Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/27/2003 R May 27,2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, May 27, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9: 00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: ALSO PRESENT: Page 1 Tom Henning Frank Halas Donna Fiala Fred W. Coyle Jim Coletta Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ AGENDA May 27,2003 9:00 a.m. Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 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. 1 May 27, 2003 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED 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 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 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. Pastor Mitchell Cotrone, Hope Wesleyan Church 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.) B. April 15, 2003 - Special C. April 29, 2003 - Workshop D. May 6, 2003 - Workshop E. May 8, 2003 - Town Hall Meeting F. May 8, 2003 - Joint Workshop 3. SERVICE AWARDS 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation to show the appreciation for the donation of the Master Gardeners for their time and talent. To be accepted by Charles Ray. 2 May 27, 2003 So e Be Proclamation to show great appreciation to Sharon Downey, RSVP Director and the RSVP Volunteers for all their hard work and receiving the Acts of Caring Award. To be accepted by Sharon Downey and some of her volunteers. Ce Proclamation to designate the week of June 2-7, 2003 as Code Enforcement Officers Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Michelle Arnold, Director of Code Enforcement and her team. Do Proclamation to designate the week of June 1 through June 7 as Collier County Homeowner Expansion Week. To be accepted by David Ellis, Executive Vice President of Collier Building Industry Association. go Proclamation to proclaim June 1 through June 8, 2003 as National Fishing and Boating Week. To be accepted by a Representative of the Recreational Boating Industry. PRESENTATIONS Ao Presentation of Collier County's History by Ms. Smith's 4th Grade Class from Lake Park Elementary School. Bo Recommendation to recognize Edward D. Chesser, Equipment Operator, Parks and Recreation Department, as Employee of the Month for May 2003. Ce Emergency Management update to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the 2003 Hurricane Season. PUBLIC PETITIONS Ae Public Petition request by Mr. Nicholas Giannone to discuss sign ordinance "Spinning the Barber Pole". Be Public Petition request by Mr. William Reid to discuss beach sand migrating onto Surfsedge property. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 3 May 27,2003 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae An Ordinance of Collier County, Florida, to protect against hazards from substandard construction in public tight-of-way; providing purpose and definitions; adoption of construction standards handbook; requiring permits; requiting removal of offending material from right-of-way; repealing Ordinance No. 82-91, as amended by Ordinance 89-26, as amended by Ordinance 93-64; providing rule of construction of this Ordinance, providing for conflict and severability, providing for penalties; providing an effective date. Be Adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, 2001-13, as amended, incorporating changes to the affordable housing provisions. 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of member to the Library Advisory Board. Be Appointment of members to the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee. C. Appointment of member to the Contractors' Licensing Board. De A Resolution to establish the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee. Ee Appointment of members to the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. Fe LDC language to reflect fire stations as permitted use in agricultural zoning. (Commissioner Henning) Ge Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners indicate intent to renegotiate and approve a County Attorney Employment Agreement with County Attorney David C. Weigel. 4 May 27, 2003 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT 11. Ao Board direction relative to a request from Kensington Property Owners to be removed from the Livingston Road Phase II Beautification MSTU. (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and Budget) Be Request that the Board approve a resolution providing for the establishment of an advisory committee to provide input and assist staff with the restudy of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development) Ce Approve the Settlement Offer to compromise lien imposed in Code Enforcement Case entitled Collier County v. Richard L. Knibes, CEB Case No. 99-073. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development) De Approve a budget amendment for $51,030 and a Tourism Agreement Amendment with the City of Naples for a TDC Category "A" Grant for Gordon Pass Jetty Sand Tightening, Project 90278, in the amount of $131,113. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development) Ee Companion to Item 10 F: Adopt a Resolution implementing the 2003 Boat Launch and Beach Access Master Plan and direct staff regarding potential funding sources. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public Services) Fe Companion to Item 10 E: Adopt a policy establishing a rational funding Nexus between public beach use and renourishment for Tourist Development funds. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public Services) PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Ae This item to be heard at 12:00 noon. Closed Attorney-Client Session pursuant to Section 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenses of the pending litigation case of Aquaport v. Collier County, Appeal Case No. 03-11291-B, now pending in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and Aquaport v. Collier County (The Bert Harris Act Claim), Case No. 03-1609- CA, now pending in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. 5 May 27,2003 For the Board to provide direction to outside counsel, Ted Tripp, Esquire, and the Office of the County Attorney as to settlement negotiations and litigation expenses in the pending litigation case ofAquaport v. Collier County, Appeal Case No. 03-1129 l-B, now pending in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and Aquaport v. Collier County (The Bert Harris Act Claim), Case No. 03-1609-CA, now pending in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS A. To present to the Board of County Commissioners the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2002. Be To present the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the Board of County Commissioners for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2001. 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) 2) Approve a Change Order to Work Order No. WMI-FT-01-08 amendment under Contract No. 99-2981, "Agreement for Fixed Term Land Surveying and Photogrammetric Services", with Wilson Miller, Inc., for converting AutoCAD data directly to GIS, in the amount of $25,000. Request that the Board of County Commissioners execute a Satisfaction of Mortgage in recognition of completion of excavation 6 May 27, 2003 3) 4) 5) 6) work. Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board Case No's: 2002-026; 2002-023; 2001-080; 2002-020 and 2002-036. Approve a budget amendment recognizing the Fiscal Year 2004 State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program allocation and budget. Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Case No. 2003-02 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida vs. All Brothers Painting, Inc., a Florida Corporation violation of Ordinances No. 99-51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91-47, as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code. Approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the agreement between Collier County and the Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition designating Collier County as the lead agency for the Annual Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of Care Grant Application, authorizing consolidated application submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, authorizing the Chairman of the BCC to sign agreement on behalf of the County, and providing for an effective date. 7) 8) 9) 10) Authorize Assistant County Attomey to bid on behalf of County at Foreclosure (Code Enforcement Lien) Sale scheduled by the Clerk in Board of County Commissioners v. Lorraine Burgess, Case No. 02- 0848-CA, for June 3, 2003. Approval of one (1) impact fee reimbursement of $103,946.65 due to overpayment. Approve a budget amendment returning excess funds to the reserves and approve a Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for sand web system monitoring, in the amount of $197,965.25. Board consideration for approval of previously disapproved tourism related invoices in the amount of $1,631.99, submitted by Prutos Public Relations, Inc., as recommended for approval by the Tourist 7 May 27, 2003 11) Development Council; Staff and Clerk recommend approval in the amount of $1,223.88. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the final Interlocal Agreement with the Collier County School Board for coordinating land use and school planning as required by Chapter 2002-296 Laws of Florida. 12) 13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Third Amendment to the Interlocal Government Agreement with the City of Naples for the development of Hamilton Harbor Marina Project. Board of Count~ Commissioners as the Community Redevelopment Aeenc¥. Approve Selection Committee ranking of firms for contract negotiations for RFP 03-3473 for creation of a land development overlay plan for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA District. 14) Board of County Commissioners as the Community Redevelopment Aeencv. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the utility and road project proposed by Freeman and Freeman, Inc., in response to the allocation of $200,000 from Fund 186 towards utility and road projects in the Immokalee Redevelopment District. Be TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Approve Contract Amendment No. 97-2715-A06 with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc., for the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (Project No. 51101) in the amount of $70,000. 2) Approve selection committee's recommended short list of consultants for RFP #03-3509, "Consulting and Design Services for Capacity Improvements to Goodlette-Frank Road from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road", County Project No. 60005. 3) Recommendation to award Bid #03-3494-Annual Contract for Reworking of Shoulders, Slopes and Roadside Ditches, for the 8 May 27, 2003 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) approximate annual amount of $50,000. A resolution authorizing a speed limit increase from twenty-five miles per hour (25'MPH) to thirty-five miles per hour (35 MPH) on Coronado Parkway at a cost of approximately $200. Reject bids received on Bid #03-3515 for purchase and delivery of replacement bus seats. Approve two separate Memorandum of Understanding documents with the South Florida Water Management District. Approve the $90,000 purchase of Lot 44, Palm River Estates Unit 7, Block "A" (Project Number 51017) providing for access to the County owned and operated Palm River Water Control Structure. Approve the fee simple purchase of Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) Parcels 1-102 and 1-104 for construction of a stormwater retention pond. (Fiscal impact $22,450, Fund 325, Project 51101) Authorization to submit a Service Development Grant to the Florida Department of Transportation for a Marco Island Collier Area Transit Route. io) A resolution authorizing implementation of twenty miles per hour (20 MPH) school zones as previously installed at twenty-nine (29) existing locations throughout Collier County at no additional costs to the County. Co PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Approve a Budget Amendment to create a new Public Utilities project to prepare a 1 O-year water supply facilities work plan in the amount of $54,652.60. 2) Approval of Letter of Intent addressed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in an effort to participate in an Ecosystem Restoration Project at Vanderbilt Lagoon, Naples. 9 May 27, 2003 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Approval of a contract amendment with the South Florida Water Management District to continue participating in surface water quality monitoring of Big Cypress Basin for a reimbursed amount of $100,000. Approval of one (1) impact fee refund request for Boys and Girls Club totaling $44,210. Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $475,000 to fund unanticipated expenses in the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Cost Center by transferring funds from the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant Cost Center Operating Budget. Approve amendment to Work Order JEI-FT-02-01 for engineering inspection services related to the Port-Au-Prince Utility Replacement Project 73060 and 70074, in the amount of $20,237.50. Approve the standardization and the purchase of an Aquatech Mobile Catch Basin and High Velocity Combination Sewer Cleaner in the amount of $173,652. Board approval of a budget amendment recognizing positive carry forward variance in the Water Pollution Control Fund (114) in the amount of $444,400. Ee PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Approve a Memorandum of Agreement with the District School Board of Collier County for use of school cafeterias in conjunction with the Summer Food Service Program. 2) Approve a Limited Use License Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce, Inc., approving use of specified County-owned property for conducting a July 4th Fireworks Festival. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 10 May 27, 2003 1) 2) 3) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders to Board-approved contracts. Approval of a lease agreement with the Economic Development Council of Collier County for use of County-owned office space in Immokalee for an annual revenue of $1,000. Award RFP 03-3444, Janitorial Services Contract in the estimated annual amount of $1,251,800 and approve a budget amendment in the amount of $222,800 to the operating budget to cover increase costs associated with the new contract. 4) 5) 6) 7) Approve contract amendment involving Contract #00-3131, "Professional Landscape Architectural Services". (CPI hourly rate increases) Approve contract amendment involving Contract #02-3324, "Fixed Term Surveying and Photogrametic Services". (CPI hourly rate increases) Recommendation to award Bid No. 03-3503, File Retrieval and Retention Services, to Robert Flynn Moving and Storage (estimated value $33,000). Request approval of a First Amendment to a Lease Agreement with Abbas Ahrabi Asli for building utilized by the Property Appraiser's Office. Fe COUNTY MANAGER 1) Approval of an agreement between the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs and Collier County in the amount of $24,000 to fund equipment and training materials for the Community Emergency Response (CERT) Program and approve a budget amendment to recognize and appropriate the revenue. 2) Approve Emergency Management Department Application for a $20,000 matching grant (75/25) offered by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The purpose of the grant is to revise and update the local mitigation strategy to comply with the Disaster Mitigation May 27, 2003 3) 4) 5) 6) Act of 2000. Approve an agreement between the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs and Collier County in the amount of $17,802 to fund the Citizens Corps Program and approve a budget amendment to recognize and appropriate the revenue. Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $5,400 to install new fire hydrants in the Isles of Capri Fire District. Approval of Budget Amendment Report-Budget Amendment #03-305 for 2% charged back from the Collier County Tax Collector for Ad Valorem collections in the amount of $300, and for secretarial services for minute taking at MSTU committee meetings in the amount of $2,500. Budget Amendment #03-309 in the amount of $3,309 for the replacement of Multilayer SW Image Power Cord for the operation of computers at remote sites. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid #03-3508 in the amount of $30,000 for horticulture debris hauling and disposal to Wherry Truck Lines, Inc. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Je MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the detailed report of open purchase orders serve a valid public purpose and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said purchases. 2) Recommendation to approve a resolution between the Board of County Commissioners and Sprint Telephone Company of Florida for 12 May 27, 2003 17. the Sheriff's 911 System. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation that the Board approve an agreement for Collier County partial funding of the Collier County Legal Aid Society, Inc. 2) Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the fee taking of Parcel No. 203 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Jeffrey A. Richardson, et al, Case No. 02-2188-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018). 3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive the purchasing policy, to the extent that it is necessary, and approve/ratify the County Attorney's retention of Trauner Consulting Services to assist in potential claims in connection with the North County Water Reclamation Facility 5-MGD Expansion Project. 4) Board approval to utilize up to $45,000 of the settlement funds received from the Arden Courts and Manor Care at Lely Palms Assisted Living Facilities to pay County Attorney's fees and other costs incurred in the collection and litigation of unpaid impact fees; these funds to be used to reimburse the County for the pro rata share of costs associated with collecting educational facilities impact fees only; approval of appropriate budget amendment(s). 5) Authorize the County Attorney's Office to reject a Business Damage Claim and make counter-offer of $45,000 to settle a claim by Tree Source Inc., associated with the acquisition of Parcel 132 in Collier County v. Treesource, Inc., et al, Case No. 02-5167-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018). 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 13 Malt 27, 2003 AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. Ae A resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, approving the Collier County Second Amended Consolidated Plan One-Year Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funding, authorizing necessary certifications, approving execution of CDBG sub-recipient agreements by Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) Division Administrator, authorizing submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and providing for an effective date. Be Ce This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3569, Robert Duane, of Hole Montes Inc., representing North Naples Golf Range, Inc., requesting a rezone from the "PUD" Zoning District (Gadaleta PUD) to a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to be known as the North Naples Research and Technology PUD. This project will accommodate research and technology uses and low environmental impact manufacturing according to the research and technology park district of the future land use element. A minimum of four (4) residential work force housing units are also proposed to be provided. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the west side of Old U.S. 41 immediately south of the Lee County Line, in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 19.3+ acres. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDA-2002- AR-3245, Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., representing the Bay Forest Homeowner's Association, requesting an amendment to "The Bay Forest" Planned Unit Development (PUD), to permit a real estate sales office as a permanent use and limited to the resale of residential units within the Bay Forest PUD for property located on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive (CR-901) and south of Audubon Boulevard in 14 May 27, 2003 Section 8, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. Do This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2002-AR-3142, Stephen Sposato, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage Inc., representing Collier County Board of County Commissioners, requesting a Conditional Use for a Regional Park in the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning District per Section 2.6.9.2. for property located off the future Livingston Parkway, between Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 30, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 212.77+ acres. Ee Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an Interlocal Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida and the Collier County School Board to establish educational plant and ancillary plant site development review processes and substantive criteria including the consideration of future amendments to the County's Growth Management Plan and implementing land development regulations. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 15 May 27, 2003 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would everybody take their seats, please. Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of Collier County's meeting of May 27th, 2003. The county manager will lead us in invocation. Followed by the invocation, Tara Josephs (sic) and Paige Berman will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. So if-- I'd ask these two young ladies after the invocation to come up to the dais and please lead us in the invo -- or the Pledge of Allegiance. Would you all rise, please. MR. MUDD: Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a community thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously provided. Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected officials, staff, and members of the public who are here to help lead this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our community's future. We pray that you will guide, direct the decisions made here today so that your will for our county would always be done. These things we pray, in your holy name, amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Thank you. Item #2A REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA- APPROVFJD AND/OR ADOPTFD WITH CHANGFJS County Attorney David Weigel, do we have any changes on today's agenda? MR. WEIGEL: No additional changes. Thank you. Page 2 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Do you have anything to announce for today's agenda? MR. WEIGEL: Well, just to let you know, as shown in the agenda, that there will be a closed attorney/client session at 12 noon, which should be brief, to be followed, at the board's discretion, by, I think it's item 12(B), which is the open meeting discussion and direction to the staff regarding to -- the Aquaport cases. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the corrections to today's agenda: Correction to item 8(B), page two, first paragraph, third and fourth lines, the sentence should read: The new provisions include an application process for projects eligible for the waiver of the up-front payment and provides for the issuance of a Certificate of Adequate Public Facility, and that's the ordinance change for impact fees for affordable housing. That's that item. Next item is add item 10(G), and will wonders ever cease. This is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners conditionally accept recorded easements and deeds for Whippoorwill Lane and approve an indemnification agreement; and accept provisions of cash escrow and letter of credit as set forth in agreement. All matters pertain to the land acquisition and construction of a roadway on the property conditionally accepted by the county for construction by private parties of Whippoorwill Lane, and that's at staff's request. My apologies, Commissioner, for this thick packet being in an add-on, but I will tell you, you've read this packet at least four times over the last four months as we've continued this item on several agendas, and that's why I said, will wonders ever cease. So I didn't feel so bad adding the same packet that you've seen several times before to today's agenda. Page 3 May 27, 2003 And it was a consent item before, it is on the regular agenda for discussion just to make sure, because it's an add-on at this late date. The next item is withdraw item 16(C)8, and that's a board approval of a budget amendment recognizing positive carry forward variance in the Water Pollution Control Fund (114) in the amount of $444,400, and that's at staff's request. The next item is move item 17(B) to 7(A). This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. This is PUDZ-2003-AR-3569, Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., representing North Naples Golf Range, Inc., requesting a rezone from the PUD zoning district (Gadaleta PUD) to a new planned unit development district to be known as the North Naples Research and Technology PUD. And that is at staff's request, but there has been several commissioners that have asked for this item to be pulled. The item of contention is an eight-foot wall that the planning commission had put on as a stipulation that I'm not too sure that the neighbors are too thrilled about. And make a correction to what I just read. This item needs to go to 8(B) instead of 7(A). MR. OCHS: 8(C). MR. MUDD: 8(C)? MR. OCHS: Yes. MR. MUDD: 8(C) instead of 7(A). So 17(B) will go to 8(C). And the last item David has already talked about. We have time certain, which is item 12(A), and that has to do with Aquaport/Collier -- Aquaport case against Collier County in -- specifically Bert Harris Claims Acts, and that's at 12 noon, time certain. And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have any changes to today's agenda or ex parte communication on the Page 4 May 27, 2003 summary agenda? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have nothing to pull from the consent agenda, but I do have, under 17(D), some emails, miscellaneous, which is in my file. Anybody that wishes to see it, it's up here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no changes to the agenda. I do have one email on file for item 17(B) of the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no changes to the agenda, and I have an ex parte of 8(C), which was 17(B), and also 17(D). And that's the only other ex partes that I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. No changes. 17(g) I met with Tony Pires and some people from Spanish Wells, spoke to people on the telephone as well, and received some emails, as well as a phone call and emails on 17(D). CHAIRMAN HENNING: I also have no changes to today's agenda, and I have no ex parte communication on today's summary agenda to disclose. So I'll entertain a motion to -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before you do that-- Sue, do we have numerous speakers on 17(D)? MS. FILSON: I don't have any. Which has become 7(A), which is now 8 -- MR. MUDD: No. 17(B) went to 8(C). But I've been told just by one of the staff that item 17(D) -- MS. FILSON: I have no speakers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 17(D) is which item, sir? MR. MUDD: This is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Regional park. Page 5 May 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: This is the regional park. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have anybody here to -- wish to discuss the regional park on today's agenda? We have one hand up, which-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two hands. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two hands. Can we please remove that from the summary agenda, put it on the regular agenda. MR. MUDD: And that would go to 7(A), sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. With those corrections to today's agenda, I entertain a motion to accept today's regular, consent, and summary agenda. COMMISSIONER: So move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner -- there's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Page 6 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING May 27, 2003 Correction to Item 8B: Page 2, first paragraph (3rd and 4th lines) the sentence should read: "The new provisions include an application process for projects eligible for the waiver of the upfront payment and provides for the issuance of a Certificate of Adequate Public Facility." (Staff request.) Add Item 10(G): Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, conditionally accept recorded easements and deeds for Whippoorwill Lane; and approve an indemnification agreement; and accept provision of cash escrow and letter of credit as set forth in agreement. All matters pertain to the land acquisition and construction of a roadway on the property conditionally accepted by the County for construction by private parties of Whippoorwill Lane. (Staff request.) Withdraw Item 16(C)8: Board approval of a budget amendment recognizing positive carry forward variance in the Water Pollution Control Fund (114) in the amount of $444,400. (Staff request.) Move Item 17B to 7A: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3569, Robert Duane, of Hole Montes Inc., representing North Naples Golf Range, Inc., requesting a rezone from the "PUD" Zoning District (Gadaleta PUD) to a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to be known as the North Naples Research and Technology PUD. This project will accommodate research and technology uses and Iow environmental impact manufacturing according to the research and technology park district of the future land use element. A minimum of four (4) residential work force housing units are also proposed to be provided. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the west side of Old U.S. 41 immediately south of the Lee County Line, in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 19.3+ acres. (Staff request.) TIME CERTAIN ITEMS: Item 12A to be heard at 12:00 Noon. Closed Attorney-Client Session pursuant to Section 286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenses of the pending litigation case of Aquaport v. Collier County, Appeal Case No. 03-11291-B, now pending in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and Aquaport v. Collier County (The Bert Harris Act Claim), Case No. 03-1609-CA, now pending in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. May 27, 2003 Item #2B, C, D, E & F MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2003 SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 29, 2003 WORKSHOP MEETING, MAY 6, 2003 WORKSHOP MEETING, MAY 8, 2003 TOWN HALL MEETING AND MAY 8, 2003 JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING- APPROVED AS pRF. SF. NTF, D Entertain a motion to accept the April 15th, '03, special meeting; April, 29th, '03, workshop; May 6, '03, workshop; May 8th, '03, town hall meeting; and May 8th, '03, joint workshop. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So move-- ah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second -- there's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Item #4A PROCLAMATION SHOWING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF THE MASTER GARDENERS FOR THEIR TIME AND EFFORT- ADOPTED Page 7 May 27, 2003 Go to item 4 on the agenda. 4(A) is a proclamation to show the appreciation, a donation of Master Gardeners for their time and talent, and this is to be accepted by Charles Ray, and Commissioner Coletta will deliver the proclamation. Mr. Ray, are you here with us today? MR. RAY: I am. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Would you please come up and join us in front of the dais. Do you have anybody else who would like to -- MR. RAY: Yes-- CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: -- come up? Thank you. MR. RAY: Carolyn Cochran, Susan Waters from the retention office. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Just face the audience, and Commissioner Coletta will deliver the proclamation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Whereas, an important service of the Collier County and University of Florida Extension is to inform gardeners about Southwest Florida's eco-friendly urban gardening; and, Whereas, certified volunteers perform a crucial role in this service; and, Whereas, the urban horticultural program teaches residents what plants are appreciated (sic) to Collier -- appropriate for Collier County climate and how to care for them in a Florida friendly way to reduce watering and storm water runoff; and, Whereas, these volunteers who have become Master Gardeners have given their time to receive training and continue to donate their time, which in 2002 totaled 5,077 hours, or an additional two and one half more county employees; and, Whereas, this donation of time and talent has been of tremendous benefit to enhance and maintain Collier County's $1.2 billion tax base attributable to urban landscaping; and, Page 8 May 27, 2003 Whereas, the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, expresses its deepest appreciation to the Master Gardeners of Collier County for their gift to our citizens. And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the board appreciates the donation of the Master Gardeners' time and talent. Done and ordered this 27th day of May, 2003, Tom Henning, chairman. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I got a tomato plant for you to look at. It's not very healthy. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's passing out information on this plant. There are several varieties. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Some day I have to tell you about my plans for Florida -- native Florida grasses and how -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much for this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We want to get a photo. MR. RAY: Sir? Page 9 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: We want to get a photo. MR. MUDD: Get your photo. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Just turn around, please. If you'd like to share a few words with us, we'd appreciate it. MR. RAY: I would. Shall I use the podium? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, sir. MR. RAY: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners, and ladies and gentlemen. I had a great speech, but I forgot most of it, so but won't take you (sic) long. The horticultural learning center is 10 miles east of 1-75 on Immokalee Road. Out there we have a plant clinic and a horticultural learning center consisting of a number of demonstration gardens that I urge you all to come and see. The plant clinic has a computer connection to the University of Florida and quite a horticultural library. With these assets, we're able to give a lot of help to local homeowners and gardeners. They call us with problems about palm trees, brown patches in their lawn, citrus that won't produce. There are a number of insect and other pest problems. The demonstration gardens are designed to field test and display plants best suited for the local environment. We use native plants as far as we can, plants that are water-wise, that use minimum care and taking (sic). We have a number of gardens that are open to the public and complete. We have some others under construction and a number that are still in the planning stages. I hope that you all will take the opportunity to come and see us one day out there and let us give you a tour of the gardens and show you some of the things that we do and have done for the community. On behalf of all the master gardeners out there and the great staff at the extension office where we live, thank you so much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Page 10 May 27, 2003 (Applause.) Item #4B PROCLAMATION HONORING SHARON DOWNEY, RSVP DIRECTOR AND THE RSVP VOLUNTEERS FOR THEIR WORK AND RECEIVING THE ACTS OF CARING AWARD- ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, if you would indulge me, I'm going to deliver the next proclamation, and this is to recognize our Retired Senior Volunteer Program Collier County has. Today we have Sharon Downey to accept that. Sharon, do you have anybody else that you'd like -- oh, great. We have some volunteers. Thank you. Whereas, the National Association of Counties is an organization that is an advocate and supporter of operation (sic) of local government; and, Whereas, National Association of Counties seeks an annual recognition program that are exemplary to -- in nature to promote volunteer efforts throughout the Act of Caring Award; Whereas, Collier County government supports Retired Senior Volunteer Program, and which provides opportunity for seniors and retirees in the community to make a difference through the volunteering; and, Whereas, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program has worked with Highlands Elementary School the last three years to link volunteers with students who are learning to read and speak English as a second language; and, Whereas, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program was recently recognized by the National Association of Counties as a 2003 Acts of Caring Award, recipients for their work at Highlands Elementary; Page 11 May 27, 2003 and, Whereas, the Retired Seniors Volunteer Program director, Sharon Downey, recently traveled to Washington, DC, to accept this award on behalf of Collier County government; and, Whereas, George Bush, President of the United States of America, proclaimed April 27th through May 3rd, 2003, as National Volunteer Week, called for all the Americans to join together to celebrate the invaluable work that volunteer programs (sic) every day across our country, and committed themselves to doing more for their neighbor in need through the many volunteer programs available to their communities. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that on behalf of the citizens of Collier County, a great appreciation and pride is bestowed upon the volunteer association with the Retired Seniors Volunteer Program for their recipient (sic) of this prestigious award. Done in this order, 27th day of May, 2003. I make a motion that we accept this -- move this proclamation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Page 12 May 27, 2003 Thank you. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your kind service. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. DOWNEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Sharon Downey, project director for RSVP. I want to thank you for recognizing the achievement of the RSVP program, and its more than 1,000 volunteers. Receiving the National Association of Counties 2003 Acts of Caring Award was a great honor. This award represented the collaborative effort of county government working with the Collier County School Board and private industry. It clearly demonstrates the power of working together to help the children of Immokalee. This program would not have been possible without many, but I'd like to recognize two people who are up here with me, and that's my assistants, Carolyn Neuber (phonetic), and Mrs. M.L. Brill, who was the project chairman, the volunteer chairman who worked with the volunteers directly. Without their help, this one progr -- this program of 1,000 days to success would not have been possible. President Bush called every citizen to give 4,000 hours of community service, and the volunteers of RSVP have responded. Thank you again for recognizing those who serve Collier County. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And I must share with the Board of Commissioners and the people with us a study that RSVP saves millions of tax dollars each year by our seniors volunteering to government. Thank you. MS. DOWNEY: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4C Page 13 May 27, 2003 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 2-7, 2003 AS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS APPRECIATION WI~;FJK- ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HENNING' Next proclamation will be delivered by C'ommissioner Halas, and this proclamation is to designate the week of June 2nd through the 7th as Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week, and here to accept this is Michelle Arnold, director of code enforcement, and her team. MS. ARNOLD: That's right. COMMISSIONER HALAS' Yes, we'd like to bring the whole team up here, if we could, before we start the reading of the proclamation. I think this is something very important for our whole community here. Wow. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a big team. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, my gosh. It gives me great pleasure to come forth with this proclamation for code enforcement. As you can see, they've got quite a turnout here. Whereas, code enforcement officers provide for the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of this community through enforcement of building, zoning, housing, animal control, fire safety, environmental, and other codes and ordinances; and, Whereas, code enforcement officers deserve recognition for the jobs that they do in protecting lives and improving neighborhoods, as are emergencies personnel such as police, fire, emergency medical services; and, Whereas, every day, assisted by support and program staff, they attempt to provide quality customer service to the public for the betterment of the community; and, Whereas, too many times their efforts go unnoticed, even after Page 14 May 27, 2003 code compliances have been accomplished, due to their efforts and their expertise; and, Whereas, code enforcement officers are dedicated, well-trained, and highly responsible individuals who take their jobs seriously and are proud of their department and the local government within which they serve; and, Whereas the Florida Association of Code Enforcement has declared the first week of June to be set aside by local government to honor and recognize their code enforcement officers. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 2nd through the 7th, 2003, be designated as Code Enforcement Officers Appreciation Week in Collier County in accordance with the statewide observance of the same and encourage citizens of Collier County to join this commission in expressing appreciation for the dedication and outstanding service provided by the individuals who serve as our code enforcement officers. Done and ordered this 27th day of May, 2003, Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, chairman. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Page 15 May 27, 2003 Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I just want to say, I worked so often with many of the code enforcement people as they've helped us clean up areas in East Naples, and I just want to say personally how much I appreciate all your help, all your cooperation. I'm looking at some of you right now who have really helped me. There are others here, and I just want to say from the bottom of my heart, thank you for all you've done. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Michelle, for outstanding staff. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. If I may say a little bit about my staff. You have before you support staff that keys in a lot of the work that we get in on a daily basis, you have your daily investigators, and we have evening investigators out there as well. I had the opportunity to go with -- a week ago to a course, a week-long course, with the Florida Association of Code Enforcement, and met with a lot of other communities and found out -- it's always a pleasure to go to those things, because we find-- I find out that we're doing an excellent job. We're providing our citizens a lot more service than some of the other communities, and Collier County's a perfect community because of it, and I just want to personally thank each and every one of my staff, and thank you, Commissioners, for recognizing the efforts they make. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: These people cover an area larger than the State of Delaware. Oh, I'll just say that again. These people, as you look at them, these people cover an area larger than the State of Delaware. These people right here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And 85 percent of that territory Page 16 May 27, 2003 is District 5, and we appreciate their efforts very much. COMMISSIONER HALAS' A job well done. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, everyone. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thanks, Michelle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that was Michelle Arnold, for the record, director of code enforcement. Item #4D PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 1-7, 2003 AS COLLIER COUNTY HOMEOWNER EXPANSION WF~F,K- ADOPTFD The next proclamation will be delivered by Commissioner Fiala. This proclamation to designate June 1 through June 7th as County Homeowner (sic) Expansion Week. And here to accept this is David Ellis, the executive director of Collier Building Industries Association, and Cormac Giblin, our housing manager. Thank you. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Whereas, the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County supports homeownership opportunities for all citizens of Collier County; and, Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County supports housing assistance to very low and low income families; and, Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County works cooperatively with other public and private sector organizations to create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all citizens of Collier County; and, Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County recognizes that the United States is one of the first countries Page 17 May 27, 2003 in the world to make homeownership a reality for a majority of its people. Thanks to effective cooperation between industry and government, the doors of homeownership have been opened to millions of families over the last six decades; and, Whereas, the Collier County Affordable Housing Commission will host its fifth annual county-wide housing fair on Saturday, June 7th, 2003, from 11 a.m. 'till 2 p.m. at the Golden Gate Community Center. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 1st through June 7th be recognized as Collier County Homeownership Expansion Week, and urge all residents to make the most of all of the homeownership opportunities available to them. Done and ordered this 27th day of May, 2003, Board of Collier County Commissioners, Tom Henning, chairman. Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Thank you. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, David. Page 18 May 27, 2003 MR. ELLIS: Commissioners, just briefly. Not this Saturday, but next Saturday, we're having our fifth annual housing fair. It's going to be at the Golden Gate Community Center from 11 until 2. Commissioner Henning, you were able to come last year and actually give away a house. This year we're not giving away a house, but we're actually giving away the opportunity for homeownership. Many of the people in our community don't know that they're in a position to actually own a home, or they don't even know the pathway to get there. There will be credit counselors there, there'll be people who actually can check their credit, there will be bankers that can sit down with them and talk to them about programs they can qualify for, there will be people from county and from other organizations that do down payment assistance and other types of critical help in terms of owning your own home. And there will also be realtors and builders and people in our community that provide housing there to show them, once they understand what they can afford, what they can have. And it's really a nice opportunity. Last year we had hundreds and hundreds of families come. We'd urge you to come. As you're out talking in the community in the next couple of weeks, let people know. It's absolutely free. We'll have prizes and refreshments, and it's a great opportunity for families and working people in our community to find out what's available to them. So many Americans don't own a home because they don't know how, and one of our goals through this program and through this -- through the Affordable Housing Commission is to let people in our community know. You'll see these fliers. We'll put them out in the hall, and people can pick them up today. But again, urge those that you speak with in the coming weeks, and -- it's again, Saturday, June 7th from 11 until Page 19 May 27, 2003 2 at the Golden Gate Community Center. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. David is very passionate about home building, in fact, the expansion of home building in Collier County. His wife is expecting, when is she due, David? MR. ELLIS' End of June. CHAIRMAN HENNING' End of June. Well, thank you. Item #4E PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 1-8, 2003 AS NATIONAL FISHING AND BOATING WEEK - ADOPTED The next proclamation will be delivered by Commissioner Coyle. This proclamation is to recognize June 1st through June 8th, '03, as National Fishing and Boating Week. One of my favorite passions, but I won't be to able get out at that time. But that's fine. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This proclamation will be accepted by Scott Swalback (phonetic) and Tom DuPouw of Wal-Mart, sponsors of the Take a Kid Fishing Event put on by park rangers June the 7th at Sugden Regional Park, Frank Dunaho (phonetic), Parks and Recreation Advisory Board member and a representative of the Marine Industries Association of Collier County; Deborah Frankel and Andrew Roberts of the Tradewinds Foundation, and Tim Timmers of Collier Connections, supporters of special populations sailing at the Collier County Sailing Center at Sugden Regional Park, and I suspect there are some others here whose names don't appear on the list. But I will now read the proclamation. Whereas, the Gulf of Mexico and many natural and manmade water bodies afford Collier County residents and visitors endless Page 20 May 27, 2003 opportunities for recreational boating and fishing; and, Whereas, the recreational boating industry is vital to the Collier County economy and also to the promotion of activities that enhance the lives of county residents and visitors; and, Whereas, recreational boating and fishing are lifetime activities that promote active lifestyles, healthy families, and environmental stewardship among people of all ages and backgrounds. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that June the 1st through the 8th, 2003, is National Fishing and Boating Week. We encourage the people of Collier County to participate in boating and fishing opportunities this week and to make outdoor recreation a part of their lives every day. Done and ordered this 27th day of May, 2003, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, chairman. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Thank you. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COYLE' Who wants the proclamation? Page 21 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to say a few words? Did we get a picture? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you need them to shift over a little? MR. DuPOUW: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. DuPOUW: Commissioners, my name is Tom DuPouw, I'm store manager for Wal-Mart, North Trail. We're just proud to be part of the community, and we firmly believe as a company that anything we can do to promote good family life is very important in our community, and that's why we sponsored this event and worked together with parks and recreation. We're excited about next Saturday, June 7th. We think our day's going to be more fun, so we'd rather have you come see the kids take -- fishing than go to the housing project. We think you'll enjoy it more also. But we firmly believe that if you can keep families together and play together, they stay together, and we like to do entertaining things that help make that happen, and that's why we sponsor a program like that. It's over on Avalon Lake, and glad to have you come join us and have a good time. The kids love it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have information that will be published in the newspaper so that kids will be aware of that? MR. DuPOUW: Yes, we do. We have some notices that are out there, and we certainly hope that a news release that we put out to the newspaper, that they do publish it so that more kids are aware of it. We have lots of prizes, lots of things to give away that we do. And we have fishing poles for all of the kids and all of the people to use, so it's a good time. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Thank you. MR. DuPOUW: Thank you. Page 22 May 27, 2003 Item #5A PRESENTATION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S HISTORY BY MS. SMITH'S 4TM GRADE CLASS FROM LAKE PARK EI,F, MFNTARY SCHOOl,- PRFiSFNTF, D CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, today we have a-- we have a special presentation today given by Mrs. Ronna Smith from Lake Park Elementary and her fourth grade class in this presentation about Collier County history. MS. JOSEPH: Ladies and gentlemen-- ladies and gentlemen and Commissioners, we are fourth grade students at Lake Park Elementary School, and today we are here to present you with our magazine. MS. BERMAN: The magazine was researched, written, and published all by the fourth grade students. On these pages you will find the history of Collier County and the interesting people who helped shape our county. MS. JOSEPH: We would also like to thank the local businesses that welcomed us into their world and sponsored us. MS. BERMAN: We sold and designed ads for all of those businesses. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to get a photo, and also we're going to receive the written papers on historical information of Collier County. So if the commissioners would join me and rise, we'll get that photograph and receive the information. Turn around. We're going to get a picture. Page 23 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is very nice that you put this together for us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Did you give one to that lady that's typing over there so we can make it formal? It will be in the record then. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: And Ms. Smith, if you want to contact us, we'll get that picture to you. MS. SMITH: Okay. That's super. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, this is nice looking. Item #5B EDWARD D. CHESSER, EQUIPMENT OPERATOR, PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, RECOGINIZED AS F, MPI,OYF. E OF THF, MONTH FOR MAY, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, it's an honor to recognize our employee of the month for May, 2003, and if I could call Edward Chesser from parks and rec. up in front of the dais. Commissioners, Mr. Chesser is a very important part of tourism here in Collier County. The consideration today is: The act of beach raking has been an environment issue and has been -- come before the Board of Commissioners. The raking (sic) that Collier County uses to rake our beaches removes sand, beach biota, shells, and disturbs the natural physical characters (sic) of the beach ecosystem. It has been decided by Collier County staff and supported by the Board of Commissioners that the beaches will be raked less frequently due to environmental impacts of the Barber Surf rake and beach technology. Eddie Chesser has adequately (sic) solved the problem of the beach raking by innovating a less harmful raking (sic) that he has Page 24 May 27, 2003 retrofitted to the county's tractor. Eddie should be -- also be the employee of the month due to his -- the service beyond the call of duty. The environmental service department recently had a whale stranded at the Park Shore Beach. The stranded (sic) occurred late in the day, and Eddie wasn't on call for his service until late in the evening. Eddie had to pick up the tractor at the county barn, drive the tractor to the beach, and assist the environmental staff as well as the Florida Fish and Wildlife staff with the stranding. His assistance was vital to the operation and was not completed until two a.m. on February 20th, '03. So, Commissioners, I would like to present Mr. Chesser with -- with a plaque and also a check for $150 for his efforts of being a great employee for Collier County, and I move that we recognize Eddie Chesser as May, 2003, employee of the year (sic). COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Andy (sic). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: renowned as the swamp buggy racer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Chesser is also world And well recognized for that, Page 25 May 27, 2003 and I'm sure his name is recognized through a good part of this country and the world for that. MR. CHESSER: Thanks, Jim. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Eddie. MR. OCHS: Hey, congratulations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We need a picture, and also I have a question, if you want to come to the dais, on your efforts on the beach. I'm sorry. If you would step to the podium. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have to ask Mr. Chesser his opinion. The Board of Commissioners are going to consider changing how we rake the beach in Collier County, similar to what we do -- what is done in the City of Naples, therefore, not having some of those dead fish kills and some of that sea grass cleaned up from the shoreline. And what we're told is the beach raking in Collier County, as we reach -- as we rake the shoreline, it removes some of the sand. And if you could just share some of your experience, since you've been doing this for two decades now. MR. CHESSER: The Barber Surf rake that we've been using does a tremendous job, but as you say, it takes a minute amount of sand and shells. We've got to remember that the beaches here bring a lot of tourists. And there's been many mornings where I've been down there and the beaches have been so nasty that I wouldn't even put my kids out there. And I just -- I take pride in the beaches because I know it brings a lot of tourist money here. And the -- the apparatus that I built kind of doesn't take any sand, it leaves all the shells, but it doesn't do quite the job that the Barber would do. So there are times that we do need the Barber. Page 26 May 27, 2003 And we've just got to remember that the beaches are very important to Southwest Florida, and they have to get cleaned. