEE and COUNTY have each respectively, by an authorized person or agent, hereunder set their hands and seals on the date and year first above written. ATTEST: DWI.G& i' ,hROCK, CLERK (l y. Attest';` ek i a.; gwirW —S s i gnatw'e 041j. WITNESSES: (1) Printed/Typed Name BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA t � , Jim Koletta, Chairman GRANTEE CITY OF NAPLES (2) BY: Bonnie R. MacKenzie, Mayo Printed/Typed Name (Corporate Seal) Approved as to form and Legal sufficiency: Attest: `j Tara A. Norman ity Clerk TsZcc��7el•n-G l-'k+.•bb� -�. ��b ♦`rs� -� S i tant County Attorney JCS \Wordata\T -Groin project \2002 retroactive monitoring tourism agreement revised.doc 5 1 16C 1 Exhibit "A" Humiston & Moore Engineers Invoice Summary Invoice Date Task Task Cost 11- Jul -01 A $11,622.75 (May) C $420.00 D $202.50 26- Jul -01 B $635.64 (June) C $240.00 D $1,582.85 12- Sep -01 B $12,971.41 (July) D $1,891.39 04- Oct -01 B $1,027.50 (August) D $577.65 29- Nov -01 B $987.19 (September) C $2,123.80 D $1,086.76 29- Nov -01 B $1,110.33 (October) C $240.00 D $232.50 31- Dec -01 B $6,166.80 (November) not yet rec'd. B* $4,038.13 (December) Total $47,157.20 16C Task A - six month monitoring Task B - one year monitoring Task C - structure maintenance Task D - meetings, presentations B" remaining balance of Task B 1 HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING November 17, 2000 Dr. Jon Staiger, Natural Resources Manager City of Naples 735 Eighth Street South Naples, FL 34102 Re: Contract Amendment for Project Monitoring South Gordon Drive Beachfront T -Groin Project HM File No. 9 -062 Dear Jon, 16C1 5679 STRAND COURT. UNIT 110 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34110 FAX: 94-1 594 7025 PHONE: 94t 594 2021 Sent via Facsimile As a follow up to our recent discussion, we are providing you with this proposal to amend our contract for professional services to include the first year of monitoring and reporting requirements associated with your State Department of Environmental Protection permit for the referenced Naples Erosion Control Project above: The amounts are similar to as those submitted to you in April at the time you filed for TDC funding. A description of the proposed monitoring services is provided below. We have provided an estimated cost for each category as well as a. total not to exceed amount. We have structured this agreement in this manner at the direction of the City staff and will be billing on a time and materials basis in accordance with our attached fee schedule dated January 1, 2000. Scope of Work for Monitoring A. Six -Month Monitoring (Lump Sum 1. Beach and hydrographic survey, (23 offshore profiles, 14 wading depth) .................................................. ............................... $10,840.00 2. Data reduction and analysis...... ................. .......... ............................... $4,230.00 3. Report ............................................. ............................... ...................... $7,670.00 4. Compaction .... ............... .I............... ...................... ............................... $1,955.00 5. Coordination with adjacent property owners and their engineer ............. $2,242.00 Subtotalfor Task A: ................................................................................... I ........ $26,937.00 B. One -Year Monitoring (Lump Sum 6. Beach and hydrographic survey, (23 offshore profiles, 14 wading depth) .............. .................................... ............................... $10,840.00 7. Data reduction and analysis ............... ............................... ...................... $4,230.00 8. Report ................ ................................................... ............................... $7,670.00 9. Compaction ................ .............................................. ............................... $1,955.00 10. Coordination with adjacent property owners and their engineer ............. $2,242.00 1 of 2 16C1 Subtotalfor Task B: .... I ................................................ ............. ............................ $26,937.00 C. Contingency Fill Placement (T&M) 11.. Administration of fill placement, construction observation, wading depth surveys for post fill and payment review; ................................................................... $5880.00 Subtotal for Tasks A through C: .......................................................................... $59,724.00 Contingency, 10 °!o for meetings with City, presentation to City or beach committee, and DEP (T &M) .......... :..................... .................................... $5,980.00 Total ............................... ................................................... ............................... X65 7 in our earlier :correspondence in April, we recommended budgeting additional funding on the order of $27,170 for contingency fill placement on the downdrift shoreline and within the structures, if deemed necessary by permit conditions and monitoring results. We propose to provide services .under Tasks A and _ B as lump sum and the remaining tasks as time and materials in accordance with the attached fee schedule dated January 1, 2000, included as part of this letter of agreement. Should services be requested which extend beyond the scope of services 'referenced above, such services will be provided as Additional Services in accordance with the referenced fee schedule and general conditions. The total costs presented above are summarized below in engineering and surveying costs: Task Engineering Services A $17,767.00 B $17,767.00 C 4$ 850.00 Subtotals: $74,176.00 10% Contingency Total: Surveying Services Total $9,300.00 $26,937.00 $9,300.00 $26,937.00 $1,000.00 $5 850.00 $20,800.00 $59,724.00 Should this agreement be acceptable, please indicate by signing below and returning one copy to our office, receipt of which shall constitute our Notice to Continue. As you know, we are anxious to mobilize our hydrographic surveyor to collect the 6 -month monitoring data by the and of this month. Once you have had a chance to review this request, please give me a call. Sincerely yours, HUMISTO & M E ENGINEERS Brett D. Moore, P.E. Attachments 2 of 2 HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS • NAPLES, FLORIDA 16D1 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO THE BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 8, 2003 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO THE BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 8, 2003 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS j6A MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE April 9h, 2002 FOR BOARD ACTION: 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. 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 for March 9, 2002 through March 15, 2002. 2. Disbursements for March 16, 2002 through March 22, 2002. B. Minutes: 1. Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda for March 5, 2002. 2. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for March 18, 2002, Minutes of February 19, 2002. 3. Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. — Agenda for March 15, 2002, Minutes of February 22, 2002. 4. Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board — Minutes of December 13, 2001. 5. Workforce Housing Advisory Committee — Agenda for March 4, 2002 Minutes of February 4, 2002. 6. Collier County Planning Commission — Agenda for March 7, 2002, Minutes of January 17, 2002 and Minutes of February 7, 2002. 7. Hispanic Advisory Board — Minutes of November 29, 2002 8. Golden Estates Land Trust Committee — Minutes of December 17, 2001 9. Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee — Agenda for March 6, 2002, Minutes of February 6, 2002. 10. Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization — Agenda for February 15, 2002. 11. Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for February 27, 2002. H:Data/Format 12. Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee — Agenda for March 8, 2002, Minutes of February 8, 2002. 13. Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board — Minutes of January 24, 2002 14. Bayshore Beautification M.S.TU. — Agenda for March 13, 2002, Minutes of February 13, 2002. 15. Environmental Advisory Council — Agenda for March 6, 2002, Minutes of February 6, 2002. ° 16. Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee — Agenda for February 25, 2002, Minutes of February 4, 2002. 17. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee — Agenda for March 7, 2002, Minutes of February 7, 2002. 18. Community Character /Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda for January 9, 2002 and January 23, Minutes of January 9, 2002 and January 23, 2002. 19. I -75 /Golden Gate Interchange Advisory Committee — Agenda for February 25, 2002. 20. Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee — Agenda for March 12, 2002, Minutes of February 12, 2001. H: Data/Format 16Jlv/.�F Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County, Florida Finance & Accounting Department MEMORANDUM Date: 03/15/02 To: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners From: Constance C. Murray, General Operations Manager Finance Department/Clerk to the Board Re: Board of County Commissioners Disbursements Please find attached a listing of the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period March 9,2002 through March 15, 2002. In accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1) I request that these reports be included as miscellaneous correspondence to the Board of County Commissioners and made part of the official records. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please telephone me at 774- 8481. Q: /Manual Checks /APMLOG BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A/P Manual Check Log DATE ISSUED TO: CK # 3/7/2002 Collier County Tax Collector 336 3/7/2002 Law Offices Of Scott M Ketchum 337 3/712002 Roy Marti 338 3/7/2002 Fl Dept Of Environmental Protection 339 3/12/2002 Check Run Beginning 572555 3/12/2002 Check Run Ending 573185 16J1 � AMOUNT 52.85 2,500.00 440.00 250.00 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I J 1 PAGE 1 201.24 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER j, a 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573106 VENDOR 350610 - AAA BLIND FACTORY 114.50 0.00 20017296 6859 109 - 182601 - 652990 -00000 0.00 319.67 109. 182900 - 652990 -00000 0.00 319.67 20018001 778. 182700 - 652990 -00000 0.00 319.66 0.00 959.00 204075 VERTICAL BLINDS 0.00 263.60 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 959.00 CHECK NO 572732 VENDOR 161100 - AAA GENERATOR & PUMP INC. 20017378 G02 -0179 408 - 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 201.24 0.00 201.24 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018002 G02 -0196 408. 233312- 634999 -00000 0.00 114.50 0.00 114.50 200681 MAINTENANCE 20018001 G02.0203 408 - 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 263.60 0.00 263.60 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018003 G02 -0204 408 - 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 354.96 0.00 354.96 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018001 G02 -0200 408 - 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 248.86 0.00 248.86 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20017376 G02.0216 001 - 122240. 634999.00000 0.00 228.73 0.00 228.73 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20017379 G02 -0217 188- 140480 - 646970 - 00000 0.00 210.64 0.00 210.64 201344 MAINTENANCE /TOWER SITES 20018001 G02 -0199 408. 233351- 634999 -00000 0.00 208.86 0.00 208.86 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018001 G02.0202 408. 233351. 634999 -00000 0.00 208.12 0.00 208.12 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018001 G02 -0201 408 - 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 248.86 0.00 248.86 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20017378 G02 -0180 408 - 233351 - 634999.00000 0.00 192.24 0.00 192.24 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20017378 G02 -0189 408- 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 199.78 0.00 199.78 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20017388 G02 -0187 02/04 -02/08 408 - 253212 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1,152.56 0.00 1.152.56 200192 REPAIRS /PARTS MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 20017387 180370 DISCOUNT SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 200195 READ METERS /PARTS FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20017376 G02 -0215 001- 122240 - 634999 -00000 0.00 180369 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 20018001 GO2 -0198 408 - 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 572571 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20017293 094969 20017378 G02 -0188 408 - 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 COPIER MAINTENANCE 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 97.50 20018001 GO2 -0197 408. 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 200747 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20017377 G02 -0178 408- 233351. 634999 -00000 0.00 200747 REPAIR /SERVICE /MAINTENANCE CHECK NO 572933 VENDOR 285940 - AACTION MULCH OF SW FL, INC. 20017384 21343 02112 111. 163646 - 646318 -00000 201896 MULCH CHECK NO 572840 VENDOR 237370 - ABB WATER METERS INC. 20017387 180370 DISCOUNT 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 208.86 200195 READ METERS /PARTS 248.86 20017387 180630 248.86 408 - 253212 - 655100.00000 0.00 200195 READ METERS /PARTS 0.00 20017387 180369 DISCOUNT 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 200195 READ METERS /PARTS 120.00 CHECK NO 572571 VENDOR 130 - ACCENT BUSINESS PRODUCTS 20017293 094969 01/01.02/01 001 - 156110 - 646710.00000 97.50 202235 COPIER MAINTENANCE 0.00 CHECK NO 573046 VENDOR 335370 - ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 20017930 PP #12 001 - 000000. 218810 -00000 PP #12 16JIPAGE' 2 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 223.42 0.00 223.42 208.86 0.00 208.86 248.86 0.00 248.86 248.86 0.00 248.86 455.64 0.00 455.64 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5,218.59 0.00 6,099.60 0.00 6,099.60 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.099.60 0.00 16.77- 0.00 16.77- 0.00 167,094.00 0.00 167,094.00 0.00 632.50- 0.00 632.50 - CHECK TOTAL 0.00 166,444.73 0.00 120.00 0.00 120.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 120.00 0.00 97.50 0.00 97.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 97.50 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 EJAGE 3 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573073 VENDOR 344490 - ADRIENN BONNYAI 20017399 1/16 -2/20 TRVL A BONNYAI 001 - 156110- 640200 -00000 0.00 136.59 0.00 136.59 1/16 -2/20 TRVL A BONNYAI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 136.59 CHECK NO 572928 VENDOR 282670 ADVANCED AIR & REFRIGERATION, INC. 20017297 2780 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 2015110 REPAIRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 CHECK NO 572892 VENDOR 268650 ADVANCED FIRE SYSTEMS INC 20017781 54845 111. 156381- 652910.00000 0.00 35.50 0.00 35.50 150172 FIRE EXTINGUISHER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 35.50 CHECK NO 573033 VENDOR 332080 - AERC. COM, INC. 20017808 46876 01/31 470 - 173462 - 634999 -00000 0.00 407.45 0.00 407.45 201879 COLLECTION OF FLUOR LAMPS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 407.45 CHECK NO 572572 VENDOR 300 - AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. 20017182 R11985 411. 273511 - 763100.70029 0.00 0.00 411. 273511- 631400 -70029 0.00 130.00 0.00 130.00 915800 THRU 2/8/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 130.00 CHECK NO 572884 VENDOR 264920 - AIRBORNE EXPRESS 20019365 M8442534 01/07 001 - 155410 - 641950 -00000 0.00 13.34 0.00 13.34 202798 SHIPPING LAB MATERIAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 13.34 CHECK NO 572751 VENDOR 172480 - ALAN PRODUCTIONS 20017310 0206 -02 R. HICKOK 681 - 410310. 633032 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 0206 -02 R. HICKOK 001 - 000850 CF LLM 20017310 0218 -02 A. FEGUEROA 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 0218 -02 A. FEGUEROA 01 -1360 CJ FGB MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 4 PAGE 4 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 {r� FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 572765 VENDOR 184390 - ALL STATE BIOGUARD SERVICES, INC. 20017299 38283 111 - 156313 - 634999 -00000 0.00 26.00 0.00 26.00 201303 BID WASTE PICKUP SERVICE 20017299 38282 111 - 156313 - 634999 -00000 0.00 17.00 0.00 17.00 201303 BID WASTE PICKUP SERVICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 43.00 CHECK NO 573109 VENDOR 351160 - ALLEN JOHNS- BOOKEEPER 20017306 351160 001 - 156363- 634999 -00000 0.00 575.00 0.00 575.00 154155 REMOVAL OF HONEY BEES /CLAM PS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 575.00 CHECK NO 572857 VENDOR 253740 - ALLEN,NORTON & BLUE. P.A. 20017308 0054 - 00000 -084 001- 010520 - 631100 -00000 0.00 391.00 0.00 391.00 201754 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20017308 0054 - 00000 -084 001. 010510 - 634999 -00000 0.00 96.41 0.00 96.41 201754 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 487.41 CHECK NO 572672 VENDOR 109450 - ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORPORATION 20017300 I0247135 02/13 408 - 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 197.95 0.00 197.95 202511 CHLORINE 20017281 I0247350 408 - 233312 - 652310.00000 0.00 1,686.30 0.00 1,686.30 200688 SOD HYPO 20017285 I0247805 02/15 408 - 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,684.20 0.00 1,684.20 200688 SOD HYPO 20017284 I0248063 02/18 408 - 233352 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,700.65 0.00 1.700.65 200741 SOD HYPO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.269.10 CHECK NO 572996 VENDOR 318980 - ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 20017806 VFB2CQB 02/15 113 - 138312 - 641700 -00000 0.00 816.40 0.00 816.40 VFB2CQB 02/15 200452 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 PAGE 5 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER ;+ FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017381 VFB2BWJ 02/15 001. 156130- 641700 -00000 0.00 62.70 0.00 62.70 VFB2BWJ 02/15 201706 20017999 VFB2BT2 02/15 101 - 163609 - 641700 -00000 0.00 173.85 0.00 173.85 VFB2BT2 02/15 200062 20017780 VFB2B5X 02/15 001 - 122310 - 641700 -00000 0.00 59.85 0.00 59.85 VFB2B5X 02/15 201811 20017807 VFB2BV2 02/15 669 - 100220 - 641700 -00000 0.00 32.90 0.00 32.90 VFB2BV2 02/15 201776 20017804 VFB2BTT 02/15 101 - 163620- 641700 -00000 0.00 454.65 0.00 454.65 VFB2BTT 02/15 201129 20017999 VFB2B25 02/15 313. 163611. 641700 -00000 0.00 158.00 0.00 158.00 VFB2B25 02/15 200062 20017804 VFB2CGF 02/15 101 - 163620. 641700 -00000 0.00 109.75 0.00 109.75 VFB2CGF 02/15 201129 20017382 VFB2BP8 02/15 123 - 155975. 641700 -33075 0.00 89.75 0.00 89.75 VFB2BP8 02/15 203168 20017802 VFB2BTS 02/15 101 - 163630 - 641700 -00000 0.00 780.04 0.00 780.04 VFB2BTS 02/15 200019 20017382 VFB2BTX 02/15 123. 155975- 641700 -33075 0.00 22.90 0.00 22.90 VFB2BTX 02/15 203168 20017805 VFB2B6G 02/15 408. 210155 - 641700 -00000 0.00 170.75 195. 110407- 641700 -00000 0.00 200.00 0.00 370.75 VFB2B6G 02/15 201434 20017999 VFB2BV4 02/15 313 - 163611 - 641700 -00000 0.00 157.45 0.00 157.45 VFB2BV4 02/15 200062 20017380 VFB2BWF 02/15 101 - 163612 - 641700 -00000 0.00 120.50 0.00 120.50 VFB2BWF 02/15 200481 20017780 VFB2B52 02/15 001- 122310 - 641700 -00000 0.00 97.62 0.00 97.62 VFB2B52 02/15 201811 20017803 VFB2BWG 02/15 109. 182602- 641700.00000 0.00 156.69 109. 182901 - 641700.00000 0.00 183.33 778. 182701 - 641700 -00000 0.00 199.88 0.00 539.90 VFB2BBWG 02/15 200043 20017780 VFB2B55 02/15 001 - 122310 - 641700 -00000 0.00 94.96 0.00 94.96 VFB2B55 02/15 201811 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J PAGE y 6 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017999 VFB2B27 02/15 313. 163611 - 641700 -00000 0.00 60.80 0.00 60.80 VFB2B27 02/15 200062 20017801 VFB2B6Q 02/15 113 - 138915 - 641700 -00000 0.00 842.30 0.00 842.30 VFB2B6Q 02/15 200269 20017782 VFB2DLF 02/15 001 - 157110 - 644620 -00000 0.00 129.21 0.00 129.21 VFB2DLF 02/15 201594 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5,174.28 CHECK NO 572573 VENDOR 460 - ALPHA CHEMICAL 20017298 217802 02112 001. 122240 - 646283 -00000 0.00 576.00 0.00 576.00 204287 SENSOR PAPER /FILTER SENSOR 20017292 218133 02/19 001 - 122220 - 652990 -00000 0.00 101.52 0.00 101.52 202948 BLANKET PO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 677.52 CHECK NO 572574 VENDOR 550 - ALPHA OMEGA BUSINESS SYSTEMS 20017302 032568 02/10.03/10 113 - 138930 - 644600 -00000 0.00 83.25 113 - 138930 - 651210 -00000 0.00 210.38 113 - 138930. 641950 -00000 0.00 2.35 0.00 295.98 200270 20017289 032291 12/30 -01/30 123. 155975- 646710 -33075 0.00 164.06 0.00 164.06 106786 COPIER MAINTENANCE 20017301 032565 01/09 -02/09 111 - 156380 - 651210 -00000 0.00 51.91 0.00 51.91 201296 COPIER MAINTENANCE 20017290 032571 01/11 -02/11 101 - 163620. 646710 -00000 0.00 164.55 0.00 164.55 202275 MAINTENANCE 20017301 032565 01/09.02/09 111 - 156380 - 646710 -00000 0.00 44.70 0.00 44.70 201296 COPIER MAINTENANCE 20017303 032566 02/10 -03/10 101. 163610- 646710.00000 0.00 60.43 0.00 60.43 200499 MAINTENANCE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 781.63 CHECK NO 572949 VENDOR 295120 - AMERICAN LAFRANCE MEDICMASTER 20017367 10657 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 240.70 0.00 240.70 200837 PARTS MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 7 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J1 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 . VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017386 R0653 522 - 122465 - 764110 -00000 0.00 33,408.00 0.00 33,408.00 106248 PROPOSAL REFURBISHMENT AMBULA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 33,648.70 CHECK NO 572675 VENDOR 111740 - AMERICAN RED CROSS 20017375 CPR CLASS 02/02 111 - 156395. 634999 -00000 0.00 240.00 150176 BABYSITTING CLASS /CPR CLASS CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 573110 VENDOR 351390 - AMERICAN WATER CHEMICALS INC 20017383 05- 02017/CO1 408 - 253221. 652310.00000 0.00 14,840.00 204266 MEMBRANE SCALE INHIBITOR CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 572784 VENDOR 193950 - AMERIGAS 20017368 A5330- 027568 02/18 490 - 144610 - 643200 -00000 0.00 001 - 061010 - 643200 -00000 0.00 200825 PROPANE EMS CHECK NO 572812 VENDOR 212040 - AMERIGAS - NAPLES 20017304 A5578- 231861 02/13 001 - 155410 - 643200 -00000 0.00 200572 PROPANE ANIMAL CONTROL CHECK NO 573182 VENDOR 900140 - AMIRA D. SWETT 301487 A. SWETT 12/3 -12/4 681 - 421190 - 634401 -00000 0.00 A. SWETT TRAVEL EXPENSES CHECK NO 573059 VENDOR 339920 - ANDREW PERFILIO M.D. 20017282 T. CASHEN 98 398 99 1606 681 - 421190 - 631010 -00000 0.00 T. CASHEN 98- 398 - 99.1606 ETC CFA LLM 20017282 S. POPPELE 00- 001090CFLLM 681. 421190. 631010 -00000 0.00 S. POPPELE 00- 001090 CF LLM 14.83 44.49 CHECK TOTAL 480.75 CHECK TOTAL 281.51 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240.00 240.00 14,840.00 14,840.00 59.32 59.32 480.75 480.75 281.51 281.51 900.00 0.00 900.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.800.00 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 6 J 1 PAGE 8 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572833 VENDOR 233010 ANIMALIFE VETERINARY CENTER, P.A. 20017373 7011.55950 001 - 155410- 652710 -00000 0.00 14.70 0.00 14.70 154345 CLAVAMOX 125MG 01/28 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 14.70 CHECK NO 573055 VENDOR 339570 ANOTHER PRINTER 20017283 8867 001 - 100130 - 647110 -00000 0.00 1,240.55 0.00 1,240.55 200224 PRINTING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.240.55 CHECK NO 572575 VENDOR 1080 APAC - FLORIDA. INC. 20017370 150443 02/03 408 - 233351 - 653110 -00000 0.00 112.92 0.00 112.92 201516 ROCK PER TON 20017309 150444 02/03 408 - 253212.653110 -00000 0.00 70.28 0.00 70.28 202463 ROAD FILL MATERIAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 183.20 CHECK NO 573069 VENDOR 343990 AQUA PURE OF SW FLORIDA 20017305 R2252 02/15 408 - 210130 - 644600 -00000 0.00 49.95 0.00 49.95 203060 RENTAL 03/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 49.95 CHECK NO 573015 VENDOR 325930 AQUA PURE OF SW FLORIDA, INC 20017371 917330 02/13 001 - 155910.652990.00000 0.00 55.00 0.00 55.00 201843 WATER FOR OFFICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 55.00 CHECK NO 572733 VENDOR 161840 - AQUIFER MAINTENANCE & PERFORMANCE 20017385 21425 408- 253221 - 634999.00000 0.00 5,460.00 0.00 5,460.00 200417 WELL MAINRTENANCE 20017286 21423 408. 253221.634999.00000 0.00 3,900.00 0.00 3.900.00 200417 WELL MAINTENANCE 20017385 21425 DISCOUNT 408 - 253221 - 634999 -00000 0.00 436.80- 0.00 436.80- 200417 WELL MAINRTENANCE 20017286 21423 DISCOUNT 408 - 253221. 634999 -00000 0.00 312.00- 0.00 312.00- 200417 WELL MAINTENANCE MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA �R E 9 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 6 J SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,611.20 CHECK NO 573156 VENDOR 900050 ARTHREX INC. 301492 317596 ARTHREX 113 - 000000 - 115420.00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 317596 ARTHREX REFUND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 573058 VENDOR 339810 ARTHUR TUCKER 20017391 3/18 -20 ADV PD A TUCKER 114. 178975 - 640300 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 3/18 -20 ADV PD A TUCKER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 CHECK NO 572962 VENDOR 302580 - ASC GEOSCIENCES, INC. 20017287 59934 02/07 333 - 163650. 631990 -65031 0.00 2,025.00 0.00 2.025.00 201537 MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,025.00 CHECK NO 572819 VENDOR 216040 ASTOR CHEMICAL 20017288 357 02/05 408.253211- 652310.00000 0.00 2,112.26 0.00 2,112.26 200379 CARBON DIOXIDE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,112.26 CHECK NO 573009 VENDOR 323320 AT & T 20017291 730 - 511 -5584 -001 02/18 101- 163609- 641210 -00000 0.00 10.73 0.00 10.73 02/18 774 -9370 20017444 056 281 8867 001 02121 408 - 253211. 641210 -00000 0.00 14.87 0.00 14.87 02/21 353 -2874 20017291 730 - 511 - 5584 -001 02/18 313 - 163611 - 641210 -00000 0.00 10.73 0.00 10.73 02/18 774 -9370 20017369 056.286- 0866.001 02121 001- 122240 - 641900.00000 0.00 11.11 0.00 11.11 02/21 658 -0783 20017369 056.286. 1391 -001 02121 001 - 144210- 641900.00000 0.00 19.83 0.00 19.83 02121 774 -5603 20017444 730 511 5515 001 02/18 001 - 155810 - 641900 -00000 0.00 47.92 0.00 47.92 02/18 774 -5653 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017369 730 - 511 - 5780 -001 02/21 02/21 775 -5008 20017444 056 282 5843 001 02/13 02/13 334 -1040 20018000 058 0658 570 001 02/25 02/25 774 -3602 20018004 056 284 4627 001 02/22 02122 657 -9795 20017295 730 - 511 - 5434.001 02/18 02/18 774 -3430 20017369 056 - 286 - 1091 -001 02/21 02121 732 -8680 20017295 730 - 511 - 5554 -001 02/18 02/18 774 -7133 20017291 056 - 286 - 0996 -001 02/21 02121 695 -0008 20017444 730 511 5522 001 02/18 02/18 774 -5952 20018004 056 286 0862 001 02/21 02/21 657.9003 CHECK NO 572838 VENDOR 236190 - AT &T 20017443 020 112 1860 001 02/16 02/16 793 -3671 20017809 020 715 8348 001 01/18 01/18 394 -8770 20017366 730 - 511 - 5702 -001 02/21 02121 775 -2007 20017366 019 - 260 - 6291 -001 02/18 02/18 774 -6886 20017366 020 - 717 - 5083 -001 02/18 02118 774 -5879 20017443 020 112 1860 001 02/16 02/16 793.3671 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR DISC SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 144210. 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 443010. 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 010110. 641210 -00000 0.00 495 - 192330 - 641900 -00000 0.00 123 - 155975 - 641210 -33075 0.00 188. 140480- 641400 -00000 0.00 123. 155975 - 641900 -33075 0.00 198 - 157430 - 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 443010 - 641210 -00000 0.00 495. 192330. 641900 -00000 0.00 PAGE 10 1 b J 1 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 26.20 0.00 26.20 19.83 0.00 19.83 22.09 0.00 22.09 16.76 0.00 16.76 18.49 0.00 18.49 86.13 0.00 86.13 17.97 0.00 17.97 48.24 0.00 48.24 13.57 0.00 13.57 61.49 0.00 61.49 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 445.96 521 - 122450 - 641400 -00000 0.00 57.51 0.00 57.51 144 - 144360 - 641900.00000 0.00 26.42 0.00 26.42 408. 253212 - 641100.00000 0.00 79.27 0.00 79.27 408. 233352 - 641100 -00000 0.00 144.40 0.00 144.40 001 - 144210 - 641900 -00000 0.00 13.88 0.00 13.88 521 - 122450- 641400 -00000 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.22 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J PAGE 11 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017366 020 - 480.3933 -001 02/18 408. 233351. 641100 -00000 0.00 103.50 0.00 103.50 02/18 591 -1611 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 426.20 CHECK NO 573035 VENDOR 333620 - AT &T WIRELESS 20018005 10026082 02/05 408 - 210130 - 641700 -00000 0.00 290.42 0.00 290.42 10026082 02/05 201522 20017445 10017101 01121 144 - 144360 - 641700 -00000 0.00 27.65 0.00 27.65 10017101 01121 860.1832 20017446 10042487 02/13 001 - 454010 - 641700 -00000 0.00 7.54 0.00 7.54 10042487 02/13 MULTI LINE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 325.61 CHECK NO 573111 VENDOR 351410 - ATLANTIS COMPUTER CENTER, INC 20018101 #16 491 - 144611. 654360 -33417 0.00 2,400.00 0.00 2,400.00 204274 TRAINING VOUCHERS 20018101 #16 491. 144611- 654360 -33417 0.00 527.00 0.00 527.00 154739 BOOKS /TRANSCENDERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,927.00 CHECK NO 572971 VENDOR 309230 - ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUND INC 20017372 64- 2002 - 000671 331. 163650- 631650 -60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 203104 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20017374 6420046801 02/12 113 - 138913- 631990 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 154453 AB ASTON GARDENS /PEL MARSH 20017307 64 -2002- 000877 331- 163650. 631650 -60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 203104 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20017307 64- 2002 - 000735 331 - 163650 - 631650 -60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 203104 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20017372 64- 2002 - 000672 331 - 163650 - 631650.60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 203104 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 850.00 CHECK NO 572935 VENDOR 286720 - AZTEK COMMUNICATIONS 20017294 1763 001 - 121141 - 634999 -00000 0.00 160.00 0.00 160.00 201352 WIRING /MAINTENANCE MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017294 1785 201352 WIRING /MAINTENANCE 20017294 1784 201352 WIRING /MAINTENANCE 20017294 1787 201352 WIRING /MAINTENANCE 20017294 1783 201352 WIRING /MAINTENANCE 20017294 1786 201352 WIRING /MAINTENANCE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 121141 - 634999 -00000 0.00 001. 121141- 634999 -00000 0.00 001. 121141- 634999 -00000 0.00 001 - 121141 - 634999.00000 0.00 001- 121141. 634999 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573007 VENDOR 323310 - AZURIX NORTH AMERICA UNDERGROUND 20017603 01093.2 RETAINAGE 414. 000000. 205100 -00000 201904 THRU 11/30/01 RETAINAGE 20017603 01093.2 #2 414- 263611 - 763100 -73050 201904 THRU 11/30/01 CHECK NO 572717 VENDOR 147980 - B & B TOWING 20017249 50263 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 200694 TOWING CHECK NO 572584 VENDOR 1740 - BAKER & TAYLOR CO 20017799 2008796301 355. 156175- 766100.80259 40.00 200548 BOOKS 40.00 20017799 5003530488 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 40.00 200548 BOOKS 40.00 20017799 5003532990 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 CHECK TOTAL 200548 BOOKS 380.00 20017799 5003524998 355 - 156175. 766100.80259 0.00 200548 BOOKS 0.00 20017799 5003537956 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 200548 BOOKS 0.00 16J1PAGE 12 „a AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 40.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 380.00 0.00 4.513.20- 0.00 4.513.20- 0.00 45.132.00 0.00 45.132.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 40,618.80 0.00 35.00 0.00 35.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 35.00 0.00 422.02 0.00 422.02 0.00 2.444.65 0.00 2.444.65 0.00 905.59 0.00 905.59 0.00 463.20 0.00 463.20 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017799 5003549388 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529428 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529436 200548 BOOKS 20017752 5003467017 201635 AUDIO BOOKS 20017799 5003519147 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003492441 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003537954 200548 BOOKS 20017752 5003467015 201635 AUDIO BOOKS 20017799 5003549387 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003549386 200548 BOOKS 20017271 5003559272 105140 BOOKS 20017799 3005299618 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003548546 200548 BOOKS 20017273 B49694302 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017799 5003553635 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003539147 200548 BOOKS 20017273 848492710 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR NET SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 001. 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 001. 156110- 652670 -00000 0.00 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 355. 156190 - 652670.00000 0.00 355. 156175. 766100.80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 1 / J � f 'PAGE 13 �6 `X AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 13.18 0.00 13.18 72.25 0.00 72.25 60.00 0.00 60.00 43.14 0.00 43.14 178.42 0.00 178.42 2,048.58 0.00 2,048.58 809.20 0.00 809.20 41.40 0.00 41.40 42.60 0.00 42.60 122.44 0.00 122.44 501.29 0.00 501.29 578.73 0.00 578.73 1,193.12 0.00 1,193.12 37.48 0.00 37.48 1.327.25 0.00 1.327.25 1,021.78 0.00 1,021.78 106.32 0.00 106.32 MARCH 13. 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 14 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017799 5003549390 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 699.73 0.00 699.73 200548 BOOKS 20017271 5003557071 2/26 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 172.25 0.00 172.25 105140 BOOKS 2/26 20017799 5003537955 355- 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 93.60 0.00 93.60 200548 BOOKS 20017273 849694301 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 14.98 0.00 14.98 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017271 5003358069 10/31/01 355. 156175- 766100 -80259 0.00 210.00 0.00 210.00 105140 BOOKS 20017799 5003545934 355. 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 511.97 0.00 511.97 200548 BOOKS 20017798 2008742582 001. 156110 - 652670.00000 0.00 189.86 0.00 189.86 201635 AUDIO CASSETTES 20017273 M10171700 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 18.74 0.00 18.74 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017799 2008779844 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 12.84 0.00 12.84 200548 BOOKS 20017271 5003343559 10/25/01 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 1,070.26 0.00 1,070.26 105140 BOOKS 20017751 B50022963 355 - 156190- 652670 -00000 0.00 44.98 0.00 44.98 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017271 5003559818 2/26 355 - 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 466.47 0.00 466.47 105140 BOOKS 20017273 B48492711 355 - 156190. 652670.00000 0.00 42.97 0.00 42.97 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017751 B50022960 355. 156190- 652670 -00000 0.00 52.46 0.00 52.46 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017799 5003529433 355. 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 182.45 0.00 182.45 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529434 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 241.83 0.00 241.83 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529432 355. 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 118.25 0.00 118.25 200548 BOOKS MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017799 2008769742 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529431 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529429 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003549389 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003540974 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003545935 200548 BOOKS 20017799 2008769773 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003451524 200548 BOOKS 20017799 2008742590 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003537981 200548 BOOKS 20017799 0000885373 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003544610 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529437 200548 BOOKS 20017273 B49694300 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017799 5003549384 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003537166 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003530489 200548 BOOKS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355. 156175- 766100 -80259 0.00 355. 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355. 156175. 766100.80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355. 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 355 - 156190. 652670 -00000 0.00 355. 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 PAGE 15 16J1 a.? AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 299.93 0.00 299.93 30.51 0.00 30.51 583.72 0.00 583.72 501.53 0.00 501.53 125.13 0.00 125.13 54.84 0.00 54.84 365.87 0.00 365.87 4.036.72 0.00 4.036.72 150.45 0.00 150.45 2.540.86 0.00 2,540.86 49.55- 0.00 49.55- 893.28 0.00 893.28 30.60 0.00 30.60 239.30 0.00 239.30 7.77 0.00 7.77 17.95 0.00 17.95 129.78 0.00 129.78 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA J PAGE 16 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 6 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017799 5003539165 355. 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 84.66 0.00 84.66 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529524 355. 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 50.94 0.00 50.94 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003549929 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 233.55 0.00 233.55 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003537957 355 - 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 240.00 0.00 240.00 200548 BOOKS 20017752 5003467015 001 - 156110. 652670 -00000 0.00 163.83 0.00 163.83 201635 AUDIO BOOKS 20017799 5003551171 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 264.80 0.00 264.80 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003532995 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 985.10 0.00 985.10 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003545987 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 75.76 0.00 75.76 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529435 355. 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 520.39 0.00 520.39 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003461256 355. 156175- 766100 -80259 0.00 244.49 0.00 244.49 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003532997 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 55.92 0.00 55.92 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003547278 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 300.60 0.00 300.60 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003549841 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 3,511.20 0.00 3.511.20 200548 BOOKS 20017273 648492712 355 - 156190. 652670 -00000 0.00 898.02 0.00 898.02 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017799 2008769741 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 195.77 0.00 195.77 200548 BOOKS 20017273 M10171701 355. 156190 - 652670.00000 0.00 538.68 0.00 538.68 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017799 5003549391 355. 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 46.71 0.00 46.71 200548 BOOKS MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017799 5003530487 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003537958 200548 BOOKS 20017273 B49908760 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017799 5003537951 200548 BOOKS 20017751 B50022961 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017799 5003537976 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003543238 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003537950 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003549383 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003529430 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003536016 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003490696 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003549382 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003530229 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003549445 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003537953 200548 BOOKS 20017799 2008748574 200548 BOOKS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 355 - 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156190. 652670 -00000 0.00 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355. 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 355. 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 355 - 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 PAGE 17 1611 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 7.19 0.00 7.19 60.12 0.00 60.12 17.83 0.00 17.83 136.33 0.00 136.33 117.67 0.00 117.67 125.31 0.00 125.31 161.15 0.00 161.15 195.39 0.00 195.39 567.75 0.00 567.75 8.40 0.00 8.40 231.05 0.00 231.05 1,437.36 0.00 1,437.36 973.16 0.00 973.16 57.80. 0.00 57.80 24.00 0.00 24.00 204.46 0.00 204.46 222.17 0.00 222.17 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 18 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J1 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 �y VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017799 5003537952 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 27.06 0.00 27.06 200548 BOOKS 20017799 0000885379 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 19.18- 0.00 19.18- 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003530490 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 83.10 0.00 83.10 200548 BOOKS 20017799 5003465603 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 157.52 0.00 157.52 200548 BOOKS 20017751 B50022962 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 209.72 0.00 209.72 204182 VIDEOS &CD'S 20017799 5003549385 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 214.23 0.00 214.23 200548 BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 40,224.98 CHECK NO 572719 VENDOR 150030 BARANY, SCHMITT & WEAVER 20017874 2329 355 - 156150 - 631500 -33776 0.00 22,725.00 0.00 22,725.00 203536 1/1 -31/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 22,725.00 CHECK NO 572666 VENDOR 106210 BARNES INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC PIPING 20017250 T10018548 408.253211- 655100 -00000 0.00 63.72 0.00 63.72 203112 SEAL REPAIR KIT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 63.72 CHECK NO 573122 VENDOR 352140 • BAY TITLE SERVICES & ANNA BAILEY 20017901 D/P BAILEY #00395040005 191. 138785- 884100 -33752 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2.500.00 #00395040005 A BAILEY 204694 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,500.00 CHECK NO 573001 VENDOR 321490 - BEACH CONSTRUCTION CO 20018139 #8 -FINAL 412. 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 11.509.21 411. 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 11.509.22 0.00 23.018.43 103418 - 12/31/01 RELEASE RETAINAGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 23,018.43 CHECK NO 572810 VENDOR 209940 - BENNETT FIRE PRODUCTS CO. INC. MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 J 1 l PA 19 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017261 020702 -2 490 - 144610 - 652110 -00000 0.00 482.00 0.00 482.00 151314 GLOBE JACKET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 482.00 CHECK NO 572815 VENDOR 214780 - BERRY'S BARBELL & EQUIPMENT CO. 20017754 148 111. 156313- 646970 -00000 0.00 123.30 0.00 123.30 201448 EQ.REPAIRS 20017754 157 111 - 156313. 646970 -00000 0.00 28.00 0.00 28.00 201448 EQ.REPAIRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 151.30 CHECK NO 572585 VENDOR 1910 - BETTER ROADS, INC. 20017361 22697 111 - 163645. 653130.00000 0.00 6,968.74 0.00 6,968.74 201573 ASPHALT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,968.74 CHECK NO 572586 VENDOR 2270 - BOARD OF CNTY COMMISSIONERS 20017912 PP #12 001. 000000. 217210 -00000 0.00 2.464.74 001 - 000000. 217220 -00000 0.00 8,030.77 0.00 10,495.51 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10.495.51 CHECK NO 572587 VENDOR 2310 - BOB DEAN SUPPLY, INC. 20017259 900600 408- 233351. 652990 -00000 0.00 263.05 0.00 263.05 204417 METAL PROD. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 263.05 CHECK NO 572704 VENDOR 133300 - BOB TAYLOR CHEVROLET 20017248 117571 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 27.76 0.00 27.76 203456 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 27.76 CHECK NO 572745 VENDOR 168720 - BONITA AUTO SUPPLY /NAPA 20017274 576418 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 30.24 0.00 30.24 203458 PARTS 20017272 576365 521- 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 67.50- 0.00 67.50- 203458 PARTS MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS / J (`r,J PAGE 20 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER+/] FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017274 577069 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 56.84 0.00 56.84 203458 PARTS 20017272 575925 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 15.20 0.00 15.20 203458 PARTS 20017272 575205 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 154.69 0.00 154.69 203458 PARTS 20017272 576140 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 106.05 0.00 106.05 203458 PARTS 20017272 576157 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 11.62 0.00 11.62 203458 PARTS 20017272 576274 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 42.91 0.00 42.91 203458 PARTS 20017272 575708 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 27.18 0.00 27.18 203458 PARTS 20017274 577013 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 30.50 0.00 30.50 203458 PARTS 20017272 575933 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 11.83 0.00 11.83 203458 PARTS 20017272 575689 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 15.20 0.00 15.20 203458 PARTS 20017272 575919 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 203.14 0.00 203.14 203458 PARTS 20017272 575928 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 17.43 0.00 17.43 203458 PARTS 20017272 575673 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 154.69- 0.00 154.69- 203458 PARTS 20017272 575676 521 - 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 44.41 0.00 44.41 203458 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 545.05 CHECK NO 572920 VENDOR 280540 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION SUPPLY 20017753 8007743 -00 111- 156332 - 646311 -00000 0.00 260.00 0.00 260.00 203477 IRRIG.PARTS 20017247 8007622.00 111 - 156334 - 646311.00000 0.00 18.77 0.00 18.77 203481 IRRIG.PARTS MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ; PAGE 21 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER -d" FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017247 8007692 -00 111 - 156334.646311 -00000 0.00 11.81 0.00 11.81 203481 IRRIG.PARTS 20017246 8007644 -00 111- 156332 - 646311.00000 0.00 36.30 0.00 36.30 203477 IRRIG.PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 326.88 CHECK NO 573153 VENDOR 900040 BRADANNA INC. 301523 BRADANNA 05826576000 408- 253212 - 649980 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 BRADANNA 4493 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 150.00 CHECK NO 573154 VENDOR 900040 BRADANNA, INC. 301522 BRADANNA 05826576000 411 - 273511 - 649980 -00000 0.00 4,200.00 0.00 4,200.00 BRADANNA 4473 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4.200.00 CHECK NO 572588 VENDOR 2500 BRODART, INC. 20016945 261517 001 - 156110 - 652610 -00000 0.00 46.65 001 - 156110 - 641950.00000 0.00 8.96 0.00 55.61 154599 LAMINATE 20017199 186751 001 - 156170 - 651910 -00000 0.00 282.75 0.00 282.75 153380 CART DISPLAY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 338.36 CHECK NO 573157 VENDOR 900050 BROWN NOLTEMEYER 301491 318705 BROWN 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 155.00 0.00 155.00 318705 BROWN REFUND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 155.00 CHECK NO 572720 VENDOR 151240 BSN 20017256 90832597 111 - 156332. 652990 -00000 0.00 85.00 0.00 85.00 153643 STEEL DRAG MAT 20016927 90833929 111 - 156332 - 646315.00000 0.00 440.00 0.00 440.00 153644 ATHLETIC EQ. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 525.00 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA / PAGE 22 A REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (`+1J J 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572952 VENDOR 295300 BUMPER TO BUMPER 20017275 1274925 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 70.57 0.00 70.57 201289 PARTS 20017275 1274831 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 3.83 0.00 3.83 201289 PARTS 20017280 1274942 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 5.61 0.00 5.61 203457 PARTS 20017275 1275003 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 9.24 0.00 9.24 201289 PARTS 20017275 1275023 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 38.71 0.00 38.71 201289 PARTS 20017276 1275062 521- 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 5.61 0.00 5.61 203457 PARTS 20017275 1275021 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 7.82 0.00 7.82 201289 PARTS 20017280 1274929 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 22.39 0.00 22.39 203457 PARTS 20017275 1275024 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 9.97 0.00 9.97 201289 PARTS 20017280 1274898 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 27.91 0.00 27.91 203457 PARTS 20017280 1274833 521 - 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 15.72 0.00 15.72 203457 PARTS 20017280 1274849 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 18.19 0.00 18.19 203457 PARTS 20017280 1274927 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 64.73 0.00 64.73 203457 PARTS 20017275 1274943 521. 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 8.66 0.00 8.66 201289 PARTS 20017275 1274832 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 7.66 0.00 7.66 201289 PARTS 20017280 1274579 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 7.20 0.00 7.20 203457 PARTS MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017280 1274926 203457 PARTS 20017280 C24395 203457 PARTS 20017275 1274882 201289 PARTS 20017276 1275061 203457 PARTS 20017280 C24415 203457 PARTS 20017280 1274794 203457 PARTS 20017280 1274967 203457 PARTS 20017275 1274896 201289 PARTS 20017275 1274928 201289 PARTS 20017276 1275064 203457 PARTS 20017276 1275059 203457 PARTS 20017275 1274985 201289 PARTS 20017280 1275128 203457 PARTS 20017280 1274803 203457 PARTS 20017280 1274815 203457 PARTS 20017275 1274966 201289 PARTS 20017280 1274972 203457 PARTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR NET SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521- 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 .rPAGE 23 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 72.14 0.00 72.14 7.20- 0.00 7.20- 2.79 0.00 2.79 22.50 0.00 22.50 38.21- 0.00 38.21- 47.93 0.00 47.93 67.20 0.00 67.20 171.85 0.00 171.85 38.43 0.00 38.43 29.04 0.00 29.04 29.04 0.00 29.04 11.87 0.00 11.87 5.10 0.00 5.10 27.64 0.00 27.64 22.39 0.00 22.39 5.71 0.00 5.71 28.56 0.00 28.56 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD O b J PAGE 24 DCOMMISSIONECKAREGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 860.60 CHECK NO 573052 VENDOR 338610 - BURNS VETERINARY SUPPLY 20017279 5352420 001 - 155410. 652710 -00000 0.00 46.85 0.00 46.85 154177 MED.SUPPL. 20017279 5350349 001 - 155410. 652710 -00000 0.00 8.20 0.00 8.20 154177 MED.SUPPL. 20017279 5327086 CREDIT FOR RETURN 001 - 155410 - 652710 -00000 0.00 29.70- 0.00 29.70- 154177 5327086 CREDIT FOR RETURN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25.35 CHECK NO 572894 VENDOR 268820 BUSINESS & LEGAL REPORTS 20017260 3961730 408 - 233312 - 652920 -00000 0.00 534.95 0.00 534.95 153028 CD ROM. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 534.95 CHECK NO 573107 VENDOR 350930 BUSINESS FORECAST SYSTEMS, INC 20017257 10953 495- 192310 - 652920.00000 0.00 607.00 0.00 607.00 153863 FORECAST STAND /EDITION CHECK TOTAL 0.00 607.00 CHECK NO 573011 VENDOR 324500 - BUSINESS HEALTH 20017270 CCG001 -2 001 - 121810. 631230 -00000 0.00 1.160.00 0.00 1,160.00 202392 PRE- EMPL.PHYS /DRUGTEST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.160.00 CHECK NO 572770 VENDOR 186290 - BWI /BOOK WHOLESALERS, INC. 20017277 1221867 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 69.42 0.00 69.42 200562 CHILDRENS TITLES 20017251 1230395 355.156190- 766100 -00000 0.00 442.79 0.00 442.79 200562 CHILDREN'S TITLES 20017277 1226738 355. 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 286.75 0.00 286.75 200562 CHILDRENS TITLES 20017251 229794 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 336.05 0.00 336.05 200562 CHILDREN'S TITLES MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 25 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 16J1 i VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017277 1229017 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 228.69 0.00 228.69 200562 CHILDRENS TITLES 20017277 1227706 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 236.44 0.00 236.44 200562 CHILDRENS TITLES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,600.14 CHECK NO 572883 VENDOR 264640 - C. G. CLEAN 20017671 2 -11 -02 521. 122410- 646415 -00000 0.00 570.00 0.00 570.00 153985 CLEAN UP /AMBULANCE #SACCIDENT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 570.00 CHECK NO 572828 VENDOR 230790 C.E.D. INC. 20017342 4977. 357149 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 201239 SUPPL. 20017342 4977.33174 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 87.60 0.00 87.60 201239 SUPPL. 20017342 4977.33176 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 163.18 0.00 163.18 201239 SUPPL. 20017342 4977 -33028 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 190.20 0.00 190.20 201239 SUPPL. 20017338 4977. 320354 778 - 182701- 652990 -00000 0.00 206.25 0.00 206.25 200081 EL.SUPPL. 20017337 4977 -33812 778 - 182701- 652990 -00000 0.00 204.33 0.00 204.33 200081 EL.SUPPL. 20017339 4977 -33248 778 - 182701 - 652990 -00000 0.00 10.29 0.00 10.29 200081 EL.SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,036.85 CHECK NO 572776 VENDOR 193260 CALYPSO CAR WASH 20017359 1 -10- 20000033 521 - 122410. 646415 -00000 0.00 22.50 0.00 22.50 202168 CAR WASH 20017359 1 -10. 980009 521 - 122410 - 646415.00000 0.00 24.50 0.00 24.50 202168 CAR WASH 20017566 CAR WASH JAN 02 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 371.00 0.00 371.00 200962 CAR WASHES 13, EOFCCOMMISSIONERSFLORIDA 1 QGE 26 REPORT 100-60CH BOARD 1 6 J SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER , FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017359 1 -03- 010097 521 - 122410. 646415 -00000 0.00 22.50 0.00 22.50 202168 CAR WASH 20017359 1.02- 970002 521. 122410. 646415 -00000 0.00 22.50 0.00 22.50 202168 CAR WASH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 463.00 CHECK NO 573183 VENDOR 900140 - CAMDEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT 301506 ST VS R.KIPP 00 -1216 681 - 421190 - 634401 -00000 0.00 26.00 0.00 26.00 ST. VS. R. KIPP 00 -1216 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 26.00 CHECK NO 572839 VENDOR 236820 - CANAL BANK ASSOCIATES, INC. 20017756 020157 495. 192330- 646160 -00000 0.00 765.76 0.00 765.76 154094 LIGHTING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 765.76 CHECK NO 572685 VENDOR 117000 - CAPRI LANDSCAPING & LAWN SERVICE 20017591 079452 111 - 163647 - 634999 -00000 0.00 64.31 0.00 64.31 200366 SUPPLIES 20017591 079281 111. 163647- 634999 -00000 0.00 89.00 0.00 89.00 200366 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 153.31 CHECK NO 572590 VENDOR 2860 CAPRI LAWN & GARDEN EQUIP 20017592 79562 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 15.53 0.00 15.53 200616 SUPPLIES 20017592 79731 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 6.45 0.00 6.45 200616 SUPPLIES 20017592 79746 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 71.24 0.00 71.24 200616 SUPPLIES 20017593 79347 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 233.37 0.00 233.37 200616 SUPPLIES 20017592 079594 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 113.91 0.00 113.91 200616 SUPPLIES 20017594 079464 001 - 172930 - 652990 -00000 0.00 94.06 0.00 94.06 200467 SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 27 REPORT 100-601 OF C TAILEEDD COHECK REGOI0STER 16J1 FOR VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017592 79499 521- 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 160.14 0.00 160.14 200616 SUPPLIES 20017592 79605 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 16.05 0.00 16.05 200616 SUPPLIES 20017593 79405 521- 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 59.54 0.00 59.54 200616 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 770.29 CHECK NO 573128 VENDOR 352410 CARD SOLUTIONS CORP 20017665 4284 111 - 138911. 651910 -00000 0.00 484.29 0.00 484.29 154480 LAMINATE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 484.29 CHECK NO 572782 VENDOR 193540 CARIBBEAN LAWN SERVICE 20017349 3486 141 - 112555. 634999.00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 200498 ROADSIDE MOWING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 500.00 CHECK NO 572589 VENDOR 2810 - CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUAL, 20018025 255234 111 - 138317. 631100.00000 0.00 78.08 0.00 78.08 101931 PROF SVC 11/30 20018025 258970 111 - 138317. 631100 -00000 0.00 352.00 0.00 352.00 101931 PROF SVC 12/31 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 430.08 CHECK NO 573079 VENDOR 345850 CARSO, INC, 20017440 7033 109 - 182901 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,040.00 0.00 1,040.00 203975 BASAGRAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.040.00 CHECK NO 572800 VENDOR 201920 CARTER FENCE COMPANY INC. 20017674 151 001 - 156363. 646317 -00000 0.00 475.00 0.00 475.00 153677 REPAIRS 20017676 174 111 - 156313. 646317 -00000 0.00 875.00 0.00 875.00 154051 INSTALL FENCE MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS -0 �3 PAGE 28 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017681 180 111 - 156341 - 644600.00000 0.00 1.999.00 0.00 1.999,00 204011 TEMP FENCING 20017656 98 111 - 156313 - 646317.00000 0.00 195.00 0.00 195.00 154054 INSTALL FENCING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.544.00 CHECK NO 573042 VENDOR 334310 CDWG GOVERNMENT, INC. 20017668 FJ19979 001 - 122240 - 651910 -00000 0.00 278.31 0.00 278.31 153497 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 278.31 CHECK NO 572790 VENDOR 196910 CECIL'S COPY EXPRESS 20017657 12979 413. 263611- 647110 -74030 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 153746 COPIES 20017344 12978 111. 138317- 651210 -00000 0.00 675.87 0.00 675.87 200516 COPIES 20017344 12977 111 - 138317 - 651210.00000 0.00 201.50 0.00 201.50 200516 COPIES 20017661 12964 001- 155410 - 652910.00000 0.00 35.00 0.00 35.00 154176 BANNER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.112.37 CHECK NO 572591 VENDOR 3050 - CERTIFIED LABORATORIES 20017655 636739 001 - 122240 - 652510 -00000 0.00 251.20 0.00 251.20 152763 CLEANING SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 251.20 CHECK NO 572773 VENDOR 187510 - CH2M HILL 20017183 #37 331. 163650- 631400 -60111 0.00 0.00 414. 263611 - 631400 -74013 0.00 4.387.03 313. 163673- 631401 -69101 0.00 0.00 313. 163673. 631400 -60111 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,387.03 403363 12/29/01- 1/25/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4.387.03 CHECK NO 572787 VENDOR 195900 - CHARLES B. HUMAN MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017865 TRAVEL 2/7 -22/02 TRAVEL 2/7 -22/02 C HUMAN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111. 156381. 640200 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573158 VENDOR 900050 - CHARLES CILIBRASI 301509 REF ADOPTION C. CILIBRASI 610 - 155410 - 346450 -00000 0.00 REF ADOPTION C. CILIBRASI 301508 REF ADOPTION C. CILIBRASI 001. 155410- 346410 -00000 0.00 REF ADOPTION C. CILIBRASI CHECK NO 573074 VENDOR 344770 - CHARLES TOWNS 20017760 INSTRUCTOR 130 - 157710 - 634999 -00000 0.00 201065 INSTRUCTOR CHECK NO 572706 VENDOR 133880 - CHECKPOINT 20017682 I16533 204116 SECURITY 20017682 I16534 204116 SECURITY 20017755 183539 153115 CHARGES 20017332 CHP4941 03/02 200849 SVS FEE ALARM SYSTEM 001. 122240- 652992 -00000 0.00 001. 122240- 646281 -00000 0.00 408. 233352. 634999 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410- 634999 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572738 VENDOR 165950 CHECKPOINT, LTD. VCHR DISC 20017333 S5922 0.00 001. 122240. 646281 -00000 0.00 0.00 202346 MONITORING 0.00 30.00 20017333 A181306 20.00 001. 122240 - 646281 -00000 0.00 50.00 202346 MONITORING 90.00 20.00 20017590 185058 110.25 198 - 157410. 634999 -00000 0.00 20.00 200580 SUPPLIES 20017333 184234 001. 122240- 646281 -00000 0.00 202346 MONITORING PAGE 29 16J1 0.00 247.00 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 18.27 0.00 18.27 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 18.27 30.00 0.00 30.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 247.00 0.00 247.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 247.00 3,400.00 0.00 3,400.00 499.00 0.00 499.00 149.70 0.00 149.70 24.95 0.00 24.95 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,073.65 90.00 0.00 90.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 110.25 0.00 110.25 20.00 0.00 20.00 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J1 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20017333 182929 001- 122240 - 646281.00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 202346 MONITORING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572780 VENDOR 193460 CHEMICAL LIME COMPANY 20017438 00136665 408 - 253211.652310 -00000 0.00 2,994.35 0.00 202567 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572592 VENDOR 3190 CHEVRON 20017351 789- 869 -275 -6 JAN /02 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 46.29 0.00 200617 FUEL OUT OF TOWN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573093 VENDOR 348740 - CHILD CARE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA.INC 20017872 REGIST -D SAWYER /J JOHNSON 130. 157710 - 654360 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 152186 REGISTER -D SAWYER /J JOHNSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572789 VENDOR 196680 - CHIVERS AUDIO BOOKS 20018028 5056370 355.156190- 652670 -00000 0.00 1,216.37 0.00 201639 AUDIO CASS 20018028 218615 355 - 156190.652670 -00000 0.00 288.60 0.00 201639 AUDIO CASS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573087 VENDOR 347760 CHOICEPOINT PUBLIC RECORDS, INC 20017663 B. PEREZ 01 -0852 681 - 421190 - 634401 -00000 0.00 58.00 0.00 B. PEREZ 01 -0852 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572593 VENDOR 3360 CITY OF EVERGLADES 20017350 339 495.192350- 643400.00000 0.00 35.00 0.00 200262 WATER &SEWER SVS 20017350 337 495 - 192350. 643400 -00000 0.00 39.00 0.00 200262 WATER &SEWER SVS MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017350 338 1/25 200262 WATER &SEWER SVS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 495 - 192350 - 643400 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572594 VENDOR 3390 - CITY OF NAPLES PAGE 31 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 35.32 0.00 35.32 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 109.32 20016280 10963. 46046/10965- 108954 001. 000000- 155900.00000 0.00 1.595.50 0.00 1.595.50 10963. 46046/10965- 108954 11/5 -1/16 20016280 10963 - 46046/10965- 108954 001. 122260 - 643400 -00000 0.00 18.642.77 001. 041010- 643400 -00000 0.00 8,006.80 001. 051020. 643400 -00000 0.00 2.883.94 001. 061010- 643400 -00000 0.00 12,175.32 001. 081020- 643400 -00000 0.00 4.311.48 001 - 443010 - 643400 -00000 0.00 2,933.03 001 - 155810 - 643400 -00000 0.00 8,278.63 001 - 454010 - 643400 -00000 0.00 878.20 111. 178980- 643400 -00000 0.00 559.33 114 - 178975 - 643400 -00000 0.00 1,028.66 0.00 59.698.16 10963. 46046/10965- 108954 11/5 -1/16 20017441 3273 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 2,788.61 0.00 2.788.61 200958 FUEL COSTS 20017437 3278 111 - 163646. 643400 -00000 0.00 1,038.08 0.00 1.038.08 202612 SUPPLIES 20017757 29761- 106094 12/18 -2/25 111 - 156332 - 643400.00000 0.00 13.45 0.00 13.45 29761- 106094 12/18 -2/25 20016280 10963 - 46046/10965- 108954 408- 210105 - 643400.00000 0.00 1.988.01 408 - 210155 - 643400 -00000 0.00 567.97 470. 173410 - 643400 -00000 0.00 568.20 490 - 144610- 643400 -00000 0.00 1.038.21 516 - 121650 - 643400 -00000 0.00 87.73 517 - 121640. 643400 -00000 0.00 175.23 518 - 121630. 643400 -00000 0.00 198.41 681 - 410510 - 643400 -00000 0.00 10.981.42 681 - 410710 - 643400 -00000 0.00 312.51 681 - 431310. 643400 -00000 0.00 842.05 0.00 16.759.74 10963 - 46046/10965- 108954 11/5 -1/16 20017567 27743 - 105544 12/20 -2/20 111 - 163646. 643400.00000 0.00 16.753.59 0.00 16.753.59 27743 - 105544 12120 -2120 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 98.647.13 CHECK NO 572747 VENDOR 168900 - CITY OF NAPLES MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018026 LOCKBOX WE 3/1 & 3/8 LOCKBOX WE 3/1 -3/8 20018027 COLLECTIONS WE 3/1 & 3/8 COLLECTIONS WE 3/1 & 3/8 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408. 000000 - 208750 -00000 0.00 408. 000000 - 208751 -00000 0.00 408. 000000- 208764 -00000 0.00 408 - 000000. 208750 -00000 0.00 408 - 000000 - 208751 -00000 0.00 408. 000000- 208764 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573147 VENDOR 353310 - CITY OF NAPLES, RIVER PARK 20017869 J COLETTA 2/13 BANQUET 001 - 010110 - 640310 -01005 0.00 154689 J COLETTA 2/13 BANQUET CHECK NO 572676 VENDOR 111750 CLARK'S NURSERY 20017436 807 111 - 163646 - 646320 -00000 0.00 204218 SUPPLIES 20017670 822 111 - 163646. 646320 -00000 0.00 CLARK'S NURSERY 20017345 330 111 - 156332 - 646320 -00000 0.00 203256 FICUS BUSH 20017345 180 111 - 156332 - 646320 -00000 0.00 203256 FICUS BUSH CHECK NO 572953 VENDOR 296230 CLERK OF COURTS - HIGHLAND COUNTY 20017926 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 218810 -00000 0.00 PP #12 CHECK NO 573041 VENDOR 334300 CLORTEC 20017439 59204 441. 256110. 646970 -00000 0.00 203119 SUPPLIES CHECK NO 572764 VENDOR 182370 - COASTAL APPRAISAL SERVICES PAGE 32 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 51.509.98 12,735.67 122.75 0.00 64,368.40 13,053.50 3,333.40 542.44 0.00 16.929.34 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 81.297.74 25.00 0.00 25.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25.00 4,201.00 0.00 4,201.00 465.00 0.00 465.00 445.50 0.00 445.50 144.00 0.00 144.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5,255.50 177.62 0.00 177.62 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 177.62 3.418.68 0.00 3.418.68 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,418.68 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018146 29448 107360 PROF SVS 12/18 -1/31 20018146 29450 107360 PROF SVS 12/18 -1/31 20018146 29449 107360 PROF SVS 12/18 -1/31 20018146 29415 107360 PROF SVS 12/18 -1/31 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 313 - 163673 - 631600 -62071 0.00 313 - 163673. 631600 -62071 0.00 313 - 163673. 631600 -62071 0.00 313 - 163673 - 631600 -62071 0.00 CHECK NO 572595 VENDOR 3570 - COASTAL COURIER 20017353 629 470. 173435 - 634999 -00000 0.00 202144 COURIER SVS CHECK NO 573105 VENDOR 350590 - COLLECTION SERVICES CENTER 20017933 PP #12 001 - 000000- 218810 -00000 0.00 PP #12 CHECK NO 572560 VENDOR 130700 - COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 20018127 98.1034 001- 013010 - 649040 -00000 0.00 AND CHECK NO 572702 VENDOR 130700 - COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 20017758 0971 101 - 163610- 649990.00000 0.00 154266 FALSE ALARMS 20017758 1040 101 - 163610 - 649990 -00000 0.00 154266 FALSE ALARMS CHECK NO 572557 VENDOR 8050 - COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 20018123 20020068 TAGS & TITLE 408. 253211- 649010 -00000 0.00 AND 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 1,905.00 0.00 4.430.00 0.00 3.810.00 0.00 13.620.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 PAGE 33 VCHR NET 1.905.00 4.430.00 3,810.00 13,620.00 23,765.00 312.00 0.00 312.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 312.00 316.24 0.00 316.24 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 316.24 20.00 0.00 20.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 150.00 52.85 0.00 52.85 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 572556 VENDOR 8050 - COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 20018030 20020076 TAGS & TITLE 521. 122410. 649010.00000 AND CHECK NO 572600 VENDOR 3690 - COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING 20017650 07806012500 1/25 -2/25 408. 233351- 643400 -00000 52.85 07806012500 1/25 -2/25 0.00 20016241 04717634900 1/8 -2/7 408 - 233351 - 643400.00000 18.09 04717634900 1/8 -2/7 0.00 20017564 06302558100 1/22.2/19 111. 156332 - 643400 -00000 342.38 06302558100 1/22 -2/19 0.00 20017564 05701733800 1/22 -2/19 408 - 253212 - 643400 -00000 24.00 05701733800 1/22 -2/19 0.00 20017650 07501887900 1/25 -2/25 001. 156180 - 643400 -00000 547.38 07501887900 1/25 -2/25 0.00 20016242 02702201500 12/28 -1/29 111. 163646 - 643400 -00000 521.32 02702201500 12/28 -1/29 0.00 20016388 04900602901 1/9 -2/5 408. 233351- 643400 -00000 12.00 049006029011/9 -2/5 0.00 20017336 05418830500 1/15 -2/11 001 - 155410. 643400 -00000 05418830500 1/15 -2/11 20017680 06910223500 1/24 -2/21 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 06910223500 1/24 -2/21 20017564 06302570700 1/22 -2/19 111. 156332- 643400 -00000 06302570700 1/22 -2/19 20017565 05400738300 1/15 -2/11 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 05400738300 1/15 -2/11 20016241 04614614700$ 1/9 -2/5 408 - 233351. 643400.00000 04614614700 1/9.2/5 20017564 06302614700 1/22 -2/19 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 06302614700 1/22 -2/19 PAGE 34 16J1, AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 52.85 0.00 52.85 0.00 52.85 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 52.85 0.00 26.03 0.00 26.03 0.00 18.09 0.00 18.09 0.00 177.24 0.00 177.24 0.00 342.38 0.00 342.38 0.00 425.55 0.00 425.55 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 116.46 0.00 116.46 0.00 547.38 0.00 547.38 0.00 123.72 0.00 123.72 0.00 521.32 0.00 521.32 0.00 69.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 76.30 0.00 76.30 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017650 07809800300 1/25 -2/25 07809800300 1/25 -2/25 20017564 06304397400 1/22 -2/19 06304397400 1/22 -2/19 20016242 04304356201 1/7 -2/4 0430435620 1/7 -2/4 20016388 02033620900 1/9 -2/5 020336209001/9 -2/5 20016388 05101636000 1/9 -2/5 051016360001/9 -2/5 20016388 06102727101 1/9 -2/5 061027271011/9 -2/5 20016388 06102553000 1/9 -2/5 061025530001/9 -2/5 20017680 07202279600 1/24 -2/21 07202279600 1/24 -2/21 20017680 05501890800 1/24 -2/21 05501890800 1/24 -2/21 20016388 04901636100 1/9 -2/5 049016361001/9 -2/5 20016388 04901636200 1/9 -2/5 049016362001/9 -2/5 20016242 06910223500 12/20 -1/23 06910223500 12/20.1/23 20016388 04601343400 1/9 -2/5 046013434001/9 -2/5 20016388 04817635000 1/9 -2/5 048176350001/9 -2/5 20016388 03610634100 1/9 -2/5 036106341001/9 -2/5 20017564 05713524200 1/22 -2/19 05713524200 1/22 -2/19 20017680 07200800701 1/24 -2/21 07200800701 1/24 -2/21 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408- 233351. 643400.00000 0.00 001 - 156363. 643400 -00000 0.00 111. 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 470. 173431- 643400 -00000 0.00 111 - 163646 - 643400.00000 0.00 001 - 061010. 643200 -00000 0.00 001 - 061010. 643200 -00000 0.00 408 - 233352. 643400 -00000 0.00 113. 138900- 643400.00000 0.00 111 - 163646 - 643400.00000 0.00 111 - 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 643400 -00000 0.00 490 - 144610 - 643400 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 643400.00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 643400.00000 0.00 111 - 163646. 643400 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 0.00 PAGE 35 16J1'y AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 24.00 0.00 24.00 404.86 0.00 404.86 73.06 0.00 73.06 1,033.14 0.00 1,033.14 90.99 0.00 90.99 63.99 0.00 63.99 44.69 0.00 44.69 766.95 0.00 766.95 295.73 0.00 295.73 204.37 0.00 204.37 161.74 0.00 161.74 35.96 0.00 35.96 56.04 0.00 56.04 12.00 0.00 12.00 1,291.06 0.00 1.291.06 55.46 0.00 55.46 16.32 0.00 16.32 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017680 05404171300 1/24 -2/21 05404171300 1/24 -2/21 20016242 06910223500 12/20 -1/23 06910223500 12/20 -1/23 20016388 04500046000 1/9 -2/5 045000460001/9 -2/5 20017650 07801844100 1/25 -2/25 07801844100 1/25 -2/25 20017564 06302463900 1/22 -2/19 06302463900 1/22 -2/19 20016241 04602512600 1/9 -2/6 04602512600 1/9 -2/6 20017650 07511796700 1/25 -2/25 07511796700 1/25 -2/25 20017680 07502258100 1/24 -2/21 07502258100 1/24 -2/21 20016242 06910223500 12/20 -1/23 06910223500 12/20 -1/23 20016388 04305557801 1/9 -2/5 043055578011/9 -2/5 20016388 03603211900 1/9 -2/5 036032119001/9 -2/5 20017564 05726214000 1/22 -2/19 05726214000 1/22 -2/19 20016241 03918623200 1/4 -2/1 03918623200 1/4 -2/1 20017680 07230566800 1/24 -2/21 07230566800 1/24 -2/21 20016388 04809876801 1/9 -2/5 048098768011/9 -2/5 20016388 05108341500 1/9 -2/5 051083415001/9 -2/5 20017650 06307653500 1/25 -2/25 06307653500 1/25 -2/25 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111 - 156313. 643400 -00000 0.00 101. 163620 - 643400 -00000 0.00 408. 233351- 643400 -00000 0.00 408. 253211 - 643400 -00000 0.00 111. 156332- 643400 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 643400 -00000 0.00 111- 156332 - 643400.00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 643400 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 0.00 111 - 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 111 - 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 408- 233351 - 643400 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351. 643400 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332. 643400 -00000 0.00 111. 163646. 643400 -00000 0.00 408 - 233312 - 643400 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 PAGE 36 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC VAR NET 1.492.18 0.00 1,492.18 35.96 0.00 35.96 24.00 0.00 24.00 188.40 0.00 188.40 59.66 0.00 59.66 40.80 0.00 40.80 452.68 0.00 452.68 40.80 0.00 40.80 35.96 0.00 35.96 89.00 0.00 89.00 1.291.06 0.00 1,291.06 12.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 69.00 0.00 69.00 1.267.26 0.00 1.267.26 167.26 0.00 167.26 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20016388 04901635900 1/9 -2/5 049016359001/9 -2/5 20017564 05702185200 1/22 -2/19 05702185200 1/22 -2/19 20017650 07202279700 1/25 -2/25 07202279700 1/25 -2/25 20016388 05104076500 1/9 -2/5 051040765001/9.2 /5 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111- 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351. 643400 -00000 0.00 408 - 233352. 643400 -00000 0.00 111 - 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572948 VENDOR 292660 - COLLIER CUSTOM GLASS 20017662 6362 001 - 122240. 646110 -00000 153577 SUPPLIES CHECK NO 572991 VENDOR 318070 - COLLIER OTOLARYNGOLOGY 20017652 M.ILISMO 1/25 001. 155930. 631210 -00000 154483 M. ILISMO 1/25 20017652 M. ILISMO 2/6 001. 155930 - 631210 -00000 154483 M. ILISMO 2/6 CHECK NO 572601 VENDOR 4120 - COLLIER SPORTS OFC ASSOC 20017761 SOFTBALL CO -ED 111 - 156341 - 634999.00000 AMT NET 202059 2/19 -2/28 VCHR NET 20017761 SOFTBALL MENS 111 - 156341 - 634999.00000 13.44 202059 2/19 -2/28 13.44 20017761 SOFTBALL 35 PLUS 111- 156341 - 634999.00000 32.12 202059 2/19 -2/28 32.12 20017761 SOFTBALL CHURCH 111 - 156341 - 634999 -00000 0.00 202059 2/5 -2/28 0.00 CHECK NO 572823 VENDOR 224110 - COLLIER TEAM SPORTS 20017660 408300 001 - 122240 - 652110 -00000 152730 POCKET SHIRT 16J1PAGE 22.00 37 22.00 A AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 40.42 0.00 40.42 13.44 0.00 13.44 84.84 0.00 84.84 32.12 0.00 32.12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 12.570.67 0.00 22.00 0.00 22.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 22.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 39.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 78.00 0.00 540.00 0.00 540.00 0.00 990.00 0.00 990.00 0.00 480.00 0.00 480.00 0.00 780.00 0.00 780.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.790.00 0.00 124.75 0.00 124.75 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 572826 VENDOR 227020 COLLIER TIRE & AUTO REPAIR 20017434 75812 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 200623 TIRES 100.69 20017341 75598 0.00 521 - 122410- 646415 -00000 0.00 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 55.00 20017433 75596 0.00 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 200623 TIRES 81.75 20017433 75468 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 200623 TIRES 50.00 20017341 75448 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646415.00000 0.00 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 645.21 20017341 75353 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 57.02 20017341 75587 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 485.01 20017341 75420 0.00 521. 122410. 646415 -00000 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 20017341 75665 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 20017433 74407 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 200623 TIRES 20017433 75441 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 200623 TIRES 20017341 75352 521. 122410 - 646415 -00000 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 20017433 75623 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 200623 TIRES 20017433 75669 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 200623 TIRES 20017433 75594 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 200623 TIRES 20017433 75385 521. 122410. 646425.00000 200623 TIRES 16J1 PAGE 38 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 124.75 0.00 607.48 0.00 607.48 0.00 29.25 0.00 29.25 0.00 100.69 0.00 100.69 0.00 980.24 0.00 980.24 0.00 55.00 0.00 55.00 0.00 103.00 0.00 103.00 0.00 81.75 0.00 81.75 0.00 88.50 0.00 88.50 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 90.84 0.00 90.84 0.00 645.21 0.00 645.21 0.00 69.95 0.00 69.95 0.00 57.02 0.00 57.02 0.00 218.32 0.00 218.32 0.00 485.01 0.00 485.01 0.00 337.62 0.00 337.62 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017340 75822 200621 SVS CALL 20017433 75442 200623 TIRES 20017434 66551 200623 TIRES 20017341 75665 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 20017341 75458 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 20017434 75725 200623 TIRES 20017341 75184 200621 SVS CALL /MOUNT 20017433 75500 200623 TIRES 20017434 75702 200623 TIRES 20017433 75617 200623 TIRES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 645.06 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521 - 122410. 646415 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646415 -00000 0.00 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572836 VENDOR 235530 - COLOR TEC COPY CENTER 20017658 5449 645.06 322 - 183825- 651210 -00000 658.36 153158 COPIES 0.00 20017334 5469 405.84 113 - 138312 - 647110 -00000 55.00 200440 COPIES 0.00 20017563 #2 218.95 111 - 156390. 651210 -00000 CHECK TOTAL 201466 COPIES 118.90 20017330 5461 111. 156341 - 651210 -00000 202194 COPIES 20017346 5468 114 - 178975 - 647110.00000 200344 COPIES 20017346 5359 114 - 178975 - 647110 -00000 200344 COPIES 16J1 PAGE 39 AMT NET VCHR DISC 157.00 0.00 645.06 0.00 658.36 0.00 22.95 0.00 101.45 0.00 405.84 0.00 55.00 0.00 13.58 0.00 622.16 0.00 218.95 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 157.00 645.06 658.36 22.95 101.45 405.84 55.00 13.58 622.16 218.95 6.900.23 0.00 95.60 0.00 95.60 0.00 150.48 0.00 150.48 0.00 170.00 0.00 170.00 0.00 219.00 0.00 219.00 0.00 42.48 0.00 42.48 0.00 118.90 0.00 118.90 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16JI PAGE 40 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017335 5471 111 - 138911 - 647110 -00000 0.00 47.30 0.00 47.30 201432 COPIES 20017678 5268 001 - 010510 - 651210 -00000 0.00 17.35 0.00 17.35 154091 SUPPLIES 20017678 4871 001 - 010510 - 651210.00000 0.00 124.27 0.00 124.27 154091 SUPPLIES 20017331 5432 111. 156381 - 651210.00000 0.00 16.96 0.00 16.96 201455 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.002.34 CHECK NO 572976 VENDOR 312050 COMARK GOVERNMENT & EDUCATION SALES 20017882 91550428 114 - 178970.764900 -33850 0.00 434.00 0.00 434.00 203224 SUPPLIES 20017659 91647502 001. 121148- 651110 -00000 0.00 62.63 0.00 62.63 153943 SUPPLIES 20017659 91640383 001 - 121148.651110 -00000 0.00 309.38 0.00 309.38 153943 SUPPLIES 20017882 91567177 114. 178970 - 764900.33850 0.00 51.00 0.00 51.00 203224 SUPPLIES 20017659 91647503 001 - 121148 - 651110 -00000 0.00 252.00 0.00 252.00 153943 SUPPLIES 20017882 91553765 114 - 178970 - 764900 -33850 0.00 106.00 0.00 106.00 203224 SUPPLIES 20017882 91551913 114 - 178970 - 764900.33850 0.00 5,242.00 0.00 5,242.00 203224 SUPPLIES 20017882 91573828 114 - 178970 - 764900 -33850 0.00 223.00 0.00 223.00 203224 SUPPLIES 20017659 91644556 001 - 121148 - 651110 -00000 0.00 62.63 0.00 62.63 153943 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,742.64 CHECK NO 572853 VENDOR 250460 - COMMERCIAL AIR MANAGEMENT, INC. 20017654 5356 001 - 122240 - 652996 -00000 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 153553 SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 572681 VENDOR 115280 - COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE 20017354 995155 136. 162590- 634999 -00000 125.00 203680 MOWING&EDGING 86.75 20017358 995037 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 196.56 203678 LABOR 196.56 20017357 994914 111- 163646 - 634999 -00000 140.90 200833 REPAIRS 3,390.98 20017356 995091 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 106.21 200853 LABOR 106.21 20017360 994747 152 - 162541 - 634999.00000 336.00 201082 LABOR 2.691.08 20017435 995080 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 72.00 201071 LABOR 72.00 20017348 995058 111 - 163646 - 634999.00000 144.00 200844 LABOR 8.217.58 20017435 994725 111 - 163646. 634999 -00000 1.549.79 201071 LABOR 1,549.79 20017358 995056 111 - 163646 - 634999.00000 26.52 203678 LABOR 72.00 20017355 995145 160 - 162518 - 634999 -00000 216.00 202356 LABOR 216.00 20017360 994879 152 - 162541 - 634999 -00000 125.00 201082 LABOR 20017432 994895 001- 126334 - 646314.00000 204470 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 20017358 995069 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 203678 LABOR 20017355 995062 160. 162518- 634999 -00000 202356 LABOR 20017358 995076 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 203678 LABOR 20017354 995156 136 - 162590 - 634999 -00000 203680 MOWING&EDGING 16JI PAGE 41 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 175.00 0.00 125.00 0.00 125.00 0.00 86.75 0.00 86.75 0.00 196.56 0.00 196.56 0.00 140.90 0.00 140.90 0.00 3,390.98 0.00 3.390.98 0.00 106.21 0.00 106.21 0.00 336.00 0.00 336.00 0.00 2.691.08 0.00 2.691.08 0.00 72.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 144.00 0.00 144.00 0.00 8.217.58 0.00 8.217.58 0.00 1.549.79 0.00 1,549.79 0.00 26.52 0.00 26.52 0.00 72.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 216.00 0.00 216.00 0.00 125.00 0.00 125.00 OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 42 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 17.496.37 CHECK NO 573144 VENDOR 353120 - COMMISSION FOR ACCREDITATION 20017677 APP FEE PRELIMINARY ACCR. 111 - 156341. 654210 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 154068 APP FEE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 CHECK NO 572880 VENDOR 263070 - COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL 20017669 427299 001 - 122240 - 646610 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 153590 SUPPLIES 20017669 427298 001. 122240- 646610.00000 0.00 134.00 0.00 134.00 153590 SUPPLIES 20017669 428279 001 - 122240 - 646610 -00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 63.00 153590 SUPPLIES 20017664 422958 101. 163610 - 646610 -00000 0.00 668.75 0.00 668.75 154620 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 905.75 CHECK NO 572867 VENDOR 256240 COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC 20017666 427918 111 - 138911 - 646610 -00000 0.00 13.50 0.00 13.50 154481 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 13.50 CHECK NO 573077 VENDOR 345440 COMPCARE INDUSTRIES 20017653 10112 001 - 122240 - 652510 -00000 0.00 154.34 0.00 154.34 153591 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 154.34 CHECK NO 572817 VENDOR 214920 COMPUTER DISCOUNT WAREHOUSE 20017679 FJ10373 412 - 273511- 764950.70033 0.00 773.89 0.00 773.89 204247 SUPPLIES 20017667 FK55010 001 - 121148 - 652920 -00000 0.00 351.00 001 - 121148 - 641950 -00000 0.00 13.49 0.00 364.49 154240 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.138.38 OUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -60012 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERS 16JI PAGE 43 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK NO 572849 VENDOR 246200 - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 20017343 690336 313 - 163673. 763100 -66066 0.00 491.68 0.00 201978 SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572965 VENDOR 304900 - CONTEMPORARY CONTROLS & 20017675 3514 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 182.22 154035 BATTERY CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 572567 VENDOR 325820 - CORPORATE BENEFIT SERVICES 20018062 ADD'L 01/02 ADMIN FEES 517 - 121640- 631153.00000 0.00 2.918.00 AND CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 572827 VENDOR 230460 CORPORATE EXPRESS 35.66 20017601 29981517 001 - 155410 - 651110 -00000 0.00 503.63 203275 SUPPLIES 0.00 33.16 CHECK NO 572912 VENDOR 276650 CORPORATE EXPRESS 11.14 20017768 29470894 114 - 178975. 651110 -00000 0.00 36.72 203719 SUPPLIES 20017595 29602499 408 - 233312 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203291 SUPPLIES 20017683 30113015 001 - 156175 - 651110.00000 0.00 203539 SUPPLIES 20017562 30148998 001 - 122240 - 651110.00000 0.00 203309 SUPPLIES 20017683 30180076 001 - 156130 - 651110.00000 0.00 203539 SUPPLIES 20017767 30112900 001 - 100110 - 651110.00000 0.00 203778 SUPPLIES 20017573 30149009 490 - 144610. 651110 -00000 0.00 203355 SUPPLIES 68.81 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VCHR NET 491.68 491.68 182.22 182.22 2,918.00 2.918.00 68.81 68.81 76.57 0.00 76.57 35.66 0.00 35.66 503.63 0.00 503.63 33.16 0.00 33.16 1.66 0.00 1.66 11.14 0.00 11.14 36.72 0.00 36.72 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017585 30104834 203347 SUPPLIES 20017582 30112904 203334 SUPPLIES 20017561 30311675 203309 SUPPLIES 20017778 29908813 203527 SUPPLIES 20017580 29937786 203327 SUPPLIES 20017768 28871164 203719 SUPPLIES 20017595 29909114 203291 SUPPLIES 20017777 29942060 203514 SUPPLIES 20017775 29635968 203454 SUPPLIES 20017584 29981527 203334 SUPPLIES 20017768 29563317 203719 SUPPLIES 20017586 30179558 203314 SUPPLIES 20017571 29909103 203441 SUPPLIES 20017762 29942072 204312 SUPPLIES 20017651 30340154 154188 SUPPLIES 20017562 30148999 203309 SUPPLIES 20017764 30340176 204243 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 31.35 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 113 - 138930. 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 121710 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240. 651110 -00000 0.00 113 - 138900 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 157110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 114 - 178975 - 651110 -00000 0.00 408 - 233312 - 651110.00000 0.00 408. 233350 - 651110 -00000 0.00 121 - 138755 - 651110 -33024 0.00 001 - 121710 - 651110 -00000 0.00 114 - 178975 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 121810 - 651110 -00000 0.00 408. 210130- 651110 -00000 0.00 518 - 121630. 651110 -00000 0.00 195 - 110407 - 651110.00000 0.00 001. 122240- 651110.00000 0.00 001 - 122255. 651110 -00000 0.00 16JI PAGE 44 AMT NET VCHR DISC 12.15- 0.00 31.35 0.00 20.80 0.00 1.71 0.00 168.30- 0.00 107.26 0.00 49.96 0.00 6.91 0.00 29.71 0.00 20.97 0.00 20.46 0.00 22.34 0.00 38.77 0.00 185.71 0.00 43.12 0.00 83.42 0.00 82.91 0.00 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 45 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017683 30112913 001 - 156175 - 651110 -00000 0.00 1.346.80 0.00 1,346.80 203539 SUPPLIES 20017575 30179544 001. 138710- 651110.00000 0.00 92.15 0.00 92.15 203371 SUPPLIES 20017569 37917093001 101 - 163620. 651110 -00000 0.00 2.10 0.00 2.10 203406 SUPPLIES 20017772 29981541 001 - 178985- 651110 -00000 0.00 10.98 0.00 10.98 203547 SUPPLIES 20017577 30179515 470 - 173410 - 651110.00000 0.00 6.75 0.00 6.75 203388 SUPPLIES 20017562 29873718 001. 122240 - 651110 -00000 0.00 12.00- 0.00 12.00- 203309 SUPPLIES 20017683 30149055 001 - 156175 - 651110 -00000 0.00 413.03 0.00 413.03 203539 SUPPLIES 20017573 30113054 490- 144610- 651110 -00000 0.00 70.87 0.00 70.87 203355 SUPPLIES 20017571 29765639 408- 210130 - 651110.00000 0.00 177.21 0.00 177.21 203441 SUPPLIES 20017584 29877352 001- 121710 - 651110 -00000 0.00 13.95 0.00 13.95 203334 SUPPLIES 20017581 30179530 301 - 121125. 651110 -01017 0.00 46.40 0.00 46.40 203333 SUPPLIES 20017561 30340151 001 - 122240 - 651110 -00000 0.00 8.21 0.00 8.21 203309 SUPPLIES 20017586 30149027 001. 121810 - 651110.00000 0.00 36.98 0.00 36.98 203314 SUPPLIES 20017588 30340181 001 - 121152 - 651110 -00000 0.00 6.30 0.00 6.30 203316 SUPPLIES 20017568 29877351 470 - 173435- 651110 -00000 0.00 56.78 0.00 56.78 203389 SUPPLIES 20017569 38009694001 101 - 163620 - 651110 -00000 0.00 10.72 0.00 10.72 203406 SUPPLIES 20017768 29187190 114 - 178975- 651110.00000 0.00 190.90 0.00 190.90 203719 SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 74.94 0.00 16.40- SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 0.00 36.04 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20017764 30021414 001 - 122255. 651110 -00000 0.00 0.00 204243 SUPPLIES 0.00 24.89 20017762 29981543 518 - 121630. 651110 -00000 0.00 0.00 204312 SUPPLIES 0.00 14.32 20017586 30311681 001 - 121810. 651110.00000 0.00 203314 SUPPLIES 20017571 29558071 408 - 210130 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203441 SUPPLIES 20017773 30217268 111 - 178980 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203546 SUPPLIES 20017574 30179554 521 - 122450 - 651110.00000 0.00 203358 SUPPLIES 20017569 30112876 101- 163620 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203406 SUPPLIES 20017769 30021445 001 - 144210 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203645 SUPPLIES 20017766 29767046 111 - 156332 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203781 SUPPLIES 20017683 30111436 001. 156175. 651110 -00000 0.00 203539 SUPPLIES 20017559 29635984 101 - 163612 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203298 SUPPLIES 20017562 30179532 001. 122240 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203309 SUPPLIES 20017584 29981523 001 - 121710 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203334 SUPPLIES 20017776 29673220 313 - 163611. 651110 -00000 0.00 203507 SUPPLIES 20017774 29673250 113. 138312 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203449 SUPPLIES 20017771 29563321 001. 100130. 651110 -00000 0.00 203616 SUPPLIES 20017598 30179557 408 - 210105 - 651110.00000 0.00 203288 SUPPLIES 16JIPAGE 46 AMT NET VCHR DISC 2.52 0.00 102.40 0.00 74.94 0.00 16.40- 0.00 34.26 0.00 36.04 0.00 24.81 0.00 64.63 0.00 61.67 0.00 1.290.02 0.00 39.16 0.00 202.44 0.00 24.89 0.00 8.82 0.00 210.54 0.00 67.65 0.00 14.32 0.00 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017586 30371725 203314 SUPPLIES 20017585 30077828 203347 SUPPLIES 20017776 29908929 203507 SUPPLIES 20017577 30148992 203388 SUPPLIES 20017683 30217290 203539 SUPPLIES 20017568 30213878 203389 SUPPLIES 20017570 30149019 203426 SUPPLIES 20017571 29558061 203441 SUPPLIES 20017572 29981548 203444 SUPPLIES 20017574 30077825 203358 SUPPLIES 20017778 29628751 203527 SUPPLIES 20017768 29981540 203719 SUPPLIES 20017775 30179552 203454 SUPPLIES 20017599 30115377 203278 SUPPLIES 20017776 29635959 203507 SUPPLIES 20017767 30217278 203778 SUPPLIES 20017577 30104795 203388 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 121810 - 651110 -00000 0.00 113 - 138930 - 651110 -00000 0.00 313 - 163611. 651110 -00000 0.00 470. 173410- 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 156110. 651110 -00000 0.00 470. 173435- 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 122310. 651110 -00000 0.00 408- 210130 - 651110 -00000 0.00 111. 156310- 651110.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 651110 -00000 0.00 113 - 138900 - 651110.00000 0.00 114. 178975- 651110 -00000 0.00 121 - 138755. 651110 -33024 0.00 495 - 192350 - 651110.00000 0.00 101 - 163609 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 100110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 470- 173410 - 651110.00000 0.00 16JI PAGE 47 AMT NET VCHR DISC 2.79 0.00 57.12 0.00 187.86 0.00 13.20 0.00 1.40 0.00 35.65- 0.00 58.08 0.00 16.40- 0.00 24.21 0.00 6.61 0.00 0.76- 0.00 14.53 0.00 57.37 0.00 4.50 0.00 47.36 0.00 174.25 0.00 5.81- 0.00 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017588 30340177 203316 SUPPLIES 20017596 29937794 203295 SUPPLIES 20017586 29628641 203314 SUPPLIES 20017585 29509451 203347 SUPPLIES 20017569 30077827 203406 SUPPLIES 20017776 30021432 203507 SUPPLIES 20017776 29563341 203507 SUPPLIES 20017768 28871164 203719 SUPPLIES 20017585 29767077 203347 SUPPLIES 20017778 29942066 203527 SUPPLIES 20017776 30179559 203507 SUPPLIES 20017683 30217257 203539 SUPPLIES 20017577 30104841 203388 SUPPLIES 20017576 30179573 203373 SUPPLIES 20017771 29673301 203616 SUPPLIES 20017774 29767128 203449 SUPPLIES 20017597 30077836 203290 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 159.84- SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 121152 - 651110 -00000 0.00 109 - 182900 - 651110.00000 0.00 001- 121810 - 651110 -00000 0.00 113. 138930- 651110 -00000 0.00 101 - 163620. 651110 -00000 0.00 101 - 163609 - 651110 -00000 0.00 101 - 163609 - 651110 -00000 0.00 114. 178975- 651110 -00000 0.00 113. 138930- 651110 -00000 0.00 113 - 138900 - 651110.00000 0.00 313. 163611- 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 156130. 651110 -00000 0.00 470 - 173410. 651110 -00000 0.00 495. 192310- 651110.00000 0.00 001 - 100130- 651110 -00000 0.00 113 - 138312 - 651110 -00000 0.00 517 - 121640- 651110 -00000 0.00 16JI PAGE 48 AMT NET VCHR DISC 76.64 0.00 159.84- 0.00 2.10- 0.00 12.15 0.00 101.17 0.00 78.03 0.00 72.61 0.00 167.19 0.00 11.76 0.00 38.71 0.00 31.68 0.00 8.40 0.00 14.70- 0.00 34.42 0.00 30.92 0.00 236.06 0.00 14.99 0.00 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017569 29981536 203406 SUPPLIES 20017570 30149001 203319 SUPPLIES 20017770 29981529 203631SSUPPLIES 20017562 30104785 203309 SUPPLIES 20017560 29563304 203299 SUPPLIES 20017584 29636012 203334 SUPPLIES 20017774 29764745 203449 SUPPLIES 20017763 30340113 204310 SUPPLIES 20017587 30340152 203317 SUPPLIES 20017596 29563534 203295 SUPPLIES 20017580 29604562 203327 SUPPLIES 20017560 29563313 203299 SUPPLIES 20017577 30021431 203388 SUPPLIES 20017776 30021432 203507 SUPPLIES 20017775 30179545 203454 SUPPLIES 20017776 30179520 203507 SUPPLIES 20017778 29908808 203527 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 51.04 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 101 - 163620. 651110.00000 0.00 116 - 121830. 651110 -33297 0.00 111 - 156313 - 651110.00000 0.00 001. 122240. 651110 -00000 0.00 126- 138332. 651110.33202 0.00 001 - 121710 - 651110.00000 0.00 113. 138312- 651110 -00000 0.00 516 - 121650 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001. 121148 - 651110 -00000 0.00 109 - 182900. 651110 -00000 0.00 001. 157110- 651110 -00000 0.00 126 - 138332 - 651110 -33202 0.00 470 - 173410 - 651110.00000 0.00 313 - 163611 - 651110 -00000 0.00 121 - 138755 - 651110 -33024 0.00 313 - 163611. 651110 -00000 0.00 113 - 138900. 651110 -00000 0.00 16JlPAGE 49 AMT NET VCHR DISC 51.81 0.00 51.04 0.00 200.12 0.00 10.76- 0.00 36.00 0.00 37.69 0.00 78.84- 0.00 217.80 0.00 28.58 0.00 210.78 0.00 89.60 0.00 110.40 0.00 30.36 0.00 78.03 0.00 165.97 0.00 11.68 0.00 44.10 0.00 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 281.16 0.00 32.49- SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 0.00 64.60 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20017580 29937797 001 - 157110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 63.16 203327 SUPPLIES 24.03 0.00 20017583 30148993 001 - 144110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 45.72 203336 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20017568 30149013 470. 173435. 651110 -00000 0.00 203389 SUPPLIES 20017768 29057548 114. 178975- 651110 -00000 0.00 203719 SUPPLIES 20017595 29672616 408 - 233312 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203291 SUPPLIES 20017767 30149014 001 - 100110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203778 SUPPLIES 20017775 30143997 121 - 138755. 651110 -33024 0.00 203454 SUPPLIES 20017776 29937815 313 - 163611. 651110 -00000 0.00 203507 SUPPLIES 20017600 30180078 408 - 253221 - 651110.00000 0.00 203281 SUPPLIES 20017683 30217287 001 - 156110. 651110.00000 0.00 203539 SUPPLIES 20017577 29981534 470. 173410 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203388 SUPPLIES 20017585 29673271 113 - 138930 - 651110.00000 0.00 203347 SUPPLIES 20017776 30179559 101. 163609. 651110 -00000 0.00 203507 SUPPLIES 20017585 29937831 113. 138930- 651110 -00000 0.00 203347 SUPPLIES 20017778 29636027 113 - 138900 - 651110.00000 0.00 203527 SUPPLIES CHECK NO 573086 VENDOR 347750 CORPORATE EXPRESS 20017765 30077831 001 - 172910 - 651110 -00000 0.00 203782 SUPPLIES 16JIPAGE 50 AMT NET VCHR DISC 89.60- 0.00 15.46 0.00 281.16 0.00 32.49- 0.00 137.05 0.00 64.60 0.00 13.48- 0.00 8.82- 0.00 89.88 0.00 1,013.51 0.00 63.16 0.00 24.03 0.00 10.56 0.00 11.88- 0.00 45.72 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15.39 0.00 OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 51 REPORT 100 -60012 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017765 29673238 001 - 172910. 651110 -00000 0.00 41.87 0.00 41.87 203782 SUPPLIES 20017765 29636014 001. 172910- 651110 -00000 0.00 6.93 0.00 6.93 203782 SUPPLIES 20017765 29908959 001 - 172910 - 651110.00000 0.00 15.08 0.00 15.08 203782 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 79.27 CHECK NO 573030 VENDOR 330460 COUNTRY GRAPEVINE 20017673 4923 198 - 157440 - 648160.00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 154119 ADS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 150.00 CHECK NO 572970 VENDOR 308630 CREEL TRACTOR, CO. 20017352 181229 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 267.61 0.00 267.61 200854 PARTS 20017352 181263 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 34.26 0.00 34.26 200854 PARTS 20017881 11230 101. 163620 - 764150 -00000 0.00 9,660.00 0.00 9,660.00 203582 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9.961.87 CHECK NO 572602 VENDOR 4400 CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING 20017578 818195 1/24 101 - 163620 - 634999 -00000 0.00 18.18- 0.00 18.18- 200864 CREDIT 20017578 818195 1/24 101 - 163620 - 634999 -00000 0.00 29.58 0.00 29.58 200864 BOTTLED WATER 20017553 814541 2/24 001 - 122310 - 652990 -00000 0.00 20.79 0.00 20.79 201808 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20017554 891556 1/24 490. 144610. 634999 -00000 0.00 2.97 0.00 2.97 200124 BOTTLED WATER 20017557 312124 2/24 495 - 192370 - 634999 -00000 0.00 11.88 0.00 11.88 200363 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20017555 805119 2/24 001 - 138710 - 652990 -00000 0.00 11.82 0.00 11.82 200852 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017578 818195 2/24 200864 BOTTLED WATER 20017578 818195 2/24 200864 CREDIT 20017578 818195 12/24 200864 BOTTLED WATER COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 101 - 163620 - 634999 -00000 0.00 101 - 163620. 634999 -00000 0.00 101 - 163620 - 634999 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572662 VENDOR 102780 - CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING 20017556 884881 2/24 517 - 121640 - 649990 -00000 202349 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20017558 891218 2/24 001 - 121810 - 649990.00000 202697 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 CHECK NO 572914 VENDOR 278120 - CUSTOM WATER SYSTEMS 20017347 229369 144.00- 0.00 001. 122240- 646284 -00000 115.83 202099 WATER TREATMENT 0.00 20017347 229405 0.00 155.00 001 - 122240 - 646284 -00000 155.00 202099 WATER TREATMENT 134.25 20017347 29159 0.00 132.00 001. 122240- 646284 -00000 104.00 202099 WATER TREATMENT 45.00 20017347 229370 CHECK TOTAL 001 - 122240 - 646284 -00000 664.25 202099 WATER TREATMENT 220.00 20017347 229399 0.00 220.00 001 - 122240 - 646284 -00000 202099 WATER TREATMENT 20017347 29141 001. 122240- 646284 -00000 202099 WATER TREATMENT CHECK NO 573020 VENDOR 326650 - CVA (COMPUTER VIDEO ASSOCIATES 20017672 126691 001- 100130 - 652910 -00000 153864 SUPPLIES 16JIPAGE 52 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 23.76 0.00 23.76 144.00- 0.00 144.00- 115.83 0.00 115.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 54.45 0.00 20.79 0.00 20.79 0.00 5.94 0.00 5.94 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 26.73 0.00 94.00 0.00 94.00 0.00 155.00 0.00 155.00 0.00 134.25 0.00 134.25 0.00 132.00 0.00 132.00 0.00 104.00 0.00 104.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 664.25 0.00 220.00 0.00 220.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 220.00 13, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 53 REPORCH T 100.6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSI ON SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572753 VENDOR 173030 - D V & A 20017409 5847D 355 - 156190.652670 -00000 0.00 8.23 0.00 8.23 203195 CHILDREN'S VIDEO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8.23 CHECK NO 572885 VENDOR 265700 - DADE PAPER COMPANY 20018084 529001 111 - 156390- 652510 -00000 0.00 137.06 0.00 137.06 201475 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 20018085 431393 111 - 156343 - 652510 -00000 0.00 302.34 0.00 302.34 202359 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 439.40 CHECK NO 572990 VENDOR 317020 DALE WALLER 20017400 2/21 TRVL D WALLER 408 - 233312 - 640300.00000 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 2121 TRVL D WALLER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.00 CHECK NO 572760 VENDOR 174930 DAVID B FOX 20018087 KARATE 2/1/02- 2/18/02 111. 156380.634999 -00000 0.00 741.00 0.00 741.00 201433 KARATE 2/1/02- 2/18/02 20018088 KARATE 1/28/02- 3/6/02 111 - 156381 - 634999 -00000 0.00 523.25 0.00 523.25 201033 KARATE 1/28/02- 3/6/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,264.25 CHECK NO 572736 VENDOR 165270 DAVIDSON TITLES INC. 20017408 35537 355.156190- 766100 -00000 0.00 39.27 0.00 39.27 200559 BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 39.27 CHECK NO 573032 VENDOR 331700 DAWN RAGONE 20017843 PETTY CASH 001 - 121810. 651110 -00000 0.00 11.16 001 - 121810 - 652210 -00000 0.00 17.60 001 - 121810 - 649990 -00000 0.00 10.05 0.00 38.81 PETTY CASH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 38.81 13, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 54 REPORCH T 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573159 VENDOR 900050 - DEBBIE BREEDING 301510 REF. PARKS D. BREEDING 111. 156395 - 347400 -00000 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 REF PARKS D. BREEDING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10.00 CHECK NO 573034 VENDOR 332420 - DELL COMPUTER CORP 20017416 775163652 113 - 138913. 764900.00000 0.00 1,345.00 0.00 1,345.00 204305 OPTIPLEX GX240 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,345.00 CHECK NO 572866 VENDOR 256190 - DELL MARKETING L.P. 20018011 767774334 001 - 121152 - 651950 -00000 0.00 778.00 0.00 778.00 153952 MONITOR 20017415 770230803 113. 138312 - 764990 -00000 0.00 1,278.00 0.00 1,278.00 204319 1500 GX 400 MINI TOWER 20018011 769116674 001 - 121152 - 651950 -00000 0.00 199.00 0.00 199.00 153952 MONITOR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,255.00 CHECK NO 572603 VENDOR 4970 - DEMCO 20018009 242059 001 - 156110 - 652610.00000 0.00 358.29 001 - 156110 - 641950.00000 0.00 94.47 0.00 452.76 154605 LIBR.SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 452.76 CHECK NO 572938 VENDOR 287200 - DENIS DIPERT 20017863 TRAVEL 2/1 -27/02 111. 156313. 640200 -00000 0.00 54.81 0.00 54.81 TRAVEL 211.27102 D DIPERT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 54.81 CHECK NO 572730 VENDOR 160920 - DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 20017542 3J -3879 669 - 100220 - 641900.00000 0.00 54.19 0.00 54.19 3J -3879 12/4/2001 20017541 3J -3935 669 - 100220. 641900 -00000 0.00 34.29 0.00 34.29 3J -3935 1/4/2002 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 55 16JI REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 88.48 CHECK NO 572811 VENDOR 211770 - DIANNE MARTIN 20017413 AEROBICS 2/2/02- 2/28/02 130. 157710- 634999 -00000 0.00 1,014.00 0.00 1,014.00 201062 AEROBICS 2/2/02- 2/28/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,014.00 CHECK NO 573000 VENDOR 321460 DIEGO'S SIGNS, INC. 20018020 4315 470 - 173441 - 652990 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 153006 VINYL LETTERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 CHECK NO 572739 VENDOR 165960 DISTRICT TWENTY 20017403 15TH PAYMENT 001 - 144710 - 634108 -00000 0.00 28,475.00 0.00 28,475.00 15TH PAYMENT 200316 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 28,475.00 CHECK NO 572604 VENDOR 5270 DOMESTIC CUSTOM METALS 20018008 10756 001 - 122240 - 646110.00000 0.00 170.00 0.00 170.00 153555 HINGE FOR DOOR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 170.00 CHECK NO 572663 VENDOR 104885 DON HUNTER, SHERIFF 20017939 JAM CLAIM #3 115 - 000000- 206903.00000 0.00 11,742.08 0.00 11,742.08 JAM CLAIM #3 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 11.742.08 CHECK NO 573012 VENDOR 325740 DONNA L. FIALA 20017860 TRAVEL 2/12 -28/02 001 - 010110 - 640200 -00000 0.00 40.60 0.00 40.60 TRAVEL 2/12 -28/02 D FIALA 20017859 TRAVEL 2/19 -23/02 001 - 010110 - 640310 -01001 0.00 258.68 0.00 258.68 TRAVEL 2/19 -23/02 D FIALA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 299.28 CHECK NO 573143 VENDOR 353080 - DOWNTOWN IDEA EXCHANGE 20018021 1151967 001 - 138710- 654110 -00000 0.00 167.00 0.00 167.00 154597 SUBSCRIPTION OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 56 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 167.00 CHECK NO 573184 VENDOR 900140 - DR. NELAYDA FONTE, D.O. 301524 FEGUEROA /01 -1360 FONTE 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 525.00 0.00 525.00 FEGUEROA /01 -1360 FONTE, DR. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 525.00 CHECK NO 572658 VENDOR 100620 DURALAST ENTERPRISES, INC. 20017421 02 -01 WO#1 101. 163630. 634999 -00000 0.00 1,451.90 0.00 1,451.90 200044 02 -01 WO#1 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.451.90 CHECK NO 572562 VENDOR 166420 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COURTS 20018113 TAX DEED SALES 1998 001. 013010. 649040 -00000 0.00 1,626.05 0.00 1.626.05 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.626.05 CHECK NO 572740 VENDOR 166490 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COURTS 20017922 PP #12 001 - 000000- 218800 -00000 0.00 1.724.19 0.00 1.724.19 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,724.19 CHECK NO 572742 VENDOR 166510 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COURTS 20018122 2654988 325 - 172977 - 649030 -31101 0.00 23.60 0.00 23.60 2654988 RECORDING 20018122 2650126 325 - 172977 - 651210 -31101 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 2650126 COPIES 20018122 2651447 473. 173413 - 649030 -00000 0.00 26.00 0.00 26.00 2651447 COPIES 20018122 2661959 325 - 172972 - 649030 -31212 0.00 54.70 0.00 54.70 2661959 RECORDING 20018122 2659224 473 - 173413 - 649030 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 2659224 COPIES 20018122 2656084 113 - 138312. 649030 -00000 0.00 37.40 0.00 37.40 2656084 RECORDING 13, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 57 REPORCH T 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018122 2643999 001 - 454010 - 651210 -00000 0.00 14.00 0.00 14.00 2643999 COPIES 20018122 2640818 681 - 421190. 651210 -00000 0.00 43.00 0.00 43.00 2640818 COPIES 20018122 2655324 111. 138911- 651210 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 2655324 COPIES 20018122 2654896 111 - 138911 - 651210.00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 2654896 COPIES 20018122 2659699 325 - 172984 - 651210 -31801 0.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 2659699 COPIES 20018122 2650089 473 - 173413 - 649030 -00000 0.00 27.00 0.00 27.00 2650089 COPIES 20018122 2650939 325 - 172977 - 651210.31101 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2650939 COPIES 20018122 2661960 325 - 172977 - 649030 -31101 0.00 23.60 0.00 23.60 2661960 RECORDING 20018122 2656067 001 - 122370 - 649030.00000 0.00 136.60 0.00 136.60 2656067 RECORDING 20018122 2654612 111 - 138911- 651210.00000 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2654612 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 426.90 CHECK NO 573056 VENDOR 339690 DYNASYS 20018013 40312 521 - 122410 - 651950 -00000 0.00 100.42 521 - 122410 - 641950 -00000 0.00 19.00 0.00 119.42 153318 LABELS,RIBBONS 20018013 40004 521 - 122410 - 651950.00000 0.00 48.72 521 - 122410 - 641950.00000 0.00 6.00 0.00 54.72 153318 LABELS,RIBBONS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 174.14 CHECK NO 572813 VENDOR 214040 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 20018090 12 001. 138710 - 882100 -00000 0.00 9,114.04 0.00 9,114.04 201085 2/21/02- 3/6/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9,114.04 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 PAGE 58 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572937 VENDOR 287090 - EDC EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 20017410 1038795 -5 355 - 156190- 766100 -00000 0.00 51.80 0.00 51.80 203505 BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 51.80 CHECK NO 573150 VENDOR 900030 - ELAINE SCHMADTKE 301490 3/18.20 ADV PD E SCHMADTK 114 - 178975 - 640300.00000 0.00 3/18 -20 ADV PD E SCHMADTKE CHECK NO 572774 VENDOR 190020 - ELSIE GONZALEZ 20017883 2/14/02 1/2 HOUR 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 2/14/02 1/2 HOUR 20017883 2/14/02 112 HOUR 681 - 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 2/14/02 112 HOUR 20017883 2/14/02 2 HOUR 681 - 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 2/14/02 2 HOUR CHECK NO 572955 VENDOR 297400 - EMP PIZZA INC 20018014 257 111 - 156349. 652210 -00000 0.00 151980 PIZZA CHECK NO 572918 VENDOR 279980 - ENGSOFT SOLUTIONS 20018012 3729 412 - 273511 - 634999.70881 0.00 152282 ONE YR TECH SUPP. CHECK NO 572873 VENDOR 259440 - ENTERPRISE WINDOW TINTING 20018023 1076 408 - 233351 - 649990 -00000 0.00 153853 TINT 20018023 1066 408 - 233351 - 649990 -00000 0.00 153853 TINT 60.00 0.00 60.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 8.00 0.00 8.0C 8.00 0.00 8.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 48.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 89.92 0.00 89.92 63.94 0.00 63.94 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 153.86 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 59 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573136 VENDOR 352860 - ENTOMOS,LLC 20018016 3027 001 - 157110 - 646320 -00000 0.00 37.07 0.00 37.07 154616 MATERIALS FOR GARDEN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 37.07 CHECK NO 572746 VENDOR 168730 ENVIRONMENTAL HARZARDS MGMT. INST. 20017414 111792 470 - 173463 - 652990 -00000 0.00 1,693.00 0.00 1,693.00 204179 MAILERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,693.00 CHECK NO 573023 VENDOR 327660 ERFFMEYER & SON CO., INC., 20017411 157718 001 - 121810. 634999 -00000 0.00 308.50 0.00 308.50 201548 GP EMBLEMS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 308.50 CHECK NO 572939 VENDOR 287960 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES 20017540 28801EFL 681 - 410310. 633032 -00000 0.00 60.00 681- 410310. 633042 -00000 0.00 56.25 0.00 116.25 FLA VS KIPP -CASE 00.001216CF DRM 20017884 275522EFL 681 - 410310. 633042 -00000 0.00 52.50 0.00 52.50 00- 001216 CF R. KIPP 20017884 275522EFL 681 - 410310. 633032 -00000 0.00 71.00 0.00 71.00 00- 001216 CF R. KIPP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 239.75 CHECK NO 572565 VENDOR 210630 ESTILLE VAUGHN 20018024 SHELTER ASSIT 2/02 001 - 155930. 634153 -00000 0.00 450.00 0.00 450.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 450.00 CHECK NO 572605 VENDOR 6120 EVANS OIL COMPANY 20018086 DISC/221873 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 2.55- 0.00 2.55- 200625 DISC/221873 20018086 221873/DISC 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 6.42- 0.00 6.42- 200625 221873 DISC 13, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 60 REPORCH T 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018086 221873 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 320.78 0.00 320.78 200625 FUEL 20018086 221873 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 127.45 0.00 127.45 200625 FUEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 439.26 CHECK NO 573096 VENDOR 349050 EVANS- KLAGES, INC. 20018141 02/27/02 -FEB 02 194 - 101540 - 634999 -10522 0.00 3,458.33 0.00 3,458.33 203731 02/02 SERVICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.458.33 CHECK NO 573127 VENDOR 352320 EXECUTIVE TITLE & RAMON GATO 20017899 D/P R GATO #36124280000 191 - 138785 - 884100.33751 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2.500.00 #36124280000 R GATO 204546 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,500.00 CHECK NO 572816 VENDOR 214900 - F.P.L. 20018144 32426 -54246 2/5/02. 3/6/02 408 - 233351 - 643100.00000 0.00 11,515.15 0.00 11,515.15 32426 -54246 2/5/02- 3/6/02 20018080 30204 -30389 2/5/02- 3/6/02 408 - 233351 - 643100.00000 0.00 2,471.98 0.00 2,471.98 30204 -30389 2/5/02. 3/6/02 20018147 53212.55092 1/29 - 2/27/02 101- 163630 - 643100.00000 0.00 27,378.43 0.00 27.378.43 53212 -55092 1/29/02- 2/27/02 20018143 32536.07331 2/5/02- 3/6/02 408 - 233351 - 643100.00000 0.00 14,028.45 0.00 14,028.45 32536 -07331 2/5/02- 3/6/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 55.394.01 CHECK NO 572606 VENDOR 6250 - FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 20017405 4- 120 -75015 001 - 122310 - 641950.00000 0.00 5.55 0.00 5.55 201810 SHIPPING 2/6/02 20018007 4- 097 -07046 333 - 163650 - 641950.60111 0.00 5.90 0.00 5.90 154479 SHIPPING 20017426 4- 087 -87079 113 - 138900 - 641950.00000 0.00 7.70 0.00 7.70 200089 SHIPPING 2/5/02 20018006 4- 103 -38864 001 - 100130 - 641950 -00000 0.00 8.65 0.00 8.65 154296 SHIPPING MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017431 4- 097 -45980 201513 SHIPPING 1/28/02 20017428 4.132 -27393 200567 SHIPPING 2/6/02 20017405 4- 121.10709 201810 SHIPPING 2/6/02 20017427 4.101 -38658 200120 SHIPPING 2111102 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 121810 - 641950.00000 0.00 001 - 144510 - 641950 -00000 0.00 001 - 122310. 641950 -00000 0.00 490 - 144610. 641950 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572752 VENDOR 172870 - FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 20017430 4.107 -25514 841405 470- 173410 - 641950 -00000 408 - 253212 - 655100.00000 201208 SHIPPING 2/11/02 METER BOXES 20017425 4.130 -54961 841194 -1 001 - 000000- 142900 -00000 408 - 253212. 655100 -00000 200057 SHIPPING 2111102 PARTS 20017429 4- 125 -07092 841528 111 - 138317 - 641950 -00000 408 - 253221 - 652990 -00000 200515 SHIPPING 2/15/02 PVC PIPES 20017424 4- 109 -26703 841611 001 - 138710 - 641950 -00000 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 200002 SHIPPING 2/14/02 PARTS CHECK NO 572665 VENDOR 105760 - FERGUSON UNDERGROUND 20017418 841405 23.50 408 - 253212 - 655100.00000 23.50 200215 METER BOXES 11.10 20017419 841194 -1 31.20 408 - 253212. 655100 -00000 0.00 200210 PARTS 31.55 20017407 841528 0.00 408 - 253221 - 652990 -00000 0.00 201624 PVC PIPES 1,440.00 20017447 841611 0.00 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 200211 PARTS 27.94 20017447 841618 0.00 408- 253212. 655100 -00000 0.00 200211 PARTS 447.55 20017407 841602 408 - 253221. 652990 -00000 201624 PVC PIPES 16JIPAGE 61 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20.30 0.00 20.30 23.50 0.00 23.50 11.10 0.00 11.10 31.20 0.00 31.20 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 113.90 0.00 5.90 0.00 5.90 0.00 11.45 0.00 11.45 0.00 8.65 0.00 8.65 0.00 5.55 0.00 5.55 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 31.55 0.00 2,556.96 0.00 2,556.96 0.00 1,440.00 0.00 1,440.00 0.00 270.40 0.00 270.40 0.00 27.94 0.00 27.94 0.00 99.00 0.00 99.00 0.00 447.55 0.00 447.55 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 62 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017717 841603 408 - 253221. 652990 -00000 0.00 1.804.07 0.00 1.804.07 201624 PARTS 20017717 841193 408 - 253221 - 652990 -00000 0.00 1,290.00 0.00 1.290.00 201624 PARTS 20017406 841735 408- 233313 - 652990 -00000 0.00 170.14 0.00 170.14 200656 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,106.06 CHECK NO 572870 VENDOR 257370 FERGUSON UNDERGROUND INC. #125 20017417 840292 408 - 253211. 655100 -00000 0.00 3.526.50 0.00 3,526.50 201791 SUPPLIES 20017417 842126 408 - 253211 - 655100 -00000 0.00 17.45 0.00 17.45 201791 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.543.95 CHECK NO 573021 VENDOR 326720 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 20018082 RETAIL LOCKBOX -1/02 408 - 210151 - 634999 -00000 0.00 2.160.68 0.00 2,160.68 201186 RETAIL LOCKBOX -1/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.160.68 CHECK NO 572879 VENDOR 261220 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES 20017913 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 218910 -00000 0.00 76.56 0.00 76.56 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 76.56 CHECK NO 572683 VENDOR 116470 FIRST TITLE & ABSTRACT, INC. 20018091 B -12303 306 - 116360 - 631650 -80611 0.00 225.00 0.00 225.00 204502 GOODLAND BOAT RAMPS 20017718 02 -TC -3821 313 - 163673. 631650 -62081 0.00 2,462.50 0.00 2.462.50 202659 APPRAISAL 20018019 B -12135 325 - 172972 - 631650 -31212 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 153922 TITLE&ABSTRACT 20018091 02 -TC -3808 (B- 12303) 306 - 116360 - 631650.80611 0.00 14.045.00 0.00 14,045.00 204502 DOLPHIN COVE 20017543 B -12349 (REVISED) 313 - 163673 - 631650 -62071 0.00 225.00 0.00 225.00 202660 PARCEL 118A /LIVINGSTON ROAD MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 133.86 192.70 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20017543 B -12355 313 - 163673 - 631650 -62071 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 202660 PARCELS 118B, 818B1, & 818B3 3,000.00 100.00 CHECK NO 572992 VENDOR 318400 FIRST UNION FINANCIAL 0.00 20017937 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 216210 -00000 0.00 42.59 PP #12 42.59 242.50 CHECK NO 572791 VENDOR 197290 FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK 20017938 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 216210.00000 0.00 PP #12 CHECK NO 572674 VENDOR 111530 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 20018022 7265734 408 - 233350 - 652990 -00000 0.00 153289 SUPPL. CHECK NO 572566 VENDOR 218480 FL DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 20018137 PERMIT APPLIC 204683 413 - 263611 - 649010 -73949 0.00 AND CHECK NO 573129 VENDOR 352450 FL. LITERACY COALITION 20017868 REGISTER R REISS 3/5/02 001 - 156110. 654360 -00000 0.00 154281 R REISS 3/5/02 CHECK NO 572940 VENDOR 288620 - FLA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY 20017550 21 -08- 0800 -1 -7 1/22 -2/22 130 - 157710 - 643400 -00000 0.00 21 -08- 0800.1 -7 1/22/02. 2/22/02 20017549 21 -08- 0878 -2 -2 1/22 -2/22 001. 122260- 643400.00000 0.00 21.08- 0878.2 -2 1/22/02- 2/22/02 20017548 21 -08- 0824 -0 -1 1122 -2122 001 - 122260 - 643400 -00000 0.00 21 -08- 0824 -0 -1 1/22/02- 2/22/02 16JI PAGE 63 AMT NET VCHR DISC 225.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 225.00 17,257.50 133.86 0.00 133.86 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 133.86 192.70 0.00 192.70 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 192.70 625.80 0.00 625.80 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 625.80 3,000.00 0.00 3.000.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,000.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 406.18 0.00 406.18 42.59 0.00 42.59 242.50 0.00 242.50 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018089 21.08- 0822 -0 -3 1122 -2122 21.08- 0822 -0 -3 1/22/02- 2/22/02 20017547 21 -08- 0820 -1 -3 1122 -2122 21 -08- 0820 -1 -3 1/22/02. 2/22/02 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001. 122260. 643400 -00000 0.00 001 - 156140 - 643400 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572607 VENDOR 6640 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 32.33 20017442 PENALTY -SALES TAX 001 - 000000 - 208901 -00000 0.00 37.96 SALES TAX & PENALTY 0.00 198.09 CHECK NO 572729 VENDOR 158730 FLORIDA DEPT OF EDUCATION 20017916 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 218900 -00000 0.00 PP #12 CHECK NO 573145 VENDOR 353140 FLORIDA FEDERATION OF FAIRS & 20018015 MMB /SHIP PEG RUBY 111 - 156341 - 654210.00000 0.00 154067 ANN.MMB /SHIP CHECK NO 572895 VENDOR 270460 FLORIDA NURSERYMEN 20018018 MMB /SHIP E.MIAVITZ 001 - 157110. 654210.00000 0.00 154615 MMB /SHIP E.MIAVITZ CHECK NO 572611 VENDOR 6790 - FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 20018098 74697.39044 1/28. 2/26/02 001 - 172930. 643100 -00000 0.00 74697.39044 1/28/02- 2/26/02 20018096 97820 -17231 12/26- 2/20/02 408 - 233313. 643100 -00000 0.00 97820.17231 12/26/01- 2/20/02 20018098 03801 -54062 1/25- 2/25/02 150 - 162545. 643100 -00000 0.00 03801 -54062 1/25/02. 2/25/02 20018097 11720.15578 1/30- 2/28/02 408- 233351 - 643100 -00000 0.00 11720 -15578 1/30/02. 2/28/02 16JI PAGE 61; AMT NET VCHR DISC 1,138.04 0.00 43.67 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 21.28 CHECK TOTAL 85.00 CHECK TOTAL 50.00 CHECK TOTAL 50.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VCHR NET 1.138.04 43.67 1.872.98 21.28 21.28 85.00 85.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 39.02 0.00 39.02 32.33 0.00 32.33 37.96 0.00 37.96 198.09 0.00 198.09 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018096 67496.05199 1/24- 2/20/02 67496 -05199 1/24/02- 2/20/02 20018096 04953.54193 11/21- 2/18/02 04953 -54193 11/21/01- 2/18/02 20018096 10602 -32137 2/20- 3/1/02 10602 -32137 2/20/02- 3/1/02 20018096 49448 -23196 11/21 - 2/18/02 49448.23196 11/21/01- 2/18/02 20018099 24516 -13315 1/24. 2/25/02 24516 -13315 1/24/02- 2/25/02 20018097 67247 -36027 1/29- 2/27/02 67247 -36027 1/29/02. 2127/02 20018096 22432 -31061 1/29- 2/27/02 22432 -31061 1/29/02. 2/27/02 20018099 73965.45530 1/24. 2/25/02 73965.45530 1/24/02- 2/25/02 20018097 83557 -30154 1/29 - 2/27/02 83557 -30154 1/29/02- 2/27/02 20018099 03677 -75210 1/23- 2/21/02 03677 -75210 1/23/02- 2/21/02 20018098 25502.32044 1/29- 2/27/02 25502 -32044 1/29/02- 2/27/02 20018097 76422 -01375 1/30- 2/28/02 76422 -01375 1/30/02- 2/28/02 20018099 63316 -84552 1/10 - 2/11/02 63316 -84552 1/10/02- 2/11/02 20018098 95646 -99230 1/29 - 2/27/02 95646.99230 1/29/02- 2/27/02 20018097 11784 -34336 1/30- 2/28/02 11784 -34336 1/30/02- 2/28/02 20018099 63291 -11170 1/24- 2/25/02 63291 -11170 1/24/02- 2/25/02 20018099 01458 -36201 1 /10- 2/11/02 01458 -36201 1/10/02- 2/11/02 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 23.95 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408 - 233351 - 643100.00000 0.00 408- 233351 - 643100 -00000 0.00 408. 233313. 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351. 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233313 - 643100 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 643100.00000 0.00 408- 233351 - 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233313 - 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212. 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233312 - 643100 -00000 0.00 198. 157410 - 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351. 643100.00000 0.00 669 - 100220 - 643100.00000 0.00 111 - 163646. 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 253221. 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233313 - 643100 -00000 0.00 113. 138900 - 643100 -00000 0.00 16JIPAGE 65 AMT NET VCHR DISC 23.95 0.00 49.05 0.00 211.46 0.00 91.20 0.00 295.11 0.00 687.13 0.00 221.00 0.00 35.36 0.00 23.10 0.00 15.712.03 0.00 676.24 0.00 5.71 0.00 147.85 0.00 9.72 0.00 35.45 0.00 12.111.36 0.00 8.705.92 0.00 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018096 04021.36196 1/30- 2/28/02 04021 -36196 1/30/02- 2/28/02 20018099 90299.32127 1/23- 2/21/02 90299.32127 1/23/02. 2/21/02 20018097 75152.48438 1/25- 2/25/02 75152 -48438 1/25/02. 2/25/02 20018098 85942 -34000 1/25- 2/25/02 85942 -34000 1/25/02- 2/25/02 20018097 75264 -82588 2/1/02- 3/4/02 75264 -82588 2/1/02- 3/4/02 20018098 11744 -78113 1/25- 2/25/02 11744 -78113 1/25/02- 2/25/02 20018099 99914 -46015 1/25. 2/25/02 99914 -46015 1/25/02- 2/25/02 20018098 42477 -61549 1/25- 2/25/02 42477 -61549 1/25/02- 2/25/02 20018098 77760 -35086 1/24. 2/22/02 77760 -35086 1/24/02- 2/22/02 20018096 17775 -55192 11/15- 2/20/02 17775 -55192 11/15/01- 2/20/02 20018097 01933 -76233 1/30- 2/28/02 01933 -76233 1/30/02- 2/28/02 20018098 92617 -71175 1/29. 2/27/02 92617 -71175 1/29/02- 2/27/02 20018096 23856 -80547 2/4- 2/20/02 23856 -80547 2/4/02. 2/20/02 20018096 46435 -93405 2/8- 2/20/02 46435 -93405 2/8/02. 2/20/02 20018097 32053 -34091 1/29- 2/27/02 32053 -34091 1/29/02- 2/27/02 20018096 04021 -36196 12/28- 1/30/02 04021 -36196 12/28/01- 1/30/02 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9.57 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408 - 233351 - 643100.00000 0.00 408 - 233312. 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351. 643100 -00000 0.00 770 - 162710 - 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233313. 643100 -00000 0.00 160 - 162518. 643100 -00000 0.00 001 - 156170. 643100 -00000 0.00 111 - 163646 - 643100 -00000 0.00 152 - 162541 - 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 643100 -00000 0.00 160. 162518- 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233313 - 643100.00000 0.00 408 - 233313. 643100 -00000 0.00 198 - 157410 - 643100.00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 643100 -00000 0.00 16JIPAGE Co AMT NET VCHR DISC 9.57 0.00 35,573.67 0.00 17.52 0.00 905.55 0.00 10.59 0.00 17.07 0.00 657.50 0.00 9.09 0.00 21.93 0.00 45.25 0.00 9.09 0.00 9.09 0.00 43.28 0.00 19.95 0.00 34.29 0.00 27.54 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 9.57 35,573.67 17.52 905.55 10.59 17.07 657.50 9.09 21.93 45.25 9.09 9.09 43.28 19.95 34.29 27.54 76.760.02 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 912.39 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 107.40 255.10 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573115 VENDOR 351760 FLORIDA ROCK 20017423 1140013966 111.156332- 646381.00000 0.00 204392 RIP RAP CHECK NO 572677 VENDOR 112450 FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES 20017420 1140013907 111. 163645 - 653110.00000 0.00 200809 LIMEROCK 20017420 1140013939 111 - 163645 - 653110.00000 0.00 200809 LIMEROCK 20017420 1140014009 111 - 163645 - 653110.00000 0.00 200809 LIMEROCK 20017420 1140014034 111- 163645 - 653110.00000 0.00 200809 LIMEROCK 20017420 1140014061 111- 163645 - 653110 -00000 0.00 200809 LIMEROCK CHECK NO 572893 VENDOR 268740 FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY 20018017 MMB /SHIP E.MIAVITZ 001 - 157110- 654210 -00000 0.00 154431 MMB /SHIP E.MIAVITZ CHECK NO 572710 VENDOR 135230 - FLORIDA STATE UNDERGROUND, INC 20018081 JOB 21025 /RUBBLE RIP RAP 313 - 163673. 763100 -60055 0.00 203390 JOB 21025 /RUBBLE RIPRAP CHECK NO 572847 VENDOR 243280 - FLORIDA WATER SERVICES 20017552 001065725 -2 1/24- 2/20/02 001 - 156160. 643400 -00000 0.00 001065725 -2 1/24/02- 2/20/02 20017545 010019512 -2 1/22- 2/22/02 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 010019512 -2 1/22/02- 2/22/02 20018083 000576615 -9 1/22- 2/15/02 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 000576615 -9 1/22/02- 2/15/02 16JlPAGE 67 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 2.375.30 0.00 2,375.30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,375.30 655.87 810.55 877.72 412.21 997.63 CHECK TOTAL 35.00 CHECK TOTAL 4,516.35 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 912.39 0.00 912.39 107.40 0.00 107.40 255.10 0.00 255.10 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 68 REPORT 100.6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017546 000473365.5 1/22- 2/15/02 001. 156363- 643400 -00000 0.00 185.97 0.00 185.97 000473365.5 1/22/02- 2/15/02 20017551 001065735.1 1/24. 2/20/02 001 - 156160. 643400 -00000 0.00 261.94 0.00 261.94 001065735.1 1/24/02. 2/20/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,722.80 CHECK NO 572612 VENDOR 6970 FOLGER ADAM COMPANY 20017719 025854 001 - 122240 - 652990.00000 0.00 2,091.25 0.00 2.091.25 203812 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,091.25 CHECK NO 572692 VENDOR 126420 FORESTRY RESOURCES 20017412 451965 111. 156334 - 646318 -00000 0.00 28.20 0.00 28.20 201089 SHREDDED CYPRESS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 28.20 CHECK NO 572805 VENDOR 204170 FORESTRY RESOURCES 20017422 455857 001 - 126334 - 646314 -00000 0.00 1,386.00 0.00 1,386.00 204367 RED MULCH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,386.00 CHECK NO 573060 VENDOR 340300 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS, INC. 20018010 368869.00 001 - 178985. 652990 -00000 0.00 21.60 001 - 178985. 641950.00000 0.00 5.55 0.00 27.15 154255 BATTERY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 27.15 CHECK NO 572727 VENDOR 157320 - FREEMAN AND FREEMAN INC. 20017890 #41 191 - 138785 - 884200 -33751 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5.000.00 204487 GERMON #65120440006 20017889 #40 191. 138785 - 884200 -33751 0.00 8,500.00 0.00 8,500.00 204341 GERMON #65120440006 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 13,500.00 CHECK NO 572944 VENDOR 290310 - FREIGHTLINER OF TAMPA 20017544 127025P 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 499.46 0.00 499.46 200826 PARTS MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017544 127197P 200826 PARTS 20017544 127436P 200826 PARTS 20017544 127956P 200826 PARTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573071 VENDOR 344360 - FSI CLEAN AIR 20017720 1631682 001. 122240- 646286 -00000 204043 SUS 2111102 CHECK NO 573040 VENDOR 333980 G &K SERVICES 20017613 686317 63.60 114 - 178975. 652130 -00000 63.60 200355 UNIFORMS 114.19 20017614 694318 726.25 408 - 233350. 652130 -00000 0.00 200752 UNIFORMS 3.22 20017616 690312 0.00 111 - 156390. 652130 -00000 0.00 201438 UNIFORMS 28.21 20017616 694315 0.00 111 - 156390. 652130 -00000 0.00 201438 UNIFORMS 131.03 20017616 694315 0.00 111 - 156332. 652130 -00000 0.00 201438 UNIFORMS 64.09 20017616 691903 0.00 001. 156363. 652130 -00000 201438 UNIFORMS 20017635 694335 2111 408 - 233312. 652130.00000 200612 UNIFORMS 20017639 694317 001 - 155410. 652130.00000 201167 UNIFORMS 20017615 691904 001 - 172930. 652130 -00000 202113 UNIFORMS 20017616 695084 111 - 156343. 634999 -00000 201438 UNIFORMS 16JIPAGE 69 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 49.00 0.00 49.00 63.60 0.00 63.60 114.19 0.00 114.19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 726.25 0.00 1,363.00 0.00 1,363.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,363.00 0.00 61.73 0.00 61.73 0.00 29.40 0.00 29.40 0.00 3.22 0.00 3.22 0.00 3.22 0.00 3.22 0.00 28.21 0.00 28.21 0.00 12.09 0.00 12.09 0.00 131.03 0.00 131.03 0.00 39.25 0.00 39.25 0.00 64.09 0.00 64.09 0.00 1.44 0.00 1.44 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 70 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017631 694328 2/11 101 - 163630. 652130 -00000 0.00 95.58 0.00 95.58 200025 UNIFORMS 20017632 694330 2111 408 - 210130 - 652130 -00000 0.00 422.49 0.00 422.49 200723 UNIFORMS 20017613 698319 114 - 178975 - 652130.00000 0.00 61.73 0.00 61.73 200355 UNIFORMS 20017613 690322 114 - 178975 - 652130 -00000 0.00 61.73 0.00 61.73 200355 UNIFORMS 20017637 694316 408 - 253211 - 652130 -00000 0.00 84.72 0.00 84.72 200384 UNIFORMS 20017616 693485 111 - 156332 - 652130 -00000 0.00 16.12 0.00 16.12 201438 UNIFORMS 20017613 694325 114 - 178975 - 652130 -00000 0.00 61.73 0.00 61.73 200355 UNIFORMS 20017614 690315 408 - 233350 - 652130.00000 0.00 29.40 0.00 29.40 200752 UNIFORMS 20017616 695084 111 - 156334 - 652130.00000 0.00 30.41 0.00 30.41 201438 UNIFORMS 20017633 694319 2111 408- 233352 - 652130 -00000 0.00 106.86 0.00 106.86 200715 UNIFORMS 20017614 686310 408 - 233350 - 652130 -00000 0.00 29.40 0.00 29.40 200752 UNIFORMS 20017613 682309 114 - 178975 - 652130 -00000 0.00 61.73 0.00 61.73 200355 UNIFORMS 20017629 694322 N2 /11 408 - 253212 - 652130 -00000 0.00 271.69 0.00 271.69 200222 UNIFORMS 20017616 694336 111 - 156332 - 652130 -00000 0.00 30.41 0.00 30.41 201438 UNIFORMS 20017616 690312 111- 156332 - 652130 -00000 0.00 28.21 0.00 28.21 201438 UNIFORMS 20017622 693477 408 - 253250 - 652130 -00000 0.00 38.15 0.00 38.15 201628 UNIFORMS 20017615 695916 001. 172930 - 652130 -00000 0.00 64.09 0.00 64.09 202113 UNIFORMS MARCH 13. 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017616 691902 201438 UNIFORMS 20017641 695104 201124 UNIFORMS 20017634 694334 2111 200658 UNIFORMS 20017638 694327 200374 UNIFORMS 20017622 697476 201628 UNIFORMS 20017615 687901 202113 UNIFORMS 20017616 691903 201438 UNIFORMS 20017640 694320 201478 UNIFORMS 20017636 693478 2/8 200420 UNIFORMS 20017613 702332 200355 UNIFORMS CHECK NO 573054 VENDOR 339190 - G &K SERVICES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR DISC SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111 - 156332. 652130 -00000 0.00 470 - 173442. 652130 -00000 0.00 408 - 233313. 652130 -00000 0.00 111 - 163647. 652130 -00000 0.00 408 - 253250. 652130 -00000 0.00 001 - 172930. 652130 -00000 0.00 111. 156332. 652130 -00000 0.00 111 - 156381. 652130.00000 0.00 111 - 156381. 634999.00000 0.00 408 - 253221. 652130 -00000 0.00 114 - 178975. 652130 -00000 0.00 20017642 695912 101 - 163620- 652130 -00000 0.00 201127 UNIFORMS 20017630 694333 2/11 109 - 182602. 652130 -00000 0.00 109 - 182901 - 652130 -00000 0.00 109- 182901 - 652990.00000 0.00 200069 UNIFORMS CHECK NO 572669 VENDOR 108940 - GALLS, INC. 20017812 554576880001 001 - 122255. 652120 -00000 0.00 001 - 122255 - 641951.00000 0.00 154520 UNIFORM ACCESSORIES 16JIPAGE 71 AMT NET VCHR DISC 47.55 0.00 17.34 0.00 16.60 0.00 33.99 0.00 38.15 0.00 64.09 0.00 4.03 0.00 4.03 1.44 0.00 65.25 0.00 61.73 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 221.44 0.00 16.12 49.93 1.95 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 71.99 2.25 0.00 VCHR NET 47.55 17.34 16.60 33.99 38.15 64.09 4.03 5.47 65.25 61.73 2.222.33 221.44 68.00 289.44 74.24 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 72 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 74.24 CHECK NO 572613 VENDOR 7320 - GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC. 20017816 214803 001 - 156110.652610.00000 0.00 328.78 0.00 328.78 153342 BOOK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 328.78 CHECK NO 572743 VENDOR 166730 GENERAL CHEMICAL CORP 20017649 20200870 408 - 233352 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,939.56 0.00 1,939.56 203776 CHEM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,939.56 CHECK NO 572896 VENDOR 272390 GIBSON & WIRT, INC 20017996 NOTARY LICENSE G HAMBRIGH 495 - 192310 - 654210.00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 154613 G HAMBRIGHT /NOTARY LIC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 CHECK NO 573160 VENDOR 900050 - GOLDEN GATE AREA CHAMBER 301507 GG FESTIVAL 01102 REFUND 670- 000000 - 220010.00000 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 GG FESTIVAL 01102 REFUND DEPOSIT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,000.00 CHECK NO 573070 VENDOR 344110 - GOLDEN GATE PHYSICAL THERAPY 20018092 2/19 -2/25 S BAINTER 001 - 155930.631990 -00000 0.00 240.50 0.00 240.50 154706 2/19 -2/25 S BAINTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 240.50 CHECK NO 572809 VENDOR 208010 - GOLDEN GATE TROPHY CENTER 20017645 2/13 AWARDS IMMOK PARK 111 - 156343.652990 -00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 19.50 201481 2/13 AWARDS IMMOK PARK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 19.50 CHECK NO 572678 VENDOR 114580 - GOLF AND ELECTRIC CARRIAGES, INC. 20017818 54980 001 - 122240.646970 -00000 0.00 161.16 0.00 161.16 152768 ANNUAL SERVICE AND SUPPLIES 20017817 55067 001 - 122240 - 646970 -00000 0.00 671.80 0.00 671.80 152758 LESTER CHARGER MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 73 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 832.96 CHECK NO 573114 VENDOR 351650 - GOURMET CATERING MARKET 20017628 ST JOHN LIFE CTR 3/14 116 - 121830 - 649992 -33297 0.00 1,974.25 0.00 1,974.25 204340 LUNCHEON VOLUNTEERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,974.25 CHECK NO 573142 VENDOR 353060 - GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 20017451 56392 001 - 121148 - 654360 -00000 0.00 280.00 0.00 280.00 154607 B THOMAS 6/2/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 280.00 CHECK NO 572615 VENDOR 7900 - GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 20017619 0630226491 001 - 156363 - 652991 -00000 0.00 113.18 0.00 113.18 200880 ELECT PARTS 20017625 0630228801 111 - 156334 - 652991 -00000 0.00 563.28 0.00 563.28 201121 ELEC PARTS 20017621 0630229994 408 - 233312. 655200 -00000 0.00 72.70 0.00 72.70 200628 ELEC PARTS 20017620 0630228719 408. 233351 - 655100.00000 0.00 67.50 0.00 67.50 200778 ELECT PARTS 20017619 0630226530 001 - 156363 - 652991.00000 0.00 414.72 0.00 414.72 200880 ELECT PARTS 20017619 0630228219 001 - 156363 - 652991 -00000 0.00 207.36- 0.00 207.36- 200880 ELECT PARTS 20017646 0630229486 408 - 233351 - 652990 -00000 0.00 7.93 0.00 7.93 200782 ELECTRIC 20017619 0630227813 001- 156363. 652991 -00000 0.00 214.29 0.00 214.29 200880 ELECT PARTS 20017619 0630226209 001. 156363. 652991.00000 0.00 690.26 0.00 690.26 200880 ELECT PARTS 20017625 0630228731 111 - 156334. 652991 -00000 0.00 1,781.37 0.00 1,781.37 201121 ELEC PARTS 20017621 0630229993 408 - 233312 - 655200.00000 0.00 80.60 0.00 80.60 200628 ELEC PARTS MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 74 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017620 0630228764 408 - 233351 - 655100 -00000 0.00 282.77 0.00 282.77 200778 ELECT PARTS 20017647 0630229754 408 - 233313 - 655200 -00000 0.00 46.41 0.00 46.41 200663 ELECTRIC 20017619 0630228218 001- 156363 - 652991.00000 0.00 611.20- 0.00 611.20- 200880 ELECT PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.516.45 CHECK NO 572844 VENDOR 239140 - GREAT AMERICA LEASING CORPORATION 20017643 2282353 111 - 156310 - 644620.00000 0.00 577.00 0.00 577.00 202110 COPIER LEASE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 577.00 CHECK NO 572712 VENDOR 138810 - GREELEY & HANSEN 20017186 109355 413 - 263611. 631400 -73066 0.00 15,549.99 411. 273511. 763100.70070 0.00 10.290.81 0.00 25.840.80 105441 SERVICES FOR 2001 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25,840.80 CHECK NO 572980 VENDOR 314000 - GREG THACKER 20017395 3/16.24 TRVL G THACKER 408 - 233351- 640300 -00000 0.00 156.00 0.00 156.00 3/16 -24 TRVL G THACKER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 156.00 CHECK NO 572667 VENDOR 106780 - GREGORY COURT REPORTING 20017810 957879 681. 410310 - 633033 -00000 0.00 534.15 0.00 534.15 D THERIN 01.873 -CFA 20017810 958132 681 - 410310 - 633033.00000 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 D THERIN 01- 873 -CFA 20017810 57977 681. 410310 - 633033 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 D BERNAN 01 -167 CFA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 609.15 CHECK NO 573048 VENDOR 337150 - GTECH SERVICE GROUP, INC. 20017819 1207 001. 122240- 652992 -00000 0.00 275.00 0.00 275.00 152765 CHECK BOILER 13, COUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 75 R PMARCH ORT 100 -6002 ONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017822 1211 001 - 122240 - 652992.00000 0.00 275.00 0.00 275.00 153593 TUNE BOILER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 550.00 CHECK NO 572957 VENDOR 299230 GUARDIAN PERSONAL STORAGE 20017644 A3 -313 SPACE 111 - 156341 - 644170 -00000 0.00 108.00 0.00 108.00 A3 -313 SPACE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 108.00 CHECK NO 573027 VENDOR 329670 GULF ANESTHESIA 20018095 1/31 A MCGEE 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 193.38 0.00 193.38 154707 1/31 A MCGEE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 193.38 CHECK NO 572703 VENDOR 131930 H F SCIENTIFIC, INC 20017815 122180 408 - 253211 - 652990 -00000 0.00 194.31 0.00 194.31 152267 CALIBRATION SET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 194.31 CHECK NO 572748 VENDOR 169540 - HANNULA LANDSCAPING. INC. 20017189 #2 RETAINAGE 136 - 000000 - 205100.00000 0.00 13.348.64- 0.00 13,348.64- 107675 THRU 2/8/02 RETAINAGE 20017189 #2 136 - 162590. 763100 -66070 0.00 133.486.39 0.00 133,486.39 107675 THRU 2/8/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 120.137.75 CHECK NO 572616 VENDOR 8180 HARBORSIDE ANIMAL CLINIC 20017824 130186 001 - 155410 - 631980.00000 0.00 141.35 0.00 141.35 154602 MEDICAL CARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 141.35 CHECK NO 573101 VENDOR 349740 HARCOURT, INC. 20017627 46302868 355 - 156190- 766100 -00000 0.00 29.56 0.00 29.56 154231 PRE GED CHECK TOTAL 0.00 29.56 101622 THRU 1/25/02 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 76 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572617 VENDOR 8360 - HARRINGTON'S PROF. ARTS PHARMACY 20018094 RX HEATH, FLIPPIN 001 - 155930 - 652710 -00000 0.00 285.83 0.00 285.83 154708 RX HEATH , FLIPPIN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 285.83 CHECK NO 573010 VENDOR 323370 - HARRIS COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT 20017927 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 218810.00000 0.00 179.08 0.00 179.08 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 179.08 CHECK NO 572854 VENDOR 251890 - HERIBERTO HARTNACK 20017393 2/4 -28 TRVL H HARTNACK 001 - 155230 - 640200 -00000 0.00 27.84 0.00 27.84 2/4 -28 TRVL H HARTNACK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 27.84 CHECK NO 573017 VENDOR 326230 - HERITAGE SQUARE REAL ESTATE, L.L.C. 20018111 3/12/02 LOTS 14 & 15 001. 122240- 644100 -00000 0.00 1.364.76 0.00 1.364.76 204727ASSOC ASSES 6/1/00 - 8/30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,364.76 CHECK NO 573031 VENDOR 331450 - HIRECHECK, INC. 20017618 900ADK0201 1/1 -1/31 001. 121810 - 634999 -00000 0.00 96.00 0.00 96.00 201164 20017618 9002HD0201 1/1 -1/31 001 - 121810. 634999 -00000 0.00 66.00 0.00 66.00 201164 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 162.00 CHECK NO 572618 VENDOR 8810 HOLE MONTES AND ASSOC INC 20017184 42954 313 - 163673. 631400 -65042 0.00 0.00 331 - 163650. 631400 -65042 0.00 0.00 313 - 163673- 649010 -65041 0.00 0.00 331. 163650 - 631400.65041 0.00 29,333.38 411 - 273511 - 631400 -70049 0.00 0.00 413 - 263611 - 631400 -74025 0.00 0.00 413. 263611- 631400 -73002 0.00 0.00 313 - 163673 - 631400 -65041 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.333.38 101622 THRU 1/25/02 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 35.01 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 59.35 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 192.28 0.00 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20017602 42963 REVISED 2/28/02 413. 263611- 631400 -73076 0.00 107323 THRU 1/25/02 20018138 42953 414 - 263611 - 631400.73065 0.00 331 - 163650 - 631400 -66042 0.00 412 - 273511 - 631400 -70071 0.00 103380 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01/25 20018142 43027 413 - 263611- 631400 -73949 0.00 202328 - 12/22/01 - 1/25/02 CHECK NO 572735 VENDOR 164250 HOME DEPOT 20017623 9031373 201759 20017624 9011135 201159 PARTS 20017624 5010539 201159 PARTS 20017623 7132316 201759 20017648 3261891 200912 SUPPLIES 20017624 8011281 201159 PARTS 20017624 3010761 201159 PARTS 20017624 8011243 201159 PARTS CHECK NO 573025 VENDOR 328710 - HOME DEPOT 20017820 0080138 153980 PAINT 306 - 116360. 763100 -80087 111- 156332. 652990 -00000 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 306 - 116360. 763100 -80087 001 - 156363- 652990 -00000 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 111. 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16JI PAGE 77 AMT NET VCHR DISC 12.219.34 0.00 5.346.57 61,022.95 3.621.87 0.00 23.996.25 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 140.14 0.00 35.01 0.00 84.35 0.00 59.35 0.00 4.19 0.00 192.28 0.00 25.21 0.00 10.88 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 111. 163647 - 652990 -00000 0.00 47.40 CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 572924 VENDOR 281640 - HOME DEPOT COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS 0.00 0.00 VCHR NET 12,219.34 69,991.39 23.996.25 135.540.36 140.14 35.01 84.35 59.35 4.19 192.28 25.21 10.88 551.41 47.40 47.40 MARCH EOFCCOMMISSIONERSA 16JI PAGE 78 T 100 -6002 REPORT BOARD SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017699 9212081/79018865869 191. 138785. 884100 -33751 0.00 41.92- 0.00 41.92- 153419 M CHERRY #35880600006 20017699 7212131/79018865869 191 - 138785 - 884100.33751 0.00 118.98 0.00 118.98 153419 M CHERRY #35880600006 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 77.06 CHECK NO 572916 VENDOR 279710 - HORVATH ELECTRIC MOTORS 20017827 5065 408 - 253221 - 634999.00000 0.00 418.56 0.00 418.56 201625 ELECTRIC MOTORS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 418.56 CHECK NO 573102 VENDOR 349820 - HUGHES SUPPLY INC. 20017995 36753746.01 301 - 120402 - 762200 -80196 0.00 5,409.82 0.00 5,409.82 203822 SUPPLIES 20017995 36849991 -02 301 - 120402. 762200 -80196 0.00 61.08 0.00 61.08 203822 SUPPLIES 20017995 36753746 -02 301 - 120402 - 762200.80196 0.00 3,950.00 0.00 3,950.00 203822 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9,420.90 CHECK NO 572619 VENDOR 9020 HYDRAULIC HOSE AND EQUIP 20017617 097675 521. 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 235.11 0.00 235.11 202312 20017617 097670 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 3.63 0.00 3.63 202312 20017617 097639 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 178.64 0.00 178.64 202312 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 417.38 CHECK NO 572998 VENDOR 319770 IAFF 3670 20017936 PP #12 001. 000000- 218700 -00000 0.00 248.00 0.00 248.00 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 248.00 CHECK NO 572708 VENDOR 134560 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST -457 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JIPAGE 79 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017915 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 217001 -00000 0.00 30,769.95 0.00 30,769.95 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 30,769.95 CHECK NO 573094 VENDOR 348900 IFAS COMMUNICATION SERVICES 20017814 07877 001 - 157110 - 652990.00000 0.00 21.00 0.00 21.00 154428 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 21.00 CHECK NO 572973 VENDOR 310350 IMAGE ONE 20017823 38797 001. 121143- 634999.00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 154352 SOFTWARE SUPPORT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 500.00 CHECK NO 572814 VENDOR 214770 IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 20017821 MEMB DUES H CASELTINE 001 - 138710 - 654210 -00000 0.00 125.00 0.00 125.00 DUES H CASELTINE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 125.00 CHECK NO 572620 VENDOR 9180 IMMOKALEE DISPOSAL CO 20017998 484 3/1 -3/31 111 - 156332 - 643300 -00000 0.00 325.32 0.00 325.32 484 3/1 -3/31 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 325.32 CHECK NO 572716 VENDOR 147920 IMMOKALEE WATER & SEWER DISTRICT 20018093 2111160100 1/8 -2/11 001 - 155810 - 643400 -00000 0.00 224.87 0.00 224.87 2111160100 1/8 -2/11 20017829 21260654001/18 -2/25 001 - 122370 - 643400 -00000 0.00 7.97 0.00 7.97 2126065400 1 /18 -2/25 20017828 2111161500 1/8 -2/11 111 - 156334 - 643400.00000 0.00 2,362.57 0.00 2,362.57 2111161500 1/8 -2/11 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,595.41 CHECK NO 573067 VENDOR 343820 - IMOSOFTECH, INC 20017626 009069 412 - 273511. 763100.70882 0.00 13,000.00 0.00 13.000.00 107761 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 80 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017626 009069 412 - 273511. 763100 -70882 0.00 6,500.00- 0.00 6,500.00- 107761 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,500.00 CHECK NO 573125 VENDOR 352270 - IMPERIAL INTERLOCKING PAVER CORP 20017779 1030 CONNER 191 - 138785. 884200 -33751 0.00 2,350.50 0.00 2,350.50 204488 CONNER #62780880009 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,350.50 CHECK NO 572621 VENDOR 9270 - INDUSTRIAL AIR PRODUCTS 20017813 117648 001 - 155410 - 652720.00000 0.00 27.40 001- 155410 - 641950.00000 0.00 2.00 0.00 29.40 154603 OXYGEN PRODUCTS 20017811 116574 111 - 156390. 652990 -00000 0.00 32.00 111 - 156390 - 644600 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 37.00 154064 AIR PRODUCTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 66.40 CHECK NO 572772 VENDOR 187500 INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT 20017390 S0003857 001 - 121810 - 634999 -00000 0.00 250.00 0.00 250.00 154425 TRAINING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 250.00 CHECK NO 572945 VENDOR 290590 INTELITRAN 20018031 PRI 0102 IMMOKALEE 111 - 156343. 634999 -00000 0.00 1,224.00 0.00 1,224.00 202926 2/15 IMMOKALEE 20018033 PRV0102 VETERANS PARK 111 - 156380 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1,224.00 0.00 1,224.00 202922 2115 VETERANS PARK 20018032 PRGG 0102 GOLDEN GATEPARK 130 - 157710. 634999 -00000 0.00 1,224.00 0.00 1,224.00 202925 2/15 GOLDEN GATE PARK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,672.00 CHECK NO 572707 VENDOR 134360 - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 20017917 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 218900.00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 PP #12 20017918 PP #12 001. 000000- 218900 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 PP #12 CHECK NO 573123 VENDOR 352150 - ISLAND TITLE & ALFREDO DAVID 20017908 D/P A DAVID #62202320005 191 - 138785. 884100 -33751 0.00 5.000.00 0.00 #622022320005 A DAVID 204591 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573134 VENDOR 352730 - ISLAND TITLE & ARMANDO GARCIA 50017906 D/P A GARCIA 62047640005 191 - 138785. 884100 -33751 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 #62047640005 A GARCIA 204593 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573133 VENDOR 352720 - ISLAND TITLE & CARLOS ZAVALA 20017903 D/P C ZAVALA #62047640005 191 - 138785 - 884100 -33751 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 #62047640005 ZAVALA 204596 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573117 VENDOR 351960 - ISLAND TITLE & GLORIA FLORES 20017907 D/P G FLORES #62047640005 191 - 138785- 884100 -33751 0.00 5.000.00 0.00 #62047640005 G FLORES 204592 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 81 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 CHECK NO 572834 VENDOR 234030 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 20017919 PP #12 001 - 000000. 218900 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 150.00 CHECK NO 573148 VENDOR 353410 INTERNATIONAL FESTIVALS AND EVENTS 20017997 MEMBERSHIP #8717 111 - 156341 - 654210 -00000 0.00 390.00 0.00 390.00 154571 P RUBY /A PAPPALARDO MEMBERSHI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 390.00 CHECK NO 572979 VENDOR 313840 - IOSCAPITAL 20017826 54194473 12/26 -1/24 681. 421510- 644620 -00000 0.00 800.98 0.00 800.98 201963 12/26.1/24 20017825 54146856$1/26 -2/25 681 - 431310. 644620 -00000 0.00 362.40 0.00 362.40 201965 1/26 -2/25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,163.38 CHECK NO 573123 VENDOR 352150 - ISLAND TITLE & ALFREDO DAVID 20017908 D/P A DAVID #62202320005 191 - 138785. 884100 -33751 0.00 5.000.00 0.00 #622022320005 A DAVID 204591 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573134 VENDOR 352730 - ISLAND TITLE & ARMANDO GARCIA 50017906 D/P A GARCIA 62047640005 191 - 138785. 884100 -33751 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 #62047640005 A GARCIA 204593 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573133 VENDOR 352720 - ISLAND TITLE & CARLOS ZAVALA 20017903 D/P C ZAVALA #62047640005 191 - 138785 - 884100 -33751 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 #62047640005 ZAVALA 204596 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573117 VENDOR 351960 - ISLAND TITLE & GLORIA FLORES 20017907 D/P G FLORES #62047640005 191 - 138785- 884100 -33751 0.00 5.000.00 0.00 #62047640005 G FLORES 204592 MARCH 13, 02 COLLIER 16JI PAGE 82 REPORT 100-601 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.000.00 CHECK NO 573132 VENDOR 352710 - ISLAND TITLE & JOSE CONTRERAS 20017909 D/P J CONTRERAS 191 - 138785. 884100 -33751 0.00 5.000.00 0.00 5.000.00 #62044400002 J CONTRERAS 204590 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.000.00 CHECK NO 573120 VENDOR 351990 - ISLAND TITLE & MIGUEL TREJO 20017902 D/P M TREJO #62044440004 191 - 138785. 884100 -33751 0.00 5.000.00 0.00 5.000.00 #62044440004 M TREJO 204442 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.000.00 CHECK NO 573116 VENDOR 351940 - ISLAND TITLE & RICARDO BADILLO 20017910 D/P R BADILLO 62201560002 191 - 138785 - 884100 -33751 0.00 5.000.00 0.00 5.000.00 #62201560002 R BADILLO 204439 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5,000.00 CHECK NO 573118 VENDOR 351970 - ISLAND TITLE & TIBOR JANCSOK 20017905 D/P T JANCSOK 62047520002 191 - 138785. 884100 -33751 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 #62047520002 T JANCCOK 204440 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.000.00 CHECK NO 573119 VENDOR 351980 - ISLAND TITLE & VIELKA ORTEGA 20017904 D/P V ORTEGA #62202280006 191 - 138785- 884100 -33751 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 #622002280006 V ORTEGA 204547 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.000.00 CHECK NO 572831 VENDOR 231810 J. M. TODD COMPANY 20017455 72855 408- 253221- 651210.00000 0.00 87.77 0.00 87.77 200423 1/27.2/26 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 87.77 CHECK NO 573047 VENDOR 336570 J.A. WEBSTER, INC. 20017489 1409506 001 - 155410 - 652720 -00000 0.00 152.86 0.00 152.86 154435 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 152.86 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY FLORI 16JI PAGE 83 REPORT 100 -6002 OF ONERDA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572713 VENDOR 139990 - J.C. DRAINFIELD 20017729 5912 001 - 122240 - 652994 -00000 0.00 235.00 0.00 235.00 201288 HAULING 20017453 5849 408. 233351- 634999 -00000 0.00 1,075.00 0.00 1.075.00 201107 SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.310.00 CHECK NO 572818 VENDOR 215840 - J.J. KELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20017487 004423774 518 - 121630 - 652990 -00000 0.00 18.00 516 - 121650 - 654110 -00000 0.00 14.95 518- 121630. 641950 -00000 0.00 9.37 0.00 42.32 154164 LABLES /GUIDE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 42.32 CHECK NO 572829 VENDOR 231020 J.M. TODD COMPANY 20017727 73113 669. 100220 - 646710 -00000 0.00 46.59 0.00 46.59 203692 1/29. 2/28/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 46.59 CHECK NO 572622 VENDOR 9540 JACK AND ANN'S FEED 20017491 68887 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 2.40 0.00 2.40 201287 SUPPLIES 20017491 69192 001 - 122240. 652990.00000 0.00 1.79 0.00 1.79 201287 SUPPLIES 20017744 69306 111 - 156334. 652910.00000 0.00 62.48 111 - 156334 - 652990.00000 0.00 281.27 0.00 343.75 201054 SUPPLIES 20017745 69489 495. 192330 - 652990 -00000 0.00 25.83 0.00 25.83 201985 SUPPLIES 20017745 69173 495 - 192330 - 652990 -00000 0.00 8.99 0.00 8.99 201985 SUPPLIES 20017491 69314 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 10.56 0.00 10.56 201287 SUPPLIES 20018034 68844 111 - 156349. 652990 -00000 0.00 17.83 0.00 17.83 201490 SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 84 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018034 69171 111 - 156349 - 652990 -00000 0.00 1.79 0.00 1.79 201490 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 412.94 CHECK NO 572726 VENDOR 156680 - JACK LYONS TRUCK PARTS, INC. 20017731 150272 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 55.04 0.00 55.04 200865 PARTS 20017731 150165 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 611.32 0.00 611.32 200865 PARTS 20017731 150105 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 130.26 0.00 130.26 200865 PARTS 20017694 150108 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 23.10 0.00 23.10 200865 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 819.72 CHECK NO 573149 VENDOR 353460 JACQUELINE C. LOY 20018066 L DELATORRE 3/02 RENT 001. 155930 - 634153 -00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 L DELATORRE 3/02 RENT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 572671 VENDOR 109260 JACQUELINE SILANO 20017462 218 LELY 152. 162541- 649990 -00000 0.00 264.33 0.00 264.33 203925 2/8 LELY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 264.33 CHECK NO 573082 VENDOR 346920 JAMES ABNEY & ASSOCIATES 20017500 273SOlA 322 - 183825 - 634999 -00000 0.00 549.00 0.00 549.00 202722 IRRIG CONSULT SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 549.00 CHECK NO 573028 VENDOR 329950 - JAMES COLETTA 20017849 TRAVEL 2/27 -28/02 001 - 010110 - 640310 -01005 0.00 27.00 0.00 27.00 TRAVEL 2/27 -28/02 J COLETTA 20017854 TRAVEL 1012001 001- 010110 - 640200 -00000 0.00 250.25 0.00 250.25 TRAVEL 1012001 J COLETTA MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 85 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017855 TRAVEL 11 /01 001. 010110 - 640200 -00000 0.00 128.54 0.00 128.54 TRAVEL 11 /01 J COLETTA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 405.79 CHECK NO 573099 VENDOR 349490 - JAMES MCGEE 20017853 TRAVEL 3/3 -5/02 408 - 210155 - 640300 -00000 0.00 270.74 0.00 270.74 TRAVEL 3/3 -5/02 J MCGEE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 270.74 CHECK NO 573161 VENDOR 900050 - JAMES PEEK 301499 REF OVPYMT- PERMIT PEEK 113 - 000000. 115420.00000 0.00 42.67 0.00 42.67 PEEK REF 313527 OVPY PERMIT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 42.67 CHECK NO 572684 VENDOR 116700 JAMESON SUPPLY INC. 20017490 76248 001 - 122240 - 652995 -00000 0.00 29.80 0.00 29.80 201286 PARTS 20017456 76265 412 - 273511. 652990 -70881 0.00 204.00 0.00 204.00 103857 PARTS 20017490 76243 001 - 122240 - 652995 -00000 0.00 348.94 0.00 348.94 201286 PARTS 20017490 76197 001. 122240- 652995.00000 0.00 33.13 0.00 33.13 201286 PARTS 20017490 76063 001 - 122240. 652995 -00000 0.00 11.20 0.00 11.20 201286 PARTS 20017490 76221 001. 122240 - 652995.00000 0.00 14.29 0.00 14.29 201286 PARTS 20017490 76158 001 - 122240 - 652995.00000 0.00 51.58 0.00 51.58 201286 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 692.94 CHECK NO 572974 VENDOR 311340 JENNIFER GUIDA 20017397 3/4 TRVL J GUIDA 198 - 157410. 640200.00000 0.00 21.75 0.00 21.75 3/4 TRVL J GUIDA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 21.75 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 86 REPORT 100.6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573113 VENDOR 351500 JENNIFER JOHNSON 20017401 2/6 -12 TRVL J JOHNSON 001. 156130 - 640300 -00000 0.00 32.88 0.00 32.88 2/6 -12 TRVL J JOHNSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 32.88 CHECK NO 572749 VENDOR 169770 JENN.INGS ARCHITECTURAL HARDWARE 20017488 13976 001 - 122240- 652991 -00000 0.00 126.04 0.00 126.04 152767 SUPPLIES 20017488 14053 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 102.75 0.00 102.75 152767 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 228.79 CHECK NO 572947 VENDOR 292620 JM TODD, INC. 20017475 72918 001 - 000000. 142500 -00000 0.00 276.93 0.00 276.93 200637 1/25- 2/24/02 20017459 72853 001 - 121810 - 634999 -00000 0.00 206.47 0.00 206.47 200915 1/26 -2/25 20017475 72923 001 - 000000 - 142500 -00000 0.00 154.55 0.00 154.55 200637 1/25- 2/24/02 20017475 72925 001 - 000000.142500 -00000 0.00 414.44 0.00 414.44 200637 1/25- 2/24/02 20017475 72921 001. 000000- 142500 -00000 0.00 399.45 0.00 399.45 200637 1/25- 2/24/02 20017460 72854 001 - 121810. 634999.00000 0.00 300.51 0.00 300.51 202348 1/26- 2/25/02 20017475 72928 001 - 000000. 142500 -00000 0.00 105.28 0.00 105.28 200637 1/25- 2/24/02 20017475 72929 001. 000000 - 142500 -00000 0.00 560.46 0.00 560.46 200637 1/25. 2/24/02 20017475 72927 001 - 000000 - 142500 -00000 0.00 225.74 0.00 225.74 200637 1/25- 2/24/02 20017475 72926 001 - 000000. 142500 -00000 0.00 358.26 0.00 358.26 200637 1/25- 2/24/02 20017728 72495 101. 163610 - 644620 -00000 0.00 73.23 0.00 73.23 200500 STAPLES MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER 16JI PAGE 87 REPORT 100 -601 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,075.32 CHECK NO 573162 VENDOR 900050 JOE RIBET 301512 REFUND PARKS RIBET 111.156395- 347400 -00000 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 REFUND PARKS RIBET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15.00 CHECK NO 572623 VENDOR 10160 JOHN COLLINS AUTO PARTS, INC. 20017498 756100 109.182901- 652990 -00000 0.00 14.26 0.00 14.26 200146 EQUIP PARTS 20017499 757884 109-"182901-652990-00000 0.00 5.52 0.00 5.52 200146 SHOP SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 19.78 CHECK NO 573090 VENDOR 348490 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 20018047 1103311.3 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 4.53 0.00 4.53 203372 PARTS 20017492 1069233 -3 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 29.78 0.00 29.78 203372 PARTS 20018048 1100084.3 152.162541- 646311 -00000 0.00 38.75 0.00 38.75 203428 PARTS /DISC 20018046 1100085 -3 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 1.37- 0.00 1.37- 203445 PARTS 20017461 1075521 -3 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 13.66 0.00 13.66 203372 PARTS 20018046 1100085.3 408- 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 68.43 0.00 68.43 203445 PARTS 20018047 1103311 -3 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 0.09- 0.00 0.09- 203372 PARTS 20018048 1100084.3 152 - 162541 - 646311 -00000 0.00 0.78- 0.00 0.78- 203428 PARTS /DISC 20018047 00766708 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 299.62 0.00 299.62 203372 PARTS 20018046 1078501 -3 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 45.96 0.00 45.96 203445 PARTS MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018047 1084404 -3 203372 PARTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111 - 163646 - 646311.00000 0.00 16JI PAGE 88 AMT NET VCHR DISC 215.74 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572771 VENDOR 187330 - JOHN JONES 20017856 TRAVEL 2/1 -28/02 001 - 156110 - 640200 -00000 0.00 179.80 0.00 TRAVEL 2/1 -28/02 J JONES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572705 VENDOR 133420 - JOHNSON ENGINEERING INC. 20017327 #40 RETAINAGE 413 - 000000. 205100 -00000 0.00 59.69- 0.00 801731 THRU 2/3/02 RETAINAGE 20017327 #40 RETAINAGE 412 - 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 86.06- 0.00 801731 THRU 2/3/02 RETAINAGE 20017185 #12 411 - 273511 - 631400 -70862 0.00 9,780.00 414 - 263611 - 631400 -73061 0.00 0.00 0.00 102896 1/7/02- 2/3/02 20017328 #23 331 - 163650 - 631400.69101 0.00 0.00 313 - 163673 - 631400.69101 0.00 59,777.24 0.00 4474 1/7. 2/3/02 20017327 #40 331 - 163650 - 631400 -60134 0.00 19.302.50 0.00 801731 THRU 2/3/02 20017327 #40 412 - 273511. 631400 -70028 0.00 1,721.25 0.00 801731 THRU 2/3/02 20017327 #40 413. 263611- 631400 -74028 0.00 711.60 0.00 801731 THRU 2/3/02 20017327 #40 RETAINAGE 331 - 000000- 205100.00000 0.00 965.13- 0.00 801731 THRU 2/3/02 RETAINAGE 20017327 #40 413 - 263611 - 631400 -73028 0.00 482.25 0.00 801731 THRU 2/3/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572700 VENDOR 127280 - JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 20017894 187393 408. 233312- 655200 -00000 0.00 29.69 0.00 202202 PARTS MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 89 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 29.69 CHECK NO 572781 VENDOR 193480 - JONES CHEMICAL 20017474 93483 408 - 253221 - 652310.00000 0.00 3.078.62 0.00 3,078.62 202571 CAUSTIC SODA 20017474 93206 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 3.185.39 0.00 3.185.39 202571 CAUSTIC SODA 20017893 93744 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 2,987.81 0.00 2,987.81 202571 CAUSTIC SODA 20017474 93484 408. 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 3,383.39 0.00 3,383.39 202571 CAUSTIC SODA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 12,635.21 CHECK NO 573112 VENDOR 351470 JP'S LAWN CARE INC 20017452 1217 408 - 233352 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1,980.00 0.00 1,980.00 204276 2/02 SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,980.00 CHECK NO 573163 VENDOR 900050 JUAN CARLOS ACEVEDO 301529 J.ACEVEDO UNCLAIMED PROP. 001 - 000000. 202700 -00000 0.00 478.00 0.00 478.00 J.ACEVEDO UNCLAIMED PROPERTY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 478.00 CHECK NO 573103 VENDOR 350270 - JUAN R. SANCHEZ 20017857 TRAVEL 2/5.28/02 113 - 138936. 640200.00000 0.00 243.60 0.00 243.60 TRAVEL 2/5.28/02 J SANCHEZ CHECK TOTAL 0.00 243.60 CHECK NO 573085 VENDOR 347350 JUAN VARGAS LAWN MAINTENANCE AND 20017743 2/02 139 - 172531 - 634999 -00000 0.00 750.00 0.00 750.00 202929 2/02 SUS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 750.00 CHECK NO 572718 VENDOR 148970 JUDITH MARKS 20017398 2/6.27 TRVL J MARKS 001 - 155910 - 640200 -00000 0.00 77.14 0.00 77.14 2/6.27 TRVL J MARKS MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 90 REPORT 100.6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 77.14 CHECK NO 573061 VENDOR 340310 - JULIET GROSS 20017858 TRAVEL 11/7/01 001 - 156160 - 640200 -00000 0.00 11.31 0.00 11.31 TRAVEL 11/7/01 J GROSS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 11.31 CHECK NO 573080 VENDOR 346440 JULIO TORRES 20017691 REIMB 101 - 163609 - 652990.00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 154494 REIMB CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.00 CHECK NO 572972 VENDOR 310130 JUST -RITE SUPPLY 20017730 339965 111 - 156332 - 646313.00000 0.00 883.00 0.00 883.00 204263 MARBLE DUST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 883.00 CHECK NO 573164 VENDOR 900050 KATHERINE M PLUNKETT 301505 REFUND PARKS PLUNKETT 670- 000000 - 220010.00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 PLUNKETT REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 573005 VENDOR 322300 KATHLEEN CASEY 20017695 YOGA 1/25- 3/1/02 111 - 156380 - 634999 -00000 0.00 733.20 0.00 733.20 201010 YOGA 1/25 - 3/1/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 733.20 CHECK NO 573097 VENDOR 349070 - KELLEY SWOFFORD ROY, INC. 20018135 17234 194. 101540 - 634999 -10524 0.00 22.08 0.00 22.08 203733 -12/01 20018135 17250 194 - 101540 - 634999 -10524 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 203733 -2/02 20018135 17235 194 - 101540 - 634999.10524 0.00 46.70 0.00 46.70 203733.1/02 20018135 17248 194 - 101540 - 634999 -10524 0.00 11.63 0.00 11.63 203733 -1/02 CHECK NO 573165 VENDOR 900050 - KIMBALL HILL HOMES 301498 REF OVPYMT CK46268 KIMBAL 113. 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 1,680.20 0.00 1.680.20 KIMBALL HILL REF 317865 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,680.20 CHECK NO 572762 VENDOR 179430 - KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. MARCH 2 130.6002 16JI PAGE 91 REPORT 100-601 0 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018136 17230 194. 101540 - 634999 -10524 0.00 9,000.00 0.00 9,000.00 203733 01102 20018135 17236 194 - 101540 - 634999.10524 0.00 1.880.00 0.00 1.880.00 203733 -1/02 20018135 17233 194 - 101540 - 634999 -10524 0.00 28.35 0.00 28.35 203733 -12/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 11,288.76 CHECK NO 572624 VENDOR 10690 - KELLY BLUEPRINTERS 20017463 10746 101 - 163630 - 647110 -00000 0.00 24.20 0.00 24.20 200028 BOND 20017464 10412 113 - 138312 - 651210 -00000 0.00 26.42 0.00 26.42 200473 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.62 CHECK NO 572761 VENDOR 179190 - KENNETH R. DEVOS,MAI, SRA 20017465 2001- 1510A1,B1,B2,B3,C1 331 - 163650. 631600 -60134 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 106010 SVS 20017465 2001- 1 -512B 331. 163650 - 631600 -60134 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 106010 SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 600.00 CHECK NO 572785 VENDOR 194110 - KILPATRICK TURF EQUIPMENT 20017726 2900001 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 271.85 0.00 271.85 202174 PARTS 20017726 2880300 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 453.60 0.00 453.60 202174 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 725.45 CHECK NO 573165 VENDOR 900050 - KIMBALL HILL HOMES 301498 REF OVPYMT CK46268 KIMBAL 113. 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 1,680.20 0.00 1.680.20 KIMBALL HILL REF 317865 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,680.20 CHECK NO 572762 VENDOR 179430 - KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J 1 PAGE 92 REPORT 100-601 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017888 22 -24 408 - 233351 - 646980 -00000 0.00 5,549.57 0.00 5,549.57 204455 INSTALL SEWER LATERAL 20017454 22 -28 412 - 273511 - 634999 -70058 0.00 21,400.00 0.00 21.400.00 204226 WATER MAIL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 26,949.57 CHECK NO 573036 VENDOR 333840 LANDERS & PARSONS 20017685 #12 342 -OOM 470. 173410 - 634999 -00000 0.00 8.726.53 0.00 8,726.53 204317 #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,726.53 CHECK NO 573088 VENDOR 347970 LASALLE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK 20017931 PP #12 001- 000000- 218810 -00000 0.00 132.00 0.00 132.00 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 132.00 CHECK NO 572989 VENDOR 317010 LAUREN BEARD 20017850 TRAVEL 12/20. 2/28/02 191 - 138785 - 640310 -33752 0.00 49.88 0.00 49.88 TRAVEL 12/20. 2/28/02 L BEARD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 49.88 CHECK NO 572999 VENDOR 321070 LAVONNE NETT 20017402 1/16 TRVL L NETT 001 - 156160 - 640200.00000 0.00 9.57 0.00 9.57 1/16 TRVL L NETT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9.57 CHECK NO 572709 VENDOR 135200 LAWN EQUIPMENT CENTER 20017497 48876 109 - 182901 - 652990.00000 0.00 13.23 0.00 13.23 200406 MOWER PART 20017496 48920 109 - 182901 - 652990 -00000 0.00 99.99 0.00 99.99 200406 EQUIP PART CHECK TOTAL 0.00 113.22 CHECK NO 572898 VENDOR 274230 - LAZENBY & ASSOCIATES 20018049 10951 408 - 253211 - 652310 -00000 0.00 4,875.75 0.00 4,875.75 203399 CORROSION INHIBITOR MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 93 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572799 VENDOR 201490 LEADERSHIP DIRECTORIES INC. CHECK TOTAL 20017696 5559034/242370 -4 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 20.00 202435 DIRECTORIES 0.00 5.00 CHECK NO 573166 VENDOR 900050 LEE BRITT 30.00 301494 REF ADOPTION LEE BRITT 001 - 155410 - 346410 -00000 0.00 57.00 LEE BRITT REF ADOPT 0.00 1.364.00 301496 REF ADOPTION LEE BRITT 001 - 155410 - 329810 -00000 0.00 0.00 LEE BRITT REF ADOPT 1.027.55 0.00 301497 REF ADOPTION LEE BRITT 610 - 155410 - 329810 -00000 0.00 84.20 LEE BRITT REF ADOPT 84.20 6,345.34 301495 REF ADOPTION LEE BRITT 610. 155410. 346450.00000 0.00 969.94 LEE BRITT REF ADOPT CHECK NO 572625 VENDOR 11110 LEE CO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 20018079 20195 -99360 2/1 -3/4 001 - 061010 - 643100 -00000 0.00 20195 -99360 2/1 -3/4 20018079 20195.99362 1/2 -2/1 101. 163620- 643100.00000 0.00 20195 -99362 1/2 -2/1 20018079 20195. 154735 2/28 001 - 156363 - 643100 -00000 0.00 20195 - 154735 2/28 20018079 20195 - 154730 2/28 101 - 163630. 643100 -00000 0.00 20195 - 154730 2/28 20018079 20195 -99668 3/5 001 - 061010 - 643100 -00000 0.00 20195 -99668 3/5 20018079 20195. 154756 3/1 111. 163646. 643100.00000 0.00 20195 - 154756 3/1 20018079 20195 - 154732 2/22 111 - 156334. 643100 -00000 0.00 20195 - 154732 2/22 20018079 20195 - 154729 2/27 188 - 140480. 643100 -00000 0.00 20195 - 154729 2/27 VCHR NET 4,875.75 323.00 0.00 323.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 323.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 57.00 1,364.00 0.00 1.364.00 384.47 0.00 384.47 991.03 0.00 991.03 1.027.55 0.00 1.027.55 20.64 0.00 20.64 84.20 0.00 84.20 6,345.34 0.00 6,345.34 969.94 0.00 969.94 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, COMMISSIONERS LORIA 1 6 J IPAGE 94 REPORT 100-601 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 11,187.17 CHECK NO 572943 VENDOR 290080 - LENNAR HOMES, INC 20017404 REF.USHOME 318395 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 34.56 0.00 34.56 REF.USHOME 318395 20017404 REF.USHOME 317626 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 21.52 0.00 21.52 REF.USHOME 317626 20017404 REF.USHOME 318288 113 - 000000- 115420 -00000 0.00 1.52 0.00 1.52 REF.USHOME 318288 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 57.60 CHECK NO 572626 VENDOR 11240 LEO'S SOD & LANDSCAPING 20017484 7484 109- 182901. 634254 -00000 0.00 159.60 0.00 159.60 154313 SOD 20017467 7577 111 - 163645 - 646314 -00000 0.00 39.90 0.00 39.90 200879 SOD 20017467 7533 111 - 163645 - 646314 -00000 0.00 79.80 0.00 79.80 200879 SOD 20017467 7561 111 - 163645 - 646314 -00000 0.00 79.80 0.00 79.80 200879 SOD 20017466 7556 408 - 253212 - 646314 -00000 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 200235 SOD 20017467 7555 111 - 163645. 646314 -00000 0.00 39.90 0.00 39.90 200879 SOD 20017484 7394 109 - 182901. 634254 -00000 0.00 159.60 0.00 159.60 154313 SOD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 564.60 CHECK NO 572664 VENDOR 105260 LESCO SERVICE CENTER 20017686 2B2G25 111. 156332. 652310 -00000 0.00 3.500.00 0.00 3.500.00 201154 FERILIZER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.500.00 CHECK NO 572837 VENDOR 235540 LIGHTNER CONTRACTING, INC. 20017892 7317 195. 110406- 634999.10509 0.00 22.075.00 0.00 22,075.00 204475 BEACH TILLING MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 95 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017473 7307 195- 110406 - 634999.10509 0.00 2.275.00 0.00 2.275.00 204313 BEACH TILLING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 24,350.00 CHECK NO 572673 VENDOR 109750 LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEMS, INC. 20017448 2532 001 - 122240 - 652992 -00000 0.00 1,800.00 0.00 1,800.00 204282 REPAIRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.800.00 CHECK NO 573065 VENDOR 343480 LILIANA CARRENDER 20017224 2/25/02 2.0 HRS 681 - 421190 - 634402.00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 2/25/02 2.0 HRS 20017224 2/25/02 1.5HRS 681. 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 2/25/02 1.5HRS 20017224 2/28/02 4.0 HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 52.00 0.00 52.00 2/28/02 4.0 HRS 20017224 2/19/02 4.5HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 72.00 0.00 72.00 2/19/02 4.5HRS 20017224 2/21/02 3.5HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402.00000 0.00 56.00 0.00 56.00 2121102 3.5HRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 236.00 CHECK NO 572627 VENDOR 11330 LINDA DENNING 20017867 TRAVEL 1/23- 2/23/02 001. 157110. 640200 -00000 0.00 105.27 0.00 105.27 TRAVEL 1/23. 2/23/02 L DENNING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 105.27 CHECK NO 572759 VENDOR 174820 LINDA PALMER 20017449 1/28- 2/28/02 111. 156380- 634999 -00000 0.00 594.75 0.00 594.75 201008 LINE DANCE 1/28. 2/28/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 594.75 CHECK NO 573062 VENDOR 340920 - LINE 1 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 20017468 CCEM 2/02 118 - 144210 - 641950 -33781 0.00 0.00 118 - 144210 - 641210 -33781 0.00 103.75 0.00 103.75 202891 2/02 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER 16JI PAGE 96 REPORT 100 -601 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 103.75 CHECK NO 573078 VENDOR 345800 - LISA P. KIRBY, EQS 20017746 #159 98 -1399 681 - 421190 - 631020 -00000 0.00 1.402.50 681 - 421190 - 631025.00000 0.00 1.50 0.00 1,404.00 KIRBY 98 -1399 LOUIS CHILDREN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,404.00 CHECK NO 572872 VENDOR 258940 LITTLE CEASARS 20017450 12/14/01 PIZZA 111- 156390 - 652210 -00000 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 202003 PIZZA 12/14/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 24.00 CHECK NO 573167 VENDOR 900050 LIZ BROWN 301511 REFUND PARKS BROWN 111 - 156395 - 347400 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 BROWN REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.00 CHECK NO 572820 VENDOR 217720 LOUISE HARDY 20017861 TRAVEL 2/5 -27/02 111 - 156310 - 640200 -00000 0.00 17.40 0.00 17.40 TRAVEL 2/5 -27/02 L HARDY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 17.40 CHECK NO 572734 VENDOR 164110 LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO 20017920 PP #12 001 - 000000- 218400 -00000 0.00 218.29 0.00 218.29 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 218.29 CHECK NO 573168 VENDOR 900050 LUIS FLORES 301500 REFUND PARKS FLORES 670 - 000000 - 220010 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 FLORES REFUND PARKS 301502 REFUND PARKS FLORES 111 - 000000 - 208901.00000 0.00 1.80 0.00 1.80 FLORES REFUND PARKS 301501 REFUND PARKS FLORES 111. 156343. 347911 -00000 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 FLORES REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 56.80 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER PAGE 97 16JI REPORT 100 -601 COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572756 VENDOR 174240 - LUZ PIETRI 20018112 NEW CHGE ACCT - AIRPORT RD 001. 000000- 102300 -00000 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 NEW CHANGE ACCT - AIRPORT RD LIBRARY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 200.00 CHECK NO 572714 VENDOR 141870 - M. JEAN RAWSON 20017722 J DORCE 01 -891 681- 421190 - 631020 -00000 0.00 845.00 845.34 681. 421190. 631025 -00000 0.00 0.34 0.00 RAWSON - J DORCE 01 -891 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 845.34 CHECK NO 573068 VENDOR 343930 - M /A -COM RADIO SYSTEMS 20017692 0871209 408 - 210151 - 652990 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 154649 RADIOS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 75.00 CHECK NO 572887 VENDOR 266360 - MAASSEN OIL COMPANY 20017738 66365 495 - 192330 - 642417 -00000 0.00 319.95 0.00 319.95 154473 FUEL 20017485 65880 495 - 192370 - 642417.00000 0.00 193.62 0.00 193.62 154077 OIL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 513.57 CHECK NO 572858 VENDOR 254880 - MAIL BARCODING SERVICES OF 20018067 FIRST CLASS 2/02 001 - 000000 - 141400.00000 0.00 825.11 0.00 825.11 200048 BARCODING /METERING 20018100 FOREIGN MAIL 2/02 001 - 000000. 141400 -00000 0.00 369.54 0.00 369.54 200049 FOREIGN MAIL 2/02 20018067 COLLIER SPEED CODE #1 3/1 001 - 000000. 141400 -00000 0.00 128.93 0.00 128.93 200048 BARCODING /METERING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.323.58 CHECK NO 572919 VENDOR 280100 - MAIL STATION COURIER 20017742 17587 113. 138312- 641950 -00000 0.00 35.00 0.00 35.00 201907 SVS 2/1 -15/02 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017481 17585 201914 2/1.2/15 20017896 17586 200945 SUS 2/1 -15/02 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408. 210151- 634999.00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 649990 -00000 0.00 408. 233352- 649990 -00000 0.00 408 - 233312 - 649990 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573091 VENDOR 348640 - MANIFEST FUNDING SERVICES 20017741 105936388 101 - 163612. 644650 -00000 203435 FURNITURE LEASE CHECK NO 572659 VENDOR 100800 - MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERVICES 20017479 30043964 155 - 112593 - 649990 -68062 242.00 204156 TEMPS 242.00 20017723 30044768 001. 126334 - 646311.00000 103.34 200076 TEMPS 170.49 20017480 30043216 408 - 210105. 634999 -00000 CHECK TOTAL 202695 TEMPS 587.00 20017689 30043961 473 - 173413 - 634999 -00000 1.110.78 200338 TEMPS 1.110.78 20018044 30044767 111 - 163646 - 649990 -00000 46.77 203927 TEMPS 257.51 20017477 30043960 111 - 163646 - 649990.00000 217.11 203927 TEMPS 217.11 20018045 30044772 160 - 162518 - 649990 -00000 43.63 200263 TEMPS 162.69 20017478 30043963 150 - 162545 - 649990.00000 62.66 204143 TEMPS 62.66 20018041 30044773 155 - 112593 - 649990 -68062 101.43 204156 TEMPS 20017472 30043962 111 - 163646 - 649990 -00000 203926 TEMP 20018043 30044771 156. 162723- 649990.00000 204144 TEMPS 16JI PAGE 98 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 242.00 0.00 242.00 103.33 705.52 0.00 103.34 0.00 170.49 103.33 0.00 310.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 587.00 0.00 705.52 0.00 705.52 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 705.52 0.00 170.49 0.00 170.49 0.00 370.50 0.00 370.50 0.00 104.00 0.00 104.00 0.00 1.110.78 0.00 1.110.78 0.00 46.77 0.00 46.77 0.00 257.51 0.00 257.51 0.00 217.11 0.00 217.11 0.00 43.63 0.00 43.63 0.00 162.69 0.00 162.69 0.00 62.66 0.00 62.66 0.00 101.43 0.00 101.43 13, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 99 REPORCH RT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.647.57 CHECK NO 572932 VENDOR 285890 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERVICES 20017690 30043959 001. 010110 - 634999 -00000 0.00 115.92 0.00 115.92 154646 TEMPS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 115.92 CHECK NO 572889 VENDOR 267060 MARCIA GALLE 20017740 DANCE 2/5 -26/02 111 - 156395 - 634999 -00000 0.00 464.10 0.00 464.10 204320 DANCE 2/5.26/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 464.10 CHECK NO 573029 VENDOR 329980 MARCO ISLAND SUN TIMES 20018040 #1846 1/02 130 - 157710 - 648170 -00000 0.00 84.00 0.00 84.00 152187 1/02 #1846 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 84.00 CHECK NO 572699 VENDOR 127090 MARCO OFFICE SUPPLY 20018038 202270575 001 - 156175 - 651110.00000 0.00 143.94 0.00 143.94 200947 SUPPLIES 20018035 201300528 001- 157110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 34.57 001 - 157110- 652990 -00000 0.00 7.93 0.00 42.50 201608 SUPPLIES 20017714 202250574 101 - 163612 - 651110 -00000 0.00 23.99 126. 138332 - 651110.33202 0.00 23.99 0.00 47.98 203378 SUPPLIES 20018037 201290670 111. 156341- 651110 -00000 0.00 23.04 0.00 23.04 152524 SUPPLIES 20017715 202060553 669 - 100220 - 651110 -00000 0.00 79.00 0.00 79.00 203687 SUPPLIES 20017716 202150633 521. 122450 - 651110.00000 0.00 4.79 0.00 4.79 200963 SUPPLIES 20018035 202010621 001 - 157110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 45.92 0.00 45.92 201608 SUPPLIES 20018038 202270568 001 - 156175. 651110 -00000 0.00 191.92 0.00 191.92 200947 SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 100 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017711 202080564 001. 121810 - 651110 -00000 0.00 119.95 0.00 119.95 201575 SUPPLIES 20017704 202200729 144 - 144360. 651110 -00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 19.50 200594 SUPPLIES 20018038 202270570 001 - 156175 - 651110 -00000 0.00 143.94 0.00 143.94 200947 SUPPLIES 20018035 109260677 001 - 157110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 488.82 001 - 157110 - 652990 -00000 0.00 434.57 0.00 923.39 201608 SUPPLIES 20017709 202260546 470 - 173435 - 651110.00000 0.00 272.30 0.00 272.30 201205 SUPPLIES 20017704 202200722 144 - 144360 - 651110 -00000 0.00 90.00- 0.00 90.00- 200594 SUPPLIES 20018076 202180560 111. 156381- 651110.00000 0.00 57.60 0.00 57.60 203513 SUPPLIES 20017704 202200720 144. 144360. 651110 -00000 0.00 29.50 0.00 29.50 200594 SUPPLIES 20017707 202200588 001 - 156170 - 651110.00000 0.00 289.78 0.00 289.78 200947 SUPPLIES 20017702 202150588 001 - 121710. 651110 -00000 0.00 47.98 0.00 47.98 200527 SUPPLIES 20018069 202220590 001 - 121810. 651110.00000 0.00 84.39 0.00 84.39 201575 SUPPLIES 20018038 202270571 001 - 156140 - 651110 -00000 0.00 95.96 0.00 95.96 200947 SUPPLIES 20017704 202200719 144 - 144360 - 651110.00000 0.00 59.00- 0.00 59.00- 200594 SUPPLIES 20018077 202280554 408 - 253212. 651110 -00000 0.00 57.38 0.00 57.38 203321 SUPPLIES 20018070 202250547 113 - 138900- 651110 -00000 0.00 839.65 0.00 839.65 200139 SUPPLIES 20017704 202200723 144 - 144360. 651110 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 200594 SUPPLIES 20017705 202210744 001. 000000- 142500 -00000 0.00 91.13 0.00 91.13 200636 SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018071 202220559 203289 SUPPLIES 20018078 202180559 204033 SUPPLIES 20017704 202200728 200594 SUPPLIES 20018035 202010670 201608 SUPPLIES 20017713 202150579 203289 SUPPLIES 20018035 201300582 201608 SUPPLIES 20018037 202180618 152524 SUPPLIES 20018073 202130501 203842 SUPPLIES 20018038 202270574 200947 SUPPLIES 20018035 202270564 201608 SUPPLIES 20017708 202200564 201260 SUPPLIES 20017703 202280672 200581 SUPPLIES 20018037 202050591 152524 SUPPLIES 20018039 202260654 203042 SUPPLIES 20018074 202260544 203597 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0.00 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408 - 210105 - 651110.00000 0.00 111. 156390- 651110 -00000 0.00 144 - 144360 - 651110.00000 0.00 001. 157110. 652990 -00000 0.00 408 - 210105- 651110.00000 0.00 001 - 157110. 652990 -00000 0.00 111. 156310. 651110.00000 0.00 111 - 156380. 651110.00000 0.00 001. 156150 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 157110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 157110. 652990 -00000 0.00 001. 121152- 651110 -00000 0.00 198 - 157410 - 651110.00000 0.00 111. 156341- 651110.00000 0.00 111 - 156310 - 651110 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 651110 -00000 0.00 111 - 156343 - 651110 -00000 0.00 111 - 156349 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 421040 - 651110 -00000 0.00 111 - 156341 - 651110 -00000 0.00 16JI PAGE 101 AMT NET VCHR DISC 45.90 0.00 85.60 0.00 39.00- 0.00 30.92 0.00 76.22 0.00 54.59 0.00 29.60 0.00 377.27 0.00 143.94 0.00 119.95 11.59 0.00 465.51 0.00 25.30 0.00 0.00 65.90 65.90 65.90 65.90 0.00 40.20 0.00 166.00 0.00 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 102 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REPORT 100 -601 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 408- 210151. 651110 -00000 0.00 350.40 0.00 350.40 20017706 202280557 200860 SUPPLIES 20017704 201040039 144 - 144360.651110 -00000 0.00 90.00 0.00 90.00 200594 SUPPLIES 20017714 202190708 101 - 163612 - 651110.00000 0.00 16.92 0.00 33.84 126 - 138332. 651110.33202 0.00 16.92 203378 SUPPLIES 20017716 202150578 521 - 122450.651110 -00000 0.00 19.18 0.00 19.18 200963 SUPPLIES 20017715 201140533 .669 100220 651110 00000 0.00 47.98 0.00 47.98 203687 SUPPLIES 20018038 202270573 001 - 156140 - 651110 -00000 0.00 95.96 0.00 95.96 200947 SUPPLIES 20017710 202200594 001.155230- 651110.00000 0.00 47.98 0.00 47.98 201264 SUPPLIES 20017704 202200726 144 - 144360 - 651110 -00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 19.50 200594 SUPPLIES 20017712 202280737 001 - 421040. 651110 -00000 0.00 15.40- 0.00 15.40- 203042 SUPPLIES 20018072 201310716 111 - 156341 - 651110.00000 0.00 30.76- 0.00 30.76- 201727 CREDIT 20018038 202270572 001. 156175 - 651110 -00000 0.00 143.94 0.00 143.94 200947 SUPPLIES 20018036 201300527 111 - 156381.651110 -00000 0.00 2.34 0.00 2.34 150169 SUPPLIES 20017700 202280678 113 - 138930 - 651110 -00000 0.00 176.23 0.00 176.23 200276 SUPPLIES 20017704 202200725 144 - 144360 - 651110 -00000 0.00 39.00- 0.00 39.00- 200594 SUPPLIES 20017708 202270713 001. 121152 - 651110 -00000 0.00 260.59 0.00 260.59 201260 SUPPLIES 20018075 202140593 130 - 157710 - 651110 -00000 0.00 4.25 0.00 4.25 203516 SUPPLIES 20018039 202250582 001.421040. 651110 -00000 0.00 59.18 0.00 59.18 203042 SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018068 202210610 200519 SUPPLIES 20017704 201300115 200594 SUPPLIES 20017706 202260517 200860 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 121148. 651110 -00000 0.00 144 - 144360. 651110 -00000 0.00 408. 210151. 651110 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572630 VENDOR 12070 - MARCO TRUE VALUE, INC. 20017725 279484 470 - 173442. 652990 -00000 201215 SUPPLIES 20017725 279363 470 - 173442 - 652990 -00000 201215 SUPPLIES CHECK NO 573043 VENDOR 334460 - MARDALE OF AMERICA. INC. 20017891 36083 355 - 156175 - 762200 -80259 105103 MARKER BOARD LOCKER WALL GROS CHECK NO 572689 VENDOR 122850 - MARIA G. DELASHMET 20017721 01 -2296 2/13 71.97 681. 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 DELASHMET 01 -2296 2/13 0.00 20017721 00 -2309 2/4 0.00 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 10,966.47 DELASHMET 00 -2309 2/4 0.00 20017721 01 -2481 2/13 16.00 681 - 421190. 634402 -00000 16.00 DELASHMET 01 -2481 2/13 0.00 20017721 00 -0769 2/12 16.00 681. 421190- 634402 -00000 16.00 DELASHMET 00.0769 2/12 0.00 20017721 99 -2304 2/4 16.00 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 16.00 DELASHMET 99 -2304 2/14 0.00 CHECK NO 572629 VENDOR 11860 - MARILYN MATTHES 20018042 REIMB CAKES 001 - 156175 - 652210 -00000 154691 REIMB CAKES 16JIPAGE 103 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 71.97 0.00 71.97 11.60 0.00 11.60 239.90 0.00 239.90 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7.034.41 0.00 41.27 0.00 41.27 0.00 22.27 0.00 22.27 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 63.54 0.00 10,966.47 0.00 10,966.47 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10,966.47 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 80.00 0.00 122.75 0.00 122.75 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 104 MARCH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REPORT 100 -601 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET VOUCHER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 122.75 CHECK NO 572694 VENDOR 126700 MARINE LUMBER SUPPLY, INC. 408. 233351- 652990 -00000 0.00 540.00 0.00 540.00 20017482 182516 200790 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 540.00 CHECK NO 572806 VENDOR- 204680 MARKING DEVICES 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 0.00 97.86 0.00 97.86 20017697 87467 200058 STAMPS 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 0.00 10.44 0.00 10.44 20017483 87311 200058 STAMPS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 108.30 CHECK NO 573169 VENDOR 900050 - MARVIN DEVELOPMENT CORP 301493 REF OVPY CK 65248 MARVIN 113 - 000000. 115420 -00000 0.00 10.61 0.00 10.61 MARVIN DEV REF 317432 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10.61 CHECK NO 572977 VENDOR 312600 MARYLAND CHILD SUPPORT ACCOUNT 001 - 000000 - 218810 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 20017929 PP #12 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 CHECK NO 572807 VENDOR 205310 MASQUERADE 20017739 10/5 BALLOONS 518 - 121630 - 652990 -00000 0.00 22.90 0.00 22.90 154628 10/5 BALLOONS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 22.90 CHECK NO 572628 VENDOR 11700 MATULAYS CONTRACTORS SUPPLY 109 - 182901 - 652990 -00000 0.00 41.05 0.00 41.05 20017495 312165 200097 FLAGGING 101. 163620- 652990.00000 0.00 148.93 0.00 148.93 20017486 57497 154113 VINYL PATCH, BONDER 20017493 311967 109 - 182901 - 652990.00000 0.00 38.37 0.00 38.37 200097 SHOP SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COOMMISS 1 6 J I PAGE 105 REPORT 100-601 COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017494 312627 109 - 182901.652990 -00000 0.00 101.60 0.00 101.60 200097 SHOP /HARDWARE SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 329.95 CHECK NO 572633 VENDOR 12200 MCCONNELLS TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 20017735 166111 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 3.91 0.00 3.91 200983 SUPPLIES 20017736 166662 521 - 122410.646425.00000 0.00 27.42 0.00 27.42 200634 SUPPLIES 20017734 166397 001 - 156363.652910 -00000 0.00 34.16 001- 156363 - 652990 -00000 0.00 35.68 0.00 69.84 200873 SUPPLIES 20017733 166382 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 13.29 0.00 13.29 201278 SUPPLIES 20017469 166292 408- 233352 - 652910 -00000 0.00 29.53 0.00 29.53 200716 SUPPLIES 20017734 166494 001 - 156363 - 652990.00000 0.00 2.11 0.00 2.11 200873 SUPPLIES 20017733 166253 001 - 122240.652987 -00000 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.81 201278 SUPPLIES 20017735 165975 111. 156332 - 652910 -00000 0.00 80.99 0.00 80.99 200983 SUPPLIES 20017734 166217 001 - 156363 - 652990.00000 0.00 13.13 0.00 13.13 200873 SUPPLIES 20017733 166473 001. 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 6.64 0.00 6.64 201278 SUPPLIES 20017733 166313 001- 122240 - 652987 -00000 0.00 21.15 0.00 21.15 201278 SUPPLIES 20017733 166239 001. 122240- 652987 -00000 0.00 1.62 0.00 1.62 201278 SUPPLIES 20017734 166348 001. 156363- 652990.00000 0.00 6.22 0.00 6.22 200873 SUPPLIES 20017732 166511 001 - 155410 - 652990 -00000 0.00 62.09 001 - 155410 - 652910.00000 0.00 135.80 0.00 197.89 201388 SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017735 166254 200983 SUPPLIES 20017735 166225 200983 SUPPLIES 20017736 166595 200634 SUPPLIES 20017734 166446 200873 SUPPLIES 20017895 166412 200716 SUPPLIES 20017734 166281 200873 SUPPLIES 20017470 166184 200791 SUPPLIES 20017735 166063 200983 SUPPLIES 20017733 166410 201278 SUPPLIES 20017734 166375 200873 SUPPLIES 20017733 166200 201278 SUPPLIES 20017733 166390 201278 SUPPLIES 20017735 166309 200983 SUPPLIES 20017471 166302 200948 SUPPLIES 20017734 166054 200873 SUPPLIES 20017733 166301 201278 SUPPLIES 20017733 166266 201278 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0.00 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 652910 -00000 0.00 408 - 233352 - 652910 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 652990 -00000 0.00 408. 233351- 652990 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 652990.00000 0.00 001. 122240 - 652990.00000 0.00 001. 156363- 652990 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240. 652990 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 101 - 163620 - 652990.00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 652910 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 652990.00000 0.00 001. 122240- 652990 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240- 652990 -00000 0.00 16JIPAGE 106 AMT NET VCHR DISC 22.30 0.00 21.50 0.00 1.52 0.00 32.38 0.00 72.67 0.00 39.55 0.00 52.51 0.00 5.63 0.00 14.43 0.00 3.67 0.00 4.97 0.00 13.29 0.00 14.37 0.00 17.09 0.00 9.89 25.77 0.00 9.96 0.00 18.08 0.00 MARCH 13, 202 COLLIER 16JI PAGE 107 REPORT 100-601 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017457 166263 111 - 138911 - 652910 -00000 0.00 35.07 0.00 35.07 201431 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 889.20 CHECK NO 573170 VENDOR 900050 - MELISSA SKIFF 301504 REFUND PARKS SKIFF 111 - 000000. 208901 -00000 0.00 2.40 0.00 2.40 SKIFF REFUND PARKS 301503 REFUND PARKS SKIFF 111 - 156390 - 347911.00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 SKIFF REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 42.40 CHECK NO 572804 VENDOR 204140 - METCALF & EDDY INC. 20017326 125973,74,75 412 - 273511 - 631400 -70859 0.00 29,906.15 411 - 273511. 631400 -70859 0.00 0.00 412. 273511- 631400.70887 0.00 0.00 412 - 273511 - 631400 -70890 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,906.15 502882 THRU 1/18/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 29,906.15 CHECK NO 572563 VENDOR 194880 METRO DADE POLICE 20018124 98.0857 001. 013010 - 649040 -00000 0.00 21.00 0.00 21.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 21.00 CHECK NO 572564 VENDOR 194880 METRO DADE POLICE 20018125 98.0866 001. 013010. 649040.00000 0.00 42.00 0.00 42.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 42.00 CHECK NO 572668 VENDOR 107840 METRO SCALE & SYSTEMS COMPANY, INC. 20017687 202083 470. 173431 - 634999 -00000 0.00 3.326.94 0.00 3,326.94 204600 SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,326.94 CHECK NO 572821 VENDOR 218750 METROPOLITAN LIFE 20017921 PP #12 001. 000000 - 217700 -00000 0.00 3,008.55 001 - 000000 - 217710 -00000 0.00 380.10 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 108 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 001 - 000000- 217720 -00000 0.00 573.14 001 - 000000.217730 -00000 0.00 180.00 0.00 4,141.79 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4.141.79 CHECK NO 573006 VENDOR 323000 - MICHELLE DORALUS 20017698 01.1309 11/13/01 681- 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 DORALUS 01 -1309 11/13/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 16.00 CHECK NO 572842 VENDOR 238250 . MICROMARKETING ASSOCIATES 20017693 141454 355 - 156190 - 766100.00000 0.00 173.00 0.00 173.00 154636 CHILDRENS BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 173.00 CHECK NO 572808 VENDOR 205860 - MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 20017476 426842 307 - 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 686.62 0.00 686.62 201637 VIDEOS 20017476 428485 307. 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 2,489.17 0.00 2,489.17 201637 VIDEOS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,175.79 CHECK NO 573104 VENDOR 350580 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT 20017932 PP #12 001. 000000 - 218810 -00000 0.00 109.66 0.00 109.66 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 109.66 CHECK NO 572868 VENDOR 256580 MINOLTA CORPORATION 20017897 CO21471751 408 - 233312 - 646710.00000 0.00 61.69 0.00 61.69 202254 MAINT 20017458 0021471764 001. 155230- 646710 -00000 0.00 23.50 0.00 23.50 201536 MAINT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 85.19 CHECK NO 572852 VENDOR 250350 . MISDU 20017925 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 218810 -00000 0.00 80.00 0.00 80.00 PP #12 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 572701 VENDOR 129260 - MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION 20017191 #2 RETAINAGE 0.00 414. 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 106735 THRU 1/31/02 RETAINAGE 0.00 20017191 #2 18,480.00 0.00 414 - 263611 - 763100 -74039 0.00 106735 THRU 1/31/02 91.050.00 0.00 20017852 2161 17,040.00 0.00 414 - 263611 - 634999 -74023 0.00 203952 INSTALL FIRE LINE DEVICE 20017887 2164 186,966.39 0.00 414 - 263611 - 634999 -74023 0.00 204184 INSTALL RPDA ASSEMBLY 0.00 20018145 2160 398.50 0.00 413 - 263611 - 763100.73076 0.00 203970 EMERGENCY SEWER RE CONNECT 2,068.75 20017885 2162 0.00 172.50 414 - 263611. 634999.74023 CHECK TOTAL 203979 INSTALL FIRE LINE DEVICE 32,249.09 20017886 2163 414. 263611 - 634999 -74023 204064 INSTALL RPDA ASSEMBLY CHECK NO 572634 VENDOR 12960 - MUNICIPAL CODE CORP 20017737 VOL II LAND DEV CODE 113. 138312- 654110 -00000 154617 VOL II LAND DEV CODE CHECK NO 572635 VENDOR 13000 - MUNICIPAL SUPPLY & SIGN CO 20017724 076518 101. 163630- 653710 -00000 200032 SIGN MAT'L 20017688 076519 101 - 163630- 653710 -00000 204395 SIGN POSTS 20017724 076520 101 - 163630. 653710 -00000 200032 SIGN MAT'L CHECK NO 572724 VENDOR 155630 - NACO /SOUTHEAST 20017914 PP #12 001 - 000000. 217001 -00000 PP #12 16JIPAGE 109 AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 2,488.49- 0.00 2,4bb.4J- 0.00 24,884.88 0.00 24,884.88 0.00 18,480.00 0.00 18,480.00 0.00 18,800.00 0.00 18,800.00 0.00 91.050.00 0.00 91,050.00 0.00 17,040.00 0.00 17,040.00 0.00 19,200.00 0.00 19.200.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 186,966.39 0.00 450.00 0.00 450.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 450.00 0.00 398.50 0.00 398.50 0.00 2,068.75 0.00 2,068.75 0.00 172.50 0.00 172.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,639.75 0.00 32,249.09 0.00 32,249.09 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 572636 VENDOR 13240 - NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 20016851 GARDNER, F 12/10 001 - 155930. 634112 -00000 1,449.18 WILLIAMS,R 01- 842CFA 201867 GARDNER, F 12/10 20017846 8162 20016851 HAYWARD, T 11/5 001 - 155930 - 634112 -00000 20017845 201867 HAYWARD, T 11/5 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 2,898.36 20016851 CLEVENGER, S 1/21 001 - 155930 - 634112 -00000 681 - 410310- 633032.00000 201867 CLEVENGER, S 1/21 JOHNSON,D 01.1347CF 66.00 20016851 CORONA, D 11/17 001 - 155930 - 634112 -00000 POPE,J 00- 1363CFA 201867 CORONA, D 11/17 20017846 8137 CHECK NO 572877 VENDOR 259460 - NAPLES COURT REPORTING, INC. 20017845 7209 -1 681 - 410310 - 633042 -00000 1,449.18 WILLIAMS,R 01- 842CFA 4,347.54 20017846 8162 681- 410310 - 633032 -00000 6,521.31 BRONNER,D 01- 2294CF 6,521.31 20017845 8168 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 2,898.36 MORGAN,M 01- 1946CFA CHECK TOTAL 20017846 8183 681 - 410310- 633032.00000 66.00 JOHNSON,D 01.1347CF 66.00 20017845 8133 681. 410310 - 633032 -00000 30.00 POPE,J 00- 1363CFA 30.00 20017846 8137 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 45.00 MARTINEZ,A 02 -181CP 45.00 20017846 8176 681- 410310 - 633032.00000 30.00 FEGUEROA,A 01- 1360CJA 30.00 20017845 8138 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 30.00 SERNA,C 00- 1451CFA 30.00 20017846 8159 681- 410310 - 633032 -00000 45.00 BRONNER,D 01- 2294CF 30.00 20018134 3/3/02 COURT COSTS -FEB 681 - 410310 - 633010 -00000 13,535.00 3/3/02 COURT COSTS- FEBRUARY 13,535.00 16JIPAGE 110 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 32.249.09 0.00 1,449.18 0.00 1,449.18 0.00 4,347.54 0.00 4.347.54 0.00 6,521.31 0.00 6,521.31 0.00 2.898.36 0.00 2,898.36 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15,216.39 0.00 66.00 0.00 66.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 13,535.00 0.00 13,535.00 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017847 T -2550 B.C.M.,MINOR CHILD 01- 1698CJA 20017847 T -2456 B.P.,MINOR CHILD 01- 842CJA 20017845 8170 RAMON,J 01- 2481CFA 20017846 8091 MCCORMICK,D 01 -740CF 20017846 T -2542 VERA,R 99- 1298CFA 20017847 7257 -1 A.F.,MINOR CHILD 01- 1360CJA 20017846 7282 KIPP,R 00- 1216CFA 20017846 8032 JAUBERT.W 01- 1715CFA 20017845 8158 VINEYARD,J - 01- 1626CF 20017847 T -2551 PEREZ,V 01- 1996CFA 20017846 7933 -2 SPELL,K 01- 1229CFA 20017845 8137 MARTINEZ,A 02.181CP 20017847 8028 FLORES.V 01- 1927CFA 20017847 8028 FLORES.V 01- 1927CFA 20017845 8135 DEASON,J 01- 1051CF 20017846 6822 -2 KIPP,R 00- 1216CFA 20017845 8140 BOWEN.S 01- 1484CF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VCHR DISC BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 681 - 410310 - 633062 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310. 633022 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310. 633032 -00000 0.00 681. 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 681. 410310 - 633022 -00000 0.00 681. 410310. 633042 -00000 0.00 681- 410310 - 633042 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 681. 410310- 633062 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633053 -00000 0.00 681- 410310 - 633032.00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633042 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310. 633051.00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 16JI PAGE 111 AMT NET VCHR DISC 36.00 0.00 363.40 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 685.40 0.00 279.00 0.00 398.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 54.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 138.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 57.60 0.00 30.00 0.00 VCHR NET 36.00 363.40 30.00 30.00 685.40 279.00 398.00 30.00 30.00 54.00 64.00 30.00 138.00 45.00 45.00 57.60 30.00 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VENDOR 115170 - NAPLES REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 204.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 96.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 0.00 20017513 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20017846 8160 681 - 410310. 633032 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 ALAS,M 01- 1852CF 200917 GREASE CAP, 2/8 20017845 8092 681. 410310- 633032.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 PENN,G O1.1660CFO 200917 BATTERY, 2/8 20017846 7282 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 KIPP,R 00- 1216CFA 20017846 7256 -1 681- 410310. 633042 -00000 0.00 MAGARGAL 01- 2162CFA 20017847 T -2391 681 - 410310- 633061 -00000 0.00 NORRIS,J 00- 1326CF 20017847 8131 681. 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 PERRY,J 01- 2715CFA 20017847 8154 681. 410310- 633032.00000 0.00 MCARTHUR,J 01- 2427CFA 20017846 T -2545 681 - 410310 - 633022 -00000 0.00 MANCHA,J 00- 1702CFA 20017845 7208 -1 681- 410310. 633042.00000 0.00 WILLIAMS,R 00- 2945CF 20017846 8145 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 JOHNSON,D 00- 2942CF 20017847 T -2543 681. 410310- 633061 -00000 0.00 SALVATORI,L 00- 1326CF 20017845 7240 -1 681 - 410310. 633042 -00000 0.00 AGUILAR,J 01- 1483CFA CHECK NO 572679 VENDOR 115170 - NAPLES CUSTOM HITCH & TRAILER SALES 20017513 48444 204.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 96.00 200917 ADAPTOR, 2/7 0.00 20017513 48425 1,002.80 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 111.00 200917 LABOR, 2/7 0.00 20017513 48490 120.00 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 CHECK TOTAL 200917 GREASE CAP, 2/8 20017513 48471 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 200917 BATTERY, 2/8 16JI PAGE 112 AMT NET VCHR DISC 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 204.00 0.00 96.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 1,002.80 0.00 111.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 37.60 0.00 120.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 30.51 0.00 30.51 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 1.12 0.00 1.12 0.00 29.65 0.00 29.65 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017512 48820 200917 - ADAPTOR, 2/19 20018105 48895 152285 WIRING ON UTILITY TRUCKS 20017513 48425 200917 - PARTS, 2/7 20018105 48902 152285 WIRING ON UTILITY TRUCKS 20017512 48647 200917 - SWITCH, 2/13 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212 - 634999.00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212 - 634999 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572637 VENDOR 13300 - NAPLES DAILY NEWS 20018054 1959994/001230 001 - 100130- 648160 -00000 117.40 200206 - ADS, 11/10 -12 117.40 20017834 2001512/1203146 001 - 157110 - 648160 -00000 109.40 154429 - ADS 2/14 -18 109.40 20017516 2000269/053926 113 - 138312 - 649100 -00000 CHECK TOTAL 200466 - ADS, 2/16 -18 540.27 20017515 1995535/1094680 001 - 121810 - 648160 -00000 0.00 204425 - ADS, 2/1.4 0.00 20017516 2000248/001230 113 - 138312 - 649100 -00000 0.00 200466 - ADS, 2/16 -18 0.00 20017516 1999540/001230 113 - 138312 - 649100 -00000 0.00 200466 - ADS, 2/9.11 0.00 20018114 1968806/001230 413 - 263611 - 648160.73066 0.00 203721 - AD, 11/30/01 20017516 2000268/053926 113 - 138312 - 649100 -00000 200466 - ADS, 2/16 -18 20017515 1995533/1094680 001 - 121810 - 648160 -00000 204425 - ADS, 2/1 -4 20017516 2000267/053926 113 - 138312. 649100 -00000 200466 - ADS, 2/16.18 20017516 1999541/001230 113- 138312 - 649100.00000 200466 - ADS, 2/9 -11 16JI PAGE 113 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 30.51 0.00 30.51 117.40 0.00 117.40 183.23 0.00 183.23 109.40 0.00 109.40 8.45 0.00 8.45 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 540.27 0.00 2,977.05 0.00 2,977.05 0.00 97.90 0.00 97.90 0.00 535.20 0.00 535.20 0.00 168.80 0.00 168.80 0.00 292.68 0.00 292.68 0.00 152.15 0.00 152.15 0.00 1.043.64 0.00 1.043.64 0.00 535.20 0.00 535.20 0.00 11.35 0.00 11.35 0.00 535.20 0.00 535.20 0.00 150.58 0.00 150.58 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 114 16JI REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017516 2000266/053926 113 - 138312 - 649100 -00000 0.00 535.20 0.00 535.20 200466 - ADS, 2/16 -18 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7,034.95 CHECK NO 573022 VENDOR 326860 NAPLES DAILY NEWS 20017514 2001920/059405 195 - 110406. 649100.10509 0.00 86.21 0.00 86.21 204107 - AD, 2/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 86.21 CHECK NO 573124 VENDOR 352210 NAPLES DAY SURGERY, LLC 20017749 K.KEELING 1110102 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 3,168.75 0.00 3,168.75 204580 K.KEELING 1110102 20017749 S.BAINTER 1/29/02 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 2,275.00 0.00 2,275.00 204580 S.BAINTER 1/29/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.443.75 CHECK NO 572638 VENDOR 13370 - NAPLES FEED & SEED, INC. 20017789 16981 001 - 155410 - 652210 -00000 0.00 330.66 0.00 330.66 202452 FOOD & SUPPL. 20017789 16946 001 - 155410 - 652210 -00000 0.00 354.72 0.00 354.72 202452 FOOD & SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 685.38 CHECK NO 572639 VENDOR 13380 - NAPLES FERTILIZER & SUPPLY 20017790 12228 408. 253212- 652310 -00000 0.00 37.25 0.00 37.25 200240 LANDSCAPE SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 37.25 CHECK NO 572792 VENDOR 197570 - NAPLES GRAPHICS & PRINTING, INC. 20017536 38470 001 - 156110 - 647110 -00000 0.00 987.24 0.00 987.24 153436 INVITE NEW LIBRARY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 987.24 CHECK NO 572737 VENDOR 165840 - NAPLES RV CENTER 20017535 7607 408 - 253221. 652990 -00000 0.00 179.78 0.00 179.78 151660 FOR SHED @ WATER PLANT MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 115 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 179.78 CHECK NO 573063 VENDOR 340950 - NAPLES STUDIO 20017748 3059 490 - 144610. 654360 -00000 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 204291 VIDEO ON CHILD SEAT SAFETY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,500.00 CHECK NO 572891 VENDOR 267340 - NATION AIR 20017523 PR73406 10 /1 /01- 10/1/02 516 - 121650. 645910 -00000 0.00 3,165.00 0.00 3.165.00 204528 - ADD WAR RISK LIABILITY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,165.00 CHECK NO 572942 VENDOR 288870 - NATIONAL GYM SUPPLY, INC. 20018057 135646 111 - 156349 - 646970 -00000 0.00 194.00 0.00 194.00 153883 - EQPT PARTS, 2/20 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 194.00 CHECK NO 573121 VENDOR 352050 - NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STORAGE TANK 20017871 REGIST- CALLIS,HOLMES,DOVE 001 - 122240 - 654370 -00000 0.00 585.00 0.00 585.00 153504 REGISTER CALLIS,HOLMES,DOVE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 585.00 CHECK NO 572897 VENDOR 272820 NATIONS RENT OF FLORIDA, INC. 20018104 35 876133 111 - 163647 - 644600 -00000 0.00 422.50 0.00 422.50 154442 RENT EQUIP. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 422.50 CHECK NO 573139 VENDOR 352960 NEOPOLITAN BARBERSHOPPERS 20017501 3/14/02 RECONG.LUNCHEON 116 - 121830 - 649992 -33297 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 154548 - RECOGNITION LUNCH ON 3/14 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 572936 VENDOR 286930 - NEXTEL 20017517 0002099947.0 1/15 -2/14 473 - 173413 - 641700.00000 0.00 328.97 0.00 328.97 201192 - 0002099947 -0 1/15.2/14 20017520 0002170210 -5 1/15.2/14 518 - 121630 - 641700.00000 0.00 141.10 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 116 MARCH 13, 2002 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REPORT 100 -601 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 516. 121650 - 641700 -00000 0.00 199.35 0.00 340.45 202218 . 0002170210 -5 1/15 -2/14 20017521 0002179829.3 1/15 -2/14 001. 144510.641700 -00000 0.00 52.61 0.00 52.61 200555 - 0002179829 -3 1/15 -2/14 20017522 0002151450 -0 1/15.2/14 408 - 233313 - 641700 -00000 0.00 156.16 0.00 156.16 202302 . 0002151450 -0 1/15 -2/14 20018052 0001841814 -5 1/15 -2/14 470 - 173410 - 641700 -00000 0.00 75.57 0.00 75.57 201221 - 0001841814 -5 1/15 -2/14 20018050 0001901718 -5 1/15.2/14 408 - 233312- 641700 -00000 0.00 311.06 0.00 311.06 202303 - 0001901718 -5 1/15 -2/14 20018052 0001841814 -5 1/15 -2/14 470. 173410 - 641700 -00000 0.00 249.19 0.00 249.19 202501 - 0001841814 -5 1/15.2/14 20018051 0022349861 -9 1/25.2/24 408.233352- 641700 -00000 0.00 58.38 0.00 58.38 203259 - 0022349861 -9 1/25 -2/24 20017519 0002178610 -8 1/15 -2/14 408. 210125- 641700 -00000 0.00 57.96 111.83 408 - 253211 - 641700 -00000 0.00 408- 253212. 641700 -00000 0.00 445.70 408. 253221.641700 -00000 0.00 142.82 0.00 758.31 200190 . 0002178610.8 1/15.2/14 20018115 0001889247-1 1/15-2/14 1 2 49.95 0.00 1.269.64 408- 210120 - 641700 -00000 0.00 201108 - 0001889247 -1 1/15.2/14 20018053 0022295214 -5 1/25 -2/24 001 - 155110- 641700 -00000 0.00 79.81 0.00 79.81 203762 • 0022295214 -5 1/25 -2/24 20017518 0002131764.9 1/15 -2/14 001 - 121810. 649990 -00000 0.00 113.68 0.00 113.68 202371 . 0002131764 -9 1/15.2/14 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,793.83 CHECK NO 573171 VENDOR 900050 . NOEMI VINTON 301526 REFUND -PARKS VINTON.N 670 - 000000 - 220010 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 VINTON.N REFUND -PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 572691 VENDOR 124820 - NORLAB, INC. 408 - 233351 - 652310 -00000 0.00 758.40 0.00 758.40 20018056 50219 150004 - TRACING DYE 13, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 117 RT 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 758.40 CHECK NO 572964 VENDOR 304380 NORTRAX EQUIPMENT COMPANY 20017844 E023662 101 - 163620 - 764150 -00000 0.00 104,470.00 0.00 104,470.00 204238 - 2002 J.DEERE FRONTEND LOADR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 104,470.00 CHECK NO 572931 VENDOR 285590 OFFICE MAX 20018103 571060 2/21/02 001 - 121140 - 651110 -00000 0.00 43.47 0.00 43.47 154175 2/21/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 43.47 CHECK NO 573053 VENDOR 338800 OHIO CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTRAL 20017928 PP #12 001 - 000000. 218810 -00000 0.00 267.86 0.00 267.86 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 267.86 CHECK NO 573002 VENDOR 321600 ONONDAGA COUNTY SCU 20017924 PP #12 001 - 000000. 218810 -00000 0.00 14.00 0.00 14.00 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 14.00 CHECK NO 573130 VENDOR 352690 OP MEDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE 20018131 734660 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 56.00 0.00 56.00 154336 DINING & DOING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 56.00 CHECK NO 572913 VENDOR 277420 OSPICIO RODRIGUEZ 20017833 2/26/02 111 - 156349 - 634999 -00000 0.00 498.00 0.00 498.00 153893 - SOUND & MUSICIAN SVS- 3/2/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 498.00 CHECK NO 572802 VENDOR 202730 - PADGETT- THOMPSON 20017870 REGIST - MBRAGG /R ERICKSON 001 - 122240 - 654370 -00000 0.00 790.00 0.00 790.00 153508 M BRAGG /R ERICKSON 4/2 -3/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 790.00 COUNTY 16JI PAGE 118 REPORT 100 -60012 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573172 VENDOR 900050 - PAM GAMRET 301525 REFUND -PARKS GAMRET,P 111- 156395 - 347400.00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 GAMRET,P REFUND -PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.00 CHECK NO 573146 VENDOR 353250 - PARK STRUCTURES 20017831 10617 111 - 156332. 646452 -00000 0.00 395.95 0.00 395.95 153180 - PLAYGROUND EQPT PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 395.95 CHECK NO 572969 VENDOR 307770 - PAUL S KLING, PHD 20017510 2283 681. 421190 - 631010 -00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 CASHEN,T 00.1030CF ETC. -5 CASES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 572850 VENDOR 247350 - PEDERSEN PRINTING 20017842 1547 001 - 000000 - 142900.00000 0.00 64.00 0.00 64.00 200053 - BUSINESS CARDS, 2/11 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 64.00 CHECK NO 572723 VENDOR 152460 - PELUSO MOVERS INC. 20017785 9950 198 - 157410 - 634999 -00000 0.00 210.00 0.00 210.00 200577 STORAGE FEE 20017785 10197 198 - 157410. 634999 -00000 0.00 380.00 0.00 380.00 200577 STORAGE FEE 20017786 10260 198 - 157430 - 634999 -00000 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 200575 STORAGE FEE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 790.00 CHECK NO 572901 VENDOR 276020 - PETROLEUM TRADERS CORP. 20018060 305645 521. 122450. 652410 -00000 0.00 4,736.88 0.00 4,736.88 200956 FUEL, 2/5 20018060 306687 521 - 122450- 652410.00000 0.00 424.66 0.00 424.66 200956 FUEL, 2/8 20018060 305644 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 2.018.24 0.00 2,018.24 200956 FUEL, 2/5 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 119 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018060 308483 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 5,692.52 0.00 5,692.52 200956 FUEL, 2/19 20018060 307994 521- 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 279.99 0.00 279.99 200956 FUEL, 2112 20018060 307992 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 777.17 0.00 777.17 200956 FUEL, 2/12 20018060 309376 521 - 122450. 652410.00000 0.00 329.53 0.00 329.53 200956 FUEL, 2/19 20018060 308485 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 1.890.40 0.00 1,890.40 200956 FUEL, 2/19 20018060 309375 521 - 122450- 652410.00000 0.00 894.39 0.00 894.39 200956 FUEL, 2/19 20018060 308479 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 2.841.48 0.00 2.841.48 200956 FUEL, 2/19 20018060 306637 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 914.72 0.00 914.72 200956 FUEL, 2/6 20018060 306683 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 5,100.08 0.00 5,100.08 200956 FUEL, 2/8 20018060 308419 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 417.76 0.00 417.76 200956 FUEL, 2/15 20018060 306638 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 293.91 0.00 293.91 200956 FUEL, 2/6 20018060 307699 521.122450- 652410.00000 0.00 490.00 0.00 490.00 200956 FUEL, 2/13 20018060 307696 521 - 122450.652410- 00000 0.00 1,845.78 0.00 1,845.78 200956 FUEL, 2/13 20018060 306684 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 2,227.13 0.00 2.227.13 200956 FUEL, 2/8 20018060 306685 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 1,212.38 0.00 1.212.38 200956 FUEL, 2/8 20018060 308481 521 - 122450.652410 -00000 0.00 4,931.64 0.00 4,931.64 200956 FUEL, 2/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 37,318.66 13, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 120 REPORCH RT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573057 VENDOR 339800 - PHIL SNYDERBURN 20017392 3/18 -20 ADV PD SNYDERBURN 114 - 178975 - 640300 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 3/18 -20 ADV PD P SNYDERBURN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 CHECK NO 572869 VENDOR 257160 - PHILIP T. REGALA. M.D. 20018128 THURSTON,R - 1/30/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 48.75 0.00 48.75 154716 - THURSTON,R 1/30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 48.75 CHECK NO 572986 VENDOR 316240 - PINEGATE VETERINARY CENTER 20017784 01 -8713 R,TEIGAN 610- 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -8713 R,TEIGAN 20017784 01 -9474 K,THOMPSON 610 - 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -9474 K,THOMPSON 20017784 01 -9219 CIANCIA,K 610 - 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -9219 CIANCIA,K 20017784 01 -9398 DONLEY,B 610 - 155410- 631970 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -9398 DONLEY,B 20017784 02 -9609 N,MORALES 610 - 155410 - 631970.00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 201061 ADOPTION 02 -9609 N,MORALES 20017784 01 -9066 PRESTON,C 610. 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -9066 PRESTON,C 20017784 01.9058 P,ZALOG 610. 155410. 631970.00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -9058 P,ZALOG 20017784 01.9125 J,POPE 610 - 155410 - 631970.00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 201061 ADOPTION 01.9125 J,POPE 20017784 02.9625 BURKE,C 610 - 155410 - 631970.00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 201061 ADOPTION 02 -9625 BURKE,C 20017784 01.8712 R,TEIGAN 610 - 155410. 631970.00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -8712 R,TEIGAN 20017784 01 -9131 LIPKA,M 610 - 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 201061 ADOPTION 01.9131 LIPKA.M 20017784 01 -9132 LIPKA,M. 610 - 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -9132 LIPKA,M. MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 121 REPORT 100 -6002 OF ONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017784 01 -9302 L,BEATTY 610 - 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -9302 L,BEATTY 20017784 01 -9126 J,POPE 610 - 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 201061 ADOPTION 01 -9126 J,POPE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 850.00 CHECK NO 572927 VENDOR 282390 - PITMAN - HARTENSTEIN & ASSOCIATES,INC 20017329 #9 336 - 163650 - 631400 -60101 0.00 5.212.50 0.00 5.212.50 104922 1/1 -31/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.212.50 CHECK NO 572686 VENDOR 117020 - PITNEY BOWES, INC. 20017788 409034 001. 156110 - 644600.00000 0.00 332.24 0.00 332.24 202237 POSTAGE METER RENTAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 332.24 CHECK NO 572941 VENDOR 288840 - POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES 20017750 CO20700248 129 - 156110. 764900 -33775 0.00 2,901.18 0.00 2.901.18 204024LASERJET PRINTERS 20017750 CO21501118 129 - 156110 - 764900 -33775 0.00 498.00 0.00 498.00 204024LASERJET PRINTERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,399.18 CHECK NO 572558 VENDOR 15130 POSTMASTER 20018059 PERMIT #499 408 - 210151. 641950 -00000 0.00 19,889.87 0.00 19,889.87 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 19.889.87 CHECK NO 572923 VENDOR 281580 POWERSPORTS OF NAPLES INC 20017787 12123.1PSR 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 68.79 0.00 68.79 200923 FLEET R &M PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 68.79 CHECK NO 572865 VENDOR 255770 - PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION SOUTHEAST,LLC 20017837 PJ191046 111. 156332- 646313 -00000 0.00 18.83 0.00 18.83 201040 - CARBON DIOXIDE, 2/13 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 122 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 18.83 CHECK NO 572997 VENDOR 319220 - PRECISION DYNAMICS CORP. 20018061 959940- CUST#204391 111 - 156341 - 647110.00000 0.00 2.045.00 0.00 2,045.00 204391 - TICKETS FOR COUNTRY JAM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,045.00 CHECK NO 572882 VENDOR 264400 - PREFERRED TRAVEL OF NAPLES 20017511 207409 681 - 421190 - 634405.00000 0.00 401.00 0.00 401.00 KIPP /00 -1216 TRAVEL F /A.SWETT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 401.00 CHECK NO 572711 VENDOR 138230 - PRIDE OF FLORIDA, INC. 20018058 ZI083386 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 0.00 146.72 0.00 146.72 200052 - LETTERHEAD, 2/18 20018058 ZI083380 001 - 000000.142900.00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 63.00 200052 - LETTERHEAD, 2/15 20017505 ZI083383 001 - 000000- 142900 -00000 0.00 54.00 0.00 54.00 200052 • TIME SHEETS, 2/18 20018058 ZI083342 001 - 000000- 142900 -00000 0.00 125.80 0.00 125.80 200052 - 3 -PART FORMS, 2/15 20018058 ZI083393 001.000000- 142900 -00000 0.00 46.00 0.00 46.00 200052 - MEMO SHEETS, 2/18 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 435.52 CHECK NO 572930 VENDOR 285020 PRIMIER BUILDERS. INC 20017524 REF #313530 PREMIER BLD 113 - 000000- 209102 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 REF #313530 PREMIER BLDRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 572757 VENDOR 174760 PROCRAFT BATTERIES 20017506 425131871 521. 122410.646425 -00000 0.00 88.40 0.00 88.40 200698 - BATTERIES, 2/15 20017506 154149 521.122410- 646425.00000 0.00 180.80 0.00 180.80 200698 - BATTERIES. 2/13 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 123 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017506 154330 521- 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 135.60 0.00 135.60 200698 - BATTERIES, 2/15 20017506 421351874 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 138.05 0.00 138.05 200698 - BATTERIES, 2/18 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 542.85 CHECK NO 572890 VENDOR 267130 - PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. 20017832 29499 346 - 116360. 649010 -00173 0.00 454.52 0.00 454.52 153695 - REIMB CONTRACTOR- PERMIT FEE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 454.52 CHECK NO 572754 VENDOR 173650 PROGRESSIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC. 20017534 S167363 001- 122255 - 652910 -00000 0.00 56.00 0.00 56.00 153594 DIG SET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 56.00 CHECK NO 573014 VENDOR 325880 PROSOURCE ONE 20018064 07275000 111. 156332 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1.380.80 0.00 1,380.80 204495 - CHEMICALS, 2/5 20018064 07275000 111 - 156332 - 652310.00000 0.00 724.00 0.00 724.00 201156 - CHEMICALS, 2/5 20018063 07297200 111 - 156332 - 652310.00000 0.00 1,726.00 0.00 1,726.00 204495 - CHEMICALS, 2/15 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.830.80 CHECK NO 573095 VENDOR 349040 - PRUTOS PUBLIS RELATIONS, INC. 20018140 03/01/02 194 - 101540 - 634999.10526 0.00 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 203735 02/02 SERVICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 12,000.00 CHECK NO 572728 VENDOR 158120 - PUBLIX #410 20017836 I- 03919586/321600400 111 - 156395 - 652210 -00000 0.00 20.97 0.00 20.97 202019 - FOOD SUPPLIES, 2/14 20017841 I- 03919510/321600400 111- 156313 - 652210.00000 0.00 84.31 0.00 84.31 202018 - FOOD SUPPLIES, 12/26 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017503 I- 03919599/321600400 202056 - FOOD, 2/19 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111. 156341 - 652210.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572715 VENDOR 144550 - PYRAMID II JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 20017838 299140 0.00 111. 156395 - 652510 -00000 0.00 202040 SUPPLIES. 1/9 258.61 20018055 301629 0.00 111. 156313 - 652510 -00000 0.00 154070 SOAP DISPENSERS, 1/31 18.07 20017838 298438 0.00 111 - 156395. 652510 -00000 0.00 202040 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES, 12/27 22.08- 20017838 298670 0.00 111 - 156395 - 652510 -00000 0.00 202040 SUPPLIES, 12/31 75.38 20017838 299535 0.00 111- 156395 - 652510 -00000 0.00 202040 SUPPLIES, 1 /11 CHECK TOTAL 20017838 CM298438 1121102 111 - 156395. 652510 -00000 0.00 202040 - CREDIT ON #298438 CHECK TOTAL 20017838 CM298438 1/9/02 111. 156395- 652510 -00000 0.00 202040 CREDIT ON #298438 20017830 301646 001. 156363- 652510 -00000 154161 MOP BUCKET W /WRINGER 1/31 20017839 302621 111 - 156390 - 652510 -00000 202039 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES, 2/8 20017840 302099 111 - 156313 - 652510.00000 203792 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES, 211 CHECK NO 572801 VENDOR 202510 - PYRAMID II, INC. 20017504 302282 001 - 155410 - 652510.00000 201654 - JANITORIAL SUPPLIES, 2/5 CHECK NO 572641 VENDOR 15420 - QUALITY BOOKS, INC. 20018065 556525 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 154643 - GUIDE TO ACA ACC. CAMPS 16JIPAGE 124 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 39.60 0.00 39.60 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 144.88 0.00 15.60 0.00 15.60 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 258.61 0.00 258.61 0.00 33.52 0.00 33.52 0.00 18.07 0.00 18.07 0.00 209.94- 0.00 209.94- 0.00 22.08- 0.00 22.08- 0.00 63.50 0.00 63.50 0.00 75.38 0.00 75.38 0.00 40.10 0.00 40.10 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 312.76 0.00 375.80 0.00 375.80 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 375.80 0.00 47.21 0.00 47.21 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA �� PAGE 125 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 47.21 CHECK NO 573024 VENDOR 327700 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS 20018129 DURAN,A 9/21/01 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 30.64 0.00 30.64 154717 DURAN,A 9/21 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 30.64 CHECK NO 572803 VENDOR 202830 QUICK KEY LOCKSMITH SERVICES 20017507 B11889 001 - 122240 - 639965 -00000 0.00 7.70 0.00 7.70 201542 LOCK WORK, 2/14 20017508 811891 408- 253211 - 634999 -00000 0.00 55.00 0.00 55.00 201816 LOCK WORK, 2/14 20017509 B11916 001 - 122240 - 639965 -00000 0.00 55.00 0.00 55.00 201542 LOCK WORK, 2/19 20017509 B11917 001 - 122240. 639965 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 201542 LOCK WORK, 2/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 157.70 CHECK NO 573138 VENDOR 352940 - R.A. ROGERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 20017986 215 408. 233313 - 649990.00000 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 151807 2 ABANDONED WELLS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,000.00 CHECK NO 573140 VENDOR 353040 - R.S. MEANS COMPANY, INC. 20017987 00128770 SQTL1000 001. 122240 - 654110 -00000 0.00 119.84 0.00 119.84 153512 BOOK PURCHASE FOR S CAMP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 119.84 CHECK NO 572687 VENDOR 120660 - R.W.C. 20017965 23137 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 80.00 0.00 80.00 154243 CONVERT TO SPRING ASST 20017965 23135 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 540.00 0.00 540.00 154243 CONVERT TO SPRING ASST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 620.00 CHECK NO 572987 VENDOR 316370 - RAY OGNIBENE MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 PAGE 126 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017394 3/24 -27 ADV PD R OGNIBENE 408 - 233351 - 640300 -00000 0.00 84.00 0.00 84.00 3/24 -27 ADV PD R OGNIBENE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 84.00 CHECK NO 572899 VENDOR 275110 REDDY ICE CORPORATION 20017231 116646 408 - 253212 - 652990 -00000 0.00 54.00 0.00 54.00 200245 ICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 54.00 CHECK NO 572983 VENDOR 315150 REXEL CONSOLIDATED 20017964 12 256029 001.122240- 652993 -00000 0.00 473.60 0.00 473.60 150120 S -A CLM62031 6P 129 LTGCNT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 473.60 CHECK NO 573026 VENDOR 328990 - REXFORD G. DARROW, II 20018120 A FORREST 7/10/01 01 879 681. 421190 - 631020 -00000 0.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 A FORREST 7/10/01 01 879 CFA 20018119 L ROBINSEN O1 1228 681.421190- 631020 -00000 0.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 L ROBINSEN O1 1228 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,800.00 CHECK NO 572568 VENDOR 347310 - RICHARD JONES 20018116 P SYBERT W 2762 3/02 RENT 001 - 155930 - 634153 -00000 0.00 450.00 0.00 450.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 450.00 CHECK NO 573155 VENDOR 900040 - RICHARD RICHLAN 301488 R RICHLAN 05027356401 408 - 000000.115001 -00000 0.00 167.80 0.00 167.80 R RICHLAN REFUND CREDIT ADJ BACKFLOW CHECK TOTAL 0.00 167.80 CHECK NO 573180 VENDOR 900110 - RICHMAN,DEIFIK,LANIER & ROSS.P.A. 301528 0 /PMT ASESSM.70- 214508 232 - 000000 - 121900 -00000 0.00 8.935.18 0.00 8,935.18 0 /PMT ASESSM.70- 214508 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,935.18 COUNTY 16JI PAGE 127 REPORT 100 -60012 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573084 VENDOR 347340 - RINKER MATERIALS 20017972 97592666 408 - 253212 - 653150.00000 0.00 482.32 0.00 482.32 152278 BON GRAY SAKRETE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 482.32 CHECK NO 572642 VENDOR 16290 ROBERT J WALD MD PA 20017982 C FREDERICK 12/6 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 146.25 0.00 146.25 154491 C FREDERICK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 146.25 CHECK NO 572570 VENDOR 353030 ROBERT L. IVERSON 20018121 V HALL W -8021 3/01 RENT 001 - 155930 - 634153 -00000 0.00 131.50 0.00 131.50 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 131.50 CHECK NO 572569 VENDOR 351600 - ROBERT MUNN 20018117 READ FAMILY 558 3/02 RENT 001 - 155930- 634153 -00000 0.00 450.00 0.00 450.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 450.00 CHECK NO 572888 VENDOR 266940 - ROCHESTER MIDLAND CREATIVE CHEM 20017229 11140201 001. 122220 - 652990 -00000 0.00 406.77 0.00 406.77 200075 SANTIZING DEODERIZING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 406.77 CHECK NO 573173 VENDOR 900050 ROLLSECURE SHUTTERS 301515 314867 ROLLSECURE 113 - 138900 - 322110 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 314867 ROLLSECURE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25.00 CHECK NO 573174 VENDOR 900050 ROSA CUIOICECCI 301518 R GUIOICECCI REFUND PARKS 111 - 156395. 347400 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 R GUIOICECCI REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.00 CHECK NO 573181 VENDOR 900110 - ROY WILSON MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 128 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301520 R WILLSON REFUND SEWER FE 413 - 263611 - 369806 -00000 0.00 39.20 0.00 39.20 R WILLSON REFUND SERE FEES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 39.20 CHECK NO 573175 VENDOR 900050 ROYALL CONSTRUCTION OF FL, INC 301514 317179 ROYALL CON 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 1,425.00 0.00 1,425.00 317179 ROYALL CONST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,425.00 CHECK NO 573072 VENDOR 344370 RUSH MESSENGER SERVICE WEST, INC 20017230 19015 111- 156310. 634999 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 201212 COURIER SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 16.00 CHECK NO 573176 VENDOR 900050 RUTH TALLOR 301521 R TALLOR REUND ADOPTION 610 - 155410. 346450 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 R TALLOR REFUND ADOPTION 301516 R TALLOR REFUND ADOPTION 001 - 155410. 346410 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 R TALLOR REFUND ADOPTION CHECK TOTAL 0.00 40.00 CHECK NO 573013 VENDOR 325750 RWA INC. 20017877 8668 333 - 163650. 631400 -60027 0.00 30,145.50 0.00 30,145.50 102659 THRU 1/31/02 20017877 8669 333 - 163650. 631400 -60027 0.00 57,501.50 0.00 57,501.50 102659 THRU 1/31/02 20017877 8670 333 - 163650. 631400 -60027 0.00 55,332.00 0.00 55.332.00 102659 THRU 1/31/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 142,979.00 CHECK NO 573083 VENDOR 347250 SAFETY SOFTWARE 20017316 11345 408 - 233351. 764950 -00000 0.00 1.520.00 0.00 1,520.00 202841 UPGRADES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,520.00 CHECK NO 572766 VENDOR 184630 SAM GALLOWAY FORD MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017232 551895 200926 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 16JI PAGE 129 AMT NET VCHR DISC 41.23 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 41.23 41.23 CHECK NO 573177 VENDOR 900050 - SANDRA HERRERA 301519 S HERRERA REFUND PARKS 111 - 156395 - 347400 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 S HERRERA REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.00 CHECK NO 572835 VENDOR 234540 - SANDRA MARIE MANLEY 20017233 TAP AND BALLET 12120 -2121 130 - 157710 - 634999 -00000 0.00 598.17 0.00 598.17 TAP AND BALLET 12120 -2121 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 598.17 CHECK NO 572559 VENDOR 16490 SANTOS OSORNIO 20018118 N RODRIGUEZ 2/02 RENT 001 - 155930 - 634153 -00000 0.00 160.00 0.00 160.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 160.00 CHECK NO 572758 VENDOR 174790 SATCO 20017313 233586 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,133.09 0.00 1.133.09 200428 SULFURIC ACID 20017313 233576 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1.109.11 0.00 1.109.11 200428 SULFURIC ACID 20017313 233612 408 - 253221 - 652310.00000 0.00 1.136.19 0.00 1.136.19 200428 SULFURIC ACID 20017313 233548 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,113.11 0.00 1,113.11 200428 SULFURIC ACID 20017313 233413 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,102.89 0.00 1,102.89 200428 SULFURIC ACID 20017313 233414 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1.108.66 0.00 1.108.66 200428 SULFURIC ACID 20017313 233397 408 - 253221 - 652310.00000 0.00 1,103.78 0.00 1.103.78 200428 SULFURIC ACID 20017313 233559 408 - 253221 - 652310.00000 0.00 1,108.23 0.00 1.108.23 200428 SULFURIC ACID MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 130 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,915.06 CHECK NO 573131 VENDOR 352700 - SATISFACTION GUARANTEED FISHING 20017975 #50 001 - 156363 - 634999.00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 153694 8 HR RED TIDE CLEAN UP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 500.00 CHECK NO 572988 VENDOR 316590 - SBC DATACOMM 20017942 375 037501 001 - 121154 - 764900 -00000 0.00 16.320.00 0.00 16,320.00 203703 SOFTWARE LICENSE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 16,320.00 CHECK NO 572886 VENDOR 266010 SCHWAB READY MIX INC 20017941 R30080253 301. 120402- 762200 -80196 0.00 1,036.50 0.00 1.036.50 203832 CONCRETE 20017941 R30081023 301 - 120402 - 762200.80196 0.00 9,093.50 0.00 9.093.50 203832 CONCRETE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10.130.00 CHECK NO 572643 VENDOR 16660 SCIENTIFIC SOUND SYSTEMS, INC 20017977 SCA01252 681 - 421510 - 646710 -00000 0.00 207.30 0.00 207.30 154284 REPAIR FOR 2 MICROPHONES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 207.30 CHECK NO 572778 VENDOR 193330 - SCOTT PAINT CORP. 20017324 9053878 001 - 156363 - 652999 -00000 0.00 86.27 0.00 86.27 200899 SUPPLIES 20017319 9054142 001- 122240 - 652999 -00000 0.00 62.25 0.00 62.25 201270 PAINT SUPPLIES 20017325 9053932 111 - 156332 - 652999 -00000 0.00 21.08 0.00 21.08 200980 SUPPLIES 20017319 9054042 001- 122240 - 652999 -00000 0.00 18.13 0.00 18.13 201270 PAINT SUPPLIES 20017319 9054054 001 - 122240 - 652999 -00000 0.00 6.11 0.00 6.11 201270 PAINT SUPPLIES MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017319 9054024 201270 PAINT SUPPLIES 20017319 9053988 201270 PAINT SUPPLIES 20017319 9053946 201270 PAINT SUPPLIES 20017319 9054055 201270 PAINT SUPPLIES 20017317 9053954 200733 PAINT SUPPLIES 20017319 9054135 201270 PAINT SUPPLIES 20017319 9054131 201270 PAINT SUPPLIES 20017317 9053868 200733 PAINT SUPPLIES CHECK NO 572688 VENDOR 120880 - SEMSCO 20017320 3597842 200250 SUPPLIES 20017321 3602561 200251 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 408- 253212 - 655100 -00000 CHECK NO 572915 VENDOR 278480 - SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 20017940 70442 412 - 273511 - 634999 -70076 203522 INTALL READ METERS 20017940 70072 412 - 273511 - 634999 -70076 203522 INTALL READ METERS CHECK NO 573081 VENDOR 346910 - SHANNON DARROW 20017862 TRAVEL 2/1 -27/02 111 - 156390. 640200 -00000 TRAVEL 2/1.27/02 S DARROW 16JI PAGE 131 AMT NET BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR NET 217.54 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 56.72 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 122240- 652999 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240 - 652999 -00000 0.00 001- 122240 - 652999 -00000 0.00 001- 122240 - 652999.00000 0.00 408 - 210130- 652990. 00000 0.00 001 - 122240 - 652999.00000 0.00 001 - 122240- 652999 -00000 0.00 408 - 210130 - 652990 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 408- 253212 - 655100 -00000 CHECK NO 572915 VENDOR 278480 - SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 20017940 70442 412 - 273511 - 634999 -70076 203522 INTALL READ METERS 20017940 70072 412 - 273511 - 634999 -70076 203522 INTALL READ METERS CHECK NO 573081 VENDOR 346910 - SHANNON DARROW 20017862 TRAVEL 2/1 -27/02 111 - 156390. 640200 -00000 TRAVEL 2/1.27/02 S DARROW 16JI PAGE 131 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 217.54 0.00 217.54 39.60 0.00 39.60 56.72 0.00 56.72 62.91 0.00 62.91 93.42 0.00 93.42 235.13 0.00 235.13 20.00 0.00 20.00 1,107.36 0.00 1,107.36 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,026.52 0.00 986.04 0.00 986.04 0.00 316.80 0.00 316.80 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.302.84 0.00 19,605.00 0.00 19,605.00 0.00 19.286.50 0.00 19.286.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 38,891.50 0.00 20.30 0.00 20.30 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 132 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20.30 CHECK NO 572929 VENDOR 284700 SHARON L. JOHNSTON, D.O. 20017980 S SWEENEY 1/30 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 130.00 0.00 130.00 154503 S SWEENEY 1/30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 130.00 CHECK NO 573151 VENDOR 900030 SHAWN HOGAN 301489 3/18.20 ADV PD S HOGAN 114 - 178975 - 640300 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 3/18.20 ADV PD S HOGAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 CHECK NO 573092 VENDOR 348690 SIGN A RAMA 20017962 1367 123 - 155975. 651110 -33075 0.00 122.00 0.00 122.00 154259 PLAQUES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 122.00 CHECK NO 572763 VENDOR 181480 SIR SPEEDY PRINTING #5564 20017967 23261 198 - 157440 - 647110 -00000 0.00 70.83 0.00 70.83 154209 PRINTING TICKETS ROBERTS RAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 70.83 CHECK NO 572783 VENDOR 193860 - SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MGMT 20017955 2001016758 001. 121810- 654210 -00000 0.00 160.00 0.00 160.00 154515 AMMUAL MEMBERSHIP G BEAUCHAMP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 160.00 CHECK NO 572978 VENDOR 313450 - SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 20017314 44FB8 412. 273511 - 764950 -70033 0.00 1,519.56 0.00 1,519.56 204246 LICNESE 20017963 45195 101 - 163630 - 652920 -00000 0.00 82.31 0.00 82.31 153923 ADOBE PHOTOSHOP 20017984 4688D 113 - 138913 - 649010 -00000 0.00 491.18 0.00 491.18 153941 SOFTWARE LICENSES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,093.05 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J I PAGE 133 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572830 VENDOR 231730 - SOURCE COMPUTING. INC. 20017311 2002010 408 - 210151 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1.332.50 0.00 1.332.50 202578 UTILITY BILLING AND ACCT REC 20017311 2002012 408 - 210151 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1,923.27 0.00 1.923.27 202578 UTILITY BILLING AND ACCT REC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,255.77 CHECK NO 572984 VENDOR 315770 - SOUTH FLORIDA INPATIENT MEDICAL 20017983 C FREDERICK 12/2.12/6 001- 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 396.50 0.00 396.50 154512 C FREDERICK 12/2 -12/6 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 396.50 CHECK NO 572958 VENDOR 300100 SOUTHERN STATES COOP, INC. 20017234 84224 109 - 182602- 652310 -00000 0.00 860.00 0.00 860.00 203725 2 -4 -D CHECK TOTAL 0.00 860.00 CHECK NO 572926 VENDOR 282370 SOUTHWEST ELECTRIC, INC. 20017978 508 198. 157430. 634999 -00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 154461 LIGHTING REPAIRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 500.00 CHECK NO 572966 VENDOR 305680 SOUTHWEST FL PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHT 20017935 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 218700.00000 0.00 2,112.31 0.00 2,112.31 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,112.31 CHECK NO 572644 VENDOR 17410 SPEEDY BLUEPRINTING 20017974 10199673 322 - 183825 - 651210 -00000 0.00 3.36 0.00 3.36 153156 BLUELINES 20017970 10199880 001 - 122240 - 651110 -00000 0.00 93.00 0.00 93.00 153581 PLAN CLAMPS 20017970 10199881 001 - 122240 - 651110 -00000 0.00 288.04 0.00 288.04 153581 PLAN CLAMPS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 384.40 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION CHECK NO 572864 VENDOR 255040 - SPRINT 20017800 643 6870 870 2/16 3/15 643 6870 870 2/16 3/15 20017800 732 6211 009 2/22 3/21 732 6211 009 2/22 3/21 20017800 643 6968 299 2/16 3/15 643 6968 299 2/16 3/15 20017318 774 3618 217 2/19 3/18 774 3618 217 2/19 3/18 201322 20017800 793 5655 272 2/13 3/12 793 5655 272 2/13 3/12 20017800 353 3636 726 2/25 3/24 353 3636 726 2/25 3/24 20017800 793 7520 659 2/13 3/12 793 7520 659 2/13 3/12 20017800 659 9172 725 2/25 3/24 659 9172 725 2/25 3/24 20017800 353 3028 514 2/25 3/24 353 3028 514 2/25 3/24 20017800 353 2500 463 2/25 3/24 353 2500 463 2/25 3/24 20017322 092 4237 364 2/16 3/15 092 4237 364 2/16 3/15 200151 20017800 261 2382 239 2/25 3/24 261 2382 239 2/25 3/24 20017800 566 3244 685 2/25 3/24 566 3244 685 2/25 3/24 20017800 352 6643 602 2/13 3/12 352 6643 602 2/13 3/12 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 16JI PAGE 134 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 001 - 155810- 641900 -00000 0.00 29.63 0.00 29.63 001- 156363 - 641900 -00000 0.00 89.44 111. 156343 - 641900 -00000 0.00 44.71 111 - 156349 - 641900 -00000 0.00 89.44 111 - 156380 - 641900 -00000 0.00 44.71 111 - 156381 - 641900 -00000 0.00 44.72 111 - 156390- 641900 -00000 0.00 44.72 111 - 156332 - 641900.00000 0.00 44.72 111 - 156334 - 641900 -00000 0.00 44.72 0.00 447.18 113 - 138900- 641900 -00000 0.00 208.04 0.00 208.04 681. 421510- 641900 -00000 0.00 28.79 0.00 28.79 521. 122410. 641400 -00000 0.00 198.34 0.00 198.34 111 - 156313 - 641900 -00000 0.00 248.28 0.00 248.28 521 - 122450 - 641400.00000 0.00 49.14 0.00 49.14 408 - 210151. 641900 -00000 0.00 62.46 0.00 62.46 111 - 156332. 641900 -00000 0.00 40.24 0.00 40.24 111. 156332- 641900 -00000 0.00 33.33 0.00 33.33 495 - 192370 - 641900 -00000 0.00 215.00 0.00 215.00 001- 157110. 641900 -00000 0.00 224.05 0.00 224.05 111. 156332- 641900 -00000 0.00 101.36 0.00 101.36 188 - 140480 - 641400 -00000 0.00 24.93 0.00 24.93 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017800 775 1522 694 2122 3/21 775 1522 694 2/22 3/21 20017800 643 5506 345 2/16 3/15 643 5505 345 2/16 3/15 20017800 643 3266 004 2/16 3/15 643 3266 004 2/16 3/15 20017800 591 4986 618 2/19 3/18 591 4986 618 2/19 3/18 20017800 394 8770 089 2/7 3/6 394 8770 089 2/7 3/6 20017800 261 2590 318 2/25 3/24 261 2590 318 2/25 3/24 20017800 774 3430 711 2/19 3/18 774 3430 711 2/19 3/18 20017800 774 5603 008 2/19 3/18 774 5603 008 2/19 3/18 20017800 793 0883 151 2/13 3/12 793 0883 151 2/13 3/12 20017800 732 1728 710 2/22 3/21 732 1728 710 2122 3/21 20017800 657 6818 212 2/28 3/27 657 6818 212 2/28 3/27 20017322 092 1460 172 2/16 3/15 092 1460 172 2/16 3/15 200151 20017800 353 9669 908 2/25 3/24 353 9669 908 2/25 3/24 20017800 774 9370 091 2/19 3/18 774 9370 091 2/19 3/18 20017800 261 2382 268 2/25 3/24 261 2382 268 2/25 3/24 20017800 513 7928 493 2/4 3/3 513 7928 493 2/4 3/3 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 48.84 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 156363- 641900 -00000 0.00 111. 156313. 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 144510 - 641900 -00000 0.00 113. 138900- 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 641900 -00000 0.00 144 - 144360 - 641900 -00000 0.00 101 - 163612 - 641400 -00000 0.00 123 - 155975 - 641210 -33075 0.00 001 - 144210 - 641900 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 641400 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 641900 -00000 0.00 111. 156334. 641900 -00000 0.00 495. 192370. 641900 -00000 0.00 111. 156390- 641900 -00000 0.00 313 - 163611 - 641210.00000 0.00 101 - 163609- 641210 -00000 0.00 001 - 156110. 641900 -00000 0.00 101 - 163630. 641900 -00000 0.00 16JI PAGE 135 AMT NET VCHR DISC 48.84 24.42 0.00 29.46 0.00 32.91 0.00 173.45 0.00 125.28 0.00 31.23 0.00 52.13 0.00 131.29 0.00 25.25 0.00 37.64 0.00 35.84 0.00 190.90 0.00 216.91 0.00 16.42 16.42 0.00 416.80 0.00 31.11 0.00 VCHR NET 73.26 29.46 32.91 173.45 125.28 31.23 52.13 131.29 25.25 37.64 35.84 190.90 216.91 32.84 416.80 31.11 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 136 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017800 353 7128 128 2/25 3/24 111- 156313 - 641900 -00000 0.00 116.79 111- 156332. 641900 -00000 0.00 39.00 0.00 155.79 353 7128 128 2/25 3/24 20017800 775 3900 815 2/22 3/21 470 - 173463 - 641900 -00000 0.00 42.11 0.00 42.11 775 3900 815 2/22 3/21 20017323 774 4803 218 2/19 3/18 681 - 410710 - 641900 -00000 0.00 28.19 0.00 28.19 774 4803 218 2/19 3/18 20017800 566 7052 220 2/25 3/24 129. 156110- 634999 -33014 0.00 27.89 0.00 27.89 566 7052 220 2/25 3/24 20017318 793 1314 154 2/13 3/12 681 - 421510 - 641900 -00000 0.00 61.70 0.00 61.70 793 1314 154 2/13 3/12 20017800 657 8575 075 2/28 3/27 111. 156343- 641900 -00000 0.00 77.57 0.00 77.57 657 8575 075 2/28 3/27 20017800 732 8747 603 2122 3/21 188- 140480 - 641400 -00000 0.00 24.93 0.00 24.93 732 8747 603 2/22 3/21 20017800 643 9824 884 2/16 3/15 113 - 138912 - 641900 -00000 0.00 31.11 0.00 31.11 643 9824 884 2/16 3/15 20017800 775 5592 091 2122 3/21 001 - 156180. 641900.00000 0.00 33.85 0.00 33.85 775 5592 091 2/22 3/21 20017800 774 6646 142 2/19 3/18 001 - 172930. 641900 -00000 0.00 39.27 0.00 39.27 774 6646 142 2/19 3/18 20017800 417 5105 952 2/28 3/27 111 - 156349. 641900 -00000 0.00 22.77 0.00 22.77 417 5105 952 2/28 3/27 20017800 261 8208 579 2/25 3/24 001 - 156110 - 641900 -00000 0.00 318.93 0.00 318.93 261 8208 579 2/25 3/24 20017800 353 0404 404 2/25 3/24 111 - 156310 - 641900 -00000 0.00 375.35 111. 156341- 641900 -00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 438.35 353 0404 404 2/25 3/24 20017800 732 1001 360 2/22 3/21 111- 156332 - 641900 -00000 0.00 110.25 0.00 110.25 732 1001 360 2122 3/21 20017800 353 4244 543 2/25 3/24 001 - 157110. 641900 -00000 0.00 550.69 0.00 550.69 353 4244 543 2/25 3/24 20017800 657 9696 109 2/28 3/27 001. 156363- 641900 -00000 0.00 28.12 0.00 28.12 657 9696 109 2/28 3/27 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017800 566 2367 258 2/25 3/24 566 2367 258 2/25 3/24 20017800 658 1264 606 2/13 3/12 658 1264 606 2/13 3/12 20017800 775 5008 638 2/22 3/21 775 5008 638 2122 3/21 20017800 658 1169 605 2/13 3/12 658 1169 605 2/13 3/12 20017800 774 7133 269 2/19 3/18 774 7133 269 2/19 3/18 20017318 093 2800 130 2/16 3/15 093 2800 130 2/16 3/15 201322 20017800 732 0844 293 2/22 3/21 732 0844 293 2/22 3/21 20017800 732 8680 600 2/22 3/21 732 8680 600 2122 3/21 20017800 657 4449 691 2/28 3/27 657 4449 691 2/28 3/27 20017800 774 7960 020 2/19 3/18 774 7960 020 2/19 3/18 20017800 649 4450 626 2/22 3/21 649 4450 626 2122 3/21 20017800 389 4505 068 2/22 3/21 389 4505 068 2/22 3/21 20017318 092 1528 163 2/16 3/15 092 1528 163 2/16 3/15 20017800 657 1951 307 2/28 3/27 657 1951 307 2/28 3/27 20017800 643 5421 145 2/16 3/15 643 5421 145 2/16 3/15 20017800 389 2650 604 2122 3/21 389 2650 604 2122 3/21 20017800 775 2007 829 2/22 3/21 775 2007 829 2122 3/21 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111 - 156380 - 641900 -00000 0.00 188 - 140480. 641400 -00000 0.00 001- 144210 - 641100.00000 0.00 188 - 140480. 641400 -00000 0.00 123 - 155975 - 641900 -33075 0.00 681- 421510 - 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 121710 - 641400.00000 0.00 188- 140480 - 641400.00000 0.00 111 - 156343 - 641900 -00000 0.00 408 - 210151 - 641900.00000 0.00 129. 156110- 634999 -33014 0.00 001. 156363 - 641900 -00000 0.00 681- 421510 - 641900 -00000 0.00 111 - 156349 - 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 144510- 641900 -00000 0.00 188- 140480 - 641400 -00000 0.00 408- 253212 - 641100 -00000 0.00 16JI PAGE 137 AMT NET VCHR DISC 148.13 0.00 57.03 0.00 53.38 0.00 24.93 62.46 815.25 50.27 90.02 221.03 298.25 30.64 31.96 173.75 472.55 130.18 27.77 173.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VCHR NET 148.13 57.03 53.38 24.93 62.46 815.25 50.27 90.02 221.03 298.25 30.64 31.96 173.75 472.55 130.18 27.77 173.82 13, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 138 REPORCH RT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017800 732 9405 299 2122 3/21 188- 140480 - 641400 -00000 0.00 62.46 0.00 62.46 732 9405 299 2/22 3/21 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,462.47 CHECK NO 572721 VENDOR 151330 - SQUARE'S NURSERY 20017968 3258 001 - 156363 - 646320 -00000 0.00 298.50 0.00 298.50 153185 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 298.50 CHECK NO 573178 VENDOR 900050 - STACEY BARNHILL 301517 S BARNHILL REFUND PARKS 111 - 156380- 347990 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 S BARNHILL REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25.00 CHECK NO 572779 VENDOR 193340 - STANLEY STEEMER 20017973 964332 408 - 253211 - 649990 -00000 0.00 210.00 0.00 210.00 152271 CARPET CLEANING S WATER PLANT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 210.00 CHECK NO 572922 VENDOR 281090 - STATE OF FLORIDA 20017979 130075 001 - 144510 - 649010 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 154454 STORAGE TANK REISTRATION CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25.00 CHECK NO 572960 VENDOR 301540 STATE OF FLORIDA DISBURSMENT UNIT 20017923 PP #12 001. 000000- 218810 -00000 0.00 5,949.57 0.00 5.949.57 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5,949.57 CHECK NO 573019 VENDOR 326610 STEVE PRESTON 20017848 TRAVEL 2/28/02 001 - 172910 - 640300 -00000 0.00 23.78 0.00 23.78 TRAVEL 2/28/02 S PRESTON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 23.78 CHECK NO 572786 VENDOR 195260 - STEVEN A. MECKSTROTH 20017981 L SANTOS 1/25 001.155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 551.85 0.00 551.85 154513 L SANTOS 1/25 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017981 A MCKINNON 1/29 154513 A MCKINNON 1/29 BOARD OF ECCOMMISSIONERS 16JI PAGE 139 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 001 - 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 CHECK NO 573098 VENDOR 349470 - STEVEN R. ELFERDINK 20017873 TRAVEL 2/4 -28 301 - 120402 - 763100 -80196 0.00 153536 TRAVEL 2/4 -28 S ELFERDINK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 223.30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 VCHR NET 19.50 571.35 223.30 223.30 CHECK NO 572921 VENDOR 281040 - SUBWAY OF NAPLES 20017235 2/15 BUINESS WRITING 001 - 121810- 652210 -00000 0.00 11.86 0.00 11.86 2/15 BUSINESS WRITING 8:30.12:30 20017235 2/14 WHO MOVED MY CHEESE 001 - 121810. 652210 -00000 0.00 11.86 0.00 11.86 200829 LUNCHES FOR TRAINING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 23.72 CHECK NO 572660 VENDOR 101420 SUNCOAST SCHOOLS 20017911 PP #12 001 - 000000 - 218300 -00000 0.00 131,627.27 0.00 131,627.27 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 131,627.27 CHECK NO 572690 VENDOR 124300 SUNSET SOUND CO., INC. 20017960 012802 001. 100130- 634999 -00000 0.00 650.00 0.00 650.00 154526 PLANNING WORKSHOP 1129 20017961 011102 001. 100130 - 634999 -00000 0.00 700.00 0.00 700.00 154524 IMM HIGH TOWN HALL MEET 1/15 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,350.00 CHECK NO 572645 VENDOR 17660 - SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE 20017244 389011 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 20.09 0.00 20.09 200984 MINOR TOOLS AND MAINT 20017244 389125 111. 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 38.65 0.00 38.65 200984 MINOR TOOLS AND MAINT 20017227 171258 109 - 182901- 652990 -00000 0.00 24.80 0.00 24.80 200086 HARDWARE MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017245 171957 201443 SUPPLIES 20017228 170975 200086 HARDWARE 20017236 389146 200036 HARDWARE 20017244 389024 200984 MINOR TOOLS AND MAINT 20017244 389011 200984 MINOR TOOLS AND MAINT 20017237 170837 200086 HARDWARE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 572646 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 156363 - 652910 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 652990 -00000 0.00 109 - 182901 - 652990 -00000 0.00 101. 163630 - 652990 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 652910 -00000 0.00 111. 156332 - 652910 -00000 0.00 109. 182901. 652990 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572646 VENDOR 17670 - SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE 20017243 460844 389051 408 - 233351. 652990.00000 408 - 253212 - 652990 -00000 200750 SUPPLIES HARDWARE 20017242 388845 20017239 408. 233351 - 652910 -00000 CHECK TOTAL 200748 SUPPLIES 26.14 20017241 461162 0.00 408. 210130 - 652990 -00000 20017240 200734 HARDWARE 408 - 253221 - CHECK NO 572798 VENDOR 200380 - SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE 13.12 20017238 389051 0.00 408 - 253212 - 652990 -00000 0.00 200281 HARDWARE 20.66 0.00 20017239 388819 CHECK TOTAL 408. 253211 - 652990 -00000 26.14 200398 HARDWARE 0.00 17.95 20017240 389183 0.00 408 - 253221 - 652990 -00000 159.00 200430 HARDWARE 0.00 161.52 20017240 388395 408 - 253221 - 652990 -00000 200430 HARDWARE 20017238 389349 408 - 253212 - 652990 -00000 200281 HARDWARE 16JI PAGE 140 AMT NET VCHR DISC 6.29 11.55 13.12 0.00 78.48 0.00 51.56 0.00 35.93 0.00 20.66 0.00 6.98 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 19.41 78.48 51.56 35.93 20.66 6.98 296.56 0.00 11.55 0.00 11.55 0.00 16.81 0.00 16.81 0.00 28.79 0.00 28.79 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 57.15 0.00 26.14 0.00 26.14 0.00 17.95 0.00 17.95 0.00 26.43 0.00 26.43 0.00 159.00 0.00 159.00 0.00 161.52 0.00 161.52 COUNTY 16JI PAGE 141 REPORT 100 -6012 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017239 389005 408.253211- 652990 -00000 0.00 18.21 0.00 18.21 200398 HARDWARE 20017239 389056 408. 253211- 652990 -00000 0.00 14.39 0.00 14.39 200398 HARDWARE 20017240 388429 408 - 253221 - 652990 -00000 0.00 37.64 0.00 37.64 200430 HARDWARE 20017240 389218 408 - 253221 - 652990 -00000 0.00 53.09 0.00 53.09 200430 HARDWARE 20017240 389068 408.253221- 652990 -00000 0.00 23.49 0.00 23.49 200430 HARDWARE 20017238 388852 408 - 253212. 652990 -00000 0.00 20.68 0.00 20.68 200281 HARDWARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 558.54 CHECK NO 572725 VENDOR 156260 SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 20018148 010926 -01 191- 138785- 634999 -33752 0.00 306.00 0.00 306.00 154903 PERMIT FEES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 306.00 CHECK NO 572878 VENDOR 260280 SUSAN DOERFLINGER 20017966 11/15 -2/19 ART INSTRUCTOR 111. 156380 - 634999 -00000 0.00 585.00 0.00 585.00 154055 11/15 -2/19 ART INSTRUCTOR 20017312 ART 1/14 -3/11 111. 156390- 634999 -00000 0.00 1,203.15 0.00 1,203.15 201036 ART MEDIA 1/14 -3/11 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,788.15 CHECK NO 572846 VENDOR 239980 . SUSAN L SATOW 20017864 TRAVEL 2/5 -26/02 111 - 156381 - 640200 -00000 0.00 54.09 0.00 54.09 TRAVEL 2/5 -26/02 S SATOW CHECK TOTAL 0.00 54.09 CHECK NO 573045 VENDOR 335100 - SUSAN PETR 20017396 2/6 -27 TRVL S PETR 001 - 156110 - 640300 -00000 0.00 22.15 0.00 22.15 2/6 -27 TRVL S PETR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 22.15 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 142 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572693 VENDOR 126470 SWARTZ ASSOCIATES 20017315 2512 001 - 156110- 652990 -00000 0.00 1.787.70 0.00 1,787.70 204095 ASH URN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.787.70 CHECK NO 572649 VENDOR 18690 T -SHIRT EXPRESS 20017943 29963 111. 156313. 652110 -00000 0.00 311.40 0.00 311.40 202043 T SHIRTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 311.40 CHECK NO 572647 VENDOR 18020 TAMIAMI FORD INC 20017958 33742 522 - 122464. 764110 -00000 0.00 44,471.75 0.00 44,471.75 200646 F 450 20017948 CM92200 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 15.95- 0.00 15.95- 203103 PARTS CREDIT 20017959 33780 408 - 233351 - 764110 -00000 0.00 48.369.52 0.00 48,369.52 201498 F 450 TRUCK 20017948 92582 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 15.95 0.00 15.95 203103 SUPPLIES 20017948 92200 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 15.95 0.00 15.95 203103 SUPPLIES 20017948 92430 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 158.12 0.00 158.12 203103 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 93,015.34 CHECK NO 572843 VENDOR 238410 TANNER INDUSTRIES 20017945 84528 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 873.38 0.00 873.38 202573 ANHYDROUS AMMONIA 20017944 84414 408 - 253211- 652310 -00000 0.00 794.84 0.00 794.84 202572 ANHYDROUS AMMONIA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,668.22 CHECK NO 572648 VENDOR 18040 - TAYLOR RENTAL 20017985 1 217295 04 681 - 421510 - 634999 -00000 0.00 194.00 0.00 194.00 153456 RENTAL FURNATURE MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 143 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 194.00 CHECK NO 573064 VENDOR 343040 - TBE GROUP, INC. 20017875 44042 313 - 163673 - 631400 -60109 0.00 31.378.81 0.00 31.378.81 107422 11 /01 /01 TO 12/31/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 31,378.81 CHECK NO 572796 VENDOR 199520 - TECH OF COLLIER COUNTY 20017949 024685996 JAN 02 111. 156332 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1,456.00 0.00 1,456.00 201195 024685996 JAN 02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,456.00 CHECK NO 572848 VENDOR 244940 - TELIMAGINE, INC. 20017389 MAR 2002 3745988 001 - 155410 - 641900 -00000 0.00 584.43 0.00 584.43 MAR 2002 201004 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 584.43 CHECK NO 572767 VENDOR 184950 TERRY SIDENER 20017946 1/3/02. 1/31/02 SOCCER INS 111 - 156380 - 634999 -00000 0.00 292.50 0.00 292.50 200997 1/3/02- 1/31/02 SOCCER INST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 292.50 CHECK NO 572576 VENDOR 1610 THE BATTERY HOUSE 20017258 221377 681- 421510 - 651950 -00000 0.00 153.75 0.00 153.75 153768 BATTERIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 153.75 CHECK NO 572822 VENDOR 223930 THE HILLER GROUP, INC. 20017991 1009702 -IN 495 - 192370 - 642415 -00000 0.00 10,314.72 0.00 10,314.72 200147LLER GROUP, INC. 20017992 1009701 -IN 495 - 192370 - 642416 -00000 0.00 8,305.93 0.00 8,305.93 200145 FUEL 20017993 1009747 -IN 495 - 192330 - 642415 -00000 0.00 10,555.11 0.00 10,555.11 200149 FUEL 20017990 1009880 -IN 495 - 192370 - 642415 -00000 0.00 10.721.53 0.00 10,721.53 200147 FUEL CHECK NO 573152 VENDOR 900030 - THOMAS K. HENNING 301513 TRAVEL 2/27 -28/02 HENNING 001 - 010110 - 640310 -01003 0.00 146.10 0.00 146.10 HENNING TRAVEL 2/27 -28/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 146.10 CHECK NO 572967 VENDOR 306480 - THOMAS L PERCHOUX JR MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 144 REPORT 100 -6002 OF NERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017989 1009881 -IN 495 - 192370 - 642416 -00000 0.00 8.587.44 0.00 8,587.44 200145 FUEL 20017994 1009748 -IN 495 - 192350 - 642415 -00000 0.00 10.579.88 0.00 10,579.88 200150 FUEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 59.064.61 CHECK NO 572959 VENDOR 301350 THE NAPLES STUDIO 20017791 3104 001 - 100130 - 634999 -00000 0.00 281.00 0.00 281.00 200834 CTY HIGHLIGHTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 281.00 CHECK NO 572640 VENDOR 14880 THE PHOTO LAB 20017502 79572 /LIBRARY 001 - 156110. 647210.00000 0.00 38.80 0.00 38.80 200458 - FILM PROC, 2/18 20017835 79645/UNIV EXT SUS 001 - 157110 - 647210.00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 154439 - FILM PROC, 2/22 20017835 79494/UNIV EXT SUS 001 - 157110 - 647210.00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 154439 - FILM PROC, 2/15 20017835 76475/UNIV EXT SUS 001 - 157110. 647210 -00000 0.00 24.40 0.00 24.40 154439 - FILM PROC, 2/14 20017835 79601 /UNIV EXT SVS 001- 157110- 647210 -00000 0.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 154439 - FILM PROC, 2/18 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 115.20 CHECK NO 572934 VENDOR 286390 - THE PRINT SHOP 20017537 54845 001- 010110 - 647110.00000 0.00 152.00 0.00 152.00 154031 LETTERHEAD BCC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 152.00 CHECK NO 573152 VENDOR 900030 - THOMAS K. HENNING 301513 TRAVEL 2/27 -28/02 HENNING 001 - 010110 - 640310 -01003 0.00 146.10 0.00 146.10 HENNING TRAVEL 2/27 -28/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 146.10 CHECK NO 572967 VENDOR 306480 - THOMAS L PERCHOUX JR MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 145 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017851 TRAVEL 2/12 -13/02 521 - 122410. 640300 -00000 0.00 39.00 0.00 39.00 TRAVEL 2/12 -13/02 T PERCHOUX CHECK TOTAL 0.00 39.00 CHECK NO 572794 VENDOR 199170 THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP 20017976 R15507751 001 - 121810 - 654110 -00000 0.00 329.00 0.00 329.00 154307 FAMILY AND MED LEAVE HANDBOOK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 329.00 CHECK NO 572961 VENDOR 302160 THOMSON LEARNING 20017950 4383674350 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 2,164.52 0.00 2,164.52 204640 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,164.52 CHECK NO 572956 VENDOR 298190 TOLL BROTHERS, INC. 20017952 318748 TOLL BROTHERS 113. 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 2.40 0.00 2.40 318748 TOLL BROTHERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.40 CHECK NO 572845 VENDOR 239650 TOTAL COMMUNICATION CONCEPTS GROUP, 20017971 1584 001 - 156110 - 634999 -00000 0.00 594.47 0.00 594.47 154301 20017969 1583 001. 156110- 634999 -00000 0.00 144.46 0.00 144.46 154302 RUN DATA LINE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 738.93 CHECK NO 573126 VENDOR 352290 TOTAL TRUCK PARTS INC 20017954 3220460005 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 567.40 0.00 567.40 204493 LABOR AND PARTS 20017954 3220460018 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 233.58 0.00 233.58 204493 LABOR AND PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 800.98 CHECK NO 573050 VENDOR 337510 - TRACEY HAMPTON 20017866 TRAVEL 2/7 -27/02 001. 157110- 640200 -00000 0.00 65.25 0.00 65.25 TRAVEL 2/7 -27/02 T HAMPTON 13, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 146 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 65.25 CHECK NO 573108 VENDOR 350940 - TRADEWINDS TITLE AND 20017900 D/P NAVARRETE #75211240008 191 - 138785. 884100 -33751 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 #75211240008 NAVARRETE 204166 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,500.00 CHECK NO 573137 VENDOR 352880 - TROPICAL TITLE & RYAN BLOSE 20017898 D/P R BLOSE #35752960007 191 - 138785 - 884100 -33752 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 #35752960007 R BLOSE 204629 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,500.00 CHECK NO 573066 VENDOR 343600 - TRUEGREEN LANDSCAPE 20017956 2102 LAWN MAINT 001. 126334 - 646314 -00000 0.00 6,250.00 0.00 6.250.00 203840 2/02 LAWN MAINT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,250.00 CHECK NO 573076 VENDOR 345310 - TRUGREEN LANDCARE 20017953 1851910324 001 - 156363 - 634999 -00000 0.00 832.84 0.00 832.84 201841 LANDSCAPE MAINT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 832.84 CHECK NO 572855 VENDOR 253060 - TRUTWIN INDUSTRIES. INC. 20017957 28318 101 - 163630 - 634999 -00000 0.00 13,695.84 0.00 13.695.84 203312 ROADWAY PAINT 20017951 28319 313 - 163673 - 763100 -69122 0.00 2,625.00 0.00 2.625.00 203674 RESUFACING PAINT 20017947 28260 408 - 233351 - 655200 -00000 0.00 847.00 0.00 847.00 203055 CONCRETE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 17,167.84 CHECK NO 573185 VENDOR 900140 - TUSCALOOSA COURT REPORTING 301527 239817 TUSCALOOSA 681- 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 114.00 0.00 114.00 239817 TUSCALOOSA 001216 CF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 114.00 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 147 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 572797 VENDOR 199940 - U.S. DIVING 20018102 MMB /SHIP -THE REMAINDER 111 - 156313 - 654210.00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 154573 MMB /SHIP WENT UP TO 150.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 572946 VENDOR 291300 U.S. FILTER 20017267 8915816 408 - 233351 - 652310 -00000 0.00 4.290.00 0.00 4.290.00 203905 CHEM. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,290.00 CHECK NO 572841 VENDOR 237380 U.S. FILTER /DAVIS PROCESS DIVISION 20017225 8915802 408 - 233351. 652310 -00000 0.00 176.00 0.00 176.00 203176 CHEM. 20017362 8915823 408 - 233312. 652310 -00000 0.00 6.558.75 0.00 6,558.75 200709 CHEM. 20017268 8915817 408 - 233352 - 652310 -00000 0.00 2,186.25 0.00 2.186.25 200743 CHEM. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,921.00 CHECK NO 572682 VENDOR 115920 - U.S. TOY CO. INC. 20017538 8069923001 111.156381- 652990 -00000 0.00 100.60 0.00 100.60 150170 TOYS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.60 CHECK NO 573049 VENDOR 337200 UAP TIMBERLAND, LLC 20017266 109674 109 - 182602- 652310 -00000 0.00 1,960.00 0.00 1,960.00 201650 COPPER SULFATE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.960.00 CHECK NO 572832 VENDOR 232330 ULVERSCROFT 20017222 2011158 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 6.75 0.00 6.75 154517 REPL.CASSETTE HEAD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.75 CHECK NO 573018 VENDOR 326460 - UNIFIRST CORP. MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017273 29185 203368 UNIFORMS 20017273 28623 203368 UNIFORMS 20017273 28760 203368 UNIFORMS 20017273 28959 203368 UNIFORMS 20017273 28968 203368 UNIFORMS 20017273 28967 203368 UNIFORMS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408 - 233351. 652110 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 652110 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351. 652110 -00000 0.00 408. 233351. 652110 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 652110 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351. 652110.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572975 VENDOR 311800 - UNIFORMS BY R S V P 20017223 16434 146. 144380- 652110 -00000 0.00 154267 PANTS 16JI PAGE 148 AMT NET VCHR DISC 76.73 0.00 201.93 0.00 25.99 0.00 35.99 0.00 28.99- 0.00 252.91- 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 79.90 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573051 VENDOR 338010 - UNITED ENGINEERING CORPORATION 20017188 #6 411. 273511- 763100 -70054 0.00 1,052.362.56 106019 11/31/01. 12/31/01 20017188 #6 RETAINAGE 411- 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 105,236.26- 106019 11/31/01- 12/31/01 RETAINAGE CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 572755 VENDOR 173930 - UNITED HORTICULTURAL SUPPLY 20017792 592532 111 - 156332. 652310 -00000 0.00 203651 COLORANT 20018108 0592237 111 - 156332 - 652310 -00000 0.00 154160 PESTICIDE CHECK NO 572650 VENDOR 18900 - UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 20016925 363797082 001 - 000000. 142900 -00000 0.00 200056 SHIPPING 0.00 1,052,362.56 0.00 105,236.26- 0.00 947,126.30 222.50 0.00 222.50 152.50 0.00 152.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 375.00 127.13 0.00 127.13 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018109 363797092 200056 SHIPPING OUNTY, FLORID COLLIR BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA 16JI PAGE 149 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 001 - 000000. 142900.00000 0.00 179.66 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 179.66 306.79 CHECK NO 572925 VENDOR 282270 - UNITED RENTAL 20017794 23672483 -001 346 - 116360. 644600 -00173 0.00 250.74 0.00 250.74 153684 FORKLIFT RENT.MARCO BEACH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 250.74 CHECK NO 572661 VENDOR 102380 UNITED WAY 20017934 PP #12 001 - 000000. 217100 -00000 0.00 564.51 0.00 564.51 PP #12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 564.51 CHECK NO 572994 VENDOR 318860 US BIOSYSTEMS, INC. 20017783 92503 114 - 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 238.00 0.00 238.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 93066 114 - 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 170.00 0.00 170.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 93580 114 - 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 306.00 0.00 306.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 93231 114 - 178975 - 634999 -00000 0.00 136.00 0.00 136.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 93232 114 - 178975 - 634999 -00000 0.00 238.00 0.00 238.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 92386 114 - 178975 - 634999 -00000 0.00 246.00 0.00 246.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 94002 114 - 178975 - 634999 -00000 0.00 405.00 0.00 405.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 89953 114 - 178975 - 634999 -00000 0.00 369.00 0.00 369.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 90836 114 - 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 272.00 0.00 272.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 93372 114 - 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 170.00 0.00 170.00 200354 LAB.SUPP. MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017783 93230 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 93375 200354 LAB.SUPP. 20017783 93343 200354 LAB.SUPP. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 114 - 178975 - 634999 -00000 0.00 114. 178975- 634999 -00000 0.00 114. 178975- 634999 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573179 VENDOR 900050 - VALARIE STEELE 301485 REF /ADOP.02 -9607 V.STEELE 001- 155410 - 346410 -00000 0.00 REF /ADOP.02.9607 V.STEELE 1/18 301486 REF /ADOP.02 -9607 V.STEELE 610 - 155410 - 346450 -00000 0.00 REF /ADOP.02 -9607 V.STEELE 1/18 CHECK NO 572963 VENDOR 304350 VANASSE & DAYLOR, LLP 204.00 20017215 21402 408- 210155 - 647110 -00000 0.00 238.00 154022 AERIAL MAP 0.00 204.00 CHECK NO 572982 VENDOR 314680 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVICES 20.00 20017795 A2013996CC 3/1. 3/31/02 408. 210155 - 641150 -00000 0.00 30.00 203400 3/1. 3/31/02 PAGERS 0.00 50.00 20018150 A2102151CC 3/1. 3/31/02 111 - 156343. 641150.00000 0.00 0.00 50.00 111 - 156349 - 641150 -00000 0.00 11.64 111 - 156380 - 641150 -00000 0.00 201718 3/1. 