Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/02/2003 RDecember 2, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 2, 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: Tom Henning Frank Halas Donna Fiala Fred W. Coyle Jim Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court Page 1 COL! ~IER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA December 2, 2003 9:00 a.m. Tom Heiming, 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 SUBMIITED 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 December 2, 2003 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS Wll,l, RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABHJTY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTIT1,ED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COIJJER COUNTY FACII,ITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAH,ABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 0 AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval o£today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Part, Disclosure provided by Commission members £or summary agenda.) B. October 28, 2003 - Board o£ County Commissioners Regular Meeting C. October 29, 2003 - Value Adjustment Board Regular Meeting SERVICE AWARDS PROCLAMATIONS Proclamation to designate the week of December 1, 2003 as Human Rights Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Barbara Pedone, Public Information Coordinator. Proclamation to recognize Smart Perry for his for his contributions to Voter Empowerment. To be accepted by Stuart Perry. PRESENTATIONS 2 December 2, 2003 Ae Presentation by Representative J. Dudley Goodlette, Florida House District 76, in recognition of the historic significance of Roberts Ranch and its official listing by the U.S. Department of the Interior on the National Register of Historic Places. e e PUBLIC PETITIONS Ae Public Petition request by Mr. Charles H. Gunther regarding the removal of the Gateway Triangle from the Community Redevelopment Agency. Be Public Petition request by Mr. Timothy R. Parry regarding Greater Collier Regional Medical Center. Co Public Petition request by Mr. Michael Fernandez to discuss Nicaea Academy PUD-AR-2607. Request for reconsideration of conditions approval. De Public Petition request by George Frye to discuss Naples Airport Authority Stage 2 ban efforts. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Ae ADA-2003-AR-4351 Anthony P. Pires, Jr., of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, P.A., representing Keith and Sue Orschell, requesting an appeal to interpretation AR-4119 by Virtue of Division 1.6 and Sections 2.7.3.5.2.2., 5.3.2.1. and 5.3.2.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), for replacement of a mobile home in the "A" Agricultural Zoning District for property located at 6266 Adkins Avenue in Section 12, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. Be Item continued from the November 18~ 2003 BCC Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2003-AR-4524, James B. Malless AICP, of Wireless Planning Services, LLC, representing Pinnacle Towers, Inc., requests Conditional Use #13 of the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning District for the purpose of a 700-foot guyed communications tower per Section 2.6.34 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The property to be considered for the conditional use is located in Section 3, Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 3 December 2, 2003 14.55+ acres. Ce Item continued from the November 18, 2003 BCC Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2003-AR-4525, James B. Malless AICP, of Wireless Planning Services, LLC, representing Pinnacle Towers, Inc., requests a variance of 690 feet from the minimum separation requirement from residential zoning of 1,750 feet to 1,060 feet; a variance of 450 feet from the required maximum height limitation of 250 feet to 700 feet for towers in an agricultural zoning district; and a variance of 6 feet from the required 30-foot side yard setback to 24 feet for a single guy anchor point in an agricultural zoning district on property hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Item to be continued to the January, 27~ 2004 BCC Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-3158, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing Eco Venture Wiggins Pass Ltd., requesting a rezone from 10.45 acre parcel from C-4 to a residential Planned Unit Development to be known as "Coconilla" PUD to allow for: A maximum of 95 residential units on +/- 10.02 acres of developable area for a resulting density of 9.5 dwelling units per acre, specifically including a residential tower at a building height not to exceed 21 stories over parking (maximum of 225 feet above the required flood elevation and in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.6.3.1 of the Collier County LDC), town home units, and a marina basin with 52 boat slips and customary accessory uses, including a publicly accessible ship's store and marine fueling station of approximately 5000 square feet of commercial space; and, a +/- 0.80 acre public use tract providing for additional public vehicle and boat trailer parking to provide: Support for Cocohatchee River Park, access to the marina ship's store, and egress to Vanderbilt Drive for park patrons to allow for safe egress via a protected northbound turning movement at existing traffic signal at Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive for property located on Vanderbilt Drive, at the western terminus of Wiggins Pass Road in Section 17, Township 48 south, Range 25 east. 4 December 2, 2003 o Item continued to the J~num'y 13~ 2004 BCC Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-03-AR-4008, C. Laurence Kccsey, of Young, Van Assendcrp, Varnadoc and Anderson, P.A., representing Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" (Planned Unit Development) for thc purpose of revising the PUD document to relocate 170,343 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the north commercial area to the south commercial area, reduce thc approved maximum number residential dwellings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units for property located at thc northwest quadrant of thc intersection of Tamiami Trail (US 41) and Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, and Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. Ce Item continued to the January. 13~ 2004 BCC Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition DOA-03-AR-4777, C. Laurence Keesey, of Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Pelican Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI), to relocate 170,343 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the north commercial area to thc south commercial area, reduce thc approved maximum number residential dwellings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units for property located at thc northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US 41) and Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Approve a Tourist Development Tax Category "A" Funding Policy for beach renourishment and beach park facilities. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities Division) B. Review staff recommendations for further assessment of alternative administration of the Collier County Airport Authority and ordinance 5 December 2, 2003 11. Ce De revisions and provide direction. (Winona Stone, Assistant to the County Manager) Item continued to the December 16~ 2003 BCC Meeting. Provide information to the Board of County Commissioners on hours of operation for construction activities including excavating operations. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development) Approve a resolution to authorize the Collier Mosquito Control District to expand boundaries further into the Golden Gate Estates. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public Services Division) PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Ae Approval of settlement agreement and mutual release involving litigation in Collier County v. Naples Geriatric Properties, LLC AKA Summer House Case No. 03-229-CA in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Court. Be Approval of Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release between Collier County and Colleen Macort and Access Now, Inc., in reference to Case No. 2:03-cv-109-FTM-29SPC that is now pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. 15. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 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. Approved and/or adopted with changes-5/0 6 December 2, 2003 A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Proposed budget amendment to allow a net transfer of $3,652,700 from Community Development and Environmental Fund 113 Reserves to the Fund 113 Software System Replacement Project. 2) Approval of a resolution to adopt a policy for the approval of funds for payment or reimbursement of travel expenses for official tourism business. 3) Proposed amendment to Resolution 2003-340 which established a fee schedule of development related review and processing fees as provided for in Division 1.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 4) Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Indian Wells Golf Villas". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County. 5) Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Ventura, Phase One". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County. 6) Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private), drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Ventura, Phase Two". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County. 7) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Chase Preserve First Replat", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. 8) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Summit Place in Naples, Phase I", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and 7 December 2, 2003 Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. 9) Approve an agreement to accept a 100% reimbursable artificial reef- monitoring grant in the amount of $3,500 from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Petition CARNY-2003-AR-5043, Peg Ruby, Special Events Coordinator, Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting a permit to conduct the Annual "Snowfest" Carnival on December 6 and 7, 2003, at the Golden Gate Community Park located at 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard. 11) Petition CARNY-2003-AR-5058, Sandra Ramos, Program Leader, Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting a permit to conduct the l0th Annual "Christmas Around The World" Carnival on December 13, 2003, at the Immokalee Sports Complex located at 505 Escambia Street. 12) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. Approve the rescinding of the $329,046 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding that was to be used for Stormwater Management and Infrastructure Project on Linwood Avenue within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, the termination of the CDBG Agreement due to inability to meet the grant deadline for the expenditure of funds, and the attached resolution. B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Recommendation to award Bid #03-3572 - "Bayshore Bridge Beautification Project Phase 2" to Thomas Marine Construction Inc., in the amount of $297,400 and authorize any budget amendments required. 2) Approve a budget amendment to reallocate funding for the Rural Safety Refuge Shelters Project that was approved in FY03 in the amount of $135,125. 8 December 2, 2003 3) Board approval of Adopt-A-Road Program agreements at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on December 2, 2003. 4) Board approval to reject bids received under Bid #03-3512 "Real Estate Appraisal Services", and approve continuation of services for real estate appraising under RFP #01-3204. C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment and said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1991 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal Impact is $12.00 to record lien. 2) Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment and said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to record lien. 3) Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment and said lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to record lien. 4) Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfactions of Lien for Solid Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and said liens are Satisfied in Full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact is $22.50 to record the liens. 