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you. Thanks again, and thanks for your dedication to Collier County. MR. CHESSER: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5C EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT UPDATE REGARDING THE 2003 HIIRRICAN SEASON-PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next presentation is by Emergency Management, update to the Board of Commissioners regarding '03 Hurricane Season. MR. von RINTELN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Jim von Rinteln from the Emergency Management Department. And on behalf of the Emergency Management Department, this morning I'd like to present a brief update on the 2003 Hurricane Season and some of the preparations that we've taken for that season. I think as everybody has heard in the media recently that we're expecting a little bit above average Atlantic hurricane season. This is the prediction from Dr. Gray as of April, 2003, and that's in line with what we've been seeing in the media. Looking for 12 named storms, eight of which will be hurricanes, and three of which could be major hurricanes, category three or above. Just to sort of relate that to how last year turned out, this is how last year's season presented itself, with 12 -- also 12 named storms, eight of which were tropical storms, four of which were hurricanes, and two major hurricanes. This was, in part, due to the el Nino effect. We had-- quite a Page 27 May 27, 2003 few of the storms were sheered because of the climatology and didn't reach hurricane strength, although we did have four hurricanes and two major hurricanes. We think that the el Nino effect is lessening this year. And so we may not get that sheering and we may not get the effect that that had to hold some of those hurricanes off the coast. So it, in fact, could be -- could be more active for the -- the coastline, the east coast. Just by way of perspective, this is the last 153 years of hurricanes and how they've either come close or actually hit the Collier County area. As you can see, we've had 95 storms come within a hundred nautical miles of Collier County during that period of time. And as highlighted there, September and October, of course, tend to be the months that we have the most number of tropical storms and hurricanes, however, it doesn't exclude any of the other months during the hurricane season, as you can see there, so we need to be prepared throughout. And, in fact, this year already had one tropical storm in April out in the Atlantic, so that's a little unusual as well. This is the storm surge model for Collier County, and it shows the effect that it -- that it -- that all hurricanes could have, particularly the red area would be the most catastrophic, which would be a category five storm. There are also highlights that in a category one storm, approximately 41 percent of the population is in a category one or tropical storm surge area, so we need to keep that in mind as we go forward. In a worst case category one hurricane coming off the Gulf, we potentially could have 41 percent of our population at risk, and so that is something we always have to keep in mind. Some of the things we've done in preparation for the hurricane season, we have 22 public shelters that are available. They're in Page 28 May 27, 2003 different risk areas, or storm surge areas. So as -- the larger the storm, the less shelters we have available, which is always a concern. We have retrofitted a number of our shelters in the county to improve the hurricane protection to allow us to get more people sheltered. This year we've worked on four schools, as indicated on the slide, adding approximately 3,000 shelter spaces. This helps us keep up a little bit with the influx of population. But through our public awareness campaign, we encourage people to not only look at the public shelters, but also really to look at evacuating out of the area, staying with friends or family that are out of the threatened area, or to shelter in place, to do improvements to their own homes, like putting shutters on their home, if they're out of a surge area, to make their home safe so they can, in fact, stay there. We also, because of the large number of seniors and people with special needs in Collier County, we've designated the Barron Collier High School as our special needs shelter. We have a program where we ask people to register if they think they're going to need that type of assistance. Currently we have 747 persons registered that may need special help and need to be sheltered at the Barron Collier shelter in a hurricane situation. That number goes up every year. Also that list turns over quite a bit every year. We have people come on the list and go off the list, and we also know that there are a lot of people out there that probably should be on the list that we just haven't maybe encouraged enough to register. So we work at that at every opportunity, to increase the number of registrants, because that gives us an idea of what we're going to have to be prepared for. It allows us to know where they are so if we have to go pick them up we can do that. We do a lot of public awareness activities throughout the year, public seminars, and speaking engagements. So far this year we've Page 29 May 27, 2003 done 81 different seminars since the beginning of the year. We estimate that we'll probably do 40 or so more as the season progresses. We've also been involved in teaching the community emergency response team classes, which help the community prepare for an emergency. We've done 10 of those. We've done five big expos similar to government days, those sorts of all-day activities, and we've been active with the communications and customer relations department, and we've put together three preparedness spots on Channel 11 and 16, which will start airing the first of June, which is the beginning of hurricane season. Additionally worked with the sheriffs office and the -- getting the word out on the re-entry program. We've also done a Channel 11/16 spot on that, which will air beginning 1 June, which this is aimed at increasing the awareness of the re-entry program, what it's about, how to get the stickers, and what's going to be expected in a situation where, after an evacuation, we have an orderly re-entry to any areas that were damaged or closed off. We've also been very active in getting emergency preparedness publications and brochures out there. We've put out the Collier County All Hazards Guide just two weeks ago on the updated 2003 version, one of which is included in your briefing packet up there with you. We've distributed approximately 15,000 of those so far. It's about a third. And as we go through the season, we'll continue to distribute those, as well as other hurricane evacuation guides that we get from various sources, such as the State of Florida, and those are multi lingual in an effort to get to the different groups out there in the community. We've also put together, this year new, a Collier County preparedness brochure that attempts to sort of advertise the different Page 30 May 27, 2003 emergency preparedness sources that are out there, websites, telephone numbers, and the types of things that are available to the community so they can become informed on procedures and the things that they need to do to help us out -- and a number of other miscellaneous brochures, as shown on this slide here. I will note that because of funding decreases from the state, we've gotten less brochures this year to distribute, however, we have put brochures on our website, so they're available in that medium as well. These are some of the sample brochures shown in different languages. Creole and Spanish being the major ones that we aim for. We work very closely with the media, and we always work to try to improve our relationship and our ability to work with them, because they help us a great deal in an emergency. The communication and customer relations department works very closely with us in that regard. In fact, they're the lead, as we go into an emergency, in helping us work with the media. As I mentioned, we've increased our activities with Channel 11 and 16 this year, and we've also worked with the different radio stations, working with the NOAA weather radio to enhance our ability to get information out in that regard. We also have a blast fax capability down in our office where we can send information out to a number of-- a long laundry list of people that subscribe to get information out, as indicated. Emergency warning system. This is to encourage people to be informed and give them different options on how to be informed, as indicated there. One of the things that we've improved over the last couple of years is our ability, really via the computer using email and automated email, to send information out to subscribers, so we encourage people to visit our website, which is shown here on the next slide. And they can sign up for automatic notifications. They Page 31 May 27, 2003 can even have their pager notified if they so desire, with anything that's going on. We've worked with the information technology department and set up an intranet so we can pass information within the county in the event of an emergency or as we're going through a hurricane situation, and that's just to keep everybody informed that's working, be it an evacuation or the telephone information bank or between different entities to make sure that everybody has the same information as we go forward. This year I know that you're aware of the citizen corps. They initially put together for emergency preparedness that -- more in line with the terrorist threat, that we've sort of incorporated them in our hurricane preparedness, and it is one of their focuses, and they've helped us out quite a bit with that. And we've also -- I think it airs tonight at five p.m., county highlights is the citizen corps this month. So in that highlights, they've putout a number of good pieces of information that we use in any emergency situation, so we're real encouraged by that. We also worked with several other support agencies, the Red Cross. They're our shelter managers. If we go into a situation where we have to open the shelters, they actually manage the shelters. They also help in the recovery operation, particularly to do with feeding, emergency feeding. The Salvation Army also helps with the recovery operation, having to do with feeding and helping out many of the different situations that occur there. Our health department is key with our special needs shelter. They help us operate that and care for the clients that go to the Barron Collier High School. Additionally, the other organizations that we work closely with, CERA, which is our amateur radio organization, key in communications if the phone systems go down. The Collier Page 32 May 27, 2003 Emergency Response Volunteers, or CERV, is our umbrella organization that sort of brings together all the different volunteer organizations out there like churches or the Boy Scouts and civil air patrol, organizations like that, in an umbrella down in our office to organization the response after an emergency. And the -- I'd also like to mention the emergency phone bank, which are the folks who help out in answering the telephones before, during, and after an emergency. Not only do we have county employees in that group, but we also have a number of citizen volunteers that help us out. Approximately 65 at this point. If need be, of course, in an emergency, people call the county, call emergency management for information, and we have a phone bank set up. They handle that so that anybody calling will actually have somebody on the other end who's trained and familiar with the procedures and can help them if they need to evacuate or whatever their question may be. Then lastly, in closing, we always try to coordinate with the Miami National Weather Service for their take on the season. And this was the quote or the flavor that they wanted to give us this year, that it's been four years since South Florida's been affected by a tropical storm or hurricane, and that was in 1999. And in short, we're due, because normally every four years South Florida's affected, so I'll just leave you with that, and -- pursuant to any of your questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Jim, do you have a list of the CERA frequencies that the amateur radio operators use? MR. von RINTELN: We do down in my office, and it's varied and a long list. In fact, we have -- are able to communicate in almost any forum or type of radio at almost any type of frequency, so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that available for the public? Page 33 May 27, 2003 MR. von RINTELN: -- I can get you the primary frequencies that they use, certainly. COMMISSIONER HALAS: They are available for the public if somebody wants to monitor those frequencies? MR. von RINTELN: I don't know that -- amongst the amateur radio operators, they are available. We can -- we can certainly get them out there. The primary radio frequencies that the public should listen to, on just the normal AM and FM bands are listed in the all hazards guide. But an amateur radio enthusiast could certainly call our office, and we'd be able to provide that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. How do the prediction -- predicted hurricanes compare with actual activity last year? MR. von RINTELN: Well, pretty close. And we used Dr. Gray's prediction, and he gets to update it several times during the year, so by the end of the year, he's normally pretty accurate. But he also is normally pretty -- pretty close. And so I think-- he was right on with the number of storms last year. As to the number of hurricanes, he was a little bit off because a number of them didn't make hurricane strength. They actually stayed tropical storms, and we think that was because of the el Nino effect. But he's normally pretty good, and it's a little scary sometimes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does he do stocks and bonds? MR. von RINTELN: He lives in Colorado, if that gives you an idea of how he feels about hurricanes. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. Thank you. Item # 10A REQUEST FROM KENSINGTON PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE II Page 34 May 27, 2003 BEAUTIFICATION MSTU- APPROVED EFFECTIVE UPON PAYMF, NT OF DF, BT Commissioners, before we go on to public -- our public petitions, I'm told that we have a number of folks from -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Kensington community. MR. MUDD: If you'd just ask how many people here are from Kensington, I think -- I think you'll -- can I get a show of hands? Commissioner, I think if we do 10(A), we could pretty much get a lot of people on their way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it your recommendations that we do it after public petition or before? MR. MUDD: I'd do it right now, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then we don't have an audience. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Let's make them wait a little while. MR. MUDD: But Commissioner, I thought it would be prudent for them to be through the hurricane briefing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: who isn't here today? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's do it now. Let's get it over with. Is there anyone from Kensington They're waiting outside. I see. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 10(A). MR. MUDD: Commissioner, and that's -- that's to get board direction relative to a request from the Kensington property owners to be removed from the Livingston Road, phase II, Beautification Page 35 May 27, 2003 MSTU. And Mike Smykowski will present this particular item. But I will tell you, you've heard this on public petition. And I -- there's not a whole lot that staff can add, besides there's a $63,000 debt from Kensington as far as this particular case, and I don't think that the homeowners are trying to get out of their obligations, but I -- but I think after their obligation is done they would like to be taken out of this particular MSTU. And I would -- I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you go right to the public speakers and get the property owners' perspective on this particular issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, in view of the -- excuse me. In view of the fact that the homeowners have expressed a willingness to pay that debt -- I understand there are speakers. MR. MUDD: Just two. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But just two speakers. MR. MUDD: They're going to speak for them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to make a motion to approve right now, because I've already spoken to those people, and I would make a motion that we approve their proposal to withdraw from the Kensington homeowners' associ -- or the MSTU, and that withdrawal will be effective upon the payment of the debt of $68,000 (sic). CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second to that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle to move item 10(A), and second by Commissioner Coletta. Do we have any other input from staff or should we go to public speakers? MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I think that's what they want to have happen. I will -- I will let the residents know that if their Page 36 May 27, 2003 particular developer, if they can persuade them to give us the check, if I could get that check before 1 September, I can adjust the tax rolls to make sure these folks aren't on it, and we can solve that problem. But 1 September is the magic date, and I think they needed that information. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Filson, would you call up the public speakers, please. MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have two speakers. Dr. Charles Zinn will be the first speaker. He will be followed by Jerry Bums. DR. ZINN: Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, I'm Dr. Charles Zinn. I'm a homeowner, and I represent the Kensington Park Homeowners' Association. I have over 400 signed petitions wishing to get out of the MSTU for the Livingston Road project. We have a number of these people, the signees, in the audience today. They're all prepared to speak; however, because of time limitation, they've relinquished their right to Speak at this august group. Rather than to go into the background, since we've already had a motion and it's been passed, let me reiterate that we are prepared to honor our obligation to the fullest. This is some 65 to $70,000. At the present time, as you know, we are attempting to obtain these moneys from the developer who obligated us without our knowledge; however, we, as members of the Kensington group, agree to fulfill this obligation by way of a one-time tax assessment for the year 2004. We certainly want to fulfill our obligation, and the homeowners of Kensington respectfully ask that you honor our request, and it has already been done, and we will honor our obligation. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker? Page 37 May 27, 2003 (Applause.) MS. FILSON: MR. BURNS: MS. FILSON: MR. BURNS: MS. FILSON: The final-- I'm Jerry -- Go ahead. Excuse me. Go ahead. MR. BURNS: I'm Jerry Bums, also with Kensington. Just for reference, we also supplied each one of you on May 21st with the background data, so I'm not going to go into that. I just want to high spot a couple things. Grey Oaks and Kensington both had similar situations. Back in September, we both appeared before this commission with information pertaining to the fact that the developer had committed us without our approval. On January 14th, 2003, the county commissioners approved an ordinance amendment removing Grey Oaks from the Livingston Road beautification, phase II MSTU, and we feel that we are in a very similar situation, so we're asking for that same consideration. I'd like to just take a minute of your time now to introduce Kensington. First of all, I want to publicly thank Commissioner Fred Coyle and County Manager Jim Mudd. Unfortunately, we at Kensington have had several issues and still do with the developer. So who are we? We're over 1,100 residents, the majority of which are Florida voters and Florida residents. There's been a certain amount of time this morning devoted to volunteering. I can tell you that the Kensington residents are big on volunteering. In fact, Dr. Charlie Zinn and Dr. Carl Soucy, both medical doctors who have volunteered to help the indigent. They've spent a lot of hours doing that. We have people who volunteered to be on the Collier County committees. We have people who are working with the Historical Society. For three years I have volunteered at the Naples High Page 38 May 27, 2003 School for tutoring. So the profile of Kensington people is that we are very interested, not only in Kensington, but we are very interested in the well-being of Collier County. And as a result of that, we want to thank you for the insights and the support. I can't tell you how helpful Fred Coyle and Jim Mudd have been with us in the last seven months. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's an honor to have so many people from Kensington today. Do we have anybody else wishing to speak? If not, I'll call the motion. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Motion carries, 5-0. Let's take five minutes while -- take five minutes while everybody exits the room. Or not everybody, the majority. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wish we could keep some of them here. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please. Thank you. Page 39 May 27, 2003 Item #6A MR. NICHOLAS GIANNONE REGARDING SIGN ORDINANCE "SPINNING THE BARBER POLE"-DISCUSSED AND STAFF TO DECIFER WHAT IS A SIGN AND WHAT IS CONSIDERED A SYMBOI, AND BRING BACK TO COMMISSIONERS Next item is public petition. First public petition is from Nicholas Gione (sic). MR. GIANNONE: Giannone. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Giannone, thank you. And to discuss the sign ordinance with spinning barber poles. MR. GIANNONE: Good morning, Commissioners. I think most of you know who am I. My name is Nick Giannone, and I am a barber. I work for Moorings Barber Shop, and I'm here today to share my experiences since this new ordinance came into effect. Since it came into effect I had a phone call from about an 85, 86 year old gentleman. He lives in Bentley Village. The phone call went like this. Oh, I came down yesterday and your barber shop was closed. I said, no, we went. We were open. Well, your barber pole wasn't spinning, and I went back home again. Well, I said, this was part of the commissioners' idea to stop the barber pole from spinning. I have many a people driving by the barber shop on 41 slowing up traffic to look into the window to see if we're open. This is causing a little bit of a traffic hazard now when you have older people slowing up, trying to look into a barber shop to see if we're open. The barber pole, when it's spinning, it means we're open. When the pole is shut and not moving, it means we're closed. Yes, you did Page 40 May 27, 2003 give us permission to put the light on, but when the Florida sun that we have down here comes up and shines on that barber pole, you can't see the light unless it gets dark. The barber pole goes on when the barber shop is open at eight o'clock in the morning. We shut our barber pole at 5:30 and we go home. The barber pole is not on all night and it doesn't look shabby. In fact, it's part of America. It's an international symbol showing that there's a barber shop. It doesn't say the Moorings Barber Shop on the pole or Joe's Barber Shop. It just says, there's a barber shop there, and yes, we are open. I'm asking, I'm petitioning the commission now, please, we are losing revenue, we're losing time, people are driving back and forth confused. Let the barber pole spin. It should be separated from the code. It's not -- it's not a neon sign. It's not flickering on and off all night. So at this time now, I have here many a letters that was written to the editors of the newspaper in favor. There wasn't one person who wrote, not one, saying, I don't want the barber pole. It looks lousy. But you have a lot here. These are voters, people that vote. These are people that live here, saying, leave the barber pole alone. And if I knew that the code enforcement's going to be here today, I would have brought a pole with me to get a picture. I think it would have been nice. So, please, take the pole out of this and give us our pole back. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just for the public's information, it was over a decade ago when the Board of Commissioners decided that there would be no motion signs, so that was back in the early '80s. And I don't have any problems as long as, you know, it's not a precedent setting. Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Fiala. Page 41 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to say, if we can get three other commissioners to agree so we've got four, I'd like to have it brought back for reconsideration at whatever point in time we can. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and I agree. I just -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I say that I've never heard of an accident that has been caused by a revolving barber pole, and I think that that's something that we should be carrying forward. I think that's indicative of business and it promotes business, and that's what we're here for is to make sure that your business thrives and other barbers' businesses thrive, so I agree, bring it back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm quite surprised about this, because I believe, as Commissioner Henning stated, that this motion of the barber poles has been -- has been ceased since 1991. And why all of a sudden there's been an outcry now that we have a new sign ordinance -- and this was already incorporated long ago, why all of a sudden-- what did you do before this? MR. GIANNONE: It was never enforced. We always had spinning poles. Naples City had spinning poles. Marco Island had spinning poles. Lee County had spinning poles. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you sure that this -- that this was not a problem before? MR. GIANNONE: No, because the barber pole was spinning. It was moving. It was never enforced. That -- I remember when that was -- I heard about when that was, 1991, to be exact, Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. MR. GIANNONE: -- on there. And the barber pole really, it just seemed to fall into the category of signs. Page 42 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask Michelle Arnold exactly what-- how she addressed this issue since 1991. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement. The sign-- or the code prohibited animated signs back in the '80s, as the commissioner indicated. Whether or not the barber pole was enforced back in 1982, I can't speak to that because I wasn't here yet. But the problem, I think, that the county has expressed with exempting out barber poles is that there may be the same discussion or the same concern with respect to administering content -- or content like we're talking about with the open signs in the fact that we have to say that the sign indicates the status of the business rather than indicating open or closed. I think that was a part of the problem with respect to exempting out animated signs, and I would have to kind of defer that to the attorney's office to determine whether or not that's something that we could do. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My question is, prior to the new sign ordinance coming into effect, how did you, as a code enforcement person, address the deal with the barber poles spinning or not spinning? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we have both animated and non-animated barber poles in Collier County, and-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you be more specific? MS. ARNOLD: In some cases -- in most of the cases it probably wasn't a priority, so it was not being addressed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, you said animated and non-animated. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you address that issue? MS. ARNOLD: Some of the barber poles that exist in the county don't move, they just light up. There's a switch that goes on Page 43 May 27, 2003 and off, and it shows the red, white, or red, white, and blue, depending on the type of pole they put up. Others as Mr. -- MR. GIANNONE: Giannone. MS. ARNOLD: -- Giannone's, move when you turn them on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I got a question to ask the county attorney. How would this affect other animated signs so that we don't end up with cars spinning on top of buildings and flag poles rotating and all this other stuff if we had a statement in the Land Development Code stating this? MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Halas, I'll have chief assistant, Ramiro Manalich, address this for you. Thank you. MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich. I think the thing we'd have to look at is whether we'd have an equal protection of the law issue here. Because if we have this type of sign included among a group of other animated signs, can you exempt out, legally, one aspect of it and yet apply the restrictions to the others. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. MR. MANALICH: Obviously, if it's the will of the board, we'll take a closer look at that. But that, I think, is the legal question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just a little plug for code enforcement. You were mentioning something about code enforcement here. They -- just like you cut the hair of the people that walk in, they just are enforcing the law. MR. GIANNONE: You don't shoot -- you don't shoot the messengers, I know that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I just wanted to say that they're only doing their job. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just -- I just want to make Page 44 May 27, 2003 sure I fully understand what you just got through saying. In other words, there may be a problem with saying that we couldn't identify barber poles as being unique because of their historical significance and being something that's totally different than an animated sign? MR. MANALICH: I think we can take a closer look at that and report back to you on that if one of those theories would be defensible, yes. But there's an initial concern about whether, as a matter of equal protection, we can carve them out or not. We have to treat similarly situated signs the same. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you give me an example of something that would be similar to a barber pole? MR. MANALICH: Well, I don't think-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe Mickey Mouse? MR. MANALICH: It may not -- it may not be -- I don't know, historically may not be similar, but in terms of whether it's animated or not, I think, is the crux of what we're focusing on. If it's rotating or otherwise having that type of feature, that's the concern. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I, for one, can recognize the significant difference between this and other animated signs. I kind of hope that we'll be able to get to a point where we can find the legal terminology so we can go forward and change this. This is absolutely ridiculous, it makes us look silly, the fact that we even have to discuss this. But laws being what they are, we have to go through this process every time, and it's not going to be something that happens instantly. If we ag -- it will take four of us to change it when the time does come. So one of the things I'd like to make sure is that we have four people that are interested in doing that. If we don't, there's probably no reason to proceed. I'm sorry. Mr. Weigel, you had a -- you were shaking your Page 45 May 27, 2003 head. MR. WEIGEL: No, just turning from commissioner to commissioner. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't say I'm not observant. MR. MANALICH: The other aspect of this would be, are you creating an exception based on content for one type of sign because of its content versus another. I mean, again, those are all things we can take a closer look at if that's the will of the board, but those are the legal issues we'd have to look closely at. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner-- MR. GIANNONE: Excuse me? You're using the terminology sign. A barber pole is not a sign. It's an international symbol recognized throughout the world. Not Collier County, throughout the whole world. I've been from the coast of North Africa over through Europe, and barber poles are there. They are not signs. It's a symbol. And that's where this whole thing went haywire. You're taking it and you're saying it's a sign. A barber shop (sic) does not say, Moorings Barber Shop. It's signified that there's a barber shop. And you have European people coming here from other 'countries. They do not speak any English. They walk into a barber shop. It happened to me many, many times. And they go like this (indicating), my hair, cut it. They didn't -- didn't understand barber shop. They understood the pole because of that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. We're going to either give direction to our staff to proceed on this item or not, but if you would take a seat and the commissioners will continue our discussion. Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. My concern is that we don't open up Pandora's box on this whole deal, okay? So if there is some way we can address this issue -- but I also think that the barber poles in Europe are different colored than the barber poles that we have Page 46 May 27, 2003 here, okay? So really you can't say that it's an international symbol because of the fact there's a different color scheme for it. But I think (sic) we need to do is, make sure that if there is some way that we can address this without getting ourselves involved in other issues that are going to come before the commission, I think this is the direction we need, and I think we need a direction of people -- from the attorneys. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need some assistance from the county attorney. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the thing we have to bear in mind is that this sign ordinance was developed by another commission after a long, long time involving discussions and public hearings. The sign ordinance is a complex issue. There are things that we do not understand about why some of these decisions were made, but they were made with the advice of people who are experienced in urban planning and what it takes to create a quality community. We have a Smart Growth Committee that advises us on these things all the time. Consultants who understand what quality communities look like have advised the prior commissioners on creating a sign ordinance. Now, that doesn't mean it's -- it's perfect. But my point really is that a lot of work and deliberation went into creating this sign ordinance, and for us just to change it on the fly, I think, is an inappropriate kind of thing to do. So if we were to decide to consider this issue, I think there are other issues that we need to consider also, such as the open and closed sign issue. But we need to understand the legal implications of beginning to create little exceptions -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for our sign ordinance, because experience has taught us, when we start making these exceptions on Page 47 May 27, 2003 an item by item basis, we have unanticipated consequences. So I -- well, that's all I have to say about it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, would you like to make a motion to direct staff to give the interpretation on a-- whether a barber pole is a sign or symbol and whether -- whatever the outcome is, are we setting up precedence on a moving animation, whatever it is? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it sounds like you just about made the motion, but I'll either second yours, or whatever your pleasure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I asked if you'd like to make a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be happy to make that motion, but I'd like to make a comment, too, if I may. There's quite a difference with-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to make some comparisons. I respectfully disagree with Commissioner Coyle wanting to bring the open/closed sign back in. We've discussed that a number of times, and I think it was the will of the commission -- we couldn't get four votes -- to be able to address that any other direction, and I would hate to include that in there. That's why I'm going to keep the motion where it is. The only other symbol I can think of out there that would qualify something like a barber pole would be the universal recognized symbol for the pawn industry, you know, the three balls hanging from the sign. But thank God they don't revolve, and they Page 48 May 27, 2003 never did, so I don't think that's something we have to bring up for consideration. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They could. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They could, but they don't, and it's not recognized as an open/closed thing, so I think we can be very specific about it. At least, if anything, we can get a report back from our legal staff saying if this is possible. But my motion, and we've got the second. And thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak my piece. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- well, it's always a pleasure to hear from you, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. District 5 loves to be represented. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The issue about the open and closed and the neon signs, I did make a mistake during the Land Development Code, so under public -- or Commissioners' Comments, I'd like to discuss that a little bit, but that's a separate issue. And there's a motion and a second directing staff to take a look at this issue and report back to the board. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Motion carries, 5-0. Page 49 May 27, 2003 Item #6B MR. WILLIAM REID REGARDING BEACH SAND MIGRATING ONTO SURFSEDGE PROPERTY- DISCUSSED AND TO BE BROIJGHT BACK AT A FIJTIIRE MF. ETING Next public presentation is by Mr. William Reid, discuss sand migrating onto Surfsedge property. MR. REID: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm here this morning to petition you to reimburse Surfsedge, a building on the beach, for the money spent removing your sand from our property. As you know-- I'll be brief with this. The problem was identified and referred to you on March the 29th, 2002. We asked you to do something about the problem. I received a response back on April the 15th from a gentleman named Mr. Whitters who told me that the sand elevation was the same as the '95/'96 renourishment project. It wasn't. I found out from Ron Hovell that the elevation was raised from elevation 5.0 to elevation 7.0. There was an additional two feet of sand put on the beach. In addition to the two feet of sand, the quality of the sand was very fine and moved around like snow. So when the wind blew out of the northwest at more than 10 knots, the sand migrated across the sidewalk onto the property. By the way, that sidewalk is not a private -- it's not a public sidewalk. It's a private sidewalk. Our efforts have been to control the sand. We did that through plantings in the grass spot area. You did it by putting sea oats on the beach, the other side of the seawall. They are both maturing. They're doing very well. I think the problem is going to resolve itself with the plantings. Page 50 May 27, 2003 You also ran a grader down the beach, which did a great job, taking out that little lip that sits on the beach and removing the sand that was put there and bringing back the old sand. So I think the problem is literally cured. In our efforts to mitigate the problem, we have spent $3,745. I'm here this morning to ask you to reimburse us for that cost. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay..Comments, questions from the board? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I think there probably is some concern about the possibility of setting a precedent by paying people to remove sand from the yards as a result of storms or other kinds of things. I think this is a different situation. I went down and took a look at this early on before the problem was solved, and it's very, very clear to me that the sand was piled up above the seawall, whereas, before it had not been that high. And in fact, the property on either side of this property has a much lower level of sand than this -- this particular property does. So I would say to the board that this problem was caused by the county placing more sand on that particular property than was necessary or had been the case in the past, and that having the sand piled so high meant it rolled right across the seawall onto the sidewalks and into the grass, killing, in some cases, if I remember correctly, some of the landscaping. So I think this is a different situation, and I would, for one, be in favor of bringing it back and granting these people this refund. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are we -- as the gentleman stated, that the sand is very fine, and the sand has a tendency to move and shift just like snow does up in the northern parts of the country. So my concern is, did the county really place more sand on this property, or was this a combination of Mother Nature moving this Page 51 May 27, 2003 sand around? Since the gentleman stated that this is very fine sand. And we've had reports of other beach renourishment projects where we've had coarse sand, but it sounds like we had the right kind of sand and it's caused this possibility of the sand being built up in this particular area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Very good point. Ms. Filson, did you want to say something? MS. FILSON: We have one speaker on this item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not -- we don't take -- usually take public speakers under public petition, but I appreciate whose (sic) ever here on this item. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I support Commissioner Coyle for bringing it back. I'd like to be able to hear all the particulars. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I do, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You got a majority for the board to consider -- well, we will hear it at a future date. MR. REID: May I give the invoices to the county manager? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. Not that he's going to pay them. We're going to discuss that item probably, in two weeks? COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got a person here from the clerk of the courts you could give it to, too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And he'll conduct an audit on it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. REID: Thank you. Item #7A RESOLUTION 2003-187 REGARDING CU-2002-AR-3142, STEPHEN SPOSATO, AICP, OF AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY Page 52 May 27, 2003 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A REGIONAL PARK 1N THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT PER SECTION 2.6.9.2 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED OFF THE FUTURE LIVINGSTON PARKWAY, BETWEEN IMMOKALEE ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, CONSISTING OF 212.77+ ACRF, S- ADOPTF, D COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next item is -- where we at COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 17(A)? CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- board of zoning appeals. Do we have a 7(A)? MR. MUDD: This is 7(A), which used to be item 17(D), which has to do with the regional park that's south of Immokalee on Livingston Road. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All persons to participate in this discussion needs to be sworn in by the court reporter, so if-- anybody wishing to speak under this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any disclosures by the Board of Commissioners? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On 17(A) -- could you come back to me while I get -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Um -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke to someone on the phone, and I also received an email. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? Page 53 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All ex parte communications is in my file. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may -- CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Mine are also in the file. I did have some emails and phone conversations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also received an email, and I have my file here for anyone who wishes to see it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I had an email. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have the petitioner. MR. SPOSATO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Stephen Sposato. I'm a planner with Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage, here to present the petition. Members of the design team are here, as well as your parks and recreation director, Marla Ramsey. She's here as well. The Board of Commissioners in 1999 purchased multiple properties for the use of a regional park. The property is located -- I have an aerial exhibit here, showing the site plan on the aerial. The property's located west of 1-75, and then-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Excuse me, sir. We have something else on our screen. We have a lab tap (sic) so if we can get to the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coletta has it on his screen. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, hit that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, he does? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hit that button. Hit your button. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. It's all right. I'll just share Commissioner Halas's. MR. SPOSATO: Okay. The property is located west of 1-75 and east of the future Livingston Road corridor, halfway between Page 54 May 27, 2003 Immokalee and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The property is approximately 213 acres. It's a regional park. Major site features include ball fields for softball and soccer, there's a water park facility right here, and major access point is off of Livingston Road. The active features have been concentrated in the upland areas, and, of course, quality wetland areas, and we were also purchasing mitigation credit for the wetland impacts off site. And a significant portion -- as you can see on the site plan, a significant portion of the site has been retained for a wetland preserve. There are passive features in that, including a boardwalk and a bike path. We have worked closely with staff and support their conditions they have placed on the recommendation of approval. There is one note. There's a -- the last item, number eight, says regular hours, park hours are eight a.m. until 10 p.m. I wanted to put on the record that there may be events that go over that time. If they're completing a game, for instance, it may be later than 10 o'clock before the actual park is completely closed. Also, they are looking at installing -- constructing a wall along 1-75 here in the vicinity of where the soccer fields are. And also for the record, they may place a communication tower in one of the ball field lights, which is -- which is also permitted by the -- by the code. The Planning Commission and the EAC also heard this, and we have recommendations of approval, unanimous recommendations of approval from both those boards. We had a well-attended public meeting. There were three issues that were raised, and I'm going to go over those just briefly. One was noise, the concern about events being announced. And what the parks department's going to do is just locate speakers over the bleachers and the event will just be broadcasted for that individual -- individual game so that each -- each facility will have its own little speaker system, and the goal is that the next game won't Page 55 May 27, 2003 hear what the other game is being talked about or announced. The second issue is lighting, and there was a concern for off-site glare. The parks department uses what's called total light control, which is the state-of-the-art light fixture, which eliminates off-field glare, and those are in use in some of the fields right now and work very well. Also, if you look at the plan, the closest ball field is approximately 225 feet from the Wilshire Lakes community. And if you look on the plan as well, there's a row of lots along the northern edge of Wilshire, and those lots front on the lake, not on the side where the park is. The third issue has to do with fencing, and there was a concern regarding people walking from the park into the neighborhood. And policy typically is that the parks are not fenced. In this case also, the park will be locked at night. The gate on Livingston will be locked, and the code does require a six-foot masonry wall between abutting and non -- abutting nonresidential and residential property. In this case we're seeking a variance from that requirement because we don't want to fragment the preserve area. We don't want to fragment the water management or the habitat here, and there is a preserve located along the southern boundary of the -- of the active features. There has been a request from Wilshire to allow a private gated pedestrian linkage there to the south, you can see. Typically -- or policy of the Parks and Recreation Department is not to allow private points of access into public parks. And in this case as well, we think that should be outside of the conditional use process, and it's more of a policy issue. In this case, for example, the area where the proposed connection to the Wilshire Lakes is a preserve area, it's a wetland preserve, you could have some water flows to that area, and it may require an amendment to the existing water management -- water Page 56 May 27, 2003 management permit. There's also operational issues, cost issues, that we think that this issue should not be part of a conditional use permit. It can be a policy issue that would be applicable to other park facilities in the county. Thank you, and be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the commissioners? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a couple. In regards to some information that people in Wilshire Lakes were concerned about, they were concerned about also concerts and so on. My question -- or a couple of questions I have -- in the preserve area, what is the density and what is the height of the foliage that's going to be in that area? MR. SPOSATO: Actually, I'm going to let the environmental person respond to that. It is about 225 feet. The closest point, the northern boundary's about 225 feet. If you want to address that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. About where the water park is, or if you're going to have concerts there, what is the distance from the boundary of Wilshire Lakes to where the concerts would be held? And the reason I'm asking the density of the growth there is, that would be used as a buffer to absorb noise. And also to go along with that, has there been any standard set for loudness levels from concerts? MR. SPOSATO: Not -- I don't think it's part of-- Marla might jump in and help me out here -- not as part of the conditional use application. I think there are standards county-wide. There are -- that would be applicable. In the case of a concert or-- there would be separate permitting required for that event, also you would establish those on an annual basis. Page 57 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And you'd have to have some kind of loudness levels set, I would hope, or -- MR. SPOSATO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- or some kind of a study done so that we don't infringe upon the neighborhoods there. The concept of the park, I think, is a great idea. Maybe somebody could help me answer some of those questions that I asked. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Ms. Ramsey, you want to answer Commissioner Halas's question about rock concerts? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. Currently the board, during their budget process, we have three events that we run that's county-wide; the Snow Fest, which is held at Golden Gate Community Park, Christmas Around the World, which is held in Immokalee, and then the Country Jam is the other event that we have that is currently being held at the Vineyards. Given -- we also did Viva Naples this year, which we're not requesting for next year. So we're down to about probably two events, possibly just one event that would be -- could affect this particular park site. And we do get permits, noise ordinances do apply in those areas. We have had code enforcement out at the property boundary of the homes that complain, I think is how it goes, to take readings, and those events are usually done no later than 10 o'clock. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Another question regarding the glare of the lights. I know that in Eagle Lakes Community Park, the lights that are on -- and that's quite a distance away from Lely Resort, and yet it's still a problem for the Lely Resort people because of the tremendous wattage there. And we were going to do something about it in Eagle Lakes. Page 58 May 27, 2003 And I was wondering if it's been done yet so I could see what you would be doing here to prevent that from glaring into these people's homes. MS. RAMSEY: I think there's a couple of issues. First of all, there is an overflow glare issue that you hear of where you can put a shield over the lights themselves, and we don't believe that that is the issue at Eagle Lakes that you're -- that you're concerned of. There is a different issue about the height of the pole, which might allow you to see the light bulb that is on. The lights -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then Will you be correcting that in this park? MS. RAMSEY: Well, the lights at Eagle Lakes are one step below the current new system that has just come out within the last year. If you wanted to see the lights that we're proposing for this particular park, would be to go to Osceola Elementary School. The two little league fields have these lights on them, and they would be the only ones in the county because it's such a new system. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm still seeking the answer in regards to height and density of the preserve to be used as a -- of sound absorption. MR. SPOSATO: It is of the mature pine cypress habitat. And in the areas where there's a large -- I think in the permitted-- where there is more than 75 percent Melaleuca, those will be -- all -- there will be replantings in those areas to make up for the loss the Melaleuca. I have a couple photographs you can see on the aerial, but we did take some -- this is an example of what it looks like right now. This is a little exhibit. You can see, that's the Wilshire community. That's on the northern edge. The park is right there on the north side of that red line. You can see the edge of the ball field in the Page 59 May 27, 2003 right-hand comer. We just took some photographs of what that looks like. You can see the pine -- the pine trees in this area. Another example of the vegetation that's there. Examples of what it looks like north of Wilshire. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just so -- off that diagram -- and I'm trying to clarify your question. If they were going to hold a concert, take a look at -- take a look at your soccer field, okay, they would -- they would have a concert band here, and it would face toward 1-75. Over 1,500 feet between that center line to the southern boundary is what you're basically -- 1,500 feet. And if the vegetation is done correctly, according to Air Force specs, because they do gun ranges, if I can get three footballs-- 1,500 -- I have five football fields, if you can get three football fields, they're not going to hear a sound -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic. MR. MUDD: -- based on -- based on that spec., and the vegetation is critical to damper that sound. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I've got one last question. And what's going to be done with the property at the ag. A area? It's called rural ag., land A; it's landlocked. I don't know if it shows on the -- oh, rural ag., area A, it's located out -- right -- MR. MUDD: Right where my pen is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. MR. MUDD: Right there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That isn't it. That isn't the one he's talking about. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, down -- it's down in the lower right-hand comer. There's -- yeah, right in that area there. Is that going to -- is that land going to be given to the Wilshire area, or is the county going to take possession of that? MS. RAMSEY: Well, sir, I don't -- I don't believe that that -- that the county is going to purchase it. I have tried on a -- Page 60 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: -- couple of different occasions to do that. But I did talk with the attorney's office on Friday, and that -- they said that we -- we are going to reserve a 30-foot area along the southern property line, that if the property owner wishes to go get a right-of-way through his title to get access to that property, we will be reserving 30 feet to allow him to do that. Of course, he'd have to get the permits and all the other things to make that happen. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that, the issue that Commissioner Halas raised, that area of rural agricultural, could a swag -- a swine -- a pig farm be located there presently in the urban area, a swine farm? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. The minimum size for a pig farm is 20 acres unless they come for a conditional use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's -- there's no further que -- oh, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I understood the comments concerning a private access to a public park. Could you please explain that to me one more time? And I'm concerned about the implications of that. MR. SPOSATO: There's been some discussions with the residents of Wilshire Lakes about having an access point into their community, which is -- which is gated. It's a private, gated community, and they want to have an access point from their community directly into -- there's that bicycle path along the southern edge, and they want to be able to gate it if it is a gated community. And it's our understanding it's been the policy of the county not to allow private access points into public parks, and this has been brought up as part of the conditional use process. And my recommendation would be, it's more of a policy issue. It's not Page 61 May 27, 2003 necessarily just specific to this site. It has other -- implications for all county parks and should not be addressed as part of this -- condition of this application, although, it can be, of course, discussed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What are your recommendations with respect to that, Marla, as far as the policy decision itself is concerned? MS. RAMSEY: Well, a couple of issues that we had in the Planning Commission meeting, it was -- the suggestion was that a fence be put up. First of all, we're not recommending a fence because it's two preserves that abut one another, and we feel that there shouldn't be a fence separating, in the middle of the preserves themselves. But it was suggested that the -- the Wilshire suggested that we put up a fence, that they pay for the gate and that they control the access of that gate into the park, and that's the part, I think, that we probably object to. In earlier conversations with Wilshire -- as a matter of fact, one of the Wilshire homeowners was on our Parks and Recreation Advisory Board at one time. And during those communications, we talked about, if you allowed people from the Vineyards and the Island Walk and those that live along Vanderbilt to be able to walk and bike to Wilshire, then we would have an access point at this particular location. It wasn't put into the conditional use -- into our planning though, and so we'd have to go back and make an adjustment to that, but it would need to be controlled by the Parks and Recreation Department and allow people to go in both directions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do you control it? MS. RAMSEY: Well, currently at Sugden we have two access gates on the back side, one down Dominion, one down Aladdin. And the parks department locks those gates in the evening when the park closes and then opens them in the morning. Page 62 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when do we deal with this issue? You're suggesting it not be part of the conditional use question at the present time. When do we deal with this issue of a private access to this park? MS. RAMSEY: Well, I think that the one place to go -- of course, they're here today, and they'll probably discuss that with you this morning, but also Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is the advisory committee for the parks department, and that would be an avenue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll go to public speakers. Seeing none, Ms. Filson, would you call up the first public speaker. MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have one speaker, Liza McClenaghan. MS. McCLENAGHAN: Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Liza McClenaghan. I'm a resident of Wilshire Lakes, the only occupied property that adjoins the North Naples Regional Park. I'm here representing the residents through our Wilshire Lakes Community Association and the Wilshire Lakes Transition Committee, and there are other members here in the audience today. Wilshire Lakes is still under developer control. We welcome the county through its Parks and Recreation Department to North Naples for long overdue facilities to serve all of Collier County and regional sports activities. We're here to encourage good neighbor responses and behavior. We have previously expressed concerns to the Planning Commission, and we'd like to address them to you today. Page 63 May 27, 2003 We'd like to enforce park hours of operation, such as closing at 10 p.m. Many of us have heard the Country Jam and other events that are at Vineyards Park. I live a mile and a quarter to a mile and a half on the other side of 1-75, and the first night in my home in 1999, Country Jam lasted until 11:40 p.m. So this park will be a little bit closer than that. We'd also like to make sure that we limit the number of regional and special events like the concerts so that we're not having one every month, and we'd like better communications with the parks department on when those events will occur, so that if we know that if there's a rain delay, we can plan ahead for the kinds of activities we're having in our own homes. We'd like to encourage use of state-of-the-art lighting and noise mitigation for both humans and wildlife, and you've heard them address some of those issues. We understand from the Planning Commission meeting that the code requires there to be a fence between public and private property where it's residential. So the community would like to see a fence in this area here. That's where the condominiums are closely abutting the park bike path. Right here is a clubhouse, and so people using that bike path, pedestrian paths for running would come around the comer and see the water fountains, the pool and, say, ah, it's a park amenity, when, indeed, it is not. So one of the questions we've asked in the last two and a half years is, how do you make the differentiation between public property and private property? Hearing no other response, we're requesting that the fence be provided. Being an environmentalist, I'm all for having an open type fence instead of masonry wall that is supposedly in the code so that we will not have a problem with water flow and wildlife access in preserve areas. Page 64 May 27, 2003 I'd just like to correct the record also. A gated community only means that there's a gate in the front to allow traffic access. It does not say that a property is completely enclosed with fencing, and, indeed, Wilshire Lakes is not. And if there was a gate put there, I'm limber enough now to go between split rails, but in a few years I may not be able to do so. So we're asking for a gate that would allow our athletic enthusiasts to access the park without having to get in a car and go all the way around Livingston Road to the other two entrances that the public would be able to use. The residents of Wilshire Lakes would be happy to pay for that gate and the maintenance thereof. And again, that fence, according to the code as I understand it, would not extend through the areas where the preserves match the preserve areas or where the adjoining property is not going to have a fence, so one could walk around. Again, here's where our clubhouse is. Here's where the bike path is. This property would not be required to have fencing. And here is where the preserve areas match preserve areas. On the issue of the landlocked property, which is this property here, this property here, it is my belief from conversations with one of the owners of that property from the public meeting in September and other phone calls, that they were unaware that their property would be landlocked when they were negotiating with the county. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please continue. MS. McCLENAGHAN: And the last item is that in the last public meeting we heard that they were planning to use ceremonial artifacts of the Caloosa Indians in the water park, and they mentioned specifically the Key Marco cat and the deer figurehead as having water fountains or water spouting from them, and I believe that is totally inappropriate. I understand it may not be a part of the zoning board process, but it is a concept that I'm here to address. Page 65 May 27, 2003 Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. A couple of points that I'd like to point out. I can understand why the county is reluctant to have a fence and a gate for a private community, and I agree with that, but there's nothing to say that on your end of the property, so many feet back, that you couldn't have your own fence and gate that would meet your own specifications. I don't know why that would be a deterrent from (sic) you to be able to get around the possibility of the county not willing to do it. That's one thing. The other thing with the Caloosa -- the Indians. What is that, the Caloosa? If I'm not mistaken, this is an extinct culture that these -- that Indian tribe died off years ago. I think we're paying them homage by using these type of artifacts or copies of them. I really can't see what the objection would be. I don't see anyone here from any of our local Indian nations to protest it. But that's something I'm sure we'd give consideration to as we're going through the process. MS. McCLENAGHAN: May I respond to you, Mr. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have my permission. MS. McCLENAGHAN: Thank you, sir. Because our developer is probably not going to be willing to pay for fencing, we're delighted to have the county pay for the part that they're required to provide, and we will look at, later as we approach turnover, whether or not the rest of the community can afford to provide any additional fencing that they see fit. But the Caloosa, yes, they died out 100 years after European content, but I think we still owe respect to their culture, and the appropriate place for that is in the interpretative center within the community center that the park -- of this park. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? Page 66 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have to go along with what staff's request is, that if we decide to put a gate in, that the gate be controlled by the county so the gate would be open and -- open in the hours that the park would be open. How does that fit in with your plan? And then when the park is closed, of course, we'd have control of the gate and have the gate closed. MS. McCLENAGHAN: I would ask the question to the parks department if, in those other instances at Sugden Park, did they have a sign on that gate which says that it's private property so that other individuals would not be making use of that particular gate during the daytime? CHAIRMAN HENNING: So Liza, with your last comment, you just stated that the public is not welcome to use that gate if the board decides to put up a fence and a gate. It will just be there for the Wilshire community? MS. McCLENAGHAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any more speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Fiala, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right. Excuse me. That sounds like a private gate to me, and I would think that if I were living in Wilshire and I wanted my community to remain private, I would probably go through a fundraising event to raise the money to put in my own gate. MS. McCLENAGHAN: As I said, we'd be delighted to pay for the gate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MS. McCLENAGHAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Any more public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. Page 67 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain (sic) to close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So move. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion on this item. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to entertain a motion that we assist in -- or that -- however we're going to address the issue on the fence, but I think that we ought to leave the gate out, because I believe that we might have liabilities incurring on this, and that if the people from Wilshire would like to use the park, that they can either walk or bicycle down to the main entrance. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is it --just a clarification on the motion. Is it your intent to approve the item and have the parks and recs. advisory board take a look at -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the fencing-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Issue? CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- issue and report back to the board? COMMISSIONER HALAS: To the board, yep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any more discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the Page 68 May 27, 2003 motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. And I must ask our court reporter how she's doing. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Item #8A ORDINANCE REGARDING PROTECTION AGAINST HAZARDS FROM SUBSTANDARD CONSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ADOPTION OF CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS HANDBOOK- CONTINUED TO THE Jl JNF, 10, 2003 I:ICC MF, ETING So the next item is 8(A), an ordinance of Collier County to protect against hazardous -- hazard from substandard construction in public right-of-way. This is amending ordinance -- the original ordinance? Well, I guess it's multiple; 82-91, 98-26 (sic), and 93-64. And Mr. Kant, you're here to inform the commissioners on what we're doing? MR. KANT: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. Edward Kant, transportation operations director. As Commissioner Henning has pointed out, this is an update to an existing ordinance. There have been some changes in Page 69 May 27, 2003 construction techniques over the last dozen years or so, and we've had some organizational changes which have necessitated the way in which people apply for and-- permits and those permits are administered. The executive summary is pretty straightforward with respect to the major changes in the ordinance. We've run this one past the DSAC and the Productivity Committee. We don't know that there are any issues or outstanding items that are of any kind of controversy at this point. I can, if you wish, run through these, but as I say, it's an ordinance which has been in place now for, in one form or another, almost 20 years, and this is merely an update. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions from the board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. In the ordinance -- let's see -- page three of seven, on the top it says, B, applications for each permit shall be made on forms provided by Collier County. Such application shall include but not limited to the necessary -- but not necessarily limited to the following information, and it goes through step one through seven. MR. KANT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wouldn't we want to make it more precise of what we're asking people instead of-- I mean, is there anything that you can think of that we need to put into this, each of the steps? MR. KANT: Typically we get a wide variety of requests, and most of the -- aside from some of the private owners who are just merely, like, for example, looking for a driveway permit, for which we have separate forms, we normally get engineered plans. If there's major work to be done within the right-of-way, we require engineered plans. If it's homeowner, single-family homes, Page 70 May 27, 2003 that type of thing, we try to work with them and provide most of the technical expertise for setting grades and things like that for driveway pipes. So most of this is geared toward the commercial or multi-family or nonsingle-family homeowner type of permit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we want to include engineering specifications and like, put it in number eight? MR. KANT: We could do that, but we've referenced the standard engineering specifications, like FDOT requirements, things like that, in other areas of the ordinance, so, yes, we could. It's not a problem to add that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Or if we do that, according to your -- whether you recommend it or not, can we move that ambiguous language in -- where it says, not necessarily limited to the following, so everybody knows what they need to do for a permit? I've been out there, tried to get a permit and having to go back to the county several times because it is the wishes of the staff person, they want more and more information. So if everybody knows up front what they need to do, wouldn't it be better government? MR. KANT: We typically try to meet with representatives of the major -- when I say major, the commercial type of developments so that they know what's expected of them before they actually make the permit application. The -- as I said, for single-family homes, it's really very straightforward. Typically the only thing we ever get involved in with single family are driveway permits, and those are very specific as far as the forms that are required. I'm, frankly, reluctant to try to pin down exactly what we might need in any given circumstance, because if we were to do that, I think the list would be an awful lot longer than seven or eight items. Most of the people that we work with on the commercial and multi-family are professional engineers, planners, architects. Page 71 May 27, 2003 We have had, recently, several come in from the Immokalee area where they're trying to upgrade some of the mobile home parks. And we've had to sit down with a few of those folks and work with them a little more closely. But that's -- and that's difficult sometimes because there is a -- somewhat of a melange of different types of properties up there that they're trying to upgrade. Down here in the coastal area, we typically don't find that problem. Most of the engineers know what's required of them. If they're new to the area, we invite them to come in and meet with us so that they get a feel for what we're requiring. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then down below in item D, it says, all utility companies shall contact the property owners in the vicinity of their proposed project and inform them of the forthcoming construction. MR. KANT: That was put in there as a result of the recent issue that came up with FP&L in the Naples Park area where some folks were unaware that FP&L was going to be doing work up there. We've since had several issues -- instances where we've issued permits where FP&L and Sprint are doing work, and we just want to make sure that there are no surprises. We try, on county projects, whether it's intersection improvement or a major project, to meet with people, let them know what's happening, and we think that what's good for us should be good for the major utilities as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you tell me how far -- how many feet is (sic) a vicinity mean? How far -- how many feet should MR. KANT: I think that vari -- I think that varies, Commissioner, depending on the impact of the project. If the board's desires is that specify within X feet, that can be -- that can be done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, just like public notification that we request on a rezone, it's kind of spelled out. Page 72 May 27, 2003 I just hear many complaints that government is not consistent, and I think this is one example of inconsistency that can be applied to an ordinance you're asking the board to approve. Although I appreciate -- I think we're close, but I think we still need a little touch-up on this item. So with the board's indulgence, I'd like to continue this to see if we can clear it up for the next meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine. MR. MUDD: See you in two weeks? MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioner, two weeks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next item. MR. MUDD: That's 8(B), that's adopt an ordinance amending chapter 75 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, 2001-13, as amended, incorporating changes to the affordable housing provisions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions from the -- or David Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. In regard to the item to be continued, 8(A), the board-- being an advertised item, the board, although directing staff, needs to take a vote to continue, if you would. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: I make a motion that we continue item 8(A). COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. MR. WEIGEL: Two weeks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle seconded the motion. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 73 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Item #8B ORDINANCE 2003-25 AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCE, SAME BEING THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, 2001-13, AS AMENDED, INCORPORATING CHANGES TO THE AFFORDABLE HOI JSING PROVISIONS - ADOPTED THE CHAIRMAN HENNING: ordinance amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: record? MR. BAKER: Any questions on the impact fee Anything that we need to get on Just a couple comments, Commissioners. This is CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: Denny Baker, director of financial administration and housing for community development. The most important thing is just waiving the up-front payment one half the transportation impact fees for developers who meet the affordable housing guidelines. Under the present arrangement in the ordinance, if they paid those fees, which can total hundreds of Page 74 May 27, 2003 thousands of dollars, those same -- those same moneys would be returned to the developer at the time the deferral would be executed. So what we're trying to do is just eliminate that up-front cash requirement by a developer who meets the affordable housing guidelines. All the other payments, impact fees, the agreements, remain the same. We have -- we have -- recommending certain controls be put in place to prevent someone from taking advantage of this situation. If a developer asserts that they're meeting the guidelines and, in fact, they do not, they have to pay all the impact fees plus 10 percent penalty, plus interest on both of those totals back to day one. So we feel like we've got it -- the county's protected and we've removed any financial barriers that would be in place for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't have any problem with the ordinance, but I need to -- need to clarify something just for background information. On the first page of the executive summary in the second paragraph in the bottom, you say that this provision for up-front payment of 50 percent of the impact fees acts to ensure that only well-funded projects built on a speculative basis are developed in Collier County. What's wrong with having well-funded projects for affordable housing? MR. BAKER: Obviously nothing, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing, okay. Now, we have been able to build-- I guess last year we approved 1,750 or so affordable housing units. How many more could we have approved, do you think, if we had this particular provision in place? MR. BAKER: We have done some mathematics to answer that question. Cormac? Page 75 May 27, 2003 MR. GIBLIN: For the record, my name's Cormac Giblin, housing development manager. The analysis that we ran on these -- this up-front payment of 50 percent of your transportation fees would raise the price of a home about $500 by the time you went through the -- through the construction phase to CO to someone closing on the home. This requirement in your concurrency would raise the price of an affordable home by about $500. That would knock out about 150 people that would otherwise be able to buy that home in Collier County. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But you really are just -- you're not waiving the fee; you're just -- MR. GIBLIN: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- rescheduling it? MR. GIBLIN: We're moving -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Rescheduling the payment -- MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, and it has no financial impact on us one way or the other. So I'm fully supportive of it, I just wanted to clarify the issue on the well-funded projects. I sort of like to see well-funded projects for affordable housing. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. When we-- when we -- when we changed -- Jim Mudd for the record. When we changed the code to get the 50 percent forward at platting, or SDP, so that we could afford the roads and get the money up front that we went through in our Growth Management Plan, whatnot, we didn't -- we didn't foresee that the affordable housing folks would have such trouble with getting that up-front money in order to be vested. So we wanted to correct that. We didn't want to deter affordable housing. We're having a tough enough time getting it to get built in Collier County. So, you know, the best laid intentions, the first one, everybody -- even-- even the CBIA and the development community basically Page 76 May 27, 2003 said the 50 percent payment up front, and we all heard them, that was a good idea for the road program for the vesting, but it's -- but it's turned out to be bad in this particular case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to ask Jim Mitchell from the clerk's office if they have any insight into this, any kind of objection. MR. MITCHELL: No, absolutely not. The only question I did have was when you were talking about ones that are deemed not to have met the criteria and there's going to be penalties for that -- MR. BAKER: Right. MR. MITCHELL: -- one of those penalties was interest? MR. BAKER: Yes. MR. MITCHELL: What is your interest going to be based on? Is it going to be our prevailing interest rate in our pool of cash, is that what it is -- MR. BAKER: It's going to be our guideline to follow your interest rates, Jim. MR. MITCHELL: I'd make sure the document specifies that. MR. BAKER: Yes. Thank you for that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MS. FILSON: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 77 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? MR. MUDD: We have a speaker. MS. FILSON: I have a speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oop. I didn't -- I didn't call for the opposed, so I'll call -- let's call up the public speaker and we'll retake that vote. MS. FILSON: Bill Klohn. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klohn? MR. KLOHN: I'll go ahead and waive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) Motion carries, 5-0. Thank you. MR. BAKER: Thank you. Item #8C ORDINANCE 2003-26, PUDZ-2003-AR-3569, ROBERT DUANE, OF HOLE MONTES, INC., REPRESENTING NORTH NAPLES GOLF RANGE, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE "PUD" ZONING DISTRICT (GADALETA PUD) TO A NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PUD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD U.S. 41 IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE LEE COUNTY LINE, CONSISTING OF 19.3+ ACRES - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HENNING: Item 8(C), formerly known as item 17(B). This is, request a rezone, PUD zoning 03-AR-3569, Hole Page 78 May 27, 2003 Montes representing North Naples Golf Range requesting PUD zone known as Gadaleta PUD. And Mr. Duane of Duane -- oh, we -- we have to swear everybody in by the court reporter. All participants please rise and raise your right hand. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication by the commissioners. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I had phone conversations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with the people -- Tony Pires and Spanish Wells. Also I've spoken to a couple people on the phone. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's in my ex parte communication file on this item. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have an email. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Besides the email, I met with Tony Pires, Ron Dillon, and Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Duane, thank you for being here today. MR. DUANE: Thank you. It's a pleasure. For the record, my name is Robert Duane from Hole Montes and Associates. I'm going to be very brief this morning. I'd like to thank some people here that are going to also participate in our discussion. One is Tammie Nemecek from the EDC, the Economic Development Council, I have Terry Cole with me also, project manager and engineer from Hole Montes and Association, I have Richard Yovanovich, my client's attorney who is also here to address any questions that you might have. And also thank you to a number of people that helped us get here in a reasonably short period of time. This was a fast-track Page 79 May 27, 2003 project, and we managed to do it. I wanted to thank you for your help in the Planning Commission also in trying to expedite this project. The North Naples Research Park is on the Lee County line. Just to the north of us is Spanish Wells. I'm going to go over some language changes that we've agreed with them on, and if you'll just indulge me for a minute, I'll go over those changes that we've agreed to before our meeting this morning because I need to put those on the record. But before I do so, are there any commissioner-- any questions from the commission members? Do you want me to go into some detail or-- yes, sir? COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is going to be a high performance engine parts manufacturer? MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I assume that they're going to have dynamometers there, engine dynamometers. And I just wondered how you were going to address the noise issue when they start running these engines up at high RPMs and how this was going to affect the surrounding area. MR. DUANE: Well, I'm not familiar with that particular terminology. My understanding was based on representations that March Industries had made, particularly at our neighborhood group meeting, that there would be no noise audible from outside this building, and I take them at their word. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I would assume that since they are an engine manufacturer, or performance manufacturer, that they're going to have to test this. Are they going to have another area that they're going to test these parts? That's the only concern I have. I think it's a great i -- you know, I think great that we're bringing in people like this, but I think we also have to look at the fact that Page 80 May 27, 2003 they are probably going to have engine dynamometers, and what that means basically is a test stand where they're going to run the engine at high RPMs. They're going to muffle the noise, but I've been in the automotive business myself and know that even with proper muffling, it does create sometimes a problem. So that the question I'm concerned about with the residents, whether it's in Collier County or right adjacent, across the border. MR. DUANE: And I'm not trying to avoid responding to your question, other than, the representations that were made at our neighborhood meetings -- and we now have our neighbors both to the west and the north comfortable with this project, was that there was not going to be anything audible from outside the building in the operation of this particular facility. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We can get that in writing? MR. DUANE: Well, I'm putting that on the record right now -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. DUANE: -- in response to your question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- if I can help out here. Mr. Duane, it's my understanding, they're a chroming company, and it's going to make chrome accessory parts to vehicles, correct? MR. DUANE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I'm not sure how you test those -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- on an engine. I think they're just making it look pretty. So there's -- they're high performance, but it's not going down the road high, you know, testing high performance. MR. DUANE: But they make pulleys, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They make pulleys. MR. DUANE: Amongst other things. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you're stating on the record there will not be any noise audible outside of the -- Page 81 May 27, 2003 MR. DUANE: Mr. Yovanovich has just reminded me -- and that is what my understanding was. He says we also have a county noise ordinance. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Yes, but that's a decibel -- MR. DUANE: Right, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're putting on the record, there would be no audible noise -- MR. DUANE: That was the representations that they made at our neighborhood meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. DUANE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had two things, please. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of them, it speaks of, the research technology parks shall not be located on land abutting residentially-zoned property unless the park provides work force housing. It does abut, and so you're giving four work force housing MR. DUANE: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- units. Then that leads to my second question. But first of all, I want to make sure to protect those residential properties. MR. DUANE: We are providing -- let me give you a little -- a little more detail here. This park is designed for both target industries, which is defined in your comprehensive plan as relatively low impact, technologically-based uses, and they may be located on any lot in the park. Also within the park we have non-target industries, which are uses that will support the park itself. These are generally uses from the C-1, the C-2, and the C-3 district. Page 82 May 27, 2003 We have several preserve areas located here, we have an FPL easement, and we have a lake. We have made a commitment to provide up to 12 fork (sic) -- 12 work force housing units on either a target or non-target industry use area, A or B. Given the size of this property, which only has about 12 net usable acres, I think we reached a consensus with staff early on that a parcel of this size, which is 19 acres, 19.3, and the minimum lot size is 19 acres for this park, you accommodated my client's request when you amended the comp. plan here recently. But we never had intended to provide up to 40 percent of our 12 acres adjacent to our neighbor to the west in Sterling Oaks. In fact, in some of the meetings we had with Sterling Oaks, they weren't particularly thrilled about having the idea of any affordable housing, but they certainly had a comfort level with it here as opposed to adjacent to their property line. And we've made a commitment to provide up to 12 of those. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That was -- my second concern was because -- also stated in here someplace or another, and I can't put my hands on it right this minute, it says that you're located in a traffic congested area and yet you would be allowing 43 units versus four, and I thought, geez, that's a lot, especially when it's a traffic congested area association. Oh, there it is, okay. MR. DUANE: We're permitted to have 12 units without density bonuses. We-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it says, density bonus for affordable housing, up to 43 dwelling units. And I just wanted to make sure we're not doing 43 -- MR. DUANE: No, we're-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- dwelling units. MR. DUANE: -- not. We've not made a commitment to do any more than 12. COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. Thank you. Page 83 May 27, 2003 MR. DUANE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Question, did we give the same consideration to the residents that live in Lee County, right across the border, as we gave to our own residents in Collier County when we were planning this out? MR. DUANE: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, they were notified just the same way we would do Collier County residents, with mailings and -- MR. DUANE: No, they were not required to be notified. I don't have -- MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, if I might add something. Fred Reischl, planning services. We did notify the City of Bonita Springs with an entire review packet, so the city was notified, and they had no comments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second -- a second part of my question, if I may, unless -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just going to respond. Commissioners, for the record, Rich Yovanovich. Also I was going to respond that we have, in the interim, met with representatives from the property to the north, and we have -- we have, I think, reached an agreement that makes them happy as to the buffering, where the wall's going to be located, the timing of the construction of the wall, to where I think the concerns from the neighbors to the north have gone away. And if I can just briefly tell you what they are, and we'll get the specifics in the record. Essentially what we've agreed to do is build a wall, eight foot in length, starting from Old U.S. 41, the entire length of the northern boundary of the property until we get to the preserve area. That will be built concurrently with the site improvement -- any Page 84 May 27, 2003 site improvement north of that access road. And for purposes of the PUD, when we referenced access road, it's called Performance Way on the master plan, but we wanted to make sure you understand, that's the access road that's being referred to. So prior to doing anything north of the access road, when we do those site plan improvements, we build the wall, we've worked with them to move the wall further back and to where it's outside of the native vegetation area to the east, and that we are about 22 feet from the property line nearest -- at the closest point of the wall to the property to the north. We will have that in place, completed, prior to any COs. So I think that made the residents to the north more comfortable that we're building the wall concurrently with site improvements and that we can't have any occupancy of the buildings until the wall and the landscaping is completed. I wish I could guarantee there'd never be any noise. I can't -- I don't think I can make that guarantee. But the doors will be closed. They're required to be closed. And if we have any problems, we'll be happy to address those problems. But I think we've taken care of the concerns to the north, mainly the wall, and moving it -- and making sure there's an appropriate buffer. Did we provide the specific notice, no. There's a glitch in the ordinance. But we have met with the residents, representatives to the north, and I appreciate their willingness to work with us last minute. We finished up last-minute details this morning, so I think Mr. Pires will get up here and tell you we've addressed their concerns. We've deleted some of the uses that they found objectionable. For instance, we had cocktail lounges in there. That's deleted. It's really a cocktail lounge in conjunction with a restaurant. That was always what was intended. Page 85 May 27, 2003 So we've made some of those changes that Mr. Duane will take you through, but I think we've made the residents to the north comfortable with our project. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've answered my other question. I've just got one comment though. We might possibly want to look, at some future time when we're doing LDC changes, about including areas that are adjacent in another county to these particular developments, that they give the same considerations to those residents as we give to our own. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ironically at the same Planning Commission meeting, there was another petitioner that had the same issue as far as where do you -- you get mailing listings from the county, and obviously the mailing lists that the county had only has Collier County residents, so we're going to have to address that eyeball case where you straddle -- not straddle, but you're adjacent to the Lee County line. So we need to take -- we need to address that, I agree. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Rich, in regards to the wall, is this compatible with the neighbors as far as the height of the wall? You're talking eight feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We have -- we have -- it's either going to be masonry or it's going to be precast concrete, so it will -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they're comfortable with this? MR. YOVANOVICH: They said they were. I'm looking back there to make sure that they're -- they're nodding their heads yes, but I don't know if they heard your question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we'll have them-- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we've also put additional landscaping to also create an additional buffer -- Page 86 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- visual buffer. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. We have public speakers. So with have no further questions, why don't we go to the public speakers. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have two public speakers, Anthony Pires, and he will be followed by Tammie Nemecek. MR. DUANE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I did say I would put these few word changes on the record for the benefit of our neighbors to the north. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. DUANE: If I may just have one moment. The first page -- first change is on page six, just making reference to the trustee of the SGE -- SJG land trust agreement dated 5/9/97. That's on page six. On page 14 we have revised some language, again, going back to the access road not having any structures essentially with any metal panels north of that access road. Another change has been incorporated onto page 15, and that is the language that Richard just discussed with you about the construction of the wall and the landscaping treatment along the northern property line. We'll begin upon the commencement of site work related to lots located on the north side of the access road, including lot nine, and would be completed prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. Construction of the wall shall commence in a diligent manner. Bear with me, and I'll wrap up here. A minor change on page 19. We have, again, made reference to cocktail lounges in conjunction with restaurants, but not, again, a free-standing cocktail lounge. A very minor change to language on page 20, again, limiting the Page 87 May 27, 2003 hours of operation in loading and unloading. The revised language is essentially the same language that was -- that I had suggested to them, minor rewording. On page 22, paragraph B, we're deleting the last sentence pertaining to native vegetation. That was at Marjorie Student's behest. And unless I have missed anything, those are the changes that I was asked to put on the record this morning. In addition -- okay. And Marjorie also tells me that we have made some language changes to transportation to have them better constitute legal muster. MS. STUDENT: I can address that a little more specifically. There's some general language in the transportation stips, that says that the department can -- reserves unto itself to impose more stricter regs. at a later time if necessary without stating what those regs. might be, so that's kind of open ended. And we're working with the transportation department to come up with some stips, that we can put in all PUDs. But because that's so open ended and doesn't give anybody any real notice, and the board's not really passing on anything, we removed those from this document. MR. DUANE: And the final change I have been --just handed to me was, this would be an addition to section 6.5, and it would be that all testing shall be conducted inside enclosed structures. I will add that language even though I think it's a little redundant, covered elsewhere, but I'd be happy to add that to the development standard. And if there are any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Duane, I have a question. I'm not sure if you do any work in Lee County on their industrial parks or this is a high-tech industrial, what their buffering requirements, what their landscaping requirements are abutting residential? Page 88 May 27, 2003 MR. DUANE: I do do some work in Lee County, and I would need to review the code before I put something on the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? You would want to review it? MR. DUANE: I can't -- I can't remember it off the top of my head, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Maybe Mr. Pires has some ideas. Or Mr. Reischl, do you know of anything? MR. REISCHL: No, I'm sorry, I don't. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I could just put the specific language in the record. I won't bore you by reading it, but I will hand staff and the court reporter copies of the exact language so that it gets into the document correctly -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: What-- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if that's okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, before you start is -- you know, my question is, why are we -- are we doing more than what the county to the north would do for our citizens? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know, Commissioner, but we are -- we are happy to go above and beyond in this particular case, and we've -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- we're comfortable with the language we've worked out. And if I can, I'll just give the court reporter, or the person, the official language to make it part of the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would say -- Jim Mudd, for the record -- when we have zoning issues that abut any municipality or other county, we take that action and we get it to them so that they can review it and give us their comments, and we give them plenty of Page 89 May 27, 2003 time to do it to let them know, and they -- in most cases, they do the same for us, they'll bring those things to our attention so that we can review them and give them comments so that we've got a coordinated -- a coordinated action. And in this particular case, we did send that packet to Bonita Springs so that they would be aware of what's going on and gave them every opportunity to respond and let us know. CHAIRMAN HENNING: My only comment, we're in competition basically with Lee County against -- for these high-wage jobs. And I wouldn't -- my only point is, hey, you know, if they require something, we should do the same. That's all. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we call up the public speaker, please. MS. FILSON: Tony Pires. He will be followed by Tammie Nemecek. MR. PIRES: For the record, Tony Pires, Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, representing the McArdle Trust, the developers of the property to the north and the Spanish Wells community, not to specific residents of the community. And I want to thank Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Duane for the opportunity we had last week to meet with them to go over the issues and reach a resolution. And in talking with Wayne Arnold, Commissioner Henning, the question you asked with regards to the criteria in Lee County, from -- Wayne practices planning up in Lee County and Collier County, and he said that this is consistent and compatible with the enhancements, so -- with the Lee County criteria. Some places a little more, some a little bit less. But I think the best aspect of this is that the parties have agreed to it based upon -- and it won't cause any impedance to the operations of the park based upon our discussions with the developer's agents, and it provides for a good compatibility, which is a requirement of Page 90 May 27, 2003 your comprehensive plan, with a residential community to the north. We agree with all stipulations that have been entered into the record, and that's all we have to say. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did Mr. Arnold say anything about the landscaping buffer on whether-- who's required to maintain it if it was a project in Lee County neighboring Collier County, what the code says for Lee County? MR. PIRES: I believe they mentioned that industrial against residential in Lee County, it's either a 25 or 30-foot buffer, depending upon whether you have a wall or not. So it's actually a distance that's greater than initially proposed here, which was 15 feet along the northern edge. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What about the landscaping, whose MR. PIRES: I can-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do they require that? MR. PIRES: They require some landscaping, yes, but Wayne can answer that better. He's not sworn in. MR. ARNOLD: I didn't swear. I'd be happy to. (The speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what your wife -- your wife says different. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I am Wayne Arnold, and I'm with Grady Minor and Associates, and represent Oakbrook Properties, the McArdle Trust. And in this particular case we have looked at the buffering that Lee County code requires, which, as Mr. Pires indicated, varies between a 25-foot and a 30-foot type buffer. One -- one depends on whether or not a wall is inserted into that equation or not. And the number of trees in that type effort you buffer, as they Page 91 May 27, 2003 call it out in Lee County, is 10 per 100 linear feet. But I think as -- I don't think the specific language has been read into the record. But, in essence, in sitting down with the developer's representatives, we've looked at where we can place the eight-foot high wall and get the largest benefit of the landscaping that we've asked for as an enhancement to the code minimum in Collier County. And I think we're all in agreement that it becomes a buffer that has trees of varying heights, it's going to range in width from approximately 22 feet wide at its narrowest point near the March Industries facility, and extending to almost 39 feet from the property line as it meanders toward Old 41. So from a buffering perspective, we're satisfied with the wall treatment and the landscaping that are enhanced here. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. Thank you. MS. FILSON: And your last speaker is Tammie Nemecek. MS. NEMECEK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I am Tammie Nemecek, the executive director for the Economic Development Council of Collier County. I'd like to thank the support of the staff and the people who have worked on this project to bring us to the point that we are today. In May of 2002, the EDC held a joint workshop with the Board of County Commissioners regarding opportunities for economic diversification, and one of the main impediments that was stated in that workshop was available sites for those targeted industry high-wage employers that we're trying to attract here. As a result of that workshop, county staff put together the zoning for research and technology parks, and this is the first one to come before you today. The reason why we're here today is a company that we've been luring to Collier County for the past year. March Performance is a company from Michigan. They were being enticed by Michigan, they were also looking at other communities within the State of Page 92 May 27, 2003 Florida, such as Sarasota, Fort Myers, as well as Collier County. Through the support of the developer of this project, this specific site was chosen. In addition to that, we've received tremendous support from county staff through the public/private partnership and the fast track process that has helped to fast track every phase of development of this project. We've also received support from the governor's office and the Board of County Commissioners to provide incentives to this company to also attract them to the community. Again, we're talking about a manufacturing company creating 40 new jobs for the community. The average wage is $54,500. The capital investment by the company is a little over $3 million, which equates to over $5 million in just the first year alone of-- first year alone ofjust salaries and the capital investment by the company, not to mention those -- those recurring economic impacts that we're going to realize in the community. Again, there were several key factors which solidified the decision of March Performance to come here. The commitment by the EDC and county staff through the public/private -- public/private partnership for the fast track process, the commitment by the governor's office in Enterprise, Florida, through the state's fast track program, which has helped us with the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the South Florida Water Management District, as well as the governor's office in Enterprise, Florida, and our county with the qualified target industry tax refund program, and the road fund, which has helped to provide some inducements for the company to locate in Collier County, and most importantly the specific site that we're discussing here today. In the negotiation process, the company looked at many sites throughout Collier County, throughout Lee County, and Sarasota, as well as sites up in Michigan. And according to company representatives, this site is the only potential location in Collier Page 93 May 27, 2003 County that suits their needs. And should you not approve the zoning today, we run the very serious risk of losing March Performance as a new company to Collier County. So I urge you to approve the zoning for the creation of these 40 new high-wage jobs in Collier County and the recruitment of March Performance to our community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Questions? Comments? MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, one more thing I've been asked to put on the record, that this also includes the complete repeal of Gadaleta PUD and the adoption of the Naples Technology (sic) Park PUD. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. This item-- did we close the public hearing? No. It's on item 8, correct? Okay. MS. FILSON: 8(C). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: We don't have to close it, I understand. Is that -- we do, or yes? MR. WEIGEL: You should close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We close the public hearing. Okay. Commissioner Coyle made a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 94 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER COYLE: the record. COMMISSIONER FIALA: CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. With the -- with the stipulations? With the stipulations as read into Second. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by Aye. Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Motion carries, 5-0. Item #12A CLOSED ATTORNEY- CLIENT SESSION (AQUAPORT V. COIJIJIF, R C©I INTY CHAIRMAN HENNING: The time is quarter to 12. We've got a time certain at 12, closed public session. Now, on that item, do we come back to -- before we take a lunch, come back and take action on the closed public session? MR. WEIGEL: It's at your discretion, Commissioners. The closed session is heard, and then you will come back and Page 95 May 27, 2005 have a formal direction to staff or county attorney regarding that, but it can be subsequent to a break, if you take one, as far as that goes. You've got full choice. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it the board's desire to take a break now and then go to lunch and-- MR. WEIGEL: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: -- come back? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great. All right. We're adjourned 'till one o'clock. (At this point luncheon recess was taken, after which a closed attorney/client session was conducted.) Item #12B SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION EXPENSES IN THE CASE OF AQUAPORT V. COLLIER COUNTY- INSURANCE COMPANY TO ADDRESS A SETTLEMENT CONSISTENT WITH INSURANCE POLICY AND NOT TO F, XCF, F,D $5.00 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please. We're on the county attorney's section. And this is item, 12(B), correct? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The board has just entertained 12(A), which was the closed session discussions regarding litigation relating to the Aquaport versus Collier County appeal case in federal court in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as discussion relating to Aquaport versus Collier County and the Bert Harris Act Claim, which is now pending in the Circuit Court here in Collier County. That session was held pursuant to all the requirements of the Page 96 May 27, 2003 government in the sunshine law, specifically section 286.011, paragraph eight. And following that session, the board is now meeting on item 12(B), looking for the board to provide direction to our outside counsel, Mr. Ted Tripp, and the office of the county attorney in regard to settlement negotiations and litigation expenses in the two cases I just referenced. And with that, Mr. Tripp is here to address the Board of County Commissioners. MR. TRIPP: Afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Ted Tripp of the firm of Garvin and Tripp. We have had the honor of representing the taxpayers of Collier County in an ongoing dispute brought by Mr. Norman Burke, Mr. James Allen, and two of their entities, Aquaport, 1.1.c., and Conotel, 1.1.c., arising from what we believe to be fundamentally a zoning dispute on a piece of property now known as the Bellagio Grande. We asked for the closed session because we have been ordered by the 1 lth Circuit Court of Appeals to participate in appellate mediation. Because of the nature of the mediation, it would not be appropriate for us to discuss what occurred at the mediation. But a mediation has been rescheduled for next week at which Collier County will have the opportunity to respond to a settlement overture by the plaintiffs. That settlement overture contemplates both the settlement of the pending appeal in the federal court and the settlement of a pending state court lawsuit brought by -- I'm sorry -- by Aquaport, 1.1.c., James Allen and Norman Burke, under a provision of Florida law known as the Bert Harris Act claim. What we are asking from the county commission today is a direction concerning what posture you would like for us to take on your behalf with regard to the pending mediation, what authority, if any, you would provide to us in responding to settlement overtures on behalf of the plaintiffs. Page 97 May 27, 2003 I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we instruct our legal counsel to request that our insurance company address a settlement consistent with the parameters of our existing insurance policy, and that would limit any payment by Collier County taxpayers to no more than five dollars. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. TRIPP: Thank you. Motion carries, 5-0. Item #9A RESOLUTION 2003-188 APPOINTING DIANNE WETJEN TO THE IJBRARY ADVISORY BOARD- ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 9(A), that's appoint members to the Library Advisory Board. Page 98 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to recommend, or rather motion that we accept Diane Wetjen. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wetjen. Yes, and I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of that motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2003-189 RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM L. SEABURY AND ROGER SOMERVILLE TO THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE ADVISORY COMMITTF, F~ - ADOPTF, D Next one, appoint members to Forest Lake Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to make a motion to accept the committee's recommendation for William L. Seabury and Roger Somerville, both of whom are reappointments. MS. FILSON: And-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we'll have to waive the ordinance for limitation? Page 99 May 27, 2003 MS. FILSON: For Mr. Seabury, he has served two terms, so you'll have to waive section 7(B) of ordinance 2001-5. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so move. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second the motion. Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Item #9C RESOLUTION 2003-190 RE-APPOINTING RICHARD E. JOSLIN, JR. TO THF, CONTRACTORS' I,ICENSING BOARD- ADOPTFD Next appoint members of the Contractor Licensing Board. Make a motion that we appoint Richard Joslin. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 100 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Motion carries. Item #9D A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE- CONTINUED TO THF, Jl JNFJ 24, 2003 lqCC MEF, TING 9(D), resolution to establish a Fire Advisory/Medical Service Advisory Committee. MS. FILSON: I have speakers on this one, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many speakers do we have? MS. FILSON: I have four, five. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, as a point of clarification, the term independent fire district is intended to include the municipal fire districts in the cities of Naples and Marco Island. We have just dependent and independent. And as we vote independent, we assume that the cities would be part of the independent piece. And if you want us to be more specific in the language, we can change that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I think as long as it's clarified. And what's the functions and the duties of this committee? The function and the powers, to provide -- perform (sic) a discussion and ideas to further implement the goals of the fire district and emergency service, to guide the fire districts and emergency service to work for (sic) more cohesive manner, periodically inform the county commissioners on ongoing issues and activities of the fire districts and emergency services, to recommend to the Board of Commissioners in order to assist the fire districts and medical service to meet their future needs. All meetings shall be open to the public Page 101 May 27, 2003 and shall be governed under the government in the sunshine. The purpose of this is better government? No? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And, you know, we've heard a lot of-- we've heard a lot of things about, well, this -- you know, in the paper, if you read it, this is just another opportunity to consolidate, and I want to make perfectly clear, you can't consolidate without going through a change to Florida statutes in Tallahassee, because these independents were formed by Florida statute, and that would have to be change in that process. It was never the intent of this particular forum to do that. It was basically to try to find a -- to find those efficiencies that we can find within the organization and try to be really good stewards of taxpayers' dollars in that process. The other -- the other piece I would add is, the productivity committee has heard an item on their agenda several months ago that had to do with the fire districts and the Fire Chiefs Association and whatnot, and I sent them a memo to please provide those results to this particular forum if you should approve this as a -- as a start point for discussion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, let me state succinctly, I am totally against any type of consolidation, just so that I say that on the record. Even though you say it has to go through Florida statutes, I want it stated that if we move ahead with this, I don't -- I don't want to even look at consolidation. But as I read through this, I noticed that this is supposed to be a -- oh, it's just an advisory committee of fire and emergency medical service, yet when I looked at the composition of this committee, I didn't see anybody from EMS on there, and I was wondering, how could you have a dialogue between fire and EMS when nobody from EMS is on there? Page 102 May 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our statutes preclude staff from being on advisory committees. And Commissioner Henning would be -- would be that spokesman for the county staff. Mr. Dunnuck would be -- would be an advisor to Commission Henning in this particular-- in this particular capacity. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they would be speaking for EMS? Is that what you're saying? MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning would be, yes -- yes, ma'am. Our statutes, our ordinances, preclude county staff from being a member of any of your advisory boards. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's -- Commissioner, it's just like any advisory board. You're going to have a staff liaison with -- like on the horizon, your horizon commission, you have Cormac Giblin as a part of that. Advisory committee -- Hispanic Advisory Committee, Ramiro is a staff liaison to the advisory committee. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear the speakers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Filson, will you please call up the public speakers. MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Thomas Cannon. He will be followed by J.A. Rautio. MR. CANNON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Thomas Cannon. I'm chairman of the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District and also chairman of the Fire Service Steering Committee. As I've said for about the last 30 days, I'm neither in favor of this committee nor against this committee. What I'm curious about is what are we -- why are we setting up this committee? If we are setting this committee up to better inform the communications between fire districts and county commissioners, Page 103 May 27, 2003 my first question would be, why wasn't the fire service involved in setting up this resolution? Why wasn't the county -- why didn't the county inform the fire districts that this was even being heard today? We didn't find this resolution that was on the agenda until Friday afternoon. It would have been nice to have at least a week's notice. I had to personally move a lot of appointments around today that was already scheduled. And trying to do that on a holiday weekend was very difficult. I also think we're trying to reinvent a wheel. The fire departments have the steering committee which encompasses the fire districts, both commissioners and chief officers. The chief has their Fire Chiefs Association. And I really think today EMS and fire service are communicating and working together more than they ever have in the past. I've been a fire commissioner for now 18 years. Today and in the last few years, we're communicating and working as a group. Prime example, Grey Oaks, we're building a joint facility, not only with two different fire districts, but a county EMS is part of this partnership. This would have been unheard of 10 years ago. We're working with EMS on ALS engines. East Naples is participating in the ALS engine program, and we're going to expand that in the future. We talk about keeping the county commissioners informed. We could do that on a monthly Basis, a quarterly basis, by being a topic on the agenda if we want to inform. We just need to -- maybe we need to cut down or knock down the walls with this -- well, this is set up for consolidation. No, I really don't think it is. If it's for cooperating and communicating, I'm all for it. But let's have this communication both ways. We should never have to learn by accident that this was on the agenda today. We should have been notified. Page 104 May 27, 2003 We talk in the paper about trying to reinvent -- or seven human resources departments, but, maybe the county doesn't know that we have joint testing facilities among all the fire districts. We have a pool of firefighters that we select from, so we are. We actually took our human resource department and made it into one where we draw from this pool of firefighters. So my only thing is, are we trying to reinvent the wheel? Are we trying to duplicate what's already out there? That's a decision that your body will have to make. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is J.A. Rautio. She will be followed by Chuck McMahon. MS. RAUTIO: Good afternoon. My name is Joyceanna Rautio. I'm a North Naples Fire District commissioner, and I'm the designated member for North Naples to attend the Fire Service Steering Committee that we have monthly meetings. My request today here is that we postpone this item until a future meeting. We'd like to be able to have an opportunity for the fire districts to actually have some real input into the wording. I'm pleased that County Manager Mudd indicated that they did think that it would include the dependent districts and the City of Marco and the City of Naples; however, unless we have some wording presented to us that I didn't get to see, that's not in here. It very clearly refers to the elected bodies, that you're going to actually have members from the elected bodies, and that would be the city council, I guess, of Marco, and the city council for Naples. That's not clear in here. And then you brought something up to my attention I missed with reference to the dependent districts, that at this point in time on the Fire Service Steering Committee, they're always invited to attend because we're supposed to have a board of directors that allows them Page 105 May 27, 2003 to have a seat, but you don't have an elected body for the dependent districts. You have the Board of County Commissioners that signs off. So that means that Isle of Capri and Ochopee, the way we read this now, would be left out of this particular ordinance. I echo Commissioner Cannon's comments. We did not know about this until the last minute. In fact, I found out about it from a citizen, not reading the agenda. We'd like to have some input, so I'm asking, again, to postpone. The concept of all the departments and districts working together with an advisory committee for EMS would be that we surely think that since there's only one certificate of need here in Collier County, and that is held by the county commission, with Dr. Tober as your medical director, that there's no question that Marco Island and Naples should be included in some sort of advisory committee. I'm pleased that County Manager Mudd indicated that we do have an independence of the five fire districts that exist and that we are dully constipa -- constituted under the Florida statutes, and that -- I would suggest that more of your people come and participate in the Fire Service Steering Committee. I heard during, I think it was 8(C), you were talking about a development item, and there was something to do with Lee County and input for buffers and et cetera, and the county manager made it very clear that they made every effort to make sure that Lee County knew everything about what they were doing and got input. Well, I submit to you that the fire districts didn't have an opportunity to give any information on this particular resolution, and I think we have a number of items that we'd like to work with. So, again, I'm asking for you-all to postpone this until we can clarify a few issues. I'm asking, what's the rush? Is there a public safety, a public health issue that I'm missing here? Is there some sort of a public welfare or fire protection concern that we have to actually Page 106 May 27, 2003 have you-all approve this today? So please give us a chance to review and talk to your staff and make some changes to this particular resolution and bring it up at a future one. So, again, I'm asking for-- North Naples is -- to postpone action on this today, because I don't feel like the committee is properly constituted. Any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you want to include municipalities into the resolution? MS. RAUTIO: Well, if this is going to go through, I would think that it's necessary to have representation, because we're talking about a fire and EMS services advisory committee. And if we're really talking about that type of thing and not consolidation, you would want to have Marco Island and Naples included. And if you read this correctly, it says very clearly in section two, I think it's the second paragraph down, the committee members shall consist of one county commissioner and one selected representative from the elected body of each fire district. Well, Ochopee and Isle of Capri doesn't have an elected one. They have an advisory committee, and you're the elected-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are the elected ones. MS. RAUTIO: Yeah, you're the elected group, so that's one -- so that means you have six people on this committee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We decide on their budget. MS. RAUTIO: Okay. So you have six people on the committee. And we believe that they should have some input, that's -- as they have it at the Fire Service Steering Committee, should they choose to show up. And then, of course, there's nothing in here mentioning either of the two municipalities 'that do have fire departments, and it's key to what happens with EMS. Page 107 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you haven't heard about this until today's meeting? MS. RAUTIO: Well, I heard about it Friday. An alert public official -- excuse me -- a public advocate called and left word for me, and I started making a few calls, that's when I found out about it. And I was informed by -- at the meeting on the 27th of April, when County Manager Mudd came and said that they were going to put this on the agenda at some point. But to me, as an elected official and someone who really tries to pay attention to what's happening, first of all, I would have liked to have had some input, which we asked for, and second of all, I would have liked to have known somehow, being notified, very clearly, that it was on today's agenda. So, once again, Commissioner Henning, what's the rush? CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I guess there wasn't any input at the steering committee meeting? MS. RAUTIO: No. Our steering committee is tonight, ironically. We will have our May monthly meeting tonight at seven o'clock at'the Golden Gate Station 41 -- excuse me, 71. That's when we meet tonight, and we'll probably talk about this, but that's why we're asking, too, to postpone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to say, you know, we were in Cleveland over the weekend, I picked up my agenda, and we left town. Didn't get back 'till 12:30. But when I read this, I would have never thought, probably, to contact you. Usually I call Tom about anything that has to do with fire anyway, but I would have probably thought that you had been notified. I certainly did when I read it. So I apologize for you not being notified. Second of all, on your steering committee, do you have representation from Marco and from the City of Naples and -- you do Page 108 May 27, 2003 MS. RAUTIO: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- on your steering committee? MS. RAUTIO: They attend regularly. And tonight we will have a very specific discussion-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about Ochopee and Isle of Capri? MS. RAUTIO: They came to our last meeting on the 27th of April. We were thrilled to see the two fire chiefs there, because they have an opportunity to discuss in an open forum. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you -- so you really -- this committee that you already have meeting already is doing this? Is that what you're saying? MS. RAUTIO: Yes, ma'am. And I would have to agree with Commissioner Cannon that it's a duplication of effort. And he says that he's not for or against it. I feel it's a duplication of effort, and we really don't need it. But what I'm asking for today is to postpone so that we can at least have input, and perhaps we would conclude that. Because we do, as fire districts, need to communicate with each other. I second the idea from Commissioner Cannon that we could actually come and give you a monthly report if you wanted or a quarterly report. There are a number of things that we're doing that are real exciting. Granted, North Naples Fire District has it's share of problems, but we as a fire service -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: At least you found your engine. MS. RAUTIO: Yeah. We did find that engine. We knew where that engine was. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which one did you find? MS. RAUTIO: But we have another one that's not exactly a good engine to deal with here in public today, but it is on the public record, if you want to read our 468 pages of minutes that we tend to Page 109 May 27, 2003 have at North Naples for our transcripts. So I'm simply saying that we'd like to really be able to communicate even more than we do. That's my concern. So please, again, postpone. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chuck McMahon. He will be followed by Dr. Fay Biles. MR. McMAHON: Commissioners, how y-all doing today? We're not going to talk about my blow up alligator, so you're safe. Later on when we get the parks and rec. The concerns I have with the fire steering committee and this new committee that you wish to put together, the biggest concern that I see is that when you take this committee now and you take one representative from each of the districts and one representative from the county, as Commissioner Henning, you're limited to the knowledge that's going to be in that meeting. With the steering committee that we have now that's out there and we meet once a month, not only do we have representation by commissioners, we have representation from all the staff, from the chiefs, assistant chiefs, fire marshals, fire inspectors, code officials, and all entities of the districts, Marco, the city, occasionally even Mr. Henning has showed (sic) up to some of these meetings, occasionally the chiefs from Capri and Ochopee have showed up. So we pretty much cover all these bases. And this is a really exciting group, because we get in, we get down to the nuts and bolts of these things, and we're working together on trying to better and make the fire districts more efficient. If you're going to be more efficient, you need everybody there to help you to understand what you're talking about. When you consolidate this down to just a few members, what you're going to have is, well, you know, I'll have to go back to the station and ask the chief what we can do, we'll have to bring that back next month, you know. And that's where you're going to be, man. You're going to be inefficient. Your group that you would like Page 110 May 27, 2003 to do will not succeed because you're not going to have the support of the staff on hand at the point in time when we need to make decisions. That's one of the nice things about the steering committee is, we can do that right there and then. We can make -- we can make a -- look at something and decide whether it's right or wrong. If we don't know, we've got the answers right there. Somebody has an answer. With all those brains in that room, it's amazing, you know, how much stuff comes out of it. You consolidate down into a small group and you lose that, you're just going to be inefficient. You're going to be going back and forth. Then all of a sudden the following month, you come with that answer for what the chief had. You say, ah, you know what? There was another thing we forgot to ask, so there's another month that you're going to put whatever it was that you were trying to decide on the back burner, for another month. So I really am opposed to what you want to do here. And -- you know, and that's that part of it. The other part is, I'm appalled that you guys finally got word to us at the last minute. Friday I was -- I was notified late in the afternoon Friday about this meeting today and that we were going to be on the agenda. And again, you talk about how you want to work with us, and yet, here's a good example of how the county wants to work with the fire districts. I've been a commissioner now for three years, and I keep seeing the same stuff. You know, everybody wants to work together with everybody, but nobody wants to communicate. So our meetings are open for everybody, including county staff. And rather than looking at reinventing the -- reinventing the wheel and all that, we can modify our steering committee to adjust and make up for anything you want to do. We don't need to make another Page 111 May 27, 2003 system. The system's in place. The system's working fine. Let's use it, let's put it to work, and let's put it to work the right way. If you've got some -- anything, input to help us make it better, we're here, we're there. I don't -- I don't see a need to get another entity going. It's just another word -- it's just another group to drag things out, so. I hear you say that your staff can't attend -- they can't be advisory members for county advisory boards. Well, what about for independent fire district boards? They can be on our committee, and then that way that will solve your problem and you can send your staff to us because we're not a county board. We're a fire board, independent. So look at some of that stuff. I mean, the opportunity out there is there, and we've got a -- we've already got something that's been working for, it's got to be over 10 years, 16 years now this thing has been in place, and it's just now coming to where it's really starting to make some progress. And I don't want to see that hurt, because it's (sic) been a lot of work put into it. So whatever I can see you doing is -- postpone it if you have to or postpone it permanently. At least give us all a chance to bring it back to our boards and talk about it so that the boards can all make a decision together instead of one commissioner not being able to communicate with the other boards at this point in time as to where we're going. We knew you were going to do this, bring it to the -- to the committee, but we thought you were going to bring it to us so we could take it to our board first before it came here. So we ask that you do that. Let us know so we can bring it up to our boards first so we can have some input, and that's all we really ask right now. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dr. Fay Biles, and she will be followed by your final speaker, Sally Barker. DR. BILES: Name is Fay Biles, for the record, and I'm Page 112 May 27, 2003 president of EMSAC, chairman of EMSAC, which stands for Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council. I'm not sure what all this is really about because I don't hear too much in here about EMS. And I just wanted to just give you a piece of information that on our council we have three people that represent the fire districts; one from Marco Island, one from the City of Naples, then the person who represents the fire chiefs in Collier County, and then we also have one of our members who's married to a firefighter. And so we get a lot -- we get a lot of input about fire -- the fire districts, I must say, and we're trying very hard to work together with them. And the thing that bothered me a little bit -- and I'm not opposing this because I'm not sure what it's all about yet. But the thing that bothered me a little bit is that, you know, the state statutes and the city -- and the county ordinance all say that anything that has to do with any of-- with EMS, all aspects of EMS are to come under whatever's going on. Now, you know, I keep repeating those because sometimes I think people forget that there is a state statute, there is a county ordinance, that's anything that goes on -- anything to do with medical services has to go through EMSAC, which is all aspects of EMS. And so I wasn't quite sure how this came about, because I feel that our EMSAC council really does have input from fire -- every aspect of the fire districts. We work very closely together. You heard about the ALS program. We're deeply involved in that. We're also involved in another level of intermediate service. We're on television the third -- or let's see -- the last Wednesday of every month, so anybody can tune in and hear what we're doing. And you'll hear it, the fire districts have a lot of input into EMSAC. So if I can answer any questions, I'd be happy to. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Sally Barker. MS. BARKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the Page 113 May 27, 2003 record, Sally Barker. I guess I'm the citizen activist who stirred up the hornet's nest. When I saw this on the agenda Friday and got ahold of the resolution, I called Commissioner Rautio and said, what is this? She didn't know either. You know, they say as we approach middle age we begin to lose brain cells. Well, when I read this resolution, I thought, well, I must be losing billions of brain cells a day because I don't get it. I don't understand what this is for. What is this about? And I guess looking back, it was the lack of public discussion about this advisory committee and why it's being created. Not only is the public unclear, but the fire districts seem to be unclear as to what this is all about. And that leaves me to wonder, okay, you set up an advisory committee, what happens if the fire districts decide they don't want to come to this party? Then what happens? Does the advisory committee just sort of go away? And then there's the issue of the sunshine laws and the impact of having two layers of sunshine laws because the commissioners from each districts who are on this committee wouldn't be able to speak to each other outside of the committee. And then when they get back to their home fire districts, they can't talk to their fellow commissioners because of the sunshine violation. So it's not a method of improving communication. If anything, it seems to be stifling communication, and that's worrisome as well. And my final point is that a great point has been made today that this is not about consolidation or taking yet another look at consolidation again. Now, I'm not opposed to taking another look at consolidation. I think consolidation has a snowball's chance of making it through. But, you know, I don't mind looking at it. What I am opposed to is taking a look at consolidation and calling it something else. And my feeling is, if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck, or in Page 114 May 27, 2003 this case, a consolidation duck. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. The -- you know, Jim Mudd is going to help me out here, but the whole purpose is providing a better service to the taxpayer at the best buck. That's what that's all about. Talked to a fire chiefjust last week, and he said -- because we had talked about -- he wants to locate a fire station down in East Naples in the rural area, and he knows that I can help him out on that because, hey, it's in a huge DRI. And he said, you know, work with me, I need to put this together for our fire commissioners. That's what it's all about, just providing a better service to the taxpayers. But I guess there was a lot of questions -- Mr. Mudd, I guess I'm lost. I thought we informed the fire districts. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, during our strategic workshop that we had, we talked about two new horizon efforts, one of which was to talk about fire and EMS to try to make sure that we were as efficient as we possibly could be, and the other had to do with airports, and I've got a memo for airports that I'll talk about during discussion and then pass the memo out to you. The -- and as part of that, we talked to the chiefs about that particular issue. The chiefs came back up and said, we're a little concerned. And on the 18th of April, I sent a letter out to each commissioner in every fire district, dependent, independent, or city, to make sure that they understood what we were talking about. In this particular case, this is -- this is the one to Ms. Rautio. But I will tell you, I can go pull you copies of every one to every commissioner that I still have upstairs. And on the 22nd of April, we went to their steering committee meeting, and I gave a presentation to them and answered as many questions as they particular -- as they had. Page 115 May 27, 2003 In attendance at that steering committee was the Chairman, Commissioner Henning, along with Leo Ochs and John Dunnuck as we talked about this particular issue. Now, if I didn't inform them of this ordinance -- and I didn't, okay? From that meeting, we basically said we were going forward with an ordinance. If it -- if it means to continue this for a two-week or a four-week period of time in order to give the independent and the dependent districts and to gussy up the language on this particular ordinance, I find no problem with that. We've heard some things about the sunshine law, okay, which I find disturbing. All right? Why -- why anybody would -- would be bothered by the sunshine law just bothers me a lot. That's the law of the land, and when there were committees that were established by elected officials in the State of Florida, then the sunshine law should prevail. And we've been to the steering group committee, and my comments at the meeting are of particular note. But I didn't find the steering committee as it -- as it was established at the time conducive to -- I'm not saying they weren't getting work done. I'm just -- I was just a little worried by how it was constituted and who was in attendance and how it was advertised. And after I left that particular arrangement, I've had -- I just had some real issues with it as I left in that process. And I've asked that -- the county attorney to take a look at that process, and I'll leave it there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So is there opportunities to have this advisory committee through the steering committee, the fire steering committee? I know there are multiple fire commissioners that attend to it from the same district, and then, I guess they go back to their independent districts and make decisions. I'm sorry. I'm ignoring my commissioners. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, Commissioner. Page 116 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're well versed on this anyway. But what I wanted to say was, as long as you've identified some concerns with the steering committee, Mr. Mudd, and being that they have something that's already working, why not just offer some suggestions to address those issues and let them keep on going rather than create a redundant committee? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm just trying to follow up on strategic guidance that I got from the board, okay, for a horizon committee. If the board considers that this is no longer necessary, then -- and the board so directs it, I don't have a problem. I'll do what the board wants me to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the only problem with the steering committee is it's the same evening as the Board of Commissioners meeting. It would be the first -- or the second meeting of the month of the Board of Commissioners, and tonight the steering committee's meeting. Fortunately my trip to Tallahassee has been cancelled. I was supposed to leave today. I'm not sure if-- Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we look at this, put this on -- as a continued item, and get the steering committee together and -- so they have input into this thing and maybe bring it back in four weeks, and then we can come to a resolution on this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I heard that -- and I think Mrs. Rautio stated it correctly -- is let's change the ordinance, put the municipalities in there. But I think that maybe we ought to answer some of these sunshine issues today since this is a televised meeting and we have some of the fire commissioners here. After all, we want to do everything out in the public, right? Mr. Weigel, do you see a problem with a commissioner going to a steering committee and discussing items? Page 117 May 27, 2003 MR. WEIGEL: Okay. In regard to a member of the Board of County Commissioners, excuse me, going to the steering committee, we don't have a problem with the Board of County Commissioners, because as the sunshine law indicates -- I know you're very familiar -- is it's two or more members of the same committee discussing things that -- matters that have been before or are reasonably (sic) coming before the Board of County Commissioners would create the sunshine problem where you would be having potentially a meeting away from the normal meeting circumstance. And there are three requirements for a meeting under the sunshine; reasonable notice, public facility, or that is access by the public to the place of the meeting, and the minutes -- that minutes of the meeting be taken. So to the extent that you only have -- one would only have one commissioner from the Board of County Commissioners at such meeting, he or she would not be in jeopardy of violating the sunshine law with the other commissioners. To the extent that a commissioner from the Board of County Commissioners may be formally a part of a steering committee -- and the steering committee, of which I'm aware, is not a government created committee per se. For instance, it is not created by the Board of County Commissioners. It's not created by an individual fire district. It is a nonprofit corporation, private institution, it would appear, set up for the use of public -- members of the public, therein elected, in public service capacities. To the extent that that committee may have some of the same requirements of the sunshine law and then a member of the Board of County Commissioners being -- becoming a member of the steering committee may, in fact, have issues of sunshine law compliance with other members of the committee. That's where I see it right now based upon the facts that I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there are several Page 118 May 27, 2003 commissioners, fire commissioners, from the same district at the last steering committees that we were at, so I guess I would be uncomfortable. MR. WEIGEL: I would prefer not to comment on the affairs of other districts, but just advise this board as to how they would find themselves and how I would advise this -- this board and its members in attendance, if I may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Pleasure of the board? Commissioner Coyle? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need to -- need to understand what you just told us about the -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- advisory committee being a private nonprofit organization? MR. WEIGEL: It is created -- it has an articles of incorporation. It is a corporation, a non-for-profit corporation created in 1991. It provides for membership -- and I have a copy of it right here. It provides for a membership of-- it says, each organized fire department within Collier County which has at least one member in good standing on the board of directors shall be entitled' to vote. It provides for a board of directors, just as any statutorily compliant corporation would have. The board shall consist-- the board of directors shall consist of one representative from each organized fire department within Collier County. And it has a president, a vice-president, and a secretary/treasurer from among its members, things of that nature. So it's not a government entity, for instance, as any of the many committees that this board has created. It is not one of those. It is not created as a committee by any particular fire district or other-- other public recognized statutory body. It provides for membership Page 119 May 27, 2003 from many different organizations. It includes, for membership, active members consist of the following, and I quote, fire commissioners of the independent fire districts of Collier County, Florida; two, advisory board members of the dependent districts of Collier County, Florida; three, elected or appointed officials that have responsibility for fire or rescue services; and four, administrative fire chiefs of Collier County, Florida. So -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: David? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does this organization have a requirement to meet the open meeting requirements of the State of Florida? MR. WEIGEL: Well, you're asking me that area where I'd be providing a legal opinion to you on an entity that's not yours. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I understand. MR. WEIGEL: And I tend to advise you cautiously but always strictly in regard to the three requirements of the sunshine law. And to the extent that a tribunal, someone might consider this as a kind of organization, a committee, that comes under the sunshine law -- that has not been determined yet but there are certainly certain parallels where I would advise you cautiously as a board in regard to having two or more members at such meeting until we knew that the three legs of that stool, notice, public access, and minutes are taken, are taken, or there could be a potential for an issue for those who are so participating as recognized members. It does provide here, as I mentioned, the administrative fire chiefs of Collier County, which may includes the fire chiefs of the dependent districts. I do not know, have not been familiar with the steering committee, quite frankly, until just recently. But I don't know if we have fire chiefs of ours that are going there, and -- but I'd be happy to look into that and advise them as well in regard to sunshine issues. Page 120 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I can understand why no elected public official would want to be involved in those meetings unless they meet the open meeting requirements, and particularly the county commissioners. So definitely before we proceed any further, we need to understand very clearly what the requirements are and to what extent we would be in violation if we participated at all. MR. WEIGEL: Right. And to the extent that you wish me to provide these opinions publicly, I'll do so, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish you to provide us opinion once you've researched it and you can talk with us, okay? How's that sound? MR. WEIGEL: But in any event, as long as two of you are not going at a particular point in time, there's not an issue. But as I -- as we go on our lecture tour on sunshine law, we have approximately 50 some advisory committees, and I advise the advisory committee members that they're no different than the elected officials, the Board of County Commissioners. As a constituted committee, the same requirements and the same potential liabilities are there for all who are members of those committees. So we would look to all from Collier County, whether it's the dependent district representation or the elected officers, meaning the commissioners, to advise you carefully and specifically about the steering committee. And to that extent, if the steering committee wants any further discussion from county attorney, with your direction, we could provide so. But we work for you and not for the others, and so we want to be very careful that way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I think this has been a very healthy discussion, and I see how it all came together. The best of intentions were meant by this, and I still think there's some good intentions here. Page 121 May 27, 2003 The notice wasn't given the way it probably should have been. Possibly a little bit more notice would have been appropriate. I'd like to see this continued and brought back with possibly the county attorney, if he could find time, attending the meeting that's going to take place this evening; is that correct? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, if it's on the same night as the Board of Commissioners meeting -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know that, but I think they need to talk to the county attorney to be able to make sure that everything's falling in line as far as sunshine laws go. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's -- they have counsel of their own. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we offer outside -- we offer our counsel to other people out there all the time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just trying to make this work. I think there's a health, safety, welfare issue here. We're responsible globally for what's happening, some form of it. It's already being covered sufficiently, that's fine. I don't thing we got to that point where we made that decision yet. We don't know if we've got willing players. I think we need to continue this for at least one month, bring it back. Meanwhile, maybe have the county manager, the county attorney, maybe yourself, talk with the chiefs, the chiefs association, and see what kind of understanding there is there of what can be done to improve upon what's already existing, maybe to bring it under the sunshine. There's serious questions now as to their legality. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm not sure if it's prudent to spend the county's taxpayers' money for other elected officials that they raise tax money. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I withdraw my motion, Commissioner Henning. This is your committee. You take Page 122 May 27, 2003 it the direction you want. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only question I have -- we have the couple of fire commissioners out in the audience. Do you follow the sunshine laws? MR. CANNON: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that answers the question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I really believe that we -- we should-- that our legal counsel should deal with any potential problems the county commission has with this issue. And I would just ask that the fire districts and the commissioners take a look at this and make sure that there is full compliance before we go any further, and then we'll -- we can postpone this and have a discussion at some later date. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're postponing it and giving staff direction to-- for-- for what purpose? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. I would just say to provide guidance to the legal staff to take a look at any potential sunshine law problems from the standpoint of the Collier County commissioners and also to ask the county manager to reschedule this and provide the fire commissioners adequate notification so that we can have a discussion with them about this topic next time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that a motion? Yes. Second. I second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion to continue this item, two weeks? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two weeks? Does that fit your Page 123 May 27, 2003 schedule or do you want to go further than that? MR. MUDD: If they're going to get to their fire commissions and stuff like that, then I figured you'd need at least a month, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's go with a month. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- also we want to change in the resolution to add municipalities. Is that in your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. MUDD: Sir, in anything with dependents, I'll get their advis -- anything with dependents, I'll get an advisory board member .as their process, if that's your desire. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Advisory board process? MR. MUDD: Advisory board. The dependent fire districts have an advisory board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: And I think you want a member of that advisory board on this committee, so we'll change the language to detail. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see a couple nods. There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Thank you. Item #9E Page 124 May 27, 2003 RESOLUTION 2003-191 APPOINTING DWIGHT OAKLEY AND BRADLEY CORNELL (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) AND THOMAS "CHAD" LUND AND GAVIN JONES (EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2003) TO THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ADOPTED The next item is 9(E), appoint members to the Community Character/Smart Growth Committee. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: On this appointment, we currently have four vacancies, but we won't -- but two of them are from resignations, and the other two are effective on June 1 st. You can either make all of these appointments to commence on June 1st, or two of them immediately and two on June 1st, and you'll have to make that decision. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to appoint all four of these members effective June the 1st. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's see. They're meeting tomorrow. I'm not sure if we're going to have a quorum. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No? Okay. How many do we need to have? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two tomorrow? MS. FILSON: We can appoint two immediately, and then the other two will become effective on June 1 st. COMMISSIONER COYLE: the first two immediately. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we just arbitrarily take Yep. And the last two June the 1 st. Page 125 May 27, 2003 How does that sound? COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds good. Good. Second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're saying Dwight Oakley and Brad Comell start immediately and Thomas Lund and Gavin Jones starting on June lst? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct, yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by -- who was it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, me, Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9F LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LANGUAGE TO REFLECT FIRE STATIONS AS PERMITTED USE IN AGRICULTURAL ZONING - AFFIRMFiD Next item is 9(G). This is recommend the Board of Commissioners indicating intent to renegotiate and approve the county's -- county employment agreement with County Attorney David Weigel. Page 126 May 27, 2003 MS. FILSON: And did you see 10 -- 9(F)? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did I? Oh, 9(F). You know, Commissioners, what 9(F) was, is during the Land Development Code -- this is another thing working with fire commissioners in the district -- is we had a request by one of the districts to add a permitted use in the agricultural for fire districts to cut down the cost for the fire districts. So I just -- asking the board to reconfirm their direction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Is this what you recommend? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, this is what the -- what we recommended to give direction to the Board of Commissioners, and then Mr. Weigel just asked us to include that so that the one fire district can move forward to save money, and it's called zoning in progress. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a -- it's a modification to permit fire districts as a permitted use in agricultural zoning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. And along with the direction, we've said sheriff substations and EMS stations be a permitted use within ag. So all in favor of the motion, signify by saying. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Page 127 May 27, 2003 Item #9G THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' INTENT TO RENEGOTIATE AND APPROVE A COUNTY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY DAVID C. WEIGEL- STAFF TO CONT1NUE NEGOTIATIONS, CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND BRING BACK ON JUNE 10, 2003 AGFNDA Next item as previously stated. How do we want to start this discussion out? Mr. Weigel, do you want me to start it out? MR. WEIGEL: If you'd like, or I can, either way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go ahead. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. The item is before the Board of County Commissioners today because, pursuant to my current employment agreement with the board, it is subject to termination of its five-year term by the end of September of this year, and it provides that the board shall, approximately 180 days prior to its termination, determine if it's going to renegotiate the contract of the -- of me, David Weigel, or-- and if so, then to renegotiate and bring the document back. I've endeavored, and certainly with the assistance of Mr. Henning -- had chatted with the chairman -- had suggested that things could be simplified a bit if the board were of an opinion to renegotiate and extend my employment with the county as county attorney by having one board item rather than two whereupon, pursuant to the current contract, the board would determine to renegotiate and that I would submit a package myself, which is what is in the agenda package, of the proposed agreement for a term into the future beyond September 30th of this year. And so what you have before you is a document, which to some Page 128 May 27, 2003 degree, has taken some of the language that's in the county manager agreement -- and I'll mention that in a moment. It's a document for employment that provides for continued employment as county attorney for four years from the September 30th date so that it would have a termination date of September 30th, 2007, which, by the way, is a nonelection year. Additionally, we've struggled in the last two, two and a half years in regard to the fact that although the agreement says -- had said whole life insurance, and based upon discussions that former County Manager Tom Olliff and I had with the board, the whole life insurance package was far more expensive than Tom and I had been -- had had indicated to us, and I recognized that that was not what the board had in mind, was to change my term life insurance to whole life insurance, creating a premium that was significantly more expensive for the county. And so this contract includes a change back to what was prior -- a prior term of term life insurance. It includes dental insurance, following the language of the county manager contract, which mine previously doesn't have. It states my present salary, which is not proposed to be changed in this agreement, although I'll mention that you have the prerogative to change that salary if you wish to, hopefully upward. And additionally, it provides to change me over to the universal leave, as the county manager has for him, purposely making very clear that the -- by virtue of my long employment with the county, that the sick leave that I had attained prior to policy change in 1997 does not couple into that but stays under the old rule. Last, it clarifies, again, the senior retirement management class discussion that we've had the last couple evaluations. I'm pleased to indicated that with my discussion personally with the division of retirement, as well as many other county attorney offices, that there does not appear to be an issue about the fact that Page 129 May 27, 2003 the county attorney with a contract such as mine, which is not a continuing contract, but one for a specific term of years, and by virtue of the fact that ! have budgetary management and personnel responsibilities, that, in fact, I may be properly included under the senior management requirement class, that the board initially indicated in 1998 and then again in the amended and restated agreement of 2001. And I've had the pleasure, I can say, of chatting with Jim Mitchell, the financial director for the clerk, and through their own independent discussions with the division of requirement, recognized that this is not an issue at this point in time. So it sounds like everyone is pretty much on the same -- on the same page in regard to that. So that explains, I think, the contract in a nutshell. I'll mention again that based upon what was a very positive evaluation last October with no change in salary, that these things can be, in fact, recognized at any point in time. This is an opportunity, and I stand for any questions you may have. Obviously Mr. Henning may have some points he wishes to make as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- I think it was prudent to -- Mr. Weigel and I discussed, it was a five-year contract, I believe it was. And it's not an opportune time to discuss his contract in that particular election year, because we definitely don't want to make it an issue of our employees or our contracted employees as an election issue. So we want to remove that, so that's why we have four years instead of five years. The only thing that is different, David -- and correct me if I'm wrong-- is the whole life issue, which is in the contract, and the sick leave. MR. WEIGEL: That's essentially it. I never actually went onto whole life and the county never paid that whole life premium, and I think that was a wise decision administratively. So I've always been Page 130 May 27, 2003 on term life, it's just that this reflects the term life that I've been getting and would continue to get. The actual amount of insurance isn't changing whatsoever. And the universal leave is a -- as Jim Mudd has mentioned, discussed from time to time, is a combination of sick leave, vacation leave arrangement, it does away with personal days, and is a bit of a bonus in regard to good attendance and things of that nature, which I pride myself with having been very good in attendance in regard to nonuse of sick leave in prior years. But that's -- yes, that's essentially it right there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Because we have in here sick leave and your universal leave -- MR. WEIGEL: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- in the contract. Mr. Mitchell, do you have any concerns or comments on that? MR. MITCHELL: First of all, let me state (sic) off by saying that David and I did talk about the -- reclassifying that position to a senior management service class, and we have spoken with FRS, and we are in agreement with that. The only concern that I have -- and let me, first of all, state that this is purely a discretionary decision of this board. And when we look at it, we look at it from, how are we going to be able to manage this contract, and also make sure that we understand the terms in this contract. And I do have one question, and that's in section eight, paragraph B, which is dealing with your universal leave. The way that that's written, it says that employee shall be credited with carryover of his accrued vacation days and accrued vacation and sick days from the effective date of this agreement that accrue into a universal leave account. Employee shall accrue to his universal leave account an additional 30 days per year, not including county holidays on a Page 131 May 27, 2003 monthly basis of two and a half days per month. That written -- or that read in conjunction with paragraph E, which also says that all provisions of law and regulations relating to vacation and sick leave also apply to his position. My question, David, is that -- are you looking to receive your current vacation, which you're currently receiving 160 hours, plus 120 hours of sick that accrue into your universal leave, plus an additional 30 days that also accrue into that? MR. WEIGEL: No. MR. MITCHELL: Okay. We need to probably address that particular paragraph, because it can be read to indicate 520 hours of leave on an annual basis. MR. WEIGEL: I won't go there. MR. MITCHELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If we can just clarify that point. Are we looking to take -- you have accumulated some sick leave. MR. WEIGEL: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your -- you want to carry that forward over to universal leave? MR. WEIGEL: No, actually not in a sense that there -- the sick leave that I accumulated prior to 1997 is frozen in time in the sense that there was a policy decision adopted by the board at that time to lock in place the sick leave for employees that have been with the county a relatively long time, even at that point. And so I was frozen at that point with -- in my sick leave, and no matter the fact that I have used little or no sick days for the last 10 years, at least from about '93 or so onward, I wasn't getting any additional credit for those sick days. They're just lost. But at the same time, I'm not taking them because I don't do that. So the idea in the contract-- and if we need to revise the language, you certainly can -- was that I not be penalized from the system that was enacted and that I've been working under for many Page 132 May 27, 2003 years in the past, but from this point and forward I would have essentially the same universal leave calculation that Jim Mudd has on a normal annual basis. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that was my concern, the additional 30 days in addition to the accrual. That's what caused me some concern about that particular paragraph. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a way we can quantify this -- this thing so that I understand exactly how many days and/or hours we're talking about? MR. WEIGEL: I'm sure there is. It could probably be done pretty quickly. I'm not sure if I could do it off the top of my head. But in regard to the 30 days, that's, I think -- that's eight hours times MR. MITCHELL: Two hundred forty hours. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, times 30, so that's 240 hours. Typically vacation and sick leave are in hours, increments, as far as that goes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then whatever you're accruing for vacation and sick days, do you have a number on that? MR. WEIGEL: Well, there will no longer be an accrual in the future under this language for vacation and sick days. What I would accrue are universal leave days at the rate of two and a half days a month or the equivalent of 30 days a year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm confused. MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry. Not the intent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe it's because I don't clearly understand the way the universal leave program works here. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you're going to get 30 days of leave per year? MR. WEIGEL: That's right. Page 133 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will there be anything else that you get? MR. WEIGEL: No, no. I don't think so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, your sick time that you do not take -- MR. WEIGEL: There is no sick time recognized in the future. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's gone? MR. WEIGEL: No, no. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It is not gone. MR. WEIGEL: Well, locked in time. The old sick time is locked in time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the new sick time. MR. WEIGEL: There's a formula. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what happens to that sick time is we would pay you that accrued amount at the time that you might terminate or retire or -- MR. WEIGEL: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or resign? MR. WEIGEL: That's right, that's right. That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's a future obligation of some kind? MR. WEIGEL: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: It's an obligation that's in place for all of us employees that were here, hired prior to a certain date in the early 1990s, I believe. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But beyond that accrual itself, 30 days -- MR. WEIGEL: And everything else beyond that, which is a percentage payout on sick days not used, is only what would be showing up here -- from here at this point and forward, which is an accrual of up to 30 -- it's 30 days a year. Page 134 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: And if I use it, it's gone. And if I don't and then retire or contract runs out -- well, if my contract run out, I probably wouldn't get it. But if I were -- if I were terminated, then that would be part of my termination package. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it says at contract expiration it would be payable. MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I guess it does. I'm sorry, it does. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: That is a distinction from the old policy. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: This is, in fact, what Mr. Mudd has in his contract as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's what I'm really getting at. I first want to quantify it, but I also want to make sure that it's consistent with our other -- MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- other employees. And is that a fair statement, that this '-- this is identical to what is provided for other employees of the same class? MR. WEIGEL: Well, county manager's the only one with this in place right now -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- and so I would be number two with identical language. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And Jim -- I think Jim had a -- MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, let me -- let me get -- that begs another question though, okay, and that is -- and that really clarified the concern that I had, but there is -- David has been a long-term employee and he has accrued a significant amount of sick time, which that time is going to be f-- it's frozen from the day that this Page 135 May 27, 2003 contract is exercised, forever. But sitting in his sick bank right now, his sick accrual is 1,595 hours, okay. Under the formula that was in place, I think it was either '93 or '96, if he was to term -- if he was to resign, his payout would only be approximately $12,000, I think, is the calculation on that one. But one of the other concerns that this lends me to, is if you go to the termination clause in this contract, it says, in the -- in the event he terminates, employee shall be compensated for all vacation, sick leave, universal leave, holidays and other accrued benefits to date. So with that statement being in there, it does not take into consideration a separate value that was performed. It says, he's entitled to all of it. So if he were -- if you were to terminate his employment, we would be responsible for paying out $1,595 at his current wage, which is somewhere, $130,000 that we would be responsible for paying. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When you say terminate, does that mean terminate with cause? MR. MITCHELL: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: No, I am an at will, so you don't have to have cause -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- you can just do it, if you wish. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're looking at almost three quarters of year's salary, pretty close, based on 2,080 hours. MR. WEIGEL: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: About a year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- correct me if I'm wrong, because I think we need to understand universal -- is sick time, that kind of goes in a bank, and if you don't use it, you get up to a certain percentage; am I right, Jim Mudd? Page 136 May 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, how my contract reads, I get 30 days a year, which includes -- which includes leave, sick, and personal, okay? At that juncture we don't even talk about those categories anymore. We just talk about leave. If I go on -- if I'm sick, I take universal leave. I take a day or two or three or whatever it is that I need. If I have to go do personal, I take leave time. If I take leave, I take universal leave time. So it's all coming out of that one particular number, okay? There isn't three distinct categories. And in my contract it states that if I ever get over 360 hours, okay, on my anniversary date, the board will pay the difference of those hours and 360. And the intent there was, when I did this negotiation with Commissioner Coletta, was we never wanted to have the board have this great big, huge IOU at the end where ex-county leaves and you paid 120 or $130,000, and it looks like some embarrassment to the Board of County Commissioners, and we never wanted to have that, at least in my contract when I negotiated it. And we talked specifically with Commissioner Coletta about that, because we wanted to protect the county from that particular type of sham. What that also does for you is you pay that out when I'm -- when I'm not at full salary, okay? If you wait four years and you did COLA adjustments to my salary, then I would be at the top of my range at that particular juncture, so you'd be paying me top dollar. You're getting it when I'm at a lesser salary, so you're saving money as you go along in that process. Again, it was put in there as a safeguard to make sure that never did we -- did I embarrass the Board of County Commissioners on my last day of employment where there was this astronomical check that was to be given. And I mean, previous county managers have left and that stigmatism has been there, so I tried to make sure that it wasn't there with my contract. Page 137 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we can solve that just by not giving raises. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you could, but-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't have to say anything. MR. MUDD: I think I'm going to leave it alone. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We -- and we definitely don't want to do what the school board has done just recently. Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is kind of-- this kind of hits me between the eyes here. In the private sector, a lot of times -- or in the private sector where I was affiliated with, if you didn't take sick -- your sick time, you just lost it. And if you're a good employee, that's -- you know, that's just a pat on the back and thank you very much for your service, and it was a -- that a boy. And I (sic) got concerns here of looking at a bank here of 1,595 -- days, is this? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hours. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hours, okay, 1,595, which is based, like I said -- again, is based on the fact that it's almost three quarters of a year, little under. But I'm surprised that we're still in this type of-- of circle here whereby we're -- even though employees don't take the sick time, they get to use this as occurred (sic) time and use this as income, and I think that maybe we ought to make a change there. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me help you there. Not since 1996 has sick time been -- been a particular item that you get paid for. That's not the case at all; There's a benefit in our policy that says, if you've gone -- and you haven't used any sick leave because you've had a perfect attendance, you can convert up to three days of your sick time to regular leave time, and that -- that's in the policy right now, standing. In '97 --'96 it stopped, but as of '97, everybody that had a sick account where those days could be used as a monetary value, there Page 138 May 27, 2003 was a fence that was put up and said, okay, those days, we've counted them, and it had a monetary value and we put that aside, and that's basically a liability that the Board of County Commissioners have and that they approved at that particular time. But forward of the '97 date, sick time did not accrue any value. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have another question then. Are they -- are they paid on that -- based on those hours that they've occurred -- accrued here? Are they -- are they going to be paid at the salary rate of 1997 or are they going to be based at -- MS. FILSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the salary rate at which time they leave? MR. MUDD: Sir, this took-- this took-- this took effect on August 2nd, 1996. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the rate. MR. MUDD: And that was the rate that that was set at. And that leave time was figured, okay, and that balance or that account on that person, there is a value on that leave in everybody's account if they were here in '96. COMMISSIONER HALAS: A monetary value, so they're going to be paid at the rate that was established in 1997 -- MS. FILSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that money; is that correct? MR. MITCHELL: It's my understanding, Commissioner, that it's revalued at the time of separation. And it's the lower of what was in place in 1996 or what was in place at the time of separation is what's paid. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The lower. MR. MITCHELL: The lower of, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: So if the value today is lower than the value Page 139 May 27, 2003 of 1996, we're going to pay the lower value today. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: But the issue that's at hand here is the separation clause that's in the contract. Is it a hundred percent or is it something less than a hundred percent? CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it's obvious to me that we got a long way to go on this contract, so if we can get together -- if I can get together with the county attorney, I think maybe we can straighten this out by the next meeting. I want to hear from Commissioner Coletta first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just wanted to reiterate on the 1,595 hours that's there prior to 1996. I don't think we can ask that to be a negotiating factor unless we want to go back on every single county employee in the system. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're just trying to get clarification. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're talking about contract employee. This is a contract employee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I know, it's the contract. If this was something that was previously agreed to and then frozen, I kind of question, are we looking at trying to negotiate that away at this time? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't think so. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I was just trying to get some clarification exactly what -- what the liabilities here of the county were if there was any case in point where there was termination. And where we -- where our liabilities stood if that time that is in the bank here, if it's based on his current salary or if it was based on the salary that he received at that point in time. And I think you answered the question for me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then Page 140 May 27, 2003 Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Henning's suggestion is a good one. We should see if we can't nail this down. Just so that the board understands where I'm coming from on this, I don't necessarily believe that we need to use this as a bargaining chip and penalize David Weigel for his good attendance. But I think if we're going to make the policy consistent with other employees of like class, I think we need to treat them all equally and we need to value this -- these hours and clearly state how and at what rate they will be reimbursed, so if we have -- MR. WEIGEL: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if we have this valuation process currently, then it seems to me that that same valuation process should apply here. And -- but I would suggest that we just let the chairman continue his negotiations with Mr. Weigel and work these details out and bring it back to us. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, one thing I'll mention is on page four of the draft agreement, paragraphs D and E under eight, I think, make it pretty clear the distinction between the sick leave days and the universal leave. And D says, all employee's sick leave days accrued prior to the effective date of this agreement shall continue to exist, be credited, valued, and administered by the county policy in effect here before. Sick leave is not universal leave. And then E, talking about all provisions of law and regulations and rules of the county relating to vacation and sick leave, holidays, and other fringe benefits, as they now exist or hereafter may be amended, shall also apply to employee. It is not addressing universal leave. I think we've got universal leave capsulated up in paragraph B. And it plainly states what it is. And, by the way, you know, the fact that I didn't use sick days doesn't mean that I merely came and attended at the office. These Page 141 May 27, 2003 were services that were provided that otherwise might not have been by provided. And by fortune of relatively good health, as well as gumption from time to time of coming in when I'd rather not have over a period of many years, I just did it because there was a job to do and a client to service. And I'm not being treated any differently under this contract in regard to those past sick leave hours that I didn't use than any other employee, and I tried to make that very clear in paragraph D under section eight. Last statement I'll make is if the board directs Commissioner Henning to negotiate or talk with me, we will be doing that in the sunshine, with notice, public record, and minutes being taken, required under law. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I just wanted to try to clarify where we are with this. I think we were in agreement that we understand the difference between the sick hours that go back to 1996. I don't think there's any disagreement on that. The second thing was, is I thought we were looking at a contract that was basically the same -- hopefully the same, and maybe I'm wrong on that. You can clear that up, Mr. Weigel -- as the county manager, which would be equal for equal. Am I correct on that or is this contract sufficiently different than the county manager's contract? I'll just be a minute. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I didn't think it was different. I have a copy of the manager's contract here, and-- Jim probably doesn't have his contract with him in his back pocket. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that's something we don't really know for a fact, but if we're going to treat everything on an equal to equal, we have to know what that equal is. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- for instance, I guess the question is under-- well, equal to equal is, if Jim's contract doesn't say where Page 142 May 27, 2003 mine does the used universal leave will be at employee's current rate of salary upon termination, resignation, or contract expiration, if his doesn't say that, then that's the only distinction that I'm aware of. But CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Coyle. And give us some direction whether we're going to continue this or not when you speak. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I'll just -- pass me by now. He answered my question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to basically go in that direction. I feel that what we need to do at this point in time is continue this on, and the discussion should be left up to the chairman and the attorney, Mr. Weigel, and -- to clear up the language and to bring this back to the board at a later date so we can get this all taken care of. I think it -- I think we're on the same track. All we've got to do is address the language and everything else in accordance to what -- where we're at at this point in time. And I think we're basically there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. David, the phrase, and additional in front of 30 days is confusing to me. Would it cause any substantial change to the intent of the contract if we took those two words out? CHAIRMAN HENNING: An additional -- that's on page four, paragraph B. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Paragraph 8(B), right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 8(B). MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's the same language as in Mr. Mudd's contract. Page 143 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I want to take it out of Mr. Mudd's contract too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because it's really not in addition to the other thing, is it? MR. WEIGEL: See, I think what it's saying there, the second sentence that says, shall accrue to his universal leave account, the first sentence -- and it's similar to Mr. Mudd's -- is that the -- it's establishing what we're talking about here, because it's not a common concept yet in county government, although it may well be coming. The second sentence, which is the same as Jim's, is employee shall accrue to his universal leave account an additional 30 days per year, not including county holidays on a monthly basis of two and half, parens, 2.5, closed parens, days per month. I'm reading from Jim's contract, not mine, right there. MR. MUDD: Yeah. The piece that differs, David, I think, is the first sentence, where it says, your accrue and leave and sick leave, and it's going into the universal leave account. MR. WEIGEL: But that's from the effective date of this agreement, which is today. And at the end of the agreement it says, the effective date of the agreement is May 27th, 2003. So I'm not pulling into it any prior vacation or sick days to skew the number. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm really confused. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- maybe we can just -- maybe we just need to clean it up for more clarification. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I will entertain a motion at this time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll make the motion -- MR. WEIGEL: To clean it up. Page 144 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that we reword part of this and come back to us at the next meeting, understanding that we fully support David, we want to make sure that he's not penalized in any way for his sick time. We just want to clean up the wording a little bit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So the motion is not to get together with the chairman, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you understand the motion, and I'm fine with that. And any more discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed7 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Motion carries, 5-0. I see the court reporter -- yeah, she needs about five -- let's take seven minutes. Be back at 3:07. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would everybody take their seats, please. All in favor of the motion, signify by Item # 1 OB RESOLUTION 2003-192 PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 145 May 27, 2003 REGARDING THE RESTUDY OF THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PI JAN- ADOPTED Let's see, we should be on item 10(I). We did (A). So we should be on request the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution of advisory committee input staff on restudy of Immokalee master plan. Come to the podium and state your name for the record, because it's John Paul. MR. MOSS: John David Moss, comprehensive planning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I know a John Paul. MR. MOSS: No, this is just to get approval for the establishment for advisory committee master plan update. I'd be happy to take any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we approve this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to accept staff recommendations by Commissioner Coletta. Second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion passes 5-0 -- 4-0. Next item is approve a settlement offer to compromise a lien Page 146 May 27, 2003 imposed by code enforcement in the case of Collier County versus Richard Kniebes. And Michelle Arnold is here. MS. ARNOLD: I'm here, but I'm -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Marjorie Student is leaving. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. Ellen Chadwell is supposed to be here from the county attorney's office to speak to this item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are going to continue that item and move on, and we'll come back to (C). MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. Item #1 OD BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $51,030 AND A TOURISM AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR GORDON PASS JETTY SAND TIGHTENING- APPROVED SI IBJF, CT TO TDC APPROVAl, CHAIRMAN HENNING: Approve a budget amendment of $51,030 tourist agreement amendment with the City of Naples for the TDC Category A grant for Gordon River (sic) Pass jetty sand tightening project. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is additional dollars that the City of Naples needs to finish the contract as of close of business of this month. We would normally have taken -- there's nobody here, and the city manager was here earlier, but he said -- I basically said I'd cover this, because I got Jon Steiger's letter along with it and put it in your packet. And Jon Steiger wouldn't ask for it unless he really needed it. So -- and Jon's on leave. But they need the money -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That could be -- TDC recommended to approve this item? Page 147 May 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: No, sir, the TDC is tomorrow. And the recommendation is that you approve, subject to the TDC's approval tomorrow. It's just we had problems with days in order to do that, and I didn't want to circumvent the TDC. And we'll bring this to the TDC's agenda tomorrow, but we needed -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for approval, subject to the approval of the TDC meeting tomorrow. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second-- motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0. Item #10C SETTLEMENT OFFER TO COMPROMISE LIEN IMPOSED IN CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V, RICHARD lJ_ KNIBF, S~ CF.11 CASF, NO. 99-073- APPROVFD We're going to move back up to (C), approve a settlement offer compromise (sic) lien imposed by code enforcement case entitled Page 148 May 27, 2003 Collier County versus Richard Kniebes. And we have Ellen Chadwell from the county attorney's office to present this case. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is a Code Enforcement Board lien matter. This case was forwarded to our office a couple of years back. The property is located in Naples Manor Annex. It was then at that time owned by Richard Kniebes and was his homestead. Of course, by Florida law we are prohibited from foreclosing these types of liens on homestead property. Mr. Kniebes died in 2001, fall of 2001, and the property -- obviously his only living heir was his mother, Juanita Kniebes. And prior to Mr. Kniebes's death, he did take certain steps to abate some of the violations on the property. The property was initially violated for the existence of a travel trailer that-- without a license plate. There were certain improvements done to the home: The addition of a carport and a shed without permits and the installation of a fence without a permit. During his lifetime, he did take action to correct the violation regarding the travel trailer, even to the point of having to initiate a legal proceeding to clear the title so that he could get his registration on that. We were contacted by the attorney for the mother and the estate of Mr. Kniebes, and they proceeded to get the necessary -- well, they removed the shed altogether, and then they proceeded to get the permit for the fence. And the property has been brought into compliance. They are requesting that the county consider waiving a fairly large portion of this lien in order to bring some resolution to the matter. The property is currently assessed at $45,000. Please bear in mind that should we go forward with the foreclosure action, it's safe to assume that what we will recover will not exceed the value of the Page 149 May 27, 2003 property. In fact, it may very well be a discount to the fair market value of the property. Nonetheless, the property is currently under contract. Someone would like to buy the property for $64,000, so I think that it's safe to say that's reflective of the fair market value of the property. They have offered to pay the county $25,000. There was an accounting that was prepared by the attorney for the estate, Mr. Abruzzo, and that was attached to your package. It shows the expenses of the estate and the assets of the estate upon Mr. Kniebes's death. Some of this has been verified through the court records in the probate proceeding, at least as to the assets of the estate. And we see that if we are to accept these numbers as accurate, we'll see that the distribution balance is 56,000. If they were to pay the county $25,000, there would be in excess of $30,000 going to the mother, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any question by the board members to Ms. Chadwell? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve as recommended, getting $25,000 and for our county to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Settle the case. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- clear this bill. Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 150 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0. MS. CHADWELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Item # 10E RESOLUTION 2003-193 IMPLEMENTING THE 2003 BOAT I,AIJNCH AND lalEACH ACCESS MASTER PI.AN- ADOPTED Adopt a resolution implementing the '03 boat launch, beach access master plan and direct staff regarding potential funding sources. (At which time, Commissioner Coyle enters boardroom.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: John Dunnick, public services administrator, is here to give guidance to the Board of Commissioners. MR. DUNNICK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is John Dunnick, public services administrator. I can give you the brief version or I can give you the long version, depending on what you want today. I've got a short Power Point presentation of about 13 slides, along with some discussion as we go throughout. How I'd like to handle it is if you want the long version, I'd like to get through the presentation. I think we have probably five to eight public speakers on the issue, combining 10(E) and 10(F), at the same time before we make a final recommendation one way or the other. Page 151 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that Commissioner Coyle just stated that he wanted the long version; is that right? No, he wanted the short version. MR. DUNNICK: Okay, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you finished? MR. DUNNICK: Well, we've provided you a pretty comprehensive executive summary to get through these issues. And just as a reminder, you had heard much of these items back in your workshop several months ago. But Kady, if I can have the visualizer, I'll pop through this real quickly. Why are we here? We're here because of the growth management plan, where it says the county shall continue to ensure that access to beaches, shores and waterways remain available to the public and continue with its program to expand the availability of such access and a method to fund the acquisition. A little history. In '98, the BCC adopted the first beach access and boat launch report, identifying methods of accessing public -access. In March of 2003, we brought an update to that plan where we talked about where we need to be. The largest concern that we have (sic) at that time is the fact that as a beach access is a finite resource, we recognize that the future of Collier County's population isn't going to continue to diminish, it's going to grow. In order to plan for the future, we need to look at doing beach access and boat launch now today, and we need to look at ways of identifying the resources to do such. Therefore, we're bringing back the actual staff implementation of this plan for the board's adoption today from what we discussed. The conclusions of the 2003 report: It concluded first and foremost that the present level of service is adequate for beach parking but is not adequate for boat launch facilities, due to the lack Page 152 May 27, 2003 of parking per launch lane. Over the next 10 years, continued growth will significantly reduce the quality of life for county residents, unless new public beach parking and boat launching facilities are developed, and funding sources have not been dedicated to maintain and expand the beach access and boat launch network. Just as a quick briefing for you, when we talked about it in the workshop, we identified that approximately right now today we're about eight boat ramp lanes deficient from what we would follow under the state comprehensive plan. But also during that discussion, we talked about the need of less of actual ramp spaces and more of ramp parking. What we have at parks such as Bayview Park is we have an adequate ramp facility, but we don't have the adequate parking to go along with it. With respect to beach parking, it's very similar. Right now you'll show under the current plan that we're -- in 2003, we're about 26 parking spaces deficient from the level of service that you adopted back in '98, and the one that you told us back in the workshop to continue with, which is the one to 150 of population. This will require, under this plan, 900 beach parking spaces, requiring 15 acres of land for single-story parking and almost a million in parking lot development costs alone. The guiding policies that we're asking for today is that the frequency of beach access locations will be increased to distribute beach use more evenly. When we came to you back in the workshop, what we tried to explain to you is the fact that the quality of beach access from a Parks and Recs standpoint, if you dump all the people in one location, the quality diminishes significantly. We believe the quality will be significantly increased if we distribute the beach accesses more evenly. And we have up on the board here, and we'll also show on the Page 153 May 27, 2003 visualizer, a few of the areas that we're talking about specifically. Kady, if I could have the visualizer, please. What you'll see in here, and Marla will point to you, is Vanderbilt Beach location. We have accesses down at the end, but in the middle of the area we don't have an evenly distributed access point. And while this is a little bit unusual, we wanted to show you, too, because this has never really been officially brought forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Pelican Bay, for instance. Once again, in the PUD documents, they negotiated access points at the end, but didn't look to distribute ways of getting beach access in there. And I'll pull back just briefly. Yesterday I think was an ideal example. I took my boat out and I drove along the shoreline there. You could see the access points at Delnor-Wiggins State Park, you could see them at Vanderbilt Beach, you could see them at Clam Pass, and in between there, there was hardly anybody. And I think that's what we're trying to get at. As I went further south, you could see the City of Naples and their access points where they have access every, I guess, block, you would say, to the point where people were more evenly distributed and the quality of their beach access goes up because they're not all on top of each other. And that's kind of the overall point we're trying to get. Similarly, we have a slide and we'll just show you at the same time, you're more familiar with this project. But you also have the issue down in Marco Island. This one's a little bit unique from our standpoint in the fact that you have Tigertail Beach access point right next door to a private development. But at the same time, we're not maximizing out the use of that space because of the filling in of that lagoon. And we're going to be proposing a little bit later on in the implementation plan ways that we can maximize out Tigertail Beach, first and foremost under our plan. Page 154 May 27, 2003 As I said earlier, the county's goal is to provide one parking space for 150 residents, to maximize parking opportunities at existing boat launch locations. The board policy has been in the past that where we are and where we follow the state comprehensive plan is that we provide boating access via boat launching. And I know there has been some, you know, expressed concern by individual commissioners -- and they can talk about that later-- about should we be doing more as county government. Under this plan, we're following the current policy of providing boat access. But where we see the best need to do it is to look at creative ways of doing it to our existing site and adding parking by looking at the available interests in the area. Another issue is the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code will reflect the county's goal to expand public beach and boat launch opportunities. I read to you in the very beginning, I thought it was very important, what our Growth Management Plan says. But how we go about implementing it through the Land Development Code is increasing as an incentive to the Land Development Code ways of encouraging beach access for private development and so forth, we haven't done an adequate job about that in the past; i.e., I think what you're finding is what we're having to try to correct from previous PUD negotiations, is we're trying to spread out beach access and we're changing the policy midstream, but we also have to have the Land Development Code to support it. And, you know, as part of the policy, too, we want the board to adopt where we will identify and consider the purchase of available properties for future boat ramp sites. We don't want to just limit it to finding the parking in the area, but we do want the policy level direction from the board to be able to look at all the areas to meet that level of service needs that you're looking at. You know, one of the issues, I'll say from a bureaucratic Page 155 May 27, 2003 standpoint, is staff can't get too far out in front of these issues without having board direction or blessing and policies to support us. And what we're asking for here is give us the policies to support us so that we can commit resources from a staffing perspective to take a look at these issues and continue to develop alternative opportunities to saltwater beach access and boat launch amenities. You will find in your plan that we're looking at freshwater amenities as well, and we're also, things like our North Regional Park, where we're building a big water play feature will people -- take people away from the beach aml provide them additional amenities. The implementation policy on beach access. This is one that we've already received board direction on, but we wanted to point out some of the issues. Barefoot Beach Preserve, we're looking to build a dock on the back side of the preserve area so that we can maximize out the preserve area for beach residents. We have a specific capacity to that beach because it is a preserve, so we can't maximize it out like we would at other locations, but certainly we're not to that level because of the limited parking. We would like to be able to develop a docking area on the back side so that we could improve that access location. North Vanderbilt Beach and Conner Park, Bluebill access. Yesterday was another perfect example. If you drove down there, you would notice that the cars were backed up all the way down Bluebill Avenue, all the way to Vanderbilt Drive the whole weekend. And the residents couldn't get to their locations because of Delnor-Wiggins pass -- Park, and the fact that their location and where people go to pay backs up the traffic in there, because they're not sure if they're full yet or not. And what ends up happening is people wait there to see if they can find an available space. We want to be able to encourage a way of adding, you know, access either through the private development there locally or continue to negotiate with the state park system so that we can Page 156 May 27, 2003 change that access point around. Then we can follow up with adding, as the board had given us direction to in the previous workshop, adding a park shelter and restroom facility at our present location of where we have the off-site parking on the other side of the bridge. Vanderbilt Drive. We currently own -- and you can look up to the board and we can pull it up, if you're not familiar. We own several access points, easements, in the Parks and Recs department, and we need to refurbish those and improve those, access points along that area. There again, it follows that overall policy direction to spread out beach goers. Along those lines, the board had given us direction to look at, you know, where we can find off-site parking for those locations, or at the very least, amenities to support those, such as restroom facilities. Transportation shuttle service. You know, this is probably going to be a way that the county is going to go in the future, and we need to start taking a serious look at it. You know, the positive side of it is, is it allows you to purchase land off-site at not the highest cost possible along the beachfront, but the downside of it is, it's the gift that keeps on giving, because it is an operational issue and you have to pay for it. Vanderbilt Beach Park, the parking garage. As you're aware, we have in the plans, we have funding dedicated under the tourist development funds to expand the parking garage there. Right now we're in current litigation with WCI Communities over this issue, and we lost the summary judgment. I don't know if the board's aware of that or not. We will have to take it to trial if we want to continue to pursue this parking garage. But what we'd like to do there is if we can, and if we do get the board direction to continue in that regard, to continue looking at a parking garage there, because we do feel it's a very viable location Page 157 May 27, 2003 for the community. And at the same time, we need to refurbish some of our existing facilities. You know, that's one thing that we tend to ignore is that we don't always take a look at where we currently are with our facilities, and we need to continually take a look at those. And we're going to have to spend money on refurbishing the existing ones as well. Pelican Bay access. This is that one we did not bring forward to you during the workshop, but this is one we have subsequently found out that we do own significant property along in Pelican Bay where the county does, providing access to it. Kady, can you go to the visualizer again? If you look in here closely, you're going to find large stretches of beach that is actually under the ownership of Collier County. Now, it's conservation easements and so forth, and we're going to have to take a look at all the legal issues with it, but it -- from what we've been able to gather, just on a limited basis, it does -- wouldn't limit us from providing beach access at those areas. What we'd have to do to mitigate that is we'd have to find the off-site parking to accommodate that, and we'd have to also develop, you know, a plan to be able to either do the off-site parking, to look at our Clam Pass Park and dividing out the boardwalk going a different direction to get there and utilizing that tram service. Because you're not talking a short stretch of beach to get to. But those are all areas that we would like board direction to take a serious look at. Clam Pass Park refurbishments. That's another park that we're going to have to take a look at to not only, you know, addressing our existing, but look at the future. We're in pretty good shape. We replaced the boardwalk a couple of years ago, but there are always other areas where we're dealing with parking lot or so forth that we're going to have to spend money on. Page 158 May 27, 2003 Tigertail Beach, a boardwalk. I mentioned earlier that the lagoon was filling up. And one of our concerns has been, you know, to ensure that we have a quality beach area and where people can actually get to it. Right now the water is pretty stagnant and the beach -- the level of beach quality there has diminished significantly. Therefore, we haven't maximized out the use of that parking lot in the last couple of years. We would like to spend the -- continue looking at the feasibility study of a boardwalk out there. There's always been a lot of environmental concerns with that, and we've been working closely with the environmental community on this issue, because we believe from a Parks and Recs standpoint, that you will -- you'll actually enhance the environmental areas if you go about limiting the access to the beach front area. Therefore, that they can have a set -- area set aside for the birds and so forth during certain times of year, but if you limit the access point of how people get out there, you can also control where they go once they're out there as well. Or you at least can encourage them through education, and that's what we're trying to commit to as part of that plan. At the same time, we need to do repairs to the dune walk-overs. Boating access. Access into the Golden Gate canals. As you'll see development, you know, traditionally in the Lake Sapphire and Golden Gate City, the access has been through one of the PUD's on Golden Gate Parkway. As that continues to develop, we're going to want to look at alternatives where the freshwater fishermen can get into those canals and fish. We've been working with the attorney's office on legal opinions, and we'll have to continue to do so, to ensure that we can get access in there. But it's something we really want seriously to look at, because we believe for those people who can't get to the beach, it offers a very positive alternative. Bayview Park. This is, to me, one of the greatest opportunities Page 159 May 27, 2003 that we have. With the expansion of Hamilton Harbor next door, you have a huge area to potentially look at expanding boat launch areas on the back side of Bayview Park. Presently we only have I think 15 parking spaces at that location. We could serve a great deal more there if we bought additional property in that area. I believe the value and the timing is right to take a serious look at doing so. I also believe from a value standpoint and what we've talked about with the City of Naples' staff, it would encourage it, because it keeps people from going to the Naples Bay area, you have the option of going straight out of Gordon's Pass or going south, and other fishing opportunities. Collier Boulevard boat ramp. We're currently in the process of where we've received the permits and we're going to be expanding that facility. But you have to keep in mind, that is actually not really adding new to the inventory, but really what it's taking care of are the people who are parking alongside the road, it's a safe access for them. Shell Island boat ramp. We got the previous board direction to work with The Conservancy and the Rookery Bay folks to look at working a lease agreement for Shell Island. We want to continue doing that. I believe that Rookery Bay is going to be acquiring the boat ramp from The Conservancy. And we've talked about doing a lease agreement with them. That may be coming back to the board later this fall. It provides another option for small boats to access in the Rookery Bay system for fishing. Goodland boating park. The board purchased this property a couple years ago. And right now we've moved it up into our five-year capital plan that you'll be seeing during the budget presentation. But we recognize that we actually have permits on-site. Now, I will tell you that the board -- the money that we put in right now from our standpoint as staff level is -- is what the board had talked about when they acquired it. It's for boat launch in a mixed use with the park site. Page 160 May 27, 2003 The board, recognizing the shortfall that we have, may want to take a serious look at how we maximize the use of that facility. And we'd appreciate any feedback today on that issue. Everglades National Park. They have in their management plan a boat ramp, but it's never come to fruition because of timing and funding. We'd like to look at partnering with them on Everglades National Park to add a boat launch at that location. Fiscal options. You know, that's one of the things I led off and we put in our report. We haven't had dedicated funding for these issues. We have limited impact fee calculations, but by board direction, in previous years, we've been told not to add the full value of acquiring beach access for what it would do to the park impact fee. When you talk about having to acquire 10 beach front properties at $5 million apiece, you'd really shoot that impact fee up significantly. So we've looked at alternatives. Referendum. Similar to the conservation green space issue. You could look at a referendum for requiring, you know, beach access and boat launch facilities. It's something certainly that the community -- it improves and keeps our quality of life the way it is. General fund and bonding. You know, we could borrow against the general fund for it. The downside to that, I will tell you, is in my conversations with Mr. Smykowski of the budget office, we're getting close to our capacity of what we bonded out. We went from a pay-as-you-go community a couple of years ago, to a community that has gotten to its capacity very quickly. And so you're limited in what you want to do, and do you want to keep that money available or not. The other issue is tourist development funds. And this is kind of in conjunction with the next item on our agenda, and that's why I wanted to present it in conjunction, Item 10(F), is tourism development funds and where we can go for beach access. As you may be aware, and I think what we've talked about Page 161 May 27, 2003 previously, tourist developmem funds are a limited resource, just like anything else. And in previous years, the need never exceeded the resource. But as we come upon these issues, and we recognize where we need to be from a beach access plan, we also recognize that, you know, from a staff perspective we're proposing to tie the two issues together, where you tie access and use -- you know, that's the most important part of this policy that we have proposed with you today is that we're not just tying access for the sake of access, but we're tying use. Use as in the ability for the public to get to that access point and the ability for capacity and amenities. Do they have restroom facilities, do they have adequate parking? You know, where should our priorities go? Recognizing this plan of where we have all these gaps in the county coastal area for beach access and we know that we can't get federal funding without having a good plan in place where we have accesses every half mile, we need to develop what we thought was reprioritize how we spend those TDC monies. And what we're proposing today is that you reallocate and take a look at access first and foremost as the driving force behind renourishment. And along those lines, we also have written in our proposed policy that you take a look at not only from the issue of, you know, what you spend the money on from an access standpoint, but you also limit it to how you're spending it. The example would be, you know, are you spending it for dredging projects, off-shore dredging projects for the sake of dredging out the area, or are you looking to, you know -- are you looking to put sand on the beach? Our proposed policy that we have today significantly changes that. It shows that from a dredging perspective in the past is, you wouldn't be spending that money under TDC Category A funds, but instead you'd be looking to put that money into either access or renourishment. And with that, I want to conclude it and answer any questions or Page 162 May 27, 2003 listen to the public. I know I said I was going to try to be brief, but I also wanted to cover everything. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Coletta, how many public speakers do we have? MS. FILSON: Eight. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have eight. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't tell you how proud I am of you and your staff for coming up with such an excellent plan. I mean, for years commissioners have wrestled with this situation, and most of them just put it back underneath the carpet, figuring some future commission will deal with it. Well, that time is now. You came up with an excellent plan, it's well thought out. I can understand it, and I'm sure the general public can understand it. It's got the -- it's got everything you would want. There's the nexus in there for how we're going to be able to be spending the money in the future. And pretty soon we're going to be hearing from some people that represent the interest of those people that live along the beach, telling us why it's such a bad plan, and I fully expect them to do that and to earn their keep by doing so. I would hope that when it comes down, and we give consideration to the funding, that we look at the TDC element, of course, and go with the recommendations that you have come up with. But also, that we look at -- what was the first item on there? The -- there were several different ones. I don't think a referendum's the answer. I don't believe bonding's going to be the item to go with. The top item on there -- MR. DUNNICK: Impact fees. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- what was the very first one? MR. DUNNICK: Impact fee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Impact fee. Page 163 May 27, 2003 -- are a reasonable way to be able to look at a lot of this. The people are moving down here. Why? They want the beach experience, they want to be able to get their boat out into the Gulf. They want to be able to enjoy freshwater fishing. Meanwhile, this has been coming (sic) the domain of the very wealthy. And a little bit at a time we've been squeezed out from where we should be. For years what's happened, we were very neglected (sic) getting this property when we should have got it, for the simple reason there was so much of us and there was so few of us. You could go out there and get to the beach without any problem. You could go to Marco Island, you'd walk though these big fields of tall grass and fresh quails on the way to the beach. There was never a problem with parking. So we gave away those access (sic), past commissions have. And now is the time that we have a chance to be able to turn some of this around to make a difference. And I commend you for what you've done, I really do. I'm extremely proud of it. When the time does come to make a motion on this -- well, I'm going to do it now and then we can take it forward. I make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second that motion. A little experience I had this weekend. I went to Lowe's to finish up a project that my wife started. It was one of those -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way it always is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- while you were out of town, and so I was picking out the rug to finish it up. But there was a county employee that I got to talk to for quite a long time, and they said they spent their weekend going down to Keywadin Island. But to get there, they used the City of Naples' public boat ramp, because Bayshore was full. And even though the Bayshore property was much closer to Keywadin Island, they choosed (sic) that one. And when they came back, they noticed that a lot of vehicles Page 164 May 27, 2003 had citations on them because they were illegally parked. And, you know, it's a shame that this county employee who lives within the county and not the city had to go to the city to use their facilities instead of going to the county to use their facilities. And I agree, the -- what I would like to see is to maximize our existing facilities to its full potential. Because it's not going to slow down for the need for these access (sic) to water. And whether beach freshwater -- or boating access and saltwater. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a couple of questions. One of my fellow Commissioners brought up the fact that a referendum may not pass. I'm not too sure about that. I think a referendum may pass, because of the fact that we're slowly losing all of our access to waters. We've got an issue that's going to be in front of us all shortly here as Commissioners, and that's in regards to if we're going to rezone some property. We presently have a marina that at one time stored up to 450 boats, with possibly the potential of another 400 boats. And that's a deep water access that didn't have any problems as far as environmental with the manatee. And I commend also your group for looking through all the areas, finding out where we were. I was quite shocked to see what is up there in my district, and not realizing that the county owned that land. But my concern is, and my question is, why in the past weren't -- wasn't this part of the PUD for access when this whole scenario came about back in 1979 or 1977, whenever this PUD up there was -- it was formed? Why was not the issue of access addressed at that point in time? And like everybody said here on the board so far, here we are, where everybody took the stand that it's not my problem at this point in time. Well, now it's our problem. We have got so many people that are coming into this community, whether they live on the Page 165 May 27, 2003 coast or whether they live inland, would like to have the opportunity to have this access, whether it's freshwater or saltwater. One of the seminars that we were recently at, I believe they said that the marine industry alone in Collier County last year was worth $200 million in selling boats and everything else. We had 54,000 saltwater permits that were sold -- or licensed. We also have like 27,000 boats that are licensed here in Collier County. When you start looking at that -- and we're only right now at about 270,000 people. What have we got looking at us in our face in another five to 10 years from now? And I think we need to really address this, and we have to find a vehicle to provide the funds for your department to figure out how we're going to address these issues. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's go to public speakers. And get that answered to the Commissioners, if you could do that, research on that DRI. It would be interesting to hear that. MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Mike Minozzi. He will be followed by David Somms (sic). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Councilman Minozzi has a request to the board. His time is going to be just a little bit over five minutes, and he does represent Marco Island, so with the indulgence of the board, we should, in my opinion, allow Councilman Minozzi (sic). MR. MINOZZI: Thank you very much. For the record, I am Chairman Mike Minozzi from the Marco Island City Council. I had in my notes here to say good morning. Boy, was I being optimistic. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, just wait a while. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We ain't over yet. MR. MINOZZI: Good afternoon, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Coyle, Vice-chairman Fiala and Commissioner Halas. I am here on behalf of the citizens of Marco Island to bring to your attention a serious injustice that would occur to the people of Marco Island if agenda items 10(E) and 10(F) are passed in their current form; specifically Item 10(F), in which Collier County wishes Page 166 May 27, 2003 to adopt a rational funding nexus between public beach use and renourishment for tourist development funds. Now, while we have no problem with the general concept, we are concerned with some of the specific requirements. I'm going to try to be as brief as possible, so I'm not going to read entirely the executive summary to you, but I will paraphrase some of the areas of concern to us. First, this policy dictates that the amount of viable funding for renourishment is directly correlated to the amount of public access to that stretch of a given beach. Specifically, the proposed policy provides percentages of funding, TDC funding, based upon access. It then goes on to give the actual percentages of contributions, with only 25 percent contribution to those areas who do not have the number of access points, or does not provide -- not able to provide parking or restrooms, as recommended in this resolution. This low percentage could easily be consistently near or below zero for Marco Island, because those areas that are in compliance with the recommendations will be given the highest priorities. In other words, they'll be prioritized first, therefore, pushing areas like Marco way to the back. And considering the scarcity of funds, they're -- at least recently there are more projects requested than funds available. The second point is that the criteria for access every half mile is just simply an impossibility for the City of Marco Island. And I will refer to that point later on. Third, with regard to dredging, the recommendation is that the funds for dredging will only be considered for placing sand on the beach. Now, there are many areas in Marco where it is totally impractical and/or cost prohibitive to try to pump the sand from areas being dredged directly onto the beach. In many cases, it's far expensive -- I'm sorry, it's far less expensive to dredge Page 167 May 27, 2003 independently, and where beach sand is needed, to truck the sand in separately. Passing this policy would virtually eliminate Marco Island from receiving funds for dredging. Commissioners, I'd like to give you a brief background as to why we feel this resolution, as written, would be seriously detrimental to the citizens of Marco Island, who of course are also citizens of Collier County. And I will explain why it is virtually impossible to conform to the policies as outlined. In 1976, Collier County adopted an ordinance that required beach access points would be provided every one-half mile along the Collier County coast, from Marco Island all the way up to Lee County. In 1981, the county commission applied the beach access ordinance to the Deltona Corporation, who is a developer of Marco Island. At that time, the county commission voted to accept dedication of the highly valued Tigertail Beach Park as fulfilling Deltona's obligation of providing public access every one-half mile in Marco Island. The county commission received evidence that the Tigertail Beach provided more than three times as much feet-wide access as would have been required by the 1976 beach access ordinance. The Deltona Corporation granted to Collier County also the property that now serves as a regional park and boat ramp with fuel facilities. That's Caxambas boat ramp. The 5.6 miles of shoreline on Marco Island is a public beach. The public has direct beach access through Tigertail Beach and South Beach access. In addition to that, of course, the residents of Marco Island have access through MICA, which is for residents. The developers of Hideaway Beach, following an agreement reached with the county commission in 1979, provided improvements to the county's boat ramp facility, specifically in lieu Page 168 May 27, 2003 of a 200-foot wide access point location at the southwest center of the property, as required by the 1976 PUD. The developer agreed to improve and landscape a recreational facility. The public boat launch facility was selected as the improvement site, constructed by the developer, accepted by Collier County, and remains in public use today. Collier County decided to provide public access by boat in lieu of duplicating the pedestrian beach access that already existed next door at Tigertail Beach Park. The Collier County Board of Commissioners enacted the policy regarding public beach access on Marco Island. We see little to be gained by attempting to apply new access standards today. Virtually all properties along the Gulf have been or are now being developed. Collier County's public beach access requirements were satisfied many years ago. Between the original site develop plan approval and the ultimate permitting of hotels and condominiums along the Marco Island shore, Collier County had many opportunities to acquire beach access easements over the years, but for some reason elected not to do so. The most recent example is the Marco Beach Ocean Resort on South Collier Boulevard, which was approved and permitted by Collier County in 1997 and constructed in 2002. While Collier County could have negotiated beach access as a condition to approval, no such access was acquired. In the nearly four decades of development, the only time that beach access was required was with a Cape Marco PUD. Collier County was granted part of the land for parking and an easement for beach access along the northern property line. That county easement is identified as a South Beach access on South Collier Boulevard, and is in continual use by Collier County residents. There are a few points I would like to make. First is that the Marco Island Beach is a public beach. The beach includes Hideaway Page 169 May 27, 2003 Beach. Second, in 1996, the Florida Supreme Court found that the use of tourist development tax to fund beach renourishment and erosion control on Marco Island beaches met the requirements of the state tourist development tax statute, which requires that there be public access where such taxes are to be used for renourishment. And that's Losier (phonetic) versus Collier County, in 1996. Next, the county attorney has ruled that Hideaway Beach is a public beach and is eligible for TDC support and renourishment. The Collier County Commissioners have determined that Hideaway Beach qualifies for a public funding for shore protection, and that it is a necessary responsibility to manage and protect the public beach from erosion. The limited access to the public beach adjacent to Hideaway Beach is due to severe erosion that limits public accessibility. And next, a Collier County boat landing facility was constructed by Hideaway Beach in lieu of furnishings of other public access. In closing, I would like to state, while each of us may have implemented a different public access standard when the Deltona Corporation and the developer of Hideaway Beach submitted plans to Collier County, the fact is is that Collier County residents and visitors now have one of the most attractive public beaches in Florida. It is the public beach on Marco Island that attracts the fishing visitors to generate nearly 30 percent of TDC revenues to Collier County. Thirty percent. Please be assured that we will continue to advocate public use of our beaches with safe and convenient public access, as stated in our comprehensive plan. Policy objective 2.3 provides, ensure that during the review of any commercial or multi-family project abutting the community shoreline, that resources are prudently utilized to support existing and future water-dependent and water-related uses that will promote public access; public awareness of shoreline issues Page 170 May 27, 2003 and sound environmental design. And I would like to add that it is extremely unfair to consider a resolution that would seriously curtail or possibly all but eliminate the funding source that provides nearly percent (sic) of the revenue to TDC. It is my understanding the Coastal Advisory Committee, while -- I know for a fact that the CAC made a set of recommendations regarding policy for beach renourishment, which incidentally would be -- the policy as recommended by the CAC would be acceptable to Marco Island; however, these recommendations seem to have been passed over and what is before you today is not the recommendations of the CAC, the Coastal Advisory Committee. So at this time I would respectfully like to request that you table agenda items 10(E) and 10(F) and revisit these resolutions and restate them in accordance with the recommendations made by the CAC. There is one other point I'd like to make. This is an e-mail I received just this morning as I was leaving the house from Jim Snedaker, who was a member of the Coastal Advisory Committee. And I'll read directly from the e-mail that he sent: As a member of the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, I was shocked to see that you approved a proposed new policy for funding TDC beach projects that is drastically different from the policy CAC unanimously approved just 13 days earlier. The nine volunteer members of CAC, plus the three of us on the sub-committee, spent months formulating a new policy, as requested by the Board of County Commissioners. Now staff turns around and throws CAC's work out the window because we didn't agree with them. Staff is now rushing to push through its version of a policy before the TDC and BCC even officially receive CAC's policy. If staff and the BCC want to ignore CAC, then they should abolish it. CAC reviewed every project presented to us by our staff. Our year 2004 started out $5 million over budget. CAC worked many, many hours prioritizing Page 171 May 27, 2003 projects by canceling, delaying, reducing size, et cetera, to create a balanced budget. Actually, 1.4 million positive in '04, and 2.1 million positive in '05, with CAC's new policy. We CAC members spent hundreds of hours reading, preparing, thinking and attending meetings. Then we vote unanimously for a new policy and budget and then -- well, I won't read the next sentence. It is hoped that the Board of County Commissioners will see what staff is trying to do and delay any action on staffs proposed new policy until it hears and reviews CAC's presentation. So I appreciate the time you've given me, and I do thank you in advance for your kind consideration. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you just quickly, in conclusion, where are the public beach accesses that are available to all of the citizens of Collier County in the City of Marco? MR. MINOZZI: You have the beach, Tigertail Beach. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. MINOZZI: And then you have South Beach, which is also a parking area and restrooms. And that's used quite a bit. There will be, in the future, probably not for the next two or three years, there's a piece of property that was -- that was given to us via the PUD that was given to the Marriott for an expansion that they have. And that project hasn't started yet. That right now is in abeyance. Nothing can happen until the construction is completed, which will not be -- which will be at least two, possibly three years. So that potentially and most likely will be another point of access. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And is there parking? MR. MINOZZI: No. That's one of the areas that we're discussing now. There is no parking there in the area, and -- in that particular area, and there are no restrooms. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And no restrooms. MR. MINOZZI: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the only places -- and MICA is Page 172 May 27, 2003 private? MR. MINOZZI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's private for the citizens of just Marco Island-- MR. M1NOZZI: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- a club, right? MR. MINOZZI: But as I stated before, the access at Tigertail, because it's such a major access, was given in lieu of the accesses that were required every half mile. Before these -- and I know that Commissioner Coletta said he used to go down there and park anyplace he wanted. I wish that before these other condos went up that at that time the county had acted. And that's certainly no -- I'm not speaking about the current commission, but at that time I wish they would have acted and said you've got to give us strips of access. It never took place, it's all private property now, so there just simply is no property available. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I would just like to reiterate what you just said. It's not anything the City of Naples (sic) ever had anything to do with, because they've only been a city for a few years. It was something the county commissioners decided to do, giving away all that access and never demanding any access points. And the sad thing is, now we're all having to deal with that. But we do have a number of parking spaces, hundreds of them, over at Tigertail, don't we? How many parking spaces do we have there? CHAIRMAN HENNING: 2,300 and -- MR. DUNNICK: 350, I believe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- 350 parking spaces, which is a good amount. Plus we have the 70 over at the South Beach. MR. MINOZZI: How many are -- there are what, 70 at South Beach? Page 173 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seventy just on the county side. There's others over at MICA, but 70 public parking spaces there. MR. MINOZZI: And of course, you know, now that we're talking about bus service coming out to Marco, that new access that will eventually go there would certainly be accessible by bus. People coming by bus would probably be able to stop right at the access point. COMMISSIONER FIALA:- So the demands for every half mile become rather difficult for Marco Islanders when the beaches are already built upon and you can't get in there. MR. MINOZZI: That's the bind that we are pushed into. And the recommendation is that we would then be penalized because of that, when in actuality, had we had the opportunity to do something about it, we certainly would have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Michael, I know I've been a little bit of a thom in your side, and I apologize if I ever acted inappropriately in anything I've ever said, but there are some things I think we need to clarify. One, even though Marco Island's been great with Tigertail Beach some access, Tigertail Beach and also the South Beach, we're still way deficient from we should be (sic). Yes, that was the other commission's fault for not acting accordingly when they had the chance to, but the responsibility does fall on us now. Also, too, keep in mind, Tigertail Beach is not a preferred destination because of the shape of the lagoon and the fact that it's so difficult. Tigertail Beach Hideaway Beach is a public beach, grant you that, you're absolutely correct. How many people can actually walk that far to be able to access it and cross the waterway that's there, the water that changes with the tide -- it's not something that's readily accessible. And I remember years ago when I became a commissioner and Page 174 May 27, 2003 they took me down to show me Hideaway Beach, in fact, it was Bruce Anderson who did that. And he took me out there and he showed me around, and the first question I asked is where is the parking for the access? And he says, oh, it's back at Tigertail Beach. So I said, drive me over there. And he did. And I said, gee, Bruce, this just doesn't sound right, there's something wrong with this. And ever since then, I've always felt like that we were on the short end of the stick. I resent the fact that my money and the taxpayers' money is going to go to a private beach. And that's basically what it is, because the access issue. And the same thing is true when you get down to Barefoot Williams Beach and the park closer to where the guardhouse is. And recently we just turned them down for TDC funds, where they wanted to use it on their property for the sand dunes, to be able to offer some sort of protection. Even though it's a public beach, not many people are going to be able to walk a mile something through the sand to be able to get to it. What I'm looking for, and I kind of think that we'll probably end up agreeing to, is that these access points would be access points for whether it be like a small bathroom down there, they'd be access points where people could be dropped off with a bus route maybe that's existing or a trolley system that could be put into place. And I can assure you that the people who use it the most will be the people that live on Marco Island. I had many, many phone calls from people on Marco Island, they resent the fact that they have to join MICA and pay the $75 a year when the rest of the county people have access to the beach. There's a couple locations there, but it gets down to South Beach as being the only suitable one left. I think they would be the biggest users of it. There was a lot of phone calls I received. I never got one from one person that was opposed to beach access. And as far as the City Council goes, what was your actual agreement as far as bringing up the issue of the access along the Page 175 May 27, 2003 Marriott? Didn't you people table it for so many years into the future for consideration? MR. MINOZZI: No. No. We tabled it. That was just simply a mistake by the newspaper. The newspaper said that we tabled it for 10 years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. MR. MINOZZI: What the discussion was, and the way they got 10 years, is that we have -- our right to that property ends in 10 years, with the right to renew for another 10 years. So basically we've got a 20-year window to decide whether we want to accept that property or not. And we simply tabled it until the construction work was done, because you wouldn't be able to utilize it anyway because the construction was very close to it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, myself, if you were to open up that access, the Marco Marriott, because it's a hotel, would qualify for the maximum amount. So that's considered an access point. That access and the South Beach, you've taken care of a good part of the Island already. I think there's some other issues to be worked on, but I don't think it's quite the problem that you're looking at. I think it's something that we can accommodate the people that live there now and the people that live in Collier County that would like to have reasonable beach access. I think there's a win-win for everybody. MR. MINOZZI: Well, I believe that, you know, there are certainly things that can be done to help improve, and I know there's some people here that -- from Hideaway that will address some of those concerns that you stated. But we just feel that because of the given situation that we are in, that we kind of inherited, that it's unfair to withhold funding for that source where we are -- especially when we are such a major part of where that funding comes from. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, us orphans have to stick together. We'll figure our way out of this. Page 176 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Councilman. MR. MINOZZI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? MS. FILSON: Next speaker is David Somms (sic). He will be followed by Bruce Anderson. MR. SOMERS: I guess someone over here can put it on the -- MR. MUDD: Sure. MR. SOMERS: My name is David Somers, I'm the general manager at Hideaway Beach. And I guess certainly the Commissioners have a difficult situation. I've been involved there for 11 years now, so I'm certainly aware of the problems that we all have, and hopefully we can all address it. I'm sorry? MR. MUDD: If I can just interrupt. Kady, can you give me the visualizer, please? Keep going. MR. SOMERS: I guess I just had a couple of questions. I noticed in the report that the Caxambas boat ramp was not mentioned. Certainly that's the only boat ramp on Marco Island, and according to the paper today, was used by over 100 boats a day. And I was just curious, I know that's the boat ramp that Hideaway Beach had -- developer had installed on Marco Island in the -- an area that the county had owned. And I was just curious why that was omitted from the plan, albeit -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does Hideaway Beach residents have any boat slips in Hideaway? MR. SOMERS: No. But I'm just saying, as one of the county boat ramps, it just wasn't mentioned as part of the plan. I was just curious as to why. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's your five minutes, sir. MR. SOMERS: Yes, sir. All right. Page 177 May 27, 2003 Again, I'm not sure in the state statute or the county ordinance that TDC funds can be used for land acquisition. And I would just certainly at some point like to get an answer on whether or not that's something that the staff feels that it can be. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to address -- you want to have our staff address that now? MR. SOMERS: No, I'll go ahead and finish my presentation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SOMERS: What I've put up here and what you have on the visualizer, if it will come up, basically is a comparison between Hideaway Beach and the Port Royal and Gordon Drive beaches. The report is from Coastal Planning and Engineering, which is the county's official engineer, and was reported to the CAC last October. This covers the shoreline from Gordon Pass, which is R90, north to Wiggins Pass, which is R17. The Naples $4.9 million renourishment project that CAC recently approved is from Gordon Pass north to Doctors Pass at R58. Park Shore, which is R57 through R49 is within the City of Naples but is a separate CAC beach area. Naples Pier, at 12th Street Avenue on the drawing is called Pile Cluster Groin PC 18-1 at R70. I don't know, is the visualizer not -- MR. MUDD: I'm trying to get it up, that's what I was trying to do with Kady. And Leo's trying to make contact right now. MR. SOMERS: Anyway, on the map, it shows that there -- the 21st Avenue through 32nd and 33rd Avenue below, and there's about -- from R78 and R83 respectively, there are vertical lines drawn on the map that shows the area that I'm talking about. The center of the drawing shows the total beach widening width remaining. Ideally, a 100-foot beach width is desirable. The area below a 100-foot line is shown in red and needs renourishment. As can be seen, most of the Naples $4.9 million renourishment project is on the 2.1 miles of beach between Gordon's Pass and 21st Page 178 May 27, 2003 Avenue. This is called the Port Royal area and is completely lined with large homes on Gordon Drive. Beginning at Gordon's Pass in Port Royal, going north, the public access points are at one mile to 32nd and 33rd Avenue, with 24 combined public parking spaces, plus 13 private Naples residents spaces. 2.1 miles to 21 st Avenue with a 730-foot walk to Gordon Drive where there are no public parking spaces but nine Naples residents parking spaces. 2.3 miles to 18th Avenue for more public parking. 2.8 miles to the Naples Pier, which is the closest public restrooms. There is a grass path, which is difficult to find at 35th Avenue from Gordon Drive to the beach, but the signs all say the City of Naples and there is no parking at all. In summary, for 2.3 miles of shoreline in Port Royal, there are only 24 public parking spaces. For 2.8 miles, there are no public restrooms. The entire shoreline is large -- is not natural at all. Port Royal has two fairly new t-groins, many straight t-groins, and $1 million of new t-groins are planned for the year 2005, all of which are paid with TDC funds. For Hideaway shoreline, beginning at Collier Bay inlet, behind the 6000 building, the distances are 1.4 miles of developed shoreline, .4 miles of developed shoreline, .5 miles of natural shoreline, and then .3 miles on Tigertail Beach there's natural shoreline to public parking and restrooms. In summary, the 1.9 miles of Hideaway shoreline, plus the .3 miles of Tigertail without parking and restrooms but has 36 percent of the beach undeveloped natural area shoreline. And this really goes -- I'm not sure, your motion was on 10(F), they were both included as (E) and (F). CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, sir, it's just the one. MR. SOMERS: But this is on 10(F). Basically that this is what's going to happen to not only Hideaway but Vanderbilt and Port Royal, if this kind of an access situation is set up in some type of a Page 179 May 27, 2003 collation to public access. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bruce Anderson. He will be followed by Joe Connolly. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent the Hideaway Beach Association. I have registered to speak for this item, as well as the next one, .so I'll keep my comments on this item brief and save other comments for the next item then. I just want to note that it seems kind of ironic to on the one hand be considering adopting a boat and beach access policy that highlights the great importance of providing public access through public boat launches, but then on the other hand attempting to disregard the public access boat launch at Caxambas that the developer of Hideaway Beach paid for when the county decided that they had enough beach parking facilities already at Tigertail, and they traded that public beach access that they had at Hideaway for public boat access. More than 20 years ago the Commissioners were grappling with the same issues that you are here today, the issues of beach and boat access. Back then, as today, they made a decision that there was enough beach parking already, but not enough public boat access, so they decided to trade beach access for public boat access more than 20 years ago. I don't believe that the county can deny that Hideaway provided -- that the Hideaway provided county public boat launch provides an important public access. Any county funding policy that you consider on your next item for providing public access to the Gulf of Mexico should give a credit for public beach and boating access that was previously provided. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Page 180 May 27, 2003 MS. FILSON: CHAIRMAN HENNING: MS. FILSON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? And Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Halas. And then Sue Filson. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just one question. What was our population 20 years ago, compared to what it is today? And what are we looking at, would you say, since you're involved in land development? What do you think our population will be another 10 to 15 years from now? First question, what was the population 20 years ago? MR. ANDERSON: Twenty years ago, it was about 100,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we're at almost 300,000 today? 270? CHAIRMAN HENNING: 272. MR. ANDERSON: Well, that 30,000 discrepancy, that's -- some folks would think that's a lot, 10 percent. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do you think it will be in another 15, 20 years? MR. ANDERSON: COMMISSIONER I don't know what the projections are. HALAS: What we're trying to do is plan for not only now but what's down the road 20 years. We don't want to make the same mistake again. MR. ANDERSON: I think that's great. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Ms. Filson, I'm sorry, I interrupted you. MS. FILSON: John had indicated that we're hearing both items in conjunction with each other. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right, let me clarify the motion -- the motion maker. Was this on item -- your motion was to approve Item 10(E) and Item 10(F), or just-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The funding mechanism? I've Page 181 May 27, 2003 got to go back. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if we could do those separate, it sure would be a whole lot easier for the record. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I was just approving the first one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then Mr. Anderson reserves his right to speak under the next item. MS. FILSON: Okay, so I just have the -- most of them say 10(E) and (F). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then let's clarify for the rest of the speakers, are you to talk about the plan for beach access and boating access, or are you here to talk about the funding, Mr. Connolly? MR. CONNOLLY: Well, he presented it as (E) and (F), and I signed it as (E) and (F), and I'm prepared to talk about (E) and (F). MS. FILSON: Okay. And following Mr. Connolly will be Diane Ketcham. MR. CONNOLLY: Good afternoon. Joe Connolly, 10633 Gulfshore Drive. I'm so glad that there's so much interest, because I attended the workshop in its entirety and only two commissioners did so, and two of the most vocal were not here for the workshop. So I'm glad that you have the support. Number one, on beach access, I live on Gulfshore Drive, we have beach access. We probably have as much access as anybody in Collier County with the Vanderbilt access and the Wiggins Pass Park, and thank God for the Vanderbilt Inn. I also took a boat ride this weekend and I saw things a little bit differently than John did. But the -- Diane and her husband had asked me to go for a boat ride with them, so we came out Wiggins Pass and we rode down the coast to Doctors Pass. At Venetian Village we went in. Page 182 May 27, 2003 And I was amazed to see that Wiggins Pass Park looked like it was half-way deserted, although it was closed, and the cars were lined up over the bridge. I understand they have a contract with WCI Signature and the Yacht and Racket Club, and they're bringing people in by shuttle boats, so I think that's impacting the number of people that allow them to use the park, unfortunately. The Vanderbilt Inn looked like Cony Island, and the stretch between the Vanderbilt Inn and the Vanderbilt Drive access was more dense than Wiggins Pass. And where did the people come from and how did they get there? Well, they live all on the finger streets, and there are seven accesses there, so they were -- the beach was pretty crowded. Then unfortunately, Pelican Bay, we saw 12 people on the beach between the two public accesses. And we turned in Doctors Pass, you could see down at Lowdermilk Park, it was packed. So we had a pretty good distribution of people on the beach getting to the beach. Unfortunately, there's something wrong with the Wiggins Pass Park and the way it's being operated. Because I think there were more people on Barefoot Beach than there were on Wiggins Pass beach. But I think we need to look long-range. We're talking about all these things were done in the past and now you're trying to cure their ills. But you need to look at the future. Now, we have a problem with getting the boats in the water. We have a problem with the parking. I went into Bayview (sic) yesterday, just to see what the situation was going to be down there. I think it's Waterside is the development there? Before you make the turn-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Windstar. MR. CONNOLLY: -- to go at the Bayshore, the boat trailers were lined up and down that road. I made the turn and I said hell, I'll Page 183 May 27, 2003 never see -- excuse me -- Bayshore, because you couldn't even get near it. And I turned around and went home. So you do have a problem there on boat access. And I think what you need to do is look at Wiggins Pass Marina. It's right next to a beautiful park that you already have and maintained so beautifully. It would give you the parking you need, it would give you more boat ramps, it would allow you to have a shuttle to go to your new dock at Barefoot Beach, which would give you more beach access. And this would just tremendously help the whole situation, and I think you need to look at that. Also, look at the Vanderbilt Inn. You know, they say they're going to operate for five more years, then they want to sell it. Man, that would be a great five acres. I'm not too hot on your shuttle idea, because you can't get across the bridge now, how is your shuttle going to get across the bridge? So you need to have more parking on that side of the bay. So in all, I think you did a good job on the plan. I just think we need to have a little more foresight, consider Wiggins Pass Marina, and consider the Vanderbilt Inn. And I don't think the distribution of use on the Vanderbilt Beach is bad at all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Joe. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Diane Ketcham. MS. KETCHAM: I do wish to speak on both, so I will waive 10(F) till we get to 10(F). First, Commissioners, I would like to thank you, on behalf of the people on Vanderbilt Beach, for standing firm regarding at this point the Burt Harris claim. It not only is important to Vanderbilt Beach, I think it's very important to Collier County. So I hope that we will continue on that path. I want to thank Marla Ramsey for calling me to let me know that the beach access report was coming up and that the beach Page 184 May 27, 2003 renourishment was coming up. I think we're getting a really nice communication between the various departments and the Conunissioners, and that's very important. Regardless of whether we agree with everything that's done, at least we know what's happening, with the exception of the beach renourishment policy, which I'll tell you about later which I had no idea was going on. I understand the frustration of you, as Commissioners, and the Parks Department. Everything that happened in the past where things were given away, has left you with very few options. Unfortunately, we're stuck in the middle on Vanderbilt Beach. We are a mile long. We have, I counted the other day, 12 public venues access (sic) for the people. Twelve accesses to the beach, if you're counting the hotels, if you're counting the park, if you're counting the neighborhood accesses within one mile. And when we talk about the beach renourishment policy, you'll find out that we wouldn't even be funded with our 12 accesses, the way the policy is worded. So that needs to be changed. The first recommended policy of the Parks Department is the frequency of beach access locations will be increased to distribute beach use evenly. And yet of the 10 recommendations, six are for Vanderbilt Beach. So we still have a problem. We're still saying we've got to solve it on Vanderbilt Beach, and we're saying to you, you can't solve it all on Vanderbilt Beach. You really can't. We have a problem with traffic already, we have accesses. Sure we're willing to work with you. We think one of the things, buying Gulf front lots in the middle where there are resident houses and tearing them down and putting up public bathrooms is not the answer. You're going to get involved with lawsuits. We -- the way Vanderbilt Beach was established was that there would be a commercial end on one end, there would be parks on either end, there would be residents in the middle with neighborhood accesses, and in the middle of that, they built La Playa Hotel. So we Page 185 May 27, 2003 have a major access in the middle, which wasn't even supposed to be there. There was a major public access right next to La Playa, which the County Commissioners before you gave away. So we're hoping that we can work with you. We know you have problems. We're more than willing to work about the end of Bluebill Avenue, to perhaps even have a shuttle drop people off, have a county access next to the Vanderbilt Inn. But I really think you're missing the boat if you don't try to work in some way to obtain that Vanderbilt Inn property. Now, I represent-- I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association. You would think I would stand up here and say make it a condo, we'd love it to be a condo. And for our practical purposes with traffic, that would be ideal. But we understand that this is a county that has used that land as we have used that land, for watching sunsets, having a little sippy-poo, having dinner, really enjoying that. And it's up for sale. And I was talking to the lawyer who represents them. They don't care who buys it, whether it's somebody, a developer who wants to build a condo or whether it's the county. And you would have five and a half acres on the beach at the end of Vanderbilt Beach, which is already used by the public. I came from eastern Long Island where they wanted to keep agricultural. And everybody wanted to build expensive houses. So that county came up with the idea of transferring development rights. The farmers could keep using the land as agriculture, but they would be paid to do so. And if they ever wanted to sell the property, it couldn't be developed, it had to be kept as agriculture. Can't you do something like that with tourists? Can't you give -- I'm just throwing out a figure, work out some policy where you would give to the owners of the Vanderbilt Inn five million, 10 million to keep it a tourist facility, let it still be operated either by them or whatever, and then it always would have to stay a tourist facility. They want to Page 186 May 27, 2003 make some kind of profit on that property; I understand that. But we also need it for the county beach access. So please, think about the Vanderbilt Inn, think about marina -- you know, the Wiggins Pass Marina. Once that's gone, once those are condos, you've lost a lot of acreage there. So thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank can. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker on 10(E) will be Doug Fee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did want to address something. Diane, I wanted to compliment you on your civic activism. You've been unrelentful (sic) as far as getting things done in the Vanderbilt Beach area. However, I have to point out to you that those accesses that you mentioned are not public access, they're really from the neighbors. Unless I could ride my bicycle 12 miles all the way down there, and then I probably wouldn't be able to find a bicycle rack to put it into. It's something that is centered just for the people that lives (sic) there. And I'll tell you, there's been many times in the past that I've tried to go to the beach and regrettably they've usually been heavy demand days, holidays, where I got all the way down to the beach, hoping to be able to find a parking place, and I had to mm around and come back. There was absolutely nothing. And I -- MS. KETCHAM: May I address you? I thank you for your compliments. You can always park in our parking lot anytime you would like to. We're not gated. But regarding the neighborhood accesses, there are now 10,000 people who live in the Vanderbilt Beach/Naples Park area that can bike or walk to those neighborhood accesses. Sure, if we had five houses there and we had neighborhood access, I'd say you're keeping people out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but there's 266,000 Page 187 May 27, 2003 people in Collier County, and that beach belongs to me, just as well as it does you-- MS. KETCHAM: And I couldn't-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and everybody else-- MS. KETCHAM: -- agree with you more. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in this room. MS. KETCHAM: And if you can get there and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's it, now we've got the -- MS. KETCHAM: -- either park at the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- problem. MS. KETCHAM: But it's one mile-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Diane. MS. KETCHAM: -- what do you expect of us from-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Diane. MS. KETCHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just tell him the early bird gets the MS. KETCHAM: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just tell him the early bird gets the worm. He has to get up in the morning to find a parking spot. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm going to park in Diane's driveway. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not only that, but there is bicycle racks at some of those locations down there. There are bicycle racks there. MS. KETCHAM: We are open. I mean, I know you have frustrations with other areas of the county, and believe me, I understand why. But we honestly feel we're the good guys on Vanderbilt Beach. We have been open. We've got hotels, we've got public accesses, we've got 60 percent of the county parking within one mile. So we want to work with you, and believe me, we will Page 188 May 27, 2003 continue to work with you, but we get a little frustrated. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing is that the accesses that are there, they're very limited in the sense that -- and I don't mean this derogatory, they're limited in the sense that at one time those accesses were a lot wider. And through the volition of some of the county commissioners of the past, they gave up a lot of that access. And now the access that we have available there, there's no way to put bathrooms there, and there's no parking there. So it makes it somewhat difficult. We do have some parking that's on Bluebill, and of course that's going to be a long walk, but that is still a potential, a possibility. So -- and it's just too bad that what's happened in the past, and now we're trying to figure out the best way to approach this. And I think we've got some pretty good ideas here, and I think with the input here from the public, that will also give us some guidance, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks. Mr. Fee, thank you for being here today. MR. FEE: Thank you, Commissioners. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I'm president of North Bay Civic Association, and I brought with me a map of North Bay, which happens to be Bluebill Avenue to the south and 41 to the east, and Bonita Beach Road to the north. I'm fortunate to live in an area of Collier County that is yet (sic) fully developed. It's not fully developed. There's a lot to come in the future. And with that in mind, I appreciate that this board is adopting some policies that will certainly for the future make beach and boat access a right of every citizen in this county. We all pay taxes -- or most of us pay taxes. And I would like to think that 20 years from now, 30 years from now, 50 years from now, we'll all have access to those great resources. You have three agenda items today that are of interest to myself and to the association that I represent. The two here, 10(F) and Page 189 May 27, 2003 10(E), beach access and boat access, as well as -- I'm going to take just a moment, and you had a consent agenda item, the Vanderbilt Lagoon letter of intent. And I'm assuming that that was approved today. The area of North Bay has a tremendous amount of pressure today. I'm sure all areas in Collier County do. And when I speak, it's mainly about the neighborhood that I live in. We have the shuttle issue going to the back of Lely Barefoot. And in the plan, it says Barefoot Beach preserve, back bay dock and pier, currently excursion vessel. Drop visitors at the southern tip of the park. This practice is damaging the fragile ecosystem of Wiggins Pass. And I brought with me a picture that I want to put on the teleprompter. You're probably not going to be able to see this. MR. MUDD: Sure you are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I want to point out here is this is a dynamic ecosystem, and back in '99, we had a major dredge. And the arrow that you'll see right here is pointing to a tree. It's a snag. And ospreys sit in that tree, or did sit in that tree. And today, five years later, that tree is gone. It's in the water. And I don't know what the acreage or how much land that is, but we have lost -- that's the tip that we're talking about right here. And although I know that boat traffic to the southern tip is damaging to the ecosystem, part of it is that we allowed a dredging that took significant amounts off of the preserve. Maybe it's a half an acre. I might point out, too, that the county paid $3.6 million for 1.6 acres not too far up the water -- or up the land. And so what I'm pointing out here is the fragile ecosystem that we have and the fact that we have to be very, very careful in the future. There are -- the manatee issue that you all dealt with on Wednesday evening, the LDC. And I have read myself the manatee plan. I understand as much as I can what it says. But the bottom Page 190 May 27, 2003 line, I think to this LDC change, is how deep and how wide and how are we going to protect the ecosystem that we have. The system where I live, we have an inlet management plan, the Wiggins Pass Inlet Management, which in general is designed at three feet. But you have a lot of pressure right now, okay? You have a lot of development that is asking for bigger boats, deeper drafts, all of which has to be permitted by the agencies. Some of it will come before you. But I would ask you to keep that in mind. You know, we're talking about beach and boat and all those issues. Tremendous pressure. We have the Wiggins Pass Marina. And I hope that -- well, you know where I'm coming from on that. I think that would be a wonderful way of providing for the future, if at all possible. You have water quality issues. Obviously you just approved the Army Corps study. And again, I think that's very important. You want to make sure, because this is outstanding Florida waters, which there are only 21 in the State of Florida, that we work with the Army Corps, we work with the DEP, we make sure that the future keeps this fragile ecosystem in balance. Again, I talk about the dredging depths, the fact that, you know, the Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan is three feet, but yet inside they're asking for deeper depths. I want to point to Naples Bay, which is more developed and an older system, and the problems that they have had in that area, and maybe we can learn from that and try to keep this as pristine as we can. I'm for -- or our association is definitely for beach and boating access, no doubt about it. The one other thing I would say is because there's so much different issues in this area, I would like to suggest, if not today, maybe in the future, that we form a broad-based committee made up of the groups in that area, Vanderbilt Beach and Bay, Diane Page 191 May 27, 2003 Ketcham, Vanderbilt Property Owners, Naples Bay -- or Naples Park, North Bay, the Estuary Conservation Association, possibly The Conservancy. Today form this committee that can work with Ron Hovell and can work with Marla Ramsey, can work with the Army Corps staff that will be looking at the year study, or the two-year study, so that all that information comes to these groups and we can act as a sounding board, not necessarily making the decisions, but being involved in it, because we all have this vested interest. So I'll stop with that and I just want to say we support the two policies. And that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Seeing none -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I would like to make a little -- offer a little something. I haven't ever seen the CAC report, and I feel a little uncomfortable coming to a conclusion without hearing from the CAC and TDC. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the next item, Commissioner. MR. MUDD: No, the next item is (F), Commissioner. But let's go over the charter of the CAC. The CAC is to find projects to be forwarded to the TDC to be budgeted into their budget. TDC does the budget work and the CAC does the project identification. And they've -- the CAC has the two pennies that they basically deal with of the three pennies as far as the Tourist Development Council is concerned. CAC report, from what I understand, is to leave the status quo alone and not to address different percentages and ways to get funded. I will say that the Tourist Development Council at a workshop is looking for alternative revenue streams so they can increase the dollars that are going out to advertise for tourism in Collier County Page 192 May 27, 2003 and to try to find some other different way in order to cost share, stretch those dollars to maximize the effectiveness for Collier County and the economy thereof. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what's been stated during this presentation is that the CAC has worked diligently for months preparing a report to give their recommendations to give to the TDC, who will then give their recommendations. And they were supposed to have both been forwarded to us, and we didn't get that. MR. MUDD: Can you see that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I always rely heavily on the advice from the advisory councils, and I feel a little uncomfortable voting on this without seeing their reports. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was -- MR. MUDD: Is that 10(E) or is that 10(F)? COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10(F). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we're going to discuss that in just a minute. We're going to take a vote on 10(E) now. All in favor? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do have a question. I can't ask a question? Included in the motion was an approval, but we didn't provide any guidance about funding options. You want to do that separately? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: That's fine. 10(E) is the master plan that basically tells Mr. Dunnick and his crew and the rest of the county what we need to do to increase access to the beach and boating access. And then 10(F) talks about funding mechanisms -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, 10(E) talks about the plan, as well as funding options to accomplish the plan. So we need to provide you some guidance about the funding, because you're talking about bonding, general obligation bonds, you're talking about-- Page 193 May 27, 2003 side. MR. DUNNICK: Yes, the critical issues on the boat launch COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. DUNNICK: And frankly, another area of clarification that I need to know on the Board of County Commissioners' standpoint is how far they want us to go on the boat launch side. We have stayed with, you know, boating access as being boat launch and parking, and, you know, I know at least on the Goodland property specifically CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was part of my second on the motion. And I see the -- as far as the funding option, we can give direction? We don't actually have to take a vote on that? This is voting on the master plan. And right after that, let's go to the different options, because I heard two different things from two different commissioners. So does that answer your question, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, as long as we're going to address the funding options afterwards, that's fine with me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So right now we're just on the master plan -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- giving you direction to go ahead and produce a master plan that we can then consider. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: This is the master. MR. DUNNICK: This is the master plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is the entire master -- MR. DUNNICK: This is the master plan. And what it -- you know, by policy direction, what you give us in this are tools as staff, not only to look at what we have in the implementation part of it, but also look at other things outside of it. Because your overall policy Page 194 May 27, 2003 strategy is to maximize or to spread out these accesses that will allow us to look at other areas, such as a suggestion made by people in the Vanderbilt Beach community, we can take a look at that under that policy level direction you've given us. The implementation plan is the here and now stuff, the stuff that we've been looking at and want to continue to look at. COMMISSIONER FIALA: John, please forgive me, it takes me a little bit. And what I'm really concerned with is that the hands of my district, Marco Island, are going to be tied if they're required to have beach access every half mile, when there's no way that they can do that ever. MR. DUNNICK: Your beach access and boat launch master plan doesn't speak to that. That's the following issue that we're going to vote on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And one last question, and this has nothing to do with that. You had said previously in the presentation that WCI is suing us over the parking garage. And I'm wondering why that's happening. MR. DUNNICK: That's correct. You know, I'll limit how much I speak to it, from David's perspective. But the lawsuit revolves around deed restrictions on the property when Collier County purchased it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, they gave us a report on that I think in 2000 or 2001. Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 195 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Next item is the funding sources for this. Commissioner-- let's see, Commissioner Coletta was in favor of the impact fees, 9(A), referendum. Commissioner Coyle was in favor of the referendum. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that was Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Halas. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I might support it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not in favor of anything until I hear what the CAC and TDC have to say. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- we have opportunities through our polling, county polling of res -- through a telephone poll of this item, and maybe that could get us closer to a referendum either similar to what we did as far as the green space. And that was used G.O. money for green space. So Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. The reason that I'm not excited about a referendum -- I think impact fees should be our primary source to work with -- is the fact that I've been living in this county now for close to 20 years and I've been paying fees, taxes for years. Now, we need to grow the infrastructure out there to meet the new population, the population to come. I think our main part of it should be coming from impact fees. I have no problem with referendum, but I want to see the burden picked up by new people moving here that are going to be sharing in what we're doing and paying for it in the furore. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine with me, because most of them are going to be from District 5, because the urban area is all built out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, wherever they're from. Page 196 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the -- you know, if we poll our residents to say yeah, we think this is a good idea to tax us for more beach access and boating access, we would be foolish to go out and do a straw poll to'the general public to say yeah, we would, you know, do a tenth of a mill, quarter of a mill, or whatever. That's my perspective on it. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I definitely believe before we start increasing anybody's taxes we should take it to a referendum, if that's what we're going to do. But I -- I believe there's some important principles that we have to recognize before we go down this path. There is a shortage of boat access everywhere in Collier County. There is no community which is immune from that particular problem. As Commissioner Henning observed earlier, Naples Park-- or Naples Landing Park is completely overflowing. There are trailers and boats being parked blocks and blocks away from the landing itself. So buying marinas isn't such a bad idea. But remember, it's not just Wiggins Pass Marina you've got to buy. You've got to buy Boat Haven. And together, when you start looking at all those things, you're in the range of 50 to $75 million. And we have to be realistic about this. But if we're going to commit ourselves to do that, a referendum is the only way that's going to happen, unless someone wants to set up an MSTU for their own neighborhood and purchase these things. So the only way we can deal with that is on a county-wide basis, I think, realistically. Because the money isn't coming out of somebody's hat. We're facing a very, very difficult budget year, and if we don't do this now, it's going to be gone and we're going to be sitting here two years from now saying well, I wonder what happened. Page 197 May 27, 2003 But all I'm saying is, we have to view this very realistically. If we're going to do something, we have to do it quickly, it has to be comprehensive, we've got to take into consideration all the boating needs in the County of Collier, and we also have to deal with the additional parking spaces needed for ramps at Bayview and Naples Landing and other places like that. So your plan is a good one, I really think you've done a good job with it, but if we're going to solve the problem, we have to get bold and imaginative, and we have to be willing to get people committed to spending tens of millions of dollars now, within the next 18 months, and I don't know if that's possible. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I've got a problem where we're going with this. We're talking about lumping into this thing here for beach access and boating access, buying marinas. We're talking as much money as they spent for-- as we voted for for the whole Collier 2000 project. I can tell you right now, I don't think it's going to fly. When you get down to the marinas itself with the small number of people they're going to service, to be able to ask the full taxpayers out there to pay to put it on the burden of their back, we're going to have beach access and boat access go down with it. If you want to separate it and make it separate issues, I could go for that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I look at this as this is a problem that's facing us as present Commission, and I feel that we have to step up to the plate and make a decision here. This is not just for a select group of people that live along the coastline, this is a county-wide problem, and the problem is going to do nothing but get worse, and I think we need to address this issue and -- of the people Page 198 May 27, 2003 that I talked with, as I talk with people, whether they own boats or whether they do not own boats, everybody seems to have the idea that this is one of our particular qualities of life here is that we have access either to the beach or to the waterways. And it's slowly -- we're slowly being strangled from this, all citizens, and I think that we need to step up to the plate and find out if the public is really interested in addressing this issue. And I really think that the public is interested in this. Whether you go and rent a boat once a year or maybe once every two years, it's the idea that you have that ability, that you have that freedom to rent a boat and get involved in it, or whether you go to the beach only once a year, it's the idea that if you have the ability to get to that beach without any hassle, people are going to go to it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if I could just remind everybody, during the green space campaign, the proponents were out there saying this would help us with our growth. We could purchase the land so it can't be built on it. And I think possibly this is what Commissioner Coyle was saying is if you take a look at marinas and what's being proposed out there in the future or today is higher density in those areas. So I think the message still could be the same. So with all this discussion, John, do you have enough direction? MR. DUNNICK: Well, I want to make sure we're on track. 10(F), is an item that's specifically speaking to beach access and retying it to nourishment. And we're talking about the overall funding plan now of really boat access. If you accept the premise of what we're proposing in 10(F), that does address a lot of the needs on the beach access side. On the boat access side, you know, that's where we're seeking policy direction. We do have limited funds calculated in for impact fees on improvements and so forth on the boat launch side. However, if you're talking about expanding the policy, the base level -- and I'd like to see direction in that regard specifically. I Page 199 May 27, 2003 know you talked about maximizing. But if you're talking about looking at marine operations, Commissioner Coyle's absolutely right, you are talking about anywhere from a 50 to $80 million venture to do it, what they're proposing. And that's something that the board will have to look at. And if that's what they're proposing for that aspect of the referendum and to do some straw polling on that, that direction I can take. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to point out, I'm just worried that we're going to put this thing together in such a way that when we get through packaging it, we're going to end up with zero. If it cost 50 to $75,000 for what it needs to buy these boat barns -- MR. MUDD: Million. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Millions, millions, excuse me, 50 to 75 million. And we got 1,000 boat sites to go into it, we're talking between 50 and $75,000 per boat site. There's no way this thing could ever be justified. The general public out there is not going to be able to afford to do it, you've got 1,000 people who are going to benefit to the expense of everybody being taxed. This thing will go down in flames, if that's the premise we're going to build it on. MR. DUNNICK: Well, I think from a staff perspective, what the board needs is direction. What we'd do is to first do a fiscal analysis of what the recovery money may possibly be for on-site boat storage and where there may be some feasibilities. It may not be buying existing marinas, it may be maximizing uses elsewhere, I don't know. You know, that is something staff, what I can tell you, has not taken a look at, because we haven't had the board policy direction to take a look at it. That may give you more information, and then separately, that direction you may want to give us, to give that information back to you. Page 200 May 27, 2003 But I will also tell you, you know, when I talked to you earlier about Mr. Smykowski giving us the rundown of referendum and bonding, you know, even if the community passed it, you know, and you went to a separate tax or something along those lines, you know, for bonding capacity, what we're limited on, you're going to have to take a look at that, you know, where we can be, if you want to look to front the money. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't you take a look at it and come back to us? Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we have to also stress here is that these people, or the people that are going to use these facilities, are going to pay for these facilities. They're going to pay whatever the going rate is to store a boat or whatever else. This is going to an enterprised deal. Whether the county runs it or whether the county subleases this out to someone, this is money that's going to be returned eventually to the coffers. We're going to get a return on our investment here and we're going to be in a competitive market, right along with the people that do this for a living, and there's very few of those people left anymore. So we're going to have a pretty good idea of exactly what the market's going to bear, as far as rentals on boat storage. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I may add just one thing: We haven't sent out the annual survey yet with Mr. Moehlke and crew, and I just talked to Beth, and I need to add one more question about the quarter a mill for beach access and public boat launch and that process. You do have a revenue committee, even though we're missing a couple people yet, that have a mission to look at different alternatives for revenues for Collier County. This might be one of those issues you might want to have them look at right up front and help you a little bit with the revenue piece, as far as what's the best way to go, is it an impact fee with some kind of ad valorem increase Page 201 May 27, 2003 or whatever, so those are -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You've got three nods on that one. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one final observation. There's an opportunity to combine what you're doing in 10(E) with what your requirements are in 10(F). You've talked about shuttles to get people to boats. You haven't talked about water shuttles to get people to beaches. So you might consider that. There's a very popular beach called Cayo Costa that can only be reached by boat. Lots of people go there, and to the extent we have beaches that can only be reached by boat and we have the capability, either through franchise or otherwise, to operate boat shuttles to and from beaches, it might be a good thing to do, rather than trying to punch holes through existing communities, trying to get access. MR. DUNNICK: And absolutely. That was part of our plan when we talked about Lely.Barefoot Preserve and having a back side dock access. That would be a negotiating session agreement so that that could be achieved. We've had preliminary discussions with the folks at Rookery Bay about how we could go about doing that. Because they maintain a lot of beach space on behalf of the state, and they've talked about how we could get access to it. So preliminarily, we've talked about it. By your overall policy direction, as part of the policy, you give us those tools to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And do you have enough tools? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to understand the tools. What were the nods for? CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- do we have enough direction to expand the impact fees -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- by the Board of Commissioners? Page 202 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not from me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I'd say so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you've got two. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's what I said, two. One, two. On the referendum, yeah, I'm saying yeah, let's go out and test the waters. Let's see how our survey does. Bring it to the revenue commission. So you've got three on that. Tourist development funds, we're going to talk about that in just a minute. And I think that's about it, right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No general funds? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, a referendum would be for general funds -- or G.O. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it possible to consider things like additional boating permit fees, if-- for -- if you're going to buy more places for people to park at the ramps or buy more ramps for people to use, I think most people would be willing to pay a little more. CHAIRMAN HENNING: User fees? COMMISSIONER COYLE: User fees. MR. DUNNICK: Oh, absolutely. Yeah, we take a look at the park policy on fees on an annual basis, and we certainly can take a hard look at that from our standpoint. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has the credit card for you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just have another suggestion. We may be able to look at -- and I know this is probably a bad subject to bring up, but some type of transfer tax on any kind of real estate property. It could be a small, very, very small percentage, like. 1 mill on a real estate transfer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That would have to be a legislation item that we would have to take up to -- Page 203 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would be something we could take to the revenue commission and have them look at all the different options. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I think this would be another way of gate fees and to -- and it wouldn't be that big of an impact on a lot of people. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. Item #1 OF POLICY ESTABLISHING A FUNDING NEXUS BETWEEN PUBLIC BEACH USE AND RENOURISHMENT FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS - ITEM TO GO BACK TO CAC & TDC FOR DISCI ISSION Next item is 10(F). MR. DUNNICK: Yeah, I've pretty much concluded my presentation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll make that part of my motion to approve. Is there a second to my motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta. Mr. Anderson and Mrs. Ketcham. MS. FILSON: And David Somers and Joe Connolly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, you're on deck. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, and I represent the Hideaway Beach Association. This recommendation here to utilize tourist development tax funds is, in my view, an attempt to highjack the money that the Page 204 May 27, 2003 voters approved specifically to renourish beaches, and it's a proposal to divert that renourishment money to acquiring and improving public beach parks. Acquiring and improving public beach parks is a worthy goal by itself, as you all just indicated by wanting to explore referendums and impact fees to acquire that land. But tourist taxes have been specifically earmarked, or the better portion of them, just for beach renourishment. And so far, that's the only funding mechanism that there is for beach renourishment. And as your staff report notes, public access is distinct and different from beach renourishment. And as I read the TDC statute, I haven't done any legal research yet, but the TDC statute does not expressly authorize acquisition of land. Now, that may be implied, but it doesn't come right out and say you can use it for that, like it does come right out and say you can use it for beach renourishment purposes. This is a huge shift in policy that was approved by the voters to make beach renourishment the top priority for use of tourist taxes. Instead, the staff report states, and I quote, beach maintenance is the second priority, and though storm and erosion protection for properties adjacent to beaches are important, they are not the focus of tourist tax funds. End of quote. I think the voters would be very surprised to learn that. When the voters approved the tourist development tax in 1992, they voted for beach renourishment, paid for by tourists, not for beach renourishment, cost sharing with a portion to be paid for by tourists, and not for land acquisition. That was the bill of goods that we were sold, we will advertise and bring more tourists here, but they're going to pay to renourish our beaches. I would ask you to consider whether residents of Park Shore or Marco Island would have voted for that tax if they had known that they were going to have to pay a portion of the cost to maintain and Page 205 May 27, 2003 renourish beaches in their area. There is one way to find out that question, and that's to put the question to the voters. The ballot question could be do you approve reducing the percentage of tourist tax revenues for and requiring cost-sharing for beach renourishment projects that are not eligible for state financial assistance. I respectfully suggest you put that to a referendum vote on reauthorization of the tourist tax, if you want to divert the money. The other criticism I have of what you have before you today is you only have half of the beach renourishment policy. It takes money away from beach renourishment to use for other purposes. But the tourist tax money that is still left for beach renourishment is restricted to beach segments that are eligible for state cost-sharing. What about beach segments that were renourished and need to be renourished, but would no longer qualify? Those beaches are going to need renourishment and maintenance, and letting one segment of beach erode away can have negative impacts on down the shoreline. You need to identify how beach renourishment will be financed when tourist tax funding is diverted and reduced from beach renourishment needs. That's not addressed here today. The timing of these agenda items is curious, since the Board of County Commissioners requested and has not yet received the Coastal Advisory Committee and TDC recommendations on a priority policy for funding beach renourishment. TDC is set to meet on this tomorrow, to consider the CAC policy recommendation, which prioritizes, based on engineering need and public access, both. The board shouldn't act on any new beach renourishment policy or money changes until it has received those recommendations. And staff should be directed to bring back their proposed policy and funding changes to the CAC and the TDC for their review and input. Thank you. Page 206 May 27, 2003 MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Diane Ketcham, followed by David Somers. MS. KETCHAM: Diane Ketcham, Vanderbilt Beach and Bay. You know you have a flawed policy when Bruce Anderson and Diane Ketcham agree on something. I would very much like to hold up the policy that is being discussed here. There are no copies. There are no public copies of this. We never saw it. This adversely affects our Vanderbilt Beach, of which I am president of the association that represents 1,000 people. We weren't contacted. As I said before, fortunately Marla Ramsey told me the beach access report was going to be on the agenda today. And so was the beach renourishment policy, which we haven't seen. The only way I saw it was Marla gave me her copy so I could take a look at it. And as I mentioned before, in just looking at that, and our lawyers, our planners -- no one has seen this from Vanderbilt Beach. But in looking at it, we, as I told you, have 12 public venues within a mile, mile and a quarter. We would not get 100 percent funding, okay? There's something wrong with that. In the middle of our area is La Playa. But according to this policy, the hotel only counts for the hotel property, it doesn't go anywhere past that. So we actually have an area in the middle of Vanderbilt Beach of which we would have to pay for the beach renourishment, if anything happened, while we have the most access in Collier County. So I strongly urge you today, postpone any decision on this. I don't know why it's being rushed through, but we're an area that's very much affected by this, and we haven't even had a chance to see this policy. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Diane, what's the -- from the first place -- point of access, don't -- the first point of access to the -- let's say the northernmost point of access to the southern access, in Page 207 May 27, 2003 between the La Playa Hotel, what is the distance there? MS. KETCHAM: Are we going north? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, the first-- MS. KETCHAM: I actually -- I'll tell you, I spent my Memorial Day not only going out in the boat and checking what the Gulf front looked like for beach density, I also took my car and did a mileage thing. And I started at the county park, and then you've got the Vanderbilt Beach Resort, then you've got two time shares, then you've got a county public access, then you've got La Playa Hotel, then you have another county public access, and then you have the Vanderbilt Inn. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think what it states in there, like 1,600 feet, and I'm sure there's access points -- MS. KETCHAM: It says a half a mile. It says a half a mile; am I correct, John? And the problem is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, half a mile -- MS. KETCHAM: -- they are only measuring -- they're not measuring any of the motels or hotels, they're not measuring any of our neighborhood accesses, they are only measuring the county park and the state park with parking spaces. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the access points I think would encompass the whole half a mile all the way through there. MS. KETCHAM: If it was reworded, absolutely. But the way it is worded right now -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that right, John? Maybe you can clarify that. If you got a half a mile, that's over 2,000 feet. MR. DUNNICK: I believe in the policy, the way it's written, and it's consistent with the federal guidelines, I think it's 1,000 feet for just access, and then if you talk about parking on top of that, then I think you get into the half a mile issue. MS. KETCHAM: But it does state that part of Vanderbilt Beach would not be covered. Page 208 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that true or not? MR. DUNNICK: That is true, because -- it would be partial funding under the plan, because they have access points but they don't have the parking amenities that go along with it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's not their problem, though, is it? MS. KETCHAM: Thank you. MR. DUNNICK: What's that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That parking deal is not their problem. MR. DUNNICK: What this plan does, it's two ways of getting at the issue. One issue is that it acknowledges that in the plan, the priority is to provide the access point in addition to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they got the -- they provide the access point, but they don't have the parking. MR. DUNNICK: The access and the use. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. DUNNICK: Which includes the parking or restroom facilities as well. Absent that, what it does is encourage the community to support us going in for acquisition, as well as part of the plan. Because if we don't, then they're going to be satisfied with the plan and they're going to -- frankly, they're going to resist us coming in and looking at it. And keep in mind, this is system-wide. You know, we shouldn't just preclude this conversation in just one specific area. But from our standpoint, it does -- you know, it encourages us to get additional access for use. Because access in itself doesn't do us any good unless the greater public can get to it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, the access, the access is there, but it was traded away some years ago to where we can't put bathrooms there. So that that -- well, if you can't put bathrooms Page 209 May 27, 2003 there, that's not considered an access; is that what you're saying? MR. DUNNICK: No, it's a partial funding. It's a sliding scale under your plan. It's not 100 percent. It backs off, based upon that. So, you know -- and that's the policy we have in front of you, consistent with the federal money. Because if you just have access in itself, you don't get the federal money unless you meet all these guidelines. This plan states that it's encouraging the people to support us going in and getting those accesses. What you approved in your plan previously in the other item was to provide those accesses so there would be 100 percent funding for that community. And that's what we'd like to get at throughout the system. But absent them not willing to do that, what it says is you need to pay partial funding, you know, from the community so that you're paying a cost of not having the public come to that area of-- MS. KETCHAM: And I say to you, that is blackmail. And besides being blackmail, we don't have the room to put the parking spaces in. So therefore, I feel strongly this plan is flawed and needs to be reworked, as well as many other comments that were made here today. And John is nodding, and hopefully he's in agreement. MR. DUNNICK: I'm in agreement with the standpoint of if you look at these areas, just specifically Vanderbilt Beach or if you -- we've heard a lot from Hideaway Beach today. If you elect those microcosms and you don't look at the whole system as what we're trying to get to, which is we're trying to spread it out so that we aren't dumping all the people right on Vanderbilt Beach. That's been,the whole issue. You know, that's where we've always gone back and forth. You know, from a history lesson standpoint, when we built Conner Park, we wanted to have double the parking at Conner Park. We worked with the community. They said we don't want it all in one location. This plan kind of gets at that policy from some standpoint, whether it's limited parking -- you know, if you have Page 210 May 27, 2003 access to 1,000 feet similarly to what you pretty much have on Vanderbilt with our access points, and you can find improvement or you develop a Park and Ride system, you don't have to put as many people there. You can put a lot fewer, like the City of Naples. And that's what this plan's trying to get at, is that you spread them out over a wider area so that you don't have this huge area of congestion. And certainly we take under consideration these plans, the motels and so forth, as part of the qualifications, you know, for their property boundaries. They do qualify under their plan and they don't have to -- for their property boundaries, does it expand further? No. That's because we want to address it from a system standpoint. Mr. Anderson was absolutely correct earlier when he stated that you don't want to have a system where beach access and you're paying for renourishment in small segments and ignoring others, because it doesn't help the overall plan. This encourages the community to look at this from a holistic standpoint. And it gets at it in two ways, and that's what we're trying to accomplish. MS. KETCHAM: And we are en -- wish to be encouraged and we are encouraged, but the bottom line is that this plan has a flaw, specifically regarding our area. And we haven't even researched it, because we haven't been able to see it. And I think if you're going to pass a plan today, you should at least be able to have copies so that the public or presidents of organizations can look it over. So I strongly urge you to postpone this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I totally agree with everything you've said, Diane. I think there are a few areas in the county that just -- we need to address more specifically. We can't take everything as a whole, because there are some -- they're already landlocked, if you will. I mean, if you provide the accesses, you have no parking. Marco Island provides all of the parking, but they have few accesses, Page 211 May 27, 2003 and they can't put any more in because there's no space. And we have a wide open beach in Pelican Bay, except no access to it and no parking to it. So I think we have to find out some answers to that before we can vote on something like this. I would feel very uncomfortable doing that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Somers, followed by? MS. FILSON: Followed by Joe Connolly. MR. SOMERS: David Somers, general manager at Hideaway Beach. The policy references the state guidelines, and it says it's consistent with the state guidelines. And again, Mr. Snedeker has been very busy up north, trying to help me out on some of these issues. But the state guidelines for funding beach access points with less than 100 public parking spaces is equal to the same percentage of 100 as a mile of shoreline. Therefore, if there are 10 public parking spaces, then 10 percent of a mile of shoreline each way is eligible. For example, at a typical Naples street and beach access point with 10 public parking spaces, there would only be 528 feet, or 10 percent of the 5,280 feet of a mile, eligible each way. Staff proposal policy gives 1,000 feet each way, or nearly twice as much as what the state requirements are. Note that public parking spaces do not include those designated for Naples Beach permit parking holders. These are not public per the state. The City of Naples would benefit greatly from the staffs policy. Also, you do have a policy coming again through the CAC. There was a CAC meeting, they formed a sub-committee that had two separate meetings, which was a representative of each one of the areas within CAC. And their policy is coming before you. And again, I urge you to certainly not vote on this particular policy. I Page 212 May 27, 2003 think that it is not only going to affect Hideaway, you've already heard how it's going to affect Vanderbilt. It's going to affect Park Shore. It's going to affect the whole shoreline of Collier County. And I think a lot of people are not aware of the dramatic change that this council may be taking with this type of vote today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Somers. Before we go to Commissioner Coyle, I think we were talking about a Park and Ride system that would fit the needs at those access points in the City of Naples. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, there has been a lot of very inaccurate information presented about what is or is not available in the City of Naples today. And I really cannot let it go any further. The comments with respect to the numbers of parking spaces at the beach ends is entirely inaccurate, because it fails to consider the hundreds of parking spaces that are available along Gordon Drive, through most of its length, where people can walk a block and a half to the beach. And that parking was provided specifically for that purpose. Other data which indicates it's 1.3 miles to the nearest parking area is relevant only if you're sitting at Gordon Pass. So a lot of this information has been very misleading, and I'm very disappointed. So I want to make very sure that everybody understands, and particularly the public understands, that the City of Naples provides as much, if not more, beach access and parking than anyplace else in the entire county. And I just wanted to clear that up. MS. FILSON: Mr. Joe Connolly, and he will be followed by Doug Fee. MR. CONNOLLY: Joe Connolly, 10633 Gulfshore Drive. I think you need to sit back and take a look at this renourishment project. I think you need to look at the CAC thing that you were talking about. Page 213 May 27, 2003 But living at Vanderbilt Beach, you know, if you start at the public at Vanderbilt Drive, beach access, you're going to go 1,000 feet, zap. La Playa is 100 percent. Then go up to the Vanderbilt Inn, you come 1,000 feet, zap. In the middle, you're not going to have anything. The people who have got to pay for their sand. And that just doesn't make sense. So you need to take a look at it and try to fine tune the thing a little bit. My God, we've got all these people on the beach and now you're going to take the beach from them. That's all I have to say. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have any further speakers? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Final speaker is Doug Fee. MR. FEE: I would agree with the 100 percent. If you provide all of those amenities that get you to the beach and -- as opposed to any other area, I think that that is a good way of coming up with the funding source. If I -- you know, if I have restrooms, if I have parking facilities. And since the federal government and the state does that in terms of public funding, I think it's a great way to make all areas so that they can get 100 percent of the funding, they will open up their areas. And I'm not pointing to any particular area in the county, but if that is the criteria for getting your beach nourished and you have to come up with some way for the future, and today is the day, I can't see another -- a better way to divvy out this funding than to make each neighborhood and any area of the county provide parking, bathroom facilities and the great beaches that we have. So I would agree with the staff. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Okay. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Final speaker. Seeing no other further discussion, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. Page 214 May 27, 2003 Opposed? COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Aye. Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We've got -- the opposed is Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas. The -- what -- what we might want to do is kick this item back down to the CAC, Tourist Development Council, and tell them that the status quo is not acceptable anymore, and there is no free lunches COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and we need to provide parking and boating access to our residents and our future residents. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that a motion? CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by Aye. Aye. and CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. You need a break. Is seven minutes, okay? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seven minutes. Give her seven a half. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right, seven and a half it is. Page 215 May 27, 2003 Thanks. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take your seats, please. Item # 10G BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING RECORDED EASEMENTS AND DEEDS FOR WHIPPOORWILL LANE, AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT AND PROVISION OF CASH ESCROW- APPROVFD SI JFtJF, CT TO COI1NTY ATTORNEY RF, VIFiW Next item is an add-on item, (G), Whippoorwill Lane. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think Mr. Yovanovich is going to -- Jacqueline Robinson. MS. ROBINSON: Yes. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have been, along with the transportation -- oh, Jacqueline Hubbard Robinson, assistant county attorney. Sorry about that. I have been in discussions with Mr. Yovanovich and his clients regarding this project for some time. I'm sure it exceeds a year. In any event, there's certain matters that came to our office's attention this afternoon, and I want to make sure that although we are in favor of going forward with this agreement, that there's certain provisions that really need to be made part of the record and that the Board of County Commissioners specifically knows about and assents to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, you want to state those for the record? MS. ROBINSON: I would like to state those for the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, you would? MS. ROBINSON: Yeah. I have them listed. Page 216 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. Go ahead. MS. ROBINSON: All right. Under this agreement, there are a number of developer obligations. And just to briefly remind you what the agreement is about, the property owners along Whippoorwill Lane desire to construct a two-lane road, and they will construct this road without any financial participation by the county. If the road is constructed pursuant to county standards, and is acceptable to the county, after it has been completed, they will present it to the county for acceptance. That's the basic underlying agreement. There are some particulars that you do need to know about, and I will list these for you. This is a summary of the developer commitments under a very lengthy hold harmless and indemnification agreement. And the reason it's proceeding as a hold harmless indemnification agreement is because initially the developer-- there are a number of properties along Whippoorwill Lane, and there have been historically a number of disputes among the various property owners along that lane, and the county attorney's office has been attempting to make sure that the county stays out of those disputes. As a result of many discussions, we've come up with this hold harmless and indemnification agreement, which the property owners have agreed to enter into on behalf of the county. All right, the first one is that the completion of Whippoorwill Lane will occur on or before January 31st, 2006. And the construction will consist of the paving of the road and also reconstruction of certain drainage swales and other drainage structures for the county. Second, Pulte will take the responsibility solely for the construction of the road, as soon as it closes on the Whippoorwill Woods property, along Whippoorwill Lane. And they have been given until June 30th of this year to close on that property. Page 217 May 27, 2003 Once they close on that property, they will become property owners along Whippoorwill Lane, and that particular corporation will accept the responsibility to build the road. Third, Pulte must present to the county attorney's office and to the transportation division a performance bond that is acceptable to both of those divisions within the county. Fourth, we are allowing -- we being the county -- we are allowing the Pulte Corporation -- or Company, to proceed to construct the road, utilizing the Collier County South Florida Water Management permit, which is unusual. And in exchange for allowing them to utilize the county's permit to build the road, they have agreed to enter into this hold harmless agreement, and to specifically adhere to every single permit condition that ordinarily the county would have to fulfill. Next, they have to acquire clear title -- now, they have acquired the properties, but the properties are subject to some subordinations in favor of the county and the release of some easements. And although they haven't been able to secure 100 percent clear title, we have agreed to amend the agreement to give them six months, or 180 days from the approval of the agreement today, to get rid of those easements and to get rid of those mortgages so that those encumbrances will no longer be on the property. Then there -- also, five days before the roadway is to be -- construction is to start, they are to submit to the county a liability insurance policy in an amount of not less than $2 million per person and $2 million combined single limits. And that policy will remain in effect throughout the entire period of this agreement. And the period of this agreement is two years after the roadway has been accepted by the county. So this agreement will be in existence possibly up to the year 2008. And during that entire period of time they have to maintain this insurance policy. Next, within two days of the approval of this agreement, Page 218 May 27, 2003 assuming that you approve it today, they will place into an escrow account the cash sum of $100,000. And this escrow account will be pursuant to an escrow agreement which is attached to this agreement today. And Collier County will be able to utilize the cash funds in that account, in the event a claim or dispute arises regarding the construction of this roadway or the acquisition of these parcels. And the reason that is important is because the county will therefore not be in a position to have to call upon a bond or insurance policy for a property dispute that may arise because, as I said before, the history of this project. Additionally -- let's see, that's about-- those are the major points. There is one other one that I need to bring to your attention, which I did, and that is that in paragraph eight of the agreement, Pulte will present, prior to five days before they start to commence construction -- it's my understanding they wish to start construction pretty quickly here -- a performance bond acceptable to the transportation division and to the county attorney's office. They have submitted a performance bond for the site development. The site development performance bond may or may not be acceptable for a construction performance bond. It needs to be reviewed and it has not yet been reviewed, nor presented to the transportation division. So with that proviso, with those conditions, our office is prepared to recommend acceptance of the hold harmless and indemnification agreement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you sure you want to do this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I do. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I need to clarify one thing. First of all, the actual conveyance documents. We have all of them from all the property owners. That was about 12 different property owners and about 20 or so parcels. Page 219 May 27, 2003 The county won't be recording all the conveyance documents until I get the final subordination of an AmSouth mortgage on the minor parcel of the property. Once that happens, which I should have any day now, all the conveyance documents to the county will be recorded. We will -- there will be three -- there's Sprint has an access easement, Bell South also has an access easement over an already -- the already improved portion of the property. We will make those two subordinations go away prior to the final acceptance of the actual improvements. And I think that's what Jacqueline was explaining. But we will -- we're asking the authority, once we get the AmSouth subordination, to start to commence construction of the roadway. And I think everything else Jacqueline said is accurate. There is a construction and maintenance agreement that deals with the actual construction and performance bond related to -- I think there's a built-in suspenders approach here as to making sure we build this road. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's nothing wrong with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know, which is fine. And we're agreeing to all that. I just wanted you to know that there's Pulte's indemnification, largest homebuilder in the United States. There's 120 percent performance bond posted for the construction of the road, and we've put in another 100,000 of immediately available cash to do all this. So -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you accept these stipulations? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The issue is, frankly, at this point, the construction and maintenance and performance bond has been reviewed by one part of the attorney's office and another part of the attorney's office wants to review that work, which gives me a little bit of heartburn. So we hope that that process can move a little quickly. We have a Friday closing, that's why I'm asking. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm going to need Page 220 May 27, 2003 agreement between the two of you before I recommend approval, okay? Do you agree with what he says? MS. ROBINSON: Pretty much. It's really not a disagreement with the county attorney's office, it's just that the transportation performance bond requirements may be different from the site development plan ones, and we just want to take a look at it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I made a motion to approve, would that be acceptable to you? MS. ROBINSON: Yes, it would. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would that meet all the requirements? MS. ROBINSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, subject to the county attorney's office review of the performance bond, it's fine with us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I make a motion to that effect. MS. ROBINSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Halas, is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second, for sake of conversation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what Rich is saying, the check is in the mail; is that correct? MS. ROBINSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, Commissioner, I can tell you, I already have the $100,000 for the escrow agreement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The check is in the mail. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's more than in the mail, it's actually in my account. I'm ready to deliver the agreement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's earning interest on it, he doesn't want to give it to anybody yet. Page 221 May 27, 2003 MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I'm getting about a half a percent. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, and the insurance has already been reviewed by your risk management department. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. MR. YOVANOVICH: So everything has been -- it's now for you to say okay, everything's -- the I's have been dotted, the T's have been crossed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand there's still some parts of this that have to happen -- MS. ROBINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- after this approval. So, I mean, this approval's conditional upon the rest of them being completed. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it will be. We've already -- Sprint, quite honestly, is a little bit difficult to get ahold off. And I know by the time we get the road done, Sprint will be -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: They're just a phone call away. COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're in the Yellow Pages. MR. YOVANOVICH: Unfortunately, nobody's answering, you know. We're having a little bit of trouble with the cell connection. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can't get through to their line? MR. YOVANOVICH: So other than that, yes, we know that you will not accept the road as improved until we make Sprint go away. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they've got six months to clear the titles of all the property and make sure everything is -- MS. ROBINSON: Yes, they have ! 80 days, which we agreed to today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing no -- Commissioner Coletta? Page 222 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, one last question, if I may. What part of Whippoorwill is actually paying for this? Who's paying for this? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you remember, a -- well, maybe you don't remember. There was an agreement amongst the property owners where we all agreed to share in the cost of constructing the roadway. There will be no county participation in the construction cost or any of the costs to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not an MSTU or somebody's held liable. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's just a -- MR. MUDD: There's an agreement. There's a master plan that everybody agreed on, plus the cost contribution fees -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It's all being fronted by Pulte, who will then get reimbursed by the other parties. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about Hospice and that church -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They're all taken care of. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- they're not part of that? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not part of that -- oh, actually, I take that back. There are three people who have agreed to pay for this: Basically Arlington, Mark Bates, and I forget the name of his company. They're taking care of the first half, Pulte's taking care of the other half. There's only been three parties. A lot of people are getting a free ride that refused to participate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They're getting a free ride. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're getting a free ride on three property owners' shoulders. MR. MUDD: And why does Pulte have a reason to do this? Because Pulte's in the back end with their property, and they can't access the property without the road. Page 223 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Item #1 IA PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS- KEN THOMPSON REGARDING PUBLIC NUISANCE OF NF, IGHIIORHOOD lIAR ON BAYSHORF, DRIVF, Next item is public comment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we -- MS. FILSON: First speaker under public comment is Kenneth Thompson. And he will be followed by Frank Denninger. MR. THOMPSON: Okay, I'm Ken Thompson. I live at 3821 Becca Avenue. And this weekend this bar, the bar and grill, the video (phonetic) of Tipsy Seagull, this bar has got to go, because it's closing on both sides and the back, and we get a hell of a better of the blast down this thing. And at 1:03 in the morning, they (sic) was Carl, he was a deputy Page 224 May 27, 2003 sheriff, making an arrest on the bridge and the nastiest talk I have ever heard coming from that bridge. And you know these foghorns that you screw together? They were blasting them things wide open. Finally he had to get another deputy to hold on to -- he actually shut it down. So then that was Friday. That was -- then Friday night they did the same. Saturday night and Sunday. And it has turned into a motorcycle -- nothing but a motorcycle club. And I don't believe I have ever witnessed anything like it. It is terrible. If you don't believe it, come and spend a night with me one night and you'll know what I'm talking about. Then last two weeks ago, I was watching -- I can't remember your name, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Frank Halas. MR. THOMPSON: I was watching you. And I like the politician, you know, he comes over here. Somebody going to have to put something over the fence across that road to keep it from coming over here and bouncing money off the taxpayer. And he's going to go and to put the deputies, some more deputies in the schools. He's not going to do nothing. He goes back and arms the jailers. So there goes your million dollars there. So I asked -- I was in the yard Sunday trying to get some help. It's lucky I had the phone with me. And I had a bad aneurysm or something. You know, I think that's what it was. I don't know. And I called the sheriff department, and I finally got somebody to help me. And they come out to help me and I had to go to the hospital. So -- and the Becca Avenue, they come off of the Bayshore Drive onto Becca Avenue, 70, 80 miles an hour. And I was told by the sheriff department, if I wanted help from the sheriff department, I would have to hire my own sheriff department. I would have to get my own deputies and pay for them. Because everything I do is falless (phonetic). Well, I don't call you unless I need you. And then I got a lieutenant here, maybe I shouldn't give you his Page 225 May 27, 2003 last name, but he was standing at the gate at 3:00 in the morning. You got Waste Management dumping dumpsters at 3:00 in the morning. And then I talked to Dottie in code enforcement of Waste Management on Horseshoe Drive, she tells me it's not them, that recycling is not mandatory in Collier County, that they have special dumpsters that they have behind buildings, you know, and the people from Fort Myers comes here and picks these dumpsters up. So I was out with my friend early this morning, walking his dog, and the same bar I'm telling you about is out dumping his -- having somebody to dump his dumpster early in the morning. This thing's going to have to stop. I'm in bad health right now. I didn't think I'd ever get in this kind of health. But I go around and mow everybody's yards for nothing. I bring you tools, I loan my tools. And people in that neighborhood are so damn ignorant, it's pitiful. Talk about the boat trailer? I went to the hospital and come back, the whole Becca Avenue is lined up with boat trailers, right down that street. So I called the sheriff. I don't care, if they didn't like it or lump it. You can't get back in your yard from boat trailers. And down between Becca and Orange, they're taking them and putting them between a canal, down between Orange and Poplar. They're backing them in -- don't care where they back them. And they're putting their boats off in this canal, you know, around the -- it's called a finger canal that runs right out? But I'm telling you, I've lived one hell of a nightmare this weekend. And I went to Mrs. Arnold yesterday morning, and I tried to get some information. But I was there again this morning, and I want a copy of his permit that he had. He's barbecuing a pig out in the parking lot. And I was talking to a lady yesterday evening that inspects these bars, and he is not allowed to cook a hog or anything else, from the health department and -- in these bars outside and Page 226 May 27, 2003 transfer it back into the inside. He cannot do it. It's against the law. And I spent so much money, me and another lady, getting that bar shut down. And now he comes around and opens this thing up. And he has just got out of hand. God help me, I don't believe I've ever seen any damn thing like it in my life. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: And I'd appreciate if you'd help me. And please help me cut the hedges, Mr. Coyle. Because the people between my fence and your hedge, they're using the bathroom in between. And I can't get it mowed. And if you'll give me permission, I'll get it cut somehow or another. But if I was to grow something, my hedge and let it grow on your property, you'd be right down on me, I know you would. But someone's going to have to help me with that bar. I can't take it no more. Just pull his permits for loud music. Somebody's going to have to do it. If I have to pay for it, I'll be glad to pay for it. Because if it don't stop, I'm looking into a bunch of lawyers in Fort Myers -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, sir. Sounds like we've got a public nuisance that we need to address. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about the hedges? 'MR. MUDD: I've got that written down, too. Item #1 lB PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS - FRANK DENN1NGER REGARDING ACCESS TO THE PICAYUNE ARF. A CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker is Frank Denninger, and he will be followed by Bob Krasowski. And I believe he's gone. MR. DENNINGER: Hello. How are you all doing today? I'm Page 227 May 27, 2003 Frank Denninger, from Hialeah, Florida. And also I'm -- actually, I want to be a Collier Countian, mostly. Many of my fondest memories are centered here in Collier. I'm here to beseech this Collier County Commission to spare no effort to maintain all traditional and evolving recreation and access into the Picayune Forest, of which I think shortly after me the manager might be discussing some update during the communications portion about that area. And it's an access into the Picayune currently provided by your public access road network. That's what I call the network of roads out there. The County Commission and the citizens' efforts in this endeavor will be imperative as this public access road network, owned by the citizens, is now targeted for removal by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Florida's Division of Forestry. Access elimination is planned inevitably by these two partners. Please, before any decisions are made by this Commission on this access road network, demand not only from DOF, the Forestry of Florida, but also from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, that they supply to this Commission all the specifics about access and recreation in a very precise manner to include everything future residents can count on in that area. Otherwise, nothing should be considered but holding the public access road network in Collier hands. Make sure they write their commitment to you, or to Collier citizens and future human generations in plain English, with indelible ink. Plain English is so that in the future, when they bait and switch you, or us, the judge can easily decide in Collier citizens' favor. If the county doesn't do this for the citizens, another 60,000 acres of enjoyment, or the access to that 60,000 acres for enjoyment, will be lost. This county and its residents own this public access road network. And the County Commission's efforts to maintain their control, guaranteed bY its ownership, this County Commission Page 228 May 27, 2003 should totally control any negotiations sought by state or federal entities. You know, if should be a very easy thing to control it. Extreme caution is warranted, though, throughout every tedious step of any process. Even if CER suffers -- CER, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration -- was to possibly suffer some delay, so be it. The justification for CER is strong enough that it will survive any delay that might be caused due to an issue of paramount importance such as Collier residents' and all Americans' access and use of their 60,000 acres of property. For if you can't get in there, you can't use it or enjoy it. This road network is vital to the future generations of children as they grow and recreate and live in Collier County. I'm not really worried, though, because this Commission has always risen to the occasion, or to the challenge, as demonstrated relative to your assistance in preventing the National Park Service from commandeering U.S. 41 from FDOT by your resolution, and also refusing an attempt by National Park Service and their accomplice, the Humane Society of the United States, from taking all Collier County roads in the Big Cypress National Preserve, which you all were very good in protecting that for the citizens. And please understand, the federal agencies are integral here in Picayune, due to the little known cooperative agreement that the Department of Agriculture, through the Division of Forestry, has entered into with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. One might ask, what agreement is this? Well, some laws, federal laws, recommend Department of Interior to provide financial aid as an incentive to have states cooperate and help the federal government through the cooperative agreement. This cooperative agreement is such an agreement which mandates the partners to it to further the purposes of the law or act the federal government needs help forcing on its citizens. The -- I believe the cooperative agreement allows the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to avoid some constitutional guarantees Page 229 May 27, 2003 so as to overtly or covertly direct local -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have to ask you to wrap up, sir. MR. DENNINGER: -- issues from manatees to this public area, or public access road network. And I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. DENNINGER: Thank you. Item #11C PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS - BOB KRASOWSKI REGARDING ZERO WASTE CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? MR. DENNINGER: It is late. MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Bob Krasowski. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bob Krasowski. MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, Commissioners, staff, bureaucrats, public. I knew Commissioner Halas, I'd get a laugh out of him. My name is Bob Krasowski, for the record. I'm with Zero Waste Collier County group. I've got a couple of loose ends here that I'd like to tie up relating to the last commission meeting, and some other things that have occurred in the past, so I'd like to touch upon those in the five minutes I have. At the County Commission meeting of 6-26-01, the County Commissioners voted, Commissioner Mac'Kie, Commissioner Coletta, Henning and Carter were here at the time. And I believe you were absent from that meeting, Commissioner Fiala. There was an empty chair, must have been you, because Henning and Coletta were here. So 2001. Well, the Commissioners voted, voted 4-0 to direct the staff to do RFP's for trucking and railing waste out of the county, for Page 230 May 27, 2003 gasification, for zero waste, for composting and for C&D. Now, the RFP's have been done for gasification, composting and C&D, or at least an arrangement's been made for C&D. But the trucking and railing, it was said, there was a pretty clear understanding of how much it would cost to actually do that and who might provide the service, so they didn't moved on that. But they never moved on the zero waste RFP. And of course I've been advocating for an RFP for zero waste for a whole bunch of time. But one of the reasons I bring that up, I'd like an answer as to what happened to that RFP. Because it appears to me, as a citizen who comes in front of you Commissioners and works with other people and advocates for a certain position, when we get to the point where we convince you as a commission to take action and direct the staff, the staff should do what you tell them. They shouldn't be selective in the application of the direction you give them, due to their own preference. This is a breakdown in government here when we can appeal to the Commissioners, you represent the people, you tell them to do something, and then they go and finagle things around and it never happens. I remember I brought this up at one other time, and I don't remember what the resolution or what the answer was to that, but I'd like an answer now. On 3-11, Commissioner Coyle made the motion -- 3-11-03, just recently, Commissioner Coyle made a motion, that was seconded and passed, to direct staff and Malcolm Piernie to talk to IWT, one of the gasification proposers, get a bottom line price from them, and then come back to the Commissioners, and you guys would decide -- excuse me, you people would decide whether to further negotiate with IWT, maybe talk to Britestar or whatever. So that was the direction of the staff. On 5-13, the staff comes back with a five-task arrangement that included $20,000 to find the bottom line with IWT. Another task Page 231 May 27, 2003 was a $79,000 task that covered the expense of negotiating thoroughly with one or the other, depending on your selection. But there were three other tasks, number one, which had Malkolm Piemie organizing the staff and the different departments that will be involved in this, and then also developing a negotiation strategy plan for $40,000. Why are we paying them, why are they involved if they don't know how to negotiate already? They're the expert, supposedly, on gasification/incineration of the landfill. We're paying them $40,000, why doesn't staff do this? But even more importantly, there was the number four and five, and I won't spend a lot of time getting into this, but task number four actually involved Malkolm Piernie doing a Power Point presentation that the staff would take to middle school children, focusing primarily on gasification, on pyrolysis. And we haven't even had the discussion yet about the emissions, the health effects, the practicality of pyrolysis as opposed to other things. So what I see here is a pattern, a pattern of you give direction to the staff, the staff does what they want. And it kind of leaves us out in the cold, because we're following along, looking forward to having opportunities to address different aspects of this issue as it develops. But then the staff runs away with a seven-month program that assigns these tasks. Although they're contingent on each motion, it leads us to believe there's a predetermined inclination to go with pyrolysis prior to the process that would bring us to that conclusion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll get your question answered shortly. Thanks. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. I had a few other things, but my time is up. Okay. Oh, my questions, could somebody address that now, or-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. If you'd go ahead and take a seat. Page 232 May 27, 2003 MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. Appreciate your attention. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We did take a look at zero waste. It was part of the -- what we looked at as far as what we're going to do with long-term solid waste. And correct me if I'm wrong, there was no response. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there was a series of concepts that were laid out, if I remember correctly. Okay, I'm trying to think back two years now. And one of which was a zero waste proposal that talked about composting, that talked about a Ferrico (phonetic) gasification of wood chip type issues, a number of other things on a slide which I can't remember completely, recycling and some other things in that process. Discussion was had in this forum, is it really a biddable process that we're taking a look at? Who are the people that you go out in order to get this, or is it a compilation of 10 or 12 particular issues? At which time the board decided that they weren't going to do municipal solid waste composting. They said we're not going to do that. And we went out, if you remember correctly, to Toronto to take a look at a compost place at -- they came here during a workshop that Dr. Connett (phonetic) was here and said that they have a composting facility that was great, and George Ylnez (phonetic) went up there, and if I remember correctly, that was the compost facility where it smelled so bad, George couldn't catch his breath, and his belt buckle was basically decayed as he came out, and had to redo it again; the brass basically tarnished because of the facility. And so much for that particular item. And I can get you the name of that company, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ferrico. It was. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was supposed to go there. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and there -- Page 233 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they also went to Maine. MR. MUDD: -- there was another one that was in Vermont, outside of Burlington they took a look, and it was basically -- it was a prototype, and they basically did it with wood chips. But it was on again, off again, and they weren't really producing anything in a forum in order to do that. Another place where we went was Wollongong, Australia to take a look at the Britestar technology. Not in full scale but actually producing energy doing the paralysis (sic) type issues. And we took a look at that at great length. And I was thinking about Autoclave in the front end, which is a novel approach to their technology. So I think on the 6-26-01, I think that the basic consensus that I had from this dais at the time was it wasn't really a concept to be bid, it was just a series of processes, and we took a look at those particular issues in order to do that. We are still in the IWT conversation. I've told Mr. DeLony to make sure that he micromanages the MPI, the Malkolm Piernie, Inc. contract that was done, and make sure that we go through that process. And if we can't find-- if the IWT, as we bring it back, if it isn't satisfied and the board directs us to go someplace else, or the board doesn't direct us to go someplace else, there's no sense Malkolm Piemie developing a Power Point presentation for anybody in order to do that process. That would be a part of the contract that's non-executed. So I've done those particular issues, and I will tell you, we're still working, and we're still working with zero waste and we're still trying to keep them part of the process. And I will tell you, we've probably given Mr. Krasowski more deference than any other citizen or any other group in Collier County. And I'll leave my statements and I'll end it there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: As far as waste goes. MR. MUDD: Yes. Page 234 May 27, 2003 MR. KRASOWSKI: Could I comment for a moment on that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, sir, you had your -- MR. KRASOWSKI: I had mine, but he was wrong about what he said. Item #13A THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 - PRESF, NTFD CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 13(A). MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jim Mitchell, I'm the director of finance for Collier County. Our purpose in coming to you today is twofold. Number one is to present to you the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year September 30th, 2002 and a related award. And secondly to give you a brief overview, and I say brief, because of the hour that we're here today and what's included in that report. In our role as the ex officio clerk to the board, we participate in awards programs sponsored by the government finance officers association. The award's known as a Certificate of Achievement and Correctness in Financial Reporting and is presented to government units whose financial reports meet strict criteria and are considered to achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. Collier County has received this award for 15 consecutive years. It is with great pride that we present to you today the 16th consecutive award for the CAFR that was presented for the fiscal cycle on September 30th, 2001. Page 235 May 27, 2003 I'll go ahead and give this to you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. MR. MITCHELL: And my role as chief financial officer for Collier County, I'd also like to present to you the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2002. If you would go ahead and hand those out. And while he's handing those out, I'd like to go ahead and mm the podium over to Chip Jones, who's going to walk you through those financial statements. MR. JONES: In the CAFR is a brief presentation, which I think you'd probably prefer me to go over, instead of the inch-thick CAFR. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Probably neither one. MR. JONES: Good evening. I won't go through every page of this, because I know it's late, but this is the year that we adopted GASB 34, and it's been something that's been talked about for a number of years. And it really does have an impact on financial reporting. And I think that you as commissioners will find it much more understandable than what we've had in the past. And I think going forward, when you talk about comparing and giving you the big picture of the county, it's the first time we can do that. You'll also have an opportunity to ask management to provide you how you compare to other counties, because everybody's kind of on the exact same format, and I think it will be a very useful thing. The. first page -- or excuse me, Page 2 is just the scope of the -- there's a number of opinions and reports we do, and those have all been issued. But what you have there is the CAFR which includes pretty much the reports that we had on the financial statements, internal control and compliance, as well as the federal and state programs that you received. On Page 3, I want to just highlight some of the items that were covered by the new financial reporting model that was adopted by GASB 34. And we have this year, which we've never had in the past, Page 236 May 27, 2003 is what we call entity level government-wide financial statements. Essentially it's a big picture. And I'll show you those on the next couple of pages. But what's in there that has never been presented before is we are now including infrastructure as an asset of the county. It's never been reflected as an asset before because we always thought, well, there's nothing -- you can't really sell a road, you can't sell a bridge. Once you build them, you're going to maintain them and maybe widen them and those types of things. But we recorded $250 million of infrastructure that went back 20 years. And related to that was about $65 million of depreciation. These government-wide financial statements will reflect all debt also. And again, if you looked at prior financial statements, we had this column over there, it was called general long-term debt. And liability was all your outstanding debt. And the asset was an amount called amounts to be provided, which is kind of tike fictitious. But accountants have to have debits and credits, so that's what they called it. This statement's going to reflect it more like a business. It classifies your net assets as being either restricted, unrestricted, or invested in capital assets. Restricted means externally restricted. Invested in capital assets is net of related debt. It breaks down the government's operations between business activities, which is like water and sewer, those types of things where you're charging a fee and hopefully it's not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. And then your governmental activities which most people associate with, you know, the roads, public safety, those types of things. And then we show revenues and expenses by major function. We focused on major funds. And again, if you looked at CAFR, you would see these columns for your general fund, all your special revenue funds, all your debt service funds, all your capital projects funds. And this year we take the biggest one that meets certain Page 237 May 27, 2003 criteria, and everything else is called other. So again, it focuses on the major parts, the 80/20 rule that four or five funds can constitute 80 percent of the government. There's a management's discussion analysis, which I would encourage you to read. Again, that's new and that's typically what you would find in an annual report of a company. We now report original and final budget. Before we only showed the final budget after a number of amendments. And now standards require you to show the original budget, so principally the taxpayers can see how do the final expenditures compare to what was approved back in, you know, the summer of the prior year. There was one thing that's major which I wanted to point out to you, but the amounts that had been loaned to the airport, about $9 million under the new accounting standards, they have to be reflected as a transfer, because there's not an expectation that these will be repaid in the immediate future. And even though that is still a loan and on your books would be a loan, for purposes of financial reporting, it had'to be reflected as a transfer this year. And then the last item, our internal service funds are eliminated. Again, that's really within the county, so we take it and push the activity back to the governmental funds and the proprietary funds. Page 4, this just lists your major funds. There's four major governmental funds, and there was four-- three major enterprise funds. Everything else is called other. And we have some component units that are included. Now, Page 5 is your new statement. And again, I think next year we'll have a column that will compare prior year's activity, and you can see a big picture of the changes. But this here is Collier County. And you can see that we've got assets that are divided between governmental activities and business activities. Those assets amounted to $1.4 billion in total. And they're pretty much equally divided between the governmental activities and business type. Page 238 May 27, 2003 The biggest asset is also your capital asset, and that's a much bigger number than was reported back in the prior years, because we've added 250 million of infrastructure. After that, it's cash and investments. Your liabilities, we break it down to payables, other, which is a number of things, and your non-current, which is essentially your debt. And then we come down with your equity. This is essentially the citizens' stockholders equity in the county. The invested in capital asset amount, net of related debt. In other words, you have put in $377 million that has been paid for. You don't owe a dime on it. You've got $13 million of restricted money. I'm looking now at the governmental activities column. And then you've got $133 million of unrestricted money, which you can use for a variety of purposes. That might be coming from special revenue funds, capital project funds, but it technically is unrestricted. So again, this is the first true balance sheet that the county has ever had. And again, I would encourage you to have the opportunity to look at other counties to see what they do and see how you compare. And then Page 6 is your income statement. A little different format than you would see in a manufacturing company or something like that. Again, it's broken down between primary government and bus -- governmental activities and businesses type activities. The first column shows all the expenses. Now, the difference between these expenses and what you see in the budget is that what has been spent for capital outlay is not included in the year, but depreciation expense is. Again, we've never reported depreciation on governmental assets before. So this tends to spread it over the useful life of the assets in the case of-- like infrastructure is 30 years, beach renourishment I think is five years. In other words, a lot of talk about that. Page 239 May 27, 2003 And then we have offsetting that where you charge for services. These could be user fees, permits, those type of things. Operating grants and contributions, capital grants and contributions. Come over to a net expense revenue. This is essentially what the taxpayer is supporting through his property taxes, and there's things like shared revenue from the state, your sales tax, those types of things. So it's the net cost to government after user fees. If you go down, there's one item that looks kind of funny, but if you look at transportation, it looks like you had a profit this year. Showing a $2.9 million profit. And the reason that's doing that is because a lot of the revenue that you recognize to build your infrastructure is all in this first column, charges for services, but the capital outlay is going to be depreciated. You actually have $55 million you spent on transportation this year. But it's being depreciated, so the expense is a lot lower. Anyway, we come down to the net cost of our general government activities of $170 million, we had our business activities generate $20 million, for a total net cost of $149 million. And you can see that essentially your property taxes covered that. You did increase your property taxes by about 10 percent on your millage rate this year. And your evaluations went up about $22 million. But it was a good year for property taxes. Overall, the government's net assets equity went up $100 million. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, before you continue, if we could rephrase that, the assessed value went up. MR. JONES: Right, it was the assessed value went up 22 percent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not the millage rate. MR. JONES: No, millage rate was about a 10 percent increase. Assessed values went up significantly, 22 percent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How did millage rates increase? Page 240 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. JONES: MR. MUDD: MR. JONES: COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. JONES: -- to fiscal '02. COMMISSIONER COYLE: happen again. Millage rates stayed constant. I thought it went from about 3.5 to about 3.8. That was two years ago. This is fiscal '02. From fiscal '01 -- Oh, okay. Not '02 to '03. Yeah, but that's never going to MR. JONES: Right. But there was -- reflected in here was an ad valorem increase, as well as a valuation increase. And this is fiscal 2002, compared to 2001. Just to touch on a couple other pages, the general fund balance, this is your unreserved portion. And you can see that we did have a good year this year. Went from 18 million to 27 million. That's roughly 15 percent. It's important to have a good fund balance; it gives you flexibility to deal with financial emergencies, the tremendous growth issues that Collier County's faced with, and it gives you the flexibility on how you deal with that and you're not -- you don't have to react in an irrational manner, like some counties are faced with right now in their budget crisis. Just a couple other pages. If you look at Page 9, this is just a summary of all your governmental fund revenues, and you can see in the first column how the tax revenue -- this is all taxes, but the portion of that that is related, property taxes is 147 million. It was up 33 million from the prior year. The intergovernmental revenues are up mostly because of grants. The special assessments impact fees, you can see those are going up $10 million each of the last two years. Again, that's all the growth that's taking place. And interest earnings dropped. Not as much as you would see in other ones because you had more cash available with the additional property taxes. Page 241 May 27, 2003 On Page 11, it reflects the comparable numbers in transfer expenses. The biggest increase you can see looking at it was in the general government. In there, there was a number of special one-time things. There was the voting machines, $5 million. There was public health, there was special projects within that, that was another couple million dollars. There were items like that that were in there, as well as salary increases. The only -- if you turn to Page 13 -- and again, if there's something you want me to go over in between, I'm trying to highlight on these. This just shows you a trend in your general government debt. And you did issue some bonds this year. A $47 million bond issue, of which $18 million was replenished for commercial paper. The balance was used for the voting machines, $5 million, and $8 million for the Immokalee jail, with major projects. Page 14 shows the water and sewer fund debt and how that's coming down. And then the only other pages I'd like to reflect are back on Pages 20 and 21. Twenty just shows your composition of your cash and investments. You were -- shifted more of your money out of the state board account, the SBA, local government surplus funds into U.S. Treasury securities, mostly Treasury bills. And I think that you ended up having about $1 million pickup because of the market effect that you bought these T-bills, and just the way the interest rates were dropping. And then on Page 21, the only thing to point out here is that we do a number of single audits. Each one of these grants is subject to their own audit. This year we had quite a few, but these were the grants that we went in and did separate single audits of. I'd be happy to respond to any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the board? ! just -- I have a couple. Page 13, County Manager, the debt payback was lower than Page 242 May 27, 2003 previous years, but that's going to kick up from, let's see, '03-'04 budget? We're going to have -- paying more debt back? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The other issue is special assessment impact fees, showing that over the years it has increased. '02 you see a big spike. I think that reflects because the Board of Commissioners decided to raise the impact fee to the highest legal level. MR. JONES: That's right. That's -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it wasn't due to more building permits. So I just wanted to state that. MR. JONES: Good point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to accept -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the comprehensive annual financial report. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) Item # 13B Page 243 May 27, 2003 CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SFPTF, MFIER 30, 2001 - PRF~SF, NTF, D need CHAIRMAN HENNING: We've got one more item that we to approve. Mr. Mitchell is here. MR. MITCHELL: Just the acceptance of the award that we gave you earlier today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, accept the Government Financial Officers Association Certificate and Achievement of Excellent Financial Reporting for the comprehensive annual financial report over the period of '01. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second that motion. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimous. MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, thank you. We realize that it's a late hour, and there's a lot of data that we just gave you. After you've had a chance to go through that report, if you have any questions, please feel free to call me. If I can't answer it, I'll get Chip or somebody to, but I think we can get just about any question you have taken care of. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's probably a two-day fishing trip that we need to do. Page 244 May 27, 2003 MR. MITCHELL: Correct. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good seeing you again, Chip. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: David Weigel, any closing comments today? MR. WEIGEL: I'm happy that I'm not on a plane to Tallahassee right now, but no, other than that, that's it. Thank you very much. Item #15A STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - LETTER REGARDING ROAD INTEREST DONATION IN SOIJTH GOI~DEN GATE ESTATES CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: County Manager? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. As everyone on the dais knows, we received a letter from Secretary Struhs, and it was his official request for the Board of County Commissioners to donate the road interest in the South Golden Gate Estates. We're working with Big Cypress and South Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to try to come up with a plan whereby the county can donate and hopefully get some kind of mitigation credit for future projects, and-- sir? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just make a quick comment? His letter was written before he received direction to talk with us about the issue of tradeoffs, okay? His original letter saying you're to give them to me. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that was on 15 May. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it was -- that letter was prepared before he was told to talk with us about an exchange arrangement, which you're going to describe right now. Page 245 May 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: One of the things the board's been asking -- I wish this was better. One of the things the board's been asking for for a period of time is when are they going to leave? You know, what's the road -- what's it going to look like? Hang on, Commissioners, I have copies. Leo, if you could get that to them so they don't stray. I received this last Monday when I went to the Fort Myers office of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And this is what's going to remain of this. This is the road network that's going to remain after the project gets put into place. And you can see there's all kinds of roads and there's a number of bridges by these dots on this overlay. And we are trying to determine what the values of the easements are that the county has and the road network as it works out. And we're trying to come up with some rough idea of that process. But again, what you have on the overhead and what you just received as far as copies are concerned are the road networks that the South Florida Water Management District plans to leave in place after the project is put in place and they get rid of a lot of north-south trails that would interfere with the project in general. And just as a refresher, and nor am I the expert in this project, but I wanted to make sure that you also remembered this slide that you received back in January when the South Florida Water Management District project manager, Janet Starns, briefed you. You can see the pump stations. You can also see the canals. You can also see the 83 canal plugs that sit along that process. So their intent is -- in the project is to basically rehydrate that particular area so that things just don't drain off. So now when you look at how they want to put the channel (sic) Page 246 May 27, 2003 plugs in and things like that, you can kind of see how the road network fits in. Because you can't plug up those canals and have it rehydrate if you have all these horizontal roads sitting here blocking the sheet flow. So they're basically going to take those out, best I can tell, as far as that road network is concerned. I will also let you know that the governor has filed eminent domain, and there's some question if he got all the roads in this particular area for us. But he has done those in a proposal, and I'll defer back to legal on that particular issue. But that's what I know right now. I have our staff trying to come up with their best ideas of value are concerned, as far as these particular items. We were supposed to go to Tallahassee tomorrow and discuss two items on the agenda, of which you've received copy of the response back that we sent out to the board of trustees in Tallahassee. The two items were conversations with the tribe. And the other one was the Mr. Hardy property. I think we've answered those in so many details we can't stand it anymore. The real issue is what are we going to do with the roads that Collier County has an interest in, and we're trying to come up with a win-win situation for both the county and the state. And they postponed our appearance in Tallahassee for two weeks, as we try to work these out with the staffs. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Where does Sable Palm come out? I can't quite make it out on this map. Where does it join Miller? Is it the blue or the brown? MR. MUDD: I think it's 68th. I think it's the blue row. But Commissioner, I could be wrong, it could be 78th. I'm not that familiar with that area in order to get -- and I don't have the total area map with me at that juncture, but it's in that area right there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's about where the blue and the brown join. I think it's about in that area, but without a scale, Page 247 May 27, 2003 it's very hard-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we have -- if that was ever shut off, it would be a major, major event. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And there's still two property owners down in here, okay. And last time I talked to Clarence Tears, until there's some negotiation or settlement with those two property owners, this will stay blue. But as soon as they make the settlement with these two property owners, this blue area will probably turn into -- will probably not be there. And if you'll look at the legend at the bottom, they basically say the blue is secondary dry season at grade. When they rehydrate, how long will it stay hydrated, how wet will it stay? I will tell you, it will be wetter than it is now, and it will stay wetter longer than it does now. So the dry season just got a lot shorter for that particular road segment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only other thing I might suggest is that as you start to move forward into this, you might want to do it as a workshop where we can have public input. Because there's a lot of people that are going to be -- have concerns over this plan; I'm sure everybody from the environmentalists right on through to the users out there. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I wasn't planning to come back for a workshop on this particular case. We have to report back to the governor in two weeks. I'm going to try to negotiate an agreement for our interest in this particular road network with the State of Florida to the best I can. And I'm giving you the road network. They've done eminent domain. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It still bears the scrutiny of the public out there, even if we invite the state to it and the people from Forestry, Fish & Game, whoever. But for us to just go ahead and say okay, we're rolling to what they want and -- it might be a good plan. I don't know, I haven't had a chance to go across it yet. But what I'm Page 248 May 27, 2003 saying is, at some point in time we need to interact with the public. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I plan to come back to you and let you know what we find prior to going to Tallahassee in that process, but I don't see where I've got time to come back and do all that stuff and try to appease everybody in this process. Commissioner Henning, you can help me out a little bit on this one, but I think we've got a governor that isn't real happy with Collier County at this particular junction. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. And we're -- I think that, you know, there's (sic) not the intent for us to go over and ask that. We're trying to have a win-win for everybody, all the taxpayers in the State of Florida, in particular, Collier County. I'm sure any action that has taken, the Chairman doesn't have the authority to do that, the Board of Commissioners. So Commissioner Coletta, it will come back to the board at a certain time, if we need to take any action, I can assure you of that. Is there anything else that we need to cover as far as this action? MR. MUDD: As far as this action, no, sir. I'm just letting you know that I've got staff working on that and I'm going to be in meetings with FDEP and South Florida Water Management District. And Leo, if you'd pass this out real quick to the board. Commissioner, what Leo's passing out is -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we continue on -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Mr. Mudd, on this -- while we're on this topic, does (sic) the Commissioners agree with the response to the questions by the cabinet? That's the Hardy property and the Miccosukee issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just the response. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? Page 249 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know that I've seen a response since we sent our letter to them. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Beth basically sent down that packet, along with the letter from Secretary Struhs, asking us to donate the land on the 15th of March. He gave you-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've seen that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've seen that part. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I haven't seen the response. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a response to the package you sent forward, though, is what I'm asking. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, the two questions that we sent back, that was part of that packet that Secretary Struhs -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Secretary Struhs says -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we would like you to turn over? MR. MUDD: Struhs' piece was only two pages. And you received a packet, from what I'm told and what they were putting together, about that thick that basically laid all the background, data and everything else to the two questions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I've seen that a dozen times, I guess. But yeah. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, those two questions haven't changed any, per se. All we did in this particular case is we laid the time line out as far as when, you know, the first time that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but all I'm saying is Struhs didn't come back and say no, you're wrong about the aquaculture thing and-- right? MR. MUDD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There was no response about that. MR. MUDD: No response back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all I wanted to know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That I buy. What about the Page 250 May 27, 2003 one about Miccosukee? What was the response on that? I'm sorry, I don't remember seeing this. MR. MUDD: We basically said that it wasn't a board action. The board never took any official action in that particular case. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it was a question. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's how-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If that's how it was worded, then I got no problem with it. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that was it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That wasn't in your copy. out. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We just said it was your suggestion. We blamed it on you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: credit for it. Call me an Indian giver. of derogatory -- We took it Right. That's fine, I'll take I didn't mean that as any kind COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, you did. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I didn't. Seminole tribe and Miccosukee tribe, please do not take any -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Boy, is it late at night. Item # 15B STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - DISCUSSION REGARDING AIRPORT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the other issue that I've got in front is this has to do with the airport system assessment. The purpose of this memo is to recap the board's discussion and actions on December 17th, 2002 and again, on January 14th, 2003, regarding an assessment of the county's airport system. The board has asked the county manager, with the assistance of Page 251 May 27, 2003 Commissioner Coyle and additional county staff to review the airport system and return with recommendations to the board for future operation. These recommendations may also include modifications to the airport authority ordinance. Previous board discussion indicated that the review should begin after the receipt of the airport authority's tentative budget. And I will also add a line that's not there. We're also supposed to get their five-year plan, which we haven't received yet, that they're still working on. Having received this document -- these documents and with the Board of County Commissioners' approval, the county manager will proceed with an evaluation and return to the board with recommendations for future operation of the airport authority. And I just wanted to make sure we had that and we're all in agreement to it, because in June, Commissioner Coyle and I are going to be very, very busy meeting all kinds of folks that have an interest in, and even if they don't have an interest in, the airport, we're going to ask them if they could have an interest in our airport authority so that we basically look at every avenue in the airports in Collier County so that we can come back to the board with some well thought-out recommendations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Comments from the Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this direction? Part of that, could it be that we could take a look at -- is there opportunities to try to recoup our money through the sale of assets? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, the only land trust airport is Immokalee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. MUDD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. OAKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Mr. Oaks? Commissioner Fiala? Nothing. Page 252 May 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that it was a pleasure working with my fellow commissioners today, and I think we're starting to take a lead in looking out in a visionary process of beach access and other boating adventures here in Collier County. And we have to plan for the future, and I think we're on the right track. And I want to thank my fellow Commissioners for taking that step forward. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to -- I can echo Commissioner Halas's comments there. I'm very proud of the fact that we have stepped up to the plate, at least started the process going. Of course it's probably more of an unfunded mandate at this time, but we at least got direction on it. It's a pleasure working with you today. I enjoyed today. Nice meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't begin to tell you how much I've enjoyed being with all of you today. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's getting deep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I'm not going to try. I just want to go home and have dinner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two items, Commissioner. We received this history -- or history of Collier County from the Lake Park Elementary School, and I think we were bamboozled. If you look on it, it has a $5.00 cost on it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I already sent my money in. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And so we either need to return them or give them the $5.00. And Sue, you'll take the monies or the things? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Page 253 May 27, 2003 Nice publication, though. I always love giving those donations. Item # 15C STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - DISCUSSION REGARDING CCPC RECOMMENDATION ON NEON OPEN INSIDE SIGNS The next item, during our Land Development Code, if I would have flipped the page on one of them, I would have recognized the recommendations on the open and closed signs was not to include neon, it was a backlit aluminum sign -- illuminated sign. And the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Commissioners to allow an open neon sign. So -- and it kind of slipped away. There's a -- you need a super majority. We have a simple majority. So I must go to my fellow colleagues on whether we're going to accept Planning Commission's recommendations. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to not take the Planning Commission's recommendation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me either. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, you're in favor of-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I made it a point of doing the same thing you're doing the day of the meeting -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know you did. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- with the same results you're coming up with now, but I appreciate the fact you're trying. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, you know, I'm in favor of those neon signs. I think it's the most inexpensive way for the business people to let the public know whether they're open or not. So Commissioner Fiala, I know that you're there, too. Page 254 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I sure am. And I just experienced the same thing. I just was in Ohio over the weekend, and I wouldn't have known that the place was open if they didn't have an open sign there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what we're going to address, that -- some kind of sign or something -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So yes, I am. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we only have a simple majority? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that item comes back for vote on your second reading of the Land Development Code, so -- because you read that piece. You didn't vote on it the last time -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: -- so you'll vote on that land development code change at your next meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just made a mistake during the meeting, and I wanted to correct it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if one of us mellow between now and the time of the vote, it will be -- get done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call it what you may. Whatever -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we might move forward. I think we are, if we come up with something similar to that, or some other type of thing, I think we're moving forward. CHAIRMAN HENNING: With that, I have no other thing, and we are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: Item #16Al Page 255 May 27, 2003 CHANGE ORDER TO WORK ORDER NO. WMI-FT-01-08 AMENDMENT UNDER CONTRACT NO. 99-2981, "AGREEMENT FOR FIXED TERM LAND SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SERVICES", WITH WILSON MILLER, INC., FOR CONVERTING AUTOCAD DATA DIRECTLY TO GIS, IN THE AMOIJNT OF $25,000 Item #16A2 SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE IN RECOGNITION OF COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION WORK-TO PROPERTY OWNERS JAMES FINK, JOHN F. MARTIN AND LYNNE HYATT FtEI.IJO_ F/K/A I.YNNF, 1.O1 JISF, HYATT Item # 16A3 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO'S: 2002-026; 2002-023; 2001-080; 2002-020 AND 2002-036 Item # 16A4 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM AIJ,OCATION AND BIIDGET Item # 16A5 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CASE NO. 2003-02 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. ALL BROTHERS PAINTING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES NO. 99-51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE NO. 91-47, AS AMENDED OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVFJ,OPMENT CODE Page 256 May 27, 2003 Item # 16A6 COLLIER COUNTY HUNGER AND HOMELESS COALITION AGREEMENT DESIGNATING COLLIER COUNTY AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE ANNUAL DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) CONTINUUM OF CARE GRANT APPLICATION, AUTHORIZING CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOI ~STNG AND 1 IRBAN DF, VFJ~OPMF, NT Item # 16A7 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BID ON BEHALF OF COUNTY AT FORECLOSURE (CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN) SALE SCHEDULED BY THE CLERK IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. LORRAINE BURGESS, CASE NO. 02- 0848-CA, FOR JUNE 3, 2003-AS OUTLINED IN THE EXF, CI ITIVE gl IMMARY Item # 16A8 ONE (1) IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT OF $103,946.65 DUE TO OVERPAYMENT-TO THE CITY OF NAPLES, BI IIIJDING PERMIT #01-101506 Item # 16A9 BUDGET AMENDMENT RETURNING EXCESS FUNDS TO THE RESERVES AND TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR SAND WEB SYSTEM MONITORING, IN THE AMOI INT OF $1977965.25 Item # 16A 10 Page 257 May 27, 2003 TOURISM RELATED INVOICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,631.99, SUBMITTED BY PRUTOS PUBLIC RELATIONS, INC.,; STAFF AND CLERK RECOMMEND APPROVAL IN THF, AMOI INT OF $17223.88 Item #16Al 1 FINAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR COORDINATING LAND USE AND SCHOOL PLANNING AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTFR 2002-296 IJAWS OF FI,ORIDA Item #16A12 THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HAMILTON HARBOR MARINA PROJECT-TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THF, IGA FOR CONSISTENCY Item #16A13 CRA'S SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 03-3473 FOR CREATION OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PLAN FOR THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA DISTRICT-WITH HDR ENGINFiER1NG_ INC. Item #16A14 CRA'S APPROVAL OF THE UTILITY AND ROAD PROJECT PROPOSED BY FREEMAN AND FREEMAN, INC., IN RESPONSE TO THE ALLOCATION OF $200,000 FROM FUND 186 TOWARDS UTILITY AND ROAD PROJECTS IN THF, IMMOKAI,FiFJ RFDF~VF, I.OPMENT DISTRICT Page 258 May 27, 2003 Item # 16B 1 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 97-2715-A06 WITH AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., FOR THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 51101) IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000-FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINFJFJRING DFJSIGN AND PERMITTING WORK Item # 16B2 SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED SHORT LIST OF CONSULTANTS FOR RFP #03-3509, "CONSULTING AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD FROM GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO PINE RIDGE ROAD", COUNTY PROJECT NO. 60005-STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF FLORIDA, I Jl JC Item #16B3 AWARD BID #03-3494-ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR REWORKING OF SHOULDERS, SLOPES AND ROADSIDE DITCHES, FOR THE APPROXIMATE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $50~000-TO FIJORIDA STATFJ l JNDF, RGROIJND, 1NC. Item # 16B4 RESOLUTION 2003-182 AUTHORIZING A SPEED LIMIT INCREASE FROM TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH) TO THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (35 MPH) ON CORONADO PARKWAY AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $~00 Item #16B5 Page 259 May 27, 2003 REJECT BIDS RECEIVED ON BID #03-3515 FOR PURCHASE AND DF.I.IVF. RY OF REPI.ACF. MENT FI[JS SEATS Item # 16B6 TWO SEPARATE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DOCUMENTS WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT-FOR THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND FOR THE ROYAL WOOD DEVELOPMENT SURFACE WATER PERMIT MODIFICATION, TO ENSURE COORDINATION OF THE OPERATION OF ALL OPERABLE STORMWATER STRI ~CTI IRES Item # 16B7 $90,000 PURCHASE OF LOT 44, PALM RIVER ESTATES UNIT 7, BLOCK "A" (PROJECT NUMBER 51017) PROVIDING FOR ACCESS TO THE COUNTY OWNED AND OPERATED PALM RIVER WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE- REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT REAL ESTATE APPRAISAl, WAIVED Item # 16B8 FEE SIMPLE PURCHASE OF LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP) PARCELS 1-102 AND 1- 104 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STORMWATER RETENTION POND. (FISCAL IMPACT $22,450, FUND 325, PROJECT 51101)-AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SI IMM A R Y Item # 16B9 Page 260 May 27, 2003 SUBMIT A SERVICE DEVELOPMENT GRANT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A MARCO ISLAND COIJIJIER ARF, A TRANSIT RO[JTE Item # 16B 10 RESOLUTION 2003-183 AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF TWENTY MILES PER HOUR (20 MPH) SCHOOL ZONES AS PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED AT TWENTY-NINE (29) EXISTING LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY AT NO ADDITIONAIJ COSTS TO THF, COl JNTY Item #16C 1 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO CREATE A NEW PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT TO PREPARE A 1 O-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $54;652.60 Item # 16C2 LETTER OF INTENT ADDRESSED TO THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN AN EFFORT TO PARTICIPATE IN AN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT AT VANDERBILT LAGOON, NAPLES-TO COLONEL JAMES G. MAY. DISTRICT ENGINFJF, R Item #16C3 CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING OF BIG CYPRESS BASIN FOR A REIMBURSED AMOUNT OF $100,000-CONTRACT #C-12250- A01 Page 261 May 27, 2003 Item #16C4 ONE (1) IMPACT FEE REFUND REQUEST FOR BOYS AND GIRI.S CIJlIB TOTAIJING $44,210 Item #16C5 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $475,000 TO FUND UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES IN THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT COST CENTER BY TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT COST CFNTER OPERA TING BI IDGET Item #16C6 AMENDMENT TO WORK ORDER JEI-FT-02-01 FOR ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES RELATED TO THE PORT-AU-PRINCE UTILITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT 73060 AND 70074, IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,237.50-WITH JOHNSON ENGINF. FRING. [NC. Item #16C7 THE STANDARDIZATION AND PURCHASE OF AN AQUATECH MOBILE CATCH BASIN AND HIGH VELOCITY COMBINATION SEWER CLEANER IN THE AMOUNT OF $173_652-FROM PAT'S PIIMP & FII.OWER Item #16C8-Withdrawn BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING POSITIVE CARRY FORWARD VARIANCE IN THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROl. FI IND (114) IN THF. AMOI INT OF $444,400 Item # 16D 1 Page 262 May 27, 2003 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR USE OF SCHOOL CAFETERIAS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SLIMMER FOOD SFRVICF, PROGRAM Item # 16D2 LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., APPROVING USE OF SPECIFIED COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR CONDUCTING A JULY 4TM FIREWORKS FESTIVAL AT SIIGDFN PARK AND COl JNTY TO PROVIDE $25,000 Item # 16E 1 REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON OR ABOUT APRIL 22, 2003 THROIIGH MAY 15_ 2003 Item # 16E2 RESOLUTION 2003-184 APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR USE OF COUNTY-OWNED OFFICE SPACE LOCATED AT 310 ALACHUA STREET IN IMMOKALEE FOR AN ANNUAL REVENUE OF $1,000- LEASE COMMENCING ON JUNE 1, 2003 AND ENDING ON MAY 31, 2006 WITH A PROVISION FOR ONE THREE-YEAR RF, NEWAIJ PERIOD Item #16E3 Page 263 May 27,2003 AWARD RFP 03-3444, JANITORIAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO ONE SOURCE FACILITY SERVICES, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1,251,800 AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENQMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $222,800 TO THE OPERATING BUDGET TO COVER INCREASE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW CQNIRACT Item #16E4 CONTRACT AMENDMENT INVOLVING CONTRACT #00- 3131, "PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES". (CPI HOURLY RATE INCREASES)-WITH A. GAIL BOORMAN AND ASSOC., IBIS, J. ROLAND LIEBER, PLLC, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, MCGEE & ASSOC. AND Item #16E5 CONTRACT AMENDMENT INVOLVING CONTRACT #02- 3324, "FIXED TERM SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMETIC SERVICES". (CPI HOURLY RATE INCREASES)-WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOC., P A, AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. AND WIJ ,S0N..MILLER-INC Item #16E6 AWARD BID NO. 03-3503, FILE RETRIEVAL AND RETENTION SERVICES, TO ROBERT FLYNN MOVING AND Item #16E7 Page 264 May 27,2003 FIRST AMENDMENT TO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ABBAS AHRABI ASLI FOR A BUILDING LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, , Item #16F1 AGREEMENT #03CT-95-09-21-01-384 BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,000 TO FUND EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING MATERIALS FOR THE COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE (CERT) PROGRAM AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE Item # 16F2 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR A $20,000 MATCHING GRANT (75/25) OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. THE PURPOSE OF THE GRANT IS TO REVISE AND UPDATE THE LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY TO COMPLY WITH THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACLQF 2000 Item # 16F3 AGREEMENT #03CC-96-09-21-01-429 BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,802 TO FUND THE CITIZENS CORPS PROGRAM AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND Item #16F4 Page 265 --------.-.---'.-.-'^ May 27,2003 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,400 TO INSTALL NEW FIRE HYDRANTS IN THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT - 2 HYDRANTS PER YEAR OVER A 3 YEAR EERlOD Item #16F5 BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT-BUDGET AMENDMENT #03-305 FOR 2% CHARGED BACK FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR FOR AD VALOREM COLLECTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $300, AND FOR SECRETARIAL SERVICES FOR MINUTE TAKING AT MSTU COMMITTEE MEETINGS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500. BUDGET AMENDMENT #03-309 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,309 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF MUL TILA YER SW IMAGE POWER CORD FOR THE OPERATION OF Item #16F6 AWARD BID #03-3508 IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 FOR HORTICULTURE DEBRIS HAULING AND DISPOSAL TO Item #1611 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REEERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Page 266 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE May 27, 2003 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 from April 19. 2003 through April 25. 2003 2. Disbursements from May 3. 2003 through Mav 9. 2003. B. Districts: ¡ø 1. Collier Soil and Water Conservation District a) Change of Regularly Scheduled Meetings C. Minutes: 1. Pelican Bay Services Advisorv Committee - Agenda for May 7, 2003, Minutes of April 2, 2003. 2. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for May 1, 2003; Minutes of April 3, 2003; Agenda item 8D; Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-3569 North Naples R&T Park PUD. 3. Development Services Advisorv Committee - May 7, 2003, Minutes of April 2, 2003. 4. Community Character/Smart Growth Advisorv Committee - Agenda and Minutes of March 21, 2003. 5. Bavshore/Gatewav Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisorv Board- Agenda May 7, 2003 6. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Minutes of April 15, 2003, Agenda for May 4,2003; Minutes of April 15, 2003. 7. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Minutes of April 9, 2003; Agenda for May 14,2003; Minutes of April 9, 2003. 8. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Minutes of April 2, 2003; Agenda for May 1,2003; Minutes of April 24, 2003. 9. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee- Minutes of April 18, 2003; Agenda for May 9,2003; Minutes of April 18, 2003. -- _.._._--~_.,--_..._., .,~,~ ·....T --,~".,_..,._.~-_.""---'-,.,_."..-.....-_--- ---""_."""~--'-- ,.'"W_,_ May 27,2003 Item #16J1 PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES IN REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS DETERMINED TO SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION TO Item # 16J2 RESOLUTION 2003-185 AUTHORIZING SPRINT TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED '911' EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR THE CITIZENS OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE PERIOD OF Item #16K1 AGREEMENT FOR COLLIER COUNTY PARTIAL FUNDING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LEGAL AID SOCIETY, INC-FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1,2002 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 200S Item #16K2 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 203 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JEFFREY A. RICHARDSON, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2188-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)-STAFF TO DEPOSIT $933.00 INTO THE REGISTRY OE.IHR COURT Item #16K3 WAIVE THE PURCHASING POLICY, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS NECESSARY, AND APPROVE/RATIFY THE Page 267 May 27, 2003 COUNTY ATTORNEY'S RETENTION OF TRAUNER CONSULTING SERVICES TO ASSIST IN POTENTIAL CLAIMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 5-MGD EXPANSION Item #16K4 UTILIZE UP TO $45,000 OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE ARDEN COURTS AND MANOR CARE AT LELY PALMS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES TO PAY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S FEES AND OTHER COSTS INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION AND LITIGATION OF UNPAID IMPACT FEES; THESE FUNDS TO BE USED TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR THE PRO RATA SHARE OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH COLLECTING EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES ONLY; APPROVAL OF Item #16K5 COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO REJECT A BUSINESS DAMAGE CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $106,814 AND MAKE COUNTER-OFFER OF $45,000 TO SETTLE A CLAIM BY TREE SOURCE INC., ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 132 IN COLLIER COUNTY V. TREESOURCE, INC., ET AL, CASE NO. 02-5167-CA Item #17A RESOLUTION 2003-186 APPROVING THE COUNTY'S SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED PLAN ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FOR THE U.S. Page 268 May 27,2003 DEP ARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANI...(CDRG) ffi o GRAM Item #17B-Moved to Item #8C Item #17C ORDINANCE 2003-24 RE: PETITION PUDA-2002-AR-3245, RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A., REPRESENTING THE BAY FOREST HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO "THE BAY FOREST" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO PERMIT A REAL ESTATE SALES OFFICE AS A PERMANENT USE AND LIMITED TO THE RESALE OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE BAY FOREST PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE (CR-901) AND SOUTH OF AllDIlBON.BOllL.FV A RD Item #17D-Moved to Item #7A Item #17E INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO ESTABLISH EDUCATIONAL PLANT AND ANCILLARY PLANT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES AND SUBSTANTIVE CRITERIA INCLUDING THE CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ***** Page 269 May 27,2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:45 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TOMH~~N , ."....,\.,.~,....'\'\\ - ", "':~, t\., ATT~T:~~t.¡~ ("III . ..'~¡.' :~~ . <6_.<, ~~t}. "// ,DWIGJ$T E'~ B'RQCK, CLERK :~ ~~;r~:.·.:;tY";~L~ .~ q ~. ~,,,~:~&J~~ 'ittiS.\ 1~~~rMn'! ~ 4" .b¡,ct" .M1',. 1\- s,.~ ~~~~~" , These minut$S approved by the Board on ú>-J-~ -03 , as presented ~ , or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 270 Aquaport Settlement Page 1 of 1 Patricia L. Morgan From: Patricia L. Morgan Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 200410:36 AM To: Pettit, Michael Cc: Weigel, David Subject: RE: Aquaport Settlement %ankyou. I wi{{ get t/iose posted riglit away. -Trisli -----Original Message----- From: Pettit, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:35 AM To: Patricia L. Morgan Cc: Weigel, David Subject: RE: Aquaport Settlement -[pettit_m] Yes - the case has been settled and the minutes are open to the public. Mike Pettit. ----Original Message----- From: Patricia L. Morgan [mailto:Patricia.Morgan@clerk.collierJl.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:32 AM To: weigel_d; PettitMichael Cc: bradley-n Subject: Aquaport Settlement good :Morning, pfease advise me if tliis case lias 6een settfed and I can refease tlie Crosed Session minutes for pu6lìc viewing. I wirr need confinnation from your office to do tliis. Tliank,you, rr'risli :Morgan :Minutes ~ CRgcords 10/19/2004 _>'~'_""d.~_.__.___~~_"__' May 27, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING (ITEM 12A) OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES, FL MAY 27, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 12:00 p.m. in CLOSED SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Ted Tripp, Independent Counsel Mike Pettit, Assistant County Attorney David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 -..-- __.' .____..~__.,_,,_..__..._.,...._..~..m_~.__.__~"._,·,__·__ ~,_._._.__....~ May 27, 2003 Item #12A CLOSED ATTORNEY - CLIENT SESSION (AQUAPORT V. COLLIER COl.INJ'Y CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're in closed-door session to talk about an item that Mr. Weigel is going to explain for the record. MR. WEIGEL: I'll certainly start. It's item 12(A) on the agenda, and this is the closed session to discuss with the Board of County Commissioners proposed settlement negotiations and litigation strategy relating to the Aquaport case that Collier County's been involved with in federal court, and we'll also be having some discussion about the Bellagio case, which was in state court, for which there is a Bert Harris claim. And with that, I'll just let our outside counsel, Ted Tripp, start with his discussion. MR. TRIPP: Commissioners, nice to see you-all again, and nice to meet -- I know there's at least one new face around the table. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas. MR. TRIPP: Commissioner, how are you, sir? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. MR. TRIPP: My name is Ted Tripp. I'm with the firm of Garvin and Tripp, and we've had the honor of representing Collier County in a variety of disputes arising from the development of the project now known as Bellagio Grande. By way of a little bit of background, the developers of that Page 2 May 27,2003 project, Mr. Norman Burke and Mr. James Allen, joined by two limited liability companies, which they formed, one of which was called Aquaport, 1.1.c., and the other, which was called Conotel, 1.1.c., brought an action in federal court under a federal civil rights statute called 42 U.S. Code, section 1983. The claim in that case was that this commission acted improperly in revoking a building permit and site development plan approval that had previously been issued by staff to allow the construction of a 68-unit hotel on a parcel of property located in the Vanderbilt Beach area. The claim in that litigation under the federal statute was that the action of the county commission constituted a deprivation of the property rights of the developers guaranteed by the fifth and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution thereby giving rise to a claim for monetary damages under the federal statute. There was a pendant state claim, which means an independent action for inverse condemnation. That would not otherwise have been available to be brought in federal court, but the federal procedure allows a plaintiff who has a valid federal claim to join with it state claims that would not otherwise be allowed in that litigation. The matter was ultimately assigned to Judge Magnuson, a United States District Court judge sitting in Minnesota, if memory serves. That is not an uncommon occurrence. In this district we have a substantial criminal docket, and the sitting circuit judge, Judge Steele, I'm sorry, sitting district judge, Judge Steele, is required to dispose of the criminal docket first in order to avoid speedy trial issues. So they are not -- it is not Page 3 May 27,2003 uncommon for them to have federal district judges from other venues get assigned to the civil cases to move the docket along. On behalf of Collier County, we filed a document called a motion for summary judgment in which we argued that as a matter of law the plaintiffs did not have a valid federal claim against Collier County. Judge Magnuson, although we got very close to a trial date, ultimately did review and rule upon our motion for summary judgment and has ruled, as a matter of law, that Collier County cannot be sued for violation of 42 U.S. Code, section 1983, under the facts of this case. The individual commissioners who were also named as plaintiffs -- I'm sorry -- as defendants in that litigation were similarly exonerated by Judge Magnuson's order. As a practical matter, that disposed of the federal claim in federal court in favor of Collier County and in favor of the commissioners. We did seek a recovery of attorneys' fees, which the trial judge has denied. We also sought recovery of costs, which we believe will be awarded in favor of Collier County, at least in part. That ruling by Judge Magnuson has been appealed by the plaintiffs to the 11 th Circuit Court of Court of Appeals, which sits in Atlanta. That is the Circuit Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and several other states. As part of that appellate process, the 11 th circuit has adopted a practice of referring matters to mediation while on appeal. We had the first mediation in the appellate proceedings approximately six weeks ago. It is conducted telephonically with an individual who's certified by the 11 th Circuit to act as mediator. Page 4 May 27,2003 At that time, the plaintiffs substantially modified the demands which had been made earlier in recognition of the fact that they have a difficult burden in the appellate court, and have substantially reduced their demand. In addition, the same plaintiffs, or many of the same plaintiffs, have filed a state court action seeking leave under an act called the Bert Harris Act, which is codified at 70 Florida statutes, specifically section 70.001, which was enacted to allow for landowners who claim that their property has been subjected to an inordinate burden by reason of zoning decisions by counties or municipalities to seek compensation measured by the diminution in value, presuming they can establish a threshold injury under the Bert Harris Act. I raise that because at the mediation the plaintiffs not only modified their monetary demands, but have offered to settle the Bert Harris Act claim as part of the settlement if one is to occur of the federal claim. So because there is now an opportunity to address both issues and because the plaintiffs have substantially modified their monetary demand, I asked to be given this opportunity to at least advise you as to the options that are available to you if you choose to act on those options. By way of background, we have an insurance policy which covers the county and indemnifies the county and its commissioners for claims under 42 U.S. Code, section 1983. That means, as a practical matter, that if the 1983 claim were to be resolved, if the -- if the insurance company would consent to that resolution, there is a possibility that all or substantially all of that contribution would Page 5 May 27,2003 come from the insurance company and not from the taxpayers of Collier County. That is less clear with regard to the Bert Harris Act claim. We have a different policy that's in effect that covers the Bert Harris Act claim or that would -- was in effect at the time a Bert Harris Act claim was presented. Collier County has what's known as a claims-made liability policy. It doesn't matter under the existing policies when Collier County did that which gives rise to the complaint. The issue is, when did Collier County first receive notice in writing that a claim exists. And that's how we have two different insurance policies that cover fundamentally the same act. We got notice of the 1983 action during the pendency of a policy of insurance issued by N orthfield Insurance. At the time we later got notice of the pending Bert Harris Act claim, that policy had expired in accordance with its terms, and the commission had decided to go with a different carrier during the ensuing 12-month period, so we have two different policies that we're dealing with here. The policy that was in effect at the time of the Bert Harris Act claim may not provide coverage for that claim. I don't want to suggest to you that we have ultimately determined that issue one way or the other, but I do need to report to you that we have tendered the claim to the insurer. They have written back to us indicating that they believe there is no coverage. And I will let Mr. Pettit chime in on this issue, but I have to tell you that there is a substantial risk that you may not be insured for the Bert Harris Act claim as contrasted to the claim under 42 U.S. Code, Page 6 May 27,2003 section 1983. Y .? es, SIr. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many times has the Bert Harris Act gone to court and how many times has it ever been approved as far as violations of the Bert Harris Act of any counties in Florida at this point in time? MR. TRIPP: When last I checked, which was approximately four weeks ago, there were no reported appellate decisions upholding an award of damages under the Bert Harris Act claim. I cannot tell you, Commissioner, that there have or have not been Circuit Court decisions which mayor may not have awarded compensation. In Florida, Circuit Court decisions, trial level decisions, typically are not published. There's no effective way for me to answer that question at the trial level. But I can tell you at the appellate level, there are no reported decisions which have upheld an award of damages. I have no explanation as to why that is except to suggest to you that while the Bert Harris claim -- I'm sorry -- the Bert Harris Act, on its face appears to be designed to provide compensation, the legislature in its infinite wisdom, appears to have set a relatively high threshold for landowners who are claiming compensation under that statute, and I don't know of any that have been successfully pursued. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. MR. TRIPP: Now, let me just, if I can, take a couple more minutes of your time. Where we are is this: We have had a federal claim presented, and the county has been upheld by the federal district judge. That matter is on appeal. Page 7 May 27,2003 While there can be no guarantees with regard to the appellate outcome, statistically speaking, civil cases which are appealed in federal court have a reversal rate of significantly less than 20 percent. In the 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear this particular case, they have a track record of being particularly inhospitable to claims by landowners against county governments dealing with what they perceive to be basically a zoning dispute. So I feel a high degree of confidence in telling you that ultimately the county will prevail on the merits, although I cannot guarantee that outcome. I will tell you that the cost of pursuing the appellate remedies is probably likely to be in the $30,000, plus or minus, range in terms of the preparation of the appeal itself, submittal of the briefs, and attendance at all arguments, which would typically occur in Atlanta, although they do sit at various spots in the circuit from time to time. It's just the luck of the draw where they happen to be when your matter is heard. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals judges being the way they are and having life tenure, you tend to go where they are as opposed to them coming where are you. So that's that issue. With regard to the Bert Harris Act claim, it is filed on behalf of the plaintiff Aquaport, and the plaintiff Norman Burke, and the plaintiff James Allen. And the statute itself specifically states that a claim is available only to the legal title owner of the property at issue. Neither Mr. Burke nor Mr. Allen were legal title owners of this property at any time, and in our view, a claim under the Bert Harris claim for them individually will not fly. Page 8 May 27,2003 We have provided notice to plaintiffs' lawyer that we will be seeking attorney's fees if she does not dismiss those claims because, in our view, they are frivolous. The statute also provides expressly that in determining compensation, no compensation is to be afforded for what the statute refers to as business damages related to the development of the parcel at issue. That's significant because the claim as presented in Circuit Court calls for issues damages in excess of $11,100,000, lost profits, lost leasehold income, lost developer's fees. In our view, the plain meaning of the statute says that those claims cannot be properly considered in a Bert Harris Act claim. That leaves you with a claim for diminution in value. They do have an appraisal by Armalavage and Associates that establishes the value of this parcel as a 15-unit condominium and a 68-unit hotel. That appraisal indicates a diminution in value of $1 ,500,000. The statute does provide for prejudgment interests so that if the plaintiffs were successful, if they recover a diminution in value, the statute does contemplate that they will receive interest from May 22nd, 2001, through the date of the judgment, so that interest can be a significant amount, and you need to be aware that that claim is out there. Now, at this point we know that we have an appraiser who counters the appraisal of Armalavage and Associates. In representing the county's interest in the federal court, obviously we wanted to be able to counter that same claim that the property had been diminished in value. We retained a firm out of Fort Myers, an appraiser named Woody Hanson, who has extraordinarily good Page 9 May 27,2003 credentials, former president of the American Appraisal Institute. This guys got a CV that's thicker than my briefcase. Very competent appraiser. I think he'll make an excellent witness. It is his contention that the property is actually worth more as a 15-unit condominium -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MR. TRIPP: -- than it would have been as a 68-unit hotel. But I will tell you that that will ultimately be a jury decision. They're going to have to decide which appraiser they believe. I should also tell you that I think there's a very compelling argument available to Collier County which a jury has not yet heard, and that is that Mr. Burke and Mr. Allen went to the people who owned the condominiums on which this property was originally to be developed. I think there were eight or nine condominium units. They told each of those human beings, we're going to build a 15-unit condominium. We'll give you an option to buy one of those condominiums units. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. MR. TRIPP: It was only after they had closed on at least one or two of those units that it became possible to build this 68-unit hotel. I don't believe that they had any intention of building this 68-unit hotel until after the fact. But again, they're going to testify that they had all of these expectations of developing a hotel and that they are entitled to be compensation -- compensated for that diminution in value. So, we have a claim in state court. It's not clear to me that they will succeed, but I cannot tell you as a matter of law that we will. They have a claim which is currently stated at somewhere in the Page 10 May 27,2003 neighborhood of 13 and a half, $13.8 million. In our view it is extraordinarily likely that we will reduce that claim significantly, but the claim still exists. I should also tell you -- you'll recall when I began this little monologue that they had the 1983 actions in federal court. They also had a pending state claim for inverse condemnation. Florida does recognize a claim for damages for inverse condemnation. Florida courts have awarded damages for inverse condemnation. That would be a claim separate and apart from the Bert Harris claim. Interestingly enough, although the inverse claim was dismissed when the federal court ruled on the federal claims, it has not been re- filed. So in addition to having a Bert Harris Act claim that is pending, there is another claim that's kind of out there that they stated in federal court, that they have a right to restate in state court, but it's not yet pending in any court. Now, against that backdrop, when we previously had mediations in this case of which, if memory serves there were two, the last announced demand of the plaintiff was somewhere in the neighborhood of six million or six million two. This commission decided that it was willing to offer some funds to the plaintiff but nowhere near the same zip code as the plaintiffs' demand. So we never actually played the hand out because we were so far apart that I wouldn't tell you in good conscience there were ever any serious negotiations. There was, in fact, an offer made at mediation. It was in the 3 to 4 million range. It was not seriously considered, and the plaintiff, in response to that, increased their demand from six million to eight Page 11 May 27,2003 million, if memory serves. The bottom line is, we've never gotten below the $5 million number. That's a significant number because it just happens to be the policy limits of the Northfield policy. And obviously on your behalf, if the case is to be resolved, we would prefer that it be resolved with the insurance company's money instead of yours. The move to $3 million is a signal from the plaintiffs, for whatever value you want to give to it, that they want to be realistic, at least as they view it, in resolving the matter. I don't think they think that you're going to offer them $3 million. I think they're trying to send you a signal that if you would like to resolve the matter, they want a counter proposal. Obviously, since we represent a public body, we were not in a position to make any substantive offers to them without consulting with you-all, and that's why we've asked for this session. If you want my opinion -- and I would very much like Mr. Pettit to chime in -- in my view, if the plaintiff -- if the settlement is to occur, that plaintiffs are likely looking for a number north of a million and south of two million. I think they're looking for a counter to $3 million that is either at or above a million dollars. If you want to know where I think the case could settle, I would guess -- I would bet you that it could settle somewhere between a million five and two million dollars. Understand, that's just my horseback opinion based upon dealings with these folks and their lawyers over the past several years. Now, having said that -- and I would like Michael to chime in. Let me just finish up and say, my problem is, I'm having a real hard Page 12 May 27,2003 time looking you-all in the eye and recommending to you that you offer anywhere near that amount of money. I really don't think that the Bert Harris Act claim, as it now stands, is worth a million dollars. Maybe a million dollars, maybe. But it's an -- it's an awful stretch for me to get there. Do we have a benefit of getting rid of the appeal? Sure. There is at least some chance, 10 percent, 20 percent, that the appellate court would reverse, and then you would have more attorney's fees back in the trial court again. There is at least some chance, even more modest, I suggest, that after it reversed -- it is reversed in the 11 th Circuit, they may ultimately prevail on their theory. Do I think so? No. But, you know, I've got to tell you, I'm your lawyer and I'm trying to protect you-all from possibilities, even possibilities that I personally view as remote. So is there a benefit to you to settle the case? Yes. Is that benefit worth $3 million? Well, it is if you say it is, but I'm not going to be able to look you in the eye and recommend it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How would this play out if another case of Bert Harris came up in the same geographical area in regards to what may be proposed for -- at the Vanderbilt Inn? MR. TRIPP: The only answer that I can give you, Commissioner, is that technically, the settlement of one case does not create a binding precedent on different facts and different circumstances. Having said that, would the other landowner in your hypothetical litigation get the message that all they've got to do is Page 13 May 27, 2003 brandish the sword and that that might generate a similar offer on behalf of those individuals? Sure. I mean, human beings -- there is no possibility of which I am aware under Florida law that we could keep any agreement confidential. That is something that is available to private -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. TRIPP: -- litigants that I believe to be unavailable to Collier County because of the public records law. Michael, do you want to chime in? MR. PETTIT: I want to address the Bert Harris Act claim first, because I think that the benchmark or the standard to prevail on a Bert Harris Act claim is that the plaintiff has to show that by our action we placed an inordinate burden upon their property. And the reality is, on the documents they attached to the complaint in Bert Harris, which they're required to do, put an appraisal there, it shows that they still stand to realize -- I think their actual Bert Harris Act claim on diminution is more in the neighborhood of two point some million dollars. But it shows that they stand to realize a $1.5 million profit on that property as a result of the proj ect that they have built. And it's inconceivable to me that that meets the test of placing an inordinate burden on property. In other words, if you're going to make 1.5 million more than you spent, how have you been burdened inordinately? So my point is, that I'm doubtful that they will prevail on Bert Harris. But given that no lawyer can predict how a court will rule, how facts will unfold, absolutely, as Ted said, we can't guarantee a Page 14 ___'"~.,~">._ "·..~O,^<,^_'^,,^._.~_.·._·..__",··.,,·.,,_~_,·..·.·~·,,.·'"._"_,.,.. ,_·.·.~._~"H'_o___,_,;·.. ....~ May 27,2003 resul t. The concern I have at this point, the primary one is, I've got to tell you, I don't think we're going to have coverage for that. And if the ceiling -- if the sky falls in, the check's going to have to be written from a county fund. It's not going to come from insurance, unlike the case of the federal court action where there's still a substantial insurance policy in place and there's still substantial insurance proceeds to cover a bad result that mayor may not happen sometime in the future. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, my opinion really hasn't changed about this case from the last time we talked about it. I don't know of any reason why we need to move from our previous offer. As long as we have laid the legal groundwork to demand that they pay legal costs. Have we done that? So we're all straight as far as that's concerned then, right? MR. TRIPP: Well, let me -- the answer is yes and no. We have done that in terms of Mr. Burke and Mr. Allen, because in our view that claim is frivolous. We have also done that with regard to the business damages claim. But we have not done that and in our view we probably cannot do that, with regard to the claims of Aquaport for diminution in value. That is a valid justiciable issue. I cannot tell you in good conscience that it's frivolous. Even if we win, we don't get attorney's fees in my view unless we use a procedural device called an offer of judgment. And we can talk about that now or later. That's a little premature. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I thought we had done that. Page 15 May 27,2003 I thought we had entered an offer of judgment for this particular case, but I guess we didn't, right? MR. TRIPP: We have not yet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We could do that though? MR. TRIPP: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we do that, it seems to me that that provides -- that transfers some additional risk to the plaintiffs in this case. And I think from their past conduct, the more risk we can transfer to them, the more likely we are to get them to settle this at a reasonable level pretty quickly. And I still feel that we shouldn't go beyond the settlement amount that we agreed to last time, which I believe we estimated to be pretty much what it would cost us if we considered -- continued to litigation. So we're really trading future legal costs for a current settlement. So I feel we should just stick with that and play this hand out and see if we can't make an offer of stipulated judgment for this thing and see what happens. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, myself, I think we will set a precedence if we come across to be too generous and too quick. I'd rather pay the attorney fees and win this and make it a little more difficult, so the next time somebody wants to step in the arena with us -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- they know that we're not going to be an easy pushover and settle at least for the costs just to be able to get rid of them. If we have to make an offer, let's make it an Page 16 May 27,2003 extremely low-ball offer. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's where we were. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if they accept it, they get burned on just taking the offer. If they want to go all the way, let's go all the way. If we're successful, we've taken care of this and future ones. If we're not successful, at least we cost them a lot of money to that point in time. And they're going to start to -- some people are going to have to evaluate it in the future when they move against Collier County. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said, again, that your estimator feels that there's been a substantial profit margin made in the Aquaport to the Bellagio? MR. TRIPP: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that settles it. MR. PETTIT: Let me just -- just for -- my memory serves that we made an offer to them before we received the summary judgment in federal court of $600,000. And my recollection was that SOO of that was from N orthfield Insurance Company, which does have its policy on the line in the federal court case. A hundred thousand was from general county funds at that point. It was to settle all claims, however, including Bert Harris. So I think that was the last go-round we had, and they've now come down. And I don't think we really responded to that in the last -- MR. TRIPP: No. MR. PETTIT: -- mediation. We wanted to have this meeting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would our cost be to be Page 1 7 May 27, 2003 able to carry this out to a conclusion? That's maybe what the offer should be. MR. TRIPP: Well, if by this you mean the appeal of the federal court case, it is likely to be substantially less than $50,000. My current estimate would be 30. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'd make the offer for 50,000. MR. WEIGEL: That's the federal court case. MR. TRIPP: Now, that's only the federal case. MR. WEI GEL: The Bert Harris case though, is the one that we have no prior ruling from court yet whatsoever. We have a win in the federal court case, a significant win. So that's the reason that we've been talking about dollars and risk. The cost of continuing in the federal case, well, below 50,000 just to do the work and hopefully, as we showed, the likelihood of overturning the federal Circuit Court opinion is statistically very low. But then the Bert Harris case in state court is still yet to be litigated. And so Ted would have to hazard a cost of preparing the appropriate responses to what we think are deficiencies, failures in their complaint as currently drafted, but then beyond that would be additional cost of representation if and when the case goes forward. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we're still under $100,000, right, on legal expenses? MR. TRIPP: The difficulty, Commissioner, that I have is, I think ultimately if the plaintiffs chose to play this case out in state court, they will eventually state a cause of action. I cannot tell you that we can get rid of this case without having a trial on the merits. Page 18 May 27, 2003 So we're talking about the cost of defending what I would guess to be a five to eight-day jury trial in Circuit Court in Collier County, and I'm -- you know, the problem I have is, I don't know how that would play out, and I'm the defendant, and I've got to react to what they do. We've taken a lot of the discovery in the federal case that we won't have to redo in the state court case, but there will be some preparation time, and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be tried in Collier County. MR. TRIPP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's a slam dunk. MR. TRIPP: I would never tell a client that anything is a slam dunk. I mean, if I were to give that appellation to anything, this would be on my top 10 list. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If it goes to trial, guys, you might as well be looking at at least 300,000. MR. TRIPP: How much? CHAIRMAN HENNING: If it goes to trial -- 300,000. MR. TRIPP: I think that may be high, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing I'm basing my thought on is the fact that the Bert Harris Act hasn't been successful yet. So to me, the odds are on my side. I'm going to call the cards. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The problem I have is an emotional one, and that is, I just hate to reward a lying behavior, and that's what he's done is he's lied and then he's sued us to try and prove his lies, Page 19 May 27, 2003 and I hate to reward that behavior by giving them any dollars. I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think any Bert Harris suit heard by a jury in Collier County is not going to be successful. I don't think there's much chance at all that you're likely to find anyone who's sympathetic to that particular argument. Well, you won't find a majority who will be sympathetic to that argument in Collier County. An aside from that is the general evaluation that the Bert Harris claim isn't that strong in the first place. So it seems to me that the Bert Harris case is strongly stacked against the plaintiff, at least based upon what we know right now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I still believe that whatever we do, it shouldn't be much, and we should keep it very low, and I would estimate it at whatever our legal costs are. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand the logic of just saying no and just fighting the thing to the end, but I think we will have served our purpose if we get this thing settled for just what we think our legal costs will be. And I think the taxpayers would be reasonably happy. MR. PETTIT: Let me make one point. A piece of information that you need. It runs in my mind, Ted, the insurance company said they would pay a settlement at the cost of the plaintiffs' costs to date, which are under a million, I'm sure. But they said they -- isn't that -- they basically said, if you can settle all of these matters, make them Page 20 .....-_~--_._-"-,._,-----".._--_."'-~~".-....-~~~---"'"-"'_....,,;-,.<_..~...",..,......- May 27,2003 all go away, and they also said that -- this was the other insurance company, the one with the policy that covers the federal, they also said, throw the Bert Harris Act claim into the hopper. They would be willing to pay a settlement of the plaintiffs' costs, which would, in our mind, be her attorney's fees and costs for depositions and things of that nature. And I think we would have to estimate that would be under 750. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wouldn't that-- MR. TRIPP: I think we are going to have to find out from the insurance company what their current position is. MR. PETTIT: True. MR. TRIPP: What I'd really like to get from this board is, I am assuming that part of my job is to get as many insurance dollars as I possibly can to throw at this problem. My question for you is, is there an amount of money beyond whatever I can get the insurance company to put on the table that this board would be willing to authorize to us add to the pot if we can resolve not only the federal appeal but the Bert Harris Act claim? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me ask a question before I try to address that one. If the insurance company is going -- is willing to pay up to 6 or $750,000, doesn't that pretty much deplete the pot of insurance funds we have available before we have to start chipping in? It does not. MR. TRIPP: No. I have not looked recently, but when I last looked at the issue, I think there was over $4 million left in coverage. I'm sure that that has been depleted since that time, but I would be astounded if there weren't $3.5 million or more of remaining Page 21 May 27,2003 available coverage. And of course, if it doesn't settle, that money's still there, if you should get an unfavorable outcome in the appellate court and go back to the trial court. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that fund is for a year; is that correct? MR. PETTIT: No. MR. TRIPP: There is a per calendar cumulative coverage, right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're not likely to reach the limit based upon what we know about legal obligations at present time? MR. PETTIT: From other -- what did you say, other claims? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. MR. PETTIT: That is correct, because the year's over with. And I think -- frankly, I would be astounded if there's not still 4.2 or 4.3 million dollars. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there's no chance we can be pushed into the point of trying to fund other legal action ourselves because we encouraged the insurance company to settle for 750,000 on this one, right? MR. PETTIT: I don't think so. All I can say is, I'm unaware of any other claims of this type that have been made in that period that are out there to be resolved. That doesn't mean there can't be something lurking that we're unaware of, but I don't think it's out there. MR. WEIGEL: Ted, when the board comes back into its regular session and starts to put motions together with a vote, if the board -- this is my question to you. Page 22 May 27,2003 The board may consider such a question or such a discussion among themselves of authorizing you to work with the insurance company so that whatever offer the insurance company may make -- without a dollar figure even being suggested by the Board of County Commissioners -- that that's the only offer that this board is suggesting to resolve this at mediation or prior to trial, something to that effect, that way this board is not offering any dollars, tax dollars, not, in fact, authorizing the insurance company, telling the insurance company or requesting it strongly to -- for any specific dollar figure like 400,000, 500,000 or more. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. MR. WEIGEL: But that it just puts it within the ambit of the insurance company to potentially provide a figure, and it mayor may not deem to provide a figure that's at all or one that's -- that the other side is going to consider. Does that seem appropriate for a discussion? MR. TRIPP: Well, yes. There are actually two parts to what I would like to see happen. Part one is, I would like to see a direction from this board that our firm make a demand on the insurance company that they protect the taxpayers of Collier County by resolving this litigation, if possible, within the existing policy limits. That will allow me to write what's called a bad faith letter to the insurance company that says, look, guys, you have an obligation to the taxpayers. We would like to get this matter resolved. We think that's why we have insurance. So we want you to go out there and resolve the issue. That's part one. Part two is, if it be the will of this commission that you wish to Page 23 May 27,2003 contribute to moneys which may be available from the insurance company, then somehow we need to have a meeting on the record in which we are authorized to pursue settlement to the extent that that settlement can be achieved by a combination of insurance money and moneys from the general revenue of Collier County within certain parameters. Now, it's the second part of that, David, that I'm troubled with. I would accept a consensus around this table, if there is one, of where this board senses that it is, not have that consensus announced in terms of dollar bills, but have the motion, or the person making a motion direct us to, in addition to writing the letter to the insurance company, to pursue settlement possibilities within the parameters that we discussed. I'll take something vague like that as long as I have a good understanding of where my client is. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. I hear what you're saying, and I got an idea of what I would like to propose to my fellow commissioners at this point in time, that we settle for whatever the insurance is willing to pay, just so there's no misunderstandings about where we stand as far as putting money into the pot to sweeten it, that we allow up to $5 to come from the taxpayers money to go toward this. In other words, we're drawing a line in the sand. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's great. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, we didn't misunderstand what anybody said. Five dollars -- Page 24 ·__""·;_"W~._..___._···_··~ .- May 27,2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: One dollar is a legal -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, five dollars. I want to be generous. We'll each kick up a dollar, and then that gives the message out there -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Speak for yourself. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- you settle now with what you'd get from the insurance, if they're willing to do it, and we'll put up to $5 in. We didn't miss the point of what's here. We're hard lining the whole thing down the line. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Damn right. Excuse my language. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're protecting the interest of the taxpayers. Nobody can come back later and say maybe they misunderstood. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will the insurance coverage cover any of our expenses? MR. TRIPP: In the federal court, yes. In the state court, in the absence of some determination that there is coverage, the answer is no. Right now you are uninsured, I have to say, for the Bert Harris claim. That includes the cost of defense. Now, obviously we're going to try and convince the insurance company that they should at least tender a defense, but between us in this room, I think the probability of success in that endeavor is relatively small at this point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But our commitment is for $5. MR. TRIPP: That's what I hear. Page 25 May 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that will be relayed to the plaintiff, ultimately? MR. TRIPP: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. TRIPP: It will be on the -- if I understand the movement, it will be on public record, and I suspect they'll hear about it within 15 minutes of the meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm sure they are watching the meeting. We're not going to have a bunch of discussion out there, guys -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- so when we go to sit on the dais, our legal staff is going to ask us a question, and then we need to respond. So is everybody straight with the question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Only one more. When we say what our insurance company will pay, is that 4.2 million or do we have a set amount like 400,000? MR. TRIPP: It's completely up to them. We are telling the insurance company, as I understand the motion, make your best judgment, settle the case if you can settle it within the existing policy limits, and whatever they think is appropriate is what they're going to have to put on -- bring to the table. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That sets up the opportunity for the bad faith claim? MR. TRIPP: That's correct. MR. PETTIT: And we, for the first time -- one of the keys here is, for the first time, we have an offer from the plaintiff that's within Page 26 "<I'""" "'V-I' _. ~_~__''''__-'''~~''''___''''H - u, May 27, 2003 the policy limits. This is the first time they've ever come below $5 million. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We all set? MR. WEIGEL: I think we are. MR. TRIPP: Thank you very much. (At this time the closed attorney-client session concluded.) ***** BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTRO ~¿~ DONNA FIALA, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ~: Ct.uu~a.L. Attest 0 Cba · s s1pltMrt .-lJ. These minutes aj?proved by the Board on ~Il.b- a-D01 as presented V or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. Page 27 ¡- --------