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018150 A2102151CC 3/1- 3/31/02 111 - 156310 - 641150 -00000 0.00 111 - 156313 - 641150 -00000 0.00 111. 156341- 641150.00000 0.00 111 - 156425 - 641150 -00000 0.00 201717 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20016928 A2115235CC 3/1- 3/31/02 001. 121141 - 641150 -00000 0.00 201350 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018130 A2015487CC 3/1- 3/31/02 001. 144110- 641150 -00000 0.00 200408 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 16JI PAGE 150 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 204.00 0.00 204.00 238.00 0.00 238.00 204.00 0.00 204.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,196.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 11.64 0.00 11.64 10.90 29.80 2.95 0.00 43.65 8.85 5.90 37.45 2.95 0.00 55.15 8.54 0.00 8.54 9.52 0.00 9.52 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 103.27 59.76 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 39.05 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20018149 A2120464CC 3/1- 3/31/02 001 - 122240. 641150 -00000 0.00 0.00 202220 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 76.70 20.82 20018106 A2101971CC 3/1- 3/31/02 101 - 163630 - 641150.00000 0.00 50.75 200040 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 0.00 3.94 20018133 A2005371CC 3/1- 3/31/02 408 - 210105. 641150.00000 0.00 408- 210125 - 641150 -00000 0.00 2.95 408 - 253211. 641150 -00000 0.00 0.00 408 - 253212 - 641150 -00000 0.00 0.00 20.05 408 - 253221 - 641150 -00000 0.00 2.97 201147 A2005371CC 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 17.07 20017527 A2103950CB 2/1- 2/28/02 144- 144360 - 641150 -00000 0.00 0.00 200595 2/1- 2/28/02 PAGERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20018132 A2117053 3/1- 3/31/02 001 - 144210 - 641150 -00000 0.00 201015 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20017526 A2015434CC 3/1. 3/31/02 669 - 100220 - 634999.00000 0.00 203748 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20017796 A2014611CC 3/1- 3/31/02 113 - 138910 - 641150 -00000 0.00 201837 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018133 A2005908CC 3/1- 3/31/02 408 - 210105 - 641150 -00000 0.00 408. 210125- 641150.00000 0.00 408 - 253211 - 641150.00000 0.00 408 - 253212. 641150.00000 0.00 408 - 253221 - 641150.00000 0.00 201147 A2005908CC 3/1. 3/31/02 PAGERS 20017526 A2015434CB 211- 2128102 669 - 100220- 634999.00000 0.00 203748 2/1- 2/28/02 PAGERS 20017528 A2008785CB 1/15- 2/14/02 495 - 192330. 641150.00000 0.00 202271 1/15- 2/14/02 PAGERS 20018107 A2115462CC 3/1- 3/31/02 113 - 138900 - 641150 -00000 0.00 200128 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20017793 A2125218CC 3/1- 3/31/02 408 - 210151 - 641150.00000 0.00 201190 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS CHECK NO 572651 VENDOR 19260 - VICS SHOE REPAIR 20017216 9060000239 001- 144510 - 652110 -00000 0.00 203932 SHOES 16JIPAGE 151 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 103.27 0.00 103.27 59.76 0.00 59.76 39.05 8.50 2.95 26.20 0.00 0.00 76.70 20.82 0.00 20.82 50.75 0.00 50.75 3.94 0.00 3.94 2.97 0.00 2.97 0.00 0.00 2.95 0.00 17.10 0.00 20.05 2.97 0.00 2.97 17.07 0.00 17.07 2.97 0.00 2.97 17.07 0.00 17.07 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 506.84 178.50 0.00 178.50 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 152 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017217 9060000234 408. 253212 - 652120.00000 0.00 228.75 0.00 228.75 200286 SHOES 20017254 9060000240 109 - 182901 - 652110 -00000 0.00 125.00 0.00 125.00 202777 SHOES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 532.25 CHECK NO 573003 VENDOR 322110 VISUAL EDGE TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING 20017221 148834 101.163630- 634999 -00000 0.00 120.96 0.00 120.96 154514 METER CHARGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 120.96 CHECK NO 573100 VENDOR 349700 VISUAL RISK TECHNOLOGIES 20017363 99537 118. 144210 - 764950.33781 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 203799 SW CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7,500.00 CHECK NO 572561 VENDOR 133130 VOLUSIA COUNTY SHERIFF 20018126 98 -0844 001 - 013010 - 649040 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20.00 CHECK NO 573044 VENDOR 334620 VOPAK USA INC 20017213 TA- 622836 408.253211- 652310 -00000 0.00 825.00 0.00 825.00 203353 SODIUM SIL. 20017214 TA- 622829 408 - 253221.652310 -00000 0.00 825.00 0.00 825.00 203010 SODIUM SIL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,650.00 CHECK NO 572968 VENDOR 307620 VULCAN PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS 20017539 28114 408.233312- 652310.00000 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 203253 EQUIPMENT FEE 20017539 CM28083 408. 233312 - 652310.00000 0.00 280.00- 0.00 280.00- 203253 EQUIPMENT FEE 20017539 28595 408. 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 203253 EQUIPMENT FEE MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 16JI PAGE 153 AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572769 VENDOR 185990 VWR SCIENTIFIC 20017269 10070334 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 84.35 0.00 200352 BOOKS 20017269 9889389 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 185.50 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 20017269 10059319 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 9.93 0.00 200352 BOOKS 20017269 9853882 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 27.38 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 20017269 10000573 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 1.649.09 0.00 200352 BOOKS 20017269 10000576 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 95.55 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 20017797 10088646 408 - 233350 - 652990.00000 0.00 107.52 0.00 200727 LAB.SUPPL. 20017220 9679980 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 70.77 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 20017219 10069501 408 - 253211 - 652990 -00000 0.00 91.08 0.00 200403 LAB.SUPPL. 20017219 10084761 408 - 253211 - 652990 -00000 0.00 63.63 0.00 200403 LAB.SUPPL. 20017269 9829941 114 - 178975 - 652910.00000 0.00 272.86 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 20017269 10095868 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 11.61 0.00 200352 BOOKS 20017218 10065893 408. 253221- 652310 -00000 0.00 110.40 0.00 200434 LAB.SUPPL. 20017525 10110176 408 - 233350 - 652990 -00000 0.00 282.00 0.00 200727 LAB.SUPPL. 20017269 9736683 114 - 178975. 652910 -00000 0.00 8.62 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 20017269 9679979 114 - 178975. 652910 -00000 0.00 1.170.16 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 572652 VENDOR 19370 - WALLACE INTERNATIONAL 20017364 FC72097 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 200937 PARTS 20017364 FC72232 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 200937 PARTS 20017364 FC72133 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 200937 PARTS CHECK NO 572670 VENDOR 109110 - WASTE MGMT OF COLLIER COUNTY 20018110 2431274/64290 02/02 0.00 195 - 110406. 634999.10510 0.00 104313 2431274/64290 02/02 17.93 20017226 1518082/163203 02/02 0.00 001 - 061010. 643300 -00000 0.00 1518082/163203 02/02 0.00 640.00 20017226 1518082/163203 02/02 0.00 001 - 000000 - 115400 -00000 0.00 1518082/163203 02/02 0.00 49.10 20018110 2431219/64282 02/02 0.00 195 - 110406 - 634999 -10510 0.00 104313 2431219/64282 02/02 20017226 1484889/165267 02/02 0.00 490 - 144610 - 643300 -00000 0.00 103.70 001 - 061010 - 643300 -00000 0.00 1484889/165267 02/02 20017226 1506076/163897 02102 0.00 490 - 144610. 643300 -00000 0.00 240.00 0.00 001 - 061010. 643300 -00000 0.00 400.00 0.00 001 - 156170 - 643300 -00000 1506076/163897 02/02 0.00 2,052.15 20018110 2431240/64283 02/02 0.00 195. 110406 - 634999 -10510 104313 2431240/64283 02/02 20018110 2431215/64281 02102 195 - 110406. 634999.10510 104313 2431215/64281 02/02 CHECK NO 572722 VENDOR 151900 - WATER TREATMENT & CONTROL CO. 20017207 54144 408 - 253221 - 649990 -00000 203806 CHLORINE EQUIP. 16JI PAGE 154 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,240.45 0.00 19.45 0.00 19.45 0.00 1.044.35 0.00 1,044.35 0.00 17.93 0.00 17.93 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,081.73 0.00 640.00 0.00 640.00 0.00 15.04 0.00 15.04 0.00 49.10 0.00 49.10 0.00 320.00 0.00 320.00 0.00 37.19 0.00 39.71 0.00 76.90 0.00 103.70 0.00 103.70 0.00 103.71 0.00 311.11 0.00 240.00 0.00 240.00 0.00 400.00 0.00 400.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,052.15 0.00 583.91 0.00 583.91 MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017207 54032 203806 CHLORINE EQUIP. 20017207 53996 203806 CHLORINE EQUIP. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408 - 253221 - 649990 -00000 0.00 408. 253221 - 649990 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 572871 VENDOR 257850 WATERLINK TECHNOLOGIES 666.66 20017531 11208 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 426.24 200350 LAB.SUPPL. 0.00 1.676.81 CHECK NO 572917 VENDOR 279830 WAYNE WILES CARPET, INC. 300.00 20017209 CG111613 001 - 122220. 634999 -00000 0.00 0.00 153530 MAINT.PROGRAM /E.NAPLES 785.00 0.00 20017210 CG111613 001 - 122220 - 634999 -00000 0.00 950.00 153533 MAINT.PROGRAM /GG EST. 950.00 CHECK TOTAL 20017212 CG111613 001 - 122220 - 634999.00000 0.00 943.00 153532 MAINT.PROGRAM /MARCO 0.00 100.00 20017211 CG111613 001 - 122220 - 634999 -00000 0.00 0.00 153531 MAINT.PROGRAM /CENTRAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 572795 VENDOR 199260 WEEKS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 20017265 9259 001. 100130 - 647110 -00000 0.00 204283 COMM.BROCHURES 20017265 9263 001 - 100130 - 647110.00000 0.00 204283 COMM.BROCHURES CHECK NO 572881 VENDOR 264010 WEISS RATINGS INC 20017205 3088969 355 - 156190. 766100 -00000 0.00 154337 MONEY /BOND /GUIDE CHECK NO 573016 VENDOR 325950 - WELLSOURCE 16JI PAGE 155 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 666.66 0.00 666.66 426.24 0.00 426.24 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.676.81 300.00 0.00 300.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 785.00 0.00 785.00 785.00 0.00 785.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 950.00 0.00 950.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.420.00 943.00 0.00 943.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,043.00 392.95 0.00 392.95 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 392.95 MARCH 13, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 156 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017529 0218270 -IN 517 - 121640 - 641950.00000 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 154629 SHIPPING CHARGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.00 CHECK NO 573135 VENDOR 352790 - WERNER HACKER 20017208 REIMB.CLASS D LIC. 408 - 233312 - 649010 -00000 0.00 30.25 0.00 30.25 154350 REIMB.CLASS D LIC. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 30.25 CHECK NO 572653 VENDOR 19640 WEST FLORIDA SUPPLY CO., INC. 20017206 16934 408 - 210130 - 652990 -00000 0.00 262.14 0.00 262.14 200744 SOAP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 262.14 CHECK NO 572793 VENDOR 198440 WHOLESALE SCREEN PRINTING 20016926 4648 001 - 100130- 649990 -00000 0.00 355.78 0.00 355.78 154527 SHIRTS FOR STAFF 20017530 4380 001 - 121143 - 652110.00000 0.00 328.22 0.00 328.22 154280 UNIFORMS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 684.00 CHECK NO 572775 VENDOR 192170 - WILKISON & ASSOCIATES 20017190 WA# 0021 191 - 138785 - 634999 -33752 0.00 2,800.00 0.00 2.800.00 204584 PETE'S 1 TRAILER PK. SIP APP. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.800.00 CHECK NO 572654 VENDOR 19770 WILSON MILLER ET AL 20017876 51120 313 - 163673 - 631400 -65071 0.00 14,770.80 0.00 14,770.80 107419 THRU 1/25/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 14.770.80 CHECK NO 572954 VENDOR 297010 WILSON MILLER INC 20017604 48927 113 - 138900 - 634999.00000 0.00 4,800.00 0.00 4,800.00 105991 THRU 11/30/01 20017604 50269 113 - 138900- 634999.00000 0.00 14.640.00 0.00 14,640.00 105991 THRU 12/28/01 MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 157 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20017604 45929 113. 138900- 634999 -00000 0.00 24,000.00 0.00 24,000.00 105991 THRU 8/31/01 20017604 48260 113 - 138900 - 634999 -00000 0.00 7.440.00 0.00 7,440.00 105991 THRU 10/26/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50,880.00 CHECK NO 572750 VENDOR 169820 - WINK -TV 20017255 6787 681 - 421190. 634401.00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 00. 001216 CFDRM R.KIPP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 75.00 CHECK NO 572788 VENDOR 196620 - WINN -DIXIE STORES, INC. #751 20017532 0700 2/9/02 111 - 156349 - 652210 -00000 0.00 27.84 0.00 27.84 202951 FOOD 2/9 20017203 0912 111 - 156343 - 652210 -00000 0.00 69.35 0.00 69.35 202484 FOOD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 97.19 CHECK NO 573141 VENDOR 353050 WINTER PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY 20016946 7982368 001 - 156175 - 649990.00000 0.00 41.00 0.00 41.00 154531 LOST BOOK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 41.00 CHECK NO 573089 VENDOR 348420 WOODS END RESEARCH LABORATORY, INC 20017204 138035 414 - 263611 - 631400 -73127 0.00 118.00 0.00 118.00 203249 COMPOST PILOT STUDY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 118.00 CHECK NO 573004 VENDOR 322200 - XEROX ADVANCED BUSINESS EQUIPMENT 20017263 545 001.122255- 764360.00000 0.00 2.440.00 0.00 2.440.00 204124 WORKCENTER COPY /PRINT /FAX CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,440.00 CHECK NO 572655 VENDOR 19960 - XEROX CORP 20017202 86985409 001 - 138710- 651210 -00000 0.00 819.83 0.00 819.83 200004 BASE CHARGE /JAN MARCH 13, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 16JIPAGE 158 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 819.83 CHECK NO 572851 VENDOR 249650 - XEROX CORPORATION 20017201 87115993 113. 138900 - 634999 -00000 0.00 401.04 0.00 401.04 200135 BASE CHARGE /JAN 20017264 87115994 113 - 138900- 634999.00000 0.00 1,181.56 0.00 1.181.56 200133 BASE CHARGE /JAN. 20017200 87115989 113 - 138900 - 634999 -00000 0.00 750.87 0.00 750.87 200138 BASE CHARGE /JAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.333.47 CHECK NO 573075 VENDOR 345230 XEROX ENGINEERING SYSTEMS 20017533 591655991 113 - 138931 - 644620 -00000 0.00 836.01 0.00 836.01 202180 PERID PMT #4 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 836.01 CHECK NO 572656 VENDOR 20020 YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS, INC. 20017187 FIVE 411 - 273511 - 763100 -70054 0.00 262,600.00 0.00 262,600.00 105568 12/25/01 - 1/25/02 20017187 FIVE RETAINAGE 411. 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 26,260.00- 0.00 26,260.00- 105568 12/25/01- 1/25/02 RETAINAGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 236.340.00 CHECK NO 572856 VENDOR 253430 - ZANNOS G. GREKOS, M.D. 20017262 W.DOMKE 01/30/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 2,138.50 0.00 2.138.50 204581 W,DOMKE 1/30/02 20017262 J.GALLO 1/25/02 001- 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 195.00 0.00 195.00 204581 J.GALLO 1/25/02 20017262 J.GALLO 2/6/02 001- 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 1,329.25 0.00 1,329.25 204581 J.GALLO 2/6/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,662.75 CHECK NO 572657 VENDOR 20050 - ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 20017252 89162755 521 - 122410- 652720.00000 0.00 21.05 0.00 21.05 154450 MED.SUPPL. MARCH 13, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20017253 89163354 154462 FIRST AID KIT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 12, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET 198 - 157410 - 652990 -00000 0.00 31.35 572 CHECKS WRITTEN CHECK TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 16JI PAGE 159 VCHR DISC 0.00 0.00 0.00 VCHR NET 31.35 52.40 4,113,845.05 Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County, Florida Finance & Accounting Department MEMORANDUM Date: 03/22/02 To: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners From: Constance C. Murray, General Operations Manager Finance Department/Clerk to the Board Re: Board of County Commissioners Disbursements 16J1 Please find attached a listing of the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period March 16,2002 through March 22, 2002. In accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1) I request that these reports be included as miscellaneous correspondence to the Board of County Commissioners and made part of the official records. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please telephone me at 774- 8481. lrV pla i.J �y. Q: /Manual Checks /APMLOG BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A/P Manual Check Log DATE ISSUED TO: CK # AMOUNT 3/13/2002 Island Title & Reyes Serrano 340 5,000.00 3/14/2002 Collier County Tax Collector 341 52.85 3/19/2002 Check Run Beginning 573186 3/19/2002 Check Run Ending 573999 16J1 DESCRIPTION MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 1 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573557 VENDOR 273240 - 21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY 20019020 M CALANA 12/20- 1/3/02 001 - 155930- 631210.00000 0.00 4,167.59 0.00 4,167.59 204730 M CALANA 12/20- 1/3/02 20019020 M CALANA 1/7. 1/9/02 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 972.13 0.00 972.13 204730 M CALANA 1/7. 1/9/02 20019020 M CALANA 1/16- 1/22/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 830.52 0.00 830.52 204730 M CALANA 1/16- 1/22/02 20019020 M CALANA 1/3- 1/4/02 001. 155930- 631210.00000 0.00 2,284.38 0.00 2,284.38 204730 M CALANA 1/3. 1/4/02 20019020 M CALANA 1/17- 1/28/02 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 972.13 0.00 972.13 204730 M CALANA 1/17 - 1/28/02 20019020 L SANTOS 2112102 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 205.76 0.00 205.76 204730 L SANTOS 2112102 20019020 M CALANA 1/28- 1/31/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 972.13 0.00 972.13 204730 M CALANA 1/28. 1/31/02 20019020 E GONZALES 1121102 001. 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 2,671.72 0.00 2,671.72 204730 E GONZALES 1121102 20019020 L CROSBY 1/16- 1/31/02 001 - 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 6,248.26 0.00 6,248.26 204730 L CROSBY 1/16. 1/31/02 20019020 M CALANA 217102 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 229.48 0.00 229.48 204730 M CALANA 217102 20019020 M CALANA 2/15/02 001- 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 229.48 0.00 229.48 204730 M CALANA 2/15/02 20019020 M CALANA 2/11 - 2/15/02 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 1,043.17 0.00 1,043.17 204730 M CALANA 2/11- 2/15/02 20019020 M CALANA 1 /10- 1/16/02 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 1,043.17 0.00 1,043.17 204730 M CALANA 1 /10- 1/16/02 20019020 L CROSBY 2/7. 2/14/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 4,536.80 0.00 4,536.80 204730 L CROSBY 2/7- 2/14/02 20019020 L CROSBY 1/29- 2/8/02 001- 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 4,536.80 0.00 4,536.80 204730 L CROSBY 1/29- 2/8/02 20019020 M CALANA 1/2/02 001- 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 441.58 0.00 441.58 204730 M CALANA 112102 CHECK NO 573386 VENDOR 161100 - AAA GENERATOR & PUMP INC. 20018714 G02 -01036 001 - 122240 - 646970.00000 0.00 203.50 0.00 203.50 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 20018714 PAGEa 2 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 203.40 0.00 203.40 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 20018242 G02.0223 408- 253212. 634999 -00000 0.00 455.63 0.00 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 200192 PARTS /REPAIRS SERVICE VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20019020 M CALANA 2/1- 2/7/02 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 1,043.17 0.00 1.043.17 20018642 204730 M CALANA 211- 217102 001- 144210 - 646970 -00000 0.00 137.50 0.00 137.50 153731 FUSE /MISC CLEANING SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 32,428.27 CHECK NO 573777 VENDOR 352920 - A LOCKSMITH SECURITY CENTER 0.00 884.39 203380 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018625 116226 313 - 163611 - 652990 -00000 0.00 15.00 G02 -0222 0.00 15.00 337.84 152352 ADDITIONAL KEYS -NEW EMPLOYEES 337.84 200192 PARTS /REPAIRS SERVICE 20018714 CHECK TOTAL 001 - 122240 - 646970.00000 0.00 15.00 CHECK NO 573205 VENDOR 80 - A. GAIL BOORMAN & ASSOCIATES 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018982 11137 313. 163673. 631100.63041 0.00 0.00 0.00 269.91 0.00 269.91 313. 163673. 631500 -63041 0.00 1,841.25 0.00 1,841.25 20018242 3848 8/1/01- 1/28/02 408 - 253212 - 634999 -00000 0.00 311.05 0.00 311.05 200192 PARTS /REPAIRS SERVICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,841.25 CHECK NO 573386 VENDOR 161100 - AAA GENERATOR & PUMP INC. 20018714 G02 -01036 001 - 122240 - 646970.00000 0.00 203.50 0.00 203.50 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018714 G02 -0255 001. 122240- 646970 -00000 0.00 203.40 0.00 203.40 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018242 G02.0223 408- 253212. 634999 -00000 0.00 455.63 0.00 455.63 200192 PARTS /REPAIRS SERVICE 20018239 G02.0229 408- 233352. 634999.00000 0.00 905.22 0.00 905.22 203380 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018642 G02.0264 001- 144210 - 646970 -00000 0.00 137.50 0.00 137.50 153731 FUSE /MISC CLEANING SUPPLIES 20018239 G02 -0230 408. 233352 - 634999.00000 0.00 884.39 0.00 884.39 203380 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018242 G02 -0222 408. 253212- 634999.00000 0.00 337.84 0.00 337.84 200192 PARTS /REPAIRS SERVICE 20018714 G02.0228 001 - 122240 - 646970.00000 0.00 321.42 0.00 321.42 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018714 G02 -0254 001- 122240. 646970 -00000 0.00 269.91 0.00 269.91 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018242 G02 -0224 408 - 253212 - 634999 -00000 0.00 311.05 0.00 311.05 200192 PARTS /REPAIRS SERVICE MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018714 G02 -0269 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018242 G02 -0219 200192 PARTS /REPAIRS SERVICE 20018714 G02 -0256 201559 REPAIR /MAINTENANCE 20018242 G02 -0218 200192 PARTS /REPAIRS SERVICE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001. 122240- 646970 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212 - 634999 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240. 646970 -00000 0.00 408. 253212- 634999.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573368 VENDOR 147860 - ABE SKINNER, PROPERTY APPRAISER 20018623 2002.09 03/04 101 - 163630. 647110 -00000 0.00 2002.09 03/04 MAPS CHECK NO 573810 VENDOR 900050 - ABECCA CORPORATION 301640 ST LIGHT REIMB ABECCA COR 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB ABECCA CORP CHECK NO 573206 VENDOR 90 - ABINGDON PRESS 20018639 P19140680001 355 - 156190. 766100.00000 0.00 154642 YEARBOOK /AMERICAN & CANADIAN CHECK NO 573595 VENDOR 288960 - ABLE BODY TEMPORARY SERVICE 20018612 115007118 DISCOUNT 320 - 183800- 634999 -00000 0.00 200061 TEMPORARY LABOR 20018612 115007118 320. 183800 - 634999 -00000 0.00 200061 TEMPORARY LABOR CHECK NO 573207 VENDOR 120 - ACCENT BUSINESS PRODUCTS 20018234 094976 02/15 -03/15 111 - 156343 - 646710 -00000 0.00 201276 MAINTENANCE 16J1 PAGE 3 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 276.96 0.00 276.96 320.05 0.00 320.05 138.02 0.00 138.02 320.05 0.00 320.05 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.084.94 51.00 0.00 51.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 51.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 41.48 0.00 41.48 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 41.48 67.12- 0.00 67.12- 3,356.00 0.00 3,356.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,288.88 27.50 0.00 27.50 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 J 1 PAGE 4 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018235 094918 02/01/02.03/01/02 130 - 157710 - 646710 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 201279 MAINTENANCE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 177.50 CHECK NO 573671 VENDOR 325040 ACE TOOL COMPANY 20018613 313799400 521.122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 49.95 0.00 49.95 200689 TOOLS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 49.95 CHECK NO 573475 VENDOR 226280 ADAM FUEREDI, M.D. 20018241 W. DOMKE 12/26 DINW001 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 633.75 0.00 633.75 154694 W. DOMKE 12/26 DINW001 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 633.75 CHECK NO 573650 VENDOR 317580 - ADECCO 20018725 58330632 473 - 173413 - 634999 -00000 0.00 512.05 0.00 512.05 203977 TEMPORARY LABOR 20018727 58381634 473 - 173413 - 634999 -00000 0.00 455.04 0.00 455.04 203997 TEMPORARY STAFFING 20018715 58281111 473 - 173413.634999 -00000 0.00 532.00 0.00 532.00 203977 TEMPORARY STAFFING 20018728 58346417 473.173413- 634999 -00000 0.00 532.00 0.00 532.00 203997 TEMPORARY STAFFING 20018715 58299217 CREDIT 473 - 173413- 634999.00000 0.00 21.12- 0.00 21.12- 203977 TEMPORARY STAFFING 20018725 58330632 CREDIT 473.173413.634999 -00000 0.00 25.41• 0.00 25.41- 203977 TEMPORARY LABOR 20018726 58314980 CREDIT 473 - 173413 - 634999.00000 0.00 26.40- 0.00 26.40- 203997 TEMPORARY LABOR 20018715 58299217 473 - 173413 - 634999 -00000 0.00 425.60 0.00 425.60 203977 TEMPORARY STAFFING 20018715 58265503 473 - 173413 - 634999 -00000 0.00 106.40 0.00 106.40 203977 TEMPORARY STAFFING 20018715 58251111 473 - 173413.634999 -00000 0.00 26.40- 0.00 26.40- 203977 TEMPORARY STAFFING MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 PAGE 5 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018726 58314980 473. 173413- 634999 -00000 0.00 532.00 0.00 532.00 203997 TEMPORARY LABOR 20018715 58265503 473. 173413 - 634999.00000 0.00 5.28- 0.00 5.28- 203977 TEMPORARY STAFFING 20018728 58346417 CREDIT 473 - 173413 - 634999.00000 0.00 32.72- 0.00 32.72- 203997 TEMPORARY STAFFING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,957.76 CHECK NO 573586 VENDOR 282670 ADVANCED AIR & REFRIGERATION, INC. 20018637 2933 001. 122240- 652997 -00000 0.00 87.50 0.00 87.50 201511 REPAIRS 20018637 2920 001- 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 201511 REPAIRS 20018637 2900 001. 122240. 652997 -00000 0.00 896.72 0.00 896.72 201511 REPAIRS 20018637 2934 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 237.50 0.00 237.50 201511 REPAIRS 20018637 2824 001. 122240- 652997 -00000 0.00 414.00 0.00 414.00 201511 REPAIRS 20018637 2822 001. 122240- 652997 -00000 0.00 30.50 0.00 30.50 201511 REPAIRS 20018637 2817 001 - 122240 - 652997.00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 201511 REPAIRS 20018637 2823 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 112.50 0.00 112.50 201511 REPAIRS 20018637 2901 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 220.00 0.00 220.00 201511 REPAIRS 20018637 2825 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 276.00 0.00 276.00 201511 REPAIRS 20018220 2840 301. 120402- 763100.80172 0.00 3,240.00 0.00 3,240.00 204045 DISCONNECT /REINSTALL 5 UNITS 20018637 2875 001 - 122240. 652997.00000 0.00 178.56 0.00 178.56 201511 REPAIRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.918.28 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16 J l ' PAQf 6 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER •� FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573561 VENDOR 276040 - ADVANCED FIRE SYSTEMS, INC 20018238 54843 001- 122240 - 634007 -00000 0.00 48.20 0.00 48.20 201510 MAINTENANCE FIRE EXTINGUISHER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 48.20 CHECK NO 573714 VENDOR 338730 AEC NATIONAL /WILKINSON JOINT 20019081 17806 325 - 172951. 631400 -31704 0.00 4,550.58 0.00 4,550.58 106280 THRU 1127102 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,550.58 CHECK NO 573692 VENDOR 332080 AERC. COM, INC. 20018643 47250 02/19 001 - 122240. 652993 -00000 0.00 363.82 0.00 363.82 153571 LAMPS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 363.82 CHECK NO 573295 VENDOR 103780 AFFORDABLE FRAMING & FINE ART 20018631 02/14 FRAMED CERTIF 470 - 173463 - 649990 -00000 Q.00 148.50 0.00 148.50 153007 D. KIRK /J. GO FRAMED CERTIF. 20018624 FRAMING SERVICE - MUSEUM 198. 157410. 652990 -00000 0.00 177.00 0.00 177.00 154121 FRAMING SRV. MUSEUM 02120 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 325.50 CHECK NO 573347 VENDOR 131010 - AFFORDABLE PETCARE CENTER 20018646 02 -9704 T. QUIRK 03/12 610. 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 200584 02.9704 T. QUIRK 03/12 20018646 02 -9703 D. AQUIRE 03/12 610 - 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 200584 02.9703 D. AQUIRE 03/12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 125.00 CHECK NO 573811 VENDOR 900050 - AGNES 0 SMIHT TR 301648 ST LIGHT REIMB A SMITH TR 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB A SMITH TR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573208 VENDOR 300 - AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. MARCH 20, 2002 VCHR DISC 8.100.00 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 0.00 2,000.00 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9,285.50 0.00 0.00 104.85 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20017195 11780 FINAL 195 - 110406 - 631400.10507 0.00 202766 THRU 2/8/02 20018989 11750 325 - 172972 - 631400 -31212 0.00 6446 THRU 1111102 20017193 11783 320 - 183805 - 631400.00000 0.00 204294 THRU 2/8/02 20018988 R11991 331 - 163650- 631400.62071 0.00 916790 THRU 2/8/02 20018988 R11989 313 - 163673 - 631400.62071 0.00 916790 THRU 2/8/02 20018988 11990 331 - 163650 - 631400 -62071 0.00 916790 THRU 2/8/02 20017194 R11921 414 - 263611. 631400.74125 0.00 5748 THRU 2/8/02 20018984 R11983 325 - 172977 - 631400 -31101 0.00 915545 THRU 2/8/02 20018988 11987 313. 163673- 631400.60071 0.00 916790 THRU 2/8/02 20017194 11920 414 - 263611- 631400.74125 0.00 5748 THRU 2/8/02 20018984 11982 325 - 172977. 631400 -31101 0.00 915545 THRU 2/8/02 CHECK NO 573409 VENDOR 172480 - ALAN PRODUCTIONS 20018723 0208 -02 D. JOHNSON 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 D. JOHNSON 00- 002942CF LLM 20018723 0131 -02 S. JAMES 681- 410310 - 633032 -00000 S. JAMES 01.000465CF LLM CHECK NO 573742 VENDOR 346490 - ALARMS BY BELL,INC. 20018230 5567 01/02 -03/02 101. 163612- 634999 -00000 202555 MONTHLY MOITORING 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 8.100.00 0.00 4,138.53 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 9,285.50 0.00 5,576.50 4,410.75 4.965.25 4.50 13,748.25 3,240.00 6,842.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 7 VCHR NET 8.100.00 4,138.53 2,000.00 9,285.50 5.576.50 4.410.75 4,965.25 4.50 13,748.25 3,240.00 6,842.00 62,311.28 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 0.00 104.85 0.00 104.85 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 6 J SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20018230 6123 04/02 -06/02 101- 163612 - 634999 -00000 0.00 104.85 0.00 202555 MONTHLY MOITORING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573589 VENDOR 285490 - ALBERCORP 20018221 6225 001 - 122240. 652992.00000 0.00 3.560.00 0.00 203968 INSTALL ALBERCORP BATTERY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573812 VENDOR 900050 - ALBERT & FREDA M SCHOPFER 301649 ST LIGHT REIMB A SCHOPFER 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB A SCHOPFER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573995 VENDOR 900100 - ALBERT ROSSI 301542 A ROSSI 0204016TB -P -C 681- 431590 - 634405.00000 0.00 5.48 0.00 A. ROSSI 0204016TB -P -C 03/05 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573813 VENDOR 900050 - ALICE DOLEZAL 301695 ST LIGHT REIM A. DOLEZAL 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM A. DOLEZAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573615 VENDOR 298420 - ALISON BANK 20018224 PRESCHOOL- 01/26- 03/11/02 111. 156380- 634999 -00000 0.00 3,969.55 0.00 201136 PRESCHOOL 01/26. 03/11/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573423 VENDOR 184390 - ALL STATE BIOGUARD SERVICES, INC. 20018232 38512 111 - 156313 - 634999.00000 0.00 17.00 0.00 201303 BID WASTE PICK-UP SERVICE 20018232 38510 111. 156313- 634999 -00000 0.00 26.00 0.00 201303 BID WASTE PICK -UP SERVICE 20018622 38511 518 - 121630. 631990 -00000 0.00 30.00 0.00 203222 BIO WASTE DISPOSAL FEES MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS �+�. PAGE 9 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 73.00 CHECK NO 573766 VENDOR 351160 - ALLEN JOHNS- BOOKEEPER 20018632 1467710 02121 WARREN ST 001. 122240. 649990.00000 0.00 350.00 0.00 350.00 153587 KILLED YELLOW JACKETS /5600 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 350.00 CHECK NO 573465 VENDOR 217860 - ALLIED ELECTRONICS 20018641 820061 -00 408. 253211- 652990 -00000 0.00 166.56 0.00 166.56 151214 HOUR METERS FOR VFD'S SWP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 166.56 CHECK NO 573311 VENDOR 109450 - ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORPORATION 20018627 I0249200 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 172.80 0.00 172.80 153818 CHEMICALS / NORTH WATER PLANT 20018606 I0248944 408. 233312- 652310.00000 0.00 1,699.95 0.00 1,699.95 200688 SOD HYPO 20018243 I0249423 408. 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 513.30 0.00 513.30 202510 SODIUM HYDROXIDE 20018607 I0248088 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,385.65 0.00 1,385.65 202569 CHLORINE 20018605 I0247599 408. 253211. 652310 -00000 0.00 1,187.70 0.00 1.187.70 202568 CHLORINE 20018216 I0249411 408. 233352- 652310 -00000 0.00 1,624.00 0.00 1,624.00 202941 SODIUM HYDROXIDE 20018218 I0249476 408. 233352- 652310 -00000 0.00 1,661.10 0.00 1,661.10 200741 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8.244.50 CHECK NO 573655 VENDOR 318980 - ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS. INC. 20018644 VFB2BWV 02/15 111 - 156341 - 641700 -00000 0.00 201.05 0.00 201.05 VFB2BWV 02/15 203699 20018644 VFB2BWV 02/15 111 - 156349 - 641700.00000 0.00 35.84 0.00 35.84 VFB2BWV 02/15 203699 20019079 VFB2BTR 02/15 001. 172910- 641150 -00000 0.00 149.27 0.00 149.27 VFB2BTR 02/15 202581 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018644 VFB2BWV 02/15 VFB2BWV 02/15 023698 20018644 VFB2BWV 02/15 VFB2BWV 02/15 203699 20018644 VFB2BWV 02/15 VFB2BWV 02/15 023698 20018644 VFB2BWV 02/15 VFB2BWV 02/15 203699 20018644 VFB2BWV 02/15 VFB2BWV 02/15 203699 20018644 VFB2BWV 02/15 VFB2BWV 02/15 023698 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111. 156332. 641700 -00000 0.00 111- 156343. 641700.00000 0.00 111 - 156310- 641700 -00000 0.00 130 - 157710 - 641700 -00000 0.00 111 - 156425 - 641700 -00000 0.00 001. 156363- 641700 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573209 VENDOR 460 - ALPHA CHEMICAL 20018629 218442 001 - 122220. 652990 -00000 153535 CHEMICALS 20018633 218453 001 - 126334 - 652990 -00000 153588 ASH TOP /ASH TRAY BASE CHECK NO 573210 VENDOR 550 - ALPHA OMEGA BUSINESS SYSTEMS 20018225 032373 02101 490 - 144610. 634999.00000 36.63 204138 MAINTENANCE 43.65 20018233 032746 02/20/02- 02/20/03 101. 163610. 646710 -00000 0.00 200499 FAX MAINTENANCE 0.00 20018236 032697 01/16 -02/16 111 - 138911. 651210.00000 201429 COPIER SERVICE 781.16 CHECK NO 573704 VENDOR 335180 - AMBRY, INC. 20019017 SI02 -32548 154288 HARD DRIVE 16JI ' �j xjPAGE 10 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 417.32 0.00 417.32 36.63 0.00 36.63 43.65 0.00 43.65 4.52 0.00 4.52 3.40 0.00 3.40 308.14 0.00 308.14 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.199.82 0.00 388.65 0.00 388.65 0.00 287.36 0.00 287.36 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 676.01 0.00 195.95 0.00 195.95 0.00 495.00 0.00 495.00 0.00 90.21 0.00 90.21 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 781.16 001 - 121143. 646910 -00000 0.00 237.70 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 237.70 0.00 237.70 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 11 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS] SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573769 VENDOR 351480 . AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLC 20018990 #4 RETAINAGE 313 - 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 15,396.93• 0.00 15,396.93- 204298 THRU 212102 RETAINAGE 20018990 #4 313.163673.763100 -60012 0.00 153,969.26 0.00 153,969.26 204298 THRU 2/2/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 138.572.33 CHECK NO 573608 VENDOR 295120 AMERICAN LAFRANCE MEDICMASTER 20018244 10722 521- 122410.646425 -00000 0.00 58.44 0.00 58.44 200837 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 58.44 CHECK NO 573695 VENDOR 332550 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 20018638 MEMBERSHIP - R. BELLOWS 113 - 138312.654210 -00000 0.00 204.00 0.00 204.00 154938 MEMBERSHIP DUES R. BELLOWS 20018237 MEMBERSHIP DUES M. FOORD 111 - 138317 - 654210 -00000 0.00 223.30 0.00 223.30 154767 MEMBERSHIP DUES M. FOORDS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 427.30 CHECK NO 573328 VENDOR 115830 . AMJ EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 20018608 2002 -0969 02/14 408 - 253211 - 655100 -00000 0.00 1,956.15 0.00 1,956.15 201770 PARTS/ SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,956.15 CHECK NO 573814 VENDOR 900050 - AMY LOUISE KOENNING 301650 ST LIGHT REIMB KOENNING 781 - 162752.981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB A KOENNING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573673 VENDOR 326290 AMY SEGO 20018875 3/5 -18 TRVL A SEGO 123 - 155975 - 640200.33075 0.00 100.63 0.00 100.63 3/5 -18 TRVL A SEGO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.63 CHECK NO 573651 VENDOR 317980 ANCHOR HEALTH CENTER CHECK NO 573708 VENDOR 336510 - ANCHOR TREE SERVICE MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA I 6r J 1 PAGE 12 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018716 V. HALL 01/23 -01/25 001. 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 700.05 0.00 700.05 201934 V. HALL 01/23 -1/25 20018716 M. MUCCINO 01/07 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 26.00 0.00 26.00 201934 M. MUCCINO 01/07 20018716 S. CLEVENGER 01121 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 291.20 0.00 291.20 201934 S. CLEVENGER 01121 20018716 C. CAREAGA 10/15 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 779.69 0.00 779.69 201934 C. CAREAGA 10/15 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.796.94 CHECK NO 573685 VENDOR 330150 - ANCHOR HEALTH CENTER 20018720 P. SYBERT 02/18 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 45.50 0.00 45.50 154697 P. SYBERT 02/18 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 45.50 CHECK NO 573746 VENDOR 347730 - ANCHOR HEALTH CENTER 20018721 G. TARVIN 02121 001. 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 45.50 0.00 45.50 154698 G. TARVIN 02121 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 45.50 CHECK NO 573764 VENDOR 350920 - ANCHOR HEALTH CENTER 20018719 P. SYBERT 02/14 001 - 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 45.50 0.00 45.50 154696 P. SYBERT 02/14 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 45.50 CHECK NO 573527 VENDOR 259380 - ANCHOR HEALTH CENTERS 20018718 V. NITTOLO 02112 001. 155930- 631210.00000 0.00 45.50 0.00 45.50 154695 V. NITTOLO 02112 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 45.50 CHECK NO 573620 VENDOR 303170 - ANCHOR HEALTH CENTERS 20018717 R. THURSTON 02111 001. 155930- 631210.00000 0.00 117.65 0.00 117.65 201935 R. THURSTON 02111 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 117.65 CHECK NO 573708 VENDOR 336510 - ANCHOR TREE SERVICE sl MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 13 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS b SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018630 02120 REMOVE DEBRIS 001. 156363- 646314 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 154142 REMOVE DEBRIS /CLAM PASS PARK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 CHECK NO 573797 VENDOR 353430 ANGEL DIAZ 20018893 3/7 TRVL A DIAZ 408. 233351 - 640300 -00000 0.00 9.00 0.00 9.00 3/7 TRVK A DIAZ CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9.00 CHECK NO 573483 VENDOR 233010 ANIMALIFE VETERINARY CENTER, P.A. 20018611 02 -9649 T &C VLIET 03/12 610. 155410- 631970 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 200922 02.9649 T &C VLIET 03/12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 CHECK NO 573815 VENDOR 900050 - ANN QUE BROWN 301575 ST LIGHT REIMB A. BROWN 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM A. BROWN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573816 VENDOR 900050 - ANTHONY E & JANET M BARBONE 301587 ST LIGHT REIMB A BARBONE 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB A BARBONE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573628 VENDOR 308670 - ANTON BURTSCHER 20018891 2/13 -16 TRVL A BURTSCHER 001 - 144510 - 640300.00000 0.00 630.65 0.00 630.65 2/13 -16 TRVL A BURTSCHER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 630.65 CHECK NO 573211 VENDOR 1080 - APAC - FLORIDA, INC. 20018222 151067 111 - 163645. 653110 -00000 0.00 133.61 0.00 133.61 201873 LIMEROCIK /FILL DIRT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 133.61 CHECK NO 573367 VENDOR 147700 - APAC OF FLORIDA, INC 20018981 #24 412 - 273511- 763100.70843 0.00 12.152.00 0.00 12,152.00 4480 TO 1/27/02 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 64 PAGE 14 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 a VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018981 #24 RETAINAGE 331 - 000000 - 205100.00000 0.00 84,779.23 0.00 84,779.23 4480 TO 1/27/02 RETAINAGE 20018981 #24 414 - 263611 - 763100 -73058 0.00 4,592.00 0.00 4,592.00 4480 TO 1127102 20018981 #24 RETAINAGE 412 - 000000. 205100 -00000 0.00 14,404.39 0.00 14,404.39 4480 TO 1/27/02 RETAINAGE 20018981 #24 331 - 163650 - 763100.69101 0.00 136,400.00 0.00 136,400.00 4480 TO 1/27/02 20018981 #24 412- 273511. 763100 -70844 0.00 4,657.00 0.00 4.657.00 4480 TO 1/27/02 20018981 #24 313 - 163673 - 763100 -69101 0.00 1,376,188.55 0.00 1,376,188.55 4480 TO 1/27/02 20018981 #24 RETAINAGE 414 - 000000. 205100 -00000 0.00 3,654.49 0.00 3,654.49 4480 TO 1/27/02 RETAINAGE 20018981 #24 RETAINAGE 313. 000000- 205100 -00000 0.00 420,156.31 0.00 420,156.31 4480 TO 1127102 RETAINAGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,056,983.97 CHECK NO 573731 VENDOR 343990 - AQUA PURE OF SW FLORIDA 20018246 TAX2219 TAX ON LEASE 118 - 144210- 652990 -33781 0.00 7.96 0.00 7.96 202277 MONTHLY BILLING 20018246 R2253 RENTAL 03/02 118 - 144210- 652990.33781 0.00 49.95 0.00 49.95 202277 MONTHLY RENTAL MARCH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 57.91 CHECK NO 573717 VENDOR 339470 - AQUAGENIX 20018987 307 -2217 306 - 116360 - 763100 -80600 0.00 17,750.00 0,00 17,750.00 204278 2/28/02 20018987 307 -2217 RETAINAGE 306. 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 1,775.00- 0.00 1,775.00- 204278 2/28/02 RETAINAGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15,975.00 CHECK NO 573387 VENDOR 161840 - AQUIFER MAINTENANCE & PERFORMANCE 20019052 21435 DISCOUNT 408 - 253212 - 634999.00000 0.00 60.80- 0.00 60.80- 200199 MAINTENANCE MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018616 21421 DISCOUNT 200417 WELLFIELD MAINTENANCE 20018616 21421 200417 WELLFIELD MAINTENANCE 20018615 21438 DISCOUNT 200417 WELLFIELD MAINTENANCE 20018615 21438 DISCOUNT 200417 WELLFIELD MAINTENANCE 20019052 21435 200199 MAINTENANCE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408 - 253221. 634999 -00000 0.00 408 - 253221 - 634999 -00000 0.00 408 - 253221. 634999 -00000 0.00 408 - 253221 - 634999 -00000 0.00 408- 253212 - 634999.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573817 VENDOR 900050 - ARDIS DEHOFF 0.00 1.749.28 0.00 301670 ST LIGHT REIMB A DEHOFF 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB A DEHOFF 0.00 CHECK NO 573818 VENDOR 900050 - ARNOLD PATRICK PARKER JR 301698 ST LIGHT REIMA. PARKER 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM A. PARKER CHECK NO 573617 VENDOR 302200 - AROMA EXPRESSIONS INC 20018245 3437 495 - 192370. 634999 -00000 0.00 200360 DEORDERIZERS /MONTHLY SERVICE CHECK NO 573369 VENDOR 148190 - ARSENE MAJUSTE 20018227 03/01 9:00 -10:00 1.5HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402.00000 0.00 03/01 9:00 -10:00 1.5 HRS 20018227 03/07 9:00 -9:30 0.5 HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402.00000 0.00 03/07 9:00 -9:30 0.5 HRS 20018227 03/08 9:00 -11:30 2.5HRS 681- 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 03/08 9:00 -11:30 2.5 HRS 20018227 03/07 8:30- 9:00/9:30 -11:3 681- 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 03/07 8:30- 9:00/9:30 -11:30 2.5 HRS 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 139.94- 0.00 1.749.28 0.00 81.60- 0.00 1.020.00 0.00 760.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 0.00 CHECK TOTAL .0.00 134.83 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 38.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018227 03/01 8:30 -9:00 0.5 HRS 03/01 8:30 -9:00 0.5 HRS 20018724 01- 002425 CF- M. LEBRUM 01- 002425 CF M.LEBRUM 20018227 03/08 8:30 -9:00 0.5 HRS 03/08 8:30 -9:00 0.5 HRS 20018227 03/04 9:00 -10:00 1.OHRS 03/04 9:00 -10:00 1.0 HRS 20018227 03/06 8:30 -10:00 1.5HRS 03/06 8:30 -10:00 1.5 HRS 20018227 03/04 8:30- 9:00/10 -12:30 03/04 8:30- 9:00/10 -12:30 3.0 HRS 20018227 03/06 10:00 -12:00 2.OHRS 03/06 10:00 -12:00 2.0 HRS 20018227 03/05 8:00 -12:00 4.OHRS 03/05 8:00 -12:00 4.0 HRS CHECK NO 573819 VENDOR 900050 - ARTHUR S & MARLENE J MANN 301626 ST LIGHT REIMB A MANN 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 ST LIGHT REIMB A MANN CHECK NO 573689 VENDOR 331650 - ASCE ATTN MIKE DROZECH 20018802 REGIST R WILEY 4/5 001 - 172970. 654360 -00000 154585 REGIST R WILEY 4/5 CHECK NO 573587 VENDOR 283510 - ASSOCIATED LAND TITLE GROUP, INC. 20018626 4260 350. 140470 - 631650 -80119 154339 TITLE SERVICE EMS STATION 20 20018610 182 FA -35- 700709 109 - 182601 - 631650 -00000 PELICAN BAY / SIGN EASEMENT 0.00 134.83 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 125.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 200.00 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16JI SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 681 - 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 8.00 0.00 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 681- 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 8.00 0.00 681 - 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 24.00 0.00 681- 421190- 634402.00000 0.00 48.00 0.00 681 - 431590. 634402 -00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 681. 431590- 634402.00000 0.00 64.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573819 VENDOR 900050 - ARTHUR S & MARLENE J MANN 301626 ST LIGHT REIMB A MANN 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 ST LIGHT REIMB A MANN CHECK NO 573689 VENDOR 331650 - ASCE ATTN MIKE DROZECH 20018802 REGIST R WILEY 4/5 001 - 172970. 654360 -00000 154585 REGIST R WILEY 4/5 CHECK NO 573587 VENDOR 283510 - ASSOCIATED LAND TITLE GROUP, INC. 20018626 4260 350. 140470 - 631650 -80119 154339 TITLE SERVICE EMS STATION 20 20018610 182 FA -35- 700709 109 - 182601 - 631650 -00000 PELICAN BAY / SIGN EASEMENT 0.00 134.83 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 125.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 200.00 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573790 VENDOR 353330 - ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN 20018609 MEMBERSHIP AMPO 2002 126. 138332- 654210 -33202 0.00 154719 MEMBERSHIP AMPO 2002 CHECK NO 573545 VENDOR 269000 - ASSOCIATION OF SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL 20018635 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP S. BUCK 001. 121140. 654210 -00000 0.00 154735 ANNUAL MEM.01 /17 S. BUCK CHECK NO 573463 VENDOR 216040 - ASTOR CHEMICAL 20018217 359 408- 253211 - 652310 -00000 0.00 204267 POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE CHECK NO 573820 VENDOR 900050 - ASTOW CARE SYSTEMS 301541 319050 ASTOW CARE SYSTEMS 113. 000000- 115420.00000 0.00 319050 ASTOW CARE SYSTEMS CHECK NO 573665 VENDOR 323320 - AT & T 20018240 056 284 9101 001 02/25 02/25 394 -3272 20018640 056 594 8842 001 02/27 02/27 394 -3404 20018619 730 511 5350 001 02/18 02/18 774 -0225 20018722 730 - 511.2690 -001 02/27 02/27 657.3391 20018619 056 286 1406 001 02121 02/21 775 -0534 20018619 056 286 1439 001 02121 02/21 793 -0618 20018722 058.063. 1831 -001 02/06 02/06 657 -2525 16J1 0.00 AMT NET VCHR DISC PAGE 17 i.. VCHR NET 600.00 0.00 600.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 600.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 3,432.00 0.00 3,432.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,432.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 001. 156160 - 641900 -00000 0.00 27.30 0.00 27.30 001 - 122240- 641900 -00000 0.00 15.60 0.00 15.60 001. 010510. 641210 -00000 0.00 50.20 0.00 50.20 113 - 138936 - 641900 -00000 0.00 16.93 0.00 16.93 001 - 443010 - 641900.00000 0.00 14.02 0.00 14.02 001 - 443010 - 641900 -00000 0.00 14.02 0.00 14.02 113 - 138722 - 641900.00000 0.00 35.16 0.00 35.16 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 18 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018240 730 511 5763 001 02/21 490. 144610- 641900 -00000 0.00 34.10 0.00 34.10 02/21 775 -4454 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 207.33 CHECK NO 573485 VENDOR 236190 - AT &T 20018620 020 318 9060 001 02/24 408. 210151. 641100 -00000 0.00 16.75 0.00 16.75 02/24 659 -9172 20018223 030 337 2414 001 02/13 101. 163620- 641900 -00000 0.00 37.84 0.00 37.84 02/13 774.6406 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 54.59 CHECK NO 573698 VENDOR 333620 - AT &T WIRELESS 20018713 10031926 03/05 490 - 144610. 641700 -00000 0.00 109.96 0.00 109.96 200122 10031926 03/05 20018614 9000062 03/05 001. 443010 - 641700 -00000 0.00 130.30 0.00 130.30 2011810 03/05 9000062 STATE ATTONY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 240.26 CHECK NO 573629 VENDOR 309230 - ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUND INC 20018226 64. 2002 - 001061 331 - 163650 - 631650 -60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 2031040 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20018226 64- 2002 - 001067 331 - 163650 - 631650 -60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 2031040 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20018226 64- 2002 - 001066 331 - 163650 - 631650.60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 2031040 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20018628 64.2002- 000932 325. 172977- 631650.31101 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUND INC 20018226 64- 2010 -7300 331. 163650- 631650.60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 2031040 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20018226 64- 2010 -2400 331 - 163650 - 631650.60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 2031040 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20018226 64- 2002 - 001064 331 - 163650. 631650 -60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 2031040 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20018226 64.2002- 001065 331 - 163650. 631650 -60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 2031040 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018226 64- 2002 - 000670 2031040 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES 20018226 64- 2002 - 001062 2031040 TITLE SEARCH /EXAM FEES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 331. 163650- 631650 -60018 0.00 331 - 163650 - 631650.60018 0.00 16J AMT NET VCHR DISC 175.00 0.00 175.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 � PAC3E 19 �J VCHR NET 175.00 175.00 1,750.00 CHECK NO 573375 VENDOR 152350 - AUREUS INTERNATIONAL 20018621 4965 -IN BAL DUE 490. 144610- 652110 -00000 0.00 605.00 0.00 605.00 154600 BAL DUE NAME TAGS 20018634 0010250 -IN 490. 144610 - 652110.00000 0.00 744.00 0.00 744.00 153676 FLIGHTSUIT STYLE JUMPSUIT 20018636 0010242 -IN 490 - 144610. 652110 -00000 0.00 152.00 0.00 152.00 154232 REPAIRS TO JUMPSUITS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,501.00 CHECK NO 573616 VENDOR 300230 - AUTOLECTRIC 20018247 7620 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 210.00 0.00 210.00 200839 PARTS 20018247 7620 521. 122410- 646415.00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 200839 PARTS 20018231 7606 521- 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 85.00 0.00 85.00 200839 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 335.00 CHECK NO 573591 VENDOR 286720 - AZTEK COMMUNICATIONS 20018229 1802 001 - 122255. 634999 -00000 0.00 320.00 0.00 320.00 202826 INSTALLATION/LABELING 20018617 1816 001 - 122255. 634999 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 202826 INSTALLATION/ PHONE LINES 20018618 1797 001 - 121141. 634999 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 201352 PHONE WIRING /MAINTENANCE 20018228 1805 111- 156349. 634999.00000 0.00 232.00 0.00 232.00 201265 20018617 1825 001 - 122255- 634999 -00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 202826 INSTALLATION/ PHONE LINES MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20018617 1789 001 - 122255 - 634999 -00000 0.00 202826 INSTALLATION/ PHONE LINES 20018617 1833 001. 122255 - 634999 -00000 0.00 202826 INSTALLATION/ PHONE LINES CHECK NO 573687 VENDOR 331390 - B & B TOWING HH SERVICES INC. 20018546 3034 521 - 122410- 646415.00000 0.00 200607 TOWING 20018190 3128 521. 122410- 646415.00000 0.00 200607 TOWING 20018190 3131 521. 122410. 646415.00000 0.00 200607 TOWING 20018190 3122 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 200607 TOWING CHECK NO 573345 VENDOR 129820 B & W GOLF CARS, INC 20018191 07734 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 202705 R &M,PARTS CHECK NO 573370 VENDOR 149020 B.J. EXCAVATING ENTERPRISES, INC 20018766 85693 322 - 183825. 646320 -00000 0.00 154317 FILL MATERIAL FOR IRRIG. CHECK NO 573213 VENDOR 1740 - BAKER & TAYLOR CO 20018153 5003477912 001 - 156110. 652670 -00000 0.00 201635 AUDIO CASSETTE 20018154 5003563429 355. 156175- 766100 -80259 0.00 105140 BOOKS 20018153 5003555924 001. 156110- 652670.00000 0.00 201635 AUDIO CASSETTE 20018153 5003477910 001 - 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 201635 AUDIO CASSETTE PAGE 20 16J1 . AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 160.00 0.00 160.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 947.00 233.00 0.00 233.00 47.00 0.00 47.00 161.00 0.00 161.00 42.50 0.00 42.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 483.50 86.69 0.00 86.69 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 86.69 162.00 0.00 162.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 162.00 488.76 0.00 488.76 9.25 0.00 9.25 311.92 0.00 311.92 104.85 0.00 104.85 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 PAGE 21 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018555 850673230 355. 156190. 652670 -00000 0.00 261.67 0.00 261.67 204182 VIDEOS & CD'S 20018153 5003541391 001. 156110- 652670 -00000 0.00 55.20 0.00 55.20 201635 AUDIO CASSETTE 20018154 2008823134 355 - 156175 - 766100 -80259 0.00 13.21 0.00 13.21 105140 BOOKS 20018153 5003477911 001 - 156110. 652670 -00000 0.00 129.04 0.00 129.04 201635 AUDIO CASSETTE 20018154 5003560975 355. 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 283.83 0.00 283.83 105140 BOOKS 20018153 5003541390 001 - 156110. 652670.00000 0.00 197.68 0.00 197.68 201635 AUDIO CASSETTE 20018555 R23820340 355. 156190. 652670 -00000 0.00 90.10 0.00 90.10 204182 VIDEOS & CD'S 20018555 B50673240 355. 156190- 652670.00000 0.00 160.86 0.00 160.86 204182 VIDEOS & CD'S 20018154 3005322647 355 - 156175 - 766100.80259 0.00 540.47 0.00 540.47 105140 BOOKS 20018154 2008823133 355. 156175- 766100.80259 0.00 195.41 0.00 195.41 105140 BOOKS 20018555 B5045456O 355. 156190. 652670 -00000 0.00 27.98 0.00 27.98 204182 VIDEOS & CD'S 20018555 B50673241 355. 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 127.38 0.00 127.38 204182 VIDEOS & CD'S 20018555 850454562 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 53.17 0.00 53.17 204182 VIDEOS & CD'S 20018154 2008787505 355. 156175. 766100 -80259 0.00 150.87 0.00 150.87 105140 BOOKS 20018153 5003541392 001 - 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 214.15 0.00 214.15 201635 AUDIO CASSETTE 20018153 5003555925 001. 156110- 652670 -00000 0.00 79.77 0.00 79.77 201635 AUDIO CASSETTE 20018154 5003562276 355 - 156175- 766100.80259 0.00 16.77 0.00 16.77 105140 BOOKS MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 22 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018555 B50673231 355 - 156190- 652670.00000 0.00 14.99 0.00 14.99 204182 VIDEOS & CO'S CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.527.33 CHECK NO 573202 VENDOR 350330 - BANK OF AMERICA 20018729 S. CLEVINGER RENT 03/02 001 - 155930.634153 -00000 0.00 207.26 0.00 207.26 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 207.26 CHECK NO 573821 VENDOR 900050 - BARBARA ANN NORTHROP 301562 ST LIGHT REIMB B NORTHROP 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB B NORTHROP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573822 VENDOR 900050 BARBARA B. HOGG 301699 ST LIGHT REIM B. HOGG 781.162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM B. HOGG CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573823 VENDOR 900050 BARBARA C JACOBY -HIGH TR 301671 ST LIGHT REIMB JACOBYHIGH 781.162752.981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB B JACOBY•HIGH TR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573408 VENDOR 171340 - BARBARA JOHNSON 20018973 PETTY CASH 111 - 156310 - 652990 -00000 0.00 5.00 111.156341- 652990.00000 0.00 10.02 111 - 156341 - 651110 -00000 0.00 6.99 111- 156313- 652990.00000 0.00 10.00 111.156380. 634999.00000 0.00 10.00 111 - 156380. 652990.00000 0.00 4.00 111 - 156381 - 641950.00000 0.00 3.94 111.156390.652990.00000 0.00 37.90 111 - 156390.634999 -00000 0.00 10.00 111 - 156395 - 634999 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 102.85 PETTY CASH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 102.85 CHECK NO 573783 VENDOR 353170 - BARBARA OEHLBECK MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 23 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 6 J SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018159 BOOKS FOR PLANT CLINIC 001 - 157110 - 654110 -00000 0.00 123.80 0.00 123.80 154631 BOOKS FOR PLANT CLINIC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 123.80 CHECK NO 573302 VENDOR 106210 BARNES INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC PIPING 20018188 T10018678 408- 253211 - 655100 -00000 0.00 44.84 0.00 44.84 203112 REPAIR KIT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 44.84 CHECK NO 573467 VENDOR 218330 BAUDVILLE 20018162 816086 001- 155410 - 652990 -00000 0.00 29.90 001 - 155410- 641950 -00000 0.00 6.95 0.00 36.85 154183 LOLLIPOPS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 36.85 CHECK NO 573718 VENDOR 339680 BAYER CORPORATION 20018163 3546954 001. 155410- 652710 -00000 0.00 881.66 0.00 881.66 154106 SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 881.66 CHECK NO 573760 VENDOR 350520 BAYER PAINTING 20018210 473909 111 - 156390 - 762200 -00000 0.00 1,950.00 0.00 1,950.00 204036 PAINTING MAIN OFFICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,950.00 CHECK NO 573808 VENDOR 900040 BEAZER HOMES 301731 04725115200 408 - 253212.343320 -00000 0.00 302.00 0.00 302.00 303149 97 BURNT PINES DR 301733 04725115200 411 - 273511. 343360 -00000 0.00 1,275.00 0.00 1.275.00 97 BURNT PINE DR 301732 04725115200 413 - 263611 - 343560 -00000 0.00 1,575.00 0.00 1,575.00 97 BURNT PINE DR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,152.00 CHECK NO 573455 VENDOR 209940 BENNETT FIRE PRODUCTS CO. INC. 20018168 020702 -1 490 - 144610 - 652110 -00000 0.00 529.00 0.00 529.00 154434 GLOBE JACKET MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 24 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 6 J FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 529.00 CHECK NO 573460 VENDOR 214780 BERRY'S BARBELL & EQUIPMENT CO. 20018187 177 111 - 156313 - 646970 -00000 0.00 87.50 0.00 87.50 201448 REPAIRS 20018187 208 111. 156313. 646970 -00000 0.00 47.00 0.00 47.00 201448 REPAIRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.50 CHECK NO 573214 VENDOR 1820 BETTER BUSINESS FORMS 20018412 4034119 408 - 210151 - 647110.00000 0.00 892.50 0.00 892.50 153716 INSERT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 892.50 CHECK NO 573215 VENDOR 1910 BETTER ROADS, INC. 20019016 22676 111 - 163645. 763110 -00000 0.00 5,583.60 0.00 5,583.60 203110 ASPHALT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5,583.60 CHECK NO 573824 VENDOR 900050 BETTY A QUAST 301588 ST LIGHT REIMB B QUAST 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB B QUAST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573825 VENDOR 900050 - BEVERLY & HERBERT J VAN HASSELL TR 301655 ST LIGHT REIMB VANHASSELL 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB VANHASSELL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573350 VENDOR 133360 - BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTROL 20019039 2102 IMPACT FEES 113 - 000000 - 209830 -00000 0.00 22.494.30 0.00 22,494.30 2/02 IMPACT FEES 20018841 2102 INTEREST 113 - 138900- 341890 -00000 0.00 17.99 0.00 17.99 2/02 INTEREST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 22.512.29 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573361 VENDOR 141230 - BIG CYPRESS ANIMAL CLINIC 20018545 02 -9718 C.OLSON 610 - 155410 - 631970.00000 0.00 200932 ADOPTION C.OLSON 20018545 02 -9784 M.SHEEHAN 610 - 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 200932 02.9784 M.SHEEHAN ADOPTION CHECK NO 573826 VENDOR 900050 - BILL DYE BAIL BONDS 301730 00 -3700 MMA T. DIAZ 001. 431510- 351100 -00000 0.00 00 -3700 MMA T. DIAZ CHECK NO 573382 VENDOR 159870 - BLUELINE INC. 20018189 10152655 113. 138931 - 646710 -00000 0.00 113. 138931- 651110 -00000 0.00 202515 MAINT /SUPPL /METER CHARGE 20018189 10152359 113 - 138931 - 646710 -00000 0.00 113 - 138931 - 651110 -00000 0.00 202515 MAINT /SUPPL /METER CHARGE CHECK NO 573349 VENDOR 133300 BOB TAYLOR CHEVROLET 0.00 20018192 117781 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 DISC 203456 PARTS 0.00 0.00 20018192 117765 263.92 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 203456 PARTS 60.00 1.740.28 20018192 117766 1,740.28 521- 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 0.00 203456 PARTS 20018192 118008 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 203456 PARTS CHECK NO 573402 VENDOR 168720 BONITA AUTO SUPPLY /NAPA 20018194 578981 521.122410.646425 -00000 0.00 203458 PARTS 493.89 0.00 0.00 493.89 0.00 313.96 0.00 313.96 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 807.85 PAGE 25 0.00 16J1 160.34 0.00 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 45.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 15.00 263.92 0.00 15.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 1.740.28 0.00 1,740.28 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,740.28 493.89 0.00 0.00 493.89 0.00 313.96 0.00 313.96 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 807.85 49.38 0.00 49.38 160.34 0.00 160.34 7.32 0.00 7.32 46.88 0.00 46.88 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 263.92 15.80 0.00 15.80 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018193 579121 203458 PARTS 20018194 577864 203458 PARTS 20018194 578812 203458 PARTS 20018193 577591 203458 PARTS 20018194 578925 203458 PARTS 20018193 577305 203458 PARTS 20018193 577488 203458 PARTS 20018194 577870 203458 PARTS 20018194 577891 203458 PARTS 20018193 577492 203458 PARTS 20018194 577863 203458 PARTS 20018193 578102 203458 PARTS 20018193 579093 203458 PARTS 20018193 577083 203458 PARTS 20018193 577594 203458 PARTS 20018193 577493 203458 PARTS 20018193 578044 203458 PARTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 PAGE 26 16J 1 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 69.24 0.00 69.24 42.42 0.00 42.42 7.37 0.00 7.37 23.88 0.00 23.88 92.60 0.00 92.60 35.25 0.00 35.25 141.08 0.00 141.08 56.72 0.00 56.72 19.39 0.00 19.39 252.78 0.00 252.78 30.46 0.00 30.46 35.25 0.00 35.25 36.56 0.00 36.56 27.28 0.00 27.28 11.50 0.00 11.50 12.26 0.00 12.26 30.18 0.00 30.18 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018193 577319 203458 PARTS 20018194 578117 203458 PARTS 20018193 578096 203458 PARTS CHECK NO 573684 VENDOR 329590 - BONNESS INC 20017196 #2 107453 THRU 2/25/02 20017196 #2 RETAINAGE 107453 THRU 2/25/02 RETAINAGE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 313 - 163673 - 763100 -60172 0.00 313 - 000000- 205100 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573427 VENDOR 187560 - BOOKS ON TAPE INC. 20018155 4759695P 355 - 156190. 652670.00000 0.00 201944 AUDIO BOOKS 20018155 4758229P 355. 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 201944 AUDIO BOOKS CHECK NO 573576 VENDOR 280540 - BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION SUPPLY 20018409 8008057 -00 111. 156332 - 646311.00000 0.00 203477 PARTS 20018186 8007917 -00 111. 156332 - 646311 -00000 0.00 203477 IRRIG.PARTS CHECK NO 573606 VENDOR 293380 - BQ CONCRETE 20018924 1188 202251 CONCRETE WORK 20018924 1182 202251 CONCRETE WORK 20018924 1181 202251 CONCRETE WORK 16JI 0.00 PAGE 27 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 11.01 0.00 11.01 38.64 0.00 38.64 3.65 0.00 3.65 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 993.32 5,059.64 0.00 5,059.64 505.97- 0.00 505.97 - CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,553.67 319.90 0.00 319.90 709.43 0.00 709.43 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,029.33 47.00 0.00 47.00 494.61 0.00 494.61 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 541.61 408 - 233351. 634999 -00000 0.00 550.00 0.00 550.00 408- 233351. 634999 -00000 0.00 550.00 0.00 550.00 408- 233351 - 634999 -00000 0.00 875.00 0.00 875.00 MARCH 20, REPORT 100 -601 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 6 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573652 VENDOR 318160 - BRADANNA INC. 20018980 #3 195.116360- 763100 -80088 0.00 17,550.00 0.00 201609 TO 2/28/02 20018980 #3 RETAINAGE 195. 000000- 205100 -00000 0.00 1,755.00- 0.00 201609 TO 2/28/02 RETAINAGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573569 VENDOR 276700 BRINKER BROWN FASTENER & SUPPLY INC 20018161 367173 001 - 122240.652990.00000 0.00 35.34 0.00 153567 SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573653 VENDOR 318330 BRISTER FUNERAL HOME 20018547 LAKE TRAFFORD CEMETARY 001.122370.631990 -00000 0.00 340.00 0.00 154601 FLAGGING SERVICE 11/30.2/21 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573216 VENDOR 2500 - BRODART, INC. 20018925 186318 001. 156145 - 651910 -00000 0.00 262.65 001. 156110 - 651910 -00000 0.00 609.45 001. 156110 - 641950 -00000 0.00 127.00 0.00 154994 SHELF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573827 VENDOR 900050 - BRUCE & MERNA L ZIMMERMAN 301636 ST LIGHT REIMB B ZIMMERMA 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB B ZIMMERMAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573828 VENDOR 900050 BRYAN W. SULLIVAN 301543 318014 BRYAN SULLIVAN 113 - 138900 - 321110 -00000 0.00 125.00 0.00 318014 BRYAN SULLIVAN REFUND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573373 VENDOR 151240 BSN MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100-601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 6 J I FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20018407 90829748 111 - 156332. 646315 -00000 0.00 377.70 0.00 153642 SWING SEATS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573732 VENDOR 344100 - BUECHEL & BUECHEL TOTAL JOINT 20018167 R.NICHOLS 2/6/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 130.00 0.00 154699 R.NICHOLS 2/6/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573612 VENDOR 295300 - BUMPER TO BUMPER 20018195 1275435 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 271.22 0.00 201289 PARTS 20018195 1275979 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 9.08 0.00 201289 PARTS 20018197 1275608 521- 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 25.27 0.00 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275745 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 9.00 0.00 203457 PARTS 20018196 1276168 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 23.80 0.00 203457 PARTS 20018196 1275541 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 33.32 0.00 203457 PARTS 20018196 1276217 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 55.60 0.00 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275818 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 8.29 0.00 203457 PARTS 20018195 1275575 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 15.51 0.00 201289 PARTS 20018196 1276198 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 11.84 0.00 203457 PARTS 20018195 1275564 521- 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 24.76 0.00 201289 PARTS 20018195 1276002 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 46.08 0.00 201289 PARTS MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA 1 PAGE 30 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018197 1275845 521 - 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 6.16 0.00 6.16 203457 PARTS 20018196 1276187 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 36.06 0.00 36.06 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275646 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 154.55 0.00 154.55 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275985 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 5.79 0.00 5.79 203457 PARTS 20018195 1275486 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 10.85 0.00 10.85 201289 PARTS 20018196 1276214 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 3.87 0.00 3.87 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275939 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 13.23 0.00 13.23 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275703 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 2.41 0.00 2.41 203457 PARTS 20018196 1275586 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 10.63 0.00 10.63 203457 PARTS 20018196 1275604 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 33.32 0.00 33.32 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275731 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 21.79 0.00 21.79 203457 PARTS 20018196 1276219 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 8.82 0.00 8.82 203457 PARTS 20018196 1275479 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 16.45 0.00 16.45 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275788 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 27.33 0.00 27.33 203457 PARTS 20018197 1276158 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 1.89 0.00 1.89 203457 PARTS 20018195 1275844 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 37.21 0.00 37.21 201289 PARTS 20018196 1275437 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 93.33 0.00 93.33 203457 PARTS MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 J 1 PAGE 31 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018195 1276032 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 115.48 0.00 115.48 201289 PARTS 20018195 11276208 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 174.09 0.00 174.09 201289 PARTS 20018196 1276206 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 7.46 0.00 7.46 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275741 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 3.24 0.00 3.24 203457 PARTS 20018196 1275579 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 22.21 0.00 22.21 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275954 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 9.79 0.00 9.79 203457 PARTS 20018195 1275609 521 - 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 70.49 0.00 70.49 201289 PARTS 20018197 C24531 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 100.00- 0.00 100.00- 203457 PARTS 20018196 1276189 521- 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 7.46 0.00 7.46 203457 PARTS 20018197 1275721 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 17.98 0.00 17.98 203457 PARTS 20018197 1276031 521. 122410.646425 -00000 0.00 20.17 0.00 20.17 203457 PARTS 20018196 1275818 521.122410.646425 -00000 0.00 52.00 0.00 52.00 203457 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,417.83 CHECK NO 573713 VENDOR 338610 BURNS VETERINARY SUPPLY 20018160 5359469 001 - 155410.652710.00000 0.00 491.05 001 - 155410. 652720.00000 0.00 113.79 0.00 604.84 154522 MED.SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 604.84 CHECK NO 573669 VENDOR 324500 BUSINESS HEALTH 20018164 CCWD001 -2 408 - 253212. 649990 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 152284 HEPATITIS VACC /R.GRAHAM MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS � � J I PAGE 32 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 .� VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 573425 VENDOR 186290 - BWI /BOOK WHOLESALERS, INC. 20018157 1231582 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 196.65 0.00 196.65 BWI /BOOK WHOLESALERS, INC. 20018158 1239040 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 560.80 0.00 560.80 200562 CHILDREN'S TITLES 20018158 1238440 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 371.01 0.00 371.01 200562 CHILDREN'S TITLES 20018156 1232649 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 427.15 0.00 427.15 200562 CHILDREN'S TITLES 20018158 1239041 355. 156190. 766100 -00000 0.00 347.57 0.00 347.57 200562 CHILDREN'S TITLES 20018156 1232648 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 201.56 0.00 201.56 200562 CHILDREN'S TITLES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,104.74 CHECK NO 573618 VENDOR 302850 C &H DISTRIBUTORS INC 20018322 433050501 101- 163630. 652990 -00000 0.00 66.34 0.00 66.34 154180 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 66.34 CHECK NO 573480 VENDOR 230790 C.E.D. INC. 20018306 4977 -33252 778- 182701- 652990 -00000 0.00 37.05 0.00 37.05 200081 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 37.05 CHECK NO 573829 VENDOR 900050 - CAMERON & JEAN R ANDERSON 301672 ST LIGHT REIMB ANDERSON 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB C ANDERSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573217 VENDOR 2860 - CAPRI LAWN & GARDEN EQUIP 20018305 80025 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 133.68 0.00 133.68 200616 SUPPLIES MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 PAGE 33 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018305 79778 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 88.77 0.00 88.77 200616 SUPPLIES 20018305 79781 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 61.44 0.00 61.44 200616 SUPPLIES 20018305 79934 521. 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 133.15 0.00 133.15 200616 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 417.04 CHECK NO 573796 VENDOR 353400 - CARDIAC SCIENCE 20018316 050715 111 - 156313 - 652720 -00000 0.00 256.81 0.00 256.81 152540 EXTENDED LIFE BATTERY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 256.81 CHECK NO 573830 VENDOR 900050 - CAROLINE S. HANKS TR 301567 ST LIGHT REIMB C. HANKS 781- 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB C. HANKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573831 VENDOR 900050 - CAROLYN V STEEN 301637 ST LIGHT REIMB C STEEN 781 - 162752. 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB C STEEN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573371 VENDOR 150740 - CARROLL A. ENGLISH. M.D.. P.A. 20018342 T. BACHELOR 12/11 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 90.35 0.00 90.35 154700 T. BACHELOR 12/11 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 90.35 CHECK NO 573832 VENDOR 900050 - CARSTEN & JOANN DICARLO 301586 ST LIGHT REIM C. DICARLO 781. 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM C. DICARLO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573332 VENDOR 117060 - CAT CARE CLINIC 20018347 S. BROWN 02 -9716 610. 155410- 631970.00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 200940 S. BROWN 02 -9716 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100-601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD COMMISSIONERS 16J,l PAGE 34 ECIAL DETAILED REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ' VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018347 L. MCCARTHY 01 -8927 610- 155410- 631970 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 200940 L. MCCARTHY 01 -8927 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 120.00 CHECK NO 573833 VENDOR 900050 - CATHERINE MOSES, TR 301568 ST LIGHT REIMB C. MOSES 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB C.MOSES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573834 VENDOR 900050 - CC NAPLES INC 301652 ST LIGHT REIMB CC NAPLES 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB CC NAPLES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573835 VENDOR 900050 - CC NAPLES INC. 301700 ST LIGHT REIM CC NAPLES 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 269.66 0.00 269.66 ST LIGHT NAPLES CC NAPLES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 269.66 CHECK NO 573836 VENDOR 900050 - CC NAPLES, INC 301651 ST LIGHT REIMB CC NAPLES 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB CC NAPLES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573701 VENDOR 334310 - CDWG GOVERNMENT, INC. 20018777 FH31998 301 - 210140. 651950 -01014 0.00 700.00 0.00 700.00 152599 SUPPLIES 20018778 FK37069 301- 210140. 651950 -01014 0.00 630.00 301- 210140. 641950 -01014 0.00 0.00 0.00 630.00 154166 SUPPLIES 20018820 FH32199 301- 210140. 764900 -01014 0.00 3,350.00 301- 210140 - 651950 -01014 0.00 40.00 0.00 3,390.00 203464 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4.720.00 CHECK NO 573837 VENDOR 900050 - CE PARRISH GENERAL AGENCY MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA / PAGE 35 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER vh FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301734 REF 00 -2309 CE PARRISH 001. 431510. 351100 -00000 0.00 8,382.67 0.00 8,382.67 REF 00 -2309 CE PARRISH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8.382.67 CHECK NO 573838 VENDOR 900050 - CECIL E. & VADIS U. MILLER 301615 ST LIGHT REIM C. MILLER 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM C. MILLER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573534 VENDOR 261700 CENTEX HOMES 20018533 REF 319919 CENTEX 113 - 000000.115420.00000 0.00 1,575.00 0.00 1,575.00 REF 319919 CENTEX CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,575.00 CHECK NO 573763 VENDOR 350880 CHALMERS & KUBECK - SOUTH 20018401 1001172 -01 408 - 253221 - 634999.00000 0.00 346.95 0.00 346.95 204142 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 346.95 CHECK N0 573784 VENDOR 353190 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MAP PROJECT 20018328 DR- NPL096 495.192310- 648170.00000 0.00 269.10 0.00 269.10 154661 LISTINGS IN THE DIRECTORY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 269.10 CHECK NO 573774 VENDOR 352530 . CHANNING BETE COMPANY, INC. 20018323 50576548 681. 410510 - 654110 -00000 0.00 137.33 0.00 137.33 154340 FLYERS FOR ALCOHOL & SUBS ABU CHECK TOTAL 0.00 137.33 CHECK NO 573839 VENDOR 900050 - CHARLES & CAROLYN PATRICK, JR 301563 ST LIGHT REIMB C PATRICK 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB C PATRICK JR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573840 VENDOR 900050 - CHARLES D. & SUSAN DIEHL 301566 ST LIGHT REIMB C.DIEHL 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB C.DIEHL MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 PAGE 36 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573734 VENDOR 344770 CHARLES TOWNS 20018780 BASKETBALL INST. 130 - 157710. 634999 -00000 0.00 142.50 0.00 142.50 201065 INSTRUCTOR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 142.50 CHECK NO 573392 VENDOR 165950 CHECKPOINT, LTD. 20018304 184836 313 - 163611 - 634999 -00000 0.00 12.48 101 - 163609.634999 -00000 0.00 12.47 0.00 24.95 200068 MONTHLY MAINT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 24.95 CHECK NO 573435 VENDOR 193460 CHEMICAL LIME COMPANY 20018387 00137185 408 - 253211- 652310.00000 0.00 2,986.29 0.00 2,986.29 202567 SUPPLIES 20018387 00136922 408 - 253211 - 652310 -00000 0.00 6,081.83 0.00 6,081.83 202567 SUPPLIES 20018387 00136463 408 - 253211 - 652310 -00000 0.00 3,046.09 0.00 3,046.09 202567 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 12,114.21 CHECK NO 573841 VENDOR 900050 CHERE & THOMAS ANDERSON TR 301673 ST LIGHT REIMB ANDERSON 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB ANDERSON TR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573842 VENDOR 900050 - CHRISTINE I JONES 301701 ST LIGHT REIM C. JONES 781.162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM C. JONES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573663 VENDOR 321610 - CHRISTINE STYLES 20018248 JAllERCISE 1/25 -2/28 111.156380- 634999 -00000 0.00 1.482.65 0.00 1,482.65 201017 JAllERCISE 1/25 -2/28 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.482.65 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 PAGE 37 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19. 2002 �y VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573218 VENDOR 3360 - CITY OF EVERGLADES 20018795 LEASE EVERGLADES LIBRARY 001 - 156110. 644100 -00000 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 154906 LEASE EVERGLADES LIBRARY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.00 CHECK NO 573219 VENDOR 3390 - CITY OF NAPLES 20018645 3311 521 - 122450. 652410.00000 0.00 3,582.19 0.00 3,582.19 200958 FUEL CHARGES 20018387 29365. 102864 12/19 -2/22 111 - 163646 - 643400.00000 0.00 112.00 0.00 112.00 29365 - 102864 12/19 -2/22 20018387 30585. 102836 12/18 -2/25 111- 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 60.66 0.00 60.66 30585 102836 12/18 -2/25 20018387 28605. 102838 12/26 -2/26 111 - 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 102.29 0.00 102.29 28605. 102838 12/26 -2/26 20018387 28599. 102854 12/26 -2/26 111 - 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 58.78 0.00 58.78 28599 - 102854 12/26 -2/26 20018387 27743. 105544 12/20 -2/20 111 - 163646 - 643400 -00000 0.00 162.39 0.00 162.39 27743. 105544 12/20 -2/20 20018387 29393 - 102866$12/26 -2/26 111. 163646- 643400.00000 0.00 212.41 0.00 212.41 29393 - 102866 12/26 -2/26 20018387 30971 - 102860 12/26.2/27 111. 163646. 643400 -00000 0.00 93.74 0.00 93.74 30971 - 102860 12/26.2/27 20018387 30629 - 102834 12/26 -2/27 111. 163646. 643400.00000 0.00 49.06 0.00 49.06 30629- 102834 12/26 -2/27 20018387 30819 - 102840 12/26 -2/27 111. 163646- 643400.00000 0.00 156.91 0.00 156.91 30819 - 102840 12/26 -2/27 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,590.43 CHECK NO 573622 VENDOR 305220 - CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA 20018341 C.CORRAL 1/25 001 - 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 26.65 0.00 26.65 154701 C. CORRAL 1/25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 26.65 CHECK NO 573843 VENDOR 900050 - CLIFFORD P & EILEEN GOPLERUD MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 PAGE 38 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 20018252 73809 FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 0.00 2.610.58 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301618 ST LIGHT REIMB C GOPLERUD 781 - 162752- 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB C GOPLERUD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573809 VENDOR 900040 - CLYDE C QUINBY TR 300335 05816154200 CLYDE QUINBY 408. 000000 - 115001.00000 0.00 3,877.90 0.00 3.877.90 CLYDE QUINBY 0 CEDAR HAMMOCK CIR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,877.90 CHECK NO 573360 VENDOR 140160 CMS CHILD PROTECTION TEAM 20018252 73809 001. 155930 - 634156.00000 0.00 2.610.58 0.00 2,610.58 201846 REIMB REQUEST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,610.58 CHECK NO 573756 VENDOR 349900 COASTAL STAFFING 20018307 810543 408 - 210151 - 634999.00000 0.00 420.48 0.00 420.48 204369 TEMP STAFF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 420.48 CHECK NO 573450 VENDOR 205190 COLLIER ANESTHESIA P.A. 20018345 L. BRADBURY 2/5 001. 155930- 631210.00000 0.00 585.00 0.00 585.00 201847 L. BRADBURY 2/5 20018345 M. MUCCINO 2/12 001. 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 663.00 0.00 663.00 201847 M. MUCCINO 2/12 20018345 M. BUDDEMEYER 1/25 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 702.00 0.00 702.00 201847 M. BUDDEMEYER 1/25 20018345 V. HALL 1/23 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 975.00 0.00 975.00 V. HALL 1/23 20018345 P. STEWART 1/30 001. 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 741.00 0.00 741.00 201847 P. STEWART 1/30 20018345 C.CAREAGA 10/19 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 312.00 0.00 312.00 C. CAREGA 10/19 20018345 T. BERK 10/13 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 819.00 0.00 819.00 201847 T. BERK 10/13 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,797.00 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 6 J SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK NO 573656 VENDOR 319060 - COLLIER COUNTY BAIL BONDS 20019025 REF 00 -5164 CLLR CTY BAIL 001 - 431510 - 351100 -00000 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 REF 00 -5164 COLLIER CTY BAILL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573696 VENDOR 332890 - COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, 20018332 0201 111. 156343. 649035 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 154069 CITATION FOR FALSE ALARMS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573434 VENDOR 192140 - COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S ASSOC 20018327 TESTING EXPENSES 146 - 144380 - 634999 -00000 0.00 172.87 0.00 154380 TESTING EXPENSES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573525 VENDOR 257590 COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 20018386 2102 001. 155810- 881100 -00000 0.00 65,733.33 0.00 202094 2/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573220 VENDOR 3620 COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT 20019034 2102 SEPTIC TANK INSP 113 - 000000 - 208500.00000 0.00 37,335.00 0.00 2/02 SEPTIC TANK INSP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573363 VENDOR 142550 - COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 20019033 2102 IMPACT FEES 113 - 000000. 209050 -00000 0.00 1.061,960.34 2102 IMPACT FEES CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 573346 VENDOR 130700 - COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 20019026 REF 00 -2309 CLLR CTY SHER 001 - 431510. 351100 -00000 0.00 REF 00 -2309 CLLR CTY SHER 20019024 REF 00- 3700MMA SHERIFF 001 - 431510. 351100 -00000 0.00 REF 00 -3700 MMA SHERIFF 0.00 1,061,960.34 0.00 1,061,960.34 117.33 0.00 117.33 259.72 0.00 259.72 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573187 VENDOR 3680 - COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 20019045 TAX DEEDS 1999 001- 013010 - 649040 -00000 AND CHECK NO 573241 VENDOR 8050 - COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 20018842 AD VALOREM REF 001 - 013010 - 983000 -00000 760 - 162711- 983000.00000 111. 163646- 983000 -00000 111- 013010 - 983000 -00000 206. 939030. 983000 -00000 114 - 178975 - 983000.00000 156. 162723- 983000 -00000 473. 173411- 983000 -00000 AD VALOREM REFUNDS CHECK NO 573223 VENDOR 3690 - COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING 20018779 03600100600 1/25 -2/25 490. 144610 - 643400 -00000 7,000.00 0.00 433.59 001 - 061010- 643400 -00000 03600100600 1/25 -2/25 20018779 02700300402 1/25 -2/25 111 - 156332 - 643400.00000 02700300402 1/25 -2/25 20018253 06102282300 1/18 -2/15 001. 061010- 643400 -00000 06102282300 1/18.2/15 20018779 03901643700 1/25.2/25 001. 156363 - 643400 -00000 03901643700 1/25.2/25 0.00 20018400 07201452300 1/24.2/21 152 - 162541- 643400.00000 4.446.41 07201452300 1/24 -2/21 20018254 07201385900 1/24 -2/21 152 - 162541 - 643400.00000 269.19 07201385900 1/24 -2/21 0.00 20018254 07202022000 1/23 -2/21 152 - 162541 - 643400 -00000 33.71 07202022000 1/23 -2/21 0.00 20018779 03901641100 1/25 -2/25 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 326.47 03901641100 1/25 -2/25 0.00 PAGE 40 16J1 7,000.00 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 377.05 0.00 7,000.00 0.00 7,000.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7,000.00 0.00 433.59 0.00 3.57 0.00 6.61 0.00 97.58 0.00 4.99 0.00 5.37 0.00 19.79 0.00 3,874.91 0.00 4,446.41 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4.446.41 0.00 142.67 0.00 126.52 0.00 269.19 0.00 48.70 0.00 48.70 0.00 33.71 0.00 33.71 0.00 112.77 0.00 112.77 0.00 326.47 0.00 326.47 0.00 123.66 0.00 123.66 0.00 34.33 0.00 34.33 0.00 212.49 0.00 212.49 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16JI PAGE 41 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018400 07215951100 1/24 -2/21 152 - 162541. 643400.00000 0.00 208.73 0.00 208.73 07215951100 1/24 -2/21 20018779 03901644200 1/25 -2/25 001. 156363. 643400 -00000 0.00 28.20 0.00 28.20 03901644200 1/25 -2/25 20018779 07801284200 1/25 -2/25 144- 144360 - 643400 -00000 0.00 32.64 0.00 32.64 07801284200 1/25 -2/25 20018779 03904895300 1/25 -2/25 001. 156363- 643400 -00000 0.00 139.89 0.00 139.89 03904895300 1/25 -2/25 20018400 03619005700 1/31 -3/01 408. 233351 - 643400 -00000 0.00 76.48 0.00 76.48 03619005700 1/31 -3/1 20018254 07201961700 1/24 -2/21 152. 162541- 643400 -00000 0.00 48.54 0.00 48.54 07201961700 1/24 -2/21 20018779 02700300502 1/25 -2/25 111. 156332 - 643400 -00000 0.00 315.96 0.00 315.96 02700300502 1/25 -2/25 20018779 03900160900 1/25 -2/25 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 29.00 0.00 29.00 03900160900 1/25 -2/25 20018254 03600100901 1/31 -3/1 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 0.00 683.50 0.00 683.50 03600100901 1/31 -3/1 20018254 03600297000 1/31 -3/01 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 304.18 0.00 304.18 03600297000 1/31 -3/01 20018400 07202178400 1/24 -2/21 152 - 162541. 643400 -00000 0.00 304.14 0.00 304.14 07202178400 1/24 -2/21 20018779 03900149600 1/25 -2/25 001. 156363. 643400 -00000 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 03900149600 1/25 -2/25 20018254 03600100801 1/31 -3/1 111- 156332. 643400 -00000 0.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 03600100801 1/31 -3/1 20018779 03901641200 1/25 -2/25 001 - 156363. 643400 -00000 0.00 62.27 0.00 62.27 03901641200 1/25 -2/25 20018779 0390270800 1/25 -2/25 001 - 156363. 643400.00000 0.00 261.10 0.00 261.10 0390270800 1/25 -2/25 20018852 07818978801 1/25 -2/25 111 - 163646 - 643400.00000 0.00 345.08 0.00 345.08 07818978801 1/25 -2/25 20018852 07818978101 1/25.2/25 111 - 163646. 643400 -00000 0.00 320.72 0.00 320.72 07818978101 1/25 -2/25 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 42 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018249 03610634100 1/31 -3/4 111 - 156332 - 643400.00000 0.00 2,178.17 0.00 2,178.17 03610634100 1/31 -3/4 20018779 03901644700 1/25 -2/25 001 - 156363 - 643400.00000 0.00 49.28 0.00 49.28 03901644700 1/25 -2/25 20018779 02714573200 1/25 -2/25 001 - 156363 - 643400.00000 0.00 125.16 0.00 125.16 02714573200 1/25 -2/25 20018400 03600100500 1/31 -3/1 001 - 156170. 643400.00000 0.00 193.06 0.00 193.06 03600100500 1/31 -3/1 20018254 03600296900 1/31 -3/1 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 26.88 0.00 26.88 03600296900 1/31 -3/1 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,930.30 CHECK NO 573781 VENDOR 353150 - COLLIER COUNTY VESSEL ASSIST 20018348 88502 001. 156363- 634999.00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 204677 RED TIDE CLEANUP 20018348 88503 001 - 156363 - 634999.00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 204677 RED TIDE CLEANUP 20018348 88504 001 - 156363 - 634999 -00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 204677 RED TIDE CLEANUP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.500.00 CHECK NO 573383 VENDOR 160760 - COLLIER EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS 20018344 S. ROBINSON 10/15 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 102.05 0.00 102.05 201848 S. ROBINSON 10/15 20018344 B. THOMAS 11/29 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 158.60 0.00 158.60 201848 B. THOMAS 11/29 20018344 R. ALAMEDA 12/8 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 102.05 0.00 102.05 201848 R. ALAMEDA 12/8 20018344 J. HARKER 12/14 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 35.10 0.00 35.10 201848 J. HARKER 12/14 20018344 F. GARDNER 12110 001. 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 158.60 0.00 158.60 201848 F. GARDENER 12110 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 556.40 CHECK NO 573512 VENDOR 254850 - COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES, INC MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018388 PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 01102 201849 PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 01102 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 155930 - 652710.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573681 VENDOR 329210 - COLLIER NEUROLOGIC NEUROLOGY 20018346 G. COPPERSMITH 6/22 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 154702 G. COPPERSMITH 6/22 20018346 V.NITTOLO 2120 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 154702 V. NITTOLO 2/20 CHECK NO 573602 VENDOR 291770 - COLLIER NEUROLOGIC SPECIALISTS 20018250 P.STEWART 1/30 001. 155930. 631210.00000 201850 P. STEWART 1/30 20018250 P.STEWART 1/30 001- 155930 - 631210.00000 201850 P. STEWART 1/30 CHECK NO 573478 VENDOR 227020 COLLIER TIRE & AUTO REPAIR 20018396 75826 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 200621 SUPPLIES 487.50 20018396 76157 0.00 521 - 122410. 646415 -00000 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 2,762.50 20018397 75893 0.00 521.122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 200623 SUPPLIES 84.75 20018396 75711 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 137.10 20018396 76197 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 53.00 20018398 76425 0.00 521- 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 200623 SUPPLIES 121.40 20018397 76082 0.00 521. 122410- 646425.00000 200623 SUPPLIES 20018396 76398 521.122410- 646415 -00000 200621 SUPPLIES 16J1 PAGE 43 *: .Jo AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 9,344.89 0.00 9.344.89 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9,344.89 0.00 276.25 0.00 276.25 0.00 211.25 0.00 211.25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 487.50 0.00 552.50 0.00 552.50 0.00 2.762.50 0.00 2,762.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,315.00 0.00 84.75 0.00 84.75 0.00 53.00 0.00 53.00 0.00 137.10 0.00 137.10 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 53.00 0.00 53.00 0.00 187.23 0.00 187.23 0.00 121.40 0.00 121.40 0.00 88.50 0.00 88.50 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20018396 76354 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 93.75 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 20018396 76047 521 - 122410. 646415.00000 0.00 51.00 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 20018396 76036 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 53.00 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 20018396 76063 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 59.50 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 20018397 75833 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 2,058.18 0.00 200623 SUPPLIES 20018396 76283 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 79.75 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 20018396 75847 521 - 122410. 646415 -00000 0.00 60.50 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 20018396 76043 521 - 122410. 646415 -00000 0.00 90.95 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 20018396 75844 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 268.60 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES 20018397 76086 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 142.96 0.00 200623 SUPPLIES 20018398 75994 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 264.32 0.00 200623 SUPPLIES 20018398 76221 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 836.18 0.00 200623 SUPPLIES 20018396 76039 521. 122410. 646415 -00000 0.00 53.00 0.00 200621 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573407 VENDOR 171310 COMMERCIAL ENERGY SPECIALISTS INC. 20018329 62537 111. 156349- 646970 -00000 0.00 119.59 0.00 153884 POOL PUMP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573326 VENDOR 115280 - COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE 20, OUNTY, FLORID l b J l PAGE 45 REPORCH T 100.6002 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018395 995165 111. 163646- 634999.00000 0.00 108.00 0.00 108.00 200446 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018391 995301 111 - 163646 - 634999.00000 0.00 1.373.72 0.00 1,373.72 201068 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018389 995289 111 - 163646. 634999.00000 0.00 618.00 0.00 618.00 203678 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018337 995290 111 - 163646. 634999 -00000 0.00 32.86 0.00 32.86 2010771 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018389 995245 111 - 163646- 634999.00000 0.00 1,803.29 0.00 1.803.29 203678 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018338 995322 152. 162541. 634999 -00000 0.00 81.68 0.00 81.68 201082 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018382 994158 111. 163646- 634999 -00000 0.00 19,927.99 0.00 19.927.99 200833 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018395 995247 111 - 163646. 634999 -00000 0.00 144.00 0.00 144.00 200446 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018392 995332 111. 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 2.800.00 0.00 2,800.00 203676 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018337 995297 111 - 163646 - 634999.00000 0.00 310.70 0.00 310.70 201071 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018333 995313 150 - 162545 - 634999 -00000 0.00 457.25 0.00 457.25 200850 LABOR 20018338 995248 152 - 162541 - 634999.00000 0.00 211.35 0.00 211.35 201082 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018395 995240 111 - 163646- 634999 -00000 0.00 2,980.00 0.00 2.980.00 200446 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018392 995333 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 2,800.00 0.00 2.800.00 203676 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018334 995271 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 55.47 0.00 55.47 200844 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018333 995323 150 - 162545 - 634999 -00000 0.00 257.75 0.00 257.75 200850 LABOR 20018338 995142 152 - 162541 - 634999 -00000 0.00 142.94 0.00 142.94 201082 LABOR & REPAIRS MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100.601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 PAGE 46 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 a VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018394 995306 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1,407.00 0.00 1,407.00 200853 INSTALL SOD 20018336 995154 136. 162590 - 634999 -00000 0.00 113.00 0.00 113.00 203681 SUPPLIES 20018391 995302 111 - 163646 - 634999.00000 0.00 1,717.15 0.00 1,717.15 201068 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018393 995299 111 - 163646 - 634999.00000 0.00 2,264.36 0.00 2.264.36 201064 LABOR & REPAIR 20018337 995300 111 - 163646 - 634999.00000 0.00 637.20 0.00 637.20 201071 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018334 995330 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 262.04 0.00 262.04 200844 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018389 995258 111. 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 432.00 0.00 432.00 203678 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018338 995254 152 - 162541. 634999 -00000 0.00 40.84 0.00 40.84 201082 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018338 995063 152 - 162541 - 634999.00000 0.00 211.35 0.00 211.35 201082 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018337 995295 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 226.15 0.00 226.15 201071 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018333 995312 150- 162545. 634999 -00000 0.00 384.00 0.00 384.00 200850 LABOR 20018338 995309 152 - 162541 - 634999 -00000 0.00 352.25 0.00 352.25 201082 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018392 995293 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 2,312.00 0.00 2,312.00 203676 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018389 995270 111. 163646- 634999 -00000 0.00 42.00 0.00 42.00 203678 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018335 995327 136. 162590- 634999 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 203680 REPAIRS 20018338 995126 152. 162541- 634999 -00000 0.00 176.13 0.00 176.13 201082 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018389 995288 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 168.00 0.00 168.00 203678 REPAIRS & LABOR MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J PAGE REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER „ FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018337 995296 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 236.19 0.00 236.19 201071 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018389 995161 111 - 163646. 634999 -00000 0.00 216.00 0.00 216.00 203678 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018389 995168 111 - 163646. 634999 -00000 0.00 42.00 0.00 42.00 203678 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018338 995259 152 - 162541 - 634999 -00000 0.00 81.68 0.00 81.68 201082 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018334 995140 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 108.66 0.00 108.66 200844 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018337 995294 111 - 163646. 634999 -00000 0.00 261.02 0.00 261.02 201071 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018338 995057 152 - 162541 - 634999 -00000 0.00 70.45 0.00 70.45 201082 LABOR & REPAIRS 20018393 994884 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1.159.24 0.00 1,159.24 201064 LABOR & REPAIR 20018389 995291 111 - 163646- 634999 -00000 0.00 1.151.00 0.00 1,151.00 203678 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018337 995304 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 525.61 0.00 525.61 201071 REPAIRS & LABOR 20018393 995298 111. 163646. 634999 -00000 0.00 821.08 0.00 821.08 201064 LABOR & REPAIR 20018390 995328 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 2,081.00 0.00 2.081.00 203677 MOWING 20018389 995287 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 347.80 0.00 347.80 203678 REPAIRS & LABOR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 52,002.20 CHECK NO 573537 VENDOR 263070 - COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL 20018308 427526 408 - 253211. 646610 -00000 0.00 291.60 0.00 291.60 201777 REPLACEMENT 20018326 423586 101 - 163630 - 646610 -00000 0.00 13.50 0.00 13.50 154545 BELT CLIP 20018251 TW2059A 001 - 122255- 652910 -00000 0.00 1.782.74 0.00 1.782.74 204436 SUPPLIES MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6J1 PAGE 48 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,087.84 CHECK NO 573462 VENDOR 214920 - COMPUTER DISCOUNT WAREHOUSE 20018317 FK78266 001- 121154. 651910 -00000 0.00 453.59 0.00 453.59 154270 SUPPLIES 20018319 FK77782 001 - 121154. 651910 -00000 0.00 200.99 0.00 200.99 154269 SUPPLIES 20018321 FI88906 001- 121148 - 651930.00000 0.00 315.00 001. 121148. 641950.00000 0.00 10.99 0.00 325.99 153970 SUPPLIES 20018318 FK87920 001- 121154 - 651910 -00000 0.00 758.29 0.00 758.29 154268 MONITORS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,738.86 CHECK NO 573844 VENDOR 900050 CONCORD CO LTD 301702 ST LIGHT REIM CONCORD 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 269.66 0.00 269.66 ST LIGHT REIM CONCORD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 269.66 CHECK NO 573315 VENDOR 111450 CONSOLIDATED PLASTICS COMPANY INC. 20018330 5165995 111 - 156343 - 652990 -00000 0.00 176.10 0.00 176.10 153877 BRUSH MATS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 176.10 CHECK NO 573581 VENDOR 281620 CONSOLIDATED POWER SERVICES, INC. 20018383 210848 408. 253221 - 634999 -00000 0.00 2,400.00 0.00 2,400.00 200418 SVC CALLS 20018311 210840 408 - 233312 - 634999 -00000 0.00 240.00 0.00 240.00 202212 SVS CALL 20018312 210849 408 - 253211 - 634999 -00000 0.00 720.00 0.00 720.00 201781 SVS ORDERS 20018399 210851 408 - 233352 - 634999 -00000 0.00 3,774.45 0.00 3,774.45 200638 SVS CALL 20018383 210841 408 - 253221 - 634999 -00000 0.00 11,234.00 0.00 11,234.00 200418 SVC CALLS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018385 210839 408 - 253212 - 634999 -00000 0.00 6.400.00 0.00 6,400.00 203942 CALIBRATE METERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 24,768.45 CHECK NO 573498 VENDOR 246200 - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 20018309 692045 313 - 163673. 763100.66066 0.00 63.50 0.00 63.50 201978 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 63.50 CHECK NO 573507 VENDOR 248800 - CONSULTANTS IN GASTROENTEROLOGY 20018340 R GARCIA 1/16 -17 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 178.75 0.00 178.75 201851 R. GARCIA 1/16 -17 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 178.75 CHECK NO 573224 VENDOR 3800 - COPY CONCEPTS 20018315 117000 198 - 157430 - 646710 -00000 0.00 54.00 0.00 54.00 200574 COPIES 20018313 117041 521. 122410. 646710 -00000 0.00 70.50 0.00 70.50 200851 COPIES 20018314 117043 198 - 157410. 646710 -00000 0.00 58.25 0.00 58.25 200571 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 182.75 CHECK NO 573479 VENDOR 230460 - CORPORATE EXPRESS 20018372 30408620 101 - 163610 - 651110 -00000 0.00 24.96 0.00 24.96 203459 SUPPLIES 20018373 30408621 313 - 162111- 651110 -00000 0.00 3.90 0.00 3.90 203460 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 28.86 CHECK NO 573568 VENDOR 276650 - CORPORATE EXPRESS 20018357 30340188 408- 210105 - 651110.00000 0.00 11.16 0.00 11.16 203288 SUPPLIES 20018331 30460219 111 - 156381. 651110 -00000 0.00 19.20 0.00 19.20 150177 CASH REG RIBBONS 2 �J A AGE 49 REPO 2 BOARDEOFC � MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JIAGE 50 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018351 29673294 113 - 138931 - 651110.00000 0.00 64.83 0.00 64.83 203318 SUPPLIES 20018365 29908862 001 - 010510. 651110 -00000 0.00 66.83 0.00 66.83 203434 SUPPLIES 20018365 29230670 001 - 010510- 651110 -00000 0.00 6.76- 0.00 6.76- 203434 SUPPLIES 20018360 30311685 301 - 121125 - 651110.01017 0.00 68.88 0.00 68.88 203333 SUPPLIES 20018376 30372523 001- 156110. 651110 -00000 0.00 359.76 0.00 359.76 203539 SUPPLIES 20018364 30340128 521 - 122410 - 651110 -00000 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 203358 SUPPLIES 20018356 30402407 517 - 121640. 651110.00000 0.00 41.52- 0.00 41.52- .203290 SUPPLIES 20018353 30112932 473. 173413 - 651110 -00000 0.00 36.93 0.00 36.93 203296 SUPPLIES 20018365 29092926 001 - 010510. 651110 -00000 0.00 98.40 0.00 98.40 203434 SUPPLIES 20018362 30408614 495. 192310 - 651110 -00000 0.00 12.17 0.00 12.17 203373 SUPPLIES 20018352 30371701 001 - 121810. 651110 -00000 0.00 252.72 0.00 252.72 203314 SUPPLIES 20018374 30217266 111 - 138911. 651110 -00000 0.00 92.04 0.00 92.04 203463 SUPPLIES 20018365 30340174 001 - 010510 - 651110 -00000 0.00 96.90 0.00 96.90 203434 SUPPLIES 20018350 30408581 408. 253212 - 651110 -00000 0.00 16.75 0.00 16.75 203322 SUPPLIES 20018355 30408618 001- 155110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 34.33 0.00 34.33 203294 SUPPLIES 20018365 28931759 001 - 010510 - 651110 -00000 0.00 33.69 0.00 33.69 203434 SUPPLIES 20018366 30340127 408. 210151 - 651110 -00000 0.00 85.26 0.00 85.26 203436 SUPPLIES MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JIAGE 51 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018380 29942362 001 - 421040 - 651110 -00000 0.00 100.02 0.00 100.02 203641 SUPPLIES 20018371 30217280 113 - 138312. 651110.00000 0.00 318.58 0.00 318.58 203449 SUPPLIES 20018359 28649812 111 - 138317. 651110 -00000 0.00 200.77 0.00 200.77 203411 SUPPLIES 20018368 30217289 408 - 233351 - 651110 -00000 0.00 4.75 0.00 4.75 203440 SUPPLIES 20018357 30911693 408 - 210105 - 651110.00000 0.00 18.02 0.00 18.02 203288 SUPPLIES 20018353 30179577 473 - 173413 - 651110.00000 0.00 56.23 0.00 56.23 203296 SUPPLIES 20018371 30149002 113 - 138312. 651110 -00000 0.00 273.42 0.00 273.42 203449 SUPPLIES 20018366 30408567 408. 210151- 651110 -00000 0.00 62.04 0.00 62.04 203436 SUPPLIES 20018358 30214464 111 - 156381 - 651110.00000 0.00 12.66- 0.00 12.66- 203280 SUPPLIES 20018359 29187152 111. 138317. 651110 -00000 0.00 1.20 0.00 1.20 203411 SUPPLIES 20018365 30112877 001. 010510- 651110.00000 0.00 50.88 0.00 50.88 203434 SUPPLIES 20018376 30408669 001 - 156145- 651110 -00000 0.00 271.61 0.00 271.61 203539 SUPPLIES 20018362 30460251 495 - 192310 - 651110 -00000 0.00 33.00 0.00 33.00 203373 SUPPLIES 20018339 30460303 001 - 121148. 651110 -00000 0.00 104.04 0.00 104.04 203317 SUPPLIES 20018358 30454025 111 - 156381 - 651110 -00000 0.00 17.00- 0.00 17.00- 203280 SUPPLIES 20018353 30143881 473 - 173413 - 651110 -00000 0.00 1.61- 0.00 1.61- 203296 SUPPLIES 20018364 30160241 521. 122410. 651110.00000 0.00 11.62 0.00 11.62 203358 SUPPLIES MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018356 30402402 203290 SUPPLIES 20018369 30372528 203441 SUPPLIES 20018365 30333823 203434 SUPPLIES 20018365 28666518 203434 SUPPLIES 20018365 30021427 203434 SUPPLIES 20018351 29942025 203318 SUPPLIES 20018349 30077826 203320 SUPPLIES 20018358 30311793 203280 SUPPLIES 20018369 30213884 203441 SUPPLIES 20018376 30459537 203539 SUPPLIES 20018365 30112937 203434 SUPPLIES 20018369 30333329 203441 SUPPLIES 20018370 30340124 203444 SUPPLIES 20018365 30104792 203434 SUPPLIES 20018365 28968979 203434 SUPPLIES 20018378 30408554 203616 SUPPLIES 20018377 30408635 203593 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0.00 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 517 - 121640 - 651110 -00000 0.00 408 - 210130 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 010510- 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 010510. 651110.00000 0.00 001 - 010510. 651110.00000 0.00 113. 138931 - 651110 -00000 0.00 669 - 100220 - 651110.00000 0.00 111. 156381 - 651110 -00000 0.00 408 - 210130 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 156150 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 010510 - 651110 -00000 0.00 408. 210130 - 651110 -00000 0.00 111 - 156310 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 010510 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001. 010510 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 100130. 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 010110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 16JIAGE 52 AMT NET VCHR DISC 3.46- 0.00 55.93 0.00 100.02- 0.00 100.02 0.00 232.48 0.00 5.39 0.00 10.92 0.00 80.46 0.00 5.97- 0.00 22.26 0.00 16.08 0.00 32.80- 0.00 95.72 0.00 98.40- 0.00 6.76 0.00 44.24 0.00 34.98 0.00 20. OUNTY, FLORID 16JIGE A 53 REPORCH T 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018359 28649814 111 - 138317. 651110 -00000 0.00 8.70 0.00 8.70 203411 SUPPLIES 20018376 30408651 001 - 156145 - 651110.00000 0.00 42.55 0.00 42.55 203539 SUPPLIES 20018365 30273001 001 - 010510 - 651110.00000 0.00 11.76- 0.00 11.76- 203434 SUPPLIES 20018354 30371719 101. 163612- 651110 -00000 0.00 12.55 0.00 12.55 203298 SUPPLIES 20018349 29981532 669 - 100220 - 651110 -00000 0.00 38.27 0.00 38.27 203320 SUPPLIES 20018352 30460218 001 - 121810 - 651110 -00000 0.00 9.97 0.00 9.97 203314 SUPPLIES 20018356 30113006 517 - 121640 - 651110 -00000 0.00 41.52 0.00 41.52 203290 SUPPLIES 20018370 30214463 111- 156310 - 651110 -00000 0.00 24.21- 0.00 24.21- 203444 SUPPLIES 20018379 30113060 111- 156343 - 651110 -00000 0.00 57.61 0.00 57.61 203630 SUPPLIES 20018359 30143892 111 - 138317. 651110.00000 0.00 45.51- 0.00 45.51- 203411 SUPPLIES 20018366 30311688 408 - 210151 - 651110.00000 0.00 28.50 0.00 28.50 203436 SUPPLIES 20018367 30217264 130 - 157710 - 651110 -00000 0.00 109.16 0.00 109.16 203438 SUPPLIES 20018359 30460236 111 - 138317. 651110 -00000 0.00 122.30 0.00 122.30 203411 SUPPLIES 20018363 29980264 495 - 192330. 651110 -00000 0.00 9.42 0.00 9.42 203387 SUPPLIES 20018376 30459549 001 - 156150 - 651110 -00000 0.00 4.07 0.00 4.07 203539 SUPPLIES 20018381 30104794 111 - 156349 - 651110 -00000 0.00 24.38- 0.00 24.38- 203696 SUPPLIES 20018368 30180073 408. 233351 - 651110.00000 0.00 76.86 0.00 76.86 203440 SUPPLIES MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018359 29670758 203411 SUPPLIES 20018357 30408557 203288 SUPPLIES 20018365 30340126 203434 SUPPLIES 20018374 30145456 203463 SUPPLIES 20018357 30149015 203288 SUPPLIES 20018352 30460260 203314 SUPPLIES 20018365 30340110 203434 SUPPLIES 20018361 30408629 203347 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR DISC SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111. 138317 - 651110.00000 0.00 408 - 210105 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 010510 - 651110.00000 0.00 111 - 138911. 651110 -00000 0.00 408. 210105- 651110.00000 0.00 001 - 121810 - 651110.00000 0.00 001 - 010510. 651110 -00000 0.00 113 - 138930- 651110 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573725 VENDOR 342490 - CORPORATE EXPRESS 20018375 30408561 198 - 157410- 651110 -00000 203526 SUPPLIES CHECK NO 573647 VENDOR 317140 - CRANE TECHNICAL TRAINING 8 20018324 23716 408 - 210130. 634999 -00000 153858 ANNUAL INSP 20018320 23717 408 - 233351 - 649990 -00000 153850 ANNUAL INSPECTIONS CHECK NO 573627 VENDOR 308630 - CREEL TRACTOR, CO. 20018402 181473 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 200854 SUPPLIES 20018402 181569 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 200854 SUPPLIES 16JIAGE 54 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 174.80 0.00 174.80 110.57 0.00 110.57 60.66 0.00 60.66 225.00- 0.00 225.00- 24.51 0.00 24.51 7.84 0.00 7.84 597.87 0.00 597.87 35.42 0.00 35.42 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,487.36 0.00 24.13 0.00 24.13 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 24.13 0.00 675.00 0.00 675.00 0.00 773.25 0.00 773.25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,448.25 0.00 35.18 0.00 35.18 0.00 81.85 0.00 81.85 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018402 181561 200854 SUPPLIES 20018402 181595 200854 SUPPLIES 20018402 181687 200854 SUPPLIES 20018402 181568 200854 SUPPLIES 20018402 181605 200854 SUPPLIES 20018402 181463 200854 SUPPLIES 20018402 181659 200854 SUPPLIES 20018402 181692 200854 SUPPLIES 6JIAGE 55 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 26.30 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 194.14 0.00 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 12.61 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 175.06 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 60.23 0.00 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 312.42 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 303.77 0.00 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 724.56 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573200 VENDOR 335640 - CROWN PLAZA HOTEL 20019062 P BOLTON 3/27 001. 144510- 640300 -00000 0.00 387.00 0.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573197 VENDOR 335640 - CROWN PLAZA HOTEL 20019062 M HOLMES 001 - 144510 - 640300 -00000 0.00 387.00 0.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573199 VENDOR 335640 CROWN PLAZA HOTEL 20019062 A BURTSCHER 4/10 001 - 144510. 640300 -00000 0.00 387.00 0.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573198 VENDOR 335640 CROWN PLAZA HOTEL 20019062 M KENNEDEY 3/27 001 - 144510 - 640300.00000 0.00 387.00 0.00 AND 20, 2 COUNTY FLORIDA 1 6 J AGE 56 REPOMARCH REPORT 100.600 SS ONER MI, SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 387.00 CHECK NO 573201 VENDOR 335640 CROWN PLAZA HOTEL 20019062 T EDMONDSON 4/1 001 - 144510.640300 -00000 0.00 387.00 0.00 387.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 387.00 CHECK NO 573357 VENDOR 137570 CROWTHER ROOFING AND SHEET METAL 20018384 JOB # 4722 12/27 301 - 120402 - 763100 -80172 0.00 335,936.00 0.00 335.936.00 201059 RE -ROOF JAIL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 335,936.00 CHECK NO 573778 VENDOR 352930 CTM BROCHURE DISPLAY INC 20018325 78905 495 - 192310 - 648170.00000 0.00 244.32 0.00 244.32 154547 BROCHURES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 244.32 CHECK NO 573365 VENDOR 144930 CUES, INC. 20018303 177533 408. 233351- 646510 -00000 0.00 101.71 0.00 101.71 200760 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 101.71 CHECK NO 573226 VENDOR 4400 - CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING 20018289 852996 2/24 111-156349-634999-00000 0.00 86.75 0.00 86.75 201469 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018300 207258 2/24 408. 233312 - 652990 -00000 0.00 23.76 0.00 23.76 202199 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018290 915207 2/24 754 111 - 156332 - 634999 -00000 0.00 2.97 0.00 2.97 201020 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018301 206714 2/24 408. 233350- 652990 -00000 0.00 175.23 0.00 175.23 200749 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018296 206755 2/24 408. 210151- 652990 -00000 0.00 38.61 0.00 38.61 201100 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018295 206631$2/24 001 - 010110 - 652990 -00000 0.00 26.73 0.00 26.73 200300 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018294 773762 2/24 201243 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018288 907782 2/24 200857 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018299 305144 2/24 202250 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018298 257048 2/24 201246 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018293 824250 2/24 202466 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018291 815480 2/24 201313 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018291 206532 2/24 201313 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018290 915207 2/24 753 201020 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018297 751461 2/24 200457 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018302 206763 2/24 200181 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018290 915207 2/24 758 201020 BOTTLED WATER 2/24 20018292 78166 2/24 200067 BOTTLED WATER 2124 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0.00 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 122240 - 652510 -00000 0.00 101. 163612- 652990.00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 652990 -00000 0.00 001 - 100110. 634999.00000 0.00 408- 253212 - 652990.00000 0.00 681. 421510 - 649990.00000 0.00 681 - 421510 - 649990 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332. 634999 -00000 0.00 001- 156110. 634999.00000 0.00 408 - 210105. 652990 -00000 0.00 111. 156332 - 634999.00000 0.00 101. 163609- 652990 -00000 0.00 313. 163611. 652990 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573571 VENDOR 278120 - CUSTOM WATER SYSTEMS 20018310 229371 001. 122240- 646284 -00000 202099 INSP. CHECK NO 573791 VENDOR 353340 - CYTOMETRY ASSC. /ESOTERIX ONCOLOGY 20018343 J. FLIPPIN 11/20 001. 155930 - 631210 -00000 154753 J. FLIPPIN 11/20 16JIAGE 57 AMT NET VCHR DISC 32.79 0.00 23.76 0.00 8.91 0.00 11.88 0.00 14.85 0.00 35.64 0.00 50.49 0.00 8.91 0.00 116.43 0.00 26.73 0.00 11.88 0.00 5.94 5.94 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 480.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 331.50 0.00 VCHR NET 32.79 23.76 8.91 11.88 14.85 35.64 50.49 8.91 116.43 26.73 11.88 11.88 708.20 480.00 480.00 331.50 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573492 VENDOR 239080 - D.E. WALLACE 20018886 3/13 TRVL D WALLACE 669 - 100220 - 640300.00000 0.00 80.72 0.00 3/13 TRVL D WALLACE 20018909 2/26.27 TRVL A WALLACE 669 - 100220 - 640300 -00000 0.00 154.98 0.00 2/26 -27 TRVL D WALLACE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573703 VENDOR 334860 - D.N. HIGGINS INC. 20018996 4403 325 - 172951- 763120.31701 0.00 4,500.00 0.00 201569 EROSION CONTROL /REPAIR @ SR29 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573541 VENDOR 265700 - DADE PAPER COMPANY 20019000 544335 111 - 156380. 652510 -00000 0.00 68.25 0.00 152194 JUMBO TOILET PAPER (NON -BID) 20019076 524057 490. 144610- 652510 -00000 0.00 949.75 0.00 153672 LINERS,SPONGES,TISSUES,TOWEL 20018999 544335 111. 156380- 652510 -00000 0.00 305.76 0.00 201472 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573645 VENDOR 317020 - DALE WALLER 20018900 2/21 TRVL D WALLER 408 - 233312. 640300.00000 0.00 6.00 0.00 2/21 TRVL D WALLER 20018901 3/24 -27 ADV PD D WALLER 408. 233352- 640300 -00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 3/24 -27 ADV PD D WALLER 20018901 2/12 TRVL D WALLER 408. 233352- 640300.00000 0.00 84.00 0.00 2/12 TRVL D WALLER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573798 VENDOR 353440 - DAMON GONZALEZ 20018654 INTERVIEW EXP -D GONZALEZ 001 - 122240 - 640300.00000 0.00 800.00 0.0C 153513 INTERVIEW EXP -D GONZALEZ 6JIAGE 58 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573845 VENDOR 900050 - DANTE & DIANE CIRILLI TRS 301703 ST LIGHT REIM D. CIRILLI 781- 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM D. CIRILLI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573721 VENDOR 340850 - DARLENE MITCHELL 20018913 12/13. 2/28/02 D MITCHELL 681. 410510- 640200.00000 0.00 194.88 0.00 12/13. 2/28/02 TRVL D MITCHELL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573439 VENDOR 196380 - DATA RESEARCH USERS GROUP 20018928 1032 MMB /SHIP /RENEWAL 001 - 156110. 652630.00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 154693 DUES 1 /1- 12/31/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573846 VENDOR 900050 - DAVE & JANICE DILLINGHAM 301656 ST LIGHT REIMB DILLINGHAM 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB DILLINGHAM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573457 VENDOR 211220 - DAVID FITTS 20018903 3/24 -27 ADV PD D FITTS 408 - 233352 - 640300.00000 0.00 63.00 0.0( 3/24 -27 ADV PD D FITTS 20018903 2/12 TRVL D FITTS 408. 233352 - 640300 -00000 0.00 21.00 0.0( 2/12 TRVL D FITTS CHECK TOTAL 0.0( CHECK NO 573847 VENDOR 900050 DAVID MAURO 301532 REFUND PARKS MAURO 111 - 156380 - 347990 -00000 0.00 72.00 0.0( REFUND PARKS MAURO CHECK TOTAL 0.0( CHECK NO 573848 VENDOR 900050 DAVID ZOMETSKY 301544 REFUND ADOPTION ZOMETSKY 001. 155410- 346410 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.0( ZOMETSKY REFUND ADOPTION 145291 6JIAGE 59 OUNTY, FLORID 16JIAG E 60 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 573359 VENDOR 138670 - DEBBI MAXON 20018873 3/4 -15 TRVL D MAXON 123. 155975 - 640200 -33075 0.00 20.01 123. 155960. 640200 -33060 0.00 21.46 0.00 41.47 3/4.15 TRVL D MAXON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 41.47 CHECK NO 573849 VENDOR 900050 - DEBORA SUE STEININGER 301589 ST LIGHT REIMB STEININGER 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB STEININGER /MUCKRIDGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573693 VENDOR 332420 - DELL COMPUTER CORP 20018997 770690139 408. 210151. 764900 -00000 0.00 2,690.00 0.00 2.690.00 204372 OPTIPLEX GX240 20018651 765880372 191. 138785 - 764900 -33752 0.00 2.972.00 0.00 2.972.00 204203 LATITUDE COMPUTER 20018649 767775661 113 - 138900 - 651950 -00000 0.00 2,900.00 0.00 2.900.00 204099 NOTEBOOK COMPUTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8.562.00 CHECK NO 573429 VENDOR 187770 - DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION 20018652 775987928 001 - 122255. 764900 -00000 0.00 2.330.00 0.00 2,330.00 204396 OPTIPLEX COMPUTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,330.00 CHECK NO 573521 VENDOR 256190 - DELL MARKETING L.P. 20018650 765676143 001 - 121148 - 764900 -00000 0.00 3,157.00 0.00 3.157.00 204175 LATITUDE COMPUTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,157.00 CHECK NO 573227 VENDOR 4970 - DEMCO 20018929 266197 001. 156110- 652610 -00000 0.00 116.90 001 - 156110 - 641950 -00000 0.00 4.88 0.00 121.78 154734 STAMP,LABELS,SHIPPING MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20018929 264606 001- 156110 - 652610.00000 0.00 117.76 001 - 156110 - 641950 -00000 0.00 2.47 0.00 154734 STAMP,LABELS,SHIPPING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573398 VENDOR 166780 DENNIS GULLEY 110.02 20018885 2/1.28 TRVL D GULLEY 111. 156341 - 640200 -00000 0.00 0.00 2/1 -28 TRVL D GULLEY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573384 VENDOR 160920 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 50.00 20018992 3J -3994 2/4/02 669 - 100220 - 641900 -00000 0.00 0.00 3J -3994 2/4/02 58.18 0.00 CHECK NO 573782 VENDOR 353160 DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUREAU OF 98.15 20018808 REGIST. J BOLEN 4/9 001 - 121154.654360 -00000 0.00 0.00 154626 REGIST J BOLEN 4/9 99.78 0.00 CHECK NO 573228 VENDOR 5240 . DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES. INC. 27.30 20018423 J FLIPPIN 2/5/02 001.155930- 631990 -00000 0.00 201853 J FLIPPIN 2/5/02 20018423 S NEWELL 1/21/02 001- 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 201853 S NEWELL 1/21/02 20018423 V MAY 1/28/02 001 - 155930.631990 -00000 0.00 201853 V MAY 1/28/02 20018423 L CROSBY 1/28/02 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 201853 L CROSBY 1/28/02 20018423 B JONES 1/28/02 001 - 155930 - 631990.00000 0.00 201853 B JONES 1/28/02 20018423 L CROSBY 1/28/02 001. 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 201853 L CROSBY 1128102 20018423 L CROSBY 1/28/02 001.155930- 631990.00000 0.00 201853 L CROSBY 1/28/02 6JIAGE 61 VCHR NET 120.23 242.01 110.02 0.00 110.02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 110.02 24.52 0.00 24.52 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 24.52 50.00 0.00 50.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 25.03 0.00 25.03 58.18 0.00 58.18 98.15 0.00 98.15 198.90 0.00 198.90 74.10 0.00 74.10 99.78 0.00 99.78 27.30 0.00 27.30 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018423 S NEWELL 1/21/02 201853 S NEWELL 1121102 20018423 R THURSTON 1/29/02 201853 R THURSTON 1/29/02 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001. 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 001. 155930- 631990 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573648 VENDOR 317420 - DIANA COMPAGNONE 20018908 2/28 TRVL D COMPAGNONE 113 - 138931 - 640300 -00000 0.00 2/28 TRVL D COMPAGNONE CHECK NO 573662 VENDOR 321130 - DIRECT TV 20018991 ADDT'L RECVR 1/16- 2/15/02 111- 156380. 644600 -00000 0.00 204667 ADDT'L RECVR 1/16/02- 2/15/02 20018991 0003 - 026290522 111 - 156380. 644600 -00000 0.00 204667 ADDT'L RECUR 2/16/02 CHECK NO 573740 VENDOR 345930 - DIRECT TV 20018993 0006 - 021872622 490. 144610. 634999 -00000 0.00 202905 MONTHLY SVC 2/26/02- 3/25/02 CHECK NO 573691 VENDOR 331920 - DISTRICT ONE LIASON COMMITTEE 20019063 REGIST D BATHON /L THORPE 313. 163611 - 654360 -00000 0.00 154498 REGIST D BATHON /L THORPE CHECK NO 573710 VENDOR 337250 - DMG- MAXIMUS 20018976 RETAIN.RELEASE32- FH1001 -1 105816 RETAINAGE RELEASE 20018976 RETAIN.RELEASE32- FH1001 -2 105816 RETAINAGE RELEASE 20018976 RETAIN.RELEASE32- FG1003 -2 105816 RETAINAGE RELEASE 16JIAGE 62 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 140.40 001 - 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 140.40 0.00 60.78 0.00 60.78 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 782.62 23.20 0.00 23.20 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 23.20 4.99 0.00 4.99 4.99 0.00 4.99 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9.98 64.99 0.00 64.99 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 64.99 30.00 0.00 30.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 30.00 001 - 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 3,030.00 0.00 3.030.00 001 - 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 001 - 000000- 205100 -00000 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1.000.00 OUNTY, FLORID 16JIGE A 63 REPORT 100.600 12 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018976 RETAIN.RELEASE32- FG1003 -1 001. 000000 - 205100.00000 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 4,000.00 105816 RETAINAGE RELEASE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,130.00 CHECK NO 573298 VENDOR 104885 - DON HUNTER, SHERIFF 20018425 12/01 -02/02 199. 611040. 640980 -00000 0.00 220.00 0.00 220.00 12/01 -02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01 -02/02 199 - 611040. 640380 -00000 0.00 161.84 0.00 161.84 12/01 -02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12101.02102 199 - 611040. 523160 -00000 0.00 58.32 0.00 58.32 12101.02102 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01.02/02 199 - 611040. 651910 -00000 0.00 187.94 0.00 187.94 12/01.02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01 -02/02 199 - 611040 - 522100 -00000 0.00 1.645.38 0.00 1.645.38 12101 -02102 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01 -02/02 199 - 611040 - 641100 -00000 0.00 71,666.24 0.00 71,666.24 12/01 -02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01.02/02 199. 611040 - 524100 -00000 0.00 62.42 0.00 62.42 12/01 -02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01 -02/02 199. 611040 - 514100 -00000 0.00 1.956.63 0.00 1.956.63 12/01 -02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01 -02/02 199. 611040. 641950 -00000 0.00 7.44 0.00 7.44 12/01 -02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01 -02/02 199 - 611040 - 512100 -00000 0.00 20,328.60 0.00 20,328.60 12/01 -02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01 -02/02 199 - 611040 - 651110 -00000 0.00 605.07 0.00 605.07 12/01 -02/02 CLAIM #3 20018426 11 101 -02102 110 - 182800. 634999.00000 0.00 73.218.56 0.00 73,218.56 11 101 -0202 CLAIM #2 20018425 12101 -02102 199 - 611040.521100 -00000 0.00 1.624.70 0.00 1.624.70 12/01 -02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01.02/02 199 - 611040. 523150 -00000 0.00 3,068.88 0.00 3.068.88 12/01.02/02 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01.02/02 199 - 611040 - 654360 -00000 0.00 1.180.00 0.00 1,180.00 12/01.02/02 CLAIM #3 CHECK NO 573852 VENDOR 900050 - DOROTHY SWALLEN TR OUNTY, FLORID 16JIGE A 64 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018425 12/01 -02/02 199. 611040 - 654110 -00000 0.00 600.00 0.00 600.00 12101 -02102 CLAIM #3 20018425 12/01.02/02 199 - 611040. 646610 -00000 0.00 682.01 0.00 682.01 12101 -02102 CLAIM #3 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 177,274.03 CHECK NO 573303 VENDOR 106680 - DON HUNTER, SHERIFF 20018998 REIMB COMBS OIL 17697 001. 061010- 643200 -00000 0.00 1,869.40 0.00 1,869.40 REIMB COMBS OIL 17697 20018998 REIMB COMBS OIL 17240 001. 061010 - 643200.00000 0.00 1,506.54 0.00 1.506.54 REIMB COMBS OIL 17240 20018998 REIMB AMERGS A5330- 027566 001 - 061010 - 643200 -00000 0.00 282.25 0.00 282.25 REIMB AMERIGAS A5330- 027566 20018998 REIMB COMBS OIL 17446 001- 061010 - 643200 -00000 0.00 1,356.60 0.00 1,356.60 REIMB COMBS OIL 17446 20018998 REIMB AMERGS A5330- 027534 001 - 061010. 643200 -00000 0.00 264.39 0.00 264.39 REIMB AMERIGAS A5330. 027534 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5,279.18 CHECK NO 573850 VENDOR 900050 - DONALD & MARILYN SMART 301674 ST LIGHT REIMB D SMART 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB D SMART CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573674 VENDOR 326470 DORA S. VIDAURRI 20018880 1/23 TRVL D VIDAURRI 113 - 138722. 640300 -00000 0.00 13.50 0.00 13.50 1/23 TRVL D VIDAURRI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 13.50 CHECK NO 573851 VENDOR 900050 DOROTHY D SUTHERLAND 301627 ST LIGHT REIMB D SUTHERLD 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB D SUTHERLAND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573852 VENDOR 900050 - DOROTHY SWALLEN TR MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI AGE 65 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301675 ST LIGHT REIMB D SWALLEN 781- 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB D SWALLEN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573853 VENDOR 900050 - DOUGLAS J ZUMBUSCH 301676 ST LIGHT REIMB D ZUMBUSCH 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB D ZUMBUSCH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573578 VENDOR 280820 - DRAGER SAFETY INC 20018799 1164462 144 - 144360- 654360 -00000 0.00 386.55 0.00 386.55 154882 TRAINING T MACE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 386.55 CHECK NO 573786 VENDOR 353210 - DUNN TITLE & CARLOS MEDINA 20018835 D/P C MEDINA #36453720008 191 - 138785 - 884100 -33752 0.00 2.500.00 0.00 2.500.00 #36453720008 CARLOS MEDINA 204708 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,500.00 CHECK NO 573290 VENDOR 100620 - DURALAST ENTERPRISES. INC. 20019073 1/24/02 368 - 116360. 634999 -00165 0.00 745.00 0.00 745.00 150980 PAVEMENT MARKINGS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 745.00 CHECK NO 573533 VENDOR 261490 - DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK 20018427 CIR CRT COSTS CIVIL 02102 681. 421190. 634401 -00000 0.00 11,510.00 0.00 11.510.00 CIR CRT.COSTS CIVIL 2102 20018427 CTY CRT COSTS CIVIL 2/02 681. 431590- 635700 -00000 0.00 3.455.00 0.00 3,455.00 CTY CRT COSTS CIVIL 2/02 20018427 CIR CRT COSTS FINES FEL 681 - 421190 - 634401 -00000 0.00 11,680.00 0.00 11.680.00 CIR CRT COSTS FINES FEL 20018544 CTY CRT COSTS MIS 2/02 681 - 431590 - 635700.00000 0.00 12.055.00 0.00 12.055.00 CTY CRT COSTS MIS 2102 20018544 CIR CRT COSTS FEL 2/02 681- 421190- 634401.00000 0.00 10.321.00 0.00 10.321.00 CIR CRT COSTS FEL 2/02 16JI AGE 66 REPORT 100.600 12 BOARDEOFCCCOM ISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018427 CIR CRT COSTS PROS 2102 681 - 421190 - 634401 -00000 0.00 1,590.00 0.00 1.590.00 CIR CRT COSTS PROBATE 2/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.611.00 CHECK NO 573396 VENDOR 166510 - DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COURTS 20019001 2644738 111 - 138721 - 651210 -00000 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 2644738 COPIES 20019001 2654575 001 - 010510 - 651210 -00000 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 2654575 COPIES 20019007 2651406 490 - 144618. 651210 -00000 0.00 11.00 0.00 11.00 2651406 COPIES 20019007 2665910 191 - 138785- 651210 -33752 0.00 56.00 0.00 56.00 5665910 RECORDING 20019007 2665913 191 - 138785 - 651210 -33752 0.00 375.00 0.00 375.00 2665913 RECORDING 20019007 2659343 191. 138785 - 651210 -33752 0.00 79.50 0.00 79.50 2659343 RECORDING 20019001 2664860 111 - 138911- 651210 -00000 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 2664860 COPIES 20019001 2660785 111. 138911- 651210 -00000 0.00 18.00 0.00 18.00 2660785 COPIES 20019001 2660908 001 - 454010 - 651210.00000 0.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 2660908 COPIES 20019001 2644748 111 - 138721 - 651210 -00000 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2644748 COPIES 20019007 2665912 191 - 138785 - 651210 -33752 0.00 375.00 0.00 375.00 2665912 RECORDING 20019001 2658410 325. 172984- 651210 -31801 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 2658410 COPIES 20019007 2651408 490 - 144618 - 651210 -00000 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 2651408 COPIES 20019007 2659325 113. 138312- 649030 -00000 0.00 12.50 0.00 12.50 2659325 RECORDING 20019001 2658405 111- 138911. 649030 -00000 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 2658405 COPIES MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI AGE 67 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20019007 2665911 191- 138785 - 651210 -33752 0.00 375.00 0.00 375.00 2665911 RECORDING 20019007 2665733 191. 138785. 651210 -33752 0.00 121.50 0.00 121.50 2665733 RECORDING 20019001 2652591 001 - 454010 - 651210 -00000 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 2652591 COPIES 20019001 2658713 001. 010510 - 651210 -00000 0.00 33.00 0.00 33.00 2658713 COPIES 20019001 2660907 001. 454010 - 651210 -00000 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 2660907 COPIES 20019001 2652092 325. 172977- 651210 -31101 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 2652092 COPIES 20019007 2660724 605. 122390- 649030 -00000 0.00 115.80 0.00 115.80 2660724 RECORDING 20019007 2660545 111 - 138911 - 649030 -00000 0.00 92.00 0.00 92.00 2660545 RECORDING 20019007 2651546 001 - 010510 - 651210 -00000 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 2651546 FORMS 20019007 2661113 111. 138911- 649030 -00000 0.00 91.50 0.00 91.50 2661113 STATE MEDIATION 20019001 2658384 325 - 172984. 651210.31801 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2658384 COPIES 20019001 2661629 101. 163620. 634980 -00000 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2661629 COPIES 20019007 2659936 681 - 421190. 634401 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 2659936 AIDIT FEE 20019007 2664885 111 - 138911- 649030.00000 0.00 187.50 0.00 187.50 2664885 RECORDING 20019001 2660382 001. 454010- 651210 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 2660382 COPIES 20019001 2658420 111. 138911- 649030 -00000 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2658420 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.067.30 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6JIP AGE 68 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573393 VENDOR 166220 - E. B. SIMMONDS 20019002 13045 101 - 163630. 646510 -00000 0.00 5,741.00 0.00 5.741.00 203756 LOOP REPAIRS /3 LOCATIONS 20019003 13044 101. 163630. 646510 -00000 0.00 5,586.40 0.00 5,586.40 203691 REPAIR UNDERGROUND CABLE 20018648 13034 111 - 156334 - 652992.00000 0.00 1,680.00 0.00 1,680.00 201139 SUS 20018647 13038 111.156332- 652992 -00000 0.00 980.00 0.00 980.00 201046 SVS 20018647 13015 111. 156332 - 652992.00000 0.00 1,230.00 0.00 1,230.00 201046 SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15.217.40 CHECK NO 573351 VENDOR 133370 EAST NAPLES FIRE DEPT. 20019038 2/02 IMPACT FEES 113. 000000 - 209820 -00000 0.00 21,515.40 0.00 21,515.40 2102 IMPACT FEES 20018840 2/02 INTEREST 113- 138900 - 341890.00000 0.00 17.21 0.00 17.21 2/02 INTEREST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 21,532.61 CHECK NO 573403 VENDOR 169350 ECKERD DRUG CO. 20018424 1347 2/11/02 001 - 155930 - 652710 -00000 0.00 292.34 0.00 292.34 201854 1347 2111102 20018424 1346 2/11/02 001. 155930 - 652710.00000 0.00 825.69 0.00 825.69 201854 1346 2/11/02 20018424 1346 (COLLCT) 2/11/02 001 - 155930 - 652710 -00000 0.00 7.139.96 0.00 7,139.96 201854 1346 (COLLCT) 2111102 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,257.99 CHECK NO 573605 VENDOR 293290 - ECOSYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES 20017192 8- 01/029 109. 182602 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1.750.00 0.00 1,750.00 103869 EXOTIC MAINTENANCE 20017192 8- 01/029 RETAINAGE 109 - 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 175.00- 0.00 175.00- 103869 RETAINAGE MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573593 VENDOR 287090 - EDC EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 20018793 1038795 -2 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 15.80 0.00 203505 CHILDREN'S TITLES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573229 VENDOR 5630 EDISON COMMUNITY COLLEGE 20018927 LOST BOOK 50004312 001. 156175 - 649990.00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 154902 LOST BOOK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573343 VENDOR 127390 EDMUND C. WEIDNER, M.D.,P.A. 20019071 J FLIPPIN 2/21/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 39.00 0.00 154703 J FLIPPIN 2/21/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573854 VENDOR 900050 - EDWARD & MARIE W. DAVIS 301608 ST LIGHT REIM E. DAVIS 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM E. DAVIS CHECK TOTAL 0.0( CHECK NO 573855 VENDOR 900050 - EDWARD G & PATRICIA T BUFFIE 301590 ST LIGHT REIMB E BUFFIE 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.0( ST LIGHT REIMB E BUFFIE CHECK TOTAL 0.0( CHECK NO 573856 VENDOR 900050 EDWARD J & BARBARA M DUFF 301556 ST LIGHT REIM E DUFF 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.0( ST LIGHT REIMB E DUFF CHECK TOTAL 0.0( CHECK NO 573321 VENDOR 114800 ELLIS K. PHELPS & COMPANY 20018794 058732 408. 233352 - 652910.00000 0.00 822.05 0.0( 202543 PARTS 20018825 058697 408. 233351- 655100 -00000 0.00 266.70 0.0( 200766 PUMP PARTS 6JIPAGE 69 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018825 058702 200766 PUMP PARTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408 - 233351. 655100.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573857 VENDOR 900050 - ELSIE E ROBBINS TR 16JIPAGE 70 AMT NET VCHR DISC 1,451.10 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 1.451.10 2,539.85 301657 ST LIGHT REIMB ROBBINS TR 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB ROBBINS TR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573431 VENDOR 190020 ELSIE GONZALEZ 20018930 3/8/02 .5 HRS 681. 421190 - 634402.00000 0.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 3/8/02 .5 HRS 20018930 3/5/02 4.5 HRS 681. 421190- 634402 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 3/5/02 4.5 HRS 20018930 3/6/02 5 HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402.00000 0.00 80.00 0.00 80.00 3/6/02 5 HRS 20018994 2111102 1.5 HRS 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 2111102 1.5 HRS 20018994 2111102 1 HR 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 2/11/02 1 HR 20018930 3/6/02 1 HR 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 3/6/02 1 HR 20018930 3/4/02 2.5 HRS 681 - 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 3/4/02 2.5 HRS 20018930 3/5/02 1.0 HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 28.00 0.00 28.00 3/5/02 1.0 HRS 20018994 2/14/02 1 HR 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 2/14/02 1 HR 20018994 2/28/02 1 HR 681. 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 2/28/02 1 HR 20018930 3/8/02 2 HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 3/8/02 2 HRS 20018930 3/1/02 2.0 HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 3/1/02 2.0 HRS MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6JIP AGE 71 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018994 2/11/02 .5 HR 681. 431590 - 634402.00000 0.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 2/11/02 .5 HR 20018994 2111102 1 HR 681 - 421190. 634402.00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 2/11/02 1 HR 20018930 3/4/02 2.5 HRS 681 - 431590. 634402 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 3/4/02 2.5 HRS 20018994 2/28/02 1 HR 681. 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 2/28/02 1HR 20018930 3/7/02 4 HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402.00000 0.00 64.00 0.00 64.00 3/7/02 4 HRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 512.00 CHECK NO 573668 VENDOR 324180 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS 20018823 240808 490. 144610- 652720 -00000 0.00 1,426.82 0.00 1,426.82 204625 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,426.82 CHECK NO 573598 VENDOR 291010 EMERGENCY ONE, INC 20018914 FEB 2002 146 - 144380 - 644650 -00000 0.00 1,847.88 0.00 1,847.88 FEB 2002 200291 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,847.88 CHECK NO 573793 VENDOR 353360 - EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS OF NAPLES 20019070 J LOZANO 1/29/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 226.85 0.00 226.85 154726 J LOZANO 1/29/02 20019070 R GARCIA 1/14/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 102.05 0.00 102.05 154726 R GARCIA 1/14/02 20019070 V NITTOLO 1/27/02 001- 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 102.05 0.00 102.05 154726 V NITTOLO 1127102 20019070 R GARCIA 1/16/02 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 226.85 0.00 226.85 154726 R GARCIA 1/16/02 20019070 D ROBERTS 1/25/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 102.05 0.00 102.05 154726 D ROBERTS 1/25/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 759.85 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6JIP AGE 72 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573858 VENDOR 900050 - EMILY R PALMER 301557 ST LIGHT REIMB E PALMER 781- 162752. 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB E PALMER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573614 VENDOR 297400 - EMP PIZZA INC 20018926 256 111- 156343 - 652210 -00000 0.00 72.00 0.00 72.00 151975 5TH GRADE DANCE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 72.00 CHECK NO 573452 VENDOR 207200 EMSAR 20019078 9654 490 - 144610. 646970.00000 0.00 86.23 0.00 86.23 154879 CHAIR COVER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 86.23 CHECK NO 573646 VENDOR 317080 ENDOCRINE SPECIALIST PA 20019069 E HINOJOSA 2/13/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 74.75 0.00 74.75 154704 E HINOJOSA 2/13/02 20019069 C JOSEPH 1/28/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 108.55 0.00 108.55 154704 C JOSEPH 1128102 20019069 C JOSEPH 1/28/02 001. 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 186.55 0.00 186.55 154704 C JOSEPH 1128102 20019069 C JOSEPH 2/14/02 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 74.75 0.00 74.75 154704 C JOSEPH 2/14/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 444.60 CHECK NO 573230 VENDOR 6010 - ENTRE COMPUTER CENTER 20019077 104093S 001 - 156110 - 646710 -00000 0.00 380.00 0.00 380.00 154898 REPAIR OF PRINTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 380.00 CHECK NO 573994 VENDOR 900090 - ERIC CHARLES MEALY 301539 02 0206 505 VINEYARD /MEAL 681. 421190- 634402 -00000 0.00 380.00 0.00 380.00 MEALY 01- 001626 ST VS J VINEYARD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 380.00 20, OUNTY, FLORID 1 6JIAGE P 73 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573859 VENDOR 900050 - ERIC, EMMANUEL & SUZANNE NIANOURIS . 301658 ST LIGHT REIMB NIANOURIS 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB NIANOURIS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573860 VENDOR 900050 - EUGENIA ALEXIOU 301653 ST LIGHT REIMB E ALEXIOU 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB E ALEXIOU CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573861 VENDOR 900050 - EVELYN M COLVIN TRUSTEE 301638 ST LIGHT REIMB E COLVIN 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB E COLVIN TR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573745 VENDOR 347090 - EXCEL ELECTRIC 20018781 12266 412 - 273511. 652990 -70059 0.00 860.00 0.00 860.00 202790 EMERGENCY LIGHTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 860.00 CHECK NO 573801 VENDOR 353510 - EXECUTIVE TITLE & RICARDO FIGUEROA 20018836 D/P FIGUEROA 41288120004 191 - 138785. 884100 -33752 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 #41288120004 FIGUEROA 204781 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,500.00 CHECK NO 573231 VENDOR 6140 - EXXON COMPANY USA 20018995 338 - 272.114 -4 2/19/02 001 - 144510 - 652410.00000 0.00 372.80 0.00 372.80 154976 AVIATION FUEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 372.80 CHECK NO 573461 VENDOR 214900 - F.P.L. 20019048 08238 -56273 2/8- 3/11/02 001 - 041010 - 643100 -00000 0.00 1,185.84 0.00 1,185.84 08238 -56273 2/8/02- 3/11/02 20019004 36531 -34472 2/7/02 - 3/8/02 760 - 162711. 643100 -00000 0.00 34,963.84 0.00 34,963.84 36531 -34472 2/7/02- 3/8/02 OUNTY, FLORID 16JIAGE P 74 REPORT 100 -6012 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 36.149.68 CHECK NO 573862 VENDOR 900050 FANOLY DERVIL 301729 F DERVIL REFUND -PARKS 670 - 000000. 220010.00000 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 F DERVIL REFUND -PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 30.00 CHECK NO 573469 VENDOR 220990 FASHION FRESH 20018792 #7748815 1/1.2/1/02 001 - 122255 - 634999.00000 0.00 43.51 0.00 43.51 201240 DRY CLEANING 20018792 #7748815 2/1.28/02 001. 122255 - 634999 -00000 0.00 318.33 0.00 318.33 201240 DRY CLEANING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 361.84 CHECK NO 573232 VENDOR 6250 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 20018844 4.105.74663 495 - 192310.641950 -00000 0.00 5.55 0.00 5.55 202295 SHPG 20018846 4- 117 -54991 681.421510- 641950 -00000 0.00 7.50 0.00 7.50 201314 SHPG 20018849 4- 129 -07275 111 - 178980 - 641950 -00000 0.00 6.35 0.00 6.35 200332 SHPG 20018843 4- 101 -60636 413 - 263611 - 641950 -73949 0.00 5.90 0.00 5.90 204624 SHPG 20018850 4- 138 -01594 408 - 210105 - 641950 -00000 0.00 11.90 0.00 11.90 200182 SHPG CHECK TOTAL 0.00 37.20 CHECK NO 573411 VENDOR 172870 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 20018845 4- 101 -37874 111. 156341 - 641950 -00000 0.00 23.35 0.00 23.35 201721 SHPG 20018847 4- 107 -61487 470 - 173410. 641950 -00000 0.00 17.65 0.00 17.65 201208 SHPG 20018851 4- 130 -90866 001- 000000 - 142900.00000 0.00 11.45 0.00 11.45 200057 SHPG 20018848 4- 125.42397 111 - 138317- 641950 -00000 0.00 31.95 0.00 31.95 200515 SHPG OUNTY. FLORID 16JI PAGE 75 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 84.40 CHECK NO 573391 VENDOR 165200 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND 20018213 PP ENDING 3/8/02 001 - 000000. 218500 -00000 0.00 400.00 0.00 400.00 PP ENDING 3/8/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 400.00 CHECK NO 573313 VENDOR 110620 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES 20018662 841766 408. 233351- 655100 -00000 0.00 43.80 0.00 43.80 200770 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 43.80 CHECK NO 573553 VENDOR 271870 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 20018542 672737 355 - 156175. 762200 -80259 0.00 225.01 0.00 225.01 105319 PLUMBING FIXTURES 20018542 638391 355 - 156175. 762200 -80259 0.00 6,351.97 0.00 6.351.97 105319 PLUMBING FIXTURES 20018542 CM034919 355 - 156175 - 762200 -80259 0.00 256.50- 0.00 256.50- 105319 PLUMBING FIXTURES 20018542 668082 355. 156175 - 762200 -80259 0.00 310.02 0.00 310.02 105319 PLUMBING FIXTURES 20018542 670351 355 - 156175 - 762200.80259 0.00 121.72 0.00 121.72 105319 PLUMBING FIXTURES 20018542 638391 -1 355. 156175- 762200 -80259 0.00 3,288.72 0.00 3.288.72 105319 PLUMBING FIXTURES 20018542 669304 355 - 156175. 762200 -80259 0.00 51.10 0.00 51.10 105319 PLUMBING FIXTURES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10,092.04 CHECK NO 573301 VENDOR 105760 - FERGUSON UNDERGROUND 20018527 841863 408. 253212- 655100 -00000 0.00 1,380.20 0.00 1,380.20 200217 BACKFLOW PARTS 20018540 841776 408. 253212- 655100 -00000 0.00 116.40 0.00 116.40 200211 PARTS 20018661 841838 408 - 233313 - 652990 -00000 0.00 49.00 0.00 49.00 200656 SUPPLIES MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018540 841718 200211 PARTS 20018661 841939 200656 SUPPLIES 20018527 841853 200217 BACKFLOW PARTS 20018540 842328 200211 PARTS 20018540 842091 200211 PARTS 20018420 841698 200599 PARTS /KAMLOCK 20018421 842580 200215 METER BOX 20018527 841854 200217 BACKFLOW PARTS 20018541 841163 200210 PARTS 20018540 841718.1 200211 PARTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR DISC SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408- 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233313. 652990 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 408. 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 408. 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 408- 233352 - 652910 -00000 0.00 408. 253212- 655100 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212. 655100 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212. 655100 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573524 VENDOR 257370 - FERGUSON UNDERGROUND INC. #125 20018663 842374 408 - 253211 - 655100 -00000 201791 SUPPLIES 20018419 841740 408 - 233312 - 655200 -00000 200626 PARTS CHECK NO 573863 VENDOR 900050 - FG & MR MCCLINTOCK 301659 ST LIGHT REIMB MCCLINTOCK 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 ST LIGHT REIMB FG MCCLINTOCK CHECK NO 573621 VENDOR 303710 - FIRST ANESTHESIA ASSOC INC 16JIPAGE 76 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 312.00 0.00 312.00 240.60 0.00 240.60 336.20 0.00 336.20 2,508.00 0.00 2,508.00 10.744.40 0.00 10,744.40 782.76 0.00 782.76 36.00 0.00 36.00 581.30 0.00 581.30 16,413.60 0.00 16.413.60 312.00 0.00 312.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 33,812.46 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 31.20 0.00 31.20 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 47.20 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573506 VENDOR 248020 - FLORIDA CANCER SPECIALISTS 20, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 77 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018791 R NAVARRO 6/13/01 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 32.50 0.00 32.50 201855 R NAVARRO 6/13/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 32.50 CHECK NO 573330 VENDOR 116470 - FIRST TITLE & ABSTRACT, INC. 20019075 02 -TC -3822 350. 140470. 631650.80118 0.00 105.23 0.00 105.23 154260 TITLE SVS STA #19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 105.23 CHECK NO 573316 VENDOR 111530 - FISHER SCIENTIFIC 20018827 7170668 408. 233351- 652140 -00000 0.00 1,143.90 0.00 1,143.90 204055 SUPPLIES 20018789 7196249 408 - 210130 - 652140 -00000 0.00 36.21 0.00 36.21 204054 SUPPLIES 20018790 7228261 408 - 233312 - 652990 -00000 0.00 405.69 0.00 405.69 204052 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,585.80 CHECK NO 573558 VENDOR 273880 FLASH EQUIPMENT. INC. 20018788 28282 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 109.08 0.00 109.08 200627 PARTS 20018788 28192 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 80.26 0.00 80.26 200627 PARTS 20018788 28271 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 333.15 0.00 333.15 200627 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 522.49 CHECK NO 573697 VENDOR 333350 - FLIGHT SAFETY INTERNATIONAL 20019006 9998 001. 144510- 654360.00000 0.00 10,300.00 0.00 10.300.00 204599 EMS PILOT COURSE 20019006 9997 001. 144510- 654360 -00000 0.00 10.300.00 0.00 10.300.00 204599 EMS PILOT COURSE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20.600.00 CHECK NO 573506 VENDOR 248020 - FLORIDA CANCER SPECIALISTS 20, 16JI PAGE 78 REPORCH T 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISS ONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018432 S DRAGON 2/15/02 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 48.10 0.00 48.10 201856 S DRAGON 2/15/02 20018433 M CALANA 1/24/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 728.65 0.00 728.65 201856 M CALANA 1/24/02 20018432 J MARTINEZ 2/7/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 35.75 0.00 35.75 201856 J MARTINEZ 2/7/02 20018432 M CALANA 211102 001. 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 728.65 0.00 728.65 201856 M CALANA 2/1/02 20018433 S DRAGON 1/18/02 001. 155930- 631210.00000 0.00 11.05 0.00 11.05 201856 S DRAGON 1/18/02 20018432 J MARTINEZ 211102 001- 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 11.70 0.00 11.70 201856 J MARTINEZ 211102 20018432 M CALANA 211102 001- 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 534.30 0.00 534.30 201856 M CALANA 2/1/02 20018433 S DRAGON 11/26,12/17,1/2 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 81.90 0.00 81.90 201856 S DRAGON 11/26,12/17.1/2 /02 20018433 S DRAGON, 1 /18/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 178.10 0.00 178.10 201856 S DRAGON 1/18/02 20018433 J MARTINEZ 10/31/01 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 11.70 0.00 11.70 201856 J MARTINEZ 10/31/01 20018432 S DRAGON 2/1/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 547.30 0.00 547.30 201856 S DRAGON 211102 20018433 S DRAGON 12/17/01.1/2/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 2,878.20 0.00 2,878.20 201856 S DRAGON 12/17/01, 112102 20018432 S DRAGON 2/1/02 001. 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 178.10 0.00 178.10 201856 S DRAGON 211102 20018432 S DRAGON 2/15/02 001 - 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 11.70 0.00 11.70 201856 S DRAGON 2/15/02 20018433 S DRAGON 12117101 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 212.55 0.00 212.55 201856 S DRAGON 12117101 20018433 M CALANA 1111102 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 11.70 0.00 11.70 201856 M CALANA 1/11/02 20018433 M CALANA 1/17/02 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 11.70 0.00 11.70 201856 M CALANA 1/17/02 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018432 M CALANA 2/7/02 201856 M CALANA 2/7/02 20018433 G OSERVAL 1/11/02 201856 G OSTERVAL 1111102 20018433 S DRAGON 1/2/02 201856 S DRAGON 1/2/02 20018433 D CRUSE 1/25/02 201856 D CRUSE 1/25/02 20018433 S DRAGON 1/4/02 201856 S DRAGON 1/4/02 20018433 M CALANA 1/11/02 201856 M CALANA 1111102 20018432 S DRAGON 2/1/02 201856 S DRAGON 2/1/02 20018432 S DRAGON 2/15/02 201856 S DRAGON 2/15/02 20018432 G OSTERVAL 2/7/02 201856 G OSTERVAL 2/7/02 20018433 M CALANA 1/24/02 201856 M CALANA 1/24/02 20018433 M CALANA 1/17/02 201856 M CALANA 1/17/02 20018433 M CALANA 1/24/02 201856 M CALANA 1/24/02 20018433 S DRAGON 1/2/02, 1/4/02 201856 S DRAGON 112102, 1/4/02 20018432 M CALANA 2/7/02 201856 M CALANA 2/7/02 20018432 G OSTERVAL 1/28/02 201856 G OSTERVAL 1/28/02 20018433 M CALANA 1/24/02 201856 M CALANA 1/24/02 20018433 M CALANA 1111102 201856 M CALANA 1111102 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VCHR DISC BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 534.30 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 001- 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 001 - 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 001 - 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 16JIPAGE 79 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 534.30 0.00 534.30 68.90 0.00 68.90 25.35 0.00 25.35 203.45 0.00 203.45 447.20 0.00 447.20 815.75 0.00 815.75 2.921.75 0.00 2,921.75 124.15 0.00 124.15 51.35 0.00 51.35 534.30 0.00 534.30 180.70 0.00 180.70 11.70 0.00 11.70 2,955.55 0.00 2,955.55 728.65 0.00 728.65 161.20 0.00 161.20 169.65 0.00 169.65 447.20 0.00 447.20 OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 80 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018433 M CALANA 1111102 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 169.65 0.00 169.65 201856 M CALANA 1/11/02 20018433 S DRAGON 1/18/02 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 547.30 0.00 547.30 201856 S DRAGON 1118102 20018432 M CALANA 2/7/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 11.70 0.00 11.70 201856 M CALANA 2/7/02 20018432 M CALANA 2/1/02 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 11.70 0.00 11.70 201856 M CALANA 2/1/02 20018433 S DRAGON 12117101. 112102 001. 155930- 631210.00000 0.00 23.40 0.00 23.40 201856 S DRAGON 12/17/01, 1/2/02 20018432 S DRAGON 211102 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 11.70 0.00 11.70 201856 S DRAGON 2/1/02 20018432 M CALANA 2/7/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 223.60 0.00 223.60 201856 M CALANA 2/7/02 20018433 M CALANA 1117102 001- 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 534.30 0.00 534.30 201856 M CALANA 1/17/02 20018432 J MARTINEZ 2/1/02 001. 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 14.30 0.00 14.30 201856 J MARTINEZ 2/1/02 20018433 M CALANA 1/17/02 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 728.65 0.00 728.65 201856 M CALANA 1/17/02 20018433 S DRAGON 1/18/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 11.70 0.00 11.70 201856 S DRAGON 1/18/02 20018433 S DRAGON 1/18/02 001 - 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 2,743.65 0.00 2.743.65 201856 S DRAGON 1/18/02 20018432 M CALANA 2/1/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 169.65 0.00 169.65 201856 M CALANA 211102 20018432 J MARTINEZ 211102 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 29.90 0.00 29.90 201856 J MARTINEZ 211102 20018787 J MARTINEZ 10/31/01 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 4.55 0.00 4.55 201856 J MARTINEZ 10/31/01 20018432 S DRAGON 2/15/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 3,063.45 0.00 3,063.45 201856 S DRAGON 2/15/02 20018433 A HUNT 1/25/02 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 51.35 0.00 51.35 201856 A HUNT 1/25/02 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 81 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 24,952.85 CHECK NO 573529 VENDOR 259640 - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 20018809 REGIST D CAMPAGNONE 4/9 113- 138931 - 654360.00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 154909 REGIST D CAMPAGNONE 4/9 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 573747 VENDOR 347850 - FLORIDA DREDGE & DOCK, INC. 20019086 01- 3284 -2 320 - 183800. 634999 -00000 0.00 79,265.00 0.00 79,265.00 203040 DREDGING 1/20/01 - 2/8/02 20019086 01- 3284 -2 RETAIN.RELEASE 320 - 000000. 205100 -00000 0.00 6,200.00 0.00 6,200.00 203040 RETAINAGE RELEASE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 85,465.00 CHECK NO 573441 VENDOR 198080 - FLORIDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY 20019072 MMB /SHIP RENEWAL 198. 157410- 654210 -00000 0.00 55.00 0.00 55.00 154470 MMB /SHIP RENEWAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 55.00 CHECK NO 573192 VENDOR 204830 FLORIDA MEDICAID /COUNTY BILLING 20018422 RB 0201 N.H. 001 - 155930 - 634107 -00000 0.00 999.80 0.00 999.80 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 999.80 CHECK NO 573193 VENDOR 204830 FLORIDA MEDICAID /COUNTY BILLING 20018428 RB 0201 HOSP 001. 155930- 634106 -00000 0.00 32,361.33 0.00 32,361.33 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 32,361.33 CHECK NO 573195 VENDOR 204830 FLORIDA MEDICAID /COUNTY BILLING 20018431 CB 0201 N.H. 001 - 155930. 634107.00000 0.00 13,915.00 0.00 13,915.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 13,915.00 CHECK NO 573194 VENDOR 204830 FLORIDA MEDICAID /COUNTY BILLING 20018430 CB 0201 HOSP 001 - 155930 - 634106 -00000 0.00 34,663.15 0.00 34,663.15 AND MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573486 VENDOR 236800 - FLORIDA PLANNING GROUP, INC. 20018786 #1 001 - 138710. 634999 -00000 121. 138755. 634999 -33024 104441 SVS 7/1- 12/31/01 CHECK NO 573235 VENDOR 6790 - FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 20019080 97229 -32085 1/25- 2/25/02 001. 157110- 643100 -00000 0.00 97229 -32085 1/25/02- 2/25/02 805.00 20019054 74267 -33023 1/28- 2/26/02 101 - 163620 - 643100 -00000 0.00 74267 -33023 1/28/02- 2/26/02 9.09 20019053 41885 -16233 1/17- 2/20/02 408 - 233313 - 643100.00000 0.00 41885 -16233 1/17/02- 2/20/02 9.64 20019054 02679 -74525 1/31- 3/1/02 152. 162541 - 643100 -00000 0.00 02679 -74525 1/31/02. 3/1/02 9.09 20019051 84580 -86579 2/5/02- 3/6/02 408 - 233351 - 643100 -00000 0.00 84580 -86579 2/5/02 - 3/6/02 9.09 20019080 94977.51314 2/11- 3/12/02 101 - 163612. 643100 -00000 0.00 94977.51314 2/11/02- 3/12/02 2.680.77 20019054 72492 -84055 2/1/02- 3/4/02 152 - 162541 - 643100 -00000 0.00 72492 -84055 2/1/02- 3/4/02 380.01 20019053 35318 -65347 1/25- 2/25/02 490 - 144610 - 643100.00000 0.00 35318 -65347 1/25/02- 2/25/02 137.48 20019080 69075 -41483 2/4/02- 3/5/02 408. 253221- 643100 -00000 69075 -41483 2/4/02- 3/5/02 20019054 79337 -32260 2/1/02 - 3/4/02 152. 162541 - 643100 -00000 79337 -32260 2/1/02- 3/4/02 20019054 52568 -34341 1/24- 2/22/02 490 - 144610 - 643100 -00000 52568 -34341 1/24/02- 2/22/02 20019051 52477 -53097 2/5/02- 3/6/02 408. 233351- 643100 -00000 52477 -53097 2/5/02 - 3/6/02 20019051 41599 -32146 2/11- 3/12/02 001 - 172970 - 643100 -00000 41599 -32146 2/11/02- 3/12/02 16JI PAGE 82 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 34,663.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 805.00 0.00 805.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 805.00 0.00 9.09 0.00 9.09 0.00 538.16 0.00 538.16 0.00 9.64 0.00 9.64 0.00 9.09 0.00 9.09 0.00 9.09 0.00 9.09 0.00 225.93 0.00 225.93 0.00 9.09 0.00 9.09 0.00 255.50 0.00 255.50 0.00 2,680.77 0.00 2.680.77 0.00 26.11 0.00 26.11 0.00 380.01 0.00 380.01 0.00 9.09 0.00 9.09 0.00 137.48 0.00 137.48 MARCH 20, 20, COUNTY 16JI AGE 83 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20019053 78097 -77233 1/17- 2/20/02 408- 233313. 643100 -00000 0.00 9.49 0.00 9.49 78097 -77233 1/17/02- 2/20/02 20019080 95030 -30299 2/5/02- 3/6/02 111. 156332 - 643100.00000 0.00 740.52 0.00 740.52 95030 -30299 2/5/02- 3/6/02 20019053 97752.59121 1/30- 2/28/02 408. 233352- 643100 -00000 0.00 11.77 0.00 11.77 97752.59121 1/30/02 - 2/28/02 20019051 29392 -51142 2/11- 3/12/02 001 - 172910 - 643100.00000 0.00 141.98 0.00 141.98 29392 -51142 2/11/02- 3/12/02 20019080 80138 -36302 1/24- 2/22/02 130 - 157710 - 643100 -00000 0.00 3,299.37 0.00 3.299.37 80138 -36302 1/24/02- 2/22/02 20019054 89618 -38201 2/1/02- 3/4/02 001 - 156180. 643100.00000 0.00 868.33 0.00 868.33 89618 -38201 2/1/02- 3/4/02 20019080 95030.30299 12/3- 2/5/02 111. 156332. 643100 -00000 0.00 1.733.45 0.00 1,733.45 95030.30299 12/3/01- 2/5/02 20019051 29113.35137 2/7/02- 3/8/02 408 - 253212 - 643100 -00000 0.00 343.25 0.00 343.25 29113 -35137 2/7/02- 3/8/02 20019051 93380 -95574 2/5/02- 3/6/02 408. 233351- 643100 -00000 0.00 9.72 0.00 9.72 93380 -95574 2/5/02- 3/6/02 20019053 74357 -30069 1/28- 2/26/02 101. 163620- 643100 -00000 0.00 208.95 0.00 208.95 74357.30069 1/28/02- 2/26/02 20019051 40840 -51434 1/29- 2/27/02 001. 122260- 643100 -00000 0.00 90.99 0.00 90.99 40840 -51434 1/29/02- 2/27/02 20019054 69931 -32247 1/31- 3/1/02 152. 162541- 643100 -00000 0.00 9.09 0.00 9.09 69931.32247 1/31/02. 3/1/02 20019080 74407 -37091 1/28- 2/26/02 101 - 163620. 643100 -00000 0.00 248.33 0.00 248.33 74407 -37091 1/28/02. 2/26/02 20019053 22122.81469 1/28- 2/26/02 001 - 155410. 643100.00000 0.00 6,076.52 0.00 6,076.52 22122.81469 1/28/02- 2/26/02 20019051 04579 -32416 1/31- 2/22/02 001 - 122260- 643100 -00000 0.00 393.63 0.00 393.63 04579.32416 1/31/02- 2/22/02 20019054 51912 -14047 2/4/02- 3/5/02 408. 253221 - 643100.00000 0.00 5,281.20 0.00 5.281.20 51912 -14047 2/4/02- 3/5/02 20019053 73965.45530 2/25- 3/1/02 408 - 233313. 643100.00000 0.00 7.07 0.00 7.07 73965 -45530 2/25/02- 3/1/02 20, 16JI 84 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20019080 88172.16313 1/29- 2/27/02 111. 156313. 643100 -00000 0.00 4.994,86 0.00 4,994.86 88172.16313 1/29/02- 2/27/02 20019053 46304 -11595 2/5/02- 3/6/02 111 - 156332 - 643100 -00000 0.00 2,669.55 0.00 2,669.55 46304 -11595 2/5/02- 3/6/02 20019080 75181 -65175 1/24- 2/22/02 408. 233352.643100 -00000 0.00 36,530.43 0.00 36,530.43 75181 -65175 1/24/02- 2/22/02 20019054 83744 -53408 1117- 2120102 408 - 233313 - 643100.00000 0.00 9.57 0.00 9.57 83744 -53408 1/17/02- 2/20/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 67.977.12 CHECK NO 573320 VENDOR 112450 FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES 20018826 1140014095 111 - 163645 - 653110 -00000 0.00 1,400.96 0.00 1,400.96 200809 LIMEROCK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,400.96 CHECK NO 573377 VENDOR 154430 FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES 20018783 1140014035 408 - 233351. 653110 -00000 0.00 83.75 0.00 83.75 201517 LIMEROCK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 83.75 CHECK NO 573640 VENDOR 315500 FLORIDA SANITARY SUPPLIERS 20018785 171200.00 111. 156313 - 652510 -00000 0.00 119.80 0.00 119.80 203884 SUPPLIES 20018785 172509.00 111. 156313 - 652510 -00000 0.00 114.30 0.00 114.30 203884 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 234.10 CHECK NO 573355 VENDOR 135230 . FLORIDA STATE UNDERGROUND, INC 20018985 #8 RETAINAGE 411.000000- 205100 -00000 0.00 246.35- 0.00 246.35- 102895 TO 3/4/02 RETAINAGE 20018985 #8 414 - 263611 - 763100 -73061 0.00 52.111.39 0.00 52,111.39 102895 TO 3/4/02 20018985 #8 411. 273511 - 763100 -70862 0.00 2,463.52 0.00 2,463.52 102895 TO 3/4/02 20018985 #8 RETAINAGE 414 - 000000 - 205100.00000 0.00 5,211.14- 0.00 5,211.14- 102895 TO 3/4/02 RETAINAGE MARCH 20, 20, COUNTY 16JI AGE 85 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 49.117.42 CHECK NO 573494 VENDOR 243280 - FLORIDA WATER SERVICES 20019005 009815855 -3 1/19- 2/15/02 441. 256110. 655900 -00000 0.00 16,903.81 0.00 16,903.81 009815855.3 1/19/02. 2/15/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 16.903.81 CHECK NO 573643 VENDOR 316560 FLOTEC, INC 20018784 23130 490 - 144610 - 652720 -00000 0.00 356.71 0.00 356.71 200134 FLOTEC OX REG 20018784 23117 490. 144610 - 652720 -00000 0.00 391.43 0.00 391.43 200134 FLOTEC OX REG CHECK TOTAL 0.00 748.14 CHECK NO 573787 VENDOR 353230 FM 107.9 WIRK 20018824 60613 111 - 156341 - 648170 -00000 0.00 2,990.00 0.00 2,990.00 204695 RADIO 3/25 -4/12 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.990.00 CHECK NO 573741 VENDOR 346390 FORT BEND SERVICES 20018543 96451 408. 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 7,276.50 0.00 7.276.50 204109 POLYMER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7,276.50 CHECK NO 573864 VENDOR 900050 FRANCES E CHEATHAM 301677 ST LIGHT REIMB F CHEATHAM 781- 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB F CHEATHAM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573865 VENDOR 900050 - FRANCIS 8 GRACE CARROLL 301706 ST LIGHT REIM F. CARROL 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM F. CARROL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573314 VENDOR 110740 - FRANCISCO A. SMITH M.D. 20019074 R MARTINEZ 2/14/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 81.25 0.00 81.25 154705 R MARTINEZ 2/14/02 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 81.25 CHECK NO 573866 VENDOR 900050 - FRANK A. & SHIRLEY LONGO 301705 ST LIGHT REIM F. LONGO 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM F. LONGO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573867 VENDOR 900050 - FRANK J & ALBERTA L MARCHI 301647 ST LIGHT REIMB F MARCHI 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB F MARCHI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573868 VENDOR 900050 - FRED & HILDA UNGER 301704 ST LIGHT REIM F. UNGER 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM F. UNGER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573996 VENDOR 900100 - FRED KLINKMANN 301728 F KLINKMANN 0203356TB -P -C 681 - 431590. 634405 -00000 0.00 6.92 0.00 6.92 F KLINKMANN REIMB 0203356TB -P -C CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.92 CHECK NO 573380 VENDOR 157320 FREEMAN AND FREEMAN INC. 20018822 #43 111. 163646- 634999 -00000 0.00 1,980.00 0.00 1,980.00 200545 LABOR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,980.00 CHECK NO 573597 VENDOR 290310 FREIGHTLINER OF TAMPA 20018828 129420P 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 37.18 0.00 37.18 200826 PARTS 20018828 129146P 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 21.38 0.00 21.38 200826 PARTS 20018828 129349P 521 - 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 133.69 0.00 133.69 200826 PARTS 20018782 127958P 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 842.74 0.00 842.74 200826 PARTS 20, Z A AGE 86 J REPOMARCH 2 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018828 128327P 200826 PARTS 20018828 126464P 200826 PARTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573299 VENDOR 105140 - FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY OF 20018798 RENT CENTRAL AVE LIBRARY 001 - 156110. 644100 -00000 154905 RENT CENTRAL AVE LIBRARY CHECK NO 573432 VENDOR 191440 - FUEL TANK SERVICES 20018821 02138 001 - 122240 - 646110 -00000 204527 CLEANING STORAGE TANKS CHECK NO 573700 VENDOR 333980 G &K SERVICES 20018260 698324 2/18 408 - 210130 - 652130 -00000 0.00 200723 UNIFORMS 2.172.00 20018284 694321 2/11 001 - 156363 - 652130 -00000 0.00 201438 UNIFORMS 336.79 20018284 698313 2/18 111 - 156332 - 652130 -00000 0.00 201438 UNIFORMS 28.21 20018269 698322 2/18 101 - 163630. 652130 -00000 0.00 200025 UNIFORMS 37.95 20018256 697458 2/15 470 - 173441. 652130 -00000 0.00 201191 UNIFORMS 1.44 20018261 699108 2/19 408. 233352 - 652130 -00000 0.00 200715 UNIFORMS 166.53 20018284 699089 2/19 111. 156343 - 634999 -00000 201438 UNIFORMS 20018284 698313 2/18 111 - 156390 - 652130 -00000 201438 UNIFORMS 20018263 698330 2/18 408- 233312 - 652130 -00000 200612 UNIFORMS 16JIAGE 87 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 86.05 0.00 86.05 2,476.31 0.00 2.476.31 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,597.35 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.172.00 0.00 2.172.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.172.00 0.00 336.79 0.00 336.79 0.00 44.33 0.00 44.33 0.00 28.21 0.00 28.21 0.00 47.35 0.00 47.35 0.00 37.95 0.00 37.95 0.00 105.11 0.00 105.11 0.00 1.44 0.00 1.44 0.00 3.22 0.00 3.22 0.00 166.53 0.00 166.53 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI AGE 88 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018258 699112 2/19 470. 173442- 652130.00000 0.00 23.44 0.00 23.44 201124 UNIFORMS 20018284 699088 111 - 156334. 652130 -00000 0.00 30.41 0.00 30.41 201438 UNIFORMS 20018267 698316 2/18 408 - 253212 - 652130 -00000 0.00 258.69 0.00 258.69 200222 UNIFORMS 20018265 698314 2/18 408. 253211- 652130.00000 0.00 84.72 0.00 84.72 200384 UNIFORMS 20018284 697484 2/15 111 - 156332 - 652130 -00000 0.00 16.12 0.00 16.12 201438 UNIFORMS 20018284 697487 2/15 111 - 156332. 652130 -00000 0.00 16.12 0.00 16.12 201438 UNIFORMS 20018284 699106 2/19 001 - 156363 - 652130 -00000 0.00 44.33 0.00 44.33 201438 UNIFORMS 20018259 699107 2/19 408 - 233350 - 652130 -00000 0.00 29.40 0.00 29.40 200752 UNIFORMS 20018264 697477 2/15 408. 253221- 652130 -00000 0.00 65.25 0.00 65.25 200420 UNIFORMS 20018266 698321 2/10 114- 178975 - 652130 -00000 0.00 35.17 0.00 35.17 200355 UNIFORMS 20018262 698329 2/18 408- 233313 - 652130.00000 0.00 17.14 0.00 17.14 200658 UNIFORMS 20018257 698315 2/10 001 - 155410. 652130 -00000 0.00 39.25 0.00 39.25 201167 UNIFORMS 20018284 698331 2/18 111 - 156332 - 652130 -00000 0.00 30.41 0.00 30.41 201438 UNIFORMS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.461.38 CHECK NO 573716 VENDOR 339190 G&K SERVICES 20018283 703953 2/27 521 - 122410 - 652130.00000 0.00 121.20 0.00 121.20 200954 UNIFORMS 20018282 699094$$$2/19 101 - 163620 - 652130 -00000 0.00 76.10 0.00 76.10 201127 UNIFORMS 20018283 699079 2/19 521 - 122410- 652130 -00000 0.00 4.83 0.00 4.83 200954 UNIFORMS MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI AGE 89 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018268 698327 2/18 109 - 182602 - 652130 -00000 0.00 16.12 109- 182901 - 652130 -00000 0.00 49.93 109.182901- 652990.00000 0.00 1.95 0.00 68.00 200069 UNIFORMS 20018282 699916$$$2/20 101 - 163620 - 652130.00000 0.00 222.04 0.00 222.04 201127 UNIFORMS 20018283 699917 2/20 521 - 122410.652130 -00000 0.00 122.75 0.00 122.75 200954 UNIFORMS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 614.92 CHECK NO 573236 VENDOR 7400 GALE RESEARCH COMPANY 20018275 11356833 355.156190- 766100.00000 0.00 413.34 0.00 413.34 200549 BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 413.34 CHECK NO 573658 VENDOR 319720 GARY STAGG 20018878 11/1 -1/14 TRVL G STAGG 111 - 156313 - 640200 -00000 0.00 87.87 0.00 87.87 11/1 -1/14 TRVL G STAGG 20018877 1/21 -2/19 TRVL G STAGG 111- 156313. 640200 -00000 0.00 40.31 0.00 40.31 1/21 -2/19 TRVL G STAGG CHECK TOTAL 0.00 128.18 CHECK NO 573397 VENDOR 166730 • GENERAL CHEMICAL CORP 20018529 20202638 408.233312- 652310 -00000 0.00 1,939.56 0.00 1.939.56 200609 CHEM 20018530 20202356 408 - 233352 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,939.56 0.00 1,939.56 203776 CHEM .CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.879.12 CHECK NO 573869 VENDOR 900050 - GEORGE & KATHRYN RALPH TR 301678 ST LIGHT REIMB G RALPH TR 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB G RALPH TR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573870 VENDOR 900050 - GEORGE R. & ELLINOR S. DOWNER 301607 ST LIGHT REIM G. DOWNER 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM G. DOWNER MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA 16JI AGE 90 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573544 VENDOR 266350 GEORGE S. EDWARDS CO., INC. 20019013 696972.02 1/22 408 - 253221.652990.00000 0.00 14,866.05 0.00 14,866.05 202976 1486605 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 14.866.05 CHECK NO 573871 VENDOR 900050 GERALD E. & MARILEEK RUTTMAN 301707 ST LIGHT REIM G. RUTTMAN 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM G. RUTTMAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573872 VENDOR 900050 GLENN & LORRAINE HOWE 301660 ST LIGHT REIMB G HOWE 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB G HOWE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573237 VENDOR 7740 GOLDEN GATE ANIMAL CLINIC 20018687 01 -8644 V WALKER 610 - 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 200975 SPAY /NEUTER 20018687 01 -9180 S MOHER 610 - 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 200975 SPAY /NEUTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 120.00 CHECK NO 573306 VENDOR 109070 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL 20018839 2/02 INTEREST 113. 138900 - 341890 -00000 0.00 97.88 0.00 97.88 2/02 INTEREST 20019037 2/02 IMPACT FEES 113 - 000000 - 209800 -00000 0.00 122,354.25 0.00 122.354.25 2/02 IMPACT FEES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 122.452.13 CHECK NO 573238 VENDOR 7770 GOLDEN GATE NURSERY 20018285 73264 001 - 155410 - 652210 -00000 0.00 135.00 0.00 135.00 202223 HAY 20018712 73838 408.253212. 646314.00000 0.00 14.94 0.00 14.94 152277 MULCH MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI AGE 91 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018276 73913 001 - 156363. 652255 -00000 0.00 116.45 0.00 116.45 202565 20018285 73878 001. 155410- 652210 -00000 0.00 135.00 0.00 135.00 202223 HAY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 401.39 CHECK NO 573873 VENDOR 900050 - GOODWIN C. & RUBY 0. SMITH 301572 ST LIGHT REIMB G. SMITH 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB G. SMITH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573459 VENDOR 213590 - GORDON HAZEN 20018889 2/1 -28 TRVL G HAZEN 111. 156380- 640200 -00000 0.00 50.75 0.00 50.75 2/1.28 TVL G HAZEN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.75 CHECK NO 573416 VENDOR 178630 GRAINGER 20018277 480. 718503.0 408- 233312. 652990 -00000 0.00 72.18 0.00 72.18 200614 PARTS 20018281 287- 745160.5 408. 210151- 652910.00000 0.00 56.55- 0.00 56.55- 153239 CREDIT 20018273 931. 182768 -8 408. 253221- 655200 -00000 0.00 1.031.12 0.00 1,031.12 PARTS 20018286 287 - 353099 -8 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 156.75- 0.00 156.75- 203311 PARTS 20018286 480 - 851047 -5 001 - 122240. 652990 -00000 0.00 225.15 0.00 225.15 203311 PARTS 20018286 287 - 342689 -0 001. 122240- 652990 -00000 0.00 652.04- 0.00 652.04- 203311 PARTS 20018278 287. 035600 -9 408. 233351. 652990.00000 0.00 15.84 0.00 15.84 200777 PARTS 20018666 287. 723309.4 408. 253211 - 652990 -00000 0.00 490.88- 0.00 490.88- 152269 PUMP 20018279 834- 582234 -3 408- 233352 - 652990.00000 0.00 61.00 0.00 61.00 201414 PARTS MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018286 834 - 976545 -6 203311 PARTS 20018666 833 - 851048.3 152269 PUMP 20018286 287. 332075 -4 203311 PARTS 20018286 287- 341288.2 203311 PARTS 20018280 287502714 -2 200070 PARTS 20018274 973 - 508459 -3 204285 20018286 481 - 976544 -9 203311 PARTS 20018666 483 - 121330.3 152269 PUMP COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR DISC SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001. 122240. 652990 -00000 0.00 408 - 253211 - 652990 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240 - 652990.00000 0.00 001. 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 109 - 182602. 652990 -00000 0.00 109 - 182901 - 652990 -00000 0.00 778. 182701- 652990 -00000 0.00 001. 122240. 652996.00000 0.00 001- 122240. 652990.00000 0.00 408 - 253211. 652990 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573239 VENDOR 7900 - GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 20018271 0630228860 001. 121141- 652910.00000 201351 ELECT 20018270 0630231019 408 - 253221. 652990.00000 201626 ELECT 20018272 063023044 408 - 233351 - 655200 -00000 200780 ELECT CHECK NO 573761 VENDOR 350770 - GULF COAST AIRWAYS 20018531 111908 195. 110406 - 640900 -10507 204114 AIRTRANSPORTATION CHECK NO 573240 VENDOR 7990 - GULFSHORE ANIMAL CLINIC 16JIAGE 92 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 215.28 0.00 215.28 490.88 0.00 490.88 163.20- 0.00 163.20- 329.16- 0.00 329.16- 0.00 0.00 1,360.00 305.20 1.360.00 0.00 0.00 305.20 2,865.00 0.00 2,865.00 766.00 0.00 766.00 490.88 0.00 490.88 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,689.95 0.00 18.38 0.00 18.38 0.00 64.40 0.00 64.40 0.00 1,045.00 0.00 1,045.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.127.78 0.00 1,360.00 0.00 1.360.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.360.00 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20018688 029697 610 - 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 200987 SPAY /NEUTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573410 VENDOR 172500 H. M. BUCKLEY & SONS. INC. 20018674 2326320 408 - 253212 - 646314 -00000 0.00 28.80 0.00 153834 LAWN REPAIR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573776 VENDOR 352910 H2O SERVICES INC 20018689 6149 495 - 192370 - 634999 -00000 0.00 15.00 0.00 204659 COFFEE SERV. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573376 VENDOR 152410 HACH 20018690 2979662 408 - 253211. 652310 -00000 0.00 586.00 0.00 200386 CHEM. 20018685 2963888 114 - 178975. 764990.00000 0.00 1,745.00 0.00 204103 TURBIDMETER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573874 VENDOR 900050 - HANK & ROSEMARIE TOENNES 301654 ST LIGHT REIMB H TOENNES 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB H TOENNES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573242 VENDOR 8180 - HARBORSIDE ANIMAL CLINIC 20018696 02 -9762 P DAVENPORT 610 - 155410 - 631970.00000 0.00 15.00 0.00 201012 SPAY /NEUTER 20018696 01.9396 J MALEN 610. 155410- 631970 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 201012 SPAY /NEUTER CHECK TOTAL 0.0c CHECK NO 573348 VENDOR 131720 - HARCROS CHEMICALS, INC. 20018694 740057200 111 - 156313. 652311 -00000 0.00 278.25 0.0( 200532 CHEM 6JIAGE 93 6JIPAGE MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20018694 740057050 111 - 156313 - 652311.00000 0.00 520.00 0.00 200532 CHEM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573875 VENDOR 900050 - HAROLD & CLAIRE ORLOFF 301679 ST LIGHT REIMB H ORLOFF 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB H ORLOFF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573876 VENDOR 900050 - HAROLD & VIRGINIA GLESNER 301570 ST LIGHT REIMB H. GLESNER 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB H. GLESNER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573997 VENDOR 900100 - HAROLD ADLER 301545 0203159TB D ANDERSON 681 - 431590 - 634405 -00000 0.00 5.96 0.00 0203159TB D ANDERSON WITNESS REIMBS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573877 VENDOR 900050 - HAROLD E. & ELIZABETH ROLLINS 301569 ST LIGHT REIMB H. ROLLINS 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB H. ROLLINS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573428 VENDOR 187670 - HEALTH FORCE 20018819 2/5.2/7.2/9 D HUDSON 123 - 155975 - 634104 -33075 0.00 105.00 0.00 154991 D HUDSON 2/5,7.9 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573727 VENDOR 343340 - HEFTY TRUCKING INC 20018670 11298 AND 11349 111 - 156332 - 646315 -00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 153692 HAULING 20019010 10939 HAULING 111. 156332- 646315 -00000 0.00 1.163.80 0.00 204437 HAULING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 94 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JIAGE 95 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573878 VENDOR 900050 - HELEN MANGENO 301680 ST LIGHT REIMB MANGENO/BU 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB MANGENO /BURNS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573243 VENDOR 8430 HELENA CHEMICAL CO 20018681 22722176 109 - 182602 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 201651 COPPER SULFATE 20018680 22722151 109 - 182901- 652310.00000 0.00 563.80 0.00 563.80 201653 ROW HERBICIDE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,563.80 CHECK NO 573520 VENDOR 255910 HELENE CASELTINE 20018879 3/6 -9 TRVL H CASELTINE 001 - 138710 - 640300 -00000 0.00 282.80 0.00 282.80 3/6 -9 TRVL H CASELTINE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 282.80 CHECK NO 573879 VENDOR 900050 - HERBERT F. & BETTY J. JOSLIN 301571 ST LIGHT REIMB H. JOSLIN 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB H. JOSLIN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573759 VENDOR 350490 HERMAN MILLER WORKPLACE RESOURCE 20018673 05766 001 - 122240 - 651910 -00000 0.00 326.02 0.00 326.02 152717 FILES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 326.02 CHECK NO 573476 VENDOR 226870 HERMAN MILLER, INC. 20018686 05602 001. 421040- 764310 -00000 0.00 1.909.66 001. 421040- 641950 -00000 0.00 260.00 0.00 2.169.66 203605 20018665 05630 001 - 122240 - 651910 -00000 0.00 980.54 0.00 980.54 151626 FURNITURE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.150.20 CHECK NO 573418 VENDOR 178790 - HIDEAWAY STORAGE 6JIAGE MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20018691 543 470 - 173463 - 644170 -00000 0.00 95.00 0.00 202365 UNIT 160 STORAGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573772 VENDOR 352430 HIGH -TEK OF SOUTHWEST FL 20018668 3267 001 - 144210. 646910 -00000 0.00 277.30 0.00 153728 REPAIR PRINER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573667 VENDOR 323710 HILTON GARDEN INN TAMPA NORTH 20018806 HOTEL R MCKELLER CONF. 470. 173410 - 640300.00000 0.00 540.00 0.00 153009 HOTEL R MCKELLER CONF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573244 VENDOR 8810 - HOLE MONTES AND ASSOC INC 20019088 43026 414. 263611 - 631400 -73916 0.00 0.00 414 - 263611 - 631400 -74007 0.00 0.00 414 - 263611. 631400 -73053 0.00 0.00 413 - 263611 - 631400 -73053 0.00 0.00 413 - 263611 - 631400 -73949 0.00 3.270.00 414 - 263611 - 631400 -73949 0.00 0.00 0.00 202328 12/22/01- 1/25/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573389 VENDOR 164250 HOME DEPOT 20018698 0061933 101 - 163620 - 652990 -00000 0.00 33.70 111 - 163645 - 653150.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 201182 PARTS 20018698 8041838 101 - 163620 - 652990 -00000 0.00 19.66 111 - 163645 - 653150 -00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 201182 PARTS 20018683 1140175 306. 116360 - 763100 -80087 0.00 1.350.48 0.00 201759 PARTS 20018698 1230031 101 - 163620 - 652990.00000 0.00 71.92 111 - 163645 - 653150.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 201182 PARTS 20018699 1011858 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 63.76 0.00 201159 PARTS 96 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JIAGE 97 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018682 6131256 001 - 156363. 652990 -00000 0.00 12.94 0.00 12.94 200912 PARTS 20018699 9012048 111- 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 247.44 0.00 247.44 201159 PARTS 20018672 2032379 001 - 144510 - 652990.00000 0.00 8.99 0.00 8.99 154977 PART 20018697 2031691 001 - 122240. 652999 -00000 0.00 15.66 0.00 15.66 201486 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.824.55 CHECK NO 573775 VENDOR 352900 - HOME DEPOT 20019042 0211459/79016614707 191 - 138785- 884200 -33752 0.00 6,356.77 0.00 6.356.77 204752 GARCIA #60181680004 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,356.77 CHECK NO 573582 VENDOR 281640 - HOME DEPOT COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS 20018653 7201070/79016614707 191. 138785- 884100 -33751 0.00 917.31 0.00 917.31 153221 G ZELAYA #62102640005 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 917.31 CHECK NO 573292 VENDOR 103340 - HOSPICE OF NAPLES 20018528 319181 PERMIT OVERPAY 113 - 000000. 115420 -00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 PERMIT OVERPAY REF 319181 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 573880 VENDOR 900050 - HOWARD M & AGNES A BROWN 301564 ST LIGHT REIMB H BROWN 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB H BROWN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573543 VENDOR 266220 - HOWARD R. BOURDAGES M.D. 20019001 1/23 -24/02 V HALL 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 5,309.20 0.00 5.309.20 204736 1/23 -24/02 V HALL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.309.20 CHECK NO 573754 VENDOR 349820 - HUGHES SUPPLY INC. J 'PAGE 6 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20018702 36849991 -01 301 - 120402 - 762200 -80196 0.00 272.20 0.00 203822 SUPPLIES 20018702 36844799 -01 301 - 120402 - 762200.80196 0.00 201.55 0.00 203822 SUPPLIES 20018702 36753746 -04 301 - 120402.762200 -80196 0.00 173.40 0.00 203822 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573446 VENDOR 203560 HY -TECH WHOLESALE 20018693 47932 681 - 421510 - 651950.00000 0.00 102.00 0.00 201315 COMPUTER PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573245 VENDOR 9020 HYDRAULIC HOSE AND EQUIP 20018695 97820 521.122410.646425 -00000 0.00 40.74 521 - 122410.646415 -00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 202312 PARTS 20018695 97747 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646415.00000 0.00 12.25 0.00 202312 20018695 097770 521 - 122410.646425 -00000 0.00 16.00 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 202312 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573484 VENDOR 234180 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 20018667 12662173 001 - 156150 - 646710 -00000 0.00 101.47 0.00 154444 OVERAGE COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573719 VENDOR 339830 IKON /IOS CAPITAL 20018679 54146864 2/26 -3/25 113 - 138931 - 644600 -00000 0.00 400.15 113 - 138931 - 651210 -00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 202545 2/26 -3/25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573631 VENDOR 310350 IMAGE ONE 98 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JIAGE 99 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20019012 38844 IMAGING MAINT 001 - 121710 - 644650.00000 0.00 9.742.57 516. 121650 - 644620.00000 0.00 2,908.58 517 - 121640. 644650 -00000 0.00 2,909.57 518 - 121630.644650 -00000 0.00 2,909.57 408 - 210151 - 644650 -00000 0.00 4.617.57 470 - 173410 - 644650 -00000 0.00 4,617.57 001 - 121810 - 634999 -00000 0.00 9,742.57 0.00 37.448.00 204775 MAINT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 37,448.00 CHECK NO 573538 VENDOR 263410 IMAGES GRAPHIC SPECIALTIES. INC 20019009 7078 SIGNS 001 - 156110 - 634999.00000 0.00 1.874.78 0.00 1,874.78 204771 SIGNS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,874.78 CHECK NO 573723 VENDOR 341540 IMMOKALEE AIR & APPLIANCE COMPANY 20018209 1664 I SANCHZ 191 - 138785 - 884200 -33751 0.00 3,450.00 0.00 3.450.00 204343 I SANCHEZ #77161040000 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.450.00 CHECK NO 573318 VENDOR 112220 - IMMOKALEE BULLETIN 20018675 2058675 121 - 138755 - 649100.33024 0.00 633.60 0.00 633.60 154033 DISPLAY AD FOR 3/5 AND 3/7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 633.60 CHECK NO 573246 VENDOR 9180 - IMMOKALEE DISPOSAL CO 20018701 432 3/1.3/31 111 - 156334.643300.00000 0.00 325.32 0.00 325.32 432 3/1.3/31 20018701 371 3/1 -3/31 001 - 122370 - 643300 -00000 0.00 72.10 0.00 72.10 371 3/1 -3/31 20019030 114 3/1 -3/31 001 - 061010 - 643300.00000 0.00 595.81 0.00 595.81 114 3/1 -3/31 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 993.23 CHECK NO 573353 VENDOR 134950 - IMMOKALEE DISPOSAL COMPANY 20019066 3/01 FRANCHISE FEES 473 - 173412 - 313720.00000 0.00 861.41- 0.00 861.41- 200856 3/01 FRANCHISE FEES MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J IAGE 100 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20019066 3/01 COLLECTIONS 473 - 173412 - 634800 -00000 0.00 27,901.98 0.00 27,901.98 200856 3/01 MANDATORY COLLECTIONS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 27,040.57 CHECK NO 573712 VENDOR 337900 - INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS INC. 20018664 896604 111. 156349. 648170 -00000 0.00 410.40 0.00 410.40 153885 AD BL HISTORY FEST NEWSPPR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 410.40 CHECK NO 573659 VENDOR 319950 INDUSTRIAL FABRICS CORPORATION 20018677 204343 408. 233352- 652910 -00000 0.00 659.00 0.00 659.00 204137 BELTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 659.00 CHECK NO 573679 VENDOR 328080 INSTITUTE OF TRANS ENGINEERS 20018669 223114 101. 163630 - 654110 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 152506 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 45.00 CHECK NO 573670 VENDOR 324560 INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION 20018671 DUES J ORDONEZ 313 - 162111 - 654210 -00000 0.00 225.00 0.00 225.00 154877 DUES J ORDONEZ CHECK TOTAL 0.00 225.00 CHECK NO 573768 VENDOR 351270 INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION 20019031 203794 101. 163630- 654110 -00000 0.00 104.50 0.00 104.50 154936 BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 104.50 CHECK NO 573327 VENDOR 115600 INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT SERV. 20018676 14304 518 - 121630 - 631990.00000 0.00 290.00 0.00 290.00 201663 WORKERS COMP 20018775 14630 516 - 121650 - 645100 -00000 0.00 1.45 0.00 1.45 204679 INS. 20018775 14629 516 - 121650. 645100 -00000 0.00 1,046.55 0.00 1.046.55 204679 INS. 6JIAGE 101 VCHR NET 1,338.00 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573247 VENDOR 9340 - INTERCEPT OF FLORIDA INC. 20018700 3846 109. 182601- 641150.00000 0.00 28.00 109 - 182900 - 641150.00000 0.00 28.00 778. 182700- 641150 -00000 0.00 24.00 0.00 200079 SERVICE 2/21.3/20 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573554 VENDOR 272420 - INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE 20018797 COMM J CARTER 3/12 LUNCH 001 - 010110 - 640310.01002 0.00 75.00 0.00 154932 J CARTER 3/12 LUNCHEON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573635 VENDOR 313840 - IOSCAPITAL 20018776 54194487 2/28 -3/28 681- 421510 - 644620.00000 0.00 229.63 0.00 201963 2/28 -3/28 20018776 54293074$$3/15 -4/14 681. 421510. 644620 -00000 0.00 416.72 0.00 201963 3/15.4/14 20018776 54194478 2/28 -3/29 681. 421510 - 644620.00000 0.00 432.30 0.00 201963 2/28 -3/39 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573683 VENDOR 329450 - IRON AGE CORPORATION 20018678 357892P 408. 253221 - 652990.00000 0.00 110.00 0.00 203494 SAFETY SHOES 20018678 353453PB 408 - 253221 - 652990.00000 0.00 183.00 0.00 203494 SAFETY SHOES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573694 VENDOR 332500 - IRWIN SEATING CO 20019014 082236A AUDITORIUM SEATIN 355 - 156175. 762200 -80259 0.00 10,712.77 0.00 104592 AUDITORIUM SEATING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573785 VENDOR 353200 - ISLAND TITLE & MANUEL LLERINE 20, 2 COUNTY. FLORI 1 6 J IAGE 102 REMARCH REPORT 100 -600 PO ONERDA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018834 D/P M LLERINE 35755200007 191 - 138785. 884100 -33752 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 #35755200007 M LLERINE 204710 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,500.00 CHECK NO 573334 VENDOR 122640 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DEPT. 20018832 2/02 FIRE INSPECTIONS 113- 000000 - 209801 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 2/02 FIRE INSPECTIONS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 CHECK NO 573626 VENDOR 308210 J HEITMANN & R PETERSON MD 20018514 A DURAN 2/27/02 001. 155930- 631210.00000 0.00 182.65 0.00 182.65 154711 A DURAN 2/27/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 182.65 CHECK NO 573482 VENDOR 231810 - J. M. TODD COMPANY 20018814 73487 408 - 253212. 651210 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 200282 3/6 -4/5 20018479 73188 111. 156313- 646710 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 201491 2/2 -3/1 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 45.00 CHECK NO 573881 VENDOR 900050 - J. RICHARD & ELIZABETH GILGER 301711 ST LIGHT REIM J. GILGER 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM J. GILGER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573404 VENDOR 169530 - J. ROLAND LIEBER, P.A. 20019085 #2 GG EXP 368 - 116360 - 631400 -00163 0.00 9,074.44 0.00 9,074.44 103221 GG EXP 4/28 -10/27 20018591 0201 -0002 109 - 182900- 634999 -00000 0.00 760.00 0.00 760.00 202720 SVS 1/26- 2/23/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9.834.44 CHECK NO 573709 VENDOR 336570 - J.A. WEBSTER, INC. 20018558 1420987 001 - 155410 - 652720 -00000 0.00 0.56- 0.00 0.56- 154630 VIALS MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI AGE 103 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018558 1420987 001 - 155410. 652720 -00000 0.00 55.75 0.00 55.75 154630 VIALS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 55.19 CHECK NO 573481 VENDOR 231020 - J.M. TODD COMPANY 20018480 73101 101 - 163620 - 764360 -00000 0.00 241.00 0.00 241.00 204044 COPIER 20018478 72633 408 - 233313 - 651210 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 200668 2/22 -3/21 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 261.00 CHECK NO 573248 VENDOR 9540 JACK AND ANN'S FEED 20018476 69480 001 - 122240. 652990 -00000 0.00 1.99 0.00 1.99 201287 SUPPLIES 20018559 69731 001- 155410 - 652910 -00000 0.00 12.98 0.00 12.98 154549 SUPPLIES 20018476 69490 001 - 122240. 652990 -00000 0.00 4.92 0.00 4.92 201287 SUPPLIES 20018476 69784 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 6.78 0.00 6.78 201287 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 26.67 CHECK NO 573379 VENDOR 156680 JACK LYONS TRUCK PARTS, INC. 20018563 150474 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 43.01 0.00 43.01 200865 PARTS 20018563 150567 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 130.26 0.00 130.26 200865 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 173.27 CHECK NO 573882 VENDOR 900050 JACQUELINE PARADIS TR 301628 ST LIGHT REIMB J PARADIS 781- 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB J PARADIS TR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573310 VENDOR 109260 - JACQUELINE SILANO 6JIAGE MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20018473 GG 2112102 136 - 162590. 649990 -00000 0.00 319.10 0.00 203922 GG 2/12/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573883 VENDOR 900050 - JAMES E.WILLIS, CHARLES CANNON TR 301713 ST LIGHT REIM J. WILLIS 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM J. WILLIS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573639 VENDOR 315280 - JAMES GAMMELL 20018898 3/25 -27 ADV PD J GAMMELL 408 - 233351 - 640300.00000 0.00 51.00 0.00 3/25 -27 ADV PD J GAMMELL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573884 VENDOR 900050 - JAMES J. & BETTY J. MAGUIRE JR 301610 ST LIGHT REIM J. MAGUIRE 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM J. MAGUIRE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573686 VENDOR 330170 - JAMES J. GUERRA, M.D. 20018515 G TARVIN 2/15/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 91.00 0.00 154709 G TARVIN 2/15/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573885 VENDOR 900050 - JAMES L ROLENEC 301591 ST LIGHT REIMB J ROLENEC 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB J ROLENEC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573886 VENDOR 900050 - JAMES P & SUSAN M PENNELL 301592 ST LIGHT REIMB J PENNELL 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB J PENNELL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573490 VENDOR 238580 - JAMES PUBLISHING, INC. 20018659 426498 -01 / FCCN9 (21) 001. 443010. 654110 -00000 0.00 1,469.79 0.00 204635 FL CRIM NOTBOOKS 104 16J 'PAGE 105 REPORT 100 -60012 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSSFLORIDA 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.469.79 CHECK NO 573511 VENDOR 254550 - JAMES VON RINTELN 20018907 1/8 -2/16 TRVL J VONRINTEL 118. 144210- 640310 -33780 0.00 95.99 0.00 95.99 1/8 -2/16 TRVL J VONRINTELN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 95.99 CHECK NO 573331 VENDOR 116700 - JAMESON SUPPLY INC. 20018474 76323 001 - 122240 - 652995 -00000 0.00 380.05 0.00 380.05 201286 PARTS 20018474 76388 001 - 122240 - 652995 -00000 0.00 125.60 0.00 125.60 201286 PARTS 20018474 76322 001 - 122240- 652995 -00000 0.00 44.08 0.00 44.08 201286 PARTS 20018474 76301 001. 122240- 652995.00000 0.00 10.98 0.00 10.98 201286 PARTS 20018474 76317 001 - 122240 - 652995 -00000 0.00 21.05 0.00 21.05 201286 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 581.76 CHECK NO 573470 VENDOR 222930 - JANICE ELLIOTT 20018804 3/28 -30 MIDNIGHT BASKETBL 130 - 157710- 640300 -00000 0.00 720.00 0.00 720.00 154574 3/28.30 MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 720.00 CHECK NO 573570 VENDOR 278030 - JEANINE MCPHERSON 20018888 11/8 -1/30 TRVL J MCPHERSO 111 - 156380 - 640200.00000 0.00 205.90 0.00 205.90 11/8 -1/30 TRVL J MCPHERSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 205.90 CHECK NO 573249 VENDOR 9920 - JEFFREY MCCARTNEY, M.D. P.A. 20018512 B DRILICH 2/22/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 81.25 0.00 81.25 154710 D DRILICH 2/22/02 20018512 R OUELLET 2/11/02 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 81.25 0.00 81.25 154710 R OUELLET 2/11/02 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J IAGE 106 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 162.50 CHECK NO 573405 VENDOR 169770 - JENNINGS ARCHITECTURAL HARDWARE 20018496 14175 001. 122240. 652991 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 153573 PARTS 20018496 14106 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 190.60 0.00 190.60 153573 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 235.60 CHECK NO 573887 VENDOR 900050 JENNY D'AMELIO 301531 REFUND PARKS D'AMELIO 111 - 156380 - 347990.00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 REFUND PARKS D'AMELIO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 573458 VENDOR 213560 JERRY L. THARP 20018892 3/24 -27 ADV PO J THARP 408 - 233312 - 640300 -00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 63.00 /324 -27 ADV PD J THARP 20018892 2112 TRVL J THARP 408. 233312- 640300 -00000 0.00 84.00 0.00 84.00 2/12 TRVL J THARP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 147.00 CHECK NO 573603 VENDOR 292620 - JM TODD, INC. 20018574 72996 001 - 000000 - 142500 -00000 0.00 140.00 0.00 140.00 154333 MOVE COPIER 20018562 73341 517. 121640 - 634999 -00000 0.00 273.00 0.00 273.00 204454 COPIER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 413.00 CHECK NO 573888 VENDOR 900050 - JOAN PATTERSON 301709 ST LIGHT REIM J. PATTERSO 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM J. PATTERSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573889 VENDOR 900050 - JOANN M MORRISON 301593 ST LIGHT REIMB J MORRISON 781- 162752. 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB J MORRISON OUNTY, FLORID 16JI AGE 107 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573890 VENDOR 900050 - JOHN & DOROTHY THOMPSON 301715 ST LIGHT REIM J. THOMPSON 781. 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM J. THOMPSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573891 VENDOR 900050 - JOHN & SHARON LIEBER 301681 ST LIGHT REIMB J LIEBER 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB J LIEBER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573250 VENDOR 10110 - JOHN BOLDT 20018876 9/19- 2/8/02 TRVL J BOLDT9 001. 172910- 640200 -00000 0.00 13.34 0.00 13.34 1/19- 2/8/02 TRVL J BOLDT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 13.34 CHECK NO 573892 VENDOR 900050 - JOHN D & JACKIE S REMINGTON 301712 ST LIGHT REIM J. REMINGTO 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM J. REMINGTON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573752 VENDOR 348490 - JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 20018557 1106120 -3 111 - 163646. 646311 -00000 0.00 1.74- 0.00 1.74- 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018557 1106118.3 111 - 163646 - 646311.00000 0.00 1.86- 0.00 1.86- 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018564 11033253 109 - 182901 - 646311 -00000 0.00 838.95 0.00 838.95 203343 PARTS /CREDIT 20018471 1108714 -3 152. 162541 - 646311.00000 0.00 0.36- 0.00 0.36- 203428 PARTS 20018557 1106120 -3 111 - 163646 - 646311.00000 0.00 86.81 0.00 86.81 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018557 1106121 -3 111- 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 6.06- 0.00 6.06- 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 93.23 0.00 39.81 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 0.00 0.02- FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20018557 1106121 -3 111. 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 0.00 1.01 20018711 1111561.3 109 - 182901 - 646311 -00000 0.00 0.00 203343 PARTS 20018557 1106118.3 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018578 1108713 -3 412. 273511 - 655100 -70881 0.00 203446 PARTS /DISC 20018477 1081348 -3 111 - 156332 - 646311 -00000 0.00 203480 PARTS 20018557 1106119 -3 111 - 163646 - 646311.00000 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018557 1108712 -3 111 - 163646. 646311 -00000 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018471 1108714 -3 152 - 162541 - 646311 -00000 0.00 203428 PARTS 20018557 1108712 -3 111- 163646. 646311.00000 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018557 1108711 -3 111. 163646- 646311 -00000 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018564 1111560 -3 109 - 182901 - 646311.00000 0.00 203343 PARTS /CREDIT 20018578 1108713 -3 412 - 273511. 655100 -70881 0.00 203446 PARTS /DISC 20018557 1106119 -3 111- 163646. 646311 -00000 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018557 1108711 -3 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT CHECK NO 573893 VENDOR 900050 - JOHN E & AUDREY M GOODRICH 301629 ST LIGHT REIMB J GOODRICH 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 ST LIGHT REIMB J GOODRICH 16JIAGE 108 AMT NET VCHR DISC 302.82 0.00 67.51 0.00 93.23 0.00 39.81 0.00 161.50 0.00 0.02- 0.00 7.06 0.00 18.10 0.00 0.14- 0.00 1.60- 0.00 31.97- 0.00 0.80- 0.00 1.01 0.00 80.04 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 134.83 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER C,)UNTY, FLORIDA 16JIPAGE 109 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DEI;AILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19. 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573894 VENDOR 900050 - JOHN H. & MARION BECKER 301708 ST LIGHT REIM J. BECKER 781- 162752.98i00n -00000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM J. BECKER CHECK NO 573895 VENDOR 900050 - JOHN S HEDGER TR 301560 ST LIGHT REIMB J HEDGER 781 - 162752- 981000 -0t,000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB J HEDGER CHECK NO 573896 VENDOR 900050 - JOHN W & DOREEN PATERSON 301594 ST LIGHT REIMB J PATERSON 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB J PATERSON CHECK NO 573897 VENDOR 900050 - JOHNAVIEVE A. DAVIS JR 134.83 301710 ST LIGHT REIM J. DAVIS 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM J. DAVIS 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573342 VENDOR 11-7280 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 134.83 20018475 187808 001- 122240 - 652996 -00000 0.00 134.83 203313 SUPPLIES 0.00 134.83 20018475 187829 001 - 122240 - 652996 -00000 0.00 0.00 20333 SUPPLIES 181.50 0.00 20018475 187809 001- 122240. 652996.00000 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 203313 SUPPLIES 250.66 63.00 CHECK NO 573546 VENDOR 270020 - JON H. PRATT 20018904 3/24 -27 ADV PD J PRATT 408 - 233352 - 640300 -00000 0.00 3/24 -27 ADV PD J PRATT 20018904 2/12 TRVL J PRATT 408. 233352- 640300 -00000 0.00 2/12 TRVL J PRATT ANT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 134.83 0.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 134.83 0.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 134.83 01.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 134.83 0.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 62.94 0.00 62.94 181.50 0.00 181.50 6.22 0.00 6.22 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 250.66 63.00 0.00 63.00 21.00 0.00 21.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 84.00 OUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 110 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573436 VENDOR 193480 - JONES CHEMICAL 20018658 93949 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 3,132.15 0.00 3,132.15 202571 CAUSTIC SODA 20018657 93950 408 - 253211 - 652310 -00000 0.00 3,011.24 0.00 3.011.24 202570 CAUSTIC SODA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.143.39 CHECK NO 573898 VENDOR 900050 - JOSEPH & DIANE BLACK 301669 ST LIGHT REIMB J BLACK 781 - 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB J BLACK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573899 VENDOR 900050 - JOSEPH A COOK 301630 ST LIGHT REIMB J COOK 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB J COOK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573619 VENDOR 303010 - JOSEPH BIANCHI 20018902 2112 TRVL J BIANCHI 408 - 233352 - 640300 -00000 0.00 21.00 0.00 21.00 2/12 TRVL J BIANCHI 20018902 3/24 -27 ADV PD J BIANCHI 408. 233352 - 640300 -00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 63.00 3/24 -27 ADV PD J BIANCHI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 84.00 CHECK NO 573644 VENDOR 316820 - JOSEPH CHEATHAM 20018897 3/24 -27 ADV PD J CHEATHAM 408. 210120. 640300 -00000 0.00 69.00 0.00 69.00 3/24 -27 ADV PD J CHEATHAM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 69.00 CHECK NO 573900 VENDOR 900050 - JOSEPH F FERRIGNO TR 301682 ST LIGHT REIMB J FERRIGNO 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB J FERRIGNO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573901 VENDOR 900050 - JOSEPHINE M SALVAGNI TR 20, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 111 REPORCH T 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISS ONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301558 ST LIGHT REIMB SALVAGNI 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB SALVAGNI TR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573902 VENDOR 900050 - JOYCE & JUNE COMER 301683 ST LIGHT REIMB J COMER 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB J COMER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573508 VENDOR 252850 - JUDY G. MILLER 20018733 EST NEW CHANGE ACCT -C DEV 113 - 000000 - 102600 -00000 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 EST NEW CHANGE ACCT -COMM. DEV. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 200.00 CHECK NO 573251 VENDOR 10500 - JUDY SCRIBNER 20018874 3/4.11 TRVL J SCRIBNER 123.155975.640200 -33075 0.00 16.24 123.155960- 640200 -33060 0.00 16.82 0.00 33.06 3/4 -11 TRVL J SCRIBNER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 33.06 CHECK NO 573903 VENDOR 900050 JUNE REILLY 301535 REFUND PARKS REILLY 111 - 156380 - 347990 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 REILLY REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 573904 VENDOR 900050 KARINE & JOANNA BAKHOUM 301639 ST LIGHT REIMB K BAKHOUM 781 - 162752.981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB K BAKHOUM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573905 VENDOR 900050 - KARL HEINZ KRIESSLER & MARC E. 301584 ST LIGHT REIM K.KRIESSLER 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM K. KRIESSLER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573906 VENDOR 900050 - KATHLEEN A. MAGUIRE OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 112 REPORT 100 -60012 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301579 ST LIGHT REIM K. MAGUIRE 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM K. MAGUIRE 301579 ST. LIGHT REIM R. ROSS 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM R.ROSS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 269.66 CHECK NO 573711 VENDOR 337540 - KAY JAY SERVICES 20018812 199 111 - 156332 - 652510 -00000 0.00 999.00 0.00 999.00 154157 CHERRY ODOR COUNTERACTANT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 999.00 CHECK NO 573799 VENDOR 353470 KAY PARK -REC CORP. 20018498 95242P 111. 156332 - 646316 -00000 0.00 284.00 0.00 284.00 153646 GRILLS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 284.00 CHECK NO 573448 VENDOR 204660 KEEP LEE COUNTY BEAUTIFUL INC. 20018207 021902.1 470 - 173463. 634999 -00000 0.00 1.313.00 0.00 1,313.00 204027 SVS 20018207 030602 -1 470. 173463 - 634999 -00000 0.00 2,593.50 0.00 2,593.50 204027 SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,906.50 CHECK NO 573252 VENDOR 10690 - KELLY BLUEPRINTERS 20018482 10784 113. 138312 - 651210 -00000 0.00 79.26 0.00 79.26 200473 SUPPLIES 20018500 11131 113 - 138312- 651210 -00000 0.00 52.84 0.00 52.84 200473 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 132.10 CHECK NO 573322 VENDOR 115150 - KELLY TRACTOR CO. 20018565 P13C6188045 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 5.52 0.00 5.52 200867 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.52 CHECK NO 573419 VENDOR 179190 - KENNETH R. DEVOS,MAI, SRA 20, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 113 REPORCH T 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20019055 CL -02 -03 331 - 163650- 631600 -60071 0.00 62.50 0.00 62.50 204717 APPRAISAL MEDIATION 20019055 CL -02 -01 LIVINGSTON RD 331. 163650. 631600 -60071 0.00 2,812.50 0.00 2,812.50 204717 APPRAISAL MEDIATION CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,875.00 CHECK NO 573794 VENDOR 353370 - KIEFER PROF. SERVICE /JULES KIEFER, 20018513 J HARKER 2/5 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 448.50 0.00 448.50 154727 J HARKER 2/5/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 448.50 CHECK NO 573907 VENDOR 900050 - KIMBALL HILL HOMES 301533 REFUND 320181 MID ISLAND 113 - 000000. 115420 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 MID ISLAND MARINA REF 320181 301533 REF 320304 KIMBALL 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 3.80 0.00 3.80 KIMBALL REF 320304 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 28.80 CHECK NO 573456 VENDOR 210340 KINKO'S 20018815 635112 001. 156110 - 647110 -00000 0.00 29.50 0.00 29.50 202234 COPIES 20018815 631541 001 - 156110. 647110 -00000 0.00 86.25 0.00 86.25 202234 COPIES 20019057 638530 001- 156170. 647110 -00000 0.00 657.13 0.00 657.13 155013 FLYERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 772.88 CHECK NO 573743 VENDOR 346860 KMC TELECOM, INC 20018481 0048600 2/20 -3/19 001 - 443010 - 641900.00000 0.00 786.00 0.00 786.00 202693 2/20 -3/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 786.00 CHECK NO 573623 VENDOR 305300 KONE, INC 20018483 15586482 408. 253221. 634999.00000 0.00 106.00 0.00 106.00 200424 2102 CH 20, FLORID 16JI PAGE 114 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISS ONERA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 106.00 CHECK NO 573908 VENDOR 900050 KONRAD D & BARBARA A KOHL 301559 ST LIGHT REIMB K KOHL 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB K KOHL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573573 VENDOR 278310 KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP 20018214 40764106 410 - 213811 - 634999 -73902 0.00 0.00 410 - 213811. 634999 -73053 0.00 10,810.00 0.00 10,810.00 203219 AUDIT SCRWTP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10,810.00 CHECK NO 573253 VENDOR 10890 KRAFT CONSTRUCTION 20017197 0126P -04 381 - 120402- 631401 -80003 0.00 8,865.00 0.00 8.865.00 202299 THRU 2/25/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8.865.00 CHECK NO 573254 VENDOR 10900 KREHLING INDUSTRIES 20018484 405964 111 - 163645 - 653150 -00000 0.00 309.00 0.00 309.00 201125 CONCRETE 20018484 405040 111. 163645. 653150 -00000 0.00 284.00 0.00 284.00 201125 CONCRETE 20018484 405039 111 - 163645 - 653150 -00000 0.00 284.00 0.00 284.00 201125 CONCRETE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 877.00 CHECK NO 573420 VENDOR 179430 - KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. 20018535 22 -30 414. 263611- 634999 -74023 0.00 23,800.00 0.00 23,800.00 106027 CONNECT FIRE SUS 20018536 22.32 414 - 263611 - 634999 -74023 0.00 19,300.00 0.00 19.300.00 202361 CONNECT FIRE SVS 20018538 22 -33 414. 263611. 634999 -74023 0.00 18,290.00 0.00 18,290.00 202601 CONNECT FIRE SVS 20018534 22 -34 414 - 263611 - 634999 -74023 0.00 17,800.00 0.00 17,800.00 202117 CONNECT FIRE SUS OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 115 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018539 22 -31 414 - 263611 - 634999 -74023 0.00 24,500.00 0.00 24,500.00 203085 CONNECT FIRE SVS 20018537 22 -29 414 - 263611 - 634999 -74023 0.00 22,500.00 0.00 22,500.00 202886 CONNECT FIRE SUS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 126.190.00 CHECK NO 573400 VENDOR 167650 L.B. SMITH INC. 20018566 P79873044 521.122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 415.07 0.00 415.07 200869 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 415.07 CHECK NO 573362 VENDOR 141850 LAMOTTE COMPANY 20018810 762636 441 - 256110 - 652310 -00000 0.00 62.63 0.00 62.63 152272 CHEMICALS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 62.63 CHECK NO 573909 VENDOR 900050 LARRY P. & SANDRA A. BOLTZ 301614 ST LIGHT REIM L.BOLTZ 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM L. BOLTZ CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573607 VENDOR 293890 - LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPLY COMPANY INC 20018567 MA7155 521- 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 140.43 0.00 140.43 203277 SUPPLIES 20018567 MA7135 521 - 122410.646425 -00000 0.00 95.00 0.00 95.00 203277 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 235.43 CHECK NO 573757 VENDOR 349920 LAW ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL 20018979 4033538629 413.263611- 631400.73949 0.00 922.75 0.00 922.75 203837 TO 2/6/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 922.75 CHECK NO 573354 VENDOR 135200 LAWN EQUIPMENT CENTER 20018590 49062 109- 182901 - 652990.00000 0.00 88.58 0.00 88.58 200095 EQUIP PARTS MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER OUNTY, FLORID COLLIR BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA 16JI PAGE 116 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573910 VENDOR 900050 - LAWRENCE R & ANN B FARRINGTON 301662 ST LIGHT REIMB FARRINGTON 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 ST LIGHT REIMB FARRINGTON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573682 VENDOR 329400 - LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 132.14- 20018568 9030929 521.122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 483.00- 203633 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 0.00 224.58 20018568 8990665 521.122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 0.00 203633 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 31.66 0.00 20018568 9000168 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 52.70- 203633 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 52.70 - CHECK TOTAL 20018568 9017627 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 323.00 203633 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 0.00 323.00 20018568 9023129 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 203633 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018568 9023129 521- 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 203633 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018568 9030929 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 203633 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018568 9017627 521- 122410.646425.00000 0.00 203633 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT 20018568 9032869 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 203633 PARTS /DISC /CREDIT CHECK NO 573443 VENDOR 201490 LEADERSHIP DIRECTORIES INC. 20018501 242370. 5/5572540 355. 156190- 766100 -00000 0.00 202435 DIRECTORIES CHECK NO 573911 VENDOR 900050 LEE & SHARON MYERS 301714 ST LIGHT REIM L. MYERS 781.162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM L. MYERS VCHR NET 88.58 134.83 134.83 0.28- 0.00 0.28- 132.14- 0.00 132.14- 483.00- 0.00 483.00- 224.58 0.00 224.58 10.38- 0.00 10.38- 1.047.97 0.00 1,047.97 31.66 0.00 31.66 2.19- 0.00 2.19- 52.70- 0.00 52.70 - CHECK TOTAL 0.00 623.52 323.00 0.00 323.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 323.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 117 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573255 VENDOR 11110 - LEE CO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 20019032 20195 - 100816 3/11/02 001 - 061010 - 643100 -00000 0.00 8.12 0.00 8.12 20195.100816 3/11/02 20019032 20195.101440 2/11 -3/12 198 - 157440.643100 -00000 0.00 14.77 0.00 14.77 20195.101440 2/11 -3/12 20019032 20195 - 101183 2/11 -3/12 001. 156150. 643100 -00000 0.00 315.68 0.00 315.68 20195 - 101183 2/11 -3/12 20019032 20195 - 137263 2/1 -3/4 001 - 061010. 643100 -00000 0.00 1,129.41 0.00 1,129.41 20195 - 137263 2/1 -3/4 20019032 20195 - 154799 3/12/02 001 - 061010. 643100 -00000 0.00 840.16 0.00 840.16 20195 - 154799 3/12/02 20019032 20195.129624 2/1 -3/4 001 - 061010 - 643100.00000 0.00 1,192.53 0.00 1.192.53 20195 - 129624 2/1 -3/4 20019032 20195- 168960 2/5 -3/6 101- 163630 - 643100 -00000 0.00 14.70 0.00 14.70 20195 - 168960 2/5 -3/6 20019032 20195 - 137416 2/1 -3/4 001- 081020 - 643100.00000 0.00 225.95 001- 041010 - 643100 -00000 0.00 289.10 001 - 061010- 643100 -00000 0.00 250.74 681 - 431310.643100 -00000 0.00 188.83 681 - 421510 - 643100 -00000 0.00 604.75 0.00 1.559.37 20195 - 137416 2/1 -3/4 20019032 20195 - 145917 2/1 -3/4 001- 155410.643100 -00000 0.00 16.45 0.00 16.45 20195 - 145917 2/1 -3/4 20019032 20195 -99362 2/1 -3/4 101. 163620- 643100 -00000 0.00 359.05 0.00 359.05 20195 -99362 2/1 -3/4 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.450.24 CHECK NO 573805 VENDOR 900030 LEE COMBS 301735 3/5 -8 TRVL L COMBS 121 - 138755 - 640300.33024 0.00 66.20 0.00 66.20 3/5 -8 TRVL L COMBS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 66.20 CHECK NO 573442 VENDOR 200110 LEIBOWITZ AND ASSOCIATES 20018796 REGIST. D WALLACE 2/27 669 - 100220 - 654360.00000 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 154937 REGIST. D WALLACE 2/27 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER OUNTY, FLORID COLLIR BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA 16JI PAGE 118 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19,, 2002 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 175.00 CHECK NO 573596 VENDOR 290080 LENNAR HOMES, INC 20018472 REF OVPY CK #513897 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 31.00 LENNAR REF #319577 CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 573257 VENDOR 11240 LEO'S SOD & LANDSCAPING 20018709 7638 322 - 183825 - 646320 -00000 0.00 159.60 202876 SOD 20018206 7542 111- 156332 - 646320 -00000 0.00 3,441.60 204365 SOD 20018816 7661 408.253212- 646314 -00000 0.00 45.90 200235 SOD 20018487 7639 408. 253212 - 646314.00000 0.00 39.90 201993 SOD 20018215 7631 313 - 163673 - 763100 -61012 0.00 10,320.00 204177 SOD 20018487 7604 408. 253212.646314 -00000 0.00 39.90 201993 SOD 20018816 7637 408 - 253212 - 646314 -00000 0.00 6.00 200235 SOD 20018486 7643 111.163645- 646314 -00000 0.00 159.60 200879 SOD 20018816 7632 408 - 253212 - 646314 -00000 0.00 39.90 200235 SOD 20018569 7408 111 - 163645 - 646314 -00000 0.00 159.60 200879 SOD 20018569 7429 111.163645. 646314 -00000 0.00 39.90 200879 SOD 20018486 7857 111. 163645 - 646314.00000 0.00 159.60 200879 SOD 20018811 7707 001. 156363. 646315 -00000 0.00 541.80 153687 SOD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OUNTY, FLORID 16J1 PAGE 119 REPORT 100 -60012 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018485 7602 408- 253212. 646314 -00000 0.00 39.90 0.00 39.90 200235 SOD 20018710 7636 322. 183825- 646320 -00000 0.00 159.60 0.00 159.60 202876 SOD 20018817 7659 408. 253212. 646314 -00000 0.00 39.90 0.00 39.90 201993 SOD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15,392.70 CHECK NO 573748 VENDOR 348020 - LERNER GROUP 20018517 L458738 355 - 156190. 766100 -00000 0.00 136.40 0.00 136.40 154924 CHILDREN'S TITLES 20018517 L458422 355 - 156190. 766100 -00000 0.00 289.85 0.00 289.85 154924 CHILDREN'S TITLES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 426.25 CHECK NO 573312 VENDOR 109750 - LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEMS, INC. 20018660 2507 301 - 120402. 763100 -80172 0.00 1,250.00 0.00 1,250.00 204690 INSTALL LIGHTNG PROT SYS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,250.00 CHECK NO 573728 VENDOR 343480 LILIANA CARRENDER 20018210 3/7 3.5 HRS 681 - 431590. 634402 -00000 0.00 45.50 0.00 45.50 CARRENDER 3/7 3.5 HRS 20018210 3/5 5 HRS 681 - 431590. 634402 -00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 CARRENDER 3/5 5 HRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 110.50 CHECK NO 573738 VENDOR 345800 LISA P. KIRBY, EQS 20018656 00 -2777 W SIMMER 681- 421190. 631020 -00000 0.00 2,085.00 681 - 421190 - 631025 -00000 0.00 18.00 681 - 421190 - 631010 -00000 0.00 2,455.07 0.00 4,558.07 KIRBY 00 -2777 W SIMMER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,558.07 CHECK NO 573912 VENDOR 900050 - LLOYD & ELEANOR DIXON TR 301684 ST LIGHT REIMB L DIXON TR 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB L DIXON TR OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 120 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573705 VENDOR 335680 LORI S WALLACE 20018912 2/5 -28 TRVL L WALLACE 681 - 421510.640200 -00000 0.00 30.45 0.00 30.45 2/5 -28 TRVL L WALLACE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 30.45 CHECK NO 573555 VENDOR 272440 LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE 20018818 061306097682 408 - 253221. 652310 -00000 0.00 250.11 0.00 250.11 202215 SALT PELLETS 20019082 061302994302 1/29/02 408 - 253221.652310 -00000 0.00 295.11 0.00 295.11 202215 SALT PELLETS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 545.22 CHECK NO 573913 VENDOR 900050 LUCILLE N CAMPMAN 301595 ST LIGHT REIMB L CAMPMAN 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB L CAMPMAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573914 VENDOR 900050 - LUDWIG J & MARY ANN ABRUZZO 301623 ST LIGHT REIMB L ABRUZZO 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB L ABRUZZO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573190 VENDOR 174240 LUZ PIETRI 20018974 PETTY CASH 001 - 156130. 646110 -00000 0.00 8.99 001. 156130. 651110 -00000 0.00 37.96 001 - 156130. 652990 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 66.95 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 66.95 CHECK NO 573191 VENDOR 174240 LUZ PIETRI 20018975 PETTY CASH 001.156110.641950 -00000 0.00 43.59 001 - 156110. 646110 -00000 0.00 19.83 001. 156110. 652990 -00000 0.00 31.34 0.00 94.76 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 94.76 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 121 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573413 VENDOR 174240 - LUZ PIETRI 20018734 PETTY CASH 001. 156170 - 641950.00000 0.00 44.60 001. 156170- 651110 -00000 0.00 10.15 001 - 156170- 652990 -00000 0.00 13.38 0.00 68.13 PETTY CASH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 68.13 CHECK NO 573915 VENDOR 900050 - LYDIA M HOFF 301663 ST LIGHT REIMB L M HOFF 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB L M HOFF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573660 VENDOR 320440 LYNDA BRISBOIS 20018575 3/7 -12/02 001 - 421060 - 634999.00000 0.00 480.00 0.00 480.00 154971 3/7 -12/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 480.00 CHECK NO 573767 VENDOR 351180 M /A -COM PRS, INC 20018762 875832 101- 163630. 634999.00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 154972 REMOVE,INSTALL,REMOVE 20018762 875831 101- 163630. 634999 -00000 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 154972 REMOVE,INSTALL,REMOVE 20018762 875830 101- 163630. 634999 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 154972 REMOVE,INSTALL,REMOVE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 265.00 CHECK NO 573730 VENDOR 343930 - M /A -COM RADIO SYSTEMS 20018509 0875620 188 - 140480 - 646610 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 201343 MAINT 20018509 0875615 188- 140480 - 646610.00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 201343 MAINT 20018509 0876081 188- 140480 - 646610 -00000 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 201343 MAINT 20018509 0875618 188 - 140480 - 646610 -00000 0.00 225.00 0.00 225.00 201343 MAINT MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018509 0875617 201343 MAINT 20018488 0860060 201343 MAINT 20018576 0875826 152303 INSTALL RADIO 20018509 0875614 201343 MAINT 20018488 860057 201343 MAINT 20018509 0875613 201343 MAINT 20018509 0875619 201343 MAINT 20018509 0875616 201343 MAINT 20018509 0876080 201343 MAINT 20018488 0860056 201343 MAINT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR DISC SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 188 - 140480. 646610 -00000 0.00 188 - 140480. 646610.00000 0.00 111 - 156334. 646610 -00000 0.00 188 - 140480. 646610.00000 0.00 188 - 140480. 646610 -00000 0.00 188. 140480 - 646610 -00000 0.00 188. 140480- 646610 -00000 0.00 188. 140480. 646610 -00000 0.00 188 - 140480. 646610 -00000 0.00 188 - 140480 - 646610 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573575 VENDOR 280100 - MAIL STATION COURIER 20018510 17812 408. 210151. 634999 -00000 201914 SUS CHECK NO 573291 VENDOR 100800 - MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERVICES 20018208 30044769 001. 122240. 639967 -00000 201277 TEMPS 20018831 30045431 001 - 126334. 646311 -00000 200076 TEMPS 20018499 30044770 473 - 173413. 634999.00000 200338 TEMPS 16JI PAGE 122 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 225.00 0.00 225.00 375.00 0.00 375.00 153.00 0.00 153.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 787.50 0.00 787.50 352.00 0.00 352.00 225.00 0.00 225.00 202.50 0.00 202.50 45.00 0.00 45.00 562.50 0.00 562.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.927.50 0.00 176.00 0.00 176.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 176.00 0.00 1,568.00 0.00 1,568.00 0.00 650.00 0.00 650.00 0.00 905.60 0.00 905.60 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 123 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.123.60 CHECK NO 573572 VENDOR 278190 - MAP SUPPLY INC 20018707 02839 101. 163630 - 654110.00000 0.00 99.95 0.00 99.95 154349 ATLAS 20018560 02864 408.210155- 652990 -00000 0.00 187.50 0.00 187.50 154192 MAP BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 287.45 CHECK NO 573916 VENDOR 900050 - MARCIA E PERRY 301561 ST LIGHT REIMB M PERRY 781. 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB M PERRY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573341 VENDOR 127090 MARCO OFFICE SUPPLY 20017701 202220521 001 - 010110 - 651110.00000 0.00 64.00 0.00 64.00 200303 SUPPLIES 20018586 202270602 408 - 210155 - 651110 -00000 0.00 47.94 0.00 47.94 203365 SUPPLIES 20017747 201310574 113 - 138900.651110 -00000 0.00 1.762.60 0.00 1,762.60 200139 PAPER 20018518 201160528 001- 000000 - 142500 -00000 0.00 67.14 0.00 67.14 200636 PAPER 20018520 202200530 490 - 144610. 651110.00000 0.00 130.00 0.00 130.00 200114 SUPPLIES 20018518 202250599 001. 000000.142500 -00000 0.00 71.97 0.00 71.97 200636 PAPER 20018581 203040670 001 - 144210. 651110 -00000 0.00 47.98 0.00 47.98 201024 SUPPLIES 20018582 202280627 001 - 421030.651110 -00000 0.00 183.16 0.00 183.16 201207 SUPPLIES 20018580 202250683 521.122410- 651110 -00000 0.00 71.97 0.00 71.97 200963 SUPPLIES 20018587 203050679 669. 100220. 651110 -00000 0.00 47.98 0.00 47.98 203687 PAPER 20, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 124 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018524 202280547 470. 173435- 651110.00000 0.00 183.12 0.00 183.12 201205 SUPPLIES 20018519 203060554 001 - 155110 - 651110 -00000 0.00 40.99 0.00 40.99 200014 SUPPLIES 20018518 202220668 001. 000000- 142500 -00000 0.00 23.99 0.00 23.99 200636 PAPER 20018584 202250535 001 - 454010. 651110 -00000 0.00 191.92 0.00 191.92 202085 SUPPLIES 20018523 202250588 113 - 138910- 652990.00000 0.00 241.18 0.00 241.18 201883 SUPPLIES 20018518 202220667 001 - 000000. 142500 -00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200636 PAPER 20018518 202260528 001. 000000. 142500 -00000 0.00 91.13 0.00 91.13 200636 PAPER 20018518 201240568 001. 000000- 142500.00000 0.00 29.65 0.00 29.65 200636 PAPER 20018705 203050627 001- 155410 - 651110.00000 0.00 71.97 0.00 71.97 201013 SUPPLIES 20018706 202250549 191 - 138785 - 651110 -33752 0.00 6.20 0.00 6.20 154974 SUPPLIES 20018585 203040645 001 - 421040 - 651110 -00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 203042 SUPPLIES 20018518 201030575 001 - 000000. 142500 -00000 0.00 45.98 0.00 45.98 200636 PAPER 20018518 201160518 001 - 000000. 142500 -00000 0.00 132.70 0.00 132.70 200636 PAPER 20018526 203060571 001 - 432040. 651110 -00000 0.00 118.44 0.00 118.44 204532 SUPPLIES 20018704 202220564 001. 138710- 651110.00000 0.00 87.74 0.00 87.74 203634 SUPPLIES 20018518 201160554 001. 000000 - 142500 -00000 0.00 68.97 0.00 68.97 200636 PAPER 20018522 203050630 198. 157410 - 651110.00000 0.00 23.99 0.00 23.99 200581 SUPPLIES MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018518 201280551 200636 PAPER 20018516 202190093 153538 PRINT INVITATIONS 20018521 201240535 200276 SUPPLIES 20018518 201040605 200636 PAPER 20018588 203010524 204202 SUPPLIES 20018525 202130650 203850 SUPPLIES 20018583 202270705 201251 SUPPLIES 20018518 201170661 200636 PAPER 20018585 202280612 203042 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR DISC SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001. 000000- 142500 -00000 0.00 301. 110472 - 762200 -80535 0.00 113. 138930- 651110.00000 0.00 001 - 000000 - 142500.00000 0.00 001. 421070 - 651110 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363. 651110 -00000 0.00 001. 122240. 651110.00000 0.00 001 - 000000 - 142500 -00000 0.00 001- 421040 - 651110 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573258 VENDOR 12100 - MARCO VETERINARIAN HOSPITAL 20018570 01 -9052 D MOSS 610 - 155410- 631970.00000 201037 D MOSS 01 -9052 CHECK NO 573917 VENDOR 900050 - MARGARET D. CROTTY 301716 ST LIGHT REIM M. CROTTY 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 ST LIGHT REIM M. CROTTY CHECK NO 573918 VENDOR 900050 - MARGARET M PHILLIPS TR 301596 ST LIGHT REIMB M PHILLIPS 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 ST LIGHT REIMB M PHILLIPS 16JI PAGE 125 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 68.97 0.00 68.97 135.00 0.00 135.00 129.00 0.00 129.00 95.96 0.00 95.96 35.49 0.00 35.49 46.00 0.00 46.00 47.98 0.00 47.98 95.96 0.00 95.96 141.11 0.00 141.11 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,648.18 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 45.00 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA 0.00 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 112.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573336 VENDOR 122850 - MARIA G. DELASHMET 20018212 3/1 3 HRS 681- 431590. 634402.00000 0.00 681 - 421190 - 634402.00000 0.00 DELASHMET 3/1 3 HRS 20019060 3/11/02 5.5 HRS 681 - 421190- 634402.00000 0.00 DELASHMET 3/11/02 5.5 HRS 20018212 3/8 3 HRS 681 - 431590 - 634402.00000 0.00 681- 421190 - 634402.00000 0.00 DELASHMET 3/8 3 HRS 20018212 3/7 2.5HRS 681 - 431590. 634402 -00000 0.00 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 DELASHMET 3/7 2.5HRS 20018212 3/6 4.5HRS 681 - 431590. 634402.00000 0.00 681- 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 DELASHMET 3/6 4.5HRS 20018212 2/28 5.5HRS 681 - 431590. 634402 -00000 0.00 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 DELASHMET 2/28 5.5HRS 20018212 3/4 7.5HRS 681. 431590- 634402 -00000 0.00 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 DELASHMET 3/4 7.5HRS 20018212 3/5 7 HRS 681. 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 681. 421190 - 634402.00000 0.00 DELASHMET 3/5 7 HRS 20019061 3/12/02 4 HRS 681 - 421190 - 634402.00000 0.00 681 - 431590 - 634402.00000 0.00 3/12/02 4 HRS 20018589 01 -0297 2/28/02 681 - 421190 - 634402.00000 0.00 DELASHMET 01 -0297 2/28/02 CHECK NO 573919 VENDOR 900050 - MARILYN ALLEN KRAEGER TR 301661 ST LIGHT REIMB M KRAEGER 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 ST LIGHT REIMB M KRAEGER TR CHECK NO 573549 VENDOR 271060 - MARIO L. GARCIA 16JIPAGE 126 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 16.00 32.00 88.00 48.00 0.00 8.00 32.00 72.00 0.00 24.00 64.00 64.00 56.00 24.00 88.00 48.00 16.00 16.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 88.00 48.00 40.00 72.00 0.00 88.00 0.00 120.00 0.00 112.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 16.00 696.00 134.83 134.83 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 127 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018894 3/7 TRVL M GARCIA 408 - 233351. 640300 -00000 0.00 9.00 0.00 9.00 3/7 TRVL M GARCIA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9.00 CHECK NO 573542 VENDOR 266190 - MARLA RAMSEY 20018882 1/31 -3/8 TRVL M RAMSEY 111 - 156310 - 640200 -00000 0.00 58.58 0.00 58.58 1/31.3/8 TRVL M RAMSEY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 58.58 CHECK NO 573920 VENDOR 900050 - MARLENE RUMER 301685 ST LIGHT REIMB M RUMER 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB M RUMER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573803 VENDOR 353650 - MARRIOTT HOTELS 20019065 J GO 83861062 470 - 173463- 640300.00000 0.00 190.00 0.00 190.00 154014 J GO 20019065 D KIRK 83861939 470 - 173463 - 640300 -00000 0.00 190.00 0.00 190.00 154014 D KIRK 20019065 T ASARO 83862817 470 - 173463 - 640300.00000 0.00 190.00 0.00 190.00 154014 T ASARO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 570.00 CHECK NO 573921 VENDOR 900050 MARTHA A. HALL 301606 ST LIGHT REIM M. HALL 781- 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM M HALL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573922 VENDOR 900050 MARTHA MCLEAN 301609 ST LIGHT REIM M. MCLEAN 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM M.MCLEAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573923 VENDOR 900050 - MARY RICHTER 301530 REFUND PARKS RICHTER 111. 156380 - 347990.00000 0.00 90.00 0.00 90.00 REFUND PARKS RICHTER MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 128 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 90.00 CHECK NO 573722 VENDOR 341420 . MARY TORO 20018883 11/28 -2/26 TRVL M TORO 001 - 178985 - 640200.00000 0.00 109.56 0.00 109.56 11/28 -2/26 TRVL M TORO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 109.56 CHECK NO 573474 VENDOR 224910 MASUNE COMPANY 20018497 714825 111 - 156395.652720.00000 0.00 392.00 0.00 392.00 152192 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 392.00 CHECK NO 573372 VENDOR 150830 MAURA KRAUS 20018884 3/6.9 TRVL M KRAUS 001.178985- 640200.00000 0.00 16.24 0.00 16.24 3/6.9 TRVL M KRAUS 20018895 1/9 -2/20 TRVL M KRAUS 001 - 178985 - 640200 -00000 0.00 79.17 0.00 79.17 1/19.2/20 TRVL M KRAUS 20018884 3/6 -9 TRVL M KRAUS 001 - 178985 - 640300 -00000 0.00 77.34 0.00 77.34 3/6 -9 TRVL M KRAUS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 172.75 CHECK NO 573924 VENDOR 900050 - MAXIE LIVESAY 301717 ST LIGHT REIM M. LIVESAY 781.162752. 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM M. LIVESAY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573773 VENDOR 352510 MAXTEL 20018489 1846 001 - 443010 - 641700.00000 0.00 131.99 0.00 131.99 204543 REPLACE PHONE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 131.99 CHECK NO 573263 VENDOR 12200 MCCONNELLS TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 20018493 166681 001 - 122240. 652990 -00000 0.00 24.90 0.00 24.90 201278 SUPPLIES 20018495 166781 111.156313- 652990 -00000 0.00 1.16 0.00 1.16 201494 SUPPLIES MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 129 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018492 166420 111- 156332 - 652910 -00000 0.00 26.53 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 5.73 0.00 32.26 200983 SUPPLIES 20018491 166712 001. 156363. 652990 -00000 0.00 33.45 0.00 33.45 200873 SUPPLIES 20018572 166789 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 22.82 0.00 22.82 200634 SUPPLIES 20018493 166680 001- 122240. 652990 -00000 0.00 24.55 0.00 24.55 201278 SUPPLIES 20018492 166478 111 - 156332. 652910.00000 0.00 0.00 111 - 156332. 652990 -00000 0.00 11.83 0.00 11.83 200983 SUPPLIES 20018492 166490 111. 156332 - 652910 -00000 0.00 25.80 111- 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 7.99 0.00 33.79 200983 SUPPLIES 20018573 166796 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 22.79 0.00 22.79 200634 SUPPLIES 20018492 166434 111 - 156332 - 652910.00000 0.00 0.00 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 21.60 0.00 21.60 200983 SUPPLIES 20018491 166525 001 - 156363. 652990 -00000 0.00 22.02 0.00 22.02 200873 SUPPLIES 20018492 166537 111 - 156332. 652910 -00000 0.00 0.00 111 - 156332. 652990 -00000 0.00 24.79 0.00 24.79 200983 SUPPLIES 20018495 166318 111. 156313 - 652990 -00000 0.00 42.93 0.00 42.93 201494 SUPPLIES 20018493 166544 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 1.16 0.00 1.16 201278 SUPPLIES 20018493 166673 001. 122240- 652990 -00000 0.00 20.05 0.00 20.05 201278 SUPPLIES 20018829 166782 111 - 156332 - 652910 -00000 0.00 34.95 111 - 156332. 652990 -00000 0.00 3.19 0.00 38.14 200983 SUPPLIES 20018829 166970 111 - 156332 - 652910 -00000 0.00 3.95 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 39.95 0.00 43.90 200983 SUPPLIES MARCH 20, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 130 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19. 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018572 166724 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 10.12 0.00 10.12 200634 SUPPLIES 20018492 166590 111 - 156332 - 652910.00000 0.00 0.00 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 22.81 0.00 22.81 200983 SUPPLIES 20018493 166433 001. 122240- 652990.00000 0.00 1.42 0.00 1.42 201278 SUPPLIES 20018492 166286 111. 156332. 652910 -00000 0.00 0.00 111 - 156332. 652990 -00000 0.00 32.49 0.00 32.49 200983 SUPPLIES 20018493 166582 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 39.58 0.00 39.58 201278 SUPPLIES 20018829 166271 111. 156332- 652910 -00000 0.00 35.09 111 - 156332. 652990.00000 0.00 12.37 0.00 47.46 200983 SUPPLIES 20018572 166754 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 4.50 0.00 4.50 200634 SUPPLIES 20018495 166780 111. 156313. 652990 -00000 0.00 8.05 0.00 8.05 201494 SUPPLIES 20018492 166472 111 - 156332 - 652910 -00000 0.00 0.00 111. 156332- 652990 -00000 0.00 15.64 0.00 15.64 200983 SUPPLIES 20018493 166583 001. 122240- 652987.00000 0.00 6.43 0.00 6.43 201278 SUPPLIES 20018573 166723 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 11.69 0.00 11.69 200634 SUPPLIES 20018491 166659 001- 156363 - 652990 -00000 0.00 5.63 0.00 5.63 200873 SUPPLIES 20018572 166708 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 15.41 0.00 15.41 200634 SUPPLIES 20018493 166431 001. 122240- 652987.00000 0.00 52.86 0.00 52.86 201278 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 696.23 CHECK NO 573675 VENDOR 326750 MCDONALD TRANSIT ASSOCIATES. INC. CHECK NO 573675 VENDOR 326750 - MCDONALD TRANSIT ASSOCIATES, INC. MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 130 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018572 166724 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 10.12 0.00 10.12 200634 SUPPLIES 20018492 166590 111 - 156332 - 652910.00000 0.00 0.00 111- 156332. 652990 -00000 0.00 22.81 0.00 22.81 200983 SUPPLIES 20018493 166433 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 1.42 0.00 1.42 201278 SUPPLIES 20018492 166286 111 - 156332 - 652910 -00000 0.00 0.00 111 - 156332 - 652990.00000 0.00 32.49 0.00 32.49 200983 SUPPLIES 20018493 166582 001 - 122240. 652990.00000 0.00 39.58 0.00 39.58 201278 SUPPLIES 20018829 166271 111. 156332- 652910 -00000 0.00 35.09 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 12.37 0.00 47.46 200983 SUPPLIES 20018572 166754 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 4.50 0.00 4.50 200634 SUPPLIES 20018495 166780 111. 156313. 652990.00000 0.00 8.05 0.00 8.05 201494 SUPPLIES 20018492 166472 111. 156332. 652910 -00000 0.00 0.00 111. 156332. 652990 -00000 0.00 15.64 0.00 15.64 200983 SUPPLIES 20018493 166583 001 - 122240. 652987.00000 0.00 6.43 0.00 6.43 201278 SUPPLIES 20018573 166723 521- 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 11.69 0.00 11.69 200634 SUPPLIES 20018491 166659 001 - 156363. 652990 -00000 0.00 5.63 0.00 5.63 200873 SUPPLIES 20018572 166708 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 15.41 0.00 15.41 200634 SUPPLIES 20018493 166431 001 - 122240 - 652987 -00000 0.00 52.86 0.00 52.86 201278 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 696.23 CHECK NO 573675 VENDOR 326750 - MCDONALD TRANSIT ASSOCIATES, INC. MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20019041 2UO2 204270 2/02 CAT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 126 - 138333. 634999.35020 0.00 126 - 138333. 634999.45020 0.00 CHECK NO 573260 VENDOR 12140 - MCGEE AND ASSOCIATES 20018504 IMM /GOOD 202369.64 111 - 163646 - 631403.00000 0.00 202369 SVS 0.00 20018508 PINE RIDGE /SEAG 202383.66 111 - 163646 - 631403.00000 0.00 202383 SVS 0.00 20018504 IMM /GOOD 202369.55 111 - 163646 - 631403.00000 0.00 202369 SUS 0.00 20018508 PINE RIDGE /SEAG 202383.57 111. 163646- 631403 -00000 0.00 202383 SVS 0.00 20018505 US41E PT A 202375.59 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 202375 SVS 0.00 20018502 LELY 200444.61 152 - 162541 - 631403.00000 0.00 200444 SVS 0.00 20018506 DAVIS.PHI 202376.54 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 202376 SVS 0.00 20018507 DAVIS PHII 202379.65 111 - 163646. 631403 -00000 0.00 202379 SVS 0.00 20018503 IMM 200445.62 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 200445 SVS 20018506 DAVIS.PHI 202376.63 111. 163646- 631403 -00000 202376 SVS 20018503 IMM 200445.52 111 - 163646 - 631403.00000 200445 SVS 20018507 DAVIS PHII 202379.56 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 202379 SVS 20018502 LELY 200444.51 152 - 162541. 631403 -00000 200444 SUS 20018505 US41E PART A 202375.67 111 - 163646. 631403 -00000 202375 SUS 16JI PAGE 131 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 28,434.53 22,339.60 0.00 50.774.13 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.774.13 0.00 540.00 0.00 540.00 0.00 777.50 0.00 777.50 0.00 630.00 0.00 630.00 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.00 0.00 515.00 0.00 515.00 0.00 530.00 0.00 530.00 0.00 370.00 0.00 370.00 0.00 332.50 0.00 332.50 0.00 540.00 0.00 540.00 0.00 230.00 0.00 230.00 0.00 630.00 0.00 630.00 0.00 472.50 0.00 472.50 0.00 610.00 0.00 610.00 0.00 377.50 0.00 377.50 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC I 6 132 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7,515.00 CHECK NO 573678 VENDOR 327370 MEDICAL DEPARTMENT STORE 20018579 18658 490 - 144610 - 652110.00000 0.00 105.82 0.00 105.82 200117 UNIFORMS 20018579 18657 490.144610- 652110 -00000 0.00 35.45 0.00 35.45 200117 UNIFORMS 20018579 18659 490 - 144610. 652110.00000 0.00 8.95 0.00 8.95 200117 UNIFORMS 20018579 18660 490 - 144610 - 652110 -00000 0.00 29.16 0.00 29.16 200117 UNIFORMS 20018579 18662 490 - 144610 - 652110 -00000 0.00 58.32 0.00 58.32 200117 UNIFORMS 20018579 18663 490. 144610- 652110.00000 0.00 26.50 0.00 26.50 200117 UNIFORMS 20018579 18661 490 - 144610. 652110 -00000 0.00 58.32 0.00 58.32 200117 UNIFORMS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 322.52 CHECK NO 573792 VENDOR 353350 MEI -CHU SNEAD 20019058 3/11/02 2 HRS 681.421190- 634402.00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 SNEED 3/11/02 2 HRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 32.00 CHECK NO 573715 VENDOR 338820 MERIAL LIMITED 20018571 IA5869611 001- 155410 - 652710 -00000 0.00 80.64 0.00 80.64 203572 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 80.64 CHECK NO 573447 VENDOR 204140 METCALF & EDDY INC. 20018986 129521 411. 273511 - 631400 -70054 0.00 26,058.72 0.00 26,058.72 917436 THRU 2/28/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 26,058.72 CHECK NO 573925 VENDOR 900050 - MICHAEL & ROBERT MACDONALD MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JIP AGE 133 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301619 ST LIGHT REIMB MACDONALD 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R MACDONALD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573926 VENDOR 900050 - MICHAEL & STELLA E GABINET 301597 ST LIGHT REIMB M GABINET 781- 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB M GABINET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573927 VENDOR 900050 - MICHAEL D & DONNA R LITTLEFIELD 301686 ST LIGHT REIMB LITTLEFIEL 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB M LITTLEFIELD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573445 VENDOR 203550 - MICHAEL MARSH 20018887 1/26 -2/15 TRVL M MARSH 001- 144510 - 640300 -00000 0.00 1,852.40 0.00 1,852.40 1/26 -2/15 TRVL MARSH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,852.40 CHECK NO 573928 VENDOR 900050 - MICHELE ANN PARADA 301620 ST LIGHT REIMB M PARADA 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB M PARADA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573664 VENDOR 323000 - MICHELLE DORALUS 20018211 3/7 4 HRS 681 - 421190 - 634402.00000 0.00 48.00 681 - 431590. 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 64.00 DORALUS 3/7 4 HRS 20019059 3/11/02 4 HRS 681 - 421190. 634402 -00000 0.00 64.00 0.00 64.00 3/11/02 4 HRS 20018211 3/5 5.5HRS 681. 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 56.00 681. 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 88.00 DORALUS 3/5 3.5HRS 20018211 3/6 2 HRS 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 DORALUS 3/6 2 HRS 20018211 3/4 7 HRS 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 80.00 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 134 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 681 - 431590 - 634402 -00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 112.00 DORALUS 3/4 7 HRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 360.00 CHECK NO 573489 VENDOR 238250 - MICROMARKETING ASSOCIATES 20018494 141816 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 154925 CHILDREN'S TITLES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 40.00 CHECK NO 573451 VENDOR 205860 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 20018511 388565 307 - 156110- 652670 -00000 0.00 131.92 0.00 131.92 201637 VIDEOS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 131.92 CHECK NO 573264 VENDOR 12710 MIDWEST TITLE GUARANTEE 20018813 39084TP -OE 408 - 210151 - 649030 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 154996 0 & E CHECK TOTAL 0.00 75.00 CHECK NO 573522 VENDOR 256580 MINOLTA CORPORATION 20018490 CO21472234 111 - 156349 - 646710.00000 0.00 180.95 0.00 180.95 201722 1/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 180.95 CHECK NO 573344 VENDOR 129260 MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION 20019043 2154 414 - 263611 - 763100 -73916 0.00 8,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 104892 FOUR PUMP SUSTEM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,000.00 CHECK NO 573762 VENDOR 350850 - MULHOLLAND BAIL BONDS 20019044 REF 99- 2519CFA S WARD 001 - 431510.351100 -00000 0.00 2.250.00 0.00 2,250.00 MULHOLLAND - 99 -2519 SUSAN WARD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,250.00 CHECK NO 573523 VENDOR 257030 - MULLER- THOMPSON FUNERAL CHAPEL 20018561 G GONZALEZ 2/15/02 001 - 155930 - 634150 -00000 0.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 204737 G GONZALEZ 2/15/02 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 135 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018830 R FLOYD 3/3/02 001. 155930 - 634150 -00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 201862 R FLOYD 3/3/02 20018561 0 FERNANDEZ 1/25/02 001 - 155930. 634150 -00000 0.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 204737 0 FERNANDEZ 1/25/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,100.00 CHECK NO 573720 VENDOR 340070 - MULTICOM, INC. 20018655 080895 101 - 163630 - 764180 -00000 0.00 2,165.00 0.00 2,165.00 204542 CABLE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,165.00 CHECK NO 573265 VENDOR 12960 - MUNICIPAL CODE CORP 20018577 304784 001 - 144110. 654110 -00000 0.00 130.00 0.00 130.00 150401 SUPPLEMENT SVS RENEWAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 130.00 CHECK NO 573630 VENDOR 310110 - MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION 20019056 304729 111. 156332. 654110.00000 0.00 85.00 0.00 85.00 154361 CC LAND DEV CODE BOOK SUB CHECK TOTAL 0.00 85.00 CHECK NO 573266 VENDOR 13000 MUNICIPAL SUPPLY & SIGN CO 20018708 076635 101 - 163630. 653710.00000 0.00 487.20 0.00 487.20 200032 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 487.20 CHECK NO 573929 VENDOR 900050 NANCY J SCHULTHEIS 301664 ST LIGHT REIMB SCHULTHEIS 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB N SCHULTHESIS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573795 VENDOR 353390 - NANCY JENSEN - NAUFEL 20018963 3/8/02 111- 156395. 634999 -00000 0.00 497.25 0.00 497.25 204721 - GATOR GANG 1/8.2/28 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 497.25 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 136 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573421 VENDOR 180690 - NAPLES AIR FORCE 20018770 535141 116 - 121830 - 649992 -33297 0.00 564.67 0.00 564.67 153959 - RECOGNITION GIFTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 564.67 CHECK NO 573267 VENDOR 13030 - NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY 20018960 02- 038853 001 - 144510 - 652410 -00000 0.00 1,741.25 0.00 1,741.25 200569 - FLOWAGE FEES, 2/28 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,741.25 CHECK NO 573268 VENDOR 13080 - NAPLES ARMATURE WORKS 20018463 64053 001 - 122240 - 646970 -00000 0.00 592.49 0.00 592.49 152773 REPAIR PUMP F /HEALTH BLDG 20018460 64153 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 135.00 0.00 135.00 200635 HOSE, 2/25 20018460 64154 521.122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 7.47 0.00 7.47 200635 TEFLON PACKING, 2/25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 734.96 CHECK NO 573269 VENDOR 13230 - NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 20018456 ALFARO,A - 12110101 001. 155930. 634101 -00000 0.00 425.84 0.00 425.84 201864 - ALFARO,A 12110 20018456 FLIPPIN,J - 1/18/02 001 - 155930 - 634101.00000 0.00 293.25 0.00 293.25 201864 FLIPPIN,J 1/18 20018456 GOMEZ,J 111102 001- 155930. 634101 -00000 0.00 681.00 0.00 681.00 201864 GOMEZ,J 1/1 20018456 TARVIN,G - 111102 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 559.00 0.00 559.00 201864 TARVIN, 1/1 20018456 HUNT,A 111102 001.155930- 634101.00000 0.00 3,384.67 0.00 3,384.67 201864 HUNT,A 1/1 20018456 FLIPPIN,J • 1117102 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 724.59 0.00 724.59 201864 - FLIPPIN,J 1/17 20018456 NITTOLO,V - 1/27/02 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 143.08 0.00 143.08 201864 - NITTOLO,V 1/27 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018456 FLIPPIN,J - 1/18/02 201864 - FLIPPIN,J 1/18 20018456 ALFARO.A - 11/27/01 201864 - ALFARO,A 11/27 20018456 BACHELOR,T - 10121101 201864 - BACHELOR,T 10/21 20018456 HAMPSON,A - 111102 201864 - HAMPSON,A 1/1 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 001. 155930 - 634101.00000 0.00 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930. 634101.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573270 VENDOR 13240 - NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 20018451 DUBOIS,T - 1/28/02 001 - 155930 - 634112.00000 87.25 201867 - DUBOIS,T 1/28 87.25 20018451 VALDES,H - 1/6/02 001- 155930. 634112 -00000 526.25 201867 - VALDES,H 1/6 526.25 20018451 THOMAS,B - 11/29/01 001 - 155930 - 634112 -00000 0.00 201867 - THOMAS,B 11/29 0.00 20018451 BRADBURY,L - 2/5/02 001 - 155930 - 634112.00000 0.00 201867 - BRADBURY,L 2/5 0.00 20018451 STEWART,P - 1/30/02 001 - 155930 - 634112 -00000 0.00 201867 - STEWART,P 1/30 20018451 BRADBURY,L - 12/11/01 001. 155930. 634112 -00000 0.00 201867 - BRADBURY,L 12111 0.00 20018451 GALLEGOS,M - 1/7/02 001. 155930- 634112 -00000 0.00 201867 - GALLEGOS,M 1/7 20018451 MUCCINO,M - 2/12/02 001 - 155930 - 634112 -00000 201867 - MUCCINO,M 2112 CHECK NO 573528 VENDOR 259460 - NAPLES COURT REPORTING, INC. 20018731 7154 681 - 410310 - 633032.00000 WILLIAMS,J /01- 0712CFA 20018731 T -2542 681. 410310- 633022 -00000 VERA,R /99- 1928CF 16JI PAGE 137 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 724.59 0.00 724.59 87.25 0.00 87.25 273.84 0.00 273.84 526.25 0.00 526.25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7.823.36 0.00 3,622.95 0.00 3,622.95 0.00 3,622.95 0.00 3,622.95 0.00 2,898.36 0.00 2,898.36 0.00 1.449.18 0.00 1,449.18 0.00 724.59 0.00 724.59 0.00 8,695.08 0.00 8,695.08 0.00 1,449.18 0.00 1,449.18 0.00 1,449.18 0.00 1,449.18 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 23,911.47 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 685.40 0.00 685.40 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018731 8217 FORTIN,D /01- 2507CFA 20018731 T -2523 HARVEY,L /01- 249CFA 20018731 T -2513 HICKMAN,J /01- 1195CFA 20018731 T -2528 HARVEY,L /01- 249CFA 20018736 T -2520 HAYMAN,M /00- 1258CFA 20018731 T -2602 PICKETT,J /00.1595CFA 20018731 T -2286 JOHNSON /JOHNSON /MOORE 99 -1360 20018731 8214 PREDELUS /01- 2500CF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 573271 VENDOR 13300 - NAPLES SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 681 - 410310. 633032.00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633022.00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633022.00000 0.00 681. 410310- 633022 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310. 633022.00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633022 -00000 0.00 681 - 410310 - 633022.00000 0.00 681 - 410310. 633032 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573271 VENDOR 13300 - NAPLES DAILY NEWS 20019047 2001906/001230 111 - 138317 - 649100.00000 966.00 204778 - AD, 2/19 966.00 20018772 ACCT #1059911 -SUBSC RNWL 113 - 138900 - 654110 -00000 115.00 154926 - SUBSC RENEWL F /COMM. DEV. 20018462 ACCT #83052 /PUBLIC UTIL. 408. 210105- 654110.00000 906.20 153842 - 48 WK SUBSCRIPTION 906.20 20018464 ACCT #123390 /CO.MUSEUM 198 - 157410. 654110 -00000 45.00 154464 - SUBS RENWL F /MUSEUM 45.00 20018467 2002571/057522 126 - 138332- 649100 -33202 0.00 106212 - AD, 2/22 20018466 2002609/057522 126 - 138332 - 649100 -33202 106212 - ADS, 2/23 -25 20019047 1990357/053926 111 - 138317. 649100 -00000 204778 - ADS, 1/26 -28 20019047 1997069/001230 111 - 138317 - 649100 -00000 204778 - AD, 2/5 16JI PAGE 138 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 45.00 0.00 45.00 966.00 0.00 966.00 151.80 0.00 151.80 115.00 0.00 115.00 1,798.60 0.00 1,798.60 906.20 0.00 906.20 850.00 0.00 850.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.593.00 0.00 3.572.46 0.00 3.572.46 0.00 201.60 0.00 201.60 0.00 130.00 0.00 130.00 0.00 190.19 0.00 190.19 0.00 42.25 0.00 42.25 0.00 39.11 0.00 39.11 0.00 3,572.46 0.00 3,572.46 0.00 3.140.28 0.00 3.140.28 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018468 2004887/057522 106212 - AD, 2/27 20019047 2000265/053926 204778 - ADS. 2/16 -18 20018742 2002801/1094680 204425 - ADS. 2/21 -25 20018466 2004358/057522 106212 - AD, 2/26 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 126 - 138332 - 649100.33202 0.00 111 - 138317. 649100 -00000 0.00 001 - 121810 - 648160 -00000 0.00 126 - 138332 - 649100.33202 0.00 CHECK NO 573677 VENDOR 326860 - NAPLES DAILY NEWS 20018469 2004361/059405 195. 110406 - 649100 -10509 204107 - AD, 2/26 CHECK NO 573771 VENDOR 352210 - NAPLES DAY SURGERY, LLC 20018956 GOMEZ.0 2/14/02 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 204738 GOMEZ.O. 2/14 0.00 20018956 PRIEST,D - 2/22/02 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 46.96 204738 - PRIEST.D 2/22 CHECK TOTAL 20018956 DAVIS.C. - 2/27/02 001 - 155930. 634101.00000 0.00 204738 DAVIS,C, 2/27 520.00 20018956 GOMEZ.0 2/28/02 001. 155930 - 634101 -00000 204738 GOMEZ,O 2/28 2,600.00 20018956 PRIEST,D - 2/8/02 001 - 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 204738 - PRIEST.D 2/8 263.25 CHECK NO 573272 VENDOR 13340 - NAPLES DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING 20018455 DRILICH,B - 2/15/02 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 201863 - DRILICH,B 2/15 20018455 QUATRALE,A - 2/5/02 001 - 155930 - 631990.00000 201863 - QUATRALE,A 2/5 20018455 TARVIN.G - 2/8/02 001. 155930- 631990 -00000 201863 - TARVIN.G 2/8 16JI PAGE 139 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 46.96 0.00 46.96 54.81 0.00 54.81 98.45 0.00 98.45 46.96 0.00 46.96 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 11,135.53 0.00 79.93 0.00 79.93 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 79.93 0.00 520.00 0.00 520.00 0.00 520.00 0.00 520.00 0.00 520.00 0.00 520.00 0.00 520.00 0.00 520.00 0.00 520.00 0.00 520.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,600.00 0.00 1,446.25 0.00 1,446.25 0.00 263.25 0.00 263.25 0.00 767.00 0.00 767.00 CHECK NO 573930 VENDOR 900050 - NAPLES FUNERAL HOME 301540 REFUND LOT COSTS - JPIERRE 001. 122370. 369802 -00000 0.00 6.70 0.00 6.70 JEAN PIERRE REFUND LOT COSTS 301540 REFUND LOT COSTS - JPIERRE 001 - 122370 - 364100.00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 JEAN PIERRE REFUND LOT COSTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 106.70 CHECK NO 573550 VENDOR 271100 NAPLES HEART CENTER MARCH 20, 20, COUNTY 001- 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 50.70 16JI PAGE 140 REPORT 100.6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 0.00 50.70 CHECK NO 573495 VENDOR 243530 NAPLES ITALIAN - AMERICAN CLUB FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 20018730 REF #320228 NAPLES ITAL. VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018455 TARVIN,G - 2/8/02 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 685.75 0.00 685.75 300.00 201863 - TARVIN,G 2/8 573189 VENDOR 108550 NAPLES MEDICAL CENTER 20018455 MARTINEZ,R - 2/18/02 001 - 155930 - 631990.00000 0.00 1,088.75 0.00 1,088.75 AND 201863 - MARTINEZ,R 2118 20018455 MARTINEZ,R - 2/6/02 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 55.25 0.00 55.25 201863 - MARTINEZ,R 2/6 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4.306.25 CHECK NO 573273 VENDOR 13370 - NAPLES FEED & SEED, INC. 20018961 17811 001 - 155410 - 652210.00000 0.00 68.60 0.00 68.60 202452 - ANIMAL SUPPLIES, 12/3 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 68.60 CHECK NO 573930 VENDOR 900050 - NAPLES FUNERAL HOME 301540 REFUND LOT COSTS - JPIERRE 001. 122370. 369802 -00000 0.00 6.70 0.00 6.70 JEAN PIERRE REFUND LOT COSTS 301540 REFUND LOT COSTS - JPIERRE 001 - 122370 - 364100.00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 JEAN PIERRE REFUND LOT COSTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 106.70 CHECK NO 573550 VENDOR 271100 NAPLES HEART CENTER 20018461 FREDERICK.0 - 2/14/02 001- 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 50.70 0.00 50.70 154712 - FREDERICK,C 2/14 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.70 CHECK NO 573495 VENDOR 243530 NAPLES ITALIAN - AMERICAN CLUB 20018730 REF #320228 NAPLES ITAL. 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 REF #320228 NAPLES ITALIAN CLUB CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 573189 VENDOR 108550 NAPLES MEDICAL CENTER 20018458 ROBINSON,H - 2/18/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 89.50 0.00 89.50 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 89.50 CHECK NO 573305 VENDOR 108550 NAPLES MEDICAL CENTER OUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 141 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018457 SANTOS,E - 12112101 001.155930- 631210.00000 0.00 128.70 0.00 128.70 201872 - SANTOS,E 12/12 20018457 KEARNS,J - 2/1/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 44.20 0.00 44.20 201872 - KEARNS,J 2/1 20018457 SANTOS,E - 12/12/01 001- 155930.631210 -00000 0.00 128.70 0.00 128.70 201872 SANTOS.E 12112 20018457 MCGEE,A 2111102 001 - 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 85.15 0.00 85.15 201872 MCGEE,A 2111 20018457 DISTEL,J - 2/21/02 001- 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 60.45 0.00 60.45 201872 - DISTEL,J 2/21 20018457 DISTEL,J . 2/14/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 99.45 0.00 99.45 201872 - DISTEL,J 2/14 20018457 ROBERTS,E - 2/15/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 58.50 0.00 58.50 201872 - ROBERTS,E 2/15 20018457 PITTMAN,R - 2/15/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 31.20 0.00 31.20 201872 - PITTMAN,R 2/15 20018457 PITTMAN,R - 2/15/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 26.65 0.00 26.65 201872 - PITTMAN,R 2/15 20018457 FLIPPIN,J - 2/19/02 001- 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 44.20 0.00 44.20 201872 - FLIPPIN,J 2/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 707.20 CHECK NO 573304 VENDOR 107670 - NAPLES PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES 20018454 DRUGE,B 12/24,25 & 27 001.155930- 631990 -00000 0.00 186.67 0.00 186.67 203273 DRUGE,B 12/24,25 & 27 20018454 FLIPPIN,J - 12/19/01 001.155930- 631990 -00000 0.00 512.20 0.00 512.20 203273 - FLIPPIN,J 12/19 20018454 CLEVENGER,S - 1/21/02 001 - 155930.631990 -00000 0.00 262.60 0.00 262.60 203273 CLEVENGER,S 1121 20018454 MAY,V 1/28/02 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 131.30 0.00 131.30 203273 MAY,V 1128 20018454 HALL,V 1/23/02 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 106.60 0.00 106.60 203273 HALL,V 1/23 20018454 ROMINE,K - 1117102 001 - 155930.631990 -00000 0.00 52.00 0.00 52.00 203273 - ROMINE,K 1/17 20, OUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 142 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018454 GONZALEZ,E - 9/28/01 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 171.60 0.00 171.60 203273 - GONZALEZ,E 9/28 20018454 BUDDEMEYER,M - 1/25/02 001 - 155930 - 631990.00000 0.00 52.00 0.00 52.00 203273 - BUDDEMEYER,M 1/25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,474.97 CHECK NO 573275 VENDOR 13700 - NAPLES RADIOLOGISTS 20018453 GARCIA,Y - 11/26/01 001. 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 18.20 0.00 18.20 203360 - GARCIA,Y 11/26 20018453 BRADBURY,L - 2/5/02 001. 155930. 631990.00000 0.00 16.25 0.00 16.25 203360 - BRADBURY,L 2/5 20018453 ANDERSON,M - 11/21/01 001 - 155930 - 631990.00000 0.00 138.45 0.00 138.45 203360 - ANDERSON,M 11/21 20018453 CROSBY,L - 10/25/01 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 130.00 0.00 130.00 203360 - CROSBY,L 10/25 20018453 BRADBURY,L - 12/22/01 001 - 155930 - 631990.00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 19.50 203360 - BRADBURY,L 12/22 20018453 FLERIOT,C - 9/23/01 001 - 155930. 631990 -00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 19.50 203360 - FLERIOT,C 9/23 20018453 STEWART,P - 1/24/02 001 - 155930. 631990 -00000 0.00 22.75 0.00 22.75 203360 STEWART,P 1/24 20018453 DRUGE,B 12/31/01 001. 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 148.20 0.00 148.20 203360 DRUGE,B 12/31 20018453 ANDERSON,M - 11/15/01 001 - 155930 - 631990.00000 0.00 78.00 0.00 78.00 203360 - ANDERSON,H 11/15 20018453 ANDERSON,M - 11/19/01 001 - 155930. 631990 -00000 0.00 234.00 0.00 234.00 203360 - ANDERSON,M 11/19 20018453 FLERIOT,C - 9/23/01 001 - 155930 - 631990.00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 19.50 203360 - FLERIOT,C 9/23 20018453 BRADBURY,L - 12/11/01 001. 155930- 631990 -00000 0.00 113.75 0.00 113.75 203360 - BRADBURY,L 12/11 20018453 BRADBURY,L - 12/19/01 001. 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 19.50 203360 BRADBURY,L 12/19 20018453 HALL,V 1/22 -26/02 001 - 155930. 631990 -00000 0.00 305.50 0.00 305.50 203360 HALL,V 1/22 -26 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018453 NOTTER,T - 11/9/01 203360 - NOTTER,T 11/9 20018453 BRADBURY,L - 12/12/01 203360 - BRADBURY,L 12112 20018453 NOTTER,T - 10/5/01 203360 - NOTTER,T 10/5 20018453 STEWART.P - 1/30/02 203360 - STEWART,P 1/30 20018453 ANDERSON,H - 11/18/01 203360 - ANDERSON,H 11/18 20018453 BACHELOR,T - 10121101 203360 - BACHELOR,T 10/21 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001. 155930- 631990 -00000 0.00 001. 155930 - 631990.00000 0.00 001 - 155930. 631990 -00000 0.00 001 - 155930 - 631990.00000 0.00 001. 155930- 631990.00000 0.00 001 - 155930. 631990.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573390 VENDOR 164860 - NAPLES TRUCK ACCESSORIES 20018459 115147 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 200919 STEPS, 2/22 20018972 114975 144 - 144360 - 652990 -00000 154883 GRILL GUARD CHECK NO 573654 VENDOR 318580 - NEUBERT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 20019087 #5 RETAINAGE 473 - 000000. 205100.00000 0.00 105608 TO 2/15/02 RETAINAGE 0.00 20019087 #5 0.00 473 - 173413 - 634999.00000 36.40 105608 TO 2/15/02 20.80 20019087 #5 CHECK TOTAL 473 - 173411 - 634999 -00000 1,578.85 105608 TO 2/15/02 0.00 CHECK NO 573501 VENDOR 248010 - NEUROSCIENCE & SPINE ASSOCIATION 20018452 HAMPSON.A - 2/18/02 001. 155930- 631210.00000 201885 - HAMPSON,A 2/18 20018452 NOTTER,T - 2/15/02 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 201885 - NOTTER,T 2/15 16JIPAGE 143 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 48.75 0.00 48.75 117.00 0.00 117.00 40.30 0.00 40.30 32.50 0.00 32.50 36.40 0.00 36.40 20.80 0.00 20.80 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,578.85 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 495.00 0.00 495.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 560.00 0.00 1,653.75- 0.00 1,653.75- 0.00 850.00 0.00 850.00 0.00 15,687.50 0.00 15,687.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 14,883.75 0.00 1,278.55 0.00 1.278.55 0.00 74.75 0.00 74.75 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J 1 PAGE 144 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018452 MUCCINO,M - 2111102 001. 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 52.00 0.00 52.00 201885 - MUCCINO,M 2111 20018452 BRADBURY,L - 2/5/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 936.00 0.00 936.00 201885 BRADBURY,L 2/5 20018452 LLOYD,J 2/13/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 74.75 0.00 74.75 201885 LLOYD,J 2/13 20018452 MUCCINO,M - 2/12/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 780.00 0.00 780.00 201885 - MUCCINO,M 2/12 20018452 MARONEY,S - 2/13/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 29.25 0.00 29.25 201885 - MARONEY,S 2/13 20018452 BRADBURY,L - 2/5/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 5,415.80 0.00 5,415.80 201885 - BRADBURY,L 2/5 20018452 CLEVENGER,S - 2121102 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 139.75 0.00 139.75 201885 - CLEVENGER,S 2/21 20018452 CLEVENGER,S - 2/25/02 001. 155930- 631210.00000 0.00 195.00 0.00 195.00 201885 - CLEVENGER,S 2/25 20018452 MUCCINO,M - 2/12/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 3,900.00 0.00 3,900.00 201885 - MUCCINO,M 2112 20018452 HAMPSON,A - 2/20/02 001- 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 52.00 0.00 52.00 201885 - HAMPSON,A 2/20 20018452 VENABLE,N - 2/25/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 110.50 0.00 110.50 201885 - VENABLE,N 2/25 20018452 ALAMEDA,R - 2/26/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 52.00 0.00 52.00 201885 ALAMEDA,R 2/26 20018452 LLOYD,J 2/12/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 1,240.85 0.00 1,240.85 201885 LLOYD,J 2/12 20018452 HAMPSON,A - 2/14/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 221.00 0.00 221.00 201885 - HAMPSON,A 2/14 20018452 NEWELL,S - 2/19/02 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 110.50 0.00 110.50 201885 - NEWELL,S 2/19 20018452 MUCCINO,M - 1128102 001. 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 1,240.85 0.00 1,240.85 201885 - MUCCINO,M 1/28 20018452 VERRET,J - 2/15/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 39.00 0.00 39.00 201885 - VERRET,J 2/15 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573592 VENDOR 286930 - NEXTEL 20018958 0002077871 -8 1/15.2/14 001 - 121140. 641700.00000 001. 121141- 641700.00000 569.83 001 - 121143. 641700 -00000 0.00 545.22 001. 121148. 641700.00000 0.00 001 - 121152 - 641700 -00000 001 - 121154 - 641700 -00000 43.68 204132 - 0002077871 -8 1/15 -2/14 1,956.95 20018735 0002109182 -2 1/25 -2/24 490 - 144610 - 641700.00000 1.057.06 200123 - 0002109182 -2 1/25 -2/24 46.98 20018740 0022430527.6 1/7- 2/6/02 001 - 144110. 634999 -00000 39.46 200409 - 0022430527.6 1/7- 2/6/02 39.46 20018739 0022430527 -6 2/7- 3/6/02 001 - 144110- 634999.00000 282.27 200409 - 0022430527 -6 2/7. 3/6/02 62.73 20018470 0002012526 -6 1/15 -2/14 408. 210151 - 641700 -00000 CHECK TOTAL 201241 - 0002012526 -6 1/15.2/24 3,445.45 20018971 0022001545 -7 12/25.1/24 144 - 144360 - 641700.00000 2,500.00 154878 - 0022001545.7 12/25 -1/24 CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 573753 VENDOR 349390 - NICKEL -A- AMERICAN BAIL BONDS 20018881 REF 96- 2391 -CFA FAllINO,M 001 - 431510 - 351100 -00000 REF 96- 2391 - CFA /FAllINO,M NICKEL BA CHECK NO 573532 VENDOR 261470 - NOLEN- MARTINA REPORTING SERVICES 20018965 42279 681. 410310- 633051 -00000 KIPP,R /00- 1216CF 20018965 42256 681 - 410310- 633031 -00000 KIPP,R /00- 1216CF 20018732 43042 681 - 410310 - 633042.00000 MAISONEUVE /01 -724CF 20018732 44185 681. 410310- 633032 -00000 KIPP,R /00- 1216CF 16JIPAGE 145 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 1 0.00 15.942.55 0.00 623.50 0.00 87.36 0.00 569.83 0.00 545.22 0.00 87.36 0.00 43.68 0.00 1,956.95 0.00 1.057.06 0.00 1.057.06 0.00 46.98 0.00 46.98 0.00 39.46 0.00 39.46 0.00 282.27 0.00 282.27 0.00 62.73 0.00 62.73 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,445.45 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 53.60 0.00 53.60 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIR BOARDEOFCCOMMISSI ON 16JI PAGE 146 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 206.60 CHECK NO 573632 VENDOR 310560 - NORA SEHEULT 20019049 3/12/02 1 HR 681 - 431590. 