5) Authorization to execute and record Satisfactions for certain water and/or sewer impact fee payment agreements. Fiscal impact is $22.50 to record the Satisfactions. 6) Recommendation to award Bid #04-3573 -"Annual Contract for Emergency and Scheduled Sewage Hauling" to Southern Sanitation 9 December 2, 2003 Inc., in the estimated amount of $150,000. 7) Approve the Satisfaction of Lien documents filed against Real Property for abatement of nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to record same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Fiscal impact is $66.00 to record the liens. D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to draft an ordinance to create an Animal Services Advisory Board. 2) Approve budget amendments totaling $34,016 to move United Way 4- H Foundation Grant Funding from the General Fund to the Miscellaneous Grants Fund. 3) Authorize the Chairman to sign two State of Florida Emergency Medical Services Matching Grant Applications in the amount of $77,171.10. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Approve to purchase vehicles and equipment from Bid #03-11-0825 and Bid #03-04-0828 as coordinated by the Florida Sheriff's Association, the Florida Association of Counties, and the Florida Fire Chief's Association. 2) Recommendation to award RFP No. 03-3551, a contract for cellular communications services and equipment (estimated value $280,000). F. COUNTY MANAGER G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner Coletta's request for approval for payment to attend Pre-Legislative Delegation Luncheon. 10 December 2, 2003 2) Commissioner Henning's request for approval for payment to attend Pre-Legislative Delegation Luncheon. I. MISCEI J,ANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS IC. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the acquisition of Parcel 174 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Michael S. Combs, et al, Immokalee Road Project No. 60018. 2) Approve termination of agreement between AEC National Inc., and Collier County (Contract No. 98-2867 Design Professional Services Agreement-Naples Jail Center) and declare a valid public emergency and waive the competitive selection process for retention of replacement consultants. 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOIJ.OWING 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 COLIJER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSmON TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. Ae This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Request by William L. McDaniel for a Conditional Use re-review of CU-00-11, Longan Lakes Excavation, for 11 December 2, 2003 Ce property located at 7000 Big Island Ranch Road, further described as Section 25, Township 47 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. Item continued from the November 18~ 2003 BCC Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2003-AR-3906 St. Paul's Antiochian Orthodox Church, requesting Conditional Uses 7, 11 and 16 in the "A" Rural Agricultural with Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District per LDC Section 2.2.2.3.7, to allow a church/place of worship, a child day care center and an assisted living facility on 8.3+ acres located on the west side of River Road, abutting the south side of Immokalee Road in Section 30, Township 48 south, Range 27 east, Collier County, Florida. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition DOA-2003-AR-3911, William R. Vines of Vines and Associates, requesting an amendment to the Tollgate Commercial Center, a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) in order to extend the life of the development order from December 30, 2002 to December 29, 2007, for property located in the southeast quadrant of 1-75 and Collier Boulevard, further described as Tollgate Commercial Center, in Section 35, Township 49, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 12 December 2, 2003 December 2, 2003 MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, we have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'm waiting for our county attorney to sit down. Call the meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Collier County to order. Today being December 2nd, 2003. The county manager, Jim Mudd, will lead us in the invocation, and follow (sic) that, the honorable Dudley Goodlette, representative from the State of Florida, will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, so would you all rise. MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, let us pray. Our heavenly Father, we ask your blessing on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask a special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this day and the days to come. Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens and be acceptable in your sight. Your will be done, amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2A REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Representative, County Manager. County Attorney, do we have any changes, additions, deletions to today's agenda? MR. WEIGEL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Just a note. I've had it provided -- Page 3 December 2, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please speak into your mike. MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. Just to bring your attention to the note that's provided at the bottom of the agenda change list -- well, on the agenda change list, which relates to item 6(C), it's the second item on the list as you have it here. Relating to item 6(C), which is on public petition, it appears to have the nature of a reconsideration aspect to it and brings into play the reconsideration ordinance. Regardless of its position on the public petition part of the agenda, if the board wishes to take action on this or consider to take action at some future point, it will be necessary for this item, 6(C), to be placed under the Board of County Commissioners' agenda to entertain a discussion and motion for reconsideration. Under the reconsideration ordinance, that would require any commissioner who voted with the majority at the prior meeting where a decision was made on this item -- and that must be made at the beginning of this meeting to set this agenda, if any member of the board so chooses. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do you advise us to hear the petition then ask the -- the commissioners or a commissioner if they would wish to consider it, or should we ask a commissioner presently if they would like to reconsider it, and put it on -- MR. WEIGEL: I think you have two -- thank you. I think you have two options easily available to you. One is~ if a commissioner who voted with the majority -- and I think it was a 5-0 vote at the time -- wishes the matter to automatically, to be placed on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda as a reconsideration item, that can be done with no further discussion; however, if you need some information as to why you might wish to do that, it's not out of practice for this commission to have some discussion while you're attempting to adjust your agenda, and could have either the county Page 4 December 2, 2003 manager or the petitioner himself tell you now the reason why it would need to be handled as a reconsideration item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I am going to take my liberty of asking my fellow members whether they would like to hear this under reconsideration under the board of commissioners' part of the agenda. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. What I was going to say is, I'm very leery about passing a decision before I have a chance to hear the person that wants to come before us with the petition, be able to hear what he has to say. To put it on the agenda without hearing him first, that might also be a mistake either way. But I -- if there was some way we could be organize the meeting to be able to hear this petition, then approve the agenda afterwards, I think it would allow for us to make a logical decision based upon some facts. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, the -- under the board's part of the agenda, we welcome public input. I think at that time, if the petitioner wants to -- wishes to speak under the item, that he could speak under item 9. So what I'm trying to do is move business a little bit faster. And if there is no consideration by any of the commissioners to hear it, then we shouldn't hear it. But if so, if one commissioner wants to bring a reconsideration, that would be a time that Mr. Fernandez can speak. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then if I may elaborate on what you just said. Basically, if we were to move it forward on the agenda, it doesn't mean that we have to necessarily support it when it comes on there? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a -- yeah, because my whole concern on this is that we're going to go ahead and approve the Page 5 December 2, 2003 agenda without this item for future consideration. The petitioner will get up there, bring up all the facts that they have to offer, at that point we have already approved the agenda, and then we have a real problem. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in that case, I'm going to ask that we put it on the agenda. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. So it's going to be 9(A). MR. MUDD: We're moving-- we're moving 6(C) to 9(A). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Anything else, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. One other item. Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student will address an item, I believe, on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: Actually, it's two. Thank you. For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. Item 17(B), which is a conditional use, is in your agenda packet without all the exhibits. And I provided handouts that include Exhibit A which was missing, that's the finding of fact by the planning commission, and Exhibit C, which is a plan of the property, and a revised Exhibit D. They are revised conditions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mrs. Student, can you-- MS. STUDENT: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- stop right there? The item 17(B) is CU-2003-AR-3906. The information you provided to the Board of Commissioners is CU-2002-AR-2340 -- 54. So it's not consistent with -- MS. STUDENT: No, I see that it's not, and that was what was given to me as the findings of fact. It was attached to the -- I'll have to consult -- if I could have a timeout and consult with the planner on that, thank you, sir. Page 6 December 2, 2003 And on item 17(C), there -- Exhibit A, which is the legal description, was not attached, and I feel that since it's the legal (sic) and it's fairly routine, it will be attached to the development order that you have to sign. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to continue on, go to the county manager and come back to you. County Manager Jim Mudd, you walk us through the change list. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, the change -- the agenda changes for December 2nd, 2003. The first item, item 6(A), continued to December 16th, 2003, BCC meeting, and that was a public petition request by Mr. Charles H. Gunther regarding the removal of the Gateway Triangle from the Community Redevelopment Agency, and that was at the petitioner's request. The second item on your change sheet -- and I'll read it over again because you just made it -- it's to move item 6(C) to item 9(A), and that's the county's reconsider-- reconsideration ordinance requires a member of the board to request an agenda item to consider a reconsideration of a prior agenda item under the Board of County Commissioners' part of the agenda. This act, if requested, must be done at the start of the meeting, and Mr. Weigel has done that. And this has to do with the Nicaea Academy. And Mr. Fernandez will be presenting that particular public petition. Next item is item 8(B) was continued to January 13th, 2004, BCC meeting. It is further continued to the January 27th, 2004, BCC meeting, and that's public petition PUDZ-03-AR-4008, and that is what we know as the Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., and that has to do with a PUD change. The reason for the request is the petitioner wanted to make sure Page 7 December 2, 2003 that they readvertised to its fullest. And in order to do that and get everything done correctly, we -- they had to -- the staff had to move it to the last meeting in January. A corresponding item is item 8(C). It will also be continued to -- from the January 13th, 2004, meeting to the January 27th, 2004, BCC meeting, and that is petition DOA-03-AR-4777, and that also has to do with the DRI on the Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc. That brings us to the fifth item on the change list, and that's move item 16(A)2 to 10(E), and that's to approve -- approval of a resolution to adopt a policy for the approval of funds for payment or reimbursement of travel expenses for official tourism business, and that's at Commissioner Henning's request. Next item is move item 17(A) to 7(D). This item requires that all participants be sworn and an ex parte disclosure be provided by the commission members. It is a request by William L. McDaniel for a conditional use review of CU-00-11, Logan (sic) Lakes Excavation, for property located at 7000 Big Island Ranch Road, further described as section 25, township 47 south, range 25 east, Collier County, Florida, and that's at Commissioner Halas's request. This is an item of note, and it has to do with item 17(B). Page 2, planning services staff recommendations: Delete conditions 6 and 7, and add condition 6. There shall be an exotic vegetation removal monitoring and maintenance plan that, when implemented, will maintain the site exotic-free in perpetuity. The plan shall be submitted to the Department of Zoning and land development staff for review and approval as part of the site development plan submittal. Condition 7, should the parcel to the east develop before the subject parcel, the subject parcel's access point shall be redesigned to align with the access point for the parcel to the east. And condition 8, the childcare program shall take place in Page 8 December 2, 2003 facilities located at the center of the subject site. And that note was -- Mr. Schmitt said that he had to make those changes because they weren't in your packet. Commissioner Coyle has a concern about the properties today, because he mentioned it me yesterday, about the access to the east. And his concern is, no matter which property develops, he will -- he basically mentioned that the adjoining driveways or access points should be right across from each other and they shouldn't be in two different places because of road congestion issues at that particular juncture. Commissioner Coyle, do you have any other things? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I think you described it adequately. The important issue here is that we should make sure that this particular petitioner understands that based upon the needs of the county and the traffic situation, we might have to realign their entranceway regardless of which is developed first. And so I would suggest -- the staff is doing a good thing here. It's a really good thing, it's just that in the interest of complete notification of the petitioner that they might be subject to having their roadway realigned in the public's best interest, but I think we should just specify that and maybe remove the clause about whether the parcel to the east is developed. We might merely be able to say that the roadway for the parcels to the east and the west will be aligned whenever they're developed in the best interest of the public. I don't know if that makes it better or not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds good me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. MR. MUDD: Is that -- do you want that to be included under item 17(B)? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fine with me. Page 9 December 2, 2003 SO. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta says, say yes, MR. MUDD: Okay. And the last item-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We always do what he says. MR. MUDD: -- Mr. Chairman, is a time -- is a time certain item, and that's item 10(D), to be heard at one p.m., and that's approval of a resolution to authorize the Collier Mosquito Control District to expand boundaries further into the Golden Gate Estates. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Mr. Weigel? Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT: Thank you. And I apologize. There was some mix-up between resolutions, but I have the correct finding of fact plan here, which I will give to the court reporter. It will be attached to the item for 17(B). Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Student, I would recommend that you hurry up and make copies for the Board of Commissioners to review the material before we approve the summary agenda. MS. STUDENT: Okay, sir. It's merely a finding of fact sheet and a plat plan, but I will -- I will do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have any changes to today's agenda or any ex parte communication on today's summary agenda? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Chairman Henning. On each count, I have nothing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing for me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a couple of items, one is on 7(A). I had spoken with the attorney on that representing the people, and I also spoke with some -- a person on the Planning Commission. Page 10 December 2, 2003 On 7(B), I also had a meeting with people on the Planning Commission discussing this tower situation. And also on 7(C) I also had a meeting with staff and also some people on the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER FIALA: 17-- Yes. That's my ex parte. I would-- I'm just ex parte-ing for CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for the summary agenda, and I have nothing to disclose. But I do want to request from my fellow commissioners -- I received a resolution from the Collier County Tourist Development requesting deferral of the beach policy, and that's number 10(A)on our agenda, and they would like to first discuss it at our open workshop on December 9th with all of us. And I'd like to get their input, quite frankly. I know that we've all relied heavily on the input from other advisory boards and -- so I would like to delay this. I further checked with my Marco Island City Council members, and they also feel that that would be something that would be acceptable to them. So I am requesting that we defer this to the December 16th meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree, Commissioner, and I don't see any problem with that. Anybody else? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree also. I was hoping we might be able to get it on the agenda for our joint meeting with the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Tourist Development Council is represented from the cities and the county. I was hoping to make Page 11 December 2, 2003 some kind of approval for a policy this year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any special reason? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We've been dealing with this issue for -- ever since you brought up the issue. So -- and that was the first of the year or last year even. That's my only wishes -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is that we can resolve this issue and move the public's business. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. We are going to continue that item-- MR. MUDD: It's 10(A). CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 10(A), for a workshop and for the board to consider any further direction. MR. MUDD: We're going to continue it until the next board meeting, which is December 16th. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thanks. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I was going to bring it up myself. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have no ex parte communications on today's summary agenda. I have no changes. In reviewing the supplement that Ms. Student provided to us, is there any -- any other consideration on 17(B), now that we have all the information? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion to accept today's agenda-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. Page 12 December 2, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- as amended and the consent summary agenda. And Commissioner Coletta makes -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- a motion, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Page 13 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING December 2, 2003 Item 6A continued to December 16, 2003 BCC meetinq: Public Petition request by Mr. Charles H. Gunther regarding the removal of the Gateway Triangle from the Community Redevelopment Agency. (Petitioner request.) NOTE: Item 6C: The County's reconsideration ordinance requires a member of the Board to request an agenda item to consider a reconsideration of a prior agenda item under the "Board of County Commissioners" part of the agenda. This act, if requested, must be done at the start of the meeting. (David Weigel, County Attorney.) Item 8B was continued to the January 13, 2004 BCC meeting and is further continued to the January 27, 2004 BCC meeting. Petition PUDZ-03-AR-4008, C. Laurence Keesey, of Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" (Planned Unit Development) for the .purpose of revising the PUD document to relocate 170,343 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the north commercial area to the south commercial area, reduce the approved maximum number residential dwellings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units for property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US41) and Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, and Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. (Staff request.) Item 8C was continued to the January 13, 2004 BCC meeting and is further continued to the January 27, 2004 BCC meeting. Petition DOA-03-AR-4777, C. Laurence Keesey of Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCl Communities, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Pelican Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI), to relocate 170,343 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the north commercial area to the south commercial area, reduce the approved maximum number of residential dwellings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units for property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US41) and Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. (Staff request.) Move Item 16(A)2 to 10E: Approval of a resolution to adopt a policy for the approval of funds for payment or reimbursement of travel expenses for official tourism business. (Commissioner Henning request.) Move Item 17A to 7D: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Request by William L. McDaniel for a Conditional Use re-review of CU-00-11, Longan Lakes Excavation, for property located at 7000 Big Island Ranch Road, further described as Section 25, Township 47 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Halas request.) NOTE: Item 17B: Page 2, Planning Services Staff Recommendations, delete conditions 6 and 7 and add condition 6. "There shall be an exotic vegetation removal, monitoring and maintenance plan that when implemented will maintain the site exotic-free in perpetuity. The plan shall be submitted to Department of Zoning and Land Development staff for review and approval as part of the site development plan submittal"; condition 7, "Should the parcel to the east develop before the subject parcel, the subject parcels access point shall be re-designed to align with the access point for the parcel to the east." And condition 8, "The childcare program shall take place in facilities located at the center of the subject site." (Joseph Schmitt, C.D.&E.S. Administrator.) TIME CERTAIN ITEMS: Item 10D to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Approve a resolution to authorize the Collier Mosquito Control District to expand boundaries further into the Golden Gate Estates. December 2, 2003 Item #2B, Item #2C M1NUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2003 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING, AND MINUTES OF OCTOBER 29, 2003 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD REGULAR MF, F, TING- APPROVF, D AS PRF, SFJNTED Entertain a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting, regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners on October 28th, '03, and October 29th, '03, Value Adjustment Board -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- regular meeting. Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. No service awards today, so we are going right to proclamations. Item #4A PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 1, 2003 AS HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY- Page 14 December 2, 2003 ADOPTED First proclamation will be delivered by Commissioner Coletta. This proclamation is, designate December 1st, '03, as Human Rights Week in Collier County. To accept this is Barbara Pedone from -- public information coordinator. Ms. Pedone? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whereas, on February 11, 2003, the Collier County Board of Commissioners established a community relation information and referral service to assist county residents through referrals; and, Whereas, the new service addresses discrimination complaints from residents of the county in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, and the whistle blowering (sic) -- blower act; and, Whereas, Collier County has initiated a marketing campaign to promote this service and to educate the residents of our community through public forums, Channel 11/16 programming, flyers and brochures, Website information, periodical (sic) news releases, the creation of a logo unique to this service, contact with the community -- community leaders and a dedicated phone line to receive calls from concerned citizens; and, Whereas, Collier County remains in constant contact with the local and state officials of the Florida Commission of Human Relations to assure county residents that the most current and accurate information is available; and, Whereas, complaints have been received from county residents and have been addressed by the community relation information and referral service staff and referred to the appropriate agency for determination and/or disposal (sic); and, Whereas, it is in the desire and intent of Collier County government to continue to promote service through the media as well Page 15 December 2, 2003 as public forums to educate county residents. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the week of December 1 st, 2003, be designated as human rights week in Collier County. Done and ordered this, the 2nd day of December, 2003, Tom Henning, chair. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Picture. Thank you. MS. PEDONE: I do have a few words, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, for the record. MS. PEDONE: Barbara Pedone from the community -- Community Relations Information and Referral Service. Excuse me with this cold. As you know, earlier this year the board approved a resolution which created the service to assist members of our community in filing possible discrimination complaints with Florida Commission on Human Relations. This week has been designated by the Florida Commission on Human Relations as Human Rights Week. And we in Collier County would like to take the opportunity to recognize the services provided Page 16 December 2, 2003 by the county to its citizens. Again, thank you for your support. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4B PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE STUART PERRY FOR HIS CONTRIPlIITIONS TO VOTER EMPOWERMENT- ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation I will have the privilege of delivering. This proclamation is to recognize Stuart Perry for his contributions to voter empowerment through the nation, so it's a great honor. And we have today -- also is the supervisor of elections, Jennifer Edwards. Whereas, Stuart Perry began his awareness program from Americus, Georgia, eight years ago; and, Whereas, Stuart organized three months (sic), 1,000 miles of walking from Americus, Georgia, to Chicago, Illinois, to the American Medical Association to remove the stigma of mental illness and depression; and, Whereas, Stuart has asked (sic) to speak as a mental health and voter empowerment advocate 45 states (sic) with the invitation to address the international meeting in Munich, Germany; and, Whereas, Stuart has been recognized by the National Mental Health Association with (sic) Clifford Beers award in 2000; and, Whereas, Stuart has received an endorsement from the former President Jimmy Carter and the former First Lady Rosalynn Carter and Mildren (sic) and Linda Fuller, co-founders of Habitat of (sic) Humanity; and, Whereas, Stuart has received the Point of Light Award for outstanding contributions in the field of mental health; and, Page 17 December 2, 2003 Whereas, Stuart is invited to speak at joint legislation (sic) session of the great State of Georgia, the House and Senate; and, Whereas, Stuart has implemented training for voter empowerment in Georgia with attendance of-- from the states of Texas, Alabama, and New Jersey and Wisconsin and North and South Carolina, allowing individual feel (sic) self-significant (sic) in the -- exercising the right to democratic process at the polls; and, Whereas, the Board of Commissioners and the supervisor of elections, as well as all of the Citizens of Collier County community (sic), do hereby recognize Stuart for his achievements. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners of Collier County that Stuart Perry receive recognition for his contributions to the voter empowerment and he will accept the county's sincere appreciation and genuine gratitude for his commitment. Done in this order, 2nd day of December, 2003. I make a motion to approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it. CHAIRMAN 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. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to get a picture of this moment. Mr. Perry, Supervisor of Elections, feel free to share some Page 18 December 2, 2003 thoughts for this great moment. MR. PERRY: Yes, sir, I sure would. First of all, from the hometown of President Carter and Ms. Rosalynn Carter and the International Headquarters of Habitat, they would want me to tell you, thank you for all the great service that you're doing here. They are great people, and I admire them very much, and they would really -- they really appreciate the work you're doing. As an individual who suffers from mental illness, it is an honor for me to be in your county. Voting means so much to me. There are so many people out there across the country who have disabilities, mental illnesses, never voted for the first time. Things like that are changing now. Our whole system is changing. We live in the greatest country in the world, and voting is so important. And as I told you a while ago, coming from President Carter and Ms. Rosalynn Carter's hometown, they really believe in voting. They really believe in mental illness. They are pushing this voting empowerment program that we're doing, trying to get people all across the country, who have never voted for the first time, registered. I was very excited about meeting the people here that work in your county. I think they're doing a great job. But we've got a long way to go, and we're getting there. But I want to, again, thank you very much for this. When I get home, I can't wait to show it to them. Thank you again. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5A PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVE J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE, FLORIDA HOUSE DISTRICT 76, IN Page 19 December 2, 2003 RECOGNITION OF THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF ROBERTS RANCH AND ITS OFFICIAL LISTING BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PIJACFJS - PRFJSFNTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next, going on to presentations. This first presentation will be presented by the honorable, great public -- one of the great public servants of Collier County, Representative Dudley Goodlette, Florida House District 76, in recognition of historical significance of the Roberts Ranch in its official listing by the U.S. Department of Interior on the National Register of Historical Places. Representative Goodlette? Mr. Jamro? MR. JAMRO: Yes, thank you. I'll just set this up for Dudley Goodlette, if you don't mind. Good morning. For the record, Ron Jamro, your museum director. In 1996, the Board of County Commissioners took a leadership role in preserving one of Collier County's premier historic sites, the Roberts Ranch in Immokalee, one of the oldest cattle ranches and continuous operations in the State of Florida. Today, thanks to your vision and generous support, the restoration of Roberts Ranch is nearly complete, its future promising, as it assumes a new role as our county's third historical museum. In recognition of this achievement, I am pleased to report that on October 4th of this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior officially placed Roberts Ranch on the National Register of Historic Places. This is a rare honor, reserved for only the most distinguished and valued historic landmarks in this nation. Roberts Ranch is only the 18th site to be listed in Collier County, and one of only 1,609 nationally registered properties in the entire State of Florida. Page 20 December 2, 2003 I can think of no better person to present the board with this certificate in recognition than the man who, for years, quietly urged citizens and government leaders both here and in Tallahassee to preserve Roberts Ranch as a museum and to keep alive the unique set of ideas and values it expressed for future generations of citizens. It's a personnel privilege and honor to introduce to you Representative, the Honorable J. Dudley Goodlette. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Ron. It is a pleasure for me. I'm glad to be in town during one of your meetings for a change, and it's an honor to be asked to make this presentation. Let me just read the award, I think it speaks for itself. It's from -- signed by Glenda Hood, the Secretary of State, State of Florida. This resolution -- maybe I better get my glasses, I can read it better. This is to certify that in recognition of its historic significance, Roberts Ranch has been officially listed in the National Register of Historic Places effective the 4th day of October, 2003, by the National Park Service, the Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. This is truly a historic day. It is an additional historic registry in this state -- in this county. I think it's something that we can all be proud of. This has evolved over a long period of time, as Mr. Jamro mentioned, but it's truly a day to celebrate, and I'm pleased to present this certificate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Representative Goodlette, it's an honor, and usually the chair accepts such award, but I can tell you the true advocate that should accept this award is Commissioner Coletta. He's been a real advocate for Roberts Ranch. So, Commissioner, if I can ask you to step down. Page 21 December 2, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. I do appreciate that, Commissioner Henning. MR. GOODLETTE: Congratulations. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for all you've done. We appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next item is public petition. 6(A) has been continued. Item #6B PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. TIMOTHY R. PARRY REGARDING GREATER COLLIER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER - TO BFi PI,ACED ON 12/16/03 RF, GIIIJAR AGENDA The next one is 6(B), public petition request by Timothy Parry regarding greater Collier County regional -- Greater Collier Regional Medical Center. Mr. Parry? You have Mr. Bruce Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning. I've changed my name to protect the innocent. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I'm pleased to represent Collier HMA, Inc., with this request to allow them to continue to utilize the name Collier Regional Medical Center or Greater Naples -- or Greater Collier Regional Medical Center for their proposed new hospital and medical office site on Collier Boulevard near its intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Present with me today to help answer any questions that you might have are Tim Parry, the senior vice-president and general counsel for HMA, Inc., and the project's engineer, David Wilkinson of Hole Mon -- or of Wilson, Miller, Inc. This new hospital project has been filed with the county for rezoning review, and it was in the context of this rezoning review Page 22 December 2, 2003 that the project name was raised as an issue by the county's addressing department as too similar sounding to other project names that are already in use. In support of this request, I would make the following points: Number one, the purpose of the county's addressing ordinance and the limitation of similar sounding names is to prevent confusion when emergency vehicles respond to a distress call. And I would respectfully submit to you, that with only three existing hospitals and this proposed fourth new hospital, emergency responders will able to recognize and find this one. Secondly, the addressing ordinance provides an outright exemption for franchise names. Collier Regional Medical Center is a trademarked name which is similar to a franchise protected name that's outright exempted by the ordinance. Another point, HMA has invested a lot of money in marketing this trademarked name, and the Certificate of Need that was issued by the state for this new hospital specifically references the trademarked name. Fourth, oddly enough, the addressing ordinance provides an outright exemption for multiple use of the name Naples but does not provide a similar exemption for use of the name Collier. And lastly, it is my understanding from discussions with Mr. Joe Schmitt that staff has no objection to this request but that we needed to bring this matter to the board as a public petition for you to grant our client approval to continue to use the name so the rezoning review process can continue. We would respectfully request your approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know this is going to come on the board's agenda later on for a land use, and would it be appropriate to discuss it at that time? MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you could. The issue that you have is, if they're doing advertisement stuff and they're putting their Page 23 December 2, 2003 name on it now, they'll do that before it gets to the -- to the land use piece, and that-- and that causes some concern, and Mr.-- Mr. Anderson mentioned that. The concern the staff has is, we don't have any exemption for Collier. We do have 15 other agencies that start with Collier, okay, on our books, and this would be the 16th. Staff doesn't have an issue with the name, but we just don't have the authority to grant the variance. It has to go to the board. I mean, you could solve this right here if you wanted to, or you could bring this back at a later time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Let me go to Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You know, an item like this that's coming up really needs to have a little more public input since it's going to be a decision made by the Board of County Commissioners. I would suggest that we move it to a regular agenda item, possibly at the next meeting, to be able to give it due consideration and have the public weigh in if there's any kind -- I don't know what kind of problems it would be, but I don't think this is the appropriate place for us to make that decision. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, consistent with our past practice, these are public petitions to place something on the next agenda. And it seems to me that if we are going to follow our practice, that that's what we should be considering is whether or not we should place it on the next agenda, and I would suggest we do place it on the next agenda. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I don't know see why we Page 24 December 2, 2003 can't name it Wilkinson Medical Center or something like that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about Henning Medical Center? That would be better. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that should be mental health. Item #6D PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY GEORGE FRYE TO DISCUSS NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY STAGE 2 BAN EFFORTS - NO ACTION TAKEN MR. MUDD: That brings us to item 6(D), Mr. Chairman, which is a public petition request by George Frye to discuss the Naples Airport Authority stage two ban efforts. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Frye. MR. FRYE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board of Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to speak to the issue of the stage two ban at the Naples Airport. For the record, my name is George Frye. I am a Collier County resident. I will say that my family first came down to Collier County shortly after Hurricane Donna in 1960. And although work has taken me back, away from Collier County on several occasions, I've managed to keep finding my way back here. You know, the old saying about sand getting in your shoes. Currently I'm employed at the Naples Airport at one of the FBO's there. And just to let you know about my background, I have had a number of years working in aviation, not only commercial, but general aviation. And as a boy growing up here in Collier County, I spent a lot of time in one of the volunteer organizations out at the Naples Airport. So I have a strong affection for the Naples Airport and for aviation especially. Page 25 December 2, 2003 Now recently, as a matter of fact, at the last meeting, you were asked by the Naples Airport Authority Board to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the Naples Airport Authority's ban on stage two jet aircraft. I'm here today -- excuse me. I am here today to plead against your filing such a brief. I am speaking on my own, but I do know that there are a number of people within the community, people who are familiar and people who are impacted by stage two ban who would be in agreement with me. I talk to pilots -- because of my work, I talk to pilots and tenants of the airport, businessmen, on a daily basis. Now, although the stage two ban on jet aircraft may have been motivated by good intentions, the consequences of the determined efforts of the Naples Airport Authority are substantial and detrimental to many of the citizens which you yourselves represent. The ban on stage two jet aircraft can be likened to a homeowner who tries to swat a mosquito with a sledgehammer. Even if he's able to kill the pest, the damage done by swinging that sledgehammer could very well destroy his home. It kind of reminds me of an old Donald Duck cartoon who got mad about two termites that were tearing down his house, and he started trying to kill them, and he ended up destroying the house in the process. There's three basic things I want to share with you. First off, I would like to share some basic facts about the -- about the ban. Number one, not all stage two aircraft are banned. Turbo prop, propeller driven aircraft whose noise production do not meet stage three requirements are not banned by this -- by this act of the airport authority. Number two, not all of stage two jet aircraft are banned. Air ambulances, military government aircraft are also exempted from the regulation. The only ones -- the ones that are most dramatically affected would be private owner jet aircraft and commercial or Page 26 December 2, 2003 business type of jet aircraft, aircraft that are owned by businessmen who may fly in and out of the jet -- out of Naples. Number three, stage two jets from the beginning were a minuscule portion of the total aircraft operations out of the Naples Airport. Less than one percent -- and this is by the figures of the airport authority members themselves. Less than one percent of all operations involve stage two jet aircraft. Fourth thing I'd like to share with you. The number of stage two aircraft in U.S. aviation is steadily diminishing through attrition. They're simply -- A, they're simply not making any more stage two aircraft. That's been ceased for 20 years, and B, the cost to maintain and operate them is constantly increasing. Aviation Data Service, a Wichita, Kansas, based company that tracks owners and operators of corporate jets estimates there are about 12 to 13 hundred stage two jets left in the country. And David Richardson estimated that 30 to 40 of-- 30 to 40 of these are dropping out of the fleet each year by attrition. And as more drop out, that rate will increase. Number five, fact, as we all know, the Naples Airport has lost a major revenue stream, its federal funding from the Federal Aviation Administration. This funding is what many airports rely upon for key projects that may otherwise be too expensive. Now, what may not be readily known or understood is that every penny -- every penny of the legal fees and the costs of this fight are coming directly from the tenants and the users of the airport. Mr. Soliday at one point in time was quoted as saying that 20 cents per gallon out of the fuel flowage fee, which at that time was 35 cents a gallon -- in other words, nearly 60 percent of the fuel flowage fee was dedicated -- was there solely because of the cost of these legal fees. Recently that flowage fee has been increased by another 14 percent, that's to 40 cents per gallon because of this continued fight. Page 27 December 2, 2003 It's not only businesses that are being affected, but also single engine private pilots, student pilots, flight schools, people who do not necessarily have the money to be able to fund this type of expensive litigation. The point I'm trying to make first is that millions of dollars have been spent disproportionate to the problem. Millions more have been lost, possibly permanently, due to the intransigence of the Naples Airport Authority. More and more people are questioning the value of pursuing this legal battle, including city councilmen. Naples Daily News reported about tenants who are upset about the increases. Pilots have gone to the Naples Airport Authority and have said, stop this, it's costing us, you're hurting us, and the authority continues to press on. Yet, the Airport Authority has repeatedly said that it will pursue the ban to the bitter end. The second thing I want to share with you is that less draconian measures may have been enacted which may have avoided the loss of federal funding and may also have avoided most, if not all of the legal fees that have burdened the tenants and users at the airport, for example, restricting stage two operations to specific hours, or the strategic placement of noise centers with stiff penalties for those who violate noise restrictions. The NAA, the Naples Airport Authority, could have worked with groups like the AOPA, NBAA, the FAT, other organizations who are sensitive and who want to help, but at the same time, have an interest in aviation. Another point I want to make, another thing I want to share with you, Naples Airport Authority was established in the late '60s. And at that point in time, to serve on that board, any resident of Collier County could have been appointed to serve, anyone with an interest in aviation; however, after almost 30 years, or approximately 30 years, the City of Naples decided that that was not okay anymore, Page 28 December 2, 2003 and in order to be appointed to the board of commissioners for the Naples Airport Authority, you must be a city resident, which, in effect, disenfranchised 90 percent of the residents of Collier County, which is most of the people that you-all represent. Now they have come to you -- after shutting out the residents of Collier County, now they come to you and want your endorsement, which is, in effect, wanting my endorsement. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I share with you, they do not have my endorsement in this stage two ban, and I sure hope that they will not get yours through this filing of this brief. Thirdly and lastly -- and I realize my time is drawing close, so I'll try to run through quickly. This ban has caused three grievous consequences. And I share this with you again to encourage you to back away from supporting this project. Number one, aviation safety is compromised. A significant airfield lighting project has been delayed because of the loss of federal funding. In March of this year, the executive director of the airport was reported to have said that the new lighting was a big safety issue for the airport. He said that what we have now is a standard lighting system that was build in 1943. We are now designing a lighting system that recognizes Florida as a capital for lightning. We have huge amounts of lightning at this airport. The lighting system needed to be changed, but it cannot be now because of this stage two ban. However, in the October Naples Airport Authority meeting, which I personally attended, the tune changed. The administration said there is no safety issue. This is six months after saying that there was. The FAA at one point in time offered to send the money to the NA-- to send the money if the Naples Airport Authority would step back from the stage two ban. Pardon me. My mouth is kind of dry. They have offered to send the money so that this could continue on, Page 29 December 2, 2003 but the airport authority refused. If one of my friends or family members were to get hurt because of the failure, I, for one, would be very upset and would go after anyone who was -- including the airport authority, city council, or anyone, who supported this ban. Second consequence is the cost of business. As I mentioned, the current flowage fee at the Naples Airport: is 40 cents per gallon. A quick phone survey yesterday -- a quick phone survey yesterday -- if I can just have just another brief minute. A quick phone survey yesterday, local airports reasonably similar to Naples, which recognizing that there's differences among all airports, other airports in Southwest Florida, the flowage fee runs from 5 to 21 cents, about half or less, maybe one-eighth of what the Naples Airport Authority's flowage fee is, and it's entirely because of this fight for stage two. It is an exorbitant fee that is hurting the businesses at the airport. And as I mentioned before, it's the businesses, it's the tenants, it's the people who fly in and out who are paying for this exorbitant burden for this ban. It would be as if the owners of the Coastland Mall increased the rent of its tenants to prevent certain customers from being able to shop there. In effect, this ban is telling -- is making the tenants pay to keep customers away. The last thing I want to share with you is, it is my opinion that this has undermined the financial stability of the airport. In one article in the paper, it was acknowledged that the airport authority underestimated the legal fees and overestimated fuel fees. This was in July of this year. I have been at many of the board meetings, and I know for a fact that hiring of personnel, important personnel, to do the jobs that need to be done has been delayed because of the fiscal crunch. At the last board meeting, looking at the projected budget for Page 30 December 2, 2003 2004 and looking at the start of the 2004 budget year, it is very clear to me that the fuel revenue has been severely overstated. The potential shortfall, as I brought up to them, based on their actions, potential shortfall could be as much as 300 or more thousand dollars. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Frye, do you have any closing comments? MR. FRYE: Yes. I'll just say this in closing. If you have sensed from me that there is a level of passion about this particular situation, then it's real. And I, for me, and knowing that there are many others who are with me, encourage you to step back, recognize that the people that you represent, many of whom have no voice through the Naples Airport Authority, would sincerely like that you would not file this brief, this amicus curiae brief in support of the stage two ban. CHAIRMAN HENNING: any direction to staff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. FRYE: Thank you. Any questions from (sic) Mr. Frye or Thank you, Mr. Frye. Item #7A ADA-2003-AR-4351 ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR., OF WOODWARD, PIRES AND LOMBARDO, P.A., REPRESENTING KEITH AND SUE ORSCHELL, REQUESTING AN APPEAL TO INTERPRETATION AR-4119 BY VIRTUE OF DIVISION 1.6 AND SECTIONS 2.7.3.5.2.2., 5.3.2.1. OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC), FOR REPLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME IN THE "A" AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6266 ADKINS AVENUE IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, Page 31 December 2, 2003 FI,ORIDA - TO BF, CONTINIIF, D CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 7(A), that is ADA-2003-AR-4351, Tony Pires of Pires -- Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo, representing Keith and Sue Orschell requesting to appeal the interpretation of AR-4119 by virtue of division 1.6, section 2.7.3.5.2.2.5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.2 -- we're going to fix that, correct -- of Collier County Land Development Code for the replacement of a mobile home park in the agricultural zoning district for the property located at 6266 Akins (sic) Avenue, section 12, township 49, range 25 east, of Collier County, Florida. Under Board of Zoning Appeals, normally we ask the petitioner to present first. Are -- we have a change of menu? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, planning services. I was informed by Joe Schmitt that the -- we were going to change up the presentation where the -- the county was going to go first and then allow Mr. Pires to go second. If the board would like to change that order, it's at your discretion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess that was a Board of Commissioners' policy. Does any of the Board of Commissioners have a problem with the changes? Please continue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Does the petitioner? MR. PIRES: I have no objection to that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commissioner Henning, and fellow board members. Mike Bosi, planning services. Just to give you a little context, I was the individual who helped provide Margaret Wuerstle, the former planning services director, the research in terms of reaching her interpretation as a result of the request of the Orschells and Mr. Pires. And just before I get into the process, let me give you a little context or history of this parcel of land to establish the past 30 years Page 32 December 2, 2003 and then we -- then the most recent past year events and how we arrived to this point today. In 1971 a building permit 71-494 was issued to Ed Johnson for a single-wide mobile home in an A-1 zoning district. In 1971, it was a legal and conforming use in structure at that point in time. And that mobile home sat there in use till 1997 when Mrs. Maureen Schoch, the current owner of the mobile home, received building permit number 97-100520, which was for the replacement of that single-wide mobile home for a double-wide mobile home, increasing the size of the mobile home. In 2003, February 11 th, a third building permit was issued for a triple-wide mobile home, thus repeating the process that was followed in '97 to increase the size of the nonconformity with a triple-wide mobile home. The visualizer provides the '97 on the left and the 2003 on the right. In May -- on May 1st, 2003, the county received a request for an official interpretation from Anthony Pires representing Keith and Sue Orschell questioning the legality of the replacement of a mobile home in the agricultural district, specifically at 6167 Adkins Road. Based upon the Land Development Code, the county has 45 days to respond to that official interpretation request. And that interpretation request basically focused upon stating that section 8.10 of the nonconforming section of the code which deals with nonconforming structures, basically does not allow for the increase in size of any nonconforming structures, whether it be a single-family home, mobile home, whatever the case may be. It doesn't allow for the increasing of nonconforming structures. The official interpretation was responded to on May 13th, signed by the former planning services director, Margaret Wuerstle. The -- or Exhibit E -- excuse me. Exhibit D is the official response in which Ms. Wuerstle stated Page 33 December 2, 2003 that section 8.10 and 8.10.4, which deals with the general section of nonconforming structure, is not applicable to this specific commodity because section 1.8.11 deals with a specific type of nonconforming structure, a mobile home in a specific zoning district, an agricultural district. This is the only -- the only special case or exception to nonconforming structures that is addressed by the LDC. And the -- the interpretation was met with -- that the building permit was issued underneath (sic) the premise of 8.11, which deals with the mobile homes in an agricultural zoning district and that it is, indeed, fact -- legal and per the code. On June 24th, the county received a request for an appeal to the official interpretation. Per code, if the applicant does not agree with the results of the official interpretation, they will request an appeal towards that official interpretation, and then, therefore, the issue is brought before the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Board of Zoning Appeals factors in all of the results, all of the regulations, all of the issues surrounding -- surrounding the circumstances and will render a decision either in support of the official interpretation or amending that official interpretation based upon all the code and sections that are applying to the individual circumstances. The amended appeal by Mr. Pires -- basically within your executive summary page three, the five points of the -- of the appeal basically focus upon section 8.10, in 8.10 the section in the nonconforming portion of the land development code that deals with general nonconformities, stating that a nonconformity cannot be increasing -- the degree of nonconformity cannot be increased by any -- by any action. That is -- on the surface, that is correct. What the Community Development, Environmental Services Division has interpreted is that 1.8.11 deals with the specific nonconforming structure in a specific zoning district, and that specific section has precedence over Page 34 December 2, 2003 the general section and the regulations within -- within 1.8.11 are the regulations that take precedence, and those regulations are contained within Exhibit F. And a quick review of that will state that it doesn't -- it doesn't state that the nonconformity cannot be increased or enlarged. What it states is that a replacement for a mobile home only has to meet the dimensional standards that are required within an agricultural zone, and that if the original building permit is supplied with the -- with the application for the replacement -- with the replacement mobile home and a plot plan showing where the location of that replacement mobile home is provided, then that is all that is statutorily required to allow for the issuance of a building permit. And that is basically where -- that is the issue and that's how Community Development, Environmental Services have interpreted 1.8 to deal with the specific commodity that addresses a mobile home in an agricultural zoning district. I would be more than happy to take any questions that the board may have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by the board members? The Orschells are opposed to the interpretation stating that a mobile home is -- this mobile home is increasing the nonconformity. I just looked up on the property appraiser's (sic), and 6266 Akins (sic) Avenue is owned by the Orschells. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, 6167 is the property that they're -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, but it's advertised as 6266. It says, Land Development Code for the replacement of a mobile home in agricultural zoning district for the property located at 6266 Akins (sic) Avenue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And actually, that property is owned by the Orschells. So I'm not sure if, because of advertisement, Page 35 December 2, 2003 whether we should continue this zoning appeal. MR. BOSI: I would -- and that would be a mistake on my part. I transposed the wrong address within the executive summary title. I would have to defer to the county's attorneys office as to the best way to handle this specific -- MS. STUDENT: I have just discussed this with Mr. Weigel, and it would be our opinion that there is an advertising error then and that it should be readvertised properly and brought back to the board at a later date. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. See what else I can remove from the agenda. We all do make mistakes, Mr. Bosi, so I recognize -- I apologize for-- Mr. Pires and the Orschells for this mix-up by our-- the county. Mr. Pires, do you want to address us? MR. PIRES: I defer-- and you-all listen to your county -- for the record, Tony Pires, Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo, representing the Orschells. This had been scheduled, in fact, for an earlier county commission meeting and then was continued, and we recognize that you need to have the legal process to go forward with it, but also, just for the record, I'd like to have on the record that there's been great personal -- it has a great personal adverse effect on my clients by virtue of the arrangements they had to make to be here today. And I just want to make sure that you-all are aware of that. I appreciate -- and we all are human. We all have those issues. I just want to make sure that that was known, and thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Item #7B CU-2003-AR-4524, JAMES B. MALLESS AICP, OF WIRELESS Page 36 December 2, 2003 PLANNING SERVICES, LLC, REPRESENTING PINNACLE TOWERS, INC., REQUESTS CONDITIONAL USE #13 OF THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF A 700-FOOT GUYED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER PER SECTION 2.6.34 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CONDITIONAL USE IS LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 14.55 + ACRES- CONTINUED TO JANUARY 13, 2004 - APPROVED Item #7 C VA-2003-AR-4525, JAMES B. MALLESS AICP, OF WIRELESS PLANNING SERVICES, LLC, REPRESENTING PINNACLE TOWERS, INC., REQUESTS A VARIANCE OF 690 FEET FROM THE MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONING OF 1,750 FEET TO 1,060 FEET; A VARIANCE OF 450 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 250 FEET TO 700 FEET FOR TOWERS IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT; AND A VARIANCE OF 6 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 30-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 24 FEET FOR A SINGLE GUY ANCHOR POINT IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- CONTINUED TO JANUARY 13, 2004 - APPROVED Next item is -- what is that? Something about a cell tower. That's item 7(B). MR. MUDD: 7(B). The item was continued, Mr. Chairman, Page 37 December 2, 2003 from the November 18th, 2003, BCC meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. This is conditional use 2003-AR-4524, which is James P. (sic) Malless, AICP, of Wireless Planning Services, LLC, representing Pinnacle Towers, Inc., requesting continual use number 13 of an A rural agricultural zoning district for a purpose of a 700-foot guided communication tower per section 2.6.34 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The property to be considered for the conditional use is located in section three, township 51 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 14.55 plus acres. I would also like to bring to the board's attention item 7(C), which is a companion item to 7(B). And if the board -- if the chairman would so let me do (sic), I'll read that 7(C) so we don't have to do it again, and then you could vote on them independently as you go along, because you're going to get -- when you hear the petitioner, you're going to get both the conditional use and the variance part, so. 7(C) reads -- again, this item from-- was continued from November 18th, 2003 BCC meeting. The items requires, again, that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commissioner members. It's variance 2003-AR-4525, which is James P. (sic) Malless, AICP, of Wireless Planning Services, LLC, representing Pinnacle Towers, Inc., requesting a variance of 690 feet from the minimum separation requirement for -- from residential zoning of 1,750 feet to 1,060 feet; a variance of 450 feet from the required maximum height limitation of 250 feet to 700 feet for towers in an agricultural zoning district; and a variance of six feet from the required 30-foot side yard setback to 24 feet for a single guy anchor point in agricultural zoning district on property herein described in Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to go back to the Page 38 December 2, 2003 previous item and entertain a motion to continue AD -- ADA-2003-AR-4351. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to continue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 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: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Thank you, Commissioner Coyle, for bringing that to my attention. On item 7(B) and 7(C), any party -- persons wishing to participate in this discussion or deliberation, please rise, raise your right hand, and the court reporter will swear you in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Petitioner, Mr. Malless, James Malless? Oh, any ex parte communication by the Board of Commissioners besides, Commissioner Halas, that he gave? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. I've been calling many people regarding this and researching it, and I have a file here also of people who have called me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I talked to the county manager on this item. Page 39 December 2, 2003 Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've talked to the county manager about this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've also talked with the county manager. CHAIRMAN HENNING: any further-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: well. Commissioner Halas, do you have I talked to the county manager as CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. Thank you. MR. MALLESS: Good morning. My name is James B. Malless. I'm a member of the American Institute of Certificated Planners. That's what AICP stands for. My address is 845 Mississippi Avenue, Lakeland, Florida. I'm the principal in the firm Wireless Planning Services. I'm here to represent Pinnacle Towers, Incorporated, which is the owner of the existing 545-foot tower and the property that it sits on, the 14 acres, and in addition, if approved, will be the owner of the 700-foot tower that we're here to discuss. I have with me today Brent (sic) Buggeln. Brent (sic) is the director of Collocation Real Estate and Construction for Pinnacle Towers. I also have Chief Paul Rowe here with the U.S. Coast Guard. He is the radio frequency technician and expert who can describe why this location, why this height, and answer those questions for you. And as the county manager mentioned, I would like to take these together as two requests because without one, the other doesn't work, so I think that makes the most sense. We're requesting the conditional use and the three variances to build a 700-foot tower at this site, the unmanned equipment buildings that house the electrical equipment, there will also be a generator at Page 40 December 2, 2003 the site for emergency uses. A little bit of history might be helpful at this time. You have in front of you just an aerial photograph of the area. It shows State Road 951, this is Tower Road coming across the property, you have the golf course, Eagle Creek Golf Course out to the north, you have some warehousing and offices and a ComCast Cable Company in the area. The tract is about 14 acres divided into two parcels. This parcel's not being touched. It's just a pine forest, basically, and the existing guide tower at this compound. The proposal would build the second guide tower just about 30 feet to the south of the existing tower. This tower that exists was originally a 700-foot tower. It pre -- probably predates most of the development in the area. It was reduced in height to 524 feet in October of 2000. That was done by Pinnacle Towers, the owner of the tower, to accommodate the collocation of additional antennas. That went through your site development plan. It was approved in 2000. What they have to do is, in order to add additional weight at the bottom where the antennas were, they were able to take 175 feet off of the top of the tower that wasn't being used to reduce the height, therefore allowing collocation. Earlier this year, General Dynamics and CSI, which are the consultants for these projects for the Coast Guard, approached Pinnacle Towers about locating the antennas on this tower and extending the height of this tower to 700 feet to accommodate the Coast Guard's antennas. Significant work was done to determine that the existing tower, because the antenna's now below 524 feet, that that tower could not be rebuilt and extended and support the additional antennas, therefore, we come before you for the conditional use and variance to build a second tower. Page 41 December 2, 2003 We've held the required neighborhood meetings, we've had multiple conversations with -- let me see -- Keith with Eagle Creek. I understand he's going to make some comments today. We've offered to attend any of his board meetings to explain the tower along with the Coast Guard. We have presented the required information in the application to support the staff and the planning commission findings that the project is consistent with the Collier County plan. I know that you've had those findings in front of you for a while. At this point I'd like to turn the presentation over to Chief Rowe who will explain a little bit about the Rescue 21 program and why this particular location, and then I'll come up for some final comments and questions. Thank you. MR. ROWE: While you're setting up, we're going to take a five-minute break. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please. The Board of Commissioners is back in session. MR. ROWE: You ready? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record. MR. ROWE: My name is Paul Rowe, 6570 Coolidge Street, Hollywood, Florida, 33024. Good morning. My name's Paul Rowe. I'm with the Coast Guard. I'm a chief electronics technician. Been in the Coast Guard 15 years and I've been an electrician -- electronics technician for 14. I've been working on this project that the Coast Guard has going on which is called Rescue 21, which is an upgrade of our VHF high set (sic) communication. This is a nationwide project going on to bring our 30-year-old equipment up to today's standards. I have a short presentation on how this will affect your community, or how it won't, and a little bit of information on the project. Page 42 December 2, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROWE: This picture here shows your current coverage, what we have now. This system will be going away. This is 30 years old. Old analogue systems, there's antennas, towers, and very old infrastructure. This is just the same picture which shows the problems with our current coverage. Up to the north you see spotted coverage. The blue over the white there is where there is insufficient radio coverage, and along the south there in the Everglades, quite a bit of insufficient radio coverage. This is what the coverage shows without a tower here in Naples. Our next tower north is Pine Island, and our next tower that would have coverage from the east would be an 1800-foot tower in Princeton, down near Homestead. And with this tower, it fills in the gap. This is what the picture would look like with coverage at this tower at 700 feet. It would have 30 miles of coverage straight offshore and would leave no gaps of coverage. This is a short video on how the entire system works. (A video was played as follows:) "Search and rescue is what the Coast Guard does day and night. When a mayday call comes in from a boater, they must quickly pinpoint the location of the call and coordinate the rescue operation. The Coast Guard conducts over 40,000 searches and rescues about 4,000 people every year. Using the current national distress system, mayday calls may not be heard and response times are slow because of outdated communication equipment. Now, the new Rescue 21 system will make locating and communicating with boats in distress a lot easier and faster. Here's how it works. A