634402 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 3/12/02 1 HR 20019049 3/11/02 1.5 HRS 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 3/11/02 1.5 HRS 20019049 3/12/02 1.5 HRS 681 - 421190 - 634402 -00000 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 3/12/02 1.5 HRS 20018465 3/4/02 3 HRS 681 - 431590. 634402 -00000 0.00 48.00 0.00 48.00 3/4/02 3 HRS 20019049 3/11/02 2.5 HRS 681. 431590.634402 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 3/11/02 2.5 HRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 152.00 CHECK NO 573931 VENDOR 900050 - NORBERT & ELIZABETH STARR TR 301621 ST LIGHT REIMB N STARR TR 781.162752. 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB N STARR TR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573932 VENDOR 900050 - NORMAN & ETHEL BRETT 301622 ST LIGHT REIMB N BRETT 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB N BRETT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573188 VENDOR 103620 NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT 20019035 2102 PLAN REVIEW 113- 000000 - 209102 -00000 0.00 108,017.51 0.00 108.017.51 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 108,017.51 CHECK NO 573294 VENDOR 103620 NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT 20019040 2/02 FIRE INSP FEES 113.000000. 209101.00000 0.00 59,121.88 113.000000- 209201.00000 0.00 20.780.90 113.000000. 209401 -00000 0.00 28,945.02 113 - 000000 - 209601 -00000 0.00 1,107.10 113 - 000000 - 209701 -00000 0.00 420.00 0.00 110,374.90 2/02 FIRE INSP FEES MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 147 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 110,374.90 CHECK NO 573352 VENDOR 133380 - NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT 20019036 2/02 IMPACT FEES 113 - 000000. 209810 -00000 0.00 106,631.40 0.00 106,631.40 2/02 IMPACT FEES 20018838 2/02 INTEREST 113 - 138900. 341890 -00000 0.00 85.30 0.00 85.30 2102 INTEREST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 106,716.70 CHECK NO 573676 VENDOR 326790 - NORTH NAPLES VETERINARY HOSPITAL 20018774 FEENY,J 01 -9226 610 - 155410- 631970 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 201052 - FEENY,J 01.9226 20018774 RICHARDSON,S 01.8004 610 - 155410- 631970.00000 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 201052 - RICHARDSON,S 01/8004 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 60.00 CHECK NO 573933 VENDOR 900050 - NORVA ACHENBAUGH 301549 REFUND -PARKS ACHENBAUGH.N 111. 156380- 347990 -00000 0.00 90.00 0.00 90.00 REFUND -PARKS ACHENBAUGH,N. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 90.00 CHECK NO 573497 VENDOR 245520 NOVA INFO SYS 20018769 BANK FEE 01/02 490. 144618- 634999 -00000 0.00 88.71 111 - 156313. 634999.00000 0.00 533.41 111. 156341- 634999 -00000 0.00 65.24 111. 156390 - 634999 -00000 0.00 61.71 111 - 156381 - 634999 -00000 0.00 39.59 130 - 157710 - 634999.00000 0.00 42.57 0.00 831.23 BANK FEE 01/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 831.23 CHECK NO 573601 VENDOR 291740 NSI SOLUTIONS, INC. 20018184 213256 408- 253250 - 652990.00000 0.00 62.50 0.00 62.50 150613 KIT SAMPLING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 62.50 CHECK NO 573276 VENDOR 14140 - OFFICE FURNITURE & DESIGN 20, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 148 RT 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018968 3017 123 - 155975 - 651910 -33075 0.00 530.86 0.00 530.86 154993 . FILE CABINET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 530.86 CHECK NO 573590 VENDOR 285590 - OFFICE MAX 20018969 489586 2/11/02 123 - 155975.651910 -33075 0.00 359.96 0.00 359.96 153976 DESKJET PRINTERS & CABLE 20018970 489585 2/11/02 123 - 155975. 764900 -33075 0.00 799.99 0.00 799.99 153953 LASERJET PRINTER 20018434 489617 2127102 001.121148- 651110 -00000 0.00 49.99 0.00 49.99 154378 REWRITABLE CD'S CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,209.94 CHECK NO 573934 VENDOR 900050 OTIS K & BEVERLY R. LEE 301581 ST LIGHT REIM 0. LEE 781 - 162752.981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM 0. LEE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573277 VENDOR 14340 OUTSIDE - INSIDE 20018435 3427 001 - 156110 - 646710 -00000 0.00 137.00 0.00 137.00 201708 - MAINT F /FEBRUARY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 137.00 CHECK NO 573739 VENDOR 345910 • OUTSIDE AIR SOLUTIONS, INC. 20019046 1026 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 5,586.50 0.00 5,586.50 202276 SERVICE FOR JANUARY 20019046 1028 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 2,232.50 0.00 2,232.50 202276 SERVICE FOR FEBRUARY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7,819.00 CHECK NO 573473 VENDOR 224590 - PALM MEDICAL SUPPLY CORP. 20018602 ROGACKA,B - 2/22/02 001 - 155930 - 652810 -00000 0.00 184.90 0.00 184.90 154713 ROGACKA,B 2/22 20018602 HALL,V 2/26/02 001 - 155930 - 652810.00000 0.00 595.28 0.00 595.28 154713 HALL,V 2/26 20, 2 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA 1 6 J 1 PAGE 149 REPMARCH REPORT 100 -600 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018602 HALL,V 2/27/02 001. 155930 - 652810.00000 0.00 138.94 0.00 138.94 154713 HALL,V 2/27 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 919.12 CHECK NO 573338 VENDOR 124850 PALM ORTHOPEDICS 20018601 JONES,B 2/22/02 001 - 155930.652810 -00000 0.00 195.60 0.00 195.60 154714 JONES,B 2/22 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 195.60 CHECK NO 573935 VENDOR 900050 PAMELA NICKELL 301547 REFUND -PARKS NICKELL,P 111 - 156395 - 347400.00000 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 REFUND -PARKS NICKELL,P CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10.00 CHECK NO 573464 VENDOR 216160 • PARAGON ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS 20018737 1545 001.122240- 652992 -00000 0.00 915.00 0.00 915.00 204121 WORK ON VIDEO ROOM - CARDKEY 20018911 1544 001 - 122255 - 634999.00000 0.00 8,986.00 0.00 8,986.00 204068 REPAIR EMERG ASSIST PHONES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9,901.00 CHECK NO 573936 VENDOR 900050 - PARKLANDS DEVELOPMENT LP 301548 REF #319393 PARKLANDS DEV 113.000000- 115420.00000 0.00 85.00 0.00 85.00 PARKLANDS DEVELOPMENT, REF #319393 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 85.00 CHECK NO 573937 VENDOR 900050 - PATRICIA & PHILIP B DOHERTY 301665 ST LIGHT REIMB P DOHERTY 781- 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB P DOHERTY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573938 VENDOR 900050 - PATRICIA A O'CONNELL TR 301601 ST LIGHT REIMB P O'CONNEL 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB P O'CONNELL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 20, 2 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERDA 16JI PAGE 150 REPMARCH REPORT 100.600 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573939 VENDOR 900050 - PATRICIA ANN IACCHINI 301624 ST LIGHT REIMB P IACCHINI 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB P IACCHINI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573940 VENDOR 900050 - PATRICIA M BLACKWELL, TR 301599 ST LIGHT REIMB BLACKWELL 781- 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB P BLACKWELL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573941 VENDOR 900050 - PATRICIA M. MADDEN 301611 ST LIGHT REIM P. MADDEN 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM P. MADDEN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573942 VENDOR 900050 - PATRICIA R NOACK 301600 ST LIGHT REIMB P NOACK 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB P NOACK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573278 VENDOR 14480 - PATRICK M. KANE, MD, P.A. 20018603 HARKER,J - 2/11/02 001. 155930- 631210 -00000 0.00 40.95 0.00 40.95 154715 - HARKER,J 2/11 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 40.95 CHECK NO 573943 VENDOR 900050 - PAUL R & DEBRA A BURGER 301598 ST LIGHT REIMB P BURGER 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB P BURGER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573499 VENDOR 247350 - PEDERSEN PRINTING 20018600 1552 111 - 156395 - 647110 -00000 0.00 64.00 0.00 64.00 152539 BUSINESS CARDS, 2/22 20018596 1551 669 - 100220. 647110 -00000 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 154029 BUSINESS CARDS, 2/22 20, 16JI PAGE 151 R PMARCH ORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018599 1553 113 - 138915 - 652990.00000 0.00 96.00 0.00 96.00 154263 BUSINESS CARDS, 2/22 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 192.00 CHECK NO 573449 VENDOR 204950 - PEEK TRAFFIC, INC. 20018447 45272 101 - 163630 - 764180 -00000 0.00 3.100.00 0.00 3.100.00 202390 - TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.100.00 CHECK NO 573944 VENDOR 900050 - PETER E SIEGLER 301565 ST LIGHT REIMB SIEG /FAULD 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB SIEGLER /FAULDI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573560 VENDOR 276020 - PETROLEUM TRADERS CORP. 20018450 309530 521 - 122450. 652410 -00000 0.00 173.05 0.00 173.05 200956 FUEL, 2121 20018450 309954 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 470.76 0.00 470.76 200956 FUEL, 2/21 20018450 309952 521- 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 795.01 0.00 795.01 200956 FUEL, 2/21 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,438.82 CHECK NO 573466 VENDOR 217960 - PHIL BURNHAM SUPPLY 20018437 440 408 - 233352 - 652990 -00000 0.00 69.15 0.00 69.15 202425 PARTS, 2/25 20018436 437 408 - 233352 - 652990.00000 0.00 116.00 0.00 116.00 202213 DRILLING SCREWS, 2/20 20018438 435 408 - 253212. 655200.00000 0.00 195.56 0.00 195.56 200242 PARTS, 2120 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 380.71 CHECK NO 573624 VENDOR 305460 - PITNEY BOWES CREDIT CORPORATION 20018771 883222 109 - 182601- 651110 -00000 0.00 41.56 109 - 182900. 651110 -00000 0.00 60.72 109 - 182601. 641950.00000 0.00 7.25 0.00 109.53 153154 - INK CARTRIDGES & TAPE STRIP MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 152 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 109.53 CHECK NO 573551 VENDOR 271160 - PITNEY BOWES, INC. 20018442 713594 408 - 210151. 651110 -00000 0.00 83.14 408- 210151 - 641950 -00000 0.00 13.75 0.00 96.89 201103 - SUPPLIES, 2/24 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 96.89 CHECK NO 573296 VENDOR 104390 - POM INCORPORATED 20018448 42406 001 - 156363.646970 -00000 0.00 2,475.81 0.00 2,475.81 201652 - PARTS, 2/22 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,475.81 CHECK NO 573604 VENDOR 292720 POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES 20018449 CO22601115 408 - 210111. 764900 -00000 0.00 1,650.00 0.00 1,650.00 204419 - LASERJET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,650.00 CHECK NO 573580 VENDOR 281580 POWERSPORTS OF NAPLES INC 20018439 123901 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 76.52 0.00 76.52 200923 - BRAKES, 2/25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 76.52 CHECK NO 573519 VENDOR 255770 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION SOUTHEAST,LLC 20018445 PJ194299 408 - 233351 - 652990 -00000 0.00 106.04 0.00 106.04 201135 - GASES, 2/20 20018738 PJ196293 490.144610. 652720 -00000 0.00 33.90 0.00 33.90 201407 - OXYGEN, 2/25 20018446 PJ194300 111 - 156332. 646313 -00000 0.00 10.29 0.00 10.29 201040 - CARBON DIOXIDE, 2/20 20018738 PJ197167 490 - 144610- 652720 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 201407 - OXYGEN, 2/27 20018592 PJ193640 490 - 144610 - 652720.00000 0.00 52.00 0.00 52.00 201407 - OXYGEN, 2/19 20018592 PJ193639 490 - 144610 - 652720.00000 0.00 51.50 0.00 51.50 201407 - OXYGEN, 2/19 OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 153 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018738 PJ197168 490 - 144610 - 652720 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 201407 - OXYGEN, 2/27 20018446 PJ195624 111 - 156332. 646313 -00000 0.00 10.29 0.00 10.29 201040 - CARBON DIOXIDE. 2/22 20018962 PJ194909 521,122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 85.00 0.00 85.00 200924 - REGULATOR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 469.02 CHECK NO 573736 VENDOR 345060 - PRECISION CARPENTRY & CONTRACTING 20018833 #133 191 - 138785- 884200 -33751 0.00 1,798.83 0.00 1,798.83 204046 L SMITH #35759000009 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,798.83 CHECK NO 573577 VENDOR 280590 - PRG AVIATION SYSTEMS 20018440 2122 495. 192370- 634999.00000 0.00 405.00 0.00 405.00 200060 QUARTERLY FEE FOR 4/1 -6/30 20018440 2112 495 - 192370 - 634999 -00000 0.00 371.25 0.00 371.25 200060 PROF SERVICES F/1 -25 & 30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 776.25 CHECK NO 573358 VENDOR 138230 - PRIDE OF FLORIDA, INC. 20018967 ZI083456 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 0.00 2,574.60 0.00 2,574.60 200052 - ENVELOPES, 2/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,574.60 CHECK NO 573788 VENDOR 353240 - PRINTERS ALLEY 20018597 28328 111. 156313 - 647110 -00000 0.00 792.00 0.00 792.00 152220 - POOL BROCHURE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 792.00 CHECK NO 573414 VENDOR 174760 - PROCRAFT BATTERIES 20018441 0421351881 521. 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 73.99 0.00 73.99 200698 - BATTERIES, 2/25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 73.99 CHECK NO 573661 VENDOR 320540 - PROLIME CORPORATION 20, 16JI PAGE 154 RT 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSI NEROA 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018957 7319 408 - 253211. 634999.00000 0.00 1,365.00 0.00 1.365.00 200395 SLUDGE REMOVAL 2/25,26 & 28 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.365.00 CHECK NO 573672 VENDOR 325880 PROSOURCE ONE 20018959 07323400 109 - 182901 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,695.93 0.00 1.695.93 200226 - FERTILIZER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.695.93 CHECK NO 573636 VENDOR 314210 PSI 20019084 47829 470. 173410- 634999 -73080 0.00 6.135.00 0.00 6.135.00 104384 TESTING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,135.00 CHECK NO 573779 VENDOR 353070 - PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC. 20018916 REGIST M BERRIOS 4/9 -14 001 - 121152. 654360 -00000 0.00 350.00 0.00 350.00 • 154915 REGIST M BERRIOS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 350.00 CHECK NO 573381 VENDOR 158120 - PUBLIX #410 20018593 I- 03919601/321600400 130 - 157710. 652210.00000 0.00 2.29 0.00 2.29 202020 - FOOD SUPPLIES, 2120 20018593 I- 03919544/321600400 130. 157710- 652210 -00000 0.00 7.99 0.00 7.99 202020 - FOOD SUPPLIES, 2/21 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10.28 CHECK NO 573364 VENDOR 144550 - PYRAMID II JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 20018594 303985 111- 156380- 652510 -00000 0.00 119.60 0.00 119.60 202037 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES, 2/22 20018594 303984 111 - 156380 - 652510 -00000 0.00 115.67 0.00 115.67 202037 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES, 2122 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 235.27 CHECK NO 573444 VENDOR 202830 - QUICK KEY LOCKSMITH SERVICES 20018743 B -11914 113 - 138910. 634999 -00000 0.00 210.00 0.00 210.00 154310 - INSTALL DOOR STRIKE F /READR MARCH 20, 20 16JI PAGE 155 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 200978 B11912 111 - 156332 - 639965 -00000 0.00 95.25 0.00 95.25 200978 - LOCK WORK, 2/22 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 305.25 CHECK NO 573547 VENDOR 270360 - QUINLAN PUBLISHING COMPANY 20018604 RENWL SUBS -ED PERICO 113. 138930 - 654110 -00000 0.00 74.00 113 - 138930 - 652990 -00000 0.00 7.78 0.00 81.78 154904 - SUBS FOR LAW BULLETIN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 81.78 CHECK NO 573945 VENDOR 900050 - R. CRAIG & LINDA S. MOGG 301718 ST LIGHT REIM B.CRAIG 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM B. CRAIG CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573946 VENDOR 900050 - RALPH & PATRICIA BURNSIDE 301687 ST LIGHT REIMB R BURNSIDE 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R BURNSIDE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573947 VENDOR 900050 - RALPH B. & REBECCA H. FERGUSON 301583 ST LIGHT REIM R. FERGUSON 781- 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM R. FERGUSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573948 VENDOR 900050 - RALPH R & SHARON L. BANKS 301573 ST LIGHT REIMB R. BANKS 781. 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R. BANKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573949 VENDOR 900050 - RALPH T CORELLI 301688 ST LIGHT REIMB R CORELLI 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R CORELLI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573950 VENDOR 900050 - RAYMOND & PATRICIA MORRIS OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 156 REPORT 100 -6012 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301666 ST LIGHT REIMB R MORRIS 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R MORRIS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573951 VENDOR 900050 - REAL J & ELIZABETH POIRIER 301631 ST LIGHT REIMB R POIRIER 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R POIRIER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573559 VENDOR 275110 REDDY ICE CORPORATION 20018945 110873 408 - 253212. 652990 -00000 0.00 50.40 0.00 50.40 200245 ICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.40 CHECK NO 573952 VENDOR 900050 RETREAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, INC 301720 ST LIGHT REIM RETREAT 781. 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 943.81 0.00 943.81 ST LIGHT REIM RETREAT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 943.81 CHECK NO 573680 VENDOR 328990 REXFORD G. DARROW, II 20018964 NESMITH,K /01- 755CFA 681 - 421190 - 631020 -00000 0.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 NESMITH,K /01- 755CFA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 900.00 CHECK NO 573998 VENDOR 900100 RHONDA MORGAN 301645 R MORGAN 01- 001235CF 681 - 421190. 634405 -00000 0.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 R MORGAN 01- 001235CF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8.00 CHECK NO 573953 VENDOR 900050 RICHARD H & LAUREL A HARRIA 301602 ST LIGHT REIMB R HARRIS 781. 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R HARRIS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573954 VENDOR 900050 - RICHARD R. & MELVA J. WARD 301585 ST LIGHT REIM R. WARD 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM R. WARD MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 157 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573955 VENDOR 900050 - RICHARDB. & NANCY A. METCALF 301574 ST. LIGHT REIMB R.METCALF 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM R. METCALF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 - 134.83 CHECK NO 573583 VENDOR 281860 ROBBINS TELECOMMUNICATIONS 20018941 C4495.0202 408 - 210105 - 641150 -00000 0.00 353.80 0.00 353.80 204399 ANSWERING SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 353.80 CHECK NO 573956 VENDOR 900050 ROBERT & JANE NEUMAN 301689 ST LIGHT REIMB R NEUMAN 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R NEUMAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573957 VENDOR 900050 - ROBERT & LUCILLE LOISELLE 301722 ST LIGHT REIM R. LOISELLE 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM R. LOISEL.LE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573958 VENDOR 900050 - ROBERT C. & CYNTH,A WILLIAMSON 301580 ST LIGHT REIM R.WILLIAMSO 781 - 162752. 981000- 00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM R WILLIAMSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573959 VENDOR 900050 - ROBERT F SCHMALZ 301667 ST LIGHT REIMB R SCHMALZ 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R SCHMALZ CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573204 VENDOR 353640 - ROBERT KIES 20018954 T SWETT #3758 3/02 001. 155930- 634153.00000 0.00 325.00 0.00 325.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 325.00 20, OUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 158 RT 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573806 VENDOR 900030 - ROBERT SANDERS 301736 10/15 -3/1 TRVL R SANDERS 001. 121140- 640200.00000 0.00 185.60 0.00 185.60 10/15- 3 /1/02 TRVL R SANDERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 185.60 CHECK NO 573540 VENDOR 265210 ROCKHURST COLLEGE CONTINUING 20018917 400260870 -001 408 - 210130. 654360 -00000 0.00 139.00 0.00 139.00 154045 J TABLE REGIST CHECK TOTAL 0.00 139.00 CHECK NO 573749 VENDOR 348150 ROETZEL & ANDRESS TRUST ACCOUNT 20018750 01- 0758 -CA R BAISLEY 331. 163650- 631990.60071 0.00 120.00 0.00 120.00 152347 01. 0758 -CA R BAISLEY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 120.00 CHECK NO 573960 VENDOR 900050 - ROGER D & SHIRLEY J WILSON 301641 ST LIGHT REIMB R WILSON 781- 162752. 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R WILSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573750 VENDOR 348290 ROMTEC 20019019 14095 346. 116360- 763100.00173 0.00 21.590.00 0.00 21.590.00 203230 PRE- MAN.BLDG CHECK TOTAL 0.00 21.590.00 CHECK NO 573518 VENDOR 255100 RON TURCHIN 20018953 436500 111. 138911. 634804 -00000 0.00 190.00 0.00 190.00 2002010537 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 190.00 CHECK NO 573961 VENDOR 900050 RONALD D & JULIA K CUCURO 301690 ST LIGHT REIMB R CUCURO 781. 162752- 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R CUCURO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573962 VENDOR 900050 - RONALD R GOSON 20, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 159 R PMARCH ORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301625 ST LIGHT REIMB R GOSON 781- 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R GOSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573963 VENDOR 900050 - ROSEMARIE TOENNES 301642 ST LIGHT REIMB R TOENNES 781- 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R TOENNES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573964 VENDOR 900050 - ROSEMARY KENNEDY 301603 ST LIGHT REIMB R KENNEDY 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB R KENNEDY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573733 VENDOR 344370 - RUSH MESSENGER SERVICE WEST, INC 20018942 19286 109. 182601 - 641950.00000 0.00 24.00 109. 182900- 641950.00000 0.00 24.00 778. 182700 - 641950.00000 0.00 18.00 0.00 66.00 200523 COURIER SVS 20018943 19287 111 - 156310 - 634999 -00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 201212 COURIER DEL SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 82.00 CHECK NO 573965 VENDOR 900050 - RUSSELL & MARION BLODGETT TR 301719 ST LIGHT REIM R. BLODGETT 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM R. BLODGETT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573966 VENDOR 900050 RUTH H. CAPE 301582 ST LIGHT REIM R. CAPE 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM R. CAPE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573726 VENDOR 342880 RYAN BENNETT 20018944 INSTR.BASKB /CLINIC 130 - 157710 - 634999 -00000 0.00 157.50 0.00 157.50 202287 INSTR.BASKETBALL CLINIC MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 160 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 157.50 CHECK NO 573999 VENDOR 900100 - RYAN HACKETT 301646 R HACKETT 0205501TB -P -C 681- 431590 - 634405.00000 0.00 10.48 0.00 10.48 R HACKETT 0205501TB -P -C CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10.48 CHECK NO 573657 VENDOR 319660 - S & S WORLDWIDE 20018757 3868061 111 - 156343. 652990 -00000 0.00 178.17 0.00 178.17 151977 CHILDRENS PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 20018759 3870221 111 - 156381 - 652990 -00000 0.00 161.25 0.00 161.25 150173 PLASTIC BEADS 20018759 3872798 111 - 156381 - 652990.00000 0.00 13.48 0.00 13.48 150173 PLASTIC BEADS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 352.90 CHECK NO 573574 VENDOR 278410 SAMUEL ADDAMS, INC 20018946 240 111- 138911 - 634804.00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 2002010328 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 500.00 CHECK NO 573967 VENDOR 900050 SANDRA COLESWORTHY 301691 ST LIGHT REIMB COLESWORTH 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB COLESWORTHY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573968 VENDOR 900050 - SANDRA L GILMORE 301692 ST LIGHT REIMS S GILMORE 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB S GILMORE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573969 VENDOR 900050 - SANDRA RYAN -SHARP 301604 ST LIGHT REIMB S RYAN -SHA 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB S RYAN -SHARP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 161 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573735 VENDOR 344990 SAP PUBLIC SERVICES, INC. 20018948 8008072500 301 - 121125. 654370.01017 0.00 544.54 0.00 544.54 203953 CONSULTING SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 544.54 CHECK NO 573594 VENDOR 287980 SHARON DOWNEY 20018896 3/10 -12 TRVL S DOWNEY 116 - 121830 - 640300.33297 0.00 298.76 0.00 298.76 3/10 -12 TRVL S DOWNEY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 298.76 CHECK NO 573588 VENDOR 284700 - SHARON L. JOHNSTON, D.O. 20018747 B DRUGE 2/21/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 260.00 0.00 260.00 154720 B DRUGE 2/21/02 20018747 B DRUGE 2/12/02 001 - 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 100.75 0.00 100.75 154720 B DRUGE 2/12/02 20018747 S SWEENEY 2/4- 2/11/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 438.75 0.00 438.75 154720 S SWEENEY 2/4- 2/11/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 799.50 CHECK NO 573970 VENDOR 900050 - SHIRLEY U LEWIS 301643 ST LIGHT REIMB S LEWIS 781. 162752- 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB S LEWIS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573531 VENDOR 260690 - SIGNCRAFT 20018754 182972 111 - 156341. 652990.00000 0.00 874.00 0.00 874.00 152559 PARTY IN THE PARK 20018939 18187 195 - 116360. 646316 -80088 0.00 551.25 0.00 551.25 106546 SIGNS 20018939 18185 195 - 116360 - 763100.80088 0.00 2,226.00 0.00 2,226.00 106546 SIGNS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,651.25 CHECK NO 573536 VENDOR 262420 - SMITH FIRE SPRINKLER COMPANY 20018872 REF 319212 SMITH FIRE 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 REF 319212 SMITH FIRE MARCH 20, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 162 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25.00 CHECK NO 573634 VENDOR 313450 - SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 20018753 4566C 408- 210151 - 652920 -00000 0.00 741.60 0.00 741.60 153991 MS OFFICE XP LICENSE 20018755 48006 001. 101520- 652920 -00000 0.00 618.18 0.00 618.18 154110 MS OFFICE LIC 20018752 48065 001. 121148 - 652920.00000 0.00 964.60 0.00 964.60 154124 MS PROJECT 02 LICENSE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,324.38 CHECK NO 573641 VENDOR 315770 - SOUTH FLORIDA INPATIENT MEDICAL 20018745 M GALLEGOS 1/7 1/8 1/9/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 249.60 0.00 249.60 154721 M GALLEGOS 1/7- 1/9/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 249.60 CHECK NO 573440 VENDOR 197580 - SOUTHEAST DESALTING ASSOCIATION 20018751 MMB /SHIP /02 #0301 408 - 253211 - 654210.00000 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 153844 MMB /SHIP /02 GREG TAVERNIER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15.00 CHECK NO 573585 VENDOR 282370 - SOUTHWEST ELECTRIC, INC. 20019008 503 521. 122410- 762200.00000 0.00 2,894.41 0.00 2,894.41 204170 LIGHTING SYSTEM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.894.41 CHECK NO 573491 VENDOR 238770 - SOUTHWEST FLORIDA HEART GROUP 20018938 P SYBERT 11/07 001 - 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 58.50 0.00 58.50 P SYBERY 11/07 20018938 L BRADBURY 12/19 001 - 155930. 631210.00000 0.00 29.25 0.00 29.25 201899 L BRADBURY 12/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 87.75 CHECK NO 573548 VENDOR 271040 - SPECIALISTS IN UROLOGY 20018748 A QUATRALE 2/1/02 001- 155930. 631210 -00000 0.00 39.00 0.00 39.00 154722 A QUATRALE 2/1/02 20, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 163 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 39.00 CHECK NO 573517 VENDOR 255040 - SPRINT 20018703 353 6816 050 2/25 3/24 408 - 253211. 641100.00000 0.00 31.11 0.00 31.11 353 6816 050 2/25 3/24 20019027 092 4316 305 12/16 1/15 408 - 253212. 641100.00000 0.00 184.10 408- 233352 - 641100.00000 0.00 184.10 408- 253211. 641100.00000 0.00 368.45 408. 253221- 641100.00000 0.00 368.45 408. 233312 - 641100.00000 0.00 409.55 0.00 1.514.65 092 4316 305 12/16 1/15 203509 20016739 591 4956 172 2/19 3/18 129. 156110- 634999.33014 0.00 27.89 0.00 27.89 591 4956 172 2/19 3/18 20018703 593 0336 568 3/4 4/3 408 - 233313 - 641100.00000 0.00 120.14 0.00 120.14 593 0336 568 3/4 4/3 20018703 657 3391 060 2128 3/27 113. 138936- 641900.00000 0.00 131.44 0.00 131.44 657 3391 060 2/28 3/27 20019028 092 4316 305 2/16 3/15 408 - 253212 - 641100 -00000 0.00 184.10 408- 233352 - 641100 -00000 0.00 184.10 408- 253211 - 641100 -00000 0.00 368.45 408 - 253221 - 641100 -00000 0.00 368.45 408 - 233312. 641100 -00000 0.00 409.55 0.00 1,514.65 092 4316 305 2/16 3/15 203509 20018703 657 5501 211 1/28 2/27 113 - 138722 - 641900 -00000 0.00 98.26 0.00 98.26 657 5501 211 1/28 2/27 20018703 657 2882 502 2/28 3/27 129 - 156110 - 634999.33014 0.00 137.57 0.00 137.57 657 2882 502 2/28 3/27 20018703 101 1609 763 3/1 3/30 001. 156110- 641400 -00000 0.00 140.00 0.00 140.00 101 1609 763 3/1 3/30 20018703 657 5567 436 2/28 3/27 129 - 156110 - 634999 -33014 0.00 30.28 0.00 30.28 657 5567 436 2/28 3/27 20018703 867 5435 137 2/28 3/27 521 - 122410 - 641400 -00000 0.00 103.67 0.00 103.67 867 5435 137 2/28 3/27 20018703 695 4425 196 3/4 4/3 188- 140480 - 641400 -00000 0.00 25.75 0.00 25.75 695 4425 196 3/4 4/3 20018703 657 3002 010 2/28 3/27 001 - 155410. 641900 -00000 0.00 33.47 001 - 155410. 641200 -00000 0.00 19.26 0.00 52.73 657 3002 010 2/28 3/27 OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 164 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20016739 774 5148 147 2/19 3/18 129 - 156110. 634999 -33014 0.00 86.85 0.00 86.85 774 5148 147 2/19 3/18 20018703 774 7960 025 2/19 3/18 101 - 163609. 641900 -00000 0.00 60.05 313 - 163611 - 641900 -00000 0.00 60.05 101 - 163612 - 641900 -00000 0.00 60.05 101 - 163610 - 641900 -00000 0.00 60.05 001. 172910 - 641900.00000 0.00 30.03 001. 172970 - 641900 -00000 0.00 30.02 0.00 300.25 774 7960 025 2/19 3/18 20018703 774 0225 335 2/19 3/18 001. 010510 - 641210 -00000 0.00 35.95 0.00 35.95 774 0225 335 2/19 3/18 20018703 261 5010 616 2/25 3/24 001. 122240 - 641900 -00000 0.00 27.89 0.00 27.89 261 5010 616 2/25 3/24 20018703 774 5987 212 1/19 2/18 001. 122240- 641900.00000 0.00 62.46 0.00 62.46 774 5987 212 1/19 2/18 20018703 263 8246 103 3/1 3/30 001 - 156110. 641900.00000 0.00 85.30 0.00 85.30 263 8246 103 3/1 3/30 20018703 642 0818 064 3/4 4/3 001. 156363 - 641900.00000 0.00 57.05 0.00 57.05 642 0818 064 3/4 4/3 20018703 394 6750 137 2/7 3/6 441- 256110 - 641100.00000 0.00 34.51 0.00 34.51 394 6750 137 217 3/6 20018703 657 3234 151 2/28 3/27 521 - 122450. 641400 -00000 0.00 19.43 0.00 19.43 657 3234 151 2/28 3/27 20018703 793 0618 203 2/13 3/12 001. 443010. 641900.00000 0.00 57.02 0.00 57.02 793 0618 203 2/13 3/12 20018703 695 0008 900 3/4 4/3 198. 157430. 641900 -00000 0.00 152.38 0.00 152.38 695 0008 900 3/4 4/3 20018703 775 0534 663 2122 3/21 001 - 443010. 641900 -00000 0.00 36.18 0.00 36.18 775 0534 663 2/22 3/21 20018703 657 2525 608 2/28 3/27 113. 138722- 641900.00000 0.00 223.12 0.00 223.12 657 2525 608 2/28 3/27 20018703 092 2013 245 2/16 3/15 113. 138936- 641900 -00000 0.00 184.65 0.00 184.65 092 2013 245 2/16 3/15 20018703 774 6251 228 2/19 3/18 001 - 443010. 641210 -00000 0.00 36.02 0.00 36.02 774 6251 228 2/19 3/18 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018703 593 3511 226 3/4 4/3 593 3511 226 3/4 4/3 20018703 774 5952 219 2/19 3/18 774 5952 2/19 3/18 20018703 417 1545 985 2/28 3/27 417 1545 985 2/28 3/27 20019029 092 4316 305 1/16 2/15 092 4316 305 1/16 2/15 203509 20018703 101 1612 761 3/1 3/31 101 1612 761 3/1 3/31 20018703 657 6566 069 2/28 3/27 657 6566 069 2/28 3/27 20018703 334 1040 979 3/4 4/3 334 1040 979 3/4 4/3 20018703 513 9264 452 3/4 4/3 513 9264 452 3/4 4/3 20018703 774 7470 893 2/19 3/18 774 7470 893 2/19 3/18 20018703 353 3958 762 2/25 3/24 353 3958 762 2/25 3/24 20018703 101 1611 759 3/1 3/30 101 1611 759 3/1 3/30 20018703 657 2655 649 2/28 3/27 657 2655 649 2/28 3/27 20018703 101 0486 976 3/1 3/30 101 0486 976 3/1 3/30 20018703 775 4454 081 2/22 3/21 775 4454 081 2/22 3/21 20018703 498 0880 194 3/4 4/3 498 0880 194 3/4 4/3 20018703 774 5987 212 2/19 3/18 774 5987 212 2/19 3/18 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0.00 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 156175 - 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 443010 - 641210 -00000 0.00 001 - 144110 - 641900.00000 0.00 408 - 253212 - 641100.00000 0.00 408- 233352 - 641100 -00000 0.00 408- 253211. 641100 -00000 0.00 408- 253221. 641100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233312 - 641100.00000 0.00 001 - 156110. 641400 -00000 0.00 470. 173435 - 641900 -00000 0.00 001. 443010- 641900 -00000 0.00 001- 156363 - 641900.00000 0.00 001 - 122240 - 641900 -00000 0.00 001. 010110- 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 156110. 641400 -00000 0.00 101 - 163620- 641900.00000 0.00 001. 156110 - 641400 -00000 0.00 490. 144610- 641900 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 641900 -00000 0.00 001- 122240 - 641900 -00000 0.00 16JIPAGE 165 AMT NET VCHR DISC 472.35 0.00 29.55 0.00 29.72 0.00 184.10 184.10 368.45 368.45 409.55 0.00 140.00 0.00 110.64 0.00 492.24 0.00 65.96 0.00 135.06 0.00 62.56 0.00 160.00 0.00 196.05 0.00 126.00 0.00 36.15 0.00 37.89 0.00 62.46 0.00 VCHR NET 472.35 29.55 29.72 1,514.65 140.00 110.64 492.24 65.96 135.06 62.56 160.00 196.05 126.00 36.15 37.89 62.46 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018703 417 1545 985 1/28 2/27 417 1545 985 1/28 2/27 20018703 657 1188 274 2/28 3/27 657 1188 274 2/28 3/27 20018703 353 2874 099 2/25 3/24 353 2874 099 2/25 3/24 20016739 643 2265 205 2/16 3/15 643 2265 205 2/16 3/15 20018703 101 1549 760 3/1 3/30 101 1549 760 3/1 3/30 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001. 144210- 641900 -00000 0.00 101. 163630 - 641900.00000 0.00 408 - 253211 - 641100 -00000 0.00 129 - 156110 - 634999.33014 0.00 408. 253212. 641100 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573453 VENDOR 209310 - SPRINT /UNITED TELEPHONE - FLORIDA 20018756 CO22713147 001 - 156175 - 646710 -00000 0.00 154692 CO22713147 INSIDE WIRING CHECK NO 573770 VENDOR 352070 - ST. JAMES -GRAY MEDICAL RESEARCH 20018936 WR220218 408 - 233312 - 652720 -00000 0.00 153030 INSECT BITE TREATMENT CHECK NO 573378 VENDOR 154640 - ST. PETERSBURG JUNIOR COLLEGE 20018801 REGIST D LEVITT 001 - 155410 - 654360 -00000 0.00 154002 REGIST D LEVITT 20018800 REGIST. B KUBICSEK 001 - 155410. 654360.00000 0.00 154002 REGIST. B KUBICSEK CHECK NO 573971 VENDOR 900050 - STANLEY J. & HELEN OSTROWSKI 301617 ST LIGHT REIMB S.OSTROWSK 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM S. OSTROWSKI CHECK NO 573972 VENDOR 900050 - STEPHANIE BISEL 16J1 PAGE 166 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 29.50 0.00 29.50 25.75 0.00 25.75 29.32 0.00 29.32 27.89 0.00 27.89 140.00 0.00 140.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9,250.94 97.50 0.00 97.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 97.50 62.28 0.00 62.28 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 62.28 273.00 0.00 273.00 273.00 0.00 273.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 546.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 167 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301555 REFUND PARKS S BISEL 111 - 156380 - 347990 -00000 0.00 49.50 0.00 49.50 REFUND PARKS S BISEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 49.50 CHECK NO 573973 VENDOR 900050 - STEPHEN & ANNETTE M JORJORIAN 301550 ST LIGHT REIMB JORJORIAN 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB S JORJORIAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573974 VENDOR 900050 - STEPHEN & NORMA SUTTO 301723 ST LIGHT REIMS. SUTTO 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM S. SUTTO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573642 VENDOR 316360 STEVE NAGY 20018899 3/25 -27 ADV PD S NAGY 408. 233351- 640300.00000 0.00 51.00 0.00 51.00 3/25 -27 ADV PD S NAGY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 51.00 CHECK NO 573438 VENDOR 195260 STEVEN A. MECKSTROTH 20018746 J VALERIE 1 /11 1/16/02 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 547.30 0.00 547.30 154723 J VALERIE 1 /11 1/16/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 547.30 CHECK NO 573755 VENDOR 349840 - SUNCOAST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY INC. 20019018 001 - 230284 301. 120402 - 762200 -80196 0.00 5,089.00 0.00 5.089.00 203824 FIRE TREATED LUMBER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.089.00 CHECK NO 573337 VENDOR 124300 - SUNSET SOUND CO., INC. 20018760 02602 001 - 100130 - 634999 -00000 0.00 650.00 0.00 650.00 154919 TOWN MEETING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 650.00 CHECK NO 573203 VENDOR 353630 • SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC. 20018955 D LABRECHE #3723 4/02 001 - 155930 - 634153 -00000 0.00 450.00 0.00 450.00 AND MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 168 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 450.00 CHECK NO 573530 VENDOR 260280 - SUSAN DOERFLINGER 20018946 PAINT -MEDIA INSTR. 319102 111. 156390- 634999 -00000 0.00 208.00 0.00 208.00 201036 PAINT -MEDIA INSTR. 3/9/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 208.00 CHECK NO 573975 VENDOR 900050 . SUSAN L HANNON 301551 ST LIGHT REIMB S HANNON 781 - 162752. 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB S HANNON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573493 VENDOR 243240 - SW FLORIDA PULMONARY SPECIALISTS 20018749 Y GARCIA 11/28- 11/29/02 001. 155930.631210 -00000 0.00 302.25 0.00 302.25 154724 Y GARCIA 11/28- 11/29/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 302.25 CHECK NO 573804 VENDOR 353790 SWIX- SOUTHERN WASTE INFO EXCHANGE 20019064 REGIST T ASARO 470 - 173463- 654360.00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 154743 REGIST T ASARO 20019064 REGIST D KIRK 470 - 173463 - 654360 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 154743 REGIST D KIRK 20019064 REGIST J GO 470 - 173463 - 654360 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 154743 REGIST J GO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 75.00 CHECK NO 573282 VENDOR 18690 T -SHIRT EXPRESS 20018949 29988 111- 156390 - 652110.00000 0.00 70.50 0.00 70.50 202048 T- SHIRTS 20018950 31118 111.156341- 652110 -00000 0.00 127.50 0.00 127.50 202055 T- SHIRTS 20018950 30068 111 - 156341 - 652110 -00000 0.00 172.00 0.00 172.00 202055 T- SHIRTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 370.00 CHECK NO 573399 VENDOR 167580 TAMARA LYNNE NICOLA, P.A. MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018952 96- 1658 -CFA J TRIMBLE 96- 1658 -CFA J TRIMBLE 20018952 96- 1658 -CFA J TRIMBLE 96. 1658 -CFA J TRIMBLE OUNTY, FLORID COLLIR BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA 16JI PAGE 169 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 681. 421190- 631020.00000 0.00 760.00 0.00 681 - 421190 - 631025 -00000 0.00 10.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573758 VENDOR 350100 - TAYLOR ENGINEERING 20017608 3724 195 - 110406. 631400.10500 0.00 1.415.53 195. 110406- 631400.10501 0.00 0.00 195 - 110406 - 631400 -10504 0.00 0.00 195- 110406. 631400.10506 0.00 0.00 0.00 203879 THRU 2/24/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573280 VENDOR 18040 - TAYLOR RENTAL 20018758 1- 216962 -04 130 - 157710 - 652990.00000 0.00 467.05 0.00 152188 TABLE COVERING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573496 VENDOR 244940 - TELIMAGINE, INC. 20018915 41540918 (INV 3784128) 001 - 156110 - 644600.00000 0.00 687.00 0.00 MAR 2002 200142 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573293 VENDOR 103380 - THE FLORIDA BAR 20019068 590851 681 - 421510. 654110.00000 0.00 105.00 001 - 421040 - 654110 -00000 0.00 35.00 0.00 153448 FL BAR JOURNALS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 573472 VENDOR 223930 - THE HILLER GROUP, INC. 20018684 1009834IN 001 - 144510. 652410 -00000 0.00 4,363.23 0.00 200553 FUEL 20019015 1009827 IN 495 - 192370 - 642416.00000 0.00 8,521.21 0.00 200145 FUEL 20018692 ROO1011IN 495. 192330- 634999 -00000 0.00 10.00 0.00 200357 SIGN MAINT VCHR NET 760.00 10.00 770.00 1,415.53 1.415.53 467.05 467.05 687.00 687.00 140.00 140.00 4,363.23 8,521.21 10.00 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573535 VENDOR 261940 - THE KIPLINGER WASHINGTON NEWSLETTER VCHR DISC 20019083 SUBSCRIPTION -J MERRITT 001- 100130. 654110 -00000 0.00 48.00 155031 SUB -J MERRITT 48.00 CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 573279 VENDOR 14880 - THE PHOTO LAB 0.00 20018598 79697 /PUBLIC INFO 001 - 100130. 647210.00000 0.00 9.15 154528 - FILM PROC, 2/25 9.15 40.80 20018598 79681 /PUBLIC INFO 001 - 100130. 647210 -00000 0.00 13.35 154528 - FILM PROC, 2/25 0.00 5.50 20018598 79756 /PUBLIC INFO 001 - 100130 - 647210 -00000 0.00 0.00 154528 - FILM PROC, 2/26 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20018443 79678 /LIBRARY 001. 156110 - 647210 -00000 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 200458 - FILM, 2/25 404.49 2,225.00 20018741 78632 /MUSEUM 198 - 157410 - 647210.00000 0.00 2,225.00 154886 - PHOTO PROC, 12/21 20018444 79553 1WASTEWATER 408 - 210130- 647210 -00000 0.00 200720 - FILM PROC, 2/18 20018773 79629 /DOMESTIC ANIMAL 001 - 155410 - 647210 -00000 0.00 201253 - FILM PROC, 2122 20018444 79663 /WASTEWATER 408 - 210130 - 647210 -00000 0.00 200720 - FILM PROC, 2/25 CHECK NO 573976 VENDOR 900050 - THE RETREAT COMMONS ONE 301721 ST LIGHT REIM RETREAT COM 781- 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM RETREAT COMMONS CHECK NO 573780 VENDOR 353090 - THE SANS INSTITUE 20018918 SANS20021435483 001. 121154 - 654360.00000 0.00 204675 REGIST J BOLEN 4/1 -5 16J1 PAGE 170 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 12,894.44 48.00 0.00 48.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 48.00 18.00 0.00 18.00 79.60 0.00 79.60 9.15 0.00 9.15 40.80 0.00 40.80 13.35 0.00 13.35 5.50 0.00 5.50 6.40 0.00 6.40 16.50 0.00 16.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 189.30 404.49 0.00 404.49 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 404.49 2,225.00 0.00 2,225.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,225.00 20, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 171 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573977 VENDOR 900050 - THEODORE J. & ELLYN ZIMMERMAN 301612 ST LIGHT REIM T.ZIMMERMAN 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM T. ZIMMER MAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573978 VENDOR 900050 - THERESE D BRAUN 301693 ST LIGHT REIMB T BRAUN 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB T BRAUN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573979 VENDOR 900050 - THOMAS & DOLORES GEISELHART 301668 ST LIGHT REIMB GEISELHART 781- 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB GEISELHART CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573980 VENDOR 900050 - THOMAS F. MURRIN 301724 ST LIGHT REIM T. MURRIN 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM T. MURRIN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573552 VENDOR 271800 - TILDEN LOBNITZ & COOPER, INC. 20018978 144751 414 - 263611 - 631400.74015 0.00 2,125.00 0.00 2.125.00 4475 THRU 2/15/02 20018978 143929 414 - 263611 - 631400 -74015 0.00 1.350.00 0.00 1,350.00 4475 THRU 1/18/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.475.00 CHECK NO 573633 VENDOR 311820 TONY'S DOCKSIDE SERVICE 20018761 690055 144. 144360 - 646810 -00000 0.00 231.90 0.00 231.90 154873 BATTERIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 231.90 CHECK NO 573981 VENDOR 900050 TONYA PHILLIPS 301552 REFUND ADOPTION T PHILLIP 001 - 155410 - 346410 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 REFUND ADOPTION T PHILLIPS 20, OUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 PAGE 172 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301644 REFUND ADOPTION T PHILLIP 610. 155410- 346450 -00000 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 REFUND ADOPTION T PHILLIPS 145377 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 573526 VENDOR 259320 - TOTAL SURGERY CENTER 20018940 A MCGEE 1/31/02 001. 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 1,300.00 0.00 1.300.00 204739 A MCGEE 1/31/02 20018940 V MAY 1/28/02 001. 155930 - 634101 -00000 0.00 3,575.00 0.00 3,575.00 204739 V MAY 1/28/02 20018940 W SILVA 1/22/02 001 - 155930 - 634101.00000 0.00 1,300.00 0.00 1,300.00 204739 W SILVA 1/22/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,175.00 CHECK NO 573600 VENDOR 291440 - TRAVEL CREATIONS 20018803 CO /VTMB45 M BERRIOS 001 - 121143 - 640300 -00000 0.00 371.00 0.00 371.00 154884 CO /VTMB45 M BERRIOS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 371.00 CHECK NO 573281 VENDOR 18490 TRI- COUNTY BLUEPRINT & SUPPLY 20018951 5.022004 408. 210105- 647110.00000 0.00 25.20 0.00 25.20 200188 XEROX BOND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25.20 CHECK NO 573982 VENDOR 900050 TRUMBULL BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. 301613 ST LIGHT REIM TRUMBULL 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM TRUMBULL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573509 VENDOR 253060 - TRUTWIN INDUSTRIES, INC. 20018935 28365 136. 162590 - 763100 -66070 0.00 226.25 0.00 226.25 154637 STRIPING & MARKINGS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 226.25 CHECK NO 573356 VENDOR 135240 - TUFF PUBLICATIONS, INC 20018744 2/5/02 130 - 157710 - 648170 -00000 0.00 99.45 0.00 99.45 152190 NEWSPAPER ADS OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 173 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018744 1/29/02 130 - 157710. 648170.00000 0.00 99.45 0.00 99.45 152190 NEWSPAPER ADS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 198.90 CHECK NO 573417 VENDOR 178670 - U. S. ENERGY SERVICE 20018165 02014061 001- 122240 - 646283 -00000 0.00 945.31 0.00 945.31 201252 ADM.& WRITTEN REPORT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 945.31 CHECK NO 573406 VENDOR 170110 U. S. FOUNDRY & MFG CORP. 20018768 178838 111 - 163645 - 653210 -00000 0.00 4.000.00 0.00 4,000.00 202986 IRON GRATES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,000.00 CHECK NO 573599 VENDOR 291300 U.S. FILTER 20018203 8915876 408- 233351 - 652310 -00000 0.00 4.620.00 0.00 4.620.00 203905 CHEM. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,620.00 CHECK NO 573488 VENDOR 237480 U.S. FILTER /DAVIS 20018931 7760996 10/02/01 111 - 163645 - 653210 -00000 0.00 521.00 0.00 521.00 202304 10/02/01 PIPE & ACCESSORIES 20018202 8133200 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 2,100.00 0.00 2.100.00 200517 LAB.SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.621.00 CHECK NO 573487 VENDOR 237380 U.S. FILTER /DAVIS PROCESS DIVISION 20019023 8915888 414. 263611. 763100.73064 0.00 6.100.00 0.00 6,100.00 203057 CHEM. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.100.00 CHECK NO 573329 VENDOR 115920 U.S. TOY CO. INC. 20018549 8070532601 111 - 156343. 652990 -00000 0.00 154.60 0.00 154.60 153879 TOYS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 154.60 OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 174 REPORT 100.6002 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573579 VENDOR 281240 UNITED MECHANICAL INC 20018414 4576 301 - 120402. 763100 -80172 0.00 6.077.75 0.00 6,077.75 203127 HVAC WORK CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,077.75 CHECK NO 573284 VENDOR 18900 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 20018921 363797102 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 0.00 92.36 0.00 92.36 200056 SHIPPING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 92.36 CHECK NO 573584 VENDOR 282270 UNITED RENTAL 20018183 23849292.001 101 - 163620 - 652910 -00000 0.00 30.99 0.00 30.99 154111 TROWEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 30.99 CHECK NO 573283 VENDOR 18860 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 20018807 REGIST R MCKELLAR /E ODELL 470 - 173442- 654360 -00000 0.00 395.00 470 - 173441 - 654360 -00000 0.00 395.00 0.00 790.00 153008 REGIST TRAINING TRANSF STATIO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 790.00 CHECK NO 573707 VENDOR 336330 - UNIVERSITY PARK MEDIA. INC. 20018441 30975 355 - 156190. 766100 -00000 0.00 180.00 0.00 180.00 154641 PRICE INCREASE FROM PUBL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 180.00 CHECK NO 573319 VENDOR 112350 - UPBEAT, INC. 20018548 421744 111 - 156343 - 652990 -00000 0.00 200.27 0.00 200.27 153878 WASTE RECEPTABLE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 200.27 CHECK NO 573802 VENDOR 353520 - VEGA, BROWN ET AL & ODILIA HERARD 20018837 D/P 0 HERARD 36005560001 191 - 138785 - 884100 -33752 0.00 2.500.00 0.00 2.500.00 #36005560001 0 HERARD 204782 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.500.00 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 573196 VENDOR 314680 - VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVICES 20018554 61Y941410070477108 311/02 001 - 443010 - 641210 -00000 0.00 AND 16JI PAGE 175 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 4.27 0.00 4.27 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4.27 CHECK NO 573638 VENDOR 314680 - VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVICES 20018404 A2103318CC 3/1. 3/31/02 101 - 163620 - 641150 -00000 0.00 23.02 0.00 23.02 201132 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018552 A2102051CC 3/1. 3/31/02 001. 155410. 641150 -00000 0.00 90.24 0.00 90.24 201370 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018932 A2003906CB 1 /1- 1/31/02 123 - 155975. 641150 -33075 0.00 19.94 0.00 19.94 107411 1 /1- 1/31/02 PAGERS 20018405 A2102085CC 3/1=3/31/02 681- 421510 - 641150 -00000 0.00 78.11 0.00 78.11 201323 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018553 A2102038CC 3/1- 3/31/02 001 - 454010. 641150 -00000 0.00 5.95 0.00 5.95 202083 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018934 A2106885CC 3/1- 3/31/02 521 - 122410 - 641150 -00000 0.00 28.81 0.00 28.81 200935 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018551 A210197OCC 3/1- 3/31/02 109. 182601 - 641150 -00000 0.00 2.98 109 - 182900 - 641150 -00000 0.00 2.97 0.00 5.95 201745 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018764 A2118449CC 3/1- 3/31/02 001 - 178985- 641150.00000 0.00 16.90 0.00 16.90 200412 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGER SUS 20018403 A2014704CC 3/1- 3/31/02 495 - 192350. 641150 -00000 0.00 8.54 0.00 8.54 202272 3/1. 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018418 A2101777CC 3/1- 3/31/02 490 - 144610- 634999 -00000 0.00 258.94 0.00 258.94 200118 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018932 A2003906CC 2/1- 2/28/02 123 - 155975 - 641150 -33075 0.00 28.37 0.00 28.37 107411 2/1- 2/28/02 PAGERS 20018406 A2106862CC 3/1- 3/31/02 681- 431310. 641150.00000 0.00 21.97 0.00 21.97 201336 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018198 A2120608CC 3/1. 3/31/02 146 - 144380. 641150.00000 0.00 20.69 0.00 20.69 200306 3/1- 3/31/02 PAGERS 20018923 A2013336CC 3/1- 3/31/02 114. 178970- 641150.00000 0.00 11.90 0.00 11.90 200340 A2013336CC 3/1. 3/31/02 PAGERS OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 176 REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 619.33 CHECK NO 573983 VENDOR 900050 - VERONICA FROHMAN 301725 ST LIGHT REIM V. FROHMAN 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM V. FROHMAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573317 VENDOR 111900 VICKIE WILSON 20018906 2/4.28 TRVL V WILSON 111 - 156390 - 640200.00000 0.00 37.12 0.00 37.12 2/4.28 TRVL V WILSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 37.12 CHECK NO 573285 VENDOR 19260 VICS SHOE REPAIR 20018169 9060000247 001 - 122240. 652110 -00000 0.00 130.00 0.00 130.00 153599 SHOES 20018182 9060000248 101 - 163620. 652140 -00000 0.00 125.00 0.00 125.00 200952 SHOES 20018408 9060000257 101- 163620. 652140.00000 0.00 250.00 0.00 250.00 200952 SHOES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 505.00 CHECK NO 573335 VENDOR 122690 VICTOR J. LATAVISH, P.A. 20017605 #6 VL -00 -7 346 - 116360 - 763100.00173 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 102420 2/22/02 20017607 VL -00 -6 2/25/02 301 - 110472. 631500 -80535 0.00 1,125.00 0.00 1,125.00 103143 2/25/02 20017606 #8 VL -00 -2 195 - 116360 - 763100 -80088 0.00 2.500.00 0.00 2.500.00 3376 2/21/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4.125.00 CHECK NO 573984 VENDOR 900050 - VINCENT & DORIS SAUER 301632 ST LIGHT REIMB V SAUER 781 - 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB V SAUER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573539 VENDOR 264290 - VINCENTE PINERO'S TRACTOR MARCH 20. 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018200 2002010325 2002010325 20018200 2002010327 2002010327 20018200 2001110809 2001110809 20018200 2002010333 2002010333 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111 - 138911 - 634804 -00000 0.00 111 - 138911 - 634804.00000 0.00 111 - 138911 - 634804.00000 0.00 111 - 138911 - 634804.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573422 VENDOR 180740 - VINEYARDS UTILITY, INC. 20018767 #347 111. 156332. 643400 -00000 #347 CHECK NO 573702 VENDOR 334620 - VOPAK USA INC 20018166 TA- 624247 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 203010 SODIUM SIL. CHECK NO 573424 VENDOR 185990 VWR SCIENTIFIC 20018181 10171322 408 - 233350 - 652990 -00000 55.00 200727 LAB.SUPPL. 55.00 20018920 10230638 114 - 178975 - 652910.00000 55.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 55.00 20018920 10198731 114 - 178975. 652910 -00000 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 0.00 20018920 10201789 114 - 178975. 652910 -00000 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 0.00 20018920 10179738 114 - 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 0.00 20018920 10119053 114. 178975 - 652910 -00000 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 0.00 20018920 10207663 114. 178975 - 652910.00000 0.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 16JIPAGE 177 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 55.00 0.00 55.00 55.00 0.00 55.00 2,195.00 0.00 2.195.00 55.00 0.00 55.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.360.00 0.00 309.96 0.00 309.96 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 309.96 0.00 825.00 0.00 825.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 825.00 0.00 33.60 0.00 33.60 0.00 29.62- 0.00 29.62- 0.00 85.20 0.00 85.20 0.00 109.20 0.00 109.20 0.00 54.76 0.00 54.76 0.00 300.24 0.00 300.24 0.00 11.30 0.00 11.30 OUNTY, FLORID REPORT 100 -6002 BOARDEOFCCCOMMISSIONERSA 16JI PAGE 178 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018920 10191014 114 - 178975. 652910 -00000 0.00 69.10 0.00 69.10 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 20018920 10198732 114 - 178975. 652910 -00000 0.00 18.69 0.00 18.69 200352 LAB.SUPPL. 20018920 10169468 114 - 178975. 652910 -00000 0.00 434.00 0.00 434.00 200352 LAB.SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.086.47 CHECK NO 573985 VENDOR 900050 - W A & HERRIETA F JEND 301694 ST LIGHT REIMB WA JEND 781. 162752- 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB WA JEND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573287 VENDOR 19440 WAL -MART PHARMACY 20018417 11/16- 11/30/01 001 - 155930 - 652710 -00000 0.00 11,550.80 0.00 11.550.80 201913 11/16- 11/30/02 DRUGS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 11,550.80 CHECK NO 573412 VENDOR 173290 WAL -MART PHARMACY #10.1957 20018416 01 /01- 01/31/02 001 - 155930. 652710 -00000 0.00 6,762.95 0.00 6,762.95 201925 01 /01- 01/31/02 DRUGS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,762.95 CHECK NO 573706 VENDOR 335990 WALGREEN COMPANY 20019022 218176 001 - 155930 - 652710 -00000 0.00 1.398.92 0.00 1,398.92 204741 DRUGS 20019021 217542 001 - 155930. 652710.00000 0.00 1,263.57 0.00 1.263.57 204740 DRUGS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.662.49 CHECK NO 573286 VENDOR 19370 WALLACE INTERNATIONAL 20018171 FC72472 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 525.45- 0.00 525.45 200937 PARTS 20018171 FC72476 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 538.35- 0.00 538.35 200937 PARTS MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018171 FC72289 200937 PARTS 20018171 FC72865 200937 PARTS 20018171 FC72441 200937 PARTS 20018171 FC72736 200937 PARTS 20018171 FC72824 200937 PARTS 20018171 C72321 200937 PARTS 20018171 FC72723 200937 PARTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 573309 VENDOR 109110 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521- 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573333 VENDOR 119030 - WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 20019067 3/01 FRANCHISE FEE 473 - 173411 - 313710 -00000 201196 3/01 FRANCHSIE FEES 20019067 3/01 COLLECTIONS 473 - 173411 - 634800.00000 201196 3/01 MADATORY COLLECTION CHECK NO 573309 VENDOR 109110 - WASTE MGMT OF COLLIER COUNTY 20018410 1487667/169693 3/02 001 - 156363. 643300 -00000 31.22 1487667/169693 3/02 31.22 20018410 1508117/169727 3/02 111. 156332. 643300 -00000 8.85 1508117/169727 3/02 8.85 20018201 1521334/64033 2/02 408. 233312- 643300 -00000 1,029.05 1521334/64033 2/02 1.029.05 20018201 2392759/167399 3/02 001 - 156160 - 643300.00000 CHECK TOTAL 2392759/167399 3/02 391.72 20018763 2275574/165360 2102 101 - 163620 - 643300 -00000 0.00 2275574/165360 2/02 16JI PAGE 179 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 260.51- 0.00 260.51- 31.22 0.00 31.22 135.46 0.00 135.46 8.85 0.00 8.85 1,017.45 0.00 1,017.45 1,029.05 0.00 1.029.05 506.00- 0.00 506.00 - CHECK TOTAL 0.00 391.72 0.00 15,478.28- 0.00 15,478.28- 0.00 478,263.13 0.00 478,263.13 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 462.784.85 0.00 327.48 0.00 327.48 0.00 311.11 0.00 311.11 0.00 2,260.24 0.00 2.260.24 0.00 89.50 0.00 89.50 0.00 183.90 0.00 183.90 20, OUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 180 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018410 2160394/169736 3/02 111 - 156332 - 643300.00000 0.00 126.00 0.00 126.00 2160394/169736 3/02 20018201 2433790/65009 2/02 001 - 156363. 643300 -00000 0.00 160.40 0.00 160.40 2433790/65009 2/02 20018763 1478943/169674 3/02 130 - 157710. 643300.00000 0.00 228.10 0.00 228.10 1478943/169674 3/02 20018201 1586193/169377 3/02 408. 233351. 643300 -00000 0.00 20.12 0.00 20.12 1586193/169377 3/02 20018201 1485915/169310 3/02 408 - 233352 - 643300 -00000 0.00 667.87 0.00 667.87 1485915/169310 3/02 20018201 1507838/167362 3/02 001 - 156145 - 643300 -00000 0.00 10.52 0.00 10.52 1507838/167362 3/02 20018201 2392724/167398 3/02 001 - 156180 - 643300.00000 0.00 89.50 0.00 89.50 2392724/167398 3/02 20018201 2429714/64215 2102 001. 122240. 643300 -00000 0.00 1,683.94 0.00 1,683.94 2429714/64215 2/02 20018763 8657431/168254 3/02 001. 155410 - 643300 -00000 0.00 238.10 0.00 238.10 8657431/168254 3/02 20018410 1487683/169694 3/02 111. 156332 - 643300 -00000 0.00 641.13 0.00 641.13 1487683/169694 3/02 20018410 2328597/169753 3/02 001 - 156363 - 643300.00000 0.00 403.03 0.00 403.03 2328597/169753 3/02 20018410 1501996/168527 3/02 109- 182602. 643300.00000 0.00 54.85 109 - 182901 - 643300 -00000 0.00 163.09 0.00 217.94 1501996/168527 3/02 20018410 1494949/169709 3/02 001 - 156363. 643300 -00000 0.00 765.67 0.00 765.67 1494949/169709 3/02 20018201 1520214/64000 2/02 001. 061010. 643300.00000 0.00 94.58 0.00 94.58 1520214/64000 2102 20018410 8656840/169777 3/02 111 - 156332. 643300 -00000 0.00 217.94 0.00 217.94 8656840/169777 3/02 20018201 2214338/169396 3/02 408- 253221. 643300 -00000 0.00 165.02 0.00 165.02 2214338/169396 3/02 20018763 8657533/169469 3/02 490 - 144610 - 643300 -00000 0.00 10.52 0.00 10.52 8657533/169469 3/02 MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20018410 8657878/169087 3/02 8657878/169087 3/02 20018410 1501694/169719 3/02 1501694/169719 3/02 20018201 1484684/169305 3/02 1484684/169305 3/02 20018201 2404951/64135 2/02 2404951/64135 2102 20018410 1503271/169720 3/02 1503271/169720 3/02 20018410 1492687/169705 3/02 1492687/169705 3/02 20018763 8656743/169427 3/02 8656743/169427 3/02 20018410 1505851/169725 3/02 1505851/169725 3/02 20018922 1499673/169347 3/02 200712 1499673/169347 3/02 20018201 1481553/167315 3/02 1481553/167315 3/02 20018201 1486636/169314 3/02 1486636/169314 3/02 20018410 1488426/169697 3/02 1488426/169697 3/02 20018410 1487705/169695 3/02 1487705/169695 3/02 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR NET SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 156175. 643300 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363. 643300 -00000 0.00 408 - 253211. 643300 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240 - 643300 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363. 643300 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 643300.00000 0.00 408- 253212 - 643300 -00000 0.00 001- 156363 - 643300 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 643300 -00000 0.00 001 - 156140 - 643300.00000 0.00 408. 253212- 643300 -00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 643300.00000 0.00 111 - 156332 - 643300.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 573433 VENDOR 191500 - WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS 20018550 056356 111 - 156349. 652990 -00000 0.00 111 - 156349 - 652720 -00000 0.00 153882 WHISTLES.SEAL EASY KIT CHECK NO 573374 VENDOR 151900 - WATER TREATMENT & CONTROL CO. 16JI PAGE 181 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 660.20 0.00 660.20 327.48 0.00 327.48 217.94 0.00 217.94 240.61 0.00 240.61 403.03 0.00 403.03 579.32 0.00 579.32 126.00 0.00 126.00 183.90 0.00 183.90 217.94 0.00 217.94 10.52 0.00 10.52 403.03 0.00 403.03 126.00 0.00 126.00 714.14 0.00 714.14 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 13,122.72 70.00 106.88 0.00 176.88 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 176.88 CHECK NO 573666 VENDOR 323460 - WAYNE EXUM 20018180 BASK.REFEREE 1/7- 2/14/02 111 - 156341. 634999 -00000 0.00 202854 BASK.REFEREE 1/7- 2/14/02 CHECK NO 573986 VENDOR 900050 - WERNER & BRIGITTE HETTWER 301727 ST LIGHT REIM W. HETTWER 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM W. HETTWER CHECK NO 573724 VENDOR 341930 - WESTIN INNISBROOK RESORT 20018805 379211 E KANT 3/23.27 101. 163610- 640300 -00000 0.00 379211 E KANT 3/23 -27 CHECK NO 573688 VENDOR 331470 WGCU -N 20018179 00501 -87 001 - 100130 - 634999 -00000 0.00 200203 STUDIO TAPING CHECK NO 573454 VENDOR 209460 WHEELER PUBLISHING INC. 630.00 CHECK TOTAL 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 420.00 CHECK TOTAL 518.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16JI PAGE 182 REPORT 100.6002 BOARDEOFCCOMMISSI NERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018173 054199 408- 253221 - 649990 -00000 0.00 951.23 0.00 951.23 203806 REP. &MAINT. 20018172 54201 441 - 256110 - 652310.00000 0.00 559.21 0.00 559.21 152270 CHEMICALS 20018173 054068 408 - 253221 - 649990 -00000 0.00 71.43 0.00 71.43 203806 REP. &MAINT. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,581.87 CHECK NO 573288 VENDOR 19530 - WAUSAU TILE 20018933 205093 001. 156363- 646316.00000 0.00 612.30 0.00 612.30 152302 BENCH 20018205 CO 279798 001 - 122255. 646970.00000 0.00 1,530.00 0.00 1.530.00 204292 DESIGN PLANTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,142.30 CHECK NO 573666 VENDOR 323460 - WAYNE EXUM 20018180 BASK.REFEREE 1/7- 2/14/02 111 - 156341. 634999 -00000 0.00 202854 BASK.REFEREE 1/7- 2/14/02 CHECK NO 573986 VENDOR 900050 - WERNER & BRIGITTE HETTWER 301727 ST LIGHT REIM W. HETTWER 781. 162752- 981000 -00000 0.00 ST LIGHT REIM W. HETTWER CHECK NO 573724 VENDOR 341930 - WESTIN INNISBROOK RESORT 20018805 379211 E KANT 3/23.27 101. 163610- 640300 -00000 0.00 379211 E KANT 3/23 -27 CHECK NO 573688 VENDOR 331470 WGCU -N 20018179 00501 -87 001 - 100130 - 634999 -00000 0.00 200203 STUDIO TAPING CHECK NO 573454 VENDOR 209460 WHEELER PUBLISHING INC. 630.00 CHECK TOTAL 134.83 CHECK TOTAL 420.00 CHECK TOTAL 518.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MARCH 20, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 183 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20018177 239837 355 - 156190 - 766100.00000 0.00 342.94 0.00 342.94 202388 LG PRINT TITLES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 342.94 CHECK NO 573987 VENDOR 900050 - WILLIAM & ANGELINE CORNELIUS 301576 ST LIGHT REIMB W.CORNELIU 781 - 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM W. CORNELIUS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573988 VENDOR 900050 - WILLIAM & DIANE BOND 301633 ST LIGHT REIMB W BOND 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB W BOND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573989 VENDOR 900050 - WILLIAM & MARGUERITE MAUTER 301726 ST LIGHT REIM W. MAUTER 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM W. MAUTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573744 VENDOR 347060 - WILLIAM ARELL HARRIS 20018175 T -BALL INST.1 /8- 2/20/02 111- 156380 - 634999.00000 0.00 260.00 0.00 260.00 202778 T -BALL INSTR.1 /8. 2/20/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 260.00 CHECK NO 573990 VENDOR 900050 - WILLIAM B. SIMPSON JR 301577 ST LIGHT REIM W. SIMPSON 781. 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM W. SIMPSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573510 VENDOR 253660 - WILLIAM COMBS 20018905 3/24 -27 ADV PD W COMBS 408- 233352 - 640300.00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 63.00 3/24 -27 ADV PD W COMBS 20018905 2/12 TRVL W COMBS 408 - 233352 - 640300 -00000 0.00 21.00 0.00 21.00 2/12 TRVL W COMBS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 84.00 20, OUNTY, FLORID 16JI PAGE 184 T 100 -6002 REPORCH BOARDEOFCCOMMISSIONERSA SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573991 VENDOR 900050 - WILLIAM D ANDERSON 301634 ST LIGHT REIMB W ANDERSON 781 - 162752 - 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB W ANDERSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573800 VENDOR 353500 - WILLIAM E JODER 20018556 CALLIGRAPHY INSTR. 111 - 156380- 634999 -00000 0.00 130.00 0.00 130.00 152193 CALLIGRAPHY INSTR. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 130.00 CHECK NO 573625 VENDOR 306520 - WILLIAM G SAALMAN 20018174 DANCE INSTR.2 /5. 3/5/02 111 - 156395. 634999 -00000 0.00 227.50 0.00 227.50 203644 BALLROOM DANCING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 227.50 CHECK NO 573992 VENDOR 900050 - WILLIAM J. CARROL JR 301616 ST LIGHT REIM W. CARROL 781- 162752. 981000 -00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIM W. CARROL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573426 VENDOR 186530 - WILLIAM J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION CO. 20018415 #14 301 - 120402 - 763100 -80524 0.00 36,730.00 0.00 36.730.00 107051 PARKING LOT RENOVATIONS 20018204 #18 PAID TWICE 001 - 122240 - 634999 -00000 0.00 850.00- 0.00 850.00 - FPO 152724 OVERPMT /INV #18 PAID TWICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 35,880.00 CHECK NO 573765 VENDOR 351140 - WILLIAM JACKSON 20018890 1/13 -2/21 TRVL W JACKSON 301 - 121125 - 640300 -01017 0.00 207.50 0.00 207.50 1/13 -2/21 TRVL W JACKSON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 207.50 CHECK NO 573993 VENDOR 900050 - WILLIAM L & JANE G BRIEN 301635 ST LIGHT REIMB W BRIEN 781- 162752 - 981000.00000 0.00 134.83 0.00 134.83 ST LIGHT REIMB W BRIEN COUNTY 16JI PAGE 185 REPORT 100 -6012 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 134.83 CHECK NO 573388 VENDOR 163940 - WILLIAM R. VOLPE 20018176 DANCE INSTR.1 /11- 2/22/02 111 - 156380- 634999 -00000 0.00 150.80 0.00 150.80 200994 BALLROOM DANCING 1 /11- 2/22/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 150.80 CHECK NO 573468 VENDOR 218460 WILLIS CORROON CORP OF GEORGIA 20018966 4/02 CONSULT FEE 517 - 121640 - 631153 -00000 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 4/02 CONSULT FEE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2.000.00 CHECK NO 573613 VENDOR 297010 WILSON MILLER INC 20018977 51656 414 - 263611 - 631400.73032 0.00 6.474.00 0.00 6.474.00 104599 THRU 2/25/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.474.00 CHECK NO 573289 VENDOR 19690 WIN•CAR 20018199 48046 146. 144380 - 652990 -00000 0.00 6.69 0.00 6.69 200310 SUPPL. 20018199 47179 146 - 144380 - 652990 -00000 0.00 6.70 0.00 6.70 200310 SUPPL. 20018199 51363 146 - 144380. 652990 -00000 0.00 4.79 0.00 4.79 200310 SUPPL. 20018199 50961 146 - 144380. 652990 -00000 0.00 5.99 0.00 5.99 200310 SUPPL. 20018199 46815 146 - 144380 - 652990 -00000 0.00 39.55 0.00 39.55 200310 SUPPL. 20018199 48409 146 - 144380 - 652990.00000 0.00 5.18 0.00 5.18 200310 SUPPL. 20018199 51571 146. 144380 - 652990.00000 0.00 6.99 0.00 6.99 200310 SUPPL. 20018199 50127 146. 144380 - 652990.00000 0.00 11.58 0.00 11.58 200310 SUPPL. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 87.47 MARCH 20, 20, COUNTY 16JI PAGE 186 REPORT 100 -6002 OF SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 573366 VENDOR 146770 WOOLEY'S RADIATOR REPAIR 20018178 10164 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 142.14 0.00 142.14 200939 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 142.14 CHECK NO 573437 VENDOR 193810 WORKERS' COMP ADMIN TRUST FUND 20018429 59- 6000558 10 /1. 12/31/01 518 - 121630 - 645922.00000 0.00 48,402.93 0.00 48,402.93 10 /1- 12/31/01 WC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 48,402.93 CHECK NO 573690 VENDOR 331910 - WORLDPOINT ECC, INC. 20018413 91668 DISC. 490 - 144610 - 654110 -00000 0.00 21.88- 0.00 21.88- 154238 MANUAL FOR HEALTHCARE 20018413 91668 490 - 144610 - 654110 -00000 0.00 894.75 0.00 894.75 154238 MANUAL FOR HEALTHCARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 872.87 CHECK NO 573789 VENDOR 353260 - WQYK 20018919 24486 111 - 156341 - 648170.00000 0.00 3.000.00 0.00 3,000.00 204700 ADS FOR COUNTRY JAM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,000.00 CHECK NO 573471 VENDOR 223690 - XEROX CORPORATION 20018170 087115995 470 - 173463. 644620 -00000 0.00 321.30 0.00 321.30 202255 BASE CHARGE /JAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 321.30 CHECK NO 573737 VENDOR 345230 XEROX ENGINEERING SYSTEMS 20018765 591496859 113 - 138931 - 644620 -00000 0.00 836.01 0.00 836.01 202180 PMT #3 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 836.01 CHECK NO 573807 VENDOR 900030 YUEJIN XUE 301605 10/8 -10 /01 TRVL Y XUE 001 - 172970. 640300.00000 0.00 81.51 0.00 81.51 10/8 -10 /01 TRVL Y XUE MARCH 20, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED MARCH 19, 2002 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 762 CHECKS WRITTEN 16JI PAGE 187 AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 GRAND TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 81.51 6,729,177.63 03105/2002 13:28 7748301 PUB INFO aE 01101 Fiala V Carter 1 b J 1 Henning Collier Coun&'yft%M—U3V="7"-r-??ent Department of Public Information Contact: Lavah Hetzel 16J1 3301 East Tamiami Trail; Public Information Naples, FL 34112 774.8373 (941) 774,8999 March 5, 2002 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BAYSHOREIGATE AY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Thursday, March 7, 6 p.m. Community Development & Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Conference Room E 1. Roll Call 2. Adoptions. of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from Feb.7, 2002 4. Communications 5. Old Business a. Botanical Gardens property discussion b. Update on Projects in the Bayshore and Gateway areas i. Stormwater management and drainage, including CDBG Grant application for Linwood Avenue project ii. Update on Mini - Triangle and zoning overlays RFP process W. Update on Incentives Program c. Festival Subcommittee Update f,`isc. Corns: 6. New Business a. handouts Date: 9)(3-2 b. Other 7. Citizen Comments �'-`` "`' l U- J 8. Adjournment Note: All meetings are publicly noticed in the W. Hannon Turner Building (Adyninistration Building F) and on the CRA website. Please call Marlette Foord, Prizncipal. Planner, at 213 -2903 if you have any questions about the meeting. rn accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any Of these Proceedings should contact Marlene Foord at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 AGENDA March 18, 2002 CALL MEETING TO ORDER: ATTENDANCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: A. Monthly Report COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPORT: 164 VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. COMMERICIAL INTERSECTION — Radio Road Joint Venture B. ADDITIONAL PLANTING OF MEDIANS C. YELLOW POLES LETTER VIII. NEW BUSINESS: A.. EXPANSION OF MSTU B. LIVINGSTON ROAD CORRIDOR CONNECTION IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting will be held at 4:30 Monday, March 18, 2002 At the Collier County Department of Transportation Operation Office 2705 Horseshoe Drive South .Naples, .... _ Misc. Corres: Date: —UL I'Mmy /w 1 F1818 _ Carter Henning Coyle Co�!os To: Coletta R 16J1 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 27o5 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 February 19, 2002 I. Crystal Kinzel called meeting to order at 4:35 PM. II. ATTENDANCE: A. MEMBERS: Crystal Kinzel, Wilfred Jaeger, Wolfgang Schultz, Susan Saum, Dale Lewis, absent. B. COLLIER COUNTY: Val Prince and Bob Petersen, Pam Lulich, DOT Landscape Operations. C. OTHER: Robert Kindelan, Commercial Land Management; Commissioner Tom Henning (Dist 3) Grant Grimm- President Berkshire Lakes Board of Directors, Fred Rodgers - Berkshire Lakes Board of Directors, Sue Chapin Manpower Secretarial Services. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: Since there are guests at the meeting Crystal decided to cover the NEW BUSINESS first to accommodate them. Bob Petersen mentioned there is a request from the Master Association of Berkshire Lakes for the MSTU to take over the maintenance of Devonshire Blvd. He has requested a cost estimate from Commercial Land Maintenance to bring the medians up to the Counties standards. Other issues such as irrigation and electrical would have to be separated, and also actual boundaries need to be defined. Commissioner Henning stated that it has come to the attention of the Transportation Administrator that Devonshire is supposed to be the primary access for Commercial traffic entering into the Publix area, which is good planning so as not to plug up the intersections. He also stated that the developer put a cut into the roadway on Devonshire for the Commercial traffic entrance, and now the increased population of neighboring communities will be using the entrance to a greater degree. Berkshire Lakes has been maintaining & beautifying that area. Since more public access is going to be used in the future, the Berkshire Lakes Board of Directors are looking for guidance as to what can be done to get the area maintained by the Radio Road MSTU or the County. Mr. Schultz commented that he strongly objected to the proposed expanded role of the Radio Road Beautification Committee beyond its present scope- especially the possibility of including Santa Barbara Blvd. He felt the individual neighborhoods should take responsibility for beautifying their own properties of road stretches, as did Radio Road from Santa Barbara to Airport- Pulling. He felt that they did not want to become a "mini Public Works Dept." 16J1 Discussion followed on how to proceed at which time Bob stated that this Board can recommend to the Board of County Commissioners their wishes for what is best for their constituents & they will make the final decision. The Radio Road Ordinance would have to be modified to include Devonshire. Bob handed out an Executive Summary (attached) that would ask the Board to allow them to change the Ordinance to incorporate the Commercial Blvd. Island. The wording would include any other areas within the MSTU. Those things could be included rather than go through an Executive Summary process each time the Committee added to the MSTU, which would take 2 public hearings. In discussing the process with the County Attorney, Bob can draft a letter to grant the median to the County. A lengthy discussion followed and was noted that the expenses incurred by Berkshire Lakes area is approximately $15,600 according to Mr. Grimm. Mr. Grimm stated the Board doesn't feel they should be maintaining a Public Road. Bob estimated the Counties costs at $39,003 annually, which would include additional benefits such as fertilizing, curbing, edging etc. Commissioner Henning asked Bob Petersen to check on any right -of- way Permits or Agreement the Developer may have with the County. If it is a County Roadway the County should maintain it. Bob stated that the cost of renovating the median up to County standards would be $85,057. Discussion was held on irrigation & removal of trees. If the trees are in the Counties right -of -way, it would be the Counties responsibility to remove them. Discussion followed on the possibility of expanding the MSTU, of which Commissioner Henning asked that it be studied & put on next months Agenda. Commissioner Henning, Mr. Grimm and Mr. Rodgers left at 5:25PM. At this time Val Prince stated that he wondered if the County Attorneys office would allow boundary expansion, they may want a separate MSTU. It will be researched and results brought to the next meeting. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Wolfgang Schulz moved to accept the minutes of January 14, 2002 with the correction that the fax of December 18`}', 2001 from Wolfgang Schultz to Tom Henning be added to the Agenda and sent to all the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded Bill Jaeger. Motion carried. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. BUDGET: Val Prince handed out the Fund 150 Budget (attached). V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: A. MONTHLY REPORT: Robert Kindelan reported that the trash continues to be a problem and Val said they have informed Waste Management. There was also an accumulation of sand at Livingston that had to be shoveled. Stake 16J1 material has been removed off several trees, irrigation repairs done, traffic damage taken care of, and a few palms to be replaced. Next month they will fertilize, do some cut backs, & trimming. VI. COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPORT: None VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. COMMERCIAL INTERSECTION — Radio Road Joint Venture Bob Petersen contacted the Attorneys Office & was informed to get two Executive Summaries, one to request direction from the Board, and second actually change the Ordinance. Also need to get the owner of the median to grant an easement so the County can maintain it. Susan moved to accept the Executive Summary & direct staff to move forward with the County attempting to take over the maintenance of the island at Commercial Blvd. Seconded Bill Jaeger, Carried. B. ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS OF MEDIANS: The additional plantings can be done March thru June, or March thru August. Bob will set up a meeting on a one to one basis with each Committee member to get ideas & combine into one proposal. C. WEST PUMP REPAIR COSTS: None to the Committee, the Manufacturing Co. will take care of it. D. YELLOW POLES LETTER: Bob will get more information from Norman Feder through Ed Kant. Bob does not know who put the poles there; he feels the cost was Collier Counties but will have to pursue it further. The Committee would like the staff pursue the Committees questions from their previous meeting & submit the answers at the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None It was noted that Wolfgang Schultz's term is expiring on March 3, 2002. Staff needs to check on the status of another member. Chairman Crystal asked that the Chairman be notified when a member's term expires so that the County can be reminded to advertise the position. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Bill Jaeger moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Wolfgang Schultz. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 5:55 PM. The next meeting will be on Monday, March 18, 2002 at 4:30 PM DOT Operations, 2705 Horseshoe Drive, South 3 16J1 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. ri Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2002 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of January 14, 20032 with the correction that the fax of December 18th, 2001 from Wolfgang Schultz to Commissioner Tom Henning be sent to all the Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. COMMERCIAL INTERSECTION: It was moved & seconded to accept the Executive Summary & direct staff to move forward with the County attempting to take over the maintenance of the island at Commercial Blvd. Carried. D. YELLOW POLES LETTER: Bob will get more information from Norman Feder through Ed Kant. Bob does not know who put the poles there; he feels the cost was Collier Counties but will have to pursue it further. The Committee would like the staff pursue the Committees questions from their previous meeting & submit the answers at the next meeting. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: There was a request from the Master Association of Berkshire Lakes for the MSTU to take over the maintenance of Devonshire Blvd. Bob Petersen requested a cost estimate from Commercial Land Maintenance to bring the medians up to the Counties standards. Commissioner Henning attended the meeting and stated that it has come to the attention of the Transportation Administrator that Devonshire is supposed to be the primary access for Commercial traffic entering into the Publix area, which is good planning so as not to plug up the intersections. He also stated that the developer put a cut into the roadway on Devonshire for the Commercial traffic entrance and now the increased population of neighboring communities will be using the entrance to a greater degree. Berkshire Lakes has been maintaining and beautifying that area. Since more public access is going to be used in the future, the Berkshire Lakes Board of Directors are looking for guidance as to what can be done to get the area maintained by the Radio Road MSTU or the County. Bob Petersen state that this Board can recommend to the Board of County Commissioners their wishes for what is better for their constituents and they 16J1 will make the final decision. The Radio Road Ordinance would have to be modified to include Devonshire. Commissioner Henning asked Bob Petersen to check on any right -of -way Permits or Agreement the Developer may have with the County. If it is a County Roadway the County should maintain it. Bob also stated that the cost of renovating the median up to County standards would be $85,057. 2 T m T 000 000 GAD ((D D cOD o O O 00 O i X ;o M m Z y y G)M� N ut0O Z9 ;D ;u O T n T c O M C z � TM D O Z OCn y Fn M c w < C m� Z O C Z O V N O 1 O O 0 0 0 m 0 0 O O O O O O (D (D ?pm m 00 co O N � N N O O 20 i m M M Ch m O i m M O m p O � S g o 0 0 0 (D mm 000 c o o W W O o —O 00 O w O � O z MMcn T En cn Z M M m u)m °m D � � x O T 0 - y O D C7 r- T M M 16J1 m rn rn a m rn m rn m m m rn rn o rn m 0 N(n N N N ( N()n ( N(�n ( N(�n ( w(n N (NV)� ( N(�n Ncn N(n N(n N z 0 A A A A A A ,P ,P A .A A A A A A p� N V1 O O N U1 m O N N Vt Vf Vt Vt V1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 A A A A A A A W W W W j W 0 N N (D O O O� W� A A A A Fo (D W O w W!� A fD O W W A A 00 O O wo O A 0 0 0 (D V 2 0 0 0 M o O 0 0 O (D O O W W q -M ,OCZ- %,g,Dm> > OOZO ZZ �F�i(°Z >m-nid of Mmzzzz OMM m o m E M. T m � a 0 z 8 m M< 2 2 >m� O�Om��c�c�cZi� Z m Z X y n m m 00 G) L—, 3� cM iii m WO D R ;� m m x �MN Or (n Ic"zz :0 �T 'rD�y Z MM �� -z M n< m < m m m T T m p U1 W=1N A nM-i MM C 0 m ? m M D c (n Vl 01 N o QV y W 001 N W 001 O V O W A A O O O p'u 0 N A O t0 8 to O (D O O N co Ln A V O O N 1n --� n 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 O o m 000 O o m O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O (D O 999 � O N- 4 p O 0 0 0 O 00000000000 O O O O O o m c o z o A? og °m O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N Z 00 O 0 0 O 00000000000 00000 ...� 00 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 A 0 0 ryQ. A Y � y pN E g y � v N O N � M N o C L (D oe O -+ 01 cn N N p C O V N O O O V N W O N W O O V — O W A A O O N 0 y O O A O O A N A co 40 -+ 01 O S O N O A V O A O O m 1 0 00 O coo O 0 O 0 O O 0 O 000 O O O 0 O 0 0000000 oo1D 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O [D O O O O O O Dim N p o 000 o 00 O 0 0 0 o 000000000c"" 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IM z N O O O O V W W V O I-nZ _ W W O O A N A co O O O V p 0 O o o O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0, O 00 O N M O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 O OD 0 ut Ln O p O 0 0 0 O 00 O c o o N 0 0 0 0 0 V1 O W O O O 0 0 0 0 m _ O o � _ 0 Or DA O O V U W N N cn W A A O C tv W O O O O O O O A O tJ A O O O O O ? O -+ O N N V O) V O W O W O N O A V O O O zm .6 z O p p O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V t W O N V c D.0 P. 0 W O O O O O O V O o N y m p D O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000-40 o �m D IC -i N A A N O O O W O V cn V CO G n O D N m r O O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0N O O W O O 0 . O O O O O O O O G O O O O 0 0 0 N O V O 0 0 O O O U1 U1 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 A O O 4 a 0 0 V1 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 N C D 7 V N A V O (D O 01 � Z r 7 01 0 00 -4 r V o o0(D m0 0 0 0 ' W O O O A O O O t O W 7 O O 1 W O O O O O IV N m D O O O O O O V1 W O A 0 0 ryQ. A Y � y pN E g y � v N O N � M X m z c m CA c ic a w 0 n 000 rn rn rn rn 0 m 0 O O N N N N z O O O CJ1 U1 CT CJt � � .A .9, .P .A O O Cn CT (31 CTt m Oo Oo 0)� W W 0 w CD CD — CD N W N OC- O O N -1 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m >zZmc G) MMC:X � <Mmom � m O m X zD o m -i� -i0 O D HO <O m Cl) rr- r ;0 z G) n � K �m K� m 0 o >� �m m �� Cf) m m m Cl) z c m j N rn o m CO) OD cn rn o ° c 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 r°< c < _00 O O O CD W Cr, C n 0 00 °o OWO O � N Q 16J1 o � � A co n' A 0 co cn � d ooh �o co co N A O co O N 16J1 3301 East Tamiami Trail • Naples, Florida 34112 -4977 s Donna Fiala (941) 774,9uo9I7u�yFa�{94�,7z 3802 District 1 J U, (JV James D. Carter, Ph.D. District 2 Tom Henning District 3 Fred W. Coyle District 4 Jim Coletta District 5Mr Wolfgang B.P. Schulz 260 Lambton Lane Naples, FL 34104 RE: Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee Dear Mr. Schulz: Your term on the above - referenced advisory committee expires on March 3, 2002. In accordance with the Advisory Board policy, the enclosed press release has been sent to the appropriate news media. We appreciate the time and effort you have put into the activities of this advisory committee and would like to advise you that you are eligible for reappointment. If you wish to be considered for another term, please submit an updated resume and a letter indicating your interest in continuing to serve on the committee to this office before the February 22, 2002, deadline. If you have any questions regarding this procedure, please do not hesitate to contact me at 774-8097. Sincerely, Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners Isf Enclosure cc: Mike Levy, Senior Secretary, Transportation Department 16J1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST BOARD DIRECTION TO REVISE THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT (MSTU) ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCORPORATING OTHER PUBLIC AREAS WITHIN THE MSTU BOUNDARIES. OBJECTIVE: To request Board's direction for staff to revise the current ordinance for the Radio Road Beautification MSTU to incorporate other public areas within the MSTU boundaries and prepare the necessary ordinance amendment. CONSIDERATIONS: The Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee has requested County staff take the necessary steps for the Board to amend the existing ordinance. The committee wants to beautify a median right off of Radio Road on Commercial. In accordance with the County Attorney's Policy, MSTU ordinance amendments require Board direction prior to revision. The proposed amendment to the MSTU ordinance will require legal review. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorize staff to prepare an ordinance amending to the Radio Road Beautification MSTU ordinance for future consideration by the Board, and authorize the County Attorney's review and ordinance advertisement. SUBMITTED BY: Bob Petersen, Project Manager, Landscape Operations REVIEWED BY: Pamela J. Lulich, ASLA, Landscape Operations Manager REVIEWED BY: Edward J. Kant, PE, Transportation Operations Director APPROVED BY: Norman E. Feder, AICP, Transportation Administrator DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: Y1i8C 1 Ui a 16J1 wolfgang Schulz From: "henning t" <TomHenningQcolliergov.net> To: ,,wolfgang schulz- <wolfgangbp@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 20016:02 AM Subject: RE: Proposed Ordinance for Countywide Road Beautification we Mr. Schulz T he County wide MSTU was heard December 11n itsu�,po not fmy intent e Commission vote for the Ordnance ancetuntil ilountya wide u from the MSTU Committee Members. MSTU failed 5 -0. Tom Henning - - -- Original Message---- - From: wolfgang schulz ( mailto :wolfgangbp @earthlink,net] Sent: Monday, December 17, 20019:07 PM To: tomhenningocolliergov.net Subject: Proposed Ordinance for Countywide Road Beautification Dear Commissioner Henning: I am a member of the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Committee. We are a small group of private citizens who volunteer our own time and expertise to make sure that the project was well designed and budgeted, and thence well executed within budget constraints and timeliness. it is a picture of democracy in its truest form: Citizens who taxed themselves (voluntarily) and supervised that they got their money's worth from Government by supervising the action. It costs the general taxpayer nothing. The MSTU pays for the county engineering services and tax collector on a prorate basis so the County is not out of pocket either, I am against the proposed Ordinance to assess a half mil to all County property owners (excluding us and others who already pay for their own MSTU's), and am very upset that the Ordinance became an agenda item without giving us proper prior notice, which we requested explicitly in our Committee meetings as evidenced by the minutes from our monthly meetings of which you receive copies. Here are the reasons why: [11 Sig Government MSTU takes over. Govt. citizen will now decide which 1 Supervise what big Government t s doing Checks and balances specrflc go down the draln. [2] Tax payers in some districts will be paying for many years before they will see the first tree in their own neighborhood, since priorities will be set by Govt. without input from the citizens who pay the taxes. [3] There is no way for the private sector to check that any money collected will solely go to purpose intended, i.e. beautification. We suspect that this will become a road construction fund in disguise. [4] There is no sunset provision. The heaviest expense is the initial phase of design, construction and planting, which will phase down to strict maintenance level after a couple of years. Who will control that? You know as well as I, that once Government begins to tax, it wil relinquish it nor decrease it (Refer to thV gasoline tax fiasco, which created a tremendous credibility gap b)iween Collier Government and the public). [5] However, Government can and should control the level of beautification the individual citizen groups may desire, to the extent that the proposed road beautification is environment friendly, only native Florida flora be used to minimize watering and landscaping costs so that interruptions in lane closings for "landscaping maintenance" can be eliminated or at least drastically reduced. In brief, your own County Public Works director told a group of private citizens a couple of years ago, during an introduction meeting, how impressed he was with the MSTU concept and that he never seen anything like it anywhere else. Why change something that works so well? Where private citizens in fact participate actively in Govemment? This concept should be broadened to other phases of government, NOT eliminated. I urge you, Commissioner, to speak up loud and clear to make sure the people's voices are heard. I am looking forward to a positive response from you. 12/18/01 With best wishes, Wolfgang Schutz. 260 Larnbton Lane Maples, FL 34104 Tel. (941) 455 -7909 Page 2 of 2 16J1 l2 /l8 /41 Fiala Carter Henning Coyle eall, letta FOREST ROADWAN" ,NND I)RAINACE II.S.T.F. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2705 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 AGENDA March 15, 2002 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. ATTENDANCE III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 22, 2002 IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget B. Cost Estimate of Preparing Roads for Takeover C. Information on Sprint Plans at Entrance V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Traffic Calming B. Replacement of Pipes (Phase 2) C. Increase of Millage Rate VI. NEW BUSINESS: A. MPO Pathway Meeting Dates B. Forest Lakes Roadway & Drainage MSTU Board - Terms VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Misc. Corres: THIS MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR 10.00 AM, March 15, 2002 AT THE FOREST LAKES CL UBHO USE Date: 1 Item# /&j Codes To: i 164,lej FOREST Ko.ikl)«.aN' ANI) DRAINAGE. NI.S.T.t . LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2705 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 SUMMARY MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2002 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Roger Sommerville to approve minutes of February 1, 2002 as presented, seconded Bob Cunningham, carried. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: B. Cost Estimate of Preparing Roads for Takeover: Bob Petersen informed Committee they don't have an answer yet & hopefully will have an answer by the next meeting. C. Information on Sprint Plans at Entrance: Bob will report at the next meeting whether they can add a parking area to their plans. V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Traffic Calming: An Insurance Policy is needed before proceeding, and the Attorney's office needs to be contacted to see if the Ordinance needs revising. B. Replacement of Pipes (Phase 2): The bid documents are not complete. C. Increase of Millage Rate: The Committee needs to determine whether they want to increase the rate to a 2 or 3 Mil Cap. A decision needs to be made soon so the County Commissioners know there will be an increase in revenues. They vote on it in Sept. The Ordinance will be changed and takes one month. 1 N O m 2Q N so y O y � N Y 1 w O J O y V 0 16J1 0 0 000 O O O v O w 0 0 M 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N O CO O O 1: O O O O O O O O O 000 O r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O M O O 000 O O O O O O 000 O aO - W O O O N r 0 O O O J N 0 of O O 0 N CA m O 0 r N O 07 c0 co r r �z`" r Lo •L o a N ILI O O O O O O O O O O O O N N 000 O co O O O 0 0 0 O N J 00 Oo000000NO00f, OI 000 O 00 O O O 000 O Of ZZ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O O O O cc O O O O O O O a0 0 V a QU. Q C N r m N O N O O OO O O O OCDO r0M O 00 C: O O Cl O O O O O O O N w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00O rO N Cl! 000 O 00 O O O O O O O Ol coo 00000000 V'O(D O0 N 000 O 00 O O 0 000 O Lo N O O O 0 N O sf N 00 O O O N W Z 0 O 0 N r N M CA r (C M CD CO O a LL N r 0 r N r r N Cn N N W 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 O r 0 0 t` 0 0 0 O C. 0 O O O 0 0 0 O n W N o0000000rnoroo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N O CD O O 00 co Cl 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 000 o O w co R� W mG 00 O n NOO oO O O rN0 c" M 00 r(D O M O CD O w m N ZN r 0 r O M CO r N V O w Cp r N W G V O N Z W O O o O O o O O O O O O O O 000 O 00 O Cl O 000 O O N F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O 0 000 O O O O O O O O O O O �Cr O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r 000000 ON 0 O co 00 t- (D O M O O O O O r O r O N 0 r 0 r r N w r M L r N a tt2 pp CD 0= O M M O CC7 Cl) Q N � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 Cl 0 0 0 O O O O O 00 O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O Z N w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 Z � � O m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o coo 0 0 Cl 0 O 0 000 0 0 W c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W p o000000000000 0 000o0o 000 G 0 000 00 CD 0 00 O 0 0 C] 0 000 0 O 0 G 0 cia0N r Cfj 00 Cn 00 ON0 41 F�CD M O O r r N mO�G 0 0 rW)rrN V r M w M rN 'V (n r CO 0 w r C1 M m Q N r Z W X OU F w ix D Z CL W to W O~ J c W d N N _' F } U O O O LL (o �, D Cn Cl) �� F- Lm g ~ �� N W) WF ro W Uto WM Z OuiiLWi W 0 uj N W O F- W W x W� aW � LL°tf�W W ~ LL LL LL o m a 0 ULLo °z W O2� W( U) Cl) }WN Z ON O 0 Q 00°,�j W 2 W - dF-N♦- y � O K h W W O~ }LWLIWiW �aipQo- aU,ZfUn O LU F x a d W Wj �F- ZZ�OU�UCtoF -�i cn W W 0 0 U)i w V ��H- 2- U z X W W Q Z� V' DZ�Z�F -0-jU) - �DD W �- W W W W W <wW _ - OOW - O �mm O? R'af Z W Q O O O 0 0 0 m O O O O 0 Cn 0 n co (A (n O O m O O O O O O N O O O O O O O 0 0 0 �0 Lo V sY 0 M M OD O Q7 (A (A Q) vvv V •t V V M0O O co r00 N N N r M O 0 CA at CA O V M M M M M M M M co Cl) M M f� r CD p) (A (p 0 co co (D co CO 0 co CD 0 Co (D c O O a7 c0 W (A CA � L- W M Cl) Cl) M Cl) Cl) m M cM Cl) M Cl) co O CA O Cn (3) p) CA CA O M CA p) 0) O O O N 0 0 o O V M Of O O O fA H Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O m CA m O O N 0 0 0 0 W rn p) CA N r p) pL (3) r r r r r r r r r r r r r ONi poi N O O N O O N Q.' a w a V N W O N O Lo O tf) O O O O N 0 0 0 O co co co N N M O WO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 00 C0 0 0 00 00 0 N r 00 00 N CD W O O r M N r W Z) Z W CO w� Q Q W F- W F- Q � LU w ui w -j J (D LLJ O > O O � W a' W Q O X< Q O Z Q W CO ¢Q Q Z rr,LOO F- F- WI -OWf- ww�w"'Pw �Wz�cr<m w Q w U Z ? U Z z WLU O O O p O p 0 O ti O N O O O m 0 r r r r p (n p () — fD r CD M O O O M M M M d -4f M M M M M 0 0 0 O O O O r r w oz N N N N O O M U U r r r r r r O r r r r p p M �I) �II a 16J1 GENE D 4302 FOREST ROAMN Y ANlAw.v LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2705 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 F�g1a Ca�ec Nenn�n9 Goyie co%ette MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2002 I. Bill Seabury called the meeting to order at 10:02 AM. II. ATTENDANCE A. Members: Roger Somerville, (left at 10:47), Bill Seabury, Robert Cunningham. Tom Watts- Absent, Bob Jones - Excused. B. Collier County: Bob Petersen C. Others: Sue Chapin/Manpower Services & 14 residents. 16J1 " III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Roger Somerville to approve minutes of February 1, 2002 as presented, seconded Bob Cunningham, Carried. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. BUDGET— Bob Petersen handed out the Budget (attached), without many changes. Bob mentioned he has alerted the Contractor concerning the debris at the bottom of the Woodshire ditch. If it is not being taken care of, he will meet with them at the site. B. COST ESTIMATE OF PREPARING ROADS FOR TAKEOVER. Bob informed the Committee that no decision would be made at this time until all the information that is needed is in. At which time Mr. Kant will draft a letter to Mr. Jones & the Committee and hopefully have an answer by the next meeting. C. INFORMATION ON SPRINT PLANS AT ENTRANCE The proper person has not yet responded, but Bob was informed that the new boxes would be complete within next 2 weeks, old boxes out with plans to landscape in front of it. Will report at the next,meeting whether they can add a parking area to their plans. -- y Misc. Corres: V. OLD BUSINESS: In' )� A. TRAFFIC CALMING Date: U 1 �! L c_ An Insurance Policy is needed before proceeding and Bob will check with the County Attorneys office to see if the Ordinance needs revisimm #� J i Copies To: 16J1 This is for the Sheriffs office to do Spot Speed Checks for keeping the traffic at the speed limit that is posted. B. REPLACEMENT OF PIPES (PHASE 2) The bid documents are not complete, they need to check all the numbers that are needed and will finalize soon. Discussion followed from the audience and Committee concerning the various flooding, repairs, cleaning out silt, debris, and drainage problems. Bob mentioned the residents could help by keeping the debris clear after the landscapers have mowed. C. INCREASE OF MILLAGE RATE Bob reported the initial Executive Summary went to the Board of County Commissions on 2/12/02. The Committee needs to determine whether they want to increase it to a 2 or 3 Mil Cap. Bob Jones indicated to Bob the Committee would get out and canvass the neighborhoods to get their feelings on raising the rate and what level. A decision needs to be made soon so the County Commissioners know there will be an increase in revenues. They will vote on it in Sept. If the County has their decision by May or June, it will make the budgeting process much easier. The Ordinance will have to be changed & takes about one month. The present rate is a 1 Mil Cap. The reason for a possible increase is so the road and drainage problems can be taken care o£ Maintenance on these items has not been done in the past. D. QUAIL RUN GOLF COURSE ENTRANCE It was decided to see what Sprint would come up with before continuing with any other plans. Discussion followed on responsibilities of the MSTU. Bob Cunningham mentioned that the Committee would be getting the information out to residents about the increase of the millage rate. VI. NEW BUSINESS: Bob brought the Maps for the different Elevation and drainage levels of which the Committee will review with Bob after the Meeting. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS Residents further discussed the problems they are having with the traffic calming and possible solutions. Discussion followed concerning the Committee members terms. Bob Petersen informed the residents that anyone could apply as long as they are a voting member & live in the District. Anyone interested can call Bob for further information concerning applications. The sidewalk issue was discussed. Bob Petersen informed the Committee that Bob Jones attended the last WO Pathways Meeting in which he 2 16J1 stated at that time that Ed Kant mentioned this could be a bigger project than anyone can imagine. Bob Jones also mentioned at the last meeting that there would have to be many studies & a lot of correspondence done. The issue would have to be thought out, revisited and discussed again in the future. Bob will get the dates & times of the next Pathway Meetings for those interested. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Bill Seabury moved to adjourn, seconded Bob Cunningham, Carried. Meeting was adjourned at 10:55AM. THE NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR 10: 00 AM, MARCH 15, 2002 AT THE FOREST LAKES CL UBHO USE 3 16/J 1 1EQEi V W ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE / RESCUE ADVISORY BOARD° SUMMARY OF MEETING OF80ard of t- lount.v Commissioners DECEMBER 13, 2001 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIR; JERRI NEUHOUSE: ATTENDING: JIM LEWIS JERI NEUHOUSE TARA LE GRAND CHIEF RODRIGUEZ ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: VICTOR HILL, MARCO ISLAND EAGLE CHIEF'S REPORT: A. OPERATIONS REPORT B. VOLUNTEER REPORT C. TRAINING REPORT D. BUDGET REPORT OLD BUSINESS CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: BECAUSE WE ARE SHORT ON TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO SKIP THE OPERATIONS REPORT AND THE TRAINING REPORT AND GET TO THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE EVENING. JIM LEWIS: MAY WE ASSUME THAT THERE IS NOTHING RADICAL IN THOSE REPORTS? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: RIGHT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: I NEED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I HAVE TO BE OUT OF HERE BY A QUARTER TO EIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO SKIP`,iM.Feorresa CHIEF'S REPORT? JIM LEWIS: MOTION SECONDED JERRI NEUHOUSE: MOTION PASSED. 11&3-1# 0� CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: OLD BUSINESS IS THE MILLAGE RATE. I RF�DF 11f) A LETTER FROM COMMISSIONER DONNA FIALA. IT IS HER REPLY TO THE LETTER THAT WE SENT THE BCC. I ALSO HAVE FROM THE COUNTY Fiala V Carter Henning Coyle Colette 1b 16J1A" ATTORNEY'S OFFICE A DRAFT OF THE AMENDED ORDINANCE SHOWING WHAT THE ORDINANCE WILL STATE ONCE WE ADOPT THE NEW BUDGET. THE ONLY THING I SEE THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IS THAT IT SHOWS THE RATE GOING TO 2 MILLS AND WE NEED TO DECREASE IT TO 1.5 MILLS. JERRI NEUHOUSE: AFTER DISCUSSION CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: BUT THAT IS MY SUGGESTION BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS DRAFTED, BASICALLY, IT IS THE SAME ORDINANCE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE. THE ONLY CHANGE IS THE ACTUAL MILLAGE RATE. JIM LEWIS: AND THAT IS FOR THE 2 MILLS? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: RIGHT JERRI NEUHOUSE: IT IS NOT TO EXCEED 2 MILLS, PER OUR ORIGINAL REQUEST. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: RIGHT TARA LE GRAND BUT WE ARE SAYING THAT WE ARE RAISING IT ONLY TO 1.5 JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE HAVE REQUESTED, ORIGINALLY, A CAP OF 2 MILLS WITH THE INTENTION OF USING 1.5 MILLS. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS TONIGHT IS WHETHER OR NOT TO ASK FOR THE 2 OR REDUCE IT TO 1.5 OR SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN. WE NEED TO DISCUSS WHETHER TO DO THAT BASED ON SOME FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE OR HAVE NOT GOTTEN FROM PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT IS UP FOR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. THEN DISCUSS THE INFORMATIONAL STUFF AND HOW TO GET IT OUT TO EVERYBODY. JIM LEWIS: WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS, I THINK WE WERE ALL PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT AT THAT TIME, THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO REQUEST A 2 MIL CAP. WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT WE WOULD USE 1.5 MIL TO MEET OUR PRESENT BUDGET NEEDS. THAT WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT FOR 23 YEARS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH A 1 MIL CAP AND HAVE REACHED THE END OF THAT ROAD AND CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER WITH OUT AN INCREASE. HAVING PROOFED OVER TIME THAT WE CAN OPERATE CONSERVATIVELY, AND KNOWING THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A LOT TO GO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR AN INCREASE, IT WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST ASK FOR A 2 MIL CAP NOW. THAT SHOULD LAST US FOR YEARS TO COME. 2 16J1 JERRI NEUHOUSE: THAT WAS EXACTLY THE INTENTION au., JIM LEWIS: SINCE THAT TIME, THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, I THINK UNANIMOUSLY, RECOMMENDED THAT WE STICK TO A 1.5 MIL INCREASE. THAT IT WOULD GO DOWN BETTER WITH OUR CITIZENS. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? JERRI NEUHOUSE: THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING. I HAVE TALKED TO TWO ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBERS -NANCY & KEVIN. IT JUST CAME UP IN CONVERSATION AS AN OPTION. HAVING THOUGHT ABOUT IT, I TOLD THEM THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE MY RECOMMENDATION FOR TWO REASONS. 1.) IT IS VERY EASY FOR US TO GO BACK TO THE BCC. ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS WRITE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION AND AS LONG AS WE CAN SUPPORT THEY HAVE ALREADY DRAFTED AN ORDINANCE FOR US. WE THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD TAKE MANY MONTHS. IT WILL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THAT WHOLE PROCESS BUT OUR PART IS DONE. 2. WE WERE GOING FOR 2 MILLS SO THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS. IT WAS OUR INTENTION TO USE ONLY 1.5 MILS. AND IT STILL IS. BASED THE PROPERTY VALUES AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, THE 1.5 MIL. COULD LAST 5 TO 10 YEARS. JIM LEWIS: WHAT ARE YOU BASING (UNCLEAR)? JERRI NEUHOUSE: BASED ON THE PROPERTY VALUES AND WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON WITH THEM. BECAUSE OF OUR SEASONAL RESIDENTS, WHOSE TAXES KEEP GOING UP EVERY YEAR, THE PROPERTY VALUES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO RISE. THEY MAY NOT SKYROCKET LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN. WE WILL PROBABLY GOING TO SEE SOME FLAT - LINING. BUT WE PROBABLY WILL NOT SEE A DECLINE IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. JIM LEWIS: MAYBE NO DECLINE, BUT I SERIOUSLY QUESTION THE RAPID RISE JERRI NEUHOUSE: I AM NOT ANTICIPATING A RAPID RISE BUT I AM ANTICIPATING STEADY GROWTH JUST LIKE IT HAS BEEN FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARS. TARA LE GRAND I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE MAIN ELEMENT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. WE NEED TO LOOK AT GROWTH THAT IS HAPPENING BECAUSE IF THEY BUILD ANOTHER HIGH RISE OR A FIDDLER'S CREEK, THEN WE ARE GOING TO NEED MORE EQUIPMENT, MANPOWER WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE HOMES GO UP OR NOT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: THEY ARE, WE ARE SEEING THE PLANS FOR WCI. THEY ARE PUTTING IN NEW HIGH RISES THAT WE WILL HAVE TO SUPPORT. BUT 16J1 *4 WITH THE IMPACT FEES AND WITH THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT WE WILL RECEIVE FROM THOSE, BASED ON THE LAST 23 YEARS, IT LOOKS LIKE IF WE CAN GET IN THE 1.5 THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO COME. IF WE CAN'T, I WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SAY "LET'S GO BACK TO THE BOARD AND ASK FOR AN INCREASE TO 2" I WOULD BE WILLING TO ASK IT NOW IF, I DIDN'T STILL HAVE A BAD TASTE IN MY MOUTH FROM A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN .... I WANT TO MAKE THIS A PALATABLE TO THE PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS WORKED SO HARD THESE LAST 3 YEARS TO REBUILD THE TRUST, TO REALLY GET THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY. FOR ME I DON'T WANT TO RISK IT. I RATHER ASK FOR WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO USE AND IF WE HAVE TO ASK FOR MORE LATER, THEN WE WILL. I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO GET AN OBJECTION ON THE 1.5. WE HAVE DOCUMENTED WHAT WE NEED, WHY WE NEED IT. IT WILL SAIL THROUGH WITH VERY LITTLE OBJECTION IF WE INFORM EVERYONE OF WHY. TARA LE GRAND EVEN IF EVERYBODY OBJECTS, IT IS NOT GOING TO MATTER IS IT? JERRI NEUHOUSE: IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY UP FOR VOTE BUT ANY CHANGE IN ORDINANCE IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING. PEOPLE CAN COME AND PROTEST AND VOICE THEIR CONCERNS TO THE COMMISSIONERS. PEOPLE ALSO HAVE A BAD TASTE BECAUSE OF THE OTHER TAX INCREASES. I AM MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. THE TRUTH IS I HAVE NOT HAD ANY NEGATIVE FEED BACK AT ALL FROM ANYBODY ABOUT THIS PROCESS. I HAD ONE INQUIRY FROM A GENTLEMAN JUST BECAUSE HE WAS CURIOUS. HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE EVEN HAD A FIRE TAX. HE WASN'T EVEN AWARE OF IT. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN THE BOARD. TARA LE GRAND: IF WE ASK FOR A 2 CAP, AND WE GET PEOPLE WHO AREN'T HAPPY WITH IT, THEN WE CAN PACIFY, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, AT 1.5 AND THEY CAN FEEL THAT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING BY JUST BEING A RESIDENT AND VOICING THEIR OPINION AND BECOMING INVOLVED. IF WE START AT 1.5 AND GET THE SAME REACTION, WE GOT NOWHERE TO GO. JERRI NEUHOUSE: THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING POINT. WHAT IF WE WERE TO PRESENT THE OPTION. WHAT IF WE WERE TO SAY "THESE ARE OUR OPTIONS. ASKING FOR 2 MILS. TARA LE GRAND: NO, I THINK THAT IS ASKING FOR TROUBLE. YOU ARE GOING TO GET A HUNDRED DIFFERENT VIEW POINTS. JIM LEWIS: I HAVE MAKE A VERY SMALL MARKET SAMPLE. MY WIFE AND MY TWO NEIGHBORS. BUT IT WAS AN INTERESTING RESULT. ONE NTVTnuDnA 117un TO, e MP ATTnRNF.Y WOTJT,T) STJPPORT THE 1/2 MIL 16J1 INCREASE. HE WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE HIS TAXES GOING UP ANY MORE THAN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I EXPLAINED THAT WE WOULD BE USING ONLY 1.5 MILS. FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE. BUT WE WOULD HAVE THE OPTION, SHOULD WE NEED IT. MY WIFE SAID NO, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND MORE THAN YOU HAVE TO. I EXPLAINED TO HER THAT I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD BE SPENDING MONEY (UNCLEAR). TARA LE GRAND: HISTORICALLY WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE HAVE BEEN VERY CONSERVATIVE. JIM LEWIS: I THINK THAT WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE WORKED WONDERS WITHIN THE BUDGET FRAMEWORK THAT WE HAVE HAD. (UNCLEAR) I THINK THAT WE DESERVE MORE MONETARILY (UNCLEAR) SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, AT LEAST, TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT (UNCLEAR). BETWEEN THE FOUR PEOPLE WHO WERE IN MY SURVEY, 50% SAID 1.5 AND 50% SAID 2. WE CAN ASK FOR 1.5 AND GET A STRONG OBJECTION FROM SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THEY APPEAR AT MEETINGS AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SAYS OK WE'LL MAKE YOU HAPPY TARA LE GRAND: THEN YOU CREATE DISSENTION INSTEAD OF COOPERATION (UNCLEAR) JERRI NEUHOUSE: THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT THAT I HADN'T CONSIDERED. WHAT ASSURANCES CAN WE GIVE THEM, IF WE ASK FOR 2, WHAT ASSURANCE CAN WE GIVE THEM THAT WE WILL ONLY USE THE 1.5? JIM LEWIS: ONLY OUR PAST (UNCLEAR) KEVIN WALSH: WHAT IS THE PROCESS? DON'T YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE THE COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVE THE BUDGET? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: YES KEVIN WALSH: SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY "WE THINK WE OUGHT TO DOUBLE EVERYBODY'S SALARIES "? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: NO, NOT AT ALL KEVIN WALSH: SO YOU HAVE A SET OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE ALREADY. 16J1 'T; CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: EXACTLY, EVERY YEAR WHEN WE PREPARE THE BUDGET AND THE RATE IS SET AT I MIL, WE CAN'T EXCEED THAT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: FOR THE RECORD, KEVIN WALSH IS HERE AND HE IS WITH THE ISLES OF CAPRI CIVIC ASSOCIATION. HE IS A BOARD MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE COULD DO IT ON OUR OWN. THE SAME WAY WITH THE PROCESS HERE, IT HAS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. KEVIN WALSH: I THINK THAT WHATEVER YOU HAVE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO COMMUNICATE THAT FACT. THAT YOU CAN'T UNILATERALLY (UNCLEAR) CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THE COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION. JIM LEWIS: AND WITH OUR ANNUAL BUDGET. JIM LEWIS: WE CANNOT BE (UNCLEAR) THEY LOOK AT EVERY CENT AND EVERY LINE. WE HAVE TO JUSTIFY EVERYTHING. JERRI NEUHOUSE: I WILL SAY THIS ABOUT THE COUNTY, WE EXPERIENCED IT WHEN WE DID THE BUDGET, THEY PUT US IN THE RED AT ONE POINT BECAUSE OF THEIR INCREASES THAT WE HAD NO CONTROL OVER. THOUGH IT IS OUR INTENTION NOT TO GO ABOVE 1.5, THE COUNTY COULD EASILY THROW US ABOVE THE 1.5 AT THEIR WHIM. THIS YEAR THEY INCREASED A BUNCH OF COUNTY EXPENSES THAT WE HAD TO ABSORB, AND THEN THEY HAD TO BACK THEM OUT BECAUSE WE COULD NOT COVER THEM WITH OUR I MIL. JIM LEWIS: THERE IS ANOTHER FACTOR THAT WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BECOME AWARE OF: WE, AS A NATION, FACE NEW THREATS. THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE IS FIRE AND POLICE. I THINK THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, EVEN IN OUR SMALL COMMUNITY, INCREASES IN THE DEMANDS ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FIRES BUT (UNCLEAR) CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: WE HAVE HAD TO INCREASE THE LEVEL OF EDUCATION. WE HAVE HAD TO TAKE CERTAIN CLASSES AND BUY CERTAIN EQUIPMENT BECAUSE OF WHAT'S OUT THERE NOW. THE SUITS WE HAVE TO WEAR NOW WHEN WE HAD THE GENTLEMAN SHOW UP HERE WITH WHITE POWDER. JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE HAVE HAD TWO SUSPICIOUS HAZMAT CALLS. n. 16J1 CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THAT IS HAPPENING THROUGH OUT THE COUNTRY AND IS AFFECTING A LOT OF SMALL FIRE DEPARTMENTS WITH THEIR BUDGETS. WE HAVE TO RESPOND AND BE EQUIPPED WITH THE PROPER EQUIPMENT AND THE PROPER EDUCATION. JIM LEWIS: WE SHOULD TRY TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CALLS THAT YOU HAVE TO RESPOND TO OVER AND ABOVE WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE IN A YEAR. ALSO INCREASE THE EXPERTISE THAT YOUR PERSONNEL HAVE TO ACQUIRE. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: YES, AS OF NOW, WE HAVE MANDATORY TERRORIST TRAINING THAT IS A 16 HOURS COURSE AND WE JUST HAVE TO CONTINUE NOW WITH CERTAIN TRAINING THAT I HAVE TO SEND ALL OF THE GUYS TO. TO BE AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING ON. JIM LEWIS: IS THERE A COST INVOLVED? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: SOME OF THE TRAINING IS FREE, A LOT OF THE TRAINING WE HAVE TO PAY FOR. WE TRY TO LOOK AT EVERY ASPECT OF GETTING IT FOR FREE. JIM LEWIS: JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE MANDATORY INCREASE IN PAID PERSONNEL. THE FEDERAL MANDATE. EXPLAIN THAT. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THE NEW RULE FROM THE NFPA, WHICH IS THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AGENCY, IS FOR THE PAID FIRE DEPARTMENTS SUCH AS OUR SELF. THIS STARTED BEFORE SEPTEMBER I ITH INCIDENT, BUT NOW THEY ARE REALLY PUSHING IT THROUGH. THE AMOUNT OF PERSONNEL RESPONDING TO AN INCIDENT, WHETHER FIRE OR MEDICAL, THEY WANT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FIRE FIGHTERS, EMERGENCY PERSONNEL, RESPONDING AT THE SAME TIME IN THE TRUCK. WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE 2 FIRE FIGHTERS ON THE TRUCK. WE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ENTER A STRUCTURE UNLESS YOU HAVE A SECOND FIRE FIGHTER ON SCENE. JIM LEWIS: THIS IS A PAID FIREFIGHTER? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: RIGHT. THEY DON'T COUNT VOLUNTEERS ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE A VOLUNTEER TO BE AT A CALL. JIM LEWIS: SO HERE WE ARE FACED WITH A FEDERAL MANDATE THAT INCREASES OUR PAYROLL. WE HAVE NO PLACE TO GO EXCEPT TO THE MILLAGE RATE. 7 16J1 CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THAT'S HAPPENING ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IT IS ESTIMATED TO COST A LOT OF MONEY FOR THE SMALLER DEPARTMENTS AND THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO COME UP WITH A WAY, WHETHER A GRANT OR SOMETHING, TO HELP THE SMALLER DEPARTMENTS ACHIEVE THE MANPOWER. KEVIN WALSH: HOW DO THEY DEAL WITH THAT THEN WITH AN ALL VOLUNTEER DEPARTMENT: CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THEY FALL UNDER A SEPARATE RULE. THEY STILL CAN'T GO INTO A FIRE. THEY HAVE MUTUAL AID AND HAVE TO WAIT ON A TRUCK TO COME AND HELP OUT. IF YOU HAVE A FIRE HERE WITH A PERSON THAT'S TRAPPED INSIDE THE HOUSE AND IF YOU ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS, IF THE TRUCK ARRIVES IT ARRIVES. IF NOT, YOU ARE SOL. JERRI NEUHOUSE: ROD, IS THE NFPA, THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION OR THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AGENCY? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: IT IS AGENCY. THAT IS THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT ALL OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS FALL UNDER. WE CAN'T WEAR A HELMET UNLESS IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE NFPA. IF WE GO INTO A FIRE WITH THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF EQUIPMENT, IF IT DOESN'T HAVE THE STAMP SAYING "NFPA APPROVED" AND YOU GET HURT, THE DEPARTMENT IS LIABLE. EVERYTHING THAT WE OPERATE, EVERY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, HAS TO BE APPROVED BY NFPA. JERRI NEUHOUSE: BACK TO THE REQUEST. ARE WE GOING TO ASK FOR THE 2 OR THE 1.5? WHAT I AM HEARING FROM YOU IS THAT WE OUGHT TO GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR THE 2 AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. WE KNOW THAT WE NEED THE 1.5. AND IF WE ASK FOR THE 1.5 AND THERE IS ENOUGH OBJECTION, THEN WE ARE STUCK. WE HAVE NO PLACE TO GO. WE ARE ONLY GOING TO USE THE 1.5 UNTIL AND UNLESS WE GET ANOTHER MANDATE OR THERE IS SOME EMERGENCY OR SOMETHING HAPPENS. JIM LEWIS: THAT IS THE POINT THAT I AM TRYING TO MAKE. WE ARE LIVING IN TIMES THAT WE HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED BEFORE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. YOU CAN'T LOOK DOWN THE ROAD AND SAY "THIS IS THE HISTORY, AND WE KNOW BASED ON THAT HISTORY, YOU CAN EXPECT CERTAIN THINGS ". JERRI NEUHOUSE: YOU ALMOST HAVE TO BUILD IN A BUFFER. JIM LEWIS: EXACTLY JERRI NEUHOUSE: THOSE ARE GOING TO BE THE QUESTIONS THAT COME UP. EVEN THOUGH WE ARE ONLY GOING TO USE THE 1.5, THE QUESTION IS 16J1 GOING TO BE "HOW DOE WE KNOW THAT?" IT'S EASY, COME TO OUR MEETINGS AND SEE HOW WE DO THE BUDGET. TARA LE GRAND: THE MOST IMPORTANT ANSWER TO THAT IS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES. JERRI NEUHOUSE:: THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT UNILATERAL. THE COUNTY CAN UP THAT, AS WELL. TARA LE GRAND: SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A BUFFER FOR THAT AS WELL. JERRI NEUHOUSE: THAT'S WHAT I HADN'T CONSIDERED. I FORGOT THAT THE COUNTY INCREASED STUFF FOR US LAST YEAR. AND WE BUDGETED ON WHAT WE NEEDED. WE CAN DO 1.5 BUT THE COUNTY MAY SAY "WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE YOU DOUBLE NOW FOR YOUR MAINTENANCE OF AUTOMOBILES AND THE BOAT AND WE WON'T HAVE IT. AS LONG AS WE WORK WITHIN THAT 1.5, THE COUNTY IS ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. JIM LEWIS: (UNCLEAR COMMENT) CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THERE IS NO DOUBT. WE ARE NOT THE OLD LITTLE GRANDE DEPARTMENT. WHEN I STARTED, 12 - 13 YEARS AGO WE WERE A LITTLE BITTY FIRE HOUSE RUNNING 50 CALLS A YEAR. JERRI NEUHOUSE: DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT CONSTANTINE SAID? AT THE COMMISSIONER'S MEETING WHERE WE GOT THE APPROVAL TO STAY PART PAID PART VOLUNTEER, HE SAID THEY ARE A SMALL DEPARTMENT AND THEY ARE GROWING. IN JUST A FEW YEARS THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE STAFF AND ULTIMATELY, THEY WILL BECOME A PAID FORCE. LET THEM GROW IN THEIR TIME. WE HAVE COME TO THAT POINT NOW. WE STILL HAVE VOLUNTEERS, BUT NOW WE HAVE FULL -TIME, PAID HELP. NOW IT IS THE TIME FOR US TO TAKE THAT NEXT STEP, AND MEET THE MANDATES. I DON'T WANT TO APPEAR AS THOUGH I WAS WAFFLING. I WILL TELL YOU HONESTLY, MY ONLY CONCERN WAS ABOUT THE 1.5 WAS BECAUSE OF THE DISTASTE IN MY MOUTH FROM 3 YEARS AGO. I JUST WANTED TO AVOID, AT ALL COSTS, ANY SORT OF MISHAP. ROD AND I WERE BOTH READY TO SAY "LOOK, WE WILL JUST ASK FOR WHAT WE NEED." BUT, IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO US THAT IF WE DO THAT WE HAVE NO ROOM IF WE ASK FOR JUST THE RAISE IN THE CAP. THE TRUTH IS I AM GOING TO WAFFLE HERE. I BELIEVE THAT YOU ALL HAVE CONVINCED ME THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO AS FOR THE 2.0. AND SEE WHERE IT TAKES US. IF THE RESIDENTS STILL HAVE A BAD TASTE IN THEIR MOUTH, WHAT BETTER WAY TO DISPEL, ONCE AND FOR ALL, BY SHOWING THAT WE CAN COOPERATE AND NEGOTIATE WITH THEM AND BRING IT DOWN TO 1.5 OR 1.75 AND STILL DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. 16J1 KEVIN WALSH: THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO APPROVE IT? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: IT HAS TO GO FOR TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS JERRI NEUHOUSE: AND THEY HAVE ALREADY DRAFTED THE ORDINANCE KEVIN WALSH: AND IT WILL BE PRIOR TO THE BUDGET PROCESS? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: IF IT ALL GOES THROUGH, IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1sT KEVIN WALSH: I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT: ARE YOU TIME TRAPPED AT THIS POINT OR DO YOU HAVE THE LUXURY OF SOME TIME? I HAVE GOTTEN LIMITED REACTION. EVEN THOUGHT I THINK THE ISSUE IS PRETTY WELL PUBLICIZED, IT MAY THE MOMENT IN HISTORY, PEOPLE (UNCLEAR) I SHARE BOTH OF YOUR SENSITIVITY TO THE SWAMP WE WENT THROUGH FOUR YEARS AGO. WE STILL HAVE HUSBANDS NOT TALKING TO WIVES AND NEIGHBORS NOT TALKING TO NEIGHBORS. IT WAS THE MOST DIVISIVE THING EVERY TO OCCUR IN THIS COMMUNITY. WOULD TRY TO AVOID, AT ALL COSTS, ANYTHING THAT WOULD AFFECT US LIKE THAT DID. IS THE FACT SHEET YOU WERE WORKING ON, I THINK YOU WERE GOING TO DEVELOP SOME COMPARISONS BETWEEN OUR DISTRICT AND THE OTHER DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTY. AT THE 2 MILS HOW WOULD WE SHAKE OUT? JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE JUST GOT THE NUMBERS. THE HIGHEST DISTRICT IS AT 4 MILS, THAT IS OCHOPEE AND WITH THAT THEY GENERATE $1.156 MILLION. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES: BIG CORKSCREW AT 2 MIL GENERATES ABOUT $1 MILLION. WE DON'T HAVE THE CITY OF NAPLES AND MARCO ISLAND FIGURES. EAST NAPLES IS AT 1.5 MIL AND GENERATES ALMOST $6.6 MILLION DOLLARS. GOLDEN GATE IS AT 1 MIL AND GENERATES $6 MILLION DOLLARS, WE CAN ONLY GENERATE $341,000 WITH OUR 1 MIL. IMMOKALEE IS AT 2 MIL AND GENERATES ABOUT $1 MIL. NORTH NAPLES IS AT 1 MIL AND GENERATE $10.378 MILLION WITH THAT 1 MIL. WE DIDN'T WANT TO COMPARE JUST MILLAGE RATES. WE WANTED TO SHOW WHAT IT ACTUALLY GENERATES. KEVIN WALSH:: ONE OF THE NUMBERS THAT ONE IS SENSITIVE TO IS EAST NAPLES. AS I REMEMBER, FROM 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO, THAT PROGRAM (UNCLEAR) WOULD PUT A FREEZE ON MILLAGE, WHICH WAS AT THAT TIME 1 MIL, FOR A PERIOD OF 2 OR 3 YEARS. WE ARE BEYOND THAT NOW. BUT, THEN IT WOULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED THE EAST NAPLES MILLAGE WHICH IS 1.5. 10 16J1 CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: FROM THE TALKS WITH ALL OF THE FIRE CHIEFS, EAST NAPLES WOULD LIKE TO GO FOR A MILLAGE INCREASE. WE ARE ALL ENCOUNTERING ALL THESE NEW MANDATES JERRI NEUHOUSE: IS THIS SOMETHING YOU WANT ON THE RECORD? WE HAVE A REPORTER HERE. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: NO KEVIN WALSH: (UNCLEAR) CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: EVERY DEPARTMENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NORTH NAPLES, RIGHT NOW IS UNDERMANNED. TERRIBLY UNDERMANNED. THE ONLY DEPARTMENT THAT ACTUALLY PUTS 4 MEN ON A TRUCK IS NORTH NAPLES. THEN, LOOK AT THE MONEY THEY GENERATE. EAST NAPLES, MARCO, GOLDEN GATE AND THE REST HAVE AN AVERAGE OF 2 MEN ON A TRUCK. ALL OF THE CALLS ARE INCREASING FOR ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, NOT JUST ISLES OF CAPRI. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CALL VOLUME OF ALL THE DEPARTMENTS THEY JUST CONTINUE TO INCREASE. WE ARE THE SECOND FASTEST GROWING AREA IN THE NATION. KEVIN WALSH: SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I AM ASKING ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT I ANTICIPATE WILL COME UP WHEN YOU MEET WITH THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION. ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO GET INTO THE SPREAD BETWEEN THE EMS AND FIRE. SO FAR WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON THE TOTAL NUMBER CALLS. YOU WANT TO BE PREPARED TO BREAK THAT DOWN BETWEEN EMS & FIRE. THE LAST TIME I SAW THOSE NUMBERS THE PREPONDERANCE WERE EMS. NOW, FROM A BUDGETARY STANDPOINT, DOES THE MILLAGE THAT WE PAY HERE ON CAPRI GO JUST TO THE FIRE FIGHTING BUDGET OR DOES IT COVER EMS? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: IT COVERS THE ENTIRE OPERATION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WHETHER WE GO TO A MEDICAL CALL OR A FIRE CALL. IT COVERS THE ENTIRE OPERATION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE DON'T PAY FOR PARAMEDIC SALARIES OR THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT IS OUT OF THE EMS BUDGET. JIM LEWIS: NOR THE RUNNING OF THE AMBULANCE. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THAT DOES NOT COME OUT OF OUR BUDGET. THAT IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE BUDGET. 11 16J1 KEVIN WALSH: MY POINT IS, YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON THOSE THINGS, THOSE MEASURES OF ACTIVITY THAT RELATE TO THE EXPENDITURES OF THE FIRE BUDGET AND DON'T INCLUDE EMS CALLS. JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE HAVE TO BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RESPOND. JIM LEWIS: THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED TO RESPOND. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: WE RESPOND TO EVERY EMERGENCY, EVERY 911 CALL THAT IS RECEIVED FOR THIS DISTRICT. KEVIN WALSH: WITH 2 VEHICLES AND FOUR PEOPLE? JERRI NEUHOUSE: ON THE MEDICAL CALLS CERTAINLY. EVERY CAR ACCIDENT THERE GOING TO BE A FIRE TRUCK AND OR ATTACK TRUCK WITH 2 FIREMEN AND THERE IS GOING TO BE EMS ON THE WAY. OUR FIRE FIGHTERS ARE NOT PARAMEDICS. THEY ARE FIRST RESPONDERS, EMTS. THAT IS WHAT COLLIER COUNTY REQUIRES. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THAT IS WHAT EVERY DEPARTMENT DOES. EVERY FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONDS TO EVERY 911 CALL WHETHER IT IS A MEDICAL OR A FIRE. JIM LEWIS: BUT NOT POLICE 911 CALLS? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: NO, NOT UNLESS THERE IS AN INJURY AND WE RESPOND BUT STAND BACK UNTIL THEY SECURE IT. THEN WE MOVE IN. WE HAVE TO COUNT ALL OF OUR CALLS. TARA LE GRAND: BUT THE DISTINCTION HERE IS JUST RESPONDING TO THAT CALL AS OPPOSED TO MAINTAINING THE VEHICLES, SALARIES AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: RIGHT, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN OUR VEHICLES AND OUR SALARIES IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO THE CALLS CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: WE RESPOND TO EVERYTHING ALONG WITH EMS. THEY RESPOND TO STRUCTURE FIRE AND STAND BY IN CASE ONE OF US GETS HURT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: SEVERAL TIMES THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL RESPOND AND GET THERE BEFORE EMS. EMS WAS ON MARCO. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONDS AND THEY TREAT, THEY DO BLS UNTIL THE AMBULANCE GETS THERE. IT IS NOT ALWAYS ARRIVING WITH EMS. JIM LEWIS: THAT'S GOING TO BE A MISCONCEPTION (UNCLEAR) 12 16J1 CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: EMS CAN'T DO THEIR JOB BY THEMSELVES AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN'T DO THERE JOB BY THEMSELVES. THAT IS WHY WE RESPOND TOGETHER. EMS COUNTS ALL OF THEIR CALLS. IF THEY GO TO A FIRE CALL, THAT FACTORS INTO THEIR TOTAL NUMBER OF CALLS. KEVIN WALSH: SO THE CALL VOLUME YOU ARE USING IS A LEGITIMATE CLAIM ON THE RESOURCES OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET. JERRI NEUHOUSE: YES, THEY HAD TO MOVE OUT AND RESPOND TO THAT CALL. JIM LEWIS: ARE WE PREPARED NOW TO CLOSE THIS ISSUE WITH A UNANIMOUS DECISION TO ASK FOR 2 MILS AS A CAP? JERRI NEUHOUSE: I AM PREPARED TO. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WHICH IS TO ASK FOR A 2 MIL CAP? JIM LEWIS: MOTIONED UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNCLEAR) NO BODY CARES, NO BODY COMES TO THE MEETINGS, NO BODY KNOWS ABOUT IT. (UNCLEAR) IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT IS EMS AND WHAT IS FIRE. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: WHAT DO YOU MEAN THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ON THE CALLS, (UNCLEAR) WHAT IS THE OPTION TO GO BACK TO A COMPLETELY VOLUNTEER DEPARTMENT? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: YOU CAN'T. JERRI NEUHOUSE: YOU CAN'T GO BACKWARDS. WE WOULD BE DECERTIFIED AND WOULD LOSE OUR INSURANCE. UNIDENTIFIED MALE (UNCLEAR) ...... EMS BUDGET NOT INCLUDED IN THE FIRE. I DON'T THINK WHY WE NEED 6 FIREFIGHTERS (UNCLEAR) JERRI NEUHOUSE: LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY. ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE DOING IS PUTTING TOGETHER AN INFORMATIONAL PACKET FOR THE PUBLIC. SO THAT PEOPLE WILL KNOW, SO EVERYBODY WILL UNDERSTAND. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN A NEW MANDATE UNDER THE NFPA. IT REQUIRES THAT EVERY TIME THE FIRE DEPARTMENT GOES ON A CALL, WE ARE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE TO GO ON EVERY CALL, EVERY 911 CALL, THAT 2 FULL TIME FIREFIGHTERS ARE 13 16J1 ON THAT TRUCK. CURRENTLY, WE ONLY HAVE I FULL TIME FIREFIGHTER ON EACH SHIFT. WE WILL LOSE OUR FUNDING UNKNOWN VOICE: ( UNCLEAR) WHAT IF WE DO NOT HAVE IT? JERRI NEUHOUSE: IF WE DO NOT HAVE IT? UNKNOWN VOICE: IF WE DO NOT HAVE IT BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY FULL PAID AND I VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THE VOLUNTEER DOESN'T COUNT. UNKNOWN VOICE: WELL, YOU DON'T MOVE OUT, COULD YOU STAY HOME? JERRI NEUHOUSE: YOU CAN'T BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO NOT MOVE OUT. UNKNOWN VOICE: WHY? JERRI NEUHOUSE: BECAUSE THAT IS THE LAW. YOU CAN'T OPERATE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS TO FOLLOW CERTAIN ORDINANCES THAT ARE HANDED DOWN TO US, MANDATED TO US BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND BY OTHER INSTITUTIONS. IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR FUNDING AND TO KEEP THE TECHNOLOGY UPDATED SO THAT WHEN THERE IS A FIRE, WHICH, BY THE WAY, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME FIRE WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND WE WERE RECOGNIZED AND RECEIVED A BRUSH TRUCK BECAUSE OF ALL OF OUR HELP AND EXPERTISE IN THE BRUSH FIRES LAST YEAR. WE HAVE TO ADHERE TO THESES ORDINANCES. IF WE DON'T, WE CAN'T OPERATE. THEY WILL NOT CERTIFY US. UNKNOWN VOICE: THEN DISSOLVE IT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: IF WE DISSOLVE IT, THEN WHAT WOULD YOU DO? UNKNOWN VOICE: THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF TAPE WAS VERY GARBLED: THEN GO WITH EAST NAPLES. VERY SIMPLE. THE PEOPLE THAT YEARS AGO OK'D THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DIED. YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE TO DO IT, WE WANT TO CONTACT ?? EAST NAPLES. IF YOU SAY IT CANNOT BE DONE, THEN IT CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT UPPING THE MILLAGE. I AM AGAINST IT, FOR THE RECORD, I AM AGAINST IT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT IT GOING TO 1.5? UNKNOWN VOICE: IF THE HIGHEST LIMIT (UNCLEAR) IN MY OPINION. 14 16J1 " .1 oft, JERRI NEUHOUSE: DOES IT AFFECT YOUR OPINION IF EAST NAPLES WERE TO GO TO 2 MIL? UNKNOWN VOICE: NO JERRI NEUHOUSE: ALL WE CAN DO IS GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DO TONIGHT. IS TO TRY TO PUT TOGETHER ALL THE INFORMATION SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHY. UNKNOWN VOICE: I WAS READING IN THE PAPER. YOU ALREADY PUT OUT TO THE COMMISSIONERS WITHOUT ANY (UNCLEAR) NOBODY CARES, NOBODY COMES TO THE MEETINGS. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: NO UNKNOWN VOICE: I HOPE THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS GOING TO GET INVOLVED WITH IT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: THEY ARE, THAT'S WHY KEVIN IS HERE. UNKNOWN VOICE: (UNCLEAR) IT SHOULD BE MORE PUBLICIZED SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE ARE TRYING TO PUBLICIZE IT. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: WE HAVE HAD THE SAME MEETINGS FOR MANY YEARS, SINCE BEFORE MY TIME. JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE WELCOME THE REPORTER HERE. YOUR OPINION HAS BEEN NOTED. UNKNOWN VOICE: I KNOW, IN THE PAST, VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE FIRE HYDRANTS. NOW WE HAVE TO PAY FOR..... ISN'T IT CHEAPER TO HIRE A PAINTER TO DO IT. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: NO JERRI NEUHOUSE: I WOULD RATHER HAVE A FIREMAN WHO IS NOT ON A CALL DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THAT'S THEIR JOB. UNKNOWN VOICE: (SOMETHING ABOUT USING VOLUNTEERS) CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THEY ARE JUST NOT HERE ANYMORE. THERE IS NOBODY FROM ISLES OF CAPRI. 15 16J1 UNKNOWN VOICE: (GARBLED) CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THERE IS AN ARTICLE IN THE PAPER EVERY WEEK. THEY ARE JUST NOT THERE ANYMORE, THERE ARE NO VOLUNTEERS ANYMORE. JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE HAVE TRAINED 13 PEOPLE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WHO HAVE COME IN AND COMPLETED THEIR TRAINING. NOW THEY ARE WORKING WITH OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THEY ALL WANT A JOB. JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE DO A GOOD JOB WITH THE VOLUNTEERS. WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS TONIGHT AND THEY ARE OUT TONIGHT. EVERY THURSDAY NIGHT IS EXERCISE NIGHT. WHAT WE DON'T HAVE IS THE VOLUME THAT WE NEED. WE KNEW THREE YEARS AGO THAT ULTIMATELY, DOWN THE ROAD, WE WOULD PROBABLY OUTGROW OUR ALL VOLUNTEER STATUS. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: WE NEED VOLUNTEERS THAT LIVE ON ISLES OF CAPRI. THAT CAN GO ON CALLS THE WAY I STARTED WHEN I LIVED ON ISLES OF CAPRI AS A VOLUNTEER. WE WOULD GO TO ALL THE CALLS. IT DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD TO HAVE A VOLUNTEER THAT LIVES IN NORTH NAPLES LIKE WE HAVE NOW. 98% OF OUR VOLUNTEERS LIVE IN NORTH NAPLES, GOLDEN GATE. IT DOESN'T DO US ANY GOOD. UNKNOWN VOICE: WHO CARES IF YOU LIVE IN NORTH NAPLES OR CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: NO VOLUNTEER WANTS TO DO THAT. THE VOLUNTEERS WANT TO RUN CALLS, TO FIGHT FIRES, THEY WANT TO DO ALL OF THAT. I CAN'T JERRI NEUHOUSE: ALFRED, YOUR OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS ARE VERY WELL TAKEN. I APPRECIATE THEM ALL. DON'T WORRY, YOU ARE ON THE RECORD. WE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR ORIGINAL 2 MIL CAP. TARA LE GRAND: I SECOND IT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: MOTION IS PASSED, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE 2.0 PROPOSED INCREASE IN CAP. WE ARE STILL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE ARE ONLY GOING TO USE 1.5. THE NEXT THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP IS THE FLYER AND THE INFORMATIONAL STUFF WE WANT TO GET OUT TO THE RESIDENTS. WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BE ON THE AGENDA AT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION MEETING IN JANUARY. I THINK THAT IS A GREAT IDEA. WE WILL HAVE TO ADVERTISE IT IF WE ARE ALL 16 16J1 GOING TO BE IN ATTENDANCE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN INFORMATIONAL FLYER READY. KEVIN WALSH: JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. IS THAT TRUE EVEN IF IT WERE SIMPLY ROD COMING TO PRESENT THE CASE? IN OTHER WORDS, IT WOULDN'T BE A FIRE BOARD MEETING? JERRI NEUHOUSE: I THINK VICTOR COULD PROBABLY CLARIFY THAT. IF WE ARE IN ATTENDANCE AT A MEETING WHERE THIS ISSUE COMES UP, ARE WE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS IT? VICTOR HILL: I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADVERTISE IF MORE THAN 2 MEMBERS ARE THERE. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM TO ADVERTISE AND HAVE HARRY PUT IT ON THE WEB PAGE. GARBLED CONVERSATION FROM SEVERAL PEOPLE JERRI NEUHOUSE: THAT IS SUFFICIENT ADVERTISING. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY VICTOR HILL: I WILL SAY THIS AS A MEANS OF CLARIFICATION, THE MARCO ISLAND EAGLE IS MORE THAN WILLING TO ADVERTISE ......... UNCLEAR KEVIN WALSH: THAT THEN ALLOWS, DEPENDING ON WHAT DEVELOPS AT THE CIVIC MEETING, IT ALLOWS THE BOARD MEMBERS TO DEBATE BETWEEN THEMSELVES AS OFFICIAL BUSINESS. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM TO ADVERTISE. JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE CAN TALK IF WE ADVERTISE THAT WE WILL BE THERE. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS, THE COUNTY HAS ALREADY APPROVED THAT ADVERTISING ON THE SIGN IS ADEQUATE TAPE SIDE ONE ENDS ASSUME THAT WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: WHICH WE WILL. IT WILL BE ADVERTISED ON THE FLYER, ALSO. JERRI NEUHOUSE: WHAT I AM HOPING IS THAT THE JANUARY MEETING. JUST FOR THE RECORD: WE HAD WANTED TO GET THIS INFORMATION OUT TO EVERYBODY BEFORE. A: WE HAD NO IDEA THAT THE 17 16J1 COMMISSIONERS WERE GOING TO ACT THIS FAST. BUT WE WANTED TO GET THIS INFORMATION OUT ORIGINALLY OURSELVES, VICTOR ATTENDING OUR MEETING THOUGH, AND HAD TO REPORT ON IT. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE WAS HERE FOR, THAT IS HOW IT GOT OUT THROUGH THE NEWSPAPER INSTEAD OF THROUGH US. WE ARE STILL WORKING ON PUTTING IT TOGETHER, GETTING ALL THE FACTS AND NUMBERS SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT. IN THE FORM OF A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION SHEET WITH SOME CHANGES THAT WE ARE ALL GOING TO MAKE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO IS AT THE JANUARY MEETING, HAVE US ON THE AGENDA, HAVE ROD ON THE AGENDA, AND HAVE FIRST A PRESENTATION. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE. THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. COVER EVERYTHING AND AT THE END OF IT, TAKE EVERYBODY'S QUESTIONS. LET THEM DIRECT THE QUESTIONS TO ROD OR ANY FIRE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER OR CIVIC ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBER. GIVE THEM AN ALLOTTED TIME AND THEN ENCOURAGE THEM ALL TO COME BY HERE SO THEY CAN LOOK AT NUMBERS OR WHATEVER. I BET WE WILL GET SOME ATTENDANCE IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY OR MARCH AT THESE MEETINGS. VICTOR HILL: ANOTHER APPROACH: INCLUDE THE FACT SHEET AND INCLUDE IT AS A STUFFER IN THE ISLAND VOICE THE WEEKEND PRIOR TO. THEN, EVERYBODY COMES TO THE MEETING A LITTLE FURTHER UP THE KNOWLEDGE CURVE. THE WORSE THING IN THE WORLD WITH A MEETING LIKE THAT, WHERE A LOT OF NUMBERS FLY AROUND JERRI NEUHOUSE: AND YOU ARE READING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. VICTOR HILL: RIGHT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: I THINK THAT IS A GREAT IDEA. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: THAT'S WHY I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THIS FLYER COMPLETED PRIOR TO THAT. SO THAT WE CAN GET IT OUT AT THE SAME TIME THE ISLAND VOICE? COMES OUT. JERRI NEUHOUSE: I DO HAVE TO LEAVE HERE IN HALF AN HOUR. I KNOW THAT JIM HAS MADE SOME CHANGES AND AGAIN, THIS WAS JUST A DRAFT ROD AND I CAME UP WITH. OUR GOAL WAS FOR EACH OF US TO COME UP WITH THE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED IN THE FLYER. SO WE CAME UP WITH OUR DRAFT AND HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DISTRIBUTE IT AND LET YOU DO YOUR STUFF. IF WE CAN BRING IT ALL TOGETHER WITHIN A WEEK, I CAN GET IT ALL TYPED UP. ROD COULD PROBABLY DISTRIBUTE IT TO EACH OF US, SO WE DO NOT HAVE TO MEET AGAIN. FOR FINAL APPROVAL ONCE EVERY ONE' CHANGES ARE IN. 18 16J1 DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS AND OTHER ATTENDEES AS TO FORMAT AND INFORMATION TO INCLUDE IN THE INFORMATIONAL FLYER JERRI NEUHOUSE: IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THIS TONIGHT. IS ANYBODY AVAILABLE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO GET TOGETHER. WE WOULD HAVE TO ADVERTISE IT. A SPECIAL MEETING WHERE ALL WE FOCUS ON IS THE WORDING IN THIS AND THE STRUCTURE /FORMAT. WE JUST NEED TO ADVERTISE IT. YOU COULD PUT IT OUT TOMORROW - SPECIAL MEETING TO GO OVER THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THIS. I CAN DO TUESDAY. JIM LEWIS: I THINK I WILL BE AVAILABLE TUESDAY EVENING JERRI NEUHOUSE: THAT'S TUESDAY EVENING. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: DECEMBER 18TH JERRI NEUHOUSE: I'M GOOD ON THE 18TH 6:30 ? IF EACH OF US COULD MAKE OUR CHANGES ON OUR COPIES BEFORE THEN, AND MAYBE GIVE IT TO ROD, SO THAT WE COULD EACH SEE THEM. MAYBE THIS WEEKEND. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ALL REGARDING THE INFORMATIONAL FLYER CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: AS FAR AS THE AMENDED ORDINANCE, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT THE COUNTY PUT TOGETHER, WE HAVE NO CHANGES? SET THE MILLAGE CAP AT 2? JERRI NEUHOUSE: CORRECT CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: SO I CAN SEND THIS BACK IN TOMORROW WITH NO CHANGES. JERRI NEUHOUSE: THERE IS NO NEED TO RUSH THAT. LET'S HAVE A FEW DAYS TO THING ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU SEND IT IN. JUST IN CASE WE WANT TO REVIEW THE WORDING AGAIN OR SOMETHING. WE AGREED TO STICK WITH OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION. WE HAVE NOT ALL ACTUALLY SAT DOWN AND LOOKED AT THE WORDING IN DETAIL AND APPROVED THE ORDINANCE. WHY DON'T WE WAIT UNTIL NEXT TIME? THERE MAY BE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT WE DIDN'T REALIZE. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ WILL ENSURE THAT ALL MEMBERS HAVE A COPY OF THE DRAFT AMENDED ORDINANCE. 19 16J1 VICTOR WALSH: I AM REALLY HERE AS INTERESTED CITIZEN. I HAPPEN TO BE ON THE BOARD OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND ROD AND I HAPPENED TO BE TALKING THE OTHER DAY ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF USING THE JANUARY CIVIC ASSOCIATION MEETING FOR IMPARTING INFORMATION. THE BOARD OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION HAS NOT DISCUSSED THIS. NANCY IS AWARE AND NANCY HAS TALKED TO YOU ABOUT COMING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, WE WILL PROBABLY DISCUSS IT AT OUR BOARD MEETING SOMETIME BETWEEN CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEARS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS GOING TAKE A POSITION, FOR ONE THING, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS REALLY FUNCTIONING OR PROVIDING A FORUM FOR THE FIRE BOARD TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. WITHOUT TAKING A POSITION. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE JANUARY INFORMATIONAL MEETING, THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION BOARD MAY BE ASKED TO TAKE A POSITION OR MAY FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE A POSITION. I DON'T THINK GOING INTO THAT MEETING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A POSITION. JERRI NEUHOUSE: I AGREE KEVIN WALSH: THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE AS IGNORANT AS I AM ABOUT THE FACTS. THE MORE INFORMATION THAT IS EXCHANGED AT THE JANUARY INFORMATIONAL MEETING, THE BETTER OFF EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE, JIM LEWIS: WE WILL TRY TO GET OURSELVES INFORMED. THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS THROUGH US. (UNCLEAR) KEVIN WALSH: IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT GOING FOR 2 MILS, IS PROBABLY GOING TO GENERATE MORE ATTENDANCE AT THE JANUARY MEETING. SO THAT'S PROBABLY GOOD FOR EVERYBODY. JERRI NEUHOUSE: WE HAVE HAD TWO PEOPLE ATTEND SINCE LAST MARCH, TWO CITIZENS. I REMEMBER WHEN EVERYBODY WAS HERE. IT IS NOT THAT THEY DON'T CARE, IT'S THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN RUNNING FINE AND THERE HAS BEEN NO NEED. THERE HAVE BEEN NO ISSUES. NOW THERE IS AN ISSUE AND I BET WE GET SOME MORE ATTENDANCE. JIM LEWIS: MOVE THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. JERRI NEUHOUSE: SECOND MEETING ADJOURNED IM Fiala _ Carter Henning Coyle ,- Oletta WORKFORCE HOUSING .RECEIVED ADVISORY COMMITTF#To�„ti� ra��+iss�cri� s February 4, 2002 Minutes I. Meeting convened at 3:30 p.m. Members in attendance: Karen Homiak Mark Lindner Dave Carpenter Mark Strain Mario Valle Larry Kesey Staff present: Commissioner Fiala Cormac Giblin Members absent: Joe Paterno David Ellis Barb Cacchione Susan Golden Denny Baker Phil Tindell Guests: Debrah Preston Forester Vince Cautero Bruce Mumm. Approved minutes of January 7, 2002 meeting 16J1 2. Dave Ellis gave an overview of the SHIP funding being targeted for Everglades Restoration. The Affordable Housing Commission agreed to send a letter opposing SHIP housing funds being diverted to Everglades restoration. The Workforce Housing committee agreed to send a letter to the local Florida delegation expressing their opposition. Commissioner Fiala indicated that she will take a similar request to the Board of County Commissioners asking them to oppose diverting State housing funds to Everglades restoration Cormac Giblin indicated that Collier County sends 6.4 million in documentary stamp taxes to the State with 2 million being returned to Collier for use in the SHIP program. Collier is considered a "donor" county because of our large revenues that our dispersed to other jurisdictions. Commissioner Fiala suggested that the committee look at recommendation to change the SHIP distribution formula so that counties receive at least 50% of what they contribute to the State fund. 3. A discussion on requiring PUD's and other developments to provide workforce housing was initiated. Mark Strain suggested that a list of possible options or alternatives be prepared so that all PUD's (commercial, residential, etc) and other commercial developments, golf courses, etc would have a menu of ways to provide their fair share of workforce housing. 4. A discussion ensued on tying workforce housing to the release of a wNiffrres: number of C.O.'s within a commercial or residential development. A check qnd,,, balance system needs to be developed. Date: Ite"TIH i(P61 copiles To: 16J1 ,., All types and levels of development should be equally impacted based upon the number of jobs the development generates or their need for "workers" /employees. There was also a discussion regarding the Housing & Urban Improvement Director position and Barb Cacchione suggested that Workforce Housing Committee send a letter to County Manager Oliff indicating the importance of a housing advocate and the possibility of centralizing housing operations including the Collier County Loan Consortium, community education, and State and Federal funding. Phil Tindell addressed impact fees and linkage fees briefly and identified which county impact fees have converted to a tiered impact fee system. Due to time constraints, Mr. Tindell will provide more information at the March meeting. Barb Cacchione and Debrah Forester volunteered to facilitate and record the committee's ideas for requiring or encouraging new workforce housing to be provided as new development comes on line. All members are asked to bring ideas and incentives to the March meeting. Meeting adjourned at 5:25 Fiala , Carter Henning Coyle Co►etta 1. Introduction. I 6JI J -ay T ."V A\ 1 t. V llll ►11 1 1 L' L` - HIIL' !r I/(i March 4, 2002 — 3:30 n.m. RECEIVED Board of County Commissioners' Conference Room 2002 2. Review and approve February 4, 2002 minutes. 3. Elect Chairman. Board Of Count,Y COMMf5Sioners 4. Discussion on possibility of renaming Committee — Pre - Retirement Housing. 5. Create a plan of work, including linkage fees, incentives, TDR's and impact fees for our committee — facilitated by Debrah Forrester and Barb Cacchione. 6. Follow up - in depth discussion on inclusionary zoning, vested rights within permitted PUD's and providing credits and incentives to add workforce housing to existing PUD's. 7. Incentives: Vince Cautero. 8. Report on inclusionary zoning in Palm Beach — Mario Valle. NOTE: REMEMBER to send your ideas regarding our PUD discussion to me by Monday, February 18ffi so that I can e-mail these ideas to the entire committee. NOTE: Cormac will bring updated PUD maps. DF/kmm Misc. Corres: Date: Qom_ Item# I W Copies To: FEB 7 7 2002 AGENDA card of '�'oufttr Commissioner$ 16J1 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 2002, AND FEBRUARY 7, 2002 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES -LORA JEAN YOUNG 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS FROM THE JANUARY 29, FEBRUARY 6, AND THE FEBRUARY 12, 2002, MEETINGS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VA- 2001 -AR -1696, James and Genevieve O'Connell, requesting after -the -fact variances in the RSF -4 Zoning District from the 25 foot front yard setback requirement, to allow a 15.1 foot setback for the stairs (a 9.9 foot variance), and a 21.0 setback for the covered entry (a 4.0 foot variance), for property located at 183 Sunset Cay, further described as Lot 88, Port of the Islands, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (0gQbA r: Kay Deselem) Date: 41. l}Wo d I03) S 1 Co �,, "OS T0: Flela Carter Henning Coyle Colette V 16J1 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 2002, AND FEBRUARY 7, 2002 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES -LORA JEAN YOUNG 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS FROM THE JANUARY 29, FEBRUARY 6, AND THE FEBRUARY 12, 2002, MEETINGS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VA- 2001 -AR -1696, James and Genevieve O'Connell, requesting after -the -fact variances in the RSF -4 Zoning District from the 25 foot front yard setback requirement, to allow a 15.1 foot setback for the stairs (a 9.9 foot variance), and a 21.0 setback for the covered entry (a 4.0 foot variance), for property located at 183 Sunset Cay, further described as Lot 88, Port of the Islands, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (0gQbA r: Kay Deselem) Date: 41. l}Wo d I03) S 1 Co �,, "OS T0: w B PUDZ- 2002 -AR -1978, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associa s J , A, representing Gateway Shoppes Associates, LLC, requesting a rezone from "RSF -3" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Henderson Creek PUD for a maximum of 500 residential dwelling units of which 363 units must be constructed as affordable housing units for property located on U.S. 41 East, approximately 1/2 mile east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 45.8± acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) C. RZ- 2001 -AR -1625, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Leo J. Fragiacomo and Annelise O'Donnel, requesting a rezone from RMF -16 to RSF -4 for property located at 227 Cays Drive, further described as Lot 72, Port of the Islands, Stella Maris, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) D . ACCEPTANCE OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE OF B.J. BOYER- SAVARD, ET AL, vs. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL, CASE NO. 01- 1082 -CA, PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS: 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN CCPC AGENDA/SM/ E Fiala t✓ RECEIVED a 16J1 Carter I 0 FEB Henning t; 2 i4 Coyle Colette soard of Ctwntx commissioners HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD W "r MINUTES OF MEETING of November 29, 2001 ABSENT: David Correa, HAAB Member Pete Cade, Jr. Frank Loney, HAAB Member Sofia Pagan Robert J. Pina, HAAB Member Susan Calkins, HAAB Member Carlos Aviles, HAAB Member Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant County Attorney and HAAB Staff Liaison Also Present: Victor Valdes, Editor, Las Naciones News Gary Martin, Chairman, Review Board Richard Calabrese Jerome VanHook, Second Chair, Advocacy Board Bill Poteet, Collier County Boy Scouts Kelly Daley, District Chair, Collier County Boy Scouts Janet Whidden, Collier County Boy Scouts Dick Nogaj, President of Harvest for Humanity The November 29, 2001 meeting of the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board (HAAB) took place at the Collier County Commission meeting room and began at approximately 7:03 P.M. A quorum of five (5) members was present. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 25.2001 MINUTES The minutes of October 25, 2001 were considered for approval. Two changes were proposed regarding the minutes. The first was at page 6 regarding the spelling for Mr. Nogaj and the other change was at page 2. Frank Loney made a motion to approve the minutes and it was seconded by Susan Calkins. The Board voted 5 to 0 to approve the minutes as changed. GULF COAST BLINDS COMPANY MATTER r,;isG, Corres: Liaison Ramiro Manalich provided a brief history on this matter including its discuss}}oin��f,,� at a past HAAB meeting. The Liaison also described contacts made on beh ebf.�fk S► M : )WI L '�S To: 16J1 HAAB with Attorneys Anderson and Thornton. as well as Frank Rodriguez. Frank Rodriguez was the one that brought the item to the attention of the HAAB stating that the Board of County Commissioners' denial of approval for this particular business would result in large impacts to many Hispanic families employed by the business. Frank Rodriguez, Vice President of Administration/Finance of the Southwest Florida Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, stated that he understood the position of the County and its representatives in choosing not to appear before the HAAB on this matter because it is a case pending before the Collier County Commission. Frank Rodriguez said that he was here to ask the HAAB to consider a proposed resolution. Frank said that the resolution would be appropriate because this business has many Hispanic employees. David Correa mentioned that he thought there was a need for prior input from the owner of the company as well as the community. He was concerned that he was hearing only a "one- sided" presentation. Susan Calkins asked where the employees reside? Frank Rodriguez responded that they reside in Collier County for the most part. Frank also stated that he has no interest in the dispute, but his concern is about the Hispanic employees that would be affected by possible loss of a minority -owned enterprise. He stated that he thought that the business would have to relocate if they could not consolidate their operations into the proposed location. Frank Loney asked if Frank Rodriguez was asking for the original approval to be honored? Liaison Ramiro Maiialich commented that this was a disputed matter and that he could not comment on the merits. He said that he had reached Mr. Thornton earlier in the day today and Attorney Thornton had indicated that he could not attend the meeting. Attorney Anderson told the Liaison that he had instructed the owner of the business, his client, to only comment at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting. Staff had been told by the County Attorney's office that their comments should be limited to the County Commission hearing. Frank Rodriguez emphasized that he was not asking the HAAB to reach conclusions on the dispute itself, but to merely communicate to the Board of County Commissioners the Hispanic impact concerns. Carlos Aviles felt that the HAAB could send a resolution to the County Commission commenting on the Hispanic concerns only. Frank Rodriguez stated that his proposed resolution was merely a draft. He thought that it was appropriate for the HAAB to comment on this matter since the Collier County Hispanic community would be affected. David Correa observed that action would be needed tonight since the County Commission would be addressing this dispute on December 11, 2001. Frank Loney made a motion to change the draft Resolution. Susan Calkins asked that the Resolution contain language to the effect that the County Commission seriously consider the impact on the Hispanic community of the reversal of any approval previously given to the business and, unless exceptional reasons exist for reversal of the prior approval (of which the HAAB is not aware) that the County Commission uphold the original approval. Ramiro Manalich read the Purpose statement in the HAAB Ordinance to the members. David Correa commented that he thought it would be appropriate for the BCC to consider N 164 the impact on the Hispanic community of any decision that the BCC reached in this dispute. Frank Loney withdrew his prior motion, Susan Calkins made a new motion for approval of the Resolution of the HAAB regarding the Gulf Coast Blind matter to contain language proposed and the motion was seconded by Mr. Pina. The HAAB voted 5 to 0 in favor of the Resolution. MR. VALDES /CITIZENS LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT ADVOCACY BOARD Mr. Victor Valdes, Editor, Las Naciones News, and Vice Chair of the Citizens Complaint Advocate Board addressed the HAAB. He thanked Susan Calkins for her participation efforts in regard to the Review Board. He introduced Gary Martin, the Chairman of the Review Board. Mr. Martin stated that this is not a "Police Review Board" but a Citizens Complaint Advocate Board. Mr. Martin revisited the history behind the Advocate Board. He stated that the previous summer Mr. Valdes had hosted a forum and a result of that forum was the creation of this entity. The Sheriff took the position that any such board would have to be under his jurisdiction so the group related to Mr. Martin and Mr. Valdes created this separate Advocate Board that has a diverse composition. Mr. Martin stated that he thought it was a good group and that it was looking for new members, including Hispanics. Attorney Bill Morris of Marco Island also works with the board. Mr. Martin stated that he had been in Naples for 30 years and that he had worked for the Ford Motor Company. He also previously worked with Collier County government. Mr. Martin introduced the members of the Board of Directors, including Mr. Richard Calabrese. Mr. Richard Calabrese mentioned that the Advocacy Board is an open group. He said that they have a simple mission which is to be a community -based organization to assist the public in grievances /complaints that they may have with law enforcement agencies. He said that they seek fair treatment of citizens by law enforcement. They work within Florida laws and receive, review and recommend regarding complaints about law enforcement. A Mission Statement was distributed to the m_ embers which is attached to these minutes. Mr. Calabrese stated that his group has met with Naples Police and with Sheriff Hunter and Leo Ochs from Collier County government. He did not believe that it would work for the sheriff to have his own civilian review board. He said that there are many people afraid to file complaints. He recognized that there are cases in which the police are not at fault, and this organization can help sort out those cases. He stated that his organization has a temporary telephone number and they are getting the word out on the street. They plan to meet with the City of Naples Mayor. He did not believe that it was acceptable to have the police policing themselves. David Correa asked how does this group interact with the County Human Relations Commission Ordinance? Mr. Calabrese stated that they are different entities. He said that his organization brings justified complaints to the attention of law enforcement. 16J1 Jerome VanHook, Second Chair of the Advocacy Board, addressed the HAAB. He said that this organization was very needed and needs to be clearly separate from law enforcement which wanted to control everything. He said that the goal is due process for all cultures. He asked for the support of the HAAB for the Advocacy Board. He said that there are many reports by minorities of the community of unfair treatment by law enforcement. He also thought that this organization could help this community as a whole. Robert Pina interjected that this was a worthy cause and should have been done years ago. David Correa emphasized that the organization will help to defend the entire community. Mr. VanHook stated that the organization was available for all citizens who have issues with treatment by law enforcement. It is a not - for - profit organization. Frank Loney commented that he thought that the Board should advocate for minorities being placed in high Sheriff's Office positions. Mr. Calabrese agreed with the goal, but stated that this organization was not involved in that particular issue. Mr. Calabrese stated that this organization is to deal with some injustices that have occurred and that there are other ways to achieve minority recruitment for the Sheriff's Office. Jerome VanHook agreed also with the goal of putting forth more applications for positions at the Sheriff's Office and getting the community to support that effort. However, he emphasized that the organization specializes in due process as it relates to law enforcement agencies. Mr. Calabrese added that the Valdes Forum also revealed that minorities need to participate on juries and vote in elections. It was the consensus of the HAAB that this organization was a good start in dealing with issued affecting minorities and law enforcement. Gary Martin emphasized that the Advocacy Board is a racially diverse group and will insure that police follow proper procedures. Mr. Valdes distributed a provisional telephone number card which is attached to these minutes. COLLIER COUNTY BOY SCOUTS Representatives of the Boy Scouts in Collier County appeared before the HAAB. Those representatives were Bill Poteet, Kelly Daley and Janet Whidden. The representatives described the Collier County Boy Scouts chapter as the "Alligator District ". Mr. Poteet stated that there were about 1,500 scouts. He explained that the purpose of the Boy Scouts includes creating partnerships in the community. The Boy Scouts rely heavily on volunteer adult leadership. They have a high success rate. He said that in May of 2001, the Boy Scouts started a study of minorities in the Boy Scout program in the Alligator District. They looked at national and local demographics (copies of which are attached). They found a higher than average Hispanic population in Collier County. However, Alligator District has proportionally too few Hispanic and minorities scouts. Mr. Poteet stated that that the purpose of appearing before the HAAB was to discuss the failure to attract more minorities to the Alligator District Boy Scouts program. He mentioned that surveys indicate that there is a problem recruiting minorities. Language seems to be an obstacle and there is need for translators and other efforts. There have been few 4 16J1 suggestions on how to correct the problems. Nothing indicates that discrimination is an obstacle to the recruitment. He emphasized that the scouts want minority recruits. David Correa stated that he thought the reasons for nonparticipation were well analyzed and that the key was to address those problems. Mr. Poteet stated that he was looking for suggestions to form a plan of action. Frank Loney recounted a negative experience with a Russian family where the children were essentially being forced to join the Scouts. He said that type of situation is not positive. Liaison Ramiro Manalich suggested that the Scouts contact Mr. Valdes, Frank Rodriguez and others in the Hispanic community. Frank Loney suggested church contacts. Mr. Poteet emphasized that scouting should always be voluntary and fun. Robert Pina wondered whether the cost to join the Scouts could be an obstacle. Kelly Daley, District Chair for the Boy Scouts, addressed the HAAB. She said that coerced scouting would be a basis for revoking the charter of that Scout Troop. She said that scouts build leaders and they need more minorities that can grow to be leaders. She thought that they needed the HAAB or someone at the HAAB knows to introduce the scouting concept to the minority community. She said that there were scholarships available. She mentioned that the schools are one access point to the scouts. The scouts also have bilingual publications. David Correa suggested introducing the scouting program to the charter school in Immokalee. Frank Loney thought that there would be a need for more translators. Kelly Daley mentioned that they had gone to nearly every elementary school. Janet Whidden mentioned that she represents the Boy Scouts and works in Immokalee. She said that the biggest problem is language and that she brings along translators. She described the numbers of Hispanics and some of the scouting packs. She said that they need Hispanics and Black adults to act as leaders. She mentioned that the Girl Scouts were also in Immokalee and that Fred Thomas has assisted them in the Immokalee area. She thought that the biggest challenge throughout the county in reaching minorities was language and educating adults about scouting. Kelly Daley inquired whether an HAAB member or designee would be interested in joining the scouts as well as asking for any other contact information regarding the Hispanic community. She passed out contact cards to HAAB members. David Correa recommended Pete Cade as the contact from the HAAB. Frank Loney stated that he would speak with St. Peters Church regarding the East Naples minority adult community that might be able to serve as leaders for scouting. MR. NOGANHARVEST FOR HUMANITY Dick Nogaj, President of Harvest for Humanity, addressed the HAAB. He mentioned that Harvest for Humanity is a not - for - profit organization. He thanked the Board members for the opportunity to appear before the HAAB. He described his background as being a registered professional engineer from Illinois and Florida. He said that he created a large engineering firm and sold the company to its employees. He set up a foundation in Immokalee. He said that he found the conditions in Immokalee to be comparable to the Dominican Republic. He said that it was possible to build farms, as well as homes, for farm workers. He said that he had started the Harvest for Humanity farm on 26 acres in Immokalee. The first commercial harvest is expected in 2002. The 16J1 farm in Immokalee involves full year around work and living wages with year around diversified crops. There are also affordable housing and development initiatives. He said that visitors are invited and to merely call 657 -4588. He explained that after the farm workers go through training for three or four years they are given stock options to buy the farm. Blueberries are the cash crop. They sell very quickly. He said that they wanted other growers to endorse the concept of living wages. They are in the process of setting up groups to promote tax credits to support the living wage campaign. He distributed an article from the Naples Daily News (attached) which explains the tax credits /living wage program. He said that there is a need to look at fanning as a stable, year around living wage occupation. He thought that tremendous economic development could occur in Immokalee with this concept. He said the key is for legislation for tax credits for growers that pay living wages. Mr. Nogaj stated that Congress (he has conferred with Senator Graham) needs to amend existing tax credit law to include living wage growers and that labels be authorized to be put on crops in stores displaying the living wage label. These products can be safely grown in the United States and help eliminate poverty. Mr. Nogaj mentioned that, in his opinion, the alternative legislation being proposed for "Guest- Workers" would be the equivalent of involuntary servitude and result in money leaving the Immokalee area to support farm workers in other nations. By contrast, the living wage concept will help growers with their economic problems and their products will be another type of crop to choose from for the public. He emphasized that the key for accomplishing the living wage /tax credit program was for the growers to have economic incentives and that he was asking the HAAB and others to support this concept. Robert Pina asked why some growers' crops get subsidized? Mr. Nogaj responded that it was principally due to lobbies and political connections. He promised that Senator Graham's office would listen to any comments on this topic. He clarified that his living wage concept is not a subsidy. He said that the program provides a guarantee of a living wage to workers by certifying same on the products. He thinks that it is necessary to have the agricultural market treat their workers like other employers. He stated that he has also spoken about this topic with Senator Nelson. Mr. Nogaj mentioned that a La Raza article which has an update on the guest worker alternative program. Carlos Aviles said that he thought that this living wage concept was a good idea. He thought that the Coalition of Immokalee Faun Workers' approach was being resisted by the growers. The living wage concept should not be resisted by growers because they will also benefit from it. Mr. Nogaj stated that the key is the payment of decent wages to farm workers. The growers cannot exist without the farm workers. He said that the farm workers are skilled and help with selective picking. He said that once the wages that are paid become high enough, other problems would also be positively affected. David Correa asked if Mr. Nogaj had conferred with the Immokalee Farm Worker Coalition. Mr. Nogaj said that he had, but they still had different approaches. Mr. Nogaj said that he was interested in contacting the HAAB, County Commission and elected representatives to support his concept. He thought that there should be legislation proposed to support living wages as opposed to the guest worker concept. David Correa 0 16J1 mentioned that he would consider the submittal of an agenda item to the County Commission in February on the living wage concept. Mr. Pina.mentioned that perhaps the Board would be interested in meeting in Immokalee and touring the facilities. Mr. Nogaj stated that they could also tour the "Jubilation" Farm Worker Village. The meeting of the HAAB adjourned at approximately 9:01p.m. Prepared by: Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant County Attorney and HAAB Staff Liaison Approved by the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board on this day of p oZ 2001. 0 David Correa, Chairman Ramiro/HAAB/Minutes 11 -29 -01 7 REcety16JI MEMORANDUM '" '2r2002 Board of County Camfiissioners TO: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners FROM: Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant County Att 5 �•. / DATE: February 25, 2002 RE: Approved Minutes of the November 29, 2001 Meeting of the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board Please find attached the approved minutes of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board meeting of November 29, 2001 (without attachments). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. RM/mw cc: David C. Weigel, County Attorney ,QLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE 1+i` `' "� NDAY DECEMBER 17 2001 MO , :, ,,*DEN GATE ESTATES BRANCH LIBRARY Charles ( "Skip ") VanGelder Matthew Hudson Stephen Greenberg Karen Acquard Joy Dawson Chief Kovarik Toni Mott Linda Sujevich - Chairman - Vice - Chairman (absent) - Member - Member - Member I� S� APPROVED 16J?. -Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control & Rescue District - Supervisor, Real Property Management Department - Secretary, Real Property Management Department DISTRIBUTION: Schedule of Revenue and Expenditure for FY 00 /01 as of September 30, 2001 Schedule of Revenue and Expenditure for FY 00 /01 as of October 31, 2001 Schedule of Revenue and Expenditure for FY 01/02 as of November 30, 2001 Funding Request from Chief Kovarik dated December 6, 2001 Land Inventory Report Updated Land Valuation Report L CALL TO ORDER Skip VanGelder, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES- OCTOBER 22, 2001. Karen noted a change to be made to the minutes as Stephen Greenberg was absent for the October 22nd meeting. Correction was noted. Karen made a motion the minutes be accepted as amended. Steve seconded the motion. All in fa or. IIL APPROVAL OF TREASURER'S REPORT Toni reported an Ending Cash Balance of $691,623.42 and Available Cash Balance of $579,316.42. Karen made a motion to accept the treasurer's report. Steve seconded the motion. All in favor. IV. GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT — Maximum Expenditure of $12,500 (C.E.R.T. Equip.) Toni stated the expenditures are complete and the Agreement has expired. Toni informed the members that the District didn't utilize the entire approved funding. Karen aslFedcv tf_was left and Toni said approximately $1,000. ", I Lo.S 1 16J1 V. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION — Maximum Expenditure of $50,000 (Fitness Equip.) Toni stated the expenditures are complete and the Agreement has expired. Toni informed the members there was a remaining balance of approximately $40.00. Karen stated that Marla Ramsey, Parks & Recreation Director may come back before the Committee to request additional funding as they were unable to purchase all the equipment they needed as a result of budget cuts. VL GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT — Maximum Expenditure $110,000 (Water Tanker) Skip asked about the water tanker. Toni reported the station received the tanker and it is in good working order. Toni has received the invoice and will process for payment. The district agreement expires July 31, 2002. VII. ELECTION OF OFFICIERS Karen reminded Toni that it was time to elect new officers. There was only one nomination for Chairman, Charles `Skip' VanGelder. Steve nominated Skip and Karen seconded the nomination. Charles `Skip' VanGelder accepted. All in favor Two nominations for Vice- Chairman were Karen Acquard and Stephen Greenberg. Stephen received the majority vote and Stephen accepted. All in favor. Results of Election: Charles `Skip' VanGelder: Chairman Stephen Greenberg: Vice - Chairman The positions will expire in one year, December 2002. VIII. BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE - Request to utilize truck trade -in Chief Kovarik was present. The committee inquired as to the cost of the new truck. Chief Kovarik stated the cost is $192,294, for a full size pumper truck purchased from Sutphen Corporation (proposal attached). Karen asked if the District was requesting funding to assist with the purchase of this truck and Chief Kovarik said no, however they would like to utilize the value of the existing truck ($40,500) as a trade -in towards the purchase of this new truck. Chief Kovarik stated that GAC funding had assisted with the purchase of the existing truck. Toni advised the members that the County Attorney's Office had rendered the opinion that the trade -in value could be utilized toward the purchase of a new truck as long as certain criteria was met (i.e. committee approval, new agreement, letter of no objection from Avatar and BCC approval). Steve made a motion to authorize Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control & Rescue District to utilize the trade -in value of $40,500 towards the purchase of the new pumper. Karen seconded the motion. Toni was directed to prepare a new Agreement, obtain a letter of no objection from Avatar and present the item to the BCC for approval. All in avor 16J? DC LAND INVENTORY AND UPDATED LAND VALUATION REPORTS Toni distributed and explained the reports to the members as to what has been sold to date, the updated values for remaining properties, reserved list properties and what entity will be utilizing the reserved land. Joy asked if the parcels were taxable and Skip explained that County -owned property is tax exempt. Joy asked why there are no lands reserved for the Sheriff's Department. Skip and Steve explained that the Sheriff's Department can't own property and in some instances they share space with an EMS site or a fire station. It was discussed that the committee had previously approved the use of land and funding to the Sheriffs Department for a training facility (gun range) with the understanding that the facility would be available for use by the public, as governed by the 1983 Agreement. However, the availability of the range for public use was severely limited and required signing up for their classes. It hasn't turned out as planned. X. PUBLIC COMMENT /OTHER DISCUSSION A. Funding request from Chief Kovarik dated December 6, 2001 Chief Frank Kovarik, Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control & Rescue District, requested the Committee to assist with the purchase of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The new PPE would bring all personnel into compliance with the newest standards for personal protection, as defined by the National Fire Protection Association. The request is a full set of PPE (bunker coat, bucker pants with suspenders, gloves, boots protective hoods and helmets) for 30 personnel (10 staff and 20 volunteers) with a quote of $35,850. Karen stressed how important it is for the fire fighters to have the appropriate equipment as she has seen some return from a fire with large blisters, etc. Karen made a motion to approve the funding request in the amount of $35,850 for the purchase of the protective gear. Joy seconded the motion. All in favor. XI. NEXT PROPOSED MEETING DATE - Monday, February 25, 2002 (7:00 p.m.) at Max Hasse Community Park. Steve said he would be unable to attend this meeting. The committee agreed to continue to meet at the Max Hasse Community Park. All in favor. X M ADJOURNMENT Skip asked Toni about the majority /minority report regarding the GAC Land Trust Committee. Toni said the form was completed and forwarded. No other discussion. Skip requested a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Karen made the motion to adjourn the meeting and Steve seconded the motion. All in Favor. Fiala Carter Hftnnin- i _... _.. le Col 16J1 , COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Board of county Commiss'"erS PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 (941) 597 -1749 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FAX: (941) 597 -4502 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THE FOUNDATION CENTER, 8962 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ON MARCH 6, 2002 at 3:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2002 Regular Meeting 3. Security Update — Sheriff's Department 4. Sub- committee Reports - Organization Structure Review Sub - committee - PBSD Revised Ordinance Enactment - Clam Bay Sub - Committee - Clam Bay Annual Monitoring & Improvement Schedule - Cattail Removal - Clam Pass Dredging - Dune Restoration - Seagate Culverts Valves 5. Administrator's Report - Community Issues - U.S. 41 Median Landscaping - Sidewalk Overlays and Repairs - Oakmont Lake Walkway Signage - North Pelican Bay Boulevard Traffic Signal - U.S. 41 Berm Landscaping 8. Financial Statement Review 9. Audience Participation 10. Committee Requests 11. Adjourn ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE 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. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT (941) 597 -1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. Misc. Corres: Date: LL b162— Item# I OJ I Copies To: 16J1 MINUTES OF THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Naples, Florida LET IT BE KNOWN, that the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee met in Regular Session on this date, February 6, 2002 at 3:00 P.M. at the Foundation Center, 8269 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108 with the following members present: Mr. Lou Vlasho Mr. Joseph Bawduniak Mr. Thomas Brown Mr. James Burke Mr. James Carroll Mr. John Domenie Mr. Glen Harrell (Absent) Mrs. Cornelia Kriegh Mr. David Roellig Mr. Christopher Sutphin Mr. George Werner ALSO PRESENT: Approximately twenty -two (22) Pelican Bay residents; Collier County Commissioner James D. Carter, Ph.D.; Mr. Todd Turrell, Turrell & Associates; Mr. James P. Ward, Department Director, Pelican Bay Services Division; Mr. Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division and Mrs. Barbara Smith, Recording Secretary. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes of the January 2, 2002 Regular Meeting 3. Acceptance of Grant from WCI for U.S. 41 Median Landscaping — Mr. Dwight Thomas 4. Sub - committee Reports - Organization Structure Review Sub - committee - PBSD Revised Ordinance Enactment - Clam Bay Sub - Committee - Clam Bay Annual Monitoring & Improvement Schedule - Cattail Removal - Clam Pass Dredging 5. Administrator's Report - Community Issues - U.S. 41 Median Landscaping - Sidewalk Overlays and Repairs - North Pelican Bay Boulevard Traffic Signal - U.S. 41 Street Lighting (Gulf Park Drive to Seagate Drive) - U.S. 41 Berm Landscaping 6. Consideration of Request by the Pelican Bay Property Owners for a Moratorium on Construction of Irrigation and Landscaping to the U.S. 41 berm 7. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman 8. Financial Statement Review 9. Audience Participation 10. Adjourn ROLL CALL Mr. Vlasho called the meeting to order and asked that the record show Mr. Harrell with an excused absence. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 2 2002 REGULAR MEETING Page 4711, Third Paragraph, line 11, "bare" should be changed to "bear'. 4732 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 7approved er moved, seconded by Mr. Bawdunlak and unanimously the M inutes of the January 2, 2002 ub'ect to the above change. ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FROM WCI FOR U.S. 41 MEDIAN LANDSCAPING — MR. DWIGHT THOMAS Mr. Ward explained that the Pelican Bay Property Owners was instrumental a number of years ago in working with the developer to obtain additional funding for what at that time was Phase I of the U.S. 41 median landscaping. WCI has been able to come to the plate and fund their commitment under that Phase I landscaping operation. We thought it might be appropriate for you to accept that donation from the Property Owner's Association on behalf of WCI Communities. Mr. Raymond O'Connor of the Pelican Bay Property Owners provided a brief history of the process of securing the funding for the Phase I beautification of the U.S. 41 medians. Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bill Turner of the Pelican Bay Property Owners presented a check in the amount of $63,750 to Mr. Lou Vlasho, Chairman of the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee, which represented the balance of the funding commitment from WCI Communities. Mr. Dwight Thomas of WCI Communities expressed his thanks for the example of how a private and public entity can work together in a partnership to make something happen. We look forward to contributing and being in partnership on the north half of the project for U.S. 41 median landscaping. Mr. Lou Vlasho, Chairman of the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee accepted the check on behalf of the Pelican Bay Services Division. Mr. Vlasho also presented Mr. Dwight Thomas with a plaque as a token of appreciation for the partnership that WCI has had in their commitment to the Clam Bay Restoration Project and the U.S. 41 Median Landscaping Project. Mr. Vlasho stated that we all have our own recollection of history, but you might note that the President's Council was involved in the very beginning when this all began to take place. There have been a number of people that have been involved with the U.S. 41 landscaping project. 4733 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 SUB - COMMITTEE REPORTS ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE PBSD REVISED ORDINANCE ENACTMENT Mr. Carroll reported that the Sub - committee has been reviewing the Ordinance for the past six months and trying as hard as we could to get people to look at it and read it. In that effort we scheduled three public meetings during January, which were attended by Mr. Brock and Mr. Cross. Those meetings produced a total of thirteen (13) people in attendance for the three meetings. It certainly did not show a great deal of interest and I would say that we have completed our effort. Commissioner Carter did send me a note stating that he had sent this on to the Board of County Commissioners, the County Manager and the County Attorney to familiarize them with the work that we were doing. All that remains to be done is the "straw vote" which is being conducted by Mr. Brock. Talking with him earlier in the day, he indicated that the "straw vote" will go out early next week and will provide thirty (30) days for the people to respond. That provides ample time for the ballots to go to northern addresses for those that are not here. When the "straw vote" is complete, I am going to schedule another Sub - committee meeting before the April MSTBU Meeting, at which time we will be able to see the results of the vote and decide how we should present this to the full Committee. The MSTBU Meeting in early April will be for the purpose of discussing the results of the "straw ballot' and deciding what action to take, which will depend upon the results of the votes that are received. CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE CLAM BAY ANNUAL MONITORING & IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE DUNE RESTORATION Mr. Roellig reported that the Clam Bay Sub - committee met on Monday, February 4, 2002 and one of the topics was Dune Restoration as part of the Clam Bay Restoration. What we learned from the storms this past season was that we are somewhat exposed here in Pelican Bay. After Tropical Storm Gabrielle came through, there was a Presidential Declaration of Disaster that provided for replenishment of beaches and shore facilities, which were damaged during this storm. We found that many areas of Collier County were eligible, based on the fact that they had already had a shore protection permit in place and that they have done some beach renourishment in the past. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) came out several months ago and determined that the beaches had been damaged during the storm. The Federal Government will reimburse up to 75% of the replacement costs to restore the beaches. In addition, the State of Florida has a program where they can reimburse up to an additional 12.5 %. Mr. Roellig continued that we have talked about dune restoration or beach renourishment in Pelican Bay in the past. Our experience with this Disaster Declaration illustrates the point that since our shoreline is not under a restoration permit and has never had any renourishment, we are quite vulnerable in case of a major storm. In this location we should be mindful that this could 4734 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 happen at any time. Tropical Storm Gabrielle did considerable damage to the Pelican Bay shoreline and it is not necessarily immediately obvious because we have a fairly natural shoreline, but there was a lot of sand washed out from under the restaurant facilities and across the berm into the back of the mangroves. Quite a bit of the existing dune was damaged during this storm. Some time ago we talked to Turrell & Associates about coming up with a plan for looking at the possibility of securing a permit for this purpose. This was discussed at our Sub- committee meeting and we have received a proposal from Turrell & Associates. Mr. Turrell presented pictures showing the northern regions of the beach. For those of you who go to the beach there was an escarpment formed after Tropical Storm Gabrielle, which killed some vegetation and made the dune area look kind of scrubby, which is not unnatural, but it also removed some sand. The plan would be to do a restoration of the dune by bringing some sand in from one of the approved sources that the County has already been using that has clean sand with no rocks. The sand would be placed over the existing bluff and then spread for approximately twenty -five feet seaward of the escarpment. We would plant Sea Oats and other vegetation on the landward side of the escarpment and also provide irrigation well landward to irrigate the Sea Oats to get them growing. The irrigation would be placed in the least vulnerable spot on the landward side, in anticipation of future storms affecting the near shore area. Mr. Roellig explained that we are looking at a relatively simplified permit process because we are not looking to put sand in the water. We are not going to look at a major beach reconstruction and for that reason Turrell & Associates has put together a proposal to prepare a permit application, do the necessary coordination and to do the design work. The basic cost for that work is approximately $20,000. In addition, if we decide to move forward, for an additional $22,500 Turrell will provide Construction Design and Cost Estimates, which we will need for budgeting purposes. This will buy us a permit, which will allow us to do some sand placement as dune restoration as part of the Clam Bay Restoration Project, because this erosion will ultimately erode back into the mangroves. We are looking at getting a permit, plus the plans and specifications and ultimately a document ready to go for a total of $42,500. This was discussed at the Sub - committee meeting and it is my view that this would be a very prudent thing to move forward with, to give us a permit in case we have a significant storm that does damage, so that we can get some of the reimbursement from FEMA and possibly from the State. Mr. Roellig explained that soon after Tropical Storm Gabrielle the County estimated that it would cost approximately $8,500,000 to refurbish the beach. FEMA and the State have come out and looked it over and have agreed to some significant contribution, but it hasn't been decided exactly how much. The County has to go out and do the work and then FEMA reimburses the local government. So far, the County has placed about 10,000 cu yd of sand on the Gulfshore Beach at Horizon Way. It appears our long -term erosion is very small compared to most areas. Most reports indicate an erosion of approximately six inches a year and unfortunately after ten, 4735 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 6, 2002 16J1 '. twenty or fifty years this gets to be pretty significant. This would be a good plan to pursue and would also get us in line for disaster relief if something like that should happen. Mr. Sutphin stated that it was his understanding the last time this general subject was discussed that we would not be eligible for third party funding, whether it was State or Federal, because of the lack of public access. Has that changed? Mr. Roellig replied, "No, not to my knowledge ". Mr. Sutphin stated that we are talking no Federal or State aid and 100% District dollars for whatever we do. Mr. Roellig replied, "The way I would look at this, and probably how the Board looks at it, is to get the ball rolling we should obtain a permit and then look for other sources in the County'. This is a Natural Resource Area and is part of the Clam Bay Restoration Project. As far as construction goals, that funding has not yet been decided. Mr. Sutphin stated that I don't disagree with the intent, I wanted to clarify if we are talking about the Federal Government paying 75% and the State paying 12.5% or are we talking about spending 100 cents on the dollar for whatever we do? There is a big difference. Mr. Roellig replied, "Right now we would be spending 100 cents on the dollar". The only way you get the 75% or 12.5% funding is after a Presidential Declaration. Mr. Sutphin asked if the lack of public access would still preclude us from tapping into that funding potential? Mr. Roellig replied, "My understanding is apparently not ". Mr. Werner stated that there also might be a distinct difference between a dune restoration to protect the Clam Bay system and beach renourishment. I don't think we would be eligible for beach renourishment. Mr. Sutphin stated that for clarification purposes, I am not against restoring the dunes; I just want to make sure we understand what we are talking about. Mr. Werner asked if we receive the permit, how long is it good for? Mr. Turrell replied, "It should be good for one year". Mr. Werner asked what do we do if we don't have a disaster in one year? Mr. Turrell replied, "I don't know". If you do some of the restoration work then that kind of sets you up for the program that Mr. Roellig is talking about. Mr. Werner asked if it is hard to renew the permit if you have it in place? Mr. Turrell replied, "No, I think once you get it in place it becomes easier to renew and we may also be able to extend it for two or three years ". Mr. Bawduniak stated that the proposal does not specify linear feet. How many linear feet are you talking about for restoration? 4736 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 6, 2002 16J1 Mr. Turrell replied, 'We would have the permit include everything from Vanderbilt Beach Road, south to the north end of Naples Cay. You could then pick hotspots and would not have to restore the entire area. Mr. Bawduniak asked how many linear feet are in the $22,000? Mr. Turrell replied, "That includes everything ". That is the permit to do everything. We came up with a number of roughly $40,000 per linear foot to physically do the work. You could choose how much you want to do, based on your budget or what looks bad. Mr. Werner stated that there was no renourishment in that $22,000 figure. Mr. Turrell stated that you would have permission to do it everywhere, but we would make a recommendation to you, in conjunction with your staff, as to where we think the restoration should be done. Mr. Vlasho asked if it was $20,000 for fees and $22,000 to get the work done? Mr. Turrell replied, "It is $20,000 for fees and then when we go to the construction phase, I have $22,000 for design and bidding documents. Mr. Vlasho asked where the $42,500 would come from? Mr. Ward replied, "It is coming from your Capital Project Fund for the Clam Bay Restoration Project ". We budgeted approximately $101,000 for this work, this year. Mrs. Kriegh asked if we are paying $40,000 plus to get this permit, just in case a storm comes or just to become eligible for funding? Mr. Roellig replied, "It is not just to become eligible ". I think we recognize that there are locations that need some renourishment at the present time. We will be looking at doing at least some limited areas within the next year. Mr. Roellig moved, seconded by Mr. Sutphin and unanimously approved to accept the Proposal from Turrell & Associates for Dune Restoration permitting and construction. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENT DIVERSION OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM IV Mr. Roellig stated that there would be another Clam Bay Sub - committee Meeting scheduled for February 15 to discuss a proposal for our Stormwater Management Enhancement, which is the diversion of storm water from System IV to System Ill. SEAGATE FLAPGATES Mr. Roellig explained that the Seagate flap gates were discussed in detail at the Sub- committee meeting. We are looking at having an analysis made of the flows, with and without the gates, to determine the actual flow. Several people feel that there has been very little flow 4737 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 6, 2002 16J1 through those culverts. I have been out there on a couple of occasions and it has been my experience that forty -five minutes before a high tide there is significant flow, but the duration of that flow is the question. We want to find out how well these gates are working and whether or not we would be better off with them on or off. The plan is to collect data with the gates on and also with the gates off, to see exactly how much benefit we are receiving and whether these flap gates are of the correct design. There has been some concern with the sea grasses in that area and Turrell & Associates have indicated that the grasses have not responded quite the way we thought they would. We want to ensure that the flap gates are doing the job we intended for them to do. CATTAIL REMOVAL Mr. Ward reported that the cattails were removed and the area is actually draining very well at this time. The next step was to come up with a planting program for that area and a time schedule for the replanting, which was also reviewed by the Sub - committee at it's meeting. A copy of the proposed plan of restoration for that area was included in your Agenda Package. This plan has been presented to the Sub - committee for review and approval. Mr. Turrell explained that after years of planning and removing the cattails that the State has wanted out of there, we are trying to get through a period to ensure that there is no re- growth. In March or April there will be a re- treatment and then at that point the plan is to replant with native vegetation, including mangroves and re- vegetate that area with more biologically productive species. The decision, which will have to be made, is how much you want to spend doing it? If you spend a little money, it will take longer to get green and pretty looking. If you want it green and pretty looking fast, you will have to spend more money. You would basically purchase larger plants and plant them closer together. That is a decision that has not been made. Mr. Ward stated that decision would come. We are in the process of doing cost estimates for the Sub - committee and the full Committee and that decision will come about once those estimates are complete. We have some time to deal with that issue. The desire was to get 4738 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 a planting program and plan completed and ready to go, such that by the time we finish the removal we will be in a position to go in and do that planting. Mr. Vlasho asked what are you asking the Committee to do at this time? Mr. Ward replied, "The planting program at the Sub - committee level was approved ". You don't actually have to do that if anyone has a problem with it because it has become such a focal issue for the community. We have had a number of complaints, specifically from St. Laurant. I wanted to present this to see if you had anything that you wanted to add. It is just some additional eyes on the sheet of paper. Mr. Vlasho asked how could we approve it if we have no idea what it is going to cost? Mr. Ward replied, "I don't think you need to at this point'. Mr. Vlasho asked what is happening with St. Laurant and where do we stand with that whole issue? Mr. Carroll stated that you say in your notes that re- growth is under control and planting will begin in April or May, is that correct? That is only a couple of months off. As I heard you talking, you are going to have to come back to us with some estimates and answer Mr. Turrell's question about plant size. Are you going to provide us some alternatives? Mr. Ward replied, "At your next meeting we will have that finished for you ". The plan just recently came out and as soon as we finish costing it out we will bring it back before you. Mr. Carroll asked if April was reasonable for starting planting? Mr. Ward replied, "More May than April, but yes ". Mr. Carroll stated that is important because we are being asked this question all the time. I have had the feeling that it was a year away and I feel a lot better knowing we are going to be doing something in May. Mr. Ward stated that Mr. Turrell has assured us that with the elevations we are actually able to do something out there. I thought it was going to take a little longer, but he came to the plate with a really good plan and a planting plan that is consistent with what elevations will be out there, even after a rainy season. I think we can move forward at this point. Mr. Carroll stated that I have no idea what some of these plants look like. 4739 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 6, 2002 16J1 Mr. Turrell stated that we tried to pick plants, some of which are flowering, that will look nice. Others will look like grass and are native grasses that are more biologically productive than cattails. We are basically putting some of the plants in there that the Water Management District is trying to get established in the Everglades in place of cattails. We do have experience with a good number of those species. Mr. Carroll asked if after these grow this will become a green area? Mr. Turrell replied, "It will be green and we are even specifying some mangroves in the higher elevations ". There are Wax Myrtle and Leather Ferns, which you already see growing in the mangroves. It is a lot of the materials that are already growing here. If the mangroves like it out there, these areas could be taken over by mangroves some day. If mangroves like it, they will out compete these grasses over time. There will be a green grass look and if the mangroves decide they like that habitat they will eventually start growing above the grasses and ten years from now it will be all mangroves in some areas. Mr. Carroll asked if the channels would remain? Mr. Turrell replied, "The channels are typically too deep for mangrove growth ". The channels that were just completed were dug for the purpose of getting the fresh water out of that area and to possibly introduce some salt water and we are prepared to go out and see if that is happening. If we do get saltwater into that area, the saltwater will suppress any further cattail growth, which is a good thing. Mr. Carroll asked if the channels will remain and we will be able to see them? Mr. Turrell replied, "They will ". Mr. Ward explained that as an adjunct to that issue and as I had indicated in the Staff Report, a number of residents have contacted the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and at least one or two have contacted the Governor's Office, specifically requesting each of these offices to intervene in this matter to stop any additional work and I assume to allow the cattail re- growth. The Governor's Office forwarded the request to the FDEP, who in turn contacted our office and St. Laurant. We have been meeting with FDEP and the residents of St. Laurant to try to alleviate their concerns. At the end of the day the issue is really 4740 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 5' February 6, 2002 simple, "it is brown, it needs to be green, make it go away". The planting plan that Mr. Turrell will be submitting to FDEP will go through their normal routing. When we began removing the cattails FDEP indicated that was not a problem because they were considered a nuisance material and needed to come out. They are backtracking on that position a little, so we are taking an active step to try to get them to take a look at the planting program and opine that the program for that area will be satisfactory to meet any issues they might have thought should have existed as a result of our removing the cattails. That is an ongoing discussion that we are having with FDEP. Hopefully that will be resolved, but as Mr. Turrell indicated to you FDEP, along with South Florida Water Management District, has indicated as part of the Everglades Restoration Act that the removal of these kinds of plants is a good thing for nature, including this location. St. Laurant understands where we are going, but I am not so sure they are sympathetic to it. As a part of this process I don't know of any other way to handle it at this point, other than to just continue to move through the process. Mr. Vlasho asked if the Clam Bay Sub - committee has been involved in this issue? Mr. Ward replied, "Not so much in the FDEP meetings, but we have certainly kept them up -to -speed with respect to those issues. CLAM PASS DREDGING Mr. Roellig reported that the Clam Pass dredging is complete and the final grades are being done today. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY ISSUES U.S. 41 MEDIAN LANDSCAPING Mr. Ward reported that Phase I is essentially complete at this point in time and has been funded. I provided to you the analysis of where we are with respect to the funding of both phases and what the open item is for Phase II. Mr. Ward continued that the County authorized McGee and Associates to design Phase II. That design work was consistent with the project that has been completed on Phase I. The County funded that design work just as they did the design work and construction services for the Phase I portion of the project itself. We have estimates in a very preliminary format that the cost 4741 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16 J 1 February 6, 2002 of Phase II will be approximately $200,000 versus what Phase I cost at approximately $500,000. Primarily the decrease of the cost is two -fold. The area is much smaller than Phase I and also we do not have a lot of additional curbing in Phase II. The decision you have to make is simply whether or not you want to proceed with Phase II. We actually budgeted $250,000 in our current fiscal year's budget as our contribution, contemplating a $500,000 project for Phase ll. Assuming the $200,000 is a good number, we will have sufficient funds in order to complete Phase II. As you know, the County Commission has indicated that there isn't funding available to meet the commitment that they had made to us a couple of years ago. If you want to move forward with Phase II you will certainly have sufficient funds, along with Mr. O'Connor's commitment to try to secure some additional funding from WCI for the Phase II work. I will also tell you that the contribution, which was just made to you, is not included in our current budget. We did not anticipate receiving those funds, so there are some additional funds that we have available to either do that or some additional work as time moves forward. Mr. Ward continued that the other issue is will there ever be an opportunity to get our half of the $200,000 back from the County? I would say that the answer to that is "slim to none ". The other question is whether or not the County will fund the operations and maintenance ongoing from the date that we finish construction? Currently in Collier County and all of the deals that I have seen, is that once a developer or community comes in and does this work, there is a commitment by the community to maintain that area for five years and then it will be taken over by the County Commission. I certainly would like to try to ask the County Commission that if we do move forward with this, that from the date we finish they take over the maintenance of both Phase I and Phase II. We estimate that to be approximately $20,000 for Phase II as a yearly maintenance obligation for that portion of the project. With that, the design plans are included in your Agenda Package. The plans are consistent with what you see in Phase I. We have had comments from residents that we wanted more, there should have been berming. The project was designed within a financial constraint of $500,000 and berming and other things were not in the cards for budgeting purposes. Given some time it will grow and look really good once it gets 4742 PELICAN BAY ADVISC)RY [:[')MMITTEE i 6J1 :N February 6, 2002 a year under it's belt. If you would like to proceed forward with Phase II, it is consistent with what you currently see in Phase I. Mr. Werner stated that I would certainly not encourage this Committee to move forward with Phase II unless the County is going to assume the maintenance. If we go to them and the Committee agrees, we say we will fund it, contingent upon them maintaining it. They have already agreed to maintain Phase I. 1 distinctly heard Mr. Thomas say that he was looking forward to participating in the financial end of Phase II. If Mr. O'Connor would be good enough to use his influence on Mr. Thomas, that would be wonderful. Mr. Carroll asked if the County has committed to maintaining Phase I from day one? Mr. Ward replied, "Yes ". Mr. Carroll stated that the only issue is maintenance of Phase II. Is it your feeling that it is likely that the County will agree to that? Commissioner Carter replied, "Phase II has already been approached and I have a verbal agreement from Transportation to do that". This is one of those things we don't make any noise about and quietly go about doing what we need to do. This is the type of thing that is off the board as far as the County is concerned. They are not going to be maintaining any future medians. The half penny for roads comes back to visit us about every week and this is just another situation where we don't have the money. I pointed out the logic that if you have all your crews here doing Phase I and we have just a little stretch going north, it ought to be very logical to do Phase H. Everyone in Transportation sees the logic of my discussion, so unless it gets loose and somebody makes a big deal about it, we should have Phase II covered. I would not let that get in the way of your decision. If you do Phase II and they know that the community is paying for it, I have all the arguments in the world to say the least you can do when you have the trucks there is to go up and take care of Phase II. Mr. Werner stated it is not only logical, but they committed to that when they committed to the funding, which they are not going to do. Commissioner Carter replied, "A lot of commitments were made by prior Boards that go down the toilet ". I am going to tell you that today the Board is being pressed in a lot of areas and 4743 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 6, 2002 16J1 there are limited funds to do it. I am saying let's get what we can, take it when you can, do it now and don't wait around another year because next year is not going to be any prettier than this year. Tallahassee is having more fun up there than anybody should have in a Legislative Session and we are all going to pay the price for that. Mr. Bawduniak stated that we talked about this many months ago and if my recollection serves me correctly, I would like to summarize and say we either do it or nothing is going to happen for a prolonged indefinite period and what is out there Pelican Bay is going to be looking at. We made the commitment to contribute $250,000 to each section many months ago. A very pleasant surprise is even with the rough estimates that Mr. Ward has come up with of $235,000 for the part of the job we would have to pay for even if we did it on our own, falls within the $250,000 we had generally talked about. At the last meeting we talked about doing it on our own and trying to get the County involved in a handshake to pay it back and I have heard it two or three ways from Sunday that is not going to happen. We are looking at approximately $235,000, which we had already committed to in principle sometime ago. I think we ought to go ahead and do it right now. Mr. Roellig stated that if that is a motion, I would second it. Mr. Bawduniak replied, "This was Mr. Werner's idea and he should have the credit for making the motion and I would second it ". Mr. Werner moved, seconded by Mr. Bawduniak that we fund the Phase II U.S. 41 median landscaping project. Mr. Brown stated that I am going to make a comment and possibly ask Mr. Werner to put a cap on his motion. Mr. Brown stated that in August of last year each of us received the bids from the six bidders on the Phase I project. The bids ranged from a high of $622,000 to a low of $474,000 and the County selected the low bidder. Prior to this coming out, I drove up and down U.S. 41 and said Phase II is not near the land that is in Phase I. Sure enough, Phase I is 3.5 acres and Phase 11 is 1.2 acres. I went back to the bid that we got and I made a rough pass on a take off list for mobilization and maintenance of traffic. The $60,000 figure got to $20,000. 1 talked to Mr. 4744 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 Lukasz and based on past landscape experience, the soil out there right now is probably half concrete chips and beer cans. If you are going to spend good money on plant material then you want to dig that poor soil out and put in a good base for the plant materials. There is a requirement to remove the soil, but we don't have to remove asphalt or curbing and a $35,000 figure went down to about $5,000. The installed site materials were bid at $72,000 for curbs. The curbs and sleeves are in and the $11,000 went to $8,000 and the $20,000 went to $7,000 and this was my estimate. The third part is installed materials and since we don't have to put in curbs or sleeves they dropped from $147,000 to $25,000. One of the things Mr. Botner said right out of the gate when we talked and he did the initial design, was that the median is designed to match the existing plant material on both sides of U.S. 41. There are no Royal Palms in Pine Ridge. There are about three or four Royal Palms at Barnes and Noble and a couple located at the Marketplace. My personal opinion is that I think the Cabbage Palms that went in the south end look every bit as good as the Royal Palms and in fact I prefer them. The Royal Palms are $475.00 and the Cabbage Palms are $145.00, $300.00 a tree difference. I looked at the plant material and I came back estimating six palms and plant material went from $120,000 down $30,000. There is a lot less space there and if we use Cabbage Palms instead of the Royal Palms, there are still broad leaf trees and Cassias that go in. To make a long story short, I went through this entire plan and I came up with an estimate that Phase II could be done for $130,000. If I am off by 11 % -12% it could still be done for $150,000. This comes up at $250,000 because that is our budget and does not mean that we have to spend $250,000. 1 came up with a figure of $130,000 prior to any of this coming up. I would like to suggest that we put a cap on what the people of Pelican Bay would be taxed to pay for U.S. 41, which is not in Pelican Bay. We would enjoy it, but it is not part of Pelican Bay. I would think that the County Commissioners would be very leery of billing the people of Pelican Bay $250,000 for something that is not in Pelican Bay, after all of the monkey shines that have gone on for the last ten years in our County Courthouse. There were impact fees not collected, impact fees that were too low, etc. I would think the County Commission would be extremely careful, like they are walking on eggs, not to put big costs out there. I would like to see us put a cap on what we would spend on Phase II. 4745 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 6. 2002 Mr. Werner asked what Mr. Brown thought would be reasonable? Mr. Brown replied, "$150,000 ". If ten trees were left out and put in three years from now, that would be okay. Mr. Vlasho asked how Mr. Ward would respond to those budget issues? Mr. Ward replied, "I can't tell you whether Mr. Brown or the $200,000 is right". We are at 90% plans, we still have permitting to do; it still requires FDOT permitting to get through this process and it has to be bid and awarded. It is different working in the public sector on a State road than it is working on Pelican Bay Boulevard or Gulf Park Drive. I don't know what the number is going to be and if you want to limit it to $150,000 1 don't have a strong opinion about it, but if we can't get it done, we can't get it done. The Royal Palm issue I have no preconceived notion about. Frankly, Mr. Botner puts a Royal Palm in anything he designs. He did a nice plan and it looks nice out there. The plan that was done by McGee was to try to match consistency in terms of numbers of plants, materials and things of that nature. If it comes in less than $200,000 great, if it comes in more than $200,000 1 am certainly going to tell you that. If you want us to try to match a number, we will go back and revise the plans to match whatever the number is that you want it to match. Mr. Vlasho asked if the County was involved in developing this plan? Mr. Ward replied, "The County actually prepared the plan ". The County staff did it in coordination with McGee. I know the direction was to do the plan being consistent with what was done in Phase I, and he did. Mr. Lukasz and I drove U.S. 41 and marked out where things were going to go and it is very consistent with what you see in Phase I. It is not over or under designed. Mr. Vlasho asked if what we are hearing today is that we have $63,000 check, plus a commitment from WCI that will probably be $75,000, so we will have $138,000? That said we have the $250,000 collected and available. If your number is correct, there would be no additional tax, but you can play that game if you use the funds for something else, but we would not be adding to any tax revenues in the next budget year and the net number on your sheet would come to about $100,000 coming out of that $250,000 that has been put aside. 4746 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16JI, February 6, 2002 mom''' Mr. Ward replied, "Right". Mr. Vlasho stated that before Mr. Brown made his comment I agreed that we should put a cap on it and Commissioner Carter handled the maintenance for us very nicely. I was going to say a commitment not to exceed $250,000, but I think right now it should not exceed $220,000. Mr. Roellig stated that what I would prefer to do is to authorize staff to go out to bid to see where the actual numbers come in. I don't think we have to make a final commitment until we see those numbers. The bid could come in at $1,000,000 and we are not committed to whatever the bids come in. I would be in favor of going out to bid to see what the bids are. Mr. Werner stated that I think the process is that we are in the mind of doing it if the bid prices come in right. I don't have a problem agreeing with Mr. Brown's cap as far as Pelican Bay's expenditure in this. If we apply the $63,000 and the $75,000, then bang on doors across the street that should cover things. I don't have a problem amending my motion to include a cap of $150,000 from MSTBU funds. Mr. Roellig stated that I am reluctant to put a cap on it if we are going to revisit it when the bids come in. Mr. Vlasho stated that the difference between you and Mr. Werner is that Mr. Werner wants to move it more towards a commitment that we are going to do it. Mr. Werner stated that I hope to get it done this summer. The reason it looks so good is that they took the barricades down. Mr. Roellig stated that we have the plans now and if you wait another year it is not going to get any cheaper. Unless the bids come in out of sight I am in favor of seeing what the low bid is and then making the final decision. Mr. Ward suggested that the difference is that they still have to finish the design plans, which I expect the County will meet that commitment. Somebody will need to pick up the cost of construction inspection work on the project and I believe Mr. Lukasz's number of $20,000 is close to right in order to get that done. I don't know if that is included in the motion or on top of the $130,000 that Mr. Brown wants to do, but I think if I had to guess right you are going to have to scale back the project if you go back to $130,000 on construction dollars. 4747 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 Mr. Vlasho stated that if you add the $130,000 and the $138,000 you are still over the $200,000. You are going to have some flexibility and I think it is good that we are not committing our resident's funds. Mr. Carroll stated that I feel the same sense of urgency that most of the rest of us do. I think it is so important to get going. As I go over these timings with Mr. Lukasz, we are at the 90% of plans and say another thirty days to get to 100 %. Then you have to go to FDOT and the last time that was a big problem and we are talking another thirty to sixty days. We then go out for bids, which is another ninety days and then it takes about ninety days to build it. Unless we get going fast that is going to end up in the season. If we get going right now I think that the barriers will come in August, September and October. Mr. Sutphin stated that I was very impressed with the arithmetic you did and it is logical. What in the bidding process prevents Mr. Brown providing those numbers and you put out an RFP saying here is our estimate of what it will cost based on Phase I, tell us why you can't do it for this or less? Mr. Ward replied, "In this business we do it the opposite ". What we do is, based upon current State and County Purchasing Policy, is to come up with detailed cost estimate, which is not different than the way Mr. Brown did it. As a matter of fact we go through that exact same process. We ask the vendors to submit a closed bid of what their bid for that process would be. They know what our estimates are at that point. Mr. Domenie stated that we have budgeted $250,000 and hope to get $125,000 from WCI, which means our out of pockets costs will be $125,000 versus the $250,000. 1 would go along today and say let's put this out, get the bids and if the bids fall within a certain range that we feel is really very high, then perhaps we can remove some trees or make some changes. I think at this point I would be in favor of just going ahead with what we have at the moment. Mr. Brown stated that in the bid process the bidders often know what the total budget is for the project. If we are firm here and we say we don't want the citizens of Pelican Bay to pay even though it is budgeted, we want to watch every dollar, then the people that bid are going to come in with a lower bid than if we say we have $250,000 then the bids are going to be $250,000. 4748 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16 J 1 February 6, 2002 Mr. Ward replied, "I will tell you that doesn't happen in this business ". That just doesn't happen. I have bid billions of dollars worth of projects, but at the end of the day if you design a project and you have a budget of $100,000 and it is really a project that is $200,000 you can be sure they are going to bid $200,000 or they are going to bid something less than that and Change Order you to death during the term of the contract because they found a loophole in the contract. That is what happens in government. Beyond that issue, I think I understand where everybody wants to go. I think we can design it in such a fashion to get you there at the same time. If you want to do it, Mr. Werner's motion is fine with me and we can work on it. I understand exactly where we need to go and I think we can try to accomplish that. Mr. Werner moved, seconded by Mr. Bawduniak and approved unanimously to fund median landscaping for Phase 11 of U.S. 41 up to a cap of $150,000 from MSTBU funds. SIDEWALK OVERLAYS AND REPAIRS Mr. Ward reported that Transportation has completed the bio- barrier installation in Phase I and we are working on the Phase II project now. It has been a difficult project and I want to commend Transportation Services for working with us on this project. It has worked out well, even with Utilities being out there putting in those above ground meters. NORTH PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL Mr. Ward stated that the question at the last meeting was whether or not we could move that electric service and controller or split them apart and the answer came back as no. I wanted to just find out one last time whether or not anybody wanted to spend $2,100 and move both the service and controller? Mr. Brown moved and seconded by Mr. Roellig and unanimously approved the expenditure of $2,100 to cover the cost of moving the traffic signal controller and service box. U.S. 41 STREET LIGHTING (GULF PARK DRIVE TO SEAGATE DRIVE) Mr. Ward reported that I do have a change from what I had previously reported to you. When I submitted the MPO Application to the County Staff, Mr. Kant was okay with it and signed off on it. Mr. Feder and I met earlier this week to go over the MPO Application and he made the 4749 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 6, 2002 following recommendations to us. The MPO Application will actually start in the April -June time frame for the project that we are talking about. The County submits, as a normal course of business, a number of different projects for the MPO Application. Whether this goes by separate Executive Summary to the Board of County Commissioners or as part of a larger Executive Summary it still has to go to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Feder had recommended that we include this project as part of that normal process that the County will go through. It doesn't mean anything more. Everybody just needs to understand it is just going to be part of a larger application project and frankly it has to be ranked right in order to even get past the MPO Application process itself. Mr. Feder did indicate that the funds that the County had actually applied for while this project was under construction, however the funding was under a safety funding program that the FDOT had available was denied by the FDOT because there were no lights installed at the time north of this particular project site. They are willing and will resubmit this project to a funding source which is within the MPO but slightly different. It has a shorter funding window, which means you could do it quicker. It would be resubmitted as part of that safety program and now that we do have lights north and south of this project we might actually meet the criteria for funding this project sooner. Mr. Ward continued that in addition to that, Mr. Feder had indicated that there is a mechanism within the County where County staff, representatives of the County Sheriffs Office, fire and EMS meet in some sort of a formal agency application review process where there are Ice -T Funds, which are State funds which come through the State from the Federal Government and allows some funding for these kinds of projects. Mr. Feder will also submit to that program to see if we might fund it from Ice -T Funds. It is competing for other County projects that are currently available, but the County staff has indicated that they would at least submit it to that agency for the use of the Ice -T Funds that are available. This Executive Summary that I provided will not be going before the Commission on February 261h, but you will see this project as part of an MPO Application that appears on the County Staff Agenda. Mr. Domenie asked if under the MPO we are talking about the year 2006, but under the Ice -T it would be accelerated? 4750 i PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 Mr. Ward replied, "Under this program it is a five year work program, of which you are in the second five year work element, so you could be between year six and ten depending upon funding ". The Ice -T Funds and the funding available for safety is a shorter period, which is probably year four. U.S. 41 BERM LANDSCAPING Mr. Ward explained that this really ties into the Pelican Bay Property Owner's request related to the moratorium that is being requested on the irrigation and landscaping. I thought I would take a moment and go through with you what you had seen a year or so ago with respect to the U.S. 41 berm landscaping. I did include in your Agenda Package, both the plans and specifications for what we are doing on U.S. 41. We took the opportunity since a number of people have asked us what it is going to look like when it is finished and I have told everyone to go look at the Bentwood berm because that is what it is going to look like. We took some pictures of the Bentwood berm and below those are pictures of the current U.S. 41 berm. The planting program that we have for you is identified in essentially five different elements which have been identified as A, B, C, D, and E. We have a Landscape Architect, J. Roland Lieber, who did the landscape architecture for this entire community and the current restoration program, which we are working on. We actually walked U.S. 41 from Pelican Bay Boulevard south through Pelican Bay Boulevard north and designed a program in 100' increments along U.S. 41. That is what you see in those plans. Mr. Ward continued that we have five separate schemes in A, B, C, D, and E that we are looking at installing. On this map we have Pelican Bay Boulevard south all the way up to Pelican Bay Boulevard north. From Pelican Bay Boulevard south to what is Ridgewood Park, the scheme is what we call and "E" Scheme. It is very heavily vegetated in that location with a lot of Brazilian Peppers and exotics, which will be coming out and you will note that the "E" Scheme in that location is very heavy. It starts out in the back with some rather large trees, which we call Cedars. If you look at the Bentwood berm you will see these large green trees, which are now 30' tall and will be the backdrop on that "E" portion of the berm. Then we have a smaller plant in this location called Green Buttonwood, which are also included in the planting program that Mr. 4751 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 WkJ4 Turrell presented to you for the Clam Bay Restoration Project. There are not a lot of Green Buttonwoods that you can see in this plan, but they are plant materials, which will get six to eight feet tall and are generally very thick and very green. In front of that is a smaller plant that we are looking at for that location which is a Leather Fern to give it some mass, but they are very small plants. In front of that area there will be Elaeagnus, which is a water tolerant, fast growing plant that stays green all year long and will get as tall or as short as you want it to be. Mr. Ward continued that moving further north from Unit 4 Addition, the tin roof houses to Gulf Park Drive, you will see different kinds of schemes whether it is A, B, or C. The "A" Scheme is a little narrower where the berm is a little narrower. The plant materials are all relatively consistent with what you saw on the "E" Scheme the difference being the depth of that plant material depending upon the width of the berm. You will go into a "B" Scheme, which is a little thicker and obviously the "C" Scheme, which might be a little thinner. As you move forward past Gulf Park Drive you come to the Laurel Oak and Oakmont area. The U.S. 41 berm pictures are in the Oakmont area and you will see roofs of houses where the berm is very thin in that particular location. The planting scheme that we have is really designed to try to cover these rooftops and get some height, depth and thickness to the planting materials that we have. The project as been on the board in this form for quite a while now. At the end of the day what we are doing is planting from the back of the right -of -way of U.S. 41 to the top of the berm and not going behind the berm and doing any work. We will be doing some clearing work from Pelican Bay Boulevard to the park area because of the thickness of the exotic materials that are in there now and will open it up dramatically. There is no berm in that location. Mr. Ward explained that is the planting plan that has been on the table for some time now and we are in the process of bidding the irrigation system. I had not planned on bidding the irrigation system, but when we went to do the design we realized that the existing water supply out there was not sufficient to handle watering in the event of water restrictions. As I indicated to you many times before, I know statewide we are probably going to see water restrictions in effect on a more permanent basis. Instead of spending this money doing the landscaping, I have asked Mr. Lukasz to go back and redesign the source correctly so that in the event we go under water 4752 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 restrictions we will be able to meet restrictions for the system. It will take us a few more months than what we had originally anticipated, but the design is finished and out to bid right now. Mr. Vlasho asked if you indicated in your report that you estimated $130,000 as a budget for irrigation and a total of $375,000? Mr. Vlasho stated that you have $245,000 budgeted for plantings. Mr. Ward replied, "That is correct". CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY THE PELICAN BAY PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OF IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING TO THE U.S. 41 BERM Mr. Ray O'Connor, President of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. There have been a number of private committees within the community that discuss the problems on the berm as they see it. They feel the berm is not providing them with security and that certain types of plants could possibly abate some of the noise. A new wrinkle is the possibility that some plants could reduce the carbon monoxide that comes in from the traffic on U.S. 41. The Pelican Bay Property Owners had a meeting last fall of all of the homeowners that live along the berm. We sent out ninety -five (95) invitations as we identified every home along the berm and we had approximately 45 -50 people attend. As a result of that I asked the Safety Committee of the Pelican Bay Property Owners to try to get all of the groups together to see what their problems were and what kind of resolution we could bring to you. The Property Owners appropriated up to $5,000 to have a study of the types of plants that might accomplish what we were talking about. I think it was stated that if you had plantings with thorns people were not going to walk through them. Mr. Ward just mentioned very thick plantings, which would go along with that. There have been some antidotal references to people walking through the backyards from U.S. 41 and coming through people's property. There are stories like that along with one or two incidents of robberies out there; somebody reported to us that there were people sleeping on the berm in back of some of the trees. To try to answer some of these questions the Committee decided that we would try to have a study done on particular types of plants that might accomplish some of these things and we would bring that study back to you. In the meantime we would ask if you could possibly slow down the process. Now I hear Mr. Ward say that you have to go out for 4753 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 , irrigation bids before you can do any planting, even though some of the planting contracts have been sent out. I wonder if it would be a big deal to change some of the order around? If there are a few plants that could accomplish the goals, then maybe you could do that. You have the letter that Mr. laizzo sent to you under his and my signature and I will have him answer any particular questions on that. Mr. O'Connor explained that this might very well be my last public appearance before you as President of the Pelican Bay Property Owners. My term is up in March and unless we have some pressing business at the March Meeting I probably will not be here to address you. I would like to thank you. You have always shown a welcome to my remarks. Sometimes we had a few little differences here and there, but that is to be expected. On the whole I think my relationship with you has been a very positive one and I want to thank this Committee and past Committee's for your very gracious treatment of me. Mr. Bawduniak stated that he read the study and one of the things that jumped off of the page was that very thick foliage could knock down approximately 10 decibels for 200 linear feet. I took the charts out and scaled it down and there is nothing close to that on most of the front footage of the berm. If we were to come with the finest selection of plants to absorb noise, the most you could hope for would be a few decibels, which is a fairly small reduction. Ten decibels is 50 %, so not a whole lot is going to happen with foliage. Mr. laizzo asked if when the request for bid went out, did they go out and determine that we needed vegetation high enough or dense enough to not see over it or through it? Mr. Ward replied, "Yes ". Frankly, since the Bentwood berm had been done for a number of years and we had a lot of good comments on that project, the plan was to make it look like the Bentwood berm, which has the thickness that I thought you are looking for. I specifically asked the question of our Landscape Architect because I think the debate had come up a number of years ago and that was whether or not we could do anything with landscaping with respect to alleviating the noise issues. The answer came back that we could make it thick, but I certainly would not make the promise to you that it is going to help your noise issue. We tried to make it 4754 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 4 February 6, 2002 as thick as we possibly could in those locations, with the kinds of materials that were consistent in Pelican Bay. Mr. laizzo asked if it was vegetation with thorns on it so people could not come across? Mr. Ward stated that there is only one material that is thorny and that is Bougainvillea and that is not going to flower out there. It is just going to be a thorny thing and they are not green when they are not flowering. We did not use Bougainvillea in the plan, but we used thickness. Mr. laizzo introduced Mr. Jerry Stropes, a Landscape Architect in Naples. Basically everything you have been saying about noise abatement is true. The only thing that really absorbs sound is the earth and possibly a concrete, masonry type of wall. Plants with thorns could help deter people trying to get through, but Bougainvillea is a questionable plant. Silverthorne Elaeagnus may have some thorns on it, which might be a deterrent. Mr. laizzo stated that I thought Bougainvillea had flowers on it? Mr. Stropes replied it does, but it will increase your maintenance costs. During certain times of the year there is no foliage on it at all and it would not be attractive. Maybe some combinations of it could be used, which you probably do not want a great deal of in a long distance. Mr. Roellig stated that you mentioned you are going to spend $5,000 to look at this. Mr. laizzo stated that we would spend up to $5,000 to come back with the kinds of vegetation that would give us the protection from carbon monoxide, noise and security. Mr. Roellig stated that I don't think we would have a problem if you came back with a suggestion in a relatively short period of time. Mr. Werner stated that I think it is important that we keep this consistent with the other portions of the Pelican Bay berm. I am a little confused. We are talking about lots of plants to abate noise, but in the study it says it is not feasible to plant enough vegetation along a road to achieve such reduction. Mr. laizzo replied, "That is a highway that goes tens of miles ". We are talking a stretch of approximately 1.8 miles. We can, in that distance, put in the kind of vegetation that will give us alleviation to those kinds of problems. 4755 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 6, 2002 16J1 Mr. Werner stated that you want lots of plants and things for security reasons and if you go see the Sheriff he is going to tell you exactly the opposite. The best security is wide open and has lots of lights. Mr. laizzo replied, "No, no ". Someone who is going to crawl through thorns can't be too swift. He has to be drunk. Mr. Werner stated that if anybody is sleeping out there, they couldn't be too swift to begin with. Mr. laizzo stated that those highways run tens of miles and here we are talking 1.8 miles in distance. I know we can work with the berm and in some areas we may have to build it up because it has eroded. It is important that we build up the berm and is also important to pull out whatever is dead there and re- vegetate. I am sure that is part of your plan, but it has to be given a lot of consideration. It is important that the Committee give the residents a little understanding as well as beautification. Mr. Vlasho stated that implies that we don't do that. We always think about that. We have had many discussions in this room on this issue and we are entertaining another one. We are willing to listen. We were looking for an answer and no one comes up with an answer; even your own landscape architect agreed with what we have been hearing. A couple of comments are that we have always heard that plants do not help restrict noise and we have heard that around this table for two years. How much have we spent on design work for this project? Mr. Ward replied, "Nothing significant, less than $5,000 ". Mr. Vlasho stated that thorns bother me. If anybody has to walk through there for whatever reason, they are going to be walking into thorns. I was in security once where that was proposed along the beach to keep people from coming with their boats and walking into some of the houses. I think we have to be very careful that we don't get two landscapers talking against each other in this issue. Although the Property Owners are willing to put up $5,000, my suggestion would be to let a member of the Property Owners, get with Mr. Ward and talk with our landscaper to see if they can modify the plan and not spend any more money. 4756 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 Mr. laizzo stated that the plan could be gone over in detail with someone who has the right credentials. I think that would be a good idea. I would also like to recommend that someone from the Advisory Committee get involved with this also. Mr. Vlasho stated that Mr. Tom Brown knows that area very well and I would ask him to volunteer. Mr. Brown agreed. Mr. Vlasho stated that you have Mr. Brown, Mr. laizzo, Mr. Ward, Mr. Lukasz, one from the Property Owners and one member from the area to get together to resolve the way it should be. Hopefully it will just be a modification and staff can go ahead and do it. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Mr. Ward explained that the procedure has been that in the month of February you select a Chairman and Vice Chairman for your meetings. We held off last year until the Ordinance issue was put to bed and at that time the Committee indicated you would ask your current Chairman to continue on in that role through February of this year, pending the resolution of the new Ordinance, which we are now debating. I scheduled this on your agenda and placed it last for the specific reason of seeing if you wanted to consider this item or wanted to wait until the new Ordinance is finished. Mr. Carroll stated that it is important that we maintain the continuity of this Committee until April and until the issue is settled. Mr. Roellig stated that regardless how the issue is settled, we are going to need a Chairman for the balance of the year. We are not going to have an election until March of 2003, so we should be looking regardless of how the Ordinance issue is resolved. Mr. Carroll moved, seconded by Mr. Bawduniak and approved on a vote of 911 that the Committee be retained as it is presently, until the Ordinance issue is settled. Mr. Roellig cast the dissenting vote. Mr. Vlasho stated that if you had decided to elect a new Chairman at this time I was not going to put my name as a candidate nor would I have accepted the nomination. I had been operating under a timetable that is similar to this saying that I would be willing to stay as 4757 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 Chairman until this current Ordinance issue is resolved, but at that time I would not only resign as Chairman, but would also resign my position on the Committee. You need to be advised of that so that whatever date that is, both things will happen and I will submit a letter to the Board of County Commissioners at that time. Mr. Vlasho explained that the letters of appointment were sent to those members who were reappointed to the Committee. It is my understanding the reappointment for a four year term was the only way that the Commission could appoint four people and once the new Ordinance is resolved that situation will be taken care of. We had asked the County Commission to allow the four members whose terms expired to be able to stay on until the Ordinance was resolved and they found that they could not do that with the way the Ordinance is written. This will also get resolved sometime in April. FINANCIAL STATEMENT REVIEW Mr. Ward explained that it is early in the year and things look great so no explanation is needed for the financials at this point in time. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION OAKMONT LAKE PATH Mr. Pat Metro — Oakmont resident — The issue I would like to bring up certainly pales in contrast to some of the weighty issues that you have discussed, but nevertheless I feel it is a worthy one. It concerns the path surrounding Oakmont Lake. The path is about 4 -1/2' to 5' in width, it is very torturous, sometimes has inclines and declines and there are a lot of blind spots. We walk that path daily and over the past couple of years we have seen a problem developing. As you know, on many areas of the path railroad ties border one side and the other side borders on about 5' of grass that declines into the water. There is not much room to maneuver. Those that use that path are basically a lot of our senior citizens, who don't have the spryness to be able to jump out of the way and many of the people that use that path walk their dogs. The problem we have has developed with bicycles. There is no room for people walking that path and people on bicycles. You come around a bend and you are suddenly faced with a bicycle, or in some instances motor scooters, rollerbladers or skateboarders. They have no control over what they 4758 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 are using. I believe if you don't resolve the problem, and I understand that you have tried to put the word out that the path is restricted to walkers only, but it is not getting to the ears of the people misusing it. You're going to have a serious problem, not only with safety, but injury. I bring it to your attention because I think that perhaps what you need to do is put up a sign, although no one likes to see that sort of thing, or perhaps a stencil and painting it on the path restricting to walkers only. I would advise any of you that have not been on that path to take the time to go there between 9:30 A.M. and 11:30 A.M. and walk it. I think you will begin to understand the problem that I am talking about. I wouldn't be wasting my time coming here to tell you about the problem unless I, as many others feel, is rather serious. Mr. Werner stated that he walked the path not long ago and I think that is a great idea. Can we do it? Mr. Ward replied, "Yes, we can do if'. I am not sure how well it will work, but we will try it. Mr. Metro stated that there is no room for people to maneuver. I brought this issue up at the Oakmont Owners Association meeting and one lady told us about an elderly gentleman with a bad heart condition that was walking the path and was hit by a bicycle. The bicyclist went on and the gentleman ended up in the hospital. His heart condition deteriorated and he died. I can't give you names or dates or anything else, it is anecdotal, but again this is the type of thing you want to prevent and, therefore, something that needs to be done. Mr. Vlasho stated that Mr. Ward would have to find out if it can be restricted to walkers. Our sidewalks are bike paths here. We have a little problem in Pelican Bay. Mr. Ward replied, "We will just do it ". Mr. Domenie indicated that there is the same problem on Pelican Bay Boulevard with the bike paths /sidewalks. Mr. Vlasho stated that at least there is room to move aside on those paths. There is no room around Oakmont Lake. CROSSWALKS Mr. Tom Johnson — resident — One of the things I have noticed since the community has grown is that the amount of traffic on Pelican Bay Boulevard is exceedingly high compared to 4759 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 sixteen years ago. One thing that hasn't changed is that there is not one sensible pedestrian crossing on Pelican Bay Boulevard. Crossing to the tram station, there is not one sign that says "Caution Pedestrians ". I think it is becoming a significant safety issue. If we are a resort community we have to let people know and there is nothing that says anything about bicycles. I think we need to figure out how to get some signs to give pedestrians access to cross properly. Mr. Vlasho stated that a year or so ago we had looked at that issue. At that time it was not only safety, but also to try to get people to walk to the parking lots instead of driving. When we had the study come back we threw up our hands and said no way. They were going to put up three signs in each direction and it got to be a real problem. Mr. Johnson said that Pebble Creek is a very high- density community and I see people crossing with everything, including baby strollers. Mr. Vlasho stated you are correct and we thought all we had to do was paint some lines on the roadway, but it does not work that way. Mr. Johnson stated that there has to be a solution. Mr. Ward stated Mr. Vlasho is absolutely right. Because it is a publicly dedicated road to Collier County, the County has some rather stringent standards which are actually State adopted standards for the construction of these crosswalks. Some of the questions were can you put it at this location, so we can get from here to here? The answer to all of those questions came back as no, but the answer did come back that we want to put them here, here and here, which was every intersection we had in Pelican Bay. As Mr. Vlasho indicated, there were three and four signs in each direction, we had stop signs everywhere else and it was impossible to do with any degree of reasonableness. Mr. Vlasho stated that as a reminder, there currently are plans to put in three more four - way stops in Pelican Bay. We are dragging our feet because we are not sure they need to be in the places that were picked. We will keep an eye on it. BIKE LANES Mr. Tom Johnson stated that I have been around Naples a long time and it seems to me that the community someday has to say what are we? Are we a resort community, are we part of 4760 PELICAN BAY ADV1SnRV r.nnnnniTTGC 16J1 February 6, 2002 the business community, what are we? The traffic is incredible and a lot of it is cut through traffic. If you go down to Venetian Village on Gulfshore Boulevard it is about the same distance as Pelican Bay, probably the same number of people and they have one lane for cars and one lane for bikes going each direction and it works out fine. Mr. Vlasho stated that we need a champion and we will bring it. The solution is just what you said, one lane for traffic that will be safety and control the speed and a large lane for bikes. Mr. Johnson stated to me that would work fine. Maybe a group has to get together. Mr. Vlasho stated that we have to get somebody excited about that. We agree with you because as soon as you cut those lanes down you will cut speed down. Then you have the other side that likes the two lanes being open. Mr. Johnson stated that Park Shore is a wonderful place to be and to me the traffic is the same situation as in Pelican Bay. Mr. Sutphin stated that if we are going to consider doing that this would be the ideal time. The three lanes on U.S. 41 have opened and a lot of people were using Pelican Bay Boulevard as a cut through because of the mess out there. There is no reason for that traffic to loop through Pelican Bay and it might discourage them. Mr. Roellig stated that we were asked to make some comments on the Foundation Survey and that was one of the questions that I suggested. Hopefully we will get some feedback whenever the survey goes out. Mr. Vlasho stated that this will be the issue of the year when we address it again. Mr. Roellig stated that the last time the issue was addressed it was two vehicle lanes and one bicycle lane. I think one vehicle lane and one bicycle lane is a different question. Mr. Vlasho stated that I don't know how the Committee feels, but I believe Mr. Sutphin had the right comment and perhaps we ought to get staff to work on this and come back with a proposal. I keep waiting for the residents to come forward, but that doesn't happen. Mr. Werner stated that I completely oppose staff working on that issue. Mr. Domenie asked if the County has any say in this issue? Mr. Ward replied, "it is their road, they have the final say". 4761 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE I 6 February 6, 2002 Mr. Vlasho stated that even on this Committee we cannot get on the same page. U. S. 41 NOISE ABATEMENT Mr. Addison Skaggs — Oakmont resident — Two years ago I came to tell you about the noise on U.S. 41 and as the months and meetings went by we were making progress and I was encouraged with your enthusiasm about being sympathetic. Mr. Ward had a request for a study that came to approximately $28,000 and that is the last that we heard of it. We have a group that has made some progress and held meetings with Commissioner Carter, FDOT and have secured one hundred thirty -three (133) signatures. Mr. Coy, after pressing FDOT, received the names of four companies that are capable of making sound studies. Our first objective now is to find out for sure where we stand with the noise on U.S. 41. We feel that if it is above what the 1993 program said, we would have something to work with. I have been in touch with Mr. Hess who worked for the City of Naples in doing some noise studies and he is willing to come and make the sound study for us. We were unable to get the other four companies because of conflict of interest. Most of their business is done with FDOT and they want no part of a little job in Pelican Bay. Mr. Hess has agreed to do the study and I have a contact that I have not approached yet, by the name of Stanley Duff from Fort Lauderdale who has experience in working with organizations against FDOT where noise is a problem, but it takes some money. I have come today to ask the Committee to fund up to $5,000 to make a noise study, which is much less than the $28,000 referenced earlier. We will be able to use the noise study to help direct us further with this issue. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Skaggs is if he looking for a fence to be built so that it will reduce the noise in your home? Mr. Skaggs replied, "Yes ". Mr. Brown stated that I was under the impression that the Pelican Bay Property Owners were spending a lot of money on this area. They had talked about noise abatement on the berm also. Will you then come back to this group and ask for all of the people in Pelican Bay to build a fence, or do you want to build your own fence and just get approval of this group? Mr. Skaggs replied, "Our personal opinion is that if the noise level is above the standards of the FDOT, which is somewhere around 65 decibels, they will then request that FDOT put up a 4762 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 wall along U.S. 41. We don't know where to proceed or how to proceed forward until we know that the sound is above those decibels and we think that it is. Mr. Brown asked why they don't get a decibel meter and stand out there? Mr. Skaggs replied, "It doesn't work that way". It is on an average. It is very complicated where they take the highs and lows and average them out. It takes complicated equipment to make a noise study that will be recognized by FDOT. Mr. Vlasho stated that over the last couple of years you have come here and I think every time we have listened and haven't come out with a solution. I am personally a little confused as we just had a presentation that also talked about noise, carbon monoxide and security and I assumed there was some coordinated effort. I am not inclined to fund $5,000 for that project because I think over the years we have said whatever happens there, if it is going to be built, it is the responsibility of the property owners. What I am really concerned about is if you go out and make this study and you build a wall there, your one hundred thirty -three (133) signatures are going to have 10,800 people who are going to be negative about a wall being put up in Pelican Bay. We are spending a lot of money to beautify the berm and median and now we are talking about putting a wall up. Mr. Skaggs replied, "As everyone has told you, that is not going to solve the noise problem ". Mr. Vlasho stated that everything we are doing in Pelican Bay is the opposite of that. Mr. Werner stated that not only that, you can't build a wall high enough to significantly reduce the noise. Mr. Vlasho stated that is my own feeling on the situation, but eventually the will of the Committee will ultimately stand. Mr. Ralph Coy stated that we have over three hundred (300) signatures and I attended the meeting that Mr. O'Connor referred to where ninety -five (95) people were invited, but was poorly attended. My observation was that there were only one or two people who were concerned that the major issue was security. I would say that thirty -five (35) of the forty (40) people were primarily interested in the noise issue. Mr. O'Connor addressed that to me and said 4763 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . February 6, 2002 1 6J1 he would work with me because I was working with Senator Saunders and a few other people. In fact he is the one who put FDOT's foot to the fire to get the four names. The real issue is that I know there is a conflict between people who are not affected by the noise as opposed to those who are with regard to beautification. I think our issue is that it became the responsibility of the State to do something about the noise, whether it would be a wall, dense foliage, etc. They bear the responsibility according to law. The law is written in such a way that they must comply with Federal Standards when it comes to noise. These studies were done eight to nine years ago and we really think they were marginal then because they were estimating what the noise would be today and I don't think anybody knew the growth and increase in traffic that has occurred. Our main issue is that we could possibly put this to rest by having a study. There is the possibility that the decibel level does not exceed Federal Standards and then this is all a moot issue. Mr. Vlasho replied, "The risk is, if it is, then you force the State to put something up ". Mr. Coy replied, "I understand that". I think Mr. Ward made the remark that you may regret getting involved. I believe getting a State Grant after September 11 will not happen. You are right; maybe we would not want what we ask for. The people who build the walls tell us they can put them up and plant them so that they are not offensive. I don't know and it probably depends upon where they are situated. The State said that it would have to be on their property, which would be next to the road and it would be a barrier. I know some of the people have said I don't really care what the people riding by can see; they are concerned about the noise. Mr. Vlasho stated that it is a tough situation and that is why Mr. Skaggs has been pursuing it for two years. Mr. Coy stated that my thought is that I could fund it personally, but I don't want to do it personally and I shouldn't have to do it. I think the residents who are affected could go ahead and fund it if they wish to. Mr. Skaggs stated that the issue of the Pelican Bay Property Owners is security. Mr. Carroll stated that the Pelican Bay Property Owners brought up three issues and they were carbon monoxide, noise and security. 4764 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 6, 2002 Mr. Vlasho stated that heavy road traffic noise was one of the issues with the Property Owners. Mr. Domenie stated that I met with the FDOT people a year ago and they said two hundred (200') feet of vegetation, thirty (30) feet high is required as a noise barrier or some sort of sound barrier has to be on the right -of -way and has to be twelve (12) to fifteen (15) feet high. They threw out a figure of $4,000,000 for the length of Pelican Bay. I don't think any of us here would like to see a fifteen (15) foot concrete wall in the right -of -way in front of Pelican Bay and I certainly would not support that. Mr. Skaggs stated that my duty is to ask you for the money. Mr. Bawduniak stated that when noise studies are done there is as much computer modeling as there are decibel measurements taken. There are phenomena such as day and night levels, which have to be computed. I would be amazed if you could get anything approaching a study, which would get the attention of the FDOT and legally stand up in court, for $5,000. This must be just a preliminary look to see if it is worthwhile going forward. Mr. Skaggs replied, "Yes, sir". We do not know where we stand we just think the noise level is sufficient, but our number one objective is to find that out and pursue it further, perhaps with your help. Mr. Jim Hoban - 816 Turkey Oak Lane — I think in one way, shape or form it would be good to know exactly where we stand. At some point this could be privately done. It would seem to me that if enough people are concerned about having a study done and you represent the entire community and impacted the entire community, that at least the study be done to know where we stand. I don't think it is asking too much. I am not on their committee, I am on another committee, but I think what they are asking is certainly within reason. If this Committee is reasonable you will grant it. Mr. Ward explained that this is Collier County government and you do not have the authority to do what Mr. Skaggs has asked you to do. I could not do it, nor could the Board of County Commissioners. It is not possible. If you want to have a study done I will have to go out 4765 ii PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16JI February 6, 2002 and go through the normal process of doing it, but there is no way that we are giving somebody $5,000 to go do a study. It is just not happening in government. Mr. Werner stated there goes my motion. Mr. Vlasho stated that I would hope that they could work with the Pelican Bay Property Owners to see if the approach that Mr. laizzo's committee is taking could help the situation. I don't often get concerned, but I am concerned about what this could lead to. I would say that we don't encourage you to do the study because it may lead to things being forced to the wrong solution. We ask for one member of each group to work with Mr. Brown and Mr. Ward and possibly a member from your group to be there to see if we could first solve it with greenery before you get to the point where we would build a wall. That would be my suggestion, but if we don't have the right, we can't grant the request. PELICAN BAY ORDINANCE Mr. Paul Mongerson — resident — I have written you a letter about the Ordinance change. There is another letter that was handed out today. Probably the most important subject to Pelican Bay you haven't discussed. I know that you are leery of it and you don't want to stick your neck out and I know what went on a year ago. I am just bringing the issue up because I think it is very important. Come this weekend they are going to send out 6,800 straw polls to people all over the world. There was practically no communication, no information to any of those 6,800 people about the Ordinance change. We sat here a year ago and spent loads of time. The newspapers have had almost nothing in them. I guess my point is that some place you have the responsibility to inform the 6,800 people that are going to vote. Somebody said that there were thirteen (13) people that visited the three informational meetings. These are big changes and as you know I have written my view on that. There are five weeks from Sunday to when the votes have to be in and those votes could change Pelican Bay's future. Should you have a little discussion or say anything about this issue? Mr. Vlasho stated that Mr. Carroll has spent a lot of time on this issue. I was the person at the "point" the last time and every time an issue comes up it is said that it is not communicated, it doesn't get out and that is not true. The information does get out, the problem is there are only 4766 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 a small percentage of people in Pelican Bay who want to get involved and pay attention to anything. This issue has been discussed many, many times. The Sub - committee has met, it's been in the Pelican Bay Post and 1 would venture to say you are correct, most people don't know what it is about. You do the best you can. We publicize it and today there are a few more people here because there are a couple of subjects, which are of an interest to them. It is not unusual to have two people sitting in the audience and then we get accused of not communicating. I think it is unfair for you to say that we have not communicated and unfair to Mr. Carroll and his Sub- committee, because they have worked very diligently on a project that is not going to change much. We can do two of the three without any vote. The only change that will take a straw vote is on the people that the owners would recommend to the County Commissioners to sit on this Committee. I think it is a lot of to -do about nothing. If you have a suggestion tell us, and Mr. Carroll's Sub - committee will consider it. Mr. Werner asked Mr. Mongerson what are the earthshaking changes that this Ordinance is going to create? Mr. Mongerson replied, "The first thing is that it changed to a straw ballot. I think that is a very shaky thing. Mr. Werner asked what is earthshaking in this Ordinance that is going to do anything to our community? Mr. Mongerson replied, "It is going to mean that with a straw ballot, two hundred (200) people could pick the members of this Committee. Mr. Vlasho stated that zero people pick them today. Mr. Mongerson stated that it is the Commissioners that we vote on. Mr. Werner stated and they still will even if the Ordinance changes. Mr. Mongerson stated that there were changes such as saying that we are going to have all of the votes by the property owners, not the registered voters. It was done trying to help because more people would be involved, but I would say that 6,800 that are property owners aren't going to be as close to the voting as the 4,800 voters. 4767 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 February 6, 2002 Mr. Vlasho asked if Mr. Mongerson had any idea how many of the 4,800 voters were included in the 7,700? The point is that you cannot compare the 7,700 to the 4,800 because a lot of the 4,800 are people who tend to live here year round and tend to own property here. A high percentage of the 4,800 would be in the 7,700. You are right, some people who rent would not have a chance to vote. Mr. Mongerson stated those are the people who you can communicate with. You can't communicate with the 6,800 all over the world. Why change it is my point? My point is that we are getting along great, why change it? I have not heard one person who has come up and said that this change is going to benefit us this way. Mr. Werner stated that I thought you had some earthshaking things that were going to happen to this community if we didn't recommended this Ordinance. Mr. Mongerson stated that I am saying don't recommend it, why change it if it isn't broke? Mr. Werner stated we have heard that argument hundreds of times before. Mr. Vlasho stated that we have people on this Committee that wouldn't want to change it. Mr. Werner stated that this is a result of the Clerk of Court coming here at the request of a County Commissioner and this is what he said the residents of Pelican Bay wanted. It does not mean that we support or recommend it. Mr. Vlasho stated that if you have a way that the Sub - committee could communicate better with the residents, give him a call and talk with him, we are open to suggestions. MANGROVES Mr. Jim Gage — Coronado — I submitted a letter today requesting this Committee to specifically put this item on your agenda to give the public due response to the plans or proposals you would make. Mr. Vlasho stated that I will see that it gets included on the next agenda. ADJOURN There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:45 P.M. Mr. Lou Vlasho, Chairman 4768 16J1 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE MINUTES — FEBRUARY 14, 2002 Naples, Florida LET IT BE KNOWN, that the Clam Bay Sub - committee of the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee met in Regular Session on this date, February 14, 2002 at 10:00 A.M. at Hammock Oak Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Florida 34108 with the following members present: Mr. David Roellig, Chairman Mr, John Domenie Mr. M. James Burke Mr. George Werner ALSO PRESENT: No (0) Pelican Bay residents; Mr. Dan Johnson, WilsonMiller; Mr. Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division; Mr. James P. Ward, Department Director, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Mrs. Barbara Smith, Recording Secretary. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of the February 4, 2002 Meeting 3. Consideration of Proposal for Stormwater Management Enhancement Diversion of Drainage System IV — Final Design and Permitting 4. Adjourn ROLL CALL Mr. Roellig called the meeting to order and asked that the record show all members present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 4 2002 MEETING Mr. Werner moved, seconded by Mr. Domenie and approved unanimously, the Minutes of the February 4, 2002 meeting. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENT DIVERSION OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM IV — FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING Mr. Dan Johnson, WilsonMiller — Included in your package is the Preliminary Study which has been performed and is the mangrove investigation for improving the hydraulics within the estuary system to enable the improvement of the mangrove die off that has been experienced and allow for the mangroves to re- establish. As a part of that effort, the study identified two options whereby this could be accomplished. One option was to take the drainage area that was located on the north side and divert it and the second option was to take Basin IV and divert it into Basin III, thereby bypassing the upper portion of the Clam Bay Estuary System. The hydraulics of the estuary system and channel cuts within middle Clam Bay were improved with the dredging 113 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16JIll of Clam Pass. The diversion of Basin IV into Basin III would then bypass a substantial amount of the storm water runoff that is currently going into Upper Clam Bay. The proposal that has been presented is to perform that particular diversion function; the design and permitting of those improvements with the South Florida Water Management District and the implementation of that portion of the plan, thereby reducing a significant amount of storm water flow, which is currently going into Upper Clam Bay. Mr. Werner stated that we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars digging channels to help relieve some of this water into the bay system and is there is anything that says that those channels are not being effective in getting the water out of the north end of the system? Mr. Ward replied, "Mr. Lewis would have to be the one to answer that question ". Mr. Werner stated that my thought here is, why consider this if those channels are effective and why consider going into the Vanderbilt Lagoon and taking that water? We have heard all along and maybe it's too far away, but we wanted to keep a certain amount of water pressure coming out of the pass to keep it scoured. Now we are thinking about taking that water and I don't think that it is going to be easily accomplished, politically. Mr. Ward replied, "I agree that is probably not happening ". Mr. Werner asked if there is any evidence that the channels we have dug in that area are not getting the water out? Mr. Lukasz replied "The channels are getting the water out of the low -lying areas into the creeks in the northern part of the system ". This will move some of that storm water down close to the pass. Mr. Werner stated that means we would have to dig more channels to get that water out. Mr. Lukasz replied, "We will have to address that issue, otherwise we would be moving that water into System III and just allowing it to sheet flow ". We might have a problem with sheet flow, so we have to address additional channels. Mr. Domenie stated that Wiggins Pass was dredged much deeper a year ago. Wiggins Pass used to be very shallow at times, now I believe it is over eleven (11) feet deep. Has that meant that more water is flowing into that system and would putting a weir here really help drain 114 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE 4 � February 14, 2002 1 6JI water out of System IV? In your estimates have you taken into consideration the water mains, sewer mains, telephone lines, etc. on Vanderbilt Beach Road? Mr. Johnson replied, "Yes ". The elevation of that structure can be varied to bypass any conflicts. This is a submerged system and we can bury the elevation, as we need to in order to get around the utilities. Mr. Domenie asked how far down the utilities are located? Mr. Johnson stated that they generally are three to four feet underground. Mr. Domenie stated that a pipe would still have to go deeper than the utilities and it would have to be a "U" shaped pipe. Mr. Johnson replied, "The pipe would daylight on the north end ". The pipe would be flat with a control structure that would be a drop structure. The top is controlled with the elevation we want, and then the pipe would be submerged and would daylight into the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road. Mr. Roellig stated that the proposal does not envision connecting the systems. The report talks about it, but we haven't gone into it. Mr. Domenie stated that I was just asking if this was taking into consideration the pipes and structures that on are Vanderbilt Beach Road at the moment. Let's not talk about the disruption of traffic and politically, we don't know what the feeling is. Mr. Domenie asked if Mr. Johnson has taken into consideration the recent channels that were dug which dropped the water level along the berm? As far as I can tell it dropped the water level about sixteen (16) inches. There is no freshwater accumulating in the north end, but the runoff would still enter the system. Mr. Johnson stated the water would disperse throughout the system. There are also several weirs presently located there with several more to be added. It will actually be letting the water out in eight locations, where it would be uniformly distributed throughout the area and not in one specific location into which it is dumping everything. Mr. Domenie asked if it would be easier to do that? 115 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 Mr. Johnson stated that the advantage of going into that area is that the hydraulics of the estuary system allow for movement of water far better than they do in the northern areas. The reason for the diversion is to be able to get the water to a place where there is hydraulic conveyance within the estuary system. Mr. Werner asked if this diversion was only going to be operational during storm events? Mr. Johnson replied, "It should divert every storm event up until you exceed what we call a two -year event ". Once it gets to the two -year storm event, which statistically occurs every two years, it would discharge into Upper Clam Bay as it originally did. Mr. Werner asked that if this project had been done today, would there still be water flowing through System IV into the Clam Bay system? Mr. Johnson replied, "The bleeders would still operate and you would still have some minor flow". Mr. Domenie stated that if we are going to start planting we have to have some flow. Mr. Johnson stated that ideally we would want to be taking the bleeder modifications and allow for low flows to be discharged to Basin III because you are still getting all of Basin VI going into Upper Clam Bay. The consideration for the proposal is to do only one of the elements, which is the diversion of Basin IV into Basin III. Mr. Werner stated that would be the one project, of the two, that would be most easily accomplished. Mr. Domenie asked about System V? Mr. Johnson replied, "That would still be inputting into Upper Clam Bay'. Basin V goes into Basin VI. Mr. Domenie stated that the road in Bay Colony has in effect blocked the water flowing from Basin V into Basin IV, is that correct? study? Mr. Roellig replied, "Under present conditions the water flows around to the Remington ". Mr. Roellig asked if the model study was an existing model or is it going to be a new 116 M% CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE 16J1' February 14, 2002 Mr. Johnson replied, "When we did the preliminary report we had to investigate the viability of whether or not we could actually implement what we are talking about doing ". We had prepared a preliminary model just to know that we were in the ballpark of being able to accomplish diversion. What we are going to have to do now is fine -tune the model so that it will be presentable to the South Florida Water Management District for a permit modification, which would be a modification of both Basins III and IV. We do have to refine the model. The basins were designed for different storm events. One was done by hand calculation and we put that into a rough model just to know that we had something that was feasible, but we will have to refine those numbers to make sure that they all meet the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District. Mr. Roellig asked that in looking at the Proposal and the Scope of Services, would we want to do the model and see what that shows? Are you going to be doing the work in the channels to get the water out? Mr. Ward replied, "Mr. Lewis would be doing that work ". Mr. Roellig stated that it would be a two -phase project. You would do the model and then we would see what kind of channels would be required to get the water out. Mr. Ward stated that besides the proposal that we have from WilsonMiller, we are going to need to have Mr. Lewis provide us some information on where we would need to cut additional channels. Those tasks have to go hand -in -hand. Mr. Werner asked if we are looking at $28,000 for the design of the diversion from Basin IV to III and then another $97,000 for the construction and then the channel costs? Mr. Ward replied, "Yes ". Mr. Roellig asked if Mr. Johnson would be designing the channels for Mr. Lewis? I guess that is what my problem is. Mr. Ward replied, "Mr. Lewis would be designing the channels ". Mr. Roellig asked if Mr. Johnson would be supplying Mr. Lewis the outflows and then Mr. Lewis would design the channels to that? Mr. Ward replied, "Right, along with their location ". 117 � 0;% CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14. 2002 I .., Mr. Roellig stated that would have some impact on the model. Mr. Johnson replied, "No, it really doesn't ". Mr. Roellig stated that you would give them a design and they could calculate what kind of channel they would need. Mr. Johnson stated that the way the system is designed you have a control elevation, which is above the estuary system. When we add water that overtops that elevation, the channels will have to calculate the flow that we want to accommodate. The channels would be designed to get the water from the weir structures into the main part of the estuary system. Mr. Roellig stated that we have one step where we have to go to another step to see how we are going to get rid of the water. Would that be part of the permit application to the South Florida Water Management District? Mr. Ward replied, "No, they are going to be separate ". The interior tidal channels don't get permitted through the South Florida Water Management District. Mr. Johnson stated that is actually an Army Corps Permit. Mr. Ward stated that we presently have the permits in place for the interior tidal channels. The consultants will end up working together to figure it out, but the permit you get for what Mr. Johnson is doing will not include the interior tidal channels. The South Florida Water Management District just does not look at that issue and is probably why we have the problem we have. Mr. Roellig stated that we would then want to do the channels simultaneous, if not first. Mr. Ward replied, "Right, but those are easy ". Once Mr. Johnson determines where he is going to do it, Mr. Lewis's work is generally not that difficult. Mr. Domenie stated that the $28,000 would cover the storm water modeling and final design. Mr. Roellig's question was could we just do the storm water modeling for whatever the price is and if that shows that it is desirable to move forward, then ask for the final design documents? Mr. Roellig stated that would be the decision point. 118 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 Mr. Johnson explained that we are comfortable that the storm water modeling is going to demonstrate what we indicated it would do in the feasibility report and that is why we did the preliminary modeling on it. What I said was that we have to refine it so that it meets all of the criteria and is suitable as backup material to submit for a permit to the South Florida Water Management District. What specifically are we going to do to the weirs? We are going to raise some of the elevations and basin doors and then put in additional weirs. The final configuration, dimensional requirements and orifice sizing are elements that are going to get refined, so that we can put them on the construction plans as a part of the model, plus I realize that I am going to have to run two storm events to satisfy the South Florida Water Management District because it was done on two sets of criteria. I am assuming the worse case is going to occur and we are going to need two sets of data. Mr. Domenie asked if when you say two models, is one up to four inches and one beyond that or is one just one inch of rain? Mr. Johnson replied, "When we do a model to satisfy the requirements of South Florida, they have the criteria of a twenty -five year storm event and we have to look at the entire system to make sure that we are not impacting any of the lakes that are already constructed from what their permitted elevations are ". Basin III was done with a twenty -four hour storm event and the other was done on a seventy -two hour storm event. In the end I don't think it makes a difference because of the allowable outflow route, but for me to assume that South Florida Water Management District is going to say run just one storm event, I never count on them to do that. Mr. Domenie asked if Mr. Johnson was saying that the two issues have to be tied together? Mr. Johnson replied, "Yes, we do the storm water model refinement first and then that establishes specifically what the construction elements are going to be on the improvements ". Mr. Domenie asked if you can break down storm water modeling as being $15,000 and the final design change at $13,000, or is it one package because you are doing the work together as you are designing? Mr. Johnson replied, "You do work together on that ". 119 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 1 Mr. Roellig stated that you have to do the design to make the model work. Mr. Domenie stated that I thought your question was, can we go one step first and then the second step? Basically, they are interrelated. Mr. Johnson stated that there are actually four steps involved, the preliminary modeling, the final construction documents, the permitting and the execution. We have already had a pre - application meeting with the South Florida Water Management District where they sit and tell you it all sounds good, but my experience has been that when you actually submit the data, all of the sudden the rubber hits the road. They do go hand -in -hand because the documents we are preparing as a part of the storm water modeling are support documents for the permitting with the South Florida Water Management District. In the process of doing the modeling you are also refining the final structure elements. Would you have to do the final plans at that point? No, but the logical sequence of things is that you do the final construction plans after you have your model done so that you know what to put on the construction plans. Mr. Werner asked the difference between the permitting included in your proposal and the project cost permitting? You have $15,000 in the project cost permitting for that. Is it $15,000 plus the proposal? Mr. Johnson replied, "No, those two run hand -in- hand ". There was a separate line item put in there for permitting and another for construction documents and also preliminary surveying as well, just to nail down what we have for what we are going to design to and where the elevations go. Mr. Domenie asked if any of this money could come from the County? Mr. Ward replied, "No ". Mr. Domenie asked at the moment, what do we have in the budget for this project and the replanting? Mr. Ward replied, "We budgeted $27,500 for Mr. Johnson's work and $73,800 for the actual construction ". The preliminary estimate for this is $97,600. Mr. Lukasz stated originally we were going to budget $200,000 but then we decided to allocate half of that towards dune renourishment. 120 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 ii Mr. Roellig stated that we are looking at doing a study, but we don't have a good handle on what the benefits are going to be. I guess you have to do the model study to see the kinds of water level changes you can expect with the existing situation and what could happen with the proposed situation. Mr. Domenie stated that you are not changing the water level. Mr. Roellig stated that you are changing the area where System IV enters. Mr. Johnson stated that the storm water modeling that we are doing as part of this proposal is separate from the estuary system. The model is not going to tell you anything more about what is happening in the estuary system. The report does address the acre -feet or volume that we would be diverting on an annualized basis, which is approximately 21 % of the total inflow into that system. While those percentages specifically translate into an elevation, I am not aware that anybody has quantified that at the moment. The whole idea is that there is a better hydraulic conveyance getting from Inner Clam Bay through Clam Pass, than there is getting from Upper Clam Bay, just because of the fact that you have to go so far and you have the tidal influences. If we can divert the water from Upper Clam Bay, we can reduce the sustained periods of the inundation and see improvement within the mangrove growth and die off phenomenon. Often times it is difficult, you can make the improvements and ask can I see the exact results that occur? It depends upon whether you have a wet season or a dry season and it might take several years to be able to ascertain what the impacts really are. Mr. Domenie asked if at the moment the $28,000 study is only from Drainage System IV to Drainage System III and does not include Systems V or VI? Mr. Johnson replied, "That is correct ". Mr. Ward stated that Systems V and VI require the debate about Vanderbilt Beach. Mr. Roellig stated that we are not going there. This is quite a quandary because the answers I would like are expensive to get. It would be nice to say that if we move forward on this project, the water will stay for two days instead of six, but to get that answer is not cheap. You can see that you are doing some good, but you really can't quantify it. 121 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 Mr. Domenie stated that with the channels that we presently have dug, any rainfall that we receive gets into Upper and Inner Clam Bay much faster and presumably it flushes out faster. What we are doing is basically pushing it all into Inner Clam Bay. Of course, when the tide comes in it will just push the fresh water up again, but hopefully it will flush out faster. Mr. Roellig stated that the water is now draining into System V and it appears to me that we presently have a reverse flow. Under normal conditions there is very good flow, but I haven't seen it during a rain event. Mr. Lukasz stated that Systems V and VI flow down and around to the Remington. Mr. Domenie asked if everything from Systems V and VI now come under the Remington? Mr. Roellig stated that it goes around the Remington where there is weir structure. Typically there is some kind of a flow. Mr. Domenie asked if you typically want that flow to flush the pass? Mr. Lukasz stated that with the modifications from Systems III and IV you are not taking anything away from the pass. Mr. Domenie stated that if you were to take System V and VI and put it under Vanderbilt Beach Road you would then be taking the water flow away from the pass. cost. Mr. Roellig stated that this is a pretty significant stream. Mr. Lukasz stated that is true in relation to the pass. Mr. Johnson stated that you would need to go out there during a storm event. Mr. Domenie asked if we are being asked to approve $28,000? Mr. Ward stated that the question is, do you want to do it? If you do, this is what it will Mr. Domenie stated we have had this on our plate for over a year. Mr. Roellig stated that if we want to look at this modification we should do that, but we also should get something from Mr. Lewis to see what his work would entail and an estimate of the benefit of doing this work. It is a two -stage process, where you have to do the model study to see how much you can divert and the capacity of the channel to take water from System IV to III. 122 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE 16J1 February 14, 2002 IW., I have no real knowledge of what it would look like and under a two -year storm event whether or not this channel is already at capacity or is it just a matter of changing the weirs. Mr. Johnson stated that was the purpose of our doing the preliminary model when we did the feasibility study. I would not be standing here asking you to do another model study duplicating the same thing we have already done. What I said was that it was not refined to the point where it is suitable for submittal for review, but is suitable enough to determine that it is doable. Then we defined what elements would be required in order to do that diversion. Mr. Roellig stated that as I understand it, the diversion is a matter of changing the control structures. The actual channel flow would be adequate to handle the modification and would not require a modification to the channels. Mr. Johnson replied, "Only to the extent where the pipes are proposed to interconnect the basins, there may be some minor work associated with the inlet and outlet of those to be sure that we can move that water back and forth ". What we realized when we started doing this modeling is that you cannot take the entire design and dump it into Basin III. The trick of the preliminary analysis was to determine what we could divert, so that we don't impact any of the conveyance or design capacities of any of the existing infrastructure. Certainly we could do some things with increasing the designed storm event that instead of a two -year event we can divert a five -year event, but then we would be looking at doing some lake modifications. The idea was how much benefit are we going to get? If you are looking at it from an annualized basis and you are trying to take 95% of the rainfall events and divert that, that is where the analysis picked up on what we can and cannot do. It would not be presented to you as part of the preliminary report if it were not a feasible, viable alternative. Mr. Domenie stated that there is a lower detention facility running to the east of the berm and asked whether it is interconnected at the moment? Mr. Johnson replied, "No ". Mr. Domenie asked if we have to get the Foundation involved because we are going to go under the structure? Mr. Lukasz replied, "No we would go around it ". 123 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE 16J1 February 14, 2002 Mr. Domenie stated that there is also a road there. Mr. Ward replied, "That is our road ". Mr. Johnson stated that one of the items in the proposal is to identify all of the physical improvements and elevations in the vicinity of where the pipe interconnects. That interconnect is there because there is no ability to excavate a channel with the improvements that are in place. The pipes were selected specifically because of that phenomenon. Mr. Roellig stated that we couldn't answer the questions without doing the model study. We are in an awkward state because until we get some model analysis to see what the modifications are, we can't really claim any possible benefit. Mr. Werner stated that I certainly agree that this would improve the hydrology, but the question in my mind is whether or not it is needed? Mr. Roellig stated that this is not something that would define that. Mr. Ward stated this is a gamble and I don't think that you will get the answer. Mr. Werner stated that what tells you whether we need it or not is if the system continues to be stressed after a periodic storm and the channels are not getting rid of the water sufficiently. Mr. Domenie stated that this ties in with the next item on our agenda, which is are we taking any water away from the cattail area? I feel that the salt water is not entering that area and will that affect the plants that we are planning? Mr. Ward replied, "Not to any great extent ". Mr. Roellig stated that the water flow from System IV will only change a one -year event, is that correct? event? Mr. Johnson stated that it would change for every rainfall event up to a two -year event. Mr. Ward asked what you mean up to a two -year event, I thought it was over a two -year Mr. Werner stated that if it were over a two -year event the water would come back to System IV. 124 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 ' ' Mr. Johnson stated that if a two -year event were exceeded then the discharge would go out into Basin IV, just as it does now. The only time that you would be discharging water from Basin IV, as it is presently doing, is when you have infrequent rainfall events. Mr. Roellig stated that if this was in place and you had one -half inch of rain this afternoon there would be little, if any, discharge from System IV into Upper Clam Bay. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Ward stated that I really missed that point. If we are flooding mangroves and the issue is that in a certain storm event they drown, why do we care what happens between time 0 and two - years? It seems to me like the storm events we have had in the last seven years have been well in excess of a two -year storm event. If I recall correctly they were five and ten year storm events that were causing the flooding. Why do we care what happens between 0 and two - years? Mr. Johnson stated that the way I understood the situation was that it was not a single event, but the compilation of sustained water month, after month, after month that caused the problems. Mr. Ward replied, "I don't remember that at all ". Mr. Lukasz stated that exact question came up in the meeting when we were putting this together and Mr. Lewis said that it is the accumulation of the smaller events that build the water up into the system and you get inundated with water. Mr. Ward replied, "This is the first time I have heard that ". That has not been true in Clam Bay. You see stressed areas now in Inner Clam Bay that you didn't see five or eight years ago. I am not the expert, but this does not make logical sense to me. If it was all the water in any storm event going down to System III, that part I got. What I totally missed was that it only takes a certain amount of the water and after that it is sheet flows into Clam Bay anyway. This does not make sense to me. The accumulation of water is water and the issue is that the mangroves drowned. The bathtub is plugged as Mr. Young used to say. Mr. Domenie stated that what I think Mr. Johnson is saying is that the flooding from a four -inch rainfall will be for forty -eight hours and would not kill the mangroves. Although, I think 125 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 we have taken care of the flooding with the digging of the channels haven't we? Is there any flooding going on anywhere as far as you know? Some of the stressed areas have nothing to do with flooding do they? Mr. Ward replied, "We still have some low areas ". Mr. Domenie stated that I was in one of the high rises last night and there are areas that look gray. Mr. Ward stated that during the last major storm the area drained rather quickly. Mr. Domenie stated that we have money in the budget at the moment for the $28,000 and just because we have it, we don't have to spend it. We have been talking about this for a year now and the next step is to get a professional opinion about the affects. Mr. Ward stated that I am uncomfortable now. I think we should get Mr. Lewis, Humiston & Moore, Mr. Turrell and Mr. Johnson in the same room, at the same time, and ask the questions that you need to ask. This is a $120,000 project and Mr. Johnson is relying on information that is coming from Mr. Turrell and Mr. Lewis and I want to make sure that those two are singing off of the same song page as to what their recommendation is. Mr. Johnson cannot tell you what is going to happen to these mangroves. He can tell you how to reroute the water and why it is good and I have no problems with what he did. I just don't get the two -year storm event issue. I do know that Mr. Lewis wants to re -route everything and he wants to do the $100,000 study on this, but I think we need to do a little more research. Mr. Roellig stated that it is a chicken and egg situation and I don't know where you start. I do not know whether or not it would be worthwhile to have WilsonMiller provide some preliminary refinement of the numbers, otherwise we would have Mr. Lewis ask what are you going to do? We have to start the ball rolling somewhere. Mr. Ward stated that the plan of action that is in the consultant's report as to what we are doing are baby steps in terms of doing something, but I am not so sure I completely understand where we are going in three or five years. That is something that you as a Sub - committee really need to explore with the consulting team, as to where are we going with this program in five or ten years and what is it going to do for northern Clam Bay or are we just taking baby steps and 126 ,1 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 hoping in five years something will happen? If that is what we are doing, that is fine, but I think we all need to be singing off of the same page. Mr. Werner stated that not one of the consultants is prepared to tell you where they plan on being in five years. Mr. Roellig stated that from my experience, which is fairly limited in flood control, you have to be careful when you talk about a two -year storm. You really should look at it as a percentage possibility. What I have seen many times is that you get a one hundred year storm and you get big flooding and a lot of problems. Next year you get another one and there is no reason to believe that you couldn't get five, five -year storms in one season. It is like gambling in a sense in that you don't know the probabilities, but they could happen one on top of the other. It does not mean you are going to get a three -year storm and then you are good for two years. Somehow you have to factor that in. Mr. Ward stated that another thing we have to think about is that two -year storm events in Florida are pretty normal. They are not abnormal events down here. My recollection was that over the past seven or so years, those were not the storm events that caused the problems in Clam Bay. It was something in excess of the two -year storm event. If we are spending the money and it is really not going to help the Clam Bay problem, then why spend the money? I understand the Mr. Lewis sustainability issue, but that doesn't necessarily make common sense to me when we know at the moment that the storm events in excess of a five or ten -year event are what was causing the problem. The Gabriella storm drained relatively quickly and scoured the pass and I don't understand why we are still having stressed areas in Inner and Upper Clam Bay at this point. Mr. Werner stated that maybe it is not flooding. I am not prepared to support this proposal right now. Mr. Ward stated that I think all of our consultants need to get together with you to have a meeting of the minds as to where we are going with this issue. 127 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16JI Mr. Werner stated that I thought that is what Mr. Turrell was supposed to be doing. I thought he was the Project Manager and coordinating this effort. Maybe he doesn't understand that, but that is what I thought his position was. Mr. Ward replied, "I think it is, but I think this should be a focus or direction kind of meeting ". Mr. Turrell is a great individual and does great work and I don't have a problem with that, but maybe the direction is wrong or the direction I have given him is wrong and maybe we have said we have limiting constraints on dollars and we don't want to do any more. I don't know, but let's get him in a room and try to come up with a consensus of a direction that we need to go. Mr. Turrell is a good Environmental Engineer, he does good work and he is reasonable. Mr. Roellig stated that this is not the way I expected this to turn out, but I think it is very beneficial. I hate to think how this would have been handled before the entire Committee. That is the advantage of a smaller Sub - committee. Mr. Werner stated that this proposal is for one side of the berm and we are concerned about what is going to happen on the other side of the berm. Mr. Ward stated that the study was done on what Mr. Lewis had originally said, but I just don't get this direction. CATTAIL REMOVAL AREA REPLANTING Mr. Ward explained that we have just received the cost of the cattail re- planting program from Mr. Turrell. Mr. Werner stated that it appears that the least expensive program is $41,000. Mr. Ward replied, "That is just for the plants ". It is somewhere between $90,000 and $185,000 when you include the installation. We had budgeted $65,000 for this in last year's budget and it is now in our Reserve's. We have $100,000 in your current year's budget, but that was for the Upper Clam Bay die off area. We only have $65,000 that we had budgeted last year, which carried forward into our Reserve accounts. Mr. Domenie stated that I still have one reservation. We have to spray at least one more time. What sort of assurance do we have that after we spray, that more cattails are not going to keep coming back? Will the cattails drown out some of these new plant materials? The entire 128 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 ' idea was that saltwater was going to come in and was going to prevent the cattails from growing. Are plants that we are introducing more salt water oriented or more fresh water oriented? I gather that these plants are more fresh water oriented. Mr. Ward stated that if I recall Mr. Turrell's words, they were salt tolerant, so they will live in an environment which is either fresh or has some salt water in it. Mr. Roellig stated that there are some areas where the ground has emerged so high that I don't think cattails would grow back. Normally cattails keep their feet in the water and you don't normally see them growing above standing water. There are some areas that I assume the cattails will not grow back into because of the way it has drained. Those areas could be planted and there are probably some areas that are questionable as to whether they will re -grow or not. It would appear to me, if we would wait a little longer and it stays that way, those areas would be safe to plant. Mr. Ward stated that even if you are in an area where cattails are going to grow back, I think we are going to have to put some type of aggressive program into place in the next year or two, whether that be by hand or chemical treatment, to keep them out. Once cattails start to proliferate, they spread. Mr. Domenie stated that is my concern, unless we have really gotten rid of them. My feeling was that saltwater was going to enter that area, but Mr. Turrell is going to run some tests to see what kind of water is really there. As far as I am concerned, it is still completely fresh water. There is no indication whatsoever of saltwater entering the system in the northern end. Mr. Ward replied, "You also have to remember that you are in the dry season ". You will see those tests being run in the next couple of weeks on the high spring tide. Mr. Burke asked if you are seeing any cattail re- growth? On my walks it appears that things have leveled off. Mr. Ward stated that at the south end of the property, which we treated first, it appears to have leveled off a lot from what it had been. The northern part is still experiencing some re- growth. If you go out there today, the cattails need to be sprayed right now, but we are waiting a couple of weeks because of the St. Laurant issue. This is not unexpected in a cattail area. It is 129 ,10 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 " extremely mucky in that area and if you had seen the contractor's staff out there working, they would walk and sink up to their waist or deeper. Mr. Roellig stated that is what is holding me back a little is whether or not the area near the tram station will settle. It is so far out of the water now and whether it stays up there I don't know. When I was out at the Strand a month or so ago, Ms. Worley happened to be out there and she tested some of the cuts near the wall. Those tests indicated salt content at was 25 ppm, which is very salty. I don't how much these salt meters cost. Mr. Lukasz stated we have a salt meter. The last time Mr. Marshall was down we tested the area and it showed no salinity and that is why we are waiting for the higher spring tides. Mr. Domenie asked if the FDEP has put a moratorium on us for doing anything? Mr. Ward replied, "No, not yet ". They backed down a little from their original position. If you ever called a FDEP person, and if St. Laurant had never happened, and said we are going to take out cattails they would ask why are you calling us, just go do it and be done with it. Because of the letters that the residents of St. Laurant have written to FDEP and even to the Governor's office, FDEP has backed down a little. In order to be totally safe so that we didn't have a problem, we wrote FDEP a letter and indicated to them that we were going to spray again and were scheduling the spraying to be done in thirty (30) days, unless we heard otherwise from them. We have two weeks left on the notice that we sent to FDEP. Mr. Domenie asked if the St. Laurant people want the cattails back? Mr. Ward replied, "They want green ". I don't think they care if it is cattails or a silk plant, they just want green. Mr. Burke asked what is the green plant that is growing on top of the water? Mr. Ward replied, "It is Batis ". Mr. Burke stated it is in the cattail area. Mr. Ward stated that is algae that is called Duckweed and is caused by excessive nutrients in the water. Mr. Burke asked if it would go away? 130 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE 16JI February 14, 2002 Mr. Ward replied, "No, we fertilize a lot around this community'. Everything is green and some of that goes into the drainage area and then out into that cattail area. There is no effective chemical treatment for Duckweed and there is nothing on the market that will get rid of it. Mr. Ward stated that if you do want to move forward with this program we have $65,000 in reserves that was budgeted for this last year. It is a $100,000 to $185,000 program. No work done in Clam Bay has come in at the low end of the budget numbers; everything comes in at the high end. Mr. Domenie stated that I have not walked from station #5 south to the Commons and he asked if that area is still flooded? Is there still standing water? Mr. Lukasz stated that there is water near the Sandpiper, but as you get further south towards to Commons, there is a dry area. Mr. Domenie asked if anything could be planted in those areas? Mr. Lukasz replied, "We would like to see it dry to get the plants in, but the grasses will grow in the water". They use a number of those plants around the edge of lakes and when I say edge, I mean in the water. Mr. Roellig stated that if we were in a position to do part of it with present funding we could recommend this to the entire Committee. Mr. Domenie stated that he still does not feel comfortable about planting anything in that area at the moment. have to. Mr. Werner stated that I think we are rushing into it because of St. Laurant, but maybe we Mr. Ward replied, "I do not disagree ". I was the first to say we should wait until after rainy season of this year to see what happens out there, but that was before St. Laurant. Times have changed and things have changed. Mr. Domenie stated that it is only St. Laurant, none of the other condominiums have complained. Mr. Roellig stated that the problem with that logic is that there is only one person who goes nuts over rocks on the beach and look at the mess he can create. 131 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE 16 J. ; ,� February 14, 2002 Mr. Ward replied, "That is true, it doesn't take a lot in this business ". Mr. Roellig stated that it doesn't take much to start an avalanche. Mr. Domenie asked if St. Laurant wants us to plant and then have those plants die off? Did we get a guarantee from the people who planted U.S. 41 that the plants would be replaced if they die? Mr. Ward replied, "For U.S. 41 we did, but that would not apply to this situation ". Mr. Roellig asked if we wanted to go anywhere with this planting prior to the next Committee Meeting? Mr. Burke stated that it makes sense to wait for the rainy season. Mr. Ward stated that he would prefer to wait until after the rainy season, but we have to deal with St. Laurant. Do I want to proceed forward and do this? No, but I think we have to do something for St. Laurant and provide them with a fixed schedule. I think if we say here is what the plan is, we are going to bid it and then tell them it will happen in the May through July timeframe, they might not be happy with it, but that will be what we tell them. Mr. Werner asked if we could get an opinion that it makes a lot more economic sense to wait until after the rainy season or do we want to throw our money away? Mr. Ward stated the easy answer is, the owners are going to say yes. Mr. Roellig stated that my impression is that we will probably want to go out for bid to see what happens. Mr. Ward stated we have to go out for bid on this issue anyway. We could put it out for bid without having the funds, but we just can't award it. Mr. Roellig stated that we don't have a source of funds to put it out for bid. Mr. Ward stated it is mostly in -house work and you don't really see the cost of that. Purchasing prepares the bid documents, the plan is done and we have already paid for that. Mr. Roellig asked if we have to have the funds available to award it up to a certain amount of money? Mr. Ward replied, "Yes ". When I go to the County Commission with an award I have to tell them the funding source ". 132 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 1 6J1 Mr. Werner stated that at the last Committee Meeting we had budgeted $250,000 for Phase II of the medians on U.S. 41. We can now get it done cheaper than that and we said we would spend a maximum of $175,000 of our funds due to WCI's contribution. That gives us $75,000 if we can move it around. Mr. Ward replied, "Yes, which we can ". Mr. Roellig stated that we also have $100,000 set aside for the diversion of Systems IV to Mr. Ward replied, "Yes, you have $100,000 set aside for that, you also have $100,000 set aside for the die off area ". Mr. Domenie stated that you also have $100,000 for the dune areas. Mr. Ward stated that we are moving forward with that project and those are County funds. Mr. Roellig stated that we could make the decision in March or April as to whether we are going to spend significant money on the diversion, so in that sense there is cash available in our program. Mr. Ward explained that even if we started now it is the middle of February and if the Advisory Committee said go at the beginning of March, it is going to be May before we can get the bids back. Mr. Domenie stated that I am reluctant at this point to get involved in planting anything until I know all of the cattails have been removed and until we find out the water sampling results. Mr. Ward stated that would not be until after the rainy season and that means the fall of next year before you do this work. Mr. Werner stated that Mr. Domenie is talking about the tests later this month. Mr. Roellig asked what the estimated schedule was for going out to bid and for the planting? Mr. Ward replied, "If the full Advisory Committee would approve the project in March, you would begin the bid preparation ". The specs would be done by the end of March and you will bid it for two or three weeks and it will come back to you in May. It would then go to the full Advisory Committee and then on to the Board of County Commissioners. Just to get through the three 133 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 ' groups it will be May or June and it would be June or early July before you could actually construct this project, even on a schedule where we said to move forward today. Mr. Domenie asked if the bid was merely to deliver the plants to the berm and then our people would then plant them? Mr. Ward replied, "No, this is for the purchase and installation ". The installation is what is going to be the expensive part of this operation. The contractor who removed the cattails is probably one of the few contractors that can even do this kind of an installation and he is going to know what he is getting himself into this time around. Mr. Roellig stated that I am comfortable in discussing this at the March Advisory Committee Meeting and we should have some answers with regard to the tides prior to that meeting. Mr. Werner asked if we were going to make a recommendation to the Committee as far as the plants are concerned? Mr. Ward replied, " I think you need to ". Mr. Werner stated that if you go with Mr. Turrell's recommendation you are looking at approximately $63,000 for plant material. I took the least expensive recommendation of $40,000 and then I looked at Mr. Turrell's recommendation suggesting that we plant 3- gallon shrubs, which would add another $22,000 for plant material and then approximately another $50,000- $75,000 for installation. Mr. Ward stated that I think Mr. Werner is right on the numbers. Mr. Domenie asked if there was any way that Mr. Turrell could provide pictures of some of the recommended plant materials? Mr. Ward replied, "We have an aquatics book that should have the pictures available ". Mr. Burke asked if the consultants would get together at a Sub - committee Meeting? Mr. Ward replied, "Yes, a Sub - committee meeting ". Mr. Werner stated that meetings scheduled at this time of day are not good for me. I would prefer either earlier in the morning or later in the afternoon, where I can either go to the meeting and then on to work or go to work then come back to a meeting and be done for the day. 134 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 16J1 Mr. Roellig stated I would gather earlier in the day would be preferable because normally we can finish in less than two hours. Mr. Werner asked if we are going to do anything about the plants? Mr. Roellig stated that I would be more comfortable in getting the ball rolling for the March Meeting, rather than say we are going to discuss it more at the March Meeting, which will cause it to go off into next fall. Mr. Domenie stated that I listened to what Mr. Ward said and what I think our original plans were and that was to wait until after the rainy season to do anything. I feel the people of St. Laurant are pushing us into this work, and should we rush into something now because of St. Laurant? That is my major concern. Mr. Werner stated that I don't think we are rushing into it, but we are starting to take action, which gives us something to tell them. Mr. Ward stated that I don't think you are rushing; you are just taking some action to move the process forward based on existing data. If the data changes in the middle of it, we might have to change direction slightly. Mr. Turrell provided you some information at your Committee Meeting that indicated that even after the summer rains there probably would not be a major change in the elevations, which is a good thing. Mr. Domenie stated that if you divert storm water from System IV to III, you are going to get more water in System III and that is where you presently have standing water. They all tie together and I don't see how we can separate one from the other. I have no problems planting in the northern section, but I don't feel comfortable that we have as yet solved the problem south of the boardwalk. Mr. Roellig stated that it all depends on how effective the channel is at getting rid of the water. There is no physical reason why you could not put in a channel large enough to drain it immediately. Mr. Ward suggested moving forward with the project and I will have Mr. Lukasz talk to Mr. Turrell about the impact of diverting water from System IV into System I I I in that area. Mr. Domenie stated with that in mind I would certainly support a motion. 135 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE February 14, 2002 1 6J1 Mr. Werner moved, seconded by Mr. Burke and approved unanimously that we recommend to the full Advisory Committee Mr. Turrell's recommendation of using 3- gallon sized plants. ADJOURN There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 11:30 A.M. Mr. David Roellig, Chairman 136 03 c c� -0 0. o � cn n� 0� (D =. �o Oo (D (D. � ca o� O 3 N m a E-71 n c L-, �N' (D� 3 C) � o (p co r*:o� 0 co �� e--rt rD =7 Qj %<(DC: ;4 O cr a) c (D — (M (D a) < 3 O n0L•< � �— (D ca 0, 0 C:r(D (D (D (D p{n' r* m m ((D rrt r--r O1 e :3 o <n� 0 Q- (A D' n Q r-f•-0 r�i -•O�O r-r —. 0 c? c �- °'• 0 °* Cr n -v --i n rD =o� fD rn o1-o �D rD �� 3 0 r* N o (DCo — m �• -• 3 3. K �p N rD O O �: =(D n n < 3.0) (D D co a-a O jw '< O 4 O 3 o ,rt moo -r t� r :3 <, one -0 Ojo :3 • can cn' -a *5n o, n n aCL Q� ar< a (Dc -0 (v 010-0 rtQ Q O (D �• rD n N R go �3 co ��9 0 3.4 � : �D =o � 0i A cfl-M (n CL oi 3 = 5.a v 0- O (D n. (3D La � c0 . (/) o� �Q a re-I 16J1 '. 0 m re-I . h 16J1 @c o = = �7 �� Q Q�C� La �� r C D =3 C- rt CL -61r 0' cn un C) 0 o� o� v orn c E:m C) C-0 o ca) ors r,,�•10 o� m = cu n in ;T fl'a °- o3a- -v.5= o o CL� s ,�m T La (n (D -,, r) O cn �. E5, —n C: Qn(D CD- : c cu CL o -v o m o °D o _ D� La C� CrCL o cLD T m La fl, o 30 m cu o N � r-1- " m re-I . h 16J1 0 E; 2J3 (DD Q 0 � 3 cii O O < 0-0- < o•D Qj w 01 C� O n (D <3n =z=r 0 Cu -0 < cn°'O000 0 0 Ct Q a Q0�r*�r* cr(D E(D :3 �• M 3 :3 (D 0-0 • p„ n cu rn (D N O O (( d D � (D p- n N rt �CD-� 3 �0 (D 0 rt (D m 3 El QN(D O. (D 0) C vi n (D (n 0) (<D �-a r'O Q r-r O (D LO (D w aa,o_cn=3 n �l Im to cm for C d W -"h N C O n 3 n -•t ? (D O (D = N Cl- (D Ln �• fD rt O O CD CD . to rn-r (n rD rrt (� O tc! j O �-O n c(D n -=3 C) U) . � l< R ;0 (D r-r O (D O � �- n' a. N cn O O p �. O :3 (D C to -,3 :37 -,, :37 _ rt �(D��a� CD- C :j- � 5'cQO3rD (D cp fD :3 cn -O �..e r-+. (D Q) (� QO rr Ln =r3 r-r Lnn p- d -0 �(n O QJ fD �� 0 O N (O 3 . O_ 3 rt Q (D l� 5 flJ � (n rr (D (D . p� C'�V�i O n Q (nD UD O a to < (D"O rD fD =� 21. 0 "a (D rr ' n (DD (D O Qj (D (D cn ;;: 01 (D ■ ■ C � O. n (DD M C 0 Mot 0� rn v co 16J1 n _ (D rn -' v� frD r o�x c 3 °- r*� T:c �o 0 C.� �CL QJ0= � n � a r-r o o (n C. p Q 0 C p N r�0-r 0- ID r) 0 C 2 °- � Z7 � p- r-r -�, C O- (D O � < Us' 3• r-r (D O c m 0 rt n�° L rt-0 °" < �. � (D n m -a p 0 (D fD -z cr - " -t CL "a Q Q t O 0 ) fD O WO (n p cn O' L O fl" p� r-r (D -0 dOLa -O 2. p 0 rim ((DD X. O rt C (D CL Q; O � :� n to 0' C ()' -n w �, Q (D 3 o fD < (D n La (DD rOt O rt •� O w N q-3 -0 :--r -1 N `� O CD (D n (OD 2 N (D CD < cn p 3 m n o (D (D m (D r t' �. 0 CL (n m 3 • °- CL o `" ° c 3 ° -� < : OA CD � � -n ci M. O. �� m 0 a -Ir p �� Q r- , (D � �, � CD O cr CU nO �' � � - r-r � (D r-h (D - c in 3 CL U2 n 0 3 3 c ui N 16J1 0 � O ( mD � —; (D �� a Con ='�'oM o�,�,• 3..<�-a m� 'D '�;o QO -rto 3 �c„A,o �� CDr-�crrt �QO �(DNV)(DDfD - -h 7C O :3 O 3 X1 -1:3 a =3 m Ul (ODOR p�j n=700 000((DD (QD(Dc� „ �c°'„� . :E cn O (D n of L O U^n0��0� 3 —La = �. 7c C C r-h (D �_ CL OIDE�_ (D n• ai C cn• V: Q CL -c (D (D Q O0N3 fD�`� �'�5�. ml X 01 C: �Q� �On' m =30M O X• N A �. O r-+ (D cn -c Cfl rr QJ fin' QJ (D n (D — 0 w(DD �OClD(D =0 K 0 ' rD N O O� �a : -t n.LD CO O(h OlO (p or-h O ((DD= CU —Lf) 0- —1 0 Tl0 F;: =(D O'-p0 n : (p' 3 = �' az7 iT = 3� �� (Da) rrr+n rts(D�_ tT O gm Q_� O cn cn � n C ri- O � —' r-r (D a * "0 W. O O� (D . Q r.r CO d (i' rr rr to 0 � S Qj -1 ai QJ ' 0— (D -t r-h (n :3 (n (D (D -h 77 CL cn n 0 3 3 c 16J1 0i a �cn ?5 - i a= Mi I�D. 'n a(D 0 0 E7r 9:_R OR ID ID 1) ETOX- 0 :3 @ C=D 0) CK Enla N CL 0 n Rr r) =3 M 15 C 03 — S'M M @ La -1 FID' 3. �!R 9 Sr CD =r 0 C. (D aj 0 0 01. ID d 0 0 vi. (A =2 0000 GT F-t* 0 EF5 =; 3 Imn EP2 waR. (7D7 ,.,q ID 0 0 0 3 (D -0 < 0 M 30 r-ra) 4o = =r=:R< m m RE M (gD: 0!) OCA 0 (n (A ID M C: r) Qj CCD Sr a) U3 =r r) @ Ort (Dr tnLA (n 0, j< Em 3 fcD�L C- ul "J 50�- 0. a-M =3 6 =03 tw 0 @ -1 M N�O< (D M. -O O=' cr ' Y' 2 @ Ln r-r --h o =rn j3 cr rt (D Q_ C M Qj (D to -9 ID a 0 r,) - & " 0 cr:5: u Q=i -0 cn' — 0 0 m C)_ _j _j 61 U. 0D � 9 ca. V w rte O (D J CL M w a C' = -0 lDr r (D ID 0— 0-0 =3 . !� -I- Q) - ETn ;�'M aj =3 27(D2 rT e-r <04n =r M 0 =r UT C1 -• =3 M m M n a.-a 00 C=:E Ln Y) 0" < L ETO @ 3 fD C3 rl =r U, 0 3 ( n0 0 Er , C:)C: =3 - * = =3LD 5' < 0) a3 0 4 0 M =r , 0) (D 5: L.� gao C) ", * -0 C U') (n > P N 0 0i F), =3 0 n M Q' =3 M_ -"' __' a 0 =Dr < 0 w rlj C) M I �0: I*D M In " 3 m U-1=1 M 3 rlj . V M 0) fw 9�20 0) 14�Z on 75' (D CL C: cr D oj o 0 :3 * ID R: ( =:3 Ct 0 Dr Q U) 0- c ): L=n r ca v) rt 0 (D =r CL rD C(:D CT:3 _gCL o (D cr rt U) M 0 aj CR gCC rX (.) D M M* ( ;' ct: 003 r),—, CD 0 00) aj� _. ELM 3 o n LE • n 3 O 0 ocq�q 3'nR-M 3 -0 08 w ca- rol 0- CL - rt 3 Q :: r < 0 ro) cr 0_0 =0 3 :3 < cr :3 m - m ID n Q) :3 — =rO m :3CL =M 16J1 _0 cu m K v D O w N y AI a u m C/) 3 �i m m x x m m 3 3 d v 3 � N 0 CD n NJ a C' CD $ 0 $ mm- W O 0 $ d► O J $ uL� CO i61 � m- �N u3 !- �Q 0 m,N i o im N 0, D m N W 3 � ) 0 m N W c c C5 M N W C 3 _ C5 m N W D c 0 M N m cp CD g''a 0 M N �D O 0 M N co Z 0 < 0 Im gN 0 M N m 3 0 0 m w co -n (D Q O Im w W 3 3 m 0 M w CO D '3 C5 M W m 3 � w 0 J�mw f� W J � � W m $ C O mw N N N', N. N N N N W .� c0 OD (p a 0 O �� Dl N 3 (� d 3 0 O� � 5 7 aD �. n m D n� D c � eD c D (_� W_ D� 0�� Z �d O d eo W A m n -� d 3 v_ < ° : °< m 3 d v a m °' d 3 c 3.. N� d N _ m 71 7. 0 n m O N O W o C W W 0 c 7 W Rl O1 ° S ? a ? °� n C1 n m ? -0 c o 3 t�D m a d m m n y °m c °w O 9 8 c. m e-u 3 � p a m W fD o < m W m .�. o o C1 g to a v a x. y, n 0 a co <D o D o o w m o m w. a 2 A >> oD A> j n p cm6 o 3 o -0 83 0 3 a 3 CD m a >? �i a N 3 O 3 a o z N (n' �', w co N 7 d CD fD < = A 1° N N O A O < X CD CD CD X go CD c °_ 01� > > i m i to CD m. f CD < °_ y n m a n d p F i X 7 O N O W 7 p 1D J CD 0 v < m m a o 9 _ CL ° O fA - � O T _ c - a K v D O w N y AI a u m C/) 3 �i m m x x m m 3 3 d v 3 � N 0 CD n NJ a C' CD $ 0 $ mm- W O 0 $ d► O J $ uL� CO i61 � m- �N u3 !- �Q 0 m,N i o im N 0, D m N W 3 � ) 0 m N W c c C5 M N W C 3 _ C5 m N W D c 0 M N m cp CD g''a 0 M N �D O 0 M N co Z 0 < 0 Im gN 0 M N m 3 0 0 m w co -n (D Q O Im w W 3 3 m 0 M w CO D '3 C5 M W m 3 � w 0 J�mw f� W J � � W m $ C O mw .0 m m O� D) (. A CD O. O 4 �. N CO 0 D) CA ' N O N � N CD C 0 3 3 N c 3 3 m C CD m 3 3 N N CD N N 17 O 7 CD d CL_ CD V A '- D OW W W W N O � p f0 00 V m Cfl' A co N J1 > p <O d (D m O N O 0 D 3 :3 y M CD N CD O O O O 3 CD '0 CD 0) N _ N O � O N d 0 0 N o+ y o N N CD fD j' @ j O D) j � K N � y 0 0 _ m m CD 5i 6i @ 2 a-)' C D m d o CD �, m 0 O �. co v g -o a o D _v a -0 N O N ? d cn W O N pO O 0 c 0 W O 0 0 °o m c co cu N m co !CD Q SIN m co � N m W o 0 � N m co K � N m W c 3 N m ' co c 0 K N m co c N m co CD N m WO N m WZ O Cl m 0 'S N m co m` = 0 7 O W w a C CL CD 5i ai C(D c CD 8 CL CD to a C(D : CD W N 0 C y CD _? c m cn CD a °1 0 co C O N CD <D a 7 0 m S -G N pO O 0 c 0 W O 0 0 °o m c co cu N m co !CD Q SIN m co � N m W o 0 � N m co K � N m W c 3 N m ' co c 0 K N m co c N m co CD N m WO N m WZ O Cl m 0 'S N m co m` FEB 25 2002 14:41 TURRELL & ASSOCIATES Pbteatial Plants for Cattail ftmaval Ana Zone 1: Average elevations of 1.3' to 2.1' NGVD 941-643-6632 1631 Zone 2: Average elevations of 0.8' to 1.3' NGVD Red Mangrove (Rhiz*ora) Min Sine Number Estimated Total Cost Buttonwood (Cococwpus) 1 gallon 4,000 Installed $12,000 Sweet Bay (Magnolia) 3gallm 600 Cost $4,800 Red Bay (Persea) Liner Stock 7,000 1.10 $7,700 Black Needle Rash (hmcus) 1 Gallam 2,000 8.00 $6,000 Red Manger (Rhizophom) Props 5000 3.00 515,000 Wax myrtle (Myna) Saltwater False Willow (Baccharis) I gallm 5,500 3.00 $16,500 Buttmbush (Cephalanthus) 3 gallon 2,000 8.00 $16,000 Sea Grape (Coccoloba) Sand Cordgrass (Spwfm) Leather Fear (Acaostichun) Liner Stock 15,000 1.10 516,500 Cinnamon Fan (09nunda) I Gallon 5,000 3.00 $15,000 Sewgrass (Cladium) Zone 2: Average elevations of 0.8' to 1.3' NGVD Red Mangrove (Rhiz*ora) props 4,500 3.00 $13,500 Buttmbush (Cephalanthus) 1 gallon 4,000 3.00 $12,000 (or others) 3 gallon 1,000 8.00 $8,000 Sand Cardgrass (Spartina) Liner Stock 7,000 1.10 $7,700 Black Needle Rash (hmcus) 1 Gallam 2,000 3.00 $6,000 Leather Fern (Acrostichum) Zone 3: Average elevations below 0.8' NGVD Arrowhead (Sagittaria) Bulrush (Sckpa) Bare Root 4,500 2.50 $11,250 Pickerelweed (Pontedaria) 1 Gallon 5,000 3.00 $15,000 Spike Rush (Eleocharis) TOTALS 61,100 5157,250 y u y gi C •U O U Zap N a a� L 00 V 0 L Qw a 0 OD •L cL L ca v� I R N � O R y V � Qr N b c D U � � 16J1 Q c f0 a � •� c o °o o ° ° °o, d 0 000 X00 OM N oM o o A o V bs O 00 M O O W) O 0 .�.� �^ O N N �p N ti V r. 64 69 69 69 6A 69 40% Vj y .� z . � 0 >. N >- H > y M 00 �c 00 i U M 00 M N O y N C en in v Y N M t� f4 v C> o0 00 00 0 N0 o V1 _ N OD O O O O O O O O a 0 O N 000 �o ~ _ U 00 ON V i y z N � � a� �= z�=�� oj o Sao o ao o ao o € H U U U D U U 8 U U o a S `3 `.� V] a H c ° a �E-o a 0 o o aa, � z v �MC E- a a U F r N in iC E a o h V E A b Q. U ° o r w a 3 A a E= V h V � 3 Q c f0 a COLLIER COUNTY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR FOUR (4) MONTHS ENDING JANUARY 31, 2001 Revenue Interest Income Plan Review Fee Income lnterf tnd Transfers Miscellaneous Income Assessment or Ad- Valorem Tax Levy Unappropriated Fund Balance Total Revenue Other Fees & Charges Property Appraiser Tax Collector Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges NET REVENUE Appropriations - Personal Services Personal Services - Admin. Personal Services - Field Total Personal Services Appropriations - Operations Administration Indirect Cost Reimbursements Other Contractual Services Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight & Ups Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Lease Purchase Dell Computers Insurance - General Data Processing - R &M Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. Legal Advertising Office Supplies - General Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Computer Software Other Training & Educational Exp. Other Operating Supplies Total Administration Field Services Engineering & Consultants Berm & Swale Maintenance Water Quality Testing Plan Review Services Water Use Charges Replanting Program Other Contractual Services GENERAL FUNDS Water Community Street Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Management Beautification Lights Security Thru Jan. Budget 16J1 Prorated Jan -02 Favorable Bud et Unfavorable $3.548 $21.902 $3,329 $3,677 $32,455 $60,400 $20,133 $12,322 $100 $0 $0 $0 $100 $5,000 $1,667 ($1.567) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $128 $325 $138 $0 $592 $0 $592 $0 $472,093 $1,194,028 $182,492 $328,118 $2.176,731 $2,536,900 $2,156,365 $20,366 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $264.351 $0 $0 $475,869 $1,216,255 $185,959 $331,795 $2,209,878 $2,866,651 $2,178,757 $31,121 $6.095 $15,869 $4,013 $7.206 $33,184 $50,700 $33.184 $0 $7.627 $19,817 $6,480 $11.636 $45,560 $74,600 $45,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,200 $0 $0 $13,722 $35,687 $10,493 $18,842 $78,744 $269,500 $78,744 $0 $462,147 $1,180,568 $175,466 $312,953 $2,131,134 $2,597,151 $2,100,013 $31,121 $17.829 $12,387 $11,828 n/a $42,044 $120,000 $40,000 ($2.044) $40.888 $189,472 $7,996 n/a $238.355 $954,000 $318.000 $79.645 $58,717 $201,859 $19,824 $0 $280,399 $1,074,000 $358,000 $77,601 $143,000 $0 $10,500 n/a $153,500 $153,500 $153,500 $0 $7.409 $9,849 $5,280 n/a $22,538 $69,000 $23,000 $462 $113 $113 $77 n/a $303 $2.000 $667 $363 $1,077 $1,077 $616 n/a $2,770 $7,000 $2,333 ($436) $338 $314 $241 n/a $893 $13,000 $4,333 $3,440 $3,220 $3,317 $3,220 n/a $9,756 $23,900 $7,967 ($1,790) $249 $249 $249 n/a $747 $3,900 $1,300 $553 $371 $0 $0 n/a $371 $1,100 $367 ($5) $4.000 $600 $500 n/a $5,100 $5,100 $1,700 ($3,400) $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $900 $300 $300 $14 $14 $0 n/a $27 $4,000 $1,333 $1,306 $100 $0 $0 n/a $100 $4,000 $1,333 $1.233 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $6,000 $2,000 $2.000 $122 $384 $111 n/a $617 $3,500 $1,167 $550 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $1,400 $467 $467 $81 $81 $0 n/a $162 $600 $200 $38 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $300 $100 $100 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $400 $133 $133 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $400 $133 $133 $160,093 $15,997 $20,794 $0 $196,884 $300,000 $202,333 $5,449 $13,114 $0 $0 r/a $13,114 $15,651 $5,217 ($7,898) $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $5,000 $1,667 $1,667 $6,332 $0 $0 n/a $6,332 $13,900 $4,633 ($1,699) $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $5,000 $1,667 $1,667 $0 $8,519 $0 n/a $8,519 $35,500 $11,833 $3,315 $0 $6,267 $0 n/a $6,267 $42,300 $14,100 $7,833 $20,622 $68,611 $4,440 n/a $93,673 $198,900 $66,300 ($27,373) Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR FOUR (4) MONTHS ENDING JANUARY 31, 2001 Motor Pool Rental Cellular Telephone Postage, Freight & Ups Electricity Trash & Dumpster Fees Rent Equipment Insurance General Auto Insurance Sprinkler System Maintenance Maintenance - Landscaping Autos & Trucks R &M Outside Vendor Fleet Maintenance - Labor Fleet Maintenance - Parts Fleet Maint. Non ISF Boat R &M Other Equipment R &M Printing - Outside Vendors Photo Processing Licenses & Permits Uniform Rental Chemicals Fuel & Lubricants - Outside Fuel & Lubricants - Inside Minor Operating Equipment Other Training & Educational Other Operating Supplies Total Field Services Capital Outlay Capital Expenditures Total Capital Outlay Security Personal Services Other Contractual Services Total Security Operations TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Net Income from Operations Fund Balance @ 10/1/01 Fund Balance @ January 31, 2002 Fund Balance Allocations Reserved for Operations Reserved for Capital Outlay GENERAL FUNDS Water Community Street Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Management Beautification Lights Securitv Thru Jan. Budget 16J1 Prorated Jan -02 Favorable Budget Unfavorable $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $300 $100 $100 ($58) $65 $41 n/a $48 $2,000 $667 $618 $0 $21 $0 n/a $21 $200 $67 $46 $0 $314 $5,266 n/a $5,580 $26,600 $8,867 $3,287 $2,535 $6,733 $0 n/a $9.268 $15,100 $5,033 ($4,235) $0 $4,831 $0 n/a $4,831 $9.400 $3,133 ($1,698) $2,000 $9,500 $800 n/a $12,300 $12,300 $4,100 ($8.200) $2.800 $5.500 $1,800 n/a $10,100 $10.100 $3,367 ($6,733) $0 $5,897 $0 n/a $5,897 $17,600 $5,867 ($30) $0 $11,831 $0 n/a $11,831 $44,200 $14,733 $2,902 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $1,100 $367 $367 $0 $1,287 $0 n/a $1,287 $7.900 $2,633 $1,346 $163 $1,558 $0 n/a $1,722 $12,300 $4,100 $2,378 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $2,400 $800 $800 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $500 $167 $167 $0 $1,198 $320 n/a $1,518 $2,700 $900 ($618) $0 $137 $0 n/a $137 $0 $0 ($137) $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $200 $67 $67 $53 $1,168 $0 n/a $1,221 $700 $233 ($987) $576 $1,901 $0 n/a $2,477 $9,200 $3,067 $590 $12,745 $10,606 $0 n/a $23,351 $112,100 $37,367 $14,015 $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $700 $233 $233 $293 $2,610 $0 n/a $2,903 $13,800 $4,600 $1,697 $0 $1,563 $0 n/a $1,563 $3,200 $1,067 ($496) $0 $170 $0 n/a $170 $1,200 $400 $230 $928 $41.703 $6,727 n/a $49.358 $46,400 $15.467 ($33,891 $62,104 $191,989 $19,394 $0 $273,487 $668,451 $222,817 ($50,670) $6,893 $7,102 $6,893 $0 $20,887 $152,200 $50,733 $29,846 $6,893 $7,102 $6,893 $0 $20,887 $152,200 $50,733 $29,846 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,687 $84,687 $402,500 $134,167 $49,479 $0 $0 $0 $84,687 $84,687 $402,500 $134,167 $49,479 $287,807 $416,947 $66,904 $84,687 $856,345 $2,597,151 $968,050 $111,705 $174,340 $763,621 $108,562 $228,265 $1,274,789 $0 $1,131,963 $142,826 $445,059 $632,045 $114,120 $153,540 $1,344,764 $1,349,400 $619,400 $1,395,666 $222,682 $381,805 $2,619,552 $1,349,400 $555,000 $1,244,166 $219,282 $377,805 $2,396,252 $368,000 $64,400 $151,500 $3,400 $4,000 $223,300 $223,300 Notes: Fund Balance at 10/1/01 (actual) includes Reserve for Encumbrances of $15,050.50 FY 2002 Unappropriated Fund Balance Budget includes $15,050.50 of Rolled Encumbrances and a $39,500 Budget Amendment in Security Page 2 COLLIER COUNTY I 6 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR FOUR (4) MONTHS ENDING JANUARY 31, 2002 Revenue Developer Contributions - WCI Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Interfund Transfers Assessment or Ad- Valorem Tax Levy Unappropriated Fund Balance Total Revenue Other Fees & Charges Property Appraiser Tax Collector Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges NET REVENUE Appropriations: Engineering & Consultants Other Services Capital Outlay TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Clam Bay Uninsured Irr. & Land. System Assets Analysis Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Thru Jan. Budget Prorated Jan -02 Favorable Budget Unfavorable $6,875 $0 $0 $6,875 41,600 $13,867 ($6,992) $9,391 $18,353 $14,495 $42,239 84,700 $28,233 $14,005 $15 $838,272 $70 $85 0 $0 $85 $141,450 $0 $275,000 $416,450 832,900 $416,450 $0 $56,320 $0 $256,701 $313,021 360,700 $313,809 ($788) $0 $0 $0 $0 1,056,832 $0 $0 $214,051 $18,353 $546,265 $778,670 $2,376,732 $772,359 $6,311 $745 $0 $3,375 $4,120 $7,200 $4,120 $0 $107 $0 $4,227 $4,334 $10,500 $4,334 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,000 $0 $0 $852 $0 $7,602 $8,454 $36,700 $8,454 $0 $213,199 $18,353 $538,663 $770,216 $2,340,032 $763,905 $6,311 $75,176 n/a $2,410 $77,586 $348,013 $116,004 $38,419 $14,769 n/a $324,438 $339,207 $1,747,904 $582,635 $243,428 $0 $0 $0 $0 $244,114 $81,371 $81,371 $89,945 $0 $326,848 $416,792 $2,340,032 $780,011 $363,218 $123,255 $18,353 $211,815 $353,424 $0 ($16,105) $369,529 $441,465 $1,079,967 $626,457 $2,147,888 $1,725,400 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance @ 10/1/01 (Actual) Fund Balance @ January 31, 2002 $564,719 $1,098,321 $838,272 $2,501,312 $1,725,400 Fund Balance Allocations Reserved for Operations $564,719 $0 $838,272 $1,402,991 $0 Reserved for Capital Outlay $0 $1,098,321 $0 $1,098,321 $1,108,100 Notes: Fund Balance At 10/1/01 (Actual) includes Reserve for Encumbrances of $439,531.66 F.Y. 2002 Budget for Unappropriated Fund Balance Includes $439,531.66 in Rolled Encumbrances. Page 3 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION CLAM BAY RESTORATION FUND 16J1 JANUARY 31, 2002 Page 1 F.Y.'s 97 -99 F.Y. 2000 F.Y. 2001 F.Y. 2002 Total Exp. Jan. 2002 Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget To Date Balance Expenses EXPENDITURES Environmental Consult. Engineering Fees $0 $0 $58,040 $174,653 $232,693 $111,874 $120,819 $53,834 Akerman, Senterfitt, et. al. $207,683 $0 $0 $0 $207,683 $207,683 $0 $0 Lewis Environmental Serv. $78,732 $0 $0 $0 $78,732 $78,732 $0 $0 Tackney & Associates $86,500 $0 $0 $0 $86,500 $86,500 $0 $0 Wilson, Miller, et. al. $67,675 $1,522 $7,245 $0 $76,442 $76,442 $0 $0 Dr. Samuel Snedeker $9,997 $0 $0 $0 $9,997 $9,997 $0 $0 Hilburn Hilstad $10,550 $0 $0 $0 $10,550 $10,550 $0 $0 Turrell $49,238 $12,701 $4,562 $0 $66,500 $66,500 $0 $0 Other Expenditures $41,009 $39,472 $146,324 $188,700 $415,505 $227,824 $187.680 $0 Sub -Total $551,384 $53,695 $216,170 $363,353 $1,184,603 $876,102 $308,500 $53,834 Tidal Creeks 1,2 & 3 Engineering Construction Tackney $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell $57,101 $1,899 $0 $0 $59,000 $59,000 $0 $0 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage $2,796 $0 $0 $0 $2,796 $2,796 $0 $0 Engineering Design Tackney $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell $26,790 $0 $0 $0 $26,790 $26,790 $0 $0 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage $11,596 $0 $0 $0 $11,596 $11,596 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $134,830 $51,183 $0 $0 $186,013 $186.013 $0 $0 Sub -Total $233,113 $53,082 $0 $0 $286,195 $286,195 $0 $0 Clam Pass Main Channel Engineering Construction Tackney $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell $74,291 $4,709 $0 $0 $79,000 $79.000 $0 $0 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage $5.900 $0 $0 $0 $5,900 $5.900 $0 $0 Engineering Design Tackney $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell $24,980 $0 $0 $0 $24,980 $24,980 $0 $0 Agnoli, Barber& Brundage $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 Snedaker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $251,530 $0 $0 $0 $251,530 $251,530 $0 $0 Sub -Total $366,701 $4,709 $0 $0 $371,410 $371,410 $0 $0 Interior Tidal Creeks Engineering Construction WMB &P $0 $10,990 $0 $0 $10,990 $10.990 $0 $0 Turrell $1,503 $1,497 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $0 $0 Interior Tidal Creeks Engineering Design Lewis Environmental $17,450 $14,350 $0 $0 $31,800 $31.800 $0 $0 WMB &P $5.804 $6,816 $0 $0 $12,620 $12,620 $0 $0 Engineering Consultants Lewis Environmental $27,409 $59,110 $27,692 $0 $114,211 $114,211 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $25,500 $47,478 $47,398 $0 $120.376 $120.376 $0 $0 Sub -Total $77,666 $140,241 $75,090 $0 $292,997 $292,997 $0 SO Page 1 EXPENDITURES Seagate Culverts Engineering Construction WMB &P Engineering Design WMB &P Capital Improvements Sub -Total Ecosystem Enhancements Environmental Consultants Other Contractual Serv. Capital Improvements Sub -Total Fresh /Stormwater Analysis Engineering Fees Environmental Consult. Fees Turrell & Associates Other Contractual Serv. Operating Supplies Capital Improvements Sub -Total Capital Outlay Improvements General Other Machinery & Equip. Sub -Total Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Sub -Total PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION CLAM BAY RESTORATION FUND r' JANUARY 31, 2002 1 6JI F.Y.'s 97 -99 F.Y. 2000 F.Y. 2001 F.Y. 2002 Total Exp. Jan. 2002 Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget To Date Balance Expenses $0 $8,071 $0 $0 $8,071 $8,071 $0 $0 $9,108 $3,277 $0 $0 $12,385 $12,385 $0 $0 $0 $88,240 $0 $0 $88,240 $88,240 $0 $0 $9,108 $99,588 $0 $0 $108,696 $108,696 $0 $0 $0 $3,750 $0 $110,700 $114,450 $25,091 $89,359 $21,341 $0 $0 $25,198 $262,600 $287,798 $38,948 $248,850 $0 $0 $0 $8,250 $0 $8,250 $8,250 $0 $0 $0 $3,750 $33,448 $373,300 $410,498 $72,289 $338,208 $21,341 $0 $0 $16,980 $3,020 $20,000 $16,980 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,455 $56,045 $0 $0 $82,500 $82,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,817 $6,624 $45,441 $38,817 $6,624 $0 $26,455 $56,045 $55,797 $9,644 $147,941 $138,297 $9,644 $0 $15,459 $0 $950 $0 $16,409 $16,409 $0 $0 $4,727 $13,986 $0 $0 $18,713 $18,713 $0 $0 $20,186 $13,986 $950 $0 $35,122 $35,122 $0 $0 $23,041 $0 $0 $1,300 $24,341 $23,148 $1,193 $58 $8,637 $0 $0 $1,900 $10,537 $9,382 $1.155 $745 $0 $0 $0 $3,400 $3,400 $0 $3,400 $0 $31,678 $0 $0 $6,600 $38,278 $32,530 $5,748 $803 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 1 $1,316,291 $425,096 $381,454 $752,897 $2,875,739 $2,213,639 $662,100 $75,978 Rolled Encumbrances which are included in Total Approp. $95,797 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DATE INV. NO. AMOUNT Florida Dredge & Dock 01/22/02 05 -14 -36 $62,000.00 TOTAL INVOICES $62,000.00 NOTE: WCI THRU 1 /31 102 WCI: BILLED TO DATE WCI: PAID TO DATE $955,425.40 $955,425.40 Page 2 Fiala Carter Henning Coyle Colette AGENDA County Metropolitan Planning Organization Collier County Government Center Building "F", Yd Floor Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room Naples, Florida February 15, 2002 10:00 a.m. 16 J'I This meeting of the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is open to the public and citizen input is encouraged. Any person wishing to speak on any scheduled item may do so upon recognition of the Chairperson. Any person desiring to have an item placed on the agenda shall make a request in writing, with a description and summary of the item, to the MPO Manager or the MPO Chair 14 days prior to the date of the next scheduled meeting of the MPO. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this committee 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. 1. Call to Order A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 2. MPO Manager's Report (To be Distributed at Meeting) 3. Committee Chairman's Report A. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Report B. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Report C. Pathway Advisory Committee (PAC) Report 4. Open to the Public'' 5. Consent Section r a�: A. Approval of January 11, 2002 Meeting Minutes :.41'" 6. Board Action 164 A. Pathway Advisory Committee (PAC) Appointment B. Authorization to Amend the Transit Development Plan (TDP) Contract with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) to Include the Transit Quality of Service Evaluation for Collier County 7. Reports and Presentations (May Require Board Action) A. FDOT Report B. I -75 Project Development and Environment (PD &E) Study C. Proposed Collier Area Transit (CAT) Schedule Changes 8. Discussion Section (May Require Board Action) 9. Other Business 10. Next Meeting Date March 8, 2002,10:00 a.m. 11. Adiournment RECEIVED r' - 2002 W b'a G R,G0 tG0VERNMENT 3 v Fiala V 1P Carter Henning _ Coyle Coletta 16J1 DIVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 650 CENTRAL AVENUE COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BO11 LES, FL 34102 Wednesday, February 27, 2002 941) 261 -8208 Headquarters Library 7 74 -8486 AGENDA A CERTIFIED BLUE CHIP COMMUNITY Call to order Approval of Minutes Literacy Program Report Reports of Officers Communications a: Written b: Personal Unfinished Business: 1. Regional Library 2. Employee of the Month 3. Immokalee Library Construction 4. Report from Doris Lewis- Tallahassee Meeting New Business General Considerations Director's Report Report of the Friends Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: -- Item# Copies To: I 6JI Naples, Florida, January 23, 2002 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 2:00 p.m. in the Main Library with the following members present: CHAIR: Syd Mellinger VICE - CHAIR: Doris Lewis Jaculyn Dering — (left at 2:30 p.m.) Sabina Musci ABSENT: Diane Williams ALSO PRESENT: John W. Jones, Library Director Marilyn Matthes, Assistant Director Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator Linda Fasulo, Public Relations Luz Pietri, Adm. Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Mellinger asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of December 12, 2001. There being none, Mrs. Dering moved, seconded by Ms. Musci and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as submitted. Roberta Reiss reported on the activities of the Literacy Program since last month. She stated that the computer lab is almost ready. She invited all board members to attend an appreciation get together on 2/4/02. She also stated that the branches are interested in forming literacy programs. REPORT OF OFFICERS Mrs. Mellinger said she had received an invitation from the Friends of the Library to attend a $50.00 per person reception at the new Headquarters Library. She stated that it was not mandatory for the board members to attend. COMMUNICATIONS — None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Jones stated that the Library is ready to go. Grand opening has been set for March 1st with lots of activities scheduled. Invitations are being prepared. He also stated that there would be one full -time custodian during the day and one at night after closing. The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee of the Month. Ms. Musci moved, seconded by Mrs. Lewis and carried unanimously, to select Adrienn Bonnyai as Employee of the Month for January 2002. The Board voted on the requested change to the By -laws — moving the annual meeting from June to May. Mrs. Dering moved, seconded by Mrs. Lewis and carried unanimously, that the change be approved. It carried. 16J1 Mrs. Dering suggested that the December meeting be changed from the l lth to the 18th to allow Mrs. Mellinger to attend her last meeting. Mrs. Dering moved, seconded by Ms. Musci and carried unanimously, that the change be approved. It carried. Marilyn Matthes stated that the Library staff had been discussing a number of procedural changes for circulation of library materials. They are library patrons can return videocassettes and DVDs to any library location, with no fee charged. Also, those library patrons will be able to reserve 5 books, music CDs and Books -on -Tape. Lastly, that non - fiction books will not be limited to 3 on a subject. If there is heavy use of subject material, the number of materials borrowed may be limited by the Head Librarian. Mrs. Lewis moved, seconded by Ms. Musci and carried unanimously, that the procedural changes be approved. It carried. Mr. Jones explained to the Board where the library's budgeted funds come from and how they are spent. NEW BUSINESS Linda Fasulo invited the Board members to come to the new library for a tour with their respective commissioners, if possible. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Mrs. Mellinger suggested that all Board members sit together at the Grand Opening and to remember to wear their nametags. DIRECTOR'S REPORT — None REPORT OF THE FRIENDS — None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Lewis moved, seconded by Ms. Musci and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 3:15 p.m. Fiala iz Carter ✓ RECEIVED Henning _ Coyle d 1�6J1 '. 1. Meeting called to order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of February 8, 2001 4. Landscape Maintenance Report a. Estimate for November replacement plants and labor for reimbursement 5. Landscape Architect's Report - Mike McGee a. Layout plan & estimate for irrigation system conversion 6. Transportation Landscape Services Report — Val Prince, Robert Petersen a. Current budget b. Progress on cleanup c. Complaint number re: newspaper stands @ Buena Vida 7. Committee Members' Reports 8. Old Business 9. New Business 10. Public Comments 11. Adjournment i, isc. corres: N te: i r %4011 Gtr; 4 5 T0: . Lely Golf Estates Beaut ficatzon Advisory Committee 16J1 Minutes — ,Meeting of February 8, 2002 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS 4. Minutes of January 11'h — Robert Cole made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted; seconded by Bob Slebodnik and carried unanimously. 5. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT C. Bob Slebodnik noted that the Pebble Beach medians apparently are not getting enough water. Val noted that he was notified that the effluent water has been off for 2 -7 days. They will check with Robert Kindelan to see if he was notified. Chuck Buckley advised that he turned off a clock and closed a valve-on Pebble Beach. Chuck noted that the effluent was running on Wednesday when some trees were being installed on median #5. After a brief discussion, the group decided to switch over to potable water immediately upon being notified that the effluent system has been turned off. 6. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S REPORT B. Mr. McGee provided a sample of recycle wood he recommended using as replacement slats for the bench at Doral. It has a 50 -year warranty. The cost is $1.60 per lineal foot and six 8' pieces will be needed. They can be obtained from Plastic Specialties on Progress Avenue in Naples. JreCy Golf Estates Beauti cation Advisory Committee Minutes — Meeting of Ee6ruary 8, 2002 1. Meeting called to order at 4:06 p.m. 2. Location — Transportation Operations Department Conference Room. 16J1 a 3. Attendance Taken: Present — George Pearson, Robert Cole, and Bob Slebodnik, members; Pam Lulich, Bob Petersen and Val Prince, Transportation Services; Chuck Buckley, Commercial Land Maintenance; Mike McGee, McGee & Associates; Jacqueline Silano, recording secretary. Absent: Bill Erickson and Robert Weyers, members. 4. Minutes of January 11"' — Robert Cole made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted; seconded by Bob Slebodnik and carried unanimously. 5. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Chuck Buckley informed the group that a substitute crew was used this week and they missed some weeding and trash to be picked up. B. Mr. Buckley noted that the irrigation problems are on going. He displayed a section of pipe that was invaded by a bougainvillea root and caused a leak at the northern most end of median #10 on St. Andrews Boulevard. He was not sure whether the flush valves have been flushed. Mr. McGee noted that this is part of the contract specifications and that an examination of a section of pipe did not show it to be clogged. C. Bob Slebodnik noted that the Pebble Beach Boulevard medians are apparently not getting enough water. Val noted that he was notified that the effluent water has been off for 2 -7 days. They will check with Robert Kindelan to see if he was notified. Chuck Buckley advised that he turned off a clock and closed a valve on Pebble Beach. Chuck noted that the effluent was running on Wednesday when some trees were being installed on median #5. After a brief discussion, the group decided to switch over to potable water immediately upon being notified that the effluent system has been turned off. 6. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S REPORT A. Mike McGee requested a heavy cutback (50 %) of the bougainvillea in March or April; replace the crab grass areas; treat the dollarweed on Valley Stream; spray for weeds; replace some Pittosporum. B. Mr. McGee provided a sample of recycle wood he recommended using as replacement slats for the bench at Doral. It has a 50 -year warranty. The cost is $1.60 per lineal foot and six 8' pieces will be needed. They can be obtained from Plastic Specialties on Progress Avenue in Naples. 7. t a 10. TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS REPORT 16J1 '. A. Copies of the updated budget statements were provided and reviewed. Val Prince noted that E.B. Simmons adjusted their bill by 10 hours labor, which reduced the bill to $1043.61 for the new lighting fixtures at the U.S. 41 and Doral entrances. B. Mr. Prince provided copies of the Water Billing worksheet. A discussion ensued. In January 2001 the monthly total was $2021.45 v. January 2002 @ $2484.04. The increase may be due to the effluent system being off and continual leaks. C. Val Prince met with Risk Management regarding accident damage expenses. They are instituting a procedure that should make tracking and obtaining reimbursements easier and quicker. An estimate for November replacement plants and labor by Commercial Land Maintenance is needed. OLD BUSINESS A. Val Prince met with the Water Management Department and they will send him an e-mail when the clean up of the ditch and debris in the canal by the church is scheduled. The exotic plants will also be removed. The ditch behind the childcare center is the responsibility of the golf course. In order for the County to maintain this area. He also met with Mark Lindsay of Road and Bridge regarding the headwall and flume along St. Andrews Blvd. at the Buena Vida entrance and canal area. Mr. Lindsay will send him an e-mail when the repairs are scheduled. B. Pam Lulich will meet with Code Enforcement to see who needs to be contacted regarding the newspaper stands (also at the Buena Vida entrance and St. Andrews. Blvd. area) and to obtain a complaint number. Bob Slebodnik and Mike McGee want to attend any meetings that are set up with Code Enforcement. C. Mr. Prince will also be meeting with the Pathways Committee regarding the sidewalk extension on St. Andrews Boulevard to U.S. 41. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Bob Slebodnik provided a two -page report regarding the issues discussed above. He would like to invite various representatives of the groups involved to a future meeting to discuss beautification plans. George Pearson suggested that this be postponed until Mr. McGee can provide a workup and estimate. NEW BUSINESS A. Chuck Buckley estimated a cost of $14,000 in labor to convert 15 medians to a pop -up system. This does not include the irrigation system. Mike McGee will provide a head and valve layout plan and an estimate of additional costs for sod replacement at next month's meeting. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. The next scheduled meeting will be held on March 8"' @ 4:00 p.m. at the Transportation Operations conference room on South Horseshoe Drive. February 8, 2002 LetY Goof Estates Beautification -Advisory Committee Page 2 of 2 Fiala v Carter — Henning C3oyle Coietta V/ 0 January 17, 2002 RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMIS84ONf County Commissioners NAPLES, FLORIDA, JANUARY 17, 2002 16J1 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:32 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth L. Abernathy Russell A. Budd Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Lora Jean Young David J. Wolfley Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Chief Planner, Planning Sery eag . -- - -� --- Misc. Corres: Date :(y /�/l Item# X4.5 e Copies To: Page 1 44 Janu ary , 17 2002 6J 1 mot' � r CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I would like to call the meeting of Thursday, January 17, 2002, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Please rise and join me in reciting the pledge allegiance to the flag. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I will call the roll. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Abernathy is present. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The next item, addenda to the agenda. The first of those will be the election of new officers, since our chairman has resigned. I'm the acting chairman, since I'm the vice chairman. Apparently, we passed an election cycle last October blindly ignorant of it, so we are overdue to have an election. We will do that immediately. Do you have, any other addenda to the agenda, Miss Murray? MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray, current planning manager. I do. I have received written requests from the petitioner for Item H -- that's the Madeira PDI -- for an indefinite Page 2 I January 17, 2002 16J1 11 continuance. So I advise anybody in the audience that is here to hear the Madeira PDI it has been continued indefinitely. I would also like to remind you that Item C, PD- 2001 -AR -431, regarding the Founders Plaza PUD has been continued to 2/12. So if anybody in the audience who wishes to speak about the Founders Plaza PUD, that has been continued to 2/12/02. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ms. Murray, is 2/12 a regular commission date? MS. MURRAY: I don't have a calendar in front of me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We have one. I have one here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's a Saturday -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have got it as a Tuesday; that's why I questioned that with Ray on e -mail, and I haven't got a response yet. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. It was -- the numbers were transposed. It was the 21st. Does that coincide with our calendar? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that's what your intent was. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Indefinite continuance, that maintains -- maintains its filing. They don't have to refile or any of those things? MS. MURRAY: Well -- CHAIRMAN A 3ERNATHY: It has to be readvertised, I assume. MS. MURRAY: It depends on the length of continuance, so if it exceeds the statutory requirement for advertising based on the length of its continuance, it will be readvertised appropriately. I think the petitioner is just deciding how they want to handle the situation. I know you were familiar with the situation because you heard it last Page 3 January 17, 2002 161 .. time. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We shouldn't be concerned with it this morning, I don't suppose. MS. MURRAY: And -- I don't know. Patrick, do they need to take action to continue that to indefinitely? MR. WHITE: Not anymore so that -- I'm sorry. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White -- not any more sure than they otherwise would, for example, with respect to Item C. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Item C, we are told it's been continued. H, I suppose, is an application for indefinite continuance. Can we have a motion to continue both C and H for whatever effect that may have? COMMISSIONER BUDD: So move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second it. CHAIRMAN A 3ERNATHY: Any discussion? All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Carried. Now, we are going to have some discussion about the final order amendments, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Do you want to do your elections first? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. We can do the election first. In the past we have nominated a chairman, and then a vice chairman and secretary; those are the three officers. We have also done it as a package, if you will, where one person nominated all three so a person considering that slate would understand the relationship between the three parties to the deal. My own preference is if somebody has a slate of three officers to nominate, I would be interested in hearing that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a slate, Mr. Chair, I would Page 4 January 17, 2002 1 6JI like to recommend. I would like to recommend you as chairman and Mr. Budd as vice chairman and Ms. Young as secretary. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I will second that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other nominations? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I like it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We will close the nominations. All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER BUDD: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Hold your applause. Now, are we ready to talk about the final order amendment? MS. MURRAY: Yes, sir. MR. LITZINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman -- congratulations -- and commissioners. For the record, I'm Stan Litzinger, comprehensive planning manager. The reason I'm here to speak to you this morning is it's come to our attention that you will not probably have a quorum for either of your regularly scheduled meetings in February, either on the 7th or the 21 st. This creates somewhat of a conundrum, if you will, because as you are all probably aware we are in the final phases of completing what has been over a two -year process of public hearings for the transmittal of their final order amendment for the rural fringe assessment area. We are in a position due to our deadlines that we have more or less sworn ourselves to with the governor and the cabinet and the folks in Tallahassee that we cannot afford to lose a month, but we cannot go forward unless we have a public hearing before our local planning agency, which is you folks. To do that we need a quorum. So what I am here this morning to ask and petition that you do is make a commitment to have a special meeting on either the 6th or the Page 5 January 17, 2002 6J1 6 13th of February, which are both Wednesdays and on which. Days this room is available because there would be a large crowd. Also, that we have a commitment that we have at least five commissioners present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You are telling me something that I don't know, and I don't know it's a matter of record. Is there -- what is the source of your information that we wouldn't have a quorum on the 7th and the 14th? MR. LITZINGER: Because of the resignation of Ms. Rautio, we thought it might be a good idea to poll all the commissioners -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. LITZINGER: -- along with those two dates. And, true enough, we only have four commissioners committed to both the 7th and the 21 st of this date. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can we poll them again while we are here? MR. LITZINGER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Midney, are you going to be here? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Both days. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I won't for the 21st, I will for the 7th. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm the opposite. I will be out of town on the 7th, and I will be here on the 21 st. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's two for each. I'm here for both. That's three for each. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I will not be here for either. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I will be here for both. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's four. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will be out of the country for both. Page 6 January 17, 2002 a COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will definitely be here for both. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's five. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You have a quorum. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We definitely will have five on the 7th. So we can advertise for the 7th. Those here on the 7th raise your hands. (Commissioners raised hands.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You are locked in forever. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do you want to do the 21 st while we are at it and get it on the record? MS. MURRAY: Please, that would help me. (Commissioners Abernathy, Strain, Midney, Adelstein, and Richardson raised their hands.) MS. MURRAY: Five for the 21 st. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just a different five. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Moving right along. Approval for the December 20th minutes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anybody have any a corrections or additions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Carried. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, are we going to discuss the other minutes today? There were two other packages sent out. I know they are not on the agenda, so I'm -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes, they are on the agenda. Page 7 January 17, 2002 1611 Down at No. 9. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On the back page? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. Old LDC minutes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Didn't see them. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We have covered Planning Commission absences in our own way here. BCC report, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: There is none enclosed in your packet. I was hoping to, actually, be able to hand out to you the LDC amendments or get them in your packet. If you were here early this morning, you saw me run them up to the clerk's office. So I would like to hand out those -- or have them mailed out to you, the final ordinance, and then discuss it for the next meeting. I don't think there was anything of interest to you that happened at that last board meeting, a couple of minor petitions that were approved consistent with your recommendations. Nothing else. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In accordance with our recommendations? MS. MURRAY: In accordance with your recommendations, yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Next item is the chairman's. Report. I have none. So we will move to the advertised public hearings. Any member of the public who wants to address us on any of these issues should fill out a slip that you will find out on the table in the passageway and give them to the planning department representative, Ms. Murray, sitting beside the court reporter. MS. MURRAY: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I was just handed a speaker slip for Item H; that is the Madeira PUD. Mr. Murphy, I announced earlier that that item has been continued indefinitely, as well I had sent you an e -mail to that affect. January 17, 2002 16J1 Again, if there is anybody here to hear Item H, the Madeira PUD, it has been continued indefinitely. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Murphy, do You hear that? MR. MURPHY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Fred, all persons wishing to testify on the matter now in hearing should raise their right hands and be sworn. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. The court reporter swears. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I can do it. (All parties sworn.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we have disclosures. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Me. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ex parte disclosures to be made as to this item. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I had a brief conversation. With Mr. Varnadoe prior to the beginning of the meeting. He was describing some of the aspects for this request. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a conditional use and a special treatment development permit. The location, as you can see on the visualizer, is in rural Collier County. In the southwest corner of the intersection of State Road 29 and Oil Well Road, which is also County Road. 858. The closest landmark, if you will, is the general store in the northeast corner. And this is a little further south on 29 from that. The subject of the conditional use and ST permit is a 38 -acre parcel. The area controlled by the petitioner is over 4,500 acres. The property is outside the urban designated area. However, the use is not one of those that is prohibited by the final order. The underlying zoning is rural agricultural, and there is also a Page 9 January 17, 2002 16JI mobile home overlay -- and that is not of concern as of today. It just allows a mobile home can be put on an agricultural property. And there is also a ACSC /ST overlay, area of critical state concern/special treatment. And that's the reason for the ST development permit that is also being heard today. And on the visualizer you can see the approximate layout of the 38 acres, basically, designed to avoid having any wetlands on the site. That is why the unusual configuration. You can see in pink the cabins and the hunting lodge in the center there. There will be a -- road access from State Road 29, and, again, that is also across the petitioner's property. This was heard by the Environmental Advisory Council, and they recommended approval 7 -0; one member recused themselves because of business with the company. And the one question that came up at the EAC was regarding fencing. The petitioner has stated that they are in talks with the panther refuge to the south, and they will conform to the request of the panther refuge for fencing that will keep out poachers but will allow panthers to cross. The staff recommends approval of both petitions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Fred. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The line that says, "Area Critical State Concern, " which site does this fall on? Or which part is in the critical area? MR. REISCHL: Okay. If you look at the visualizer again, I have that line in yellow. The south portion is within the area of critical state concern. The north portion is outside. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do we have any independent knowledge about the lack of wetlands in this area? MR. REISCHL: Barbara Burgeson is here, and she wants to Page 10 January 17, 2002 I'm 6 J I address that. She is our senior environmental specialist. I have been informed the petitioner has an environmental consultant that will address that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No. I said, do we have any independent knowledge of that? As we have heard in the past, we often get applicant's representative saying what the applicant whats them to say. MR. REISCHL: I have not been on the site, but Barbara has. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. I did a site visit with Todd Turrell of Turrell & Associates about a month and a half ago. There are wetlands immediately adjacent to the boundary of the property on the east, which is why there was a stipulation added. The last stipulation in the resolution states that, "In lieu of providing the South Florida Water Management District determination, the petitioner agrees to provide a minimum of 25 -foot buffer from all conditional -use boundaries adjacent to the wetlands. " And that is for The -- the reason for that is because the wetlands are all off site, and in order for me to determine that they are not impacting the wetlands, they would either have to approve jurisdictional wetland determination, which may take them a few weeks or months to do, or the other option is that we would normally require a minimal of 25 foot -- 25 -foot setback from the wetlands minimum 15. If they provide that 25 -foot setback from the property boundary, then they are assured of being at least 25 foot away from the wetland boundary. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Might we expect, then, that this boundary line will change based on the in -field conditions as they find it? MR. REISCHL: No. The legal description is -- will be approved as part of this conditional use. That will stay the same. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we can be assured that Page 11 January 17, 2002 16J1 is all upland land? MR. REISCHL: According to what was submitted to us, yes. Again, even if there was some wetland within there, they will still have to maintain 25 feet from those wetlands, if the jurisdictional line shows otherwise. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the boundary could stay the same, but then the application will be deficient in that there might be wetlands within the property to say that there are no wetlands? MR. REISCHL: I don't know it would be deficient, but, yes, there could be wetlands shown -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. I will say inaccurate. MR. REISCHL: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, what else can this land be used for? Can it all be planted with citrus or ag? MR. REISCHL: Agricultural uses -- there are -- because it is area state critical concern, that is one of the uses -- is that agricultural uses are also limited, and ACSC could be used for one house or one mobile home for every 5 -acre parcel. There are some individual parcels in the area. As I said, all under the same ownership. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson, are you finished? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Fred, as a planner does it strike you as a bit of anomaly in this district you can build one dwelling unit for every 5 acres, but if you call it a lodge and cabins you can build 14 of them? Isn't there something a little askew about that? MR. REISCHL: Well, what they are doing is clustering. Because, as I say, they own -- it's over 4, 000 acres. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So they are using all of that -- Page 12 W* January 17, 2002 6 J MR. REISCHL: In one 38 -acre parcel, basically. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You did not make that clear. That counts against them elsewhere on the property then? MR. REISCHL: That's right. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe representing the property owner, Barron Collier Investments Limited. Also here today to answer questions are Blake Gable of the Barron Collier Company, Domenic Amico, and Stephen Basado of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, the planners and engineers on the project, and Tim Hall of Turrell & Associates, who are the environmental consultants. The landowner is proposing a neat little project, private hunting and fishing club in the rural ag areas that you have heard. Although hunting and fishing are allowed uses in the area, conditional use is necessary for the lodge and related facilities. Conditional Use 20 in the Land Development Code with ag district is 40 and recreational camp, in which this falls. As the SNAP has indicated, the site is 3 8 acres, and I will direct your attention to this aerial photograph. This is 858 here (indicating) and State Road 29 here indicating). The site in question is here (indicating). Mr. Richardson was asking questions about the area of critical state concern; that line boundary is right there, sir (indicating). As you can see, we could have located that camp completely outside of the area of critical state concern, but there is no need to do it since we meet the mandates of the area of critical state concern, which merely state you cannot alter more than 10 percent of the site, and you can't have a pervious surface on more than one -half of that 10 percent or 5 percent of the site, so we are meeting that. So that's not a concern. As far as what's allowed in the area of critical state concern, that Page 13 January 17, 2002 6J really does not restrict usage. It really restricts how much of the site you can alter. To correct something that Mr. Reischl said, agricultural is totally exempt from the rules of area critical state concern. So this whole area could be turned into agricultural use. What we have done here is -- you can see this is a blowup of this area right here (indicating) on this aerial. We have sited the site outside of this hammock here (indicating), which is a hardwood hammock which has this typical mixed hardwood uses in it -- some wetland, obviously, in there. We kept the cabins all outside of that, main lodge outside of that, but also site -- pushed them up against that hardwood hammock for aesthetic reasons and also to provide vast views across this to the west and southwest. The property is bordered on the south about this line right here (indicating) by the Florida Panther and National Wildlife Refuge. We have been in contact with them, and they have no objection to our request. In fact, we are working on matters of mutual interest with them. The 38 acres is going to be used for the main lodge building up to 14 cabins. Accessory buildings, we're going to have a welcome building out in this area here (indicating), parking here (indicating), and access into the site will only be on foot or by golf carts, trying to get that traditional rural setting for this use. The project was designed to limit the impervious surface and provide a natural setting in keeping with what we think is a very traditional use in a rural setting, which is a hunting lodge. You can see the site is somewhat remote. The excess will be via -- we had two alternates here -- via existing farm roads, some of which are improved and some of which have not been greatly improved. You can also notice the manmade lakes that have been there for many years dating back to when 29 was constructed that Page 14 i, January 17, 2002 6 J I -` will be used for the fishing activities on the site. The major activity is going to be quail hunting, which will be a managed activity, and we do have our state permit for that. As Fred has said, the project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, the rules and regulations for the area state critical concern and interim amendments to the Growth Management Plan that are in place. While we go through the rural assessment, they are also consistent with that. The EAC recommended unanimous approval -- I will not take much of your time up. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. I think this is a neat little project and one that is allowed in the rural ag area and does and will keep this 4,800 acres in pretty much its natural state for the forseeable future, which I think is the reason the environmental audience has not been here to object -- either at the EAC or this meeting. The reason the EAC gave unanimous approval is because it does -- to some it's a lot better than turning it into ag. I will be glad to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Varnadoe, help me picture the operations here. I'm just not familiar with how this sporting club will work. We have been reading a lot in the paper recently about swamp buggies and the difficulty of getting in and out of certain areas and restrictions. Do I picture this in wetlands sense in any -- how will people be transported around? Do they walk or take a swamp buggy or what? MR. VARNADOE: Probably not swamp buggy because most of your bird hunting is on upland areas, not in wetland areas. Typically hunting in this area is done with bird dogs and usually transported to an area, probably by jeep, and then from there it's hunting on foot. If you are familiar with North Florida and South Georgia Page 15 16J1' January 17, 2002 hunting, they do it from wagons with mules, but I think that is kind of out of place in South Florida. I think over the existing farm roads by vehicle and then on foot, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. One other question. Are you going to have a caretaker on site? Is that planned? MR. VARNADOE: That is the current plan. Whether they will be there 24 hours a day or merely during all hours of operation, that is yet to be decided. But, obviously, there will have to be a manager or caretaker. That is one of the reasons for the outbuilding is to have a place to store guns and have a meeting place with the guides with the dogs and that type of facilities, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One of the concerns, of course, raised by staff is that this would not be used as a transient facility? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. Mr. Reischl and I have discussed that. I think when you see the remote location, the fact that you are going to be getting there over shell roads, and then you -- I have a welcome station, and you get in a golf cart to go -- I don't think the facility lends itself to a transient lodging facility, which is one of the things that is prohibited in this area during the interim amendments. We said if there are any rationale restrictions, the Planning Commission or the staff would like to place on that, we will be happy to do it. But it's just one of those things that the planner came up with without really looking at the site, because I can't imagine anyone traveling down 29 and then a mile over dirt roads and getting into a golf cart to spend the night unless he has other activities in mind. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions? Any member of the public registered to speak? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? Page 16 January 17, 2002p 16JI COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Make a motion -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Chairman, I would like to make a motion we recommend approval of Petition CU- 2001 -AR -1225 and ST- 2001 -AR -1226 to the Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and second by Mr. Strain. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes, sir, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thin -- to me it sounds like an excellent use of private land because it gives the owners an incentive to keep it in its natural state, and also they will be addressing the exotic plants. It sounds to me like a good idea. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other? Call the question. Call those all in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Motion carries. Please fill out your conditional -use petition forms and pass them in. Next item, CU- 2001 -AR -125 5, communications Development Services, Incorporated. All of those wishing to testify on this matter stand and raise your right -hands be sworn. (All parties sworn.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any disclosures as to this item? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I spoke to. Chief Peterson once since the last meeting, and I spoke to him briefly in this room prior to the last meeting concerning this issue. Our discussions centered around the use of the fire station's existing tower in that same location instead of adding an additional tower. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other disclosures? Page 17 January 17, 2002 It 16 1 - Okay. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with current planning staff. This petition was presented to you a couple of meetings ago. It was continued to allow the petitioner to obtain additional information as to the use of the fire district tower. That information has been included in your packet. Staff is recommending approval, and I would be happy to answer any questions which you might have. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question for the county attorney, unfortunately. This tower was in an area that has another one across the street from it, and there is a library on the corner, which is another governmental service. I believe the sheriffs department is or is going to be out there, which is another governmental service. According to our essential services they can be placed -- they can place towers for their use anywhere. And I believe that if you were Nextel or a communications company, and you weren't an essential service, you would have to put your tower in a properly zoned area. The way the code is written it seems that we've got a loophole that allows private companies by buying zoning to be able to put a tower anywhere they want under the guise of essential services. The fire department has an existing tower that is not completely utilized by essential services. It is utilized by private companies. Does the county have any mechanism, such as eminent domain, to force those private companies off of the location or the existing company that could be used by EMS, sheriff, library, county -- or anybody they want so we can maintain just one tower for essential services when it's needed for essential services? MR. WHITE: My understanding is that the typical means by which you acquire the rights to use your antennas on a tower is Page 18 January 17, 2002 16JI through contract. And I believe it may be that there is an interference with those contracts, rather than the typical notion of property rights against real property that eminent domain is utilized for when there is, quote, taking by. The government. So I would be concerned that we would be crossing the line from real property law to contract law and maybe doing something that was impermissible in terms of interference with contracts. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So we can take someone's home for putting a road through, but we can't take an antenna of a tower to put an essential service in its place because of a contract; is that what it boils down? MR. WHITE: I think that's a fair statement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Abelstein. COMMISSIONER ABELSTEIN: Is there no space available from 145 feet to 165 feet on that present tower? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. The information that was presented by the applicant indicates that there are no existing space at the height on the existing tower that they need. Otherwise, it would acquire additional towers to be built for EMS in order to have the system operated. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The petition states that there is nothing at 145 -foot level. It doesn't state that there is nothing above that up to 165 -foot level. It seems to me the higher they go the better transmission would be anyway. MR. BELLOWS: Their response was the 165 -foot tower located at the fire station across 13th Street to the east of the EMS station was looked at by EMS, but that tower did not offer the height that EMS. Needed. The fire chief determined that he needed 145 -foot Page 19 6J1 I-Vo January 17, 2002 1 ` space. The space above and below that level is not available. I have also -- the -- the applicant has also tried to obtain a written letter from the fire chief during the public hearing on December 20th to determine what issues were involved -- about other locations in the height. And it turns out that they really don't have the space at the levels they really need for optimal efficiency. It really has to be at that 145 -foot mark. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Has anybody reviewed the contracts of the parties that are presently on that tower? MR. BELLOWS: I would have to defer to the applicant on that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm aware many of the contracts given out clause if the county needs the area. MR. BELLOWS: The applicant -- the petitioner is here from EMS. MS. FLAGG: For the record, Diana Flagg with Emergency Medical Services. This is a flagpole that is planned for the front of the station. In terms of the contract, that is a contract. Relationship between Golden Gate Fire District and the people that are on the tower on Golden Gate's Fire District's property. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Have those contracts been reviewed to see if there is an out clause in any one of them at the level necessary? MS. FLAGG: I don't have that information. We have to ask Don Peterson, who is the chief of Golden Gate Fire District. But I think the county attorney would like to comment. MR. PALMER: Yes. My name is Tom Palmer, assistant county attorney. I have reviewed all of these contracts. They are leases. Nobody in private enterprise has any right to get on a tower on a essential service site except to the extent agreed to in the lease. Therefore, these things could be wholly owned and used only by Page 20 January 17, 2002 16J1 governmental units; sheriff, United States government, what have you. The rights that these private people have the tower are as agreed to. In most cases they put up these towers. They pay the money for the tower. They turn the title over to the county. The county gets free use or other governmental use. And they reserve in those agreements the right to sublease or allow licensees, technically -- they are called licensees on the tower. That essentially gives them an opportunity to pay back themselves the capital cost of putting up the tower. There are no out clauses. For example, it does not say that you can get on there but except if a governmental entity comes by later and needs your space, that you will either have to get off the tower or get down to a lower level on the tower, assuming the lower level will meet your needs for a radio wave point of view. Therefore, there are no outs. These are rights to the extent that the subleasee or the other Has. Sometimes they enter into five years. Sometimes they are renewable five and five and five. They are all individual subagreements. But there are no out clauses that we can -- can effectively bump them if we feel a subsequent need to utilize their space. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we realize at that 145 level that there is a -- the lease is coming up, or what the status of that particular lease is? MR. PALMER: The lease on the now existing tower? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. PALMER: I understand that there is an occupant on there under an existing lease, and I don't know it's term. But I understand the tower at the fire station, there is an occupant on there actually utilizing at this time under some specified term agreement. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But we don't know what the Page 21 January 17, 2002 16J1 term is? MR. PALMER: No. No, I don't. I would speculate it would be a minimum of five years, because of capital expenses they have to put a structure at the ground, coaxial cable up the tower, and there is quite a lot of capital expenditure. People don't normally want to do that unless they have a guaranteed minimum period of time that they are going to be able to stay on the tower. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How many years has that tower been in place? MR. PALMER: I don't know. I think that's a relatively new tower. I have so many of these that they get mixed up. I think that tower has been there less than five years. The fire people can tell you more of the details on that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: On the face of it, it seems like it's mutually advantageous to have somebody else pay for the tower and everybody gets a use. The downside I get from Mr. Strain is that we have a proliferation of tower. Is that the evil? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That is my concern. This is a residential area, and towers are supposed to be -- I believe it's a C -4, if it's private use. And under the guise of essential services because a private company can more or less pay for a tower, we think that is a great freebie, and it almost gets allowed anywhere in the county. I mean, I don't see any in Pelican Bay. I mean, why are they getting off in Golden Gate Estates? It doesn't make any sense. MR. PALMER: Well, if they can only go on essential service sites, they have got accessories or reasonably affiliated with an already existing -- this is an affiliated essential service tower, which is what this case is. It has to be -- the essential service feels it already has to be there; the fire station, the police station, and the governmental entity. These things -- there are stand -alone essential services. This is not one of those, because we are putting this already Page 22 �I .. January 17, 2002 16J1 .4 on a facility that is in and of itself an existing essential service station. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: If I understand you correctly, there are no out clauses in the current lease agreements in place. Would it be possible, considering the potential approval of this petition- before us today, that it be an added requirement that an out clause be included in this new proposed tower that should a sheriff or some other yet unknown critical essential service come in, that they would have a priority position on the tower? MR. PALMER: Well, right now we have the right to utilize -- in fact, the ordinance requires that the governmental purposes on the tower be 51 percent -- at least 51 percent governmental; that leaves the residual of 49 percent available to the extent that someone applies in a private sector to get a leasehold interest in the section not reserved to the government. Are you saying if somebody gets on there on a five -year subagreement that another governmental entity comes about, they can bump those people? COMMISSIONER BUDD: That's about -- yeah. That's what I'm asking. MR. PALMER: That's legally possible. Whether or not that would be workable from the prospect of somebody that wants to come on on essentially a short -term terminable agreement might nix the value of the tower on the marketing standpoint a great deal less. Because, essentially, like a person on a airplane, you don't know whether you have a ticket, and you could be bumped out. It means people would be more reluctant to come on that tower in a status that they can be bumped out, because a layer need is perceived by the government. The way to do that if you want to have that reserve yourself is to Page 23 January 17, 2002 16 J 1 IM build a tower yourself and reserve it 100 percent to yourself and use it as needed. That could be reserved for years. It may be many years before the total capacity of the tower is exhausted with occupation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Do we know who is the tenant at the 145 -foot level? MR. PALMER: I don't know myself, but certainly the fire folks know. They entered into a contractual relationship with that entity. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to know before we get into voting on this. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do either of the county attorneys know if impact fees could have been used to pay for this tower if it entirety if the -- it was deemed necessary? I mean, a lot of the reason why these towers are happening like they are is because we like these free offers that we are getting from private companies. Just out of curiosity, since we do have impact fees for EMS and we do have impact fees for other essential services, could the impact fees pay for those towers? MR. PALMER: I think that -- this is a capital improvement. If it's necessitated by growth, I do not believe that -- depending on its uses for -- obviously, some of the uses is going to be EMS. I believe a certain percentage of this tower, at least, could be funded by EMS impact fees. If sheriff is going to use part, perhaps part can be used by sheriff impact fees. It's a question of, No. 1, is it driven by growth, and, No. 2, is it the kind of capital improvement that is susceptible to lawful expenditure of a given impact fees. We have eight types of impact fees in the county -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. PALMER: -- and they are limited, of course, to particular types of capital improvements. Page 24 January 17, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. 16J11--- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think you can understand we are a little considered about these free offers that we are getting. There are always strings attached to it. The strings we -- on the fire department we didn't realize, collectively, from the county until after it happened, and now we need other space and we have to go with another free deal. MR. PALMER: Well, what could be done, of course -- and I don't have the details on the fire station, but they could have reserved the highest portions of the tower specifically for governmental uses where there would not be an election to allow the private enterprise on the highest part of the tower; that can be done. I don't know the private enterprise in that particular case got the best site on the tower. But that's a question of negotiations between the fire people and the private entity that is on that tower. But the county itself does not approve the subleases. Once the county approves the lease between the county and the fire department, they do not come in for subsequent review approval. They, essentially, enter into those subagreements, and they are the contract administrators of those subleases. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Palmer, do you know if is it being done here? Has EMS been reserving the top parts of the tower for future essential service like you thought -- MR. PALMER: Well, certainly in this tower they are because they need the top 145 feet. Then the question is whether or not the next band would be available to private enterprise or that would also be preempted to governmental use. That can be in the lease. I don't remember if the lease has these specifics. But right now for sure the EMS is getting the top section. We can put in the lease the governmental use will be from a certain height -- 110 feet above or above and all private uses will be below that; that is not an Page 25 January 17, 2002 16J1 uncommon provision in these lease agreements. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I can picture the Tower, 51 percent of it we would have liked and 49 percent they would have? MR. PALMER: And you can do that on the vertical, if you wanted to. You could say the governmental uses are the top 51 percent and the private use shall be below that, depending on the needs of a particular private enterprise applicant. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You had an open question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The only question I have is I would still like to know who the tenants are on that lease and when those leases are up. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ms. Flagg, do you know that? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. That is a private contract between the Golden Gate Fire District and the people that they have signed a contract with to put on their tower. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The fire chief is not here? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's public record, though. You mean it's private but it's public record, so you could get the lease? MS. FLAGG: I personally don't know that information. Both his -- what he made clear was that he already has leases -- signed leases with his people that are on his -- the flagpole that is planned for the front of our tower, we have a lease that has already been approved by the board. This -- this purpose is just to get your approval to put the flagpole up from a permitting standpoint. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Basically, I'm personally opposed to have too many towers. If there is space on the fire station that can be made available for this purpose, I would like to see that done so a new tower does not go up, so we don't have these flagpoles Page 26 January 17, 2002 16 J 17 going up on four buildings. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir, I understand that. We did after the last meeting at your request talk to Don Peterson, Chief Peterson with Golden Gate, and he indicated that he does not have space on his tower at the height that we need, and he has contracts for the spaces. I don't know how many of his people are private, and I don't know how many are government. I do know the ordinance requires, I believe it's 51 percent be for government and the balance be for private. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think where we are coming from is that, okay, we acknowledge the testimony that there is a contract in place on the current Golden Gate fire district tower. What we don't know is -- that tower is slightly less than five years old, and it's a five -year lease. If that lease may expire in 30 days or in 3 months, we are going to look like a bunch of dopes that we approved a complete new tower and, in fact, that space will be available in an extremely short amount of time. And I think. Mr. Adelstein, where he's coming from -- and I share his concern -- is making the decision without the information if such a fact might exist and we don't have that information. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. If I can just summarize for you that Chief Peterson has advised he has contracts on those locations, but more importantly how this whole project came about and why it is essential services is the purpose of this flagpole is to provide a piece of a wireless network system for the EMS department so that we can provide hard -copy dispatch to the medic units when a 911 call comes in. The reason it has to go -- this flagpole -- and we have to be at 145 feet is the -- it's a wireless. It's point to point line of sight to the other stations. If we -- if you all do not recommend approval of this flagpole, then we are going to have to put a flagpole up somewhere else to get that transmission across. The purpose of this whole thing Page 27 January 17, 2002 16J1 is to provide hard -copy dispatch to the paramedic units. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't think anyone is disputing the need. You took us through that last time. We all agreed. You are doing a good job and all of that. What we are trying to do is our part of the job is to find out if there is some other way to do this that is more economical in total in terms of the number of flagpoles that we see that are proliferated. For instance, you say it has to be at 145 feet. Technically, could it be at 147 feet? Could it be at 150 feet? Could it be some other space higher than that and still satisfy your needs? MS. FLAGG: Well, as it is entered into the record that if this flagpole does not go in, we would have to rework the project and put one or two -- or more flagpoles somewhere else to make the project work. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Excuse me. We still have not given up on there being a possibility of a space on that other tower. I just want to try and find out technically whether it's required to be at exactly 145 feet on the fire tower, for instance, which is not available, or if we can find out that there was space available or soon to become available on the fire station tower that was higher than 145 feet, would that satisfy your needs? That's the question. MS. FLAGG: If there was space on the fire tower, that would certainly satisfy it from line of site. But the other component of this and why this is such an important project for EMS is because we are trying not to use any tax dollars to put this project in place. By putting this flagpole up, they are paying $35, 000 up front to allow us to put the wireless project in place. In effect, we are going to be able to provide hard -copy dispatch to EMS units county -wide, and it's not going to utilize any tax dollars. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are describing the free nature of this to EMS. I guess we are still on the side that says Page 28 January 17, 2002 16J1 . , maybe we can get it free also on the 51 percent that is available to -- for critical uses on the fire station tower. MS. FLAGG: Except that the difference there is that Nextel is giving the tower to the county for ownership, and Nexte -,t paying $35, 000. If we put the antenna on the Golden Gate tov )tr and completely rework the plan, we would still have to figure out how to come up with $35, 000, and our only option would be to go to ad valorum or potentially impact fees. That was something that impact fees are already preplanned for other projects. But, again, the advantage of this project is that we went to the board, explained to them that EMS needed a wireless network system, and we had come up with a way to provide hard -copy dispatch to all the units without costing any tax dollars. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is it your statement then that if we obtain the 145 -foot level on the fire station and that didn't cost us anything -- because we own that tower also -- MS. FLAGG: No, sir, we do not. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The county does not own it on the fire station? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. The fire station is a separate government. They come to the county for approvals, but they are not part of Collier County. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: They are a governmental entity, though, aren't they? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And they would charge our county if we put that up on the 145 -foot level? MS. FLAGG: They are -- Mr. Abernathy, they are a governmental entity, and we don't know if they would charge us. I would hope not, but we don't know. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let's assume for the moment of this discussion that they would not and we were able to put your Page 29 .00; January 17 2002 1 6J1 � � equipment at that height. Would your system then substantially, work as it was planned to at no cost to you? MS. FLAGG: Technically, yes. However, we would still be lacking the 35, 000 to put the system in place. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They are actually paying for our system also; is that the answer? MS. FLAGG: This flagpole provides the revenue to put the system in place, correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I thought the thirty -five was to erect the flagpole. The thirty -five is cash payment? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. MR. PALMER: What it is is prepaid rent. They are prepaying the rent so we have cash on hand. They are going to rent this tower. It is going to cost money. What they are going to do is make a lump - sum prepayment of rent. They have the money to put the system together. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: A lot of this discussion is somewhat circular and doubles back to a lot of things we said at the last meeting. I thought we would have every chapter, verse, footnote, fact that could possibly bear on this brought to us today. Now we don't, and I don't know how long we can spin our wheels on it, to tell you the truth. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, what specifically is .it that the commission needs to know? Is it the name of the specific leasee on the tower at the 145 -foot level? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's what one member wants to know. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And the contract. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In other words -- MR. PALMER: We can find that out. That is public record. We can probably call the fire station if somebody is available and Page 30 January 17, 2002 16JI find these facts in a matter of a few minutes, as long as the person that knows these facts is there and has a copy of the sublease. These are very simple matters, factually. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I used to be a commissioner with the Golden Gate Fire Department, and I know you can call them and get the information. But I would want to rely on a county attorney or a legal professional to review that contract to see if it has a termination, under the terms of the termination and deadlines. I wouldn't trust staff there to do in regards to legal means. I can tell you that from experience. I would rather see a legal professional do that interpretation. So could you -- do you have a copy of the contract that you can review, and we can hear the rest of this later today? MR. PALMER: I have never seen the sublease agreement. I don't think we have that. We have seen the basic lease agreement. We can have it maybe faxed to us, and I can look at it very quickly and see if it has any kind of a bumper provision in it; that would take a matter of minutes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would the Chair consider a short continuance on this? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think we can put it back until you come back to us until you are ready to talk about it. MR. PALMER: All right. I can try to contact them immediately and see if we can't have this information faxed to us. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We will just move on to the next item then. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. We will be back to you if -- pursuant, of course, if we can get ahold of Chief Peterson. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's see if we can resolve this today. It's obvious that this commission as a group is loathed to approve another tower without being satisfied that there is absolutely Page 31 14 January 17, 2002 16 J l'?'411 no alternative to that. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, you -all don't have final approval. Again, you are a recommending body. You can always opt to recommend denial, or the petitioner can, you know, request a continuance again and come back with the information if the county attorney's office can't provide it for you at this time. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I recognize we are just recommending, but we would like to do it on the basis of all the facts that we can marshal. MS. MURRAY: I understand. That's just an option to consider. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I encourage the commission to make a motion to continue until later in the agenda. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I so move. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We will revisit it sometime later today. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, before we move too further on to the next item, is there any other particular piece of information that the commission at this point sees may be necessary in order to make a recommendation in this matter? I don't want to get us down the road and -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Then redo it. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: It seems to me that we have just been going over this week everything that we discussed last time. What we are trying to ascertain is, can EMS get the proper frequency on the tower that is standing and is it possible. If so, when? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I find -- excuse me. I'm sorry. I find it that 145 cannot only be a magic number. I have been Page 32 January 17, 2002 16J1 involved with these before. And if you get above a height, a sight -to- sight, you are probably a little better off. I don't understand why the 145 or 155 cannot do. Yet it bothers me that I cannot get a definitive answer to that question. MS. MURRAY: I think that was answered. I think the only remaining answer is whether or not there is a lease that is going to terminate in the near future that might make that space available. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not only for 145. Let's say 150 or 160. MR. MURRAY: I think Miss Flagg says she needs 145 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This flagpole is 165 feet high. MR. WHITE: There could be potentially interference issues that arise from the location of the antenna at any other height regardless of whether it's better on a site -to -site only. That is based upon my prior experience with similar issues. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which brings up -- I think we also requested back on the 20th, I believe it was, that we see some sort of frequency allocation due to the potential interference. All I see that is new here is a letter dated January 9 from a David Quinlen of Nextel that says that it should not cause significant interference. Well, "should not" is hardly strong enough for me. I have been involved in an awful lot of "should not" statements and it usually is. So I would like to see a frequency allocation chart for the people that intend to go on there and the ones from across the street. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are we ready to move on to Agenda Item D? That is PUD- 2001 -AR -14949 PMS, Incorporated, representing Kenco Development. Any -- all persons intending to testify on this matter, raise your right hand to be sworn. (All parties sworn.) Page 33 January 17, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any disclosures? 16J1 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have quite a few. I spoke with the applicants agent PMS, Inc., and we discussed -- she described to me the concerns that she saw with -- the last time it was brought forward to us concerning the -- some of the inappropriate things that were in the report versus what they had intended to submit, so I think hearing it today was probably a good idea. Also, we discussed my concern over some of the commercial uses that were to be applied for, and I suggested she relook at those commercial uses strongly. I also spoke to Marjorie Student and Ray Bellows in a conference call concerning delaying the last meeting because of the lack of sufficient information. I have various a -mails gone back from Dawn Wolff and I. Dawn's department had not reviewed the final package in this case. They had just gotten it, I believe, on Wednesday or maybe Tuesday, from what I see in her e-mail. I'm not sure how much transportation -- she did have some comments from transportation regarding some of the uses not qualifying pursuant to the traffic impact statement that was done. And I have an e-mail from a Mr. Ardenhalt from the Pebblebrooke Lake Subdivision. He asked that his e-mail be submitted to the record. Is that okay if I do that, Mr. County Attorney? MR. WHITE: I don't have any objection. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Who do I give it to? MR. WHITE: I believe the court reporter. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Other disclosures? Mr. Wolfley. Page 34 2 �' January 17, 2002 6JI ! COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I spoke with Ms. Bishop as well regarding the uses and -- within the Pebblebrooke community. And also I may have to abstain due to an appearance of conflict of interest with the applicant. My question to Mr. White is, would my abstention would that -- should I or should I not comment throughout the -- MR. WHITE: If your intention, Commissioner, is to abstain voting because of a conflict -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Potentially. MR. WHITE: -- a potential conflict, you still have the right to participate in the discussion on the matter. You just must abstain from the vote. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Other disclosures? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I spoke with Karen Bishop. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, sir. I spoke with some residents of Pebblebrooke; Jerry Brusso, Craig Haas, and Jeri Buehler. I also spoke with Karen Bishop, the owner's agent, and received an e -mail from Russell Ardenhalt that was submitted to the record by Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I received an e -mail also. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No other disclosures? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson, anything else? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I received an e -mail. I didn't realize it was on this one. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I did too. While we are on this subject of disclosures, ex parte communications, Ms. Student advises me that the county attorney in response to our question about ex parte communications has reiterated his earlier advise that each of us as individuals can decide not to engage in ex parte communications, Page 35 January 17, 2002 16J1 period. So that being the case, I'm going to take the county attorney up on it. Henceforth I do not intend to engage in ex parte communications on matters pending before the Collier County Planning Commission. And I invite each of you do whatever your desires are in the matter. I don't think you need to make it a matter of record. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current planning staff. The petitioner seeks to rezone the subject site from PUD to PUD for the purposes of amending the Richland PUD. The purpose is to reduce the number of dwelling units from 650 dwelling units to 400 dwelling units and reducing the residential acreage by approximately 3.2 acres and increase the commercial tract by the same amount. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. This is currently a development -- or PUD that is currently under development. We have a copy of the currently approved master plan. As you can see, the existing commercial tract comes in and is predominantly oriented in the -- down. Along the frontage of County Road 951. The proposed change to the master plan increases the commercial tract by 3.2 acres along the southerly direction shaded in this cross - section area, resulting in the final master plan to look like this (indicating) with the commercial tract here. This is an existing subdivision being developed to single - family subdivision. There is requirement by transportation to provide an interconnect from the residential portion into the commercial tract. This would allow residents within the development to access the commercial portion without having traffic to head on to County Road Page 36 '! ' January 17, 2002 16J1 tl 951 and back out -- back into the commercial tract there. That would really drastically improve traffic circulation at that intersection. The petitioner has not requested any changes to the list of currently permitted commercial uses within the PUD. Those will remain the same. The future land use elements indicates the project's located within an activity center. This is the future land use map (indicating). As you can see, it's located within that activity center, which is the place where county encourages commercial development. So this particular commercial tract is solely -- wholly within this activity center and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan for a wide range -- full range of commercial uses. The transportation review indicates that there was an estimate done by Chahram Badamtchian concerning the possible difference in traffic growth. His estimate was that the project could -- this proposed amendment could increase traffic by 3,750 trips. That's an estimate based on the increase of square footage possible with this additional acreage of approximately 75, 000 square feet versus the reduction of dwelling units. However, it should be noted that this estimate may be -- not taken in all the factors, such as reduction of trips due to the interconnection of the residential tracts to the commercial tract, which would reduce the traffic volume coming in and out of the PUD. So we have a revised traffic estimate that indicates that, in fact, there may be a slight decrease in traffic as a result of this petition based on the reduction of dwelling units and interconnection of this project to the commercial. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The report said there was an increase. MR. BELLOWS: The environmental review by staff indicates that the subject preserve area, as you see here (indicating), will not be encroached upon by the change in the master plan. They have Page 37 16JI January 17, 2002 it recommended approval. The staff has had discussions with many of the residents within the community of Pebblebrooke. Some of the concerns raised by the residents was the interconnections to the site may cause a lot of traffic in front of their homes, and they were concerned about the landscaping between the two projects. The petitioner also had a public meeting with the residents there, and I think there was some agreement as to how the landscaping and buffering and the gated entrance into this commercial tract should be handled. And it's my understanding that some of the agreements that have come out of those meetings with the residents included -- if I can show you on this one particular map, this is the location of the interconnect into the commercial tract (indicating). The county's planning staff is recommending that the gated entry occur approximately 20 feet north of this tract boundary line to allow for any stacking of cars to occur on the commercial tract and not on the residential tract in front of these lots here. We also are requiring additional landscaping and buffering, a wall along this tract line to help buffer this commercial from the residential units. Staff is recommending that that stipulation be added to the PUD document. Staff has received three letters in support of this petition from residents within Pebblebrooke, and I have received one complaint, basically, because of the location of the gated entry into the commercial tract that would be on their road in front of their house. They prefer to see that interconnect on the other road. I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ray, before we get to substantive questions, let me ask sort of a housekeeping and procedural one. This item is denominated PUDA -- so forth. Does that not connotate a PUD amendment? Page 38 January 17, 2002 1 6 J I MR. BELLOWS: Yes. PUD is amending -- we are amending an existing zoning district, the Richland PUD, but we are amending it through a rezone process of repealing the old ordinance and crediting a new ordinance; so technically it's a PUD. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Going PUD to PUD. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That becomes a PUD amendment. Really, you are scraping the old PUD. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. But -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You are not amending it. MS. MURRAY: Technically, I will agree with you, Commissioner. It should read, "PUDZ, which is the acronym for PUD to PUD rezone. In effect you are amending the PUD but -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But the way you do it -- Ron Nino taught us so well -- was to go from a PUD to a new PUD. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Then my question is, if this is a PUD rezone, should we not have the findings necessary to support a PUD as a part of the package? MS. MURRAY: Are they contained in there, Frank? MR. BELLOWS: This was intended to be a PDA. It's a process -- yeah, the PDA, we're amending an existing zoning district, and it's minor changes. We have a strikethrough and underline. It was just a housekeeping method of going from PUD to PUD. So therefore there was no need to do the findings for rezone because that was already done when the project was rezoned. We're not re- inventing the wheel. We are basically making minor changes to the existing zoning district. The changes were minor enough it was determined to be a PDA. Now, there should be some question whether this should be a Z or an A -- it's my understanding -- and I have been here 12 years -- that we do it as a Page 39 January 17, 2002 16il PDA. It's just a form of convenience that we repeal the old ordinance for the new ordinance. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It seems to me that the questions that you have to answer for a PUD, the answers might be different considering all of the changes that are made. MR. BELLOWS: The changes aren't to the uses of the land. The uses still remain the same. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. BELLOWS: It's just switching acreage around and reducing dwelling units. So those conditions were already reviewed and approved by this board and board of county commissioners. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, let's get to substantive. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, would that argue then that we can ask no questions about anything except just what you consider to be insignificant? MR. BELLOWS: No. As previously stated to this Planning Commission, any PUD amendment whether it's PDZ -- repealing the ordinance or PDA, amending and just repealing the old ordinance with the new, it still opens up the entire PUD document for review, and it's distributed to all of our review agencies, and they look at it as a new zoning action too. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In that spirit, then, was this -- does this subject to the public participation process since it's a brand -new PUD? MR. BELLOWS: This petition was submitted prior to the adoption of that ordinance, so they did not go through the public information process as currently adopted by code. However, the petitioner has on their own accord held public information meetings to make up -- since they submitted prior to that ordinance being adopted. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, we don't have Page 40 ' January 17, 2002 any record of that; that's part of the public participation process o r 6J any commitment -- MR. BELLOWS: This was in the works prior to the adoption of that ordinance. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This change in the traffic impact is kind of curious because the document that we have says there is going to be 3,750 more weekday trips. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I don't have any other information, except what you have given us verbally, that this number may be a lesser number or may be even be a negative number. MR. BELLOWS: The applicant has their traffic consultant here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No, I'm wanting to hear what the county's traffic people have to say about it. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And I believe we have Dawn Wolff here to answer specific questions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That would be helpful. MS. WOLFF: Dawn Wolff, transportation planning department director. We did review a specific transportation impact statement provided by the applicant's consultant. We required some modifications to it to include additional detail. They will be increasing the overall traffic. We were not included in that specific write -up, which was referenced that Chahram had calculated the number and had since been recalculated between Mr. Bellows and the applicant's consultant, Mr. Jarvey, on that. The specific change in the square footage area, I believe that is contained in the information, although I cannot attest to it since did I not see the specific numbers that Mr. Bellows was referring to. I am assuming based on the fact they were confirmed with Mr. Page 41 January 17, 2002 6JI Jarvey and we found that there traffic impact statement was sufficient and consistent with the requested applications, that those numbers would be consistent with their impacts on the system. It is greater than what was previously approved. However, with the board's direction from the December 18th meeting and the commitment to make improvements within a 3 -year time period on both Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road within the impact area, they were deemed to not have created a significant and adverse impact on any of the roads based on the current growth Management Plan policies and procedures. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ms. Wolff, I'm sorry. I didn't catch the number. MS. WOLFF: I don't have that specific number right here, because I was not afforded the opportunity to put those numbers together for you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is it a number higher than 3,750? Is it less than 10,000? MS. WOLFF: It's less than 10, 000. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's your considered view that the condition of 951 and Immokalee Road are such that they can handle that much more traffic before the improvements are actually made? MS. WOLFF: I didn't make that specific statement. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Cannot say that, no. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But I would like to hear some assessment on your part. MS. WOLFF: Based on the level of evaluation that we are allowed to do because of the information that we have at the time of a rezoning application, which is extremely general, the evaluation is made on what potentially is a presumed level of impact for a maximum land use of that area. Page 42 January 17, 2002 16JI We were provided a square footage number of 231, 000 as a total commercial square footage with some reductions in the residential units. We allowed some compensation and reduction of the difference between what had previously been approved as the commercial total square footage, which was 125, 000, and the reduction of residential units to come up with a net new traffic number. We did allow them, because we are requiring -- since this is a singular PUD project. It's a mixed project. It's supposed to be -- to have circulation throughout that it includes an interconnection to the residential portion. We did allow for a partial reduction in external new trips from that commercial because of that interaction between the residential trips that they wouldn't be going out on the major road system. So there was some allowance for that. If this is built in the next two years and becomes active, will it have a significant impact on the roadway system before those road improvement go in? Yes, obviously it will. However, we are required under statute and under our Growth Management Plan to consider the capacity that will be created for projects which are committed for construction within a three -year time period. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Did you read Brent Batton's article in Monday's Naples Daily News about the three -year grace period? MS. WOLFF: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's instructive. He claims that the county chose the most permissive of the three options available and in that a catch -up period of three years is allowed, and the county didn't have to do that. The state gave some choices that you could make. If what he says is true, then, perhaps, some of us might want to go back and take a look at -- at the Land Development Code inasfar as how permissive we really want to be at this stage of the game. Page 43 16J1 y January 17, 2002., MS. WOLFF: Actually, it's not the most permissive. The statute allows for five years for the local plan. Only three years for the state plan. The county has chosen through its policies and procedures to be consistent with that which is allowed for the state program, which is to only consider the three years, because of financial availability, because of priorities which may need to change due to changing traffic patterns that aren't necessarily specific to development patterns that allows us the flexibility to address issues that may arise beyond that three -year period. If we go all the way out and commit ourselves a full five years, we are really pegging ourselves into a series of absolutes and leaving very little room under our revenue availability to make any adjustments which need to be made to address additional new system deficiencies -- ones that may come on line that aren't necessarily specific to new project development coming on line. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But some more restrictive option. Five is the least restrictive. Three is next. What is the -- if you wanted to tighten up, what is the option? MS. WOLFF: The county could have the option of anything which is within the current fiscal year capital program. Some areas of the state have been that restrictive. However, we would still be forced under statute to recognize three years of the State's program. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ms. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Brent Batton says, "Instead of using the three -year window, a county can elect to count only facilities that are actually built. That would effectively slow development while roads, drainage systems, and so on catch up." So we could change our concurrency law to that effect. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If he's right. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Is that right? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It is the newspaper, after all. Page 44 ` January 17, 2002 16J1 MS. WOLFF: I would not speak to saying if that is or is not correct. I don't have that specific statute in front of me to say that that is absolutely correct. I believe we would be in a legal situation to say we would only presume that level public facility availability is -- has many definitions, and what is legally sustainable. I believe -- I think Patrick could support me in the fact that I think that could put us in a situation of not really meeting the intent of the Growth Management Plan. However, I will not speak to that in regards to what Mr. Batton's article states. I did not review it. I have a tendency not to. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here, here. MS. WOLFF: But the fact is that there is current policy onboard in regard to what and how we may address it. Yes, staff is currently reevaluating what thresholds are and will be coming forward with Growth Management Plan amendments, as well as Land Development Code amendments in regards to determination of adequate public facilities. Yes, they will all be drastically different than what is there today, and that is consistent what we spoke with the Board of County Commissioners about during our late November and December meetings with them in regard to AUIR. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Could we then maybe -- staff could do some intensive study on the possibility of reviewing and revising our concurrency -- MR. FEDER: For the record, I'm Norman Feder, transportation administrator. What I would like to point out as Dawn mentioned, we are looking at a number of things, very significant things. Modifications of that whole provision that is annual update into the report and our concurrency management system 315 of the Land Development Code. One of the things we will look at is the issue -- and we are already looking at our time frames. But as Dawn pointed out, the Page 45 January 17, 2002 16J11 State has a three -year time frame. They provide for five years. Collier had already gone to three. The option of whether you go to a lesser time frame and what the implications of that are and how much it meets your needs versus many of the other things you are looking at are things that we are looking at right now. We will be bringing issues back by mid March based on direction, if that's what we are given from the board, the 22nd to set up a specific schedule for next round of land development changes. There are a lot of issues we brought forward. One we brought forward to you with PUD, provisions with access management -- that is already moved forward. But there are quite a few other things we are looking at. As Dawn points out, there are issues we have to look at, and we have to weight those back and forth. We will do that in a public forum and obviously seek your input on those before they go forward. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, just to close up, my last little thought with both Dawn and Mr. Feder -- perhaps, there is -- back to the incident case here which is, perhaps, there is a way we can find a middle ground here. I wonder if you would be kind enough to craft or consider crafting a development commitment that we could give to the applicant to consider that they would not bring. on line this additional commercial capacity, which is creating extra traffic, until our growth facilities are in place. It would be, in effect, a denial of COs until that would occur. MS. WOLFF: That is something within the purview of this commission to make such a recommendation that no COs would be issued until such time as there is availability of the capacity of the multi - laning of these roads. It would be somewhat similar to what was imposed upon a PUD in November. I believe it was in regard to a phasing of it. Perhaps a phasing might be considered upon that. Page 46 January 17, 2002 16JI As we said, our program identifies a design construction phase in the next fiscal year to start. Such construction would start within a three -year window to meet our obligations. The condition, as I id, might be such that they would only be permitted to construct b not receive certificates of occupancy until the capacity is available. Which in this case, such as Immokalee Road is not yet fully completed, but the capacity is available, you won't say, "Until such time the contractor turns it over to us, " but there is some -- there is a difference between. Being done and done done with some roadway projects. You have a couple of months sometimes of cleanup, but you have the capacity available such as -- Pine Ridge Road has been open for awhile with multi -lanes on it but which are not completely finished with it. That would be an opportunity that allows the capacity necessary improvements. One thing that I would like to point out, though, is that we do have a couple of other phases and stages that we will be having them address when they come in. When they come in with a site development plan, when that site development plan requires them to do a specific site traffic assessment with the particular land uses they are going to be putting in, we are going to be looking at things like how much -- how many access points do they really need, what kind of access points do they need, what kind of geometry do they need, what kind of impact in this particular instance, what kind of impacts are they going to have at that intersection of 951 as it exists today, and can they fully function with it prior to those improvements coming on line? We may make limitations they can move forward, but not CO at that time as well. So there are a few triggers in there yet. And if the direction is followed in regards to concurrency and some reason the project was not yet built within the time it needs to be and the capacity is not available when they come forward, Page 47 January 17, 2002 ' 161� someone else can come along after them and be on faster track and consume all the capacity under a checkbook method they can come in and need six lanes before -- under an extreme situation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Dawn, back on this case. MS. WOLFF: On this case -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm asking on this case, as our expert in this area, craft that language for us to consider including. At least from this commission's point of view I would like to see that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question for you about the traffic circulation elements significant test of 5 percent impact. You say that projects have less than 5 percent increase, then it's acceptable. How do you take into account the accumulative effects of many different projects having less than 5 percent? Because what we see when we drive down that road now is that's a very busy intersection, and there is a lot of traffic delays there and also danger because of the congestion there. MS. WOLFF: The cumulative impacts of the -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. You have 5 percent. Each one can contribute up to 5 percent extra. What about the cumulative? That does not address all the cumulative effects of all the ones that have already impacted the road and all the ones that may that may be less than 5 percent. MS. WOLFF: We are addressing that through our traffic impact statements in regards to we don't just let them say, "We have X percent background growth in there. " We are also requiring them to look at other projects which have come into the pipeline as well, and they have to consider the guy up the street who has already just gotten his approval for his 5, 000 units, he had to add those into his background trips as well in determining whether or not -- whether they are -- 5 percent is not the issue here. Because, yes, in point of • ' January 17, 2002 16J1 fact they are 5 percent, the problem is they are not adverse. They don't create a deficiency based on the committed road improvements that we have in our program. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But where is the math for that? When I read the reports, it just says it passes the test because it's less that 5 percent. Where do we have a documentation about the prior impacts to the road so that we can address where we are at? MS. WOLFF: As stated previously, I did not make those statements in that write -up. I did not have a participation in what was written in your staff report. What I can tell you is that part of the submittal as they provide -- and they provide a lot of documentation and backup that is not necessarily included as part of the package that you see before you because of the level of technical detail that is supposed to be more technical staff to do, but this is the traffic impact statement that was provided to the county for review and evaluation along with supplemental analyses as requested of the applicant in order to make it a complete submittal for review. In it is included increases in the background traffic for the duration of the build -out as well as other projects which would be consistent with that time frame. All I can tell you is that we are doing a better job at getting the projects that are coming on line and their representative to be more inclusive. We are not letting them come in one after another and everyone using the same baseline number. We are watching that. It is not something that is necessarily included such -- as I said, this thick document -- in each one of your packages for each. Individual review. What is contained in your staff summary report was generated by another staff person. And so I cannot speak to how those numbers or statements were made. MR. FEDER: Let me add, for the record -- again, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. In addition to requiring in the Page 49 January 17, 2002 traffic impact study that they look at background traffic, taking into account other developments that has already been approved, part of what we are looking for in change is we are looking in moving changes and going to checkbook method -- I know that you have heard that terminology -- but basically what that means is that every time one is approved it becomes a debit to that basic service volume remaining capacity out there. Once we go to that process, we will be in a lot better shape to specifically identify to you link by link what that remaining capacity is, what this new development is asking for under that capacity, and therefore what the balance in the checkbook will be after that. The other issue that you asked us to craft relative to that, we can work some language. Again, also on that issue you have a five year -- we are working on three years, we said here, in the county consistent with the state's, but there is also the issue of whether or not that is when you are programmed for approval, which is typically what has been looked at in the past or when you anticipate your construction will be basically open and that capacity available, which is a different statements -- which is another year and a half out further. There is a number of things that we are going to look at there. But in answer to your questioning, I think Dawn pointed out we are not allowing them to do the traffic impact statements now as we look at them without looking at that cumulative impact based on the background traffic that they start off with an analysis. And the 5 percent rule, we are looking at some modifications there as to test the significance, you can have, basically, a smaller project that always comes in under 5 percent every single time and still have significant impacts. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think Mr. Strain is straining to ask a question here. Page 50 January 17, 2002 16JI COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I have quite few questions. I will try and keep them short. Page 1 of the traffic 141pact statement, which I know the rest of the commission did not receive too, shows that there is going to be a shopping center use. It's called LUA -20. It's calling for 231, 000 square foot, and it says it's going to be built in the year 2003, which is a year from now, not three years from now. So the impact is going to be a year from now. Dawn, I think -- I know you have read the synopsis that I did on the zoning issues. Can you tell me if shopping center LUA -20, the calculation included used by that designation included used car dealers, boat dealers, gas dealers, drive -in theaters, movie theaters, shooting ranges, bowling alleys, motion picture theaters; items like that? Because that's what -- if we approve the commercial uses that are asked here today, that's some of the uses that could go there. MS. WOLFF: Those uses that you listed off, there is only one in there that I can say is consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the trip generation manual handbook's definition for Land Use A -20 Shopping Centers, and that would be movie theaters, but that would be indoor movie theaters, not drive -in movie theaters. The other land uses should be calculated under a separate trip generation rate and are not consistent with the definitions contained in that normally accepted manual in regard to trip generation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What about hotels and motels? MS. WOLFF: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Based on that then, is the TIS -- I thought you previously said the TIS was acceptable. Is the TIS now acceptable, because if they get approved today with those commercial uses and they have a TIS that references an LUA -20, what is it that we are approving? MS. WOLFF: The land uses that are inclusive of that series were not explicitly identified in regard to the traffic impact statement. Page 51 il Janua ry 17 2002 164 It was identified as a shopping center. To a great degree we try to rely upon the professionalism of those who are submitting these applications in providing us what is contained in the application for approval and consistent with that application for approval. The additional land uses, some of which you have read off, such as used -car dealership, boat dealership and the like, have independent land uses and trip generation rate that in some cases are higher than that of a shopping center. A shopping center is generally a consortium of multiple -land uses, which can include a supermarket, storefronts with post office facilities, dry cleaners, tax preparers, and the like. If you take and look at the trip generation as individual land uses, they are going to vary widely. A shopping center rate tries to average them, and it's how you apply that shopping center rate is really dependent upon what your ultimate design and layout is, which is -- since we don't have that level of specifics at this point -- this is just a range of uses. The intent is to identify as shopping center uses, yes, several of those uses which you have stated would be inconsistent with it being explicitly a shopping center would have different rates. Some of them twice as much as what would be a shopping center, but if you have an equal balance, they tend to average out for what would be a shopping center rate. If, for instance, you have a supermarket, which is your primary square footage, it has about a three times rate of an average of an overall shopping center, and therefore it skews your actual trips coming out of there. That is one reason why the specific details of how you access circulation, requirements off site need to be left until the site development plan stage. We try and deal with the best information that we have. I would agree that certain of those land uses should not be considered as part of -- as being consistent with the application that was prepared and submitted to the department. Page 52 January 17, 2002 16JI COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's mid of the bottom line I was wanting to hear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Dawn, when doing the traffic study that we did that -- was it taken into account not only the increase in commercial but the decrease of 250 units in residential? MS. WOLFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have got a question relative to this square foot of commercial space. I'm looking at the PUD document dated 9/11. It has the strikethroughs and underlines. It's clear under project density that the maximum gross leaseable floor area is no longer 150, 000 square feet -- that has been struck through. And maybe you can clarify for me, I couldn't find anywhere where it says what the new commercial square foot area is in the documents that we have received, which would somehow seem to be relative to the traffic input. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We will have the petitioner place that back in. Really, because the traffic impact references certain square footage, the PUD document should be consistent with that. We will request that that number be placed -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: The PUD document, if I read it correctly, is silent on that issue and does not cap the commercial space. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The documents just -- base the density based on the acreage of the commercial area and the required setbacks and parking requirements dealing with the size of the structure. The older PUDs was a strict square footage limitation. But given the nature of the traffic concerns these days, we will request the maximum square footage be placed back in the PUD document. Page 53 January 17, 2002 16J1 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What will that be? MR. BELLOWS: Prior to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. What will that be? What square footage are you going to request? There is 231, 000 in their TIS. Is that what you are looking for? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Whatever their proposal will be based on the traffic study. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The traffic study that Dawn has said is inaccurate for all the uses that they have applied to use? MR. BELLOWS: Well, based on the square footage. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, I have some other staff questions, if we are through with traffic, which is a fascinating subject and one that we hopefully go through many times. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm interested, Ray, in your assessment of the substitutions to the county subdivision regulations. I'm -- of course, I was not around when this originally went through, so I'm happy to have an opportunity to look at it as a brand -new PUD. On page 6 -6 of the PUD it says things like you waive the requirements for a 1, 000 foot maximum deadend street. Now, I thought There was a reason we had that as -- for instance, was a fire and safety reasons, not to have long cul de sacs. MR. BELLOWS: This is currently approved in -- the PUD was approved prior. That is not what they are requesting now. This is an approved condition. It was already approved. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Why? MR. BELLOWS: Why was it approved at that time? We'll have to pull their staff report at that time to find out what was discussed. This is an approved condition. This is not what they are requesting now. And the subdivision is mostly built that -- the Page 54 January 17, 2002 164 Pebblebrooke single- family subdivision is nearly built out. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are saying -- MR. BELLOWS: This is an approved condition; that why this is an amendment to the PUD. wait a minute. We have COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON. This is a new been through this. It is not an amendment to the PUD. PUD and we have a chance to look at -- and all the agencies should have within the organization had a chance to look at it. If you are saying this is an as -built condition, then we are, in effect, providing cover for them to let these conditions stay in; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Given the fact that the subdivision is built, yes. The subdivision was built consistent with this condition that was approved prior. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we are to take on faith there must have been some good reason that that happened in the past, even though it's against the county subdivision regulations? MR. BELLOWS: It went before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. It was approved. Preliminary subdivision plans were approved and built and constructed to these standards. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? I do think, Richardson, there may be two issues there. One of them is whether PUD to PUD reopens each and every item of a prior PUD. Mr. Nino used to try and convince us that that wasn't so, but I don !t think the law supports that. I think we can go back. But in this case its moot because it's already built. So two issues. remind you have MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would rem you y six registered speakers, as well you have not heard from the applicants. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are we ready for the petitioner? Page 55 January 17, 2002 'j 6 J 1 MS. BISHOP: Good morning. My name is Karen Bishop. I'm an agent for the owner. I'm not going to give a presentation, but I will try and address some of the things that I was hearing, specifically the traffic issues. When you look at these traffic statements, they do them as if everything is completed and in place at one time. There is an absorption rate that goes through this. For instance, this project was zoned, this PUD was created in 1990. The first person didn't move into this place until around '97. So you are looking at a seven year -- even though at that time the traffic impact statements says, here is how many trips you are going to have, it's seven years before the first person has moved in. Right now we have approximately 200 residents living there now. So out of the 350 units that will be left in there residential, only 200 of them are currently living there. The commercial, which was -- as I said, the first PUD was 1990 was not finished until this year. It took 1 I years for that commercial to be utilized. So you are looking at phasing of sorts just because of the market. That corner will be an activity center at sometime, fully operational, hopefully, a lot better shape than Pine Ridge and Airport, but that is what it's destined for there. But I dare say that it doesn't pop up instantly. You are going to see a phasing just by virture of rents and markets -- and even right now the Publix shopping center is not at full capacity. They have plenty of spaces that are available for rent. The master plan, the commercial master plan itself all through our existing documents -- when you put these things together, you try to anticipate what your needs are going to be. You try and anticipate the acreages you are going to use. All through these documents are verbage that says approximates, that the final lines will be determined at final permitting and platting. If I were to change uses -- Dawn Wolff now is looking to have Page 56 January 17 , 2002 16JI each applicant at SDP level do another update of TIS, so that gives you -- if I said there was going to be 200 single - family in a certain area but then I change my mind and I make it 200 multifamily, then that traffic statement changes. I would have to update that each time that I make those kind of changes at the time of permitting, at the SDP or platting level. The current commercial acreage includes 2.75 acres of right -of- way that we have dedicated to the county. Essentially, even though it says 25 acres, 2.75 of that is right -of -way that belongs to Immokalee Road and 951. The kind of situations, the interconnect, which is I think a very important -- from a traffic standpoint as well as what we are looking at throughout all of these projects where people have to go outside the road, there are projects around the Carillon Plaza, because Carillon would not allow them to interconnect -- have to literally go out on Airport Road or Pine Ridge Road just to go get milk and bread. So these kind of things are good and things that we need to do. Finding a good transition between commercial and residential are something that we pretty much see everywhere. We don t see people doing crap anymore. You see -- with our new community character plan, you see commercial facilities that have four -sided architecture, that have garbage areas that are covered. You see a lot more vegetation. You see shielded lighting. I mean, these are things that people are doing on their own based on the new criteria. In our case the buffer between residential and the commercial we have some cross - sections that we have prepared, which are shown right there (indicating). I can give you each a copy of those of the kinds of things we are looking to do here. When we started our permitting, we had intentions of that commercial road running through the middle of the preserve. Page 57 January 17, 2002 1 6J! Unfortunately, South Florida Water Management disagreed with that and the Corps of Engineers disagreed with that, we had to waylay that connection, which would have been from our perspective a better interconnect. This is all we have left is this one piece to interconnect. And because this is a one unit -- one planned unit development, the internal accesses are important to be complete. Now, of course, at the same time being here on the corner of an activity center does not behoove us not to have gates because we would get all kinds of cut - through traffic there. As a matter of fact, I live in the subdivision and so does the owner. We both live there. I can't imagine not having my gates there, because every high school kid at Gulf Coast, you know, at 2:25 that doesn't like that line in front of 951's intersection is buzzing through our subdivision at, like, 80 miles per hour. Those gates go automatically down at that time and come up a little later. At night they go down. So we would like to keep that privacy. The gate we are proposing is intended to be inside the buffer. It is not intended for the residents at either side of that gate to have to look at this gate go up and down and the car stop in front of their yards. We are also looking at traffic calming devices in there that, perhaps, in front of this gate 100 feet or so we would put a speed bump so that you are almost at a dead stop by the time you get to this area as it is. I did bring my traffic engineer to try and go through all of these issues with traffic with you because, unfortunately, this staff report that are -- Chahram's original staff report we did not receive until the day after the Planning Commission was postponed last time. So we did not really have the opportunity to address what the heck was going on. We have since then looked at it and have addressed it. And, unfortunately, I'm not sure how Dawn was left out of the loop -- I can't speak to that -- but we are here to discuss those things. Page 58 January 17, 2002 6J1 g Some of those uses that you have discussed, Commissioner Strain, certainly we're amenable to remove some of them from that area. When we did this six or seven years ago, those were the kinds of uses -- I mean, this was out in the twilight zone at that time. Nobody -- who would have thought that everyone would have been moving out here? Those are the kinds of uses at the time that seemed appropriate, especially hotel /motel. You are on main drags -- two main drags, and you're not that far -- three miles from the interstate. It seemed appropriate at the time. We are willing to remove some of those uses to be more in tune with what you might consider what we see when we look at some of these commercial intersections. Car dealers certainly does not seem appropriate. The drive -in theaters, perhaps, not also. But I dare say, though, a gas station would be appropriate, because I have seen them at every activity center pretty much in town, and -- at least at one of the corners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yours says for gas dealers; bulk liquified petroleum. MS. BISHOP: We don't want that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's right. MS. BISHOP: I just want a gas station up there so I can go get gas on the way to work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You have that one, too, but you also have the bulk gas. MS. BISHOP: We will be glad to remove the bulk gas from that. It was not intended for that use. Really, when you put these things together, you throw the smorgasbord together trying to make a decision on something that may or may not happen -- in this case -- 11 years later. So what we need to do then at -- certainly at your request and some of the residents' request is remove some of those uses, which we are willing to do. Page 59 January 17, 2002 16J1' ; COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How would you propose doing that at today's meeting? MS. BISHOP: What is your list? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here it is right here. There are about 170 uses. You are welcome to have a copy. I have a copy for the Planning Commission members as well and for public record. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just pick out two that you would like. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any residents who would like a copy, there are some extras up here. MS. BISHOP: The used car dealers, no problem. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, she needs a copy. MS. BISHOP: The first three which is used car dealers, boat dealers, and gas dealers, no problem. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: One for the court reporter. MS. BISHOP: So far going down your list -- well, unfortunately that is not going to happen. Used car dealer is dead. Boat dealer, dead. Gas dealer, dead. Drive -in theater is dead. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Excuse me, Karen. MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The court reporter needs a break. Why don't we take 10 -- MS. BISHOP: Oh, good. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- and you can work down that list. MS. BISHOP: Great. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Recess for 10 minutes. (A short break was held.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Meeting will come to order, Ms. Bishop. MS. BISHOP: I want to go on the record to say that I spoke Page 60 January 17, 2002 16JI with Commissioner Strain during the break just to look at the list along with the transportation director. Actually, it's a lot easier than I thought it was going to be. The uses at C -1, C -2, and C -3 except for retail nursery seem to be all fine. I do want to clarify that under the veterinary we would have no outside kennels which was already mentioned in the PUD. And the hardware store would not be a stand- alone like a Home Depot; that would not be allowed either. When we get up to the C -4 and C -5 uses, some are appropriate; some are not. I will read that list of not appropriate uses. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Starting at the top? MS. BISHOP: Certainly. Starting at the top, we have used car dealer, boat dealer, gas dealer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Those are inappropriate? MS. BISHOP: Inappropriate. Drive -in theater. Then we get down to hotels and motels, equipment rental, refrigeration service, furniture repair, miscellaneous repair services, bowling center, and the shooting range and water slides; which I'm personally going to miss. Those are the ones that do not appear to be according to the transportation director -- don't fit in a shopping center stuff. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Dawn -- MS. BISHOP: It's Karen. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Karen, I'm still on my. Last question. You said C -1, C -2, and C -3 are not appropriate? MS. BISHOP: No. Those are appropriate uses, and those fall under the shopping center guise of what Dawn was talking about with the current TIS. Even though if somebody had come in with one of these other uses not covered under the current TIS, they would have to -- like I said, at the time of permit -- Dawn reassesses your traffic again. So if anything was funky, at that point they would have a problem. But we will remove the ones I mentioned off. The rest of Page 61 January 17 J ry , 2002 6J 1 these uses are appropriate for shopping centers. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MS. BISHOP: My kids are going to miss the water slides. Can -- I have my traffic guy here to discuss traffic. I'm sure you -guys want to hear from him, and specifically he's here to answer questions for you. Is there anything else, though, Commissioner Strain, that you want to address? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will wait until I hear the public and see if they have any other concerns about the other uses. One of the things that I wanted to know -- I guess your traffic engineer will discuss it. I heard the property is being considered for sale. If that's the case, the new -- one of the new companies that may be purchasing, as I know, is a quick mover. This might get built out rapidly. Do you know anything about that? MS. BISHOP: I know there is a contract on it. As of this point, I know that it is with DeAngelis Diamond. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MS. BISHOP: Do I know what their schedule is? No, sir. It could be soon. It may not be soon. It's all based on the market. Nobody wants to build commercial that does not get rented. I can't speak for them, and I don't believe they are here. Maybe the owner later on can discuss, if he has any knowledge, as to what their schedule would be. But I do know they build quality product. At least I have that comfort level. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No problem. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Miss Bishop, one last thing. I'm interested in the traffic numbers, as we have all expressed, but my eyes will tend to glaze over with a lot of numbers. What I would really like to hear is, as represented in the applicant, that you would agree to the conditions that we talked about earlier -- because Page 62 16J1 .,.,,.,January 17, 2002 6 J of this absorption rate that you so eloquently defined -- it's probably going to be slow building out anyway, that you would agree to not bring these projects on line until the capacity in the road was actually available. MS. BISHOP: No, sir, I would really like not to have to do that. As much as I appreciate what you are trying to do, which is certainly to be commended, all we have to go by when we do these projects is what the rules are today. When you change the rules, we will adhere to those rules. In this case, you know, we had this being an activity center, the -- what could have been permitted here and built here would have been a 40 -acre commercial center, which is the typical size of the activity center, commercial areas on all four - corners which will be at some point a seven - unit -to- the -acre density band goes around that, which means my project could have had 800 units in it and 40 acres of commercial. So that's not what this owner did. This owner decided to do something that was quality. So his density at 650, I believe was -- is right. Around 5 units to the acre. He has since then brought that down to 350 with this commercial -- and then we have this commercial corner. We have done so much already to give up for that -- lessening the impact on the roads and creating a better neighborhood. It was -- for all intents and purposes, this area was intended to be maxed out; that's what these activity centers are intended for. But as we are seeing that's just not what the market bears. We are doing less and less. We are making those choices by not utilizing the maximum zoning abilities of these areas. In this case I would suggest that I would not really want to do that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, you would agree it's within the purview of the Planning Commission to -- Page 63 January 17, 2002 16J1 MS. BISHOP: Certainly. If that's what you want to recommend, but, yes, I would say -- I would not want to do that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Karen, I just have one quick one. You say the total commercial was it 237, 000 -- MS. BISHOP: 231, 000. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 231, 000. Is that including what is currently there? MS. BISHOP: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is currently there? How much? MS. BISHOP: One hundred twenty thousand is what is permitted currently. We were allowed one hundred fifty maximum. And like Ray said, they used to put those numbers on there -- but typically it's 10, 000 square foot an acre is typically what you do for commercial. At that time we were still going through environmental permitting, and we did not know what we were going to be left with in the end, so we put a number up there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You are saying that Publix center now is 120,000? MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So you are looking for 110, 000 more? MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You mean that little strip of land is going to give you another 120,000? MS. BISHOP: No, sir. We had a lot more commercial land set aside for the least amount of density on it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are increasing the density someplace else? MS. BISHOP: We are increasing the commercial density on the tract what was already designated for commercial is what we are Page 64 R� 16J1 �.n January 17, 2002 doing. It was already designated. The tract was already platted. What we are doing is increasing the density on that tract only and reducing the density internal to the residential. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you for Mrifying. It's very misleading in terms of the depiction of showing a little strip being added. I thought that's where the new commercial was going to be added. MS. BISHOP: No, sir. It's going to be spread out over the rest. MR. JARVEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Reed Jarvey. I'm a transportation engineer with the firm of Vanasse Daylor. I prepared the traffic impact statement for this amendment, rezoning, whatever the procedural -- exact procedure is. I will tell you also in a later life -- an earlier life I did prepare the original Pebblebrooke back in 1990 -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Surely, you will have a better later life. MR. JARVEY: Let me address a couple of points here and just from a clarification standpoint -- from a technical standpoint. I will try not to get into too much detail. I do know when I start these traffic numbers and eyes start glazing over and people pass out -- I will notice when you fall out of your chairs. I will stop at that point. We will look at the traffic impacts to this as Dawn Wolff presented earlier. Just for your clarification, I know you are not privy to the traffic impact statement. It was reviewed by Dawn and her staff. They had some comments in the fall sometime, and we resubmitted it in November. And it was approved in November. At that time we did a level service analysis for the proposed project, and what we felt a prudent approach would be to look at a fairly quick build -out, as was mentioned earlier to see what the impacts would be now. So we felt that with our experience in land development that roughly a year would be a potential -- or as quick as Page 65 January 17, 200 6JI it could be, so it really would be not this year -- it might be done this year, but it would not affect the peak season 2003. It would affect -- 2002, excuse me -- it would affect peak season 2003; roughly a year from now, you know, 13 months or so from now. That's what we addressed in our traffic impact statement. At the time we did it, Immokalee Road was being four -laned under construction and 951 was in its current two -lane condition. So we looked at impacts with a two -lane condition. Our impacts showed that both Immokalee Road and 951, Collier Boulevard, would operate within level service standards in the two -lane condition for Collier Boulevard and four -lane for Immokalee Road. From my standpoint I don't feel a phasing was necessary as was suggested; that's for 2003. Now, to talk about some of the differences of the staff report, which was the 3,750 units additional, I tried to replicate that number and, unfortunately, Chahram who did it was not with us. I talked to Ray Bellows, and I talked briefly with Dawn, and I could not replicate the number. If I just added from one hundred fifty to two hundred thirty -one thousand square feet, period, I came up with, like, 2,800. So I don't know where the 3,750 came from. But I did look at it again and tried to look at the differences from the original PUD in 2000 -- excuse me -- 1990 -- the 1997 PUD amendment and then what we are presenting. Just for your information, the original PUD, 1990, talked about 150, 000 square feet, as we have been talking about. Single family was limited at no more than or up to 130; multifamily was limited to up to 520. So you add those together; 650 units. So when I did that I took the trip generation that we used, the ITE methods that Dawn talked about, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and did their procedures and came up with a trip generation. And to keep it simple, I did daily trips -- I did daily and a.m. And p.m. Trips, which is what we use more -- we used the peak hour trips more than a traffic Page 66 1 January 17, 2002 6 J profession, but I understand you -all know daily trips. Better, so I did that. I came up with an amount of trips of 10,156. So 10, 000. Okay. Then I looked at the 1997 PUD. The 1997 PUD doesn't -- doesn't differentiate between multi- family and single family. It just says 650 units. From a traffic standpoint, we would do a worst -case scenario. Single - family units do more trip generation than multi- family units. I did 650 single- family homes and shopping center of 150, 000 square feet, and I came up with 11,994 -- roughly 12, 000. Then I looked at what we were proposing. We proposed 231, 000 square feet of shopping center. We have -- there is roughly 340 units there now. We rounded those up to 300 single family and 100 multifamily to keep the number -- to be a little conservative if something would change in there -- and we came -- we used because we are now interconnecting the shopping center to the -- to the residential -- and so the people that live there don't have to go out on 951 or Immokalee Road to get that loaf of bread or bottle of milk or whatever they might need, they can go internal. This is external trips now. So this is external impacts. There is -- ITE has a procedure for internal capture -- what we call internal capture; that the people -- the commercial trips that are generated by the Publix and McDonalds or whatever else is there as attractors. And the housing development that generates the trips, they have an interaction. So if I'm going to get that milk and I drive out of my driveway and drive through the interconnection and get that bottle of milk, that's one trip. When I get out of that car -- get out at Publix and get back in my car and come back into my house, that is another trip. You have it both ways. But I'm not on the external road network, not on 951, not on Immokalee, not on Vanderbilt -- all of those. Once again, ITE has a Page 67 '41 �' January 17 20021 04 procedure to look at those. When I added that internal capture -- and the other correction factor is past by traffic which commercial has, and I used that same corrections for the other two generations, I come up with 9,799 trips. Roughly 10, 000. So potentially when we add this together, we potentially have up to 2, 000 trip reduction. So, I mean, we won't know that until we get an actual Do -- when they build it, you see what actually happens. But using Institute of Transportation Engineer's procedure and the discussions that we have had and methodologies that Dawn Wolff and her staff and I have had, potentially we come up with an actual reduction from the existing PUD. So I wanted to make that clear, and for my purposes -- and I think for your purposes, from a traffic standpoint is probably you can say it's a wash at this point. Could it be a little higher? Yes. Could it would be a little higher? Yes. Could it be a little lower? Yes, it could be lower. The numbers show that it could be substantially lower. I just wanted to make that clear. That's really pretty much the end of what I want to tell you, but I will certainly answer -- at least address any questions that you have. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a question. I realize your methodology probably speaks to some generalized cases. But looking at the specific project with this big preserve in the center, it doesn't seem to me that people over on the western side are going to go all the way around to come in through this internal access. They are more likely to go out on Immokalee and come back in. The people that are up on the northwest quadrant of the development, residential development, I don't see that should help you in your numbers. Seems to me that would be -- if you factor in the real case versus the generalized traffic data that you use -- I don't know. MR. JARVEY: Commissioner, to some extent that is a true statement. I mean, what I would say to your direct question -- and I O_ " • • January 17, 2002 1 C� ` J I have another comment on it -- is that those people -- more than likely I would agree. If they are up there, you know, 100 feet or 200 feet from the Immokalee Road access, they are probably going to Immokalee Road, go down to turn into Publix. However, when they return an easier trip would be to use the interconnect rather than trying to do left -- right turn and then a U -turn at the signal or come down Immokalee -- 951 and do a left turn out. So I think you would -- you know, potentially what you are saying is half of that trip would be true. Another answer to your question, when we do this internal capture, we do what we call is a balancing. There is no projected -- and unfortunately, I have the peak hour numbers -- so the numbers I'm going to tell you are not exactly correct for the daily, but they are along the same lines. What ITE has done in their studies says in a peak -hour standpoint, for instance, 53 percent of the peak -hour exiting trips from a residential development could -- are captured by the adjacent commercial development. Likewise, 9 percent of the commercial trips, entering trips, which would be the same trip, are captured. And in this case the -- what we do is a balancing. So it's a lesser of the two. You can't make trips. You know, if you have 50 trips going one way and you are only accepting 10 trips, that doesn't work. We balance them. We take the lesser of the two. In this case the commercial rules with the 9 percent. So some of those trips that the ITE say could capture aren't being captured anyway, because the commercial does not support all the trips that the residential area has. So I think what you are saying is a potential -- within the rules I have -- within the guidelines I have is -- is -- I think it can be covered by other issues. But, yes, sir, that is a possibility. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, as I understand your testimony, even though the commercial is virtually doubling in size, these other pushes and pulls with the internal circulation will negate Page 69 January 17, 2002 6J1 1 , the traffic impact of that? MR. JARVEY: I'm saying they potentially could. From my calculations they're showing -- actually, they are potentially less than what they are if you don't put the interconnect and you keep the residential and commercial as it is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I respect your numbers. It just seems counter intuitive with that much increase in commercial. MR. JARVEY: I understand, sir. The big thing is the interconnect; that's why -- I'm sure you have been here before when Dawn's been up here and said, "We have to do the interconnects with the commercial areas. " I'm a proponent of it, and Karen Bishop -- if you have been here long enough -- has said it many times; that's the key to the local trips off of the highway network and let the people just go -- you know, get their loaf of bread or, you know, steak -- whatever -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Six -pack. MR. JARVEY: -- from an internal standpoint. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Reed, I don't know if you addressed this. I want to ask you, I was involved in a town meeting in OrangeTree not too long ago on issues that they were having out there with infrastructure. The biggest issue that came out of that meeting was the roads -- Immokalee Road and the backup of traffic getting into town, and it occurs at the intersection of 951 and Immokalee Road. It's two lanes to the east once you pass 951. I know you mentioned Immokalee Road is being four - laned; that will solve some probleMs. But you didn't address the two lanes of Immokalee Road coming from OrangeTree. Because the OrangeTree people don't have a grocery store out there of the size that you guys are going to have, they are going to be using that Publix. They are going to be using that shopping center. Have you looked at the Page 70 January 17, 2002 16JI intensity there on that two -lane road? MR. JARVEY: Yes, sir. Let me look through it. From a strict level of service standpoint, it's -- and, once again, I'm looking at 2003, I'm -- I need to look a little longer. I think this is four lane and not -- I have to look through the rest of it. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, you have registered speakers. Would you like to maybe go to them and have him come back and answer that question later? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are you close to the answer, or do you want a few minutes? MR. JARVEY: I have it. At the intersection -- at the intersection there would be four lanes -- excuse me -- two lanes, what you are talking about going west -- at the intersection -- not out east more -- I realize -- but the intersection itself. At that point -- when that's complete, the level of service is adequate. It's within the standards. I'm not saying it is now, because it's under construction, and it's not that situation yet. But in the -- I think there are supposed to be done later this -- or, like, early summer or late spring. At that point in time, there should be adequate infrastructure at that intersection for that trip. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. As long as you have looked at that. MR. JARVEY: Yes, we looked at the intersection. Specifically we have four lanes -- two lanes going through. I have looked at it. And I have looked at it out farther, but, quite frankly, it's east of the intersection. I have not looked out -- OrangeTree way out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's just how far the traffic backs up. It's quite a ways. MR. JARVEY: Where I have looked at is four lanes. I was Page 71 January 17, 2002 16 J I -� l raw worried about in the vicinity of the intersection itself. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Any other questions? Thank you. MS. MURRAY: You have six registered speakers. Your first speaker is Lull Johnson followed by Richard Creel. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Please come up to the podium. State your name for the record, and if it's an unusual name spell it. You have five minutes. If you will please limit yourself to that. If others of you are going to speak and your neighbors, please don't reiterate what has already been said. We need more and different and new information. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if each of the speakers will just state for the record whether they were sworn or not. I'm assuming they all were, but if not we will find out. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did you take the oath when we started this item? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Raise your right hand. (Witness sworn.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: State your name. MR. JOHNSON: Lull Johnson. Okay. My concerns are -- I don't feel that the traffic numbers add up. I know there is a LOS -- there is a level of service standard. I do not feel that even if those standards are met that they are adequate standards set by the county. All you have to do is drive these roads and know that there is a major problem right there on that intersection. I also don't understand how 350 people going to the grocery store, which you don't do every day, can be captured -- can capture 3,700 trips or 20 -- over 2, 000 trips. The information that was given from the DOT seems rather---- - vague. I mean, there is not concrete numbers from the Department of Page 72 January 17, 2002 16 J Transportation. But there is definitely a major problem. It's dangerous on Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. People from the Estates, people from OrangeTree, they are all coming down to this present Publix Shops at Pebblebrooke Lakes that are there. There is at least ten stores that I have counted that are not open yet. I have heard there is going to be a McDonalds, a gas station, a bank, what have you, in the already present commercial property. As those things open, traffic is going to increase. It has to. Adding more commercial property, now, I'm questioning the timing. Now, I think is maybe not the most prudent thing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: where do you live in relation to all of this? MR. JOHNSON: I live in Pebblebrooke Lakes. That's pretty much what I had to say. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think you can tell by the questions and comments that this commission has that we share your concerns, and we are trying to figure out a way to, if you will, legally express those in some concrete way that will have an impact in phasing this project or dealing with the timing issues that you have raised. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. I did notice that. MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is Richard Creel followed by Colleen McCartney. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Creel, did you take part in the oath administration? MR. CREEL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I was sworn previously. My wife is also here. I was wondering if I would be allowed to have ten minutes to speak on both of our behaves. That's fine. Let me proceed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let's see what you can do in five. Page 73 January 17, 2002 16 41 MR. CREEL: I do have something that I would like to put on the overhead so we can all see what we had to -- what we were anticipating as development. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I assume your wife shares your views to a degree? MR. CREEL: Yes, sir, I think she probably does; although not all the time. What I would like to point out, No. 1, is that we were -- it was represented to most of the residents that there was going to be an interconnect in terms of a pathway so that we could bike or walk to the commercial area. And I would like to point out that if that was completed, then we would have a way to access that without going out on 951 or Immokalee Road. At this time there is walking or biking access via a sidewalk to Publix and that shopping center. And there is a lot of traffic going through that area. And we can all walk or bike over there within a ten - minute period of time. I think one of the major concerns that we have is the interconnect, because we moved into the community specifically for the purpose of living within an enclosed community. For instance, my 8 1/2 -year -old son, I feel comfortable allowing him to ride his bicycle within the community because we have limited access. There is no through traffic. I have a beeper I put on him. I beep him. He comes home. When I lived in the City of Golden Gate, I was not comfortable with that because of the amount of traffic and speed limits. If we were to open a third access through there, then we're going to have that much more traffic. As far as the capture, the internal capture they are discussing, I would submit to the commission -- to the planning board here that in general most people are going to be coming home from work are going to go to the store and then they are going to come home. So I think that internal capture is being overstated in terms of the amount Page 74 January 17, 2002 16JI of traffic that is going to keep off the road, because we are all coming home and going to the store and then coming back. The other great concern that I have is we already have tremendous problems with our gates. Our gates are wooden. They are broken probably 40 percent of the time. And at this time due to the amount of construction going on, they are open, basically, all day. If we were to open this interconnect, depending on how it was set up, first of all, we would have the problem of who's going to pay for it to maintain it, who's going to build it, and if it's of the same type of gate system that we have now, at least 40 percent of the time it's going to be inoperable. If it's on the same system as our current gate system is, then we are going to be in a situation where we have unlimited access to our community through this commercial area. I went to the dentist on Friday. I went up 951, and I had to go pick my son up at his elementary school, Laurel Oaks, came up Immokalee Road and was going to go down 951. I would like to point out just to the south of our development is an apartment complex opening up with a large number of units. It should be open in, I would say, the next six months. On Immokalee Road right next to where our community is, they are getting ready to build a large apartment complex, and down the road on Immokalee there is a large apartment complex that has opened, all multifamily homes generating a tremendous amount of traffic. I don't know what the plans are specifically for 951 at this time, but I sat through four light changes at 951. And, then, finally, being a resident of the community, I didn't feel quite so guilty about it, I turned around and came back through and went through the community and came back out onto 951 and saved myself about 15 minutes because of the backup. Granted, there is construction there, and that should hopefully improve in the future. You can see what my concerns are about that. Page 75 January 17, 2002 16 J 1 Also, I have grave concerns -- I believe the issue is -- and the fact of the matter is, there is a contract for sale open on the table right now. My belief is -- and this is my belief -- I have no facts to back this up -- my belief is that the contract for sale is, in essence, conditioned upon immediate approval. I don't think there is going to be any holdup in development of this. I think it's going to take place right away, and it will completely saturate our situation. I have two positions. Number 1, I'm asking the commission not to approve this plan at all. I would like to have the community as it was originally planned, an enclosed community with two entrances, where I can feel safe with my son out playing and not have to worry about internal traffic. I can tell you I live in Pebblebrooke Lakes. I live right next to the sidewalk to the middle school. I love to be next to the middle school, but I can represent to you that cars line up in front of our house right now to pick children up because they don't want to go through that line. The gates are open. That may change in the future, but we are already battling a situation with that. Again, as to the interconnect, it was represented to us that there would be an internal interconnect that would be a pathway. If you had a pathway interconnect, I believe that a number of people or a great majority of people would use it, and that would address some of the planning board's concerns about the interconnect. I think 951 is a big issue as well, because I don't know what the plans are for four - laning, or if they are going to four lane it. There is a tremendous backup at the light, not only coming in from OrangeTree but coming northbound to that light I know that the people at OrangeTree and Falling Waters and Golden Gate Estates, in general, are delighted with the fact that there is going to be this Publix there. It's the closest one out to the Estates. I think it's going to generate a tremendous amount of traffic. And in my viewing of it, Page 76 January 17, 20021 6JI it has already generated a tremendous amount of traffic. My concern is rather than wait to try and get out on 951 or Immokalee Road they will cut down through our facility and get back out. The other issue that I have is, you know, the first idea was to run a road right through our nature preserve. I have a serious problem with that; that has been resolved. But I just want to make a point that we all bought homes based on what we thought was going to happen. We understood that the residential of Phase 4 may or may not be single - family homes; it might be villas. It might be town homes, et cetera. But our understanding it was going to be residential. There is a large commercial activity area in existence. It's going to continue to develop, and I think it's more than adequate to serve the needs of the community as it exists right now. In terms of gas station which was mentioned, if you start at I -75 coming down Immokalee Road to Pebblebrooke, you get off the road, there is gas stations right there immediately. You come down the road a little farther, there's a Hess Station. A little further down there is a Mobil Station directly across from Laural Oaks. A little further down the road they are getting ready to open up a brand -new Chevron. If we were to head south down 951 instead, you come to a brand -new Chevron that was just opened and just past that there are a number of other gas stations. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Could you wrap it up, please? MR. CREEL: That is basically my point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought so. MR. CREEL: The one other comment if I can make briefly, the uses that have been recommended, I disagree with a number of those uses. And what I would like to see allowed there if the commission were to agree to that, I would like to see a larger buffer zone. -- I- -would like to see the commercial folks responsible for the gate and specific Page 77 January 17, 2002 1 6J1'14, go type of gate put up that is more secure than what we have, not a wooden gate that is going to break all the time. And I think that's about it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. Next speaker. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have a question. On this display that is on the overhead, it is kind of zeroed in, so I cannot see who published this. Who provided that? Was it the developer or one of builders or -- MR. CREEL: It was -- sorry, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: -- or where does it come from? MR. CREEL: I can provide the first page. I thought there was five of you. I'm sorry. I made five copies. It's a home page that is available over the internet anybody can access. The home page is at the bottom of that particular picture. I would be more than happy to leave that. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I don't like it that much. I was just curious where it came from. MR. CREEL: I obtained it from the internet, and it was my understanding the developers prepared it. It was an exact copy of a map or a site plan that we were all provided with when we purchased our homes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. The thing I wanted to point out, Ray, if you can just get the commercial aerial back on the map from where you have moved it. There are two roads leading up into the residential area. The current zoning already is commercial for two- thirds of that area that is represented as residential. If you look at the lower cul de sac -- that short deadend cul de sac -- MR. CREEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Commercial zoning right now bisects that commercial -- that short cul de sac and wipes out two- Page 78 January 17, 2002 16JI thirds of the other areas. Yeah. Right there where Ray's finger is about where the commercial line comes across now. So, just as a matter of record, this is some kind of sales or promotional literature. In fact, the commercial line was not where it was drawn here. It's much farther south. MR. CREEL: I understand. Part of the point I was trying to make is that part of the information was misleading. I think it goes to the truthfulness and veracity of the representations that are being made as to what is going to be done on that site. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Colleen McCarthy followed by Craig Haas. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Were you previously sworn? MS. McCARTHY: Yes, sir, I was. My name is Colleen McCarthy. Just in quick reference to this brochure, it is a brochure that was printed up by the association that is filing for this change in the PUD. And I have several, so I would be happy to hand them to you. They are printed up by the owner, the developer with his name and face on it, and there is no disclaimer as to anything being inaccurate. And it is the same one that you have up there. So we have been misled as to the amount of property that is commercial. . Yesterday I went to both contractors in the development to get a brochure to hand out that they hand to potential buyers. And both of them, one being Beezer and one being Kimbel Hill, have this brochure in their folder printed by Mr. Saundry stating that this is what they are potentially offering to the future buyer. Now, I presented to Mr. Saundry that this was inaccurate. He said it was printed or made up four years ago, but it is being handed out today to potential buyers inaccurately. He said it would cost him money to print up a new one, so he hasn't printed up a new one. Page 79 January 17, 2002 ' 16 J 1' Now, I would also like to request of you -- because our development is incomplete at this point. There are still hundreds to be built. We have an association that is headed by the developer. In that sense many of us do not think our association represents the residents. And consequently nothing has been presented to the residents -- I should say nothing -- but the fact we feel we have not been able to obtain in a timely manner since we only had a matter of ten days to two weeks. We would like the time to hire an attorney to represent the residents of the area in a more represented fashion, and I present that to you. And I thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Craig Haas followed by Michele Goguen. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Haas, were you previously sworn? MR. HAAS: Yes, I was. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Go ahead. MR. HAAS: I have got a checklist here I would like to pass out to each one of the members, if you would, please. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You are Craig Haas. MR. HAAS: Haas, H- a -a -s. I'm here to speak about if the property is zoned commercial that the residents would like some considerations of what is going to be built on there. The buffer picture that he has got up here is something that I just got a view of today. We have drawn a diagram at the bottom, and it's -- excuse me -- it's relatively similar to what he has put there. That was one of the considerations that we wanted. At the start of the checklist, we were looking for dumpsters to be located outside of the takeover zone, which is the 3.2 acres that you are discussing the lighting, parking lot, landscaping, building to be low intensity and shielded from the residents' side of the January 17, 2002 16J1 development. Interconnect, we would like a gate similar to the ones that we have. We would like to make sure that is for Pebblebrooke's residents only, and construction traffic cannot come through our subdivision. Mr. Strain addressed this issue earlier, which is Item No. 5. I have got copies of some of the information that they brought to us. We had a meeting Tuesday that Kenco Development did show up for. They had four items listed as to what could be developed there. There is actually 28 groupings, which Mr. Strain's list addressed very well. One of the provisions in there in the staff report is Section 4.4, Item 19. There is some verbage in there that the director would approve what is going in and out of there. We would like to maintain that stays in there for all issues or all commercial projects that go in there, to make sure that the residents -- residential friendly services. Item No. 6 is the buffer zone. And, like I said, we made a drawing up down below of what we would like it to look like when it's completed, which is very similar to what they have here. Like I said, this was just presented to us this morning. At our meeting Tuesday we asked Kenco Development if they would be willing to postpone this so we could get together as a group and have a united voice. As you can see, there is a lot of different opinions what needs to be happened here. They did not want to do that. We have had a couple of weeks to prepare for this and really have only had two homeowners meeting and really don't -- we are all going in different directions. We would really like to get together as a homeowners association and have one united voice. I don't know if we can make that happen today or not. But I understand the petitioner is the only one that can request to be postponed. So other than that I don't have any other things. Is there any Page 81 January 17, 2002 16JI questions of what I have presented? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many residents of Pebblebrooke showed up at your meeting? MR. HAAS: The first one it was, I think, about 50, and the last time it was probably a similar number. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MR. HAAS: The items I brought before you today -- there is probably about 20 of us that have put this list together. We haven't even had time to talk, as I said, as a whole group. This information is new. We keep getting more information. Like I said, Tuesday, which I brought copies, there were only four groupings that were told to us to be the SIC codes. The first four groups were all that were brought. And, in fact, there is Items 5 through 28, and each group has several items in it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you saw the SIC codes -- I probably know the answer, but I kind of want to hear it from you -- did you know what those SIC codes meant? MR. HAAS: I was familiar with them. I didn't know exactly what they meant. I did meet with Karen Bishop. Like I said, there was only the first four items in the information they brought us. Items 5 through 28 and -- as you know, there is several items with each group. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. HAAS: We looked through those first four. They didn't seem, you know, very damaging to what property could be built there. Like I said, if this is commercial, what we are looking for is if it's built in a manner it will enhance our property and be convenient for us and not in a manner that is detrimental to our assets that we have there. That's all that I have got. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Haas, to summarize what you are saying then -- don't let me put words in your mouth -- you are in Page 82 January 17, 2002 16J1 favor of it with these qualifications? MR. HAAS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER BUDD: We have heard other people say flat they don't want it at all. MR. HAAS: That's correct. MS. MURRAY: Your next speaker is Michele Goguen followed by your last speaker of Jerry Buehler. MS. GOGUEN: Good morning. It's Michele Goguen. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Were you previously sworn? MS. GOGUEN: Yes, sir. Twice. I would like to revisit the issue of the interconnect briefly. As it was said by Karen Bishop earlier, twice before in the 1990 PUD and the 1996 PUD, the master plan had a drawing depicting a road going through the preserve, and for some reason Water Management, whoever it was, is now saying that it's not possible to do that. I would also like to point out that in the petition that is before you today, this is not a preserve. Is it written as a reserve which, I believe, the difference there is whether or not this area is protected or if there is vegetation and plant growth, whatnot, in that area that cannot be removed. I don't believe it's protected. It used to be when the road went through that area there were only 16 to 17 acres of reserve there. Now we have 30 and saying we can't touch it. In light of the petition and where the interconnect is being proposed at the end of Burnt Pine, I think we owe it to all of the residents to explore an alternative place for that interconnect. As you can see on the map, on Burnt Pine on the end where it is being proposed, our residents' gate is only a distance of four lots away. All the people that live in that side of the community, to the left on the screen, they are going to go out the front entrance and are going to be on Immokalee Road. When they come home, they are -- why come Page 83 a January 17, 2002 l 6J1 in through the interconnect? You can go a distance of four houses -- believe me, it's not great -- come right in your residents' gate. I don't see a need for that interconnect at that location. Also, it's known as soon as the area gets permitted all the malaluca trees are going to be removed. I have been told that in the front of the reserve area there is a substantial number of malalucas that will come out. Why can't we explore the possibility of putting this interconnect, if it is mandated and said in the petition, it's recommended. I don't believe there is any mandate. There is no law that says we have to have it. It's recommended by the Department of Transportation. We need to look at the opportunity to put it elsewhere. Why can't it go up in the front, right alongside Immokalee Road, perhaps, and into the development or into the commercial area? There is no reason that it can't go there. It's more accessible to a greater number of the residents if it's not tucked away in a little corner in the back where you already have your resident gate already available to you in a very short distance. I would like to propose the commissioners here recommend that we -- we look into the possibility of opening up a different avenue or see how creative we can get with this. But I don't think that where it's -- it's currently being proposed is the only place, as it was said earlier, that was like the last resort place, the only place it could be put. I don't buy it. It's not true. There are other areas it could go. I would also like to mention that it was brought at the second residents meeting on Tuesday -- it was brought to our attention by Mr. Saundry that all of the records available to us, to the common public, in the records room and currently on file concerning this petition were either incorrect or inaccurate. I asked him at that time, I said, "Well, it's Tuesday night. If I go to the planning office tomorrow, am I going to be able to get a copy of what is going to be O= _ 11I January 17 2002 16J1 discussed on Thursday morning ?" He said he didn't know it would be available to me or not. How are we as residents supposed to prepare ourselves adequately, find who is opposed, who is object -- or who is in favor -- we can't unite ourselves and we can't come in here appearing as a really organized community without having adequate time, as has been said before, to have good documentation that we can rely upon in order to make that preparation. And I also would like to state the first community meeting that was held a week ago this past Tuesday was organized by residents, and it was attended by residents, and it was in excess of 50 people. I do have a petition signed by more than 50 people in opposition to this proposed change. And I have not honestly gone out there and pounded the pavement to see who else -- you know, what their voice is. Because the lack of information available to us -- there is no sense in running in circles on it. We need to know exactly in which direction we need to go, and without accurate data and without being able to rely upon the documents available to us, you know, it would be a waste of time literally to try and go out there and get opinions and get everybody's ideas. We need to know what restraints we are facing. I thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Question for Ray Bellows. Ray, in reference to the reserve /preserve issue, I had noticed in the PUD documents, Section 5, it refers to a reserve district. But then it refers to the Master Plan exhibit A, which has listed a preserve district, which is consistent with Michele's comments. Is there a significant difference between reserve and preserve? MR. BELLOWS: No. The reserve section, if you look at that, the definition clearly states it's a preserve conservation area. The designation on the master plan -- we can have that corrected to be consistent with the PUD document. It is, in fact, the same use. January 17, 2002 16J111 COMMISSIONER BUDD: My second question was, I know it was stated earlier in the testimony, but can you refresh my memory. What were the governing authorities that denied or recommended against a violation of the preserve area? Wasn't that South Florida Water Management and someone else? I know it was mentioned. I can't remember. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Corp of Engineers. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Army Corps of Engineers. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Anyone else? MR. BELLOWS: The South Florida Water Management District. MS. GOGUEN: May I add one point, Mr. Budd? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. MS. GOGUEN: According to the existing documents -- and this has been consistent since 1990 -- they are required to provide a minimum of 35 percent, which is 45 acres of open space. That open space requirement consists of three things; it's lakes, it's buffers, and it's reserve or preserve, whichever it is going to be. If they are going to take out vegetation in this supposed preserve area that is, say, the malalucas, the exotic plants, take over everything, so let's get rid of them. Or if they are going to increase our buffer, by whichever width that they increase this buffer, they are adding to that open -space requirement. So rather than put them -- you know, and, say, instead of having 45 acres of open space you are granting the residents this additional buffer -- reduce it by the same amount in your reserve area, perhaps, and make that your interconnect. COMMISSIONER BUDD: It's a great idea, but we can't do that. MS. GOGUEN: If it's going through the center and up on the road? COMMISSIONER BUDD: No, we can't touch it. Page 86 January 17, 2002 MS. GOGUEN: Thank you. 16JI MS. MURRAY: Your last speaker is Jeri Buehler. MR. BUEHLER: My name is Jeri Buehler, and I have been sworn in. I live at 389 Sweet Bay Lane. And our house will be affected right here (indicating). I -- one of my concerns is the buildings that will be butted up against the buffer, that they not be any higher than one story. I don't really care to have a two or three story looking down into my yard. And if we chose to put a swimming pool in, to me that is a huge invasion of my privacy. We were told when we moved into the neighborhood that this cul de sac was going to be homes, larger lots with bigger homes; that's what we were told. Otherwise, my husband and I most likely would not have chosen that particular lot in Pebblebrooke. I also have an issue of safety. There are probably 100 plus children in our subdivision. One of the pluses is that we do have a middle school. The children do walk to school; that's a wonderful plus. I also have a handicapped daughter that works at the Publix grocery store. My question would be, if the road at the end of Burnt Pine Drive is to be open to commercial, are we going to have sidewalks for the safety of our children and the residents walking? Or are we going to, as I do now, continue to go out on 951 to the sidewalk and walk that way? If we are looking at the safety of our children, I think is a -- is a very large issue. I also do not agree with everything that Ms. Bishop has marked off of here. I don't understand sports and recreation club. What does that mean? What kind of place is that? The motion picture theater -- which would make huge amounts of traffic. You also have here miscellaneous retail stores. What does that mean? That's all that I have to say. Thank you. Page 87 January 17, 2002 16J1 MS. MURRAY: That was your last speaker. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ms. Bishop. MS. BISHOP: Okay. I would like to try and address some of these things. I will start with the last one, which was the sports club. I assume that is like a karate center or a workout place; those kinds of items themselves. I have not seen any other types of sport clubs in this area other than those kinds, so I'm making the assumption that's what that it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Gold's Gym; that type of thing? MS. BISHOP: Those kinds of things is what I'm assuming it is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, that could cover things as a sports bar, could it not? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Right. MS. BISHOP: We had -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: -- 795 is a physical fitness center, which would be Gold's Gym and the like. MS. BISHOP: Right. Like the karate club and Tae Kwon Do clubs, and those would be something separate. You could also have boating clubs that met here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There is probably 30 uses that would go under 7997 as sports and rec clubs. Aviation club memberships, baseball clubs, beach clubs, boating clubs, bowling leagues, bridge clubs, football clubs, golf clubs, hunting clubs, racquetball clubs, recreation and sports clubs, riding clubs, shooting clubs, and soccer clubs -- it goes on and on. These are the kind of issues that when we have categories like this that are miscellaneous or they are more encompassing than what they appear to be; those are the things that cause the public concern down the road when all of a sudden something gets built there, and they don't realize it was part of the approval. o_" •• ' January 17, 2002 16J1 MS. BISHOP: We can take out the sports clubs. They are gone. I would like to take some of the things -- I took notes on some of the things. I will start with the sidewalk to the middle school. When we designed this subdivision -- and I designed this subdivision with Ken -- we had a -- prior to our corp and district permit, we had a whole different idea what this project was going to look like. The 1996 master plan was our vision of that project at that time, which was a road that went through this preserve. And as it was pointed out, at the time the preserve area was only 16 acres. Well, that was also, you know, our concept of what we needed to be saving here. Unfortunately, the permitting process for this site took over a year. During that process the wildlife agencies, the environmental agencies came in force and absolutely, positively required us to make that preserve 30 acres, to have a bird wading habitat experiment, which has gone awry, and to limit uses around that. We have since then platted this whole subdivision which was -- the platting of the subdivision was done in 1997, '98. And at that time the tracts were defined at that time, which was after our second amendment to this PUD. At that time we had to change our master plan to conform with the permits from the agencies. We had to plat that preserve agency and call it a conservation area, never to be touched again. That's what we had to do to get our permits to build the site. That's, in fact, what we have done. So that preserve area is not open for access at any point. It is, in fact, a reserve area. It has a conservation easement on it. The district, in fact, holds that conservation easement. So that is not an option for us. As much as we wish we had an option, it is not. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can I pursue that for just a minute? MS. BISHOP: Sure. Page 89 January 17, 2002 16JI.- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It would seem rational, perhaps, the agencies that you deal with don't deal in those terms -- but it would seem rational to put an interconnect right up next to Immokalee Road. We have a lot of access roads that are not part of the major thoroughfare. I can't imagine that that would be something that you wouldn't at least be willing to look at. MS. BISHOP: Well, it does not belong to me anymore. It belongs -- the conservation easement belongs to the district. It's not up to me. I don't get to go back and ask them -- if I do ask them, they are going to say no. They have no reason to give that land away when we have another option internally on property that has already been designated for development. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, it's not as an attractive option in terms of looking at the total picture. MS. BISHOP: And I -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ms. Bishop, let me just say that, perhaps, our county and its transportation department would be willing to join you in trying to come up with a more rational solution. They can certainly represent to the current titleholders, if that's the case, that now we have a new situation here. We are trying to resolve it. We have people living there. And a little access road just across the top, if there is some mitigation or something, have you thought about? MS. BISHOP: Right. That's another issue too. The mitigation -- first of all, it would not be just a little road parallel, because you would have to have some distance off that intersection for it to be safe. You would be looking at more than just a little 60 -foot strip across that top. The mitigation for this property, just for us to be able to do what we — did we had to save the on site. I believe my client paid $300, 000 already in off -site mitigation. MR. JARVEY: 450, 000. Page 90 January 17, 20021 61 MS. BISHOP: $450, 00 in off -site mitigation just to have what we have, and they locked us into this design. Going back now, there is no guarantee. I have never been able to go in and impact a conservation area to that degree without significant permitting nightmares and additional significant cost in mitigation and professional services. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What you would be taking back to them is not the project that you took to them before. You are coming in and asking for a new PUD with changes in it that we are struggling with to try and figure out how best to fit it into the community. MS. BISHOP: Right. But, unfortunately, the district -- they care about your zoning. They don't care that I had 650 units on there and I can't fit it on there. They don't care about those things. They care about what your permits and development lines are and what you, in fact, are saving. Those are wetlands up there. That is, in fact, what they required us to save. They are not interested that -- that some of the residents don't like this connection where it is. That is not in their interest. Their interest is to protect wetlands; that's, in fact, what they do. I don't know that they would even consider such a request, since there is a connection available through another access. Regardless of whether that was commercial -- which is underlining commercial, but residential, there still would have always been a connection there because this -- this project is one project total. All the roads are supposed to be internally connected. So we would be required by that -- by the fact this is one document to still have an interconnect there even if it was residential. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just a quick one. Karen, I think I Page 91 January 17, 2002 l 6JI rlv met you about a year ago on a project for the Golden Gate Fire Department. A situation occurred where the fire department was given some land, but it was land that was dedicated as a preserve to South Florida Water Management District. MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if they could get that changed, they could use the land for a fire department. Of course, I didn't think it could be done. You did it. MS. BISHOP: That's true. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. You should put that kind of effort into this. We might have the results. MS. BISHOP: That was two different reasons why that was able to occur there. One is that the wetland line was not a part of the development line, so that was -- we were not encroaching into any of the district wetlands. Those were uplands there. The other reason that was able to occur is because the fire station is a public entity. Because it is for a public entity, the district looks at that kind of issue for the public good to allow that. And the preserve in that area was over 400 acres. This is only 30. You try taking out -- let's just say 3 acres; that is 10 percent of this preserve. That was not what was taken out. There was only 2 acres taken out of that conservation area at the Golden Gate Fire Department at that intersection. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it was a dedicated preserve already given away. MS. BISHOP: It was a dedicated preserve that was not wetlands on that spot, correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wetlands can be bypassed sometimes by using things like culverts and elevated -- MS. BISHOP: You are still nailed at the impacts and secondary impacts to those areas. And I do believe in that case that preserve Page 92 January 17, 2002 16JI had what would be considered extra credits for the amount of impacts that project had originally; and that's why there wasn't an issue for those 2 acres to be removed, because, in fact, they were not district wetlands. They were uplands. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Next item? MS. BISHOP: Sorry. I lost my place there for a moment. The sidewalk at the middle school was something that we all considered very important. And, yes, I'm one of those people who park up next to that sidewalk and drop my little girl off if she's running late or if it's raining, I pick her up there. The intent was to keep people off the road from having to drive next door. And, actually, one of the things this developer has spent the last five years trying to do is that sidewalk on Immokalee Road off the back of the curb was a part of the effort that this client and myself personally took on for almost two years to keep those kids from having to be on the back curb of that six -lane road. We also went as far as to make sure that the project to the south of the middle school, which is. Also Mr. Saundry's, has its connections and that project connects sidewalk to Ibis Cove, which has a connection to the high school, which has a connection to the elementary school. We have taken these interconnections for pedestrian access definitely to a standard that certainly the whole community should be looking at. But there are times when the pathways for walking aren't enough. And that in this case for the groceries, driving your car -- I mean, when I go shopping, it's every two weeks because I really hate to shop. My car is loaded down. I dare say I could not carry that on my back coming back and forth on my bicycle. When I send my kids up there to get milk or something, then, yes, certainly they can take that pathway. We would increase the sidewalks or continue the sidewalks into Page 93 Januaty 17, 2002 1 6J1 the shopping center along that area. So, yes, there would be an interconnect of sidewalks for pedestrian access. At that -- it was brought up at the meeting on Tuesday that we only had five items there. I came with the existing PUD document that listed every item. We were only asked about several iteMs. I also came with my SIC book so that I could go through the detail of what was allowed in those things. We were only asked about a few of them; one of them being the car dealers, which I then looked at. And a gentleman asked, "Can I eat Chinese? Can we have a McDonald's? Can we have a Walgreen ?" I said, "Yes, we can have all of those things." If somebody would have asked for more information, we had it readily available to supply to them when Ken Saundry was asked about the staff s files, I corrected Mr. Saundry's conversation. What he intended to say was that the original planner mistakenly used the wrong master plan when he gave you your last staff report, which I called some of you and found out that it happened. I did not get mine until the day after, so I had no way to know that that, in fact, had happened. That part of what was in his file was incorrect, but his files were complete. He has all the amendments in those files. Any person can go down to those -- I sent my office down there just to check. We pulled the documents from each of those subsequent amendments. There are also the platting documents which are available down there. And the platting documents are the instrument to which the lines were defined, which in our document it says that all these acreages and lines are approximate until we plat. And we platted. The plat had to be in place before any of these people could move into their homes. I'm sure you are all aware of that. The platting on that line was established at that point. The use on that tract to the north underlined was commercial -- Page 94 January 17, 2002 6JI but Ken was looking at the market directions and seeing what else could go there, just like any developer does. You, cannot -- it's hard to project what you are going to do. And it is a gracious idea to give up commercial for residential, if you can. That was something at that time he was looking at. But because -- unfortunantely, because of the impact of the residential by the roadways there and the future activity center in that corner, the -- it's not been as advantageous for a developer to put .the two -story four - plexes in. I might want to point out a two -story four -plex or eight - plexs, two story, three stories are allowed. They would go right next to the single- family homes that are there. They would have literally no buffer, no wall. They would have the 15 -foot normal buffers that would be required by residential, but there would be no walls, and there would be, obviously, whatever amount of traffic that would go by to go to those homes would be there, plus the interconnect to the commercial would be at the end of that tract, wherever that would be. So those things would still stay in place. Those elements are still going to be an issue whether or not this PUD is amended or not. That still has to be there. One of the issues that we -- that the residents may not understand is that when they build roadways -- at the time you do these PUDs, you are given an opportunity to pick your accesses on the roads. But during that process the transportation department clearly, clearly does not guarantee you that these are going to be there forever and that you are going to get median cuts when they improve the roads or that you are going to get a light or any of those things. Right now, based on what the plans are for this area, Pebblebrooke may be limited on our 951 access to a right -in and right -out and to a directional left but no lefthand turn to go north to the intersection. The Immokalee Road may also be limited to right -in, right -out with a directional left -in; and that's it, with no lefthand turn out. We Page 95 January 17, 2002 16JI don't know any of those things yet. We are still in limbo on what those plans are going to be. If this commercial piece comes into play where it is, Dawn has agreed there would be a lefthand turn out of that commercial as a full intersection through that area, which would give us an opportunity not to have to head down to some other direction and U'ie- around and come back the other way. So that solves future problems that haven't even happened yet. We are trying to anticipate the needs for all of these things, because we don't want another full access into 951 because we are not really going to get that. As a residential area, we wouldn't want that. But having a gate- limited access through whatever parcel to the commercial shops I think is imperative for all projects. You know, obviously there are people who don't agree and that's -- you know, we are never going to get everyone to agree on this. You have seen it at Livingston Road, the Livingstone Wood's people, but yet I can tell you at Pelican Strand, you know, the commercial does very well up there. It's very beautiful. It seems to do well. All of those people that backup to it and see it everyday, we don't get complaints from those projects. It does work if it's done well. The same at the Vineyards. The Vineyards is another perfect example where that kind of commercial really works. They have no main gates on their main drags; just on the subcommunities inside that area. They work well. We are trying to work within good planning practices here. We understand that when you buy into some of these places -- when I bought into this place, that northwest area did not look like that at all. Beezer came back and changed their mind and totally redid it the way they wanted to do it, and it changed that whole idea. Well, that was their prerogative. They owned the property. They had that right. But it was still residential, which is what we understand. Page 96 January 17, 2002 16JI COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd, do you want to question now, or do you want to wait? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Well, I have a couple of things for you, Karen. MS. BISHOP: Sure. COMMISSIONER BUDD: One, from the residents there are three camps; "Don't do it. Not now. Not ever." You are, obviously, not going to do agree with that. There is the, "Postpone it. Give us more time to think about it." I understand your owner has declined to postpone. There is a third camp, which we can address, which is specific requested modifications. If I can get your response or your owner's response as to modifications which are agreeable -- MS. BISHOP: Sure. COMMISSIONER BUDD: There is a request that the dumpsters be located outside of the 3.2 acres that is going to become commercial. Is that acceptable? MS. BISHOP: I believe that's acceptable. I think more than just that. I think what they are looking for is the noise element. I believe the new community character criteria for commercial addresses that with those dumpsters and the way they are done. You have to wall them in now. You can't just leave them sitting out there. It's not just its aesthetics. It's nasty. You know, just nasty stuff. So it's addressed now through those processes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: And, also -- which is also consistent with the community character discussion is low intensity shielded lighting. MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER BUDD: That is agreeable to you? MS. BISHOP: That is agreeable. I want to point out when the activity center across the street comes in that we might want to be Page 97 January 17, 2002 16JI looking at them big time. Because the bigger problem is going to be the activity center across the street with all the lights from the front of that place looking at projecting across to Pebblebrooke's owners also. So when that comes in front of you guys, hopefully you will keep in mind that there are residential people around there and nail them also with making sure their lighting is conducive of residential Wherever it's blaring at. COMMISSIONER BUDD: We make every effort to be equally oppressive. MS. BISHOP: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: How about the request that buildings located within the area of the 3.2 acres be limited to single story, the commercial buildings? MS. BISHOP: That's fine. COMMISSIONER BUDD: That the interconnects will have a secured gate. And I had a question. You talked about traffic calming at some point, a speed bump or something like that. Will that be on the commercial side, the new side, or would that be back on the residential side that is currently completed? MS. BISHOP: We had looked at this at the residential that is completed. Because I live at the corner of two half -mile straightways, so I'm one of the ones that is really affected. By the time they hit my house, they are doing 40 miles per hour. The kids play kickball right around that corner, so that is something we are looking at as a community. If it is necessary to stick a speed bump on the other side because we feel that this is a problem coming from the commercial, I don't believe that Don DeAngelis will have a problem with that speed bump close to the gate within that buffer area outside of his parking lot area. COMMISSIONER BUDD: The gate, there has also been testimony that the current gating system is kind of a flimsy piece of M!MORII January 17, 2002 16J1 wood. Will the gate that will be provided on the commercial side, would that be metal gate or something more substantial? MS. BISHOP: Actually, I'm going to suggest to ycg that we have agreed to put the same kind of gate that is there. The homeowners association at Pebblebrooke has the ability through their buying power to buy better gates if they want, but those were the gates that were provided to us when we came in. They are not intended -- they are intended to be privacy gates more than anything else, not security gates -- and to keep the pass - through traffic out. I'm going to suggest to you that it would be -- I would be hard - pressed to believe that when that full -cut intersection comes into that part of the commercial area that somebody would think it would be better to cut through Pebblebrooke to get out than go through a full and -- perhaps, even lighted intersection where you can turn left or right. So I'm of the belief that it's not necessary at this point. If we want a better one, when we buy the other two better ones, if, in fact, the homeowners choose to do that, we can upgrade that one also. COMMISSIONER BUDD: On that gate would it be approval to the developer that should it be approved with conditions that the gate would not be open at any time for construction traffic? I know right now there are hours of operation. MS. BISHOP: Construction traffic will not be allowed to cut through the project. COMMISSIONER BUDD: It will be a 100 percent active gate right at the beginning? MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Then there is a buffer layout that was discussed here by one of the residents, and there is a buffer layout there, which I don't have a copy of, I have not seen before, and cannot see from this distance? MS. BISHOP: I have stuff for you. Page 99 2 2 6J� January , 00 �. �'Y COMMISSIONER BUDD: I was interested in, is this buffer acceptable or similar? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You need to give one to the court reporter. MS. BISHOP: Okay. As you can see, the buffer is in the same dimensional criteria as the one below. I think we showed our wall closer to the center to make a more even berm. But I don't see that his -- the problem is two -foot berm in an 10 -foot area does not. Leave a flat spot on the top. I don't believe that the design that the homeowner provided will work, but we can certainly do it very similar to that. Start the berm at the edge of that 30 -foot line. I think to make it a maintainable berm, it has to be a 3 to 1 for it to be maintainable. So at a 3 -to -1 slope the berm will come up 2 feet, which is 6 foot in -- yeah, 6 foot and then you have a flat spot of a couple of feet, and then 3 to 1 again. It would be at the minimum probably -- about the center of it will be probably 8 foot in to 10 foot in from the backside of the buffer. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. MS. BISHOP: Which we tried to do, as you can see. COMMISSIONER BUDD: The interconnect, which is primarily a vehicle interconnect, would that contain sidewalks? MS. BISHOP: Yes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: So the same residential sidewalks that are currently there would continue right on into the commercial area? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Those are all my questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The master plan that was up on the screen that had a preserve area, it does not appear that the Page 100 January 17, 2002 16JI preserve area has changed. MS. BISHOP: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It looks like it's about the same. MS. BISHOP: We platted that several years ago. We cannot change that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The lakes look pretty close. MS. BISHOP: Correct. What you are looking at now is a master plan; that is, in fact, the platted -- here is the project here (indicating) on this area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let me get to my question, though. The document that we have that was last approved for this project called 16 acres of preserve and 22 acres of lake. The document that we just got from planning staff says the preserve is going to be 31 acres and lakes will be 22; that's changed sometime then. You have built something different than what you previously were approved for? MS. BISHOP: When we originally did -- I had done the zoning prior to receiving my district permit; so that's what happens. You guys see it all the time. Zoning and environmental permitting have had -- in the past had no real connection. You put a master plan out there and then get your permit, and you are -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If it's over a 5 percent change, aren't you suppose -- there is some rule that when you get to a certain change you are supposed to apply for a substantial deviation. Ray, do you recall what that rule is offhand? MS. BISHOP: That's for DRIs. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, it's not. It's for PUDs. MS. MURRAY: No. Typical PUD language allows for minor changes due to permitting, but it does not necessarily define what minor is. There is no threshold. MR. BELLOWS: If you are discussing a PDI, a master plan Page 101 January 17, 2002 16J1 change, that has 5 percent, I believe, criteria is what is a substantial change if they are trying to do a PDI of the substantial master plan change. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have it in front of me. What happened, this project changed its preserve areas -- they doubled those, which is positive, but they cut the lakes in half. And in your mind that wouldn't have required a previous requested change to the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Not to the PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Also, Karen, your buffer area -- not your buffer so much as your open space -- requirements is 30 percent, which is 45 acres. You call out 48 acres in the text of the PUD, but on the master plan you only call out 42 acres; so how is that addressed? MS. BISHOP: I guess I'm kind of at a loss of what your question is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Turn to your PUD document. MS. BISHOP: The existing or the current? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The new one. MS. BISHOP: The new one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 2 -4. MS. BISHOP: Okay. Section 2.4. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. Page 2 -4. MS. BISHOP: Right. Page 2 -4. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You show 48 acres of open space. On the master plan, the only open space that you show is preserves and lakes, and they total 42 acres. The ULDC requires the buffers to be on the master plan. Do you know where those are going to be? MS. BISHOP: The buffers are already in place. They are perimeter buffers, the perimeter buffers around the outside of the project. Ken Saundry -- on the north and the west buffers, which are Page 102 January 17, 2002 16JI -- east buffers, which are 951 and Immokalee has a 25 -foot buffer there with a wall that he built and put in -- as a matter of fact, that's where we built the county sidewalk on our property, so that we do get that sidewalk outside of the curb. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They do need to be shown on the master plan. The master plan that we have does not show them. Do they need to be added? MS. BISHOP: Actually, no. This has already been platted, as I discussed before. This whole project is platted currently. The buffers are platted. The preserve is platted. The lakes are platted. Everything is even built. The only piece left not built is this one little square, which is north of the existing residential on the east side along 951. If you look at the aerial, you will see that's the only spot left in this project that has not been built yet. Those are already in place. And I can't change them because they are already deeded over to the owners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not asking you to change them. I'm just asking you to put them on the master plan. MS. BISHOP: Show them, specifically? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm just looking at Section 2.7.3.1.1.3 and .4 of the ULDC where they call out the specific things that need to be on the master plan. I'm just looking for the buffers as part of your open -space requirements. MS. BISHOP: I will be glad to. But your open space do -- I believe also includes yards, doesn't it, Susan? MS. MURRAY: Yes, it does. MS. BISHOP: So it's not just buffers. Your open shows also yards, which I will not be able to show all of that as a part of my open. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, but on your 2 -15 open -space requirements, you said this requirement shall not apply to individual Page 103 January 17, 2002 164 development tracts. Are those yards within residential tracts? MS. BISHOP: Correct. So my overall -- but I have additional open space, which does include that. I just made sure that we had open space that was not required -- or did not include those others. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's get simpler. I need your master plan. I think your master plan should show the 45 acres -- MS. BISHOP: I will be glad to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- of that. The other item I have on your PUD, Page 3-4 -- Ray, I don't know if you realize this. This is between principal structures under single family detached has been reduced from 15 to 10. I'm not sure it's significant or not. I just want to make sure that planning staff was aware of it. MS. BISHOP: Right. That was done in 1997 also. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. I have your'97 one here. It was not done in '97. It was 15, I believe. MS. BISHOP: Principal structures? I'm looking right here, single - family detached on the 1997 one, I'm showing 10. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I have the '97 staff gave me. It shows distance between principal structures 15. MS. BISHOP: Well -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe I have the wrong one or you have the wrong one. MS. BISHOP: Well, maybe so. Actually, let me look at my '97. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My question is, Ray, is that going to have any impact on your deal? MR. BELLOWS: From the planning perspective, the distance between structures on single family, 10 feet is still within what is typical on many PUDs. I don't have a problem with 10 foot. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. BISHOP: Actually, most of the houses out there have been built like that, except for mine and I have 15. Page 104 January 17, 2002 1 6JI COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But that's not what it says. It was changed to prior owners, and I wanted to make sure that staff was aware. The last thing, I don't know how many other objections there is going to be to other uses, the drinking places use -- and I want to ask you if you need this. It says, "Bars, beer parlors, beer taverns, cocktail lounges, discotheques, nightclubs, saloons, tab rooms and taverns. " Do you need that in your list of goodies? MS. BISHOP: I suggest to you that we need that. I have seen -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It will generate some noise. MS. BISHOP: Well, there is some noise ordinance that, if fact, does -- and the distance between that area -- I mean, obviously, if there is something on the south end -- we see this all over Collier County. If there is a noise - generating facility and it is disturbing its surrounding neighbors, then they have a problem. There is decibel levels that are required at certain times of the day. And the -- right now, I dare say, I'm probably speaking louder than the allowed decibels. As a matter of fact, a guy did my voice once and said I'm something like 5 to 10 decibels higher than the normal allowance for the noise ordinance, which is 55 decibels at night and 60 during the day. Apparently I'm not allowed to go anywhere and speak out loud because my voice is louder. There are ordinances. There are time frames when these are done. And now the county has very sophisticated noise equipment to keep people in check. So I dare say that will be an issue, and if it is, it won't be an issue for very long. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's one that I didn't want to see the residents have to go through. I don't have any other comments at this point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Anything else from Mr. Bellows? Page 105 16J1 i . January 17, 2002 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have an additional stipulation to clarify with transportation of the traffic, and they have -- Dawn Wolff has provided me with language. I would like to read it into the. Record. (As read): "No certificates of occupancy shall be issued above the 150, 000 square foot within the commercial tract until the four -lane capacity above Immokalee Road and County Road 951 to Wilson Boulevard and 951 from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Road is available." COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I support that 100 percent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So do I. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, you also wanted clarification of the square footage, the maximum square footage allowed? MR. BELLOWS: That would be 231, 000 square feet. MS. MURRAY: For commercial. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought we crossed that bridge. MR. BELLOWS: Karen mentioned that earlier. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I will close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission -- let's see, are we approving or forwarding the recommendation that the Planning Commission forward Petition PUD- 2001 -AR -14694 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval with specific attachments and recommendations, and that would be as agreed by the petitioner, buffers to be located outside the 3.2 acre commercial rezone, lighting to be low intensity and shielded from the residential area, buildings within the 3.2 acre commercial rezones to be limited to a single story. That there be -- the interconnect shall have a secured gate that will be installed and operational immediately upon the construction of that road and commencement of construction to Page 106 1 January 17, 2002 limit construction traffic and -- contrary to the petitioner's request -- I would like to see that as an upgraded gate, metal gate superior to the current wooden -plank gate, and that the buffer design be as -- in the recently submitted Vanasse and Daylor buffer. And last, but not least, the transportation stipulation as read into the record by Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: A second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I will second it. MR. BELLOWS: If I may, did you mention the revised -- list of permitted uses? COMMISSIONER BUDD: My mistake. Yes, the corrected list -- the list of permitted uses provided by Mr. Strain and amended by Miss Bishop. MR. WHITE: Lastly, the master plan changes -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was going to -- as soon as we got to discussion, I was going to throw in about 20 things, but we are not there yet. After it's second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd's motion. Mr. Midney's second. Discussion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would like to add that the cap on commercial be 231, 000 square feet, 231, 000 square feet; the discrepancy between the word "reserve" in the PUD document and preserve as shown on the master plan will be corrected pursuant to staff s direction, whether it should be preserve or reserve; . And that the location of the interconnect and any buffers be added to the master plan; there be sidewalks added along roads that go through this interconnect area; and that 5813 be struck as an acceptable use, drinking places. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, is that an Page 107 January 17, 2002 1 1 amendment to this? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's additions that I would like to add, if the motion maker and the second approve those conditions. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Is that all of your additions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all that I have. MR. BUDD: I will agree to those. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I will. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Including the elimination of drinking establishments? MR. BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Any discussion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Second has to agree to it also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He did. Well, I will discuss. I think that eliminating the drinking establishments is being unduly fussy. I think they should be allowed and dealt with as it exists. There's hardly a place in one of these activity centers that does not have someplace where somebody can watch a football game and have a couple of beers. I don't drink myself, but I think other people should not be presumed to create a nuisance just because they have a drink. So I object on that basis. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, so do I. I don't think it's our position to put something like that in. And I personally would like to see it removed. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I would too. I think if you are having dinner you might like a glass of wine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That doesn't apply. The restaurants already have that. These are strictly taverns and saloons and things like that. My concern is not that people drink; that is a disruptive element to a neighborhood. I'm sure these people don't want to have to go through having monitors put out there and certain times of the day or night to see if they have decibel levels and then Page 108 January 17 2002 1 6JI challenge it through county staff. That's why I'm suggesting this. And that's my reason. It has nothing to do with people's morals. They can do what they want. _ COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I will agree. R&taurants would be permitted and people can drink at the restaurants. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, maybe you can just take a consensus question on just that one issue. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many people are going to oppose this motion as long as the drinking establishments prohibition is in it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: As long as restaurants are approved, that's fine with me. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I may be the Lone Ranger then. I don't know. Do you want non - restaurant type of alcohol serving establishments? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I think as long as restaurants -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So we have two. I think the motion can carry. I call the question. All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? Mr. Wolfley had a conflict, so he abstained. MR. BUDD: The motion carries? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The motion carries 6 -- 7. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would like to make a little comment, if I may. There is -- I would like to address the fellow commissioners. I think we have turned a corner today, and the first time in my year and a half that we have taken a more restrictive position than what the applicant has brought forward in terms of traffic. I think this is a signal -- that I'm sure Mr. Feder and Dawn are listening to -- and would really hope that we can hold the line here Page 109 16J1 I rY Janua 17 2002 and do more of this, because I think that's what the public is crying for. As far as the public at large, we have got a new public participation ordinance in place. This one did not fall under it. But we are going to see more and more opportunities for public involvement earlier in the process that you may not be faced with in this situation. There is help coming in terms of the process. Our hands were somewhat tied in this particular issue. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to add to that also. In conversations with people and talking about the traffic and the congestion, people have sort of a hopeless attitude, "Well, there is nothing that anybody can do about it. It's just inevitable. " I'm glad to see that we can do some small things. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner Abernathy -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you want to go back to Item B? MS. MURRAY: That's up to you. They are ready. They have indicated they have the information you sought. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are they here now? MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's go back to that. We are back to Petition CU- 2001 -AR -1255. Sir. MR. PALMER: For the record, Tom Palmer, assistant county attorney. We have acquired leases that have been entered into by the Golden Gate Fire Rescue District described as 100 -- from 130 feet plus or minus to the top of the tower. The tower is occupied by agreement for at least -- initial term of 5 years and 4 years automatically renewable for 5 years. So the conceptual lease is essentially a 25- year lease. And there is -- that is if the tenants wants to stay on there, he stays on there unless he notifies the district he wants to get off, 90 Page 110 January 17, 2002 16J1 days prior to one of those 5 -year terms. The tower is owned by Golden Gate. lden Gate negotiated all of these leases themselves. So effectively for 130 feet, plus or minus, the tower -- other people have the right to occupy the tower. The district itself has the right to occupy the top level or the first tier of the tower, and the next three tiers down to 130 feet, plus or minus, are occupied by three independent private entities; Primco acting as Horizon, Sprint, and one other one is down at the 130 -feet level. And there are no provisions in here where Golden Gate can require them to vacate except for cause, and that is if they violate the terms of the agreement like any other tenant. So that's the situation in regard to that tower. The tower was built in 1999, and most of these leases were entered into in the year 2000. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you for doing that. MR. PALMER: We called them up, and they were very nice, and they faxed them to us immediately. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that 49 percent of the tower, then, or is it more than 49 percent -- of the usable space on the tower? MR. PALMER: I don't know to what extent as a percentage of the usable space on the tower that amounts to. There is some space below the 130 -foot level that has not been occupied by anybody. To what extent that is available -- also Golden Gate does have the right to rent that -- at least under their lease to private enterprise. So it doesn't look like there is anything that binds them, Golden Gate, to the 51/49 ratio. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Except our zoning ordinance. MR. PALMER: Well, I don't know that -- whether this provision existed in 1999, and I have not seen any of their conditional -use application. They came before the board with a conditional -use application. I don't believe the 51/49 was in there in Page 111 .1 January 17, 2002 16JI 1999. I think that was added subsequent to that time. So I cannot tell you that they are bound to that. They do get all the rental for -- all of the rentals to private enterprise go to Golden Gate. The provider of the tower, Sprint, did not get -- does not get any percentage of that rent; that's all cash to the Golden Gate Fire District. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: So what you are saying is that there is no way that the tower can be used for EMS? MR. PALMER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Okay. MR. PALMER: At least the next 23 years. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's a little too long to wait. MR. PALMER: I can leave copies of these leases with you for you folks -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, I don't think I need that. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Call the question. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there any -- any public speaker? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that the board forward CU- 2001 -AR -1255 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for approval, subject to staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Discussion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Is there any way we can Page 112 January 17, 2002 16 J 1 .: amend some language to that so that the same situation that is a travesty of what has occurred on the tower at Golden Gate Fire Department doesn't occur at the EMS, meaning that they cannot get into leases that cannot get acceptable positioning, so the sheriffs department wants to get on that tower, or the county wants to get on that tower, they will have the right to get on that tower where they need to get. This doesn't make any sense. There is the library property which is owned by the county; that could have a tower. The Sheriff s Department could declare a space in the building, and they could have a tower. We are going to have a field of towers. It's just not right. It was not intended for this purpose. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately, I cannot conceive how that can have any bearing if we put it into this PUD. It will not work. I mean, the county commissioners can do something. Maybe a change in the statute, but for us to put it into words like this would have no effect on anything in the future. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What I'm saying is make sure that the tower that is going up does not get built with the same mistakes as the Golden Gate tower so it's not usable by another entity if they come into play. Then when it comes before the board, we should know, no, you have space on this tower. That's the premises under which that other tower was put in. See, Golden Gate Fire Department did not allow for that. I think that was a serious mistake. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let me ask the attorney, would this be language we can condition this approval with? MR. PALMER: Well, presently, you mean in regard to this particular lease or generally? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do it one at a time. MR. PALMER: This particular case they are already bound by the 51/49 percentage breakup and anything else that comes in the Page 113 January 17, 2002 6J;1 00 future. But there are exceptions to that. If you wanted the Board of County Commissioners to say that at least all communications towers on any essential service site must be leased 51 percent for governmental use, you can certainly make that recommendation to the Board of County Commissioner's, that can be across the board, no exceptions requirement. MR. WHITE: Just so the commissioners understand, where that 51 versus 49 percent is allocated on whatever that structure is may change over time with respect to technology. I understand there it's site -to -site whatever, but I'm not sure that the specific intent you are seeking to achieve will be met by such a condition. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I want -- my point was not 51/49 percent. It's that in the future if this tower had to be 100 percent occupied by essential services, government services, that's what it should be there for. The other services will have to leave. MR. PALMER: Certainly, the Board of County Commissioners could, as a matter of policy, in the future state that every essential service communications tower be limited to governmental use. They could do that as a matter of policy. If that is the policy, those things are never going to be built again except at the expense of the county, because no private developer is going to come in and put in a tower for free for the county's use unless it gets some use of the tower. In this specific instance, the entity that built the tower, Sprint, has this tower rent free for 25 years a slot that is the distance below the district's. The district would require the top part of it. The second tier has been reserved to Sprint for 25 years rent free in lieu of the cost to construct and convey that tower to the district. They did that only because they had rent for use of that tower for 25 years under the quid pro quo. If the county wants to go in and say there will be no private use of these facilities, that's fine, but that would result in the fact that all Page 114 January 17, 2002 6JI expenses of all future towers will be incurred by the county. So it's a tradeoff. But it's a matter of policy, and the Board of County Commissioners could do that if they chose to do that. COMMISSIONER BUDD: You mentioned that in the Golden Gate agreement there is a clause in there that they could terminate agreements for cause. Could for cause be determined that Board of County Commissioners or appropriate government authority decided a critical service has need -- MR. PALMER: No, that is not one of the causes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: No, that is not the cause? MR. PALMER: You can take away contract rights by condemnation. You can condemn contract rights. But if the county -- and you would have to find a necessity to do it. And assuming there was, in the eyes of the law, a necessity, you could condemn these contract rights. But you would have to pay just compensation to do it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That opens up a whole new can of worms, because I thought Mr. White said it cannot be done, and now you are saying it could be done. I don't care if the county has to pay for it. They collect taxes and they collect impact fees just to do that purpose with, so they should be paying for it. Then they own it, and they can control it. Now you are telling us that the contract can be like an eminent domain procedure and be taken over? MR. PALMER: Well, there are technical issues here. Number 1, the tower is owned by a governmental entity. There are limits where one governmental entity can condemn the property of another governmental entity. So there is a legal issue of whether or not the county can condemn property owned by the fire district. Assuming they can, in any event, that right that Sprint has obtained on the lease agreement would have to be paid for in just compensation. And that's assuming, of course, that the county has the legal status, via the fire Page 115 January 17, 2002 16J1 district, to condemn these rights at all. MR. WHITE: And you can show the appropriate degree of necessity. The distinction between the two, just so you are understanding our point, is that I was speaking solely about contracts. These are in the form of leases, which to some degree are a blending of contracts and actual real property rights to the extent they are, quote, leases and pertain to a term or a lesser estate than just outright ownership of the land. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you tried to do that, it seems to me that Sprint or whoever, the measure of damages would be the cost of the tower -- or something like that? MR. PALMER: They would allege that it's not the cost of this tower, but it's what they would have to pay to find a substitute location someplace else within the geographical distance. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: For that 25 years. MR. PALMER: So it may not be limited to the value of the tower. In fact, somebody remarked that they thought that Sprint got a pretty good deal here with this, although so did the fire district, because these tenants pay what is called a co- location expense. That's $50, 000 right up front just to get on the tower, and then they are paying approximately $16, 000 a year every year, so just on these co- location expenses the district has $100, 000 right there. It's a win - win situation for everybody. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm going to call the question, because I think we have jousted with this windmill just about long enough. All in favor? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 116 January 17, 2002 6J1 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I understand the court reporter needs a break. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. Can we get the dissents where -- MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: --three dissents? Two. Richardson and Strain? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No, I was just. Pointing to them. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Me. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We will recess until. Half past the hour. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The next item on the agenda, Petition VA- 2001 -AR -1442. Any disclosures? They want to swear first? All right. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, disclosures anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: None. Go ahead. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for an after -the -fact variance for a shed. And the property is located on Spurling Avenue, which is -- as you can see, is between U.S. 41 and Goodlette Road, although there's no direct connect because of how the actual right -of -way was constructed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Petitioner is here today? Page 117 January 17, 20021 6 J I MR. REISCHL: Yes. And you can see the layout of the lot, the existing house. And in the solid color is the shed that's in question. You, as -- well, maybe not all of you individually, but the Planning Commission heard this petition in August of 2000. You recommended approval to the board of zoning appeals by a vote of 5 to 1. For some reason the petitioner did not appear at the board of zoning appeals. They denied the petition. He petitioned for reconsideration, and they told him to go back through the process, so he is now back through the process. There is a code enforcement case on the subject site, and I spoke to the inspector. I was con -- you read the staff report. You know that there was a conversion at some time in the past of the shed into a residence. I had some concerns about that. Gary Dantini of code enforcement assured me that since there was no building permit issued for this in the first place, if the variance is approved, then the petitioner will have to get a building permit, and the building permit will be for a shed. Inspectors will come for inspections looking for a shed, not for a residence. That -- that reassured me a little more on that. You can see the shed on the aerial right here, so you can see the surrounding properties. And there's no directly encroaching -- not encroaching, directly abutting neighbors. It is a 2.3 -foot encroachment. The setback for the rear yard that's required is 10. Because the structure has been there for approximately 30 years, as far as we can tell, and there have not been any complaints, the complaint that was received by code enforcement was for the use as a residence, not for an encroachment. We consider those ameliorating factors and recommend approval. MR. ADELSTEIN: Has this been turned back into a shed? MR. REISCHL: It may have to be destroyed if the variance is not approved, so I believe Mr. Sanders -- Page 118 January 17, 2002 1 b J 1 MR. ADELSTEIN: I believe at one time it was house. Is it now a shed? Again, they've removed the -- MR. REISCHL: I spoke to Mr. Dantini, and he said that it's -- right now it's still a residence. The owner does not want to do anything until the variance is either approved or denied, he gets direction either way. MR. WOLFLEY: Is there a -- do you know the height of the shed? MR. REISCHL: Fifteen feet, I believe. MR. WOLFLEY: Fifteen feet, okay. Is there a -- I didn't have a chance to read on this, but could it -- if it were shorter -- or I'm sorry. Not as tall, height was less than 15 feet, let's say 6 feet, could it then be that close to the property line, or is it no matter what? MR. REISCHL: No. An accessory structure, minimum setback is 10 feet. MR. WOLFLEY: Period? MR. REISCHL: Yes. MR. WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions for staff. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We'll hear from the petitioner? MR. SANDERS: My name is Kirk Sanders for the record, and I purchased the property. And it had the existing -- what -- what was sold to me as a one -story residence. And I did get in trouble with code enforcement. Since then I have removed all of the appliances and whatnot to make it a residence, so it is converted back to a shed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's already been converted back? MR. SANDERS: Yes, sir. And there was also one other thing. There was another shed beside that one. I -- I have a copy of the blueprint, and it was told to me that -- that if I remove that, it would - - would help out also so that -- that other shed has also been removed, Page 119 January 17, 2002 16J1 so now there's only the one shed on the property. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: When you bought it, it was a residence back there? MR. SANDERS: Yes, sir. It was sold to me as a residence, and that's the reason I did rent it out, and -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So there were two residences? MR. SANDERS: Yes, sir. And according to the -- the -- the county, I -- I did some -- some of my own research also as -- as well as the title company, and I went to the county, and the county said that it was a duplex property, or I could put two single- family homes, but later on to find out that there's not enough square footage on the property to allow for a duplex or two single - family homes. So it is zoned that way, but I -- I did check it out but not far enough, so I was kind of ignorant the fact that it was there and about checking out in -- into it further. It -- everything has all been removed and stuff, so it's a shed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The little shed has been removed completely? MR. SANDERS: Completely. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And you don't live in the principal residence either, do you? MR. SANDERS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions? MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, am I to understand, then, that there are two residences that can -- have habitation on this? MR. REISCHL: No. What Mr. Sanders is saying, RMF -6 zoning could allow more than one dwelling unit, but because of the size of the parcel, they're limited to one dwelling unit. There were two residences. One of them was not legal. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. REISCHL: The last photos I saw from Mr. Dantini still Page 120 January 17, 2002 16JI had it, but Mr. -- Mr. Sanders had said that those are -- are removed now so ... MR. SANDERS: I also went to the tax -- tax record place down below. And when I -- when I -- before I actually purchased it, and they -- it was showing that -- a house and a guest house. I happen to have the -- the -- the deal right here (indicating). And I can pass that around if you wish. MR. REISCHL: And if I can just state that that is something that happens maybe not occasional -- a little more occasionally is that the property appraiser assesses a parcel and doesn't notify us that something's been constructed so we can determine whether or not it's been permitted or legal or whatever. So that's -- we're constantly trying to resolve that communication problem. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. RICHARDSON: So this plat, to finally be correct then, will have that one shed removed. Where it says one -story residence, that will be a one -story structure? MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions for petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? MR. STRAIN: I make a motion we recommend approval of the Petition VA 2001 -AR -1442. MR. WOLFLEY: Second. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, just as to the attached Exhibit A, I'd like to ask if you would consider as to the more northerly or the rear of the two, quote, residences that that Page 121 January 17, 2002 1 6JI identifying set of words be removed so that there isn't any further use of this variance for the purposes of occupancy. MR. REISCHL: I'll be -- I'll be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Call the question. All in favor? (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The motion carries. MR. REISCHL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The motion was by Mr. Strain and the second by Mr. Wolfley, I believe; is that right? MR. STRAIN: Correct. MR. WOLFLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Next, Petition VA- 2001 -AR- 1526, Diocese of Venice/Kraft Construction Company. All persons expecting to testify on this matter, raise your right hand. (The oath was administered.) MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I am the new principal planner with Collier County government, and I am here to present the staff report that was prepared by a previous staff person. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And the name was Katie -- MS. DESELEM: Kay Deselem. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Just Kay. What we have today is a petition for a variance identified as Petition No. VA- 2001 -AR -1526. The owner is the Diocese of Venice. The agent is Kraft Construction Company. The requested action seeks a 6.5 -foot variance from the required 30 -foot front -yard setback to 23.5 -foot setback for a Page 122 January 17, 2002 16JI proposed construction of an unenclosed stairwell. The geographic location, as you can see on the visualizer, the site actually is accessed via 52nd Terrace, then to Golden Gate Parkway. And some of the other roads that are around it -- there's 27th Avenue and 53rd Terrace. The description of the action of the project, this particular project is zoned RSF -3, and it's currently developed with a church and a parochial school which is known as the St. Elizabeth Seton School. It did receive conditional use previously to allow for that use. The school's library is located on one of the buildings to which they want to have the stairway. If you look -- let me see if we can narrow it down a bit. If you see the area that's identified outlined in red, that is actually the school on the site. It is a -- like a 1 1/2-story building in that the second story is not totally accessible; like, it's short. It's not a full second story. They have an access on one of the narrow ends for fire on that second story which is the library. What's proposed at this point is a fire escape outside the building on the other side, which would be on 27th Avenue. See if you can hone in on that. At this you can see the existing school, and in red are the proposed stairs. As noted in the staff report, the stairs wouldn't be required to be constructed on this particular building because it is an existing building, and it's best as -- the way it's constructed. However, the parents of the children that attend the school have asked that the school provide this secondary fire access and escape for the students; and, therefore, that's why the petition has come before you today. On page 2 it speaks of the surrounding zoning of the site. Okay. On the visualizer you see an abbreviated form of the zoning map that shows the subject site of the entire church property outlined in green. There is a small X where the actual library and school facility is, and Page 123 January 17, 2002 1 6J you can see the surrounding zoning is as depicted on page 2. To the north are single - family residences zoned RSF. To the east is commercially zoned land zoned C -4. It's identified on the various exhibits as the Parkway Plaza. To the south are multifamily residences and the church, and it's zoned RF -- I'm sorry, RMF -12 and PUD. The commercial portion is identified as Founder's Plaza. To the west are single - family residences zoned RSF -3. The staff report I -- has -- analysis has identified that there are no historical or archeological impacts proposed from this proposal. They have also evaluated this particular request for impacts on transportation, infrastructure, and environment, and has determined that there will be no effects. And staff has provided you an analysis of the request in conjunction with Section 2.75, 2.75 -- 2.7.5.6.1 through 8 of the Land Development Code, and these are presented for you beginning on page 2, continuing on to page 3 and 4. And I will go over each one of them if you wish. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No, I -- MS. DESELEM: In lieu of -- I kind of figured, in light of time, you would not wish for me to do that. Staff recommendation is that you would forward this petition to the BCA (sic) with a recommendation of approval. There are no letters on file, either in support or in opposition to the request. I have spoken with the agent for the applicant. He has received a copy of the staff report, and he is here to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any questions for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I thought it was rather startling that you could have a public - service facility, like a library, and that it's above the fire code. Page 124 January 17, 2002 1 6JI MS. DESELEM: This particular library is affiliated with the school. It's not a public library per Se. It's the library facility of the -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I know. But it's for the use of a public. Maybe they're all members of the church, but -- but sort of a gathering place, and with only one fire exit, that just -- MR. RICHARDSON: This particular congregation is fireproof. MS. DESELEM: It's my understanding that the buil -- the building was built to code when it was constructed. MS. YOUNG: Oh. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. Well -- hmm. MS. YOUNG: When are you planning to build the new building? MS. DESELEM: I personally can't speak for that. The applicant can probably address that question. MR. SHIRVANIPOUR: My name is Amir Shirvanipour. I'm Amir, project manager for Kraft Construction. To answer the question, yes, there is redevelopment plans that is going to be coming up I don't know how many years from now. But I know that this is a temporary stairs. So when that plan is going to be reviewed I do not know. But this is -- was for the concerns of the parents because they're worried about their kids and, of course, the concerns of the students also, that they'd like to have the secondary exit for the fire safety. And yes, this is temporary until they have their new development plans submitted. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions of the petitioner? Is it a wooden stairway? MR. SHIRVANIPOUR: No. This is concrete and stucco to match the existing building. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. Registered speakers? Page 125 January 17, 2002 .16J1 MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. Pleasure of the board? MR. STRAIN: I make a motion we approve Petition VA -2001 - AR -1526. MR. ADELSTEIN: I second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN A13ERNATHY: It carried. The next Item, VA- 2001 -AR -1564, Bill and Kristi Grigsby; agent, Bill Potter. MS. MURRAY: We need to be sworn. (The oath was administered.) MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a variance to reconstruct an existing home with the same setback that's existed since 1983. On the visualizer you can see the location of the home. It's off Vanderbilt Drive on Willett Avenue in the Conners Vanderbilt Beach area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Upside down, I think. MR. REISCHL: And you can see the existing layout of the home. Here is the cul -de -sac for the street, the front of the house, and you can see the 18.5 -foot rear -yard setback on the house. This is an unusual circumstance. The research that our staff did found that the building permit was issued and handwritten on it -- well, everything was handwritten in 1983 -- were the words waterfront variance per SDP 83085. One of my fellow planners was doing research on this, and we could find no such thing as a Page 126 January 17, 2002 16JI waterfront variance. However, apparently it was accepted at the time in 1983, and the building permits was issued. In fact, it was a 19.5 - foot rear -yard setback because of the 1 -foot difference between the property line and the seawall, which in those days they used the property line, not -- today we use the seawall, so it's an 18.5 -foot rear yard. The petitioner wants to reconstruct the home with a second story; and, therefore, this variance is required. I did receive a phone call from a concerned neighbor with a question. I believe he's here today. And staff recommends approval because the ameliorating factors, that the house has been in the same location for 19 years, it was built according to the building permit issued at the time, and up until a few minutes ago I -- I had not received any objections to this. And I'll let Mr. Halas speak for himself. Staff recommends -- oh, before I close my presentation, just another thing, for the orientation of the house, too, I mentioned in my staff report how the house is -- the neighboring house is oriented away from where the encroachment is. You can see this is the Grisbys' house, and this is the neighboring house (indicating). As you -- as they come into their driveway, basically where the encroachment is, over here (indicating), they -- this house (indicating) is oriented towards the west, and the encroachment on this side (indicating) won't affect this property owner. And as you saw in your packet that was prepared by the Grigsbys, here is the -- the view from that side showing the -- the neighboring house also. MR. STRAIN: Fred, are you getting those aerial photos from the new tax assessor's site? MR. REISCHL: Yes. MR. STRAIN: It's a pretty good site. I thought they looked familiar. MR. REISCHL: They're great. Page 127 January 17, 2002 16JI MR. STRAIN: They're great. Yeah. They did a great job. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, I understood you to say this is going to be a rebuild on the same -- to the same size; is that correct? MR. REISCHL: That's my understanding. That first floor could not support the second story. Originally they came in. They they just wanted to get an administrative variance according to code to put the second story on, according to the same building line. They found out that the first floor could not support the addition. Therefore, they're here for the variance. MR. RICHARDSON: In the packet that has been provided which has the foldout map in it or diagram, that doesn't seem to be the case. It's going to be a bigger house than what's there by some number of feet because you have the existing one story shown in the dotted lines, and you have the proposed in the solid lines. And it's considerably larger. And I'm just -- just -- it doesn't seem like that represents -- it is what you have represented it to be. MR. REISCHL: Well, I'm -- what I'm concerned about is the rear property line where the encroachment is. They can build within the other setbacks for the other side yards and -- and front yard. I didn't mean to cause the impression that they were building the exact same square footage house. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh. I thought that's what it said. The same footprint, I thought. MS. YOUNG: It says using the existing rear footprint and setback. MR. REISCHL: Right. Rear. MR. RICHARDSON: And the addition must be along the same building line as the existing structure. And that does not seem to be the case. MR. REISCHL: No. Okay. That was for the administrative Page 128 January 17, 200216 J I variance. That has already been granted, and there is a copy of that in your -- in your packet too. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. REISCHL: There was an administrative variance that was granted along the same building line for the patio. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But the second story? MR. REISCHL: No. For the patio. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Patio. MR. REISCHL: They wanted to use that same portion of the code for the second story, but when they found out they had to demolish the first story too because it wasn't strong enough to support a second story, that took away the administrative variance portion of it, and they had to go for a regular variance. MR. RICHARDSON: But what we're faced here with then is a building that's too large for the lot with -- unless we give this variance. MR. REISCHL: In -- that's the way to put it except that the encroachment has been there for a number of years without objection. And it was -- and it was put there legally, too. MR. RICHARDSON: ' However, if this project came in -- you know, they're going to have to tear it down. It's like starting over new. If this project came in now, you would not approve it. I mean, our process would not approve this house. MR. REISCHL: Well, that's up to you and the board -- MR. RICHARDSON: No, it isn't. I'm talking about the -- MR. REISCHL: Without a variance? Without a variance, it would not -- MR. RICHARDSON: If he had -- if he went in the for a building permit and I brought this plan in with this setup, it would not be approved. MR. REISCHL: Not by the building department, no. Page 129 January 17 2002 16JI MS. MURRAY: You'd need a variance. That's why they're here before you. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Isn't this sort of the other -- other side of the coin where we've granted variances and said if this ever ceases to be the case, then you've got to go back to the original footprint? It seems to me we've had -- MR. REISCHL: Yes, that's true. And that's why -- again, that's why they're here seeking this variance because they -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In those cases was unless you come back for another variance. MR. REISCHL: That's true, yes. Just like in a PUD, you're saying that these rules apply to this PUD. However, it's not hard and fast that you can come back for a -- a PUD amendment and change the rules. It's -- that's why there's a public hearing for it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well -- okay. Let's hear from the petitioner. MS. GRIGSBY: My name is Kristi Grigsby, and my husband and I own this property at 390 Willett Avenue. And I would like to provide a little bit of background on what brought us here today, and hopefully this will make a little more sense. It's been a long process. A little over a year ago we purchased this home with the intentions of remodeling. We were going to remodel this house, and we were going to add a second story. At that time the only glitch we came across was with this lanai. We wanted to expand out to the west because currently the lanai stops at about 19 feet from the property line. So we had plenty of distance to move to expand out to that 7 1/2 -foot required setback. But because the pool is elevated more than 4 feet above the seawall, we learned that we needed an administrative variance. And at that time we applied for it, and it was granted this past July. But as our planning process continued, we Page 130 January 17, 2002 16JI then learned from an engineering consultation that the structure that is in existence today could not support a second story. There -- as far as we could determine, there are -- there are no piles; there are no footings of any kind. He had said at one point that it's very possible this house is sitting on a big pile of dirt. So adding a second story was out of the question. It then became evident that we had two choices: Either we work with what is there and somehow we -- we build up the support needed for that second story, or we rebuild with a proper foundation. I -- I suppose, in essence, we have -- we have entertained the idea of using what is there, somehow driving down piles, getting the footings to transfer the load, something so that we wouldn't have to rebuild this, but we just don't believe that the end product could -- would be the result or the strength that we need and that we could achieve by rebuilding. So that is what we've been working with for about a year. We have decided that is the much better alternative for everyone, not only us but our neighbors as well, safety issues, hurricane issues, that sort of thing. So during the past year we've been meeting with various members of the planning staff to ensure that our plans were consistent with the code, and that is how we came upon this rear setback issue and the need for -- for variance. As -- as you know, the house sits 18 1/2 feet from the water as opposed to the 25 -foot requirement, and -- and that is why we are here. But allowing us to rebuild this house will result in a much stronger structure. We will build it -- we fully intend to build it to the 2002 hurricane codes. We just can't do that if we start with what is there now. You know, we're not looking to go any closer to the water. We simply want to rebuild what's there and what was already approved nearly 20 years ago, planned, permitted, built, C. OM, all that, legally Page 131 January 17, 2002 16J1 nearly 20 years ago. There's one other issue I'd like to address. One other advantage of doing this, the house -- I don't know if you can tell from the -- I think you can tell from the photo that was up there before, the house basically sits on a hill. What that slope of land is on the side I don't know. I can tell you it's -- it's severe enough that I don't allow my children to walk on it. It's a very severe slope. It's -- it's -- was held back by railroad tracks -- railroad ties. And you can imagine with the summer rains we get here the runoff that the neighbors get from that. And if -- you know, if we're allowed to rebuild this, we -- we can fix that. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Midney? MR. MIDNEY: I have a question. Since you're thinking of raising the existing house anyway and rebuilding, why not rebuild according to the existing code that would apply to other people? MS. GRIGSBY: Well, there's two reasons for that. One is the lot is an odd - shaped lot because we have that cul -de -sac to deal with in the front with the radius, which -- which I don't know if you have the site map in your -- in your books. You know, we're going out to the 30 -foot -- I don't think we have a picture of that, do we? MR. REISCHL: No. MS. GRIGSBY: The foldout site map that somebody -- I'll show you this foldout. It's behind Tab No. 3. You can see that the corner of the lot is already up there. If we're -- if -- if we move up 25 feet, basically, to where we should be in accordance to the current code, we -- we lose -- we lose a room basically by doing that. And it's also an issue of the view. I mean, you saw the pictures, I mean, you know, quite honestly, this is also an issue of the view. You saw the pictures. This house sitting where it is affects nobody, but it does affect us. I mean, this is the house; this is the view that we purchased a year ago. And if we're pushed back 7 feet, it -- it does make a Page 132 January 17, 2002 16JI difference to us. It doesn't make a difference to anybody else. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Other questions? Do you live in the house? MS. GRIGSBY: No, we don't live there in our permanent residences yet because we've been trying to not move twice once we start construction. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do you intend -- MS. GRIGSBY: We will live there, yes, absolutely. MS. YOUNG: And none of your neighbors object? MS. GRIGSBY: None of my neighbors object, and we just had the opportunity to meet with one of our neighbors who is here today, and he intends -- as he says, as long as he's here he's going to speak, and he's going to speak on our behalf. MR. REISCHL: If I could add, too, this petition was subject to public participation, and the Grigsbys did all the notification for public participation, and we got no input from that. MS. GRIGSBY: And, you know, I'll just add one more thing on that. One of my neighbors I was talking to last week, and he -- he is in full support of it. I know there's been concern with a little bit of concern with the house to the east of us that as we showed in the photo before, you can't even see it already with what's there. And, you know, his point was, you know, the house doesn't have a view anyway. They look at your house. So the only difference is, you know, they either look at what's there, or they look at a nicer house. There's really -- there's really no difference. And even those people have no objections. They're -- everyone has been in full support of it which, again, this is the Vanderbilt Beach area. I have to say that that's rare, you know, so -- but we have talked with -- we have talked with everyone involved and -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, if you were talking about a boat dock, it might be something different but -- no further questions Page 133 January 17, 2002 6JI for the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: Kristi Grigsby was one, and then I also have Frank Halas. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you, Miss Grigsby. MS. GRIGSBY: Thank you. MR. HALAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Frank Halas. I live at 45 Flamingo Avenue. And I just took over the duties of being the homeowners' president up there in Vanderbilt Beach property area. I met with the Grigsbys on this and am somewhat concerned about setbacks. We ran into a setback problem a few years ago building a brand new home up there in that we were encroaching on the 30 -foot front easement. And upon getting the house partly built to the point where we were going to put the tie beam in, we found that we were in error of -- of about 5 feet. And, needless to say, we pled with the commissioners and everything and lost. And the house came down. Good thing we had a good, reputable builder. They tore the house down, put the house where it belonged. But I met with the -- the parties here, the -- and looked at their plans and got a better understanding of what they're up against in the fact that the house is basically located on a cul -de -sac, and so you're looking at a pie- shaped deal. I came here with the intentions of opposing this. But upon looking at what they got to work with and everything, I feel that in order for them to be hopefully good residents through Vanderbilt Beach, I think looking at their plans and everything, we'll probably go along with -- with what they got there. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Questions? (No response.) Page 134 January 17, 2002 16JI CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? Discussion? Whatever? MR. STRAIN: I make a motion we approve VA- 2001 -AR- 1564. MR. BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MR. MIDNEY: I think basically setbacks are a good thing. And just to change the rules because the immediate neighbors don't have an objection doesn't seem like a good idea to change -- to allow a variance to me. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I call the question. All in favor? Aye. MR. RICHARDSON: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MS. YOUNG: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? MR. MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Midney is the one no vote. The motion was by Strain, the second by Budd. MR. RICHARDSON: I would like to compliment the applicant for the excellent work you did in preparing this. It's unusual. MS. YOUNG: Very nice. MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. They certainly came prepared. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much. MS. GRIGSBY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thanks for your short course in Page 135 January 17, 2002 16JI planning commission business; long course, I should say. The next item is No. 9, old business, LDC minutes of November 14th and November 28th. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, if you so please, I would move for their adoption. MR. STRAIN: I -- I have some corrections. I don't know at what stage you want them but -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we have a second? MR. MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Now you have discussion, then. MR. STRAIN: Well, no. I have corrections to the minutes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. STRAIN: Page 52 on -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: On the 14th? MR. STRAIN: November 14th. I have corrections with both sets, but let's start with the 14th. The bottom of that page references my discussion, and I stated a number. And it's read -- it reads here 262,122. That should be 2.6.21.2.2. On page 53 the same number appears again. Likewise, it should be stated the same way I just said. There's another number there that is even longer. It's 2,621,314. That should be 2.6.21.3.14. That's all I have for the November 14th minutes. Do you want me to continue, Mr. Chairman, with the others? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Please. MR. STRAIN: On November 28th minutes, page 24, we were talking about dead -end waterways. It says in the cases of dead -end waterways that are in 100 feet in width. That should have been less than 100 feet in width. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That was at page which? 24? Page 136 January 17, 2002 16J1 MR. STRAIN: Page 24, yes, bottom of the page. Page 65, towards the bottom of the page, there's an s -i -c with a question mark. And the sentence reads, "It boils down four." And it should say "boils down to," t -o- And on page 157 towards the second or third notation up from the bottom of the page, there's another long value that says 221,443. It should be 2.2.14.4.3. That's the extent of my corrections. MR. RICHARDSON: I amend the motion to accept those corrections. MR. MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I have a motion. I suppose we will do them one -- one at a time. As to November 14th, all in favor. (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: November -- opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: November 28th, all in favor? (Unanimous approval.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Carried. MR. BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I abstain from vote -- vote since I was not present at either meeting. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I think we should congratulate Commissioner Strain for his painstaking surveillance. MR. STRAIN: Thank you, Mrs. Young. MS. YOUNG: Painstaking. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Next item is new business. MR. STRAIN: I have a couple short items I'd like to bring up, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead, Mr. Strain. Page 137 January 17 2002 J1 MR. STRAIN: On the February 7th comprehensive plan amendment meeting that now has been scheduled because we apparently are going to have a quorum, the -- that issue that's coming up, I've had a preview of it at one of my other boards that I sit on. And it's very intense, and it's -- a lot of discussion ensues, so I know it's a long meeting. But in order to prepare for it, how far in advance of the February 7th meeting can we get our packages so we have ample time to review it and number -- the second part of that is, sure, it's referring to an existing something. We need the existing something in order to know what we're comparing it to, and including this one in particular, I believe, is a result of a governor's order. So I'm sure we would need a copy of his order to understand what he was asking for. Those things are going to take a lot of time for us to digest, or at least for me, and I'm sure the others would want to get into them too. So, back to my original question, Fred, what do you think? MR. REISCHL: I will let Stan Litsinger know that you need these ASAP and not with a standard Planning Commission deadline and as -- if they're ready now, I'll have -- I'll ask Stan to get them to you right away. If there's still a little tweaking they're doing, I'll say as soon as that's done, get you a copy of what there is right now. MR. STRAIN: Okay. As far as relevance to the documents they're going to be changing, those original documents -- that stuff s very important, and I don't want -- this meeting is going to be rather important. It's going to affect a lot of Collier County. So I certainly don't want to do it with a half -day information and a very short time, so -- I'd appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We're really talking next -- by the end of next week, I think. MR. STRAIN: That would be great. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If it is possible. Page 138 + January 17, 2002 16J1 MR. REISCHL: I will let Stan know, and we can get them over to you as soon as possible. MR. WHITE: Those commissioners that have e-mail addresses, I believe that -- I don't know that the final order is on any kind of digital format, but I think that all of the other documents that you're likely to be interested in may very well be. So if you have an e-mail address and provide it to staff, they, I'm sure, would be more than happy to send you an e-mail with those attachments. MR. STRAIN: My only concern there, Mr. White -- MR. WHITE: I'm not suggesting that as a substitute. MR. STRAIN: Because we have to bring whatever we have to this meeting. And unless you've got modems tie -ins for me, I'm kind of out of luck. MR. WHITE: My point was that if you wanted to be able to word search it or something similar to that, you would have the document on your own PC. MR. STRAIN: My second comment, Mr. Chairman, was one of the issues today was apparent in my discussions with -- with Dawn Wolfe that transportation isn't always aware of some of the applications and how they're coming through. And procedurally I was wondering if -- if staff could have transportation involved before the package gets to us so that their comments can be incorporated into the package, and we wouldn't have to spend so much time questioning transportation here at the meeting. MS. MURRAY: Actually, that is the proper procedure and the procedure we have in place. Unfortunately, I'd say it just wasn't followed this time and -- MR. STRAIN: Okay. MS. MURRAY: -- unfortunately, with the loss of a staff member and confusion in transferring projects between planners and the petitioner's desired time frame to get in front of you, it fell Page 139 January 17, 2002 16J1 through the cracks in this one case. But we do have procedures in place, and they are e- mailed the staff reports before they're even mailed out to you so in case they have any changes on the transportation comments -- as well, they are the authors of the comments in the report. So they see that -- a version of the final report before it's mailed to you. They have the opportunity to comment. Unfortunately, it just didn't happen in this case. MR. STRAIN: Okay. That's great. MS. MURRAY: But we do have the procedure in place. MR. STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that that happens. That would be helpful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. White mentioned a -mails which remind me I tried to send a message to Mr. Adelstein using the e -mail address on our roster, and the message bounced. And I went and looked at Lorie's addresses where she had sent all of us a message, and she was using the same one. It's just a simple misprint. He is at cs.com, not c.s.com. There's an extra dot in there so -- MR. ADELSTEIN: I've already taken care of it. Thank you, though. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other new business? MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chair, just, perhaps, a quick item. We have a new planning director. I guess that's his name, his title? MS. MURRAY: No. That is Joseph Schmitt who is the administrator of community development and environmental services. And I'm sorry I didn't formally introduce him on the record, but he -- he did come. MR. RICHARDSON: In view of his coming on board -- and I know he's got his hands full with a lot of transition issues, but our commission is beginning to address some transition issues, too, in terms of us finding our voice and, perhaps, a will to do things a little differently than we've done in the past. And I'd like to suggest Page 140 January 17, 2002 16JI through the chair that at a early opportunity or when it seems appropriate, really more to staff or more to him, that we could schedule a workshop with the BCC and ourselves to give us a chance in the public to discuss our mutual concerns and in -- more particularly to get their take on what they think our role is. And we can certainly give them some ideas of what we think we should be doing or could be doing. And I would just like to see that format so - - because we can't talk amongst ourselves, and we really can't really talk to the commissioners as it relates to any planning issues. So I -- I would just -- I know it's an imposition to get everybody together, but if we could do that at some appropriate time and particularly with the influence of your administrative bed, I think it would be very helpful to me. MR. STRAIN: Where would they sit? MR. RICHARDSON: They usually sit right down in the -- (indicating). MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, that -- in furtherance of that idea, I believe it may be helpful to the board and perhaps even to this commission to identify what those issues might be so that for the purposes of developing an agenda for that meeting or -- even if it's, you know, broad brush, at least there would be something that would service the focus and the point of reference for the discussions so that also you could make some determination about the amount of time that may be necessary to -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It might be best for us to meet with Mr. Schmitt first and see what we want to talk about and then -- then go forward to the BCC. I won't limit any use of their time while we're searching for what we want to talk about. MR. WHITE: The other point, Mr. Chairman, simply is that anytime you are assembled in a public forum and you want to discuss any matter of new business, including policy issues or otherwise, Page 141 January 17, 2002 1 6JI you're certainly free to do so. MR. RICHARDSON: In a public forum. MR. WHITE: Such as today. MR. RICHARDSON: That's fine. But I'd like to have the -- a little better focus from planning staff, particularly as it's coming into its new station in life with a new leader. That's -- you've got the sense of what I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. MR. RICHARDSON: If we could do that, I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any further business? MS. MURRAY: May I ask one question? I got LDCs, and I haven't heard anybody else speak up other than Mr. Wolfley, so I assume that everybody else has their LDC? MR. BUDD: (Indicating). MS. MURRAY: Okay. I've got one for you. Thanks. Great. MR. ADELSTEIN: Old business. Susan, I would like you to do me a favor, if you could, and thank Jody for the way she's handled this. For those of you that haven't heard, the two, three codes for the new people are already here, and they'll be -- I've picked up mine. They'll be picking up theirs soon. We still have another two coming, and we also have the tabs which were not yet sent to us. She did a heck of a job, and she really pushed it a lot to get it done. MS. MURRAY: Thanks. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'd like her to have our thanks. MR. MURRAY: I'll tell her thanks. MR. RICHARDSON: While we're handing out thanks, I think it might be appropriate for us to go on record to thank our former chairwoman who is no longer with us. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I suspect she may be watching MR. RICHARDSON: If she is, I'd certainly like to indicate my Page 142 January 17, 2002 16J1 appreciation for the fine service she provided the county and the guidance and leadership for this group. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's give her a hand. MR. WOLFLEY: I'll second that. MR. ADELSTEIN: Let's put that in a motion, and let's get a vote on it. MR. RICHARDSON: So moved. Is anybody going to vote against it? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Aye. (Applause.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION KENNETH L. ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR, AND EMILY UNDERWOOD, COURT REPORTER Page 143 ff) February 7, 2002 16J1 "3 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 7, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth L. Abernathy Dwight Richardson Paul Midney Lindy Adelstin Mark Strain NOT PRESENT: Lora Jean Young David Wolfely Russell Budd ALSO PRESENT: Bill Lorenz, Natural Resource Director Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant.Q unty attorney Page 1 February 7, 2002 6 J 1 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'd like to call to order the February 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Please rise and join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.). CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. At this point I'll call the roll. Mr. Midney? MR. MIDNEY: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd, absent. Abernathy is here. Mr. Young, Miss Young, absent. Mr. Richardson? MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Wolfely, absent. Mr. Strain? MR. STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I have a quorum. Absences are noted. I notice the chairman's report is omitted from the agenda. I assume that's inadvertent. I have a letter from Mr. Schmitt, community development environmental services administrator, of January 28th requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission nominate a representative to serve on a advisory committee to assist in the hiring of a candidate to fill the hearing examiner position. Committee must include a representative from the Planning Commission as well as Development Services Advisory Committee, Environmental Advisory Council, a staff member appointed by the county manager, and three members of the community. I listened to the county commission when they considered this Page 2 February 7, 2002 l 6 issue, and one of the things that seemed to have been a con reached a consensus on was the fact that the hearing examiner program would not have much credibility if the advisory committee to select the hearing examiner were loaded up with people from the development industry. The commission will have a chance to test that proposition when they appoint their three members of the corn -- from the community. I'm sure people from the development industry will apply for those positions. As far as this committee, this commission, is concerned, noting the other members of the committee, it seems to me there's some imperative in having at least one attorney on this selection advisory committee. Lawyers have a way, as do most other professionals, of sometimes spreading some bird seed in their resumes. And another lawyer is uniquely qualified to recognize jobs that are of great import and those that aren't of such great import. So I'd like to nominate Mr. Adelstein to represent the Planning Commission on this advisory committee. MR. RICHARDSON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other nominations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) MR. ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Do us proud. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll do the best I can. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I don't have any -- I have no other report. We'll move on to Item No. 4, advertised public hearings, rural Page 3 February 7, 2002 16 J 1 fringe assessment area final order comprehensive plan amendments. Coordinator, Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning manager. This morning you're holding your transmittal public hearing for the rural fringe area assessment portion of the proposed amendments to resolve the issues identified in the final order of the governor and the cabinet dated June 29th -- June 22nd of 1999. Today we will go over each individual concept, both in conservation and land use. I also need to make some introductions and give you some information relative to some additional handouts that you've been given since the transmittal of your original package. As you all know, you received your blue books about two weeks ago, and a supplemental package was sent to you called agenda items, public hearings, supplemental backup documents. Subsequent to that there have been additional changes, and you have received a new package this morning which contains several items which I'd like to point out to you. It contains a letter from David Ellis, the chairman of the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, who unfortunately could not be here today. He wanted to communicate his thoughts and those of the committee to the Planning Commission. Also relative to the secondary agenda package that we had sent out, we have a revised summary of allowable land uses table where we've made some corrections in addition to that. And I think it has a No. 2 on it. We have a revised proposed changes to the preliminary transmittal which would be staff errata Changesheet No. 1. We also have a summary, which I will be going over a little more shortly here, of the public -- of the rural fringe area assessment public and participation activities which are a fundamental and required part of Page 4 February 7, 2002 16J1 this assessment process. In addition for your reference, in case a question should come up during this presentation today, I gave you each a copy of the Collier County natural resources Growth Management Plan final order. The final order, I gave you a copy of that in the back of your package. And Barbara Burgeson just handed out a revised amended recommendations of the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council based on their meeting of yesterday. I think the first step in this process is introduce the folks who will be making the presentation to you here today. You'll be hearing from staff members, including myself; Marjorie Student from the county attorney's office; Bill Lorenz from natural resources; Bob Mulhere, our contracted consultant in this matter. And we also have here today from Carlton, Fields in Tallahassee, their contracted legal counsel on this matter relative to resolving the final order, Nancy Linnan and Miss Marty Chumbler, give a chance to answer questions you may have in that particular area. Nancy will also be giving you a short presentation shortly. As you -all know, the process began about two years ago with the bifurcation into two separate committees, one for the rural lands and one for the rural fringe. We also have had a revision in the transmittal schedules. They will be dealing only with the rural fringe. Today we will have the transmittal hearing with the Planning Commission. On the 27th of this month, the Board of County Commission will hold their planning transmittal hearing at Max Hasse Center. That will be followed by a 60 -day review period by the Department of Community Affairs, at which point they will issue their objections, recommendations, and comments report, and we will then have until approximately the middle of June to adopt the amendments to resolve the issues raised in the final order relative to the rural fringe assessment area only. Page 5 February 7, 2002 16JI One of the major tenets of this process has been the public participation process, and I'd like to take a couple of moments to go over the -- the nature of the public participation process that's led to these draft amendments and -- that you have before you for review today. We have a long list, and I'll just hit some of the highlights. We've maintained a website which is available 24 hours a day with all the information relative to the activities of the committee and staff in preparing agendas and documents relative to the process of developing these amendments. We've had 55 advertised public meetings of the rural fringe -- rural fringe area oversight committee. We've placed signs throughout the study area. We've provided brochures and handouts from the final order. Chapter (sic) 11 does regular broadcasts and rebroadcasts of the issues associated with the final order. Community character plan has been reviewed and considered in -- in preparing these recommendations. As you know, on June 13th of 2001, we provided a conceptual report to the Board of County Commissioners on which we based the drafting of the amendments which you have in front of you today with further input and discussion with the rural fringe oversight committee. There have been meetings with the Naples Chamber of Commerce, the Big Corkscrew Island Community Property Owners, Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee, Golden Gate meeting -- committee meetings. We've had 11 EAC growth management subcommittees meetings in which these in -- this information has been disseminated and discussed. The EAC held a transmittal hearing on June 23rd of this -- of 2002, January 23rd, 2002, which you have the revised motions based on their continued meeting yesterday. The DSAC was given an oversight yesterday of the amendment you're reviewing today, and we're completing the process with your review today of the amendments that we're proposing. We're Page 6 February 7, 2002 16JI proposing that we begin with the presentation of land use issues, followed up with a presentation of the issues relative to natural resources and then get into questions and answers that you may have for staff with public comment. And before we begin that, we would like to have Nancy Linnan give you a brief overview of some legal issues that we're addressing and some of the background relative to where we are today. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Litsinger, would you entertain any questions from us prior to getting started or -- MR. LITSINGER: Yes. MR. RICHARDSON: --just -- go ahead. MR. STRAIN: Governor's order indicated that public opinion surveys should be used. Are any of those listed on here? MR. LITSINGER: Public opinion surveys? MR. STRAIN: Yes. MR. LITSINGER: As far as mailed public opinion surveys, we haven't done any of those. The governor's order says it could be used. MR. STRAIN: Well, it says that the county shall insure community input through workshops, public opinion surveys, and committees, as necessary, to undertake various tasks in the study. I thought "shall" would mean that it should have been done. But it wasn't done, I understand. The other issue is you have on here the Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee. I'm chairman of that committee. What occurred was a brief meeting when there wasn't even a quorum of that committee that lasted about an hour. There was very little time for questions because of the context of the time frame of the committee. So I understand that there might have been -- it might be listed here, but the effectiveness of that presentation wasn't as -- add to the whole committee, let's put that it way. MR. LITSINGER: The comment on that would be that we, due Page 7 February 7, 2002 16J1 - : to the time frame, have to give the best information that we have at that time based on the point at which that committee is in its deliberations. So I guess you got the best that's available at this point in the transmittal process. MR. RICHARDSON: That -- I have just a question on process here this morning. Are -- are reaction and comments only limited to rural fringe, or how would you like for this interaction to take place? MR. LITSINGER: We would prefer that we limit our comment - - discussion to issues associated with the rural fringe amendments only because it's our intent to only address those issues that are -- are associated with the rural fringe, and you will have another day to hear issues associated with the rural lands assessments. MR. RICHARDSON: How about the Growth Management Plan itself? MR. LITSINGER: As it is relevant, yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: As it is relevant to the rural fringe? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: Because you've gone and changed a lot of our policies and objectives to, I guess, take care of the rural fringe issue. MR. LITSINGER: Well, that is the presentation and the discussion, changes. MR. RICHARDSON: I guess my question, won't those policies and objectives also impact the rest of our growth management iss -- activities? MR. LITSINGER: The -- the vegetation and wetlands policies apply in the urban areas, as well as the rural fringe. Okay? MR. RICHARDSON: Maybe a more direct question: When are we going to have a chance to talk about the growth management plan for Collier County, we, this -- this commission? - -- MR. LITSINGER: The -- relative to the amendments before you OM February 7, 2002 16J1 or -- MR. RICHARDSON: No, in general. I have a hard time just extracting a piece of this out, which is your -- your agenda today, but I'd like to have -- know what the timetable is for this group to have a chance to look at the entire Growth Management Plan and make our comments. MR. LITSINGER: Well, as far as a review of the entire Growth Management Plan, that's called an environ -- evaluation and an appraisal report required by state statutes first after the first seven years and then after five years. Our next one, I believe, is scheduled in January of 2003, at which time we will go through another EAR process for the entire plan. MR. RICHARDSON: Make sure I'm notified when that meeting takes place. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Isn't this process that we're going through right now the result of an EAR that was done in ninety -six or seven? Why wouldn't we be doing it in '02 then? That's five years. MR. LITSINGER: Because there was a delay in the schedules based on requests of the various communities around the state, and all the reviews were pushed back one year. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I guess it would sort of muddy the water to be doing the EAR and this at the same time, wouldn't it? MR. LITSINGER: Very much so. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. ADELSTEIN: Why wasn't this presented to us, if this was going to happen at our last meeting, so we wouldn't prepare for the overall picture and actually spent most of our time on the rural fringe doing our homework on it? MR. LITSINGER: I believe -- I believe I don't understand the question, sir. MR. ADELSTEIN: The topic that we were told to -- to prepare Page 9 February 7, 2002 16J on was the Growth Management Plan. There was no -- MR. LITSINGER: Rural fringe amendments, yes. MR. ADELSTEIN: The fringe, the rural fringe being the particular function you were going to handle. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. We were the -- these are the rural -- proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan -- MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. LITSINGER: -- to the elements affected, the necessary amendments to the specific elements which are the future land use element, coastal conservation element, and the water and sewer subelements in order to meet the requirements of the final order. That is the subject today. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. RICHARDSON: So basically our hands are tied to talk about anything else but this today. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: Any other questions? (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Nancy? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'd just make the comment that I studied the material that was given to me a few days ago, and I thought I was in pretty good shape. And then I get 20 more pages this morning which I can't possibly go through while people are talking and -- so I don't know where -- MR. LITSINGER: We're going to go through those. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You're going to go through them? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MS. LINNAN: Good morning. I'm Nancy Linnan. I'm the county's outside counsel for growth management: Can you hear me now? Page 10 February 7, 2002 �64 MR. ADELSTEIN: No. Your microphone. MS. LINNAN: With me today is Marty Chumbler, an attorney with our office. She's very familiar with the Collier County comprehensive plan, handled the litigation on the ongoing NRPAs and the litigation that's ongoing now. My role today is to explain how we got here, the process of where we're going, and how we and you get graded on how we act on this process. You're correct, sir. In 1996 the county adopted -- well, actually, let me go back a little further. State law, perhaps for the benefit of the audience -- state law requires that each local government in the state adopt and maintain a comprehensive plan setting out the goals, objectives, and policies, kind of the constitution of that local government insofar as development is concerned. It also requires the stance that you upgrade it every now and then for seven years and after that every five years. That's called the EAR or evaluation and appraisal process. Back in '96 you did your first EAR, and you adopted amendments, the changes you -all thought were necessary, based on that review of the comp plan at that time. Those are called the EAR - based amendments. Those were found not in compliance by the Department of Community Affairs. It has the ability to do that in this state, and several others intervened in that challenge. In 1997 or 1999, rather, after a 5 -day hearing, an administrative law judge determined that the county's EAR -based amendments were not in compliance with the state statutes and rules, and that basically what he said was they didn't adequately protect the natural resources, like wetlands, listed species, and habitat. So what happens under state law is the final decision on that administrative law judge's recommended order goes to the governor and cabinet, —and they sit--witl a hat called the administration commission when they make that determination. And they issued Page 11 February 7, 2002 16" 11 what's known as the final order. You'll hear about that a lot. The audience may have heard or seen the term in the newspapers. That was in 1999. And basically the governor and cabinet did something unusual. Usually when it does that it goes ahead and imposes on a local government amendments at that time. You lose the ability to choose on your own. They say we gave you the first shot. You guys didn't do it right. We're telling you this is what it's going to say. Usually those amendments are written by the Department of Community Affairs. In this case, what we did at the request of the county was to give the county a unique three -year period to come up with these amendments on its own and to go through a very public process, and this is the culmination of that process. The date of that was June 22nd, 1999. The three years ends June 22nd, '02. That's why we are at -- almost at the finish line here. During that hearing and in the final order, the governor and cabinet agreed that eastern lands could be handled separately from the rural fringe. And the reason they did that was the folks in the eastern lands said, "Look, we don't think the data and analysis we have is any good or the data and analysis that the county has presented is any good. We want to go out, spend some money, get some new infor -- new scientific information in order to go forward, and that's going to take three years." Everybody determined at that time that no new data and analysis was needed for the fringe, and that's why you haven't seen that kind of study in this case. Now, the final order told the -- can say, in addition to having to meet the statutes and the rules, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect prime agricultural areas, to assess a gro p - -ritia y, o he area y assessing e potential conversion of rural lands at appropriate locations while Page 12 T February 7, 2002 1611 avoiding urban sprawl and impacts of critical habitat and all the while protecting private property rights. So what is the process? The staff has been working with the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee for 2 1/2, 3 years. In June of 2001 they presented the conceptual plan to the county commission. County commission said, tweak it a little bit, go out, draft it up, and start it back through the process. Take it to the EAC, the Planning Commission. Bring it back to us. The magic date was selected as June -- excuse me, February,' 27th, and we will transmit what we determine to be appropriate proposed amendments to the Department of Community Affairs for comments. Now at that point DCA doesn't actually grade you. What they do is they issue a report saying we object to this. We comment on this. We make recommendations on this. It's called an ORC report. The staff then brings that back, cleans it up, takes whatever action they and this body and the county commission determine appropriate under the circumstances, and the county commission will be asked to adopt the final amendments by the magic date in June. That's not the end of the process. That's where the serious ratings begins. Those amendments under the state statute go back to the Department of Community Affairs. This time it gets to decide the final grade. They determine compliance with -- they'll look at the final order. But what they really look at is the state statutes and the rules to make sure they are saying the same as everybody else. Even if DCA finds the county in compliance on those amendments, third parties can challenge that. They have 21 days after DCA acts and maybe hopefully, in my case, finds you in compliance. And then you end up back in front of an administrative law judge all over again. So what is your role in this? It's to make recommendations to e Boar o oun ommissioners fo balance between na a resource protection and property rights, but your ability to balance is Page 13 February 7, 2002 16J1 not without limits. What the Board of County Commissioners eventually adopts goes through another two Department of Community Affairs reviews -- I just explained those -- and potential third -party challenges. My role as outside counsel, I'd like to stop those challenges. I'm not that good, can't always do that. But our role is to tell you -- to try and come up with a plan or plan amendments that, if challenged, means you're going to win this time. That's why Marty is here. She is kind of the litigator on the team just in case. Now, how do you win in these cases? What counts? What you eventually adopt must be based on the best available data and analysis. It doesn't mean the newest stuff out there. It means the best available data and analysis to you at the time. When you're talking about natural resources -- and that's what the issue is here -- what that means is scientific evidence. I gave an example to the board back in June. One person says, you got to protect 80 percent of the habitat. Somebody else says, oh, no, I think you ought to protect 40 percent of the habitat. You're going, well, we'll take 60 percent. Sounds good. Splits the baby, works for both. The problem is you're going to lose it -- you're going to lose a challenge, a legal challenge, if the best available data says you need to protect -- protect 80 percent of that habit. So that's what you always go back to is what -- what those numbers say. Now, what if you do choose as a county to protect 90 or 95 percent? Sometimes you can do that. But at that point you're beginning to implicate private property rights a little bit more than you might be at the lower number. So you have to be a little more careful about how do you that. So you balance, but you balance within some of ega imi s. The last thing I'd like to say is the document before you today is Page 14 February 7, 2002 16JI not perfect. I have been reading it over the last couple weeks. Frankly, I've had to call staff on a number of occasions and say, guys, what does this say? I -- I cannot figure it out. And I've been with you the whole time on this. My ninth grade English teacher would have flunked us all for this thing and maybe taken us out and flogged us too; it's that bad. And I just want to assure you that we will take a look at the language, maybe get some English majors, instead of lawyers and planners, involved between transmittal and final adoption on whatever amendments you and the county commission think we ought to go forward on to make sure that people can read them and understand them. And so I would urge you today not to look at the details of the language unless that would change the substance of what we're saying but, rather, look at the concepts. That's what's really important. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, and we will be available throughout the hearing to answer questions. Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: The date in June, that seems to be the -- the drop - dead date for everything. MS. LINNAN: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: What happens if we don't hit that date? MS. LINNAN: Theoretically, if we don't make it, we have to go back before the governor and cabinet and ask for an extension. We have already asked for one extension. Originally the final order can be read to say that the amendments have to be effective by June. Well, there's no way that -- that they can be effective by that date because we can't control that. Third parties, Department of Community Affairs can say that it's not in compliance. We got the staff to rule that we had to do was adopt by that date. We then asked them about the possibilities of delay. This has been a long process, but we snow the rea i is lie—public pays more a en ion as you get closer to the finish line and you get products that they can Page 15 February 7,X002 16 J 1 begin to look at. Staff said -- and we talked to the governor and the aides of the governor and the cabinet. And they said in the eastern lands, given the way that process has worked out, given the fact that it's all new information, we will give you until November 1 st as a magic date to adopt that, but we will not at this time let you slide past the June 22nd date onto rural fringe because we believe there's no good reason why the county cannot go ahead and adopt those amendments by that date. So we could come running in and say, "Please, please," but it's up to the governor and cabinet. Now, what if they say no? Theoretically they can apply sanctions. Sanctions means they can cut back on revenue sharing for the county, doing a number of things like that. Do I anticipate them doing that? No. If we missed it by a week, would the world end? No. If we missed it by a month, obviously that gets a little trickier, but everybody is anticipating that we will make the adoption date of June 22nd. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Just a quick question. You mentioned the rural fringe committee. And I've looked through all the material. Perhaps I just overlooked it. I -- I don't see a listing of who was on that committee because I just don't personally know. I'm sure it's public record. Do you -- I'd appreciate knowing who it was, what interests they represented in terms of producing this. MS. LINNAN: I'm going to have to turn to staff on that. MR. LITSINGER: We can get you one before the end of the meeting. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. What I'd like to do is take you through the general concepts of what we ve pu oge er o a ess a na a resources or -- or e rural fringe area. The rural fringe area -- areas, as Nancy Linnan has Page 16 February 7, 2002 16J1 also indicated, the assessment area is basically based upon the rural fringe, and we split it up rural fringe and the eastern lands. So what we're going to be talking about{to4ay, majority of the -- the information is -- deals with the rural fringe, w., is this portion of the county right here (indicating) that, if you will, here's Immokalee Road -- just to get you oriented, this is Immokalee Road (indicating), and this is I -75 down here (indicating). We've split up the area when we did our initial planning in some general planning areas what we conveniently at the time called Areas A, Area B. This is all of Area C in here (indicating), and this is Area D (indicating). We've also wrote the stud -- the area up into natural resource protection areas, and I'll be throwing around the acronym NRPA or N- R -P -A. These were the interim boundaries that were established in 1999, as required by the final order. And our -- our -- our requirement for these set of amendments is to take the interim amendment -- interim NRPA boundaries to final boundaries as well. And, also, what we've listed in here is what's called the study area. This is this little squiggly line in here (indicating), which -- which was established as an area that had potential ability to be called -- characteristics to be called a natural resource protection area. But there was a lot of debate on it at the time in 1999, and so as -- as opposed to adopting it as an interim NRPA boundary, we're looking at it as a study area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Bill, could I interrupt you for just a moment? MR. LORENZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Before I ask everybody else not to interrupt you so we can go straight through this, I've been through this once, and you've got about a two -hour presentation, as I recall, all told. So I'd A-sk-the members anc -mysel o m e no es as you go a ong an save the questions until the end. Page 17 February 7, 20021 6 But for the benefit of the television audience, that -- that map is sort of hard to decipher, I would imagine. It's even harder to decipher here. Aren't we talking about roughly as far as the east -west is concerned, it's an area east of 1 mile from 951 running eastward to -- down 41 to Isles of Capri -- no, not Isles of Capri -- MR. LORENZ: The 6 L -- 6 L Farms area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's that development down there, down 41 ? Port of the Islands is what I'm trying to say. Goes east of the Port of the Islands and then roughly north in an irregular way, doesn't that -- all the way to the county line. Does that pretty well describe it? MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's correct. I guess the other way of looking at it, too, is it's everything that would be, if you will, somewhat west of the estates. It doesn't go any further east of the estates. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I think that should frame it for people. Thank you. MR. LORENZ: And the total acreage is roughly ninety -- 93,000 -plus acres, when we look at the natural resource protection areas and the other planning units. Nancy Linnan indicated data. And data is an important item of what we've tried to develop our plan on. And we -- we have -- basically have used two data sources. And I want to use these -- these maps here is to -- to give some sense of what those data sources are. South Florida Water Management District, land cover database. That's a 1994, 1995 database that was flown by the South Florida Water Management District aerial photos that they made photo interpretation of a variety of different land use cover categories, as you can see on the legend here. obvious y hings-have changed since -99 '9 to some degree, anytime you do aerial interpretations, you're not going to be a February 7, 2002 164 hundred percent correct. What we've striven to do through this process is anyplace that we have information that has been given to us that would show that a particular land cover has changed, we have incorporated into our database and all of the numbers that we have crunched over the past couple of years to try to incorporate those updates. So it's a -- it's a modified version of the South Florida Water Management District's database. That's where we get the land cover information, the wetland land cover or different types of vegetative signatures. A second -- a second database is coming from the -- of course, this was the old acronym -- Florida Game Water and Fresh Fish Commission, now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, through what was called the GAPS report back in '92, '93. They used information that was flown or satellite information that was in the mid to late '80s when they calculated their database. But we've also modified that to the degree that we modified the land cover database where we knew that the land cover -- let's say vegetation was no longer there. We then also modified this database as well. So we've -- we've tried to update the databases as best we can. Having said that, I think that the - the databases that we are looking at, however, when we begin looking at the numbers at a very regional level -- and we'll start talking about landscape sale -- we can start to distinguish, certainly, some patterns with the information. Obviously this Area D down in here, you can see that the -- there's not a lot of vegetation and land cover within that area. Certainly up in Area A in this particular location. And so you can -- you can see the way that that maps out. Also, when you go to this particular map, you see some -- some general patterns, again, with the information and the data. A second set of maps here, this is the -- again, the game Page 19 February 7, 2002 16JI commission's or freshwater fish commission's database for priority wetlands for listed species. Obviously, the -- the highest set of listed species here in the CREW lands that are basically already in conservation, some degree some down here in the -- in the Belle Meade area which is a portion of the -- of the land acquisition program from the state. And then when you see where some of these pinks are, you begin to see areas such as this (indicating) that get a little bit higher coloring there to show that those lis -- those concerns exist. The -- this other map here on the right -hand side, strategic habitat conservation areas, this is somewhat of a -- an aggregate of a lot of the data that the -- that freshwater fish commission put together to locate when you consider listed species concerns, vegetative cover concerns, etc., etc. This is the areas that we would then consider as strategic habitat. You can see that -- that there's still an awful lot of green, certainly, down in here (indicating) and certainly up in here, especially as you go into the -- the CREW areas. So, again, this is -- this is the data information. We've had other pieces of information as well. The Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, when they went through it initially and looked at a lot of the data, we created a data book that's probably as big as the book you have right here in front of you of mapping all the information uanti _in it and Y _ pp� g _ � q �' - -g -- �. trying to determine what information is important to -- to make some of these judgment calls. And I think the information I'm presenting to you here really summarizes a lot of that other information. Well, when we begin to talk about setting up natural resource protection strategies for this area, we're -- we've broke -- we've broken our efforts down into generally a scaling fashion here. Again, what I talked about before was this landscape scale. This is -- this is the large areas, if you will, almost measured in square miles. When you're 0o g a e o a nge, you re oo ing a ose pa erns o w ere the -- the vegetative land cover are, where the wetland land cover is, Page 20 February 7, 2002 16J1 where the listed species concerns are and looking at those and trying to group those in these large area -- these large broad areas. And these areas are important, because we want to prevent any fragmentation within these areas because, from a habitat perspective, the more contiguous area that you have, the better off it is for habitat concerns. We are also looking at a project site scale. And.sometimes we -- we -- we -- obviously as projects come into, let's say, the Planning Commission, a particular project, you know, a -- a hundred -acre PUD or what have you, that's at that project scale where we're trying to develop standards to protect natural resources at that very localized design level. But there's also -- as we -- as we develop standards for that project scale, as you can see here, there are opportunities to provide for particular standards at the project level as well. So the landscape scale, think about it as your comprehensive planning effort to -- to find out where those are important locations of listed species wetland land cover and direct incompatible land uses away from those broad areas. Of course, you're going to have to direct land uses to someplace, and that someplace then becomes the areas that -- that we're going to have to deal with from a site review -- project site review standpoint. So we'll need standards for those as well. So what -- what kind of tools are we talking about,_y_ou know, for _ these different scales, if you will, of these planning scales? Again, at the landscape scale, we're identifying those large ecosystems. We use the data that -- the data, as modified, to try to define those large ecosystems. Quite frankly, there's been a number of -- of regional and state efforts that -- that have identified a lot of these areas that we -- I think we match up fairly well with as -- as we'll begin to show you of the final plan. So our first -- first -- first effort, of course, is identification. After we ve � en i ie ose areas, a oo s are -- or sure pro a y e es tool is purchase and acquisition. Of course, there's not enough money Page 21 February 7, 2002 1 6 J 1 ; to be able to have a complete purchase and acquisition program. In the rural fringe, you do have two major acquisition programs. That's in the CREW lands, the South Flor -- the South Florida Water Management District Save Our Rivers program. And then south of 75 in the Belle Meade CARL area you have an acquisition program ongoing. But that doesn't cover all of the sensitive lands that we've identified. So we have to come up with some other types of tools to -- to deal with those -- those areas that are not going to be under purchase and acquisition. We have -- I'm just going to jump down to here -- large -scale overlay districts that we'll be talking about of how we've identified these areas, what type of land uses we will allow within these districts. We've talked about some large -scale situations of trying to buffer these large areas. And a key -- and a key item that -- that, obviously, we've put together in Collier County and is certainly going to be -- going to be new in Collier County on this scale, will be a transfer of development rights program, because, as Nancy Linnan pointed out, as we begin to get higher and higher preservation standards in our important environmental areas, as we begin to ratchet down on the allowable land uses in these areas, we have to provide some -- some mechanism such that the property owners can realize some value from their property, even after we have increased those regulatory standards. And that's going to be an important part of the transfer of development rights program. Bob, you may want to -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. For the record, Bob -- Bob Mulhere with RWA, Inc. I'm sorry. That graphic there is difficult to read. I can walk through it. This is really a simple illustration of how a ans er ot development rig s process woula work. You have your environmentally sensitive lands or, in some cases, they could be Page 22 February 7, 2002 16J1 agricultural lands. And you would be able to transfer -- a property owner would be able to transfer off of those lands the residential development rights to other lands that have been identified as being more appropriate for that development. And in the example here, if you had a hundred dwelling units on the environmentally sensitive lands and you transferred those to the receiving lands, you would increase the density on those receiving lands by a hundred dwelling units from the base. We did -- the county did hire Dr. James Nicholas from the University of Florida, an economist, to look at the transfer of development rights process and primarily to look at it in -- in -- in two areas, one, to determine whether, in fact, such a -- a process would, indeed, be marketable because remember the primary reason for the TDR process is to allow property owners who will have pretty severe regulations on their property in the environmentally sensitive lands to recoup some of that lost value. And I think you understand that Florida has very strong private property rights, and the county does have an obligation, and the final order does call for us to look at balancing private property rights with the natural resource protection measures. The Burt J. Harris Act does specifically reference transfer of development rights as one of the mechanisms to offset the impacts on local or state government from natural resource protection policies or - - or requirements that -- that would have an impact on the private property rights. Dr. Nicholas's evaluation indicated that there was a very strong market and that the transfer of development rights would work well. The second component of his report was what elements need to be included in any TDR process in Collier County to -- I won't use the wor ensure u o -- o move a process o -- o one a -- a actually will work that will be effective and that will work in a simple Page 23 February 7, 2002 16J] and reasonable format so that property owners will utilize it. And we have implemented those strategies into our proposed process. But you'll hear more about the TDR process as we move along, to give you a brief overview and for the public as well of what that process entails. MR. LORENZ: These two -- these two maps here are basically the areas that we have identified as our -- as our planning strategy areas for protection of these large environmentally important features. And as Bob was just talking about, the TDR program, we've now evaluated our data such that we've identified -- taken all of that raw natural resource information, if you will, made some judgments about it, and then determined that in certain portions of the fringe we want to have what's called sending areas. And that's the green areas that are mapped out. Remember, these are the areas -- and if you take a look at these areas here (indicating), these sending zones, these are -- this is private property now. This is -- because there -- there is a lot of public property in these areas as well. But what's mapped out is the green private property areas for sending areas, that they match out fairly well with those areas that we talked before that had some high degree of environment sensitivity. Again, this down here (indicating) in the Belle Meade CARL project, the white is basically those properties that - - had been acquired, but the green are those properties that are still in private ownership. And so you can see that -- that some of these areas up in here (indicating) we've also identified as sending lands. These -- these are also private property that are environmentally sensitive and important. The -- it should be red. I'm not sure if it looks red to you from -- on the screen, but the red areas is the primary receiving areas. And, again, these are the areas where there isn't that high degree of sensitivity om an -- ffom an environmental standpoffit that those would be the appropriate areas environmentally to direct development Page 24 February 7, 2002 16JI to. So we want to direct development away from the green areas, and it's got to go someplace. And so we're directing it to the red areas on this map, if you will. Now, we've also broken up the receiving areas into primary receiving areas and secondary receiving areas. You'll -- you'll see some further slides as we get further into the presentation for what we call some hot - button issues as to maybe some reconsideration of those secondary receiving areas. But for the moment, when we're talking about receiving areas, those are the areas that have the -- that have the least environmental sensitivity. Sending areas have the highest degree of environmental sensitivity. MR. RICHARDSON: Are some -- are some of the sending areas agricultural lands? Do I understand that correctly? MR. MULHERE: No. I was generally speaking about the use of TDRs to protect either environmentally sensitive or agricultural lands. In the case here, our primary focus was natural resource protection. There may be some small patches of agriculture in sending lands, but the primary reason was natural resource protection. MR. LORENZ: Yes. And just follow up with Bob, within -- embedded within those sending areas there -- there very well could be agricultural uses and farm fields. So there is -- so we -- we -- if we would have kept on trying to draw little lines within those areas or circle those out, we'd have a big Swiss cheese pattern. So what we're saying, that as a unit is functioning as a unit that we want to protect around those -- all those boundaries. So -- so in terms of some of these -- thinking about some -- some planning terms and -- and the way we are going to establish our preservation standards and our allowable uses, we have the -- the sending and receiving area concept. Again, the natural resource pro ec ion areas, we are proposing a ese na a resource protection areas be, to some degree, modified. And I'll show you the Page 25 February 7, 2002 16J1 degree of modification later on. But this would be the CREW natural resource protection area. This will now be the north Belle Meade natural resource protection area. And, recall, this was the study area that I mentioned earlier. And then this (indicating) would be the Belle Meade CARL natural resource protection area. Basically the boundaries in this one would not have changed from the original 1999 recommendation. But, again, we will -- we will be talking about the natural resource protection areas have even a higher level of protection than just the sending areas. Again, trying to pull the -- the information together a little bit. This information has been summarized in these slides, but it is part of your data and analysis package, if you wanted to get involved in all those appendix tables. But let me just get -- show you on this global scale of what we've tried to do. This is wetland -- this is wetland land cover, this pie chart. The conservation lands, sixty -- 63 percent of the wetland land cover is tied up the con -- those conservation lands within the rural fringe. That's still important in our inventory for -- for -- for protection purposes. Natural resource protection areas that are also going to be — - -- - considered sending lands 23 percent of that wetland land cover is in the NR.PAs, and then -- and then in the primary receiving, and secondary receiving, if you will, is just around 12 percent. So what -- what -- what, again, this is trying to show is visually on the -- on the slide, you can see how it's mapped out. But as we quantify that information, we're -- we're -- we're trying to, again, tie up as much of the important natural resources in our sending and/or NRPA sending lands. So this would -- this would be -- this would be the -- the inventory distribution, if you will, for -- for the wetlands. This -- this chaff down here then talks a ou , well, what is the composition. So if we look at -- for instance, let's take -- take the Page 26 February 7, 2002 16J1 NRPA sending bar here. Eighty -seven percent of the lands contained within that -- that boundary is wetland land cover. So a very high percentage of -- recapturing a high percentage of the wetlands within those areas. It's not a hundred percent. If we look at total vegetation, it's not a hund -- it won't be a hundred percent either. But there again, there are some embedded ag fields or -- or cleared areas or disturbed areas. But when we start reaching that -- those verytigh levels, you can see that -- that our NRPA sending and our -- and our conservation lands, of course, are -- have a very high composition of -- of the wetland land cover. Primary receiving, you know, very low, 18 percent. It is worth note in terms of some nonNRPA sending lands, it's not as much wetland percentages within those areas. But there is some upland listed species concerns within those areas. So that's why that's -- that's still important for -- for our preservation requirements, not just wetland land cover but any vegetation that contributes to listed species and their habitats. So -- right in the middle, somewhat in the middle here is the primarily second -- the secondary receiving areas is somewhat high. And, again, as we've gotten input in the past, we'll be making some some proposals and some modifications for secondary receiving, so let's -- we'll just wait until we go through that. Similar patterns with -- with total vegetation. Again, a lot of it's tied up in -- in the NRPA lands, the sending -- the sending lands. And, again, we've -- try to draw those boundaries for the receiving lands that have the least amount of -- of important natural resources within those areas. So that would be your -- that would be total vegetation and, not to belabor it, strategic habitats of what I talked about before. Just -- just quickly, you see the conservation lands are -- are muc ess, an a s ecause a -- a o o a con -- s a egic a i a, by definition, is not within conservation lands, as they existed when Page 27 February 7, 2002 l 6J1 the GAPs report came out. So you see that number being a little bit low. But if that was the case, it would -- it would still be very, very high. So that's where we're looking at trying to -- that's the rationale looking at these particular resource parameters to, again, determine, have we done an adequate job of identifying the environmentally sensitive areas, the conservation and the sending areas -- this would include NRPAs -- such that our important natural resource elements -- you can see that we're approaching 90 percent of those elements within these particular areas. Now, remember, these areas are going to have very high preservation requirements, and they're going to have very small number of allowable uses within those areas, because what we're trying to do is, again, take the final order to what it says, direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, listed species, and their habitats. So our sending areas are where those important parameters are. And the receiving area is -- of course, is where we're going to have a lot more flexibility for development. So let's talk a little bit about at the project site scale, what -- what type of tools we -- we are trying to develop when a project comes into play. We've already talked about these large areas, these large ecosystems, the sending lands. And we have a -- a number of tools that we've been working through through this process. And, of course, clustering is one. Bob will talk a little more about clustering with you. Site preservation and vegetation retention standards, for instance, in the urban area we have a 25 percent vegetation retention standard in the urban area. We're increasing those numbers in the fringe, and I'll show you what -- the numbers that we've arrived at in the -- in the fringe areas. And then, of course, we also have wildlife management stand-arids, so a lot of your -- your GroWth Management an amendments also includes how we -- we should deal with protecting Page 28 February 7, 2002 16J l :. do listed species when projects come in. Well, let's talk -- let's talk mostly on the standards, vegetation retention standards. This information, of course, is -- is summarized in your data and analysis and is also incorporated into the policy language. But, again, primary receiving lands, 40 percent of the vegetation present but not to exceed 25 percent of the site area. So it's still a fairly hefty increase above and beyond what we have in the urban area. The secondary receiving lands, you may recall that one graph that was -- you know, it's kind of in between. Well, we've ratcheted the preservation standards up in those areas. But, again, that's going to change, I think, that -- as we go through the process as we have received input. But where we're really talking about really getting up there is the NRPA sending lands is having 80 percent of the vegetation present to retain and the NRPA lands 90 percent. Now, we've -- we've arrived at a 90 percent figure as being our most important figure based upon two considerations: The most important -- the most important consideration from a precedent standpoint is within the area of critical state concern. That's the Big Cypress area of critical state concern. The state has _adopted for -- since -- I guess it was mid -'70s when that was adopted -- a basically 10 percent alteration standard, in other words, preservation of 90 percent of the site. You can only alter 10 percent of it. When we were looking at some initial information and we were looking in comparing our NRPA sending lands to the area of critical state concern, you know, they're -- you know, it's -- although they're closer into the urban area, the vegetation characteristics, the wildlife utilization characteristics approach that particular level. So that's why were -- we're s oo mg UVFal target of a percent figure so it matches up with the area of critical state concern figure. Page 29 February 7, 2002 16JI The other -- the other thing is, is although it's been tough to document completely in some scientific circles, you do hear that some systems and equilibrium can establish -- get to an equilibrium that's not that much different from their predevelopment standard if -- if they're at that 90 percent level. Now, that's -- again, that's somewhat subjective a little bit, but that was some of the information we have received from some individuals. And, again, that supports the area of critical state concern precedent that has been set. So when you think about these areas that we've established in the rural fringe, what we are recommending is that the NRPA sending lands be considered almost at that area of critical state concern level, and that's the reason for hitting it at that 90 percent. And our -- and I'll show you how -- we'll also look at -- at how that tracks and when we apply these percentages to all of the areas in the rural fringe. So we kind of do somewhat of a -- of an analysis. We have taken the percentages for these various areas that we have, the primary, secondary receiving lands, sending lands, and conservation lands, and basically applied these retention standards to the areas to see how much vegetation that we can preserve in the whole rural fringe. And, for the moment, let's just talk about -- let's not confuse the issue a little bit with TDRs, but if we didn't have any TDRs at all in the program, applying all of these numbers, we're getting pretty close to that 90 percent figure, and that percentage is 87.2 percent. So we're -- we're -- we're approaching -- we're approaching that 90 percent figure. Now, a couple of -- a couple of notes here. Conservation lands, of course, are going to -- assumed to be 100 percent preserved. Whatever there are in the conserva ion lands, we are going to assume that's going to be there as a -- as a final requirement. Page 30 February 7, 200 J 1 And, also, we wanted to add this note here to this table because these retention standards are going to apply to nonagricultural uses; or, stated in another way, they are not to be applied to agricultural uses. And we'll talk about that as a hot - button issue later on. Blt this would be -- this would be, if you will, to nonagricultural development. Let me -- let me just get -- move to another slide here just to show it a little bit better visually than having all of those numbers up on the table. Again, no TDRs. We are approaching 87.2 percent of what the total vegetation inventory is in the rural fringe. Now, if we start talking about TDRs -- and, again, the TDRs, as Bob indicated, is -- is in the sending lands -- TDRs, you're going to be able to take your development rights if you live in the sending lands, and you're going to be able to transfer your development right from the sending land to a receiving land. That process is going to work by basically that TDR is a marketable commodity. And Bob will talk about that a little later on as well. But after you have done that, you have now -- we have now basically put your land into almost a hundred percent preservation status. So that's why with -- if we were wildly successful in all of our send -- sending lands, went from a hundred percent, went -- within all the sending lands, if a hundred percent of the TDRs are utilized,. then we get to a 90.5 percent retention of the vegetation. So we're hitting our -- if you will, we're hitting our benchmark of the 90 percent benchmark for the rural fringe. And we're doing it -- the difference, if you will, this -- this would be the -- this would be the part that's incentivized in the sending lands. Now, just for -- for a comparison purposes, wetland land cover within the fringe is 56,600 acres. So just by looking at -- making a comparison of what we would expect retaining total vegetation, we we would expect o re ain o a vege a ion a wou excee w a e wetland land cover would be. So that's a -- that's another value that Page 31 February 7, 2002 6 J l give me -- gave me a little bit of comfort that we're certainly moving on the -- the -- the side that's definitely going to be protecting the natural resources looking at the sending -- a portion of sending and receiving lands and what the preservation requirements are. MR. RICHARDSON: Let me just ask a clarifying question. In your standards you talk about the 40 and 60 percent in primary and secondary but not to exceed 25 percent is primary or 45 percent of the site area. Wouldn't that change these numbers? MR. LORENZ: That could potentially change depending upon the site. It's tough to come up with -- with an exact analysis without knowing what the site would be looked at. MR. RICHARDSON: So I should look at this as an overstatement of what we can expect to achieve? MR. LORENZ: I think that's probably -- that would probably be a fair assessment as you apply those preservation standards. MR. RICHARDSON: Do you have any sense as to how far off the mark we are? MR. LORENZ: No, I don't. We try to do some analysis where we -- where we did that kind of work in the receiving lands. If you look at the receiving lands composition data, you have about a 25 percent composition within the receive -- receiving lands, on average. So, on average, see, we're -- we're -- we're hitting the market. But, again, you know, if -- you're never going to be at the average. Every site's going to be different. MR. RICHARDSON: Of course, editorially, one way to solve that is to change the standard so that we preserve more of the vegetative material. MR. LORENZ: That's certainly a possibility. But let me -- but let me -- but let me -- but let me make -- let me make a point right now about a. rn the receiving 1—ancts we on w-a-n-t to have a -- if you will, an overly burdensome regulatory set of standards because those Page 32 February 7, 2002 16J1 are the lands that we want to encourage the market to increase the density to utilize the TDRs from the sending lands. And so it's the sending lands that's the most important for us to try to preserve the vegetation and not so much the receiving lands. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to also mention, relative to this issue, that there are some veg -- some incentives proposed as well to increase the vegetation preservation in receiving areas and that that -- we can't say for certain. But if people exercise those incentives, that would offset some of the discrepancies in terms of the targeted numbers. So we do have some incentives built in for increasing that preservation in receiving lands beyond the, you know, 40 percent or maximum of 25 percent. MR. RICHARDSON: It wouldn't necessarily be your one for one that you've used in your example. MR. MULHERE: No, that's correct. MR. LORENZ: Let's try -- trying to boil down those concepts into the document that you have in front of you -- I just use this slide and I think you've got in your handouts -- it will make some reference to it as we go through the rest of the presentation or your deliberations. But, again, the elements of the integrated protection strategy is that the landscape scale and the site scale. The elements of the natural, resource protection areas, TDR program, the identification of sending and receiving areas, what the allowable land uses are, what the buffering requirements are are all very specifically addressed in the policy language within your proposed amendments. The site scale elements of clustering, the preservation standards, the wetland standards, wildlife management standards are also embodied in -- in the proposed language within your document. So when you start talking about looking at all those myriad of pages, a ou in -- in s s c e a we ve 1 en i ie ese arge landscape features that have environmentally sensitive areas, and Page 33 February 7, 20021 6JI we're trying to direct incompatible land uses away from those areas. And that's what -- and that's what essentially this -- this whole framework does for us. With that I'll turn the presentation over to Bob. I know the -- I'm sure that you're not going to be able to read this slide. This is a little bit of our placeholder for ourselves. But this you did receive in your packet, a summary table of what the allowable land uses are by these planning areas that we've -- we've proposed. And -- and Bob may want to talk about these in a little bit more detail as he goes through his presentation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's the pleasure of the board? Do we want to stop and talk to Mr. Lorenz about his presentation before we get too stale on it or -- MR. STRAIN: I have a procedural question. MR. MULHERE: I was going to raise an issue too relative to some of these hot -button issues and how you want to handle those. MR. STRAIN: I was more concerned -- your presentation wasn't something given to us ahead of time. I understand and appreciate the background. It does resolve some questions, but because we were given those large booklets to review, most of my questions pertain specifically to language in that book. Are we going to be going at some point today through that book item by item? MR. MULHERE: Yup. MR. STRAIN: Because I'll hold most of my questions until we get there because that's where it really applies. MR. MULHERE: That's one issue. Certainly we can speak -- answer your questions or speak specifically to any questions you have relative to the language. The second is that as we move forward here and start to discuss some of ese topic areas that are o - u on issues, agriculmral regulation, rural villages, some of those questions may come up during Page 34 February 7, 2002 16J1 that point in time. And the question I wanted to ask the Planning Commission, there are some folks here who may want to speak on each of those or several of those -- maybe not all of them. Some -- some people may have an issue with one component or another. In fact, some folks here, I think you will need to have some presentation from, for example, Bruce Anderson and -- and Nancy Payton relative to -- as you may have read in this morning's paper, they're working together to resolve issues in the North Belle Meade. And, frankly, since we just received copies of that -- actually, I only looked at them this morning -- I think you'll want to hear from those folks, and you may want to give them some leeway. And that's one of the hot -button issues I've identified. So my question to you as we move forward is as we begin to address these hot - button issues, say we start with agricultural regulation and I summarize the issue for you -- for example, under that one Marty Chumbler can come up and give you -- she's written a legal opinion on that and summarize that for you. You may want to take some public comment at that point on that issue. I mean, that's certainly up to you, but I know that there are probably folks who want to speak on either several or maybe only one of these issues. And that may be the time for you to be able to get that input so that you would be able to consider that in terms of formulating your own questions. That's certainly up to you, but just a suggestion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It seems to me it's better to -- to take all we're going to hear about an issue at the time. MR. STRAIN: Yeah, I would think so, yeah. One question I forgot to ask in the beginning. Marjorie, is there a requirement for disclosures today? MS. STUDENT: No, there is not because this is a legislative ma er ana not quasi - ucticidl. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. Page 35 February 7, 2002 16J CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I had a couple of questions for Mr. Lorenz, if I might. The strategic habitat conservation area chart that you showed -- MR. LORENZ: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- it seemed to me, the westernmost portion of the South Belle Meade was just as green as the rest of that portion. We're going to be talking about the westernmost portion of that at some point this -- today. Is it equally important as a strategic habitat to the -- to that -- to the east of it? MR. LORENZ: We have just received -- it was in -- Monday or Tuesday -- some information from Tim Hancock who was looking at some -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Some scientific data? MR. LORENZ: Correct. We're in the process now of -- of updating our database to -- to see how much of -- of that, if you will, habitat that's popped -- showing up as strategic habitat really current -- does currently exist. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So we'll get to that when we get to that hot button or -- MR. LORENZ: We haven't been able to do that analysis yet from staff. We're still work -- working on that. But I know that -- that Tim Hancock is here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He's going to give us his spin on it anyway? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. And that's -- that's one of the hot -button items that we do have on our -- if you will, our list of -- to go through. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: My next question, I gathered from the hearing the other day that the TDR is sort of the linchpin of this program or at least one of them. But then you just showed a -- a chart ha in ica e a as tar as conservation or preserva ion or one of these labels is concerned, you only move from 87.2 to 90 -point Page 36 February 7, 2002 � something with TDRs. Now, it seems to me that 87.2 is tantamount to 90 anyway. So the question is, is the -- the game worth the candle? I don't know. Maybe -- maybe you'll come to that, Mr. Mulhere, here. MR. MULHERE: I think I can answer that question right now. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Right now? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's an excellent question. And we discussed the same thing as we looked at that slide. Keep in mind, the primary purpose of the transfer of development rights is not natural resource protection. We achieve that through regulation. The primary purpose of the TDR is to provide some mechanism for property owners who were regulating to recoup some lost value. That's the primary purpose of the TDR program. We're -- we're -- we're implementing -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And it has that collateral benefit of -- MR. MULHERE: It has the collateral benefit of increasing the natural resource protection. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Do you have an idea of what sort of -- in round numbers inventory there is of sending -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- units and receiving units, what sort of balance there is between those two? MR. MULHERE: Yes. There -- it's estimated -- and it's a very good estimate. I say it's estimated because there may be some nonconforming lots out there that we haven't calculated, relatively few that we wouldn't have calculated, but I believe the number of sending units is less than 5,000. It's up in the 4,800 number. And, of course, as far as the number of receiving, I mean, you take the total area and -- of privately owned land and divide it by 5 to know the total number of N not exact because we do have to recognize a number of legal Page 37 February 7, 2002 l 6J1 nonconforming lots that exist that may be 2 acres or 3 acres or 4 acres. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's the ballpark number? MR. MULHERE: Bill, do you -- MR. LORENZ: Acres or -- MR. MULHERE: No. Talking about number of dwelling units that are within the sending -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Receiving, receiving. MR. MULHERE: Well, I was going to take the total. We can subtract the sending from that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh, all right. MR. RICHARDSON: I could probably do that. MR. MULHERE: Okay. There's about 32,300 acres of receiving land. And somebody who's really good with math can probably divide that up by 5 and come up with a number a lot quicker than I can. Sixty -four sixty. See, I knew we would achieve that. Sixty -four sixty. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Quick fingers rather than quick -- all right. MR. MULHERE: And, as I said, there is about -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 4800. MR. MULHERE: -- 4800 sending units. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So you're talking about 10,000 units. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I gotcha. You hadn't -- you have primary receiving areas, secondary receiving areas. Somewhere in the -- in all this literature there's some mention of mixed -use receiving areas, or -- or am I dreaming that? MR. MULHERE: You may be talking about the rural villages, and I will go over those, but those would be located within receiving lands. e ore we orge a you raise a issue, ere is a so a secondary receiving area that we will need to talk to you about -- and Page 3 8 February 7, 2002 16J1 I've made a note to talk to you about that -- that's actually located outside of -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Right, I remember that. MR. MULHERE: -- the rural fringe. <: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Last question: Wlv differences are there between NRPA and nonNRPA sending, aside from this 80- 90 distinction? Is that the only difference between a -- a NRPA and a nonNRPA sending area? MR. LORENZ: From the -- the proposed standards -- I believe that's correct. There's -- there's -- the sending lands are going to have the same allowable uses. Their preservation standards are going to be higher in the NRPA lands than the nonNRPA sending lands. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, from time to time there have been people who belly ache considerably about being in a NRPA. Now, if they find themselves in a nonNRPA sending area, are they going to have the same complaints? MR. MULHERE: I would suspect. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. That's it. Anybody else have stored -up questions? MR. STRAIN: I've got one. Do you have one? MR. MIDNEY: No. MR. STRAIN: I have one. Bill or Bob, you just said there's 32,000 acres of receiving land? MR. MULHERE: Thirty -two two I think was the calculation. MR. STRAIN: And less than 5,000 of sending or -- MR. MULHERE: No. MR. STRAIN: Explain to me the ratio there again, if you could. MR. MULHERE: The ratio -- there's about 20,000 acres of sending. . TIUIN: 2 acres o sen mg. a possible density can come out of that 20,000 if all of it was utilized? Page 39 February 7, 2002 16J1 MR. MULHERE: Well, as we said, it was about 4800 units that we talked about. You know, if you used ballpark figures, it's five -- if you look at 20,000, you think 5,000 units. So -- when we did the calculation, as I said, it was just under 5,000, 4800. MR. STRAIN: That's the density that would be transferred to the receiving areas? MR. MULHERE: Well, depending on what the final policy deliberations are here. Yes, either into the receiving areas or potentially into some other areas of the county. MR. STRAIN: That's a lot of receiving areas for a small amount of density. MR. MULHERE: And that's designed that way. MR. STRAIN: Then how do you get the receiving areas to work if they're not concentrated enough to warrant the density to go there, I mean -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that they are concentrated enough. The receiving area -- the idea is to have a larger -- for this to work from just purely an economic perspective, if we just go to the basics, supply and demand, you want to have more demand than you have supply. And you want to have a smaller number of sending -- or a smaller acreage of sending lands in number than you would have in receiving lands. So there's greater opportunity, greater market for those units to be sent into the receiving lands. And the more things that you can do to increase that market attraction, the more that the TDR process is likely to work and work quickly. Within those -- that -- that acreage, a couple of things: We -- we do require clustering as part of the TDR provision. You send and you have to cluster. We are proposing to provide central water and sewer to facilitate that clustering process, further facilitate it. And we also have the rural village concept that would prove e for a more compact type mixed -use development. And then within a receiving area you Page 40 February 7, 20021 6 might have a lesser density type of development extending outward from the village center. So we do think that it will work. And -- but to further answer your question, the maximum density outside of a rural village allowed in a receiving area is one to one. So there's a 5 -fold -- potential 5 -fold increase from 1 per 5, 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, to 1 dwelling unit per acre in receiving. And that's how they will be able to accept the transfer units. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Just another quick question. I'm -- as I suppose a lot of people are, am very concerned about the agricultural land and our apparent lack of ability to regulate that. It seems to me that is absent some numbers that would tell me how much rural land we're really talking about which we have not been able to provide yet. I have some concern about that being a real Achille's heel to the data that you have glowingly presented, which I think is great. But if the farmland can be converted without -- you know, wetlands can be turned into citrus groves tomorrow. You know, I think that just destroys the whole program. MR. MULHERE: Well, certainly without the additional issues that we'll discuss with you, that would be the perception that you would arrive at. We're going to talk about that. In fact, that's probably the first hot -button issue we can talk about, if you want to move right into that, unless there's further questions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Brought to mind -- part of this discussion brought to mind another question. The last meeting on this subject for another group, there was a dollar figure tossed around about what these TDRs would sell for on the market, something like seventeen or eighteen thousand. Is there any validity to that, or what's e aenvation Ot the source o 1. MR. MULHERE: Well, you have an excellent memory. Nick -- Page 41 February 7, 20oJ 6 J 1 Dr. Nicholas's initial report indicated a -- a initial value of about $18,000 per dwelling unit. However, he indicated that in programs where TDRs have been successful -- and if we included the components that he indicated were necessary to make it successful -- there was no reason to assume that ours wouldn't be. That initial value increased significantly after the initial purchase and the demand went up. So the initial value that he is suggesting is about 18,000 per unit. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions? (No response.). CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Bob. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Yeah. You can go through that issue. I just wanted to start out by saying, I guess, really without sugar coating the issue or without putting any kind of a spin on it, we're here today as a result of the final order. The final order was largely issued because the county failed to develop and implement strategies to adequately protect natural resources. There were -- there were other issues, but this was, really, the primary issue. In order to develop strategies that will do that and will meet the requirements of the final order and will pass muster with the DCA and, by the way, will protect the natural resources we are going to have an effect and an impact on some folks' current permitted uses. We do not see any way that that can be avoided. But I did want to assure you that we worked very hard during this process over three years to solicit public input collected from organizations and from individuals. The website allowed interaction back and forth, and people could e-mail questions or comments. We did receive quite a bit of that. Having said that, we tried to address each of those issues that were raise , wnetner by an organization or an incuviauai. we obviously will not be successful in making everybody happy in this Page 42 February 7, 2002 16JI process, but we certainly tried to understand the issues and develop strategies that considered those issues. One of the major issues raised by some of the environmental groups, as well as the EAC in their deliberations, was this issue of whether or not the county could regulate agriculture in the sending lands. And when you think about it, it's a pretty simple issue. We said these are the most highly valuable wetland and habitat areas in the fringe. We want to protect them. We're going to implement significant restrictions on private property owners' ability to utilize those lands. Why wouldn't we put a regulation in place that would prohibit any agricultural clearing in those lands? MR. RICHARDSON: Why not? MR. MULHERE: And we did as a recommendation initially of what we found on the advice of our counsel. And I'm going to invite Marty Chumbler to talk in just a minute as soon as I try to summarize this for you was that we were precluded from adopting standards that would prohibit certain types of agriculture. What types of. agriculture? Well, agriculture under the Right -to- Farm Act that is considered to be -- A, to be bona fide agriculture and, B, for which a best management practice standard has been implemented. And that _pretty _much covers most of the tYi? _ e of s -- agriculture that we see in Collier County. Failing to be able to do that, to that is outright prohibit that in the sending lands, we realize we probably could put some restrictions that would be more voluntary in nature. And so we've attached some restrictions to the TDR process, or we're proposing some restrictions to the TDR process. That is, if you are in sending land, you are a private property owner, and you avail yourself of the TDR process and you send some or all of your units from your property to a receiving an ,you en os— e��ie -oppo ni o con roue any arming opera ions or to clear any additional land for farming operations. Page 43 February 7, 2002 16JI In the residual, we -- we do propose to continue to allow unimproved pasture. But really that's it. In addition, then, the question came up, well, what about somebody who goes in and just clears and then uses the TDR process? Good question. You may not be aware of it, but the county does have a regulation in place where a agricultural clearing permit has been issued, the landowner is precluded from changing that land use or rezoning the property for ten years unless they -- unless they come in and re -- reestablish the -- the native plant and habitat that was there prior to the clearing, which is obviously fairly costly to be able to do that. And the reason for that is pretty obvious. Someone could come in and just clear their agricultural land, but their real rationale behind it is -- is development, and if they've cleared all the land, then they don't have any native vegetation preservation requirements. So that's why that standard is in place. We would propose to extend that in the TDR process to say that the same thing holds true for TDRs. If you clear your land for agricultural purposes -- I mean, we're talking about just sending lands now because ag is fine in the receiving lands. You would not be able to avail yourselves of the TDR process for ten years. Now, at this point I -- I think I'd like to ask Marty__ - she's right_ behind me -- to come up and give you a little bit more of the legal foundation for her opinion. MR. RICHARDSON: Just a couple of questions, Bob, on what you said. MR. MULHERE: Go ahead. MR. RICHARDSON: This ten -year rule -- I know it's in our code -- do you know if there's a rationale for that? Could it be 50 years? a . was going to get to th a . Actually, even though that's what we're proposing, there have been a Page 44 February 7, 2002 16J1 number of folks who have said why ever let somebody transfer development rights if they clear, you know, in this area for agriculture, or how about 25 years or 50 years? I don't think there's any -- I'll let Marty address that, but I don't think there's any. It'spurely voluntary. You can choose either to clear your land for agriculuural purposes or not to and avail yourself of the TDR; and, therefore, you have to live by those restrictions, whatever they ever ultimately end up being. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's essentially a contract, isn't it? MR. MULHERE: Yup. MR. RICHARDSON: Did I understand you, though, to say on the TDR if they avail themselves of the TDR, on whatever basis it's finally approved, that they could no longer farm that land? MR. MULHERE: With the exception of unimproved pasture, yes. We -- we -- we propose to continue to allow unimproved pasture. That -- that, by the way, is different from what's in your document right now. Originally we had proposed to allow continued agricultural operations for what existed today but no additional clearing. After conversation with Nancy Linnan and Marty Chumbler, we actually strengthened that to say, no, you can't even continue your agricultural operations. MR. RICHAR.DSON: It would seem that that would fly in the face of what she's going to tell us about, then, about the right to farm. MR. MULHERE: I believe this memo has been distributed to you. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, to -- to answer, I'll -- I'll go through and give a little background in a minute. But to directly answer your question, I think, as someone suggested, it's really sort of like a contract. The TDR program is a voluntary program. No farmer is going to be required to partake of that program. If they choose to, hen p o e con ac essen is y wou e o give up ear .rig o continue farming there. So it's not technically a regulation; it's a Page 45 � February 7, 2002 1 6J 1 voluntary program that they can choose to make use of or not. Just to give you a little bit of history on the Right -to -Farm Act, in 1979 the Florida legislature recognized the ever - increasing problem of encroachment on agricultural operations in this state. Development is growing right around what have been historically farming areas, and we all recognize that's not going to stop in this state. That's going to continue to be an increasing problem. And in nine -- and, of course, farming operations, if you've ever lived next to a farm, particularly a very active farm, it may not be the best neighbor to have. So there were increasing number of nuisance suits against farming operations by these new residential developments that had been moving in around existing farms. So in 1979 the Florida legislature adopted the Right -to -Farm Act which originally was intended to address itself toward those nuisance suits and to protect farming operations from nuisance suits brought from the -- the developments that grew up around existing farms. There was -- there were some attempts by concerned people to use that original legislation to prevent local governments from regulating through their land development regulations agricultural operations. And with that original version of the bill, it didn't work. And for -- in fact, in 1990 -- as late as 1996, the Department of Community Affairs entered a final ruling saying, no, the Right -to- Farm Act does not apply to land development regulation. It doesn't prevent a local government from enacting regulations that apply to farming operations. In the year 2000, the Florida legislature addressed that issue specifically and adopted a new subsection to the Right -to -Farm Act which very clearly states and restricts local governments' available -- availability or ability, through their comprehensive plan and land development developmant regu a ions, to restflet, limit, probi it, or In any way regulate farm operations. Page 46 February 7, 2002 16JI In the introductory language to that new subsection, which is subsection 6, they have said that the intent of this is to prevent duplication of regulation. So what they've said is, look, there are federal regulations that apply to farming operations; there are state regulations that apply to farmer operations. We don't want there to be further regulation of farm operations at the local level. Now, there are some limitations on that. There are some exceptions to that that I've listed in my memo. The main one is that there must be the farm operations that are -- that enjoy this protection from local regulation are those for which there are adopted best management practices that have been adopted by some state agency, and that includes the Water Management District. In my memo I've -- I've listed those reg -- those adopted best management regulations that would be applicable in Collier County. It looks to me, in looking through them -- and I've discussed this with Mr. Lorenz and Mr. Mulhere here. It appears to us that virtually all of the agricultural operations in Collier County, with the exception of some grazing operations, would have a best management practice that applies to them. There's one for citrus. There's one for seasonal crops. There's one for forestry. So all of those types of agricultural operations could not be regulated or limited or prohibited by any sort of land development regulation or comprehensive plan provision that Collier County adopts. That's sort of an overview of my memo. There are some other exceptions. None of these best management practices specifically address well head protection. So if Collier County felt it was necessary to adopt a specific well head protection ordinance, that could be applied to agriculture. Collier County can adopt regulations relating to the use of pesticides; Vaut s perms ed. if the—r-e-i-s--an—e--m--e-r-g-e-nc—y—m-Co-trier- County -- by emergency we're talking about something where there's Page 47 February 7, 2002 1 6JI immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare -- then you can -- you can regulate agriculture. But those are very, very limited types of exceptions that would apply. Yes. MR. MIDNEY: What about buffer zones or prohibitions against concentrated animal, like, poultry or dairy farming? MS. CHUMBLER: There is a best management practice for concentrated feed lots, and therefore, local government cannot regulate that. The imposition of a buffer requirement would be a regulation of agriculture. And so if you are -- if it's a type of agricultural operation for which there is a best management practice adopted, then you couldn't impose a buffer. MR. RICHARDSON: I recall, though, that we have regulated things like fish farming in Collier County. MS. CHUMBLER: You may have attempted. But there's a best management practice for agriculture. MR. RICHARDSON: We. have done that. We didn't attempt. We did it. MS. CHUMBLER: Well -- and, you know, there may be things on the books that have not yet been challenged. It may be that this was adopted before the year 2000. Keep in mind that this legislation was only adopted in 2000, and so there may be some ordinances on the books that predate the year 2000 that are still there. But -- but they -- you may have a problem applying them. MR. RICHARDSON: Let me just summarize, perhaps inadequately, the negative side of what I'm hearing you say, and that is that agriculture can go in and all these sensitive areas we're trying to protect, all the wetlands, environmentally sensitive things that we've talked about, that there's no impediment to them to convert to w a ever ey wan o o as ar as ey -- as ong as ey mee es management practices? Page 48 February 7, 2002 1 6J1 MS. CHUMBLER: No. That's not entirely true because best management practices is only one of the regulations that are subject to at the state and federal level. They're going to impact wetlands. In most instances, they're going to have to get state permits; they may have to get federal permits. And that's -- keep in mind, the legislature in adopting this provision is not saying agriculture is free of all regulation. They specifically say that they've done this to essentially preempt to the state the right to regulate agriculture. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Free of local regulation. MS. CHUMBLER: Free of local regulation. If someone is going to impact wetlands, there are state regulatory programs and, in some instances, federal regulatory programs that they will have to comply with before they can do that. MR. STRAIN: I have a question, ma'am. In the rural fringe area that we're talking about today, based on the reading that you provided, I understand there isn't a lot of ag currently. And your third item on your memo said that the Florida Supreme Court determined that the actual physical activity being conducted on the land rather than its zoned use was the key to determining whether or not the property should be classified as ag. MS. CHUMBLER: Correct. MR. STRAIN: Well, couldn't we through this process classify everything that's utilized as ag right now as ag and everything that isn't cleared or outside those current boundaries of the -- classify it as something else and then that way it cannot be utilized as ag? MS. CHUMBLER: But if they start using it as ag, tomorrow or next week or next year, then it ties it back to the ad valorem tax rolls. And you can't -- you can't say forever more this land is nonagriculture if next week they start using it as agricultural and then it becomes a 0 f t om- ine -ag ncul Viand.- - MR. STRAIN: So even if it's not classified, it could be used still. Page 49 February 7, 2002 16J1 MS. CHUMBLER: It's the ad -- it's the use at the point in time that's relevant. MR. STRAIN: You had quite a bit of suggestions to Collier County on things we could do to tighten up the use of ag, including pesticide controls and building controls and things like that. And you even mentioned that since none of the adopted BMPs make specific mention of well field protection, Collier County would limit or even prohibit certain agricultural activities, it's limitation or prohibition where enacted as a well field protection measure. Has staff looked at doing any of these or enacting any of these in the areas out in the rural fringe? MR. MULHERE: Not as part of this assessment. I mean, we just got this a couple days ago. I think that has to be a whole and separate analysis. I mean, it's easy to say let's just adopt the well field protection strategy on the entire -- all of the sending areas in the rural fringe. But I think there probably needs to be a very deliberate study to suggest that those are, in fact, necessary for well field protection. I think, though, these issues -- and you mentioned -- you just got to what I was going to let the planning commission know about. The agriculture issue is of less of a concern in the rural fringe because when we look at the numbers, there's probably -- of all the ag -- _and fairly intensive agricultural operations taking place in Collier County, by far the vast majority is in the eastern lands portion. There's only about 3 percent of -- of active intensive ag occurring -- there's quite a bit of -- still some pasture, but of row crop, of the total in the county it's only about 3 percent in the fringe. So we think this is of somewhat less of a concern. In addition, I would also tell you that, you know, there's probably a reason why much of this land has not been cleared for agriculture a ea y, an ilia a may also lower a concern o i eing cleared in the future for that purpose. However, I think it -- it does behoove the Page 50 February 7, 20021 6 county, if that's the desire, to look at these issues contained in this report and then as part of the eastern lands study or as part of a subsequent study, look at how those could be implemented. But I agree with you on that issue, Mark. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Bob, when we finish agriculture, we need to take a'break for the court reporter. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So -- any other questions? MR. MIDNEY: I had one more question. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's do the questions on agriculture. MR. MIDNEY: Could the county regulate building permits for farm buildings or fences? MS. CHUMBLER: It's a -- it's any kind of land development regulation of agricultural operations. And the farm operations are very broadly defined. MR. MIDNEY: Okay. MR. ADELSTEIN: If we're dealing with a agricultural landowner and he decides to get into the TDR program that's eligible for it, now we can restrict him? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. ADELSTEIN: And tell him what he cannot do? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I also wanted to readdress Mr. Richardson's recollection of regulating agriculture. Yeah, but the way that you get - - that we get into regulating that agriculture, if I'm not mistake -- mistaken, was because it required a conditional use for excavation. en uring that pu is earing or a excava ion, ce m restrictions were placed which presumably the applicant agreed to as Page 51 February 7, 2002_16J1 part of approval process. So it's a little bit different because actually agriculture is a permitted use. MR. RICHARDSON: So he could have dug up without even asking? MR. MULHERE: If he didn't have to do an excavation -- if he did something maybe above ground, you may not have had that entree into regulating that. Marjorie, did I say something wrong? MS. STUDENT: No. I was going to say, I agree with you, and that was my recollection as well. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Let's -- let's reconvene at 20 past. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The meeting will come to order. Mr. Mulhere here was kind enough to remind me that we were going on these hot -button issues. We were going to polish off the issues buttons one at a time, so I'll open for public comment on the limited issue of agriculture. MR. MULHERE: Right. I just wanted to make clear that if you've signed up and want to speak generally on this issue or want to speak at the end, there will be a public comment period at the end. But for anyone who wants to s peaks ecificall on the a regulation ._y . p— p —_ y g - issue, now's the time to -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now's the time. MR. AGOSTEN: Are you going to limit the number of times the public has the right to make a comment? CHAIRMAN A13ERNATHY: Some -- some reasonable limit, yes. MR. AGOSTEN: But -- what do you mean by that? I have a problem with this language, so every now and then I misunderstand. Coula you specs a . CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it's sort of like obscenity. I Page 52 February 7, 200216JI think we'll know when we see when somebody's abusing the right. So you can go ahead and speak until somebody tells you otherwise. MR. AGOSTEN: Flexible system. My name is Ty Agosten. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. No, no, not right now. Mr. Cornell raised his hand. MR. AUGUSTEN: Mr. Cornell, by all means. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I didn't see you ask to be recognized Mr. Agosten. I'm sorry. MS. PAYTON: Well, what is the process here? MR. CORNELL: My name's Brad Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. And I appreciate the opportunity to have a couple words to say about agricultural exemption issue. It is a hot -button issue. It's something that we have consulted with our attorney on, and we disagree with the county's counsel on this issue, res -- respectfully. We believe that the farm act does not prohibit planning criteria adopted by a local government to protect public values. Thus, Collier County is permitted to adopt land use categories with specific agricultural use standards, as well as designating appropriate land use categories to wetlands and environmentally sensitive uplands.__ -_- We think this is distinguished from regulation or duplication of regulation, which the act is addressing itself to. And since the state requires adequate protection of local natural resources -- indeed, the final order is requiring us to better protect our -- our rural resources -- Collier County Audubon Society feels that the county is really obligated to include agriculture in land planning categories and standards to protect our resources. We've got to have appropriate land use categories for appropriate lands. Thank you. o e se was signe up or s . MR. MULHERE: I'm -- Page 53 February 7, 2002 16JI CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure that everybody identified -- MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question about this. In times past we have taken comment after a particular item, particularly in the Land Development Code or a particular element in the Growth Management Plan. And I have several slips here, and I will need some time to go through them and separate out the ag. It makes it a bit problematic this way without knowing in advance that we were going to do that. MR. MULHERE: My suggestion was much simpler than that. My suggestion was that with these hot -button issues, if someone wished to speak, they would be permitted to speak, and if at the end they still chose to speak on some general topic, some other topic that's not a hot -button issue or whatever, that they still be permitted to do that, public comment. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's so simple that I can understand why you left government service, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: And -- and, yes, unfortunately since we don't, you know, have people signed up for every one by hot -button issue, if they would raise their hand I'm sure, like ladies and gentlemen, we can come up here and be heard. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Nancy, were you on deck for this one? MS. PAYTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. Then Mr. Agosten. MR. RICHARDSON: While she's coming up, can we deal with some of this? At least that's the question that's been raised by Mr. Cornell. MR. MULHERE: Well, you can if you wish to, or maybe you wan o hear a of e speakers, and men Ms. Mumbler could -- MS. STUDENT: I think -- I think -- Page 54 February 7, 2002 16JI MR. RICHARDSON: Remind me not to forget that question. MS. STUDENT: I think it would be a good idea to hear all the speakers, and then our counsel will have a synthesis of what the concerns are, and she can respond. And that would =.also be time efficient. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you, Marjorie. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. Good morning. We also hold the same position as Collier County Audubon Society, and their attorney is also our attorney, and he's working, as we speak, on his opinion, our opinion, that, yes, Collier County can regulate agriculture as a land use. I'm not an attorney, so I can't argue it. I can't counter Miss Chumbler's presentation. But we will have -- unfortunately, it's not available today, but I do want you to know that there is an attorney out there. There is a position that, yes, this county can regulate agriculture as a land use. And the bottom line is that we cannot adequately protect our natural resources, our wildlife habitat, our wetlands, if we cannot regulate agriculture. I want to comment briefly on clearing. There was a reference to that as sort of a -- a way to address agricultural impacts and setting a time frame that if you cleared your land, you -- that there would be a time fear -- period which in ten years was commented that you couldn't transfer your development rights. Well, I suspect that those development rights aren't really going to be that attractive to purchase within ten years. So we might have a rush on clearing land now in anticipation of that ten -year time frame. Also, I wanted to comment that I ran into a situation, not in this part of the county, but it's applicable, where there was land clearing g p ace on -- on arm an s on pas e. i e a reques , an inquiry, as to where their land - clearing permit was. And the response Page 55 16J1 February 7, 2002 back was that there are certain types -- there are certain ag operations, if they were in existence prior to a certain date, they don't have to have a clearing permit. They don't have to come to the county to take out underbrush, clear whatever they want to clear. So there is a loophole in that, and it still doesn't get us where we want to go. If we can close up that loophole and maybe extend that clearing time frame out -- way out into the future so it's a disincentive for people to clear their land, to be part of the TDR program, then maybe that's sort of that middle ground that we can seek. Those are my comments. Thank you very much, and I did sign up to speak on a couple of other -- other issues. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank -- thank you, Nancy. Ty? MR. AGOSTEN: Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Ty Agosten. I live in an endangered northern Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for the Tax Watch of Collier County. I was also the member of that intellectually inferior committee that have spent some 60 meetings or at -- at 3 hours long each to absorb the same material that you fellas seem to absorb very rapidly. At -- I guess it pays to be smart. As far as this committee or any committee, for that matter, dealing with agricultural land, agriculture is a business. I came from a communist country where the government has managed to control the business activity and failed miserably. It provided thousands and thousands of starve -- starving children, starving mothers, what have you. I am not sure just exactly where this country is headed, but it appears that the environmental groups have no problem trying to outguess future actions from farmers. And if you already have a state law prohibiting you from interfering with the farmers, why should you even consider i . Let me just point out one more issue. You sit over there and, as I Page 56 February 7, 2002 1 6JI mentioned to you, I bow to your supber -- superior intellect, but I don't see anybody representing the very people you are talking about. I don't see anyone there sitting from Immokalee or from the Everglades. Oh, you're from the Immokalee -- take it back, sir. I know that Mark is up in the estates, but don't see too many people really speaking out for these people. I see more weight being carried by the coastal brethren of ours who are essentially against no growth -- against growth, and they will take every avenue possible to exploit that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Richard Woodruff. MR. WOODRUFF: Good morning. For the record, Richard Woodruff with Wilson, Miller. On the issue of agriculture, I would like to point out a couple of issues having to do with the rural fringe study. As Mr. Mulhere has correctly stated, the 94,000 acres that are covered by this portion of the final order, which the rural fringe committee is dealing with and which is your transmittal document this morning, it has a very small amount of actual agricultural activity. If I could direct your attention to the map that is on the television, if you will look down in the U.S. 41 area, that blue zone, that is primarily where active agriculture is occurring. Now, when I use the term "active agriculture," I'm using it in the term of row crops. When you look at the rest of the 94,000 acre, there are other agricultural activities, such as mining or pasture, but there are very limited agricultural fields. And let me tell you why: Ownership patterns. I know that you have read your document, and you will notice in the 94,000 there is a number -- and actually in my -- in my problems of dealing with interstate congestion this morning, I did_ not ge o go y e ootice to pica up my 000x. 1.1 UL 111 UIV 7`79 V V V a�i 1 believe the number of ownerships is what? Like 40,000 or something. Page 57 64 February 7, 2002 It's some huge -- 20,000, some huge number. So when you think about the reality of the wetland areas and the potential for them to be farmed, I will tell you that particular does not exist, because you're going to have to aggregate the property. The second point I would like to make to you is this: When you deal with transfer of development rights, remember, it certainly is a contract, as the chairman, Mr. Abernathy, said. Remember the final order had more than one point in it. It did not just say protect the environment. It also said prevent the premature conversion of agriculture. So I would say to you that because agriculture is regulated in this state, it is not open season to go out and do whatever you want. I can tell you -- because we have to do the regulations for many of the farmers in Collier County -- we have that privilege that we do not go out and we cannot go out and simply clear property. We do have to get water management permits. We have to get the environmental groups to concur with our best management practices. So I would say to you that when you deal with TDRs, it's not likely that that's going to occur in your area. It is not a system that is wide open. It is well regulated. The last thing _that I would also encourage-you-to d%- qe of the suggestions is that you eliminate agricultural uses in sending lands after the TDRs are used. I would say to you why? Why? If you already have areas that are cleared for agriculture, wouldn't you want to actually transfer the TDRs and encourage that agricultural activity to stay rather than saying, okay, you have to give it up, and then that farmer says, well, I'm going to have to go someplace else and clear even more land? Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do you want to respond to that? can respon to that and several other gs. And I think, perhaps, Miss Chumbler will also respond to some of the Page 58 February 7, 2002 legal implications. 16J1 6W I did, just for the record, also want to call your attention to the EAC's motions that relate to this issue. One was that they requested a thorough review, which we've already discussed, legal review. The second was to require agricultural uses to adhere to the same preservation standards as other uses in rural mixed -use district which flies in conflict with the legal opinion of Ms. Chumbler, and the -- the other motion was that all new agricultural activities, including expansion of existing agricultural activities, that negatively affect wetlands shall be prohibited. Of course, the degree to which those uses affect wetlands falls under the state's jurisdiction, not the county's. But, anyway, those were the motions of the EAC. I guess the question -- I think Dr. Woodruff raises a very legitimate issue relative to the final order also talking about preventing the premature conversion of agriculture and, also, in a sense, trying to develop some concepts that would enhance or protect the economic viability of agriculture, a very important business in Collier County. As I've said to you earlier, there is a relatively small percentage of agricultural activities, when you look at the overall scale. And, in fact, we have chosen to defer much of that to the eastern lands portion where there is extremely large agricultural operations goin on. Having said that, when we identify the ecological value of the sending lands, we think that out, and given the constraints in the final order and trying to find balance, we think that outweighs in those areas the need to continue to allow those agricultural operations. So I understand his point; it's a very good point. We just would say that, looking at everything, in our opinion, it's more important to protect those ecological areas intact. MR. RICHARDSON: Bob, just in terms of this ten -year, can we some ow pu a c�rc a aroun a some way . s a an issue -- MR. MULHERE: I think that's something you need to address. I Page 59 16JI February 7, 2002 do think that's an issue you need to address as you move forward at the end towards some sort of a motion, and I have highlighted that. MS. CHUMBLER: I think there was a request, maybe, to respond to Mr. Cornell's position, if I -- I recall correctly, and I -- if I - - if I understand the question, someone had asked me to respond to his comments about the ability of the -- the county to adopt standards rather than regulations. Let me just read to you straight from the statute. "A local government may not adopt any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit inactivity of a bona fide farm operation." Now, I'm not quite sure. It sounds to me like what he's looking for is standards that would place limitations on farm operations. I think clearly this statute is directed toward any vehicle for limiting, in any manner, farm operations. That's how I read the statute. I have not -- I have talked to the attorney for Audubon and the Wildlife Federation, but I understand he's preparing a written memorandum which I've not had an opportunity to review, and I certainly will do that when I receive it. MR. ADELSTEIN: Is there any case law on this subject? MS. CHUMBLER: No, sir. It's a -- as I say, it was not adopted by the legislature until the year 2000, so there's not been any cases that have gone that far. I have cited a Florida Supreme Court case in my memorandum, which really isn't -- isn't based upon this statute. It has to do with the - - what you mean by bona fide farm operation. The issue there was -- in that case was whether or not, by zoning regulations -- it was a case that involved ad valorem taxes, and the issue was, if a -- if a piece of property is not zoned agricultural, should -it be placed M an agricultural c asst ica ion for ad valorem tax purposes with the -- the local tax collector saying no. Obviously if it's Page 60 February 7, 2002 16JI 0 in a -- in a piece of land, a piece of land zoned for something other than agriculture, it cannot be a bona fide farm operation. The Florida Supreme Court said, no, we -- what we're looking at is the actual physical activity on that piece of property; zoning regulations have nothing to do with it. And what's even more pertinent for today is, the dissenting opinion in that case, the judges who disagreed with result, said what you have done is undercut local government's ability to regulate farm operations through zoning. And so -- and that's what I'm telling you is, in fact, the state government has -- has decided that local governments cannot regulate local govern -- the use of properties for farm operations. MR. RICHARDSON: Can I direct a question to staff? If it is found out, you know, we can get varying legal opinions on almost anything, and hers is certainly well reasoned, but there may be other well- reasoned ones, and particularly if it's narrowed down to the definition of some terms, like land use categories. And perhaps there are, quote, unquote, regulatory kinds of things that can be done that would assist us in the overall goal, which I'm sure we're all in tune with, and that's trying to protect these natural resources to the extent it's possible_ . -- - - - _ If it is found -- this may be a roundabout way of saying this. If it's found that we can, in fact, find some legal justification for doing that, would you consider changing our report to the state to reflect those changes? MR. MULHERE: Ultimately that would be a decision by the Board of County Commissioners. But -- but I will tell you that originally that was our intent. And we -- yeah. If -- if there had been a way to do it legally, it would already be included as one of our recommen a ions. oyes. MR. RICHARDSON: So you're open to further consideration of Page 61 February 7, 2002 16J1 this issue? MR. MULHERE: If I -- I guess really it's going to have to be left up to -- as a policy decision. If there's two sides and two legal opinions, I think the board's going to have to weigh those issues. You'll have to weigh those issues on the information you have today. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Bob, as a tactical matter, didn't the state bounce our EAR because it was not strict enough and -- in protecting some things? MR. MULHERE: I -- I -- clearly it was found not to adequately protect natural resources. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, as a tactical matter, what if we -- to use an old nautical term, what if we sort of tube block the state and send back a regulation that is borderline perhaps and make them say no? Wouldn't that be a refreshing change that Collier County has done something that has gone too far or perhaps is on the gray area or on the line? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I mean, you -- a comprehensive plan amendment can be challenged on either side. I mean, it can be -- it could be challenged by the environmental group, or it could be challenged by the farm operations. I mean, the end result would be or might be, if it's found that you, have, in fact, violated the Right-to- Farm Act, is you still end up with a comprehensive plan that's not in compliance, and you're back to the drawing board to try to fix that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. All right. MR. STRAIN: Ma'am, before you leave, I have one more question for you. MR. ADELSTEIN: I do too. MR. STRAIN: The other part of agriculture which seems to always be lumped with it as a conditional use is -- and I notice it's in e sen mg an s an a conserva ion an s as we as an a owa e use -- is the oil and mineral extraction related processing. Those Page 62 February 7, 2002 16JI processes can get pretty intense. Now, do they have to be in there by any kind of rule or law? MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. Well, I mean, I -- from the Right -to- Farm Act position, oil and mineral extraction is not a -- is not a defined -- does not fall within the term farm operation. MR. STRAIN: Well, that's refreshing. MR. MULHERE: I can -- I can address that issue. Those are in there because almost all -- I'm not sure if all but almost all of the lands in Collier County, as part of the deed, allow the right of the previous owner, of almost all, if not all of the lands in Collier County -- that would be the Collier family, and I'm not sure whether it goes to Barron Collier or Collier Enterprises or both -- the -- they retain that right. And if you look at the -- the deed restriction on my piece of property, that right is -- is in there. The deed allows for them to extract mineral -- minerals. And what we have done, though, is we have precluded excavations in sending lands. We continue to allow those in receiving lands. MR. STRAIN: Well, if you're going to take minerals out and you're going to extract them besides -- I mean, the oil is listed separately, but what other minerals besides oil can be sucked-out-of __ _ the ground? MR. MULHERE: Well, we've been told there really are no minerals, but we didn't want to -- we didn't want to initiate a fight. If there aren't any minerals, then probably it's not going to happen, other than oil. But the way it reads is minerals and oils, so what we've done is we've said excluding earth mining. MR. STRAIN: But do we have to make it easy to have -- by having that in there? Couldn't we just take it out and if the deed res c ions a ess a issue, a cou come up a e une ey were to be applied for? I'm just curious. Page 63 February 7, 2002 16J1 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I don't know the answer to that. I just - MR. STRAIN: It just seems to open the door to anybody that may have deed restrictions then. MR. MULHERE: And you may be right. That's something we'll have to look into. We'll have to talk to the attorneys about that. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, Michael Ramsey, who is the chairman of the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District, asked if he could speak on this issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Of course. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning, gentlemen. My name's Michael Ramsey. I'm the chairman of the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District. We are an organization that works in partnership with the natural resource conservation service. And we've been dealing with agricultural and agricultural issues in Collier County since about 1970. There are three points that I'd like to make about agriculture that you might consider in your decision - making process. Number 1, agriculture has an inherent characteristic that is one of the few land uses that can coexist most favorably with environmental systems and natural habitats. It does -- it's able to do this because it utilizes the natural characteristics of nature without destroying all of it. An example of that would be that a citrus grove coexists very well against a natural cypress slough system because they both need each other. The second point would be that agricultural systems, as you're looking to plan the county's future on a trade -- on a cost analysis or benefit analysis, agriculture inherently requires less services from the coun an municipal governments. ecause they're in such arge tracts, agriculture does not require a lot of service such as roads or Page 64 February 7, 2002 16J1 police or things such as that because it doesn't have a lot of roads and houses on it. So it's a cheaper cost to the county. r And the last thing is, as you planhe county's future, you might want to consider that agricultural uses planned into a area, a lot of times municipal areas like the coast and Naples and Fort Myers need some kind of agricultural land use next to it because the two coexist together. A lot of times a municipal area will need an agricultural type use next to it to support it, for instance, in recycling. That's a kind of an area where agriculture does fit in well with municipal areas because one example would be composting. You can take the waste from the city area, compost it on agricultural areas for recycling and reuse it. So they coexist. So agricultural does have a place in the management of a county's future. And in that light, I'd like you to consider, maybe, considering and keeping in some of your -- on the rural fringe area, keeping agricultural uses in there because they do have a place, especially in the management. Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. ADELSTEIN: I have one question. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Question. MR. ADELSTEIN: We're dealing with this farming law problem with not -- the ability not to change the rules. What about public health as a base for changing the rule for farming? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, there -- there are two possible exceptions that might give you the opportunity there. One is related to pesticides. One of the exceptions is that you can locally impose regulations that relate to pesticides. The second one, though, is -- would only be in true emergency si a ions. o i ere s an imme i`a�e�hrea o e pu is ea , safety, or welfare, you could impose regulations or ordinances or Page 65 February 7, 2002 16JI policies that related to that but would have to be a true emergency, not a extended public health issue. MR. ADELSTEIN: If there was an extended health issue, we could not -- MS. CHUMBLER: That's the way the law's currently written. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: And -- and the thought is because there is state regulation and federal regulation that addresses that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions? MR. MULHERE: I would -- just in closing on this issue, I'd like to also add that I think what Mr. Ramsey indicated in terms of the demands on the government in terms of services is true, generally speaking, with respect to agriculture. But keep in mind, what we're talking about here is conservation compared with agriculture, which also would have no demands on public services. Then we're talking about the sending lands. Where the ag exists today primarily, as Dr. Woodruff indicated, is in this Area D. That's a receiving area. And nothing would preclude an individual from continuing to farm in that area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, what's your bottom line on agriculture then? MR. MCJLHERE: Our bottom line is, we want to, as strongly as we can, develop regulations attached to the TDR that would prohibit any farming of -- in an after condition. I think that there would be generally support. We propose the ten -year restrictions. If you feel that that should be longer, I don't think that the staff has any objection to that. However, based on the legal advice that we've got from the from Marty Chumbler -- and I think it's very clear in reading her analysis -- an no ibistanding a potential or some o er ana ysis o come forward that might conflict with that, our position is that we Page 66 16J1 February 7, 2002 cannot regulate agriculture that's consistent with the Right -to -Farm Act. And we have worded it that way. Someone raised the issue to me, what about some sort of an ornamental nursery? The question would be, there would have to be an evaluation as to whether or not that action was consistent with the Right -to -Farm Act, were there best management practices, and if not, then we do have the right to regulate. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Are we ready to move right along? MR. MULHERE: Okay. The next item that I have on my list -- MR. LORENZ: I'm sorry. Where are you at, Bill? MR. MULHERE: Allowable locations and TDRs for golf courses, okay. This -- as I indicated to you earlier, golf courses are permitted by right under our proposal in -- in receiving lands but prohibited in sending lands. There has been a lot of discussion about potentially allowing golf courses on the perimeters of sending lands, if there could be a demonstration that the golf course would improve the area because it was highly exotic infested or something along these lines; that's one of the issues. And as far as that goes, we base the sending lands on the large - scale planning -- landscape level planning data analysis, and -- and we do not support opening that up to some allowance for golf courses. There are thirty -two, thirty -three thousand acres where golf courses would be permitted, and they think that's -- that's appropriate. The second issue is -- I think someone already raised the question about the TDR process and its marketability -- one of the concerns that some folks have raised that, you know, if there's a market out there for someone to go and buy 300 acres of land in a receiving area, build a golf course and develop it at the base density that they already enjoy, wluc is one we ing uni per acres, per aps some upsca a ousing, what rationale would they have for spending monies on TDRs. Page 67 16J1 '13 February 7, 2002 And we asked that very question to Dr. Nicholas. His response was that in his opinion, there -- these folks that would be doing this are also, you know, rational economic individuals and that, in his opinion, there is a strong basis for them to want -- want to improve their economic position by acquiring TDRs because the bottom line would be enhanced. However, an option that's been raised is requiring a -- to enhance that TDR market is establishing a minimum density for residential golf course communities or for freestanding golf courses, some minimum TDR purchase. And that would work something like this: If you wanted to develop a residential golf course community, you may establish a .5 dwelling units per acre minimum. Since your basis 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, you would have to achieve that .5 per acre through the TDR process. That would obviously certainly generate -- most certainly, assuming that golf courses are desirable to be built out in these receiving lands, that would generate some interest in that TDR process beyond the purely voluntary process that we have outlined for you. As far as a freestanding golf course, it could be based on the base density of 1 per 5. So for every 5 acres, you'd have to buy one TDR. That's an issue that you may hear from some folks on both pro and con. And the development standards issue relates to the third bullet there, relates to the very specific development standards that we have implemented and the best management practices that we have proposed to be implemented in the -- in the language, as Mark referred to, relative to golf courses which incorporates the Audubon gold standards doesn't specifically require that you get certified by Audubon gold but incorporates those standards and other standards that Bill and his staff have determined to be appropriate for golf course development so as o pro ec an -- an no a ow or er degradation of the environment, either from pesticides or from other February 7, 2002 problems. 6 J 1 MR. RICHARDSON: Bob, that .5, just on a previous issue, that's a bonus then? MR. MULHERE: That's not a bonus. Under that provision they would be required -- in receiving lands you can go up to one dwelling unit per acre. Under that provision, if you wanted to build a residential -- and we have not recommended this. It's just -- it's something that's going to come up. It's a hot - button issue. It was raised by -- in fact, by the DCA staff in a preliminary discussion that was had by them and others. In -- under that scenario, if you wanted to build a residential golf course community, you would be required to have a minimum density, say .5 dwelling units per acre. Since your base density right now is one per 5, to acquire that, you would have to purchase TDRs. So it's not a bonus. You've got to go out and buy them -- it would force -- for lack of any better way to explain it, it would be a forced market for the TDR. It would enhance the likelihood of that moving forward. MR. RICHARDSON: However, they still get the one per 5. MR. MULHERE: They get their base, yes. MR. RICHARDSON: So it's something more than they would have gotten. MR. MULHERE: No, they have -- they have 1 per 5 right now, but if they're in a receiving land, they're already allowed to go out and acquire TDRs to go up to 1 per 1. So they're not getting anything more. They're being required to purchase a minimum for the golf course, yeah. It's not any bonus. They're not getting anything more than any -- they're actually having a regulation imposed on them requiring them to go and purchase the minimum density under that provision. . Well, e va ue o go f courses in s coon , i would seem that that would be an incentive just to build a golf course? February 7, 2002 16J1 MR. MULHERE: Well, you could do it either way. I guess the point is this: Without that provision, someone can go build a freestanding golf course and not have any reason to acquire TDRs, or they can build a golf course with residential at the existing base density and not have any incentive to acquire TDRs. Now to be fair, Dr. Nicholas didn't think that that was a -- a major issue. He felt there was enough economic incentive that folks would use the TDR process, but others have raised this as an issue, and that's why we raised it. I don't know if you have any speakers on this issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Does anybody want to be heard on the golf course issue? Mr. Cornell? If there's anybody else, please line up over here by the door. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society again. Just very briefly, I would concur with some of the recommendations that Bob Mulhere suggested, that equating golf course -- if you want to build a golf course in the rural fringe, that you -- you be required to buy TDR units because, you know, Collier County has plenty of evidence that golf courses at low density get built just with the present market. So I think we do need -- I think it would be very good to have incentive to protect sending lands through requirement of TDR purchase. And, also, I like the idea of -- of a minimum density of a half unit per acre where you have to go buy TDRs to get to that from the -- from the base density. I think that's a good idea. I think that's one way we can draw in some of those TDR units that we want to buy off of the sending areas. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Mr. Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, members of the Planning ommission. Tim Hancock with anasse ay or. One of the inherent problems in what's being proposed is that Page 70 February 7, 2002 J w when TDR programs are introduced, rarely are they successful. In a few cases they have been successful when the purchase is mandated. Mr. Richardson, you asked a question that I think is very important; that is, well, don't they have more now than they would have had previously, and the answer, sir, is no. The receiving lands have been designated receiving lands because their environmental quality is deemed to be of a much lesser value or nearly nonexistent value than the other lands in the balance of the area. Previous to the -- the interim development standards that were required by the administration commission, you can build a golf course in 1 unit per 5 acres. It was generally perceived that that kind of low density golf course development is not desirable as a buildout condition for the county. What this does is instead of .2 units per acre, it makes it .4 units an acre. It's not very different. If it was undesirable as a buildout condition at one unit per 5 with a golf course, why is it desirable at 2 units per 5 makes no sense to me. What it is is it's forcing anyone who wants to build a golf course to be a participant in the TDR program. It is taking something they had as a right prior to the order and now saying in order to enjoy that right, you have to make our TDR program work. Either TD -- the TDR program should stand alone and work as Dr. Nicholas has said that it would work, or it shouldn't. We should incentivise people to partake of the TDR program, not mandate it. My concern is you're mandating participation in the TDR program. Those are my comments. Thank you. MR. ADELSTEIN: My -- I wrote the same thing you did, just said. I can't conceive of how you have a right to take away my right, the land I own, that I want to build a golf course on and tell me now I on get that unit per 5 acres; ave to buy that right a second time. If we want to look for a lawsuit, I think we would find one right there. Page 71 February 7, 2002 1 6J1 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner Adelstein, if I may, Bob, just real quickly, and then I'll be done. One of the problems is the end product is really not where we want to be going as a community anyway. MR. ADELSTEIN: That's my point. MR. HANCOCK: There are areas in which we can incentivise property owners to build in a manner that's constructive and positive in these receiving areas. I don't think this gets us to that point. So all it is a mandate and forced requirement on people who want to develop golf courses, and I believe the program either works or doesn't work on its own. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Tim, I just wanted to -- I just wanted to add, Mr. Adelstein, I think you indicated a couple times -- probably it wasn't clear -- we were not proposing this. We were not proposing this. MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, I get the -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. Okay. But I did want to indicate that the EAC, for example, did have a recommendation to support the concept of having a minimum density associated with golf courses that is tied to the TDR program, so it's an issue, and that's why I raised it. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. STRAIN: Tim, with the receiving areas being designated as going to be developed in some manner, what would -- where is the incentive to develop them as rural villages and towns like the concept is if they can just be developed as golf courses? MR. HANCOCK: The incentive -- and -- and I think we can address it more fully when we get to that section. But the incentive actually for rural villages lies in an actual density bonus, that if you agree o a p icu ar s e o eve opmen w is is consis en wi new urbanism and smart growth, if you agree to develop with that Page 72 February 7, 2002 concept, you receive a bonus. 16J1 MR. STRAIN: But I think that Bonita Bay and Twin Eagles have shown us that while we can offer that concept, the preference is golf courses and that they're probably more profitable than affordable housing in rural towns at marginal value when you can pay three or four hundred thousand dollars for a membership in a golf club and make a lot more money. MR. HANCOCK: There's no question that current market shows that it works at 1 unit per 5 acres. My question is, if -- unless you're going to eliminate that ability altogether, to require it to go from .2 units an acre to .4 units an acre, when the final product is not terribly different than the Twin Eagles style of development, why would you mandate that on a property owner just to build a golf course? It doesn't change the character of the -- MR. STRAIN: Well, at least we get some environmental benefit out of it; that may be the reason. By getting the TDR process involved, the TDR process starts to work, and there's some environmental incentive there. At least there's some properties that are re -- you know, set aside after that. MR. HANCOCK: I don't disagree with that statement. I'm more concerned with the mandate. In order to build a golf course, that you have to build a slightly higher low- density development. It does -- it seems to get away from the concept of -- of better planning for future communities. MR. MIDNEY: Aren't you doubling it, though, by going from .2 to .4? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. But .4 units an acre is still an extremely low density. 1 11 a is a market -- w a y oww is the ideal market for a golf course community -- what density seems Page 73 February 7, 2002 16J1 to be most profitable? MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately, Commissioner Midney, they run the gamut from as low as what you've seen with Bonita Bay Group at Twin Eagles at 1 per 5 acres. They've shown that works. I think that surprised a lot of people. I think that caught a lot of people in this room off guard. They weren't aware that you could actually be profitable at that low a density. Low density in golf course communities are not exclusive or nor are they tied specifically. Many golf course communities will develop out a density of 3 and 4 units an acre such as what you see from U.S. Home where they package the golf course with residences. So it runs the gamut. There's no one single magic bullet. MR. MIDNEY: My understanding was that the problem is that we only have a certain amount of receiving lands and we don't want them to be taken up by a lot of low density golf courses. Is that my -- is that correct? MR. MULHERE: I -- I -- if I can. MR. HANCOCK: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I would think that that's not so much the issue. That may be the issue for some people. I don't think that's so much the issue for us. We have identified_ a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre in receiving lands. We have identified the receiving lands as the location where we want to send the development. The issue for -- the issue as I see it is whether or not a minimum density associated with this use would enhance the TDR program. And, as I said, we have not proposed that, but the issue was raised and voted on by the EAC, and others have raised the issue. It's really a question -- I think you can do that. I don't think there's any way -- ere s any-prohibition on you, you ow, a ac ing some m�rumum density for golf courses. I mean, that -- that's a land development Page 74 February 7, 2002 16JI regulation you could have. If it so happens the only way you can achieve it is through a TDR, then you have to go out and purchase those TDRs. It's just a policy discussion really at this point as to whether or not you think it's worthwhile to mandate that. And Mr. Hancock is absolutely correct. Really, this -- this program is largely based on incentive and voluntary participation and is largely based on the expert opinion by Dr. Nicholas that there is sufficient economic incentive for people to participate in the program. And there's some incentives built in. MR. STRAIN: Bob, is -- are golf courses considered open space? MR. MULHERE: Yes, they are. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Then that brings up a question there. You call parks open space and passive recreational uses on all the nonNRPA sending lands, the sending lands, and the conservation designated lands on your chart. And I'm wondering when you previously said they were moved strictly to receiving lands -- MR. MULHERE: They are. Other types of open space are permitted in there, not golf courses. Golf courses are expressly prohibited. So, you know, you go to the code -- you go to the comprehensive plan, and golf courses are expressly prohibited in sending lands, but other types of open space would be permitted. Just because we use the word "open space" doesn't mean that you can't restrict that open space. MR. STRAIN: But, in your mind, open space is golf course -- MR. MULHERE: Under the definition in the Land Development Code, golf courses may be counted towards your required open space. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Agosten, are you up again? s a -all rig . CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yup. Page 75 February 7, 2002 I 16JI MR. AGOSTEN: I don't want to impose on you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go right ahead. MR. AGOSTEN: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ty Agosten. No. Just make it gentleman -- let me keep it that way. One of the problems of allowing county -paid staff to get involved in activities against the taxpayers is that they take it as a blank license to apply the same freedom on a number of areas. And the way they were let loose against the taxpayers in the sales tax promotion kind of spread across to other issues. A transfer of development rights, gentlemen, has only worked in two areas of the country: In New Jersey and in Delaware. The entire proceedings here are going along on a basis that the county commissioners will approve the transfer of development rights concept. To be honest with you, anything that works in New Jersey I have found very doubtful that it would work in Florida. But that's an opinion. The transfer of development rights have been practiced with very, very poor results across the country some -- 135 or some -- in that neighborhood areas unsuccessfully. And who paid for that unsuccessful experimentation was the landowner or the taxpayer. It wasn't the staff who proposed it. We are, here dealing with and trying to prohibit the developments of golf courses. Why? Because it has been found in a number of instances that in Collier County you develop a golf courses, and a development will work profitably by building one home per 5 acres. Consequently, the environmental community and the coastal wealthy of our community do not want any eastward extension -- well, let me add the Naples Dailv News to that list -- do not want any eastward development. Consequently, they will try to prohibit whatever mechanism the private community comes up with in order to gain success use ou oflKeirland. For you -- and I'm as a -- even this whole issue I find a shell Page 76 February 7, 20021 6 J 1 a game where Bob is standing there, and I have listened to him some 50 times for what 3 -hour length each time on various issues. And now he doesn't mention that the rural fringe area assessment committee has not approved the concept of transfer -- transfer of development rights. And, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm not exactly sure just exactly what kind of a technical background do you own to be passing judgment against a number of people who had already made a judgment about this. Thank you very much. MR. STRAIN: Wait a minute, sir. We've got a three -ring bind r here that is supposed to be a result of the Rural Fringe Committee's 0, 60 meetings. You're telling us now that that isn't the case? They didn't approve any of this? MR. AGOSTEN: No, I didn't say that. What I have said, that the Rural Fringe Assessment Committee did not approve the concept of the transfer of development rights. MR. STRAIN: Well, that's what the whole book's basically based on. I mean, that's -- MR. AGOSTEN: Well, now, I'm from New York. So, you know, it depends on which game you want to play. MR. STRAIN: I don't want to play any games. I'm trying to find out an answer. MR. AGOSTEN: Okay. Well, you talk to the staff, and the staff will tell you that the success of this entire operation is based on the using of transfer of development rights. Well, in that case the whole trust of the study was flawed because it did not pass our committee, did not pass. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you, Mr. Agosten. MR. STRAIN: You attended the meetings as well? MR. MULHERE: Sure. a was your a on it? MR. MULHERE: The committee voted, with eight members Page 77 February 7, 2002 16JI seated and two vacancies, to remove the TDR program from the rural fringe process. That motion failed because it was 4 to 4. There was no final motion to approve the TDR program from the committee. Notwithstanding the committee's position, we're still going to carry forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners because we feel very strongly that it will work exceptionally well. We think it is an important part of the process. We have expert testimony to support us in that opinion. It has worked in more than two places. I don't know if Mr. Ty Agosten is an expert on TDRs or not, but I know Dr. Nicholas is, and he will be here for the board presentation. In addition to that, it is a key component. It's a key component relative to allowing some opportunity for compensation to those property owners where we've affected their property rights. So in that respect it is a key component. We are put -- suggesting something that will, at the very least, enhance their opportunity to recoup -- recoup some value. Now, we agree that it has not worked well in many places. That's why we asked Dr. Nicholas to tell us what components were necessary to ensure or increase the likelihood of this process working, and we have included those components. In addition to that, we have suggested that it will need to be monitored, and it will need to be monitored on a regular basis to see if it is working. And if it is not working well, we will need to tweak that. And the second step in this process after we adopt the policies that will allow for the creation of this TDR program is to actually create it, although this is off the subject of golf courses particularly but, you know, since it was brought up. MR. STRAIN: I just -- I had to follow up on that statement, and wane o m e sure we were here for a reason. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Mulhere, I don't in -- intend Page 78 February 7, 200 16JI for you to engage in a debate with Mr. Agosten. I think it's inappropriate for you to bait him about what his credentials are. Mr. Agosten, on your part, I'm not going to allow you to engage in these philosophical polemics or criticisms of motives of some of the staff members. Just get up and tell us what your position is on an issue without any of the extraneous stuff. MR. AGOSTEN: I'm sorry. I'm wasting your time, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Woodruff. Dr. Woodruff, excuse me. MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you. Although you are supposed to be discussing golf courses, you've gotten into the issue of TDRs. And since that is another hot topic, I would like to make just a comment on that. Again, Richard Woodruff with Wilson, Miller for the record. Wilson, Miller through me did a study of transfer of development rights. It was presented to the Rural Fringe Committee. What that study shows is that there are a number of communities that have had TDR programs. For example, Dade County currently has one. Collier County currently has one. Lee and Charlotte County currently have one. And what we identified in those studies were also presented to Dr. Nicholas, and he concurred in the points. TDR programs normally fail where there is too much government decision in the process. What our study showed and what Dr. Nicholas certainly says in his experience and study is that a transfer of development right program works best where there is surety, where it is the same process. Once the regulations are adopted, it is the same as taking out a building permit. There are no legislative actions necessary. There are no public hearings necessary. Now, for the record, the -- I sat through all 53 meetings of the �ur�ringe ommi ee. cane you e reason w y e committee was split 4 to 4 was not the basic premise of TDRs. It was Page 79 February 7, 2002 16JI the fact that the program as currently proposed has in it the following language for sending: It says that you can either transfer your development rights at 1 unit per 5 acres, or you can build on your property in the sending area at 1 unit per parcel recorded as of June 22nd, 1999. Now, that doesn't say you can build 1 unit per 5 acres as it is zoned. What it says is that if I owned 5 acres, I get 1 unit to build on, or I can send that unit away. What it further says, though, if any of you own 50 acres, you have the right to send 10 units or to build 1 house on the 50 acres. And I will tell you, that is where the issue broke down with the planning -- with the fringe committee. It wasn't over the value or the lack of merit of the TDR program. The four votes -- Mr. Agosten was certainly one of them. And he has told you why he voted. I do not see any of the other members here, but I can tell you that they are Ray Pelletier (phonetic), Gary Hayes, and David Bryant. They voted with Mr. Agosten against the motion to include it because of that added language that if you chose not to transfer in -- from the sending, then you were limited to one unit per parcel. Thank you for letting me clarify the record. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Woodruff. MR. WOODRUFF: Yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: Would you -- because I don't know these people. I know Mr. Agosten and his background, but can you tell me what Bryant and Pelletier what their interests were -- what interests they represented in this process? MR. WOODRUFF: Let me say what they do for a living. I don't know what interest they would represent. David Bryant is a former county attorney and is in private practice as an attorney. To the best o my owe ge, e does very uni e land-use wor on ow. I -- I have not seen him do that. Page 80 February 7, 2002 164 Ray Pelletier is a nursery man who owns his own nursery on Immokalee Road but not in the rural fringe area, immediately adjacent to it. Mr. Hayes, to be quite frankly with you, I don't know what he does. Do you? MR. MULHERE: He's a plumbing contractor. MR. WOODRUFF: He's a plumbing contractor. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The next issue? MR. MULHERE: If you'll go back, Bill? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: More on golf? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, can't get away from that. Buffering of natural reservations, this -- I'm really going to defer to Bill on this issue to talk about what the staff recommendation is, and then we have -- well, here it is right here. The current proposal from the staff is 300 feet, but that could be increased because we would propose to require a hydrologic assessment in conjunction with the development adjacent to that natural reservation, which, by the way, is a conservation area or a NRPA. That's what that term refers to, conservation or NRPA. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And so at the time of looking at the development, the county would require this hydrologic study, and that 300 feet may or may not need to be increased. That's a minimum. If it needed to be increased, it would -- it would need to be increased based on potential impacts to the natural hydrology and the wetlands, and there would be a modeling program that would occur to identify that. The EAC recommended -- took a motion to require a half -mile buffer -- oh, by the way, that 300 feet could also be increased if there were listed species. There are management plans for listed species. -or examp e, or a a eag e, i mig a ee om a nes . So if you were within proximity to a bald eagle's nest, you may have Page 81 February 7 2016J1 14 wo to increase that buffer. And the other species have different management plans and the buffer widths. The EAC voted to recommend a one -half mile of buffer in -- and I'll go to the map over here -- in Areas A and D. That -- that really is a pretty simple issue. I don't know if there are anybody -- any speakers that would like to talk -- MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Mulhere -- MR. STRAIN: No problem. MR. RICHARDSON: -- I'm searching for the language, and you can find it. It says 300 feet could be adjusted more or less. What are the conditions under which it could go down to zero, for instance? MR. MULHERE: I'd have to defer to Bill on that. MR. LORENZ: I'm sorry. Could you repeat your question, please. MR. RICHARDSON: The stan -- the standards for buffering that are in our book here say that it can be 300 feet, but then it can be adjusted either up or down. And I wonder what circumstance the down -- 300 would seem maybe reasonable if it was a -- a lower limit. But if you can take it back to zero, why have a -- why have a standard? MR. LORENZ:. __This _ -- the summary slide is correct in the__sense it's 300 feet. That's for -- that's for a particular set of open -- of -- of uses that we've listed on page 31. One intent is to try to -- is to require that your open space, certain, if you will, non -- certain passive types of open space be adjacent to the boundary. Now, there are certain -- certain kinds of open space that we specified that in no case those be located closer than the 300 foot to the boundary. So that's -- that's -- that's -- that's a little bit of the -- if you will, the -- the more precise -- precise language and wording that you ave o look on page 31 in your -- m your -- m your oo . MR. STRAIN: In the three -ring binder? Page 82 February 7, 2002' i 6J1 MR. LORENZ: Yes, in your binder, correct, under the conservation and coastal management element. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Does that answer your question? MR. RICHARDSON: Well, it just says that you can go less than 300 feet if it was a residential yard. Is that -- is that the sense of it? MR. LORENZ: No. I'd say in no case shall these be located closer than 300 feet. MR. RICHARDSON: Residential yard areas may be located closer than 300 feet to the natural reservation -- MR. LORENZ: Oh, yes, for the residential yard, that's correct. As long as you have a separation like a fence that's specified there, that's correct. MR. STRAIN: Well, then you don't have a buffer if you've got a residential yard. MR. LORENZ: Well, our -- the -- the rationale there is that a residential yard would -- would be an appropriate buffer for the natural reservation. We would -- we would want to have the fence to make sure that -- that any domestic animals -- or you'd have to have a separation point there. But that's the -- that's the -- that's the -- work through -- as we work through the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee to come up with a set of standards that would address .a. series of different kinds of open spaces. MR. STRAIN: You also have golf courses allowed in this area? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. The adjacent -- the -- the golf course rough, the natural area, could be adjacent to the boundary itself. MR. STRAIN: And wouldn't that encourage the 1 -to -5 -acre development that could go around the outside of that area? I mean, then everybody's got a house on a golf course, which is what everybody wants, at least it seems. 1VIIZ: LORENZ. WeI , m no sure w e er i wou encourage i or not. But as I said, we're trying to maintain that separation with February 7, 200216 J 1 open spaces between the -- the boundary and the -- and the -- and the more intensive uses of the project. MR. RICHARDSON: If the BCC came along and agreed -- happened to agree with the EAC position that it should be a half mile, how -- do you see that able to be implemented in a -- some reasonable fashion? MR. LORENZ: I believe that they recommend it with their half mile to just simply allow a rural development pattern. So you could still -- at that particular point you could still have a residential house with a yard up against the boundaries. That wouldn't make any difference there. The -- the -- the concept with a project in the receiving lands is that the -- the residential components would be clustered away from the -- the boundary. That's what -- that's what would be -- that would be the -- that would be the desirable out -- outcome. MR. STRAIN: Would you have any -- and, Bob, you kind of touched on this. Would you have any problem with the buffer being as wide as it would take to assure that there's no water table draw- down of the wetland edge? MR. MULHERE: I thought that was the intent of the language, isn't it, Bill? _ _ ____ -- - -_ -- .... _ MR. LORENZ: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: The -- I guess that's on page 32, parentheses 4. What staff is recommending there is -- is basically an analysis that would have to be performed at the South Florida Water Management District, does require to ensure that you don't have an adverse draw - down from a -- from a project from setting water control elevations, that you don't have that adverse draw -down on a -- a nearby wetland. s a -- a s the procedure ffi-al were recommen mg as opposed to try to set some type of presumptive number that will be Page 84 February 7, 2002 much dependent on the -- the site circumstances. 16J1*-1_A'i very mu p �. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Again, I'm not sure if there are folks in the public that want to speak to this issue. MR. AGOSTEN: Ty Agosten again. You have passed the various areas defined as NRPAs or natural preserve, whatever the acronym stands for. It has not been pointed out to you that North Belle Meade has not been approved by the committee to be included as a NRPA. The staff has recommended the air -- the area to be a NRPA. And if you go back to -- at a time of the Southern Belle Meade was essentially condemned to be a NRPA, at that time The Conservancy have specified that North Belle Meade is not an environmentally sensitive area. As a matter of fact, they specifically excluded North Belle Meade. I also want you to be aware that North Belle Meade contains some 534 property owners. So you'll be pushing around your neighbors. You're not talking about somebody just living somewhere. You're talking about 534 people who dreams of building a retirement home. And you're going to tell them that you're going to give them something for nothing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think we're going to _talk about_ Belle Meade sometime. MR. RICHARDSON: We're still on buffering, so -- MR. CORNELL: Hi. Brad Cornell again. I see what's happening here, and I have a -- some written input that might help make this a little more succinct, if I may pass this out. And I -- I want to add on the point of buffering that I recommend in there that -- Collier County Audubon recommends that we explicitly state that our goal is no water table draw -down at the wetland edge, ra er an bus a er o e a er - anagemen is 'c process. us so that it's clear that this is our goal. Page 85 February 7, 200 6 J 1 *74 And in addition to that -- I don't say anything in there -- but it is the EA -- EAC had talked -- talked about this. And I think it would be a very good idea to consider the needs of fire management in natural reserves. We need to have buffering of any development adjacent to natural reserves to allow for fire management, and that's an important consideration. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: The receiving area, the rural fringe mixed -use receiving area, does require property owners to 40 acres or greater to establish a fire management plan and to work with those public land managers in the establishment of that plan. So that would be part of the zoning process. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Hancock, are you appearing on this issue as an individual or as a representative of a property owner? MR. HANCOCK: I'm appearing on this issue as a representative of a property owner. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Lorenz and I think is important to get on the record, the required buffer, whether -- and obviously for this property owner, 300 feet versus the half mile would be a preference. If property is located in the urban boundary but is adjacent to a NRPA, does this requirement extend to lands in the urban boundary? MR. LORENZ: Yes, it would. MR. HANCOCK: So we are taking urban land out of production to provide a buffer for the -- a natural resource protection area? MR. LORENZ: Well, the urban land would have to follow these requirements in terms of the buffering standards for the land that would be outside the urban boundary, correct. That answers my question. ThanK you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. February 7, 20016 11-14 MR. DUEVER (phonetic): My name is Michael Duever, and I'm speaking as someone who's lived and worked in Collier County for most of the past 28 years. My work has dealt largely with studying wetlands and the hydrology that supports these wetlands. An important aspect of the rural fringe planning process is protection of natural features, particularly wetlands within the rural fringe area. The current plan does a good job of keeping development out of most important natural areas. However, there is one aspect that does not seem to have been adequately taken into consideration in developing boundaries or at least uses within receiving areas, at least until the EAC made their recommendation that you see here. This aspect has to do with the effects of hydrologic alteration of developed areas on adjacent protected natural features. The best available scientific evidence indicates that drainage associated with development can extend a half to 2 miles into adjacent lands, including those that we are trying to protect. Drainage is very important to natural lands. The types of plant and animal communities that are present in an area exist largely because of the hydrology of that area. And over the long term, these communities will be impacted in proportion to the degree of hydrologic change that occurs in areas adjacent to them. This is significant in terms of how land is developed in proximity to areas that are being set aside for protection, particularly the NRPAs. An example of this problem is portions of receiving Area A at the north end of the rural fringe area which lies adjacent to Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the CREW lands. Development that does not affect hydrology currently exists in the Big Corkscrew Island community. There are a lot of people living without drainage in this area. This is not a problem. However, I don't uiderstand now Vue increase ensi in receiving areas wou e possible without draining the areas to be developed, if not initially, Page 87 February 7, 2002 16 J 1 then at some time in the future when flooding inev -- inevidentably is going to occur. Thus, if these portions of receiving Area A close to Corkscrew Swamp and CREW are developed at allowable densities, we can expect drainage to affect portions of these areas. This would suggest that these areas within one mile, more or less, depending on the area and what the proposed study would show, within one mile or more -- or more or less of Corkscrew Swamp or CREW not be included in the receiving area or, if they are included, they should be developed in a manner that does not require drainage, either before or after the site is developed. This concept would also apply to the other NRPAs, such as Belle Meade. And some people just mentioned the idea of fire in these systems. I brought this up at some of the meetings that we've had, at least one of the meetings, anyway. And the point isn't so much -- is -- is partially fire hazard with a dryer condition in the developed areas, such as these 40 -acre parcels. But, also, when you change the hydrology of places like CREW or Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, if you drain them, functionally you're also going to increase the fire frequency and severity in these areas. Fires will impact these areas in a way that will adversely affect them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Can I ask you a question, please, sir? I understand the concerns you've raised and also the sense of what the EAC has recommended by trying to put some -- some numbers on this buffering. But I'm also somewhat persuaded by the language that we've been given from staff that says -- and I'm sure you've read it, but I just want to get your take on it, that proposed development shall demonstrate. That means on a site - specific basis we'd have a process that the groundwater -- the groundwater table draw -downs or aversions win not a verse y impac e na a reserva ion. Now, perhaps you're saying that can't -- that's not reasonable to -- February 7, 2002 1 6JI to do, but if it were and this is a standard that we apply, doesn't that solve everybody's problem? MR. DUEVER: Yes, I think it was. And the main point of my being here today is to get the idea out that we're talking about something on the order of a mile to two miles. There's places like in south Golden Gate Estates that the Fakahatchee Strand people have been monitoring for, what, 14, 15 years now where you can see effects going out over 2 miles into Fakahatchee Strand from the edge of south Golden Gate Estates. And some of the work we've done up around Corkscrew has shown draw -downs associated actually with shell beds, natural shell beds in the landscape there, that go out a half a mile. So I'm just trying to provide some support for the idea that the distances from drainage that we're talking about. MR. RICHARDSON: Perhaps rather than focusing on a specific number which kind of gets us into trouble, we can look at effect and cause that to be cared for at the development point. It seems to me that's the best solution. MR. DUEVER: Right. I think what -- the idea that Bill mentioned of doing some modeling to try and figure out what those distances are would be an excellent approach to try and nail that down specifically in different portions of the area. MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much, sir. MR. MULHERE: Next item, Bill. Okay. Natural resource protection areas, there's a couple of issues here. One Mr. Agosten raised was relative to the North Belle Meade. And it is true that the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee did not vote o me u e the North 13 e�iie Mea a as a s i indicated earlier, it was identified as a study area at the interim process Page 89 February 7, 2002 16J1 and that the reason it was identified as a study area was to require further analysis to determine whether, in fact, it should be a NRPA and what those boundaries should be. The committee, as well as the staff, relative to this issue was also waiting to hear whether or not there was a resolution between one of the large -- one of the major property owners in the North Belle Meade and outside of the north -- projected North Belle Meade NRPA areas and the intervenors, the Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society. And so I -- I would have to say to be fair that it's my position or my belief that the committee would have dealt with this issue perhaps differently if they had had an opportunity to address and look at what the resolution between those two parties was, but that only got resolved, as I understand it, yesterday. So I do believe that they deferred, really, taking some action until they were able to find out what that process would result in, and they were not able to find that before they completed their task, so they did not take any motion on that. The staff recommendation, of course, is that North Belle Meade be a NRPA. I think it would be appropriate at this time if the Planning Commission thinks that it's a good idea to hear from Mr. Anderson and the -- the intervenors as to what strategies they've agreed on in terms -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think this would be a very good idea. Your previous slide, though, talked about the zero to 1 mile -- MR. MULHERE: And that's another issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's just in -- south, is it? MR. MULHERE: That's in the South Belle Meade, correct, or what's called the Belle Meade N .PA. I�AI orrec . ou MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Page 90 February 7, 2002 16J1 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Who wants to go first? Nancy or Bruce? Since you -all are such good friends, come up together. MR. RICHARDSON: This is a sight I've been waiting to see for years. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. Actually, I thought we had a -- a plan here, and Robert was going to go first and -- so I'll defer to Robert because he knows what the lineup should be. I've just put on here the map that we've decided upon that you -- you can look at. And I also think it was -- think it was distributed correctly. You also have your own personal copy of the map. Yes. MR. DUANE: For the record, my name is Robert Duane from Hole, Montes and Associates. You have before you a draft of the proposal that we are calling a sector plan for the 15,000 acres that are located more or less in the Belle Meade sector planning area. It's a relatively significant area in size. It actually encompasses about 15 to 20 percent of the study area for the rural fringe. We've worked with the Wildlife Federation and Audubon over the past year to try to come up with an agreement that will not only satisfy my clients' interests but, hopely, the community at large. Our client, as was previously noted, is one of the larger landowners in the North Bee -- Belle Meade area, owns approximately 3,000 acres with about half of it located in the NRPA area. My client has agreed to give up certain rights of his lands in the NRPA area in exchange for some enhancements on his lands in the receiving area. And the three parties are in agreement with the proposal that's before you. I know that the environmental groups are hopeful with the 1400 acres awe re giving our eve opmen ng sup in a no -- in e -- in the NRPA area will be a catalyst for them to -- able to purchase Page 91 February 7, 2002 16 J 1 additional lands as time goes on, and that was always one of their objectives, was to -- particularly the eastern portions of the Belle Meade area were -- was to try to preserve those areas for wildlife and habitat. That's just a overview of the agreement. There are provisions for rural villages, somewhat smaller than there are -- than there are in other locations in the rural fringe area. We're also making provisions to ultimately extend Wilson Boulevard to the south or at least provide the right -of -way for that so we can have some better connectivity between northern Golden Gate Estates and areas along Landfill Road and leading out to I -75. And we have a number of provisions for things like wildlife crossings and -- and the like that I'm sure Miss Payton can go into somewhat more detail than I will this morning. But that's just a brief overview, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I just -- I conclude by saying that the NRPA portions of this plan comprise about 5,000 acres and are generally located in the eastern portion of the study area. And we have about an equal amount of areas of what you're designating as sending areas on the map that's before you, including some sections for receiving areas. And that concludes my short presentation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain has a question for you. MR. STRAIN: I have -- on your MBM sector plan, I do have quite a few questions, but I think some can be answered by the -- towards the ends of your presentation. Before you walk away, I definitely would like to ask you some questions. So let's just finish up then. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I don't have any particular prepared comments. I did want to tell you our emp asis or pro ec ing is area is ecause i s signs scan re cockaded woodpecker habitat. Panthers have used this area. In fact, a Page 92 February 7, 2002 16JI female panther gave birth to several kittens in North Belle Meade. Part of our goal is to connect North Belle Meade with South Belle Meade, both for wildlife use and for human use to connect those large areas and also eventually to connect it through that most southern part of northern Golden Gate Estates through protecting some sort of wildlife pass to the panther refuge. And so it fits into a larger land conservation program. We -- we were also encouraged with the concept of rural villages because we know that northern Golden Gate Estates needs some services. We know that there are problems for the school board in terms of finding large areas in North Belle Meade to site schools -- or, excuse me, in northern Golden Gate Estates for school sitings. So our hope is that the school siting can be within the rural village or near the rural village to augment that growth because in -- in the challenge for - - that brought about this planning effort, schools were an issue, and the judge did rule that if you built a school, people will come. And we see schools as being one of those magnets that will pull together the rural village and make it more of a success. That summarizes what I have to say. I -- I wasn't planning on going into specifics. And maybe it's easier for us just to respond to your questions to clarify what we've done or what we haven't done or why we came to the decisions that we did. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is the North Belle Meade NRPA as a result of your negotiations the same size as it was? MS. PAYTON: I can't tell you immediately whether it's acre for acre the same. We did do it a little bit differently. We did square off - - if you notice, our lines are by section lines or quarter or half - section lines. That was a decision that we thought that was an easier -- easier planning tool for property owners and -- and citizens, quite frankly. i s reac g -- on ow i e -- -- can answer. MR. DUANE: More or less the same size. We made some Page 93 16J1 February 7, 2002 minor adjustments to the boundary. We -- they're not significant. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In the interest of moving along, it seems to me if one of you could summarize what your agreement boils down to and salient points, it would be more expedient than us probing around while we're leafing through this thing trying to ask questions. So can somebody do -- put a little embellishment on what the newspaper had to say this morning? MS. PAYTON: I'll -- I'll defer to Bruce because he finalized the document. MR. STRAIN: He does get along with the newspaper well. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, for the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent East Naples Land Company, James Brown, Jr., trustee. He owns approximately 2800 acres in the North Belle Meade area. Half of this acreage is in a proposed NRPA. I would reiterate the fact that there is not a NRPA there today. And the other half are in proposed receiving lands. I want to point out that Mr. Brown is the only property owner in North Belle Meade who has fought any proposed NRPA in North Belle Meade. And he is an intervenor with party status in the pending NRPA challenge that is pending before the First District Court of Appeal. So he stands unique among other property owners in North Belle Meade in that respect. We have worked closely and collaboratively with Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society over the past several months in an attempt to resolve differences with these groups concerning their desire to have a NRPA designation imposed on a portion of North Belle Meade. We have reached an agreement that balances protecting the environment and protecting private property rights. as wee in a p o your agenda packet, you receive a nex - to -final draft of an -- of the agreement. It's our proposal that -- that we Page 94 February 7, 200Z' 6J1 work from. What I distributed to you a few moments ago is the final version where the changes that are different from what were in your agenda packet are shown by strike - through and highlighting. They are minor changes. Specifically, I would direct your attention to pages 2 through 6 and page 9 are the only changes. You asked me to encapsulate this agreement, and I'll just put it very straightforward and succinctly. My client is willing to give up his rights to develop 1400 acres, half of his holdings, within the proposed NRPA. But in return, if he's going to do that, he wants to be able to use the other half of his property unfettered and to count the NRPA lands towards meeting requirements in the receiving lands. And it's just as simple as that. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Anderson, to the extent that you have numbers and factors in here in your agreement, if it turns out that the final version of this TDR plan, as it probably comes out on the other end of the sausage grinder with the BCC, if it's different than that then this -- then this agreement would have to be reworked, or perhaps we don't have an agreement at all. MR. ANDERSON: No. This is designed as a stand -alone agreement. This is a specific plan for North Belle Meade. It applies where there is conflict with anything else. So it's a stand -alone so that my client understands and gets what he bargained for. MR. RICHARDSON: That's the certainty that you're looking for. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: It seems from a county standpoint, though, if we set up a different set of criteria for one owner, that -- that prejudices our ability to do that to -- MR. ANDERSON: It's not one owner. MR. RICHARDSON: Just complete with staff. It would seem ��e tha wou -- we ave o ave s a wor oge er, ess you're talking about a contract that's apart -- this is contract zoning in Page 95 February 7, 2002 16J1 4� an effect? MR. MULHERE: No, it's -- it's a sector plan. It would apply to all property owners within that area. It is largely, largely similar to what we're proposing in other areas of the fringe. There are a couple of differences. The rural village size that they're proposing is a little bit smaller. They're getting some credits for transferring some stuff from the lands adjacent to it. But largely, from my view, from what -- you know, the few hours I've had to take a look at it, it's very similar to the staff proposal in other areas, receiving and sending. Generally, I -- I haven't seen anything that jumps out that would cause us to have any concerns with it, and it would apply to all property owners within that sector plan. The size -- there's about 5,000 areas outside of the NRPA? MR. DUANE: 10,000 acres outside of the NRPA. MR. MULHERE: So it's pretty significant and -- excuse me. But I think Mr. Anderson's client only owns 1400 of those acres. MR. STRAIN: Bob or Bruce or whoever, I've got quite a few questions I need to ask. MR. CORNELL: I was going to -- just before you ask questions, Mark, I was going to say that one of the features of this -- and to answer your question, Mr. Richardson, is that it's a sector plan that that provides much more specific planning than we can in the rest of the Growth Management Plan. This is something that provides much more surety and clearer expectations, both for the community and for the landowners who are in that area, and for the protection of the resources, which was the whole point of the exercise. And, in fact, that's the whole point of this entire big exercise. This is just a much more specific execution of that -- of that exercise and hopefully we'll - - we'll encourage more of this kind of -- of planning, sector planning, in the ei wecana si owna e a ean o a. MR. RICHARDSON: Is that the road we're headed down then Page 96 February 7, 2002 6JI with Bill -- Bill Lorenz, is sector planning take these broad concepts and go down and work out contracts with individual landowners that has varying -- varying degrees of protection, maybe a little more here, a little less there? That's a can of worms, in my mind. MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm -- I'm not a planning expert. So when you start talking about the planning concerns, I might have to defer to Bob on it. I can tell you, however, from a natural resources perspective, there would be areas in the county that have a different kind of natural resource combinations and a different kind of land uses. To some degree that's why we've bifurcated the process from the rural fringe lands and the eastern lands. And -- and they're going to come up with a set of strategies that's going to be different from the rural fringe. So from a natural resources perspective, I don't have a -- I don't have a problem knowing that there are going to be different strategies for different areas in the county because the natural resources are different. Now, when it comes down to issues of -- of zoning that -- that you're speaking of, I really need to defer to Bob or some land planner on that. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, they flow from the standards that you're proposing and from the objectives that are now included -- have been changed and are now in our growth -- proposed to be in the Growth Management Plan. So I just -- I just worry, maybe needlessly, that -- I'm sure what they've done is beautiful and perfect, but if it doesn't apply in other places -- MR. MULHERE: It doesn't need to. There can be some changes within a sector or an area, and that's what -- I mean, the differences are relatively minor. But, you know, what we're trying to accomplish here is getting mrough is process in a wa-y-ffi--at protects ffie -n-aitffal resources and balances private property rights. This does that. This Page 97 February 7, 2002 does that. 16J1 In this sector area it's slightly different as a result of this negotiation, but we don't -- we don't have a problem with that. I mean, these people were participants and intervenors in the process and negotiated these terms which largely are -- concur with everything that we're recommending. There's a couple little differences. But, like I said, the rural village size is a little smaller. And, by the way, that may come up in the discussion later. And maybe we'll even hear that that is to a greater degree after you hear about rural villages. I don't -- I don't know. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I don't know who representing the owner, the land can answer the questions, but the wildlife crossing and the wildlife corridor under I -75, who would be obligated to pay for that? MS. PAYTON: At this point nobody's obligated to -- to pay for it. It's a -- a goal. There are some federal monies that -- that are available that possibly we could pursue. But there's no obligation for the county to build it or to a property owner to build it. It's just a concept in there that's a goal that we would like to have to work towards getting that wildlife underpass or overpass to connect those lands. We -- we did find some monies that are -- were available for a wildlife crossing on Immokalee Road, and that's federal funding. That -- that's something that has to be explored, but there's no obligation in here that the county has to pay for it or anyone has to pay for it at this point. It's just a goal that we would like to -- to have in there. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So as far as the project's concerned, it could continue whether or not this crossing went in or not; is that -- MS. PAYTON: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Okay. es. MR. STRAIN: The extension of Wilson Boulevard. Page 98 February 7> 2002 16JI MS. PAYTON: Well, with the extension of Wilson Boulevard, we would like to see the wildlife crossings there because it connects to natural areas. MR. STRAIN: You -- does it -- I don't think it says it that way, though. I mean, is the agreement, then, required -- in order for the development to proceed, are you assuming that the wildlife corridor or the underpass would have to be in place? That's kind of what I'm asking. And if that's the case, is that going to hold up development, or is development going to come in to pay for it? MS. PAYTON: The wildlife crossing for Wilson -- the extension of Wilson Boulevard where it goes down into the NRPA area, I don't see how that could hold up development in the -- in the receiving area. MR. STRAIN: That's fine. That's what I'm trying to find out, if that's what your expectation is. MS. PAYTON: Is -- when Wilson is extended down to I -75, that's when we would pursue monies to build that wildlife crossing. MR. STRAIN: Okay. The extension of Wilson to I -75, obviously that's not going to happen fast. Norm Feder was in the audience. I don't think he still is. This development, I'm -- would assume, would start before any interchange was completed or -- or done on I -75. Do you have any input as to the timing of that ?__._ MR. ANDERSON: No. MR. STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm asking, Bruce, is the access to this area is going to have to be through Golden Gate Estates. Wilson's two lanes. Golden Gate Boulevard just got expanded to four lanes for part of the -- out to Wilson, and it's already packed. Adding the density that you're adding here with the access only through Golden Gate Estates, I think, is going to be detrimental to the people in the estates. And my concern would be that this development not procee un i e in erc ange is pu on - MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Two things: Number one, no February 7, 2002 , particular development other than earth mining is proposed at the present time; number two, we are proposing as part of this to do this Wilson Boulevard extension which would either tie into a potential future interchange at I -75, which is way, way down the road, or, more likely, a tie -in to Landfill Road and gaining access to the interstate in that fashion. MR. STRAIN: Would you be willing to add to your agreement that the -- would not be developed for residential use, say, figure out some kind of unit count until such interchange is in? MR. ANDERSON: No. MR. STRAIN: So the potential is there anytime. MR. ANDERSON: Right. I just point out -- you used the term. I meant to call you on this. You used the term "increased density." that is incorrect. It's redistributed density. MR. STRAIN: How about focused density then? MR. ANDERSON: Those units could be built out there under the prior comprehensive plan. All this does is simply move them from the NRPA area. MR. STRAIN: Well, I wanted to ask you about that because one of the things in here that I don't recall from reading about the TDRs is in this location you have a -- a statement that says 1 unit per individual deeded parcel or lot that existed prior to June of 1999 or at a ratio of 1 unit per 5 acres, whichever is greater. And I thought on the rest of the TDR program it's not set up that way. It's one per parcel, isn't it, or am I mistaken? MR. MULHERE: No. I'm sorry. As far as -- as far as the TDR process goes, it is exactly like that. You are allowed to transfer 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or 1 per legal nonconforming lot that existed. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Then if you had a parcel that was bigger an build wilt. t acres under the u u y MR. MULHERE: You can only build one -- Page 100 February 7> 2002 16JI MR. STRAIN: On this unit they're increasing the density by saying those parcels are converted at 1 to 5. I mean, every -- you get - - you don't get just the parcel. A 50 -acre parcel now has what? Ten lots, ten units, transferred? MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Whereas before it would have been one unit if it was built out under the current plan. MR. MULHERE: No. MR. STRAIN: It's always been 1 to 5? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: And I have just a couple more. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: For the staff or for the intervenors? MR. STRAIN: For the intervenors. The sending areas, the -- I haven't had a chance to review the package you just gave us, Bruce, so you may have corrected this. Florida Wildlife Federation had talked about 4,160 acres of land that is identified as a sending area, and -- and you identified 5,440. There's about a 1300 -acre difference there. Did you guys address that or get that figured out, that discrepancy? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. We went with the five -forty figure. MR. STRAIN: Okay. And that's the last of it. MR. RICHARDSON: Nancy, could I just ask you a quick question here? On this section on public acquisition -- and I presume this is probably something which you might have inspired to go into the document. The county should support the public acquisition of sending areas in the North Belle Meade. Is that -- I'm -- I'm just puzzled by that in that what we've heard about the sending areas so far is that once they give up the development rights, it can't be farmed any longer, it s 901119 to uc -- y V u 1LL1V W , YY 11, ♦- v. aa..r .... - - public monies on it if it's conserved already? Page 101 February 7, 2002 1 6J1 MS. PAYTON: For public- access purposes, to -- to continue to protect it in perpetuity. It should be an option that maybe we do want to protect it. It might be red cockaded woodpecker habitat that we'd like to protect under the county. It's just an option that's -- that's available. There also is a proposal to -have North Belle Meade be a CARL acquisition area, and there is a pending application before the state that was presented by The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And so there -- there is discussion about part of this NRPA or all of this NRPA being in that CARL project area and projecting North and South Belle Meade. MR. RICHARDSON: So you're not necessarily talking about identifying county funds for this. MS. PAYTON: No. It could be public funds, state, federal. There may be monies out there that want to protect panther habitat, just leaving all options open. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. MS. PAYTON: And a property owner may not want to continue to maintain his property after he's sold his TDRs, and this was a way to have it maintained and managed properly. More affordable, yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anything else? MR. MULHERE: That is one of the benefits of the -- of the -- removing the residential rights, is that land, you -- you increase your ability to acquire more land for less cost from a public -- MS. PAYTON: And it provides several options for the, property owner. They cannot only sell TDRs, but then, in turn, they can sell the land to the state or to some other public entity. MR. RICHARDSON: But unlike what we've heard about in Lee County and some other places where this has been done that they get a second i e a e app a inn a they also get the value or the development rights on it. You know, that -- this would be constrained Page 102 February 7, 2002 in this regard; right? 16JI MS. PAYTON: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Okay, Bill. Unless there are other comments, I -- I don't know if there's other members of the public that want to speak on this issue. Okay. MR. HANCOCK: The 0- to 1 -mile issue. MR. MULHERE: We're moving on to that now. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: For planning purposes, we're going to change court reporters and take a lunch break at one o'clock. There will be a duration of 30 minutes or whenever all 5 of us are back, up to 45 minutes. So be on guard. Anything -- anything after 30 minutes you're at your peril. Now are we going to go to South Belle Meade? MR. MULHERE: Correct. That was the other issue. And -- and, largely, this -- this is an issue that Mr. Hancock will, I'm sure, want to make a presentation to you on. But just to summarize, Mr. Hancock made a presentation to the -- on behalf of the landowner, made a presentation to the Rural Fringe Committee, as well as to the EAC, to exclude a 0-to-1 -mile corridor immediately adjacent to the urban residential fringe within the area that is -- has an interim Belle Meade NRPA designation on it. And I'll point it out to you. Okay. Then Bill's -- Bill's showing you that in -- in red. And I don't want to get into a great deal of detail as to the rationale. I think Mr. Hancock will address those issues. But largely they deal with the pattern of ownership being largely private property ownership in there, that it will provide a -- an additional transition from the urban residential to the rural fringe that some of it has exotic infestation and there are several other reasons, so I don't want to steal his thunder. I �Ii pro a y e es g o o is o e m m a is presen ion to you. Page 103 February 7, 2002 16J1 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's your bottom line? MR. MULHERE: We are -- the staff is not supporting the removal of that from the Belle Meade. The EAC made a motion not remove that from the NRPA as well -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I remember that, yes. Mr. Hancock. MR. MULHERE: Excuse me. South Belle Meade. Sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. MR. HANCOCK: Tim Hancock with Vanasse Daylor representing Mr. Mike Taylor, a property owner with lands both in the urban residential fringe and the South Belle Meade. Before getting started, to most of the members of the Planning Commission, I believe we were able to courier a package to you, with the exception of Mr. Abernathy, who asked that the information be presented in the public forum. And if I may -- MR. LORENZ: And while Tim is doing that, if Kady could shift to the visualizer, please. MR. HANCOCK: And I've also provided one for the public record. Adding to what Mr. Mulhere has -- has really started, it wasn't until the last quarter of last calendar year when a lot of the objectives and policies, written policies, were actually reviewed by the committee in such a way that on behalf of a property owner, you could begin stacking these policies or putting together almost like a mosaic to determine what the actual impact for a given property owner would be. It was at that point when I began to realize that lands that were designated as a NRPA that were immediately adjacent to the urban boundary were being targeted for 90 percent preservation, a near complete elimination of land uses, with the exception of a single - ami y ome per parcel agricull a purposes and no -ability to move any of those units into the urban boundary. Page 104 February 7, 2002 61 It didn't make a lot of sense to me. It didn't make a lot o sense o' the property owner that you could have land in the urban boundary and land immediately adjacent to it, and while your rights are being taken from this piece of property, it could not be moved to an adjacent parcel. Just one issue that we needed to address. We began looking at what the makeup of this area is. And, if you will, please allow me, on the exhibit on your -- your television, what you'll see is I -75 borders South Belle Meade to the north. 951 is, ver here (indicating) on the -- the edge. You have an urban residential fringe which allows a full range of urban uses at a density of up to 1.5 units per acre up to 1 mile from 951. The proposed South Belle Meade NRPA begins at this line (indicating) and continues eastward until it hits what is the platted estates or South Blocks, which are predominantly in public ownership. What this exhibit shows is the areas in green are those lands that are currently in public ownership. Staff was making statements regarding the South Belle Meade. The total area was 80 percent publicly -- publicly owned. That is roughly correct. A distinction is that for everything more than 1 mile east of the urban boundary, it is more than 90 percent in public ownership. For the area within 1 mile of the urban boundary, including this section here (indicating), which is already in public ownership, there's 73 percent private ownership. . The final order issued by the governor and the administrative -- administration commission basically says that for those areas that are in public ownership, their management plan should be reviewed and more or less adopted as a part of how we proceed with our comp. Plan amendments. For those lands not in public ownership, data collection should be -- and I quote -- focused on private property. s recommen a ions based on the 1994, 1995 aerial photograph interpretation that was executed by the South Florida Page 105 February 7, 2002 16JI- Water Management District indicates that this area (indicating) is very much like the areas to the east. There's not much distinction between the two. In looking only at the '94 -95 data, I can see how that position would be made. It became apparent to us that there were two major distinctions between lands adjacent to the urban boundary and lands in the balance of the South Belle Meade. Those distinctions fall in the categories or areas of, one, property value and, two, environmental impacts. We were able very quickly to present to the committee the property valuation differences between lands in a 0 -to -1 -mile corridor here and lands in the middle of the South Belle Meade which was referred to as the 3 -to -4 -mile corridor in the report. In that overview the average property valuation, including all valid sales, would appear to be arms- length sales, within the 3 -to -4- mile corridor, including purchases by the State of Florida; had an average per -acre valuation of just over $2,000. When you compare that to, again, all valid arms- length sales, including some purchases by the state in the 0 -to -1 mile corridor, we were seeing a property valuation in excess of $9,000. Those numbers were adjusted -- the numbers I just gave you were adjusted to June of 1999 for sake of comparison. The increase in valuation in this property over a period -- a period of time has averaged 2.6 percent per year. The increase in valuation in these properties (indicating) is an average 8.7 percent per year. I will also tell you that based on more current sales data, there has not been a reduction in property values even during the period of this moratorium in the South Belle Meade. What that means is the properties in the 0 -to- l -mile corridor increased atifflost three or more than three times faster an prop-efties in the middle of the South Belle Meade, and the property values are Page 106 February 7, 2002 16JI more than four times greater. There has to be a basis for that. Property values don't go up arbitrarily. They go up for reasons, multitudes of reasons. The two reasons that we were able to vel?easily ob s -- observe is that the proximity to the urban boundary meant that you had near access to urban services and, more importantly, near access of just that word, "access," physical roads. The majority of sections in the urban residential fringe have been required to have easements across the section line so access can be obtained. Logically if you're within 1 mile of a major arterial and you're adjacent to urban lands, the value of your property is going to be very different than that that has very remote access and may be surrounded by private lands and of a small size where your -- your flexibility is greatly diminished. The reason for the property valuation wasn't rocket science. We presented that to the committee. And by a vote of 6 to 1 the committee recommended that this area not just be pulled out of the South Belle Meade N .PA but be given a designation called a neutral lands designation. That designation does not mean business as usual. The designation contains in it several factors, such as, number one, maximum density of 1 unit per 5 acres with no ability to transfer in; number two, the required preservation is at 50 to 60 percent. Understand right now, your required preservation under the exist -- the comp. plan that existed as of June of 1999 for rural lands is zero. That's the base we're moving from. There was no preservation requirement in the rural lands prior to this exercise and prior to what's being proposed. In this corridor that neutral lands designation would require a preservation ratio or element or o per-cent. Any residential units to be built would have to be clustered so you wouldn't see Page 107 February 7, 2002 ranchette or larger type of -- of single- family development. The committee approved on a 6 -to -1 vote with Miss Prosser dissenting that that be recommended. Staff then told us that really what they need is more data and analysis in order to go to the state if they were in any way going to support or be able to justify the committee's recommendation. What we did then is we looked and reviewed the data and analysis that was done in 1994 and '95, which is predominantly, if not singly, the aerial photograph interpretation. It was based on infrared aerials that were to scale that you may be looking at property on a large 24 -by -36 sheet that's up to 3 miles on a side. We're very fortunate that we have aerials flown in Collier County that are accurate as of 2000 that can be taken down to a 1 -to -50 scale with absolute clarity. Resolution allows you to tell the difference between a pine tree and a cypress tree. We felt that what we needed to do was provide staff with an updated FLUCCS map to determine if, in fact, the '94 295 date was valid. That exercise was performed by our biologist and our environmental resources department. They used the updated aerials which have greater clarity, greater resolution, and also show changes that may have occurred from '94-'95, both development based and environmental. What we found was somewhat disturbing in that as we're proceeding forward with information that is at least seven years old, that information that was gathered from a landscape scale for the purpose of general planning we're making decisions that tell somebody who owns a 10- or 20 -acre parcel what they can or can't do with it and that that is the -- the primary basis for our information. In looking at the 2000 aerials and doing an entire FLUCCS mapping -- an -- 19m sorry -- is the Floiida. Land Use Classification and Cover System. It's the standard by which we MOM February 7, 2002 1 6J1 determine types of vegetative -- vegetative communities -- one glaring thing stood out. In 1995 the aerials indicated a FLUCCS code of 621, which is cypress, not cypress infested with, nelaleuca or cypress with pine, just simply cypress. When you see cpress as a FLUCCS code, you know you're dealing with something that's wet, period. It indicated 1,364 acres of cypress in these five sections of land. Based on the 2000 aerials, the amount that is purely 621 cypress is 190 acres. Does that mean the cypress up and left? No. It's simply that with the greater resolution, you can determine where you have pine and cypress mix, which is the basis for arguing whether or not when you have upland and wetland species on the same parcel, whether or not you're truly a wetland. Have you over time become more of an upland- dominated parcel? That's an 86 percent reduction. There's 86 percent less cypress, based on the current data, than there was in 1995. To move forward on determining that this area should be a natural resource protection area because of the extensive network of wetland properties is not a valid basis. In addition, the FLUCCS mapping in'95 showed no ditches or trails or primitive roads. And these are all signs of activity and development. We're saying because, again, with the greater resolution and, I'm sure, additional impacts, there are over 4 miles of ditches out there. There are 27 acres of primitive roads. These all serve to impeach surface water flow, to change hydrology and surface hydrology in an area and, again, are factors and elements of is a property being used and for what and what is its long -term environmental value. In addition, the '95 mapping showed approximately 200 acres of land with -- no melaleuca was present. The 2000 mapping reveals 8 times that amount, 1,600 acres showing some level of melaleuca infes iori;- therefore also s yang that the -Ian is no as environmentally sensitive, because when we have melaleuca February 7, 2002 1 6JI infestation, it's only a matter of time that melaleuca can become a monoculture, particularly if it's aided by fire and other factors. The basis for that FLUCCS mapping was to find out whether or not the '95 data supported the recommendations of a natural resource protection area based on the supposed wetland land cover in the area. Based on the data we've provided staff, I think this body and staff and the county commission will be hard pressed to make recommendations solely on a -- '95 data. The purpose of the presentation today is to simply ask this Planning Commission -- and I had three things in the sheet I've provided you, and I've added a fourth one based on information I've received today. I'm asking the Planning Commission to adopt the following: Number one, that based on the updated data that has been provided in the 0 -to- l -mile corridor that that area is changed significantly to the point that using the 1995 FLUCCS data as a basis is not appropriate. Secondly, that the significant difference in property values for lands adjacent to the urban fringe as compared to lands in the balance of the South Belle Meade requires that the proposed TDR program be altered to ensure adequate financial compensation for lost development rights should this land remain as a natural resource protection area, the same as the balance of the South Belle _Meade. Third, that the Planning Commission direct county staff to review the new environmental data and to develop specific standards for the 0 -to- l -mile corridor that respond to the existing conditions while providing for a high level of protection for vegetation and habitat where appropriate. We now have a better idea of what habitat types are there. I believe we have the ability now to look at that and create a management plan for this area that responds to the environmental needs without shutting down the property owner. The list item is one a -- at ave to add because of something Mr. Lorenz informed me of earlier today. And that's to ask Page 110 February 7, 2002 164 the Planning Commission to identify this corridor as a buffer or transition area between the urban and the proposed natural resource protection area. One of the reasons for that is that, one, that it makes sense. I mean, to go from urban on one line and take one step over, all of a sudden you're now pristine preserve. Somehow I -- I lose how an apartment building and preserve right next to each other makes sense from a planning standpoint. There is no buffer provided here until I heard this morning what Mr. Lorenz indicated. And that is that the buffering requirement for sending areas applies to the urban boundary. So based on what is in the proposal going forward to the county commission, urban lands, which is where we're supposed to be sending our density, urban lands, which is where we're supposed to be promoting development, are going to be lost for the purpose of buffering this corridor when this corridor is not nearly as sensitive as the 194 -95 data indicates. A 300 -foot swath represents a 17 percent reduction in available lands in the urban residential fringe. Almost 20 percent of that 1 -mile corridor gets lost due to a 300 -foot buffer. I'm sorry. I'm incorrect. Far less than that. My apologies. It's about 3 percent. If you go with the EAC recommendation of a half a mile, that -- that's simple math. That's half. Basically it's taking the urban residential fringe and shutting half of it down for development with no ability to move units from the South Belle Meade into the urban boundary under the current proposal, with no ability to put anything other than 1 house on a parcel of land within that 1 -mile corridor, and with its designation as a NRPA, requiring a set -aside and buffer in the urban boundary, I don't believe that we have in front of us a plan that is responsive to the current site conditions, nor is it -- and -- and, most importantly, responsive to the private property rights of the 73 percent 0 ose an s a e ina or er requires us o e responsive o. There are too many gaps. Page 111 February 7, 2002 16 4 Rather than today try and say, here are the exact elements that we need to be placed in there to make sure those protections are provided, I'm asking for this commission to give direction. Staff received this information on Monday, Bill? It's not a lot of time, but it is enough time to determine that what we have may not be appropriate. Bill feels otherwise, based on what he's reviewed. I'd be happy to listen to that today. But that is my specific set of requests for this commission, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. MR. ADELSTEIN: Until that time when a designation can be made, what about your idea of a neutral lands designation? MR. HANCOCK: We still remain in favor of that as a -- a way to move forward, but I'm not going to stand here and say that I'm convinced that that is the solution. We now have specific data that may allow us to say, well, this area up here should be treated differently than this one, something a little more targeted. So in lieu of that being available, we still support the neutral designation or we wouldn't have proposed it. MR. ADELSTEIN: Until the proper study can be made. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And, to be honest, we have provided the raw data to Miss Payton, Mr. Cornell, and Miss Prosser is with The Conservancy, and hope to have an opportunity between now and the county commission to sit down and go over that data with them to try and be a little more inclusive in how we move forward. The data is new. It's fresh. So we're hoping that we'll have an opportunity to do that. I have not approached them with that yet. You know, they're probably hearing it the first time now so ... MR. RICHARDSON: I have a couple questions. If you succeed in having this in neutral area, that then moves the half -mile buffer over onto your property, so you'd have to -- or the properties you're represen ing, so you have half o a , then, tb at would be so-Vject to some -- to the buffering that we talked about with our standards. Page 112 February 7, 2002 16JI 4 MR. HANCOCK: If -- if it is a half -mile recommendation that goes forward, that would be correct. MR. RICHARDSON: You brought the half mile up. I was just using your words. MR. HANCOCK: Actually the staff recommendation is 300 feet. The half mile is a EAC recommendation. I was using the two examples as an impact as currently proposed to the urban boundary. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, as we discussed before, it is really neither one of those. They have a standard that talks about any draw - down and whatever the development causes, whether it be 2 miles, 1 mile, 300 feet, or 10 feet, will apply. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. MR. RICHARDSON: This -- your view that the increased value of the properties is due to its proximity to the urban area, I certainly would agree to and it certain -- but I'd also argue that there might be some speculation in those dollars that some positions like yours might prevail so you could have more intense development in an area that's not currently permitted. MR. HANCOCK: Prior to June of 1999, I don't think you need to read speculation into those property values because the list of permitted uses and what you are able to do on the land was a matter of right. You could build golf courses in this corridor prior to June of 1999 as a matter -- and I'm sorry. If it was a stand -alone golf course, it would be a conditional use. But if you had 1 unit per 5 acres and built your golf course, you can just simply go do it. So in adjusting those numbers to June of 1999, Mr. Richardson, I have tried to reduce the area of speculation to real market values based on a given set of uses. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I'm not sure you've succeeded, but that's the position you've taken. m won ermg, cunous w y un er your proposa 1 you would no want to enhance the value of the increased density by transferring Page 113 February 7, 20021 6J TDRs into this area. It would seem like that would work in our collective favor here getting more of a development closer to services, and yet I think I heard you say you would be against having TDRs apply to this as a receiving area. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. And the basis for that is that while we feel and we have shown that '95 data may not be valid, this is still an area that does have habitat value. It does have environmental value. And by transferring more units in, that could represent an adverse impact to the habitat. So it's trying to strike that balance between do we think this area ought to be a receiving area -- I don't put this area on the same level as I do what has been designated sending areas from a habitat, an environmental value. I think it falls somewhere between the sending areas and the proposed receiving areas by way of environmental value. That's why I did not feel that transferring units into this corridor would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But you don't want it to be either one. MR. HANCOCK: I don't think either is appropriate. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You remind me of an admiral I used to work for who said, "If you want to put a guy in a blue suit, dress him in white and then turn on a blue light." It seems to me you're saying it's too much for this and not enough for that. That -- I don't know how you can walk that tight rope without falling off somewhere along the way. MR. HANCOCK: I think you can walk it through reviewing the information that's been provided in that it does not have the same environmental characteristics as the core areas within the natural resource protection area, nor has been denuded through agricultural activities such as Area D. e you would agree, we have o draw the line somewhere. And we've had a proposal to drawing the Page 114 February 7, 2002 16JI line; you have another proposal for drawing a line. And I presume there will be others coming forward that want to jig -- zig and zag it to represent their particular interests. So that's what we have to balance out. MR. HANCOCK: Understood, Commissioner. MR. MIDNEY: I'm grateful for the new information that you've brought forward because we need information in order to make good decisions. What I -- my comment is that what you're comparing is within Belle Meade, the 0 -to- l -mile corridor versus the rest of the sending lands in Belle Meade. But you haven't compared them to the other lands that are supposed to be NRPA lands or the -- and I know that when you compare the Belle Meade corridor -- I'm sorry, Belle Meade, which is Area C, to some of the other NRPA lands, C is the highest one. So even though the 0 -to- l -mile corridor may be less than the rest of South Belle Meade, it still may be higher than the areas, say, around the CREW area and the Corkscrew area. And I think what the county staff has been trying to do is to get sort of a balanced presentation of all the lands to see which are most valuable. And what we have here is a limited analysis that only breaks it down within Belle Meade, and that's one problem I have with your reasoning. I think the county staff was trying to look at the fringe area as a whole. The other thing that I would like to say is that we need to draw the line somewhere, and it's hard, if it's -- if we are kind of basing our decision on which landowners can afford a good consultant or are organized enough to -- to do that, and others may not. And the other comment I had about the land being -- having been egra e y c anging e y o ogy an a exo ics coming in, a can be restored if the land is given protection over time. It would take Page 115 February 7, 2002 16JI some money to do it, but it could be done, whereas, if you allow a higher level of development in land, then you won't be able to do anything in the future to restore that. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Midney, the concept that the natural resource protection area will result in the restoration of these lands is not only not guaranteed but not required. For example, if I have a hundred acres in the 0- to 1 -mile corridor and I may have a high level of exotic infestation, sell my development rights off to somebody, I can just walk away. I do not have to touch the exotics on my property. I don't have to control them. I don't have to do anything. However, if I'm permitted to impact 25 percent or 30 percent of my property, whether it's for a golf hole or for a small cluster of homes, I'm required to clear the exotics on the balance of my land, thereby reducing the negative environmental impacts that property continues to attribute to. The idea that the natural resource protection area designations means long term, better and higher environmental value for all lands in that area, I believe, is a flawed concept where it comes to the issue of exotic infestation and habitat preservation. As the exotics grow, habitat is reduced. MR. MIDNEY: I think if you look at the really long term, maybe it's not a flawed idea because, sure, it's going to be hard to clean up that -- those exotics within a short time period of say, 10, 20, or 30 years. But I think we have to be thinking about what are we leaving to future generations. We have to take a longer kind of time scale. And I think if you look at it from a longer standpoint, then it is a valid concept. MR. HANCOCK: Point of disagreement there. Just one comment, Tim, you macte a porn a ou something which I thought for further application down the road might Page 116 February 7, 2002 16JI be interesting. The exotics that are apparently on this property, I believe, are in -- are part of the reason they're there is because of the draining of the property due to the 951 canal? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Which dovetails to the conversation the gentleman had up here earlier about the impact of development around the Corkscrew area with that one rural village that's proposed up in that area. The same thing could foreseeably happen to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary if that area was similarly drained with canals and development drainage. I just wanted to make the point while it's on the table. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: And that is, in looking at this 0-to-1 -mile corridor, it has a geographic difference because of the impacts of the hydroperiod, the reduced hydroperiod. That's not going to go away. That canal's not going away. And the extent of the -- that canal's impact on these lands will only continue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Members of the public? MS. DURRWACHTER: I'm Sonya Durrwachter with Division of Forestry. And I manage the state lands that are in South Belle Meade, so I'm pretty -- pretty well familiar with the -- especially with the exotics that -- that we have. And I had a couple of comments. I found the properties, the state lands, and I've been -- you know, I had to cross some private lands to get there. The exotic infestation on that 1 -mile corridor is much less than it is further east. I don't know if you've driven on Sabal Palm Road, but as you go further east, some of it is incredibly bad. But it also can be controlled, and you can see the areas -- we've controlled 3,000 acres already. So I just -- I mean, it's a herbi -- just herbicide, a crew, an some money, an i can a one, an e an is no destroyed by -- by having melaleuca on it. Page 117 February 7, 200216J1 " And, also, you cannot -- I guess they said they mapped the melaleuca by air. You can't do it. When you're in a forested system, you have only seedlings and saplings underneath, and you just -- it would be nice if you could do it. I mean, it's the easy way to do it; it's just not accurate. You just -- you know, I've tried to do it, and you can't do it because you just can't see from -- you know, from the top. And, let's see, and the drainage, I believe there's -- Rookery Bay has been working with South Florida Water Management District to install some weirs on Henderson Creek. I'm not sure where they're at in that project. So as far as, like, the effect of the drainage, that should greatly reduce that. Like I said, I'm not -- I -- I don't know if it's a certain project or whatever, but I've heard -- you know, heard about that going forward, so that should help on that. And, Mr. Midney, he stole about half of my comments or whatever, so -- but -- and I appreciate it, and thank you. But -- let's see, and also the values of the land when -- even if he's comparing 7,000 to $2,000 an acre, compared to the lands that are worth preserving in Rookery Bay or Naples Preserve, I mean, the scale is just not -- and it can be reappraised. If those landowners want to be reappraised by -- by DEP, all they have to do is request that. And if the land -- you know, and they go by appraisal values, if the -- if the value is up, then they can get a new appraisal. So -- and I -- I had one request that really hasn't been addressed is, if it would be possible to rezone South Belle Meade to conservation. I think like now it's, like, rural agriculture. And that would assist us as far as our management because -- as well as south Golden Gate, too, it's zoned estates, and we can't allow camping legally, you know, which people do it all the time. But if -- if we couTd-ge-f those two areas zoned conservation, it would ceffaliffy assist our management. Page 118 February 7, 20021 6 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much. MR. MULHERE: I can comment on that. Generally the county has taken a position not to designate that conservation until the acquisition is complete. But about 80 percent has been complete. I'm sure that -- Bill has indicated that the problem has always been try to map on a large scale the size of the county, the little parcel somewhere in the middle of something that hasn't been acquired, and leave them rural ag while we map the rest of it conservation. So we've just left it until the acquisition is completed. Now, if we can map that accurately and that is a -- an addendum to the future land use, you know, map, then I would think that that -- that might make it a little bit easier to designate those lands as conservation. Something we can look into. MR. RICHARDSON: We can say except where posted and require the posting on private property. MR. MULHERE: You could. I mean, the map isn't really -- that's not the purpose of the future land use map is to show what the designation is of the land. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Hi. Again, Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. This brings up an opportunity to make two, sort of, broad -issue points about natural resource protection areas. One is that one of the goals of natural resource protection area designation is for restoration, you know, not only do we -- we designate pristine areas but we designate integral areas that need to be restored that have an important keystone value. And this being in the Rookery Bay watershed does have such value. We do need to protect that watershed, and that's the reason for it being in the natural resource protection area now. An e other issue is exotics infestation an wean y o ogic function. We have a problem with mitigation assessment and the Page 119 February 7, 201 6JI agencies here in Collier County where function is -- is considered low, and mitigation is -- is low for wetlands that have exotics in -- infestation, and that should not be the case because that hydrologic function -- hydrologic function is still there. And, indeed, the county does regulate wetlands more strongly than the state, and we should have a stronger program to do such regulations of wetlands and mitigation for wetlands. So that would argue for keeping this as a NRPA. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me ask you a question, Brad. MR. CORNELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: As a layman, anytime I drive around Collier County outside the city, I see canals that are brimming with water. Doesn't the water table -- isn't it governed by the level of - - of that water? MR. CORNELL: I believe the Big Cypress Basin is very actively trying to maintain higher ground level waters by keeping the weir -- using weirs, as Sonya Durrwachter was just talking about. Yes, that does influence the water table. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is that -- would it be a generalization that if I can look at the level of the water, that if I went a hundred yards in, that there's some_ relationship between that and how far I dig before I ran into the water table? MR. CORNELL: I'm not a hydrologist, and that would be a technical question. My intuitive answer would be yes, there is a relationship. And that is why that they install weirs and don't let everything just flow to tide. They want to hold back that water for that very purpose. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Hypothetically, if the canals were properly managed, lands closer to the canal would be advantaged radar than isa van age . MR. CORNELL: They could be if that was the management Page 120 February 7, 2002 16JI goal. And I think that is part of restoration plan for the South Blocks and in adjusting the water levels and changing the way the -- the canals do drain that area. I think that's part of the plan, yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. You had a question? MR. RICHARDSON: Just perhaps to staff and perhaps -- perhaps Mr. Cornell could also respond. We get very often as a part of our regular business requests for mitigation or review of mitigation. And there seems to be a difference between what degraded wetlands are versus regular wetlands. And what I'm hearing from Mr. Cornell is that we really shouldn't be making that kind of distinction. We should be looking at mitigation for wetlands, regardless of their condition. Is that a fair assessment, and is that something we might want to take under consideration? MR. LORENZ: Well, I think when you begin talking about wetland functions, you have a whole list of functions. You have some listed species and habitat functions. Obviously, with a wetland that has a lot of -- it's infested with melaleuca, those listed species and habitat functions have decreased. However, I think the point Brad is making is that there's a hydrologic function; there's a storage function. Simply_ the fact that that wetlands still can store water and even though it has melaleuca infested, that particular function had not been severely compromised to the degree that the listed species function has been compromised. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, and, in fact, the listed species could be improved, too, through restoration. MR. LORENZ: Correct. Simply the removal of the -- MR. RICHARDSON: I guess I would just have to put that as a little checkmark for staff to perhaps review our procedures to make sure awe ave a -- we nee a i e more balanced view towards protecting what has been previously termed degraded. Page 121 February 7, 2002 16 J 1 MR. LORENZ: We -- we -- we will have a panel and walk you through wetlands protection, because that's another hot -button issue, and that's a -- that's a point that needs to be made through that discussion. MR. RICHARDSON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thanks. Ma'am. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing Florida Wildlife Federation. A couple of random thoughts about this proposal. First of all, we support staff s position that there shouldn't be a change in the NRPA boundary, that the lines should remain as they currently are. This area is a natural resource protection area designated, a state acquisition area because of its environmental significance. It's the headwaters for Rookery Bay, and it's also priority habitat for panthers. And that designation was reconfirmed this summer, this past summer, by the Fish and Wildlife Service. I did want to comment that there is an opportunity, as I recall, under this current proposal, to transfer density from rural lands to urban lands through density blending; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Density blending, yes. MS. PAYTON: So there is an option to -- to transfer density if you have property straddling both lines, which was something that apparently Mr. Hancock isn't aware of. MR. MULHERE: But just to clarify, that only applies in receiving lands. And since this is sending, it wouldn't apply there. MS. PAYTON: Good. Good clarification. I agree, Mr. Richardson, that it is speculative to go ahead and buy property in an area that's under a governor's order to do a better -- a better effort of planning and protecting natural resources. So I do think it is a bit speculative purchasing that might be going on in that area in opes o in uencing is p arming e o m a -- in a ecision that benefits certain interests. Page 122 February 7, 2002 16JI I wanted to comment on the 951 corridor and buffering that my recollection is that most of the land within that rural corridor, between 951 and the South Belle Meade NRPA, is mostly permitted. There are PUDs there that we know what's going to be there, and most of it's been developed. So to talk about them not being -- having a buffer, there is -- we can't talk about a buffer in those areas because that -- that land use is already known. So this mile in that we're having the discussion now really is the buffer for the CARL lands. And if we think about removing that out of the NRPA lands, then we've got to think about buffer lands and kind of have this snowball effect deeper into the CARL lands. And, lastly, there are federal programs that are available to property owners to remove exotics and improve their -- their land for the benefit of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and there was a report -- actually, two reports that were submitted to the rural lands committee recently. One of them, a list of various programs that are available, and that was provided by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. And the other was provided by the Florida Stewardship Foundation. And there are monies out there. I must say that I know there are monies out there because I looked for them for Florida Wildlife Federation's land in southern Golden Gate Estates, and there are opportunities if landowners are motivated. These are -- in some cases they'll pay 100 percent to remove the exotics or to do improvements. They're very good programs, and we'd be happy to work with any property owner to locate these funds so that they can, indeed, improve their properties and remove the exotics. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you, Nancy. Any other member of the public? (No response.) ou ave a -menu e i em. MR. MULHERE: I might be able to least introduce it. I don't Page 123 February 7, 2002 16J1 know that we'll get finished with it. And it's not on the list on the slide here, I don't think. But Michael Kirk on behalf of the school board is in the audience here and I think Bob Duane, also, representing the school board. The school board has an interest in some properties in the rural fringe. One -- there are three properties in particular. Again, I'm -- I'm not going to steal their thunder. I think they probably have a presentation to make. If you want to know our position, you know, after they've made their presentation, I think the staff position, we can let you know that. But maybe they can do that in the 15 minutes that we have before we break if you'd like. And, Michael, if you have anything you want to put on the visualizer, you can come over here. I think you do have some maps. MR. KIRK: Good morning, Chairman. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Good afternoon. MR. KIRK: Is it afternoon? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. MR. KIRK: Good afternoon, Chairman, and also Commissioners. For the record, Michael Kirk from Collier County Public Schools. And today I come before you to -- for a couple of reasons. One is to make the Planning Commission aware of the school board's needs to acquire and to build school facilities in the rural fringe area and also to appeal to the Planning Commission to make modifications to the draft policies that will aid the school board in meeting these facility needs for the students of this county. One of the things I want to talk about is coordination and cooperation between the school district and the staff and -- and various agencies. I've attended many of the meetings that the Rural Fringe Committee has had over the past two years. I've met with various staff members to discuss the school oar s issues concerning si mg schools. I also met with various stake holders through established Page 124 February 7, 2002 16JI county committees as well as one on one with a number of agencies. We desire to make all the stake holders aware of the school board's facility needs for the next 20 years. We get that through a tool that we update on a yearly basis known as a capital outlay plan. Currently we're working on a update of that plan. But the 2001 plan identified the need for 5 high schools, 4 middle schools, and 10 elementary schools over the next 20 years for Collier County. It projected that there will be approximately 60,000 students in the public school system 20 years from now. Currently we have about 35,000 students. Currently there are two elementary schools that are under construction and scheduled to open in August of this year. To add to that, on -- on January the 24th of this year, the school board updated the 5 -year work program to build 1 additional elementary, 1 middle school, and 2 high schools within the next 2 years to meet growth needs. We have a need to build and acquire property in order to meet these needs for our students. In the rural area -- what I need, sorry, is that in 19 -- 1998, immediately after I came to this school district and to this county and started looking at the planning for schools in the future, one area of concern to me was -- was Golden Gate Estates. I understand that there's been a lot of planning on the behalf of the staff concerning _the Golden -- Golden Gate Estates area, and there's a lot of information out there. It shows that approximately 31,000 lots exist out there over approximately 103,000 acres. The county has approximately 76 platted -- platted lots for the entire county and 31,000 of those are in the Golden Gate Estates area. And I want to point that out because I'm -- I'm talking about some area that's already been platted, and we'll have -- have a great potential to generate students and to grow. The difficulty that we've had in meeting needs in that particular area an o service o en a e saes area is awe prod ec e w a our needs will be once that -- that area is built out. We -- we project Page 125 16J1- February 7 2002 that we'll probably need new -- three high schools, three middle schools, and five elementary schools to serve that -- that projected growth for students in that area, along - -. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's just in the estates? MR. KIRK: In the estates alone. And -- and because of that, we've -- we've -- we've already pursued aggressively throughout the county in acquiring sites to build schools and particularly for the Golden Gate Estates area. And we have been fortunate over the last year and a half to be very successful in acquiring properties. However, we still are -- have fallen short. And the reason that we've fallen short is that there's a lot of difficulties in acquiring properties. One is that we're in competition with developers. The other thing is that because of how Golden Gate Estates is platted, there's some difficulties in acquiring large pieces of property. And that -- that difficulty is assemblage of property. Most of our elementaries require at least, minimum, 25 acres. Most our middle schools are minimally 35 acres and most of our high schools at a minimum of 55 acres. Because of that, once you step into an area where that's -- has lots as small as just over an acre and try to go through a process of assembling, there's a lot of difficulty in doing it. And anybody who ever worked in real estate understand the difficulties of getting people to agree on prices of property, as well as to -- to sell their property for public use. We -- we -- we've done that. We've been successful in some areas. We haven't been successful in a lot of areas. And because of that, that's -- that's kind of pointed us in the direction of looking at the rural fringe as a possible area that we can locate property to build schools and not in the -- in the -- we're -- we're looking at areas in the rural fringe that are adjacent and contiguous to the Golden Gate Estates area M order to meet a need. Our primary need to site schools within the rural fringe area is to Page 126 February 7, 2002 16J1 meet the need of growth within the -- not within the rural fringe area particularly, but our primary reason for looking for -- at property to site schools is to meet the needs of Golden Gate Estates. In order to do that, we -- we have analyzed what your -- the staff and the Rural Fringe Committee has recommended to -- to this commission, and we'll be recommending and -- and taking out that the other stake holders can have a say in this process. And what we've ana -- once we've analysis -- once we have an analysis of that, we've -- we've -- we've come up with some concerns regarding that. One of the concerns, primary concerns, if you would, that we have here is -- is -- I just wanted to show that -- that we are concerned about the fact that the draft proposal kind of limits our ability to -- to buy property. And it -- and it actually require us to spend more of a -- more of a -- taxpayers' dollars in order to acquire the amount of property needed for school site. Presently we have three -- we have three sites that we have been talking with staff about. Two of them are already owned by the school district, and one we have been analyzing and considering for acquisition. Of those two -- those three sites, two of them present a -- a lot of problem for us. Site No. 1, which is located in the - what we call the. Naples farms area, is a property that was -- has been owned by the school district since the '80s and has always been planned to -- to build a middle school and an elementary school. And when we acquired the -- the help of Bob Duane from Hole, Montes, his expertise in -- in applying the policies to these properties, we found that we -- we had a real serious problem with property we already owned. One instance that the site area is roughly about 66 acres and that to place those facilities that we need on there, we -- we require 46 acres. en you -- w en you examine a po icy, w a i ac y requires is, is of -- we already have 66 acres. There -- actually Page 127 February 7, 2002 16 J 1 requires us to add an additional 117 acres of property in order to be able to site a school. Similar with site No. 2 and site No. 3, we -- we run into the same type of situation where in order to site a school in a place that we actually need and that we've acquired property to meet the need for Golden Gate Estates, that what happens is, is that we have to acquire a -- a -- a major amount of additional property in order to -- to meet that need. And so what -- what we've looked at is -- is trying to find some -- some standard that would allow us to meet the need for students in the future for -- for not only the rural fringe area but primarily for the Golden Gate Estates area and -- and -- and also consider what is trying to be accomplished through this process of -- of preserving wetlands and preserving areas of our natural resources and find some medium in order that we can accomplish that. And what we've come up with is -- is that -- we've come up with some recommendations that we would like you to consider in this process in order to help us meet our needs of providing school sites to build schools for the children of Collier County. The first is we're -- we're requesting or making a recommendation that there be a modification to Policy-6.1.2- to state__ that public schools that include multi -use facilities and county park and recreational facilities may impact no more than 25 percent of the native vegetation, not to exceed 20 percent of the total site area. And -- and we're asking for that for not only for -- not only for receiving property but possibly also for neutral areas that have been identified by staff. The second recommendation that we are recommending that -- a modification to the North Belle Meade area future land use map be fticluded M order th-at the nofffi half of sections 13 and 14 of owns p 49 south and range 27 -- 27 east either be designated as a receiving Page 128 February 7, 2002 16JI area or a neutral area to allow the schools -- schools to be sited or built in that area. Prior to this meeting -- and I talked with Nancy Payton and talked about getting with her and also staff to come up with a way that we could come up with a standard to include this as either neu -- neutral area or include it as a receiving area in order that we can strategically place a school there to meet some needs that we -- we project in the -- in the Golden Gate Estates area. And we understand and we've talked and had dialogue many times with the -- many of the groups and with the staff. We understand the concerns. And -- and, basically, the directives that was given by the states to basically put in place regulations that would protect the natural resources of this county and not only this county but this state and, if you understand wetlands, even beyond that. And we want to -- to help in that, but, also, we have been given a charge to be stewards of the students of this county, and part of our job and our charge is to provide sites in order that we can build schools to meet the need of not only existing kids but future students that will be generated by the growth that's occurring in this county. And so what we're asking is that you would consider these changes to the policy in order that we might be able to meet that need. And we see that. It's a case -- many of the people who have come and basically asked for changes, they have different reasons. They -- they have -- if you wanted to make it plain and simple, they have dollars tied to these decisions. Well, we're not -- we don't have dollars tied to it, but we have children tied to this. And we need to have that opportunity to be able to site schools in the rural fringe to meet a need that we know will be created as Golden Gate Estate grows, as well as the children that would be generated from the development that will occur in a Tura ge. pre muc a is my presentation, an -- and if there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Page 129 ;6JI February 7, 200 MR. RICHARDSON: I've got a question. These standards that we're looking at, the policy changes and so forth relative to the rural fringe, in many instances they're not all that different from what we've had in the past in terms of vegetative requirements and that. I suspect you might have had problems with the 66 acres without any of this having come along. Would -- MR. KIRK: Well -- well, most of the schools that we've built have been in -- in the urban area. And we are not held to the same standard in the urban area as developers. The school district has with the county an interlocal agreement that basically kind of lessens some of the requirements for us to develop schools. Say, for instance, in the county there's a percentage that developers are required to preserve for natural vegetation. MR. RICHARDSON: Right. MR. KIRK: Well, basically, our only requirement as of the interlocal agreement, which basically was -- was directed by the state that we enter into these type of agreements, is only that we provide a - - what is known as a Type B buffer which basically gives us the ability to add all of the rec facilities that we have and all of the parking that's needed and other facilities that are needed on a site. So moving on to the rural fringe, you know, in order to incorporate all of those facilities which are required by the state, you know, we need a lot more flexibility, or we buy three and four times the amount of land we need to provide those same facilities. MR. RICHARDSON: But the fact of the rural fringe, how -- I'm not really understanding how that's really changing your -- if you've got some special deal which I, frankly, wasn't even aware of, that you don't have to follow the same rules that everybody else does, why don't you just apply those rules on -- on the site and go for it? runan y because DCA will not allow us to do a . It -- one of the things that has been a major concern of your staff is Page 130 February 7, 2002 16J1 before -- one of the key issues that led to this final order was the fact that staff tried to assist us in -- in obtaining exemption in these areas. And DCA basically said no way, because their perspective of the situation is that wherever you build, if you -- if you build schools, they will come. And -- and we have not been able to convince them of that, of something else. But because of the fact that that has been a concern, we understand that we won't be able to use that same interlocal in the rural fringe area. Therefore, we must, in this process, provide some type of regulations or guidelines for us to site schools in the rural fringe area. MR. RICHARDSON: So what you've come up with, then, will aid your process but make our acceptance by DCA, perhaps, more difficult? MR. KIRK: Not necessarily, because what we've come up with is -- is that we still -- in -- in what we are recommending, we still have to provide native vegetation but not at the level of developers. And -- and that's what we're trying to do, because where we -- we're going into the rural fringe not because we want to be there and there's profit tied to it. We're going because we need to be there because there's a need that we already know needs to be met in Golden Gate Estates area. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, we have looked at these issues. We do have some recommendations. They probably don't quite as far as Mr. Kirk and the school board might like. We do have some recommendations. It may take a few minutes. I think some of the mathematics are incorrect too. I'd like to go over those with you. But I just didn't know if you wanted to maybe break now, and then we could deal with this when you came back because I know you must be hungry. you want to go ahead until your relief gets here and then that be the Page 131 February 7, 2002 16J1 trigger, or are you ready to -- (A discussion was held off the record between the court reporter and Chairman Abernathy.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We're adjourned until 1:45. (A lunch break was held from 12:59 p.m. to 1:47 p.m.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are we ready to go? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I am. With respect to the school issue that Mr. Kirk just made a presentation on before we broke for lunch, we've met with -- actually the staff and I met with Bob Duane and talked a little bit about it. In the first example, which is right here, our preservation standards don't actually present a problem, and I want to walk you through that. The total site is 66 acres. If it was 100 percent vegetated, the maximum that you would be required to preserve is 25 percent. It's 40 percent, not to exceed 25 percent of the site. 25 percent of 66 acres is 16.5 acres. If you subtract that from 66 acres, you come up with 59 1/2 (sic) acres, and they need 46 acres to develop the site, so -that one actually works. The next example, Site 2, which is the Kaufmann site, does present a little bit more of a problem in that they have 114 acres, and if it was 100 percent vegetated, again, they'd have to preserve -- by the way, both Site 1 and Site 2 are in receiving designated lands, and schools are permitted in a receiving designated land. So in that case they would need 105 acres to develop the site. That does present a problem. That only leaves 9 acres, and they would need to preserve 25 percent of 114 acres or -- I guess that's somewhere around 27 or 28 acres. Somebody can do the math better than I can, 25 percent of 114. Anyway, they do have a couple of options there, and one option available to anyone is you can off site up to 50 percent -- you can off - si a mi iga a up to 50 percent of your on -s native vegetation, so mat would reduce their need to acquire additional lands to meet that Page 132 February 7, 2002 64 is requirement. But in that case, under our recommendations in Case 2, yes, they would have to acquire some additional lands, and I think it comes out to be about 15 or 16 acres of land to meet the native vegetation preservation requirement. Now, we concur that there is a benefit to colocating schools with other public facilities: Parks, perhaps EMS, sheriff s office, those types of things. In fact, the statutes require now that schools and public facilities be colocated, and that language exists in our plan. And based on that benefit of colocating those uses, particularly in terms of trips and traffic generation and need to develop other access points, roads, and things like that if they were separated instead of colocated, we would support a reduction in the native preservation requirement from 40 percent to 30 percent, but only where schools and other uses are colocated. Of course, that really doesn't help them very much because we're not prepared to reduce the minimum standard, which is 25 percent. So in Case 1 it works. In Case 2 they would have to acquire some additional land to be able to develop that site at the proposed 105 acres. I mean, they have a choice to reduce the development area or acquire some additional lands. It's not a great deal of additional land, but there would be some additional land required. _ Now, Case 3 is actually in sending lands. For the first hurdle, we're not proposing to allow schools in sending lands. And, as Mr. Kirk indicated, we know that DCA feels that schools are an attractor and that if we were to locate them in sending lands, that they would be a generator, in their opinion, of some growth. So that will be an issue, in our opinion, with the DCA, to allow a school to be located in a sending land. We would not support allowing schools to be locating in sending lands. There is the opportunity, I would think, or some nego is ion in a area o s i e a e o pu a sc oo ere -- remember, this land has not been purchased yet -- particularly, Page 133 February 7, 1611 perhaps, with Mr. Brown or some of the other property owners in that area where perhaps they may be thinking about a rural village or some other type of development in that area. I did want to let you know that within the rural village designation within send -- within receiving lands, there is a requirement in the plan to provide a school site if such is requested by the school board. And, of course, you would be granted impact fee credits for that because I think that's a necessity under the law. But if requested, you have to provide a school site in conjunction with your rural village. So that might be one way to address that. I'm not sure we're going to be able to resolve that issue here today as far as that third site, which is in a sending land. We are prepared to reduce the native vegetation preservation requirement where schools and other public facilities are colocated from a maximum of 40 percent to a maximum of 30 percent not to exceed, though, 25 percent of the site. I think that really summarizes the staff s position and -- on that issue and my position is -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Sites 1 and 2 are already owned, and Site 3 is not? MR. MULHERE: Site 2 (sic) is the only one that's actually currently owned. And there is another element to Site 2 that might make it a little bit easier. Site 2 is the Kaufmann property. And the county has also purchased -- I'm not sure what size. I think it may be 129 acres adjacent to the school board site, so you already have the colocation capacity there. In addition, I'm not a hundred percent certain of the county's plans, but I do recall that they were talking about some passive uses there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you point these out on a map or us . CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Site 3 is hypothetical, or is there Page 134 February 7, 2002 such a thing as the Clark acreage? 16JI MR. MULHERE: It exists, but it has not been purchased yet. 2 and 3 have not been purchased. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On Site 2 you said it's -- you were assuming 100 percent of it was vegetated? MR. MULHERE: That's the indication from the school. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I'll see if I can point these out to you. Site 2 is right here. This is Golden Gate Boulevard here, Wilson Boulevard here. That's Site 2. That's the Kaufmann property that's co -owned between the school board and the county -- well, I mean, they each respectively own portions of it. Site 1 -- I'll get out of the way here -- is right here, and that is the one that the school board does own and has owned, I think you said, since the early 1980s. And Site 3 is out here, and that's just at the northern portion of the North Belle Meade NRPA. And Bill -- Bill is kind of showing you where they are on the screen there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Now I can see it. MR. MULHERE: So, again, I think there may be some members of the public that wish to speak on this issue, but the staff s position would be not to allow schools in sending designated lands, and No. 3 is in a sending designated land. Number 1 and number 2, there are some opportunities to resolve those issues through a slightly lesser preservation standard. On No. 1 they can meet the current standards. On No. 2 there may be the opportunity with the county to meet those preservation standards since the county is proposing some more passive uses. But, of course, that really hasn't been fully explored, and I certainly, you know, can't stand here and commit anything on behalf of the county relative to that site. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Page 135 February 7, 2002 6JI Federation. We echo the staff s position that there should not be schools in sending areas. These are natural lands, lands that have been identified for their natural values, and schools aren't consistent with the goal of identifying these lands as sending lands or environmentally sensitive lands. This is a bit annoying with the school board, I must admit, because this is not the first time that they've come forward in this planning process with a new site for schools. The Kaufmann property was purchased during this assessment process, and that was the property that Bob pointed out to you. I think it's -- it's Site No. 2, and they purchased that along with the county before this process ended. And one of the reasons we were in this planning process is because there was supposed to be coordination and a comprehensive planning effort that included schools and all the other aspects that are associated with it. At a recent Rural Fringe Committee meeting, Mr. Kirk was present and presented, this possibility of purchasing the Clark property for a school. I asked him, and it was asked again twice at that meeting, about moving the school into the receiving area. And there was the issue of time that a student might be on a bus, and there's an hour time frame, that a student cannot be on a bus longer than an hour. And-the__ recommendation that -- that I made at that time was to have an access road along the most northern border of North Belle Meade, between North Belle Meade and northern Golden Gate Estates so that there could be that connector with that section of northern Golden Gate Estates into the receiving area. We promote schools within a receiving area. That's where they should be, and that's one of the issues that was very prominent in the challenge that brought about this assessment that schools do stimulate growth, and it seems appropriate a you wouId want to stimulate gro in your receiving area w ere you're going to have your rural villages and rural hamlets. Page 136 February 7, 2002 16JI Lastly, I'll just cite -- state again that it's disappointing that we have the school board acting somewhat independent of this planning effort, finding these sites and then trying to retroplan or retrofit this planning effort for what their needs are. And we're supposed to be looking at community needs and all needs. It's not that we're unopposed (sic) to sitting down, and -- and we would look forward to the opportunity to sitting down with Mr. Kirk and whomever else is involved in this to -- county staff, Collier Audubon, whomever, to try and resolve this. And not only are we opposed to the school being in a sending area, at this point we are not supportive of changing a sending area to accommodate a school site. Thank you. MR. KIRK: Excuse me. I'm Michael Kirk for the record. I wanted to address the -- the fact concerning the Kaufmann property and the reason -- well, some of our reasoning for acquiring that property while this process was going on is the fact that a unique opportunity opened up for us to be able to get the property, and we had some very, very tight deadlines to make that decision. And one of the things that we made -- one of the factors that we used in making that decision was the fact that over the last year and a half prior to us acquiring this property, that I had been coming to the Rural Fringe Committee meetings and getting a feel and a flavor of the direction of this -- this -- this proposal. And based on that and based on the fact that we knew the need, we -- we decided to acquire this property with the county in order that we could do joint facilities, and that was what led us to there. And we understood that it was in a location that -- that would meet our needs. We also understood that there was opportunity for us to be clustered with another governmental entity, but then also we have to, in our program -- and we are right now in the midst of an aggressive program to acquire grope liroug ou a coon o mee our nee s or e next 20 to 25 years, that -- that we understand we are at a slight Page 137 February 7, 2002 16J disadvantage being the fact that we cannot compete with developers. And this was an opportunity that we saw that we could actually acquire property without having that -- that -- with having, really, a level playing field. So we seized that opportunity because we're trying to be proactive in providing that -- this -- the property that we need to build the schools. As -- as far as it relates to Site No. 3, we have only looked at that as a possibility and that we have not acquired nor have any contract or, really, are not even pursuing owners to purchase this land, but we are evaluating this and other property throughout the county to determine whether it meets our needs for school sites. And being the fact that we had been looking there, and -- if -- if -- I think that Bill Lorenz could tell you, initially that area for No. 3 was a receiver area, and that's what caused us to look at that area. And in the process it went from being a receiver area -- I think it went -- did it ever go to a neutral area? It never went to a neutral area, but it went from a receiver area. And once we saw that, we were happy because we had been looking at property there. But once it went from receiver over to a sending area, then we had already done some analysis. And so what we wanted to do is to see whether or not, based on the current rules or policies that are being recommended, we could actually build a school site there, and so we have included it. And -- and if the rules do not allow us to go there or even the rules are too -- too stringent for us to place a school there, then -- then we're not going to push that issue. But -- but we do want to have that as a possibility, and one of the primary reasons is because of connectivity. And it's right in the corner where we can not only -- we can not only bring students from north of there, but also. from east of there into that site. Yes, we understand that there's going. to be a rural village created on property that probably belongs o rown; owever, a s a i e i er wes than we need for the areas that are located just east of the NRPA area Page 138 February 7, 2002 or the Belle Meade -- the North Belle Meade NRPA area. 16J l So we are trying to look at connectivity because that is an issue, the amount of time that -- that students are on the bus and coming to school. So -- so we're still open. We're not -- we're not pursuing acquisition of 3, but we have analyzed it and said that if -- if the regulations fit -- fit what we can do there, then -- then we could proceed with it. So we're just asking for that to be considered. And, just like Nancy said, we -- we will sit down with her and staff and talk some more about that and see whether or not, you know, it -- it meets the needs of this county to have that as a receiver area or neutral area in order that we can place a school. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It looks like there's a receiving area just 2 miles west of -- of the corner. There are -- two sections there are receiving at the same latitude, so to speak. MR. KIRK: Yes, there is, and it starts dealing with this connectivity because the area that's east of the North Belle Meade area, in order to get kids from there over to that area means you have to take them all the way up to Golden Gate Estates, drive them over, and then bring them back down south. And when you do that and pick up students along the way, you can easily exceed the time that we are basically restricted by the state to have kids on the bus. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You have the same standard for the children of people who voluntarily locate themselves out in the middle of nowhere as you do for people who live in the urban area? MR. KIRK: As much as -- much as possible, because we're required by -- by the state to do that. We -- we -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The state doesn't differentiate between remotely located people? . it ---they e 'it case by case. And and if ere are enough kids there, then we have to -- then we have to apply to that Page 139 February 7, 2002 standard. I 6 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But if they approve this as a sending area, it sounds to me like they're hoisted on their own petard. They'd almost have to give you some latitude of going a little further west. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Either that or consider buying faster school buses. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or homeschooling. MR. KIRK: So -- but also one of the -- the other things that -- that Nancy threw out -- Nancy Payton threw out was the fact that we also talked about the fact of creating a corridor along that north area in order that we can have that. And then that meets our needs because that -- that will save us almost three times the distance we would normally travel. So if -- if we can't come to an agreement there, then that would be our -- our fallback, is to -- to have that corridor in order that a road can exist. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: There's always a way. MR. MULHERE: And I would say that if that's the kind of resolution, if you want to leave that option open, that's something you should consider when you get ready to make some final recommendations, that there be allowance for an access in that area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wouldn't that access have to impact neighborhoods that already exist in Golden Gate Estates to get to where you got to go? Is that what -- MR. MULHERE: I think the access would be along the northern portion of that sending area just north of the NRPA, but unless -- yeah. Want to go to the next -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much for coming out this afternoon, this morning as well. . - ay. a next issue -- there's really only three more. Sending and receiving area locations and boundaries and Page 140 February 7, 2002 16J1 secondary receiving and neutral designations, there currently are no neutral designations. For the moment I'd -- starting out with the Corkscrew -- Big Corkscrew Island community, ftpresentatives from that community have been participating in this process all along. And let me point that out to you generally on the map. Basically the Big Corkscrew Island community exists both north and south of Immokalee Road to some degree -- lesser to the south, more to the north -- along -- just past the bend on Immokalee Road in the northernmost receiving area. The residents asked to meet with the staff, and I think it was on January 10th. Anyway, some time ago in -- December 10th, we did meet out at Corkscrew Middle School with residents from the Big Corkscrew Island community, and I would tell you that -- I don't know that all of the residents were in attendance. There was probably maybe 40 people in attendance, and I'd say to a person they expressed the desire not to be designated as a receiving area. They -- the reasons largely, I think, from their perspective, were that they didn't want to see the kind of lifestyle that they appreciated and enjoyed and the reason why they moved out there changed through increased density. Other issues have arisen relative to this, and I think Mr. Duever referred to one being that that pattern, in his opinion, was less negatively impacting on the hydrology in that area, which is in close proximity to the Audubon property. And so that would be another reason. And the EAC actually also addressed that as -- as a reason for sort of leaving that area in a neutral status, basically allowing what exists and what is allowed today, which is one dwelling unit per 5 acres not designating that area -- which consists of sections of land -- as a receiving area. The staff had a couple of concerns. We initially based these recommendations on a natura resource value's in a area an , based on the data, had -- did not have as significant natural resource Page 141 February 7, 20021 6J1 values as the other areas that -- that would drive it up to a -- a sending designation. It -- it fit the criteria from a natural resource perspective to be designated as receiving; however, we -- we also understand the concerns of the residents out there. And we asked Dr. Nicholas to take a look at this issue and tell us whether or not he felt that that would be a critical flaw, the removal of those five sections, that would create an imbalance in the sending and receiving relationships, that would be a critical flaw in the TDR process such that it would cause that to be significantly less likely to succeed. And his position was that he didn't think we should take it out of the receiving designation, but he did not also think that it would necessarily be a critical flaw for a couple of reasons. One is that it's a lot harder to go and try to aggregate these parcels that exist in 5 acre and, in some cases, less sizes to be able to aggregate those and then potentially develop those for some sort of a large -scale development. Certainly folks that want to do that will go where it's a lot easier to acquire the larger tract of land. The staff generally feels, as do I, that we could accommodate the removal of these lands from the receiving designation, but we would propose a couple of alternatives to potentially strike a balance relative to maintaining the -- the viability of that TDR process. You remove those five sections of land, you remove five potential sections in which someone could send units. One proposal would be to allow for a transferring to the urban area under very limited conditions. Those conditions would be only for qualified infill development. As you know, the larger tracts in the urban area are increasingly disappearing. That's where we have the infrastructure. That's where we have the economies of scale to support development. Land costs, although, are very, very high in the urban area. And if you a ow a ans er o -- we a e a ou one o o we ing uru s per acre into the urban area only under qualified infill development Page 142 February 7, 2002 16 scenarios, it would limit it to, currently, parcels that are 10 acres in size or less. The proposal would be to increase that to 20 acres in size or less. That's one option. That would increase the market for TDRs. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You're talking about in the urban area or -- MR. MULHERE: In the urban area. Another option would be to leave the receiving designation on these lands, but to prohibit rural villages in those areas and also increase the minimum size for a project to 200 acres, thereby making it more difficult to aggregate that. That's kind of a -- that's not really going to address the concerns of those folks out there. The third option was that if you were inclined to support the removal of some land -- and this is not what we're recommending; it's just an option that's out there -- for example, that 0 to 1 mile corridor also is approximately five or six sections of land that's currently designated as sending. And if that was removed, you'd have some balance there because there's five or six acres of -- five or six sections -- five sections of land in receiving in the Big Corkscrew Island area. Our preferred approach would be one that allows a limited transfer into the urban area of perhaps one dwelling unit per acre in connection with qualified infill development where it makes sense, where you have economies of scale, where you have the infrastructure to support that, and it's under a very limited application. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And bypass Corkscrew Island altogether. MR. MULHERE: Correct, and take them out of the receiving designation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why has there sort of been a problem or hesitancy to have the TDR shifted into the urban area? y are we . g to o mos f o f i t —in To- I he- ur b an ge area. MR. MULHERE: Well, there are a couple of reasons. Number Page 143 February 7, 2001 6JI one, when we talked to Dr. Nicholas, we asked him if the market would support it within that area so that we wouldn't be increasing overall density, at least not largely, except through whatever bonuses might apply. And his response was, yes, he felt like there was a strong market within the fringe to transfer from fringe to fringe, and that was the primary reason. The second reason is I think that there is some concern generally about increasing any density in the urban area generally out there, and I -- and I suspect that any sort of broad application of increasing density in the urban area would not receive the kind of support from the community, or even from the policy makers, that we would be looking for. But this -- this limited urban transfer would not increase density. You'd be taking it from one place to another. It would be locating it more appropriately in an area where you have more services to address those -- that increased density, and it would be a very limited increase by right, one dwelling unit per acre in qualified infill development of, say, 20 acres or less. That, really, I think, is where you want to promote that. And that's likely to result in, perhaps -- and I'm not going to say affordable housing, but some more work -force housing because if you can offset the land costs a little bit by increasing the density in those infill developments, you're likely to see some mixed use or more reasonable costs for housing. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That seems to -- well, I don't really have any problem with that, but I -- I want to go back to Corkscrew Island. It seems to me that to take an area and insulate it from what has happened to everybody else -- MR. MULHERE: But there is one difference, and the difference -- and I neglected to say that, and perhaps I should have -- really, this is the area tha�does ave a very -- pre we - e ine exis ing development pattern, and that was the reason why we -- we felt some - Page 144 February 7, 2002 16 J 1 - some understanding and some support for their requests. Based on the biological and -- excuse me, ecological evaluation, sure, it should be a receiving area. But you do have an existing development pattern out there of one dwelling unit per 5 or less. You have a community that is limited, really, in terms of its, you know, opportunity to expand. And those folks really have expressed a desire to stay the way they are. And on top of that, you've had an expression from the land manager of the -- of the -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Sanctuary. MR. MULHERE: -- sanctuary that that would be their preference as well because they fear hydrologic impacts from any type of other development and that this is more -- more acceptable to them the way it is as it stands. And, I forgot to mention, there's been a lot of expression that there's some wildlife value to that existing development pattern that we have not captured. I don't know that that's something that can be backed up with scientific data, but that was expressed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, is Corkscrew Island built out insofar as the one per 5 acres? MR. MULHERE: Oh, I -- I don't know that it's built out, no, but CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, what if you at least had a token receiving area so that it received what everybody else -- MR. MULHERE: Well, we're not talking necessarily about the whole area. We -- we actually would leave the receiving designation on the largely undeveloped portion up there that's south of Immokalee Road, under our proposal. We would only pull out those five sections that really have sort of developed under that pattern. And, you know, again, we recognize that there's an impact, and we would want to offset a impac a ittle bi annd.-that s why we ve o ere some options to do that. If it's a policy -- it's really a policy consideration Page 145 16J1 February 7, 2002 for you to recommend to the board and for the board to consider. There are some folks here that will speak to that issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it just seems to me that, considering what's gone on in the 20 years that I've lived in Collier County, everybody ought to share in the negative part to the extent that they can without really altering their lifestyle. Now, I've lived in the city the entire 20 years, and certainly my lifestyle has been materially altered by the rampant growth in the county. I mean, it takes me five times as long to get to Interstate 75 as it did when I moved here and so forth. I mean, you can go through a whole litany. So the people in Corkscrew, it seems to me, ought to participate as a civic matter to the extent that you can carve out some sort of program for them to do that. MR. MULHERE: And the other -- I guess the other issue that -- that I -- I probably failed to mention was that that -- that within that community -- during the discussions when we had the -- the sort of meeting out at -- out at the middle school, we raised the issue that it is a voluntary program. There's no -- there's no requirement that you sell your land to someone who would want to aggregate it and then develop, you know, some other type of development. On the other hand, I think a lot of those folks felt that they really couldn't control what a neighbor might do, and they really didn't want to see that -- that happen. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Certainly. I'm not -- assuming that rural villages are a viable concept -- and I'd like to hear some more about that when we get to it -- I wouldn't wish that off on Corkscrew Island, but it seems to me they ought to be left a receiving area to some limited -- if -- if it's only more than token. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm -- Ken, I disagree with you, u�nk —tha s going o severe y a er i es es ou ere, an t s going to have a dramatic effect on the way -- people have moved out Page 146 February 7, 200216J1 there to get away from suburbia. By putting that location on your map, out of all the five areas that you have as receiving areas, that one, to me, is the far most troubling as an argument for urban sprawl, because to get to that location, all the utilities, facilities, transportation, water, sewer, everything has to go down Immokalee Road. And there's -- I've found where you're interconnecting it all. All that's going to do is give every development argument that everything in between that Corkscrew location and the current urban boundary can become infill, and you'll see not less Twin Eagles, not less Bonita Bay East, but a lot more of those, as well as the homes that will go with them. I'm strongly against that one in Corkscrew. I think that ought to be removed completely. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: To that point, are there other areas in the -- in the receiving areas that have anything like these characteristics ? Are we likely to hear them come forward and. make the same kind of argument we're hearing? MR. MULHERE: No, I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So their characteris -- they're not developed at all or they're -- MR. MULHERE: They're much more sparsely developed, much more rural. I mean, this is rural, sort of semirural, but It 1S-- it does have a prevailing development pattern. I think no one could argue with that when you look at an aerial and see the developed parcels. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In terms of this infill, as we well know, within the urban area, the problem has not been having too much density. The problem has been getting the density that's been authorized to -- even utilized. I'm wondering how -- I can't quite understand how the incentive's going to work. MR. MULHERE: Well, I understand that, and I think that's very, very true when you talk about a large piece of an, acres; a thousand acres; 1500 acres. A couple of golf courses, you come in, Page 147 February 7, 200216 J 1 and your gross density is two or less or three or less. That is not -- it is exactly the opposite of the case when you're talking about a smaller infill parcel. The land values are extremely high. You cannot amenitize 20 acres. You can't put in the golf course or any of those other amenities that someone is attracted to in a larger development. And in order to recoup those values, you -- you must have some higher density. And they -- they are qualified to come in right now and ask for that higher density through the rezoning process, and generally they're granted because they're usually located in an area where they're compatible with something higher, four, five, or six dwelling units per acre, maybe higher. What we're saying is at least by right they could acquire one of those without worrying about having to come in for a rezone through a TDR process. I'm not saying they should get three or four. I'm simply saying let's enhance that market for TDRs by allowing for at least one or two dwelling units per acre in qualified infill. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could you just remind me, just location -wise, where one of these might be so I could have it in my mind? MR. MULHERE: Well, if you just think about the urban area and you look at development, you can think of any example where you see a 20- or 10 -acre site that's undeveloped, that's what we're talking about. And there are, you know, a few hundred of them, and perhaps David Weeks might be able to speak to that issue better than I. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this -- so this TDR transfer to -- as an infill perhaps should be considered more widely than just as it relates to Corkscrew? MR. MULHERE: No. It would be -- it would be for the -- it wouldn't apply just to there. It would apply universally. Any -- the po icy would say That you can -- you can increase your density ill you are a qualified infill development in the urban area by acquiring one or Page 148 February 7, 2002 164 two dwelling units from anywhere in the designated sending lands. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. So that wasn't just for Corkscrew. MR. MULHERE: No. But it does offset the loss of that as an option. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: While we're talking about locations, I meant to ask this about the North Belle Meade area. You have two sections as receiving lands down there or two areas. One is larger than the other, and you have a smaller one to the west side. What is that one? Why did that end up being receiving area, and why is it separated and not contiguous to the other larger receiving area? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Number 24, isn't it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I can't -- yes. That little one right there. That's about one section in size, about 640, 690 acres then. Is there a reason why that was singled out and separate and not contiguous? Because to have two receiving areas separated by a -- any other area is going to require -- another infill issue is going to come into play there, and I'm just wondering -- MR. MULHERE: Well, they are going to have the extension of central water and sewer into that area and so they would be able to cluster their development in that section. I'm I mean, first,_prmarily the basis of designating -- primarily the reason that it was designated as a receiving area is based on the lower natural resource values, as with all of the other receiving areas. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There are probably little pieces of those all over the place. I'm just wondering why this one -- MR. MULHERE: This one's fairly large and contiguous. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. Some of these calls are, you want to say, on the border. When you look at this particular set of maps here in e o is ed species for pnofi weans, you can see a a s -- that's fairly vacant of that, although this one here has some, and that's Page 149 February 7, 2002 16J1 why we made -- made that call here, although strategic habitat information may show that there's a higher upland type of species in there. We -- we looked at some of these areas as well as -- since these were also butting up against the estates on -- having estates on three sides of it, that it would be more appropriate in terms of a receiving area since you've got three sides of estates lots on this area too. So those were some of the -- those were some of the thinkings that we had. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just curious. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if there's anybody that wishes to speak on this issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Corkscrew, Corkscrew Island. MR. MULHERE: Actually, I do know there's some folks that want to speak on it. MS. HITTINGER: Lynda Hittinger, and I live out in Golden Gate Estates. I just have a question about this receiving area in Corkscrew. Ed Carlson is the manager of Corkscrew Sanctuary, is he not? MR. MULHERE: Yes, he is. MS. HITTINGER: Where does he live? MR. MULHERE: I have no idea. MS. HITTINGER: He doesn't live in the Corkscrew area where you're talking about, does he? MR. MULHERE: I -- I don't know where Ed Carlson lives. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He lives in Golden Gate Estates. MS. HITTINGER: Okay. I was just wondering if that might be a conflict there. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I didn't ask him. MS. BONNESS: My name is Maureen Bonness. I am a omeowner in ig or screw s an commune , an ve go a map here to show you a little bit better what are the delineations of the Page 150 February 7, 2002 16J l community that we are calling Big Corkscrew Island community. And this area is about -- it's five sections of land total, and it's 'mostly divided into 5 -acre parcels. The homeowners there have septic tanks and wells, and there is -- other than Immokalee Road, there's only one other mile stretch of paved roads. Otherwise, it's all dirt roads and just ditches, not really canals. I have organized a petition by the homeowners there, and I've got 200 signatures from residents and property owners in the area to keep Big Corkscrew Island at the current density that it is now, at one dwelling per 5 acres. In 1978 the residents out there also petitioned, and successfully petitioned, the county commissioners to keep their density at one dwelling per 5 acres, because at that time it was starting to get subdivided into smaller and smaller lots. And the residents out there didn't want that, the majority of them did not want that, and so it was set at one dwelling per 5 acres. I am -- I prefer to live in a rural area, and I am willing to put up with some of the hardships that incurs, such as the distance you have to go to this meeting, for example, just to have our voice heard. And we have had some of the impacts from the greater growth and mostly in the form of driving times. It took me almost an hour and a half to get here this morning. One of the oppositions to the TDR process in this area is that we have a lot of 5 -acre parcels, some of them smaller, some of them larger. And in order to take benefit of the TDR process, perhaps higher property values then, for a resident there, in order to take that value, you would have to sell your land and move, and that's kind of a bitter pill for the residents that live out there. The only way that they'll benefit from it is by selling out and moving. It's also -- I feel it's an ineffective area as a receiving area because o a o e su ivi e acre parce s. ver aymg e process on top of that makes it very difficult for utilities because it's proposed Page 151 February 7, 200 � to have central water and sewer in any area that now becomes a dense area. So you're going to have to overlay utilities and roads. And the other thing that kind of bothers me, too, is that at this point I don't believe that Immokalee Road is scheduled for four laning through District A, at least not in the next ten years or more, I believe. I don't think it's on the books at all right now. So if nothing else, I would recommend that you delay any receiving area in that area through the TDR process until after the four laning has been completed. I believe the utilities will be a problem in there too, to try to get utilities to any little area that you end up developing and clustering. And right now it's all -- it's mostly just dirt roads. And so if you want to start to develop in that area at a density of one dwelling per acre, there's going to be a lot of filling; you're going to need more roads. And in order to have a density of that -- of that magnitude, you will have to build canals, which will affect the drainage then and will affect -- probably negatively impact Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. I do believe the area has more environmental value than has been assessed by the county, and more so as the watershed for Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. It is my recommendation, then, that Big Corkscrew Island -- and I'm speaking now for 200 residents out there -- that Big Corkscrew Island community be removed as a receiving area from the county's plan. I believe it does not fit with the TDR process. Why -- first of all, why put in a receiving area in the TDR process that some people say, "Oh, it won't be used anyway because you have to aggregate all these parcels "? Then why put it in as a receiving? I believe it's -- it'll have a negative impact on the environment, particularly for Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. It won't work in well with either roads or utilities. n ym e o 0 o convince peop e o e s area ou o e receiving area, I realize that the county has needs. We are growing. Page 152 February 7, 2002 16JI People have to live somewhere, so I've tried to find an alternative receiving area, if nothing else. And so I did come up with one parcel of land that currently is not in the rural fringe. It's in the rural lands, and it's this area pointed out here in pink, and it's surrounded on three sides by Golden Gate. It doesn't have the environmental value. It has easier access to services and infrastructure and would probably make a better -- a more likely receiving area. I'll be up front with you. I am a stockholder on that piece of property. That's part of why I came up with the idea. But I'm trying to find any reason for you to be able to make a plan to keep Big Corkscrew Island community out of the receiving area. We enjoy our rural character out there. We pay for it in a lot of ways too. There's a lot of things -- amenities we don't have, but we're willing to deal with that because we enjoy where we live. Any questions? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No. I just want to tell you, I don't have any ill will toward Corkscrew Island, far to the contrary. I just wonder if the county commission is going to be comfortable carving out an exception to favor one small enclave. MS. BONNESS: It is. But I know how far I have to go to get from Big Corkscrew Island to anything that's going on on the other side of 951, and I'm not sure you want a lot of development having to go that far away from the main resources in town. MR. BONNESS: I'm Joe Bonness. I represent Winchester Lakes property. My sister Maureen did point out this section of land on her map as to what we were talking about. It is Section 16 that -- it's in the rural land plan at this point, and we feel that it should be brought back over into the rural fringe. It's separated from the rural fringe by Golden Gate Estates. As you can see, it is bordered on three sides by Golden Gate Estates. It's right on Oil Well Road, has only 2 miles to e a e o ge o services in range ree. was a -- a s rippe ou agricultural field. It was basically in vegetables. Page 153 February 7, 2002 16JI It currently has a 500 -acre excavation permit on it, so to protect it as agricultural property into the rural zoned -- rural land in the future wouldn't protect it as that, because it's never going to be returned to agricultural property. It only has 2 acres of wetland on one corner of the property, so it won't -- it was uplands to begin with. It will never be turned into wetlands, outside of the lakes that are being dug in it. Being close to -- close in proximity to services, it would work very well as a receiving area. It's -- it has good road access. It has very close proximity, and it has three sides that are bordered by higher density property at this point, the 2 1/2 acres per unit -- or 2 1/2- acres- to -a -unit property that it has around it. So it would fit in with -- with the local area as far as being able to have receiving area to be able to bring it up to that standard. So we're requesting that that unit -- or that section of land be put into the rural fringe, and that could help to take up the numbers that would be offset if you do deduct something from the Corkscrew area. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Isn't the sheriffs department's firing range out there somewhere? Is it near that piece? It's off Oil Well, but I'm not sure where. MR. BONNESS: I think it's farther out at this point. It may be in the Golden Gate Estates, I thought. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thought it was in the estates. MR. BONNESS: Yeah. It was in Golden Gate Estates, because I remember Golden Gate Estates gave the property to them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Bill or Bob, what latitude do we have to square this thing off? MR. MULHERE: Well, we -- we don't feel that now is the time to take something that's not in the rural fringe area and put it into the ruraFnuige area.- it you'd izxe to maKe a recommenaation to me Eastern Lands Committee and, ultimately, to the Board of County Page 154 February 7, 2002 16JI Commissioners relative to that, that would be appropriate. But there is a -- a advisory committee set up looking at the eastern lands. This is in the eastern lands. We don't necessarily object to, as I said, the removal of the Big Corkscrew Island community from receiving designation, especially if we can make up for that in some way. But we don't think -- even though there may be a lot of merit to what has been suggested, we don't think now is the time to be dealing with that other piece of property. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that just because it's too difficult or -- MR. MULHERE: No. Because it's -- there's a whole other committee that's been set up, and that's not part of this geographic area. And they're looking at that, and they'll be coming back in November as part of that evaluation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, let me ask it this way, then: Is there some sort of process that these two study efforts will ever come together? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And in that process could some of these issues be addressed? MR. MULHERE: Yes. And that -- that process will be during the completion of the eastern lands portion of the study. The standards that we will have already adopted will be reviewed by the eastern lands portion and then, you know, look at making sure that they're compatible to one another. That's not a long time frame. That's -- that's got to be adopted by November. It's coming in shortly for -- you know, within a few months for -- for you to. hear about. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, your secondary receiving lands, that large, black triangle in the upper, say, north of mmo a ee mb ersec ion -- MR. MULHERE: Right. You read my mind. Page 155 February 7, 2002 16JI COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, okay. I was wondering if you could explain how that is or got there or what it is now or -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Those are -- I think that was the next issue on our hot button list anyway, and there are four sections of secondary receiving lands, and I'd like to point those out to you on the map. I don't know if it's exactly four sections, but approximately. This is the one that you were referring to, Mark? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: And here's another one here. It looks like a little bit of a different color. I'm not sure why. Probably because the other colors overlaid on the map. Again, we -- we designated those as secondary receiving areas based on their higher ecological value than the primary receiving areas. As Bill showed you before, they have a higher occurrence of wetlands and a higher occurrence of listed species habitat than the other primary receiving areas. But through the deliberations, through the discussion as a result of the EAC hearing, and actually even before that, we began to recognize that a couple things were important and may obviate the need for calling those secondary receiving areas. One, the majority of that northern area north of Immokalee Road is in the Mirasol PUD and is designated already as part of that PUD for conservation. We are proposing a policy that would not allow -- and this was -- the EAC raised this issue, and we concur with them -- that would not allow for either units to be transferred in or transferred out when you already have an approval, you already have an approved development plan, and you're -- and the land is in some sort of a conservation easement or some other easement that precludes development. So in the case of those two sections, even -- they wouldn't be able to do it by policy, so there's probably no reason to even show them on the map as secondary receiving lands. Same thing with the -- well, different situation, but the other Page 156 February 7, 2002 16JI receiving lands that are south, in this area here, that is predominantly -- or a good portion of that is under the ownership of the county and the school board. That's part of the Kaufmann property. I don't know about all of it, but a portion of it is. And, again, by policy public entities are not allowed to participate in the -- you know, the transfer process, so they would not be able to bring units in or transfer them out as long as it's a public entity. That's for private -- private land. And so we would also remove that designation on those lands. Now, the alternative would be to simply leave them in that neutral status. And, of course, the Mirasol PUD is already governed by the PUD, but for those other lands there, we would simply leave them in a neutral status, which would allow all of the uses that are permitted by right, today, on those. Obviously we know that the school board and the county are interested in building a park and a school there, but we would take that secondary receiving language -- and those are the only two locations of secondary receiving, and so the proposal would be simply to take that out of the plan. And that was the recommendation of the EAC relative to that as well. There is -one other area that I haven't discussed with you that falls under the sending and receiving topic area, and that is the secondary sending area. This is not located within the rural fringe. The final order required us to basically look at -- just to simplify it, to look at all of the privately owned lands in Collier's rural area. And the fringe is in here, and the eastern lands study is outlined on blue on this map. That surrounds Immokalee. There was another portion of rural ag designated land that's outlined in blue on that map down south that surrounds the urban areas of Everglades City and Chokoloskee. That is 99.9 percent title wetlands, marshlands. If you've ever droven (sic) out east 41, you ow me area y 9 there. Our proposa is o ca 'that a secondary sending area and allow those property owners, those private property Page 157 February 7, 2002 16JI owners, to transfer units out of there into receiving areas but at a different rate: At a rate of one dwelling unit per 10 acres. And that lesser rate is based on the -- the absolute and extreme unlikelihood of anybody being able to do anything there anyway given the fact that that is title marsh wetlands. So we haven't heard any objections from anybody. No one's even raised an issue relative to it. Maybe somebody will today. I don't know. But it seems like the appropriate way to deal with that -- that area and to still allow that property owner to have some ability to -- to garner some value through a -- a lesser rate of transfer: One per 10. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's the only area like that? MR. MULHERE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Can't even build microwave towers in there, huh? MR. MULHERE: You -- you might be able to. Essential services and -- and probably that -- you know, those are not precluded in sending lands so -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I mean in this marsh. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if you'd be able to get a permit for that if you had some impacted uplands. There is a little bit of impacted uplands in that area, mainly at the intersection. In fact, there's a sheriff substation, the Chamber of Commerce, and a gas station there. And those, of course, are -- would enjoy the right to continue to be in existence. We're not taking away that right. But this mainly would apply to the -- to the wetland areas that surround it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if this were considered agricultural, they could go in and fill it in and have one for five? MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess that would -- the answer to that ques ion wou be yes i ey could g-el permi s from the duns c Iona agencies. And I don't know. That probably would rise to a federal, Page 158 February 7, 2002 16JI because that may even be navigable. I don't know. Probably not. I don't know if -- is there anybody that -- from the public that wants to comment on these remaining issues relative to sending and receiving? If not, we can move on to the next one. Okay. Bill asked me to talk a little bit about allowing -- allowable uses in sending and receiving areas. And I think it probably behooves us to start with the sending area where there are significant regulations. We've already talked about the residential allowances, and that is that you would only be allowed one dwelling unit per lot or parcel that existed at the effective date of the final order. We already talked about agriculture. We had a lengthy discussion on that in sending lands. So those primarily are the allowable uses in sending -- in sending lands subject to an 80 percent preservation standard in non -NRPA sending and a 90 percent preservation standard in NRPA sending. There are some other uses that you'll see on that list up there and if I can read it from here -- parks, open space, and passive recreational uses; habitat preservation, conservation; as I said, essential services; and then some uses that are -- that would be coincidental to those recreational or passive park uses such as dormitories, sporting and recreational camps, commercial uses that are accessory to those park facilities, and then we have that oil and mineral extraction and related processing. The language actually in the plan, I think, says excluding earth mining. So that issue is one that you've noted that you want to talk about as you move on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, on the commercial uses, it says here, commercial uses accessory to other permitted uses such as a restaurant accessory to the operation of a park or preserve. MR. MULHERE: Right. Big Cypress Preserve may have -- may wis o ave a res auran ,may ave a res uran . pro a y e Corkscrew Sanctuary, you know, has a snack bar or some sort of -- I Page 159 February 7, 2002 16 J 1 don't know if they do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, a park that's there for preservation wants to have a commercial restaurant in a NRPA land? I don't know what -- MR. MULHERE: Clearly accessory to that. I mean, people -- some people -- I guess the example would be somebody may go out to Everglades National Park for the day, and I'm sure they have a concession stand out there. I'm sure they sell food somewhere out there. I don't know. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: They do at the headquarters. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And that is what that is for. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The western headquarters, I should say. MR. MULHERE: Remember, these would be -- in conservation uses these would be the land managers deciding that they want to have some ancillary use, so my guess is they're not likely to go in and put, you know -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: McDonald's. MR. MULHERE: -- McDonald's or something like that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or Subway. MR. MULHERE: Right. As far as the -- the receiving lands go, agricultural uses are permitted. Single family, as we discussed, is permitted. Parks, open space, passive uses, habitat, essential services, dormitories, all of those uses that are permitted in the sending lands; also commercial uses, subject to, you know, whether they're in a rural village or they meet the locational restrictions of the other ones in the comp plan for commercial uses; utilities and communication facilities; multifamily residential structures shall be permitted under the residential clustering provisions; and group care facilities. vious y arm ra b -o 5r ousing is a ea y perms a m rura ag an is still shown up there. There really isn't very much of that, and we -- Page 160 February 7, 2002 16J1 usually that's now located in more urban or rural village area. Public schools are permitted; social and fraternal organizations; zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, those types of uses. Facilities for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste, now, let me talk about that one. The EAC voted to remove that as a permitted use, and their concern, I think -- you know, and not to pars -- not to try to paraphrase, but I think their concern may have been the possibility of a landfill. But, however, if you're going to allow development in these receiving areas, we feel strongly that transfer stations are an appropriate use and, you know, you have to handle solid waste somewhere, somehow. They also -- the next one is asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, and that was also -- the EAC also voted to prohibit those uses. And, again, we feel that we're allowing earth mining, we're saying that the receiving lands are the location that have the least environmental value; and that's where development should occur. You may have an. asphalt and concrete batch - making plant located in conjunction with an excavation process. And, by the way, that's a very limited resource. We're talking about building a lot of roads in the county. It seems like that is the appropriate place for those to be permitted. Earth mining, again, there you see the oil and mineral extraction with the earth mining use included; TTRVCs, that's travel trailer and recreational vehicle parks; and community facilities such as churches, day cares, and cemeteries. That -- that use is pretty much the same use that is permitted in the rural ag district today, the difference being that the residential component in rural villages and clustering requirement, that we would look for a more compact development pattern. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So somebody could have a home, and right next door to. them they have an asphalt and concrete batch- MaKIng pan. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's actually -- I believe it's a conditional Page 161 February 7, 2002 16J1 use in the LDC. So you have to go through a full -blown public hearing to locate that, and one of the issues is compatibility, and so if they're right next to a single -- these are just the comp plan. Now, you still have standards that have to be written. And, again, within the LD -- certain Land Development regulations -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aren't asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, though, more of a -- zoned an industrial -- MR. MULHERE: They're allowed in industrial as well. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And we have industrial in Collier County, so why would we even want to consider it for -- MR. MULHERE: They have always been allowed in the rural ag district. We're prohibiting them in sending lands. This is not new. They have always been permitted out there. And the only rationale that I can -- that I can give you is that, again, if you have a limited location where you can acquire those raw materials -- I -- I'm not an expert. I don't know if Joe Bonness is still here, but I think that oftentimes you will have some sort of a temporary concrete or batch - making plant located in conjunction to a -- I'm getting nods. So that -- that would be the situation where you would have somebody who has a fill pit and is using that material to create -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, see, by the time they made the concrete that far out and they drove it in town -- like the lady said, she took an hour and a half to get here -- they'd have a solid truck of hard concrete. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not sure it's pract -- MR. MULHERE: -- happening right now on the East U.S. 41. What's his name has a -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Krehling. e ing, yea es m g -- see e trucks rolling so ... Page 162 February 7, 20021 6 J 1 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, yeah. I do too. MR. MULHERE: I think that's a -- pretty much a good summary of the permitted uses. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Bob, could I just ask one thing. This -- we have no secondary receiving lands -- do I understand that -- now -- correctly? MR. MULHERE: If -- if -- that would be our recommendation, that we eliminate those. What's left beyond those things that I told you, the sections in Mirasol and the government owned, is very, very small. It really doesn't -- it doesn't make any sense to create that district, and just leave them in a neutral -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it seems like, at least from my vantage point, it would simplify a lot of understanding this to take that out of the -- MR. MULHERE: I agree. You know, just have receiving and that would be it. Bill, could you go back to that list again? We're not following in quite the same order so I want to make -- okay. The next topic is rural villages and density size and locational restrictions. And as we've proposed rural villages, we've -- we've reduced the minimum and maximum size a little bit since the first proposal to a minimum of 500 acres and a maximum of 2,000. The density, as we've proposed it, is a minimum of 2.5 and a maximum of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. And the locational restrictions are such that you could have a rural village anywhere within a receiving area, but that one should not be located any closer than 1 mile to another rural village. Now, a lot of folks have raised issues about all three of those issues, those characteristics, and I wanted to walk through this process a little bit with you. There's a little graphic up there -- it shows the limit of my artistic caps i i ies -- —where you hav e a thousand-acre rural village and a surrounding -- by the way, that's certainly not to Page 163 February 7, 2002 16J1 scale -- 800 -acre green belt, and that 800 acres is just arbitrary. You've got to have a green belt surrounding your rural village that is -- that averages 500 feet in width, so it may be more or less than that. But in this example -- I already indicated the minimum size was 500, the maximum was 2,000. The densities I've shown you just below that -- they are 2.5 and 3.5 -- and the locational restrictions. If you move up to the top on the right -hand side, it shows you how you can achieve your density. And the first -- the first way that you would achieve your density -- you have to achieve that minimum density on -- based on the rural village size, that thousand acres. And the first way that you would achieve it is by -- you -- obviously you get your base density not only for the village, but for the surrounding green belt area. The base density is one for five, so if you take 1800 acres and you divide it by five, that's 360 units. The next thing that you're required to do is to acquire .8 dwelling units for each acre in the rural village area. So .8 times a thousand in our example is 800 units. But, again, your minimum is 2500 at 2.5 times a thousand. So you're at 1160 there. For each -- you achieve the additional density as follows: For each TDR that you acquire, you get a bonus of two dwellings units per acre, so a thousand times two is 2,000. You add those up -- I'm sorry. Those numbers somehow -- they were in line, but they somehow, in the transfer over to Bill's office, got shaken up a little bit. But the bottom line there is that you would end up with 3,160 dwelling units via your base density, your TDRs, and your bonus, and you would meet -- in this case exceed -- your minimum density. As I said, a lot of folks have raised concerns about not necessarily the concept of rural villages -- and, by the way, this is really a -- a -- I guess, a cutting -edge concept. The governor's growth management study comma ee, many national panning uu is Ives an studies have been written about this concept. And it does provide, I Page 164 February 7, 2002 1 6JI think, a very viable opportunity for some mixed -use, compact development with a significant reduction in the amount of trips that would otherwise be necessary without that mixed -use, compact development, back into the urban area as a characteristic. It can also have some commercial and some employment located within it. As we've proposed it, these things require a rezone approval. They would have to come in and provide with that rezone a plan for the impacts on public facilities and public infrastructure, including transportation, water and sewer, and all those types of things, police protection, schools, all of those types of things. However, as I said, some people have expressed concerns about the overall size, the overall density potential, the extent of the density bonus and the not having some cap on the number of these that might be otherwise able to be built out there. Our feeling was, look, they're in receiving areas. If you get this type of development, it's going to have a beneficial impact in the long run. If two or three are -- if -- you know, my guess is the market is going to limit the number that you'll see out there. But, you know, an issue has been raised about establishing some cap or some maximum number. Originally we had proposed a maximum of three, and we took that off based on the committee's advice that let the market dictate that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Speaking of the market, has this concept been market tested, or are these things that have been written about it written by planners? MR. MULHERE: Both. I mean, most of this stuff is academic. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It works somewhere? MR. MULHERE: I mean, I can't say -- I can't say, standing before you right now, that I've seen it work. But these -- there are locations where these rural village concepts are in place and are evo wing as we spe a ou i . onzons es in a m eac County is -- is one example, and they're moving out towards their rural Page 165 February 7, 2002 1 6 J 1 area. They've created some rural village opportunities, and a lot of these strategies were based on that. In addition, a lot of the strategies were based on this document, Rural By Design, which is primarily authored by Russell Errant (phonetic), and it's the planning expose or -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Somehow the bonus density strikes me as excessive. Did you come up with that figure of two just to make the bread and the molasses come out even, or -- or do you economically have to use that as a carrot to get anybody to do it? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's a difficult question to answer, and it's a very good question. And actually the rationale for arriving at two dwelling units per acre was, yes, that -- that we know we need some incentive to cause people to do this. If they have to acquire every single unit that they need to achieve this through TDRs, I don't think you'll see any. Maybe some people would like that. We think it's a good idea to have them, so we proposed a density bonus. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What about if it were one? MR. MULHERE: I -- I think that most likely that would work as well, just cost a little bit more. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the two does, it seems to me, provide quite an inflation factor to the value of the TDR. MR. MULHERE: Well, the benefit of having -- we can use your example. The benefit of having one to one is it's a pretty even split there. You go and acquire one, you get one, you still have to meet your minimum density. But the other component to that that I would suggest that you consider, then, is perhaps a reduction in that minimum density to, perhaps, two dwelling units per acre and a maximum of three, because the maximum is little high. And if you reduce the TDR bonus, you can offset the impacts of that by reducing e minimum diensity. Afid two, 1 tbink, is pro a ly more pa a s le to a lot of folks anyway. Page 166 February 7, 2002 16J1 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That sounds a whole lot better to me. MR. MULHERE: I thought you'd feel that way. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I guess I didn't stay around long enough for the EAC. Maybe they took it up after I left. MR. MULHERE: The other issue, as I said, was locational restrictions and perhaps a cap. You could either have a cap on the number -- and, again, this is something that will need to be studied as it moves along. It's not going to happen next week, six months, a year from now. It will take time. It will take time to see whether these, you know, come forward and are successful. And they're really only a bonus benefit. If they don't occur, we still have the sending and receiving, and we still have the opportunity for that process to occur. So the -- the benefit of these in the areas where -- where we have these rural fringe receiving areas is that they will serve a very wide area surrounding them, including much of the north Golden Gate Estates as well. And OrangeTree has often been sited as an excellent location for this type of activity, and I think it probably would make an excellent opportunity, but there is another committee, the Golden Gate Master Plan Study Committee, that really is charged with looking at that, and it was not part of our study area, but it has been raised as an area that might have good potential. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Isn't there other bonuses available? MR. MULHERE: There is a proposal for up to 10 percent increased density based on increasing your on -site preservation in receiving areas. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And isn't there a work -force housing or affordable housing -- . es� COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- bonus as well? Page 167 February 7, 2002 16JI MR. MULHERE: Yes. There is proposed also work force, which is .5 units for every -- for every -- but you still have the max. In other words, Mark, we haven't -- that doesn't mean that you can go above the maximum. So whatever the maximum is -- however you achieve it, that's your choice, but you can't exceed the maximum. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can you go above the maximum if you were to apply for blending? Because two of the larger areas for sending -- or receiving happen to be against -- MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- urban areas. MR. MULHERE: No. And I think if you -- if you're inclined to reduce the maximum, I would still leave in the affordable housing density bonus and go to a bonus of one to one. That would still work well, but just by reducing that maximum. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The maximum right now is what? MR. MULHERE: 3.5. Bill was reminding me -- I mentioned this, and I maybe skipped over it a little bit. But just to make it clear, the huge advantage that we have here if a rural village is developed is that mixed -use concept, that concept of mixed housing types, but also commercial, institutional, and even some work opportunities. And the degree to which folks can avail themselves to those facilities much more close -- much closer to where they live will offset the very difficult problems that we have on the roads that lead in and out of north Golden Gate Estates and into the urban area. I recognize that this is a -- as I said, a cutting -edge concept. I see, though, no harm in the policy being located in there if you've got the protection of the parameters on it that make you feel comfortable. And if it happens, then I think we'll reap the benefits of that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I asked a question this morning a ou mixe -use receiving areas. e you gouitg o esigna a areas or rural villages? o=' •i February 7, 2002 16J1 MR. MULHERE: No. As it stands right now, you can develop a rural village in any receiving area. They just cannot be -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So there's no such thing as mixed - use receiving area? MR. MULHERE: Well, they -- no, there's no such thing as a mixed -use receiving area, but the rural villages are mixed use. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And -- and the only restriction is 1 mile, as we currently propose it, no closer than 1 mile to one another, and the green belt around it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I guess I -- unless there's more questions -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just want to make this comment: If we're going to go down this road -- and, you know, I'm certainly leaning to try these things out -- I really would like to see them work. MR. MULHERE: I understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And -- but I'm not -- I don't know that I have the wisdom to select numbers that would be better or worse. Is there some way that we could, you know, get this process through the BCC, of course, but get this process launched and then have some -- some way to evaluate how it's working and -- MR. MULHERE: I think you could. I think just like the TDR process, there needs to be a regular evaluation of the process. Of course, there's no sense in evaluating it until such time as someone comes forward with a recommendation, and at that point you're going to see the market analysis that I think you're looking for. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't want to -- you know, I don't want to make a bonanza for everybody, but on the other hand, I wan i o wor . MR. MULHERE: I don't think -- at a one to one in a lower Page 169 F ebua rY 7 200 6 J 1 �W&A density, I don't think you're talking about a bonanza. I honestly think what you're talking about is an incentive for someone to come in and do this. What I wanted to tell you was that there's been a lot of expression of interest on the part of some land owners out there, so we do have people who have expressed an interest in this, including, I believe, Mr. Anderson's client, but others as well. But you're talking about a very significant investment up front, keeping in mind you're talking about, you know, providing that -- the infrastructure, providing the sites for the institutional and, you know, the social -type uses. There are -- I mean, there's great detail that has gone into this that you're not going to see as part of this, but you're going to see later as land -- land code things -- minimum park areas, greens, squares, all of these types of components -- to ensure that this retains a rural village character. And -- and we have developed a lot of those, but they're not appropriate to be located in the Comprehensive Plan. They come at the next step. CHAIRMAN A13ERNATHY: Tim, you want to talk about this? If you stay in the NRPA, you want to be a rural village? MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Tim Hancock with Vanasse Daylor representing Florida Farms, a landowner in Area D, which is a receiving area, along U.S. 41 to the south. The -- by way of background, the committee had worked for some two years and had met over that period of time and had worked predominantly on environmental issues. I'm sorry. My apologies. Normally I'm not accused of being too soft spoken. We get into year three, and this time is -- the clock is ticking, and it occurs to me and several other committee members that the final order- requirect us to lo—ox at ctitterent cteveiopment scenanos ror ianas, and today within the rural fringe, there were no new development Page 170 9 February 7, 20ol 6JI cot scenarios being proposed. Yes, sending and receiving, but the concept of new towns, urban villages, satellite development, none of it had been brought to the surface. I raised the issue with the committee and had several committee members respond at that time, but that's what they thought they were getting into when they started doing this, is writing the rules for a new, better way to develop, and they wanted to see more information on it. I crafted an initial set of language, presented it to the committee. They liked a lot of it, they had questions about a lot of it, and directed me to work with Mr. Mulhere. And I think Mr. Mulhere added some language and concepts to it, and what came out the other end was decidedly better than what I had initi -- originally proposed, and credit to Mr. Mulhere for his assistance on that. As it then continued .to kind of work through the process -- and let me take one step back and just say that this is probably, in my opinion as someone who's been doing this for 12 years and someone who's involved in the Urban Land Institute on a national basis, one of the most exciting elements of what's coming out of the rural fringe plan. The reason is that all over the country new development is being required -- not asked, but required -- to develop in a fashion of what's called new urbanism. What new urbanism means predominantly is let's be smarter about how we locate our resources and our homes so that you can recon -- reduce trip links on the roads. We can put people near the things they need so you don't have to get in your car to get a gallon of milk every time you need it. And it requires a balance that you have enough density and enough rooftops, if you will, to support a certain amount of office and retail commercial so that you can try and be as self - containing as possible; thus, the idea of rural villages or new owns. ou re really trying o crea a some ing a is as near y se - sustaining as possible. Page 171 February 7, 200216J1 As we've gotten into this process and this has worked its way through, there are some market conditions that have been more or less thrown out the window in looking at certain facets of this, and the first I want to deal with is the minimum and maximum size. I agree with having a minimum size. I mean, you don't -- in some of these areas to say you could have a true rural village on a hundred acres doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, you better put 16 -story buildings up if you're going to get enough mass to even support a quick stop. So a minimum size makes sense. And I think tailoring rural villages to different needs, such as in Area C where they would be utilizing the surrounding area as a part of their demographic profile for who would use the commercial services, that makes some sense. When you get down to Area D, it's surrounded by publicly owned lands. There's no access. There's no contributing population around that area. It is an island, if you will, access off U.S. 41. I have objected through the process to a 3,000 -acre maximum on rural villages. I've also objected to the 1 -mile minimum distance saying that one or the other needs to go, and the reason is simple. Mr. Richardson, you said if we're going to do them, let's make them work. I have been involved numerous times on due diligence studies for shopping centers for grocery stores. Almost every new urbanism approach has to have an anchor like a grocery store at its retail core in order to feed the other uses. You can't put in a dry cleaner store and a store that sells sandwiches and a store that sells sweaters in the winter and call it an urban village. It doesn't work. You haven't captured any trips. All you've done is increase the density and force that density out onto major roadways to go get what they need. So there has to be a -al a n c e— o awing enoug roo ops to capture e —no ug a is a you can entice the national retailers, mainly grocery stores, as anchor Page 172 February 7, 2002 16JI tenants. That density is not a gift; it's a requirement. It is also necessary because in these types of -- of developments, what they're finding is Publix won't come in and pay 6 or $8 a foot for a 35,000- square -foot store in the center of this new town you're developing. The shopping and retail components have to be built as an amenity, no different than a golf course or a park or a tennis court, in order to attract these retailers. So the expense to someone who's developing this concept is far, far greater than that of a traditional community. What that boils down to is when you do work for Publix, for example, and you're providing information to their real estate location committee, we do rooftop counts. And we take the store location and we draw a 3 -mile circle, and we count rooftops. They like to have a contributing population of in excess of 10,000 people. They like to have a contributing area, where it is closer to come to that store than other stores, of 10,000 rooftops. In the case of Area D, you're not going to draw from much of anywhere else. You are geographically limited. And by limiting 2,000 acres as the maximum size, you will not generate enough rooftops to support any substantive retail component. Without the retail component, the commercial, retail, and office components die. Now what you've got is a higher density, amenitized community with a church and a school. That's not the new urbanism approach, and it's -- it's going to force people out onto the road, which is what we're trying to avoid. My suggestion is -- is this on the -- on the size issue: I don't think enough work has been done to either validate or invalidate that size. However, in order for these to be developed, we're going to have to create language in our Land Development Code for urban villages. a s where a size belongs, nom is document. I ask that you consider taking that out. If we can use that as a land development Page 173 February 7, 2001 6J1 regulation instead of putting it in here, it will give us the time to go to some of these national retailers and find out, "What is it specific you're -- specifically you're looking for" so that we can maybe tailor these things in a manner that they will work. If we try and ease into this thing by limiting it too many ways, we're going to end up with a horrible hybrid that doesn't get us where we want to go, and so I would ask that you have consideration for taking that language out of here but require the size considerations be placed into the Land Development Code. That way if they don't work, we can amend them at the local level. We don't have to go back through DCA to amend something that we figured out doesn't work in the real world. So I'd ask that you consider that. Outside of that, if -- if that is not a consideration, if you feel like you have to limit the size of this or if you're going to drop the density on these, then I ask that you look at either reducing significantly or eliminating the minimum distance between them so that if they may be a half mile or a quarter mile apart, the two together may have enough mass to support an anchor retailer in one or the other. But, again, it all comes down to demographics. Do you have enough rooftops to support the concept? And if you don't, the concept simply isn't going to work. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Bob, you know, some of -- some of his comments sound reasonable; maybe all of them do. Is there some way to -- MR. MULHERE: Well, it's -- it's tough to make everybody happy. The -- the concerns the people have of having no limits are that -- that you won't know, perhaps, how many of these might occur or how they might grow. I think there's a rationale -- I mean, I do agree with Mr. Hancock with respect to preferably being able to tweak t ese oug a an eve opmen process. we i e a o 0 -- of detail out of this that we feel should fall in the land development Page 174 February 7, 200 16J1 process, but we left in the maximum size, the location restriction, and the densities because we felt that the DCA would want to see those things when we submit that to them. They want to know what the potential impacts of these things are, worst -case scenario or best -case scenario. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Excuse me. Have we made any -- has the staff made any study on what it would take for us to get a retailer such as Albertson's or a store like that in an area? MR. MULHERE: We haven't specifically made any study, no. We do know and we do concur with Mr. Hancock that you do need to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 10,000 rooftops to be able to support, you know, the typical kind of grocery store that you look at. Now, having said that, we're not expecting that that entirely comes from -- as I think, also, Mr. Hancock indicated, from the receiving areas. There are large surrounding areas of Golden Gate Estates that are developing very rapidly that would also be the -- the service area for these rural villages. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If we're talking about a rural village, we're talking about an entity that is basically self - supporting, at least, again, you want to be able to do for your family in that area. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If we can't get a grocery store in an area of 2,000 people, then -- MR. MULHERE: But I think you can. If you look at that -- it's not 2,000 people. If you look at that 2,000 acres -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. You're talking about the 3100? MR. MULHERE: If you look at the maximum of 2,000 acres and then you -- you look at the density that's permitted, which is —be een an , as we recommen e i , we ing uru s, , -- let's use the minimum. 2,000 times 2.5 is 5,000 dwelling units. Okay. Page 175 February 7, 200216)1 Now, if you consider that approximately 2.5 -- and that's a pretty good estimate -- individuals per dwelling unit, you are up in the 10,000 range. So at the larger scale, not even considering the service area that surrounds the rural village, you have achieved that amount. I mean, we didn't just pull these out of thin air. We went through a process of evaluating these. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That was my question. MR. MULHERE: But, on the other hand, you know, there are other prototypes. There are smaller stores. There are more rural stores, and this is an evolving concept. So when you think about these major retailers, they may change some of their plans to provide a design that is still profitable that could address a smaller rural village than that 10,000, 8,000, or 12,000 population. And I think that's something that we will see to evolve, so that's the flip side. I think there are very legitimate issues that -- that were raised there, and it's hard to, you know, find the -- the right number. What is the right number? But I will tell you that, you know, there have been a lot of concerns expressed over the potential of the larger size rural village. Remember, originally we were proposing, you know, 3,000 acres, and at 3.5 you were up to 10 and 12 and 13 and 14,000 dwelling -- population. And there was a lot of concerns, and that's why we scaled it down. But when we scaled it down, that number at the larger size does still support enough population to be able to be self - sustaining. And -- and, again, that hasn't even considered -- there could be smaller -- I think the example of the North Belle Meade where the -- the sector plan calls for a smaller rural village of maybe only 300 acres, that may be very appropriate there because that's a place where they really will be able to serve a much larger segment of the surrounding Golc�.e- n Gate Estates area soha == that�ia mar e segment is increased. You might be able to do it on 3 or 400 acres. Page 176 February 7, 2002 16JI You're not going to get the population from that that you need, but you'll get it from the surrounding lands. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, Bob, we can only speculate about the size parameters. What about his point of taking it out of this study and putting it into the LDC? What's the pros and cons of that? We could decide that today. MR. MULHERE: You sure can. I think the only thing that I would suggest to you is that you may -- and that would buy us some time, at the very least, to do some further evaluation. I think that there may be a -- a question that would arise from the oversight Department of Community Affairs as to, well, what's the impactment? How big? How small? How many units? I'd defer to Nancy to -- so we might get (inaudible) on that, but then again, I think Mr. Hancock raises a pretty a good issue. It certainly would give us some time forewarned to do some further evaluation and try to come up with a number that works better. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the way we handle, of course, PUDs, we have some parameters. MR. MULHERE : You do, and you get some market information. And you would with these, too, when they come in. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I guess I'm just trying to think of having this level of specificity in something that can't be changed without going through another growth management amendment. MR. MULHERE: That's true -- that's -- that's generally, though, true about any type of development. You do generally know what your maximum densities are, and they're generally located in the Comprehensive Plan, those maximum -- in the density rating system. And-to not -do that here-, J think; would cause some concern. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Cornell. Page 177 February 7, 2016J1---J ' MR. CORNELL: If I can add a couple of cents' worth of this. Brad Cornell for the record. I do agree with Tim Hancock that -- that we need all the information we can get to -- to make this a viable plan, but I also do agree that we need to have some sort of idea of how big, just on the scale of things. One thing to consider, just thinking about this, would be the problem of acreage, perhaps increasing the density of the rural village beyond 3.5 units per acre. While that would be a more intensive use, you would be compacting that use in a smaller area. Along with that I -- I have to say that I -- I think that there needs to be more distance between these things, and we do need to limit how many of them there are, both of which -- these factors would achieve that. You know, let's look at -- I wrote down 3 miles. Maybe 10 miles -- I have seen proposals as much as that -- between these things.. Again, I think we can have some -- some comfort in their being adjacent to areas like Golden Gate Estates where they can draw from those service areas. The green belt around the rural villages, you know, as it's outlined needs to be bigger. Five hundred feet is not -- we're trying to prevent sprawl. And if you want to prevent sprawl, you want it to be compact, you want it to be well - defined, and you don't want any temptation to bleed out into other areas, thus the separation. And I -- I also agree with Mr. Hancock on this -- the idea that these should be designed with smart growth and new urbanism design standards. I think we should explicitly reference those. You know, while we don't have to -- to spell them out specifically -- that's for the LDC -- but we could reference that specifically, that this is what we're trying to do with these. I know it's sort of implicit in the way we're -- we're describing them. Ana I agree a the--_ ss ening a onus dense ; insteaca o two units, something less. It does make me feel nervous to see that much Page 178 16JI February 7, 2002 created density just appear from nowhere. Even though I want to see this -- as Mr. Richardson said, I want to see this succeed, but I feel nervous about adding too much bonus density. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: As Brad was talking, I -- and Stan just suggested -- whispered something in my ear, and that is that we have quantified -- in a sense we have quantified and limited the number of these in another way. Remember, you have to acquire TDRs. If you go to a one to one, for example, there's only 5,000 units out there to be sent. And if you have to acquire a unit for every bonus unit or for every two bonus units, whatever the case may be, your -- you know, your maximum number of units that are available at this point in time is -- is plus or minus 5,000. That's probably going. to limit the number of rural villages to three in that general area, which is what we had originally recommended as a limit anyway. In addition, I think, you know, that -- that also limits the potential population increase from that bonus because you -- if you were given a two - unit - per -TDR bonus, there's 5,000 units, the maximum increase is 10,000. If you lower that to one, then the maximum increase is 5,000. So we do have limits in place based on the limited number of TDRs. And 10,000 may seem like a lot, but in the overall scale of things and by incentivizing this very beneficial development style, I think that the benefits outweigh the relatively low increase in density, especially low if you think about reducing that number to a one to one. Then it's only 5,000. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could you describe for us - - we haven't talked about it -- what that green belt is likely to look like or how big it is? end- that's in eres ing. a green e really isn't intended necessarily to -- you have a locational separation, Page 179 February 7, 200216 J 1 and that's what's intended to separate these rural villages. The green belt is -- is really more of an amenity and intended to be more of an open -space amenity tied to that development because you're going to have more compact development in the rural village itself, and you will have likely less open space and greenspace in the rural village because you want it to be more compact in its development. You can have a surrounding green belt. Now, that green belt can help you meet your preservation requirements, and that's another benefit to it because you will have preser -- there are 40 percent preservation requirements in the receiving area. It can also help you to address any species or wetland preservation requirements that you have. And -- but other than that, I have no objection and the code doesn't provide for any objection to whether or not that happens to be agricultural land or golf course land. You've got to meet your preservation -- it's in a receiving area. Remember, these are all within receiving areas. And within receiving areas those are permitted uses, and we want those uses in receiving areas. That's where we want them to go. So the green belt -- you've still got preservation requirements, and you can partly meet them through that. You've still got to address your species and your wetland issues. Most likely that will be an area where you can do that. But once you've met those objectives, it would be further punishment, in my mind unnecessarily so, to suggest that you couldn't use that green belt for open space, some sort of open space. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could.it be used -- could it be used for residential, one per 5 acres? MR. MULHERE: No. That's the one prohibition, no residential development. That's to be transferred into the village. And that is one of the small ways where you can provide some measure of protection _ for existing agriculture out there as well. Page 180 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Golf courses? 16 J 1 MR. WLHERE: Well, why not? They're permitted uses in receiving lands. Remember, this is the land that we've decided is appropriate for golf course use. This is receiving areas. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I mean, so why not? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But you -- well, you've grafted a requirement on the village that it have a green belt, and then you turn around and -- and let them use it in another way. MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah. Golf courses are green. I'm not saying that that has to meet the native vegetation. I think you're going to hear the difference here. I'm not suggesting that the golf course should be able to meet your preservation requirements or that it should. do any -- no. You've still got to meet those requirements. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. MULHERE: But you may have an excessive area. You could throw a few holes in there, you know. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You were talking about that being your preservation area, and then you went from there to golf courses, and I -- MR. MULHERE: No. I'm not suggesting -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- can't jump that far anymore. MR. MULHERE: No. I'm not suggesting the golf course would meet your -- no. You've got to meet your 40 percent, you know, in the receiving area. And my guess is that you would -- it would give you the opportunity to protect that contiguous, valuable native habitat or wetland area within the green belt, but not all of it has to be used for that. And I think it would be sort of double -- double punishment if we said that on top of that you -- you know, you couldn't use some of that land that you didn't have - to use for preservation for CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Somebody suggested that you Page 181 February 7 2016 J � b could do a golf course in 80 acres. I don't know that it -- is that -- MR. MULHERE: I -- you know, 110, you know -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Eighty. MR. MULHERE: Eighty probably. I -- I guess Mark would know better than I. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So you would have a lot left over. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, you would have a lot left over. I see Mr. Duever's -- MR. DUEVER: One thing that was said was that -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Identify yourself. Excuse me. Excuse me. MR. DUEVER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: New court reporter. Tell her who you are, please. MR. DUEVER: Okay. I'm Mike Duever. And one of the things that was said was that you had to have a certain number of transfer development units for a rural village, and there's something in here on page 50 that says, The requirement to achieve a minimum of .8 units per gross acre of land within the rural village through the transfer of units from designated sending lands may be reduced or waived by the Board of County Commissioners if the number of units available for transfer from designated sending lands is insufficient to meet this requirement. MR. MULHERE: That's -- that's correct. And that was put in there because we assumed that that number would -- would be exhausted fairly quickly. But based on this discussion today and the EAC, I think, you know, you could strike that language if that's what you so desire to do or what this committee so -- it's something that's going to have to be reevaluated because once the sending units are exhausted,, that means they've worked: They've worked -t way we wanted them to. We may want to find some more sending units so Page 182 February 7, 201 6JI they can work again. And so -- MR. DUEVER: Okay. Just curious. And based on what you said a few minutes ago -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That was originally put in here. But, I mean, if you really want to limit it, you'll have a limited number of sending you can -- MR. DUEVER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If you're going to move on to another area -- MR. MULHERE: I was. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's fine. I'd just like to -- since this is still fresh in my mind, I'd just like to offer my opinion, for one commissioner, that I'm inclined to go with -- with whatever numbers you've got here, and let's see how it works. I don't have the wisdom to tell you that this should be a bigger number or smaller number, and I have faith in the staff work that you've done. Unless you come up -- based on your other technical input, you come up with some recommendations to change these numbers, these are the ones that I would go with. MR. MULHERE: I think we're up to -- this is it; right? Wetland preservation, this was the last hot button issue, and then I know there's lots of questions. So I'm -- really, this is Bill's -- Bill's issue, and I think I would defer to Bill to talk about what -- what conflicts there are relative to our recommend -- recommendations, and maybe you could start out with what they are. MR. LORENZ: Right. Well, the -- the wetland preservation, as we earlier talked about at the landscape level, was trying to look at these large areas where there's a lot of wetlands and direct land uses away from -there. That's the =- that comprehensive planning process that -- that works, and -- and I think that we -- we've shown you all the Page 183 February 7, 2002 16J1 maps and figures for that. Now, talking -- it was more difficult, quite frankly, working at the project site review and -- because we do have a number of agencies that are involved in wetlands permitting, and we have a number of concepts that we're trying -- we're trying to juggle with. And what we've come up with, I think, is a good shot. It's not perfect by no means, but let me tell you what it does, and I'll tell you what it doesn't. It does propose a no net loss of wetland functions, and it's very clear and specific that we're talking about no net loss of wetland functions. And that means, for instance, that you cannot compensate the destruction of wetland with some type of preservation of uplands. Sometimes that is being done with the federal and state agencies. Our policies will basically preclude that. You have to show us that you're not losing any -- a loss from wetland functions. So we do have that in -- in the -- in the policies. We don't have a -- a new regulatory permitting process, other than the fact that you're going to have to meet these requirements, and you're going to have to demonstrate that you meet these requirements prior to some type of final land alteration approval. The wetlands will be part of the vegetation preserved that's required for the vegetation retention requirements. Now, we're talking -- now, I'm also talking about the urban area because those policies are written for the urban designated area as well as the rural fringe area. That's that 25 percent requirement. In the receiving areas, it's 40 percent requirement. The way we've drafted the policies is that on -site wetland will have to be the first -- will be the top priority vegetation to put into those preservation requirements. Now, what that doesn't do, however -- and whatever impact you make -- you have on wetlands that —you -_ - - -. don't preserve on site, you're going to have to impact -- you're going to Page 184 February 7, 2004 6J1 ,4 04, have to mitigate -- excuse me -- you're going to have to mitigate under the no net loss of wetlands functions. But what it doesn't do is it doesn't tell you how much wetlands are going to have to be preserved on site after you've satisfied the vegetation retention requirement. So, for instance, if you have a hundred -acre site, a hundred -- a hundred acres is -- is all in wetlands and then you were in the urban area, your vegetation retention requirement is 25 acres, 25 percent. Our standards would require you to have preserved on site 25 acres, but then you can then impact the other 75 acres. We haven't addressed that. We've just capped it at the total vegetation retention requirement, and that has been some point of discussion with the EAC and others, that there's a desire to see some county requirement for more acreage to be retained on site. Again, if you mitigate it off site, you have to mitigate it according to the no net loss of wetland functions. So that's -- that's kind of where we've arrived at. Let me -- from my perspective, the wetland issues were some of the most toughest issues of trying to develop through the process, trying to be sensitive to the fact that you have other agency reviewers out there trying to -- to work at the landscape scale and the project site scale, but still provide appropriate wetland protection for Collier County. And this -- this is going to still be an issue because on one -- on one hand I know that individuals would like to see additional requirements for more wetlands to be preserved on site within, if you will, the project area. But we are limiting that requirement to the total vegetation retention requirements. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let's talk about mitigation a little bit, because I brought that up earlier. MR. LORENZ: May I also -- may I also -- I'd like to have Barbara Burgeson come up and also speak and answer your questions Page 185 February 7, 200216 J l very specifically since it's her and her staff that will be dealing with the very specific implementation of these policies and -- and the way they're currently doing the work now. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Your Policy 6.1.1, parens, 9, I guess, is the one -- this policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands -- this is page 22 -- should the wetlands alone constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved. I have a lot of trouble understanding this particular -- because we've had language similar to this in the previous policy, and every time it comes up to the Planning Commission, they say, "Oh, well, we're not following that anymore. We're doing something different." And I just want to make sure that the one we get here is the one we're really going to follow. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. That language, as you say, is in the current Growth Management Plan, and staff has had that language available to mean that if, for instance, on a piece of property where you have to retain 25 percent, if 40 percent of your site is wetlands, it does not mean that you can develop greater than the 25 percent -- from the 25 to 40 of those wetlands. However, staff s difficulty is in -- in having any kind of measurable, discernible standards to go above that 25 percent. So in some cases we've had support to say that you have a pristine flowway. It's adjacent to a flowway South Florida's trying to protect, and we've gone above the 25 percent. It's very rare when we can do that. And that's why Bill Lorenz has been saying that there are not just the EAC members, but staff has concerns that unless we try to define it a little bit better and measure it a little bit better, what happens is what's happened in the past 12 years or 13 that I've been with the county, and that is that you end up in a position where -it's very-hard to-- defend it, even though it's always been in here that we can protect the Page 186 February 7, 2002 wetlands. 16J1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It seems that we lose, too, in the mitigation process, or apparently, because we're not in control of the mitigation. And I'm hearing you say no net loss, but if we depend on an outside agency to -- to broker this for us -- you know, they've got so many acres on this site and they're going to have to mitigate off in order to make this thing work and then they look at the quality of these wetlands and they start going through all kinds of mumbo jumbo and you come up with a number, that's not, in my mind, a no net loss. It comes up with some -- in fact, if it's a small number, they kind of ignore it. MS. BURGESON: There -- there are a number of -- of site projects -- I go to monthly meetings. In fact, I'm going Tuesday to the South Florida Water Management District office in Fort Myers for an interagency meeting. At the last interagency meeting, there was one site in Fort Myers, for instance, where they had two isolated wetlands that totaled approximately 6 acres of pristine cypress heads that were mitigated for on site with uplands. So for that example, you clearly had a net loss of wetlands on site. South Florida has -- has an agenda that is very important. And I'm not -- I'm not saying that what they're doing doesn't satisfy their -- their requirements. But, for instance, they -- they take a look at a regional issue. They look at what the mitigation will do for the South Florida Water Management District, and it's very important. However, Collier County sometimes looks at the fact that we have neighborhood wetlands that are very functional to that neighborhood or that local area. And if they're mitigated for 50 or 60 miles away somewhere else in Collier County, that's very valuable to the regional issue, but it can cause some problems to the local issues. It can be just as simple as aesthetic. It could be wildlife issues. It could be water- recharge and flood control issues. Page 187 February 7, 2002 16JI So we'd like to try to get some neighborhood or some local control on the wetlands on site, not step on the toes of South Florida, but there are -- there are a lot of the RPs that are issued where there is, if not a net loss by their evaluation, a net loss in the terms of the way a lot of us take a look at the projects. MR. LORENZ: One thing - one thing we will -- will be doing with these policies, however, for the net loss considerations, it will be the county staff s responsibility to evaluate the -- the information to ensure that there's not (sic) a no net loss with regard to Collier County wetlands. However, that still doesn't address the idea that Barbara talked about, of how much we would actually preserve on site versus off site. MS. BURGESON: To go into that just a little bit further, what Bill was saying, we will make sure through these policies that when South Florida issues a permit, for instance, with upland mitigation, they will still have to come back to Collier County, do additional mitigation, make sure that it's equal or greater functional wetlands that are mitigated for, and we will have to probably address what that quantity will be. And we will protect the wetlands and the total function. It just may not be locally; it may be on a more regional level. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, good luck. And I hope that, you know, we're taking some appropriate steps. It seems that we're taking the appropriate steps to get closer to protecting what is really ours. I just, you know, feel very uncomfortable with letting other agencies decide for us what -- particularly when they come up . with an answer that isn't one for one, at least one ,for one. So we can expect to see that somehow into our Land Development Code changes so that we'll have some local jurisdiction over wetlands in our -- as it relates to this type of issue? MR. LORENZ: Very specifically, the no net loss issue, we will February 7, 200216 J 1 ensure that we review the mitigation proposals, that there will be no net loss of wetland functions. That's what we are proposing in the -- in the plan. And we've strengthened the language through the change sheet so that we don't automatically accept the agency's permitting to say that. So we will review it, and if it -- and if it is truly the case, then -- then it's a go. If not, then we can have the -- we have the authority, then, to hold any land development alterations permits from that point on. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Now, in terms of the time line when this -- these local activities might take place, one of the things it seems to me we're faced with when we review a PUD or something coming in is that we don't know -- they haven't gotten their permits yet. We don't know what the numbers are going to be. Is this more a site development plan kind of an issue, or could we or should we be bringing this forward so we have more information at the -- prior to the time we give approvals of the PUD? MS. BURGESON: We do have one item in here that will help address that, and that is that because we are deferring the South Florida perm -- well, in permitting to South Florida, they currently are -- we are required to defer the wetland delineation and -- and definition to South Florida. We are also requiring that when the petitioner submits information to staff, that they submit a WRAP score, which is a wetlands assessment score, that is agreed upon with South Florida so we know what South Florida has determined those wetland functions to be. So you probably will stop -- it may take a little bit of time between now and when we adopt these. Staff is going to try very hard to make sure that we at least get close to some information or an accepted score from South Florida prior to when you will be receiving those petitions for review. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Good. - Thank you: - -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sure you have some members of the public Page 189 February 7, 2002 16J1 that want to speak on the wetlands issue. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell. This is kind of a -- a mixed bag. I -- I want to say at this point that -- that Collier Audubon generally supports staff s recommendations, the proposed amendment language that you have in front of you. We think that on a landscape scale, we are protecting, through these amendments, the majority of the wetlands and habitat in the rural fringe and through the sector plan in North Belle Meade. However, I think that we are vulnerable on protection of wetlands in -- in the receiving lands where perhaps things are a little more disjointed and less connected, but there still may be quite a lot of wetland value and function, particularly for wading birds, flood control, recharge, those sorts of functions. At any rate, I had two things to suggest to you. One was that even on the level of protection that we are proposing for -- for wetlands through these policies, it's pretty safe to say that we're going to need more staff. And so I think that that ought to be a recommendation that comes from the advisory committees, both the EAC and -- and the Planning Commission, that they're not going to be able to do an effective job reviewing what the agencies are permitting if there isn't more staff. And that's, actually, one of the problems with the agencies themselves. They don't have adequate staff to effectively monitor and -- and do a good job of permitting and mitigation in Collier County. - And so I would say that, you know, we need to be the best -- we need to have the best oversight on that, and that means better staffing for -- for our -- our local staff. And the second thing is to consider -- and I know this -- this actually follows up a little bit on what I just heard about looking at WRAP scores, having WRAP scores in front of you before you look at a permit. But it would be good to have a policy that requires permits in hand before we issue building permits, agency permits, or at least a letter, you know, citing the -- the wetland and wildlife considerations Page 190 February 7, 2002 16J1 on any particular project. And, you know, we would need to go into some of the details of that. But I think that's something that's -- that we should start considering. If we're going to be deferring to the agencies, we need to see what the agencies say before we issue building permits if we don't do it in house. And that would be, I think, a good program overall. Thank you. #0% MS. BURGESON: I'd like to address the -- just the last concern of Brad's. We -- we do require, by the Land Development Code, that prior to any final development order that would require clearing -- and that's typically any final development order, whether it's a site development plan or final plat and construction plans -- that we have all of the agency permits in house before those approvals are issued. So we would not be issuing any building permits in terms of the larger projects until those agency permits are in hand. However, we do fall short of that whenever you're talking about any project that's previously been approved as a subdivision, for instance the Golden Gate Estates area, where those building permits are issued prior to us requiring wetland permitting in hand. So for the larger projects where we go through the site development processes, we do require the agency permits first. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Barbara, that just sounds like an administrative issue. Why can't we just do it for everything? MS. BURGESON: The only thing that I can say about that is that I have seen these discussions brought forward over the past ten . years in front of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is their final decision on that. The concern is a duplication of effort, as far as I understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't think I understood. Maybe you didn't understand me. I'm not -- it's not a staffing issue I'm raising. It's a -- that's a different one. But it's -- if -- if your approval process -- you know, you got a time line. You have things -- certain Page 191 February 7, 200216J1 things happening at certain points. MR. MULHERE: But if we're talking about the -- the fact that we require permits before we allow commencement of construction for most projects but not for single- family homes in existing platted subdivisions -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- it's primarily, I think, because the board has - - has in the past -- whether they would change their mind on this policy or not -- has not wanted to burden single- family property owners in Golden Gate Estates in a platted subdivision, where only some of them may be required to have that, from having to have that prior to submittal. We notify them on the perm -- the county notifies them on the permit that they may need a jurisdictional permit. And we've had a lot of conversation about trying, over the years, to make that a better process. In fact, at this point in time, I think the county has a DEP staff member who's assigned -- who is working out of the county and reviewing those Golden Gate permits for compliance with those issues. But the board has, in the past, been reluctant to institute a policy that said that they had to have those permits in hand prior to submittal for single family. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Staff would accept a recommendation from this board -- this commission to the board to repair that? MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: That -- that concludes the -- at ten to four -- the hot button issues. I didn't know if you wanted to take a five - minute break. I'm not sure about the court reporter. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think maybe before we take the break we ought to talk about what we do the rest of the afternoon and how long we go. Page 192 February 7, 200216 J 1 MR. MULHERE: Okay. I know Mark has quite a few questions that he's indicated that he wanted to kind of go page by page. I was under the assumption that -- that we could do that in -- probably in, you know, 90 minutes or so, and that would bring us to, you know, 5:30 or so. And I don't know if that meets with your abilities in terms of continuing that long. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm good till seven in the morning. I got to go to work. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I was hoping to be good until five o'clock. I don't know if we can -- we can do that or whether we should continue tomorrow or whatever the case may be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: A lot of the questions I have have been answered already by the presentation and by the questions of this committee, so we might be able to get through mine fairly quick once we start on them. I just don't know. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to state I believe some have left, but I have 14 speaker slips. Many of those people have spoken already. I don't know if they have anything left to say but CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I was going to ask the long - suffering people that I see in the audience who haven't spoken, if they wanted to have their say, why don't we listen to -- and then -- MR. MULHERE: General public comment? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: General public comment. MR. MULHERE: And then you can close the public hearing and have questions. MS. STUDENT: Shall I read each name and then if they've spoken, they -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's let the ones that are -- that Page 193 February 7, 2002 16JI are here -- this lady and gentleman, are you prepared to speak? I can imagine. State your name for the court reporter, please. MS. KEMP: Cindy Kemp. I commiserate with you all. A heck of a job you do. I'm a member of Property Rights Action Committee, and there were about seven other people that wanted to talk, and it just went too long. I've been up since 4:30 this morning to get here, closed my business down to come to this meeting. Property rights is a watchdog organization that protects private property. I am here for myself and for those who could not attend, the very people who pay your salaries and are so often not given the opportunity to have meetings in the evening, as is done in Lee County. If you'll notice, I chose to wear the Gadsden flag to emphasize my sentiments. It says "Don't tread on me." Colonel Gadsden designed the revolutionary flag in 1775 for colonists fighting for freedom from the tyranny of the British government. The rattlesnake was, quote, chosen because of the peace -- because it's a peaceful creature unless provoked. I feel provoked. Do we not live in a constitutional republic? Do you know what that means? It is not a democracy, as is so often cited. Perhaps Ben Franklin was right when he said to the woman who queried, "What type of government have you made us, Mr. Franklin ?" And he replied, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." Surely you remember the last part of the Fifth Amendment, "Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." When property is usurped, then tyranny takes over. Since government or conservation groups have already acquired over 80 percent of the land in Collier County, I wonder if the next article I'll be wearing will be a shackle. As I try to analyze how the current proposals will impact the future, -I see the TDRs being manipulated into nothing more -thaii _. incremental land acquisitions that further impinge freedoms and Page 194 February 7, 2002 16J1 devalue private property, not to mention the cluster areas of questionable character and destruction of rural lands. When land is devalued by any percentage through regulation, it is the same as expropriating a comparable percentage from a savings account. I attended the EAC meeting on January 23rd and wondered how nonchalantly TDRs were moved into the estates. Weren't the estates exempted from the rural -- from the final order? It is my understanding that the objectives of the planning committee were to first stop urban sprawl. However, doesn't it make sense to do this in a way that does not violate property rights, thus avoiding conflicts, lawyers, and upholding the constitution? Do you understand that property is the basis of our freedom in this country and that the first plank of the communist manifesto is to abolish private property? It is only slaves who do not have the rights of owning and controlling property. Second objective is to preserve environmental resources. Can you explain to me what resources you are talking about since there's only 20 percent of the land left for private ownership? I am a nature lover and enjoy rural living, which is why I live where I do. I kind of call it my Hiawatha experience. It has nothing to do with economics for me where I live, but it does for many other taxpayers. My beliefs include -- include a divine creator, and I feel compelled to be a good steward of the earth. So I'm -- I'm looking out for the environment. However, do you know that the No. 1 species on the endangered species list is humans, who are being overregulated and forced off their land, quote, voluntarily by environmental agencies with political agendas that skew science and -- and doomsday tactics on ignorant people? Two articles that just came out of the Washington Times: NASA debunking global warming and another article about Klamath River Basin, how those people were pushed off their land, and the science is skewed. Page 195 16J1 .:.� February 7, 2002 The Burt Harris Act may be presently untested in the courts, but I think more and more people will become aware of it through the efforts of property rights advocates such as Stewards on the Rains (phonetic), who just won a major lands rights case; Pacific Legal Foundation in Miami, whom PRAC has already been in contact with; the American Policy Center; American Land Rights Association; Dr. Michael Kaufmann, who stopped the ratification of the biodiversity treaty and whom PRAC hosted this past October at The Community School -- I hope you had the opportunity to come and attend -- Henry Lamb; Julian Simon; environmental scientist James Hansen (phonetic); and many more intelligent people. The third objective being agricultural land use, all I have to say is, do you like to eat? But then again, I just question, what are the motives behind the regulations? As the comic strip Pogo says, "We have met the enemy, and it is us." We are destroying this country through overregulations and disregard for the constitution. All I can say is that I am provoked and so are a bunch more people. Property Rights Action Committee will continue to expose the issue to the people and pursue justice for property owners. Why can't we all come to the table to plan intelligently to the benefit of all? And that includes constitutionally too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Where do you live, by the way? Golden Gate Estates? MS. KEMP: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. How about these two gentlemen midway back on the aisle? Do you want to speak? MR. MALONEY: I'm Tim Maloney representing myself, individual landowner. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Landowner where? MR. MALONEY:-In -every receiving and sending area on e map basically. I've got 360 acres roughly that I'm concerned -- Page 196 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Scattered around. 16J1 MR. MALONEY: Yes. I think one of my biggest concerns mostly is the lack of opposition to this -- the TDR plan, probably because most of the public that ended up in sending areas I doubt were notified of any meetings going on. The only -- the only way I found out about it was in the newspaper, but I know there's a lot of absentee landowners that probably don't even know what's going on. You know, I'm sure they'd be concerned if they -- if they were made aware of this. That -- that's one concern. But sitting here all day, I was staring at the map on the wall over there, and the point was already brought up. The state already owns a vast majority of Collier County. And I'm all for preservation, but I do disagree with allowing someone or some committee, who has probably never set foot on most of my land personally, deeming it a sender or a receiver. Most of the receiving areas that I see on the map I was given a couple weeks ago -- contrary to what some people have said, most of the receiving areas are already cut up with hodgepodge development. What I mean by that is Big Corkscrew Island in particular. I agree with Maureen Bonness. It's already cut up with 5 -- you know, small 5 -acre tracts. The chances of a developer utilizing this receiving area to do anything with is going to be very hard because trying to put all those individual people together is very difficult. So whatever happens with, say, Big Corkscrew as we remove -- say -- say it ends up that you remove that from a receiving area. Now all of a sudden you didn't do anything with the sending areas, so now -- now I have a concern. Unfortunately, the majority of my land ended up in sending areas. You know, how can I have a guarantee that I'm going to be able to to do anything with my development rights? That that s one concern. Page 197 February 7, 2002 16J1 If you -- if you look at the map, and even if you visit some of the places on the map deemed as receiving areas, you'll -- you'll realize real quick that the possibility of -- of a developer putting -- putting everything together in one large piece to utilize my sending rights is pretty nil. It's hard to get individual people together that way and buy them out. I mean, it's going to be very expensive to do that. And most of the people that are living in -- in these receiving areas live there for a reason. They live in, you know, rural areas. They like their privacy. You know, I agree with that. But I think the receiving areas that have been designated and the sending areas, I don't know who -- who all decided on these, but I disagree with some of them, and I just want to express my concern. You know, down -- down at the bottom on U.S. 41 in Section 31, a major concern of mine, the receiving area touches the -- it would be the southeast corner of Section 31, of which I happen to own the northeast quarter of that section. Now, if anyone's ever been there -- I have many times -- there are no wetlands on that corner. It's basically pine flatwoods and uplands. So who's to say -- or who decided that I got cut out of this receiving area, you know, just -- just because it was already cleared land? That seems -- that seems to be the pattern that I'm seeing in most of the receiving areas. It's like the committee is going around either with aerial photographs or maybe visiting parts -- part of the sites and saying, "Well, that's already cleared. We can make that a receiving area." Well, I don't agree with that. I mean, just because I didn't get around to, say, farming tomatoes on my 160 acres -- which it is, you know, zoned ag; I could probably do -- I suffer, and thus, I don't get a receiving designation. I mean, that's -- to me, that's kind of ridiculous. So that's -- that's all I have to say. COMMISSIONER - MIDNEY I have a question. -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yeah. Page 198 February 7, 2002 16J1 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What -- with the land that you have, what would you like to do with your land that you won't be able to do with it under this plan? MR. MALONEY: Well, I bought -- I've been buying property over the years, upwards of 30 years, and I -- I bought my property for investment. I was always told you. buy on the outskirts of town, development will find you, and there's my retirement. You know, I'm real up front. I buy real estate for investment. And I'm all for saving the environment, but -- but if you look at the map over there, we've got plenty, plenty of -- of area that's already designated wetlands. And I'm not saying go in and wipe out everything else that isn't owned by the state. I'm just saying that you got to be careful with people's property rights, because I have -- I had every intention, as an investment, to do something with my property, not just to be limited to selling a TDR that I may or may not be able to sell. Let's face it. You've taken away more receiving areas, possibly. Well, who's going to buy my senders? What about large property owners that end up with 50150, like earlier today? He's not going to buy any sending rights from anybody. He's got his own. He's going to do his own trade -off. So basically, you know, that -- that's the point of view that I'm taking. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Mulhere, can you answer that question? What does a sending person do when he has no takers for what he wants to send? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what we're going to have to wait and see because -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He can't do anything else, can he? MR. MULHERE: Well, he can put one dwelling unit or pasture _- - lands. Yeah.- MR. MALONEY: Well, one -- one for -- one per parcel, Bob, Page 199 February 7, 200 16J111 and I happen to have 160 acres. MR. MULHERE: I understand. MR. MALONEY: That -- that's lousy. MR. MULHERE: The only thing that we can tell you is we went out and had an expert evaluate it, and he tells us that the value of those sending units will be significant. I don't know how long that time frame will be. We've got to implement the process and monitor the process. If this doesn't work, if we don't have a TDR program that does provide for a viable option for those people who are in sending lands, then I suspect the county -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Would have to back away from it. MR. MULHERE: -- may be subject to a challenge, you know. But we can only hope that will work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, if we expand the uses of TDRs to infill inside the urban boundary, to build a unit on a project right now, you know, generally you're looking at around 20 to $25,000 in base cost to get the unit started. Wouldn't that, then, theoretically increase the value of those TDRs that -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- people like this gentleman are holding? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the only trigger there is that we need to spread these TDRs into the existing urban boundary as well as the sending areas that we're looking at. MR. MULHERE: That's a very good point. If you open that up, that's certainly going to increase the value. Again, what Nicholas told us was in the examples that he's seen where it was successful -- and, again, he'll be here for the board discussion, so some specific - questions -could be directed to him: -But what he told us was the initial - value that he's estimated he would predict will increase significantly as Page 200 February 7, 2002 16J1 the demand goes up. So it's a question of whether or not there's going to be a demand. By -- by opening that up, you will increase the demand, and yes, the value will go up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because then any development in Collier County that wants more than what the base rate is, as long as the infrastructure can support it, they could buy the TDRs. We have environment gains because the TDR is then used, and then the landowner actually gets more than he would if we waited to go to sending lands. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me ask -- we have a gentleman waiting to speak -- who else wants to speak? The court reporter's been going for 2 hours and 15 minutes here. If there are two of you, I think we'll go ahead and take a break for about ten minutes to give her a chance to move about. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. MR. GERSTEL: Good afternoon. My name is Mark Gerstel, and I'm a Property Rights Action Committee member. A few words: I work hard. I pay my taxes. I give to charitable organizations. I love my wife. I love my son. I worship God, and I fly Old Glory. But I cry when I see what's happening to the constitution and to my way of life by overzealous environmentalists and government agencies that kowtow to their wishes. Thank you. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I saved a number of comments to the end so I didn't have to keep jumping up. Mostly they're here to support staff. One is supporting staff s position that there should be no golf courses in the sending or NRPA areas. That's been a concern of ours for a very long time. And it is our position, as I understand it's staff s, that -no golf course-_ in sending or NRPA lands, as is proposed in the document that Bob's Page 201 February 7, 2002 6J1 «W leafing through at this time. Secondly, we support Corkscrew Island not being a receiving area. It's unclear to me, but I think it's going to be a neutral area, and that's -- that seems quite acceptable to us. And we've raised concerns about that area in the past, so that's a consistent position of ours. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I get the feeling that's the way it's going to leave here. MS. PAYTON: Good. And the third item is the secondary receiving areas, that we've been concerned about those, and we support the recommendation that those be neutralized. And lastly -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Eliminated. MS. PAYTON: Eliminated. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is it not eliminated? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. They -- we would eliminate the secondary receiving and call them neutral areas. MS. PAYTON: Call them neutral areas. And lastly, I want to comment on allowable uses, and that's this chart. And there are a number of allowable uses that we would like to see deleted from the NRPA areas, the non -NRPA sending areas, sending areas, conservation lands, the last three columns. Agriculture we touched on, and I'll -- I'll jump over that one because that's an unresolved issue, but you understand our -- our concerns. Then I jump down to parks, open space, and passive recreational uses, and those appear on all three lists. And we don't have definitions for what those might be, and we feel it would be appropriate to have definitions so we could better understand what sort of activities those might be. And it does seem a bit strange to have parks in conservation lands because isn't that what they are? MR. -MULHERE: Not necessarily. - The public access in mi constituting a park that has, you know, the ability for people to go in Page 202 February 7, 2002 16 J."i, and out is different than, perhaps, a conservation land that doesn't have any access. MS. PAYTON: You mean a parking lot? Well, I think that's why we need definitions, because there is confusion about what a park might be, what open space is. And we heard that open space can be golf courses, but yet there is an exclusion for golf courses on these lands, and there's not a cross reference and -- MR. MULHERE: Well, they're clearly prohibited in sending lands. MS. PAYTON: Well, it still brings up my point about open space. The definition includes golf courses, so there's conflicts within -- possibly within various sections. Essential services, we don't have those listed. But as I remember, going back and looking at the LDC, that it's infrastructure, and we're opposed to that, that sending lands, NRPA lands, conservation lands shouldn't be viewed as surplus lands waiting to put public infrastructure in there. Therefore, we would elimit -- eliminate essential services. And also I raise the issue that if we reference the LDC, doesn't this make it a self - amending plan, and essential services gets -- can be modified and changed through the LDC, and we don't really know through the Comprehensive Plan what that might be? MR. MULHERE: Do you want to deal with that one, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. The DCA has opined in the past that if we put an ordinance number reference and a -- and a date, that that's sufficient because then if you amend it on a later date, it no longer is the date that's in the comp plan. MS. PAYTON: Very good. I remember that now. It locks it in. But still, we don't think essential services are appropriate uses on -- in - -- on-environmentally sensitive land. - Then I jump down to commercial uses accessory to other Page 203 February 7, 2002 16J1 permitted uses, and then we have the reference to the operation of a park or preserve. Well, a preserve -- I don't understand this. And, again, I think we need to have some clarification about what would be appropriate commercial uses, and that seems to leave a wide open area for what might happen. We might have a hotel out there. That would seem inappropriate. The staff housing in conjunction with safety service facilities and essential services, does that mean a firehouse with firemen spending the night or any other type of facility? Again, that goes to essential services and public facilities which, again, we think are inappropriate facilities and uses of these environmentally sensitive lands. And lastly, the oil and mineral extraction and related processing, that was a -- I liked Mr. Strain's idea that we eliminate that and deal with it on an issue -by -issue basis. And lastly, in conservation lands we're allowing churches and day -care centers and cemeteries, and that just seems totally inappropriate to me as well. And why they would be acceptable in conservation lands but not NRPA and sending lands, what the heck is the thinking there? MR. MULHERE : I don't think we have any objection to removing those uses. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The copy I have doesn't even have those on it. Did that come out today? MR. MULHERE: I think they came up on that spreadsheet there. MS. PAYTON: It's on page 3 of 4, the last column. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. That's -- this is the one that came out today. I haven't had time to read it yet. MS. PAYTON: So in summary, we think infrastructure, essential services, public facilities are an inappropriate activity or allowable use on conservation, NRPA or non -NRPA sending lands. -- Those last three categories are lands that are identified as environmentally Page 204 February 7, 2002 16JI sensitive. And these have been issues for us since the get -go on this. MR. MULHERE: Just -- David just mentioned that the inclusion of the churches, cemeteries, and whatever the other use was in conservation lands was that there are some inholding, some privately owned lands designated conservation down in and around Ochopee where -- you know, that they may wish to put that type of use to serve that very small population out there. But I don't think that it's a major issue, and certainly I don't think that we would object to removing those uses, those three. MS. PAYTON: None of the other ones? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, we'd have to -- we'll have to talk about those other ones. I certainly don't mind -- I mean, I think the staff would be inclined to maybe meet and talk about how we could clarify some -- like, the essential services, because some of them we think probably are appropriate and may need to be located out there, and others we don't feel are really a legitimate issue because it's very unlikely that you're going to see, for example, a firehouse to serve no population out there. MS. PAYTON: Well, why do we have it in there then? MR. MULHERE: Well, we -- we don't. What we have is essential services, and then you go through the land code. So, I mean, I think that the idea is that some of the essential services are appropriate and others aren't. And I think what you're saying is we should spell them out, and I think that's something we're willing to take a look at. MS. PAYTON: And I'd be happy to sit down with you to help you spell them out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If there are no further public speakers -- we'll hear from an intervenor before I close the public hearing. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Page 205 February 7, 2002 16J1 Bruce Anderson. I raise these issues not on behalf of any specific client, but just as a matter of internal consistency and procedure. Number one, some of these amendments that are included in this package deal exclusively with the urban area, and it's my feeling that it's inappropriate for them to be included as part of the rural fringe assessment package. I would ask that you make them the subject of a separate ordinance so that in the event there's a challenge filed to these amendments that deal with the urban area, that it doesn't hold up the rural fringe amendments and vice versa. MR. MULHERE: That's something I'll have to defer to Marjorie or Nancy. I suppose you're talking about some natural resource protection strategies that deal strictly with the urban area? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. For instance, I don't think we need to worry about marinas or sea turtles in the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: I think that's true. But -- but the final order really didn't preclude the development of natural resource protection strategies from applying outside of the rural area. I'm not suggesting your suggestion is a bad one. I'm just saying that the final order said develop natural resources protection strategies, and they apply countywide in some cases. If it's a legal strategy in the event of a challenge to prevent all of it from being challenged, I think that's something I would have to defer to -- MS. LINNAN: For the record, Nancy Linnan. We would only consider that at adoption, obviously, not at transmittal. It's not necessary to do it. It just makes it a little cleaner in case there's any doubt. We'd be happy to talk to you about that. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. My -- my second point is if you'll look at the handout that you got today, the errata -- the errata sheet dated January 7th, page 14 and 15, the Policy 6.11 that applies to the urban--designated area, on-page 15 there is a -- iri subparaga —No: 9,, there's a reference to this policy being applied retroactively. It said it Page 206 February 7, 2002 16J1 would be -- the language is, "Parcels that were legally cleared of native vegetation prior to January 1989 shall be exempt from this requirement." And I don't think it's right to go back and apply some new standard that we're hoping to adopt in the next few months and apply it on a retroactive basis to clearing that occurred over the last 13 years. If you want to adopt a new standard and enforce it, that's fine, but do it prospectively, not go back in time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bruce, would you mind giving us that reference page again? I haven't been able to find it yet. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It's -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The errata sheet, I have that, the one that was passed out -- MR. ANDERSON: The errata sheet, yes. Page 15 -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. ANDERSON: -- and it is paragraph No. 9, in parenthesis -- oh, page 6 of 17. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 6 of 17. MR. ANDERSON: Well, they've got two numbers written on here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because 15 and 6 are different. Okay. Now it's a little easier to follow. MR. MULHERE: I think I can cut this fairly short. Unless I'm mistaken, I think Bruce is probably correct, that if parcels were legally cleared prior to 1999, which is the effective date of the ordinance -- the point is that if they were legally cleared prior to 1999, the date of the final order, then I think that that's an appropriate date to put in there, which would be June 22nd, 1999. MR. ANDERSON: Although, see, this policy only applies in the urban area and the final order had nothing to do with the urban area. MR. MULHERE: So it might be the date of adoption. Page 207 J+ February 7, 2002 1 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: We'll take a look at that. I have to talk with Barbara and other staff members to see what the implication was. Now, the -- moving along here, we talked about the possibility if we had to continue this meeting. I guess there's an available time at 8:30 on Wednesday, but I understand Mr. Adelstein would not be able to attend. Mr. Strain, I was talking with Marjorie. She indicated that if it was language concerns only, we could get with you and talk about the language concerns outside this meeting, but if you could -- if there were policy issues, if we could kind of concentrate on those, we might be able to get through them. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. And I -- I'm not talking about necessarily a meeting either; maybe by phone. As long as it's just you, I don't -- and if it's just language stuff, not talking about policy or debating, if you have just some questions about what something means. But if it's more than that, then I think we better -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know where it would lead. MS. STUDENT: -- or if it could flow into more than that, then I don't think we better hazard that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it seems to me we might -- and I can't recall this -- pick up Mr. Budd, who's off in Atlanta at a building -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He's supposed to be back on Sunday, I think. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He's supposed to be back over the weekend. We could pick him up as a substitute for -- MR. MULHERE: My problem -- I'm not sure that -- I guess I'm going to have to defer to Marjorie, but he wouldn't have been privy to -- and maybe if he looked at the tape or ---he hasn't been l ere —for this meeting. If we have a continuation, what's the implication there? Page 208 February 7, 2002 16JI MS. STUDENT: Well, this -- this has happened before, Bob, and that doesn't preclude somebody from -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are we saying the only time anyone else can make it is Wednesday morning? Is there no other days? I would like to be a part of this. Thursday morning is fine with me. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm flying -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He's leaving town on Thursday. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What happened to Monday and Tuesday? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, they weren't -- Tuesday's a board -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How about Wednes -- oh, we've got Wednesday. I can't. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Monday I have a doctor's appointment, but I can scrub it if that's -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Monday, I could do that too. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: How is Monday, Mark? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Monday works for me. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Monday morning only. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Monday morning's fine. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's not good. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Not good? MR. MULHERE: We could -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, what's your time line here? When does this -- MR. MULHERE: It's going to the board on February 27th, and we need -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: - When's our next -Planning Commission meeting? Can we continue it to the first part of the 21st Page 209 meeting? February 7, 2002 16JI MR. MULHERE: We have to have a lot of documentation prepared for the board well in advance, and the public, of that meeting. And if we could do it sooner, the board -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think we have a assignment for Monday if we do it in the morning. - CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, Mr. Midney says it's not good. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll come if I'm the only one. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think this might be a convenient place to stop for the day and let Mr. Strain ask his questions in an orderly way on the record. We might all learn something. And then there are issues within issues. We got the hot button issues, and then within them, there are little side things. And I don't think we could do that today if he waived his -- not by 5:15. MR. MULHERE: Well, hopefully Stan will be back in a moment. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If we get -- Budd will be here, we hope, on Monday, so we'll have six. MR. MULHERE: Well, what we'll have to do is the staff tomorrow will have to contact all the other members of the Planning Commission to see who could make it for that meeting on Monday, in addition to yourselves. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In addition to -- MR. MULHERE: The five. Right. You already know, but we'll contact -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Budd you can't contact tomorrow because he's not back until Sunday, we think. MR. MULHERE: Well, anybody want to try to call him Sunday nig t. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Can't do that until Sunday Page 210 February 7, 200216J1 night anyway. We have enough for a quorum on Monday. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We can call his business and find out a -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll do that. We'll do that -- have the staff do that tomorrow. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think I'm ready to close the public hearing, for whatever difference that makes at this point. MR. MULHERE: You're actually closing it, or if there's no more public comment, you're just going to continue to have discussion amongst yourselves on Monday; right? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: On Monday. And we want you to run through all of these items. I don't know whether we want to follow down the EAC's list of motions and see where we stand on them and see how much -- MR. MULHERE: I think that's a good suggestion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. I think that would be a good way to approach it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The old motions or the new motions? MR. MULHERE: Well, we've got them all on one sheet. There's 17 or 18 of them or 19, 23, something like that. MR. LITSINGER: 8:30 Monday morning is good. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I'm prepared to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Don't adjourn. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'm prepared to but I won't. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we continue this meeting until Monday at 8:30. Otherwise, you haven't got notice for Monday's meeting. MR. MULHERE: Yes. It has to be continued. You're right. - COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN I- -move we continue tiis - meeting till -- Page 211 16J= 16J}�?', ,. zooz MR. MULHERE: You can close the public meeting, but it's got to be -- the meeting's got to be continued. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We need a second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'll second -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are we going to close the public hearing as part of this or not? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We already -- I just did. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Then that's fine. Call the question. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So the public hearing -- there won't be any public hearing on Monday. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If they're here, they -- it's a continuation of this meeting. MR. MULHERE : Let me defer to Marjorie. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We've closed the public hearing. MS. STUDENT: Let me explain. If the public hearing is -- if the meeting's just continued, then the public can still speak. If you close the public hearing now and you -- then Monday it's just discussion amongst the commission. However, I -- if you felt so inclined, you could open -- you could close the public hearing, continue the meeting now, and then if some other people showed up, you could always open -- open it again and take some more. I think you could. It doesn't say you have to do that. I'm just saying -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I'm not inclined to do that because the EAC, it got completely out of hand where you had people in the audience who wanted to take issue with parts of the discussion. And we could -- you know, it could be a tennis match after a while. - -MS. STUDENT: Correct.. -And tcari get to -where it never eri s—. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So I support the chair in Page 212 February 7, 2001 6J 1 closing the public hearing. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, we had a motion on the floor to continue until 8:30 Monday morning. Any further -- excuse me? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's been seconded. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:37 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION KENNETH L. ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DONOVAN AND BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 213 Fiala V Carter �� Henning Coyle Co /M.0.1 AIL Bay$AOra Bea0doC Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 AGENDA FOR MARCH 13, 2002 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. ATTENDANCE: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of February 13, 2002 IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT A. Budget 1. Water use figures 2. Anticipated Revenues V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: A. Update on progress with Risk Management VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Report on Funding & Grants — Bob Petersen B. Report on future planning for Bayshore area C. Trash Receptacles & Benches D. Update on Botner situation VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS IX. ADJOURNMENT r� otiers 6J1 The next meeting date is April 10, 2002 Pa l= COCrCS: At the Collier County Department of Transportation Operation Office 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Q Naples FL Dat e: , tt11,.. /W I $uy.0ora $autitificatiaN /N.3.7.p. 16-JI Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 SUMMARY MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2002 III. Moved by Dave Benson to approve minutes of January 9, 2002, seconded Maurice Gutierrez, Carried. IV. Landscape Maintenance Report: It was moved, seconded & approved to have the Chairman approve the installation of the replacement trees, & also flowering shrubs for some of the medians (focusing on #18-19-20) after prices have been received, if & when they come in before the next meeting. It was also reported that the lights will be shipping on February 22nd & hopefully installed by next meeting. VI. OLD BUSINESS: Bob reviewed the bids on the pedestrian shelters with the committee. Three bids were submitted: Ist Bid - Supply & Install - $11,720 Pick -up & Install - $4,720.00 2nd Bid- - 5,123 928.22 3`d Bid- - 4,300 625.00 The third bid was the lowest. That bid includes the benches, roof, footings, poles and building permits. 16J1 &WMore &aati/ieatiaN M.8.7A Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 February 13, 2002 Chairman Bill Neal called the meeting to order at 4:03. 11. ATTENDANCE: A. Members: Bill Neal, Dave Benson, Maurice Gutierrez, Jean Carpenter (Excused), Tom Welstead (Absent) B. Collier County: Bob Petersen, Val Prince C. Others: Robert Kinderlan, Pres. Of Commercial Land Maintenance, Sue Chapin, Manpower Secretarial Services III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Dave Benson to approve the minutes of January 9, 2002, seconded Maurice Gutierrez, Carried. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: Val Prince handed out the Budget. (Attached) Budget was reviewed and discussion followed. There was as question on the water use figure. Mike Levy will review the figures & Bob will report back at the next meeting. Bill would also like Mike to look at the anticipated Revenue collections against the projected Budget for this year and see if there is a surplus of funds. V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: Val reported that Robert (Commercial Land Maintenance) had been cleaning up from blown over trees, visibility, and repairs. Robert mentioned he has had to do some drastic cutbacks and may have to go to something else for plantings in certain areas. Bougainvilleas would be a good choice. Fertilizing will be done at the end of February or first part of March. Trash again is a continuing problem. Bill felt Robert is doing a good job on keeping up with the trash & to continue. Robert mentioned the repairs to the irrigation system & Bob has asked Robert to keep track whether it is actual car accidents or vandalism for other committees, so can do so for the Bayshore area as well. Bob said they are starting to develop a system for Risk Management for Insurance purposes. Val reported that they prepare a package concerning all the information & submit everything to Risk Management. If they recoup any monies it will be credited back to the individual fund. Robert is still in the process of getting figures for the 31 -33 trees as a package, to keep the costs down. Bob explained there is different ways in the industry that you can price a tree. It has grades & standard & is measured by Grey Wood (actual brown or gray portion of the trunk), Clear Trunk (from the ground where the first frond comes off) and Overall Height (goes up to the canopy). After discussion it was decided to continue to use the Royal Palms. Robert will get prices and start to remove the replacements trees as he sees fit. Dave Benson moved to have the Chairman approve the installation of the replacement trees, and also flowering shrubs for some of the medians (focusing on 16J1 #18- 19 -20) after prices have been received, if and when they come in before the next meeting. Seconded Maurice Gutierrez. Carried. Bob reported the lights will be shipping on February 22nd & hopefully installed by next meeting date. Bill is hoping this is possible as they are trying to plan a Festival in conjunction with a Botanical Gardens show in April. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Report on Funding & Grants — Bob Petersen No report at this time — need ample time to make sure funding is available. Bob also mentioned he did not have a comparison of George Botners numbers to Kris Jains numbers (Kris Jain & Assoc.). No breakdowns into certain categories only lump sums or figures. Paper work for the Bayshore Project is to be sent off next to the proper persons as soon as the final figures are in for legal action. Bill reviewed the past figures of roughly over $400,000 for the bridge. From Kris Janis' figures of last months meeting he recalls expenses to be: $132,000 Medians (130' long), $23,000 Pavers, $20,000 Repair Railings, and $82,000 Concrete -Incl. flower boxes, for a total of $234,000. He stated the Committee might want to consider eliminating the Gazebos, & do the railing, flower boxes & medians. After the lights are in, the Committee might want to think about doing the above items. The bridge parts have been moved from Ken's Marina to County Barn Road & Bob will write a letter thanking Mr. Main for the storage. Bill would like the Committee to have a report of what is planned for the Bayshore area on future housing developments. Robert reported on trash receptacles and benches. Discussion followed on color, logos, decals, how many receptacles may be needed, placement & additional funding. Bob will provide pictures & areas that may help the committee in the placement of the receptacles, at the next meeting. Bob reviewed the bids on the pedestrian shelters with the committee. Three bids were submitted: Ist Bid - Supply & Install - $11,720 Pick -up & Install - $4,720.00 2nd Bid- " - 5,123 928.22 3`d Bid- " - 4,300 625.00 The third bid was the lowest. That bid includes the benches, roof, footings, Poles and building permits. The Committee can look at two on Tropicana, one about halfway on the East side and the other at the Water Plant towards the end on the West side. Bob will give an update every month on the Botner situation. VII. NEW BUSINESS: Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 13th, 2002. Discussion followed on miscellaneous items. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None IX. Adjournment: Bill Neal adjourned the meeting at 5:15 PM. 2 Z c m CA c A 0 0 0 CD CO CO CO —�1�� N -a 00 CD CO (OCDNNNN z CD O O O C l Ul cn CJt N m —i 000O0oaoCbC7o � �a p Ja W W W W 0 1 s CO CD n O -� CO N N L m O O O O N N O o �o- �OOOOO rvl 0 mmDAZZmC DG) ��mmE:;u �f mD--+- -<mmDm wcz m< m 0 0 m -{ X cnXX ZD 00>> C D< a 0 0 < O o 0 0 m C 09TOZO X9 com X0 �� o >� �m r m CO G) < m C/) i m z c m rn rn o � � o Cl) o 0 0 0 PC. 0 0 0 m CD C)oOOOOC) ooC)oOC)oo 4°< w N < O P. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c n CD CD CD 0° ow o0ooOOD 16J1 m N n m m N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 Q' co � C � o cr, C � N cr ro N 0 0 A r� VJ O c�O A ti O M M A d O 0 y A co 16J1 (D co co 8 N N w co w 0 Vt m N N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n 0 0 0 N (D (0 0 (D f0 O O O O V UNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Z 0 0 0 0 V m m m W O O O O O O C 0 C o m m m m m m m m m W m Do m m m m m m W m m-i V O V O O CA _.Cl O 0) m m O O (D O Ut 8 O (J 0 0 0 0 �A A (A U 0 0 00 O V O O O O IV j V O co 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 DAO (m0 (OHO CD A CD 0 m W -4 j j j 0 f0 m � O Cl) O W -+ 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m W m .n fT A A A A A A A A W ((��o W W (.1 W N N (o m m m 0) W j A .P A A ? A O <7 p W Vt O O O O COOL O O O o -1 V m 0 o 0 (0 W O A W�� A (D w (0 CO GJ W m 0) A A (0 O Vt N O O O of (D m V m m 01 0) O O m 0 0 0 000 O O O 0000 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O m 0 0 0 (D (O 0 0 -+ o O 2 W W 0�� 0 0�� o =mOOZCmcnDmp��OZOODopZZ o O o 0 0 0 O 0 00 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -uT mmya {vOi=zCm- Oi- AmM�zz�NZz -DimA �<< M�� -n -n mmm- �, zc� ��ocm�TT��mm v n n D 00-0 m0 ��m M m�cnK mmv)- OI -qZTnmm -Oi��m O e 00 ;a ;o OCO m i m m K < -i ��-i --1 zz0zo p - o > M m �aZ p . -nK z �xm- > -n0 i- im�LAG) m -iz cn C 0 z-zim ��z Cn Z tzii -n n'iOZ mmDw mmvo 1 z�Drm -�i m Co C) ai nm0 WzZm m m� mzZ- i OnmD; ww=Im�= m x - i �z C -ri mcn m m Z me �'vOz� z <D �^ m �m (i) { m c;, yy[n CO ro D0Z C o- m C 3 x;o C 3' -0 U)m mvv�mym mC�m m��ClD�n m� vain m z o D c�vC)� OrDmD y Z m< m< D °n m 00) r" m r��T m zm Km cn rn O m D w C rn 0 0 0 O 0 -Zi in m O c .< 0) r. rn 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 vD C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D O o O D O O 0 O O OO O Z O O O O O 00 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 V NWD (D N N N W N O N m V t0 -+ O V W O N W A N m O 01 m 0 O N O ONi O N O C 0 C o (D V O V O O CA _.Cl O 0) m m O O (D O Ut 8 O (J 0 0 0 0 �A A (A U 0 0 00 O V O O O O IV j V O co 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 w m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COOL A o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o O o O o -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 O 0 00 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D O Q m c (i) v, " c;, zo c m O gg O ,O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i N 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D O o O D O O 0 O O OO O Z O O O O O 00 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 V N N co N N N (D V W N O W C !D O N m 0 V (0 _� O V W O _ -+ N -+ N N W A N Vt O [A m 0 O N O m O N O C L to V Ch O 01 N (A O O (D o N O W O o Co 0 Vt m O O 00 0 -40 0 O O V O co 0 0 0 0 0 O Cl Cl 0 o O 00 O O O A N G) CO o -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^' p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 O o o O o 0 0 0 0 m Z N W N W N O C C W O A N A N A O N Omo O V (O _� O V V W A t0 Vt m 0 O O O N 0 Co W N O N O V W O 0) -� N m to m O W cn O O o O V 0 0 O N -+ V W C (D M W O 0 0 0 N O O O N O O 0 0 00 O O O O W Of w 00 O O O O O O O O O ,,pA m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P. 0 P. 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 N eo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0080 w W O o O O O o 0 o O O O O O O O O O 0 o m p V o O O O o O o O O o 0 o V ti 00 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N m W (D N A N A N N to V -� V (O O V y N N + N m Z m W (D N O N O O O O O iD O _� (A 0 co 0 0 0 0 N w -+ W N O m 0 A V O m W N -+ V co W W W p 0 0 W O 0 0 C. O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 W (O N o 0 A 0 0 0 0) m m 0 0 (O 0) O T 0) O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y O m w G 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 CD w V 0 0 m m 0 0 m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 N v w O o 0 0 O O O O O O O O O w V Cn N O o 0 N O m N 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O _ + N W OD n N 0) A N m f7) Ut p) N N N A A to V T S c -{ N V W cm (OA 0 m W cn N tO CO V A m a Z C Z A O O O O N O O N O O O co A N m m O V O (0 tO m O+ W 0 0 0 W O W W O V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O r N m co co C O O O O o 0 0 C O 0 0 0 O O O O O W O N m O 0 A W 0 A w 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 00 0 O 0 0 0 0 W O (n m 0 0 0 m O A m 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D N < N V V N O C D N O O N N m � N N �z(i ao D A m O O O O O °o °0 t Q y O 0 0 0 O O co O 0 0 0 0 w w° o 0 0 0 0 O 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P. P. N W w 0 o 0 0 0 Cl O 0 b o 666 00 0 b o 0 0 0 0 0000 w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 w o o O o 0 0 o O o O 0 o O 0 o 0 0 0 0 m A a' 0 p �y, A o � Spa° N � O N L, A. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F ") — Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of February 6, 2002 Meeting Minutes IV. Approval of January 23, 2002 Special Meeting Minutes V. Land Use Petitions VI. Old Business VII. New Business V f 16J1 "^ A. Carol Lis, Sr. Environmental Planner, Bonita Springs who will be speaking about the Bonita Springs and Ft. Myers Beach Sea Turtle and Vehicle on the Beach Ordinance B. Review LDC Amendments (Attachment to be mailed next week) VIII. Growth Management Update IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 27, 2002 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (659- 5741). General Public: 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 proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. corra. Date: Item# �D,.S Fiala (� Carter Sue Filson 'j� Henning V BCC Coyle Coletta Iwt" of COUItt) �� ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA March 6, 2002 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F ") — Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of February 6, 2002 Meeting Minutes IV. Approval of January 23, 2002 Special Meeting Minutes V. Land Use Petitions VI. Old Business VII. New Business V f 16J1 "^ A. Carol Lis, Sr. Environmental Planner, Bonita Springs who will be speaking about the Bonita Springs and Ft. Myers Beach Sea Turtle and Vehicle on the Beach Ordinance B. Review LDC Amendments (Attachment to be mailed next week) VIII. Growth Management Update IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 27, 2002 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (659- 5741). General Public: 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 proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. corra. Date: Item# �D,.S February 6, 2002 16J1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, February 6, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michael G. Coe Ed Carlson Alfred F. Gal, Jr. William W. Hill Erica Lynne Alexandra "Allie" Santoro Larry Stone NOT PRESENT: Thomas W. Sansbury ALSO PRESENT: Barbara Burgeson, Env. Specialist, Dev. Serv. Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 February 6, 2002 6JI r� no CHAIRMAN COE: The meeting will come to order. The roll call, please. MS. BURGESON: Hill? MR. HILL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Lynne? MS. LYNNE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Sansbury has an excused absence. Coe? CHAIRMAN COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Santoro? MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal? MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Stone? MR. STONE: Here. MS. BURGESON: And Soling has resigned from the EAC. CHAIRMAN COE: Any changes to the agenda at all? MS. BURGESON: I'd like to add an item to be heard prior to the growth management plan issues. And that is, we need this EAC to recommend appointment of an EAC member to the hearing examiner advisory committee. BCC created a resolution. Joseph Schmitt, who is our administrator of Community Development, Environmental Services, who I'm not sure has actually been officially introduced to this EAC yet - -Were you not here for the January meeting. MR. SCHMITT: I was not here during the last meeting. MS. BURGESON: This is Joseph K. Schmitt, Collier County Community Development, Environmental Services' new administrator. And the executive summary was to appoint a Page 2 February 6, 2002 16JI .4 team -- I believe it was a five- or seven - member team to work on the hearing examiner, creating that j ob -title description and going through the applicants as they come in. MR. HILL: Didn't we appoint Tom Sansbury last year? MS. BURGESON: No. That was -- that was for a different committee. That was for the -- for the -- might even have been for the administrator position. CHAIRMAN COE: Where do you want to put that on the -- right now? MS. BURGESON: We could do that now, if you want, if there's anybody interested in -- in -- CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. I'd like to volunteer for it. Do we have anybody else? MR. STONE: No. MR. CARLSON: I make a motion that Mickey Coe be our representative on that committee. MS. LYNNE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN COE: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? (No response.) MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COE: Yes. MR. WHITE: While you're still on approval of agenda, I believe that there's a request from one of the applicants. MR. NADEAU: Yes. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for RWA. We are first on the agenda. Unfortunately, my environmental consultants have not arrived yet from coming down from Page 3 February 6, 2002 16JV Fort Myers. I'd simply request that you take the PSP first, if possible, or I could start my presentation from a planning perspective as well as water management, and then we would hope that they would show up. CHAIRMAN COE: I don't have any problems with that. Is PSP prepared? You are prepared at this time to go ahead of -- MR. LENBERGER: Who, us? Yeah. MS. BURGESON: Mickey -- CHAIRMAN COE: You are prepared? All right. I have no problems with that. MS. BURGESON: They're scheduled second. CHAIRMAN COE: I realize that, but he's asking to change the agenda at this particular point, and we need to change it -- approve it before we continue on. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry, Dwight. As I was talking, I wasn't sure what you were requesting. MR. NADEAU: Passarella isn't here yet. MS. BURGESON: Okay. So you were asking to be placed at the very end of the agenda? MR. NADEAU: No. Just after the PSP. I'm hoping that they're going to get here. MR. WHITE: They'd like to switch 4 -A and 4 -B. CHAIRMAN COE: He's proposing that the PSP goes first and the PUD goes second. MS. BURGESON: Okay. It'll probably take us a full half an hour to get through the continued growth- management issues. And then -- CHAIRMAN COE: We'll just see where we are at that point. MR. NADEAU: So you are doing GMP first? Page 4 February 6, 2002 16JI MS. BURGESON: Yes. MR. NADEAU: Oh, okay. MR. WHITE: Okay. My understanding froi looking at the agenda was that that was Item No. 6. 4 MS. BURGESON: The latest petitions, yes. MR. WHITE: My apologies. Seven. Growth - management update. MS. BURGESON: We -- I'm sorry. There was a new agenda that was e- mailed out, Patrick. I -- MR. WHITE: I apologize. MR. HILL: Did we not receive January 2nd minutes? December 5th, we're in -- CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. The only minutes we've received have been December's. MS. BURGESON: We'll make sure that the minutes -- you're saying you didn't get the January EAC minutes? Okay. We'll make sure that they get placed in the -- CHAIRMAN COE: Well, we're going to have to change Number 3 from January 2nd to December minutes. MS. BURGESON: Okay. Were -- were the December minutes -- they were probably already approved, so you would just want -- want to delete that item, and we'll -- we'll make sure that they get mailed with the next package. I have extra copies of the items to be discussed under the Growth Management Plan Amendment. Review of the EAC motions. I'd like to take first. Is there any -- any EAC members that need a copy of that? Has everyone had an opportunity to take a look at those motions to review them and if there are any questions? I think that's probably the easiest -- easiest Page 5 16J1 February 6, 2002 way to handle that. These are the 17 motions that the EAC made at their special January 23rd meeting. Oh, I'm sorry. There's 18 motions. There's a duplicate number, Motion 11. Those are actually two different -- two separate motions. CHAIRMAN COE: Do any -- do any of the members of the board have any comments about any of the motions that we set forth? MR. CARLSON: I think I remember -- somehow I don't have that with me. But -- CHAIRMAN COE: Here you go. MR. CARLSON: Motion 10 was something we discussed, but I don't think we ever voted on Motion 10. We waited until we got -- we wanted to wait until we got this legal opinion that we have. MS. BURGESON: Okay. We had three staff members that had that written down as a motion -- MR. CARLSON: Okay. Yeah. MS. BURGESON: -- so I'm not -- CHAIRMAN COE: We -- we had made that a motion -- MS. BURGESON: There was -- MR. CARLSON: Fine. CHAIRMAN COE: -- and directed that there be a legal opinion brought forth. And a legal opinion was brought forth and says -- I thought it was pretty ambiguous. Basically it said you can't do it, but in an emergency situation, you might be able to do it, and then they said that the new act has not yet been tested. I'm -- quite frankly, I'm surprised we haven't made it a motion to go ahead and test it since we know we're going to probably get sued anyhow. Get our attorneys Page 6 February 6, 2002 7 AJ1 ready. Any other discussion? MS. SANTORO: Audubon had a note in here, and I didn't know if they -- it said something about that they felt that there was a right to limit ag uses and they were going to share the research with us shortly, but I don't know if there's any additional information they wish to share at this point. CHAIRMAN COE: Can we have Fred make a comment at this point? If you're prepared. I don't know if you're -- MR. CORNELL: Well, yeah. I can say a word. Brad Cornell with the Collier County Audubon Society, for the record. We have requested a formal opinion from our legal counsel. We have an informal opinion that dates -- actually, this was also the subject of an administrative hearing over the interim boundaries of natural resource protection areas, and so there already is some information that's on record in front of Judge Stevenson that was argued a year ago. And we have filed -- I don't know what the legal term is, but it's a statement in anticipation of hearing on the -- on the appeal that documents more of this evidence. So what I'm asking for from our attorney is that we have a formal letter that -- that will address these issues more directly outside of the context of this appeal of the natural resource protection area boundaries. So it still stands that we -- we contend that it is legal. We have some strong legal arguments to -- to base that contention on, and I will share those with you as soon as we get this -- this letter from our attorney, Page 7 February 6, 2002 because that's what would be more effective rather than me telling you what he says. So -- CHAIRMAN COE: Well, Brad, have you seen the opinion -- MR. CORNELL: Sorry. CHAIRMAN COE: Have you seen the opinion that we received from -- MR. CORNELL: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN COE: -- Martha -- MR. CORNELL: From -- yes. I've -- I've read that, and I could -- I'm not a lawyer, so, I mean, I could make an argument against a whole bunch of that based on what I have already read in our previous legal proceedings that we have made statements and assertions on, including agricultural land uses and protecting natural resource policies. So if you want me to, I mean, I could talk about that, but I'm not a lawyer. What you really want is a legal opinion to counter what Ms. Chumbler says. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions for Brad? Yes? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. CHAIRMAN COE: Do you have any questions of Brad? MS. STUDENT: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Thank you, Brad. MS. STUDENT: And I just want to state for the record, our outside counsel principally has been involved in this issue, Martha Chumbler and Nancy Lannon of the firm of Carlton Fields in Tallahassee and also here in Florida, and I've looked generally over the opinion, and they talk about a newer provision that deals with this Page 8 16J1 February 6, 2002 16JI issue and the fact that the prohibition is still very broad. And the new provision is rather new. I think you all read that in the opinion, and that there may be -- there's no, you know, appellate decisions to assist in construing the act. Ms. Lannon is going to be here tomorrow at the planning commission meeting when it takes up these items and I'm sure will be prepared to discuss this more fully, as she will be at the Board of County Commissioners. So I would suggest that the board make its recommendation to, you know, be carried forward based on, you know, the information that you have from our outside counsel, Ms. Chumbler. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. MR. MULHERE: Just -- for the record, Bob Mulhere with RWA, Inc. A couple of comments. I did speak to Marty Chumbler personally just before she sent this out. She indicated that she had spoken with Tom Reese, who I'm not sure if that is the attorney that Brad was referring to -- yes. He's noting that it is -- that she had spoken to him and that, based on her conversation with him, she did not agree with his interpretation of the case that's being cited that will allow regulation of ag under the provisions of the Right To Farm Act. She indicated her opinion of that was that -- what the judge said was that not all agricultural is bonafide agriculture. And really, no one's arguing that point. But if it is bonafide agricultural under the Right to Farm Act on page 5, second paragraph on that page, she Page 9 February 6, 2002 16J1 indicates, "For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the exceptions identified above have little or no applicability to Collier County." The reason for that is because there have been best - management practices adopted for most of the types of agriculture that we find in Collier County, citrus and row crops. If there are best - management practices adopted, then the Right to Farm Act would preclude the county from adopting more stringent regulations. In fact, the sentence -- the next sentence says, "Thus, for example, while Collier County might enact general provisions limiting the amount of natural vegetation that must be preserved on a site, those provisions could not be applied to bonafide agricultural operations unless those operations were a type not covered by an approved BMP," best - management practice. The next paragraph, however, says, "It may be possible to exercise some control over agricultural operations through the use of voluntary incentive programs." She's referring to attaching those to the TDR process. And we had indicated to you that one of the growth- management policies that we had included was to prohibit agricultural clearing after transfer development rights have been enacted. If you transfer all or a portion of your -- of your development rights, then you no longer have the right for -- to -- for intensive agriculture on the property. Subsequent to the meeting -- I'm not sure that we discussed it at your meeting, but subsequent to the meeting, to the EAC meeting in the last few -- last week, Page 10 February 6, 2002 16J1 the staff and myself have been discussing -- there is a provision in the Land Development Code that prohibits the rezoning of a piece of property for ten years after an agricultural clearing permit has been issued on that property. And that should be pretty obvious that it's in order -- it's -- it's a disincentive for somebody to go out and clear ostensibly for agriculture purposes, but then really the purpose is to clear for development. So that ten -year restriction exists in the Land Development Code right now. And what we would also propose to do is extend that 10 -year restriction to disallow any use of TDRs should there be any clearing. So I recognize that may not go as far as you want, but I did want to share with you that that is something that we are proposing, which would be to amend that language to also disallow any transfer of development rights if an individual cleared property for agricultural purposes under the provisions of the Right to Farm Act in a sending land. So it's another -- I guess a disincentive, really. Barbara, did you want to add anything to that? MS. BURGESON: Well, the -- the only item, item C, the outside counsel's recommended changes -- we had a three -hour conference call last Friday with Nancy Lannon and her staff, and I was going to discuss this after, but it really fits in well together. The only major issue that they found in this book that they felt was inconsistent or needed change was an item dealing with transferring the TDRs in the -- in the primary or secondary sending lands, and she felt that where we were currently right now, allowing agricultural Page 11 February 6, 20021 1... ANN operations in existence at the time of the TDRs to continue, she felt that we should not be doing that; that if there's any agricultural uses in existence at the time that they opt to use the transfer of development rights, then those agricultural operations need to cease as a result of that agreement. She also said that there were three items listed that would be allowed. The third item or second item would be cattle grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required, and the third is other agricultural uses that do not require clearing of existing vegetation. She said you could also take out two and three, but that's something that would be -- she would leave up to us. But she felt very strongly that the first one needed to be removed. MR. MULHERE: Which would allow an opportunity for restoration in those fields. CHAIRMAN COE: Anybody have any questions on -- on that? We probably ought to make a motion to that effect if that's what our desires are. Yes? MS. LYNNE: I was appointed to the EAC, I assume, based on the fact that I've got a doctorate in biology. I'm not a lawyer. I do know enough that I know that attorneys can argue legal points from either side and it depends on which one you want to throw your weight behind. As a biologist, I have to say that allowing unrestricted use of agriculture is not going to be good for the rural fringe lands because it's going to drain -- potentially drain adjacent areas. I mean, I -- I would hope that this board would consider a motion something to the effect of that -- that we need to look at that more closely and we need to try to Page 12 February 6, 2002 16J1 get the best possible protection for this area -- for wetlands in Collier County instead of just the very basic minimum. I've spent a -- some time working with the county, and I keep coming up to, Oh, we'll get sued; Oh, we'll get sued; Oh, we'll get sued. And I don't think that's a good enough reason not to protect our resources. CHAIRMAN COE: Barb, will you make it -- will you clarify what you just said so the board members -- looking to get a motion to cover what you're talking about. Basically what you're saying is if they're going to use the TDR program, then they give up their right to ranch, farm or whatever to that land; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: Well, there's -- there's two -- two ways that we could do it. The recommendation was to clearly take the first one out, which allowed them to continue with their current agricultural use because she was concerned about the intensity of agricultural uses. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. MS. BURGESON: That was -- that was number one under that -- under that section of the GMP. The second and third dealt with postural or passive use, and the third dealt with any agricultural use that didn't -- didn't include additional clearing or didn't -- didn't require clearing. She felt that all three could be taken out, but she felt very strongly that the first one should be taken out. And -- and all three of those would be voluntary for anyone -- excuse me -- anyone choosing to become a part of the TDR program. Again, that does not prohibit agricultural uses on land if someone chooses not to participate. Page 13 February 6, 2002 "' 16J1 " . CHAIRMAN COE: Does everyone understand that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Is there anybody that has any questions about it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Is there anyone that would like to form a motion? MS. SANTORO: I can't form a motion. I'm still confused about what -- what Barbara's saying. MS. BURGESON: Let me -- MS. SANTORO: My -- my understanding is that there is some agricultural activities that are more compatible with natural areas, such as unimproved pasture land, some grazing. The one that's least compatible is citrus groves. And it seems to me that there's some way that we should be able to modify the type of agricultural uses with reference to our natural resources. I don't know how to get to that, but that's -- that should be our intent. CHAIRMAN COE: If we made a motion such as this, that anyone that's currently farming, ranching, any ag uses, who desires to enter a TDR program and exercises that right, then any current ag being conducted on that land would cease except for agricultural activities such as ranching or other farming that does not clear the land -- does not further clear the land. Does that pretty well cover it? MS. BURGESON: What -- what that would support would be removing the first agricultural use in the -- CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. MS. BURGESON: -- code and keeping the second and Page 14 February 6, 2002 1 16J1 third in. If you want, I can read that language out so that it becomes a part of the record. CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. And -- and then we can make that a motion. ' MS. BURGESON: Okay. "Where residential density is transferred from primary or secondary sending lands, permitted uses shall be limited to the following" -- the following agricultural uses are listed one, two and three, and you're recommending one be deleted. And that language is, "Agricultural operations in existence at the time of transfer of the residential density including water - management facilities." That language could be deleted. And then second and third are, "Cattle grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required; and three, other agricultural uses that do not require clearing of existing vegetation." And you're recommending that two and three stay in? CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Does anyone have a question about that? MS. BURGESON: Actually, I should bring something up. Staff was discussing this yesterday. I was talking with Bill Lorenz about this. Right now there are -- there are sites out there that have been cleared for one reason or another. That could fall under the third item where agricultural uses don't require clearing of existing vegetation because it's already cleared, but they might be able to put in any -- MR. CARLSON: Yeah. MS. BURGESON: -- agricultural use on already cleared lands. So maybe -- Page 15 February 6, 0 MR. CARLSON: I think there's a huge loophole in those last two points. You may not clear the land but you -- you may put in an ornamental -plant nursery that -- MS. BURGESON: That's already clear. MR. CARLSON: - -- requires no clearing but is some sort of exotic plant that neutralizes the habitat value of that land that wasn't cleared. I mean, I can foresee this being a real can of worms, and I think we should go the more restrictive route, and if that was recommended by the attorney to remove all three -- MS. BURGESON: That -- that was something that she said that we could do. MR. CARLSON: Then I would make that motion, that -- I'm not quite sure how to word it, but that -- what's the section there? MS. BURGESON: That would be -- CHAIRMAN COE: Well, basically what we would -- the motion would be -- MR. CARLSON: You transfer your development rights. CHAIRMAN COE: Then you give up all -- all rights for ranching, farming, any type of ag on that land. MS. BURGESON: Within the sending lands. MR. CARLSON: Well, I can -- I can tell you, I'm not so excited -- I'm not so -- as concerned about low stocking rates and native -range grazing, because there's a long history of that in Collier County. It's very compatible. Kind of the old- fashioned unimproved pasture native -range grazing. I'm not so worried about that. But just blanket any agricultural practices that doesn't require clearing, I mean, you could move in any kind of -- I mean, you could -- you could have these -- these Page 16 February 6, 2002 fighting chickens and just fence off an area and not clear it, but turn a thousand of those loose and you pretty well neutralize that land. MS. BURGESON: We -- we could recommend, then, Number 1 and 3 be deleted and that 2, which is cattle 16J1 grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required, remain in. CHAIRMAN COE: Would someone like to make a motion to that effect, please. MS. LYNNE: I have just one more question. Mr. Carlson, you said low -level grazing. Does that need to be addressed in this Number 2 here? It just says any kind of grazing that doesn't require clearing. MS. BURGESON: Cattle grazing. MR. CARLSON: I -- I just don't know. I mean, it's -- I can tell you that, you know, in the old days, there were very low stocking rates on these ranges. They had very little nutritional value, and -- and the stocking rate was as low as a cow per 20 acres or a cow per 50 acres, or something like that. Now, if somebody has a feeding program, like has a feed lot, they don't clear the land, but they bring in feed, then -- then again, you'd have something that's incompatible with good resource management. So there's -- you know, there's just a lot of loopholes in this. Maybe we ought to just go for all three. Would you like to make a motion to go for all three? MS. LYNNE: Sure. I'll move that we strike all three of those -- do you want to give me some numbers, Barb? MS. BURGESON: Yes. It would be under the sending lands section on page 48 of the FLUE, F- L -U -E, and it Page 17 February 6, 2002 would be Number 6 -A -1, 2 and 3. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Let the record show that we want -- that I move that we strike those items from the plan. Is that right? MR. CARLSON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN COE: Does everyone understand the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Do I have a second? MR. CARLSON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COE: All for? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Carries. What's next? MR. GAL: I -- I have a question for Barbara. CHAIRMAN COE: Yes. MR. GAL: Does the county regulate pesticide use in any manner? MS. BURGESON: I -- I know that that's handled through a separate division. MR. GAL: Okay. MS. BURGESON: And I'm not -- and I also know that they have to go through state regulations and -- and Department of Environmental Protection regulations in terms of the -- the amount, but I'm not sure who's in control of regulating the areas that are sprayed. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz. I know of no regulations in the county for pesticide restrictions with regard to agricultural activities. The groundwater protection ordinance does regulate concentrated materials of -- hazardous materials within certain protection zones, Page 18 16J1 February 6, 2002 16J1 r but that's not specific to agricultural. MR. GAL: My -- my thought was to ban use of pesticides in sending -- or -- or in receiving areas, I guess. MS. SANTORO: Sending areas. MR. GAL: Or in sending areas. But you might not want to do that. MS. LYNNE: Sorry. I can't hear you, Mr. Gal. MR. GAL: My thought was that you ban the use of pesticides in sending and receiving areas. We have less farming. CHAIRMAN COE: I believe we're getting into an area where I -- I have no expertise at all. MR. CARLSON: I can guarantee that when the new towns begin to appear in the receiving areas, that mosquito planes will fly. CHAIRMAN COE: Anyone have -- anyone else have any comments? MS. LYNNE: Can we restrict the amount of pesticide use in the sending areas? CHAIRMAN COE: I don't have the expertise to say one way or another. I really don't. If we want to get some experts in here to talk about it, that's one thing -- MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Let's not talk -- CHAIRMAN COE: I sure don't -- I don't think that it's a subject of discussion today in that we don't have the expertise. Yes? MR. LORENZ: Bill Lorenz, for the record. Remember that just about everything that's going on out there has some type of pesticide usage. I mean, the county -- when -- when we do exotics control, we're using Page 19 February 6, 2002 pesticides. When we're doing -- MS. LYNNE: Herbicides. MR. LORENZ: -- aquatic weed control, we're using pesticides. When there's mosquito control, there's a use of pesticides. I mean, this is -- it's a pervasive -- it's a pervasive activity that has -- has a lot of benefits. Obviously it has some -- some negatives too, but the county staff is in the position in the -- in the past of making recommendations, given the fact that USDA and EPA requires the application of pesticides through the labeling conditions that has been determined to be the safe level of pesticide use. So if you -- you're getting into an area that's -- that is very, very pervasive, you know, of what -- what is being done out there. CHAIRMAN COE: That's also highly regulated, so, you know, it's not an area where we really need to go. MR. CARLSON: I -- I think we could probably make the assumption, though, that if there's nobody living in a sending area, nobody's going to spend the money to spray for mosquitos in an area that doesn't have the population. I would assume that. CHAIRMAN COE: All right. What do we got next, Barb? MS. BURGESON: Item C is the outside counsel's 16J1 recommended changes, and the one that we just discussed was really the only one here that was substantive in terms of making major changes. In the errata sheet, you'll notice under 6 -1 -1 and 6 -1 -2 under the Conservation Coastal Management Element, that there are a lot of changes, strike - throughs and Page 20 February 6, 2002 1 6J1 underlines. The main purpose to those changes was to make consistent the standards in the rural and the urban lands. We have nine standards in both of those areas that are identical and just one or two in each that are specific to the rural or the urban lands. The way the language had been written in the Growth Management Plan, they didn't match exactly. Those nine that we've made consistent and identical were in both but written slightly differently in both. So we want to make sure that they were -- CHAIRMAN COE: Should we go through this item by item? MS. BURGESON: I would suggest only if you have questions. Staff is comfortable with the changes that we've made. If you want me to address any of them, I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN COE: Because I know that several of us have gone through this. Let's just go down the list here. Start with rural fringe, mixed -use district. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Primary receiving land -- lands? MR. CARLSON: Wait a minute. Yeah. The -- the first sentence. MS. BURGESON: On which page? MR. CARLSON: First page. "Primary receiving lands." The very -- Number 1. If you're -- if you own land in a primary receiving area and you have more -- let's say you have 5, 10 acres and you're there now, what does this do if it says the maximum lot size allowable for sing -- single- family attached dwelling unit is 1 acre? Page 21 February 6, 2002 16 J I MR. MULHERE: Unfortunately what you don't see there is that applies to those new projects that are 40 acres or greater in size. It's -- it didn't reference the whole document, but that one applies to new projects 40 acres or greater. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. All right. Number 2? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Number 3? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Next page. Number 4? MR. CARLSON: Just that -- my only -- my only note on 3 is rural commercial and rural industrial. Those terms don't seem to go together to me. It's kind of like an oxymoron. This is the rural industrial area. MS. LYNNE: I worked with the Dover Cove Community Character Plan, and the idea of rural villages was merely to have residential and small amount of commercial to serve those residences and the outlying area so that they did not have to clog up the streets and drive into Naples for everything. It was not ever intended to mean that there should be any industrial or major commercial development in the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: And these revisions don't intend or suggest that necessarily either. When you're looking at the terminology, rural commercial subdistrict and rural industrial district, those do have restrictions to minimize the size. Further restrictions can be written as part of the LDC amendments, but the -- the intent is clearly for those to be mixed use and to provide for some employment. I do have your motion, however, which you made at Page 22 February 6, 2002 your last meeting, to prohibit any commercial or industrial, and that already exists and is standing. So notwithstanding your motion, this language just is intended to provide further clarification. CHAIRMAN COE: So where is our language put? MR. MULHERE: It'll be brought to the board in a -- the whole list of your motions. Eighteen motions. CHAIRMAN COE: Thank you. Okay. See, we've done 3. Four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Five? 16J1 V., (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Six? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Seven? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. We're now on page 3, Number 1. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Down to 8. Any comments on 8? I'd like to make a comment here. It says that, "The density calculation for a rural village may include the base residential density permitted for the greenbelt area if such density is shifted to the rural village area." That's going to be a higher density in the rural village area. Correct? MR. MULHERE: Yes. But no higher than the maximums that are already established in there. You have a base density of 1 per 5 that exist today. And you're required to put this greenbelt around the rural village. But you can take that 1 -per -5 density from the greenbelt and bring it into the rural village, but you can't exceed the Page 23 February 6, 2002 16 J 1 13 maximum densities. And we're recommending 3.5 as a maximum density. I don't know what it'll end up being through the process. CHAIRMAN COE: But not more than -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COE: -- 3.5? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. I understand. Nine? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Ten? Eleven? And the next one is Conservation Coastal Management Element. One? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Two? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Now, on page 6, I got one question on page 6, Number 9. "Parcels that were legally cleared of na -- native vegetation prior to January of '89 shall be exempt from this requirement." How do we know what was cleared in 1989, and how do we police that? MS. BURGESON: When we ask that somebody prove that they were legally cleared, that means that they have to show us that they received an agricultural clearing permit or a vegetation - removal clearing permit. CHAIRMAN COE: I understand. Next page, which is Number 7. Page 8? On Number 4, page 8, it says specifically that, "Ag shall be exempt from the above Page 24 February 6, 2002 16JI preservation requirements contained in the policies," da, da, da, da, da. We don't want any wetland impact by agriculture, and we've stated that I don't know how many times. I guess our motions will be brought forth and someone above us will decide, but I'm pretty sure I speak for the EAC that we don't want any wetland impact by ag. MS. BURGESON: I don't believe that that was a part of any of the motions from the previous meeting. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, I'd like to make a motion at this time that there would be no impact to our wetlands by agricultural activities. Comments? MR. CARLSON: That's part of this language? I mean, you're proposing to -- CHAIRMAN COE: I'm proposing to change this -- to make a motion that ag makes no impact to our wetlands. And what I'm trying to do there is to preclude backing up an orange grove to Corkscrew or any of our other sensitive lands and them pumping water out of that area, which, in effect, they're pumping it out of where you're located. MR. CARLSON: I'm all for it. I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a second for that motion? MS. LYNNE: Second. CHAIRMAN COE: I have a second. All for? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Carries. MS. BURGESON: Can you repeat the exact language on that, please. CHAIRMAN COE: Any agriculture activities that affect Page 25 February 6, 2002 16J11-4 wetlands are prohibited. MS. BURGESON: You might need to define what the worked "affect" means, whether that means direct clearing or secondary impacts. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, we're talking about the wetlands. MS. BURGESON: Right. CHAIRMAN COE: If it's going to drain the wetlands, if it's going to affect it with pollution to the wetlands from pesticides, what have you, anything. MS. BURGESON: Okay. So saying "new or existing" because you may -- you're talking about maybe -- I'm not sure on the existing agricultural uses that already have state permits how much we can do -- CHAIRMAN COE: No. We can't affect those that are just -- MS. BURGESON: -- on any expansions to existing wetland -- CHAIRMAN COE: Any expansion -- MS. BURGESON: -- agricultural or new -- CHAIRMAN COE: -- any new agricultural activities. MS. BURGESON: Okay. CHAIRMAN COE: Does that clar -- MS. BURGESON: That negatively affect wetlands -- CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. MS. BURGESON: -- be prohibited. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: I don't -- I don't understand 8. Can somebody explain to me -- I don't understand how the 10 percent -- CHAIRMAN COE: What page are you talking about? MR. CARLSON: I'm on page 8, and I'm at the top of Page 26 February 6, 2002 16J1 the page at Item No. 8 about the density bonus incentive. MR. LORENZ: Just for the record, Bill Lorenz. That deals with the bonus for encouraging greater preservation amounts, that you would get additional density bonus if you preserve vegetation greater than the minimum requirements. The ten -- MR. CARLSON: With -- within the -- MR. LORENZ: Within the receiving -- MR. CARLSON: A given project. MR. LORENZ: Correct. Correct. Correct. MR. CARLSON: So it really doesn't have anything to do with the sending areas. MR. LORENZ: No. No. MS. LYNNE: But it does mean an overall increase in the density numbers of units that can be built in the county. MR. LORENZ: That -- that would be an additional -- that would -- that's correct. And I believe you took a motion -- one of your motions from last week recommended that there be no -- no bonuses be given -- density bonuses be given other than TDRs. MR. CARLSON: Now, would -- would this density bonus incentive -- I've heard that -- that the highest density now is 3.5 in receiving area units per acre. Could this -- could this conceivably take that density higher than that? MR. MULHERE: Every time I touch that I get shocked. Is there somebody trying to tell me something? No. You cannot exceed the maximum, the 3.5, but that's only for rural villages. And the rest -- the balance of the receiving areas, the base density is 1.0, Page 27 February 6, 2002 16J1 and you could exceed that by a maximum of 10 percent or 1.1 through these incentives. But in a rural village, the maximum density is 3.5, and you can't exceed that. CHAIRMAN COE: Does that answer your question? MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Can I ask just a general question while you're up there about this whole concept, is that these bonuses are granted based on -- on some past history that this doesn't -- this transferred development rights doesn't work unless you grant bonuses; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. The -- the intent here is to really limit any amount of mech -- or any mechanisms that could provide for increased density beyond the TDR process. In other words, the primary method to be able to increase your density is intended to be through TDRs, because otherwise you really do take away from the TDR program. I think, as I spoke at your last meeting, if you can simply come in and ask for a rezone and go from 1 per 5 to 1 per 1, you're certainly not going to then go out and buy the TDRs to achieve that. Why would you spend that money. MR. CARLSON: Right. MR. MULHERE: So what we want to do is structure a plan that primarily only allows an increase in density from 1.5 to some higher amount -- in the case of receiving, it's one per acre, or in rural villages it's higher than that -- that -- that primarily limits that to the TDR process. That makes the TDR process viable. But there are some exceptions, and this is one exception that we thought was appropriate. Where a developer coming into a receiving area has a requirement Page 28 February 6, 2002 to preserve 40 percent of the native vegetation an on 16J� site, if they choose to develop a plan that protects 70 percent of the native vegetation on site, they would get a -- a fairly small density bonus, not to exceed 10 percent. So it's just another incentive. We don't think it's sufficient enough to compete or negate the TDR process, but it would allow for increased amounts of native vegetation preservation in receiving areas. MR. CARLSON: If these rural lands have a history of projects working on them - -- projects working on them at the density of 1 unit per 5 acres, I mean, I think -- would think we're here going through this process and dealing with the governor's order because two conservation organizations sued the county because they didn't think a golf course community should go in beyond the urban boundary and get water and sewer, but it -- but it worked at 1 unit per 5 acres. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's an -- that's an excellent question. MR. CARLSON: So then you -- then you go to the TDR incentive which takes -- which multiplies the density, 5 times that to 1 unit per acre. Why isn't that enough? MR. MULHERE : Well, it -- it may be enough. And -- and as I indicated, the only reason that that proposal is in there is to provide an incentive for some greater preservation amount beyond -- beyond what the data shows us that we would need to preserve -- to achieve our target of 90 percent preservation. MR. CARLSON: But if you keep the density low, you're achieving more preservation. Page 29 February 6 2002 16J1 ._,4 MR. MULHERE: Not necessarily. Not through a clustered development. I -- I would disagree with that. MS. LYNNE: But what we don't know and what there aren't any studies, if I remember correctly, is whether or not the benefit of extra native veg -- vegetation in a PUD is worth the extra density. In other words -- MR. MULHERE: I guess -- I mean, I guess that's just a philosophical question. And -- MS. LYNNE: Oh, no. That's not philosophical. That's quantifiable. MR. MULHERE: It's quantifiable? In -- in what way will it be quantifiable? MS. LYNNE: The way you do any kind of environmental study. I'm -- MR. MULHERE: I -- I'm not following you. MS. LYNNE: And basically -- well, there's going to be a certain amount of damage due to the -- done to the environment based on the increased density. There's going to be increased cars, increased sewer, increased water use, et cetera. So that's going to be a negative. MR. MULHERE: Uh -huh. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Does the extra land being preserved provide enough -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. I see what you're saying. MS. LYNNE: -- benefit to offset that? MR. MULHERE: Well -- MS. LYNNE: And -- and the thing that -- that bothers me even -- even more is that when we have discussions with planning staff and we're told we can't do this because we have no scientific evidence to preserve, for example, a greater buffer, and yet you're perfectly comfortable Page 30 February 6, 2002 16 J 1 coming up with an increase in density program without any proof that it's going to either work or be -- be safe for the environment or have a benefit. , MR. MULHERE: Well, I think it -- it -- I mean, maybe I should defer to Bill as the natural resource director for the county, but I think the premise was that if we preserve native vegetation beyond the minimum requirements, there's a benefit to that. Maybe we're wrong. Maybe there is no benefit to that. MS. LYNNE: There's a benefit to -- MR. MULHERE: There is. MS. LYNNE: -- provide -- to preserve -- MR. MULHERE: But it may not be offset by the increased density. MS. LYNNE: It could be -- it could be offset -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MS. LYNNE: -- by increasing the density. MR. MULHERE: I understand that. MS. LYNNE: And we don't know that. MR. MULHERE: You -- you made a motion at your last meeting to prohibit any additional increases other than through TDRs. That -- I mean, I think that was very clear. This recommendation already existed and continues to exist in the plan. Now we'll go forward to the planning commission tomorrow. They'll review it. They'll review your motion, and ultimately it'll go to the board of county commissioners. They'll review it. They'll review your motions, and go -- ultimately a policy will be developed based on that. MR. CARLSON: I think it's worth asking, though, with the maximum allowable density with the rural village Page 31 February 6, 2002 16J1 concept, the density goes up 17 1/2 times over what it is now. They go into 3 1/2 -- I've done the math. I think I got it right -- 3 1/2 units per acre versus 1 unit per 5 acres. That's a -- 17 1/2 -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- MR. CARLSON: -- times the density. MR. MULHERE: -- that's not exactly accurate, because you're achieving a -- a portion of that through TDRs, taking density that already exists. So it's not exactly accurate. MR. CARLSON: Okay. But the majority of those units are bonus. MR. MULHERE: Well, you -- you have to acquire .8 dwelling units per acre -- MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. MULHERE: -- and for that, you get two bonuses. So, I mean -- MR. CARLSON: You buy one, you get -- MR. MULHERE: -- I think we can quantify it -- MR. CARLSON: -- two and three. MR. MULHERE: That's about right. MR. CARLSON: You buy one, you get two and three. MR. MULHERE: That's about right. That's about right. Yeah. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Have we done an analysis of how we're going to provide water and other essential services for this increased population? Do we know where the well fields are going to be and how those well fields are going to affect the groundwater? And -- and do you really think that having a rural village out in the rural fringe, that it's not going to increase traffic because those people Page 32 February 6, 2002 16JI . are not going to want to go to the beach or to the movie theater in the urban area or to restaurants in the urban area? r I just -- I just don't think this has been thought :5 through well enough to really appreciate the impact it's going to have on the county. MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- I know. That was made abundantly clear at the last meeting. I professionally would disagree with you. I think it will have a very beneficial impact on the already deleterious and very poor traffic conditions in The Estates as a result of a very large existing platted subdivision that's one of the fastest growing in the county and over which we have little control unless we provide some additional services in this area. When you couple that with the requirement that we have to protect the natural resources and balance that with private property rights, I think the rural villages provide a very viable solution to all of those three issues. In addition, they're highly recommended in a number of national and statewide professional planning studies that have been done, and they have been implemented in some locations. And they have worked quite successfully to balance private property rights and natural resource protection and to reduce the number of trips. When people are traveling 10 and 15 miles from Golden Gate Estates into the -- no. Will that completely eliminate it? Absolutely not. It will not completely eliminate the number of trips. But it will offset some of those trips by providing services for those residents and Page 3 3 February 6, 2002 16J1 for those residents in the surrounding lands. MR. CARLSON: Is -- is -- MR. MULHERE: Your -- your question about the water and sewer, the utilities department has looked at and been involved in this entire process and recently made a presentation to the board during a workshop that included the extension of central water and sewer and the cost of extending central water and sewer to those receiving lands. I cannot answer to you whether or not they quantified the impacts upon the quantity of water that will be available other than to say that, based on their calculations, they will be able to meet those demands. MR. CARLSON: Well, you can always add wells and pump more water, but I'm -- I'm extremely worried about the future of the aquifers and the wetlands in the -- in those regions where that water's coming from. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and -- MR. CARLSON: I just don't -- I just don't see how it's going to work. We're already stressed. MS. LYNNE: I'd have to say, too, the difference between South Florida with its extensive wetlands and other areas of the country -- I mean, I can see the rural village concept working very well in Illinois and Ohio and so forth, but Mr. Carlson is correct; there's going to be much greater impacts in South Florida because of the large amount of our wetlands. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Page 9. Number 5? (No response.) Page 34 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: Number 6? 16J1 MR. HILL: Let me back up. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Back on page 8, Item No. 4, in the middle of thl second sentence in that paragraph, "Or any such convions in less than 10 years," that restriction for conversion prior to 10 years has been ruled out, hasn't it? MS. BURGESON: No. This -- this is language that already exists in both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, and this applies to any time anyone obtains an agricultural clearing permit, there is an obligation through that permit to commit to not rezoning or not changing the use of that land for ten years unless you restore what would have been required if you had gone through that process in the first place. MR. HILL: So the two sections referred to are the requirements that they would have to restore? MS. BURGESON: Right. And -- and this does not apply to the ten years for the TDR program. This is all just what's already existing in the code. We will, as Bob said, be adding that language for the TDR program. MR. HILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COE: All right. Page 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Five? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Six? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Seven? (No response.) Page 35 February 6, 2002 16J1 CHAIRMAN COE: Eight? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Nine? I've got a comment on 9 -1 -A; A, B -- all of them. How is South Florida Water Management District going to police mitigation and those sorts of things when a lot of times their standards appear to be less than ours? For example, sometimes they'll look at wetlands that have been affected, like with Melaleuca or something drained it or what have you, and yet really there's nothing wrong with it; it just needs to be restored to its wetland originality. So how are we going to police that? MS. BURGESON: What staff will need to do is look at all of the environmental resource permits and wetland permits prior to -- for instance, we'll have to do that prior to coming to this board or coming to the hearing examiner with the environmental- impact statement. We'll need to review their permits and their proposed mitigation to make sure that there is no mitigation that is less than the -- the functional value of the wetlands impacted on site. So, for instance, if they're -- if they're proposing mitigation with uplands, then we will have to require additional mitigation, which is the new language that we put in on page 11, the very top of page 11, Number -- or letter D, which says, "Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with A through C of this policy. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the Page 36 February 6, 2002 16JI .R jurisdictional agencies." CHAIRMAN COE: But when you're saying, Collier County will require greater restrictions, are we requiring South Florida Water Management District to do that for us? MS. BURGESON: No. We can't require them to do that, and I've sat down with their staff on a couple different occasions to talk about this. Their expec -- expectations are that more and more permits over time will become compliant with this, but at times they will still require, for instance, the rare upland mitigation on the site or on -site mitigation that'll be less than what we require. And when they do that, they expect -- what they've told me is that they can tell the petitioner that they understand that they will go -- have to go back to Collier County and do additional mitigation, but they will not -- they will not be using our policies specifically for review to make sure that it happens at that time. The developer can try to do that through the process to make it simpler for them. CHAIRMAN COE: Does your office have the staff to sufficiently police this, or are you going to need additional staff? MS. BURGESON: For us to be able to use the proposed language, we'll need to take courses and go to the training for the South Florida -- the New Wetland Assessment Program. And I think that Bob had talked about understanding that we would need probably two more staff in order to facilitate the use of the new language for wetland protection. MR. MULHERE: I don't know how many staff. You're going to have to evaluate it. I don't have any clue. Page 37 February 6, 2002 16JI CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Any other comments? MR. HILL: Another question on 9 -1 -A, we've had discussions in the past concerning the WRAP procedure and an improved WRAP procedure that's coming down from the state. Is there a set functional rating procedure in place now or being recommended? MS. BURGESON: There is the old WRAP analysis that people are still using right now, and they are in the process of accepting and training people for the new program, which is statewide. I'm not sure if there's anyone in the audience that might speak to that and have more current information on it, but as -- I understand that there -- there have been seminars and workshops throughout the state. We participated in one about a year and a half ago when this process started, and we expect that they will probably start up again hopefully in this area within the next month or two. MR. HILL: I remember during some of our subcommittee deliberations -- Bill, you may correct me on this -- we took a look at part of that new proposal. Is that being firmed up at all? And if -- if so or if not, does language in the county documents automatically embrace the new statewide WRAP? MR. LORENZ: Yes. That's -- that's correct. On Policy 6 -2 -4, as we have already proposed it, indicates that we would be using existing South Florida Water Management District WRAP until the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method is adopted by the state and we will be using that. So we've got the language in there to cover -- cover both of those conditions. February 6, 2002 16J1 Let me -- let me make a -- one point, however. We have had some discussion with some biological consultants concerning the WRAP score itself of 0.5, which was listed in that document, and there is some concern that that number is perhaps too low. Certainly from a staff perspective, myself, Mac Hatcher -- and we'll be talking with Barbara -- may want to take a look at that number as the appropriate -- the appropriate value at the moment, but we would still be recommending that that procedure being -- be in effect. We may make an evaluation of the actual number itself. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? Anything else on Page 11? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: On Page 12? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Twelve? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Thirteen? CHAIRMAN COE: Fourteen? Page 13 -- 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Sixteen? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Page 14? Anything on page 14? I have one motion I'd like to make for page 14, which is paragraph 16 -2 -C that no beach raking will be permitted during the turtle season. MS. LYNNE: Was that a discussion or a motion? CHAIRMAN COE: I'm making a motion. MS. LYNNE: I second it. CHAIRMAN COE: I have a second. All for? Page 39 February 6, 2001 6J1 r MR. STONE: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MS. SANTORO: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? It carries. MR. CARLSON: I got one. CHAIRMAN COE: We got one opposed. MR. CARLSON: I just don't see that if the inspection works -- if we already approved the system where the beach is inspected in the morning. prior to raking. And nest sites -- I mean, we've already been through this ad nauseam. CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. MS. LYNNE: Right. And the -- the code enforcement says they don't have the staff to carry out the inspections necessary to prevent the damage. CHAIRMAN COE: Motion's carried 6 to 1. MS. BURGESON: If I could add something, Kim spoke with Carol -- I'm not sure on the pronunciation -- Lyste, who was a senior environmental planner for Bonita Springs, and she said that she would be able to come down to the EAC during the March meeting and give a presentation on the language that they adopted last year. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, that's something for the Land Development Code. I just want to throw this in. MS. BURGESON: Right. Just -- just so that you know, we're -- we're expecting to have someone make a presentation. And I guess the City of Fort Myers or Fort Myers Beach was also recently involved in the language. Page 40 February 6, 2002 q 1 6JI CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Do they allow beach raking during sea turtle nesting season? MS. BURGESON: The only time they do is in the event of a storm or an emergency. CHAIRMAN COE: Page 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Number 17? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Number 18? MS. SANTORO: I'm -- CHAIRMAN COE: Yes? MS. SANTORO: I'm -- I had a comment or a question on page 15, policy 7.3.2. I don't know why you changed it from nightly to regular inspections. One of the problems would be furniture and things that are still left out interfering with turtles that are coming out to nest? MS. BURGESON: That's only as a matter of staffing. CHAIRMAN COE: Why not get more staff? MS. SANTORO: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: The one concern we had before was that when we used the term "nightly," it implied each and every night. And we don't intend on making compliance lighting inspections each and every night. We can't do it. You can only do it when you don't have the moon conditions so that you can see the lights on the beach. EAC did recommend, however, to look at regular inspections with regard to prohibitions of the storage of furniture. Again, it can't be every night. I mean, we would not have the staff to be able to do that. I would suggest -- and this would be for the code Page 41 February 6, 2002 16J1 enforcement department to evaluate, but you could evaluate some kind of random -type of inspections to -- to get different places on the beach at different -- different times. That would provide you the appropriate kind of inspection program that would work well. MS. SANTORO: I don't like the word "regular. I think it's too ambiguous. I think it should be a time frame. MR. CARLSON: Have you ever tried to recruit volunteers with the public to help with this? MR. LORENZ: We do have volunteers when our staff, our natural resources staff goes out for some inspections. It's so -- so we do recruit volunteers. We can't always get volunteers. You have to realize also that when we're talking about an enforcement program, that you're going to have to have a certain degree of certification. They can be our eyes for us, but we have to still provide the appropriate staff to do the actual -- write up the notice of violation and the, if you will -- I want to use the term "duly certified" as a code enforcement inspector. CHAIRMAN COE: Any questions or comments? MS. LYNNE: Just another comment. What about a neighborhood watch -type organization? Those people go through certification and get approved and all that kind of stuff, and they make regular -- very regular tours around the neighborhood. MR. LORENZ: Certainly. I mean, we've -- we will we will always try to use volunteers and extend -- to a volunteer program extend our -- our efforts. I can't -- I can't make a commitment that we will actually have a Page 42 February 6, 2002 16J11 volunteer program. If you don't get volunteers, then you don't have a volunteer program. But certainly from an operational standpoint, we'll -- we're always trying to look for that. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments on page 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Page 16? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Page 17? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. We're done. MS. LYNNE: That's -- excuse me. I've got just a -- a couple of more questions. I'm -- on Motion No. 5, where we say, "Recommendation to remove asphalt and concrete batch - making plans and facilities for collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid wastes from the list of permitted uses in receiving lands," did that cover all the light industrial, rural industrial categories that Mr. Carlson wanted eliminated? MR. MULHERE: No, it doesn't. It doesn't -- those are specific uses. Those are not comprehensive -plan designations. The other language you referred to earlier that you talked about the rural commercial and rural industrial, those are comprehensive plan designations that would allow uses underneath them in the L -- for the LDC. So, no, it doesn't. I think I -- I don't have a copy of your motions. I thought you had made a motion to prohibit any commercial or industrial, but maybe it was more specific than that. Page 43 February 6, 2002 16JI If that was your intent, you probably need to take -- take a motion that would prohibit any commercial or industrial, or if you want to say, "other than small scale," I mean, I don't know. MS. LYNNE: My understanding of the rural villages is that there does need to be some small -scale commercial. That's kind of the point of it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. LYNNE: But I don't see any reason to have any industrial purposes move out into the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Okay. I move that on page 45 -- what is, 6.J? -- that there be no industrial uses allowed in a rural village and that commercial be limited to small businesses designed to serve the area residents. MR. GAL: Before we go on, I have a question to ask. Are -- dry cleaners, storage areas, are those commercial or industrial? MR. MULHERE: Commercial. Commercial. I -- I want to be completely clear. What -- your motion would prohibit industrial and rural villages, but it still wouldn't prohibit industrial outside of a rural village in a receiving area. I think that's your intent, isn't it? MS. LYNNE: My specific intent here was to keep it out of the rural villages, because that's not the point of a rural village. MR. MULHERE: Okay. No problem. MS. LYNNE: But other people may have some other opinions to express. CHAIRMAN COE: I've got a comment on that. You know, I can see taking out asphalt plants, garbage transfer Page 44 February 6, 2002 16Ji stations and things like that, but if you just broad brush and take out all industry, where are the people going to work? I mean, we could get them to drive on Immokalee Road, we could get them to drive on 951 to come into work, but if they got a rural village between here and Immokalee, then, you know, why -- why have them drive 15 or 20 miles to work when they could have -- you know, by not being very specific on the industry, you know, what's -- what's a good industrial industry? Are we arbitrarily just wiping out all industry? MR. CARLSON: Well, I -- I think that that sort of brings up another broader question that I've always had, is while we have a target population for a rural village of 7- to 10,000 people or 5- to 7,000 people or something like that, I mean, do we actually know how many jobs are going to be available in -- MR. MULHERE: No. MR. CARLSON: -- a rural village to these people? MR. MULHERE: No. No, we don't know. We're not going to know until they come in with their plan and it goes through a full -blown rezone process and they provide all the elements that are required for rezone, including an analysis that -- the implications or impacts on public facilities and on infrastructure and on economic, which is called for in this plan. So they have to provide all that information for consideration before one is even approved. And it's -- it's a little premature. I can't -- I don't have a crystal ball. I certainly can't tell you how many jobs there are going to be. Page 45 February 6, 2002 16JI MR. CARLSON: That's why I think this is a incredibly dangerous plan for this county. If you wind up with a -- with a big DRI urban/residential kind of area with a gas station and a grocery store and that qualifies, then I just -- I think it's just a horribly dangerous plan for this county. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, we're -- we're -- obviously we're in disagreement on that because it's our intent to direct those kinds of developments to those receiving lands through this process. It's exactly what we want to see from our perspective in those receiving lands. So we're -- we're completely in disagreement. MR. CARLSON: And we have no idea how many commuters will be coming out of a rural village to the urban area or to anywhere else? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, at this point you don't have any idea. How could you possibly have any idea? The only way you could do it would be to know what the density that's being requested would be in -- in one and, coincidently, what the expected amount of -- of commercial or industrial employment would be. But without even knowing that, we know one thing: If they're a mixed use and they provide for the -- some employment opportunities, some recreational opportunities and some institutional opportunities, there is less of a need for people to travel from where they are into the urban area to use those types of facilities. If there's a school, for example, which is required, the school board asks it. I mean, there are a lot -- you know, I don't have the empirical data to ask every question that you're asking. I think it would be not Page 46 February 6, 2002 possible to give you that empirical data. We -- we must know what we're talking about before we can achieve the empirical data. That burden is being placed through this on the applicant. They have to go through the same process. They'll be coming to see you; they'll be coming to see, you know, the -- the hearing examiner, the Board of County Commissioners. And they'll be showing us what components are included in their rural village concept. There are parameters to defining a rural village in this plan, and those will be further defined through LDRSs. For example -- I think it's a great question. What type of industry is appropriate in a rural village, if any? Well, certainly we don't want to see, you know, some of the more intensive types of industry out there, but a research and technology park, from my perspective, makes all the sense in the world. Now, how big will that be? It certainly depends on what the market and the population of that rural village could support in terms of employment. We don't know that until someone comes in and asks for it. It's the same as any other rezoning. CHAIRMAN COE: Is there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Comments? MR. CARLSON: Except this is spilling out onto 29,000 acres of rural land. MR. MULHERE: That's true. And in exchange for putting protections on 60,000 acres of rural land. I mean, there's no -- no one ever said that there weren't going to be -- there wasn't going to be a trade -off here. Page 47 16J1 ` February 6, 2002 16JI You want to protect the most valuable natural resources. We're also required legally to balance those protection measures with private property rights, and no one ever said that there wouldn't be some impacts as a result of that. MR. CARLSON: Those wetlands already have some protective status, don't they? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. They -- they have some protective status, yeah. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions or comments? MR. HILL: Two relatively minor ones, Mr. Chairman. In Motion No. 1 and 2 that we made last week -- in Motion No. 2, I don't remember that it was that extensive. I would not like to see Motion 1 passed on about taking the Big Corkscrew Island Community, making it neutral and then have the Motion No. 2 seemingly imply that it is related to Number 1. I think it's a totally separate decision. We're not compensating for the loss of Big Corkscrew Island Community by making Motion No. 2. That's, as I remember, the ideas we had. If anybody on the council -- CHAIRMAN COE: I think the reason that Motion No. 2 was made was to make it clear to the PAB and the Board of County Commissioners and others that see our motions, they will understand that we're taking one -- Corkscrew community, for example -- off the table, but we're giving something else to replace it, so they don't think we're just not giving a recommendation as to where other lands could be available for this. If we don't do that, just personally, I don't see any way that the PAB would be able to even know about that Page 48 February 6, 2002 recommendation. 16JI MR. HILL: No. I'm -- I agree that we should take the Corkscrew Island Community out and make it neutral, but I don't think Motion No. 2 should be a compensation. It's a separate decision. We should add that land. CHAIRMAN COE: I don't understand what you're saying. MR. MULHERE: My -- my recollection of the motion was that it came immediately after and was tied to the discussion of removing the Big Corkscrew Island. CHAIRMAN COE: Right. MR. MULHERE: I have no objection if you want to clarify that and you want to strike through that last part of -- right after "lands." Where it says, "to compensate the removal of receiving designation of Corkscrew" -- that's up to the -- MR. HILL: But my point is that the people in Big Corkscrew Island Community really requested that they remain a neutral area, and I'd hate to see the Board of County Commissioners negate that by -- on the basis that they can't compensate for it. That ought to be a separate issue -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. HILL: -- and not be a decision made on the fact that you're going to compensate for that loss. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I -- I tend to agree. In fact -- MR. HILL: And -- and 1 and 2 do that. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, do I have a motion to -- on Motion No. 2 to take out that -- all after -- MR. HILL: Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN COE: -- Golden Gate Estates? Page 49 February 6, 2002 16JI 10_ MR. HILL: I move that we eliminate the word in Motion No. 2, starting with "as receiving lands compensated." CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a second for that motion? MR. MULHERE: Wait. You want that "as receiving lands" in there. You want it somewhere in there. CHAIRMAN COE: Right. MR. MULHERE: It starts -- MR. HILL: Strike out "to compensate the removal." MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a second to the motion? MR. CARLSON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COE: All for? MR. STONE: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? MS. SANTORO: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: One opposed. Carries 6 to 1. MR. HILL: One other one, Mr. Chairman, and -- on Motion No. 13, is it totally clear what the area being referred to south of Immokalee Road -- MR. MULHERE: It's the only secondary receiving area south of Immokalee Road. MR. HILL: There's only one? MR. MULHERE: Correct. There can't be any confusion. This is the only secondary receiving area south of Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions or comments? Page 50 • February 6, 2002 ; 6J1 0I MR. HILL: Should that be further defined somehow? MR. MULHERE: Well, I didn't really -- I mean, it's -- everyone's pretty much in agreement with the recommendation. I would suspect that it's going to happen. There's only one south of Immokalee Road. I think it's clear. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions or comments? MS. LYNNE: I wanted to go over some of the recommendation's from Brad Cornell. If your conversation -- MR. CARLSON: Yes. Yes. MS. LYNNE: -- conversation, Mr. Carlson, pertains to here, go ahead. MR. CARLSON: I was going to -- I was going to take another crack at a -- at a recommendation even though it may be too late to make this list. I -- I'd like to take a -- make another attempt to address the -- the idea of having some sort of buffering between preserved land and NRPAs and the receiving areas at this point. The receiving areas interface with NRPAs and conservation lands, and I think that's just poor planning. I think the 300 -foot buffer that's proposed, which could be golf course, is not going to be adequate to protect the hydrology of these wetland -- wetland areas adjacent to these receiving areas. And also, yesterday I did a prescribed burn, and it was a very lively prescribed burn. And I can't imagine being a natural area manager and doing a burn with a golf course immediately next door and a residential subdivision within 300 feet. There's terrible conflict there. You cannot always Page 51 February 6, 200216 J 113 predict exactly what the wind's going to do. I think there needs to be a buffer of rural lands between a receiving area and conservation NRPA land. I'm going to try again. Last time I proposed a mile. I'm not going to do that. I'd like to make a motion that at the interface of the receiving lands and the NRPAs and conservation lands in areas A and D only -- A and D only -- that there be a 1/2-mile buffer in the land that is now designated receiving adjacent to those conservation and NRPA lands, 1/2 mile. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, what do we do -- I mean, how are those landowners compensated for creating a buffer? MR. CARLSON: Their -- their land stays neutral. It's rural land. It's 1 unit per 5 acres rural land neutral or ag or whatever it is now. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? MS. BURGESON: Ed, can I just ask why you chose A and D only? MR. CARLSON: Because those areas are the most intact hydrologically. The -- the NRPA and conservation lands around A and D are the most intact, and those will be managed by private state entities which will do a lot of prescribed burning. And I think B and C, it's not -- there's just not as much conflict there. I think B already, because of its relation to The Estates -- you know, there's already hydrologic impacts, and -- and those units are just smaller. MS. LYNNE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN COE: All for? MR. STONE: Aye. MS. SANTORO: Aye Page 52 February 6, 2002 16J1 MR. CARLSON: Aye MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? MR. GAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: One opposed. Carries 6 to 1. MR. HILL: Would -- would you care to share your objection? MR. GAL: I -- I just think that there was -- there was a -- and I really don't recall why this wasn't -- why we didn't make this motion last time at the last meeting, but there was some, I guess, good reasons why we decided to not make it a mile buffer, and I'm not sure if there was a difference with a 1/2 -mile buffer. And I think it related to hydrologic conditions that -- that differ for different areas in the receiving areas. MR. HILL: The NRPA and conservation lands need protection. And at one time -- in fact, I put a motion on the table last week that we quantify it by stating the minimum draw down at the boundary of the conservation area that would preclude specifying a particular distance. That died, I think, for lack of a second, or was defeated. I'm not sure. So there are two ways to look at it: You can fix the separation or you can try to quantify the impact you want to restrict on the conservation. You know, this motion does it one way. There are other ways to do it. But in the absence of data, specific data that will allow us to determine what the impact would be, in changing the hydrological character of the NRPA area, we -- Ed -- Ed's experience is better than mine, and Page 53 February 6, 200 16J1 7 he wants a half a mile and feels that that might be satisfactory. We need to make one attempt at least to increase the buffering to these areas over and above the 300 feet. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? MS. BURGESON: Can I just read that motion back to make sure that I've got that correct? At the interface of receiving lands and the NRPAs or sending lands in Areas A and D only, there be a 1/2-mile buffer in the land now designated receiving, and that buffer remain neutral. MR. CARLSON: Yes. It's NRPA and conservation lands. MS. BURGESON: That's right. CHAIRMAN COE: We're going to take a five - minute break at this point. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Erica, we left off -- you had some comments about the -- the Audubon Society sheet that got submitted as a recommendation. MS. LYNNE: Yes. I just wanted to go over them briefly. "A, adjust the sending and receiving numbers based on conservation easements, extinguishing density that may be in sending areas but won't send." I think we already did that; is that correct? CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. MS. LYNNE: Okay. "Rural villages need modification. Limit to three, make them smaller, increase the density for efficiency, increase the distance to -- distance between villages to more than 3 miles and explicitly follow smart - growth principles." Any comments or interest in that one? Page 54 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: No. 1611 MS. LYNNE: "Golf courses need to be considered development with some equation to density. It's an intensive use which strongly impacts the natural habitats and rural character and qualities of the areas. We should require TDRs to be used to build these no rural projects as part of receiving area residential development." I will make a comment on that. Brad Cornell brought up that a development like Twin Eagles can be done without any TDRs at all because of the large golf courses. And he foresees that if golf courses aren't counted somehow in density, that we're not going to have rural villages or rural lands; we're just going to have duplicates of Twin Eagles throughout the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN COE: We have already made that recommendation -- Motion 8. We recommended to prohibit golf courses except on approved natural and nonirrigated rough areas from being located in greenbelts around rural villages or any other preservation areas. Motion carried 6 to 1, with Mr. Sansbury descending. MS. LYNNE: Right. And -- and the difference here is that Mr. Cornell's saying that golf courses in the re in the -- yeah -- in the receiving areas should have to that there should be some kind of -- he suggests using TDRs, that you need one unit per acre in TDRs to build a golf course. MR. MULHERE: If I could add, this is a -- an issue that's been discussed quite a bit through the last, I'd say, six or eight months. This issue was also raised when the staff went up and had a preliminary discussion with the DCA. Page 55 February 6, 2002 16JI The concern is a very valid one. We've -- I've stated and we've stated that the importance of the TDR program or the viability is directly related to a market to utilize those TDRs. The question here is whether or not there would be an insufficient market if you can go in and purchase 3- or 400 acres of land in a receiving area, put in a golf course and develop, say, upscale housing at the current base density of 1 per 5 and have no need to purchase TDRs under that market. So it's a very valid question. We will be raising this issue to the board as to whether or not, as a policy consideration, they would like to establish a minimum density for golf courses. And that minimum density in the example that we have utilized has been .5 dwelling units per acre. So with a base density of 1 per 5, in order to achieve the golf course, they would have to acquire through TDRs enough density to get to at least .5 in a receiving area in a residential golf course community. That would create a necessity to utilize TDRs in conjunction with golf courses. It's an issue that we think is very valid. I have a policy discussion, and we will be bringing it up as part of the course of deliberation and the planning too. MR. CARLSON: I like that idea. CHAIRMAN COE: Let's make a motion. Let's get it up there on a piece of paper. Do you have a motion? MR. CARLSON: Huh? CHAIRMAN COE: You've raised your finger. You're volunteering. MR. CARLSON: I -- I make a motion that we support the concept of using -- establishing a minimum density for Page 56 February 6, 2002 16 J 1 ' FA a golf course community and having them participate in the TDR program. Does that do it? CHAIRMAN COE: Is that clear enough for you -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COE: -- Tom? Do I have a second to that motion? MS. LYNNE: Can I just ask -- it's not TDRs for the golf course community; it's TDRs for the golf course itself. MR. MULHERE: Well, there's -- there's two ways you could do it. This is -- this achieves the same result. There's two ways you can do it: You could try to establish some sort of a formula, whether it's on a per -acre basis -- you say for, you know, every acre of golf course, you have to purchase .1 TDRs or something. I think that's a lot more complicated than what I'm recommending. What I'm recommending is establishing a minimum density associated with golf courses, residential golf course communities. And, of course, the only way you can achieve that from the base is through the TDR program. CHAIRMAN COE: Can I have a second for the motion? MR. MULHERE: I mean, it -- it just -- MS. LYNNE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. All for? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Let the record show that Mr. Stone was not in attendance for the vote. Pass 6 -0. Any other comments? MR. CARLSON: Well, just -- I think this whole Page 57 February 6, 2002 16J1 discussion about creating a market for TDRs is very interesting. And do -- do you have other potential incentives? MR. MULHERE: Well, one of the things that I should have mentioned that I didn't is that we asked this very question to our consultant, Dr. Jim Nicholas, who's the economist with the University of Florida who evaluated the proposed TDR proposal and evaluated it based on a number of conditions. One was, tell us how we can best structure this so that it will work. And number two was, tell us, you know, what is the economic viability of this. And he prepared a report. And then subsequent to that report, we asked some additional questions, one of which was, what about this example of someone being able to -- of there being a strong market for the base density, say, in conjunction with the golf course community where there -- there wouldn't be a market incentive to acquire additional units. His finding was that, you know, developers are rational economic purchasers and that if there is an economic benefit to them purchasing some additional units and constructing them in conjunction with this golf course that they're going to build anyway, that they will go in and purchase more than the base -- based on really the economic viability of it. But that doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate policy discussion to enhance that market viability by requiring in some cases -- in the case of golf courses, for example, some minimum density. It -- it still, I think, is worthy of discussion as a policy. I mean, that's going to guarantee it versus -- Dr. Nicholas's point was from all the data that he Page 5 8 February 6, 2002 16J1 reviewed, he feel strongly that it will happen anyway, but it may not happen to that degree. So we do have an expert evaluation that would tell us that there is an economic viability to the whole TDR program. I don't think that came really as any surprise to us when we look at the market values of land out there and dwelling units. Another way that you enhance that is by allowing, as we discussed at the previous meeting, perhaps under some conditions, a transfer into the urban area for,. say, infill -- qualified infill development. Those have a value too, and then you increase the viability. There are only about 5,000 units to send. So when you look at rural villages, you look at market -- other market incentives to increase your base density, and then you look at these options of, one, a minimum density for golf course; and two, an urban transfer. In Dr. Nicholas's opinion, our challenge would be to find additional sending lands once these were exhausted, and -- and they felt that that would probably be the -- you know, the outcome. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm -- I'm going to say something that's going to get me in a lot of trouble, but, you know, I'm so worried about the future of this county. And I've been thinking about this a lot, and I -- I have a really half -baked idea. So anybody gets mad at me, I'm just thinking out loud, but I think this is the time to do it. This is the discussion to do it. I live in The Estates, and in The Estates, you're allowed to build a guest home. And, you know, it's -- I mean, it's -- everybody rents these guest -- you're not supposed to rent them. They're not rental units. They're Page 59 February 6, 2002 16J] for your family, for your mother -in -law, whatever, but people build them and people rent them, and there's a big wink and a nod going on. And even the county commissioners -- you know, code enforcement has better things to do; the county commissioners have better things to do, so this is going on. You know, my fear is that over time there's going to be so many guest homes that are rental units in Collier County, it's going to be like the docks at Coconut Creek. You know, there you have a lot of nice people who built illegal docks and nobody wanted them to be criminals, so they changed the rules for the docks and made them legal. That's -- So I -- I could see this happening in The Estates in the future, that there are just so many people renting their guest homes, that the commissioners will say, okay, it's all right; go ahead and do it. But instead of giving that away -- I mean, if somebody with a lot of 2 1/2 acres or 5 acres wanted to build a second dwelling and be able to legally rent it, could they be required to buy it development? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a great question, and -- and you -- you have a great mind. We've -- we've also considered that -- MR. CARLSON: Great minds think alike. MR. MULHERE: -- so we must have great minds as well. We had a lot of discussion over this. And in fact, we talked to Dr. Nicholas about this as well, and he brought up some examples where -- and a specific example was the Hamptons in -- in New York where they have a TDR Page 60 February 6, 200 f program, and it's for two reasons: One, to protect 6JI natural resources; and two, to protect agricultural in that area. And the -- they had the same situation. Guest houses were allowed, but they were illegally being rented out. And in that case they did make a provision that in order to legitimize the guest house for rental purposes, you could acquire a TDR. The values of the TDRs are very, very high in that area, as you can imagine, because of real estate values, but it worked very well. A significant amount of people did exercise their right to purchase a TDR at a pretty high price to legitimize their guest house. We did not propose that here. There are some growth management -- I'd defer you to Marjorie. There are some growth- management issues relative to, you know, calculating density and doing other things. Right now a guest house, since it's legally only for -- it can't be rented out. It's only for a mother -in -law or, you know, perhaps a -- you know, a child or a sick relative or something along those lines, or visitors or guests. It does go towards the overall density in the county. Again, if you were requiring a unit through a transfer process, this would not increase the overall density in the county either. So -- and -- and it may not necessarily have to be a whole unit; it could be a half a unit that you would have to acquire, you know. And still you would fall under the -- some of the regulations because guest houses, for example, can only be 40 percent of the size of the principal structure. So you have some restrictions on you. Perhaps that would be justification Page 61 February 6, 2002 16JI for not a full unit but a half unit. We didn't include that in this recommendation because we felt that there was sufficient market out there to be able to exhaust supply of sending units without including that, but we agreed -- we thought it was a good idea to -- MR. CARLSON: Well, I -- I think if you're trying to create a market, especially if you could -- if people who weren't even ready to build a guest house yet but they wanted to in the future, they could buy a development unit, and it would be a -- an attachment to their deed, and they could -- they could build ten years from now, or they could sell it with their property and say, this property is -- you're entitled to build another unit here, or they could pass it on to their children. I just think it would create a tremendous market. MR. MULHERE: I -- I can't argue with you. MS. STUDENT: You said you'd defer to me, and right now, the way the program's set up, that wouldn't be permissible. But we're looking at a new program and -- here for the rural fringe. And that -- so I'm not -- I think it's an excellent idea, and it's something that's worthy of looking at. It would have to be accomplished through comp plan amendment and then subsequent LDR amendments. MR. MULHERE: If you'd like to make a motion to that effect, we would carry that forward as well. CHAIRMAN COE: Anybody want to make a motion on that? MS. LYNNE: I'll move to that effect. MR. MULHERE: Barbara just mentioned, you know, what about the Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee, and I Page 62 February 6, 20021 6 11 '13 1 �j 1 guess I'd be careful not to step on toes. Most likely what we would do is make that a recommendation for their consideration because I think the board would probably want to defer this because it would impact that area potentially to them for consideration, just the same as we've indicated our choice relative to Orange Tree, which we also concur makes a pretty good receiving location because it already has a lot of impacts. And -- and so, because that's not part -- technically part of the assessment area but it is a countywide policy, we could certainly make a recommendation, and we'll carry any motion that you make forward, but that that be deferred for consideration or moved -- directed for consideration to the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Restudy Committee. I think the timing on that is somewhere in the neighborhood of probably a year for them to finish their -- their evaluation assessment and still would be sufficient enough to -- to achieve some good, some benefit. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a motion? MR. CARLSON: So your recommendation is to make a motion to carry this to the Golden Gate Estates? MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't think you have to do that. I think the board -- you could just make a recommendation to the board to consider this as a policy, you know. But I just wanted you to be aware that that -- again, that committee is out there, and the board may wish to redirect it to that committee for consideration. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Then I'll move that we recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to explore with the Page 63 February 6, 2002 Golden Gate Estates what do you call it. 16 1 MR. MULHERE: Master Plan Restudy. MR. CARLSON: -- Master Plan Restudy Committee the desirability of requiring transfer of development right into The Estates zoning for lots 2 1/2 acres or larger for secondary structures. Whoops. MS. BURGESON: Should maybe that be 2 1/4 acres? MR. CARLSON: Two and a quarter acres or larger. Okay. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to complicate it. There are legal nonconforming lots in Golden Gate Estates that are generally -- generally in the -- the average size of about an acre and a quarter. There are quite a few. There are several thousand. The guest house regulations as they're currently written are not -- don't only apply in Golden Gate Estates. They apply anywhere in Collier County where you have over 1 acre of land and have over a hundred foot of frontage. You may then come in and -- and build a guest house not to exceed 40 percent of your -- that doesn't mean that this couldn't be limited. I just wanted to let you know that. And then when you put that size restriction, you would be precluding those that have an acre and a quarter but also have a guest house in The Estates from enjoying this -- this process. If you want to just limit it to Golden Gate Estates, I'd just say for all legal -- legal lots that meet the provisions of guest houses. MS. STUDENT: I -- I have a comment about that, that I'm concerned that if we treat similarly situated properties, that being where you meet criteria to have a Page 64 February 6, 2002 16 J I ' guest house differently and maybe allow it in The Estates but not elsewhere, I just have some equal - protection issues with that, and we may want to look at -- MR. MULHERE: Generally. MS. STUDENT: -- for any -- you know, generally in any area where the ability to build a guest house is permitted. MR. MULHERE: You can leave it general. MR. CARLSON: Now you're getting me in a lot of trouble. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a rewording motion, or would you rather -- MR. CARLSON: How about if I just go to the next Golden Gate Estates Planning Committee and talk to them? CHAIRMAN COE: That sounds like a better thing. I'd like to remind the EAC that we still have two projects that we have to go through. And I note that Brad brought this to us during the meeting, which is pretty extensive, so I don't know how you all want to handle -- handle it. Does anybody have any comments? Because Brad's given us some extensive things here that we haven't had a chance really to go over. MS. BURGESON: We also have a presentation by Jim Beever after the land -use petitions. CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. So I would suggest that we table the Audubon sheet until the next meeting. That will give us a chance to look over it and make further comments. MR. CARLSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN COE: Is there anybody that disagrees with that? Page 65 February 6, 2002 __ __ 1611 Very well. Let's Barb, if you and I don't know if you did this or not. It looks like Brad's gone. But in the future if Brad or anyone else has these extensive written comments, I'd appreciate if you'd just tell them to put it in the package, you know, and -- MS. BURGESON: We just received those this morning by e -mail. CHAIRMAN COE: I -- I figured that. MS. BURGESON: And the second package, I don't even believe staff has yet. CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. I figured that. But maybe we can just remind some of these so we can take a look at it. What is this that we just received? MS. BURGESON: That's the e -mail that I got this morning from Brad Cornell with his concerns. And if there's additional information that was handed out to you from Brad today, I -- I'm not aware of it. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. I'm going to also table that until our next meeting. MS. BURGESON: The next portion of the agenda is the two land -use petitions. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, I'm Ray Bellows, chief planner with the current planning section. Today I'll be presenting petition PUDZ- 2001 -AR 1842, East Gateway PUD. I'll be presenting a general overview of planning issues, and Steve Lenberger will do the environmental review for this project. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard, south side Page 66 February 6, 2002 1 of I -75, and about a quarter of a mile west of Collier Boulevard. The subject site is currently zoned C -4, RMF -12, RMF -6 and Residential Single - Family -4, along with an agricultural strip. It's located adjacent to the existing PUD, a residential one, Saddlebrook Village and the I -75 /Alligator Alley commercial PUD to the east. Petitioner proposes to rezone the subject site to a planned unit development, allowing approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial retail uses and about 250,000 square feet of industrial park uses. The master plan indicates the -- it'll have a development tract for industrial uses that have -- are near and adjacent to I -75. Then north of Davis Boulevard is Tract C, which is the commercial development tract. There's also a preserve area along the western and northern property boundary. The subject site is within an -- an activity center, and it's designated on the future land -use map. The site is located within the red square area. That's designated as Activity Center No. 9 on the future land -use map. This activity center encourages commercial development and industrial uses where those impacts can be addressed for traffic- circulation improvements and access - management plans. There's an existing commercial development on the east side and then on the south side. There's also industrial zoning to the south on the -- designated on the future land -use map. The proposed uses in the PUD are consistent with the growth- management plan and the comprehensive plan. There Page 67 February 6, 2002 16J1 is no problems with consistency from a planning standpoint with the future land -use element. Steve Lenberger's here to present the environmental, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Planning Services. Please excuse me. I'm getting over a head cold. Still a little congested. The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of Davis Boulevard and 951. It's located between I -75 and Davis boulevard, this being the subject property, this right here. The property is about 37.4 acres. Quite a bit of it's jurisdictional wetland, about 23.7 acres. The uplands on the parcel are located mainly in this portion of the property and up in this area. The balance of the property is mostly wetlands. The petitioner is proposing to retain uplands and wetlands in a preserve area approximately 5.7 acres in size. This will be located on the western side of the property and along the southern part of I -75. To give you an idea of how this lies with adjacent parcels, the petitioner has put together this exhibit showing the I -75 Alligator Alley PUD to the east and the adjoining PUD to the west. And the preserve area, there's a recreated marsh area on this section of the I -75 Alligator Alley PUD, and the -- the preserve area does connect onto that preserve area. The preserve -- the PUD to the west also has preserve located on the northern portion, western side of the site and roughly in the center portion, which connect to the preserve area, which is proposed for east Gateway. Page 68 February 6, 2002 16J11J The subject property is all wooded. It's primarily pine flatwoods and pine, cypress mix. There's quite a bit of exotics on portions of the site, particularly this area. And in -- the north end has quite a bit of Melaleuca in it. The petitioner is proposing to impact -- it's about 20 acres of wetlands, be about 86 percent of the wetlands on site. They are not proposing any off -site mitigation yet, have not approached the district yet as far as off -site mitigation, so that has to be evaluated later. They are proposing to preserve the 5.7 acres on site. They are required to retain 25 percent of the existing native vegetation on site, so there is a -- a shortfall of 3.64 acres which will have to be retained elsewhere in the PUD or plan it on site. And that's what the petitioner's proposing at this time. The area in general is known to have red - cockaded woodpeckers and has had numerous activity in the past with RCWs. And the petitioner did do a survey. It's in the environmental impact statement. No birds were observed on site. And when they go in for agency permits, they'll have to answer to comments from Florida Fish and Wildlife, the Conservation Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding RCWs. I'm here to answer any questions. The petitioner is here also with their environmental consultant to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COE: I've got one question: Is there any net loss of wetlands? MR. LENBERGER: As proposed right now, yes. There'll be about 20 acres of wetlands lost because there's no Page 69 February 6, 2002 16J1 off -site mitigation proposed at this time. MR. CARLSON: And I have a question while you're up there. Now, the water - management system takes the runoff and sends it west, into the development to the west, and then into the Golden Gate canal system? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski with the Development Services. If you'll remember, Saddlebrook was the project that came in and Bill Mckinley stood up and said that John Boldt wants him to run it south and the Water Management District wanted him to run it north. And he said, I don't care, whichever. And the Water Management District won. It runs north to the canal. It dumps into Saddlebrook. Saddlebrook dumps into the ditch. The ditch heads north to the canal. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Well, petitioner? MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, members of the council, it's a pleasure to be before you this morning. I'm going to start on this side in the room here so I can show you where the property's actually located. There we go. The subject property lies within a -- Activity Center No. 9. Over the past three years, there has been an extensive study in Activity Center 9. It was called the Interchange Master Plan. Some of you may have remembered the -- the process for identifying intensive commercial uses, industrial uses that came out of the plan, and then the promulgation of the land development regulations that were imported into the Land Development Code were just recently adopted on January 9 pursuant to Ordinance 2002.3. Page 70 February 6, 200216J1 The -- as was stated by Mr. Lenberger and Mr. Bellows, there is industrial uses that adjoin the property. Access to the property will be in alignment with those industrial land uses in Westport Commerce Center. There will be interconnection for vehicular purposes with the 951 commerce center to the east, and as was also stated, that the water management will be directed from the east Gateway property through the wetland preserve in the Saddlebrook Village project, and that has been constructed. Phase II is under review right now. And then it would discharge into a drainage swale. It runs along the easterly boundary of Palm Springs subdivision, which lies just to the west of the Saddlebrook Village project. The property is 39.37 acres, and we are proposing to have 200,000 square feet of commercial on approximately 20 acres, which is consistent with the policies of Collier County as well as industrial business park uses to the extent of 250,000 square feet, which is also consistent with the business park and the industrial land -use designations of the Growth Management Plan. It was found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. As one can imagine with the impoundment of major roadways, that being I -75 to the north, the Davis Boulevard/Radio Road right -of -ways to the south, and the Collier Boulevard right -of -ways to the east, as well as the drawdown effect of hydrology for the Golden Gate canal, that these may have been wetlands at one time; however, the environmental consultants that will speak after me will identify that the hydrology has been Page 71 1 � E February 6, 2002 16J1 diminished significantly. The site is flat, generally ranging from 9.8 feet to 11.6 feet to NGVD, and as we had stated, the drainage through Saddlebrook will occur. And then, finally, in recognition of Mr. Lenberger's comments, yes, we are required to retain 25 percent or replant vegetation, naturally occurring, viably existing native vegetation on site to the extent of 9.34 acres. The 5.7 -acre conservation easement proposed along the west as well as the northerly portion of the property were designed specifically so that there can be the interconnection with the Saddlebrook wetland as well as the upland conservation easement that lies on the north and the west side of Saddlebrook Village. Those -- the Saddlebrook Village has an existing Corps South Florida permit, and it was those areas that were considered to be most viable for RCW habitat. The current site -- I'm not going to step on the toes of our fine environmental consultants, but the habitat on this site, I've been told, is not conducive to the foraging habits of the RCW because the canopy's so dense and the extent of the Melaleuca on site. So, yes, we're showing a 9 -- a 5.7 -acre preserve. We haven't ventured into the South Florida or Corps permitting process as yet, but I fully anticipate that our conservation area is going to expand and that there will be mitigation required off site to offset the proposed impacts to the degradated wetlands. And I can hold myself up for questions or you can hear from our environmental consultants. CHAIRMAN COE: Questions? MR. NADEAU: Thank you. Page 72 February 2002 16 1 ry w MR. WOODRUFF: Good morning. I'm Andy Woodruff with Passarella & Associates. I also have Julie Erickson here from Passarella as well. We're the environmental consultants for the project site. As Dwight has explained, the location situation for the project site is found by I -75 and Davis, and commercial and industrial on the east and residential and commercial on the west. The habitats on the project site, mostly pine, pine- cypress areas. And we have had the Water Management District out to do a wetland jurisdictional; however, that jurisdictional has not been finalized with the district yet this morning, and there might be some changes to that jurisdiction. The jurisdiction on the west side of the project site, on the Saddlebrook side, what the Water Management District did there was significantly less than what they had claimed or proposed to have claimed on this particular site, so there's some contention there as to why that happened. Habitats on the site have been hydrologically disturbed. I'm speaking about the wetland habitats on the site. There is a great deal of Melaleuca on the site. The majority of the wetlands are greater than 75 percent Melaleuca. We have not entered into the permit process with the district and Corps. We address the no -net loss district and Corps for that permit process. We will have to address the no -net loss functional wetlands on the project site. We have done wildlife surveys on the project site, Page 73 February 6, 2002 16JI listed species surveys, including surveys for RCW cavity trees, and we've -- nonnesting season -- I'm sorry -- nesting season for these cavities for the red - cockaded woodpeckers in the project site, and there's been no red - cockaded woodpeckers seen or observed on the project site. There are not red - cockaded woodpecker cavity trees located on the project site. If there's any other questions -- CHAIRMAN COE: Any questions? I got a couple. This project is 37.39 acres, correct? MR. WOODRUFF: 37.4. CHAIRMAN COE: Of that, 23.7 are wetlands, and you're going to affect 20.3. MR. WOODRUFF: The majority of the wetlands on the project site will be impacted by the project. CHAIRMAN COE: So is there any net loss to the wetlands? MR. WOODRUFF: When we go through the permit process with the district and Corps, as part of that process, they have to ensure that we have no net functional loss of wetland habitat on our project site. But we will do a functional assessment of those wetlands on this project. Whatever that functional assessment comes out to be, we will have to replace that elsewhere, either preservation or restoration off site. I fully anticipate off -site mitigation for the project, not only off -site mitigation for the primary impacts that we're talking about, but they're also going to require us to mitigate for the preservation of habitat that we're proposing to do for the county. So we're going to fully mitigate for all of the Page 74 February 6, 200216 J 1 art, wetlands on this project site, and that will be in the form of off -site mitigation. CHAIRMAN COE: And that would be -- that mitigation would be -- 100 percent includes only wetlands or would uplands also be included in the mitigation? MR. WOODRUFF: It can be a combination of -- CHAIRMAN COE: I realize that -- what their regulations are, but we generally like to keep it with wetlands. Wetlands for wetlands. MR. WOODRUFF: Well, generally, if we go to, say, a mitigation bank, we will purchase mitigation credit that is to be used strictly for wetland mitigation, credit -- functional credit for functional credit. We can compensate for that -- that wetland loss. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? Yes, sir? MR. CARLSON: Yeah. I wish Bill Lorenz was here. But you haven't -- you haven't gone through the Water Management -- you haven't even done a preliminary plan with the Water Management. MR. WOODRUFF: We haven't made application to the Water Management District or Corps. We haven't had our -- MR. CARLSON: Because I would ask Bill, you know, this is the typical kind of 80 per -- 80 -plus wetland impact that we see in projects; whereas, his presentation on his analysis said it was about 16 percent overall. So I wish Bill was here to explain this. It -- it almost seems to me like you're not ready to be here. I mean, this is the Environmental Advisory Council, and we're trying to look at your Environmental Protection Plan. I see a little preservation around the Page 75 February 6, 2002 16 1 edge, which basically serves as a buffer. I -- I don't understand how you've gone through the sequencing of avoiding impacts to wetlands in this project or minimizing impacts of wetlands. I think you're just retaining the minimum preserve land that you have to retain by county standards and just eliminating the rest of it. So this to me is unacceptable wetlands loss, and I just don't see any other way to look at it. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? Any other members of the EAC? MR. WHITE: Before we proceed any further, Mr. Chairman, my apologies. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I believe I was having a discussion with our other attorney when we started with this case, and we might have neglected to swear in the witnesses and have ex parte disclosures. If I'm wrong about that, please forgive me. But at this time, I'd like to suggest that we take care of those two. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN COE: Thanks for reminding us, Patrick. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, Mr. Nadeau. Any ex parte disclosures? (No response.) MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COE: There are none? MR. NADEAU: If I may, Mr. Chairman, respond to Mr. Carlson's comment about he doesn't believe that -- it's premature for us to be here. This is a zoning process, and with the amount of cost involved with doing a commercial project and trying to forward a -- what would Page 76 February 6, 2002 164 have to be a ^ Flodge plan to the district to identify the wetland impacts prior to having the zoning entitlement in place, it -- it's just not done for commercial properties. There are currently no tenants for the property, but the trust whom I present -- whom I represent is actively pursuing tenants for that property, and we will be -- we were mandated to pursue permitting with both the Corps, the Water Management District, and the Game and Fish Commission will be involved also based on the RCW issues. So I fully understand that there is going to be a no -net loss of the wetlands on the property. What we'd like this council to understand is that this is the process that we're required to follow. The Land Development Code does not require us to have a district permit before we apply for zoning. In fact, the Water Management District will not actually really review the -- any proposed individual permit or general permit for dredging and filling in the waters in the United States or in the waters of the state without having proper zoning. So just for clarity purposes, I want to put that on the record. MS. BURGESON: Also, it might be helpful to understand that with the proposed changes to the Growth Management Plan, that in the future if they do get through and approved, that they will be required to at this point have gotten probably two - thirds or three - quarters of the way through their South Florida permit prior to even coming to your board, because they'll have to be able to provide that agreed -upon score for the wetland function prior to staff reviewing them. Page 77 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a motion? MS. LYNNE: I have a comment. I don't see how I can possibly make recommendation based on the information that's here. There's -- there's nothing here to show me how you're going to address it. You're just telling me that you have to by law, but that doesn't tell me how. I've got nothing to base this decision on. If I'd have to vote today, I'd have to vote against it. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a motion? MR. HILL: A question. It seems to me in the past the same scenario has occurred, and I think we were .told that we cannot have it come back to us after South Water -- Water Management acts; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: You can continue any item before the EAC for any reason that you can substantiate, whether it be for information that's not available at this time or to recommend changes to what's presented. If you do make a motion, even if it's to deny the petition, then it's simply moved forward. And if you wanted it to come back, you could make a motion that it come back at that time. However, if it's already gone through the process to the board and -- and become a PUD, it -- it would just be for information at the time when it came back as opposed to being able to make a decision. MR. HILL: My question is, if we would move to require this to come back to us following Water Management's input, that may or may not get back to us before it goes to the board. MS. BURGESON: No, no. If you put the petition on Page 78 16J1 16J1 February 6, 2002 hold and continue it for that information, then it does not go forward. The only time it goes forward to the planning commission is when there's a formal motion, whether it be to approve or to deny. And you -- MR. HILL: I move that we continue this until a South Water -- South Florida Water Management District permit has been requested and their action be -- MR. CARLSON: I have to agree with that because the -- the problem is, if we vote on this for approval, we're voting on an incomplete plan, and you can't help but think that's a seal of approval from the Environmental Advisory Council and it's an incomplete plan, so how can we -- how can we do that? MS. BURGESON: All right. Are you looking for at least the first response for South Florida Water Management District on a submitted permit or are you looking for a final outcome? MR. CARLSON: No. We'd -- we'd like to know the final outcome of the amount of wetlands preserved and what the jurisdictional wetlands are, how much is preserved, what the arrangement of that preserved is and how off -site mitigation is -- MS. BURGESON: Does that typically occur -- I mean, for instance, when you're submitting to the South Florida Water Management District your permit application, their first response back to you typically includes those questions that you would need to address to respond to that; is that correct? MR. WOODRUFF: When we first submit, I mean, we've got to go through the avoidance alternatives analysis. We don't get to the mitigation until nine months. down the Page 79 February 6, 2002 1 6J1 to road. That's -- that's the final process, is doing mitigation -- MS. BURGESON: Right. Which is about the time that you would agree upon the WRAP scores or the functional scores? MR. WOODRUFF: (Nodding of head.) CHAIRMAN COE: Does that mean it's too late in the process for them or what? MS. BURGESON: That is how we will be requiring it in the future. CHAIRMAN COE: It's required now, right? And I'll -- I'll just make my own comment here. My real concern is the high percentage of wetlands and the fact we -- you know, we haven't done a WRAP score on it yet. You know, if it was like 20 percent, I might be able to be a little bit more understanding, but you're talking about 37.4 acres of which 23.7 is wetlands -- I mean, that's like the whole project's wetlands. Just bulldoze it down and put in commercial property. So I'd like to see what -- you know if we can do a little bit better. So do I have a motion? MR. CARLSON: Well, I also think -- MR. HILL: There is a motion on the floor, Mr. Chair. MR. CARLSON: I also think this particular kind of development, which is not residential or not golf course, you're taking an area that's wetland and stores water and attenuates flooding and things like that, and this commercial kind of development will have a very high percentage, I assume, of impervious surface, either pavement or roofs, and so you're going to get a heck of a lot of runoff from this development, which is going to Page 80 February 6, 2002 16J1 affect the groundwater recharge. So I -- I think this is, you know, unsustainable for the county to keep doing this. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: May we have a motion? MR. CARLSON: I would think you would have some sort of on -site retention. MR. NADEAU: Oh, we will. There is going to be on -site retention. It is going to be pretreating and any runoff from the impervious areas prior to discharge into the Saddlebrook Village wetland, so the water quality will -- will be addressed, and we won't get our Corps permit without qual -- water - quality certification from the district. And to be continued and not be allowed to go on to the board without EAC seeing some sort of a definitive mitigation plan, it would result, after the expenditure of many, many thousands of dollars, and right now the permit process with the district for an individual permit, it's 18 months. Now, I -- the petitioner, as well as our consultants, have followed the rules up to this point, and I believe that -- that the petition should not be continued, that if you choose to -- to move for approval or move for denial, but the -- a 9- to 18 -month delay to get in front of the Board of County Commissioners, I think that would be unreasonable and unwarranted, particularly with the fact that there is the potential that the hearing officer is going to obviate the need for EAC to review zoning applications, and that installation could be as soon as June. Page 81 February 6, 200216 113 So I'm not really sure -- I would have to defer to Mr. White, Attorney White, to give this council direction. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, see, our problem is this, is that we haven't been presented with a plan that shows what's going to happen with runoff. We haven't been presented anything, other than we're going -- just going to knock it out and we're just going to put around the edges here a little preserve. You know this as well as I do. You don't need to be an environmentalist to figure it out. When you put that little strip of preserve there, the wetland preserve, as we call it, is going to be dead. When those cedars dry out or when those cypress dry out, that's it. It's done. There is no more wetland preserve. You know it and your environmentalist knows it. So, you know, we know how this thing works. MR. WOODRUFF: I mean, these preserves, they will be incorporated into the surface water management design system. There will be established control elevations that we would have to put in. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, why can't we be presented with that plan of retention holding area for water and all that sort of thing? Is there a particular reason? MR. NADEAU: The reason is because we don't have a -- a land -use plan. Now, we could throw on a target and we can throw on some sort of a land use that isn't an actual tenant and create something for you to look at. But to be honest with you, that would not be fair to you. Zoning is a entitlement process that allows for development to move forward subject to the rules of the Page 82 February 6, 2002 permitting agencies as well as the rules of Collier County. So our conceptual water management plan shows that the -- the property will drain into two weir control structures in the preserve area, which will provide for an attenuation of water quality prior to discharge in the 6 -acre wetland preserve here, and then as the water makes its way through, it will discharge under the road and up through to the main Golden Gate Canal. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? MR. HILL: This is where the system is totally flawed. If this in fact is a zoning request, it shouldn't have to have any environmental -- MR. NADEAU: Well, it's not, though. MR. HILL: -- action taken, if it's a zoning request. And as far as my being a member of the Environmental Advisory Council, I can see no reason for objecting to this to be industrial commercial area. But then you go ahead and you come back to us and say, now, this is what we're going to do. Then we make a judgment from the environmental standpoint. There's absolutely no reason for this council to try to make a decision environmentally when there's nothing there. Now, my motion, which is still on the floor -- I don't know whether it died for lack of a second or not -- is to continue this because I can't make a decision environmentally until you tell me what's going to happen on that property. And saying it's commercial /industrial is not sufficient for this group to make a meaningful statement. Okay? MR. NADEAU: And excuse me -- Page 83 16J1 February 6, 2002 16J1 MR. HILL: And I think that has to be recognized. MR. NADEAU: And excuse me, Mr. Hill. Would you be saying that I can't go to the board or the planning commission until this council reviews a plan and in a mitigation regime that has been looked at and -- I don't know if you're asking us to get the staff report or -- MR. HILL: Will you go to the Board of County Commissioners without those things? MR. NADEAU: Yes, I will. MR. HILL: Then, again, the system is flawed totally, as far as -- . CHAIRMAN COE: See, what we're saying is we want to see the plan where we can look at it and say, yeah, environmental that's pretty sound. We're not being presented with a plan; we're being presented with a zoning request. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, was there a second to my motion? MS. LYNNE: I so second. MR. GAL: I'd just like to ask -- Barbara, I just want to be clear that if we continue this hearing -- this project to a later date, then they cannot go before any other planning -- the planning board or the Board of County Commissioners? MS. BURGESON: It -- it's been a couple years since this board has opted to continue an item, but previous to that, whenever any item has been continued, it has not been allowed to move through the system forward to the planning commission until this board has taken a formal action either to support or to deny it. CHAIRMAN COE: They can go to South Florida Water Page 84 February 6, 2002 16JI Management District and get this ironed out and do that. MS. BURGESON: Ray Bellows has just stated that he believes that that's still the way the same process works. MR. HILL: With the consent -- if that's the case, with the consent of the seconder, I'll withdraw, the motion and place a new one on the table if we deny this -- deny approval with this project based on the lack of any environmental evidence. CHAIRMAN COE: I'll second that. MR. HILL: Erica? MS. LYNNE: I -- I'd like to have a vote on the -- CHAIRMAN COE: Fine. MS. LYNNE: -- continuance. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Vote is still on the table for a continuance. All for? MS. LYNNE: Aye. There's another one. MR. STONE: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? MR. GAL: Nay. MS. SANTORO: Nay. MR. CARLSON: Nay. MR. HILL: Nay. MR. WHITE: Is that 5 to -- 2 to 5, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COE: 2 to 5, that's correct. MR. HILL: Then I move that we recommend denial of PUDZ- 2001 -AR -1842 based on the fact that there's insufficient evidence to make an environmental decision. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a second? MR. CARLSON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN COE: Second? All -- all for? Page 85 February 6, 2002 16J1 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Carries 7 to 0. MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COE: Next. MR. HILL: This has -- that has been a problem in the past, and I think we need to somehow streamline the procedure to get this question resolved. No reason we should be sitting here making an environmental advisory decision with -- with totally incomplete plans. CHAIRMAN COE: Then what happens, Barb, even beyond that, is now they're permitted to go forward. It never comes back to us, so the EAC never looked at the environmental considerations in any sort of the plan. MS. BURGESON: This -- this has come up in discussion, though, over the past ten years many different times, and there have been motions at times to require that at least the initial submittal to South Florida Water Management District be provided with our packages, and that's even been discussed with some of the Board of County Commissioners. I'm not sure about previous boards, but currently there's -- there are members of the current board that have thought that that might be the appropriate way to bring things forward. So there -- there has been some support for additional information or at least a -- at least getting into that South Florida process to at least -- CHAIRMAN COE: Well, the thing is, is it's as bad for the developers as it is for us. All right. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman -- February 6, 2002 16J1 '. MS. SANTORO: Could we look at some kind of -- could the EAC bring up some kind of offering or wordings to make recommendation? I mean, why do we continue the same -- CHAIRMAN COE: I think this is a staff problem, and the staff needs to solve it. So maybe, Barb, you can bring it up with the staff to see how they can coordinate these boards in the hearings so we've got something presented to us. I mean, that's embarrassing for a developer to come up, several thousand dollars I'm sure that he's invested, and you know, we -- we look at him and thumb our nose. But we got nothing to look at. Patrick, you -- you want to say something? MR. WHITE: I'd just like to put into the record that there is one point of entry -- I'm not sure what the subsequent petition might be that would require your approval, but in a circumstance such as this, the LDC in 5.13.6, which talks about the scope of land development project reviews, the last sentence of the first paragraph talks about the fact the EAC shall review any petition which requires approval of either the planning commission or the board where the staff receives a request from the EAC chairman. I don't know that this provides any vehicle to get a subsequent petition before you. I just wanted to make you aware that there was at least the potential for that point of entry. It does exist in the current code. CHAIRMAN COE: All right. Thank you very much. MS. BURGESON: And also, this board does have the ability to direct staff to consider in terms of the review of the Environmental Impact Statement that's submitted, if you want to make a formal motion, that when we are Page 87 February 6, 2002 16JI m reviewing that EIS, that we require additional information. We can certainly bring that back to -- CHAIRMAN COE: Does anyone -- MS. BURGESON: -- Planning Service. CHAIRMAN COE: Anyone desire to make a motion to that effect? MR. WHITE: Just as a reminder, that same section I cited requires that EISs do come before you. MR. HILL: Would you care to make a guess as to, Mr. White, as far as the impact that the hearing officer appointment might have in this whole proceeding? MR. WHITE: The approved -- the approved but not yet effective Land Development Code modifications relative to the hearing examiner that considered this particular section, 5.13.6, that overall was a balancing between the various boards and councils with what the duties of the hearing examiner would be essentially mimic the same process. The same things would be going before the hearing examiner and with the same degree of consideration with respect to specific petitions, land -use petitions. They would all be considered. For example, I believe EISs would be considered. And an area of critical stated concern and special treatments and overlays would be considered. Those recommendations would all be required through the hearing examiner. It's not set that way for the initial first steps that the hearing examiner's been approved but, again, not yet effective. So the board's view, Board of County Commissioner's view as we see it, is that these types of matters would still remain with you until such time as the hearing Page 88 February 6, 2002 16J1 examiner was given authority with respect to rezoning. The current vision is that there would be a limited scope that the hearing examiner would have, so there would be an interim period, if you will. Once the hearing examiner came on board, you'd still be reviewing the environmental- related land -use petitions until such time as the board expanded the hearing examiner's scope of jurisdiction. I know that's a -- a long way around, but I want to make sure you had a full understanding of what's envisioned. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN COE: Barb? MS. BURGESON: I have one recommendation, and that might be that through the environmental- impact statement, the petitioner's required to address Growth Management Plan issues that they have not -- that they have complied with all the growth- management issues of no -net loss or no -net loss of functioning wetlands. What -- what we've done in some petitions is when they've come to us and we've not got that concrete evidence, we've stipulated that they provide that to us prior to final development order approval. One thing that this board, if you chose to do, could be that we not stipulate that past this board anymore, that we require that that evidence either be provided to us for review or that they commit to specific mitigation at this time. CHAIRMAN COE: What impact does that have on the developers financially? MS. BURGESON: I couldn't answer that question. I Page 89 February 6, 2002 16J1 would just have to say that that is how we are proposing for the new GMPs to function, requiring more information up front with the approved WRAP scores and with the evidence that their mitigation will be in accordance. CHAIRMAN COE: Can't you just do that administratively, or do we have to make a motion to have the staff do it? MS. BURGESON: As long as you've discussed it and -- and basically given us direction to do that, we'd be happy to -- to look at future EISs that way. CHAIRMAN COE: Does anybody have anything against that, to have the staff go ahead and go through that? MR. CARLSON: Go for it. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. We got another petition. Staff ready for presentation on that? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that we have the swearing of witnesses and disclosures of ex parte. (The oath was administered.) MS. DESELEM: Yes. Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I am a principal planner with the Planning Services Department, and I'm here to explain to you about the description of the surrounding properties and the consistencies for the project that is known as Hemmingway Place PSP. And you have an aerial photograph on the board that shows the site. Project location is right there. Also, on the visualizer you can see the subject property as shown in blue. There is Goodlette -Frank Road along the boundary to the east, and to the north is RSF -4 and RMF -6 zoning. Most of that is developed with the Cypress Wood Estates subdivision. Page 90 February 6, 2002 16J1 To the south is RSF -4 and RMF -6. The RSF -4 is developed with the North Naples Highlands subdivision. The west area is developed with Oak Knoll, Unit 1 subdivision, and it is also zoned RSF -4. The subject petition is a request for approval of a 25 -unit single- family subdivision on 9.63 acres. For informational purposes, there had been a conditional use that was granted to allow an ALF. That has since expired. It was good for three years, and it expired on December 8 of 2001. This project, if you look at the site plan, you can see -- are we on? Okay. Now you can see that the site will be served by Hemmingway Place, which is a cul-de-sac -ending road, the 25 lots beginning here, going around the cul -de -sac, coming around to here for the 25th. There is no direct access onto Goodlette -Frank Road. The access will be through Cypress Woods Drive to the north. This particular parcel is located in the urban mixed -use residential land -use classification. You can see the arrow. It points generally to the site of the parcel. This particular land -use category is designed to accommodate a variety of residential units which would include the single- family uses that are proposed. The projected density of 2.59 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the density rating system contained in the FLUE. I don't have anything further. At this point Steve can come forward and present the environmental issues for you. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Page 91 February 6, 2002 w Planning Services. As Kay had mentioned, the subject property is an infill parcel located about a mile and a half north of Golden Gate Parkway on the west side of Goodlette -Frank Road. You can see from the aerial, that parcel is primarily wooded. There are some areas of disturbance. This northern portion here has an area of disturbed, and there is an existing road bed that runs roughly about a third into the property from the western side and straight in the center. Habitats on site, native habitats are cypress strands. This parcel, as indicated up here -- these are the cypress heads here and here. And there's also a pine flatwoods; this portion, this portion. There's also a fair amount of pine along Goodlette -Frank Road. The subject property, being right next to an established neighborhood which has been there quite a long time, has a fair amount of exotics in it. The Brazilian pepper is pretty thick in the cypress areas, although some of the pine flatwoods are in pretty good shape. There's also a lot of other ornamental exotics: Air potato, surinam cherry, Java plumb, that sort of stuff. So it's -- it's fairly heavily impacted with exotics in the cypress areas. With the cypress area, the trees are quite large, so we had the petitioner do a survey of the larger trees on site with the cypress a foot or more DBH just to get an idea where they lie on the property. And that survey is up on this map here by these little symbols inside the cypress area. With that in hand, the petitioner devised a site plan, and the preserve areas were established pretty much Page 92 February 6, 2002 16J1 "i along Goodlette -Frank Road and in this portion of the property where there are a fair number of cypress and there are also quite a bit of large pines on this portion of the property as well. Also, the elevation on this site was a -- a little bit lower than the -- the balance of the property, hopefully allowing more water to enter into the cypress head. Wetlands on site, there are about 4 1/2 acres of wetlands. The petitioner is going to impact 3.25 acres of those wetlands. The project has gone through permitting because it was previously approved as an ALF, and we have just heard from the petitioner that they have their revised South Florida permit to allow for the subdivision. They have purchased 2.6 credits in the Panther Island Allegation Bank. That's a typo in your EAC staff report. It says "2.6 acres." It's 2.6 credits. I apologize for that. On -site preserves are about 1.21 acres of wetlands and .13 acres of uplands. Protected species, there are some Tillandsia on site, which would be expected in a cypress head like that. There was a gopher tortoise burrow historically active. I believe it was on the old roadbed, but that has since been abandoned. The site -- the disturbed areas are heavily encroached with Brazilian pepper, so it's understandable to see why the gopher tortoise left. I'm here to answer any questions. The petitioner is here as well as their environmental consultant. MR. ESPINAR: Good morning, everybody. For the Page 93 February 6, 2002 16J1 record, Marco Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants. I'm here. If you have any specific questions, I'll be more than glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN COE: Anybody have any questions? MR. CARLSON: It seems like you're a lot further along than previous. MR. ESPINAR: Yes, Ed, we are. MR. CARLSON: You -- you've got a permit from the Water Management District? MR. ESPINAR: This project, as -- as staff has mentioned, was previously permitted as a assisted - living facility. We have since come in for a modification. And yes, we have received our modification from South Florida Water Management District. For the Corps, we're out on public notice, and we don't anticipate any problems with respect to the Corps. All the wetlands -- the Water Management District required us because of the -- the wet -- the wetlands on site are so impacted with the exotics, that the agency's decided that we should mitigate for the entire wetland -- all 4 point -- it's actually 4.46 acres off site at Panther Island. Once we use the WRAP analysis, it comes out to 2.6 credits at Panther Island. So we -- not only, in addition, have we mitigated for the entire 4.46 acres off site, in addition, we have preserved what you see on site. And we are going to remove the exotics on site and route our water through those wetlands. MR. CARLSON: Just out of curiosity, the -- the plan for the assisted - living facility, did it preserve more of this jurisdictional wetlands or -- Page 94 February 6, 2002 16JI MR. ESPINAR: Yes. The original plan did have -- the original one proposed 1.96 acres of preserved? We're proposing at this point 1.34. Okay. But the petitioner, like Mr. Lenberger stated, went ahead and did a tree survey, okay, so -- so we could capture the most -- the biggest, the most majestic cypress trees and make an attempt, and in fact, we did, by moving our road and snaking it around to try to capture as many of those big majestic cypresses as we could. So even -- you know, we might be slightly less than the acreage of original proposal, but I think it's a lot better plan. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have motion to move to approve? MR. CARLSON: I would just like to go on record as -- remind Mr. Lorenz that we have another project here with a 70 percent wetland impact, and this has been through the South Florida Water Management District but isn't anywhere near the 16 percent that his data analysis indicated. MR. ESPINAR: With that, though, I'd like to point out that in this case we are -- you are ahead on wetlands, okay? Because we -- I mean, so we're on the plus side and not on the negative side. We've mitigated for the entire 4.46 acres, and then we're preserving what we've got. MR. CARLSON: Well, when I -- when I was reading through this project, I was wondering, you know, at -- at what point does, you know, a beautiful feature like a cypress head like this -- and I think I've been down that road and actually seen them. There are some impressive cypress. At what point does that become such an amenity that you preserve more of it and then you charge more for your lots? I mean -- Page 95 February 6, 2002 16J1 CHAIRMAN COE: We have a motion on the floor. MR. CARLSON: That wasn't a joke. CHAIRMAN COE: We have a motion on the floor for approval. Do I have a second? MS. SANTORO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN COE: We have a second. All for? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Motion carries 7 to 0. MR. ESPINAR: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COE: Thank you, Mark. Barb, I'd like to make a comment at this point. I'm supposed to sign these, aren't I? MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN COE: Do you want your original back? MS. BURGESON: The -- the originals should -- should be signed, and then we take those back to the office. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, usually we sign a copy. MS. BURGESON: No. The original gets signed. CHAIRMAN COE: And the originals stay here? MS. BURGESON: No, no. The originals get signed and returned. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. MS. BURGESON: They're -- they're brought down usually in a folder for -- for signature. CHAIRMAN COE: I've got the original right here. MS. BURGESON: Okay. I'll have to check and see what the folder is that we've got. If we could take just a five - minute break to set up for Jim Beever's presentation. Page 96 February 6, 2002 164 CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. That's fine. How long is Jim going to speak? Jim? MR. BEEVER: I'll be short. CHAIRMAN COE: We know you're not tall. MR. BEEVER: I -- I planned for about 15 minutes and then any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN COE: Great. Take a five -- MR. ESPINAR: Excuse me. Would the Environmental Advisory Council -- CHAIRMAN COE: Oh, is that the sheet? MR. ESPINAR: Thank you. I just wanted to give you some comments of mine for the record. Make sure. CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. Let's break. Barb, how do you want to handle this? MS. BURGESON: I'll make copies. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COE: The meeting will come to order. Do we have any old business? New business? Mr. Beever. MR. BEEVER: Thank you. My name is James William Beever, III. For the record, that's B- e- e- v -e -r, but you can call me Jim Beever. I'm a Biological Scientist, Roman Numeral IV, with the Florida Division of Wildlife Conservation Commission, Office of Environmental Services. I supervise the Southwest Florida office for the Office of Environmental Services. It consists of myself and other biologists and our office manager. We cover a 15- county area, which ranges from Pasco County in the north and sometimes projects in Hernando, down to Collier and Monroe County in the south, up through the Peace River Valley into areas of the phosphate district. Page 97 February 6, 2002 16J1 We have the opportunity to review all the planning permits, activities that are occurring within this whole region. We also are involved with land acquisition, conservation research and public presentations like the one I'm doing today. I'm here because I was invited to do a short presentation for you on the use of the northern Belle Meade area by Florida panthers and to provide you some information background. This presentation would not have been possible without the assistance of Daryl Land in our Division of Wildlife office here in Naples. Many of the slides and data that I'm showing you come from their research work. I intersect with panthers in northern Belle Meade in several different ways. I've been involved with the original team, along with Kim Dryden, who did the wildlife assessment of the Belle Meade area, both southern and northern for its proposal to be to the Carl acquisition list. And I continue to work with Collier County in review of various comp plan amendments like the ones you were looking at earlier this morning, and I can let you know that we have a very long letter in process making comments with regard to that document. First I'd like to point out that, you know, the Florida panther is a species very much tied to forested habitat, as you can see in this -- this first slide. Panthers use the forested areas for cover; they use it for denning; they use it for escape; and they also depend upon it for their form of hunting. The prey that they take, they normally take from a -- a wait - and - attack mode. They will wait along game trails Page 98 February 6, 2002 or watering holes. They're -- they're not a cheetah. They don't run fast after things and chase things down, so the cover is very important to their life - style. The original distribution of the subspecies of the Florida panther covered many southeastern states. This is -- be a view of where the panthers were, say, at the time that Audubon visited Flo -- visited Florida. You can see that their nearest cousins were in Texas. That's why Texas cougars were used in the outbreeding procedure with the Florida panther. They're -- they're kissing cousins, quite literally. Today the panthers' range has been extremely limited -- next slide, please -- to southern Florida. There have been some reports of cats as far north as Waldo in North Florida, but generally the breeding population is found in southwest Florida, concentrated around Collier County, Lee County and Hendry County. Panthers have been spotted this year and confirmed up in Sarasota County. They have moved across the Caloosahatchee River into areas as far north as Highland Hammock State Park. We do have panthers on a regular basis each year in eastern Charlotte, eastern Glades, so they do have a very wide territory, about 135,000 acres for a male, about 73,000 acres for a female. They're a very mobile animal. But the area of main breeding concentration is -- is here in Southwest Florida, including the area of Northern Belle Meade. Next slide, please. MR. HILL: Mr. Beever? MR. BEEVER: Yes? MR. HILL: Would you comment on the coloring scheme Page 99 16J1 February 6, 2002 16J1 you had on the last slide and the large blackout lines. MR. BEEVER: Basically the -- the shading on the bottom, as you can see, is public lands. There's the Everglades National Park in red. The big cypress in the bluish color. The dark blue outline was a general outline at the time that this slide was made of the range of panthers in, I believe, the late '80s, early '90s. But there were actually some cats, some male cats that were actually outside of that blue range -- range in a couple selected areas. This is a slide prepared by our Division of Wildlife which basically shows you concentrations of panther activity. And this was done through the radio - collaring program in which cats are basically chased down by dogs, darted, put -- put into sedation, data is taken from them and a radio collar is put upon the cats. And what this does is, it shades the concentration for those radio - collared cats, which you need to understand is a subset of the population, not the total population. And this slide here, you can see that the brightest colors that are colored are the highest intensity use areas. And then the blue are -- are lesser use, but these are all panther habitat. So don't think of the blue as not being panther habitat. It's an area that's used. It's just used less by the radio - collared cats. And you can see there's a strong area of concentration associated with Collier County in the vicinity of the Fakahatchee Strand, the Florida panther preserve areas of -- immediately adjacent to and in association with Belle Meade. Next slide, please. Now, why do panthers travel around? In part, it's to Page 100 February 6, 2002 1 6JI *V get their dinner. They have to find sufficient prey in order to support themselves, and then they need even better nutrition in order to breed successfully. This slide shows the breakdown of panther feeding, and you can see that in this study of panthers whose diets were able to be assessed -- and again, this is a subset of panthers, but this data comes from the Collier County area. Wild hog was the principal food eaten, followed by deer, then raccoons, armadillos, rabbits and then other species. Panthers can feed upon whatever happens to fall prey to them, but these are the things that they -- they concentrate upon, and lands which are able to produce hog and deer are very important for panther success and for panther breeding. And to a large extent, that's -- that's important in the type of landscape that panthers use. Next slide, please. So here's examples of panther in northern Belle Meade. It's a hydric pine flatwood area where we have an overstory of southern slash pine, understory of wetland vegetation, which during the wet season has maybe a few inches of water over it; during the dry season, is dry. This type of landscape with an open mid -story will provide a lot of opportunity for plants in the understory, a wide variety of plants, which are good forage for wild hog and deer and the other animals that panther feed. So this is important habitat to provide forage. Next slide, please. Here's an example of -- of some more of that -- you know, from that same general area. In the back, you can see a -- a bit of more heavily forested area, and this Page 101 February 6, 2002 16JI would be a place where panther might rest during the day and where the radio - collared track signal would come from as a fixed -wing airplane would fly over. During the nighttime, they would move over into these more open areas as well. Next slide, please. Some prey items in the area, some -- family of wild hogs. You can see that we have probably a male and a female and -- or maybe two big females and some young. The less young we often see -- obviously, this group has had some predation on it. Next slide, please. And deer in -- in that landscape setting. In this case, he didn't want to stand still, but basically this is the sort of habitat. And here you see the deer moving through some hydric flatland and in the back some more forest areas as well. And it's these ecotones where different habitats meet -- meet each other between cypress and hydric pine, between oak hammock and cypress. These boundaries are good places for panthers to successfully feed. So panthers use a wide variety of upland and wetland habitats across the Belle Meade area. And just a little bit better view of a deer standing still. So very -- very important prey for panthers. And as I understand from our panther biologist, it's important for them to have a good diet of white - tailed deer in the places where they most successfully reproduce. Next slide, please. And then, of course, no hog or deer, there's always these guys around, and they -- they can form a staple basis, particularly in wetland systems. Next slide, please. Here's a night shot of a radio - collared panther, and Page 102 February 6, 2002 16J1 I just want to show you what -- what that looks like. This is a cat with a collar on it, and the collar emits a signal, and our biologists will use fixed -wing airplanes, occasionally helicopters, to locate where the panther is at the time that they're flying. So these are points of space and time. And it's important to understand that that point doesn't necessarily mean that's the only place the panther is going to be, and if you have a point taken one day and a point taken the next day, there's certainly no guarantee it wasn't a straight lane between those two points. It could have gone quite a few different places in that regard. But it does give us some estimate of where panthers are and the areas that they're using. And what I'm going to do now is go to one of the handouts that I provided you. And this is the black and white one. And here you see a view that includes Collier and part of Lee County with radio telemetry points from 1994 to 1999. And if we look in the area, here is northern Golden Gate Estates; southern Golden Gate Estates, Florida Panther Preserve, Fakahatchee Strand. Here's Northern Belle Meade in this area, and you can see an area of panther utilization in the area of northern Belle Meade, which is what we generally call the eastern half of northern Belle Meade. Okay. Going to the color handout that I've provided you, this is a very recent handout that just came off of our computers. And what this is, is it's an infrared of an aerial as -- to properly orient it, look at -- look for those blue burrow pits, and that should be on the left -hand side. So the handout is actually a -- a Page 103 February 6, 2002 6 1 vertical view. And these yellow dots indicate panther telemetry locations. And you can see in the middle of the page is the Golden Gate Estates area. To the right -hand side of your view would be the Ford test track indicated by these landscape features, and then the panther preserve lands off towards your right. And then on the left, this is the northern Belle Meade area that's utilized by panthers. Then we'll go back to the slides. MR. HILL: Do you have an estimate of the number of population and also the collared population? MR. BEEVER: The estimate of the total population, which I actually heard this morning, is approximately 80 -- 80 adult cats. This is up. Actually, when I first started working for the commission, the estimate -- and this is about 12 years ago -- the estimate was approximately 30 adult cats. That's an estimate from the area that I showed you with the blue outline. The number of collared cats varies, and I -- I really would ask you to talk to Darryl Land. I know they -- they number each cat successfully as -- successively as they collar it, but there is mortality. So the top number of the cats doesn't mean that all the cats that were previously captured and collared are still alive. But it's -- it's not the full population that's collared. This is a panther. This one's 66, who's actually been in northern Belle Meade. So this is -- people always say, you know, show me a picture of it. Here it is. This is a cat that spent time in northern Belle Meade and actually travels around quite a bit, so we can -- we can see northern Belle Meade as part of their territory -- of Page 104 February 6, 2002 this cat's territory but not all of it. 16JI We've had females in northern Belle Meade. And -- next slide, please. This is one of the difficulties of having to do it this way. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. MR. BEEVER: It's not your fault. It's -- just -- just -- and -- and we have had one female two years ago raise kittens in the northern Belle Meade area. Next slide, please. This is a view actually sitting in a helicopter about the midpoint of Belle Meade looking to the east along Alligator Alley before they did the work to four -lane it. This is a slide that I took while I was working -- and the design of and the installation of the panther under- crossings. And what you can see is that landscaped setting from the view. So in the foreground -- and I hope my thumb isn't too super big here -- this here is -- is the eastern part of northern Belle Meade. Then we go over into the northern part of northern Golden Gate Estates, which connects over to the panther lands. This is southern Golden Gate Estates up here,. and then on the other side right there, Southern Belle Meade. And you can see just the -- the large expanses of habitat available for panther in this particular location. And generally, with the exception of having the extra lane of I -75 -- extra two lanes of I -75 in. And the exception of some panther under - crossings between the panther preserve and the Fakahatchee area and also an extra canal on the south side, it's pretty much the same view today, and so that is why it's very important for this area to be Page 105 February 6, 2002 16J11 considered for preservation and why it certainly qualifies as a natural resource protection area, the northern portion of Belle Meade. Next slide, please. And just a view off the -- the side of the road; situation like that, the roads themselves can constitute to very significant barriers. And before we did the rebuild work back in the '80s on Alligator Alley, which was not yet done, to be designated I -75, was the major source of mortality for Florida panther in this region of Collier County, was that particular roadway. So I worked at that time with a lot of other great biologists and a lot of other good people in the public and in the government, and I have to say that public support was very instrumental in having the support from legislators to be able to fund this. We put together a design for panther under -- wildlife under - crossings for Florida panther under the rebuilt Interstate I -75. And I want to point out some design features just so people -- there's been some things said about these which aren't accurate, just to point that out to you. Note that there is dry ground on both sides of the underpass, and it's designed to provide a crossing of those canal features. And it was important to us, too, because we wanted to segment the canals into successive pools to promote sheet flow across the landscape instead of linear through -- through the canals to adjacent canals and downstream. This helped rehydrate areas which had been cut off from flows south of the Alligator Alley. So this is a panther under - crossing. This is the westernmost one, the -- the very first one that -- that starts out in Page 106 February 6, 2002 Fakahatchee. Next slide, please. I 6JI Here's one in the Fakahatchee Strand proper. And you know you're there because you don't see the southern canal in the Fakahatchee Strand. We made an arrangement with the people building the roadway not to dig a canal throu the Fakahatchee Strand and alter its hydrology, but instead to build -- to buy the 4 square miles around the intersection of State Road 29 and I -75 so that those would not be developed as secondary fume of impacts and to take the fill for the road out of that large lake excavation in the southwest corner of that intersection. At the same time, we made sure that that lake was dug in a way to enhance fishery habitat values so it would be a better bass fishery in that particular location, provide more habitat for wading birds. So we worked very well with the Federal Highway Administration in putting in these features. Next slide, please. CHAIRMAN COE: Excuse me. How good is the bass fishing there? MR. BEEVER: I've heard var -- variable reports, depending on the time and weather. I've heard some very -- very good bass fish if you stay in the northern perimeter where it's more -- more shallow, more rough features. Not good when you first pull off where people -- everybody parks. You have to go in a little way. Just to point out, this is the first time in -- in that -- Florida in the southeast we've done a wildlife underpass of this scale. And there was significant resistance to this, and we had to really persevere to make Page 107 February 6, 2002 M .,�� sure these design features were put in. Interest -- and there was a lot of resistance from the people building the highway. Interestingly enough, now they go around to international conferences very proud of their accomplishment. One of the big questions was, well, if you build these, will the animals use them? Now, one thing is, you don't just put these in and expect -- you know, put signs and say, "Panthers, use the underpasses here. You locate where the panthers are currently moving through that area and locate the undercrossings along the areas that they're utilizing. So it took quite a bit of study to determine where these underpasses would be located. Next slide, please. And then here's your eyeview as -- as you approach one of these. They're funnel fences. There's fencing along the interstate, 12 foot with a barbed wire return to discourage the animals from climbing over the fences. There's funnel fences that lead you towards these underpasses. But even so, these are areas they had always been crossing under. And I -- what I wanted to point out here is how relatively open it is. You can see to the other side of where you're going. And that's important in wildlife underpass design. Also important is a natural flooring. You don't want to have them going over grates, rock, other foreign materials. Next slide, please. And this is in the middle of an -- of one of these underpasses. You know, I'm standing up here just giving you a view. The base design was supposed to be a 12 -foot Page 108 February 6, 200 16J1 t to the lowest number. It came out to, I think about 10 -- 10 foot 8 inches by the time they got done. But nonetheless, people were saying, okay, you put them in the place you want them to be and so forth. Prove it to us they're being used. Well, a study was done by researchers at the University of Florida, Dr. Steve Humphrey and his graduate student. And his graduate student actually did her master's degree on this project. Cameras were put into the underpasses with an invisible beam, so as animals moved through them, they triggered the camera and photographed themselves. So here's one of our collared cats moving through the underpass. Next slide, please. MR. CARLSON: Does anybody know what the panther does after that flash goes off? MR. BEEVER: It keeps walking from what -- from what the -- the tracks indicate. And -- and another -- this is a -- a different individual. Not just panthers have used these. A wide variety of wildlife have taken advantage of the underpasses, including young deer. And just to show you, again, another criticism, even when underpasses are under high water, wildlife will utilize the relatively shallower water to get past and underneath the highway. And even species you wouldn't necessarily have predicted have used the underpasses. Here are wild turkey. And we have alligators, wading birds, all sorts of things that have moved through there. The oddest creature we -- we had was an individual dressed up in a gorilla suit with a sign that said, "Waste of taxpayers' dollars." Page 109 February 6, 2002 For a moment we thought we had a skunk ape siting. There was a -- some concern about the relative cost of these large undercrossings on I -75. The people were claiming it would be costing about a million dollars. Once you do the real cost accounting, it's about three - quarters of a million dollars for one of the overpass features, including the fill and everything leading up to it. So designs were put together for a somewhat smaller undercrossing still with good height clearance, and this is one -- well, let's leave that up for a little bit. This is one that has been installed on State Road 29 in Collier County, the north -south road that intersects with Interstate 75. And this has proven also to be successful for the panthers in that area as long as the fencing is in. 16J1 And basically it's -- it's very critical if you're going to do underpasses, you've got to have the wildlife fencing at the same time. And in some cases -- there have occasionally been cases where underpasses have been installed, the fences haven't been put in yet, and there's still road mortality until the fences are put in. Now, in the case of northern Belle Meade, between southern and northern Belle Meade today, we do not have any of these features. We do not have I -75 -sized undercrossing or even the somewhat smaller State Road 29 -sized undercrossings. Currently there are -- and that's what we're going to look at -- some drainage features, essentially equilizer culverts that have -- that are in place to allow water to flow through, and it's possible that wildlife is use -- Page 110 February 6, 2002 16J1 utilizing this to get between northern and southern Belle Meade. Now I'm going to go back to the color handout. But there's good evidence that right now most of the panther movement to get into northern Belle Meade is actually coming through -- is coming from cats moving from the east to the west through the area of the southern end of northern Golden Gate Estates and then into the northern Belle Meade. See, it's -- it's possible, utilizing existing wildlife underpasses for panther to come from the. south up through here very easily between the panther preserve in Fakahatchee, and then any animals that are in this area or animals that come from the south there can move across the landscape from the east going back to the west. MR. CARLSON: Is the test track fence to prevent their movement? They got to go around? MR. BEEVER: I've heard various discussions with that, and you might want to ask Darryl Land for more details. My understanding is that they move both around the fence and they've actually come inside the fence into the test track area, across the test track and gone over the fence on the other side. So basically, you can see that panther do get into northern Belle Meade today, and I anticipate during the periods in which they're talking about the rebuild of I -75 and restructuring of I -75 and reviewing, that with the commission right now from an area in Sarasota County all the way back down into Collier, we will request that wildlife underpasses be included in the plan between northern and southern Belle Meade. Page 111 February 6, 2002 Now, panther can act as an umbrella species. 1 6JI 11! Thanks. And quite a -- other -- list of other listed species are found in the same habitats as the Florida panther in Belle Meade. And Florida black bear is definitely present in the northern Belle Meade area. And actually somewhat more prevalent. If I'd go out with you today -- let's say we took -- say we wanted to go on a field trip, I'd be much more likely to be able to show you a sign of black bear in northern Belle Meade than panther. Next slide, please. So basically I wanted to share this information with you. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have that I can answer, and I'll direct you to our experts if I don't have the direct answer for you. CHAIRMAN COE: Do you have any questions? MR. HILL: You said there are 80 adults approximately? MR. BEEVER: Uh -huh. MR. HILL: And less than that collared, obviously. MR. BEEVER: Yes. MR. HILL: There's a tremendous number or telemetries points on here for just that number of panthers. MR. BEEVER: Well -- MR. HILL: You must be running a lot of flights to pick up that many data points. MR. BEEVER: Understand that each data point is one sighting of each cat on one particular day. So -- and it's covering '94 to '99, so it's over a five -year period. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions? MR. HILL: The 80 adults is in -- in Collier County or -- Page 112 February 6, 2002 MR. BEEVER: Within that -- within the range of Collier, Lee, Hendry, a few in Glades. 16JI MR. HILL: Right. MR. STONE: Have any of the cats ever been snagged with their collars? MR. BEEVER: From what people have determined, no. The -- the collar design doesn't seem to interfere with their life - style, so we've never found any -- where somebody came and found a cat that had been caught in something or any evidence on the collars that they had been caught on something. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions? MS. BURGESON: I have a quick question. Are there any areas that you suspect, for whatever reason, don't work well with the -- the collaring program that you think the panthers may be inhabiting but we have no accountability for? MR. BEEVER: Well, there -- in order to do the collaring program, you have to undertake the work with the people who are expert with the dogs and -- and the tracking of panthers. So you have to have that step in order to start collaring. So that's been concentrated in areas where we've had the breeding population. And in other locations where we know there are young males, there hasn't been that same level of effort in -- in other areas. MS. BURGESON: Do you know what particular areas that you're interested in -- MR. BEEVER: I know that the Division of Wildlife was looking at areas north of Collier County, north of southwest Florida, but they've just done preliminary Page 113 February 6, 2002 16JI investigations and really hadn't implemented a collaring program. There have been black bear collaring programs here in Collier County. Darryl Land, again, has all the information on that. And there's also been collaring programs on black bear up in Pasco and Hernando County which I participated in. They're -- they're rather prevalent in areas of Chassahowitzka Loxahatchee State Forest. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. MR. BEEVER: You're welcome. MR. HILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Next is the Growth Management update. Nothing there. Subcommittee Report? Nothing there. Any comments by any other members of the EAC? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Nope. Meeting's adj ourned. Thank you very much. Page 114 February 6, 2002 16J1' There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:30 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MICHAEL G. COE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY LINDA J. SULLIVAN, RPR. Page 115 January 23, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, January 23, 2002 1 6J1 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Sansbury NOT PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Ed Carlson Michael G. Coe William W. Hill Alfred F. Gal Larry Stone Erica Lynne Alexandra Santoro Chester Soling Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist William Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Manager Mac Hatcher, Natural Resources Page 1 January 23, 2002 16JI (The proceedings commenced, Mr. Gal not present:) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's call the January 23rd special meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council to order. Roll call, would you like me to do that? All right. Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Coe. MR. COE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Stone. MR. STONE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Gal and Mr. Soling are not here. Ms. Santoro is not here. Mr. Sansbury is here, and Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Here. MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We do have a quorum with one, two, three, four, five, six members present. MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman, we did get word that Mr. Gal will be -- will be here, but he's running a little late. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. Okay. Where would you like to start, sir? MR. LORENZ: Okay. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. The purpose of today's meeting for the EAC is to begin your formal review ultimately leading to a set of recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for the Growth Management Plan amendments that will deal with the rural and agricultural assessment. Todate's -- today's amendments are dealing with what we'll call the rural fringe, and I'll define that for you as we get into our present -- presentation. We have -- I'm going to be beginning the lead of the presentation. Bob Mulhere is also here. He's been our contractor that Page 2 yl January 23, 2002 6J1 we've contracted with with this process. He was the former planning director and was involved in the very beginnings of this whole effort. Stan Litsinger is also here. He's the comprehensive planning manager. Other staff members here that will be key that will be able to answer questions and any discussion would be Barbara, Burgeson and Mac Hatcher. With that, what I'd like to do is I'd like to go through this presentation and then have the opportunity, however the chair would like it, for questions as we go through the presentation. This will give you an -- an overview of what we consider is the conceptual outline of how we put together some details for the rural fringe. Then I know that the -- this is an advertised meeting. There are a number of public here that I know that we have at least one speaker slip. I'm not sure if -- if there's a requirement for the EAC to have a speaker -- speaker slip, but however the chair would like to handle speakers, and then it's at the discretion of the EAC as how -- how you want to proceed. There are a number of topics in this that's quite a lengthy set of amendments. If you want to get into the detail, staff is he'll -- here to be able to explain some of the detail and the wording as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How many people do we have here that -- that would like to address the EAC on these various items today? Would you raise your hand? (Those wishing to speak raised their hands to indicate.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Student, do you think we ought to do the speaker slips just order -wise so we have a record, or what do you -- MS. STUDENT: I beg -- I beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you think we ought to have these folks fill out a speaker slip? We don't usually do that at EAC. What's the best -- Page 3 January 23 2002 1 6J1 MS. STUDENT: I -- I think that's -- given the magnitude of this, I think that's a good idea, even though it's not usually done. I -- there's apparently one here. I'll see if there are some. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. MS. STUDENT: Staff will take care of making those available. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The person -- some folk - -if you could fill those out and bring those up to -- Miss Student, will you be the keeper of the slips for me? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. All right. MR. LORENZ: The starting point, if you will, for the presentation, of course, the -- pretty much the whole effort is the final order requirements, and what -- I'm going to just briefly summarize the final order. This is the order by the governor and cabinet that directed Collier County to pursue a series of amendments to ensure that we have a proper natural resource protection within our Growth Management Plan. Very specifically the order has -- I'm going to basically list three types of -- of requirements. The first requirement is to deal with measures to protect prime agricultural areas. The definition of prime -- technical definition of prime agriculture is such that we do not have any prime agricultural lands in Collier County. We have unique lands, agricultural lands by -- by formal definition. But suffice it to say that the agricultural issues, quite frankly, are not in the rural fringe, but in the eastern lands, which is the -- the other part of the rural assessment. A very important component that's related to the rural fringe area is a second requirement, which is to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and habitats to protect listed species, water quality, quantity concerns, etc. This is, if you will, almost the mantra that -- that -- that we have with regard to establishing what our requirements are, and our amendments will be to protect natural Page 4 January 23, 2002 resources along these lines. 16J1 The final order, however, also recognizes that as we assess the potential of the area to -- to grow and to convert the rural lands, that not only do we want to discourage -- discourage urban sprawl and protect our natural resources, but the order also encourages the county to develop techniques that will be fairly creative in terms of land -use planning. And so as we have crafted the total program, we have been sensitive to trying to develop some -- some fairly creative land -use techniques, and we'll outline those as -- as we go through the presentation. The -- the assessment area -- and I'm not sure whether maybe, perhaps, some staff could, perhaps, do some more work with the lighting there, but all of Collier County -- the rural fringe is basically this area that we're looking at right here. That's the area that -- that our -- our amendments will -- will focus on, except for some amendments that, if you will, are what we're calling county -wide, but they will not include what we're calling the eastern lands study area, which is this area here (indicating). This -- this area has gone through a separate tract with a separate advisory committee. They're still in the formulative stages of their conceptual strategies and protection mechanisms. So for -- for all of our effort today, we will basically be excluding this eastern lands area that you see here. The rural fringe area is roughly 93,000 acres. It includes a number of -- of -- of different areas. And for the purposes of getting you oriented and you getting some terminology here because -- I'm not sure some -- to some degree some of the EAC members have been involved in this but from -- from some of the preliminary work, and some others may not. And, of course, the public -- use some terminology here. N -R -P -A is the acronym for Natural Resource Protection Area. These -- these are areas that the -- part of the final order required Collier County to adopt a set of interim NRPAs to be Page 5 January 23, 2002 1 6J1 � refined and revise -- possibly revised through the rural assessment. So we have natural resource protection areas in the rural fringe. Basically the -- they're the CREW natural resource protection area and the Belle Meade CARL natural resource protection area. (Mr. Gal entered the room.) MR. LORENZ: Initially when we developed the set -- set of planning for the -- for the fringe, we also broke the area up into Areas A, B, C, and D. And also we broke out what's called the study area. The study area is roughly this area right here (indicating). This was not proposed as a natural resource protection area but as part of the remedial amendments the county has to consider as to whether it should be a natural resource protection area. The other areas that we identified -- initially we just simply said Area -- Area A is up in here (indicating). This is basically the Corkscrew community. Area B is along Immokalee Road. Area C is everything north of 75, between 75 and the estates, and then Area D is down here along 41. So these were our initial planning units in the rural fringe area. We use this slide for a couple of things. One is -- of course, it depicts the kinds of general land cover that we have in the rural fringe. I want to make a couple of points about data -- data sources. We've used the South Florida Water Management District's land cover database in our analysis. This data -- this database is areas that were identified in 1994, 1995 to the degree that we have additional data that was presented to staff. Staff has modified this database, along with other resource -type database giving current information. And so whereas we're use -- using the '94, '95 land cover database, it has been updated to the degree that we have information to update it. The second thing to note is also we worked with the GIS in our analysis, geographic information system, based upon databases that we have gotten from the state and a variety of different agencies. Page 6 January 23, 2002 1 6JI And these -- these -- these analyses as we start -- and I use the term "slicing and dicing" the area up and try to calculate the numbers, you automatically establish -- work about a 2 or 3 percent kind of error into some of the figures. From a planning standpoint, we feel -- feel that this is acceptable. The South Florida Water Management District's database, they say that their accuracy at what's called a Level 1 accuracy is plus or minus 10 percent. So as we go through the -- the numbers when we start trying to assess significance of how different the numbers are, I just want to make sure that everybody is aware a little bit of the -- the accuracy requirements and -- and the databases that we're dealing with. The other point I want to make about this slide is you can see right here that wetlands consist of 61 percent of the -- of the rural fringe area. Not surprisingly, Collier County as in historical Collier County was, you know, certainly above 80 percent wetland systems. With development, variety of different kinds of development, and land alterations, of course, our current wetlands are substantially less than the historical wetlands. But this is the wetland -- when we talk about wetlands, we're also talking about the wetland cover that's listed by the South Florida Water Management District. It -- it does not completely equate to jurisdictional wetlands that you would go out in the field and identify through the state statutes, whether it's a state jurisdictional wetland or forest jurisdictional wetland. But this is an indication of wetland systems in the county. We'll talk a little bit more about the distribution of wetlands in the rural fringe. A major point here is that the natural resource protection areas consist -- cap -- capture, you know, three - fourths -- more than three - fourths of -- of the wetland land cover in the rural fringe area. Page 7 January 23, 2002 6J1 I think another important piece of information here is that -- is that the study area that I identified earlier also -- it has a fair amount of wetlands captured within it. That's 9 percent within the study area. We have looked at a variety and -- and a number of parameters to help us gauge what the natural resource characteristics are of the rural fringe area. Working with the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, we identified a number of evaluation factors. I didn't put that slide in -- in the presentation, but we looked at -- at wetlands, we looked at listed species. We looked at upland habitats, we looked at conservation areas and degree of fragmentation, and pulled together a fair amount of information to start the process. And what I'm going to do at this point is to just list a couple of the key pieces of information that we pulled out that I think give you a good sense of -- of how the error -- area is characterized. This is priority wetlands for listed species. Not only -- this information comes out of the -- the old, what's called the GAP report. This is the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission report that was established in the early '90s. A little bit about this -- information about this, the underlying map data for this database was satellite imagery from the mid -'80s, and so when the -- when this report is -- has been -- was published in the early '90s, this was the database that it had. Now, again, although we couldn't change the listed species information within the database, what staff has done is every place where in the South Florida Water Management District database that we have updated the land cover, when the land cover goes from some type of native habitat or -- or -- or vegetative land cover to a disturbed area, we have taken that out, also, of this database. So we have updated these databases to the degree that we have updated information. But I think -- I think, again, is although we've calculated the January 23, 2002 16JI numbers, what -- what I'm really trying to get -- get across here is some general patterns so that you can -- so that we'll make some certain conclusions in terms of when we're looking at the information and we're looking at the spatial relationships. MR. CARLSON: Bill, may I make a comment? MR. LORENZ: Sure. MR. CARLSON: This is a perfect opportunity to make a point I was going to make somewhere in this discussion. But while this slide is up, I think this is the perfect opportunity in that I think that Area A is -- is highly undervalued in this whole process. It -- if you look at the proportion of the priority wetlands for listed species that basically surround that area and then realize that that area has no canal system and no real drainage and is rural and is basically open space, the wildlife that are using the NRPA roam freely back and forth through that area. I mean, if you want to see bears and panthers and deer, going into Area A is one of the best places in the county to do that. Also, when wood storks fledge out of that NRPA area, they use that neighborhood extensively, and it's easy to see fifty to a hundred in a -- in a flock in that region. And, you know, while that area is not dominated by high - quality wetlands, it does have some high - quality wetlands, but it has this habitat value and this range value that is not addressed in this study, and I think it's highly undervalued and not an appropriate target for what's going to hap -- what is proposed to have it as a receiving area. MR. LORENZ: Yes. I think that -- that's a good comment. One of the points that we'll be making in the slide presentation as we go through it is that we've listed somewhat of hot - button issues, and that is going to be a hot -button issue that is definitely worthwhile for -- for further discussion. The -- the key of this -- this slide, again, is the natural resource protection areas, you know, capture almost 80 percent of the . Page 9 January 23 2002 16J1 important wetlands for listed species within the rural fringe. Again, sim -- similar patterns here, and I won't belabor it too much. Biodiversity hot spots are those areas that the game commission, state game commission, has determined are very important for listed species based upon the habitat concerns. You see, let's say, in Area D here a lack of those hot spots because of the land cover. Given -- given even -- given the conditions that Ed had mentioned earlier, this is where -- where, again, when you start plotting this kind of information, begin -- and using this information solely, it leads you to look at that Area A does not have this kind of -- of cover. And then -- but when you start looking at some of the other areas such as north of 75, you see a -- a lot of the area has this kind of cover. And even to some deg -- a large degree below I -75 -- excuse me, Immokalee Road, within Area B you see that that cover comes up quite a bit there. Strategic habitat conservation areas is what the game commission has defined as being the areas that are important for acquisition based upon listed species and land -cover concerns. One thing you have to realize is by definition a strat -- a -- strategic habitat conservation areas do not include areas that have already been under purchase for conservation so that the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary up here is not listed as a strategic -- strategic habitat conservation area because by definition it's already been acquired. However, if you start looking at the -- the -- the areas, again, where it's capturing that kind of information, area north of -- north of 75 is quite extensive. Of course, our -- our natural resource protection areas also capture those areas fairly well. A little bit more of the same, just to put it in -- in a -- in, perhaps, a different perspective, we talked about land cover, listed species. Some other information that we -- that we pulled out and tabulated at one particular point in the process of slough wetlands and Page 10 January 23, 2002 isolated wetlands down here. 16JI Again, the point of this slide is the natural resource protection areas, the study area, all have fairly extensive composition, you know, up -- above 70 percent. Seventy to ninety percent of these types of parameters, again, effectively identifying where those areas are important for habitat and listed species types of concerns. Area C also ranks out and, if you will, fairly high as well. Similar infor -- similar display we talked to you before about strategic habitat, biodiversity hot spots. To these bars we also have gathered data, so we do have this data in our database of panther priority habitat, bear and panther habitat, and bear strategic habitat that's come out of game commission GAPs report. Same -- same pattern, same type of conclusion. NRPAs study area, very high, Area C up here, and as you've seen before, even Area D. But then when you get down to Area D, Area A, again, given -- given Ed's qualification, they rank -- have been ranking fairly low with that tabulated data. Now, we talked about the study area, part of our requirement of the final order is to -- in our remedial amendments is to determine whether the north Belle Meade study area should or should not be a natural resource protection area. When we look at the data and the in -- and the information that we have available to us, again, we have recommended that the study area be a natural resource protection area. So in the maps you will see in further -- in further analysis that we have done, we have -- we have assumed the -- the north Belle Meade study area as a NRPA, and the data would be -- is being proposed and being tabulated to that effect. Well, again, the summary slide. Much of the land -- wetland land cover listed species habitats are in our natural resource protection areas. Study area has similar characteristics as the other NRPAs, and Page 11 January 23, 2002 16J1 so when we begin thinking about how are we going to identify these protection mechanisms within the rural fringe area, it's -- it's very important that the NRPAs and the study area be -- be front and center with regard to our protection mechanisms. Well, when we talk about protection mechanisms or protection strategies, again, our -- our mantra, if you will, is direct incompatible uses away from wetlands, upland habitats, listed species, etc. So we needed to craft a -- an integrated strategy as to how to do that. And we kind of broken it up into strategies that make sense on what we call the landscape scale and then the project or site scale. The landscape scale is very large areas. We're talking about square miles of trying to identify boundaries, protection mechanisms, etc. Project site scale is -- is individual projects. As projects, of course, will come through the county planning process, they need to be properly planned. But they're -- they're happening at that -- at that site scale. The landscape scale is -- deals really with trying to prevent fragmentation of these large, interconnected systems and having appropriate tools that will work in that broad scale. The project site scale, again, is -- you're not talking about these broad areas, but we can -- we can identify and fashion a number of different standards that would apply as projects come through that help to minimize the effect of any human activity on that particular property on -- on wetland land cover, listed species, etc., etc. Now, on the -- at the landscape scale, again, we're looking for the -- for these large systems, large -- identifications of large ecosystems. The information that I provided you earlier to -- to a large degree is the identification of those large systems. So we have to identify the exact boundaries, and those would be our areas that we would tailor our landscape strategies on. Page 12 January 23, 2002 16JI One -- one strategy, and it is not as specific strategy in our -- in our policies that we have developed for the fringe yet, but would be purchased in acquisition of these areas to some degree. The state does have a number of our areas targeted for acquisition, the CREW NRPA, areas are still targeted for acquisition, the Belle Meade NRPA. And I'm talking about the south -- south of the Alley is targeted for acquisition. And -- and those are within acquisition programs. A key element of our landscape scale strategy is, quite frankly, of the whole strategy for the rural fringe with the transfer of development rights program or TDR. At some future point, Bob Mulhere will be able to jump in as we have questions to answer specifically with the TDR program, but I'll just -- just cover it very briefly here now. TDR program is, basically, taking -- everybody who owns property has a certain amount of development rights. And when we talk about development rights, we're talking about a residential unit. So if your density of the property that you own is zoned at one unit per five acres, you have the right to build one residential unit for every five acres that you own. If you choose to not develop that and participate in the county's proposed TDR program, you're able to sell that development right in the open market to whoever wants to buy it. When you sell that development right, you then give up the right to develop your property for that residential unit. You may have some residual uses left on the property which we have -- have identified, but the whole point there is to put that property now into a status that -- that is much more conservation and preservation oriented. Whoever buys that development right from that -- that person now has the ability to use that development right to increase density within a particular area. So the areas that we're talking about are Page 13 January 23, 2002 16JI sending areas. Those are the areas where we want to send the development rights from. Those are our conservation -- our protection areas. And we want to be able to utilize those development rights in what we will call receiving areas, and I'll -- I'll go over this in a little bit more detail later. But this is a key program, a key element with regard to our program. Another important tool at the landscape scale is overlay districts. A natural resource protection area is technically an overlay district. This is -- this is a district that you identify on the future land use map that will have limitations placed upon it. And in natural resource protection areas, one of the key limitations will be preservation standards, vegetation preservation standards. And the allowable land uses will be much less in -- in these special overlay districts than they will in areas where we want to funnel development, if you will. Another landscape scale tool is -- is buffer zones. What we're talking about here is not buffering an individual wetland in a project that -- that will come through for the planning process. But what we're trying to do is buffering the important environmental areas, the natural resource protection areas, and in areas that are designated as conservation in our future land use maps. So these types of mechanisms will operate, say, at the landscape scale. So let's talk about a little bit these areas that we -- we are speaking of. These -- we are proposing three basic natural resource protection areas in the -- the fringe. This is the CREW NRPA. This is the Belle -- south Belle Meade NRPA (indicating), and this is the north Belle Meade NRPA (indicating). We've made a few changes, and I'll -- I'll have a slide later on -- a few changes to the CREW NRPA in drawing this boundary line. The big change, of course, is converting the north Belle Meade study area into a -- a NRPA. Just, also, to give you some sense of -- of -- of area here, 951 is here (indicating), and this boundary is -- is base -- starts at one mile Page 14 January 23, 20016J1 east of 951. Sometimes 951 doesn't show up on the map as well. So these are our natural resource protection areas that we consider. If -- if you recall the data that we provided before, we feel that these match up fairly good with the -- the type of information that we -- we have been assessing. The other landscape feature here from the -- from a TDR, transfer of development rights, program perspective is, again, identification of sending and receiving lands. Sending lands are the environmentally sensitive areas. And what we have -- what we have -- I'll give you an example. Right down in here in this sending area (indicating). You can see it not only incorporates the natural resource protection area, but it also increase -- increases this -- it's -- the sending area also includes this -- this (indicating) area up here and also includes all of this area to the (indicating) west of the NRPA. Remember, when we started looking at our databases, and we would see that these areas mapped out as very high and significant from the land cover and listed species concerns. So although they -- we're saying that they don't raise to the level as a natural resource protection area, they are certainly areas that we want to direct development away from. So where do we direct the development to? Well, that's our receiving areas. And these areas are mapped out as black on this map here (indicating). Again, area -- if you will, Area A was mapped out as a receiving area. This area within D is mapped out as a (indicating) -- let me make a distinction. These are primary receiving areas that I'm mapping out. When we look at the data, however, we start seeing that -- that some of these areas kind of fall in between, and we created a secondary status, which is a secondary receiving area, and that's this area here (indicating), and that's this area here. MR. CARLSON: Let me -- while we're there, let me ask you Page 15 January 23 2002 16JI about that first secondary receiving area. Isn't that the Mirasol project? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. MR. CARLSON: Well, hasn't that been approved, and isn't that a preserve area? MR. LORENZ: That has gone through the county's process. It was within -- it was within the time frame of when we were going through this effort. I may want to have Bob talk about the concerns whether -- as to how that status may affect its -- its future functioning as a receiving area. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure if all of that first secondary receiving area is identified as preserve in Mirasol. We can certainly check that. I think your point is if it is already spoken for as a preserve area in an approved PUD -- and this came up in discussion at the committee as well -- then there would -- there would be really no reason to identify it as a secondary receiving area. So we'll go ahead and take a look at that. I don't think all of it is. I know that one section was identified as a preserve area, but we can check on that and -- and address that -- that issue. MR. CARLSON: There are also some sending areas where I have the same -- same questions where, for instance, in the proposed -- in the -- in the map on the left -- go up to the top -- those are the sending areas. In the -- and go over to the left. Yeah, right in there. Okay. Now, that area is under conservation easement to the CREW trust for activities that happened on the Florida Rock Mule Pin Quarry area, so that is in perpetuity a conservation easement. So would that -- would something that's in a permanent conservation easement already qualify as a sending area? Would you want to send units out of there if the area is already protected in perpetuity? MR. MULHERE: If it's dedicated to a public entity, the answer is no. If it's private -- if it's private, the answer is largely yes. Page 16 January 23, 2002 16JI MR. CARLSON: Just to the right of that, that little lobe that dips down into the south is -- is a -- is a cypress forest in the Bonita Bay Cypress golf club, which they have also established as a preserve area. That's -- that's my question. I mean, if it's already preserved, it's a done deal, is it, then, a sending area? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would be. In that example, regardless of whether that private property owner has dedicated a portion of their property as a conservation or preserve area, they retain the right to develop the gross density on their property elsewhere. And if we choose to not have that -- that density developed elsewhere on the property, which we do since we're identifying it as a sending area, then they would have the right to send those units on a gross basis and not -- not to determine, well, we won't send them from this area, but we will send them from this area. You know, you're permitted to develop your gross density in a project. MR. CARLSON: But they're happy with their project, and they're not lobbying for sending anything anywhere. MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. CARLSON: They're done. MR. MULHERE: Well, the way we develop these policies, they apply to all private property owners and -- MR. CARLSON: This is like a bonus to anybody that's in a project here. If you have a wetland on your site that's preserved, we're going to come in now after it's all done and you've agreed to preserve it and we're going to grant you a bonus to transfer units out of there and get paid for them? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. It's an incentive bonus. MR. CARLSON: Why -- why the incentive now? It's done. MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- I -- MR. CARLSON: They approved it. They agreed to it. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and I would -- I would say that they Page 17 January 23, 2002 6J1 could still develop that property elsewhere outside of that conservation easement at their underlying density potentially, and now this would take away that opportunity from occurring under the sending designation. I don't know if the entire area that's designated sending on the Bonita Bay golf course is in a conservation easement or not. We did not look at the site specific scale. We really looked based on the natural resource data, and the determinations were made as a result of that. We do only allow TDRs for private lands and not for public lands and only within areas designated or proposed to be designated as the rural fringe mixed -use district, not on conservation lands, regardless of whether they're public or private. MR. CARLSON: Well, this is very important because you're -- you're -- you're scaling the size of your receiving areas based on the amount of your sending areas; correct? MR. MULHERE: No, that -- that -- it happens that the sizes fit within the recommended scales. We did not change the sizes of those in order to accomplish something based on those recommended scales. We did not -- we did not scale sending and receiving to meet some formula, no. It's based on the natural resource data, period. MR. CARLSON: There's no relationship and scale between your sending area. MR. MULHERE: There is a relationship to scale, but that wasn't the basis for prescribing those boundaries. We didn't look at that and say, "You know what? We need a little more receiving area. Let's take this area and make it receiving," or "You know, what? We need a little less sending, so let's take this and make it less sending." We didn't do that. Those boundaries are based on the natural resource data. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill. MR. LORENZ: That -- that -- that's correct. I think what -- what -- Dr. Nicholas, who is our economist who is looking at the TDR program, has a rule of thumb that the receiving area should be Page 18 January 23, 2002 16J twice as large as -- as the sending area. So that's a ratio of 2 to 1. After we went through the process and identified these proposals for sending and receiving areas, that ratio at the moment is about 1.3. MR. MULHERE: I'd like -- MR. LORENZ: That -- that -- that is -- that's, if you will, a ratio that we have to be, I think, sensitive to that as we were to -- if we were to make any modifications to the sending and receiving areas that, of course, the primary reason for doing it is for natural resource protection for the sending areas and then, also, to make sure that we have a valid -- valid TDR program such that -- that we are insuring compensation to owners who are going to have high preservation standards on their property that they will be able to recoup their value through a successful TDR program. So I wouldn't want to say that it's -- you have to do it all in a vacuum so there is -- there is -- there will be considerations, sending, receiving natural resources, but I think -- I know myself and my staff, as we begin to develop the proposals for sending and receiving, we were looking at -- at the natural resource data. MR. MULHERE: But having said that, I think it's -- your -- your point is a very good point. And -- and the question, then, becomes a policy question of whether or not -- and we've already said that we're only going to allow transfers from privately owned lands within the lands designated rural fringe mixed -use district sending. And so your question is, should we further restrict that, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, should we further restrict that to exclude lands on which there is already a conservation easement existing. And I think it's a very good point, and it would -- I think the second point that you make is, yes, it would enhance the relationship between sending and receiving if additional sending lands were removed under a policy such as the one that you just described, which would prohibit a transfer from lands on which a conservation Page 19 January 23, 2002 164 -11 easement already exists. And although we don't have that in there today, I think it's an excellent point and excellent recommendation. MR. CARLSON: I'm just -- you know, these maps are important planning documents. People go to the maps, and they look at the maps, and then they get an idea of what the plan is. I think -- I'm just trying to make the map accurate. If there are sending areas that are really nonfunctional, like areas that are already under conservation by the CREW, there's -- you know, there's -- we -- if we can get into the detail of the map, I'll show you a lot of sending areas in that northern fringe area that are not really sending areas, because either Audubon owns it or the district owns it or it's already under conservation. And it just doesn't seem to represent the real -life situation that's out there. And I also just heard that the target is to have twice as many re -- twice as much receiving area as sending area, so there is that relationship. MR. MULHERE: Well, the -- the target may be that, but that was not the basis for mapping those areas, which is what I indicated. That was not the basis for mapping those areas. Now, I hear what you're saying. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I'm not sure about the sending areas in the north, and that's something that, perhaps, Bill and Mac can get to look at. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm sure about them. I could correct the map today if you want to correct it. MR. MULHERE: Kady, could you put on the visualizer? Thank you. In any case, I don't think that I would recommend that we correct the map. As I indicated, I hear what you're saying, and my recommendation would be that we include a policy that we consider the inclusion of a policy that would preclude a transfer from lands on which there is already a conservation easement. That still achieves Page 20 January 23, 2002 16 J I ''11. your objective, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to have a map that you may not even be able to see that spot on this map because of the scale that we're talking about. MR. CARLSON: I was talking about lands that are very visible on the map. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MR. CARLSON: I'm just trying to make the map accurate. MR. LORENZ: Right. And I -- and we can work -- work with you on that, Ed. One of the things -- and it doesn't show up in looking at my -- my screen here -- MR. MULHERE: I'm trying to just enlarge this because we're talking about the northern area; right? And if you look in this -- that is the northern area. If you look at those areas that are orange -- it doesn't show very well, but those little -- little areas that are orange just north of the green and the little box that's cut out of the green along Immokalee Road, those are the sending areas in the northern portion. And so those would be the areas that you're talking about. Some of those are inaccurate is what you're suggesting. MR. CARLSON: I can -- I can show you very quickly. Can you still hear me, Miss Court Reporter? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. CARLSON: Starting at the top, this area was donated to the National Audubon Society through a bequest from the Paul Frank family, 90 acres at the end of this parcel. All of this end (indicating) of the parcel came to the South Florida Water Management District and the CREW project as mitigation. There's a tiny segment -- there's a tiny bit of land in the center here that's still in private ownership, which is improved pasture, which is really no different than the rest of the neighborhood. This (indicating) is the land that's under a conservation easement, almost 600 acres, transferred to the CREW trust in Page 21 January 23, 2002 16JI perpetuity to stay as a wetland conservation area. This is the land (indicating) in the Bonita Bay Cypress course which is under preservation status. It's on here because on an aerial photo it's a cypress swamp, so you just include it on there. This is the Livingston Road mitigation area. I believe it's in Collier County or some kind of a trust mode so that environmental impacts of the construction of Livingston Road will be mitigated here, and there will be wetlands creation and uplands creation on this site. This is a privately owned cypress swamp, and this is -- this is really one section of land that the Barron Collier Company owns that they have elected never -- or not to sell to the Water Management District for the CREW area, even though there have been repeated offers. So this one I think you got. MR. MULHERE: And the -- and the other one that you just pointed to? MR. CARLSON: This one? MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. CARLSON: Sure, it's private property, and it's a beach swamp. MR. MULHERE: My suggestion would be -- I think those are very good points. Mac is really the key person to try to verify the conservation easements. And it -- I think, for those -- again, the portion that's owned by the county would not be permit -- if it is, in fact, owned by the county, there could be no transfer in that area because we don't -- we don't allow a transfer from -- on publicly owned lands or from publicly owned lands. So the other ones that you pointed out -- I mean, Bill, do you want to suggest that Mac take a look at that and then we revise the map accordingly? I don't have any objection to that. MR. LORENZ: Absolutely. Page 22 January 23, 2002 �, CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. 16J MS. LYNNE: I don't understand why land that's either already in a conservation desig -- designation or is already in an approved PUD where they've already cleared everything through the county -- I don't understand why either of those need to be considered sending areas. Why do it? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think in the case of an approved PUD, the question -- you have to ask another question. You` know, is that land protected within that PUD? If it's not protected within the PUD, then the option of being able to send the land will result in a protection of that. So to me that's fairly obvious. MS. LYNNE: But it's not obvious to me. We've seen all kinds of projects come through here where they have specifically set aside -- MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. MS. LYNNE: They have gotten their project because they have set aside this -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MS. LYNNE: -- land, okay? So I don't understand Why -- MR. MULHERE: Well, perhaps I wasn't clear. I understand that. What if there are lands that are designated as sending that meet those attributes based on their natural resource values and they're not designated as conservation with an approved project but could be as a result of a transfer of some of those units off? MS. LYNNE: Okay. So you're saying we have an approved PUD. It's -- it's up and running or is in the process of being built -- MR. MULHERE: Uh -huh. By the way, there are only a few. There's only a couple out there. MS. LYNNE: Well, some of them were pretty big -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, true. MS. LYNNE: -- like Mirasol. Page 23 January 23, 2002 16 J R MR. MULHERE: True. MS. LYNNE: And that was a -- they got a lot for -- in exchange for setting up a conservation area. MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. MS. LYNNE: Now, they can't use that conservation area for sending; right? MR. MULHERE: Well, under the pol -- the way policies are written today they could. However, we -- we have already said, we understand what you're saying, we think it's a good recommendation, and we would go ahead and -- and carry that recommendation forward. So, you know, we're -- what I suggest -- MS. LYNNE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: What I suggested was a policy that would prohibit a transfer on lands that already have a conservation designation on it. We haven't included that in the policies yet. It's a great recommendation. That's why we're here, and we'll be happy to bring that one forward. MS. LYNNE: Got it. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: So continuing down to the south end of the rural fringe into the Belle Meade NRPA, that project is going along very -- very well, from what I understand. And there have been substantial purchases through the CARL program, the Florida Forever program in south Belle Meade, yet that area is basically all designated as sending. And based on what you just said, there's probably the -- the minority of the area is eligible for sending. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. No one would be able to send a unit -- the government can't send units because we have precluded sending from publicly owned parcel. So for every parcel that's in the Belle Meade that the government owns today, you would not be able to send a unit. For those that are -- currently remain in private ownership or for Page 24 January 23, 2002 which there are unwilling sellers, those folks would be able , transfer those units. And it is an incentive to transfer those, which would then reduce the cost -- MR. CARLSON: I'm not arguing with that. I'm just arguing that maybe we need another color or some other kind of designation on the map to show that that huge sending area in Belle Meade is not really a huge sending area. MR. MULHERE: Bill, do you want to -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. Let me cover that. To some degree the discussion is we -- we couldn't map accurately. We didn't have the database to show exactly which parcels are in privately owned lands. And, quite frankly, that -- I mean, in publicly owned lands. And that changes, of course, as the state acquires properties. In our calculations we made a -- we -- we took some information from the state, and that's why you see the 80 percent conservation lands is that -- is that of that whole area that we've mapped out roughly, we're -- we're making an estimate of eight -- is 80 percent is in conservation land. So when we calculate our areas and we calculate the number of units that are in sending lands, we -- we have -- we have factored that, if you will, deduction into the -- into to the number crunching. Now, what you're really saying is that -- is that the map itself, we've -- we've mapped this whole area and called it sending area. But, as Bob says, as a matter of policy, it's not going to be sending from publicly owned conservation land. So we just have to try to -- try to work with, perhaps, a different series of maps or overlays to help -- help explain or -- or see -- visualize that a little bit better. But I can -- I guess what I can tell you is that our job, then; to take some of the information that you've given us and where we have not factored in publicly -- public ownership, we need to factor that in and -- and -- and then recrunch our numbers and then, also, try to Page 25 January 23, 2002 work on -- on a little bit better display of the map. 6J But I think, as Bob indicated too, we can handle this through policy language that for whatever you don't get on the map you still have to go to the policies, and the policies are going to -- going to govern it for -- for that particular situation. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think when you look at the scale, it's very difficult -- at least traditionally it has been very difficult for the county to map within the Belle Meade what parcels still remain in private ownership, and -- and it wouldn't show up very well anyway. There are some alternatives. You could do a series of maps, as Bill indicated, and try to show that on an additional map and adopt that, specific to the Belle Meade, perhaps. Another option might be just to -- to provide a note on the future land use map that indicates that currently approximately 80 percent of the Belle Meade has been acquired and that the -- that although the entire area is designated as sending, sending may only occur on those lands that are -- remain in private ownership. So that might be one way to clarify that on the map. It's just been very hard. The county has never really been able to map where the state is in the acquisition process accurately at that scale. This is -- you know, there's a lot on this map. So I think the next step, then, if that's -- if you wanted to do that, I think the next step would be to create a series of maps that would focus on a smaller area so you would have some scale to it. MR. LORENZ: And, as I said, analytically we need to make sure that we're not going to be violating any key criteria when we start recrunching the numbers, because we can certainly change the numbers, and it's not going to -- going to -- going to -- going to make any difference in the findings themselves, but we'll try to work with as accurate of numbers -- a set of numbers as possible. Mr. Chairman, if I could make one -- one other point, I know Page 26 January 23, 2002 16J1 that as we go through the presentation there are going to be a number of issues that come about. I don't know whether it would be good for -- for the -- for the council to consider someone having a running list of what the issues that you want to get back to to frame some motions later on in the meeting. We still have obviously, are going to have opportunity for public -- for public comment. But ultimately from staff s perspective, we would like to be able to have the council take very specific motions so that we can carry your -- your actions to the county commission appropriately. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What I'm hearing is you would like to go ahead through the presentation, have us make notes as we go through the presentation, and come back after that, hear the public comment on individual areas and our comment on the individual areas after you complete the presentation? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I think that would be good. I think everybody -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Is that all right? Sounds good. Let's do it. MR. LORENZ: The -- these series of slides, again -- and, Ed, if you will, when we're talking about this whole area, this is the CREW NRPA, you can see here we've designated just these portions of sending. And what we've done is we've calculated the amount of -- amount of acreage within the sending lands so as we -- as we recrunch the numbers with -- with additional data, we'll have to revise these figures. But based upon the information that we currently have, these series of slides, again, to say that we're trying to, again, direct incompatible land uses away from the natural resource features within the rural fringe. And we're going to direct them to what we've identified as -- as the receiving areas. So when we look at wetland land cover, for instance, the Page 27 January 23, 2002 16J1 primary receiving areas -- primary and secondary receiving areas combine, total, only 12 percent of the land cover within the rural fringe area. So the boundaries that we've currently designated lead us to believe that as we develop direct land uses to these areas, we're directing land uses to areas that will minimize the impacts on wetland systems from a landscape perspective. The other -- the other panel here on this slide shows the wetland composition within each planning unit, and that is the amount that wetlands -- let's say that if we take the NRPA sending lands, for instance, on average the NRPA sending lands are 87 percent wetland land cover, whereas the primary receiving areas is 18 percent wetland land cover. So, again, we feel that this -- the way we've sliced and diced these -- these figures and -- and these boundaries, that we're -- we're, again, accomplishing the objective of the landscape scale to direct incompatible land uses away from the higher and more important wetland systems. Similar slides, again, I don't need to go through each -- each and every one, but the similar pattern. If we look at total vegetation, total vegetation includes upland and wetland. Again, the conservation and sending lands have the vast, vast majority of -- of this parameter. Primary receiving lands, one -third -- in some type of native habitat. The other two - thirds have basically been disturbed areas, farm fields, or what have you. Again, strategic habitats, similar -- similar information, similar conclusions. Conservation is low because it does not include the true NRPA by -- I mean, the Corkscrew area by definition. But if it did, it would -- it would be way up here. MR. HILL: Bill, would you -- excuse me -- back up just one side previous to this? Thank you. MR. LORENZ: Just to frame it in a -- in a different visual, Page 28 January 23, 2002 16J1 wetland -- conservation, NRPA, non -NRPA sending, these are the areas that we want to direct the land use away from. These are the areas that we want to direct the land -- the land uses to. These arrows basically show that wet -- with regard to wetlands, almost 90 percent of the wetland land cover is in the areas that we are designating either under a conservation status or some type of sending status or higher restrictions with regard to land uses and preservation standards. Uplands, not surprisingly, it's lower than the other ones, but still a majority of your veg -- upland vegetation is still within these, if you will, conservation -type designations. A similar pattern with total vegetation and strategic habitat. Again, these are large systems at the landscape scale that we're trying to -- trying to craft this -- this set of strategies. Shifting gears to the project site scale, when we're talking now about, okay, what will we allow -- once we -- once we allow a type of land use to go into a particular area, what kind of standards can we establish, again, that will help minimize the impact at that level on habitats and listed species? And these tools that we arrived at for the project site scale include clustering. That's the ability to direct your intensive land use into a very smaller -area portion of your site. That gives you opportunities to preserve higher degrees of habitat and to work around your -- your -- your natural resource -type features. Site preservation and retention standards, again, we begin to talk about what's the percentage of the area of the site that needs to be in some type of preserve status or how much vegetation you need to retain. And, also, wildlife management standards, again, if you have certain listed species on site, to deal with them appropriately or if we have just general wildlife protection, what are some appropriate types of -- of standards to -- to work better with the wildlife that's on site Page 29 January 23, 2002 16J1 '14 M and to minimize it -- that -- that interaction, negative interaction, with the human activity. Key item within the rural fringe standards is the -- or the rural fringe area are our vegetation site preservation standards. Now, remember, as we go from primary receiving lands to -- to the NRPA sending lands, this is, you know, more environmentally sensitive. So it makes sense that the NRPA sending lands have the highest degree of presser -- preservation. Primary receiving lands is where we want to direct land uses, especially, again, in the TDR program. With the transfer of development rights, we don't want to have the receiving areas to -- to preclude the ability of somebody developing in those areas, because then, if that's the case, we will not have a successful TDR program. But, again, we still recognize that we have to have some degree of preservation standards within the receiving areas as well. These numbers were based upon the characteristics and composition of vegetation, signatures within these areas that I previously showed, and, also, the relationship with strategic habitat. And we've developed a little bit of a procedure to help us estimate these -- these numbers. Again, you can see the -- the general trend in how these numbers are, given the sensitivity of the lands. I know there's a lot of numbers on this table, but we also wanted to take a look at when we made a -- our preservation standards, which is right here (indicating) -- these are the same numbers you had seen before -- we are assuming that conservation lands will be preserved a hundred percent preservation standard on this table. And we wanted to be able to see what the effect of how much vegetation could we expect to preserve within the rural fringe for a variety of different TDR utilization rates. The question is, is if we have a wildly successful TDR program, how much more vegetation can we expect to preserve in the rural Page 30 January 23, 2002 16JI :;;a — fringe? And so we made some -- some calculations based upon this information, and you can see -- if the TDR program is not successful, we're looking at 87 percent vegetation retention and the total of all the fringe, all those 93,300 acres of -- that we were looking at in the fringe planning area. We'll gain another 3,000 or close to 4,000 acres or -- or bring that level up to 90 -- 90 percent, above 90 percent, you know, with a -- with the TDR program. So that's the -- that's the increment that we can gain with the -- with the TDR program. Initially staff was trying to target a total preservation standard within the fringe of around 90 percent. It's tough to get at 90 percent without the TDR program unless we were -- be willing to increase these numbers much higher than what they are current -- currently set there. So we feel that this is a -- a fairly good balance is to try to propose these standards with the TDR program, and this gives us the -- the general range that we expect to preserve total vegetation in that close to hundred thousand acres in the rural fringe. Well, I covered the items in somewhat of a conceptual fashion. The tough part of it is, you know, you -- you have this huge book. I don't know how many pages it is. But those ideas have gotten embodied into proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan. And what I tried to do here with this slide, just for your convenience, is to try to cross - reference some of our -- the more important features in here so that as you go through it you should be able, with your handout, be able to -- to get to it. But in the natural resource protection areas, you know, we have information in the future land use element -- that's the FLUE -- and information in the conservation and coastal management element as well. TDR program is outlined in the -- in the FLUE on pages 42 Page 31 January 23, 2002 1 6J and 48. Sending and receiving areas, we've just been looking at that in the future land use map. To the degree that these may need to be modified, that's, of course, why we're having these -- these public hearings and getting information, and we'll make the appropriate changes as -- as we go through the total transmittal on the top of the process. Allowable land uses, what land uses are we going to allow within NRPAs? We certainly don't want to have as many -- a whole list of land uses that we're allowing in the receiving areas. So in the future land use element, in pages 43 to 48 and then also page 53 we've identified what -- what the allowable land uses will be within these various designations, land designations. Also, the buffering of NRPAs and conservation areas in the conservation coastal management element, that's Objective 6.5. The site scale elements, we have clustering provisionS in the FLUE. Our on -site preservation standards are in the conservation and coastal management element, and basically they're in Objective 6.1. We've broken 6.1 up into Policy 6. 1.1 which identifies vegetation requirements within the urban areas and 6.1.2 which is the rural fringe area, so just to give you some structure to the -- to that document. And you can find all that on pages 21 to 25 in the CCME. Wetland standards in the CCME in the Objective 6.3, wetland standards basically apply not only to the fringe but also to the -- to the urban designated areas as well. And then we have a number of standards in the CCME for wildlife standards. So we've tried to take our landscape elements, our site scale elements that we've talked about and what the rationale for them is, and the details now is on these pages that I've tried to cross - reference Page 32 we January 23, 2002 16JI for you. Well, we've kind of covered a couple hot - button issues already. But what I wanted to be able to do is, for the purpose of the EAC, is to identify some other issues that I know that I've been involved with and also with some of -- of members of your council have been involved with. Remember, you have a growth management subcommittee. Allie Santoro chairs that subcommittee. Unfortunately, Allie couldn't be here today. But that subcommittee met last Thursday on the 17th, and I handed out to you a report of the minutes of that subcommittee, and also Allie had some comments individually as well. I know that subcommittee was -- Ed was -- Ed was present, and Bill Hill was present also. So there are a number of -- of issues that -- that came up in the -- in that subcommittee that I think are important issues to certainly initially touch on. One is agricultural regulation. And what I'm speaking about here is our policies do not -- our proposed policies do not regulate agricultural activities. We've been informed, through our legal counsel, Carlton Fields, our growth management counsel, that the county is precluded from state statute from regulating agricultural activities. You will hear from -- from the public that -- that, their opinion, that that's not the case. But from the staff s perspective, right now, unless our attorney tells us differently, we are not proposing any reg -- agricultural clearing regulations in our Growth Management Plan. But let me make one distinction. In the TDR program, when you have -- in the sending lands, when you send one of your or all of your residential units, you will have a series -- you will have a set of residual rights that -- certain land uses that you can still do. We are limiting your residual right with regard to agricultural to basically nonimpacting agriculture that does not require any additional clearing. So, for instance, you could have -- you could have range or Page 33 January 23, 2002 6 J 1 pasture. You could put cattle out on your existing area but you can't clear it. So in the TDR program, which is -- which is -- is a voluntary program, if you -- if you voluntarily send -- sell your development right, you will not be able to do any further clearing for agricultural purposes. So to that degree we've addressed agriculture, but not as a matter of a regulated activity. Another issue that has come up, come forward, is the locations for golf courses. And I know -- know that this council also had a speaker and talked about golf courses a couple of months ago in terms of their proximity and location to conservation areas. Staff is recommending that golf courses be allowed within receiving areas, but we are prohibiting them within the sending areas. So the natural resource protection areas and any non -NRPA sending area, golf courses are prohibited. We do have particular standards for golf courses. You'll find them -- I don't have the site right now. But it would be in the future land use element under the -- the allowable uses for the receiving lands. So there are specific standards we are proposing to regulate golf courses and receiving -- receiving areas, but they are being proposed to be prohibited in sending lands. MS. LYNNE: Just a quick question. Is this just -- this is just covered by the TDR people, though; right? This is only if you voluntarily choose to participate in TDR, or it applies to all the sending lands? MR. LORENZ: The golf course prohibition applies to all sending lands. It is allowed in all receiving lands subject to the standards. Buffering of the natural reservations, and that's in quoteS. And what we mean by natural reservations would be natural resource protection areas and land uses that are designated as conservation on Page 34 January 23, 2002 'j 6JI 7%1 the future land use map. I think it's Objective 6.5 has a set of standards with regard to buffering of -- of the natural reservations. Again, that issue has come up. I know that there is some concern from certain council members as to the buffering standards that staff has proposed, but this is -- this is an issue that I think the EAC would -- or certainly would need to weigh in on and provide a very specific recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners as you deliberate on your recommendations. Sending /receiving area boundaries, to some degree, we -- we've discussed that earlier, but I can -- but also there is a -- in that Area A in the Corkscrew community, staff has been working with representatives from that community to look at whether or not the whole area should be a receiving area or not, and there are some alternatives -- we're still working up some alternatives. I think that that is -- is an issue that still has -- if you will, has life certainly from a staff perspective in terms of we're interested in looking at possibly some alternatives, looking at some additional analysis that we perhaps could do. And I think Ed Carlson's comment earlier about the -- the relationship of that area with the Corkscrew Swamp and the CREW lands, even though it does not map out with the land cover, I think is an important information for us to consider as we're considering these other alternatives. And I think that another issue is wetland protection, and I know -- and I've got some information here I just want to cover with the -- with regard to wetland protection. Again, we have proposed standards. To a large degree they're wetland protection standards. We're dealing with that -- that site area -- excuse me -- at the landscaping scale. The proposed natural resource protection areas, as I said earlier, is an issue. And the issue is certainly going to be the Belle Meade Page 35 January 23, 2002 16JI _ area that we're proposing. And I also have to -- last week's Rural Fringe Advisory Committee meeting, the rural fringe also voted to take this section -wide strip out of the Belle Meade CARL and NRPA. And so there -- that -- they have taken this as a vote, so they have voted to take this area out as a natural resource protection area. MR. CARLSON: Why did they do that? MR. LORENZ: They -- the present -- the consultant gave a presentation and in the information -- the presentation indicated that this area is -- is still retained in a large degree of private ownership. Okay. One of the consultants is here. It would probably be better for him to speak for -- and give his presentation. But this is the area that the fringe committee did elect to remove. MR. CARLSON: Have lands in there already been purchased for preservation? MR. LORENZ: No, I don't believe so. The information that I remember seeing is that to a large degree this -- these areas have not been purchased by the -- by the state. Again, the consultant is here. He can answer some more details for you if he chooses to speak. So I know that that is -- that is an issue. Let me -- let me talk about wetland protection, because this is a -- a key policy decision that's going to come before the county commission. And I've pulled out -- I've excerpted certain areas from certain statements from the 9 -J -5 criteria. That's the state regulation that governs growth management plans. And these are -- these are the requirements that deal with wetland protection from -- from -- from the -- for the Growth Management Plan. And what I want to key on a couple of things is, first of all, we're looking at protection of the natural function of wetlands through a comprehensive planning process. Staff is viewing that comprehensive planning process as the landscape elements working along with the project site element. Page 36 January 23, 2002 164 It also requires that our future land uses that are incompatible shall be directed away from wetlands. Again, to a large -- look -- remember, the landscape elements that we looked at, the landscape areas, where our wetland features are in the rural fringe, and these are in our NRPA areas and our sending areas. Again, the land uses shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands. And it does recognize that mitigation is allowed to occur and is one -- and it's considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetland functions. So 94-5 requirements do not direct the -- if you will, do not direct county comprehensive plans to say there's zero mitigation, or it does allow for impacts, but the functions have -- can be mitigated for. So these are the requirements that we have in the 9- J-5 criteria that very specifically govern wetland protection. As we -- as we've sen -- seen already, when we look at wetlands within land -use categories in the whole county -- now this is the whole county, 96 percent of our wetlands are in conservation status. Within the urban area, there's 2.3 percent of our wetlands in the urban area. You can see the other statistics. South Golden Gate Estates, of course, is going to be purchased. The rural fringe area which is a portion of this 12.6 percent is what we have been talking about in terms of detailed data. So, again, this is the distribution of the land use -- of the wetlands within the county's current land -use categories. The other thing I -- we -- we need to take into account is what other regulatory mechanisms are in place for wetland protection. And this is the information from the South Florida Water Management District for all of the year 1999, all of year 2000, and I think this takes it through July of 2001. And the bottom line total is if we look at wetland acreage that have direct impacts, 16 percent of the wetlands that have gone through the South Florida Water Page 37 January 23, 200216 J 11144 Management District have a direct impact, and this is what the district is reporting. So, again, their -- the Water Management District is looking at the site -- they're -- at the site scale, the permitting step. County is -- is looking at it from a comprehensive planning process from the higher the landscaped areas within the rural fringe, and also we do have some degree of -- of protection through the -- the project review and -- and Objective 6.2. But when we start look -- making -- trying to determine how much more can we improve upon with the Water Management District certainly as a percentage number you recall that -- we took -- staff has work -- worked with the EAC, and our initial proposal to the community at large -- and we took the EAC back in November of 2000 for wetlands protection was we had a system by which we were categorizing wetlands based upon size, amount of exotics present, location, and degree of hydrologic alteration, and we classified the wetlands. We received input from the EAC and from the community that - - that that was somewhat of a contrived system, that there is already a -- a system in place that the South Florida Water Management District had to try to identify functionality of wetlands, which was the WRAP scores, the WRAP analysis, the acronym for wetland rapid assessment district. And the EAC at one point determined that -- that you would have liked to see an allowable impact based upon what the WRAP scores would be. So if you had the highest functionality of wetland, we would still allow a 5 percent direct impact. Of course, all impact would still require mitigation, and that is if it had zero functionality, that would still require a 50 percent preservation on site for the wetlands. And what I'm trying to do here is try to -- try to -- although it's Page 38 January 23, 2002 16J1 not exactly comparable, but the question I had asked myself was, how much more, with our -- our proposal could we do better than having total Water Management District's average 16 percent direct impact. So the question -- the question's -- and I couldn't answer that question because we don't have the -- the information. But the Water Management District, as -- as their data shows, is allowing a 16 percent direct impact on wetlands. And, of course, they still require mitigation for that -- for that impact. So as we go through the details and the staff s wetland proposals, the one question I would always have to ask myself as we -- as we review it is to understand what is going to be -- whatever proposal we come up with, how much more -- how much better can we have for wetland protection than what the Water Management District is already doing in the permitting process? Now, it could be different -- different -- different things to look at. But, again, it comes back to the fact that the Water Management District is still is at a 16 percent direct impact. So the question -- the finding that we have to go to the county commission, if we want to have something greater than that, is how much more can we expect to get through a -- our -- our own set of standards. MR. CARLSON: I'd like to make a comment on that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead, sir. MR. CARLSON: Just real quickly -- they're huddled -- MR. LORENZ: Bob just wanted me to go back here. One thing, in this slide here, the district does talk about or does have data about upland comp -- compensation for -- for wetlands. We have structured the -- we have structured our standard such that the known -- there is a no net loss of wetland function, so we've created it such that there would not be an allowance for uplands to totally satisfy a wetland -- a loss of wetland functions. So, again, you have -- as we go through the details and our standards, our wetland Page 39 January 23, 2002 16A standards, recognize that that -- that's the case. But this is the data that has been provided by by the South Florida Water Management District. MR. CARLSON: Bill, I'm amazed by this, because our efforts were the result of having project after project come before us over the last few years where it was common to have wetland impacts over 50 percent of the project was, you know, degraded wetlands, exotics, poor hydrology. And we were looking at, some cases, 80 or 90 percent of the wetlands on the site were allowed to be developed in project after project. So we were trying to put an upper limit on -- on how many -- how -- what percentage the wetlands could be affected. I guess my answer to your question about how this can be is maybe, you know, statistics are dangerous, and I'm -- I'm just baffled by this data that I wouldn't have give -- I wouldn't -- I wouldn't have dreamed that the average impact was only 16 percent, based on the projects that's come before us. MR. LORENZ: Now, that's The -- now, that's -- this is the database that we got from -- from the district for those two years. MR. CARLSON: For --for just the county? MR. LORENZ: For 2 1/2 years for just Collier County. MR. CARLSON: That's pretty amazing. There's something in there I don't understand. MR. LORENZ: The other -- the other thing I want to -- whoops. Well, I thought I had loaded another slide. I'm going to have to work from memory. Let's go back to -- let me look at this slide. I don't have a -- I thought I loaded the slide. I must have gotten off of my file. There's, basically, 70,000 acres of total vegetation. This is percentage, but let me -- let me just -- let me just make a point here. There's total -- total of 70,000 acres total vegetation in the fringe. This is -- this is -- this is what's there. When we go -- when we take a 0! M, K January 23, 2002 1 6J 1 look at some of those -- the slides -- and I've got to work back -- the one slide that shows the preservation standards for the TDR utilization rights, and you're looking at around sixty -- sixty to sixty - thousand of vege -- sixty to six -- sixty to sixty- thousand is going to be preserved through our preservation standards. So let's say sixty -- sixty - three- thousand is being preserved. That's what we would apply to our wetland preservation requirements -- I mean, for our native -- for our total vegetation requirements. So we're going to be -- we're going to be preserving this much vegetation in the fringe by applying the 40 percent, 60 percent, 80, 90 percent figures. There's 57,000 acres of wetlands land cover in the rural fringe. Now, the point -- the point here is, is that we're expected to preserve a greater amount of wet -- total vegetation that there is in -- in wetland land cover within the total fringe area another -- another reason why, I think, that our -- our -- our proposal for wetland protection is -- is on the mark with regard to the landscape scale and the preservation -- the total -- the vegetation preservation standards for the total rural fringe area. If -- if, on the other hand, we -- we set our vegetation retention standards and we lower those numbers to the point where now they're less than, if you will, the -- the wetland land cover, then I wouldn't have as much confidence that we're setting aside enough vegetation that's going to be significant enough for wetland -- wetland protection in the whole fringe area. So, again, when we start looking at -- at how these preservation standards at the site level work together at the landscape scale, we're expecting to preserve sixty to sixty - three- thousand acres of -- of total vegetation in the rural fringe area. And the inventory that we've been able to identify for wetland land cover is around 57,000 acres. Page 41 January 23, 2002 1 6J1 Coincidentally it's around -- it's pretty close to the same number, 50,000 acres, also, for strategic habitat for listed species concerned. So I think -- I think that we -- we've done a pretty good job of trying to match up our preservation standards looking at wetland land cover and looking at strategic habitat for listed species in the rural fringe. And the reason -- one of the reasons I indicate this as well is that if -- if there is movement to lower those preservation standards, and every time we lower those preservation standards, I'm not going to have as much confidence to be able to -- to -- to make that kind of general conclusion. So I think it's real important that as we -- as we work through the process in terms of review and make recommendations, we have to understand that our natural resource protection areas and the rest of the sending lands are very important as landscape features to the total protection of our -- of -- of the resources. So, with that, that's -- that ends, if you will, my presentation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we do this if you concur with me, why don't we take a five- minute break. MR. COE: Can I make one comment before we -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One comment. Go ahead. Only one. MR. COE: Bill, if you'll go back to the slide that shows the wetland permitting summary -- MR. LORENZ: Yeah. MR. COE: -- just for a second, because that might be able to answer Ed's question about the 16 percent. You said that 2001 figures were for only about a half a year. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. MR. COE: If you take out those figures, isn't it a little bit higher than that? See, I think the figures in '99 appear skewed. I could be wrong. But I show -- let me see, just taking 2000 alone, we impacted Page 42 January 23, 2002 16J1 right at 30 percent. Is -- is -- was there a big project in'99 that was -- didn't have any wetlands at all on it? MR. MULHERE: It's -- I mean, there's some -- I can't answer that empirically, but I can tell you that there -- there -- there may be some legitimacy to that comment, because obviously as there was more land available, larger tracts of land, you may be able to avoid impacting wetlands on those larger tracts. And certainly that was the case two years ago more so than it was a year ago or three years ago more so than it was two years ago. So in designing a project I think it is legitimate to state that as there's larger tracts of land, more land available, you can go to those where the -- where the need to impact wetlands is less and, therefore, the mitigation would be less and, therefore, the cost would be less. MR. COE: I guess what I'm saying is 2 1/2 years worth of statistics, particularly when you look for a couple of the most recent years are averaging close to 30 percent, 25 to 30 percent, maybe that one year of 1999 skews the statistics considerably. MR. MULHERE: That could be. I think it's just -- it's just another piece of information that came from the district. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, I guess -- I guess, you know, we went back and through the data. I certainly would want to update -- try to get the updated version for 2001, whatever updated information we've had we'd present. But this -- this -- this is what they are. MR. MULHERE: I -- I certainly would concur with Mr. Carlson's statement that over at least the last couple of years the efforts of this committee have resulted in lower impacts to wetlands as a result of not necessarily what would happen to the district or Corps permitting process, but as a result of your desires and as a result of the applicants wanting to get a favorable recommendation or a recommendation that at least was more supportable going through this process. Page 43 January 23, 2002 16J1 flia So I think, you know, maybe your question is one of looking beyond 1999 earlier, and it could be much worse before that. I don't know, but, you know, perhaps '98,97,96, you know, those years the impacts were higher. I don't know. I did want to comment on one of the hot -button issues that Bill raised, because I would like to get some feedback from you on this. I know you probably have a lot of questions generally and a lot of comments, and we have the public to speak, and I'll be very brief. But it relates to the issue that Mr. Carlson brought up relative to the receiving designation in Area A close to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. In that area is generally -- or a good portion of that area -- you can bring up a map, Bill -- is generally referred to as Big Island -- Big Corkscrew Island community. We're looking for a map, if you could bring one up. I don't know now, perhaps two months ago or six weeks ago, first of all, there were concerns expressed by residents in this area throughout the process relating to the TDR process and relating to designating that area as a receiving. And then ultimately six weeks, two months ago, I'm not sure when -- somebody out here could tell you the exact date -- we did meet with residents in that area to -- to hear their concerns. We -- we met out at the middle school. And Bill and I were there. And I can report to you that of those folks that were there -- and I would say there was probably 30, maybe 40 people in attendance -- and, by the way, this area is -- is developed -- this -- this community is developed largely with 5 -acre tracts, res -- with maybe a mobile home or a single - family home on. Some are probably a little bit bigger than that. Some are maybe a little bit smaller. They would be legal nonconforming, 3 -acre, 2 -acre tracts. Pretty much that's the way it's developed -- I'm sure you're very familiar with the development pattern out there. Page 44 January 23, 2002 6J1 IM y Anyway, these folks, I have to tell you, in unison -- I don't think I heard any one of those 30 or 40 people that were there stand up and support the designation of -- of a receiving area in that area. They expressed concerns related to that -- having the effect of potentially changing that community, because someone could come in and acquire some land and then increase the density, and it would be different than what it is today. And, I mean, we heard those comments, and we promised that we would work with our consultant, Dr. Jim Nicholas, related to the impacts of taking that area out of a receiving designation on, again, that ratio of receiving to sending. And -- and based on his comments we would then further evaluate it. And we did get comments back from Dr. Nicholas, which I'll paraphrase here, and hope I do a good job. Basically he expressed some concern -- because, remember, optimally he was talking about a relationship of 2 to 1 of receiving to sending as being optimal. We actually enjoy about a 1.33 ratio of receiving to sending, which is a little less than what he would optimally like. But he still felt that based on the market and the nature of this area, the TDR process would work very well,even with that ratio. And so he -- he concluded that although it was -- would not be a critical flaw in the TDR process, he would recommend leaving the receiving designation on these lands. But I had expressed a -- an observation that because of the nature of this area already being subdivided largely into five -acre parcels and developed with mobile homes and single- family homes, it would be unlikely that anyone who wanted to go out and develop a project in the receiving designated lands would go there for acquisition first. They would certainly look at larger pieces of land that would require less effort on their part, perhaps one or two owners aggregate it and put your development out there. And he -- and Nicholas also concurred with Page 45 January 23, 200 16J1'' that -- that observation. However, we still want to raise this as an issue. We know you're going to hear that this is an issue. And so we do have some alternatives because, frankly, ultimately the Board of County Commissioners is going to be faced with making a policy decision related to this area as to whether or not it should remain a receiving area or perhaps be designated as neutral, developed exactly how it is, remain as one per five, and not be receiving or sending. A couple of options that we've begun to look at ultimately for presentation to the board related to this issue would -- would be -- one option would be leave it as a receiving area, preclude the creation of a rural village within that area, and also increase the minimum acreage which a interested entity would have to aggregate to be able to transfer units in currently. The minimum acreage in receiving areas is 40 acres. If we raise that to, say, 200, we would -- and took out the -- the ability for someone to create a rural village, we would certainly reduce the impacts on there or the potential impacts on there or .the likelihood that that would be purchased for aggregation in some other development. That will not in -- I think, in any way satisfy or address the concerns of the residents out there. That's one option, though. . The second option would be to take that area out of or no longer designate as receiving. Simply call it neutral, allow all of the uses that are there today and at the density that's permitted today. But if we were to do that, it seems that we would want to try to make up for the impact, the potential impact of taking that receiving designation out and the impacts on that ratio, that optimal ratio. And are there some things that we could do that would further enhance the TDR process once that area had been taken out of a receiving designation. And one option would be to consider allowing a transfer from the fringe sending lands into the urban area under very specific Page 46 January 23, 20 1 6J1 criteria, and we are looking at that as being in association with qualified in -fill development. As you probably know, when you have in -fill development, which is relatively small and the land costs are relatively high, and you can't ammenitize a 20 -- 10- or 20 -acre in -fill parcel, it becomes more difficult to develop that, especially at those lower densities. And as an incentive to allow by right the transfer from the rural fringe sending lands into the urban area of, say, one or two dwelling units per acre, that would increase the market for TDRs and would allow us to -- to remove that Big Corkscrew Island area -- community area from the receiving designation without really having an impact on that sending and receiving ratio. It's just an option. Second option would be to -- and -- and this came up, really, as a result of discussions generally relating to TDRs as to whether or not there is really a legitimate market in the rural fringe for folks who go and purchase a piece of land, do they really -- are they really going to have a market incentive for acquiring units, or will they simply build the golf course and develop it one per five and not acquire any units, for example, Twin Eagles, a couple of golf courses developed at the density of one per five. And is there really any incentive for somebody to go out into those receiving lands and instead of developing it at one per five, actually go out and acquire TDRs from sending lands. And, again, we asked Nicholas to look at that. He felt very strongly that there was an incentive, that, you know, developers or business people -- or if there's an opportunity for them to increase their profit through the -- following these regulations, that there was a very strong likelihood that they would go and acquire units from sending lands and bring them into those receiving lands. However, one way to further support or strengthen the TDR market and still reduce any impact from removing Big Corkscrew Page 47 January 23, 2002 16J1 community as a receiving area would be to require a minimum density for golf course -- residential golf course communities, and we haven't explored this to the point where we're ready to recommend as -- if that was one of the options, what that density might be. But, for example, if you -- since the base density is one per five, if you required.5 dwelling units per acre for residential golf courses built in receiving lands, that would force a property owner to go out and acquire some TDRs from sending lands if he wanted to build a residential golf course. And, again, that would enhance that market for TDRs and reduce any impact from taking Big Corkscrew Island community out of the receiving designation. So those are the three -- basically, the three options that we are looking at. And I would be interested at some point, whenever you - all would feel comfortable, perhaps, with what your feelings are, because ultimately we will have to bring this issue to the board, and I think you're going to hear from some of the folks out there today too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Do we have any comments from the -- why don't we take a -- MR. CARLSON: You -- you called for a break, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Mulhere just opened, you know, a whole world of opportunity for me, but maybe we should take the break first. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let me just run something past everyone. We've gone through the presentation. We have a good group of people from the public that would like to talk. The thought being is hear the comments from the public so we can make notes on those comments and then go into the discussion of the various items with the council comments. What is the -- what's the pleasure? MR. COE: I recommend five minutes per speaker just like they do at the county commission. mi - ll . January 23, 2002 16J CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Five minutes per speaker? Okay. MR. COE: No more than five minutes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is that a good -- is that a good way to do it? MR. COE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's take a five- minute break, and then we're going to hear from the public. (A break was held from 10:44 a.m. to 10:57 a.m.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We need to come back to order, but also if anyone is from the public who is going to address the council, please fill out one of the slips over here, if you haven't done that already and bring it over to the county attorney, please. Marjorie, we don't need to swear people today, do we? MS. STUDENT: No. This would be legislative anyway; it's not -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me. Okay. Let's come back to order. If we could -- do we need to swear people testifying today? MS. STUDENT: No, you do not. This is a legislative matter and not quasi-judicial, so that's not necessary. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We're going to hear now, if the pleasure of the council, from -- from the public. We do have the slips, and we would like to -- we've got to move forward. We know this is very important, but we would like to limit discussion to 5 minutes for each speaker. And I will give you a sign when there's about 30 seconds left, and we would appreciate it if we could get as much across during that period of time as possible. So with that, Miss Student, do you want to tell us who's first? MS. STUDENT: Yes. Marco Espinar, and he will be followed by Mike Bauer. MR. ESPINAR: Good morning, everybody. For the record, January 23, 20021 6JI ,'1 Marco Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants. I'm here before you as both a private individual and also as a consultant. I've got five minutes, and I've got a lot to cover, and I want to run through this so -- real -- pretty fast. A few bullet points I want to, you know, point out to you, everybody here. On page 39 under the agricultural rural assessment area, it says except the following uses are prohibited and shall not be allowed. This is an agricultural rural assessment area. And they give you a whole bunch of stuff that are not allowed in the agricultural rural assessment area, including asphalt concrete plants. You go to the next page, interim NRPAs. And what does it say? It says the following uses are permitted. And you go through there and, like, asphalt plants are permitted in NRPAs. I don't know if that's, you know, technically correct or -- running through here I want to show that. Page 54, areas of critical state concern overlay, okay, site alteration. Number D, no mangrove trees or saltwater grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. Plants specifically protected by this regulation include all wetland plants listed by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Chapter 17 -301 Florida Administrative Code. First of all, that has been amended numerous times. That's a very old, old statute and actually should be Department of Environmental Protection. And, like I said, that has been amended numerous times. One of my concerns is the statement, "All wetland plants listed by the -- by that chapter are to be protected." Now, I point to you -- back to the Section A. It lists some of the areas of critical state concern. And in those areas are Port of the Isles, Plantation, and Copeland. The way I read this is, if I have something like blue maidencane -- and these areas I pointed out, Port of the Isles, Plantation, and Copeland, are single- family areas. So is that -- the Page 50 January 23, 2002 16J1 way I take that is if I have blue maidencane -- that's a plant that's listed on this list -- I can't remove it. And these are single- family areas. I -- I -- I find that quite, quite restrictive, especially when they say all wetland plants. I mean, that list is quite extensive. There's several hundreds of plants on that list. Moving right along, page 21, I find a little -- something here to be slightly con -- conflicting here. And page 21 on the bottom of the page, vegetation communities having 75 percent or less canopy coverage of melaleucas and other invasive plant species shall be defined as naturally functioning native vegetation. So anything -- 75 percent of exotic infestation or less, okay. Now, if we go further back a little bit here and go into the -- page 27, Policy 6.2.5, Section 1 -A, wetlands having a functional assessment of scores of at least.5 shall be preserved on site. Wait a minute. It just said on the one area 75 percent of melaleuca infestation is, like, the cutoff point. A.5 WRAP score is quite a low WRAP score. That's almost a monoculture. Okay. When looking at the WRAP scores, theoretically it's from 0 to 1, but when you're applying this, the cutoff is around a point 41, 42, 45, even a 5 -- a.5, 51, those are melaleuca monocultures. Once you start dropping below those, you even start questioning the definition of whether or not you have a wetland because, remember, you have several parameters you have to meet: Vegetation canopy, ground cover, hydrology, and you score those items, and you come up with a score. That.5 is, like, almost a pure monoculture of melaleuca. And my recommendation is that that would be upped, you know, something of -- you know, that everybody can discuss. The other item is wetlands having a functional assessment -- back to this one again -- of.5 shall be preserved on site. Now, when we go to the Water Management District and we have something of a.5 and it's a monoculture of melaleuca or something like that, the Page 51 January 23, 2002 i6J1 tendency of the agencies is, it's not worth restoring, all right. So mitigate the whole entire thing off site. So in this case we have sort of a double jeopardy. Not only do we have to mitigate the whole entire wetland off site, but then I have to restore this melaleuca monoculture which is going to be costly and astronomical. And I asked everybody what is the ecological benefit of -- we're looking at the big picture of trying to restore a melaleuca monoculture, and I can understand, like, Panther Island where it's contig -- contiguous and -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Twenty seconds, twenty seconds. MR. ESPINAR: Can I beg the panel to please give me a few more minutes to -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We're going to -- we're going to get across the time. We've got a lot of people that are going to talk. MR. ESPINAR: Please? No. The other thing is time frame, page -- page 29, just not practical. 6.2.9, wetland function assessment as described in Policy 6.2.4, shall be part of the county EIS requirement. So what it's saying -- what they want is for us to do the WRAP analysis, go to the Water Management District, once we do the water -- the WRAP analysis, we submit it in, it's reviewed, it's kicked back to us, and -- and this process is not settled until, like, three- quarters into the way of the permitting process. What they're asking us is, is that information needs to be resubmitted at the time of the rezone. I don't know too many people that are going to risk thousands of -- of dollars of going through the ERP permitting process of putting a shopper center, doing all of this stuff prior to having the rezone in place, okay? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MR. COE: I'd like to make a recommendation, Marco. You've Page 52 January 23, 200 6J1 *} got a ton of stuff. This -- this -- I mean, you have so much. Write it up and submit it to them. MR. E SPINAR: Could I -- could I beg for one, two minutes, please? One minute. One minute for one more item? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Marco -- Marco, we're done. MR. ESPINAR: As a consultant representing -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MR. MULHERE: Mr. -- Mr. chairman, I -- I know you don't want comments back and forth on every issue -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: -- but I think I can clarify, really, just the first issue that Marco raised relative -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Good. MR. MULHERE: I think he suggested to page 20 -- page 39 where your interim development provisions for the agricultural rural assessment area, wherein asphalt and concrete batch - making plants are prohibited. And then you turn the page, and it says interim natural resource protection areas, and it talks about the permitted uses, now, and when you flip the page there they're permitted. You have to keep in mind this language was inserted in the Comprehensive Plan directly pursuant to the final order and is 100 percent fully consistent with the final order. This language has to remain in here because we're still conducting assessment on the eastern lands portion. This language will not apply to the rural fringe that we're talking about because we are proposing amendments to address the rural fringe area. But it will -- these interim provisions will still apply to the eastern lands until November when they come back in with a set of amendments for that area. So these -- these are already in the plan. We're not amending them. We cannot amend them. They must stay in there, because they implement the final order on an interim basis until the Page 53 January 23, 2002 16J1 assessment is completed, though, they will not apply to the rural fringe when the board adopts comprehensive plan amendments for the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: While you're up there and on this subject, are asphalt plants and waste handling facilities permitted on the receiving lands? MR. MULHERE: In receiving lands? MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. MULHERE: I believe they are. I believe they are, yes. MR. CARLSON: So they're not just residential; they have an industrial aspect to them? MR. MULHERE: They're currently permitted uses in the agricultural rural district. We have prohibited them on sending lands and in NRPAs, but we have not prohibited them on receiving lands. MR. CARLSON: That's a bad thing. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, one second. I'd like to just voice my concern and protest that this is a public forum. I've got important information, and I'm being denied this in a public forum. All I was asking was for two more minutes, and I would have an oppor -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Your point -- your point is heard. I think -- I think Mr. Coe's suggestion that you itemize these things out, present them to staff -- you can present them to us also -- MR. ESPINAR: That's fine. But it's not being presented in the public forum unless I -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MR. ESPINAR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Student, who is the next one? MS. STUDENT: Mike Bauer is the next speaker, and he will be Page 54 January 23, 2002 16J1 followed by Nancy Payton. MR. BAUER: Thank you. I thank whoever signed me up. I didn't know I was even going to speak. There were a couple of things I want to point out in this. First among these is the rural village concept. And I think as laid out before you the -- the boundaries and the measurements set out for a rural village do not encapsulate the concept of what I think many of us had in mind when it comes to terms of a rural village. We're thinking of something that perhaps you would see in New England with a central -- a small central business area surrounded by some residences that is immediately followed by open space in terms of farmland and maybe protected land. And the terms here, when we're looking at something that could be as large as 3,000 acres with many, many houses that allows clustering and other things, I think what this tends to turn out to be is just another planned unit development. So I think we need to look very carefully at this concept of a rural village and realize that what is occurring here may, in fact, be another planned unit development. Another issue is that golf courses should not be considered as open space. Golf courses fit into some kind of other separate character. They're -- they're private upscale recreational facilities that are largely devoid of natural vegetation and native vegetation, and they're -- structurally they're different. They don't have the shrubs and trees that are common to Southwest Florida. They're completely different from those other -- other designated examples of open space and -- talking about parks, playgrounds, waterways, lakes, and nature trails. A golf course is fundamentally different from all these other concepts concerning open space. They're not available to the public. And, you know, they're -- they're really quite elitist. Under no circumstances should golf courses be considered as provision of open Page 55 January 23, 2002 1 '`''`' space by developers. There's not to say there can't be golf courses, but they shouldn't be considered open space. And the third thing I'd like to bring out is that the county has eliminated a proposal for a wetlands permitting process in favor of reliance on the South Water -- South Florida Water Management District's rating of functionality of wetlands. The South Florida Water Management District is currently undergoing a change in how they're going to be -- or there's the potential that it's going to change on how it rates water -- watershed and wetland functions, rather, wetland functions. There's a new law being proposed in the state, the uniform wetlands mitigation assessment method, that will subject ratings to much, much higher discretion, very, very much more suggestive on how wetlands are rated. And at the same time the Corps of Engineers, through a recent Supreme Court decision, has also -- is also in the process of lessening its requirements for permitting. So we have the federal and state permitting process declining. At the same time, Collier County could have stepped up to the plate and increased protection but has decided to drop this process that they were working on. And I think we need to talk more about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MS. STUDENT: The next speaker is Nancy Payton who will be followed by Robert Duane. . MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton, and I'm representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. I wanted to talk briefly about Mirasol, who has two sections of land that are in the secondary receiving area, and we feel that those should be neutral areas. And I wanted to bring to your attention an ad that appeared in the newspaper in the last couple of days that shows that Mirasol, which is -- you approved a PUD that went way Page 56 January 23, 2002 up in here (indicating), but that part is not being included in the .gib ir - application to be a community development district. So it makes me wonder what is going to happen to that land. And, again, it's our position that that land should not be a secondary receiving area or a primary receiving area, that that should be neutralized. The other secondary receiving area is the parcel of land, the Kaufman (phonetic) property, which the county and the school board recently purchased for two schools and a regional park. That also ought to be a neutral area. It shouldn't be a secondary receiving area where earth mining and other activities can take place. I wanted to comment briefly about ag. It's our position that the county can regulate ag. They're doing it in Hillsborough County. I don't have all the documentation, because we're developing our position statement now. But I do find it curious that they can regulate ag in the sending area after density is transferred, but they can't do it before, and I wonder if that strikes anybody else as curious. The wetland impact chart, we have to remember that a high percentage of our county is under a moratorium, so there's certain areas of the county that aren't going in for wetland permits, so those percentages are a bit skewed. And if we didn't have the final order moratorium, it might be a hot -- quite a higher percentage of wetlands. And I also bring to your attention is, what are we calling wetlands? And what South Florida Water Management District has identified by wetlands may be a far more restrictive definition than we would like to have in this county. And, lastly -- and this is a very important point, and I hope I'm not running too close to my time -- and that deals with the allowable loose -- uses that remain on conservation lands or sending lands or NRPAs. And those include public facilities. They include essent -- essential services, jails, cemeteries. And I don't think that we should be looking at those lands as surplus lands for potential government Page 57 January 23, 2002 facilities, such as police stations, such as satellite government centers, for any other facilities, pumping stations, water and sewer facilities; that those are lands that we've identified for conservation purposes for their natural values and, therefore, the allowable uses should be extremely restrictive. So I ask you to -- please, to go back and look closely before the day is over at those allowable uses on sending areas and conservation lands and NRPAs. And it's kind of a little confusing to me when something is a sending area or NRPA or conservation land, and that needs to be clarified. And I think I made my 5 minutes with a little time to spare. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You have 30 seconds to spare. MS. PAYTON: I think that Mirasol and the Kaufman property ought to be put into a neutral zone. You're also going to hear comments about putting a one -mile section of Belle Meade into a receiving area. We're opposed to that. That should remain a sending area, and a buffering for the CARL conservation lands. That one -mile buffer is a landowner- request zone, and it doesn't have the same status as a willing- seller program, so it's a way that we can protect that. MR. CARLSON: But as long as it remains sending, are you proposing that it's okay to actually move the Belle Meade boundary east? MS. PAYTON: No. The entire Belle Meade boundary is a sending area. And we think it should stay that sending area, and there should be no movement to those boundaries. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. MS. STUDENT: The next speaker is Robert Duane, and he will be followed by Maureen Bonness. MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Robert Duane. I'm a planner, planning director with Hole, Montes & Page 58 January 23, 2002 16J1 Associates. My comments will only take a minute or two, and I would be willing to relinquish the balance of my time to Marco, if you're so inclined. I had the -- a couple privileges in my career. One was being chairman of EBTAB ten years ago when the concept of NRPAs first came about. I supported those then, and I support them now. I've had a -- experience, also, with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. I was fortunate to have been appointed twice by Governor Lawton Chiles and, also, once to his commission for sustainable Florida. And by way of background, I would just like to note for the record that I have reviewed all of the documents that are here before you today. I've attended a majority of the meetings before the rural fringe committee. And I'm also very familiar with the final order, the growth, the assessment process. And my opinion on balance, that this is a good plan for our community. We'll all find the little things to try to pick and choose from, but it's my opinion that it meets the intent of the final order. And I would hope that you would adopt this document largely as it's before you this morning. But, also, I'd like to thank Bill Lorenz but Mac Hatcher who's been grinding this plan out for the past couple of years, and I'd like to thank them for their contribution. You have some very good work in front of you, and I wish to commend them and thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: Next speaker is Maureen Bonness followed by Kathy Prosser. MS. BONNESS: My name is Maureen Bonness. And I am, first, going to speak to you as a resident and property owner of the Page 59 January 23 2002 16 J 1 Big Corkscrew Island community. I am the one that organized the petition that was sent out to all of the property owners. And there are about 375 envelopes that I sent out to various property owners and received back 188 signed petitions. And I've got a copy of the petition for you so you can see exactly what it said. And this petition addressed mostly quality of life. For the people that live out there, we have chosen to live in an area that has a rural character. We're willing to drive down deadly Immokalee Road anytime we have to go anywhere, whether it's to Immokalee or to Naples. We're willing to live out there beyond cable service. This telecast is not being presented out in Big Corkscrew Island because it doesn't exist there. And we're willing to live out there because we want to live in an area that has a rural character. And so I did receive back 188 signed petitions from residents and property owners in the area, and I will present those and any additional I can garner to Commissioner Coletta before the -- the transmittal of the fringe to the commissioners later next month. I would also like to emphasize that the TDR process will not -- will probably not have any benefit for the people who live -- currently live in Big Corkscrew Island. The only way that we would get any kind of value from it is through the increased property value -- supposedly the property values will go up if you are in a receiving area. The only way that we can get any value from that is if we sell our land. And for most of us that live there, that's not why we live there, because we want to sell our land to get more value. We live there because we like the area a lot. I also have a copy of the -- what is Big Corkscrew Island community because sometimes that has -- it's about three -- 39300 acres, which is five sections of land, and it's not the entire part of District A. It's only part of District A. And so I've got a map for you to show you exactly what that is. District A includes, also, a number Page 60 January 23, 2002 16JI of parcels that are below it that are whole sections owned by a single owner. Okay. Now, I'd also like to speak to you as -- outside of my being a resident of Corkscrew. I'd like to speak to you as Dr. Bonness. I'm a faculty -- an adjunct faculty at FGCU. I teach environmental biology there. I'm also a private environmental consultant, and I'm a very active volunteer at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. And in that context I would like to say that the environmental value that is given to the property that's now in the receiving area near Big Cork -- near Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary is undervalued in the assessment that the county has done. I know they've done their statistics according to the information they're given. I don't think it's been -- I think it's underrepresented in the statistics. That area is wet in a lot of -- when it gets to the wet season, there's sitting water in almost everybody's front yard there for weeks on end. And it doesn't show up in the wetlands soil map as being that. If you take that area and start to make it into an area where you now have one dwelling per acre, you will have to fill a lot of the area. When you fill that area, where does the water go? You still have just as much water in the area. The area is going to then get flooded more with deeper water in the areas that are not filled. The only way you are going to be able to develop that area at the current ratio of one dwelling per acre, which is suggested for the receiving areas, is if you dig canals. You will have to drain that area. And that area right now is in the watershed of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. If you develop that area at the ratio of 1 to 1, you will have environmental impact on the sanctuary. There's no doubt about that. Now, speaking through Mike Duever who cannot be here today -- he wanted to relay this information -- that he is the -- the -- I don't know if you know Dr. Mike Duever he's one of the chief Page 61 January 23, 2002 1 6J1 scientists for the South Florida Water Management District. His data supports a 1 -mile buffer around a preserve area in order to preserve the hydrology. And if you know anything about the environment to the area, the basic line is hydrology, hydrology, hydrology. If you have -- impact the hydrology of Corkscrew, you're going to impact its environmental quality. And we have a gem out there that you can't replace anywhere with a virgin cypress swamp, and I'd like to see that area protected. Now, I'm going to step out of those roles. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You have 30 seconds. MS. BONNESS: Okay. And I'm going to now speak -- actually, it's connected to that. I would like to propose an alternative receiving area that has not been proposed so that we can take Big Corkscrew Island community off the map as a receiving area and present another one. And I'm going to propose an area that's now in the rural lands. If you look at the map, there's one little section of land that kind of sticks out from all the rest. It's within 2 miles of Orangetree, so it's near utilities, and it is -- right now it's an active fill pit. It can be easily developed more likely than will these little 5 -acre parcels up in Big Corkscrew Island. And I've got several other reasons listed there as to why I think that would be a more appropriate receiving area than would Big Corkscrew Island. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: And the next speaker is Kathy Prosser, and she will be followed by Tom Williams. MS. PROSSER: Good morning, members of the committee. I'm Kathy Prosser, president of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, also a member of the Rural Fringe Committee, the Rural Lands Committee, and the Community Character Smart Growth Page 62 January 23, 2002 16J1 Committee. I would like to -- first, to be brief and succinct, echo the comments that have been made by my environmental colleagues here today and highlight a couple of issues that I think are of critical importance. The first is that the TDR program overall, we believe, is necessary for us to be able to protect the lands that we feel are important. There is, as of last Wednesday's night meeting, significant controversy over whether or not a TDR program will be recommended to you by the committee. And so I would like you to know that on behalf of The Conservancy we do support this program. We do not support the 1 -mile strip that is recommended as a transition zone on the western border of what is the rural fringe. We believe that the transition zone is the rural fringe, that that was the idea behind the rural fringe area. So we would not support moving the -- essentially what I would consider an urban boundary one mile further to the east. MR. CARLSON: You're talking about the Belle Meade, southern Belle Meade? MS. PROSSER: Yes. In terms of wetlands, I agree with what Dr. Bower (sic) has said to you. At the federal and state level, we see a lessening of -- of protection of wetlands, and that is exactly the wrong way to be headed, particularly here in Collier County. I believe that we need our own wetlands staff who are committed to assessment, permitting, and mitigation. And while I realize that that would be a cost to the county to bring those new staff on board, I believe the cost to the county of not protecting our wetlands is significantly more. Golf courses, I believe, should not be considered open space. They have even been suggested as being proper to be put in sending areas. We are strongly opposed to that. Page 63 January 23, 2002 Finally, I would like to thank the county staff because they've done great work and I think at times have been near pulling out what hair is left on their heads in dealing with the committee overall and the many contentious issues with which we have dealt. So I would say thanks to them, and that's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: And the next speaker is Tom Williams followed by Tim Hancock. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, committee members. My name is Tom Williams. I'm currently a watermelon breeder for Syngenta Seeds and used to be the branch manager of the Syngenta Seeds -- what is currently the Syngenta Seeds Research Center, vegetable seed research. And we own property just east of what I understand is the boundary line of the rural fringe, the western boundary line. And, quite honestly, I came sort of unprepared today because I really have more questions than I have comments, but as I understand the map -- and the only one I have privy to, because they are out of the colored ones, is the map that appeared in the paper, which I assume these bold lines mean that that's what the proposed extension for the receiving areas will be. Is this -- is this a correct understanding? From Greenway Road to the -- and I'm talking about this lower southern portion of the Belle Meade area. MR. MULHERE: You're talking about the Area D? MR. WILLIAMS: Area -- sorry. I don't -- yes, Area D. MR. MULHERE: Area D is proposed to be a receiving area. MR. WILLIAMS: Which means development eventually. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Well, potentially, yeah. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. That's what I thought. So, I guess, I'm just going to make my comments really brief because I've heard a lot of discussion relative to preserving bears and melaleucas. I think Page 64 January 23, 2002 they were preserving melaleucas. Maybe they weren't. But irl event I haven't heard a lot of discussion about preserving what I feel is a very valuable resource, and that is agricultural land. And over the years -- and I've had a 32 -year career in this business. I've seen a lot of valuable agricultural land disappear. And I think we're all going to have lunch and dinner today, so please appreciate where that food is coming from. Now, this particular area, as I understand it, is -- is -- occupies a great amount of farmland; correct? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that probably all depends on your perspective. There is -- there is and has been farming operations in that area. But Bill had alluded to, during his presentation, the fact that the final order does require us to look at developing methodologies for preserving and protecting unique agricultural lands. And largely those measures have been deferred to the eastern lands portion of the study, which is about 200,000 acres, of which there is a significant percentage in active agricultural operation. The active agricultural operations within the fringe -- we're talking about intensive, intensive agricultural. We're not talking about unimproved pasture -- are actually -- the percentage is actually quite low when you look at it as part of the whole study area. It's about -- I think it's less than 6 percent. I'm not suggesting that -- it all depends on what your perspective is. That could be an awful lot if you're looking at your property. There are some measures within these standards to protect and con -- and allow for continued agricultural uses. As we said, we -- we're precluded, at least according to the advice from our legal counsel, from prohibiting agricultural operations on sending lands. On receiving lands things like clustering, rural villages which require a green belt around them within which agriculture could continue to use -- to be utilized. There's nothing that would preclude Page 65 January 23, 2002 16J1 agricultural operations from continuing within those receiving lands. It's purely voluntary. It will be a question of whether or not a property owner chooses to develop that land or sell that land for development. And in -- in -- frankly, in Area D immediately adjacent to the urban area, cleared -- much of it formerly active agricultural; some of it is still active agriculture -- it is still clearly, in our opinion, an area that is appropriate to identify as a receiving land so... MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we have a difference of opinion, because that is a unique agricultural area. And it's unique from one standpoint, and that's temperature. Do you realize that the second - most frost -free growing area in the continental United States is in that particular area? The first is Homestead. The second -- and that's actually why we located a research center there, to take advantage of that temperature situation. That's as much as I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. MS. LYNNE: Can I ask a question of Bob Mulhere? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: When -- the attorneys up in Tallahassee, do they say that it is absolutely unquestionably against the law to do agriculture? Have they said something like, "Well, there's this case law, and there's that case law, and we don't know how it will be interpreted. And to protect ourselves, you just better not do it "? MR. MULHERE: No. What they said to us was under the Right to Farm Act, the county cannot preclude a landowner from farming under the Right to Farm Act. And, as I understand it, that includes -- that Right to Farm Act includes or specifies best management practices for farming. So -- and that's exactly the language that we have used in here is that we -- is that agriculture is -- continues to be permitted in sending lands under the provisions of Page 66 January 23, 2002 16JI the Right to Farm Act. MS. LYNNE: And there -- is earth mining and stuff still included in -- MR. MULHERE: No. Earth mining is not permitted in sending lands under our proposal. MS. LYNNE: But fish ponds are? MR. MULHERE: Aquaculture would be, yes. MR. HILL: Bob, doesn't the Right to Farm Act also allow the local authorities to limit, place limits, on the agriculture allowed in those areas? MR. MULHERE: I am -- I am -- I really can't answer that question specifically. What I think I can tell you is that to the degree that the Right to Farm Act allows agriculture under those best management practices, I believe we could not prohibit a property owner who is consistent with the provisions of that act from farming. If -- we certainly could -- and, you know, I'm not an attorney. So, I mean, I'd be happy to try to get a written opinion, if that would help, from either Martha Chumler (phonetic) or Nancy Lenanne, who are the two primary attorneys who have worked with the county. Perhaps, Marjorie, you could -- you could ask for such, and we could get that to you. I mean, just so you understand, originally the way this draft was written agriculture was recommended to be prohibited by the staff. And we were told, "You will be in violation of state law if you do that." So -- I mean, maybe it is a pretty black and white answer and we can get that in writing, and maybe that would -- that would help. MS. STUDENT: And I have to talk to Miss Lenanne about a number of issues, and I will also advise her. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. STUDENT: And I might add that I have had some familiarity quite a number of years ago on the Right to Farm Act, Page 67 January 23, 2002 16J1 probably going back 10, 11 years, and I would not want to speculate, since it has been that long ago since I had perused it. MS. LYNNE: Excuse me. Can we make that -- can your question be framed such as if the county wanted to put some limits on agricultural land, is there any way to effect that rather than just can we do it or not? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. Mr. Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the EAC, my name is Tim Hancock, vice president with Vanasse, Daylor here today representing Mr. Mike Taylor, a private property owner in the south Belle Meade area. I will quickly try and provide the basis for you on which I. believe the committee used for a 6 -1 recommendation to remove a section -- five sections -- excuse me, six sections of land -- the bottom six, well, it would not apply to. So it would be five sections of land between zero and one -mile range immediately east of the urban residential fringe. Why the recommendation stood 6 -1 -- Miss Prosser dissenting to remove it from the sending natural resource protection area designation. The data we presented to the committee to date included the difference in private versus public ownership within the south Belle Meade NRPA. All the land you see lying east of the 0-to-1 -mile corridor, approximately 22,000 acres, of that 19,960 are in public ownership, roughly 91 percent of that total area, leaving only 9 percent mostly small tracts and private ownership. In the 0- to 1 -mile corridor alone, you have only 17 percent of those lands in public ownership, 73 percent in private ownership; roughly the same acreage in private ownership in the 0- to 1 -mile corridor as there is in the balance of the entire south Belle Meade area. There have to be reasons for that. One reason simply is that most of these property owners have Page 68 January 23, 2002 16JI already responded to the State of Florida indicating that they have no desire or interest in selling their land to the state. There is a map -- and I'm sorry we gave our copy to staff, and I don't have it with me today -- that indicates which parcels have responded in the negative, that they have no interest in selling to the state. And that does cover the majority of parcels in the 0- to 1 -mile corridor. In looking at that, why would they say, "We don't want to sell to the state" when the state has been so successful in the balance of the south Belle Meade? Primary reason, property valuation. We went in and did a property valuation analysis of a roughly similar area of land in the middle of the south Belle Meade which I'm calling the 3- to 4- mile corridor. The average valuation of those lands, arm's- length sales, some to the state, a few in private hands, was approximately $2,000 an acre, roughly the going rate for what the state is offering. Those folks are -- are being paid market value for their land. In the area, 0- to 1 -mile corridor here, the average valuation per acre is over $8500 an acre; not what the state's willing to pay to date. Because of those property valuation differences, the proposed transfer of development rights program which offers you $17,000 for your one unit on 5 acres doesn't even come close to making property owners whole in any way, shape, or form in the 0- to 1 -mile corridor. In addition to that, we were able to obtain from at least two separate biologists opinions that we have a higher degree of exotic infestation, therefore, a habitation reduction in the 0- to 1 -mile corridor basically because of the 951 or Henderson Canal. It has had the effect of reducing the hydroperiod in the area. While the property valuation data we provided has been fairly exhaustive, the environmental data is still forthcoming. I have a sample of that on the wall behind me. Most of the information that established the NRPAs on a landscape scale was based on the 1994- '95 flux data that the South Florida Water Management District Page 69 January 23,1bJ 1 provided. An example of that would be -- you see Section 24 on the upper print there. According to the 1994 -'95 designation, that's uplands hardwood forest, all of Section 24, bar none. That thing's homogeneous. The 2001 aerial is right beneath it showing at least 30 percent of the lands disturbed, showing also -- and we haven't mapped these out specifically -- yet a higher degree of exotic infestation. Using the same basis that the South Florida Water Management District used in establishing the '94 -'95 flux data, we will be and are in the process of flux mapping that entire corridor. That data will be provided to staff as soon as it is ready. We're hoping maybe Monday or Tuesday of next week -- and that summary, we hope -- and if it doesn't, so be it, but it's our belief that it will support that this area should be viewed differently than the balance of the south Belle Meade NRPA. That is the basis by which we provided to the committee that I believe was a major reason for their -- their 6 -1 vote to support removing this. Now, in removing it, it is not a receiving area. What is being proposed is called a neutral designation where it has a minimum preservation requirement of 50 percent, a maximum of 60 percent. This does not obviate the need for state and federal permitting for anything, whether it be species, whether it be wetlands. It also does not keep the state from continuing its purchase or attempted purchase of these lands. What it does do is it restores some, but not all, of the ability for these property owners -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You have 30 seconds. MR. HANCOCK: -- to receive the value of their property. We feel that that is not only important as a part of this study but, in fact, required by the final order. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: So, first of all, did you say this is one mile Page 70 January 23, 2002 6JI from the 951 canal and has been negatively influenced by the drainage of the 951 canal, thereby totally supporting the recommendation to have at least a 1- mile -wide buffer? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. I said that was one of the factors that may be consistent. MR. CARLSON: Did you say that hydrology has been affected by the 951 canal which is a mile away? MR. HANCOCK: That's the information we have from the biologist, yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: The problem with -- what's the problem with having it as a sending area? It's -- they're just -- MR. HANCOCK: As a sending area? MR. CARLSON: Explain that to me, yes. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Assuming I have 20 acres of land in that corridor, based on the recommendations that are contained in what you have before you today, my legal rights of use on that property are either agriculture or one house on 20 acres. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Hmm. So it's not subdivided. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. You don't need to subdivide land in order to put homes on it. MR. CARLSON: But, I mean, to get a competitive value out of sending, it's not subdivided enough. Am I not -- am I missing something? MR. HANCOCK: I believe so, yes. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MS. LYNNE: I don't understand it either. MR. HANCOCK: If I had a 20 -acre parcel prior to the governor's final order -- MR. CARLSON: You've got one unit. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One unit. MR. HANCOCK: Based on these recommendations, you can Page 71 January 23 2002 1 6JI1. build one unit. Prior to the governor's final order, you could build four units, one unit per five acres. So you have the ability to transfer off three units. Well, assuming you build one, you can transfer three. So if I maintain my minimum use that this allows me and build my one home, I can transfer three units off at roughly $17,000 per unit. That gives me a net of 3 times 17, $51,000. However, the valuation of those 15 acres adjusted to June of 1999 at $8,000 an acre doesn't wash. And the final order does require that you consider the regulations and how they affect private property rights and values. I do not believe in the 0- to 1 -mile corridor that consideration has been duly given. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: I'm hum -- hung up on the hydrology because, you know, we're only halfway to buildout in this county, I think, basically. And -- and the water resources are already stretched to the max. I mean, we have all kinds of crises and water restrictions. If this boundary is moved back and this land is developed, it can't be developed without further hydrologic deterioration which will then move the effect of that further into the Belle Meade and -- and the water supply -- MR. HANCOCK: Is it your contention then that there is no development pattern that would actually increase storage in the area? MR. CARLSON: Is there? You got an example? MR. HANCOCK: I'm going to basically defer environmental response to an environmentalist. And I'm not going to pretend to play that role today. I have the data that I have that we've presented to the committee. We have the committee recommendation. What we do know is that this area has a higher level of infestation of exotics than do lands to the east. As you move to the east, the exotic infestation tapers off to less than 25 percent. These lands have pockets and areas of melaleuca Page 72 16J1141 January 23, 2002 monoculture. I've stood in some portions of this land after recent fires where you're standing waste deep in a melaleuca monoculture. It is the contention, based on the letters that we have from the biologists, that a reduced hydroperiod contributes to a higher infestation level of exotics. That higher level of infestation reduces the habitat value and the vegetative value of the area. I think we all understand and appreciate that. So the area -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We got -- we got it, thanks. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. LYNNE: Can we have a copy of those letters from the biologists? MR. HANCOCK: Certainly. As a matter if fact, I have a couple of full packets I'll provide to the court reporter for the record. I'll give one to you and one to the court reporter. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. MS. STUDENT: The next speaker is Brad Cornell, and he will be followed by your last speaker, Tom S- i- e- m- i- a- n- o- w- s -k -i. MR. CARLSON: Siemianowski. MS. STUDENT: Siemianowski. MR. CORNELL: Hi. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. And I appreciate the opportunity to say a few things about this huge plan that is in front of you, and it's hard to grab -- put your hands all the way around it. But I do want to make the one broad comment that it is basically a good effort. The landscape scale protections for our resources in the rural fringe, I believe, are going to work with the TDR program, with the preservation proposals, the regulations. I think this is a good -- a good effort. I do applaud what staff has proposed, and I believe that they have taken into consideration a lot of what the people in the community have expressed. Page 73 January 23, 2002 16JI, :eu� i However, with that said, I want to make one very large caveat, and that is to do with agricultural land use. And I do want to specifically counter what the legal advice that the county has gotten, and that is that we have gotten our own legal advice -- advice from our own counsel on the ability of local government to regulate agricultural use. Under the Right to Farm Act, our understanding is and our opinion is that while you cannot eliminate the use of ag -- allowance of agriculture, you can regulate it. And that would mean in areas of environmental sensitivity you could say -- for instance, sending and NRPA lands, you could say only unimproved pasture and native range would be allowable agricultural uses. However, that still complies with the Right to Farm Act. So this would be our recommendation, that the county regulate the intensity of agricultural use in the environmentally sensitive lands we're trying to protect. Otherwise we've -- we've lost that game. I would also like to point out that on buffering conservation lands and sense -- environmentally protected areas, like the sending areas, that a one -mile buffer is a generally good idea county -wide if we're going to talk about county -wide policies and in the rural -- rural fringe. We have received information from -- and you have too from Mike Duever of the South Florida Water Management District. He has substantiated, through his studies and other studies, that one mile is a generally good range. Now, there are certainly adjustments that can be made to that based on the local site - specific conditions. But as a general policy one mile of buffering around your wetland -- particularly your wetlands, just for wetland purposes, not to mention wildlife issues, is a very good policy. And I would also like to mention that on wetland policies I also concur with the other environmental colleagues of mine that have spoken on this, that we do need stronger local authority over Page 74 January 23, 2002 1 6JI '! particularly the receiving area wetlands. We need to have some sort of local program that monitors, assesses, assigns mitigation values, and basically protects those isolated wetlands that the agencies are not going to be able to and have even told us that they are not going to be able to. This is something that I believe is in the best intrance -- interest of the county. Even though we've protected the majority of wetlands, the percentages in the receiving area are still a very large functional set of wetlands, and they're very important for species such as wood storks, wading birds, and other wildlife that utilizes these kinds of wetlands, so we should not ignore those. But I do want to underscore the agricultural exemption. If there's not any other issue you attend to, please address the issue of agricultural exemption from these protections. We must -- if we're going to protect those environmentally sensitive lands, we must regulate ag. It's not to say that we're going to eliminate it. We're going to protect it, but we must include it in our regulations. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MS. STUDENT: And the last speaker is Tom Siemianowski. MR. SIEMIANOWSKI: All right. Since I'm the last speaker, I'll be brief and be gone. My name is Tom Siemianowski, and my family and I have lived in Big Corkscrew Island area, which is now called the NRPA CREW receiving as I've been to the meeting today, for the past 26 years. After driving to this meeting today along Immokalee Road and 951 and seeing the density and development of -- of the area that I've lived in for the last 26 years, it -- it made this trip even more important to myself and to my community. I have seen the growth of Orangetree, Waterways, Jones' Mining Company, Simpson Fill Pit, the Palmetto Berry Plant and the tower Page 75 January 23, 2002 16J11 next to it, and it's starting to get scary. I know Mr. Lorenz mentioned listed species. I have seen owl and hawk, otter, deer, turkey, eagle, fox, wood stork, panther, and bear. And that's just on my property. I agree with Mr. Carlson that the animals can't see an imaginary line that -- that they won't cross. They roam freely throughout Big Corkscrew Island in -- in the whole area there. I have friends from Dade and Broward that come over just to photograph the animals, and that's just on the property. They go to the -- to the sanctuary for the -- for the cypress, but the -- the animals are all around us. I notice that the taxpayers have spent money on the presentation, the hearings, the meetings, the consultants, the advertising, the staff, the data, the maps. And after hearing this information presented today and my observations where I live, I feel that some of this data is flawed. And I think that -- that this panel, since you'll be making the decision based upon this data, that you need the correct information. Mr. Carlson and Miss Lynne did ask -- they brought up good questions on maps, wetlands, wildlife, and ratios, and I feel that their questions weren't answered. This so -- so- called receiving area that I live is beautiful. It's full of wildlife. It's -- has lots of water in the rainy season and then months after. It has spectacular vegetation, and we have plenty of space. And this is why my neighbors I have talked to -- and this is why we moved there, and we hope that it remains this way. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address the council? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Coe. MR. COE: Marco, have you got a copy of what your Page 76 January 23, 2002 16JI presentation was? MR. ESPINAR: No, sir. MR. COE: Even if it's handwritten can you put it together? MR. ESPINAR: For the record, Marco Espinar. No, I have not written anything else, going through a verbal presentation today, but I'll -- I'll put something in writing. MR. COE: You know, even if it's in a rough form. Who should he get that to? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill. Bill Lorenz. MR. COE: Get -- get it to Bill, because we're obviously going to have another meeting, and we want to make sure that we've got a hard copy of it because you're so detailed on the thing. Okay? MR. ESPINAR: Thank you. MR. COE: I just want to make sure that you understand we're going to try to incorporate it because we had five minutes allotted, because we've got a lot of stuff we got to do. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Lorenz, go ahead. Finish your conversation. MR. LORENZ: No. Just, Mr. Chairman, the comprehensive planning manager has indicated that you really need to make your recommendations today. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, here's what we have. We're going to lose Mr. Stone at about 12:30, leaving six of us, I guess, to proceed with this. Why don't we -- why don't we pound on here until about 12:30, go as far as we can get, take a break for lunch, and then come back and go with it. What would your be -- what would be your recommendation, Mr. Lorenz, on how to proceed at this point? MR. LORENZ: I think you have some major issues that have been brought up. It would be good to bring those issues back to the board and have somebody make a motion and -- and vote on each one Page 77 January 23 2001 6J1 . of those issues. If you want to get into individual language, that's going to take a lot of time. But to the degree that if you have specific re -- recommendations with regard to boundaries or -- or what other approaches we should be pursuing, those would be important. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't -- why don't we do this: Seeings with the number of folks here and so forth and the issue that I hear -- probably the biggest we're hearing is the Big Corkscrew area, what do you say we bring that up -- Mr. Carlson as -- is very, very knowledgeable of this particular area, and I'm hearing things from folks that live there and even from Mr. Mulhere. What -- what will you do about the big problem with the folks that live at -- on Big Corkscrew? Mr. Carlson, what do you think? MR. CARLSON: I'd like to project the map up there and make a general comment that puts the receiving areas in a -- in a general context, if I could do that. Can somebody -- can somebody put the map projected up there and adjust the lights. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ed, we want you to go up there and kind of make -- you know. There you go. MR. CARLSON: Okay. I'd like to comment on the A, receiving area and the overall picture. If I could have the big map... CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The big map. MR. MULHERE: Are you talking about this map? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: This one? MR. CARLSON: I'm talking about that map. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The only way that that is available is on the visualizer and on that screen. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Let's go to the screen. MR. MULHERE: There it is. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Here's our situation, and we're stuck with this geology and topography. We've got two major wetland Page 78 January 23, 2002 16J1 flow -ways that are critical to the future of this county. They're major water resource areas. And to protect those water resources you're protecting wildlife and habitat which is what we're here primarily to do, in my opinion. So here you have this fantastic flow -way of Corkscrew Swamp, and it seeps over the boundaries of the sanctuary into these neighborhoods. And what you need to do there is concentrate on protection, because we're only halfway to buildout, and we're stressing out our water resources. So you need maximum protection of these flow -ways. That water is recharing the groundwater. It's feeding the Cocohatchee River and important rivers in -- in Lee County. Down here you have the same thing with the Belle Meade. You have a very important hydrologic system, very important to our future and our water resources, wildlife habitat and wildlife species, and that's flowing down supporting the Ten Thousand Island system. The flow -way, you need maximum protections, as much protection as you can get here and here (indicating). Now, right here (indicating) you have the flow of people. And this county sacrificed for Golden Gate Estates. We devastated that property. There was no consideration of environmental protection when the estates went in. The -- the design goal was drain it, destroy the wetlands, move the people in. The only thing more extensive than the drainage system is the road system. Every single parcel has access. It's drained, and it's paved, and it's ready for people. You got a rural village going in right in the center of it. And how in the world we could look at this rural fringe and not consider the estates and have the receiving areas which are, in my opinion, urban sprawl -- this is an urban sprawl plan, in my opinion -- and not consider the possibility of increase in density in the estates and putting extra density in Orangetree and Page 79 9 January 23, 2002 around Orangetree and going into these rural lands that have the hydrologic values and resource values, I think, is a horrible mistake, and this is a plan for urban sprawl, not to prevent it, but to produce it, bottom line. The A area -- it's not littered with panther telemetry points because they can't catch them. You turn the hounds loose down here (indicating), the catch dogs, the houndsmen and his hounds, runs all over the place, no boundaries, no fences, no private property. They catch the panther. They put a collar on it, and you get marks all over it. You go up here, you turn the hounds loose, in just a few minutes you're at a private property boundary. You're at a barbed wire fence that says no trespassing. That have been down -- they have been up there. They've tried to catch those panthers. They can't do it. There's just not enough space to run the dogs; otherwise this would be a priority -one panther habitat with telemetry points all over it. So I just think -- I just think we've made a tremendous basic flaw in this whole plan, and I'd like you to address -- you know, we talked about transferring development rights from here -- from here to the urban area. Nobody said anything about the estates or Orangetree cannot be considered in this plan; if not, why not, and if it can, that's where we should be going. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The final order defines the assessment area, and it specifically expressly excludes Golden Gate Estates, specifically and expressly, number one. MR. CARLSON: To deny its existence. MR. MULHERE: No. It denies it as part of the assessment area, number one. Number two, Golden Gate Estates is a platted and vested subdivision. Yes, you are absolutely right, though I doubt that anyone standing here today had anything to do with it, there are 6JI a January 23, 2002 � ,,,� certainly -- if things could be done today, they would be done much differently than they were at the time that that was platted in terms of drainage and the roads and those other things. There is a study going on in Golden Gate Estates that will probably take at least another year, and there is a committee put together called the Golden Gate Estates Restudy -- a Master Plan Restudy Committee. We made a presentation to them. Anyway, that study is going on, and that will look at mobility issues and other issues within Golden Gate Estates. I would disagree with your characterization of these receiving areas as furthering sprawl. I would take the exact opposite position. I would indicate to you that these receiving areas will minimize the existing extremely deleterious impacts of sprawl associated with Golden Gate Estates by providing for services in and around the Golden Gate Estates area that don't exist today, reducing the requirement for folks to get on those roads that are already heavily impacted because there aren't any services out there. d Third component would be balancing private property rights an natural resource protection -- MR. CARLSON: Why can't services go into the rural settlement area in Orangetree? MR. MULHERE: They may. And that has been a recommendation of the Rural Fringe Committee that there is 1200 acres of agricultural land out there. And that would also, perhaps, be an appropriate place for rural village mixed -use development. However, that can only be a recommendation, because that land is outside expressly -- again, outside of the assessment area. MR. CARLSON: Well, how many times have we heard the term "comprehensive plan "? We're planning with blinders on. Were not comprehensive planning. MR. MULHERE: I appreciate your comments. And I think if Page 81 January 23, 2002 16J1 those are the comments of the committee, then you can make some recommendations to us, and we will carry those forward. Now, I also think you heard from several representatives of environmental groups that strongly support this plan that have indicated that overall they think it's a very good plan. So obviously you have your opinions as an individual. And we're happy to hear those, and we're happy to hear the opinions of this committee, and we'll carry those forward. But we believe this is the best plan, and that's why we developed it. MR. CARLSON: Well, in my opinion, this transfer of the density rights really isn't worth it except for the northern Belle Meade. It's not worth -- I mean, we've got projects that are funded like CREW, the CREW NRPA, and the Belle Meade. There's a funding source there for them, and we're going to continue to work on those. And we don't have to transfer development rights to make those work. MR. MULHERE: And I understand that. MR. CARLSON: In Belle Meade there's no funding. So I -- so I think that's where the action is here, and that's where transferring development rights can have a better benefit. But in these rural lands you could keep the density at one unit per five acres, let developers cluster, and in the long run be better off than putting rural villages out there where you have density bonuses, industrial uses, commercial uses, and changing the whole rural character of that part of the county. You've leapt over the estates. If that's not sprawl -- here's the urban; here's the estates. And then you've leapt over into the northern part of the county with density higher than you have in the estates. MR. MULHERE: Actually, that's -- MR. CARLSON: That is sprawl. MR. MULHERE: Actually, that's not true. Actually, there are Page 82 January 23, 200216JI only -- there is only one example of where we've leapt over the estates, because the other three areas -- two examples, because two of the areas immediately abut the urban area, do they not? Two of these -- MR. CARLSON: Two do and two do not. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So that -- that's not exactly true. In some cases we have it, and in some cases we haven't. But, unfortunately, we've got to deal with an existing situation in Golden Gate Estates. Our direction for the county from the governing cabinets part of the assessment was twofold, was to develop natural resource protection strategies both for the assessment area but also to apply them county -wide -- and you've heard what those strategies are -- and then also to develop strategies for protecting -- balancing those natural resource protection strategies with private property rights. And that's where these rural villages and receiving areas come into play, because we are required -- not only is it referenced in the final order, but also the Burt J. Harris Private Property Rights Act says that when we enact as a local government restrictions on a piece of property that impact the vested land rights and reasonable ex -- investment- backed expectations, then we have got to do something to compensate those property owners for that lost value. And one of the primary tools that are referenced in the Burt J. Harris Private Property Rights Act is the transfer of development rights process. And I think if you were -- let me -- let me reword that. I think for many property owners who are in sending lands the TDR process will allow them an opportunity to recoup some of that lost value. Again, I understand your opinion. You've expressed it very clearly. We have a more difficult task, I think, of trying to balance the natural resource protection strategies with the private property rights. We have made some proposals here. Again, we're here to Page 83 January 23, 2002 l6 hear what your concerns are and to take your recommendations forward to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. MR. CARLSON: If it was the desire of this county and its commissioners to preserve rural lands because of their wildlife habitat and hydrologic values, would there be no way to make parts of the estates receiving areas? MR. MULHERE: Oh, I -- I -- no. I can't say that. There may be a way, and that may be something -- MR. CARLSON: Well, then that's where we should -- MR. MULHERE: Maybe that should be a recommendation -- MR. CARLSON: It's drained, and it's paved, and it's ready for people. And you're going to go into a rural area and impose five -- ten times the density, if you -- even more if you do the rural villages. And we're not going to change anything about the estates, which is the most appropriate place in this county to put people? MR. MULHERE: Well, again, we are requiring clustering. We are doing exactly what the statutes call for and allow innovative planning techniques, including rural villages, compact development, moving out. We are requiring with those rural villages the green space, a green belt around it. In exchange for allowing that development, we are preserving in excess of 66,000 acres of land within the rural fringe. Again, you know, I mean, I guess it's just a question of balance. MR. CARLSON: Let -- let me ask you this: With a rural village, the -- the bonus and the extra density you get from the rural village -- and I was reading in here -- and there's all kinds of ways to get bonus density way beyond the one - dwelling- per -acre change base density, there's affordable housing. MR. MULHERE: Within the rural village structure, correct. MR. CARLSON: Do all of those units come from the sending January 23, 2002 16J1 area? MR. MULHERE: No. The way the rural village is structured, you get your base density. So if -- in other words, and -- and maybe if we use an example that we've used other times of 1500 acres of a thousand -acre rural village and a 500 -acre green belt around it, you have a one - per -five base density. You're in a receiving area. You have a one - per -five base density. So at 1500 acres, that's 300 units. MR. CARLSON: So if -- if you want to go -- and you can put at least two rural villages up here in A and a whole bunch of them down here in D -- MR. MULHERE: Well, they've got -- MR. CARLSON: But listen to me. If those extra bonus units don't come from a sending area, that's more population. MR. MULHERE: Well, actually, you didn't let me finish. Some do and some don't. First of all, there is a requirement currently written into the plan that no rural village may be within a mile of another rural village. So there is some limitation on the number. Now, originally it was written to limit that number to three. However, it was recommended that these are -- that these are a -- a good plan to enhance preservation because they will direct the development to more compact areas, even within the receiving areas. So we've -- by designating sending, receiving, we've already directed the development to certain areas that have the lesser environmental quality. And then by further directing that development into a compact mixed -use development, we will minimize any sprawl - related components. I'm getting to your -- your point. And so the process to attain the density that you may have within a rural village does require some level of TDR purchase but not all TDR purchase. And what it requires -- again, you get your base density. And the example I used was 1500 acres. You would Page 85 F-0 January 23, 2002 16JI get 300 units, 1500 divided by 5. You have a minimum density in a rural village of 2.5 dwelling units per acre; that's the minimum. The maximum is 3.5. So if you get to the minimum, you've got your base that's 3, you must then go and acquire.8 dwelling units per acre for each acre in the rural village. And the example I used it was a thousand acres, so you would have to go and acquire 800 TDRs. You would now be up to 1100 units. If you take 2.5 times a thousand, your rural village area, your minimum density is 2500 units. And you have attained, through the TDR purchase and through the base density, 1100. So you're short the difference between 2500 and 1100, 1400 units, you get a bonus. If you do those things, you do get a bonus, and the bonus you get, as we prescribe it, is two dwellings units per acre to bring you up to your minimum -- MR. CARLSON: So we're not halfway to buildout anymore. We just set the bar up higher and increased the population of the county. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm not sure about halfway to buildout or not. I'm not sure that that analysis has been done. MR. CARLSON: Well, let's say we were. We're not there anymore because this allows additional units not -- not -- how many people do you figure per unit? Three? MR. MULHERE: No. Two point five. MR. CARLSON: Two point five. MR. MULHERE: This is the number that we use. MR. CARLSON: So we're talking some significant population increase here, and that's not urban sprawl? MR. MULHERE: No, it's not. And we would be talking about -- yes, there is a population increase associated with these. In fact, it's -- it is -- it is a prescribed methodology to minimize the impacts of urban sprawl, both by statutes -- it was also discussed heavily and recommended strongly by the governor's growth management study Page 86 January 23, 2002 16J1 commission. There have been a number of studies done -- done over the years. If you look at this book which is called Rural by Design by Ralph -- by Randall Arrant (phonetic), this book was the basis of many of the recommendations that we've made. We also looked at rural villages in other areas, including Horizons West in Orange County. We reduced the sizes somewhat because a lot of people raise the issue about proposed size, which in your -- in your draft is a thousand to three thousand, a minimum of a thousand, a maximum of three thousand. But a lot of folks that we've spoken to and a lot of advisory boards that we've spoken to and committees have expressed concern over that three thousand as being too large and that thousand being also too large for the minimum. So we have -- we are currently revising that to propose 500 to 2,000 as the size limit, the 500 minimum, 2,000 maximum. But, I mean, I understand we have difference of opinion. And I -- and I am certainly happy to hear that and carry forward the opinions of this committee, and individually everyone is free to express their opinions as we move forward as well. MR. CARLSON: Well, my opinion, then, is that except for the northern Belle Meade area where I see some real advantage to transfer develop rights, I think this is an urban sprawl plan. I think we can go ahead with our land acquisitions for NRPAs in the fringe that are in existing acquisition programs and that Area D becoming a place to put rural villages is a red herring, and it should remain a rural -- a rural density and cluster communities. And as a community we're better off in the long run. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Carlson. MS. LYNNE: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Lynne. MS. LYNNE: I don't understand why Golden Gate was Page 87 January 23, 2002 16J1 exempted. Who made that decision? MR. MULHERE: I guess you'd have to say the governor and cabinet. MS. LYNNE: Why are the government and the cabinet telling us how to divide up sections of our county? MS. STUDENT: I can give you some background. This was pursuant to EAR valuation and appraisal report amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that we adopted back in 1997, and DCA found those amendments to be in noncompliance. And wetlands and environment were a big issue there, as were other issues about the estates as well. But, in any event, we had an administrative hearing, and there was a recommended order proposed by the administrative law judge that came down in March of 1999. And by the time we got through that process -- the county had been trying to work all these things out -- it was a very short time frame to work them out with the Department of Community Affairs. We had some intervenors, and it was sent to the governor and cabinet, because that was a recommended order, and in a noncompliance case the recommended order goes to the governor and cabinet for the final order. And based on the record of the proceedings and the decision of the administrative law judge in the matter, this is what the governor and cabinet recommended. MS. LYNNE: So, in other words -- MR. MULHERE: Also, I just want to add one other thing. I think that it may -- in addition, the fact that it is a platted subdivision which is rapidly developing, has been rapidly developed. And there are some vested property rights issues there at -- and the same thing with Orangetree with which a settlement agreement exists. That may have been also a part of the reason why they excluded those from the assessment area. January 23, 2002 MS. STUDENT: Yeah. Thank you, Bob. I think that probably weighed in making their decision. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's -- let's move forward with some specifics here. We've got a lot -- some folks here from Big Corkscrew. I've heard what they have to say. I'm looking at a drawing that takes part of that sending -- that primary sending area, which would be essentially the east half of Section 22 and 27 and Sections 23, 24, 25, and 26. What happens if we recommend making that a secondary sending area rather than a primary sending area? MR. MULHERE: The effect of that would be that -- that there would be a lower density receiving. I think you -- I'm not sure. Maybe I misunderstood. But if it was a secondary receiving area? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's a primary receiving area right now. MR. MULHERE: Correct. If-it was made secondary receiving? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MR. MULHERE: The effect is that within secondary receiving areas the maximum allowable density that can be transferred into that area is -- is lower. Bill, is -- I think.6. Instead of 1 to 1, it's .6 acres --6 units per acre. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So -- so a little more than half. MR. CARLSON: Well, what about all the bonuses? MR. MULHERE: Well, if you're asking if a rural village bonus can be applied in that area if it was a secondary receiving area, I believe that they are precluded. They're only allowed in primary receiving areas. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think it's primary. MR. CARLSON: But there's no -- there's no kind of bonus? MR. MULHERE: Yes, there are some kinds of bonuses, I think, and -- and they relate to enhanced or more preservation or on -site Mm January 23, 2002 6JI mitigation. So if you increase your on -site preservation through clustering, then you may be able to get some additional bonuses. That affordable housing bonus, that two -units break for a rural village would not apply. MR. CARLSON: I would not support that motion. MR. MULHERE: May I also just add that I -- I listed a couple of potential options earlier that if you were inclined to recommend removing that from a receiving designation, I would like the committee's feedback, if I can get it, relative to those options because we will be bringing those options to the board. MR. COE: Have you evaluated the option the young lady brought up earlier about another area? MR. MULHERE: No. We haven't evaluated that because that area is part of the eastern lands, and the board already bifurcated this process. It's not that that couldn't happen down the road as part of the eastern lands assessment, that it could be designated as -- as a receiving area. But it's a separate study going on. It's not part of these rural fringe amendments. Now, it could be a recommendation. We would carry forward that recommendation. MR. COE: I'd like to make that motion that we take this out completely as a receiving area and that, you know, whenever they do the other plan, go ahead and figure in the other parcel as a receiving area. MR. MULHERE: Now, of course, that's further east than the areas that we're defining right now. And so, again, depending on what happens in the eastern lands, that would require -- you know, that -- that begins to identify a receiving land that is much further removed from the estates. MR. COE: Well, correct. But the goal is you were to preserve this land and to protect the environment. Page 90 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I understand. 16 J I P,, MR. CARLSON: The objective is to just leave these people alone who went to the county commission years ago and said, "We want our density frozen at one unit per five acres across the board, whether it's a house or a trailer or whatever. That's what we want because we want a rural area." And we want to respect that and just leave them alone. We don't want to change anything. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I recommended. If I recommended removing the -- if you recall, if I recommended removing the receiving designation, we would leave them as they are today. That was my recommendation pen -- but there were some alternatives in order to minimize the negative impacts on the TDR process that I laid out for you. If I don't get a recommendation from you relative to those, that's okay. We're still going to -- MR. COE: What about the recommendation to consider the young lady's -- MR. MULHERE: I got -- I got that. I got that. And that was a motion. MR. COE: That's four; that's not three recommenda -- MR. MULHERE: That's four. MR. COE: You want us to vote on one of these four? MR. MULHERE: Well, at least if you gave me some feedback relative to any one of those alternatives. Remember -- MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion for the fourth recommendation, that you -all consider the land that the young lady brought up, the one farther east. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And remove this from -- MR. COE: And remove this completely. Do you want to vote? Anybody want to second it? MR. CARLSON: I'll second it. Page 91 January 23, 2016J1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved and seconded. Do we have any discussion? MS. LYNNE: Can -- can someone just review which areas we're talking about? MR. MULHERE: Sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, the motion would be to remove the receiving designation on the Big Corkscrew Island area, not in its entirety but as shown on that map, which is the area that's developed, which is about approximately five sections of land, and to designate a fairly equivalent portion of land, which is largely impacted as a rock quarry and some other things, out here in this notch that's in the eastern lands portion of the assessment. MR. HILL: I would prefer to have those -- I suggest we have those as separate motions so that they don't hinge together on a pass - fail basis when it goes to the commission. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The maker of the motion, then, would you break those into two motions? One, to remove those sections; two, to recommend that a like area be identified in the eastern lands? Mr. Coe? MR. COE: Yeah. That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seconder? MR. CARLSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. So the first motion would be that eastern half of those -- let me -- can I have my little map back here? The eastern half of Sections 22 and 27 and all of Sections 23, 249 25, and 26 be removed from the sending area. MR. CARLSON: Receiving area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Receiving area. Excuse me. Sorry about that. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, all in favor? Page 92 January 23, 2002 Unanimous response.) onse.) 1 p CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. The second motion is that we recommend that a like receiving area be established where? In -- in a general area within the eastern lands? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think we can describe it as the notch that extends into Golden Gate Estates. I understand where it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Notch within the eastern lands. Is that okay, Mr. Coe? MR. COE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seconder? MR. CARLSON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passes unanimously. Okay. We got one thing out of the way. Yes, sir. MR. GAL: I'd like to make a motion that the staff explore the possibility of sending -- transferring development rights into the urban area. MR. CARLSON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Well, we have a motion then, and -- and I think Mr. Mulhere brought up earlier that in -fill parcels -- we're talking about in -fill parcels, Mr. Gal, within the urban area? Page 93 January 23, 200 I 6JI MR. GAL: No. The entire urban area, whatever that may be. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The undeveloped parcels which are in -fill parcels with in -fill. Okay. We have a motion that staff recommend that we -- that we allow TDRs to be sent to undeveloped parcels within our in -fill parcels within the urban area. Mr. Carlson seconded it. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. MR. CARLSON: I'd like to make a motion that the county staff and our county commissioners explore with the state and the DCA the possibility of having some lands in the Golden Gate Estates area explored as possible receiving areas, because of their much greater suitability for residential development and the need to protect water resource and wildlife in the rural area. MR. COE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second motion. Do we have discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. Okay. How about we take -- what do we need for lunch? Is a half hour enough for lunch? MR. COE: Give them 45 minutes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Forty -five minutes, okay. Thank Page 94 January 23, 2002 very . ve much Yes, , sir. 16JI (A lunch break was held from 12:22 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.) (The following proceedings commenced, Mr. Stone not present:) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Could we come to order? MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, before we get on specifics, would it be proper to request that our final -- final actions be delayed until our next reg -- regular meeting, February the 2nd? The statement was made that we have to do that today. MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning manager. Due to the tight schedule, I do not believe that if you delay your recommendations past today we'll be able to incorporate them into the documents that we send to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. As a matter of fact, the Planning Commission agenda notebooks are going out on Friday, and then the board will have its transmittal hearing, based on the Planning Commission's hearing, on February the 7th on February -- February the 27th. And based on that action is -- those are the documents that we will send to the Department of Community Affairs. So my answer to your question is I don't believe we have enough time to assimilate any recommendations you might make at a later date. MR. HILL: So there's not enough time between the 2nd and the 7th to get it to the Planning Commission? Is that -- MR. LITSINGER: As far as -- I would leave that to your discretion. We would have to include them as last - minute handouts which tends not to make commissioners happy, if they have not received them in their agenda packages, whether their planning -- probably yourselves included. They do not like to receive last - second materials that they have not had time to review, so they tend not to receive serious consideration. Page 95 January 23, 2002 1 6J1-4 1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Now, there will be time to get it to the BOCC. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No question about that. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: My feelings are, if it gets tight with the Planning Commission but -- you know, let's get what we can do today, and then there will be many things we'll be able to look at. Let's agenda it for the 2nd. If it gets tight with the Planning Commission it gets tight with the Planning Commission, but we'll have time to get it to the BCC. I -- what's the pleasure? MR. HILL: That's what I would -- because the Planning Commission doesn't meet until the 7th. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Uh -huh. MR. HILL: So if our 2nd -- February 2nd meeting, if we introduce additional recommendations there, that could parallel in with the Planning Commission five days later -- MS. LYNNE: I -- MR. HILL: -- in order to get to the BCC. MR. COE: The way I understand -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait a minute. One at a time, one at the time. Mickey. MR. COE: The way I understand what he's saying is this Friday is a mailout of our recommendations. We want to get as much done as we can today -- MR. HILL: To the Planning Commission only. MR. COE: -- to the Planning Commission. That will go out on Friday. And from the 4th or the 2nd, whenever is our next meeting, if during that meeting we have anything to go, it's probably going to go in a handout form; is that correct? MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. Page 96 January 23, 2002 1 6JI MR. COE: So we need to do as much as we can today. MR. HILL: It will go formally to the BCC. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In one form, one document. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Lynne. MS. LYNNE: According to my calendar, our next meeting is on Wednesday, February the 6th with the planning meeting the next day. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's true. I hadn't thought about that. MS. LYNNE: So I would say we should get as much done today as possible. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Get as much done. If we have to do something on the 6th, we do something on the 6th. The Planning Commission won't get it, but the Board of County Commissions will. Now, how are we going to go about this? My thought is to poll each of the members of the council if they have a particular item they want to bring up, discuss that item and vote on it. What's your thought, Bill? MR. LORENZ: I'm for it. That sounds certainly good to me as a staff member. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MS. STUDENT: -- I think what we'll need is a final vote on all the rest of it that wasn't, you know, brought up, because there may be selected items that each member may have issues with that you'll vote on, but there may be pieces left out that haven't been voted on, so we'll need something to take care of the remainder. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So the final motion that would be approved -- MS. STUDENT: Everything else. Page 97 January 23, 2002 16J1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- recommending the rest of the document, except as noted by the other motions. MS. STUDENT: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we start — how -- let me see, how can -- age. We'll let age do it first. MR. HILL: Oldest or youngest? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oldest. MR. HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Dr. Prosser -- and I see Mr. Hancock is not here. I'd like to address the question of that one -mile area east of 951 in the Belle Meade NRPA or Belle Meade sending area. If I'm correct most of the northern half of that stretch is pretty well developable with the First Unite or First Church, the golf course, the new apartments that are up there. MS. PROSSER: That's right. MR. HILL: The bottom -- the south end of the bottom half is a PUD that we've already approved here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. That's in the first mile. This is the second mile. MS. PROSSER: This is the -- yeah, go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I -- I want to clarify that. I'm going to step over to this map. The -- the first mile east of 951, in this area here (indicating) is designated as residential urban fringe. And within that area that's where the developments you are talking are primarily to -- primarily located. MR. HILL: I stand correct. I apologize. MR. MULHERE: One mile east of that within this orange portion which is, you know, proposed to be designated as the Belle Meade NRPA and, in fact, is currently on interim basis designated as the Belle Meade MRPA -- NRPA, that's the area that Mr. Hancock January 23, 2002 1 6 J' was referring to. MR. HILL: That was part of our original request or request for NRPA designation. I'd like to go on record to -- it -- it's in here as being removed; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. MR. LORENZ: The -- staff is recommending that the boundaries for the Belle Meade NRPA remain the same as that we adopted as interim boundaries. MR. HILL: Then I would like to move that we accept -- accept that, if that is necessary. MS. LYNNE: I second it. MR. HILL: And, Dr. Prosser, do you have anything to add to that? MS. PROSSER: I do. I want to thank you for the promotion. I am not a doctor, but I appreciate it. That's all. MR. HILL: It will come in the mail. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Hill that essentially says that we should -- we agree with the staff s recommendation that the eastern -- western one mile of the Belle Meade NRPA should remain in the NRPA, and it's a second by Mrs. -- Miss Lynne; is that correct? MR. COE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All. in favor of the motion? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. Anything else, Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Yes. If I can, Bill, there was a table. You have to pardon the senior moment here. There's a table that shows the -- on -- the third one down on the sheet that starts with the landscape scale. Page 99 January 23, 2002 16J1 It's entitled, "Wetland protection." MR. CARLSON: What was that page again? MS. LYNNE: Six. MR. HILL: There's no page number -- oh, page six. I'm sorry. Can you focus that a bit? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I'll bring it up better. MR. HILL: I -- I question in the secondary receiving graph that it's up to 52 percent? MR. LORENZ: Yes. MR. HILL: That seems awfully high. MR. LORENZ: Yes. That -- the secondary receiving is high in wetlands. You can see where a large port -- portion of those wetlands are in the -- these sections (indicating) and also in these -- this section here (indicating). MR. HILL: But we're identifying as a receiving area property that's 52 percent wetland? (Mr. Stone entered the room.) MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's correct. Now, the other thing, look at the secondary receiving areas. Oops. Secondary receiving lands contribute to only 2 percent of the total wetland land cover of the rural fringe. So, indeed, it does have a higher percentage composition, but it's a very small area that exists. And our preservation standards for this area are also at a 60 percent vegetation retention standard. MR. HILL: We're talking 2 percent of the 93,000; right? MR. LORENZ: Well, 2 percent of the wetland land cover, which would be -- I think it's around fifty -seven or fifty -eight thousand. MR. HILL: You are talking about 500 acres of wetland approximately. How does anybody else feel about this? Page 100 January 23, 2002 16 J CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, is it -- is it -- that 500 acres, then, would fall under the rules of WRAP analysis and everything of that sort; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. It would be subject to these -- this area would be subject to a vegetation retention standard of 60 percent and be subject to the wetland policies that are -- exist under 6.2. MR. COE: Would we have any net loss in wetlands? MR. LORENZ: Our wetland policies say that we want to have a no net loss, no net functional loss. And that would be based upon the functional analysis, whether that be the WRAP or that be the potentially future unified assessment procedure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. HILL: One other item -- and I got lost on the pages, but Marco's discussion of that asphalt plant. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 39 and 41, Item 14 on 39, Item K on 41. MR. MULHERE: And I'm -- probably didn't do a good job of clarifying that point, but, again, see if I can take another stab at it. That language, you can see, is not underlined or struck through. It's existing language in the Comprehensive Plan. It's language that we put in the plan to implement the requirements of the final order, both prohibitions and allowances. Those -- that language will no longer apply to the rural fringe once these or whatever ultimately is adopted of these amendments by the board -- once they're adopted, that language will no longer apply, but that language will still apply to the eastern lands portion until November when Comprehensive Plan amendments are adopted by the board relative to that. It needs to remain in the plan. It is directly from the final order. Whether there's a conflict or not in terms of asphalt being allowed in NRPAs and not allowed in other areas is not germane to this Page 101 January 23, 2002 1 6JI discussion, because that's the requirements of the final order, and they will still apply to the eastern lands portion. In the fringe we are not allowing asphalt plants in sending lands. MR. CARLSON: But you are in receiving lands. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we are in receiving lands, yeah. MS. STUDENT: Bob, I have a further clarification, because I've looked at this also, and it would appear to me that these are old things from the old ag rural part of the plan where the asphalt plant is permitted -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MS. STUDENT: -- from way back when before we even got to the final order. And then you have the prohibition for the interim development provisions, which would mean for the assessment area you can't have the asphalt plant. And then on the NRPA area it doesn't really reference it, because the way I read this in the plan it's referring to the agricultural rural land -use designation. So that would be, if anything was left out of the assessment area, you could still do an asphalt plant in there, but the NRPAs are part of the assessment area so -- that's the way I read it. I -- I realize that it's a bit confusing, but that part is old language of the plan that was amended when we had to do the final order to prohibit certain uses. So I think that may put it in perspective for you. I hope it does. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm confused. If we made a recommendation that asphalt plants and other industrial activities not be considered in receiving areas, would that -- are you saying that that's irrelevant to the -- MR. MULHERE: No. No, no. No. That's -- I mean, that's a fine -- that's a perfectly acceptable recommendation. Currently -- to answer your question, currently as proposed under the list of permitted uses -- Page 102 January 23, 2002 16JI MS. STUDENT: Yeah. That's at a different part of the plan under the receiving areas. MR. MULHERE: Under the rural fringe -- under the rural fringe district, permitted uses include asphalt and concrete batch - making plant. And if your recommendation was to e0VL- MR. CARLSON: Was it also refuge handling? Like, is that a landfill? MR. MULHERE: Facilities for collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste. MR. CARLSON: Is that a landfill? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I believe that could -- that would include a landfill. MR. CARLSON: Well, then I'd like to make a motion that the EAC recommend to the Rural Fringe Advisory Council, the staff, and the commissioners and everybody on the planet that -- that those industrial uses of asphalt plants, concrete, and refuge handling and transfer not be allowed in receiving areas. MR. COE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Moved by Mr. Carlson, second by Mr. Coe. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The motion clear? In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. MR. HILL: One brief question, Mr. Chairman, on page 40, I guess that's Section L, interim natural resource protection areas. In the first paragraph, why are those words overstriked? MR. MULHERE: Natural resource protection area? Page 103 January 23, 2002 �.' �' i6 r MR. HILL: Yes. MR. MULHERE: You'll see that the -- the designation NRPA, the acronym NRPA, is not struck through. Earlier we -- where we used the term in the first instance, natural resource protection areas, we insert the acronym in parens. So there's no reason to waste space. MR. HILL: And why is CREW scratched out? MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman, I'll take a stab at that. I believe Bob is -- the intent of this language is to -- to note that the interim natural resource protection areas are now only those in the eastern lands. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. LORENZ: Because when this language goes through the north Belle Meade, the CREW, and the south Belle Meade CARL as proposed will be the final NRPA boundaries of the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: Permitted. And they are referenced in the rural fringe section. So they are no longer interim, and that's why they're struck through. We've done some of what the final order requires, and we're reflecting that with this language. MR. HILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. HILL: I have a couple more, but go ahead. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Miss Lynne, what do you have? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Are you going to be next? Oh, she left. I'm sorry. How about Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: I'd like to go last. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You'd like to go last. MR. CARLSON: Except for one comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You and Mr. Coe are going to have Page 104 January 23, 2002 16JI to flip a coin. MR. CARLSON: I have a tremendous number of comments that I have to actually flip through the documents to see everything. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Let me ask you this about the rural village concept and the bonus density. Is there any reason why all of the density associated with transfer of development rights, not just the base density -- MR. MULHERE: Uh -huh. MR. CARLSON: -- but all of the density come from the sending areas? MR. MULHERE: The reason that we didn't structure it that way is because we believe that the result of that will be -- and this may be something that you'll -- you'll actually appreciate -- is that we believe the result of that will be that you will not see the creation of any rural villages because the cost of acquiring all of those units will exceed any market desire to go in there and create these. And we are proposing that we want those rural villages to be created. We are proposing that that compact type of development that's called for in 94-5 and in many other places by many other experts will be beneficial to the area in terms of creating a mixed -use compact development that will provide for some services. So we are offering that as a -- exactly as it is indicated, as a bonus. We are proposing it as a bonus. It may be -- I mean, certainly that can be a recommendation that if -- if -- if the base density -- minimum density stays at 2.5 and you get your base density, then any other increase in density to achieve that comes from TDRs. That can be a recommendation. The concern would be that it would be unlikely that you would see any rural villages developed. That's the rationale. MR. CARLSON: But it sure does solve that 2 -to -1 kind of ratio Page 105 January 23, 2002 of sending to receiving. 6JI MR. MULHERE: Not if -- not if no one exercises the right; then we have created -- MR. CARLSON: Well, how do you set the value on those? MR. MULHERE: The value will be set by the marketplace. Right now the current estimated value by our expert, Dr. Nicholas, at a base value is 18,000 per unit. Now, he feels that that will go up significantly once a bank is created and some of those units are purchased to move that bank into -- you know, into operation. And that's what has happened in other examples of successful TDRs, is once that a certain portion has been acquired and the market starts to move, the value of those has increased. But he's indicated the base density at this point by his valuation to be about $18,000 per dwelling unit. So, again, if you go back to the example of a thousand -acre rural village and you say you have to acquire all of them through a TDR other than a base density, you can create a formula right now based on his base value as to what someone might have to spend in order to acquire those to meet that minimum density. Another thing that could be done is to reduce that minimum density so that it's not quite as much that someone would have to purchase. You can reduce the bonus from two to one. I mean, there's a lot of options out there. What you have before you is our recommendation. But there are a lot of options. I mean, if you went with a bonus of one, then they'd be buying one and getting one. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm not ready at this point to do that kind of analysis in my head and figure all that out. MR. MULHERE: I understand. MR. CARLSON: But I -- but I disagree vehemently with creating more residential units in this county than we already have. Page 106 January 23, 2002 16JI And, to my mind, it's still conducive to urban sprawl to create these communities out in the rural areas. So at the very least I would recommend that we make a motion that all of -- unless I'm missing something here and making some kind of tactical mistake, but I don't see it -- MR. MULHERE: That's okay. MR. CARLSON: -- that all transfer of development right, units, in this program come from our sending areas. MR. MULHERE: So for rural villages -- just make sure, for rural villages beyond the base density in order to achieve the minimum density, that all of that should come from TDRs? MR. CARLSON: Say that again. MR. MULHERE: That beyond the base density, the one per five that they enjoy, the one per five is their base density, they've got to get up to a minimum density, that in order to achieve that minimum density the entire amount come from TDRs and none from bonuses. MR. CARLSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Now, is everyone clear what someone has to do to obtain the rule -- the rural density -- MR. MULHERE: Rural village? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- rural village ? MR. MULHERE: I can go over it again. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: why don't you go over it very quickly, because there's some things -- myself, I think we should encourage that, because it eliminates the 1 s and 5s and 1 s and 20s with septic tanks and wells and things of that sort and brings them in and creates more open space. I think it's the opposite of urban -- essentially development sprawl, not urban -- urban sprawl. What does someone have to do to qualify for the rural village and to get the density bonus? Page 107 January 23, 2002 16JI MR. MULHERE: Well, first of all, as I said, no rural village may be located closer than one mile to another. They have to come in through a zoning, a PUD zoning process. In some cases, depending on the level of development that's proposed, they may rise to a DRI, probably in quite a few cases. What they need to do to get their density is they may -- they may take the base density of the village and the green space area -- of course, they can't build in the green space area, so it goes into the village. They must then also acquire.8 dwelling units per acre from TDRs from sending lands for each acre in the rural village. Again, the example I used was a thousand acres, they'd have to go out and acquire eight hundred units. Once they do that, and given that during their zoning process all other components of the rural village have been addressed; access, community service provisions, green space, parks, that all of -- schools, all of those -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- are community services. MR. MULHERE: Correct. And those are all identified. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That require utilities? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Water, sewer -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- everything. MR. MULHERE: Then they would get a density bonus, the way we've got it written, of 2 dwelling units per acre. That's how you would accomplish -- MR. CARLSON: Well, see, this is my problem. I can see this being an advantage if we take the allowable density that we have in this county, take what we have now and move it into a rural village and not create additional units. I mean, you're -- you're bringing in additional population which is going to need additional roads, so it's Page 108 January 23, 2002 16J1 not going to have septic tanks. You're bringing thousands and thousands of additional people into the county. MR. MULHERE: Well, certainly the number would be in the thousands. Quantifying it -- I mean, with no maximum number of rural villages established here, except that there's a separation between them, but there's no maximum number established -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And they can only be in the sending area? MR. MULHERE: They can only be send -- in the receiving area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The receiving area which consists of how many total acres? MR. MULHERE: About 33,000. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 33,000. MR. MULHERE: And, also, frankly, the market is going to dictate how many of these you get. This is not an inexpensive proposition, so the market is going to dictate how many of these can be supported. In my opinion, I don't think you'll see more than four, including Orangetree, as a prime location. However -- MR. CARLSON: That's just in the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: No. Three in the rural fringe and Orangetree. MR. CARLSON: We've still got the rural lands to go. MR. MULHERE: But the rural lands -- I really can't comment in terms of what might ultimately come out of there. But at this point in time they haven't proposed a transfer of development rights process similar to what we have. They have a whole different process that they're looking at. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm sorry. MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. I understand. That's why I'm-- MR. CARLSON: I'm going to disagree even -- even with some Page 109 January 23, 2002 1 6JI I of my own environmental colleagues, because I think this only works if it -- if it brings existing units together and keeps existing units out of -- MR. MULHERE: And I understand that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. MR. CARLSON: And it's very tempting, because you look at the north Belle Meade, and it seems like that's a thing we can do, and we do it with this, but look what you loose in the D area. Look what you loose down there. I mean, it's -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: These are going to be huge D -- they can be 3,000 acres, huge. MR. MULHERE: Actually, we've reduced that down to 2,000 acres. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Maximum size. What can be the maximum density within that 2,000 -- maximum number of residential units within that 2,000 acres? MR. MULHERE: Seven -- seventy -five hundred. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So there can be a maximum of 7500 within 2,000 acres. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. There is a motion on the floor, and the motion is to eliminate the density bonus for the creation of the rural villages. Do I hear a second? MS. LYNNE: Can I make a comment? No. MR. CARLSON: What was the motion? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: That all transferred development rights that are used in the transfer development rights scheme -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Page 110 January 23, 2002 1 6JI 7 MR. CARLSON: -- including, perhaps, rural villages come out of the designated sending areas. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And rural villages not receive a bonus. MR. CARLSON: Yes. No, they can, but it has to come out of -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, but -- but the semantics -- may I just -- because the semantics that you are discussing right now are very important because actually what you just said -- what you just said as far as your motion is, in fact, the case. All TDRs are coming out of sending areas. I believe what your intent is not only that all TDRs come out of sending areas but that be the only way that someone can achieve additional density. And I think that's the key component, unless I'm wrong. Isn't that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think that's what -- I think that's what the motion is. MR. MULHERE: They don't get a bonus. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The rural village does not create additional bonus units -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- that are not available in sending areas. Okay. All right. Motion on the floor. Is there a second? MR. HILL: Yes. I have a comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Hill. Yes, Mr. Hill, go ahead. MR. HILL: If we took all of the allowable density that exists in the county at this point in time available for development, what you're proposing will go beyond the current level for the entire county; is that correct? Page 111 January 23, 200216J1 MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. HILL: To me I think we might want to consider limiting any future increases through TDR, bonuses, whatever -- MR. MULHERE: That's -- MR. HILL: -- to the density which is allowed at the present time on a gross county landscape -- MR. MULHERE: And that would be achieved through only TDR -- MR. HILL: I think that's what Mr. Carlson is referring to now in the total scheme. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: I'm wondering if a better way to communicate that information, rather than saying limit the trans -- or limit the villages to transfer of TDRs to just say that there should be no -- have the resolution say there should be no increase in total density in this county for any reason. MR. HILL: That was going to be my next motion after we approved the language in Mr. Carlson -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's -- let's vote on Mr. Carlson's motion. Those in favor of Mr. Carlson's motion say aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. SOLING: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Aye. It passes 6 to 1, Sansbury dissented. It sounds like Mr. Hill had the next motion. Mr. Hill, do you have something else, sir? Page 112 Wo January 23, 2002 16J1 MR. HILL: I move that we recommend that the future allowed density in Collier County not to exceed the current allowed density on a gross county -wide scale. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That density exists January 23, 2002. MR. HILL: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do I hear a second? MS. LYNNE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: A second by Miss Lynne. Do I hear any discussion? MR. COE: We've got -- there may be a problem with this, particularly when we've already asked Mr. Mulhere to take a look at the estates to see if we can't increase the density there. We're talking out of each side of our mouth here. MR. MULHERE: May I also -- MS. LYNNE: That's just TDRs. MR. CARLSON: No. That was the feasibility of the estates becoming a receiving area that would receive units from the sending areas, same system. MS. STUDENT: May I -- MR. COE: Two, two and a half units, whatever it is, per five acres out there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me ask a question about something now. As you said there's a lot of potential purchases coming up on lands that we've got a lot of different agencies purchasing lands right now, okay. That land gets purchased, what happens to that density? MR. MULHERE: If it gets purchased by a governmental agency? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: It's gone. Page 113 January 23, 2002 16JI1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's gone? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. STUDENT: I need to make a comment. I'm concerned that that motion dealing with the county -wide issue is beyond the scope of what we're about today, because we are dealing with the rural fringe assessment area. And, also, the density concept -- I'm going to defer to Mr. Mulhere. But we have a density rating system, and we have a base density. And you can get increases if you do work -force housing. You can get decreases if you're in a traffic congestion areas. So while we have a base density, there's a certain degree of fluidity to it, because there's conditions upon which you get more or less. So it's kind of hard to say as to future development, you know, that hasn't been developed yet in the county what it might be because of the density rating system in the plan. And I just wanted to throw that out as well as of paramount importance to me is that we're getting beyond the scope of the rural fringe area. MR. MULHERE: I just want to add a couple of things. Currently the only mechanism to achieve an affordable housing project that is realistic, given the land costs in this county, is through an affordable housing density bonus. So you go in and you ask the Board of County Commissioners for a number of dwelling units that s permissible under the Comprehensive Plan for affordable housing. The same holds true on any number of developments in the urban area where the land may be currently designated agricultural or at some lower density, but the Comprehensive Plan allows for a density higher than that. So in every one of those examples, you would be increasing density from what is currently allowed or authorized under -- under the underlying zoning. Another example would be -- well, there are some other bonuses Page 114 January 23, 2002 16JI in the plan that are authorized. And if you come in and qualify, you can ask for some other bonuses. There's nothing -- I mean, I -- and I understand you motion. And I'm happy to carry it forward, whatever you-all end , p approving. But there's nothing -- there's really no -- there was no intent or no concept here that would preclude as a policy elements that would allow for increased density in certain areas that are identified as being maybe more appropriate for that type of development and density. And I'm not trying to convince you because, you know, really -- I mean, I've already done my presentation. But I think that motion goes very, very far in terms of restricting existing rights that are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan for land throughout the county where increased density may be very appropriate. MS. STUDENT: It could almost be construed as a moratorium on any rezones county -wide where you could achieve a greater density that you have under the plan, but you don't yet have it because you're in its holding zone which has a lesser density with it. And, again, I have to reiterate. I'm concerned about going beyond the scope of what we're doing. MR. CARLSON: Okay. We won't do that. But -- but this whole transfer of development rights program, the concept, was sold as a way to transfer development and units out of sensitive areas and into somewhere else. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. CARLSON: And it's much more than that. MR. MULHERE: Why? MR. CARLSON: Because it creates more units. MR. MULHERE: No. The transfer -- the transfer process doesn't create more units. The transfer process doesn't create any more units. Page 115 January 23, 2002 6J111 MR. CARLSON: The rural -- the rural village concept -- . MR. MULHERE: The bonuses do. You've made a motion with respect to that, and I wrote it down. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Hill, would you consider amending your motion to direct it toward the lands included in the rural fringe study? MR. HILL: Certainly. MR. MULHERE: That's -- that's so that the base density that exists out there now, 93,000 -- on private lands, whatever the private lands are, whatever that number is, divided by 5, basically is the base density. Don't forget there are some nonconforming lots where someone may enjoy a unit that that number not be exceeded. And obviously the way to get to that, I believe you already covered in your motion, is that there can be no increase in density in the rural fringe under that motion except through a TDR, and I think that achieves the same result. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And -- okay. The seconder agree with the revision of the motion? MS. LYNNE: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I just would comment that I think it ties the hands of being able to utilize density to achieve things that are in the public good, affordable housing, types of developments in some areas. So I -- I'm going to have to oppose the motion. But let's vote on it. Those in favor -- MS. LYNNE: Well, can I make another comment? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: It's also not in the best interests of all the residents of Collier County to have increased density in this area because we're exhausting our -- our water and other resources CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Favor? Page 116 January 23, 2002 6 J I MR. DUANE: Any public comment? Because a lot oft ese items you've discussed after we had public comment this morning, you're kind of -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure of the board? I really think the public comment period -- MR. DUANE: I can't respond to your comments. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Well, we're discussing amongst ourselves now. Thank you very much. All the comment period had ended. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What is the pleasure of the board? Favor? MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MR. SOLING: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The motion fails. Who's next? Miss Lynne, do you want to be next? MS. LYNNE: I'd like to discuss the issue of allowing conservation areas and conservation easement acreage to send their density elsewhere. I think that's inappropriate. MR. MULHERE: Just as a clarification, we're not proposing to allow it from conservation areas, but we did not preclude conservation easements on private lands. So if you're designated conservation, you can't transfer under our proposal. But you're correct. If you have private land and you have conservation, we haven't precluded that. MS. LYNNE: Right. The Corkscrew Sanctuary, for example -- Page 117 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: -- is precluded. Corkscrew -- MS. LYNNE: That's precluded. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MS. LYNNE: So we're talking about private lands which have conservation easements. And I don't think that it's appropriate for them to be allowed to send development rights somewhere else because their development rights have already been terminated essentially. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, let me ask a question on that then. What would motivate one to take a piece of private property and turn it into conservation, which is what the goal, I think, of all of us is if they cannot transfer the development rights off of that property? MR. MULHERE: You can do it before you -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Conservation easement, yeah. MS. LYNNE: These -- these are -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If someone had a con -- if someone decides to grant a conservation easement on their property, which is what we're looking to do is to conserve the property with the very limited uses that are under conservation easements, and they wish to be able to take that -- their TDRs and transfer them someplace else, to me that is a carrot to get more lands with conservation easements. I think what you're talking about defeats the purpose. MS. LYNNE: But someplace that already has a conservation easement has already gotten some benefit because the PUDs or whatever they are, they have already gotten their payoff for preserving that land, and they shouldn't be entitled to additional payoff. MR. MULHERE: That's only -- I feel I need to make a clarification again. It probably wasn't clear before. That's partially true and then again not true in all circumstances. I think it's Page 118 January 23, 2002 important you at least hear this. I 6J In Collier County you are allowed to develop at your -- at your gross density. So if you have, for example, let's use a PUD, and within that PUD you identified some conservation lands and you've put a conservation easement over those lands, you can still develop the density from that conservation land within your project. So by not precluding someone from transferring the dwelling units from that conservation easement, you still have an opportunity -- there is still an opportunity for someone to take some of the units that they are authorized to develop on their land and -- and, you know, send them to another area. Under your scenario they would not be able to do that. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I just wanted you to understand that -- that it doesn't mean that they can't develop the units. It just means that they can't develop the units among that portion that has a conservation designation on it. I think I understood your -- all of you collectively to support a concept that would not allow conservation -- a transfer from a designated conservation easement anyway so, I mean -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What's the pleasure? Do we have a motion? MR. HILL: Would you repeat that? MR. CARLSON: Well, what my problem was that lands are included on the map of sending areas on projects that were done. That was my problem. MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Lynne, do you want to -- do we have a motion? MS. LYNNE: I've just gotten more confused again. Explain what you -- explain your point again, please. MR. CARLSON: That there were receiving lands designated on Page 119 January 23, 2002 the future land -use map -- excuse me. MR. MULHERE: Sending. 16J1 MR. CARLSON: There were sending areas designated on the future land -use map that were already in preserves in projects that had already been approved and were done and built and over, and I didn't think it was fair to go back and offer that kind of bonus for people who created preserves and were happy with their project. MS. LYNNE: Isn't that what I -- isn't that what I said? That's what I meant to say. So I would move that any property that's already been -- already has a conservation easement is not allowed to be a sending area. MR. GAL: I'd just like to amend the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Proposal to amend the motion, Mr. Gal. MR. GAL: Lands that are privately held that currently have a conservation easement or other restrictive development that exists in perpetuity be excluded from the TDR program. MS. LYNNE: Cool. That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Currently, okay. MS. LYNNE: Currently. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Not the future. MR. GAL: Currently. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do I hear a second? Is the amendment okay with the maker of the motion? MS. LYNNE: Yes, yes. MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Page 120 (No response.) January 23, 2002 164 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passes unanimously. Miss Lynne, do you have anything else? MS. LYNNE: I have a whole list. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's do it. MS. LYNNE: Let's do it? Okay. The golf course issue, we don't want -- let's see, we don't want golf courses in the sending areas. Is that currently the case? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MS. LYNNE: You can't have a golf course in a sending area. Can you have a golf course in buffer lands? MR. MULHERE: You can have a golf course in buffer lands if it's designated receiving. You can't have golf courses in sending. You can have golf courses in receiving. MR. LORENZ: And -- and the more specific language with the buffer area is the golf course rough or the more passive areas can be adjacent directly to the natural reservation. That's how the language currently states. MR. MULHERE: So if -- if you have a receiving area that's adjacent to a natural reservation, you may have a golf course there. But only that portion that can be immediately adjacent to the natural reservation is that portion that is what? What did you just call it? MR. LORENZ: Golf course rough. MR. MULHERE: Golf course rough. MS. LYNNE: The buffering, then, the buffering for the NRPAs, I think that has to be a mile. I think we've heard enough testimony from experts that that needs to be a mile? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't agree with that. No, we haven't. We've talked about it, but we have not heard testimony from experts that have convinced me that it should be a mile. MR. MULHERE: I think that's Bill's area of expertise. Page 121 January 23, 2002 16J1 MR. CARLSON: We heard testimony today from someone who hired consultants who said there was an influence of the 951 drainage canal within a mile of their proposed project. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's true. MR. LORENZ: As a staff member, let me explain the staff s position with regard to the buffer language that would deal with adverse impacts from draw- downs. What I recall from Dr. Deuver's presentation and the analysis that he did was based upon the canals that were put in place, the Fakahatchee, and -- and various canals in the six -- late '60s and early '70s, those systems, their water control elevations were set such that they drew the local groundwater table down 6 to 7 to 8 feet. The -- the impact to a wetland system is going to be directly proportional to the amount of draw -down that's allowed. So past historical data in Collier County where you do see those long, large effects is because we had a terrific draw -down with those old canal systems. South Florida Water Management District currently has a set of regulations that they use to identify what would be an adverse impact to a wetland as a result of a drainage control structure, the elevation that it's set. That -- that procedure is referenced in these policies. And what staff has recommended is that that procedure be followed to determine what would be an add -- adverse impact. So rather than using a presumptive number such as a mile buffer or a thousand foot with regard to water table impacts, we're proposing that that procedure be used. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I think what I'm saying is that I don't believe that anybody should be able to adversely affect the water table in Corkscrew but determine whether that is -- I think the procedure should be followed rather than arbitrarily saying a mile or 2 miles or a half a mile or what have you. MR. CARLSON: But there is data to designate that Page 122 January 23, 2002 influences -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It might be. MR. CARLSON: Or a mile and go beyond a mile. And in this report, if I read -- if I remember correctly, the requirement is that the -- any development that goes adjacent to a NRPA have some sort of hydrologic monitoring program to ensure that they're not having a deleterious impact on water tables in the NRPA; is that -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. On page 32 in the conservation coastal management element, parentheses 4, is the language that we're proposing that would adopt the South Florida Water Management District's procedure to determine what the adverse impacts would be. MR. CARLSON: Well, seeing as developments can be as small as 40 acres -- is that also correct? MR. MULHERE: In receiving lands, yes. That's only to transfer in. MR. CARLSON: As somebody who is in that business and does hydrologic monitoring and knows how expensive it is and how labor intensive it is and how difficult it is to analyze that data and retrieve it and manage it, you know, I think it's unrealistic to think that that will happen. The better approach is geographic and just have a buffer and not rely on developers to come up with hydrologic monitoring and analysis plans and programs. Who's going to monitor it? MR. MULHERE: I do want to add -- MR. CARLSON: I mean, who's going to check? MR. LORENZ: Well, this -- this is -- this is a procedure that's set up up front to be incorporated in the setting of the water control elevations. Now, there can be -- there can be some monitoring. We're not proposing any monitoring. We're simply proposing that that procedure be set up front to set the appropriate level of the water control elevation, such that if you don't have an adverse impact at the Page 123 January 23, 2002 16J1 boundary at the natural reservoir -- MR. CARLSON: Then the monitoring burden falls back on the people who are trying to preserve the natural areas. So nothing changes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. The monitoring is on the permittee to call the system, okay. MR. CARLSON: There is no monitoring. MS. LYNNE: Yeah. I mean -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In the case of the South Florida Water Management District permits and the case that we're talking about in my development, the development I'm involved in, I've got a monitoring requirement. I have to do monthly and quarterly checks on lake levels, on levels in the wells, on levels in the Airport Canal. And I have to file them. If I don't file them on, I get a letter from Mr. T's office, says, "You'd better get them filed or you're going to get fined." So there's an aggressive program to make sure it happens, but it's not like it doesn't happen. MR. CARLSON: But they're not proposing that program. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. The county -- in our proposed amendments, we're not proposing monitoring. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But the district will require it if there's a surface water management or whatever the term is for that permit today, and they enforce it pretty good. MR. CARLSON: Is that the case, that the district will automatically require that kind of monitoring for every project? MR. MULHERE: I can't answer that. MR. LORENZ: I don't know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't know the answer. MR. MULHERE: I did want to add that I recognize that primarily your responsibility here is to look at the natural resource protection measures. Page 124 January 23, 2002 16JI I think it's important to put on the record, though, from the staff s perspective, we're also talking about some balance in terms of the impacts that we're ultimately going to have on private property rights and on those properties that have been identified as receiving lands. And, you know, we're trying to basically protect the natural resources and minimize the impacts on those lands that have been identified as appropriate for development. And there will be a significant impact associated with a mile buffer around all of the natural resource protection areas that will extend, in some cases, into receiving lands. In other cases, the boundary adjacent to the natural resource protection area is a sending area, and you may have some level of protection as a result of that sending area designation. MR. COE: I'm curious. I keep hearing from my good friend, Bruce Anderson, and now from you about this Burt Harris Act. Is that it? MR. MULHERE: Burt J. Harris. MR. COE: How many lawsuits have been filed under that act and won? MR. MULHERE: I don't know. MS. STUDENT: I may be -- there have been several filed. The current number I don't have, but it requires an extensive alternate dispute resolution process, and they find their way through that where the local government does some -- you want to call it horse trading with the developer to come up with a reasonable alternative, and then they settle out. But they must go through that process before they find their way to circuit court. My understanding is that's what happens to most of them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Never gone to trial. MR. COE: Now I'm hearing that it's never gone to trial. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's always been settled. MS. STUDENT: That's not necessarily -- that is the last that I Page 125 January 23, 2002 ' ._ knew. Currently I could do some checking to see if any have gone to trial, but that was the last that I knew. And I'll be happy to check on that up in -- the attorney general's office keeps track of this. MR. COE: The reason I'm curious is, I'm one of those people that have had to do -- deal with threats before. And I have to assess the level of importance of that threat. And if it ain't going to court, what's the level of the threat? MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- if I inferred in any way or suggested to you that your actions should be based on a potential threat of a Burt J. Harris Act, I don't believe I said that, and if did I would retract that statement. MR. COE: Thank you very much. MR. MULHERE: Because what I think what I said was under the Burt J. Harris Act, here are provisions that can be used to minimize the likelihood of a claim or to address the lost impact on private property owners. I certainly have never suggested that we will either be sued or might, you know, lose or -- or prevail on a lawsuit, not being an attorney. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Let's -- why don't we do this -- MR. GAL: I just want to say that we've -- before petitions have come up and I can think of two attorneys that have been before us that have threatened us with Burt J. Harris lawsuits, and I -- and I think after the last time I went and looked at the -- the statute itself, and it's not necessarily a slam dunk for the landowner. There are some hoops that the landowner must go through -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Exactly. MR. GAL: -- to bring a suit. And property rights is always thrown at us -- MR. MULHERE: My only reason for bringing it up is that the final order and under the Burt J. Harris Act the county does have an Page 126 January 23, 2002 164 obligation to look at and attempt to balance the impacts on private property rights. I assume that that is not an objectionable goal under those statutes. And I'm not suggesting to you that -- that there would be any likelihood of any one entity prevailing or not prevailing. I'm simply identifying for you what we have done as policies to try to balance the natural resource protections with the private property rights; that's all. MR. GAL: I have one other question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead, Mr. Gal. MR. GAL: Does the final order of the state require that this county put in its objectives and policies that while we want to protect environmentally sensitive land, that we're also going to protect property rights? I know -- understand that we need to be cautious of people's property rights and include that in our planning and thinking which I think we've done. But do we need to state that as an objective? MR. MULHERE: I don't think we need to state it as an objective. I mean, I don't think there's any statute -- I think you're asking if there's any statutory obligation. I don't think that there is. As long as it was a component, in my mind, in the development of those policies, then I don't see why it would have to be expressly stated. I'd defer to Marjorie though because it's really more of a legal question I think. MR. GAL: I'd like to make a motion that references to protecting private property rights, because -- not because it's not important but because this is a growth management plan, that they be removed from the objectives and policies. And I can -- two pages in particular, page 18 and page 23. And I don't know if there are any other areas. 23 of the CCME section. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We're talking about of -- Page 127 January 23, 2002 16J1 MR. GAL: Why -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Page 18 of 23 of the future land- use element. MR. GAL: Right. Private property rights are being protected by the state. Why does the county need to add another layer of protection? MS. STUDENT: I guess I need to explain something about that. All this stems from the United States Constitution. And in our Constitution there's a provision that you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And that's been made applicable to the -- I'm not going into a big treatise on that, but it's made applicable to the state and also local governments. Also, there's a provision that a government can't take property without paying for it, and that's what's known as condemnation, a physical taking. And then that body of jurisprudence has been extended to recognize that when you put certain restrictions or controls on how somebody can use their land that may impact their property rights, that's called inverse condemnation. When that happens and it's proven up, it can be what's called a regulatory taking, and the local government has to compensate the property owner. And because of the common -law recognition of protection of private property rights, zoning regulations are usually construed against a local government in favor -- or a state government or the federal government in favor of the property owner because we have this common -law history that comes to us from our English jurisprudence when the king used to go in and just expropriate people's property for his own use, and our founding fathers said we don't want to do that here in this country. So that's kind of like a history of it. And the Burt Harris came about to go a little further than taking jurisprudence and give some additional protection because of the situation in the State of Florida. Page 128 January 23, 2002 16JI where a lobby of private property interests got together and had this passed because they felt that private property rights were not adequately protected by the takings jurisprudence because there as long as you had a minimal beneficial use of your property it wasn't necessarily taking. It applies to all levels of government, not just if the state does it, the county doesn't. It's a constitutional principle that's applicable to the county and something we have to be mindful of in our regulations, and the Burt Harris Act is made applicable to local governments as well. MR. GAL: I understand that. But we don't change that by removing that language from the growth management plan. MR. MULHERE: That's true. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But one of the purposes is to blend the good planning, good environmental protection and the protection of property, private property rights. I think it's a key thing to a land - use element or a comprehensive plan or anything. It's one of the items that you have to take into consideration. That's why we're talking about PDRs. To throw it out of the -- of the formula is -- you can't do that. I mean, it's part of the formula in what we're doing is good comprehensive land planning. MR. GAL: We're not throwing it out of the formula. We're just removing the language from the objectives and policies. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't agree with that. I mean, the objective is exactly what we say here, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitats for listed species while protecting private property rights. That's what we're doing. We're coming up with something that the environmentalists -- the property -- the private property owners can all live with so we don't get into a bunch of litigation. And we achieve the goal of -- of having a nice place to live and preserving the environment. MR. GAL: I don't want to get into a bunch of litigation. That's Page 129 one of the points. January 23, 2002 a64 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. We have a motion on the table. MR. CARLSON: Repeat the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Repeat the motion, Mr. Gal. MR. GAL: That we remove from the objectives and policies language references to protecting private property rights. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The motion dies for lack of a second. Okay. Where were we? Miss Lynne, you had some other items, I believe. MS. LYNNE: I don't think we finished the buffering. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What are we doing on the buffering? Let's move forward. MS. LYNNE: I would have to say that I agree with Mr. Carlson, that the monitoring would be -- is so intricate that it's not likely to be carried out. I know from my own experience in my own neighborhood that when developers are required to do things to protect the neighborhood, that oftentimes the development gets built and the follow -up never happens. I think it's -- in theory it's a good idea. In practice I don't think it's going to protect our wetlands from draw -down. Wetlands vary in how much they've got from year to year and from decade to decade, and that wouldn't be monitoring -- wouldn't take that into account. You could have a really wet year and, say, somebody can build up to within, you know, 50 feet. And another you'll have a dry year and it would be really defected. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Let's get on with the motion. What's the motion? MS. LYNNE: I move that a minimum buffer of a mile be around the NRPAs. Page 130 January 23, 2002 16JI CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Motion on the table that we establish -- MS. LYNNE: You can amend it if you want. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: A minimum buffer of one mile around all the NRPAs. Do I hear a second? MR. CARLSON: Well -- well, just in the spirit that the buffer can be rural lands, one of the things that bothers me about this plan is, if it's implemented and you've got conservation areas and NRPAs and receiving areas, there's no rural land in the future; right? There's no low density rural land. MR. MULHERE: Well, there is. MR. CARLSON: Where is it? MR. MULHERE: Well, there -- there may not be -- there's a different designation now, rural fringe mixed use in this area. There's still some -- MR. CARLSON: No. I mean within the fringe study area that we're looking at today. MR. MULHERE: I think that depends on your definition of rural lands because within the sending lands private property owners could certainly retain a dwelling unit and build on it, and those would be rural lands. That would be at least equal to the amounts of lands in the receiving area. MR. CARLSON: The spirit of the buffer proposal is that when you have receiving areas up against conservation lands and NRPAs where hydrology is ultimately important, there needs to be more than a 300 -foot buffer that includes golf course roughs that -- it's a formula that if you think ahead -- think about Collier County a hundred years from now with all of the people that are going to live here. And think about what's happened in central Florida, the Tampa/St. Petersburg area, where the water use, in spite of their best planning, they suck whole lakes dry. This happened. That if we're Page 131 January 23 2002 11 6J 1 really serious about protecting these conservation areas and NRPAs, that we have to have a significant buffer. It can be rural land. It doesn't have to be, you know, totally natural area with no people. It can be a low density, one -per- five -acre rural area without drainage systems and canals that -- that we have in the county today. MR. MULHERE: Let me just see if I can clarify that statement because it can be important toward the motion. Within that one -mile buffer area what you're suggesting is the allowance that currently allowed density of one dwelling unit per five acres would be permitted, so they would be more or less neutral lands as well, rural neutral lands. One caveat, an additional caveat, is that you do have natural resource protect areas that currently directly abut a pretty significant portion right here, that currently directly abut the urban fringe and the urban area, so you would basically be taking this entire strip of -- MR. CARLSON: No. I mentioned specifically the interface with receiving areas. MR. MULHERE: Well, I know you did, but the motion didn't; that's why I'm raising it. MS. LYNNE: He can amend. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Go ahead. Amend. MR. CARLSON: That the buffer apply to the interface of receiving areas and conservation areas and NRPAs. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And the buffer be one mile. MR. CARLSON: And the buffer be one mile. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No matter what? MR. CARLSON: No matter what. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No matter what. Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second to that motion? MS. LYNNE: Am I allowed to second the amended motion? Page 132 January 23, 2002 16J170 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You made the motion. I don't believe you're allowed to second -- MR. CARLSON: What this does -- can I continue to discuss it? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. CARLSON: Where the greatest impact of this motion is is in the north Belle Meade where you really don't have enough space between the sending area and the receiving area for that kind of buffer. I mean, it's just not there. So that's unfortunate. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Even if there's a water management plan in place, hydrilodic -- hydrologic data that says it's not going to have an effect, we're still going to have a mild buffer? MS. LYNNE: Hydrology changes from year to year. What you're monitoring this year isn't going to apply in ten years. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's -- let's move on the motion. Come on. We've got a motion. Do I have a second? MR. HILL: To get it on the table, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second, it's on the table. Further discussion on the motion. And the motion is that we establish in sending areas a one -mile buffer around NRPAs, and that buffer, what can happen in that buffer? MR. MULHERE: The way I understood it, that 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres would be permitted, that rural density -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So those -- so, basically, the one mile of the sending area that surrounds the NRPA -- MR. COE: No, receiving area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Receiving area -- I get them mixed up; I'm sorry -- is no longer a receiving area. MR. CARLSON: That's correct. It's a neutral area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's a neutral area. That's the motion, seconded by Mr. Hill. MR. CARLSON: That the conservation and NRPA areas be Page 133 J1 I January 23, 2002 16 buffered by neutral lands. MR. HILL: I am -- I am all for giving the protection that this motion represents. However, to fix it at one mile I don't think allows the difference in impact in various places of the county. I would rather see a very strict enforceable implementation of a monitoring system in order to establish and maintain it rather than a somewhat arbitrary one mile, although that may be valid in certain places. I'd rather see us go the other way. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: Well, the thing is, is if we're monitoring this thing -- let's say we've let something in there whatever it is and we're monitoring it. What happens if all of a sudden the monitoring say, hey, this shouldn't be here? MR. MULHERE: That's established up front. It's the -- the -- as part of the submittal of the project, they go through this process. And they have to establish, based on modeling, what the impacts are going to be. And, therefore, you determine what the appropriate buffer is. That goes in. That's in place based on that. Subsequently you certainly want to continue to monitor that to see if there are other things that could be done if there are negative impacts that were unanticipated. But it's based on -- it's an up -front determination. MR. COE: I understand that. So all of a sudden up front they're wrong. Then what do we do? MR. MULHERE: Then we .look for other ways to resolve the matter. I mean, you know, this is -- this is going to happen in any circumstance. Suppose it's more than a mile. Suppose the impacts go two miles, in some circumstance, based on the conditions that are in effect. We've got the same situation there. They only require a mile But -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's -- let's move on the motion. Page 134 January 23, 2002 16JI Okay. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. SOLING: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. HILL: With respect to the motion, I would like the counsel to revisit the question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What we ought to do is we ought to get Mr. Tears to send every one of you guys a letter like he sends me every time my guys forget to do the monitoring. It's a real . friendly letter. MR. STONE: I get one every now and then. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, I know. It happens quite often, about five days after your report is supposed to be done. It doesn't get there. Okay. What would you like to do, Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Well, I need to give that some that thought. But I think we need to give them alternatives. I'm not prepared at this time to put that in a formal motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Moving along, what -- Miss Lynne, do you have anything else? MS. LYNNE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, you do? MS. LYNNE: No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No? Okay. Mr. Carlson. Page 135 January 23, 2002 16JI MR. CARLSON: Based on a lot of the comments I heard here today, do we vote on whether golf courses are appropriate as green -- green belt space? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, we did not. MR. CARLSON: Well, I would like to support the comments I heard here today and move that the EAC recommend that golf course development, at it applies for buffering for villages, communities not be considered green space. MR. COE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Made and seconded. In discussion, what about the portions of the golf course that are left in natural condition? MR. COE: Define natural. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Palmettos, pines. MR. COE: Nobody driving through it, nobody clipping grass. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Nobody driving through it. MS. LYNNE: No irrigation. MR. COE: No irrigation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No irrigation. MR. CARLSON: It would count as green space. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It would count as green space. MR. MULHERE: A couple of questions: I understand what you said. You said golf courses shouldn't constitute green space. What we actually refer to -- the only place where we really refer to a green belt -- and you're correct that proposed golf courses would be allowed in that -- is around a rural village. And the reason why golf courses are allowed in that is because that's only allowed in receiving lands, and golf courses are allowed in receiving lands. But I understand what you said. But there are some other components of this. For example, golf courses, what was raised -- I think that one of the speakers raised that golf courses shouldn't be Page 136 January 23, 2002 16J I permitted as open space, which is different than preservation or green space. Open space by definition in the county does include golf courses, and it also includes other passive recreation -type facilities, trails, those kinds of things. Open space is a different concept than preservation or green space. Open space has a higher standard generally in the county. It's 60 percent in the urban area, and it's proposed to be 70 percent in the rural fringe, and that means yards. It could be tennis courts; it could be a swimming pool. It could be a golf course. And -- and it also includes conservation and green space and preservation areas. So I just want to be clear that I don't think what you're saying is you object to a golf course where it's permitted being counted towards open space, but you object toward -- towards it being considered green space or a natural pres -- or a preservation area. Is that correct, or am I -- MR. CARLSON: Yeah. It depends on what the vision is of the -- these buffers between rural villages. If -- if that buffer is nothing more than a golf course, I'm opposed to that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. CARLSON: That -- there should be some real environmental value to anything considered green space and a buffer between that kind of intensive land use, and a golf course just doesn't cut it. MR. MULHERE : I understand that. I got that point. And the intent would be that the green space area would allow an opportunity for the property owner to meet, to largely meet, their native preservation or wetland protection requirements, all of those things that -- within the rural village area that may not -- MR. CARLSON: Because without that, the -- the habitat -- the wildlife and the habitat values that we're supposed to be protecting are kind of slipping away. Page 137 January 23, 2002 16J1 MR. MULHERE: What if you have -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me ask a question. Say if you take 150 acres and you do a study of 150 acres regarding what's there, okay, birds, fish, squirrels, everything that's there, and you take that and you build a golf course that's done right into the standards and the permitting standards that the district has and you do that study again when it's finished. Which one do you think is going to have more birds, fish, and wildlife? There's going to be more afterwards. There's going to be more afterwards. I guarantee it. MR. CARLSON: There's so much variability there. There's no way to comment on it. I would doubt that the post golf course development would have a higher diversity in funds and of wildlife in this area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I would argue that point so... MR. MULHERE: Just to be clear, what you are proposing is that golf courses not be allowed to meet the green belt requirements in rural villages if they move forward and also that they not be allowed, except for the natural areas, which you've defined, as green space or buffer areas adjacent to natural reservations. MR. CARLSON: Correct. Was that my motion? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think it was your motion. MR. COE: As amended by Bob Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: I don't think I amended it. Hopefully, I just made it clear. he? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think Mr. Coe seconded it, didn't MR. COE: I'm sure I did. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have any further discussion on that particular motion? (No response.) Page 138 January 23, 2002 16J1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Aye. Next, Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Did we vote on the agriculture issue? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, we did not. MR. COE: I got that one. MR. CARLSON: Go ahead, Mr. Coe. MR. COE: See what we've got on the ag here. I've got one recommendation that we change on the nonfunctional conservation easements, areas, from sending areas. Let's see, we already did that one, good. That's off. Okay. You mentioned earlier about the residual rights. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. COE: What happens if someone strips the -- gets -- gets a permit for ag, strips the land to plant berries or whatever, and then sells the rights? MR. MULHERE: That's a great question. There is a requirement in the comprehensive plan currently that you are not permitted to rezone your land if you've cleared it for agricultural purposes. I think it's for ten years. Now, it's not currently in this proposal, but that stipulation could be extended in sending areas for folks that would clear their land for agricultural purposes would not then be allowed to transfer their development rights for some period of time. Ten years is what is -- is in the code now. I mean, I think that's a very legitimate question and a very -- a very good question. Page 139 January 23, 2002 16J1 And we need to look at that a little bit. I guess I just want to establish the position that we were coming from as staff and a consultant. Remember, initially we recommended that no ag be permitted in sending areas because just look at the basic principles here. We're saying these are the highest value natural resource areas. We're also not saying -- then to be clear for agricultural purposes. But subsequently we received information from the counsel to the county that you could not preclude that if it was consistent with the Right -to -Farm Act, so we took the next best step. And we said if you transfer after that in remaining use, you cannot clear any additional land for ag. Your question is a very good one, and I don't think we've adequately addressed it. MR. COE: Another question I have, not being one that takes no for an answer very easily, I find it hard to believe that an attorney can say that we can't regulate agricultural land in this county. I don't believe it. MR. MULHERE: I mean -- MR. COE: I'd like to get a second or third or fourth opinion because I'm sure there's an attorney we can find someplace that will be able to tell us that we can regulate the ag uses on this land, period -- MR. MULHERE: I think you -- MR. COE: -- particularly when you're talking about buttoning it up at, say, Corkscrew and somebody wants to put in -- which has already happened evidently -- an orange grove and pump water away from Corkscrew into a canal, and we're going to permit that? MR. MULHERE: Well, I really can't answer the question as I'm not an attorney. And, again, I told you where our position was and the only reason we changed that position. We -- we will get a written finding from these counsels to the county so that you can look at it, and we'll get it as quickly as we can, as to what their position is. Page 140 January 23, 2002 16J1 We'll be very clear that if we cannot prohibit someone from farming under the Right -to -Farm Act, what are our opportunities, legitimate legal opportunities, to regulate that agricultural -- those agricultural activities in relationship to their potential impacts on natural areas. MR. COE: Why don't we go to the state also? MR. MULHERE: Well, we had some initial discussions with the state. We were up there. We met with them. And they were in concurrence with the Right -to -Farm Act precluding the county from -- now, that was verbal; it wasn't in writing. MR. COE: So -- now, let me get this in my mind, because I'm incredulous. You mean to tell me somebody can back their ag use up to Corkscrew, have an orange grove, pump water way into their canal to get the water away because they've got to have dry feet for the plants, for the trees, and they can do that? MR. MULHERE: You know -- MR. COE: And we can't control it. MR. MULHERE: Water issues, I understand, it's of concern, but it's dealt by the regulatory agency, the Water Management District. Presumably as part of the process of what they authorize they would be looking at whether or not there were negative impacts to adjacent lands, issuing that withdrawal permit or whatever that particular permit is called; I think consumptive -use permit. The -- again, I -- I think that the state does have very strong protection -- protections for agricultural uses in place. I don't know -- I can't stand here and tell you that I've got something in writing from the county's attorneys on this matter that clearly tell us, yeah, we can or, no, we can't. I can tell you that they were pretty firm in their -- in their findings to us that we could not -- that we -- that we put the language in that we did, which was subject to the Right -to -Farm Act and there are some best management -- there are some best management practices defined in the Right -to -Farm Act so in order -- Page 141 January 23, 2002 16JI if you were going to be consistent with the Right -to -Farm Act, you've got to incorporate those best management practices. Maybe some of those best management practices deal with, you know, how you handle water and pesticides and things like that. I would assume that it would. MR. COE: So this letter that you're going to get is going to tell us that we can't regulate ag lands. MR. MULHERE: I don't know it's going to tell you. I'm not going to prejudge that. I'm going to ask them for exactly what you asked for. It's clearing. It's clearing that I would assume is the destructive -- MR. COE: The clearing? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. COE: The draining of water and those sort of things. And specifically I'm looking at and just the easy one, the lay -up is -- and I maybe -- seeing him biting at the bit over there. Let me talk. Ed's got some pretty valuable property that's probably some of the most valuable property in this county. And to allow unbridled agricultural uses next to such an important property, I think, is ludicrous. MR. MULHERE: Well, I share that opinion with you. I share that opinion with you. I think so does the staff. MR. COE: Well, perhaps, we cannot take no for an answer from the attorney and get them to find a way to do this. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we put that in a motion form and -- MR. COE: So I'd like to make a motion that we have the county attorneys put together a way that we can control agricultural uses close to our protected lands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Put together -- MR. MULHERE: Review the legal. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Determine from the state what we Page 142 January 23, 2002 16J1 can do. MR. COE: Yeah, okay. State -- I don't care who it comes from. MR. MULHERE: So you -- you would like a -- a review of the legal constraints, if any, on regulating agriculture in sending lands. MR. COE: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That sounds good. A motion by Mr. Coe. Second? Mr. Carlson seconded it, didn't you? MR. CARLSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, the motion passes. MR. HILL: Mr. Carlson, try this on for size for a moment. Plans for a property to develop adjacent to a N .PA must establish at the time of application the impact on the hydrology, parentheses, water table, at the interface boundary. The impact must be limited to a maximum of -- and I put in temporarily a half a foot -- during the dry season. The water table impact must be monitored and reported at a frequency determined by the South Florida Water Management District. MR. CARLSON: Well, if you read in the plan about water management strategies, you can actually put in walls and things to buffer your drainage impacts from wetlands. And so, I mean, I -- there could be concrete walls and -- and seepage barriers that go up between these developments and important water resources areas, so I just -- I think that's a whole can of worms that we might regret recommending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, going back to that last motion Page 143 January 23, 2002 1 6J1 in which I paraphrased it and you moved, and as I wrote it down, it was to request legal -- a review of the legal constraints, if any, on regulating ag in sending lands. Barbara just indicated that -- and I think she's right -- that there may be also the same analysis needs to occur related to receiving lands that may be adjacent to a natural reservation. So I would think you would want to amend your motion to simply indicate, you know, whether it's -- whether it's sending or receiving, if there's -- if there's going to be a potential impact to the natural areas, the natural reservation, or the sending designation, what can be done to regulate it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That okay with you, Mr. Coe? MR. COE: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Amended, motion, change. MS. LYNNE : Can I ask just one more thing? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: Can we add to the motion or to whatever you're going to ask these people, that the point is to preserve the hydrology of the area which has county -wide impact that -- that there's a point to restricting, it's not that we don't just want agricultural? MR. MULHERE: That's only one point. The other point is to protect the habitat and other things; correct? MS. LYNNE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Mr. Coe has a couple more little things. MR. CARLSON: Before Mr. Coe made that brilliant motion, I was going to do something like move that the EAC recommend that agricultural lands associated with NRPAs, conservation areas, be held to the same native vegetation preservation standards as other types of development. MR. MULHERE: So apply the preservation standards to ag as well. Page 144 January 23, 2002 1 6J1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think you -- that's where you have to start considering -- MR. COE: Start considering what? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The form. What's it called? MR. COE: Yeah. See, I think that would infringe. I would recommend that we consider waiting until we get the readout from the attorneys and -- and I -- I hope I made it real clear about the attorneys trying to find a way around the law, I mean, still within the law obviously. MR. MULHERE: You made it very clear. And we'll make it clear to them. I'll -- I'll have to say also, though, that we'll ask for this immediately, probably tomorrow, try to get something up to them and, no, we won't try. We'll succeed. We'll get it to them tomorrow. I mean, we're moving forward with this process, you know. I think you're going to have to try to do it as expeditiously as possible. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think if we miss -- if we do some things that we do miss the Planning Commission, we do have enough time to get further comments to the Board of County Commissioners. Okay. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: Yeah. Page 28 they talk about wetlands, if I remember correctly. MR. HILL: In the FLUE? MR. MULHERE: Of the coastal conservation -- MR. COE: Anyway, the one that's on the wetlands, and we mentioned this earlier that we wanted to make sure that there was no net loss in our wetlands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Just clarify, 6.2.7, 6.2.8. MR. COE: I guess that's it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. MR. COE: And you said that the current plan was for no net loss of wetlands. Now, if -- who -- who is the agency that's going to Page 145 January 23, 2002 1 6J1 be looking at this? Is this us, or is this South Florida Water Management District? MR. MULHERE: Well -- well, actually, the way that we've written in recommending these policies, we don't have the statutory obligation to permit wetland impacts. And it would be the South Florida Water Management District, or it could be the Corps. Is that basically it? Is the DEP involved in that? MR. LORENZ: It's delegated from the DEP to the Water Management District. MR. MULHERE: The Water Management District or the Corps. MR. COE: That's getting to my point. My point is is we're evidently going by the minimum standards here. But what do we do in the case of mitigation? MR. MULHERE: Well, we had -- MR. COE: Because in the case of mitigation, we've already heard South Florida Water Management District testify in front of us that sometimes their mitigation for loss of wetlands they do uplands. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's a great question. MR. COE: And we want to make sure that there is no net loss to wetlands. So basically an agency that's above us, we're requiring to do above and beyond what their -- what they normally do. And how do we police that? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. COE: And how do we place that monkey on their back? MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- I think we've addressed that. It's a great question. In fact, I would have to compliment the environmental staff, the county for raising this issue to my attention and to our attention as we develop these policies. What we proposed to do was have a policy indicate that there would be no net loss of wetlands, in fact, that uplands couldn't be used as mitigation for Page 146 January 23, 2002 6J11 impacts to wetlands and that in order for us to ensure that, we need to have that WRAP score up front, which was something that, I think, Marco Espinar was concerned about because of the timing. But we are asking for that up front. So they at least have to go sufficiently into the process to have gotten an approved WRAP score from the agency, and that has to be submitted to the county. Then, beyond that, they would be put on notice as part of their stipulations or conditions of approval, even if they haven't gone all the way through the process to get a permit, that if they are intending to mitigate for any impacts to wetlands, that there has to be no net loss and, further, that, you know, mitigation in the form of uplands would not be acceptable. MR. COE: Do you have a memorandum of understanding or a letter of understanding with the South Florida Water Management District that they're going to do this? MR. MULHERE: No. And we don't really care. If they allow that, that's fine. They're just going to have to -- they're just going to have to address our requirements. In other words, they're going to know it up front so when they go through the process, knowing that up front that we're not going to accept mitigation that doesn't meet these requirements, they're going to have to negotiate mitigation that does meet these requirements. MR. COE: With who? MR. MULHERE: With the agency. MR. COE: And they say that's okay with them, South Florida Water Management? MR. MULHERE: We -- we -- I don't know that we've discussed it with them. MR. COE: Well, then how do we know it's going to -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One at a time, guys. MR. COE: Basically what you're saying to me is, we're telling Page 147 January 23, 2002 16JI them up front -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. COE: -- that they need to have the WRAP score first. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. COE: And that any mitigation is going to have to be, you know, one for one basically, no net loss. MR. MULHERE: That's right. Correct. MR. COE: We haven't even contacted South Florida Water Management District who does that mitigation as part of their process. MR. MULHERE: But if they have to go above and beyond what's called for by the district to meet our standards, then they will have to do that. And knowing that up front they're not going to get an approval from us unless they meet those standards, knowing it up front when they go in to negotiate mitigation, if the mitigation they negotiate doesn't meet our standards, then they may have to do further mitigation to meet our standards. MR. COE: So, in other words, they're going to come back to you after they've gone to -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. COE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Prior to final approval. MR. COE: I understand. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What else? MR. COE: Go to somebody else and let me look at my stuff here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: I've got a point. I'm on -- what is it -- the CCME here, COME, page 25. There's a policy 6.2.3, Collier County shall implement a comprehensive process to ensure wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands are protected and conserved. Page 148 January 23, 2002 64 Then if you go over to the next page on 26 and the first paragraph after Subsection 4 where it says, "Collier County shall allow for more intensive development to occur in rural fringe receiving lands, north Golden Gate Estates," is that getting to the point I raised earlier that that's the policy? MR. MULHERE: No. I -- I think the intent -- the intent there -- and, Bill, I would defer to you, but I believe the intent there was to indicate that within those areas, there -- there can be more intensive development, and there may be -- there may be, you know, mitigation and impacts that were not going -- that are not going to occur in the large connective wetland systems. But, anyway, I'm going to defer to Bill on that. MR. LORENZ: I think we talk about directing incompatible land uses away from everything ahead of that in that Policy 623 parentheses 1, 2, 3, 4, beginning on page 25, come down to 26. That's where we're directing away from. These are the large landscape features that we've said are significant to direct away from. We have to direct development to someplace as well, so I wanted to put, if you will, the equal sign on the equation. Make it clear that we are directing development to these other areas and -- and we don't have the other types of protection mechanisms that we have in the cons -- for instance, in the conservation lands, the NRPA lands. MR. CARLSON: So the county's policy is to allow for more intensive development in north Golden Gate Estates and the rural settlement area district which is Orangetree? MR. LORENZ: Yes, that -- those densities are going to be much -- are going to be higher in terms of wetlands -- in terms of directing development away from those other areas. These areas are going to be what's left in the county that's going to be higher intensity development. January 23, 2002 16J1 MR. MULHERE: I think what's not intended there by the term intensity development is higher than what's already permitted or proposed. What is intended is to indicate that within those areas the development is more intensive than it is in these other areas, conservation, natural resource protection, sending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: That's too bad. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anybody on the right have anything? Mr. Coe? MR. COE: Yeah, I have more. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe's got one. Go ahead. MR. GAL: Let's look at the permitted uses and sending areas on page 47. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Forty-seven of the FLUE. MR. GAL: Here it has agricultural uses. I'd like to delete forestry from those agricultural uses. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Where are you? MR. GAL: 5 -A, page 47, 5 -A. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 5 -A, gotcha, okay. MR. GAL: I'd like to delete forestry. I had a question. What are essential services, as defined in the Land Development Code? MR. MULHERE: You know, I apologize. I don't have a copy of the Land Development Code with me here but -- MR. GAL: Are you talking, like, sewer plants? MR. MULHERE: Sewer lines. Sewer plants, I think, require a condition -- they require a conditional use so there's a public hearing but, yes, they are an essential service. Transmission lines, police protection, you know. MR. GAL: What are sporting and recreational camps? MR. MULHERE: Sporting and recreational camps are hunting camps -- I'm trying to think of what else. Page 150 January 23, 2002 16J] MR. COE: Gun ranges? MR. MULHERE: Hiking camps. They could be -- MR. GAL: I mean, are those subject to -- MR. COE: Hand grenade pits. MR. GAL: -- development standards? MR. MULHERE: Yes, they're subject to development standards. The development standards are not within the comprehensive plan. Those are found in the LDR. Again, they're all subject to those -- those preservation natural resource protection standards, again, 80 percent, 90 percent if you're in a NRPA. So, yeah, there are some uses remaining that are permitted. MR. GAL: And -- and I'd like to delete oil, mineral extraction and related processing excluding earth mining. MR. MULHERE: I feel like I should tell you something about that one. I don't object to your recommendation to delete it, but I believe most, if not all, of the lands within Collier County attached to your deed is a right for the under -- for the -- the land, former landowner, the Collier family, to extract minerals and oil. And I don't think that there's really a market for too many minerals, but we do know that there's some oil out there because they're extracting it right now in the Big Cypress. I think you'll have -- just want to throw it on the record. That's a right that they enjoy, and it follows with everybody's deed. So I'm not sure how we can regulate that. Maybe we can; maybe we can't. We chose not to fight that fight in our recommendation. I just want to throw that out there for your consideration. MR. GAL: If it's not in the permitted use category, then is it a prohibited use? MR.IVIULHERE: Yes. If it's not expressly permitted, it would be prohibited. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Page 151 January 23, 2002 16JI MR. GAL: Well, it's about property rights so -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Mr. Coe. MR. GAL: I -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh. MR. GAL: At the present moment I'm moving to -- I'm -- to remove forestry from the permitted uses in sending areas. MS. LYNNE: Is that because somebody can cut down all the trees and then sell their development rights? MR. GAL: Yes. MR. COE: Okay. I see the point. MS. LYNNE: So what we want is a most -- some mechanism for prohibiting that activity? MR. GAL: Yeah. I want to remove forestry from the permitted use. MS. LYNNE: I'll second it. MR. GAL: From the sending area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. And the reason being? MR. COE: So there's no logging permitted. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: There's no logging permitted? MR. COE: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I know that. But if we farm, we have to clear it, take the logs off the property. If we ranch, we have to clear it, take the logs off the property. MR. MULHERE: It is a farming. It is an agricultural use, forestry. And it's all tied into what you directed us to do in terms of finding out whether or not we can regulate that. MR. GAL: If you -- I'll table the motion since we are going to find out what we can do. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I think it's probably going to be under the ag rule. MR. COE: I've got a couple more. Page 152 January 23, 2002 16J1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: I'd like to recommend that we remove all currently approved PUDs or any other projects that have already been permitted from the program. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Largely that's -- that's already in place. I just want to clarify. MR. COE: I want to make sure it's clear because we've approved a lot of projects, hundreds, matter of fact, thousands. And they've already been permitted. They haven't even moved the dirt yet. MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. COE: And I don't want them to be permitted to get credits in sending, receiving, and all that bunk. MR. MULHERE: That's what I thought, and that's why I say clarify it because what we're talking about is actually much more limited than what you're suggesting because within the rural fringe area, which is the only area where we're identified sending and receiving and currently the only area where you would be able to transfer development rights from sending to receiving, we're not including any PUDs that were approved in the urban area into that mix. There's only a few PUDs that were approved. But I did understand your motion to say if you have an approved project. MR. COE: Uh -huh. MR. MULHERE: PUD or otherwise, conditional use for a golf course. You are precluded from enjoying the ability to transfer joints. MR. COE: Absolutely. And I'm making a motion for that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Motion. Second? MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Carlson. Discussion? Page 153 January 23, 2002 response.) (No respo ) 1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor of the motion? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. MR. COE: Okay. I got another one. We've talked numerous times about the old beach. I'm surprised Matt wasn't here today. But I want to propose -- I want to make a motion that we -- there will be no beach raking during the turtle season extep -- except for storm emergency. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Where in the code are you related to? What's the reference -- MR. COE: Thirty- eight. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- what's the reference point? MR. MULHERE: COME. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Page 48? MR. COE: I think it's 3 8. Basically it gets added in that there will be no beach raking during the turtle season except during storm emergency. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Didn't we just -- didn't we just pass a very extensive ordinance that spells that out, I thought, a few months ago? MR. COE: But that isn't spelled out in this; that's why I want to make sure that it's spelled out here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't think -- I don't think that's what the ordinance says. MR. CARLSON: Yes. There was -- there was beach raking above the tide line or below the tide line. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very complex. MR. COE: Is anybody from the environmental office here? Page 154 January 23, 2002 1 6JI CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barb. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. The most recent, I think, two sets of amendments allows beach raking during sea turtle nesting season after the monitoring is in effect. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: So I'm recommending that there is no beach raking whatsoever during the turtle nesting season unless there's an emergency like a hurricane. MR. CARLSON: Like dead fish, things like that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Even though we just went through an extensive process and set an ordinance up and we're now saying that we don't want to live by what we agreed to two months ago? MR. GAL: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing those in favor. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. MR. CARLSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill, Mr. Sansbury, Mr. Carlson, motion fails. MR. COE: I got one last comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: I just don't know the answer to this. I've had several people send electronic mail to me recently regarding the fees for Page 155 January 23, 2002 16J1 permitting in the county. And there's only certain uses for the fees that are paid by developers or people that are permitting, you know, a house or whatever it may be. And our fees are way low compared to the City of Naples, not that that's necessarily the standards, but just to do a broad -brush comparison. I've heard several times by various people that are part of, like, the environmental office and some of the other offices that there aren't enough people to inspect, to check, to do the water monitoring, whatever it may be. If so, why don't we just raise the fees and hire the people? MR. MULHERE: I think that -- MR. COE: I realize that it's not on what we're doing right now, but maybe somebody can take that back to their office and we could find out. MR. MULHERE: I think you're talking about permitting fees? MR. COE: Yeah. I mean, the developers are paying the fees. MR. MULHERE: Or so -- actually -- MR. COE: Are we -- are we providing the service to the developers to do timely permitting? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I want to comment, developers are paying the fees. MR. COE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Homeowners of everybody that's building a lot in Golden Gate -- MR. COE: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- are paying those fees. So remember there's a lot of people other than developers paying those fees. MR. COE: That's correct. That's what I'm saying is why not just increase the fees and hire enough people to do the job to support the developers? Page 156 January 23, 2002 16J1 MR. MULHERE: I think that, generally, those -- statutorily those permit fees are tied to -- to the need for the activities which they -- they cover, and you have to establish some sort of a need there. And the Development Services Advisory Committee is a committee that the board set up that is the committee that would review initially anyway proposed fee increases. And it would be my recommend -- I mean, I would take that recommendation, if you wish, or staff could to -- to the administrator for community development who I think would deal with them through that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Great. MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger again. I'd like to make a comment on this issue about what fees collected relative to permitting and petitions for development, what those fees may be used for and what the appropriate level of those fees might be which the Board of County Commissioners has some discretion in. At this current time the county manager has directed the budget director, along with staff, Mr. Joe Schmitt, our new division administrator to do a Nexus analysis as to what exactly is the legal latitude in the application of the fees we collect in what we know as Fund 113, which is the community development fund. So that issue is being examined as to what latitude we can use. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Mr. Carlson, you look like you got a whole list there. What else you got there? MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm -- I'm also in the CCME on page 28 on Policy 6.2.7, talking about mitigation requirements for a loss of wetlands. And Sentence B says loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or adjacent to the impacted wetland. Page 157 January 23, 2 fo J 1 This can be done in a very artificial way and not have anywhere near the same natural resource values as a natural wetland that was there conveying water and storing water. So I think there's a lot of potential here to degrade wetlands with the way this is worded. Even though it requires appropriate South Florida Water Management District permit approval, they will permit a swale as opposed to a flow -way. We've seen that in the northern part of the county. So if I had my druthers, B would read, loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall not be allowed. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you want to put that in the form of a motion of a recommendation, 6.2.7 1 -B be revised with that language? MR. CARLSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Does everybody understand the motion? MS. LYNNE: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is there a second to the motion? MS. LYNNE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion, second. Do we hear discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. MR. GAL: Aye. . MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. Aye. How Page 158 January 23, 2002 many -- I was the only dissenter on this one? 16JI MR. COE: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Okay, sir. MR. CARLSON: I don't have anything else right now. I'm still looking. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Back and forth. Anybody else have anything? Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Mr. Beller (phonetic), when he presented this morning, referred to Mirasol. And if my notes are correct, there are two sections on the west side of that which has been purchased by the school corporation; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. There's -- let me reiterate there. There are four sections that are designated as -- as secondary receiving lands. Two of those sections fall within Mirasol, and two, I think, Miss Payton indicated, had been purchased by the county and the school board. And you've already made a motion to exclude or preclude the two sections that are in the Mirasol PUD because you've made a motion previously to not allow the TDR for approved projects, so that would be already taken care of out of the picture, based on your earlier motion. The two sections that, if they have been purchased by the county and the school board, they cannot transfer units, that had to be receiving. Well, they could sell it, and then somebody could transfer units in, so that would still be a valid issue because those are designated as secondary receiving. So they would currently allow -- I mean, I don't think the county is going to go out there or the school board is going to get out there and develop it, but they could sell off a portion of it, and it could be developed with receiving units into it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Hill? All right. MR. HILL: I -- the recommendation wasn't -- Nancy, was this by you to make that a neutral -- was that your recommendation? Page 159 January 23, 2002 MS. PAYTON: Yes. MR. HILL: I move that those two sections in the mere -- adjacent to the Mirasol PUD be denoted as a neutral. 16J1 '14 MR. MULHERE: Well, they're actually not adjacent to the Mirasol. There's two within Mirasol, and then there's two -- right here (indicating) in the what we'll call, I guess, the eastern corner of south of Immokalee Road of sending -- of receiving area within B. You can see it up there on the map, yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The title to those two sections is with... MR. MULHERE: I can't verify that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But the school board or county government or somebody? MR. MULHERE: That's the indications. I haven't done the research to verify that. I know at one point they were interested in purchasing it. They have may already, in fact, done that. I just don't know the answer to that. MR. COE: Yeah, I don't remember if they actually did it. I know they were discussing it, right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Hill, if you want to restate the motion... MR. MULHERE: But if they were neutral -- I just want to throw out there, if they were neutral, just to give you some sense of comfort with respect to that motion, not to influence you, if the school board wanted to put a school there and they were neutral, they still could. MR. HILL: I don't know how to define that piece of ground. MR. MULHERE: The secondary receiving area other than the one -- other than the one included in the Mirasol -- MR. HILL: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Page 160 January 23, 2002 MR. HILL: -- be redesignated as a neutral. 1 64 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: As neutral. Second? MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Discussion? (No response.) -. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, all in favor'stgnify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. MR. COE: You might want to take a break. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we take about five. (A break was held from 3:04 p.m. to 3:16 p.m.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. MULHERE : Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. MULHERE: I was asked to clarify, and if I misspoke -- I don't think I did, but if there's some confusion, relative to discussion that Mr. Coe and I were having related to the -- the language precluding mitigation for impacts to wetlands in the form of upland mitigation and how would we make sure that that happened, if I gave you the impression that we would -- that that would happen as a result of sending the applicant back to the district to modify their permit, that's not necessarily the case. We don't really -- it doesn't matter whether they go back to the district and modify their permit. What matters is that they show us a permit that meets our requirements. And if it doesn't, then they -- they don't have to modify the permit. They may just have to mitigate more on site to meet our requirements, and that could satisfy us. But either way, what we're saying to you is that they would not get an approval unless they meet Page 161 January 23, 2002 16JI the requirements in here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. We're at 3:15. We need to start moving on this thing because some of us have to get out of here at four o'clock. Where do we stand? Mr. Carlson, what else do you have? MR. CARLSON: Confusion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mass confusion? MR. CARLSON: Mass confusion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Uh -huh. MR. COE: I'd like to discuss the buffer that we talked about earlier and we just can't seem to get around it. That's the kind of buffer I like. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: All right. We've talked about a mile buffer, but there's a lot of areas out here where you can't get a mile buffer. So how do we get around this and create a buffer, because I think it's the intent, based on what I've heard today in testimony by various citizens and from the discussion here on the EAC, over years of discussion with the EAC, that we'd like to tackle that and establish buffers ? MR. MULHERE: It's a tough issue. I suggest to you -- and I think what Bill has proposed here, coupled with a minimum buffer, which we have in there, don't we? MR. LORENZ: Uh -huh. MR. MULHERE: 300 feet. MR. COE: 300 feet. MR. MULHERE: So you have a minimum buffer which can be exceeded and will be exceeded based on the up -front evaluation of the potential hydrological impacts as a result of the development. So you've got -- I mean, I -- I don't know if there's a case that, you know, the study reveals that you know what? It's going to have an impact Page 162 January 23, 2002 1 6JI that extends 2 miles. But there's no outside limitation. There's a minimum 300 feet. However, it can exceed that based on the analysis that's done up front, and then you establish a buffer. MR. COE: How long -- how long did that study go on, the one that the guy presented to us -- I guess it was last month? There was several years that thing went on, didn't it? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seventies. Five, six years. MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. COE: I mean, are developers going to be required to do that study over that length of time so that they can get a good idea of what impact they're going to have? MR. MULHERE: No. It's a modeling. MR. LORENZ: Right. It's -- it's a modeling exercise that a groundwater hydrologist will do to try to estimate what their general impacts are. As you noted earlier, you know, once you set your water control elevations, then you're going to set -- then you're going to set your elevations of your roads and your -- and your buildings. And you're pretty much fixed in. Even -- even when you start talking about monitoring, I didn't propose monitoring for the hydrologic impacts because that -- you're going to be fairly much set as to what's going to happen in -- in that. But the Water Management District has determined that you can realistically go through a modeling exercise and come up with an assessment. Is it a hundred -- is it going to be a hundred percent certain? No. There's not a hundred percent certainty with it. But if you -- if you don't go through an exercise like that, then you set up front some presumptive number of which it's very difficult to try to defend when someone can come in and say, well, look, I can go through this exercise and -- and show you with reasonable certainty that we're not going to have an adverse impact. The -- this issue was tackled in a -- in a study that was done for Page 163 January 23, 2002 the St. Johns Water Management District for buffers, and it's-- -- 6JI typically Mark Brown. It was done in the early '90s. They went through an exercise for the -- for the general system that you would find in those areas. They specified a -- a -- they worked their numbers backwards from a -- a draw -down of less than, I want to say, a tenth of a foot, if I recall properly. They did some groundwater modeling, and they determined for certain systems up in those areas that you'd have a three- or four- or five - hundred -foot buffer that would be appropriate from a groundwater perspective. We -- as staff we -- we toyed with the idea of trying to come up with a particular number to model against, such as some diminimus number of a -- of a tenth of a foot. And rather than -- rather than specify some other procedure, we then recommended that you utilize the South Florida Water Management District's procedure because that's what they have adopted for the district. So we -- we -- we struggled with the -- the same idea as well, and -- and proposed the -- the procedure that's currently as -- as your proposal because of those issues. MR. COE: Well, you say to us not to be arbitrary and just establish a one -mile buffer without basing it on any scientific data. How'd you come up with 300 feet? MR. LORENZ: 300 feet was -- if you look at some of the wildlife information, now, 300 feet is not set up to be a hydrologic number. That's set up to look at some of the wildlife issues. If you look in your data analysis that was tabulated, there was also a number that this Rural Fringe Advisory Committee felt comfortable with. Recognize, also, within -- within the buffer information, that if you have a particular set of species, for instance, if you have a bald eagle's nest that's within a natural reservation, you're going to have to have a setback of 1,500 feet, 1500 feet. That may take you past the 300 -foot buffer. So you have to read the buffer language in your Page 164 January 23, 2002 16JI proposal that it's just not 300 feet. We have some additional requirements that have to be met as well. The hydrologic information may -- may establish that you have to set -- set back much further distance for water -- for water el -- water control elevations. It could be greater than the 300 feet. We don't know. That's why you have to go through the modeling exercise. So there's a number of reasons to set the buffers, wildlife issues, storm water or groundwater withdrawal impacts, and those are -- those are built into that buffering language that we proposed. MR. COE: Okay. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: Here's -- here's the givens. Here's what I can tell you having lived with this for so long is that, you know, we -- we have an important upland areas to protect in this county. But when you look at the conservation area map and the NRPA maps, you know, the vast majority of the areas that we're trying to protect are -- are wetland water dependent water -- I mean, water is the key element and should be the primary factor that we're considering when we're talking about buffering our conservation areas, natural areas, NRPAs, from negative impacts. I can tell you that -- and we've been doing that for years and years and years at -- where I work, but when your adjacent land is rural without an official drainage system, without a canal system, without a planned system, there is no deleterious impact on your hydrology. The relationship of rainfall to water level doesn't change. When your -- when your neighboring land use is 1 dwelling per 5 acres without improved drainage, no problem. When your adjacent land use is agriculture, the water level fluctuates wildly. I can tell that when they turn their pumps on; I can tell that when they turn their pumps off. Now, what happens when you start improving drainage? We Page 165 Janua ry 23 2002 1 6JI heard today one mile east of the 951 canal there's degraded hydrologic conditions in the eastern end of the Bell Meade NRPA. So, you know, we sort of know something here. MR. LORENZ: But let me -- let me respond to that in terms of 951. The water elevations that are set in the 951 canal are at least 4 to 5, 6 feet below normal groundwater tables. That canal system was set prior to any formal review or any review of the -- of the drainage system standards that you would currently have now. And I guess what I'm saying is that the -- the degree of impact is proportional to the -- to the water elevation -- water control elevation that you set. And the canals that we currently have have been put into place that you would never see those water -- those elevations except to that dis -- those levels now through the South Florida Water Management permitting. So I don't think that it's -- it's fair to equate those past alterations with what we propose to see in the future. MR. CARLSON: Well, you know, when -- when I argue about other things, people tell me, well, it's the best available data, and it is the best available data. The other thing I worry about is there's -- there's two issues: There's surface water management when you're talking about canals and drainage systems, drainage ditches, but then there's groundwater use. And as those receiving areas increase in population, you may put in well fields for potable water, but all those people are going to put in irrigation systems to water their lawns. And that's going to. come right straight out of the groundwater table. That's the way it's done at Orangetree. They don't -- I think all those dwelling units in Orangetree are required to have an irrigation well. That's above and beyond whatever their water use is for potable water that comes out of their plant. And over time, can you imagine, you know -- think in long term. A hundred years from now when it's Page 166 January 23, 2002 16J built out, the incredible amount of water use. And, you know, I would like things like Corkscrew and the Bell Meade to survive over the long term. And I -- I have my doubts. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: This modeling system that South Florida Water Management is using, what is its accuracy? There should be a percent accuracy? MR. LORENZ: I don't know. I couldn't tell you that. MS. LYNNE: Were their models based on actual field studies? MR. LORENZ: Yes. The -- well, what I recall in the -- the basis of review, that there is a set of protocols they have to go through that -- that would be fairly representative and typical of -- of general groundwater modeling. They'll have to establish some natural background elevation. They do specify that -- I mean, if you can -- if you can infer that information for a particular area, you have to submit the data and the supporting documentation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Much -- much of the data that was submitted to us several weeks by Jim Duever was utilized as some of the basis for the modeling. So it's from data such as the stuff that he put together in the '70s and'80s that they've plugged into the computer and brought up to date and so forth to set up those models. MR. LORENZ: And they also specify actually there's a condition in there that would indicate that if -- if there has been a severe alteration to the -- to the groundwater table as a result of past -- past efforts, that you don't automatically get to use that as your base levels, that you're going to have to have a higher water table elevation. That's some specific information and in that basis of -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's move forward. Ed, what do you got? MR. CARLSON: I got one more thing. I don't know if we brought up -- going back to the rural village concept, the actual size Page 167 January 23, 2002 1 6JI of those, I'm not an expert on rural villages. But, quite frankly, I was just blown away by the size, the potential size, of them, thousands of acres. You know, that's just a concern for me. I don't know how to put that in the form of a motion to limit the size to some other smaller area. But I -- I think that's -- that's a DRI scale thing. And when we're talking about a rural village thing, I get kind of a warm, cozy feeling of a small little hamlet, you know, and a lot of green space around it in a small concentrated, you know, living area. And, you know, it's -- it's -- that's not what it is. It's a -- it's a huge subdivision. MR. MULHERE: Well, not necessarily, it is -- as I indicated before, the -- we agreed with the -- the concerns that were raised and actually reduce the size from what you have before you from 500 acres to 2,000. At the upper end 2,000 is pretty big. However, the intent there was that these are things that, you know, will grow over time. That may be a 20- or 30 -year development pattern in a rural village that starts out very small and then grows and, you know, 2,000 acres may be reasonable with 7,000 or 8,000 residents and still take on the components of a village. Maybe it matures into a rural town at that point in time. It's still within a receiving area. It's still where we want to direct land uses to. It's still going to be mixed use in development. It's still going to be compact in nature. And from our perspective, there was no negative or no down side to that. MR. GAL: Okay. What's -- what's 2,000 acres in miles, just so I could picture it? MR. CARLSON: A mile is -- square mile is -- 640 acres in a square mile. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Four square miles. MR. GAL: Four square miles about? MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm tired -- I'm not going to beat that horse again but -- Page 168 January 23, 2002 16J1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Do we have anyone else that wants to make a motion for recommendation for revisions, additions, deletions, what have you? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, then -- MR. CARLSON: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE: We've got the e-mail from Allie Santoro and her suggestions. And I'm just suggesting, since she wrote them up we -- as a courtesy, we should go over them. MR. CARLSON: I think you took On the task. MS. LYNNE: Okay, okay. Page 40, 3 -A. MR. MULHERE: Forty of the CCME? MS. LYNNE: Well, I've looked at both page 40s, and I don't see this section. MR. LORENZ: What's it referring to specific -- does it have a MS. LYNNE: It says, page 43 A, not allow new unacceptable farming practices or golf courses unless they have mechanisms to maintain water tables. MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's got to be in the FLUE. MR. LORENZ: That's in the FLUE. MR. MULHERE: I think she's referring to primary receiving lands, which would be on the bottom of page 42. MS. LYNNE: Forty -two? MR. MULHERE: It starts there. MS. LYNNE: Then 3 -B. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What are we doing? Are we doing that line by line on Allie's memo? MS. LYNNE: That was just my suggestion. I'm not sure what she's referring to here. Page 169 January 23, 2002 16J1 MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, there is -- there is a 3 -A and B on 40. But, again, I think maybe there's some confusion there because those are interim natural resource protection area restrictions that were called for and adopted as -- pursuant to the final order. Again, that would apply in the eastern lands and wouldn't apply in the fringe once these other things were adopted. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I believe on 43 -A what we're referring to is the line that we were talking about, agricultural uses. It says not allowing unacceptable farming or golf courses unless they have mechanisms to maintain water tables and forth. I think we addressed that. MR. MULHERE: I think so too. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Page 24, 6.1.4 -- I think we may have already done this -- not promote new clearing of ag lands if in sending areas. Did we do a motion pertinent to that? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. MS. LYNNE: Okay. 6.1.5, why should the county have reduced preservation requirements? MR. COE: Fifty. MR. CARLSON: Fifty percent. MR. LORENZ: This is in this conservation and coastal management element. MR. MULHERE: Page 24. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yup. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I have it up on the screen. MR. MULHERE: The -- the county purchased that land. So, therefore, all of the taxpayers of the county purchased that land. The -- the intent with respect to that, some portion of that land which is immediately adjacent to the existing landfill is to create a resource recovery facility and a county barn facility. Page 170 January 23, 2002 16J1 Our discussions with the utilities or public works division was that -- that they would need to utilize a higher percentage of that land, probably about 80 acres maximum or -- I'm sorry -- a hundred -- was it 150 acres maximum? 160? Anyway, 50 percent preservation standard was sufficient for them to be able to utilize the land for the intended uses. And what we proposed was that they preserve at least 50 percent and, of course, they still have to go through the permitting process with the agencies. The county is not absolved from going through that process. I guess you would have to find as to whether or not you believe there is a public purpose for the county to be able to utilize existing land for public purpose or not utilizing that land and going out and purchasing new land. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Hearing none, how about 6.2.7, apply to ag practices as well? Again, I think that comes under whether -- what is permitted under the -- what's the name of that act, Fair Farming Act? MR. MULHERE: Right -to -Farm Act. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right -to -Farm Act, yeah. Page 31, paragraph 1 -E, little 1 says used as fenced walls or tunnels, uses, to encourage wildlife to use natural corridors to -- never mind. I'm sorry. Forget it. Everybody can read it. MS. LYNNE: I think what Miss Santoro is asking here is that we include the word "tunnels," use of fencing walls, tunnels or other obstructions to encourage wildlife to use natural corridors to separate wildlife corridors from areas of human activity. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anybody want to move to change 6 -- Page 171 January 23, 2002 MR. COE: Ill make -- make that motion. I 6JI CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- to add the word "tunnels" in that particular paragraph, which is page 31 ? That is on Item 1 -E, little e, 1, add the word "tunnels." MR. COE: Do we have a second? MR. CARLSON: Wait a minute. Tunnels is not an obstruction. Lower down there's a roadway crossing. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. You're right. You're absolutely right. MR. CARLSON: So, you know, I don't know if that helps. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. MS. LYNNE: So should we add to -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. MS. LYNNE: Should we add it to No. E 3, use of appropriate roadway crossings, signage and tunnels? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, I think appropriate roadway crossing are tunnels are overpasses. MR. MULHERE: That was the intent. MR. CARLSON: What's the official name? Are we calling them underpasses, or what are we calling them? Wildlife crossings. MR. COE: I call them tunnels. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, okay. MR. CARLSON: Maybe an appropriate -- MR. MULHERE: They have them both ways. Some places they're above the roads. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think that covers it in that particular paragraph. Let's look at 34 EIS, waive for single - family homes, but what about species, i.e., eagle's nests we have lost? MR. CARLSON: Oh, yes. I understand that. MR. CARLSON: Single - family residents are exempted from any wildlife surveys. Page 172 January 23, 200 16J1 MR. MULHERE: From an EIS. MR. CARLSON: Oh, okay. It doesn't exempt them from any statutory state or federal requirement. It just means that we're not going to require in an existing platted subdivision -- because don't forget, any new project is going to have to do this. It's the existing platted subdivisions that have single - family homes that haven't gone through this process, primarily Golden Gate Estates. We're not going to require a single- family property owner to conduct an environmental impact statement. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Understandable. Thirty -eight Policy 3 -- 7.3.2. MS. LYNNE: I think what Allie wants here is not only does the lighting have to be protecting -- the absence of lighting protecting sea turtles but, also, they're going to inspect for the removal of beach equipment when they do their nighttime surveys. I would certainly -- I would make a -- go ahead. MR. CARLSON: Barbara, is that already an requirement in there somewhere? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's in the ordinance, beach ordinance, I believe, removal of furniture. Remember we went through that whole thing? MS. LYNNE: Right. But this is saying that there are nightly inspections. MR. CARLSON: Oh, county staff shall conduct nightly inspections. They don't have to remove. MS. LYNNE: No. They're not going to remove it. They're going to inspect for removal. I think Allie wants to make it clear when they're going out to inspect the proper lighting conditions. She also thinks there should be reports on the proper removal of beach equipment. MS. BURGESON: Right. I think -- for the record, Barbara Page 173 January 23, 2002 1 6JI Burgeson -- what's currently required for the night monitoring is the lighting issues. We don't require that staff, which is the natural resources department, staff -- do the monitoring for the beach equipment. At -- that typically falls on the code enforcement department. But I would -- I would agree that with the language that's in the Land Development Code that requires the beach furniture to be removed, that if that department, while they're doing those inspections, determines that there's a noncompliant issue, that they should address it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure? MS. LYNNE: So I move that we add "and removal of beach equipment" per Allie's directions here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second? MR. STONE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed unanimously. MR. MULHERE: One potential correction to that language, staff just raised an issue with the -- the wording, "nightly." I don't think there's any way that we're going to guarantee that there's going to be nightly inspections. Periodic, intermittent. Nightly is probably not likely to occur, and I certainly would hate to have something in here that says we're going to have to do something when I really don't see it happening, and I'm hearing that from the natural resource staff -- MR. COE: Why don't we say regular. Page 174 January 23, 2002 16J1 MR. MULHERE: Regular. MS. LYNNE: It's already in there, the language. MR. MULHERE: I know it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But we're saying we don't think we can do that. MR. LORENZ: Put it this way. We don't want to infer that we're going to be doing each and every night inspections. MR. COE: I'll make a motion to change it to regular instead of nightly. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second it, somebody. MR. STONE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Unanimous. MR. COE: Way to blow through the agenda. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Now, we have to move on the entire document; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: It would be -- now that you've dealt with individual things -- MS. STUDENT: Individual items too. MR. MULHERE: And that motion would be subject to your other motions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Now, do we make two motions, one on the land use and the other one? MR. MULHERE: I think that would be a good idea because we may send separate ordinances out for that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we have a Page 175 January 23, 16 J 1 motion that we move the recommendation of the land -use element with the conditions that we have requested by previous motions. How does that sound? MR. MULHERE: Good. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe, did you do that? MR. COE: I did that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Second. MR. HILL: This wouldn't preclude us on the next meeting making additional recommendations, would it? MR. MULHERE: Nope. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. How about the conservation and coastal management element? MR. COE: I make the same recommendation I did the last one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good. I'm glad to hear that. MR. HILL: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill, you second? MR. HILL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Favor? MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. Mr. GAL: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. MS. LYNNE: Aye. Page 176 January 23, 2"16 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You're opposed? MS. LYNNE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: For the record, it passed 6 to 1. MS. STUDENT: There's one other element. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What is that? MR. MULHERE: It's the central water and sewer policies sub -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Actually, two, aren't there? MR. MULHERE: Well, they're subelements. MS. STUDENT: They're subelements. MR. MULHERE: Potable water and potable sewer. And I can tell you very briefly what those entail. That is that we will be extending -- the county will allow or permit the extension of central water and sewer into receiving areas. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe? MR. COE: I'll make a motion to so move. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The sanitary sewer and potable water? MR. COE: Both of them. That's right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second? MR. HILL: Yup . CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Hill. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, unanimous. Anything else? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Carlson, it will all depend on whether or not the receiving areas go forward. It will be a moot point if they don't. If they do, then by extending central water and sewer you at least minimize -- you allow for the benefits of clustering through that process. Page 177 January 23, 20 c� 6J1b. l CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: I got one more question. Has anyone sat down and looked at how many units have already been approved yet not yet built? MR. MULHERE: There was an exercise done a few years ago by the county. I don't know whether that's been updated. I mean, I can -- MR. COE: Versus the water and the sewage -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, that's been done. That's been done very recently. MR. COE: So that has been done? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that has been done within the last few months. MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay? MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anybody have anything else? MR. CARLSON: In this day and age with the computers and the information, it's like you go to the store and they scan on the point of sale system and they automatically know what their inventory is, what's gone out. MR. MULHERE: That's a very good point. MR. CARLSON: Man, that should be up to date like every day. Work on that, will you? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Did you put bar codes on those wood storks, same thing. MS. LYNNE: I've got one more question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: About the part of the order that says we're supposed to look at unique agricultural areas, and I believe the comment was made that we were just doing that in the eastern Page 178 January 23, 2002 section. MR. MULHERE: Well, primarily was. MS. LYNNE: But if there is a unique area in our section, shouldn't that be addressed? 1 like that. The final MR. MULHERE: It doesn't read exactly order says that we should develop measures to protect prime agricultural uses, uses, maybe areas. MS. LYNNE: Areas. MR. MULHERE: Areas. So what does that mean? Well, prime, by definition, refers to the soils, the quality of the soils. And they're mostly only found in delta areas, from what I understand. So ours is not p rime; it's unique, and it's unique based on weather, more so than anything else, rainfall. el I relatively -- Based on our valuation, there are relatively __ say few examples of -- of active agriculture in the fringe area. There is some, especially in D. But it's a very small percentage when compared to the eastern lands portion where the majority exists. We believe we have proposed some measures. I mean, were not precluding someone from farming. We're not even precluding them from farming after they transfer their development rights within a receiving area. That is an incentive to continue to farm if you retain your land and, you know, with sending lands and transfer your development rights. So we do have some incentives. Clustering is a huge incentive for agriculture. MS. LYNNE: I'm just -- if it's really true that the gentleman who was here earlier that we have an area, one of only two in the continental United States that is frost free year -round -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. LYNNE: -- that does seem to me to be something that should be looked at. Page 179 January 23, 2002 'j 6JI MR. MULHERE: I think we have looked at it, and there's no requirement that those property owners, if they want to continue to farm there, there's nothing that's going to cause them to not farm in what we've proposed. In fact, there are provisions that -- that might allow them to realize the benefits of clustered development on a portion of the property and continue to farm on the other portion. If anything, it's enhanced their ability to have flexibility. I mean, we haven't taken away that right. We've just added some additional rights since it's a receiving area for clustering primarily. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:44 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 180 Fists ___1�_.,_, ✓ �� Carter _.._�._ Henning V Coyle r`�tetta 6J1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 114 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION February 5, 2002 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 REC8VED Meeting Notice FEB 2 1 2002 80ari of taint, CM113stoners Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee The next meeting of the Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee is scheduled for Monday, February 25, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Corkscrew Middle School Media Center, 1165 Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) Naples, Florida. Enclosed please find an agenda for the meeting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the Collier County Planning Services Department, ( 941)- 659 -5737. Sincerely, Linda Sedtelyon Planning Technician Planning Services /lb Enclosure PHONE (941) 403 -2400 FAX (941) 643 -6968 Misc. Corres: Date: Z Item# I Laj ( Copies To: www.co.collienfl.us , "Draft 16J1' .. RURAL LANDS ASSESSMENT AREA OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AGENDA MEETING DATE: Monday, February 25, 2002 MEETING TIME: 5:30 PM LOCATION: Corkscrew Middle School Media Center (library) 1165 Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) Naples, Florida I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 4, 2002 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. Notice of Sunshine Law Workshop B. Mini - Workshop, Scenario Three VI. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT VII. FUTURE MEETING DATES March 11, 2002 March 18, 2002 VIII. ADJOURNMENT "Draft 16JI ' RURAL LANDS ASSESSMENT AREA OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES February 4, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Joseph Boggs Kathy Prosser (exc.) Floyd Crews David Santee Ron Hamel Rodney Harvey James T. Horner James Howard Grady Miars Ann Olesky Neno Spagna Fred Thomas Sonya Tuten COUNTY STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Tom Conrecode Barbara Burgeson, Planning Services Brad Cornell Bob Mulhere, Staff Consultant Tim Durham Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Terry Flora Margie Student, Assistant County Attorney Ken Heatherington Tom Jones Jeff Perry Al Reynolds Nicole Ryan Amber Sundsted Michael Taylor *and others, names unknown CALL TO ORDER (Item I.) The meeting was held at Corkscrew Middle School Media Center (library), 1165 Oil Well Road (C.R. 858), Naples, Florida. Chairman, Ron Hamel calls to order at 5:30 PM with a quorum present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Item II.) James Horner moved to approve the December 17, 2001 meeting minutes, followed by a second from Fred Thomas; the motion passed unanimously, 11:0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Item III.) A "Discussion of Scenario Three" was added under, New Business, item C. and a "Briefing on the Growth Management Conference ", was added under, New 16J1`1 Business, item D; the amended agenda was approved unanimously, following a motion by Fred Thomas and a second by James Horner. OLD BUSINESS (Item N.A.) Committee Request for Legal explanation of official "extension" of Study Due -date: Margie Student comments that she has been in contact with the county's outside legal representatives, who said they will contact the Administration Commission for an official response to the county and Department of Community Affairs (DCA) request for a time extension for the Rural Lands Study; Margie to update committee when she has information; NEW BUSINESS (Item V.A.) Status Report of Draft Impact Analysis for Scenario One: Al Reynolds of WilsonMiller reviews packet distributed at January 28, 2002 meeting, which contains 1. Impact Analysis Overview 2. Horizon framework 3. Baseline reference scenario 4. Sub Area Horizon Framework demographics 5. Existing (2000) land cover allocation 6. Stewardship Credit Calculation 7. Alternative Blend of Stewardship Receiving Area Development 8. Stewardship Receiving Area Land Conversions 9. Baseline Reference Scenario Land Conversions 10. Comparison of Land Conversion 11. Findings (including a paragraph entitled "Economy" that states, "A full economic assessment is being prepared and will be presented by Fishkind & Associates in approximately 45 days. It will provide a comparison of ad valorem tax base, revenues generated and costs to government for alternative scenarios ") and (Item V.B.) Review of Public Land Acquisition /Information from Technical Advisory Group for Scenario Two: On December 19, 2002, Al Reynolds submitted a letter of request for assistance from the Technical Advisory Group to the Department of Community Affairs, Mike McDaniel; AI reviews responses for assistance from DCA and the Technical Advisory Group members in identifying potential sources of outside funding for "the acquisition of conservation easements, stewardship credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection.' The Florida Stewardship Foundation submitted a listing entitled, "Public Conservation Funding Options For Collier County ", and a response from DCA's Community Program Administrator, Roger Wilburn included a matrix of a list of the sources the Department has identified; (Item V.C.) Discussion of Scenario Three: Bob Mulhere asks committee to consider stepping up public input as a component of Scenario Three, particularly, to invite the public and various interest groups to the committee's next scheduled meeting as a mini - workshop to decide what elements should comprise Scenario Three; he mentions including Collier County staff, such as Barbara Burgeson, environmental specialist with the Current Planning Department of Planning Services, so that the county would have more input in developing Scenario Three, along with the other interested individual and groups, such as, Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier Audubon Society; Al Reynolds suggests the committee review the tools in the Toolbox from Scenario One as part of the discussion; Bob concurs and comments that staff can make the invitation a part of the upcoming agenda, as well as contact all the interested parties on the e-mail list t1 6 V 1 request their input; FUTURE MEETING DATES (Item VII.) A request by the Corkscrew Middle School office for a schedule of upcoming meeting dates results in the following dates set: February 25`h March 11 and 18 April 1, 15, and 29 and May 13`h all at 5:30 PM at Corkscrew Middle School Media Center. ADJOURNMENT (Item VIII.) The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:30 PM A taped and hard copy of these minutes are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex, minutes may also be viewed on the website: www.nasites.com /collier, Rural Assessments page *Draft 16JI I i WV RURAL LANDS ASSESSMENT AREA OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES February 4, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Joseph Boggs Kathy Prosser (exc.) Floyd Crews David Santee Ron Hamel Rodney Harvey James T. Horner James Howard Grady Miars Ann Olesky Neno Spagna Fred Thomas Sonya Tuten COUNTY STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Tom Conrecode Barbara Burgeson, Planning Services Brad Cornell Bob Mulhere, Staff Consultant Tim Durham Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Terry Flora Margie Student, Assistant County Attorney Ken Heatherington Tom Jones Jeff Perry Al Reynolds Nicole Ryan Amber Sundsted Michael Taylor *and others, names unknown CALL TO ORDER (Item I.) The meeting was held at Corkscrew Middle School Media Center (library), 1165 Oil Well Road (C.R. 858), Naples, Florida. Chairman, Ron Hamel calls to order at 5:30 PM with a quorum present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Item II.) James Horner moved to approve the December 17, 2001 meeting minutes, followed by a second from Fred Thomas; the motion passed unanimously, 11:0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Item III.) A "Discussion of Scenario Three" was added under, New Business, item C. and a "Briefing on the Growth Management Conference ", was added under, New 16J1 Business, item D; the amended agenda was approved unanimously, following a motion by Fred Thomas and a second by James Horner. OLD BUSINESS (Item N.A.) Committee Request for Legal explanation of official "extension" of Study Due -date: Margie Student comments that she has been in contact with the county's outside legal representatives, who said they will contact the Administration Commission for an official response to the county and Department of Community Affairs (DCA) request for a time extension for the Rural Lands Study; Margie to update committee when she has information; NEW BUSINESS (Item V.A.) Status Report of Draft Impact Analysis for Scenario One: Al Reynolds of WilsonMiller reviews packet distributed at January 28, 2002 meeting, which contains 1. Impact Analysis Overview 2. Horizon framework 3. Baseline reference scenario 4. Sub Area Horizon Framework demographics 5. Existing (2000) land cover allocation 6. Stewardship Credit Calculation 7. Alternative Blend of Stewardship Receiving Area Development 8. Stewardship Receiving Area Land Conversions 9. Baseline Reference Scenario Land Conversions 10. Comparison of Land Conversion 11. Findings (including a paragraph entitled "Economy" that states, "A full economic assessment is being prepared and will be presented by Fishkind & Associates in approximately 45 days. It will provide a comparison of ad valorem tax base, revenues generated and costs to government for alternative scenarios ") and (Item V.B.) Review of Public Land Acquisition /Information from Technical Advisory Group for Scenario Two: On December 19, 2002, Al Reynolds submitted a letter of request for assistance from the Technical Advisory Group to the Department of Community Affairs, Mike McDaniel; Al reviews responses for assistance from DCA and the Technical Advisory Group members in identifying potential sources of outside funding for "the acquisition of conservation easements, stewardship credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection." The Florida Stewardship Foundation submitted a listing entitled, "Public Conservation Funding Options For Collier County", and a response from DCA's Community Program Administrator, Roger Wilburn included a matrix of a list of the sources the Department has identified; (Item V.C.) Discussion of Scenario Three: Bob Mulhere asks committee to consider stepping up public input as a component of Scenario Three, particularly, to invite the public and various interest groups to the committee's next scheduled meeting as a mini - workshop to decide what elements should comprise Scenario Three; he mentions including Collier County staff, such as Barbara Burgeson, environmental specialist with the Current Planning Department of Planning Services, so that the county would have more input in developing Scenario Three, along with the other interested individual and groups, such as, Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier Audubon Society; Al Reynolds suggests the committee review the tools in the Toolbox from Scenario One as part of the discussion; Bob concurs and comments that staff can make the invitation a part of the 16J1 upcoming agenda, as well as contact all the interested parties on the e-mail list to request their input; FUTURE MEETING DATES (Item VII.) A request by the Corkscrew Middle School office for a schedule of upcoming meeting dates results in the following dates set: February 25`h March 11 and 18 April 1, 15, and 29 and May 131h all at 5:30 PM at Corkscrew Middle School Media Center. ADJOURNMENT (Item VIII.) The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:30 PM A taped and hard copy of these minutes are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex; minutes may also be viewed on the website: www.nasites.com /collier, Rural Assessments page 16J1' • Immokalee Area Study Rural Stewardship Scenario (Scenario One) Draft Impact Analysis Summary Prepared by: WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 941 - 649 -4040 Presented to the Rural Lands Committee January 28, 2002 • DRAFT 16J1 Immokalee Area Study Rural Stewardship Scenario (Scenario One) Impact Analysis Summary January 28, 2002 1 Impact Analysis Overview As set forth in the adopted work plan for the Study, a technical analysis of the economic, environmental, transportation, public service, utility and water resource impacts is performed for each scenario. The analysis is designed to assist the Committee and public in selecting tools, techniques and strategies that maximize the potential benefits, minimize adverse impacts and achieve the goals set forth in the Final Order. The methodology for the analysis of scenarios has been established over the past several months in collaboration with the Committee. In general, the methodology included the establishment of the Horizon Framework for the year 2025, the establishment of a baseline reference scenario to use for comparison to each scenario, and the selection of a representative sub -area of the overall study area within which each scenario could be described and tested. A brief summary of each of these elements follows. 2. Horizon framework • The horizon framework is the collective set of parameters within which scenarios are evaluated. A horizon framework ensures that variables being tested can be benchmarked to a common reference. Framework parameters are based on state policy (ACSC), county policy (Immokalee Urban boundary), approved methodology (MPO model), or consensus (horizon year). The horizon framework is depicted on a map previously provided and includes: • A Horizon year of 2025. • The MPO 2025 projected road network, population, traffic analysis zones, and travel demand model. ❑ Interim NRPA boundaries as adopted. • The current boundary of the Immokalee Urban Area. • The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, and regulatory framework therein. • Existing public lands. ❑ The natural resource and land use inventory as delineated in Stage I of the Assessment. ❑ Employment estimates and demographic indexes to establish support services. ❑ Adopted level of service standards in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 3. Baseline reference scenario The County's Growth Management Plan (Plan) goals, objectives, and policies coupled with existing zoning regulations and other land development regulations in effect at the time the Final Order was adopted, when applied to the Study area and projected forward establish a future condition that results from no change to the Plan. This is the baseline reference scenario, sometimes- describe_d_as__ the "do - nothing "_ plan. W_ e_use. this- baseli.ne-reference -to _ass_ess. _ _ -1- • LJ • 16J1 whether and to what extent the application of various tools will achieve the results desired under the Final Order. 4 Sub Area Horizon Framework demographics The sub area was delineated and presented to the Committee on October 22, 2001. It includes a representative amount of various types of land cover and land use found in the overall study area and is used to test scenarios. The projected 2025 dwelling units and populations are derived from the Collier County Long Range Transportation Plan. Sub -Area Acreage: 19,946 acres (approximately 10% of study area) Sub -Area 2025 Dwelling Units: 1614 (approximately 10% of study area) Sub -Area 2025 Population: 4,035 persons (2.5 persons per Dwelling Unit) 5 Existing (2000) land cover allocation The following table shows the existing land cover of the sub area: SCENARIO ONE SUB AREA ANALYSIS - EXISTING LAND COVER AGRICULTURAL AREAS Acreage % of Area PASTURE 6969 FALLOW 1480 WATER RETENTION (uplands and wetlands 1443 CITRUS 1317 ROW CROP 1290 RANGELAND 454 SPECIALTY 197 BARREN 19 SUBTOTAL 13168 66% DEVELOPED AREAS TRANSPORTATION Road R/W 248 RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL 71 WATER 32 SUBTOTAL 351 2% NATURAL AREAS WETLANDS 3760 NATIVE UPLAND 2667 SUBTOTAL 6427 32% TOTAL SUB AREA 19946 100% -2- 16J1 ' + 6 Stewardship Credit Calculation The sub area stewardship sending area analysis has been based upon one possible scenario of credit generation. This analysis assumes that all areas within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (10,597 acres) will be used as sending areas and generate stewardship credits, with land scoring 1.2 and less on the natural resource scale retaining full agricultural use rights (AG 1) but eliminating residential and conditional uses and lands scoring higher than 1.2 retaining only passive agricultural grazing (AG 2) and conservation uses. All areas designated as NRPA (interim) are included in the sending area. The resulting credits are shown on the following table. Keep in mind that this is just one of many possible credit scenarios that could be envisioned. -3- ub ^� a _x • R %% I& tii� ^^�S P'^✓i ,�3. �y a tR.nh ONE, i� v.',.x��55y 1 Y++' ,.E vR 9 _. i IiR MM NRINIII f �b �k Y 9 � ��" .�.a d*�bV�'p MMI .-4 cr, i §7•''i'?^��LFi33 L Y 1 7 f{ xs��yy l$°iyv'k_ �:� .Y^ iyfi §+• $ 9 3�'- g15 7 8 YES 3R s s,F `% N "Ri X 3 ) #i 3 Y b LA"wRy i'3{ Rita tt i A uukk . XHy i°f°� i� Ak�dRanr. #' .f%4? -dt +.i.. '7 aa+�.9 qE��-`�` , ,yu. ss'�av °...�x � {"F4 lva•�i� .b *1u I.F A.vA yY 8 �, AtiYAl r7 �'kJ° iL.. qRS` (( 6 6 r.+„9 41 .,7...a`.%.`,t5t�xf0.1 0.1 1 0.3 245 73.5 1 ' 1,759.0 1 0.6 2,614 1,568.4 1.0 ' ' 929 929.0 0.6 557 i 226 1.2 379 454.8 1.2 163 195.6 0.6 1171 216 • 09 aGg,:i 56 1.4 1,021 1,429.4 , 1.7 123 • 1.7 123 209.1 ' 1.9 576 1,094.4 • 1,094.4 , M 6 S -3- • • [7 I 6JI�� 7 Alternative Blend of Stewardship Receiving Area Development An alternative blend of receiving area uses was prepared and reviewed by the committee to demonstrate how the concepts of rural villages and hamlets might unfold in the sub area. The scenario included a rural residential village, a commerce village, and a hamlet. The following table summarizes the land use allocations in the horizon year of 2025 used for scenario one analysis. Receivinq Area Alternative -4- Acres Units jCommercial sf Rural Village Residential 351 1150 Commercial 11.5 115,000 Civic, Cultural, Government 12.5 Park, Preserve Open Space 100 Roads, Utilities 25 Village Sub Total 500 1150 115,000 Commerce Village Residential 80 416 Commercial 165 1,650,000 Civic, Cultural, Government 0 Park, Preserve Open Space 70 Roads, Utilities 35 Commerce Sub Total 350 416 1,650,000 Hamlet Residential 49 48 Commercial 0.5 4,800 Civic, Cultural, Government 1.5 Park, Preserve Open Space 7.5 Roads, Utilities 1.5 Hamlet Sub Total 60 48 4,800 All Receiving Areas Residential 4801614 Commercial 177 1,769,800 Civic, Cultural, Government 14 Park, Preserve Open Space 177.5 Roads, Utilities 61.5 Total 910 16141 1,769,800 -4- • 16J1 8 Stewardship Receivina Area Land Conversions The following table indicates the current land cover of areas identified as stewardship receiving areas for scenario one. This represents the conversion of land required to accommodate the projected 2025 population and provide uses that will help to expand and diversify the economic base of the study area. Not all areas converted are required to be cleared, for example the receiving area blend allows for approximately 177 acres of park, preserve and open space. STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS - LAND USE CONVERSIONS PASTURE 512 CITRUS 166 WETLANDS 98 NATIVE UPLAND 35 FALLOW 32 SPECIALTY 22 BARREN 17 WATER 17 MISCL_ 11 WATER 24 TOTAL URBAN 910 • 9. Baseline Reference Scenario Land Conversions -0 The following table indicates the current land cover of areas identified as converting to residential subdivisions to accommodate the same projected 2025 population as shown in the stewardship scenario using current zoning and growth management plan policies. BASELINE REFERENCE SCENARIO - LAND USE CONVERSIONS PASTURE 2767 CITRUS 2036 NATIVE UPLAND 955 ROW CROP 836 WETLANDS 742 SPECIALTY 196 RANGELAND 181 FALLOW 151 TRANSPORTATION 142 WATER 24 URBAN 22 BARREN 18 TOTAL 8070 -5- • 0 1 6J1 ^J 10 Comparison of Land Conversion The following table compares the baseline and stewardship alternatives to show the relative reduction of land conversion required to accommodate the same projected 2025 population. COMPARATIVE LAND USE CONVERSION - BASELINE TO STEWARDSHIP BASELINE STEWARDSHIP CHANGE %REDUCTION PASTURE 2767 512 -2255 81% CITRUS 2036 166 -1870 92% ROW CROP 836 0 -836 100% SPECIALTY 196 22 -174 89% RANGELAND 181 0 -181 100% FALLOW 151 32 -119 79% AGRICULTURE NATIVE UPLAND 6167 955 732 35 -5435 -920 88% 96% WETLANDS 742 98 -644 87% NATURAL AREAS 1697 133 -1564 92% TRANSPORTATION 142 0 -142 100% WATER 24 17 -7 29% URBAN 22 0 -22 100% BARREN 18 17 -1 6% MISCL 0 11 11 DEVELOPED 206 45 -161 78% Because the stewardship system is incentive based and flexible, sending and receiving areas are designated by criteria, suitability factors and demand. Therefore, the comparative analysis shown above is one example of myriad possible results. The actual generation of credits, selection of receiving areas and ultimate reduction of land conversion could be more or less than the totals shown above, but should be representative as an order of magnitude result. s _- • 16J1 11. Findings The sub -area comparative impact analysis for the scenario one stewardship concept compared to the baseline reference scenario projected to the horizon year of 2025 yields the following findings: Natural Resource and Agricultural Land Use Allocations • The stewardship scenario will reduce the footprint of land required to accommodate the projected 2025 population by 89 % compared to the baseline reference scenario. Put another way, the baseline reference scenario consumes 9 times as much land as the stewardship scenario. • The stewardship scenario results in 3,934 acres of land placed in passive agricultural and conservation stewardship (AG -2) as a result of 5713 stewardship credit transfers; the baseline reference has no provision or mechanism to accomplish this. • The stewardship scenario results in 6,663 acres of land placed in agricultural stewardship (AG -1) as a result of 3363 stewardship credit transfers; the baseline has no provision for this. • The stewardship scenario converts 901 acres from current uses to stewardship receiving areas; the baseline scenario requires 8,070 acres to be converted to accommodate a comparable population. • The baseline reference scenario will involve the clearing and filling of approximately 1330 • acres within residential sites (10% of each 5 acre site in the BCACSC and 20% of each site not in the BCACSC ). The stewardship villages accommodate the same residential population with 480 total residential acres, a reduction of 850 acres of residential clearing and filling. • The stewardship scenario reduces agricultural land conversion by 88% or 5435 acres. • The stewardship scenario reduces natural land conversion by 92% or 1564 acres. Although all natural areas converted under the baseline reference are not necessarily cleared, the construction of roads and drainage canals will serve to fragment natural areas within residential lots. Conversely, the clustering accomplished with the stewardship approach minimizes such fragmentation. • There are 1829 acres of land designated as NRPA (interim) within the sub area. The stewardship natural resource index scores 1817 acres (99 %) of interim NRPAs greater than 1.2, and under scenario one they will receive passive agricultural/ conservation designations in exchange for credit transfers. • The stewardship natural resource index also scores approximately 1,500 acres of Special Study Area at greater than 1.2 and under scenario one they also receive passive agricultural/ conservation designations in exchange for credit transfers. Public Services The stewardship scenario provides approximately 200 acres for civic, cultural, parks, preserves, open spaces, and governmental facilities; the baseline scenario has no allocation, although civic -use land may be randomly developed throughout the area using -7- 16 J ., The stewardship scenario accommodates public and retail service sites within % to '/z mile of village residents; the baseline reference range averages approximately 5 miles. Utilities The stewardship scenario will serve 97% of the 2025 population with central potable water and wastewater treatment utilities; the baseline reference scenario has no provision for central utilities, which would be cost prohibitive, and would therefore require 1614 wells and septic tanks. Water Resources • The stewardship scenario will reduce the estimated impervious surfaces by approximately 5 %. Impervious road surfaces in stewardship areas are substantially reduced, which is offset by additional impervious surfaces to accommodate civic, cultural and economic development uses. • The stewardship scenario will reduce the demand for residential irrigation by approximately 68 %. • The stewardship scenario will allow for approximately 300,000 gallons per day of potential water re -use from the distribution of treated effluent. • Transportation The stewardship scenario reduces the average trip length for all trips generated by rural land uses by and average of 1 -2 miles. The stewardship scenario reduces the number of trips required to use the arterial /collector roadway network to satisfy shopping and personal business needs by 25 %. The stewardship scenario reduces the number of employment trips required to use the arterial /collector roadway network by 27 %. The stewardship scenario reduces the number of new roadways intersecting the arterial collector network from 14 to 6. The stewardship scenario reduces the number of new driveway connections intersectingthe arterial collector network from 104 to 5. The stewardship scenario reduces the needed miles of local roadway construction from approximately 75 miles to approximately 8 miles. Land area cleared for new local roadways is reduced tenfold from approximately 458 acres to 44 acres. • The average annual maintenance costs of local roads is estimated by County staff to be $50,000 per mile; therefore the annual overall maintenance cost will be reduced by approximately $3.3 million. 16J1 IS • Economy A full economic assessment is being prepared and will be presented by Fishkind & Associates in approximately 45 days. It will provide a comparison of ad valorem tax base, revenues generated and costs to government for alternative scenarios. W ',asst —.F r K ��..._'� r'�'.4% rt � '+t ":fin,- x?4t' ..+fit �`� -a R'i, •.;�' •.• # R y r 4�^4 _'Yr: • Vii. ` G tt}' � a 46- g f L z iS" 3 VVeWn- Improw Cratz d t r ,f, 1 k } A '0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . dM� —ac= - MM In ZZ 1-4 7 "T Esaseme Keterenceacenartu l2n25 Horizon Year) scenario une Stewardship Credit Sending Areas a Immokalee Rd m m RLW Stewardship ass ac. Sending Area (.6 index) Y MIL Rural Stewardship 1,819 n Sending Area (.9 index) Scenario One Stewardship Areas fm—m-oMlee Rd -J 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles Hamlet +/- 60ac. fi ANN& Rural Stewardship Villages and Hamlets Rural Stewardship AM es_ (Ag. 1&2) Rural StewamlsNp Area (Ag. 2 & Conservation) 4W— Agricultural Area ,�77- - 7 -77 ■ ■ ■ . . . . . . . . . . 7 ■ ■ ■ ■ -J 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles Hamlet +/- 60ac. fi ANN& Rural Stewardship Villages and Hamlets Rural Stewardship AM es_ (Ag. 1&2) Rural StewamlsNp Area (Ag. 2 & Conservation) 4W— Agricultural Area d 4r��' ! - r• O N� O CD v 0 77 0 O� O CD O O (S O X CD 0 C CD Cn Le CD n CD D CD w cn C O ZT 7l n O 16J1 1111 11 III IRISH DI Inl fi��l ��I � 0111 ID IIC IIIIIII� 111111! 1111111 I I cn w CD c a (n CD 5Q. O (n CD CD h -)1,4 t, n a i ez 'r 3 a qy N m : m ! °� d gs .• N (7 sa �• CQoe ��•o'..� like ',a'i� =S��•Q Zao +minv mike oneoewBiiJ�1� woemeoU�W�N�B a$a D ?593 >�99389s9� >3999S�9;y9 IMP CD is 2L a SL gin 0 3 ? CD a« a 9 a �3� R Q mvm Q s mtl o " Q. I T D 91 y to c �' v 'w m m o f•t i s !4 n 0 C n CD Lr g >> o a v- g a a < 3 o c o CD 0 = en m 0 '•� m �' —1 C7 Q. cz g �• ®x84689- ffi95Ae••• 1 .�-1 -� �• a a m m m a 4 m 3 a a 0 5 a �� m 0'm c ar 0 a� p c G • �� C CDp, Q_ N ...-.- ....... e:s� �� a.' '• POOR M. cnl � � • m CL m � g � x c m 3 3 y 0; H � 7 m 0= Q, v p d 0 m 0 to 3 w 3 CD a x x x x x x x x x x a x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x &, x x x x x x x x x x x x rr B 13 0 a O N� O CD v 0 77 0 O� O CD O O (S O X CD 0 C CD Cn Le CD n CD D CD w cn C O ZT 7l n O 16J1 1111 11 III IRISH DI Inl fi��l ��I � 0111 ID IIC IIIIIII� 111111! 1111111 I I cn w CD c a (n CD 5Q. O (n CD CD h -)1,4 t, n a i ez 'r 3 a qy N m : m ! °� d gs .• N (7 sa �• CQoe ��•o'..� like ',a'i� =S��•Q Zao +minv mike oneoewBiiJ�1� woemeoU�W�N�B a$a D ?593 >�99389s9� >3999S�9;y9 IMP CD is 2L a SL gin 0 3 ? CD a« a 9 a �3� R Q mvm Q s mtl o " Q. I D a y to w v 5 0 o e $ s C n CD CD 0 = en m �i m �' —1 C7 Q. cz g �• ®x84689- ffi95Ae••• 1 .�-1 -� �• O 0 l5 Ro _ � N CL CDp, Q_ N ...-.- ....... e:s� �� a.' '• POOR M. cnl � CL x c m 3 3 y 0; H 3 7 cr 0= Q, p d to o w W - `° a d 0 g pm a to cr. o °- 0 B 13 0 a m o a ft0 e c f4 ? 3 m 3 •e d a c w o �' w .. w a m g o • w IP 0 0 3 O N� O CD v 0 77 0 O� O CD O O (S O X CD 0 C CD Cn Le CD n CD D CD w cn C O ZT 7l n O 16J1 1111 11 III IRISH DI Inl fi��l ��I � 0111 ID IIC IIIIIII� 111111! 1111111 I I cn w CD c a (n CD 5Q. O (n CD CD h -)1,4 t, n a i ez 'r 3 a qy N m : m ! °� d gs .• N (7 sa �• CQoe ��•o'..� like ',a'i� =S��•Q Zao +minv mike oneoewBiiJ�1� woemeoU�W�N�B a$a D ?593 >�99389s9� >3999S�9;y9 IMP CD is 2L a SL gin 0 3 ? CD a« a 9 a �3� R Q mvm Q s mtl o " Q. I Q_ E CD tv X � CD wo'Z Co C (n, m IWSA w� /O CDm U) C) n O CD 03 CD O — ��I QO V D CD P CD CD D 0. a CD w C: �m 0 `'C CD n CD cn D a (A cn 3 CD ., ` . CD $ s C n CD CD s9 . «...... ,ve:s.s.. D . . �' Q_ E CD tv X � CD wo'Z Co C (n, m IWSA w� /O CDm U) C) n O CD 03 CD O — ��I QO V D CD P CD CD D 0. a CD w C: �m 0 `'C CD n CD cn D a (A cn 3 CD ., ` . -]own" J � CD C n CD CD s9 . «...... ,ve:s.s.. D . . �' —1 C7 Q. �1... ®x84689- ffi95Ae••• 1 .�-1 -� �• O 0 l5 N CDp, Q_ N ...-.- ....... e:s� �� a.' '• POOR M. cnl N -]own" J � Florida Foundation Stewardship �$ One Park Place, Suite 240, 621 N. W 53"1 Street, Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Phone: (561) 995 -1474 FAX: (561) 995 -1475 Email: info@,fl- stewardship.com Internet sites: http: / /fl- stewardship.com, http: / /us- farm.com & http: / /privatelands.org CONTACT PERSON & TITLE: Craig Evans, President PURPOSE cell phone: (561) 289 -9690 email: craigAus- farm.com Florida Stewardship Foundation is a six - year -old, 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization working to advance initiatives that will engender a thriving rural economy, with an economically robust agriculture, a healthy natural environment, viable rural communities, and safe, abundant supplies of food and fiber. PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES THE RURAL & FAMILY LANDS PROTECTION ACT (Sec. 63 of SB 1922, signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush in June 2001). FSF is involved in the rule- making for this program and promoting its implementation. The R &FLPA program will provide 30 -year and permanent easements designed specifically for agricultural operations. It also provides for payments to landowners for management activities to maintain and improve ecological values on private lands through a Resource Conservation Agreement "service contract." THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM (Sec. 64 of SB 1922, also signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush in June 2001). FSF is involved in helping launch pilot projects for this program. FSF also received funding from the Elizabeth Ordway Dunn Foundation to establish a Rural Lands Stewardship Council to provide input and assist with implementation of the program. The Rural Lands Stewardship Program will maintain landowner equity, and allow rural landowners to realize the full value of their properties without converting them out of native uses. It is designed to implement innovative planning concepts that will allow for a thriving rural economy with an economically robust agriculture, a healthy natural environment and viable rural communities surrounded by extensive areas of open space. TRUE COST ACCOUNTING FOR FLORIDA ($500,000 was approved by the Legislature in 2001 to hire an leading national economist through a competitive bidding process to establish a "true cost accounting" framework for Florida). FSF serves on a Fiscal Impact Analysis Working Group, convened by Governor's office, to oversee this project. THE FARMLAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM (FSP) — (formerly known as the Resource Conservation Agreement) compensates producers for implementing conservation practices that enhance environmental goals. The project, which began as an effort to save the endangered Florida panther's increasingly threatened habitat, has since broadened into an effort to protect all types of natural resources on private agricultural, forestry and ranch lands nationwide. The FSP is included as Sec. 256 of the House - passed version of the Farm Bill, H.R. 2646, and as Senate Bill S. 1673. Full details on the FSP are available via the project website at http://t)rivatelands.org "A NEW LOOK AT AGRICULTURE" (NLA) describes the obstacles faced by agriculture, suggests more than 250 ways to overcome these obstacles and proposes 20 priority actions for immediate attention. It was developed in cooperation with 100 agricultural leaders and producers in Florida, with funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. The original document, "A New Look at Agriculture - Redefining Agriculture's Role in South Florida's Economy, Landscape, Environment and Social Culture," has been adopted as the agricultural element of a 20 -year strategic plan for South Florida by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group (a consortium of 28 local, regional, state and federal agencies and 16J1 two Indian tribes). The NLA has since been modified to create a set of template documents and instructions that can be used in counties anywhere the U.S. to assist agriculture and rural economic development groups in developing locally -based action plans — and to provide specific, locally -based input for agricultural policy discussions at the state and federal levels. These actions will be aimed at improving profitability and competitiveness, creating a more conducive business climate for agriculture, addressing the accelerating loss of farms and ranches (through bankruptcy, estate tax liabilities and urban sprawl), and enhancing the compatibility between agriculture and the environment. Full details about "A New Look at Agriculture," including how template documents can be downloaded and used by local groups to create individualized action plans, are available via the project web site: http: / /us- farm.com CRAIG EVANS — BACKGROUND Craig Evans is an incorporating board member and president of Florida Stewardship Foundation. He: • Developed the concept for a joint project with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in 1993 to improve cooperation between private landowners and government agencies in protecting essential habitat of the Florida panther on private lands. This led to the Rural & Family Lands Protection Act, provided inspiration for the Rural Lands Stewardship Program and resulted in the recommendations that form the basis for the Farmland Stewardship Program in the 2002 Farm Bill. • Was the project manager /director of five economic impact studies describing the contributions of agriculture to local economies in Collier, Hillsborough, Lake, Palm Beach and Polk counties. The studies also compare the economics of different types of land use, showing which land uses generate the most revenues and which require the largest expenditures for necessary services. These studies helped lay the groundwork for discussions about implementing True Cost Accounting in Florida, as part of the recommendations that were proposed by the Governor's Growth Management Study Commission in February 2001. • Helped develop the agricultural economic development programs that have been launched in Palm Beach and Hillsborough counties. • Authored "A New Look at Agriculture" • Worked in cooperation with Kentucky Governor Brereton C. Jones and a statewide Agricultural Policy Task Force in 1993 to assist in developing a comprehensive set of recommendations to promote the. economic development of agriculture and encourage farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. These recommendations were incorporated into a bill that was approved by the Kentucky General Assembly in 1994. • Conducted an educational exchange (funded by the German Marshall Fund of the U.S.) for 12 U.S. decision makers to study land use planning measures in five European countries, a trip which help lead to some of the "smart growth" planning techniques being tried in several U.S. (and Florida) communities. M Public Conservation Funding Annual Pub 9 Available to Collier County 16J1 Program see separate write up for details Annual Funding Levels thru 2006 or 2011 Amout Available Collier County From To From To U.S. Farm Bill EQUIP $1 billion $1.285 billion $5 million $6.425 million WHIP $38.5 million $320 million $195,000 $1.6 million FFP $50 million $350 million $250,000 $1.75 million CPGL $60 million $60 million $300,000 $300,000 GRP $25.4 million $34 million $127,000 $170,000 FLEP or similar program $20 million $20 million $100,000 $100,000 CRP 39.2 million acres 42 million acres $200,000 $200,000 WRp 150,000 acres /yr. 250,000 acres /yr $1.3 million $1.3 million CSP $0 $20,$35,$50K per producer $0 $105,000 EQIP Innovation Grants $0 $100 million $0 $500,000 WRRP $0 $15 million $0 $75,000 Organic Farming Water Conservation $0 $0 $54 million $25 million $0 $0 $270,000 $125,000 Farmland Stewardship Program blends programs together, tailors to local needs, gives access to ALL $ U.S. Dept. of Interior Land & Water Conservation Fund Programs NPS & USFWS $650 million $650 million $3.25 million $3.25 million Other Federal Programs FLP $60 million $60 million $300,000 $300,000 EPA's Sec. 319 varies according to need $500,000 $500,000 ISTEA & TEA -21 $3.6 billion $3.6 billion $1.8 million $1.8 million Hazard Mitigation Grant Program hazard recovery or preparation $500,000 $500,000 SBICs varies according to need $1 million $1 million State Conservation Funding Florida Forever, CARL & LATF purchases based on priority ranks - County has 3 "A" Priority projects Rural & Family Lands Protection NEW up to $100 million $2.5 million $5 million Regional Conservation Funding SFWMD - SOR purchases based on priority ranks - only purchase will be in CREW SFWMD - Land Acquisition purchases based on priority ranks - no purchases slated in county Local Conservation Funding General Obligation Bonds 24 FL counties = $1.642 billion $2 million to $25 million Property Taxes Documentary Stamp Taxes see separate see separate write up write up included above included above in line 44 in line 44 Sales Taxes see separate write up included above in line 44 Cellular Phone Tax see separate write up included above in line 44 Check -Off Box see separate write up included above in line 44 Credit Cards see separate write up included above in line 44 Lottery Proceeds see separate write up included above in line 44 TOTAL $19.32 million 1$50.27 million .: .w Public Conservation Funding Options For Collier County from Florida Stewardship Foundation Craig Evans, President Provided to the Rural Lands Committee January 28, 2002 1 6J Ay 'I II 16J1 PUBLIC CONSERVATION FUNDING OPTIONS FOR COLLIER COUNTY PROPOSED FEDERAL CONSERVATION FUNDING THROUGH THE 2002 FARM BILL ne Farm Bill being considered by the U.S. Congress would bring many more federal farm dollars to Florida through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's conservation programs to help the state's environment and agricultural communities. Several approaches to conservation funding are currently under consideration. On a national basis, the House - passed Farm Bill would provide an average of: o $1.285 billion a year to reduce runoff, improve water quality and control invasive species through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), o $38.5 million a year to restore wildlife habitat through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), o $50 million a year to protect farmland and open space from sprawl through the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), o $60 million a year to implement conservation practices through the Conservation of Private Grazing Lands (CPGL) program, o $25.4 million a year to protect and restore grasslands and grazing lands through the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), and o $20 million a year to encourage long -term sustainability of nonindustrial, private forestlands through the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), which would provide funding for restoration of forest wetlands and riaparian areas; protection of water quality and watersheds; carbon sequestration; maintenance of flora and fauna habitat; control of invasive species; and hazardous fuels reduction. The House - passed Farm Bill also: o Extends the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) through 2011, adds wildlife as a resource to be conserved and allows marginal pastureland devoted to natural vegetation in or near riparian areas to be enrolled. CRP provides annual payments to producers equal to the agricultural rental value of their land to remove environmentally sensitive land and marginal farmland from production. CRP contracts are for 10- and 15 -year periods. o Extends the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) through 2011, allowing an additional 150,000 acres of wetlands to be enrolled per year. WRP provides 10- year cost -share funding to restore wetlands and both 30 -year and permanent easements to protect wetlands. Average project cost per acre nationally is $1,100 for financial assistance and $75 for technical assistance. j ..Y. 16J1 , The Senate version of the Farm Bill would add: o Payments of $20,00, $35, 000 and $50, 000 per producer per year as incentives for maintaining and adopting conservation practices on private working lands through the Conservation Security Program (CSP), o $100 million a year in EQIP funding for "innovation grants" to be awarded to government agencies and private nonprofit organizations to carry out projects involving producers that implement innovative projects such as market -based pollution credit trading, adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and carbon sequestration, with 50% federal cost share for each project, o $15 million a year to carry out projects and purchase easements under the Watershed Risk Reduction Program (WRRP), o An additional $150 million a year to protect farmland and open space from sprawl through the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), o An additional $11.5 million a year to restore wildlife habitat through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), and o Enrollment of an additional 100, 000 acres of wetlands a year under the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), for a total enrollment of 250,000 acres a year. Several amendments pending in the U.S. Senate would increase funding even more by: o $150 million a year to protect farmland and open space from sprawl through the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), for a total of $350 million a year, o $270 million a year to restore wildlife habitat through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), for a total of $320 million a year, o $8.6 million a year to protect and restore grasslands and grazing lands through the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), o $54 million a year for organic farming programs, and o $25 million a year to improve water conservation. It is estimated that Collier County could receive a large share of these funds, since most programs are designed to give top funding priority to fast growth states and counties where environmental and agricultural resources are at risk due to development pressures. Florida ranks as one of the nation's fastest growing states, which is second only to Texas in the number of agriculture acres lost to development over the last decade. Collier County was the fastest - growing county in the U.S. between 1980 and 1990. Hence, it is assumed that Florida could qualify for up to 5% of the funds available, and Collier County could qualify for up to 10% of these funds. This would make the following funds available to Collier County on an annual basis: • Payments averaging $100 per acre for annual rental payments under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to remove environmentally sensitive land from production, with a possible enrollment in Collier County of up to 20,000 acres over 10 years (for a total payout of $200,000 per year). 7 16J1 • Payments averaging $2,000 per acre to restore and protect wetlands under the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), with a possible enrollment of up to 6,500 acres over 10 years (for a total payout of $1.3 million per year), • Payments of $20,000, $35,000 or $50,000 per producer per year as incentives for maintaining and adopting conservation practices on private working lands through the Conservation Security Program (CSP), with a possible enrollment in Collier County of up to three producers (for an average payout of $105,000 per year), • $5.0 to $6.425 million a year to improve water quality and control invasive species through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), • $500,000 a year in EQIP funding for "innovation grants" to be awarded to government agencies and private nonprofit organizations to carry out projects involving producers that implement innovative projects such as market -based pollution credit trading, adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and carbon sequestration, with 50% federal cost share for each project, A range of $250,00, $1 million or up to $1.75 million a year to protect farmland and open space from sprawl through the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), • A range of $195,00, $250,000 or up to $1.6 million a year to restore wildlife habitat through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), $300,000 a year to implement conservation practices through the Conservation of Private Grazing Lands (CPGL) program, A range of $127,000 to $170,000 a year to protect and restore grasslands and grazing lands through the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), $100,000 a year to encourage long -tern sustainability of nonindustrial, private forestlands through the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), $75,000 a year to carry out projects and purchase easements under the Watershed Risk Reduction Program (WRRP), $270,000 a year for organic farming programs, and • $125,000 a year to improve water conservation. • That's a total of from $7.5 to $13 million per year that could be available to Collier County for conservation funding through the Farm Bill. 3 16J1 PROPOSED FEDERAL CONSERVATION FUNDING THROUGH THE LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND resident George W. Bush's budget for 2003 includes a major commitment to conservation funding through the U.S. Department of Interior. The bulk of these programs are funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which receives $900 million per year in royalties from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production to meet the outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American people. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (HR 70 1) commits funding for these programs for the next 10 years. Of the $900 million earmarked for conservation programs per year starting in 2003, the following amounts will be available on a national basis: o $200 million a year for land acquisition through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS); o $100 million a year for the USFWS Cooperative Endangered Species Program; and o $350 million a year for NPS State Assistance Grants, USFWS Landowner Incentives, USFWS Private Stewardship and the USFWS North American Wetlands Conservation Fund Again, it is estimated that Collier County could receive a large share of these funds, since these programs are designed to give top funding priority to states and counties with fast growth where environmental resources are at risk. Of these funds, it is estimated that Collier County could receive up to: $1 million per year for land acquisition through the USFWS, aimed primarily at the protection of panther habitat $500,000 a year for the USFWS Cooperative Endangered Species Program; and • $1.75 million a year for NPS State Assistance Grants and USFWS Private Stewardship, Landowner Incentives and wetlands conservation. That's a total of up to $3.25 million per year that could be available to Collier County for conservation funding through U.S. Department of Interior Programs funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Note: The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) also has two Land and Water Conservation Fund programs dedicated to land acquisition. While one of the 33 proposed purchases by the USFS is in Florida (and is ranked #15), the purchase is in north - central Florida, so would not benefit Collier County. 4 OTHER FEDERAL CONSERVATION PR OGRAMS 16JI he Forest Legacy Program (F s program ss by Forest Service (USFS) in partnership With states, supports efforts protect environmentally sensitive forest lands. Most FLP conservation easements restrict development, require sustainable forestry practices, with at least 25% coming from private, government may fund up to 75% of progr am private, state or local sources. Congress appropriated $60 million for the Forest Legacy Program for fiscal year 2001 — twice the previous year's appropriation. Florida's Rural and Family Lands Protection Act, approved by the Legislature last year and signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush in June 2001, will provide a vehicle to compete for these federal dollars. Most of the funding that would come to Florida for this program would be concentrated in the forested areas of north Fl • Collier County could qualify for up to $300,000 from this program, if the necessary match was provided from local sources. The Farmland Stewardship Program (FSP) is a "blending tool" that uses a "service contract" similar to the Resource Conservation Agreements provided for in the Rural and Family Lands Protection Act. The FSP will make it possible to obtain funding from multiple programs to carry out conservation objectives on individual parcels of property. Lands that qualify for funding under the proposed federal legislation must be in primarily native or natural condition or be classified as cropland, pastureland, grazing lands or timberlands. The FSP is included as Sec. 256 in HR 2646, the Federal Farm Bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 5, 2001. It also is included as Sec. 256 of S. 1673, one of the alternative Farm Bills being considered in the U.S. Senate. • This program will remove regulatory and policy obstacles that currently limit or prevent Collier County from qualifying for funding from many existing (and many proposed) federal conservation programs. It also will allow Collier County to "bundle" several different programs from different agencies at different levels of government into a single agreement covering one or more parcels of property in the study area. For this reason, the FSP is an ideal complement to the Rural Lands Stewardship Program, since it will make it possible for Collier County to qualify for and access ALL the funds listed in this paper. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Section 319 Program. Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1987 to establish the section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program because it recognized the need for greater federal leadership to help focus State and local nonpoint source efforts. Under section 319, States, Territories, and Indian Tribes receive grant money which support a wide variety of activities 5 16J1 including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects. This program is administered through state Nonpoint Source Pollution officers. The NPS officer for Florida is Eric H. Livingston, Department. of Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Rd. (MS2510), Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2400, Phone: (850) 921 -9915, livingston e(a,dep.state.fl.us. This program could provide up to $500,000 a year in funding to Collier County. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 provided funding for a broad range of highway and transit programs, including "transportation enhancements." Enhancements are intended to improve the cultural, aesthetic and environmental quality of transportation routes. Easement acquisitions that protect scenic views and historic sites along transportation routes are eligible for this program. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21), adopted in May of 1998, re- authorized transportation spending through fiscal 2003. Funding for enhancements was increased by nearly 40 percent nationwide, to $3.6 billion. The program covers up to 80 percent of project costs. • It is conceivable that Collier County could qualify for some modest funding under this program, especially if TEA -21 funding is included as part of a Farmland Stewardship Agreement package. Potential funding for Collier County from this program is estimated at $180,000 per year. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program was created in November 1988 by Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. It assists states and localities in implementing mitigation measures following a Presidential disaster declaration. Funds have been used to purchase conservation easements on rural land located in the 100 -year floodplain. State, local and tribal governments and private nonprofit organizations that serve a public function are eligible for funding. Projects must fall within the state and local government's overall mitigation strategy for the disaster area, and comply with program guidelines to qualify. HMGP will cover up to 75 percent of project costs. In kind services can be used to meet the state or local cost -share match. Each state sets its own priorities for funding and administering this program. • Details are available from Eric Poole, Florida Division of Emergency Management, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100, phone (850) 413 -9947, http: / /www.floridadisaster.org Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) provide another source of funding. Firms such as the Rural America Fund, Inc., combine private venture capital with funding from the U.S. Small Business Administration to provide economic development funding to small businesses, including agricultural operations and related businesses. Some 0 16J1 SBICs also provide loans to help attract and retain economic activities, as part of a community economic development plan. Potentially, these loans could be used to help fund portions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program, if the program was part of an overall economic development plan. Information on SBICs can be obtained from Harry E. Haskins, Associate Administrator for Investment, Small Business Administration, 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 606 -4000. http / /wwva•sba.ov/INV /. Potential funding for Collier County from this program could average $1 million a year. STATE CONSERVATION FUNDING lorida's land acquisition program is the largest and most aggressive in the country, with an excess of $300 million spent annually to purchase environmentally sensitive lands through Florida Forever, Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL), and Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF) programs. These programs are administered through the Bureau of State Lands, Department of Environmental Protection. Florida Forever 2002 Rankings Proiects moved from "B" to "A" Priority List: Fakahatchee Strand (Collier County) Existin projects on Priority List "A" (county): • Belle Meade (Collier) • Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (Collier/Lee) • Panther Glades (Hendry) • Twelve Mile Slough (Hendry) Priority List "A" contains the highest priority state - funded projects; Priority List "B" contains significant environmental projects that require additional funds from other sources. The Rural and Family Lands Protection Act was enacted in the 2001 Legislative session. This program will be administered through the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. It is designed to meet 3 specific needs - -1) a program designed to protect valuable agricultural lands; 2)'a program that will create easement documents that work together with agricultural production to ensure sustainable agricultural practices and OA .1' 16J1 reasonable protection of the environment without interfering with agricultural operations in such a way that could put the continued economic viability of these operations at risk; and 3) a program that also protects natural resources, not as its primary purpose, but in conjunction with economically toviable ovide $1 billion of funding for this sprograme introduced in the Florida House over the p next 10 years, HB 1075 and HB 1077. Collier County could conceivably qualify for '2.5% to 5% of these funds, or about $2.5 to $5 million per year. REGIONAL CONSERVATION FUNDING he South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) administers several programs that have the potential to provide additional conservation funding to Collier County. These programs include: In 1981, the Florida Legislature Lands Trust Fu d�The as Save Our trust fund recReives revenues and created the Water Management from the documentary stamp tax and is administered by the Department of Environmental Protection. The SOR act enables the water management districts to acquire lands necessary for water management, water supply, and the conservation and protection of water resources. The SFWMD plans to use the SOR program to no o h SORadditional land in the Corkscrew Regional Environmental Watershed. Howe projects are currently contemplated in Collier County. Other SFWMD land acquisition projects in Hendry, Lee and Collier counties include a proposed purchase of 8,700 acres for the Caloosahatchee Basin Storage Reservoir. LOCAL CONSERVATION FUNDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS he use of bonds to pay for the purchase of conservation lands was approved by amendment of Florida's Constitution in 1998. The provision allows the county governments to pledge a revenue source to service debt on bonds sold for the purpose of land conservation. Currently, that authorization is being used at the state level for Florida Forever Bonds, which are supported with revenue from the Documentary Stamp Taxes (Chapter 201, F.S.). The authorization could be extended to bonds for purchase of easements under the Rural and Family Lands Protection Act. The basic idea of bonding is to lock a in the broader reveue base. It makes benefits o g - rm capital and amortize and pay off the debt from n 8 I 1 V.. 16J1 projects affordable. Bonds make sense for capital acquisitions such as purchase of fee title or less - than-fee interest if the following tests are met: 1. Long -term capital assets such as land and buildings 2. Rising property costs or appreciating assets 3. Low interest rates 4. Competition for land uses (development pressure) 5. Increasing population (beneficiaries) 6. Increasing revenues (taxable transactions) Each of these tests is met with the need to preserve rural land. Land values are increasing at a rapid rate and are driven by speculative and development pressure. The increase in land values outpaces interest rates (about 5% for government bonds). Collier County's population is expected to continue to grow at a rapid rate and the average income for Floridians continues to grow. This increase in.the number of taxpayers and the value of the taxable transactions will lead to more revenue in the future. Bonding for rural land protection efforts could parallel Florida's other land bonding programs (see separate chart giving overview of bonding programs that have been approved in 24 counties and one city in Florida, providing $1.6 billion in conservation funding to these communities). $200 million could be raised by Collier County over a ten -year period with debt payments of about $80 million. While the long -term costs of the bonds would exceed the borrowed amount, comparing the appreciation of the land and the present value of the actual payments, Collier County would save money as compared to a pay as you go approach. The sale of bonds would obligate continuing appropriations to retire the debt. Sale of bonds could be done all at once or on and annualized, scheduled basis. TAXES Property Taxes are a popular source of funding for local acquisition programs. The use of this funding source would require a commitment from and cooperation of the County Commission. Documentary stamp taxes are a levy on property sales. Documentary stamp tax revenue may be used to acquire land directly or to cover financing costs on bonds. These revenues ensure that the level of funding is tied to development activity - funding increases when the real estate market is hot and drops off when the market cools. The State of Maryland levies a 5 percent tax on the sale price of all farmland that, after OJ It, 16J1 transfer, will be used for non - agricultural purposes and will no longer qualify for the agricultural use assessment. Sometimes called the "Sell a Farm, Save a Farm" program, all revenues generated go directly into programs to purchase agricultural conservation easements. Sales Taxes are levies on retail sales imposed by states, local governments and special districts. Sales taxes may be broad -based or targeted to a particular item. In 1992, voters in Sonoma County, California approved a sales tax increase of 1/4 of one percent (or 25 cents for every $100 of taxable purchases) over a 20 -year period to fund the purchase of agricultural conservation easements and open space. Part of the appeal of this program is that visiting tourists help fund the program. CREATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING Cellular Phone Tax The city of Virginia Beach, Virginia, collects a 10 percent tax on cellular phone bills up to a maximum of $3 per month. Proceeds from the tax are deposited in the general fund, and a flat dollar amount is earmarked for the rural land protection program. The General Assembly gave all Virginia localities the right to tax cellular phone usage in the mid- 1990s. In other states local jurisdictions may already have the authority to tax cellular phone service. Check -Off Box In 1997, county commissioners in Kent County, Maryland, approved a voluntary check- off box program to help fund easement acquisitions. The county distributes a brochure with local tax mailings that describes the county's rural land protection efforts and asks for a small contribution. Credit Cards In 1996, the Land for Maine's Future Program issued the first state - sponsored credit card to raise money for land protection. LFMF acquires land to provide recreational scenic opportunities and to protect important percent of all charges sanld has regerived $60,000 t o date. views. The program receives 0.5 p State programs may be required to seek statutory authority to issue a credit card. LFMF sought statutory authority to issue its credit card in 1995. There was overwhelming support among legislators for this funding option. Lottery Proceeds In 1992, 5 8 percent of Colorado voters approved the Great Outdoors Colorado Amendment redirecting a portion of lottery revenues to protect open space. The amendment also created the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund to oversee the 10 16J1 distribution of the funds. Great Outdoors Colorado funds wildlife habitat restoration, land conservation (including rural land), and parkland acquisition and maintenance. GOCO received an average of $17 million each year between 1994 and 1999. Enabling legislation for state lotteries typically specifies how revenues can be spent. Consequently, reallocating revenues to land protection often requires legislative action. CONCLUSION ollier County has the potential to obtain from $17 to $25 million per year in conservation funding through state and federal programs. Exercising the local conservation options described above could double this amount. 11 f FLORIDA LOCAL LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAMS 16J1 I County /City Revenue Amount Revenue Source Proposed Land Use Alachua voter million roved ond 2000) $12 million bond issue City of Boca Raton voter approved (1988) $55 million bond issue Brevard $300,000 per year voter approved (1990) Broward $75 million .250 millage ad valorem (substantially spent) voter approved (19 87) voter approved (1989) $200 million bond issue voter approved (1999) Charlotte $1.2 million (1992) $90 million voter Dade approved (1990) $13.5 million (1990) Duval Jacksonville/Duval $50 million bond issue appropriation (2000) 250 millage ad valorem .250 millage ad valorem .250 millage ad valorem .increase .250 millage ad valorem .250 millage ad valorem .200 mill ad valorem .750 millage ad valorem Cedar Bay Cogeneration Plant .200 ad valorem increase Flagler $7.8 million bond issue .330 millage ad valorem voter approved (1988) Hernando $300,000 per year annual appropriation Hillsborough $100 million bond issue .250 millage ad valorem voter approved (19 87) Indian River $26 million bond issue .500 millage ad valorem voter approved (1990) $2.5 million annual Ad valorem taxes Lee appropriation ('96 -$80 million ('96 -5 millage ad approx. -- valorem) $11 million/year /7yrs + interest) Leon $50 million bond issue I cent sales tax 2000 $37 million spent (1984) tio annual Manatee $20 million bond issue .500 millage ad valorem Marion voter approved (1989) Martin $20 million bond issue .625 millage ad valorem voter approved (1988) (`98- estimated $43 ('98 -1 cent sales tax) million) Monroe $l million annually Resort tax and State Park (1990) surcharge 1 Environmentally sensitive lands Environmentally sensitive lands Environmentally endangered lands Parks and open spaces Environmentally sensitive and agricultural buffer lands Environmentally sensitive lands Acquisition and restoration of environmentally sensitive lands Environmentally sensitive lands near Co- generation Plant Environmentally sensitive lands, urban buffer, redevelopment Recreation and water recharge Environmentally sensitive and recreational lands Environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands Environmentally endangered lands Endangered uplands Greenspace, water resource lands Environmentally endangered lands and parks Environmentally sensitive lands, recreation areas, and water recharge areas Open space, parks and contingency ('98- environmental lands and local Everglades projects) Critical areas of concern approx. 50% for Key West - 50% for the county FLORIDA LOCAL LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAMS 16J1 it, (continued) County /City Revenue Amount Revenue Source Proposed Land Use Orange $25 million bond issue $2 million from Public Conservation lands Service Tax - unincorporated areas Palm Beach $100 million bond issue .250 millage ad valorem Native ecosystems voter approved (1989) $150 million approved .0316 millage ad valorem Bond issue 3/99 -$150 million for environmentally 3/99, +additional $25 sensitive lands and Ag Reserve lands, additional million for parks $25 million for parks 1972, 1981, 1987, 1990 1 mill + .250 mill +.500 Environmentally sensitive land and recreation sites Pinellas 4 voter - approved bond mill ad valorem increases; issues: ad valorem and 1 cent sales tax local option sales tax - $90.7 million 1998 -1 cent local option 1998 -$78.4 million sales tax Polk $20 million bond issue .200 millage ad valorem Environmentally sensitive lands and water recharge voter approved (1995) Up to $53 million bond .250 millage ad valorem Environmentally sensitive lands Sarasota issue voter approved 1999 $20 million bond issue .250 millage ad valorem Conservation and park lands Seminole voter approved (1992) St. Lucie $20 million bond issue .250 millage ad valorem Endangered lands and water recharge voter approved (1995) Volusia $20 million bond issue .250 millage ad valorem water recharge areas and (1986) endangered lands (substantially spent) .200 millage ad valorem Environmentally unique and water resource lands voter approved $40 m pay as you go /$80 m bonded voter approved (2000) $1.642 billion + $3.8 million annually TOTAL FUNDING updated: 7/24/01 16J1 Memorandum Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment - Immokalee Area Study From: Alan Reynolds, AICP AfL- Date: February 4, 2002 Subject: Public funding information Scenario two includes the addition of external public and private revenues to acquire conservation easements, stewardship credits, or land in order to meet the objectives of the Final Order. To assist in the assessment of potential external funding, we requested the Department of Community Affairs (letter of December 19, 2001) to provide pertinent data and information and ask them to contact each of the Technical Advisory Group members and have them identify sources of funds, criteria and qualifications for funding, estimated amounts that may be available over the Study's planning horizon, recommendations for prioritization of expenditures, and other pertinent information that could be used to assess the potential range of benefits that could result from external funding sources A range of State, Regional and Federal fund programs was identified by the DCA and technical advisory group, (letter dated January 18, 2002 and distributed to the Committee on January 28) however no estimate of potential yield was provided, and some of the programs do not appear to be applicable to the purpose. The Florida Stewardship Foundation provided a more detailed analysis (also distributed to the Committee on January 28), which included some ranges of funding that might be available to Collier County. The Stewardship Foundation estimated that local programs such as general obligation bonds and property taxes could generate $2 million to $25 million annually, State and Federal programs (not including the Farm Bill) could generate $9.5 to $12 million annually; and Farm Bill programs could generate $7.5 to $13 million annually. One option for scenario two is to assume that some combination of these sources will provide sufficient public funds to acquire either the fee interest or development rights from all lands within the sub area designated as Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPA). There are approximately 1,829 acres so designated that generated 3001 stewardship credits in scenario one. This represents approximately 113 of the total sub area stewardship credits from the sending area within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. A reanalysis of the overall sub area will determine whether a higher level of protection for non -NRPA ACSC lands would offset the loss of credits or how much additional land not within the ACSC would then be designated as sending areas to generate equivalent credits. In either case, there will be a net increase in the level or amount of natural resource and agricultural protection resulting from public funding, which can be quantified. A preliminary assessment indicates that approximately Y2 of the Agricultural Lands within the sub area that fall outside of the ACSC would generate equivalent credits if they became designated as sending areas and non - agricultural uses were eliminated. Further study will refine this analysis. Flelle t/ . Carter Henning Coyle Coletta Vanderbilt Beach ASIA i.. u. Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 March 7, 2002 AGENDA I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: II. ATTENDANCE: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 7, 2002 16J1 ' RECEIVED 2 2 12002 aoard of County Commissioners IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report 1. Water Meters 2. Update on line items for Expenditures- 2/2/02 3. Discussion w/Ed Kant on County vs. MSTU responsibilities for future traffic problems & budgeting. V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: A. Damage at corners by Vehicles VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. Costs & Proposed Traffic Calming Devices - Gerald Morris B. Update on Gulf Shore Drive sidewalk costs — Bob Petersen C. Committee Members feedback on other MSTU projects VII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Bench donations to the MSTU — Jean Lydon B. Deterioration of Road Shoulders due to Heavy Traffic VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS IX. ADJOURNMENT Misc. Corres: The next meeting is scheduled for 2:30 PM, April 4, 2002 PLACE TO BE DETERMINED Date: Item# Copies To: 16J1 Vanderbilt Beach AMA u. Beautification .Advisory Committee 270; Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 SUMMARY MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 2002 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved and seconded to approve minutes as written. Carried. VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. SLOWING TRAFFIC DOWN ON VANDERBILT DR. A lengthy discussion followed on various ways for slowing the traffic down. Gerald Morris (Traffic Calming Engineer) gave several ideas to Committee. It was suggested to look further into the situation and area and to get figures so it can be put into their Budget. B. SIDEWALK ON EAST SIDE OF GULF SHORE DR. Discussion followed & Committee wants Bob Petersen to get costs for a sidewalk and park benches. VII. NEW BUSINESS: Frank Halas moved that B.J. Savard -Boyer & Carol Wright serve a 2 -year term, Frank Halas & Bud Martin serve a 3 -year term & Dick Lydon serve a 4- year term for the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Beautification Committee. Seconded, Carried. 16J1 Vanderbilt Bench A.S.%.u. Beautification ,Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 February 7, 2002 MINUTES I. Frank Halas called meeting to order at 2:40 PM. IL ATTENDANCE: Conunittee Members: Frank Halas, Carol Wright, B J. Savard- Boyer, and Bud Martin (arrived at 2:45), Dick Lydon (Excused) Collier County: Bob Petersen - Landscape Operations, Val Prince- and Gerald Morris - Traffic Calming Engineer Commercial Land Maintenance: Robert . Kindelan III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Carol Wright to approve minutes of February 7, 2002 as written. Seconded BJ. Savard- Boyer, Carried. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report: Bob Petersen handed out a copy of the budget (attached). He reported that the Committee is working at a deficit right now & they are over in their budget - lie will look into why & give an explanation at next months meeting. He will also look into, if going to smaller meters will be more economical. It was brought up that several heads have been missing, either by vandalism with stolen heads, run over by cars or just being removed. Bob mentioned the sheriff's office could be contacted to watch for those areas more closely. He will also report at the next meeting on an actual billing & also identify the specific areas of vandalism. Robert Kindelan (Commercial Land Maintenance) said it is rather unusual to find this many problems with the irrigation heads etc. Frank mentioned that if we find out where the highest. incident areas are we can get the citizens to address this situation & be more observant or we have to come up with another solution. V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: Discussion followed on maintenance, allocating funds for plant. replacements and again vandalism problems. It was mentioned that the sprinkler system might. be too close to the curb, as many delivery trucks are running over the curbs & hutting many of the heads. Bob will look into possibly relocating the system back further from the curbs. He will report back at next months meeting on all the details of the above problems and possible solutions the Committee can discuss. 16J1 .; Discussion followed on the Maintenance Contract with Robert (CLM) reporting on the mulching & spraying procedures. VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. SLOWING TRAFFIC DOWN ON VANDERBILT DR.: Frank mentioned that. last year road construction was done on Gulf Shore Drive with narrowing of lanes & asked Bud Martin if it helped the situation. Bud said it helped but did not solve the problem. Frank mentioned they're ruining into another problem of the MSTU north of 111 Ave. He had contacted the North Naples Police Station concerning speed. They agreed there is a problem in that area. Discussion followed on speed limits, signage & striping the road. Speed bumps were mentioned at which time Bob Petersen introduced Gerald Morris (Traffic Calming Engineer). Gerald told the committee that a stripe, a sign, and in most cases road narrowing, will not have any effect on the traffic speed, or what they call the ": 85th percentile". That is what people drive at & below. It can be posted at any speed, & die 85' percentile won't change because that is the comfort zone of that roadway & that is what everyone will drive at. It comes down to an issue of "Design Speed ". He said if you want to alter the driving pattern for a particular road, you have to design a road for that speed. He prefers to use Lateral Movement devices that can all be Landscaped; median islands, curb extensions, traffic circles etc. The County has a lot. of talent for such things that could be used. He said the object is to have the bump create a design speed within the rhytlum. Spacing is critical - 450 -500 feet is desirable. After approx. a month people will fall into a rhythm & fall into that 85% percentile. Typically that would slow traffic to about 27 MPH. The negative side of this is that they are ugly & could be a problem for Emergency Response Vehicles. Gerald proceeded to discuss the different ways it could be done to make it more accommodating to the Emergency Vehicles and responded to Committees questions. Other alternatives were discussed. Frank mentioned there are several projects coming to the area & traffic slowing will have to be addressed that is cost effective & controlling. Val Prince (Project Mgr. Landscape Operations) suggested Gerald take a look at the situation & the particular area that is being discussed & get figures so when Budget is being prepared, it can be added. Frank is questioning whether this is an MSTU or County responsibility. Bob said he would get together with Ed Kant and see what can be worked out. B J. asked if Stop Signs would be a solution of which Gerald commented that's the right idea, but wrong tool. Stop signs stop the flow of traffic but people tend to slide through them. Frank asked Bob to come up with suggestions and costs at the next meeting. 4 16J1 ' q B. SIDEWALK ON EAST SIDE OF GULF SHORE DR.: Bob mentioned there are no plans for a sidewalk on the East side of the Drive but will contact the Pathways Advisory Staff. Discussion followed and die Committee would like Bob to come up with costs for a sidewalk & park benches. C. REVIEW OF WILSON MILLER REPORT: Bob reviewed the drawing with the Committee. After discussion Frank suggested we postpone looking into any services or copies of the report for at least 2 months at which time the Committee can take another look at it. Bud wondered if there are any plans that exist for Gulf Shore Blvd, Vanderbilt Drive, and Vanderbilt Beach Road etc. Bob said he would try to get a staff member that works for Pathways at the next meeting. D. LIST OF AREAS FROM COUNTY TO VIEW FOR BEAUTIFICATION & TRAFFIC IDEAS: Bob did not have a printed list but suggested different. areas such as: Bayshore Drive MSTU; 41 North Gulf Shore to Pine Ridge; 41 East - Davis to the Court House; Wal Mart to Rattlesnake Hammock; Golden Gate City MSTI J; Golden Gate Parkway; "Tropicana Blvd.; Santa Barber to 951; 951 which is a partnership between the County & MSTU 1/l @, it goes from Canal north of I75 to Green Blvd. Radio Road MSTU - Airport Pulling to Santa Barber on Radio Road. Lely Golf Resort; and Inunokolee City. VII. NEW BUSINESS: A. UP -DATED EXPENDITURES ON BUDGETED ITEMS This was covered under the Budget Report. B. DETAILED BREAKDOWN ITEMS BUDGETED TINDER MSTU This was covered under the Budget Report. Bob will give Committee a nhore detailed line item next month. Frank would like to have this done monthly for right now & on a quarterly basis later on when they get a feel for lungs. C. LIST OF SPECIFIC ITEMS COMMITTEE CAN WORK ON Items have been discussed. D. LIST OF ITEMS CO. REQUIRED TO PAY UNDER TAXES PD BY CONSTITUENTS OTHER THAN MSTU Items have been discussed. Frank asked members to visit the other MSTU areas mentioned to familiarize themselves with what can be done for this Conunittee. Bob mentioned the members need to vote for their terms. Frank Halas moved that B J. Savard -Boyer & Carol Wright serve for a 2 -year term, 3 16J1 „ Frank Halas & Bud Martin serves a 3 -year term & Dick Lydon serve a 4 -year term. Seconded Bud Martin, Carried. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None IX. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by BJ. Boyer to adjourn, Seconded Carol Wright, carried - meeting adjourned at 3:57 PM. This meeting is scheduled for 2:30 PM, March 7, 2002 at the North Naples Firestation Immokalee Road 4 v M N N CO O O O O cn W W W lOD (OD N N 0 0 0 0 O O O — O M C (D O .O 0 O � w m--4 OmOxcKmz5�mznom �Z Zr-1Z m -jrnKonzcmcAf)(')Oz. mZ X r X m� m x D M_ .. ► m X m go 90 Om -m�' M( -) n00X m�c)»m Xmrnp�r - ozz =any �Omm�� zLM<r -M mZX O r-ni0 G�0— � m m i n n D � 0 D m C m r r (n r- W rn� D cn z O m r go m Cn X rr cnm D nR m n cn m M M v m =1 C X m a v °o m C NvC) ohM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. N z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a °o C � s N J� Napa P W o cn w l o W 000 w ov,W ow "v _ _ —0-4 O � O OO OOOO "tO"l 0000000oo0oOCnoo 0 0 om N '� 0 N CDC C C 0 0 0 C C C C C" N p M O O O O O O O O O O O O cn O O 10MCC a v °o m C NvC) ohM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. N z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a °o C � s N J� P W o cn w l o W -, p a . L -� O C C C O -� O -1 w O O O O O O O O "1 O cn omrn cn Oo0000000o0ocno0 00 N O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N p V1 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "1 O O 10MCC N 0) O a a wo C)>-no O.4 0000000000'"JOO onva O "1 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 -I N O O N m i O m O O O O O O O O O O M O O m N �_ z 'J cn 0) w N n 00 00 00 1t O C s 10MCC 0 00 m ONOOOOOOnWiCo o m 0 4 0 °0000000ONoOOOC""CC K3 m W O O O O O O O O s Co C 0 N 0 0 v C1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C "t O O N 0) O a a wo C)>-no O.4 0000000000'"JOO onva O "1 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 -I N O O N m i O m O O O O O O O O O O M O O m O M N �_ C 'J cn 0) w �zm 00 00 00 1t N v z s 10MCC ocl'rn m ONOOOOOOnWiCo N O O "31000000 X00 -A000 N 0) O a a wo C)>-no O.4 0000000000'"JOO onva O "1 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 -I N O O N m i O m O O O O O O O O O O M O O 16J1 N a m N -n 0 C:) 0 N O < CD rn v N ON C. f n ED O N C �_ oCa 'J N O ;P W 00 W -� C 0 C 00 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O O O O 0 0 N D O N -1 m m O o 6 0 0 o 0 C 0 C Co C C 0 16J1 N a m N -n 0 C:) 0 N O < CD rn v N ON C. f n ED O 16J1 'ry' 4 Fiala Carter ✓" Henning --- MEMORANDUM Coyie - -- Coletta TO: Kathleen Martinson, Administrative Aide to BCC FROM: Sam Tucker, Executive Aide to BCC DATE: February 21, 2002 RE: Community Character /Smart Growth Advisory Committee Agenda and Minutes I am submitting the following Agendas and Minutes of the Community Character /Smart Growth Advisory Committee to be filed by your office. 1. Agenda and Minutes for Wednesday, January 9, 2002. 2. Agenda and Minutes for Wednesday, January 23, 2002. Thank You, Sam Tucker Executive Aide to BCC RECEIVED FEB 2 1 2002 Board of County COW ssioners Misc. Corres: Date: 41 Item# /(,a3 Copies To: 16J1 COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 MEETING TIME: 2 :00 p.m. LOCATION: Supervisor of Elections Building Collier County Government Complex 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 1. CALL TO ORDER - Roll Call 11. PRESENTATION BY COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT: a. Proposed Transportation 5 Year Work Program b. LDC changes in current amendment cycle and those being proposed for next cycle Norm Feder, Transportation Administrator rill. PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ` LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Irene Szmorliniski, Collier County Urban Design Planner IV. PRESENTATION ON THE RURAL FRINGE COMMITTEE, CONCENTRATION ON THE RURAL VILLAGE CONCEPTS. Bob Mulhere, Consultant to Rural Fringe Committee V. PROCESS FOR PRIORITIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER PLAN AND OTHER SMART GROWTH INITIATIVES VI. OTHER - Approval of December 5t+, 2001 Minutes VII. ADJOURNMENT Community Character /Smart Growth Advisory Committee 6,J 1 Minutes of January 9, 2002 I. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Rideoutte at 2:06 p.m. Members present: Jim Rideoutte, Jim Lucas, Sally Barker, Mike Bauer, Sam Noe, Bill West, Ellin Goetz, Bruce Anderson, Gordon Watson, Mark Morton, Kathy Prosser. Staff. Amy Taylor, Sam Tucker, Commissioner Tom Henning, Irene Szmorliniski, Norman Feder, Sharon Newman. Absent Members: Pat Pochopin. H. PRESENTATION BY COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT: Norman Feder, Administrator Handouts provided: i. Collier County 2001 Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) [Transportation Database] ii. Proposed Transportation 5 Year Work Program (Dated 12/17/01) iii. Proposed Transportation 5 Year Work Program (Dated 1/9/02) Mr. Feder made an excellent presentation to the group regarding the funding of the Transportation Department in light of the recent defeat of the half penny for roads referendum. His suggestion is to bond the gas tax, which would prove to meet the immediate funding needs for the next five years. After 2006, other funding would be needed, as the long -term transportation planning extends 25 years out. A County -wide MSTU (Multi Service Taxing Unit) would prove to be the best solution to fund the landscaping issues. III PRESENTATION ON THE RURAL FRINGE COMMITTEE: CONCENTRATION ON THE RURAL VILLAGE CONCEPTS Robert Mulhere, Consultant Mr. Mulhere presented us with the Rural Village concepts: The process of owning multiple parcels of land and selling the right to build structures on the land to others for money. This concept still leaves the owner of the property with certain "agricultural /farming" rights. III. OTHER: 16J1 a. Discussion of prioritizing the spreadsheet. Commissioner Henning, Amy Taylor and Jim Rideoutte to meet and discuss. Presentation at next meeting. b. Communities truly interested in Community Character improvements: i. Naples Park ii. East Naples/East Trail Corridor iii. Golden Gate c. Approval of December 5, 2001 minutes with change: "principal members only to vote in meetings" from "participate in meetings ". Ellin Goetz, approved with changes. Seconded by Mark Morton. IV. Mark Morton invited all to the Urban Land Institute Southwest Florida Smart Growth II Forum at The Bonita Bay Group on Friday, January I Ith, 2002 with registration at 11:00 a.m. V. Meeting adjourned. COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1'*, AGENDA MEETING DATE: January 23, 2002 MEETING TIME: 2:00 p.m. LOCATION: Supervisor of Elections Building Collier County Government Complex 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 1. CALL TO ORDER - Roll Call - " 11. PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Irene Szmorliniski, Collier County Urban Design Planner 111. PRIORITIZE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER PLAN AND OTHER SMART GROWTH INITIATIVES Amy Taylor, Collier County Principal Planner IV. OTHER a. Recognize change to minutes of 12/05/02 meeting: changed "participate" to "vote". Anyone seeking a hard copy of the minutes with the change, please see Sam Tucker. b. Approval of January 9, 2002 Minutes. V. Adjournment 16J1 Community Character /Smart Growth Advisory Committee Minutes of January 23, 2002 I. Meeting called to order by Chairman Jim Rideoutte at 2:06 p.m. Members present: Jim Rideoutte, Sally Barker, Gordon Watson, Bruce Anderson, Mike Bauer, Sam Noe, Kathy Prosser, Jim Lucas, Mark Morton, Ellin Goetz, Pat Pochopin. Staff: Commissioner Tom Henning, Amy Taylor, Irene Szmorliniski, Norman Feder, Sam Tucker. Absent Members: Bill West. II. Commissioner Henning passed out Request for LDC Amendments: As outlined in Toward Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida. A (rough) draft of LDC amendments recommended by Dover Kohl to keep future construction projects and developing within the criteria outlined in the study. Commissioner Henning pointed out that the Land Development Code cycle (proposals and changes to the LDC) has changed from strictly twice a year to a more flexible cycle. He was informed Tuesday, January 22, 2002 by the Collier County Current Planning Manager and the County Manager that any changes to be submitted for change on the LDC need to be to the County Manager's office to be put on the next agenda by Tuesday, February 5, 2002. III. Norm Feder, Transportation Administrator updated us on the Transportation changes to the LDC to include (but not limited to): re- evaluating current Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), "built -out" issues (whether or not developments can support the maximum amount of units originally designed in their PUD), Activity Center accesses, access from collector roads off arterial roads. Transportation changes will be made around mid - March. N. COMMENTS ON MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS; a. Amy Taylor has not officially been appointed as Staff Liaison for the Community Character /Smart Growth Advisory Committee. b. Mark Morton supplied us with a map for visual aid. c. Ellin Goetz reiterated the need for Staff assistance to be appointed by the County Manager. d. Kathy Prosser suggested prioritizing implementation regardless of financial status. e. Bruce Anderson mentioned that if each neighborhood had it's own Municipal Servicing Taxing Unit (MSTU), it would eliminate the financial setbacks. Instead of waiting for 16J1 the county to pay for improvements, each individual community must raise it's own money. f. Sam Noe suggested starting with projects in the Dover Kohl report that are most feasible. g. Sam Noe also voiced concern over monitoring of projects once they are implemented: who will be responsible for that? (making sure the criteria is met) h. Jim Rideoutte asked: Is the Dover Kohl report a reflection of what the Community really wants? And if so, are they willing to pay for it? i. Mark Morton: is it the committee's responsibility to oversee and assist the staff in implementation of Community Character? Also, committee to provide outreach to the community to encourage involvement? j. Sally Barker mentioned Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA's) [a portion of (increased) property taxes that stay in the respective neighborhood]. Setbacks: limited lifespan and no revenues for county. V. Amy Taylor passed out PRIORITY SETTING, an Eight Section chart, with breakdowns into sub - categories of: Activities in Progress of Completed, Things to do, Additional Costs Associated with the Expansion of County Services, and Additional or Amended Criteria for Private Development. VI. PRIORITI i. ii. iv. V. vi. vii. viii. ix. X. ZING: setting criteria to prioritize: Efficiency Feasibility Effectiveness Equitability Time /length of time the project may take Urgency /Avoiding lost opportunities Impact Fitting criteria of Dover Kohl study Community Support Political Support After a group vote, the top three categories of criteria for prioritizing are: 1. Feasibility 2. Effectiveness 3. Time VII. Submit Land Development Code (LDC) amendments (as outlined by Commissioner Henning in hand -out) to BCC for approval to go to consultants for language and consideration: a. Motioned by Jim Rideoutte b. Seconded by Sally Barker c. Vote taken — motion approved by quorum vote. VIII. Meeting adjourned 4:10 p.m. I ICANC. Carter Henning Coyle Colette q Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Bct#XO,,f County commissioners Notes — Meeting of January 24, 2002 An informal meeting of the Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board began 9:10 a.m. at the Habitat for Humanity Office, Immokalee. 1. Roll Call. A quorum was NOT obtained. Members in attendance: Denise Blanton (10:10 am) Floyd Crews Raymond Holland Jerry Hubbart Ira Malamut Lucy Ortiz (10:00 am) Staff in attendance: Lee Combs, Housing & Urban Improvement Helene Caseltine, Housing & Urban Improvement Marlene Foord, Planning Services Aaron Blair, Planning Services 16J1 Members not in attendance: Robert Asbel Bill Dillon John Kirchner Tony Sanchez Herman Spooner Casey Wolff Fred Thomas, Jr. Al Neuman Dora Vidaurri Guests in attendance Essie Serrata, Collier County Housing Auth Eric Flaig, SFWMD /Big Cypress Basis Shane Cox, Collier County Stormwater Mangagement Julio Estremera, FGCU SBDC No quorum was present, so votes could not be taken on the agenda or on minutes from the November meeting. An informal meeting got underway at 9:10am. Raymond announced that the New Business section moved to #4. 2. Adoption of Agenda. No quorum present to vote. 3. Adoption of Minutes from November 29, 2001. No quorum present to vote. 4. New Business a. Stormwater Master Plan for Immokalee - Eric Flaig introduced himself from the South Florida Water Management District and Big Cypress Basis and Shane Cox from the Collier County Stormwater Management Department. Eric stated that watershed management for Lake Trafford, along with aA'3akgrl4ter master plan for Immokalee are critical issues, but that they need input from 1 ca residents. Eric asked specifically about South Immokalee, near Bethune; Flogc4 ,x 1 January 24, 2002 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board lt` "age 1 of 3 Copes To: 0, 16JI that this was historically a wet area, and generally flows into the lake for drainage. Members studied a map brought by Eric to determine the areas under discussion, with Floyd detailing the flood section and need for upgraded drainage. Floyd suggested to wait until the rainy season and do a fly -over of the area in question to get a better understanding of how badly the area floods. Eric stated that their objective this morning was to see if there were strong opinions on what needed to be fixed. Eric also explained the engineering aspects of how the flooding problems could be addressed. Marlene asked Eric if this discussion provided him enough input to start the stormwater planning process; Eric replied that it was. He continued that his agency is concerned with the primary canals, while the rest of the system is more of a County issue. One concern was about "over draining" so that everyone stays dry during the rainy season. Floyd stated that the County is already on its way to being over - drained. Eric said he also needs to know how many residents are on septic compared to those on a system. It was suggested that the Immokalee Water and Sewer District be contacted for information. Eric asked how the community deals with all the trash in the ditches; Marlene responded that the Sheriff's Office picks up trash weekly, collecting tons per month. She continued by explaining the goals of the Immokalee Alliance and the proposed Weed & Seed program, as it pertains to trash collection. Floyd also suggested having a "free day" once per month at the local landfill might help reduce waste in the commercial areas. b. Community Development Block Grant — Streetlighting in Immokalee Weed & Seed Boundary Marlene provided a brief background on the CDBG grant received last year for 40 streetlights. The Immokalee Alliance, along with the Sheriff's office, determined a need for additional lighting needs. Since the lights would be in a county right of way, the CRA applied for $60,000 in additional funding; the grant application was submitted last week. Lee gave a summary of the other applications submitted specifically for Immokalee projects - $800,000 worth. The Citizen's Advisory Task Force will review the grant requests on January 31" and the Board of County Commissioners will review the Task Force recommendation April 23rd. Denise asked who was on the Advisory Committee; Lee mentioned several names but said none were from Immokalee. 5. Communications. None mentioned 6. Old Business. a. Review of Revised Immokalee Component Redevelopment Area Marketing Brochure — Marlene stated that Denise Blanton had quite a bit of input, and suggested that the Board understand that EDC has not given their input as yet. Raymond asked for consensus on the piece, then suggested that everyone get back to Marlene with their comments. b. Further Discussion Concerning Recommendations from Raymond Holland — Raymond reminded the Board members on the points he had tried to get across in January 24, 2002 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 2 of 3 16J1 a helping local businesses, and using CRA monies in the most efficient manner possible. Examples would be for the CRA to buy derelict or vacant land, fix it up and sell to developers, which would, in turn, entice existing owners to fix up their properties. Raymond pointed out the handout listing various grant and loan programs that could be available. He then went into detail on how the logistics could be worked out, working with architects and engineers to do this, adding that perhaps mixed use projects (commercial on first floor and apartments on the second floor) would work well in the downtown area. Helene mentioned that the HUI Interim Director was in agreement with the idea of pre- approved building plans and/or site plans, and suggested that this idea be moved forward. Marlene added that the County's architect had some reservations on pre - approved plans for commercial building but thought the idea had possibilities for residential plans. The architect will be invited to attend the next meeting. c. Incentives Program — first steps and research Marlene distributed a handout, which showed how much money is available for redevelopment in the Immokalee area. It also shows potential grants and /or loans that could be utilized for specific objectives. She stated that currently administrative costs are now being paid out of the County's general fund through the Planning Department budget, and are not charged to the CRA. She added that these are only suggested uses, and could be changed as the board desires, depending on community need. She also stated examples of incentives discussed by the Bayshore /Gateway CRA Advisory Board, and showed an application that this group has developed. Marlene suggested setting up a sub - committee to look into this further. Raymond asked if projects could be brought forward on an as- needed basis; Marlene responded yes. However, Raymond emphasized the need to get the CRA money back. Aaron mentioned that, indirectly, monies would be paid back even for grants due to the increase in the local tax base. Marlene added that a local resident attended the Bayshore /Gateway sub - committee meetings, which proved quite helpful. As there was no quorum, a sub - committee will be established at the next meeting. Raymond suggested that Marlene contact those members who have not attended and ask if they are still interested in serving. Details will need to be worked out as how this board's attendance policy integrates with the EZDA board. Floyd suggested this board write a letter to the schools asking them to implement a trash pick -up program. Marlene directed attention to proposed letterhead for the Immokalee CRA Advisory Board to use. 7. Citizen Comments. 8. Adjournment. As there was no further business to discuss, the informal meeting ended at 10:36 a.m. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 28, 2002. Notes only, therefore not adopted January 24, 2002 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 3 of 3 �IrIM Curter — J Henning --2 —t= Coyle �— Coletta 16J1 �wezb CI& M�Mmoe�� 'CWreA 12, 2002 1. Meeting called to order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of February 12, 2001 4. Landscape Maintenance Report r,'j tj" 5. Landscape Architect's Report - Mike McGee a. Report on right of way permit and landscape needs b. Layout plan & estimate for irrigation system conversion c. Estimate to brick median tip @ 51"' Street 6. Transportation Landscape Services Report — Val Prince, Robert Petersen a. Current budget b. Estimate to relocate mailboxes on Tropicana 61vd. c. Additional quotes to refurbish sign @ Parkway & Collier 131vd. J. Estimate to replace guardrail on Tropicana Blvd. 7. Committee Members' Reports a. Glen Wilt — 175 interchange b. Cheryle Newman — funding from businesses for Sign refurbishment 8. Old Business 9. New Business 10. Public Comments 11. Adjournment pippipgI U, s^ . Corres: C a�3: ,; To: 16J1 SwIdem sa& 1&"WUM-W 01T �'9dW"za7 -12, .goo/ SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS 3. Approval of the minutes of the January 9"' meeting: Phil Mudrak moved to approve the minutes as submitted; seconded by Glenn Wilt and carried unanimously. 4. GUEST'S COMMENTS A. Phil Mudrak made a motion that opening between medians 19 and 20 be closed for safety reasons; however, if this recommendation is not taken by County staff, then as a stipulation to permitting, the developer should assume the cost of the landscape improvements or alterations of medians #19 and #20 and with the approval of this committee; seconded by Glenn Wilt and carried unanimously. 1. Meeting called to order at 4:07 p.m. at the Golden Gate Community Center. 2. Roll Call - Present: Cheryle Newman, Bonner Bacon, Glenn Wilt, Sabina Musci and Phil Mudrak, members. Robert Petersen and Val Prince, Landscape Operations; Robert Kindelan, Commercial Land Maintenance; Mike McGee, McGee & Associates; Jacqueline Silano, recording secretary. Guest: Mr. Jim O'Gara. 3. Approval of the minutes of the January 9t' meeting: Phil Mudrak moved to approve the minutes as submitted; seconded by Glenn Wilt and carried unanimously. 4. GUEST'S COMMENTS A. Mr. O'Gara advised the group that a permit has been issued for the next section of his project and that at this point, changes will now have to be made to the median. He also said that Ed Kant allowed the turn lanes with no closure and said he would provide a copy of the correspondence. A lengthy discussion ensued. There is still dispute regarding FDOT sight line standards. Bob Peterson said he would review including the egress and ingress at the proposed 53`' Street traffic signal. Phil Mudrak felt that there might be a need for traffic heading east to turn south but no need for turn lanes on both sides. Glen Wilt made a motion requesting the Transportation Department to further investigate the egress and ingress. As there was no second, the motion died. Mike McGee noted that he would need to review the right of way permit to determine the landscape needs. Bob Petersen will meet with Mr. O'Gara and Mike McGee. Mr. McGee will provide a report. Cheryle asked who would be responsible to pay for the median improvements if it is later determined that the extended turn lanes create unsafe conditions. Phil Mudrak made a motion that opening between medians 19 and 20 be closed for safety reasons; however, if this recommendation is not taken by County staff, then as a stipulation to permitting, the developer should assume the cost of the landscape improvements or alterations of medians #19 and #20 and with the approval of this committee; seconded by Glenn Wilt and carried unanimously. 5. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Mr. Kindelan reported that here were minor irrigation problems on median #9 and on 951 B. Fertilization will begin in March. Twenty -five pine trees have been cut down and the stumps ground. B. Modifications have been made to the lights on the signs along Collier Boulevard to adjust for the glare. �d 6. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S REPORT 16il W . .. A. Mr. McGee will provide an estimate to brick the tip of the median by 51$` Street. B. Mike McGee provided copies of the quarterly report, which he reviewed with the group. He requested that the contractor cut back some plantings and spray for scale. 7. TRANSPORATION OPERATIONS REPORT 16J1 .0 A. Val Prince advised that the Risk Management Department is developing a process to take care of traffic damages. B. Copies of the monthly financial statements were distributed and reviewed. C. Bob Petersen will obtain an estimate from Hannula to relocate the mailboxes along Tropicana Boulevard. D. Mike Davis of Signcraft provided a quote of $3990 to refurbish the sign at C.R. 951 and Golden Gate Parkway and bring it into code compliance. Two more quotes are needed. Cheryle Newman will contact local business owners to solicit funds. E. Val Prince noted that Road and Bridge will fix the roadway prior to resurfacing Tropicana. 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Glenn Wilt had nothing new to report on the 175 interchange. 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Phil Mudrak requested that a representative from the Pathways advisory group attend a future meeting. 10. NEW BUSINESS A. There was a discussion regarding the removal of the guardrails on Tropicana Boulevard along both sides of the bridge and replacing it with half moon railing. Estimates will be obtained. B. Mike McGee noted that the sign replacements along the Tropicana Boulevard project would cost $8852. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. The next scheduled meeting will be held on March 12`h at 4:00 p.m. at the Golden Gate Community Center. i Fiala Carter Henning Coyle Coletta 1-75/Golden date Interchange Advisory Committee Transportation Operations Department 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 March 19, 2002 AGENDA I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: II. ATTENDANCE: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 30, 2002 IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: V. OLD BUSINESS: VI. NEW BUSINESS: VII. PUBLIC CON MENTS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting will be held at 1:00, Tuesday, March le, 2002 County Commissioners Board Room Turner Building, Bldg. F, 3rd Floor Naples J iLQEiVE miss 16J1 Misc. Corres: Date: 2-- Item# I w Copies To: 1 -75 /Golden Gate Interchange Advisory Committee Transportation Operations Department 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 February 25, 2002 NOTES 16J1 Al Moore called the meeting to order at 10:10. No quorum present. II. ATTENDANCE: A. City of Naples: Honorable Bonnie MacKenzie, Mayor B. Golden Gate Civic Organization: Glenn Wilt, Bill Poteet (Excused), C. Unincorporated Collier County: Al Moore, Thomas A. Collins II (Excused), Mark Morton (Absent), D. Collier County: Ed Kant - Transportation Operations Director, Pam Lulich- ASLA Landscape Operations Mgr., Bob Petersen - Landscape Operations, Nancy Siemion -ASLA Landscape Architect, Lynn Thorpe - Transportation Engineering Interchange Project Mgr. E. Other: Sarah Clarke -FDOT Project Mgr, Michael McGee -McGee & Associates, FDOT Landscape Architecture Consultant, Norman Trebilcock -RWA Inc.- Golden Gate Project Mgr. Jim Russell-RWA Inc., Sue Chapin- Manpower Services III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Two changes to the minutes will be made at the next meeting. They are: 2nd page, 0 par. should read: The color of the Decorative mesh was discussed, with many feeling that the color should be pleasing to the eye. Under New Business should read: Ed said that on (State - named) bridges it takes an act of legislature. Al Moore's name should be in the attendance. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Golden Gate Parkway Transportation -Lynn Thorpe, Project Manager Collier Co. Transportation: Ed Kant introduced Lynn Thorpe. Lynn explained that the Board of County Commissioners asked them to identify the footprint for the Golden Gate Overpass with Airport Pulling Road. They hired RWA Inc., to put 16J1 together a report for them. They have met with the City of Naples, Golden Gate Civic Association; have a public meeting on March 4th in the Elections Bldg., and a formal presentation with the Board of County Commissioners on March 12t" Lynn then introduced Norman Trebilcock- Professional Engineer & Certified Planner, RWA Inc. Norm introduced Jim Russell- Visualizer- RWA & Mike McGee, McGee & Assoc., the Landscape Architect. Norm stated that the purpose of the presentation is to define the right -of- way footprint for Collier County so they know exactly what it is needed so the Land Development moves forward or the Transportation project moves forward. The study is so Collier County can take it to the next step, which is final Engineering & Design During his presentation several suggestions were presented with the drawings. Some of the issues covered were: How the traffic will flow with the signal lights, sidewalks, medians, bicycle lanes, (not on the structure itself), average traffic counts, working with the Developers in the right -of- ways, controlled & uncontrolled U -turns, and dedicated right turn lanes. Presentation continued with emphasis on Structure, Drainage, Water Management, traffic signals, lighting, and signing (with some overhead). Other key issues are with the Utilities (Sprint, Cable and Florida Power & Light). Norm stated they want to take the lines all underground. This issue has not been finalized; they are still working on it An environmental issue with the single Wetland was discussed along with the Wildlife (Indigo Snake & Woodpecker), which may effect but not adversely affect the project. No further wildlife requirements are anticipated at this time & will be addressed as they go through the permit process. Another issue was noise of which no abatement is necessary for the project such as noise walls etc. The next area to be discussed was the aesthetics in which he turned it over to Mike McGee. The landscape encompasses the right -of -ways and medians at Airport Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway. The landscaping design will incorporate the Xeroscape principals, with native and natural plant materials that will include the large canopy trees, accent trees, and evergreen trees. Native Palm groupings along the roadway & medians are suggested with the main intersection focusing on the accent palms such as the Royal Palm to accent the area, along with decorative lighting. Presentation continued on "visual" aspects with vegetation, planters, and different plantings that are possible. 2 Discussion followed on funding options and cost estimates. Mayor . 16JI MacKenzie asked for a copy of the dollar amounts for the project. She also asked about the Utilities & who will be paying for relocating the water & sewer lines. Norm stated he will work with the City and provisions have been made with the budget on locating the lines and will try not to have unnecessary expenses. The overall construction cost for the project is $25M which covers the aesthetics that were covered in the presentation. It was noted that there is no cage on the Fly -Over, and it will be confirmed whether there is an Interstate requirement or not. The cage is a Federal requirement needed when pedestrian sidewalks and pathways are proposed. Norm felt it was not an issue as they are not putting a bicycle lane on the Fly -Over, but will investigate and get back to the committee. Also noted that the Landscaping costs are $1.5M which does not include the lighting costs. Norm has put that down as a separate line item. V. OLD BUSINESS: None VI. NEW BUSINESS: None VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Informational meeting concluded at 11:15. The next meeting will be held at 1:00 PM, Tuesday, March 19, 2002 County Commissioners Board Room Turner Building, Bldg. F, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 16J1 GOLDEN GATE AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING DATES March 19, 2002 at 1 PM April 11, 2002 at 10 AM Golden Gate Parkway /Airport Road Grade Separated Overpass Highlights 16J1 The Golden Gate Parkway /Airport Road Grade Separated Overpass Construction Project, upon approval by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, is expected to begin in 2004 and be completed in approximately two years at an estimated construction cost of $25 million. Improvements on Golden Gate Parkway will begin just east of the intersection with Bears Paw /Estuary and end at the intersection with Livingston Road. Improvements on Airport Road will begin just north of the Golden Gate Main Canal and end a quarter mile north of the intersection with Golden Gate Parkway. ♦ Why the grade separation is needed: ➢ To significantly reduce intersection delay ➢ To improve satet;i ➢ To aid in ev zcuption ➢ To relieve traffic on Pine Ridge Road ➢ To complement traffic circulation associated with the upcoming I -75 interchange on Golden Gate Parkway ♦ How traffic will move: ➢ Traffic (six lanes) on Golden Gate Parkway will pass over Airport Road, so eastbound and westbound traffic on Golden Gate Parkway will not be impeded by a signal ➢ Traffic on Golden Gate Parkway wishing to turn onto Airport Road will exit off the Parkway to the right (whether eastbound or westbound) and will make these movements (northbound or southbound) at -grade (underneath the overpass) ➢ Provisions will be in place for U -turn movements on Golden Gate Parkway under the structure ➢ All movements on Airport Road will occur at -grade ➢ The at -grade movements for Golden Gate Parkway and Airport Road will be controlled by signals For more information, call Lynn R. Thorpe, project manager at 774 -8192. TO FT. MYERS t c> � c r T T1 K n CITY OF NAPLES TO MIAMI PROJECT LOCATION MAP COLLIER COUNTY - FLORIDA 16J1 14 TO Ff. MYERS 16L2 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO THE BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 8, 2003 16L 3 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement and Release ") is entered into and made on this a a day of , 2002 by and between Barbara Gallagher, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") and Board of County Commissioners For Collier County (hereinafter referred to as the "County ") WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the County in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, styled Barbara Gallagher v. Collier County, Florida, Case No. 00- 0565 -CA (hereinafter referred to as the "Lawsuit "); and, WHEREAS, Plaintiff and the County, without either of them admitting any liability or fault, desire to settle the Lawsuit and any and all disputes that arise from, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the incidents described or allegations made in the Complaint filed in the Lawsuit; and, WHEREAS, Plaintiff and the County desire to reduce their settlement to a writing so that it shall be binding upon them as well as their respective owners, principals, elected officials, officers, employees, ex- employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, insurers, spouses, successors, assigns, heirs and affiliates. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and consideration set forth in this Agreement and Release, and with the intent to be legally bound, Plaintiffs and the County agree as follows: 1 16L 3 1. Plaintiff and the County adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as "Whereas Clauses ", by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. In consideration of the resolution of all disputes or claims arising from or referring or relating in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Lawsuit, and for and in consideration of the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by Plaintiff, Plaintiff agrees to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice. 3. In consideration of the resolution of the Lawsuit, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, as well as on behalf of her attorneys, agents, representatives, insurers, heirs, successors and assigns, hereby expressly releases and forever discharges the County, as well as its elected officials, officers, employees, ex- employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, successors, assigns, insurers and affiliates from any and all claims, demands, causes of actions, damages, costs, attorney's fees, expenses and obligations of any kind or nature whatsoever that he has asserted or could have asserted in the Lawsuit or that arise from or relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Lawsuit or any incident, event or allegation referred to or made in the Complaint in the Lawsuit. 4. Notwithstanding anything that may be to the contrary in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement and Release, Plaintiff and the County agree that either of them (as well as any other persons or entities intended to be bound) shall, in the event of any breach, retain the right to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Release. 5. Plaintiff and the County acknowledge and agree that this Agreement and Release is intended to and shall be binding upon their respective owners, principals, officials, officers, 16L 3 employees, ex- employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, insurers, successors, assigns, spouses, heirs and affiliates. 6. Plaintiff and the County recognize and acknowledge that this Agreement and Release memorializes and states a settlement of disputed claims and nothing in this Agreement and Release shall be construed to be an admission of any kind, whether of fault, liability, or of a particular policy or procedure, on the part of either Plaintiff or the County. 7. Plaintiff and the County acknowledge and agree that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous language or provision in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous provision or language or that the party was intended to be benefited by the ambiguous provision or language. 8. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release. 9. In the event of an alleged breach of this Agreement and Release, Plaintiff and the County agree that all underlying causes of action or claims of Plaintiff have been extinguished by this Agreement and Release and that the sole remedy for breach of this Agreement and Release shall be for specific performance of its terms and conditions or any damages arising from the breach. In this regard, Plaintiff and the County further agree that the sole venue for any such action shall be in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida in Naples, Florida. 10. This Agreement and Release shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. 3 16L 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Plaintiff and the County have signed and sealed this Agreement and Release as set forth below. DATED: Cyan'? 1.00x— ATTEST: D;WIGHT;E. BROCK, Clerk r _ ; r Si ARBARA GALLA R, Plain ' f BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: JAME . COLLETTA, Chairman Date: 4 - a 15 -b� Date: 0 THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by Barbara Gallagher, before me, this .Z ZK day of , 2002. ignature of Notary Public L-1 ,JDaKr,jA,jg Commissioned Name of Notary Public (Please print, type or stamp) Personally Known or Produced Identification Type of Identification Produced 1Z%'-k !LINDA KNAUSER My Commission expires:. MY COMMISSION # CC 980244 a EXPIRES: November 19,2004 ,. Bonded Thu Notary Public Underwriters Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: illiam E. Mountford Assistant County Attorney HAPubtic\Litigation \Open Cases \Gallagher, Barbara\Settlement Agreement.doc 16L4 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement and Release ") is entered into and made on this day of )Zz, 2002 by and between Manuel Bettencourt and Sofia Bettencourt, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs ") and Board of County Commissioners For Collier County (hereinafter referred to as the "County "). WIT NESSETH: WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the County in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, styled Manuel Bettencourt and Sofia Bettencourt, individually and as Husband and Wife v. Collier County, Florida, Case No. 01- 0283 -CA (hereinafter referred to as the "Lawsuit "); and, WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the County, without either of them admitting any liability or fault, desire to settle the Lawsuit and any and all disputes that arise from, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the incidents described or allegations made in the Complaint filed in the Lawsuit; and, WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the County desire to reduce their settlement to a writing so that it shall be binding upon them as well as their respective owners, principals, elected officials, officers, employees, ex- employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, insurers, spouses, successors, assigns, heirs and affiliates. 1 16L4 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and consideration set forth in this Agreement and Release, and with the intent to be legally bound, Plaintiffs and the County agree as follows: 1. Plaintiffs and the County adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as "Whereas Clauses ", by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. In consideration of the resolution of all disputes or claims arising from or referring or relating in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Lawsuit, and for and in consideration of the sum of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs agree to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice. 3. In consideration of the resolution of the Lawsuit, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, as well as on behalf of their attorneys, agents, representatives, insurers, heirs, successors and assigns, hereby expressly releases and forever discharges the County, as well as its elected officials, officers, employees, ex- employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, successors, assigns, insurers and affiliates from any and all claims, demands, causes of actions, damages, costs, attorney's fees, expenses and obligations of any kind or nature whatsoever that he has asserted or could have asserted in the Lawsuit or that arise from or relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Lawsuit or any incident, event or allegation referred to or made in the Complaint in the Lawsuit. 2 16L4 4. Notwithstanding anything that may be to the contrary in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement and Release, Plaintiffs and the County agree that either of them (as well as any other persons or entities intended to be bound) shall, in the event of any breach, retain the right to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Release. 5. Plaintiffs and the County acknowledge and agree that this Agreement and Release is intended to and shall be binding upon their respective owners, principals, officials, officers, employees, ex- employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, insurers, successors, assigns, spouses, heirs and affiliates. 6. Plaintiffs and the County recognize and acknowledge that this Agreement and Release memorializes and states a settlement of disputed claims and nothing in this Agreement and Release shall be construed to be an admission of any kind, whether of fault, liability, or of a particular policy or procedure, on the part of either Plaintiffs or the County. 7. Plaintiffs and the County acknowledge and agree that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous language or provision in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous provision or language or that the party was intended to be benefited by the ambiguous provision or language. 8. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release. C 16L4 9. In the event of an alleged breach of this Agreement and Release, Plaintiffs and the County agree that all underlying causes of action or claims of Plaintiffs have been extinguished by this Agreement and Release and that the sole remedy for breach of this Agreement and Release shall be for specific performance of its terms and conditions or any damages arising from the breach. In this regard, Plaintiffs and the County further agree that the sole venue for any such action shall be in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida in Naples, Florida. 10. This Agreement and Release shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Plaintiffs and the County have signed and sealed this Agreement and Release as set forth below. DATFD� �-- A�^: Fi- Clerk ,1 MANUEL BETTENCOURT, Plaintiff Date: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: JAMES N. COLETTA, Chairman m tL � .� c cis t ,,T S IA BETTENCOURT, Plaintiff Date: 16L4 THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by nuel Bettencourt and Sofia Bettencourt, before me, this � day of , 2002. Signature of Notary Public Commissioned Name of Notary Public (Please print, type or stamp) My Commission expires: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Iliam E. Mountford Assistant County Attorney Personally Known v or Produced Identification - Type of Identification Produced HAPub1ic \Litigation\0pen Cases \Bettencourt\SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE.doc 5 COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: 1 7 A � XXX Normal Legal Advertisement 0 Other: (Display Adv., location, etc.) Originating Dept/ Div: Comm.Dev.Serv./Planning Person: Date: Petition No. (If none, give brief description): RZ- 2001 -AR -1625, Lot 72, Port of the Islands Petitioner: (Name & Address): Robert L. Duane, Hole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 .-Ili Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: Leo J. Fragiacomo & Annelise C. ODonnel, 231 Cays Drive, Naples, FL 34114 Hearing before 0 BCC 0 BZA 0 Other Requested Hearing dat : April 9, 2002. ased on advertisement appeariC&Iays before hearing. Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): XXX Naples Daily News 0 Other 0 Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: RZ-2001 -AR- 1625, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Leo J. Fragiacomo and Annelise C. O'Donnel, requesting a rezone from RMF -16 to RSF -4 for property located at 227 Cays Drive, further described as Lot 72, Port of the Islands, Stella Maris, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? 0 Yes 0 No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: 113- 138312- 649110 Reviewed by: Approved by: u.d -�►' 1 ~�'� �t _3 113 0Q_ ivision Head Date List Attachments: County Manager DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS Date A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one copy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: 0 County Manager agenda file: to 0 Requesting Division 0 Original Clerk's Office B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. ****************** w*+ r*, t****, t, t, r**, r*** tr**, r* r*, r*, t**** rr***** rr*, t**:* tr***, ttr*,►*, t* ,t * * * « * * *tw * * * * * *,t * * *,t * * * * * ** FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE O Y: Date Received Date of Public hearing: Date Advertised: z G 17A ORDINANCE NO. 02 — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91 -102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND . DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERED 28095 BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM RMF -16 TO RSF -4; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes, Inc., representing Leo J. Fragiacomo and Annelise C. O'Donnell, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the real property as more particularly described by Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and located in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from RMF -16 to RSF -4 and the Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered 28095, as described in Ordinance 91 -102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. The herein described real property is the same for which the rezone is hereby approved. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2002. 17A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ff-w ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY A1 �— 1_ _ Marjorie . Student Assistant County Attorney JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN 17A RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 72, Stella Maris, as recorded in Plat Book 26, Pages 26 and 27 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida EXHIBIT "A" l7A z Ellie J. Hoffman To: paperrell @naplesnews.com Subject: Petition RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 Hi Pam, Please advertise the above as indicated on the attached. Thank you. Ellie w w RZ- 2001 -AR -1625. RZ- 2001 -AR -1625. doc doc 17A March 14, 2002 Ms. Pam Perrell Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, FL 34102 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance relating to Petition RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 Dear Pam: Please advertise the above referenced petition on Sunday, March 24, 2002 and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk Enclosure Charge to: Account 113 - 138312 - 649110 17A NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91 -102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERED 2809S BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM RMF -16 TO RSF -4; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Petition No. RZ- 2001 -AR -1625, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Leo J. Fragiacomo and Annelise C. O'Donnel, requesting a rezone from RMF -16 to RSF -4 for property located at 227 Cays Drive, further described as Lot 72, Port of the Islands, Stella Maris. Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the 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 based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) 17A Ellie J. Hoffman From: System Administrator [postmaster @naplesnews.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:31 AM To: Ellie J. Hoffman Subject: Delivered: Petition RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 LLJ Petition RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 <<Petition RZ- 2001 -AR- 1625» Your message To: 'paperrell @naplesnews.com' Subject: Petition RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 Sent: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:38:48 -0500 was delivered to the following recipient(s): Perrell, Pamela on Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:30:44 -0500 1 17A 17A March 14, 2002 Mr. Robert L. Duane Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Enclore Way Naples, FL 34110 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, April 9, 2002, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 24, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk Enclosure 17A March 14, 2002 Leo J. Fragiacomo & Annelise C. O'Donnel 231 Cays Drive Naples, FL 34114 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, April 9, 2002, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 24, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk Enclosure Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News ------------------ - - - - -- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHRIS NORTON PO BOX 413016 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 1131383126491 58420565 RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 NOTI State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that she serves as `asistint Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Floride, each day and hay been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier Ccunty, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant {.:rth3r :aye that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, reoaLe, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publiction in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 03/24 AD SPACE: 129.000 INCH FILED ON: 03/25/02 Y- Signature of Affiant _, Sworn to and Subscribed Personally known by me 17A me this QV%ay of W Donn�aV•� a Chesney MY Commission DD058336 %oF Expires September 11. 2005 . i. •,, RECEIUtu FINANCE I PVC WA I G. Petition No. RZ -' Mol -AR -1615 Robert L. � Duane, AICsP, of Hple Mantes, Inc., represenlino Leo J. Froolocomo and ir? a Oremne�I ir;m m MF-1to RSF -4 for eriv WoW at 227 (�ays, as dsti �r Stella MorMarls. Copies at # giWa % ore P t4, A11 persons Wishing spook an re01s e County ad- _ -,.... 4n ore -' "nuts on ;;y flero. set of on 1 �,Wd to 0 on an a on or group Is encourat r®cognlzed by the w- a a-� zation may be allotted 10 Min- um to speak an an item. persons wishing c hwNWo grophl mawkis Ind 4dad -otke e Board ogee P must subrnit sold 3 weeks min �m rve p In9 ". Is n It to be dared bV the Board sal be su - Cow pIfnmuuma Ichear• AIpPons ysrore the Boyd will be. come a of iftr °C0�1 decId Any es oppeaAR lanre- � of the proceedin4s orto ni np thereto and sgdo {}at a �rbatniyms ecImadea, whichaC In• I ih eludes the testiP o and e iWWI I �r I IAA, NOLETT T E. BROCK, c11le Hoffman, Clerk _ . u �n1►1467- 17A ORDINANCE NO. 02 — 16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91 -102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND . DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERED 2809S BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM RMF -16 TO RSF -4; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes, Inc., representing Leo J. Fragiacomo and Annelise C. O'Donnell, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the real property as more particularly described by Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and located in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from RMF -16 to RSF -4 and the Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered 28095, as described in Ordinance 91 -102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. The herein described real property is the same for which the rezone is hereby approved. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier 0 County, Florida, this I? -- day of e L_ , 2002. ,,LILLIi c +e r rrsrrl�� DV�i 66ti, LERK . ��#L •�''' ,� ' app' s Sig!�ijA�y APPROVED AS f6 FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Maijorie . Student Assistant County Attorney 17A • � r f + 17A a RZ- 2001 -AR -1625 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 72, Stella Maris, as recorded in Plat Book 26, Pages 26 and 27 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida EXHIBIT "A" 17A STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 2002 -16 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 9th day of April, 2002, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 10th day of April, 2002. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Court.g' "'ric 'tll prk Ex- officio County Co=414i5. zti�' s '•:'ail•, By: Teri WA el`s' = ,, Deputy ,��: C