mayday call goes out from a boater ship and is received by a communications tower or high sight along the coast line. The direction finding equipment located within the high Page 43 December 2, 2003 sight automatically computes associated lines of bearing or the direction from which the signal is coming. Both the audio of the mayday call and calculations of the line of bearing are sent to an operator, called a watch stander, at the closest Coast Guard ground communication center and to additional ground centers in adjacent regions. Inside the communication center, the operator hears the distress call relayed through a speaker and sees a :map of the region and the lines of bearing from the high sight. Mayday, mayday, mayday. Calling U.S. Coast Guard, calling U.S. Coast Guard. Busy as a may (sic). We're sinking. On this map, it's easy to see the lines of bearing beginning at high sight, expending directly toward the source of the call. The Rescue 21 system will give the Coast Guard the ability to accurately place a vessel's position within two degrees of the line of bearing. And if more than one tower receives the distress call, additional lines of bearing are displayed on the map from each of the towers, giving them a more accurate location of the vessel in trouble. The current location and status of Coast Guard rescue units are dispatched, and they are dispatched immediately to make the rescue." (The video concluded.) MR. ROWE' Okay. That's it for the video. About a year and a half ago, General Dynamics came down here to map the area and pick out towers along the west coast of Florida, and we picked -- or they picked the Pinnacle Towers, which was at 700 feet, or listed at 700 feet. And that tower, if you remember the picture there between the Pine Island and what we have to the east of us, really fills in that gap nicely. So it is very strategically located. What this tower will bring you is approved coverage for the marine community. You saw without the tower. There's insufficient radio coverage. This new system will allow us to monitor six different frequencies. Right now we can only do two, Channel 16 Page 44 December 2, 2003 and Channel 21. It will give us the ability with the direction finding equipment that's updated now, with the new system, to disseminate between false calls, or if someone's sitting in their garage calling mayday to send us out somewhere else and give us a position, we'll be able to see that with the screen now. So there will be less false calls, or we'll be able to disseminate if it's a false call or if it's an actual with the lines of bearing that come back from the actual radio signal. The upgraded system will allow for a more rapid location with the direction finding equipment, give us cross hairs directly to the point where the distress is at. With this new system, we'll have better phone patching capabilities and interoperability with local, state, and federal civilian agencies up in the 400 megahertz range, which is what a lot of state -- police, the fire departments, ambulance, a lot of those use that frequency or that frequency band. And all these improvements will enhance homeland security. If we can't get the tower at 700 feet, multiple smaller towers will be needed to provide sufficient coverage. And as late in the game as we are with this project, the timeline to get this area done -- because this is a nationwide project which Congress mandated to be finished by 2006. Very aggressive. We probably will not meet the timeline for this region. This is the limitation schedule which is put out. You can see down there on the bottom right, St. Pete, which Naples falls in the St. Pete AOR, area of operations, was scheduled to be done 2003. We're a couple months behind. We anticipate being done with this region mid 2004. This is our website for any future -- for any other information. There's a lot of other information on there. It can be handed out. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the Board of Commissioners? Commissioner Halas? Page 45 December 2, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I got a couple -- couple of questions. First off, you said that it's almost mandatory to have the tower at 700 feet. Can you tell me what the propagation difference would be between 500 feet and 700 feet? MR. ROWE: It's approximately six miles, radius. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're only looking at a difference of about a six mile radius, right, between 700 and feet 500 feet, as far as your propagation of the signal? MR. ROWE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You're talking about, that you're monitoring Channels 16 and 21. What other-- what are the other four channels that you're going to be monitoring? MR. ROWE: With this new system, we'll be able to switch frequencies to any VHF frequency band. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pardon? MR. ROWE: We'll be able to switch frequencies in the VHF band. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the VHF band is like Channel 16 and 21, or are you talking about 800 megahertz range? MR. ROWE: No. Right now the -- 154 megahertz to 430 megahertz. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. This is for the petitioner. I know that you're speaking on behalf of the petitioner. Obviously, there's more than just the Coast Guard that's going to be on this antenna; is that correct? MR. ROWE: I can't speak for Pinnacle Towers. MR. MALLESS: For the record, James Malless again. The reason we're here today is because of the request of the Coast Guard. The tower will be designed as required by your code, for additional collocation in the future. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how many other channel -- or Page 46 December 2, 2003 how many other users do you feel that's going to be on this tower other than the Coast Guard? MR. MALLESS: I'd like to bring up Brett Buggeln then of the -- to answer that specific question. MR. BUGGELN: For the record, my name is Brett Buggeln. I'm the director of Collocation Real Estate and Construction for Pinnacle Towers, 301 North Cattlemen, Suite 300, Sarasota, Florida. Commissioner, to date we have received interest in this site from your own county emergency services, which they've indicated to us that should the tower be constructed that they would be interested in locating antennas and facilities there. In terms of other users, we've solicited responses from the State of Florida, which is involved in homeland security activities as well. So our primary focus right now is securing government agencies for this tower. In terms of, our overall policy is to encourage collocation, so we would also, if the need arose, we would anticipate accommodating other commercial users in addition to the approximately 10 that we have on the existing tower. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My next question is, suppose that we go through with the variance of this tower at 700 feet, would that be feasible to take down the tower that's at 500 feet so we don't continue to have towers upon towers? In other words, where you would collocate everything that's on tower number one at the present time and put it on to this, we'll call, tower number two? MR. BUGGELN: Well, one of the -- part of the impetus for constructing this additional tower is that we do have users on that existing tower that have some separation requirements or that would anticipate, quite possibly, having problems with the Coast Guard's antennas being in proximity to theirs. So we'd like to keep those as far away as possible so that we don't impact our current contracts. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how far would these towers Page 47 December 2, 2003 physically be apart from each other? MR. BUGGELN: These towers would be 30 feet apart, but we're also interested in the vertical separation, and we cannot add the 200 feet back on to the existing tower. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I'm getting at is, if you need 30 feet of differential from one frequency to another and if you have a 700-foot tower, it seems to me that you could possibly collocate all the additional users on tower number one to the tower number two. Is that -- would that -- and still have the 30-foot distance separation so that you didn't have cross-talk in the -- with the frequencies that are on the tower. MR. BUGGELN: Commissioner, what we've tried to do with using the Coast Guard as our primary tenant here is to provide additional space primary for government users. And I think we made that clear before the Planning Commission that that was our primary impetus here. Now, in order to do that, we've tried to make as much space available for those types of user which we wouldn't find on the old tower. So moving those users over to this new tower -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. BUGGELN: -- would obscure that space in the end again, so we'd be stuck with the same problem of soliciting tenants from the State of Florida, from the county here to go on that tower, and we'd be left with the same sort of crowded space issue that we would have if we were to migrate to one facility. That's the answer to that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is we're going to end up with two towers in this location, and obviously there's some land left, so at a future date there could also be a third tower that would come into play. And so what I'm trying to do is see if there's a way of consolidating so that we only end up with one tower. And then the other question is that if we decide to stay at the requirement we are at the present time of 500 feet, we're only going Page 48 December 2, 2003 to lose about six miles radius -- six miles of coverage -- is that correct-- from what I understand? MR. BUGGELN: Commissioner, I'd -- obviously I'd rather have the Coast Guard address your -- the second part of your question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great. I believe that's what the gentleman told me. I just want to clarify that. MR. BUGGELN: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't go away. MR. BUGGELN: No, I won't. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. ROWE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that correct? Okay. MR. ROWE: If we were to lower it down to 500 feet, you would lose that six miles. Also General Dynamics has come to me with that scenario, and we would need another location north of this site to fill that six miles between Pine Island and Naples. So there -- not necessarily need to build another tower north, but need to find another location as well as the Naples tower. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I've just got one other question. And I assume that's using the present technology of the highest gain antennas? MR. ROWE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, and then I'm going to weigh in on that next. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a number of questions. It's very difficult to ask questions when you're talking about homeland security, because, of course, that's apple pie, motherhood, and the American flag, and nobody wants to oppose anything like that. At the same time, we're very concerned with the security at home. And we -- there are many things that concern me. Page 49 December 2, 2003 Number one, the Department of Transportation has objected to this proposed tower because they feel that there's tremendous amount of airplane traffic in that area, and it could be cause for accidents. And, of course, indeed, there was an accident just a few years ago. Maybe that's why the tower was actually lowered. And when the airplane hit the guy wires, it took a while for it to get down to the ground. And in that time frame, of course, there were some empty fields around. But that area is filling in tremendously. We have a -- Lands' End going in there with some towers right down the street from you, and right across right behind you, there's going to be Wentworth Estates with 1200 residents, and I believe, nine-story towers. These are all -- I'm very concerned about the safety of these people. And then, you say that it won't be an obstruction, but now you've got 700 feet of lights blinking all the time, plus you've got the ancillary buildings that are going to be housing air-conditioning and some of the -- what was it, generators that make quite a bit of noise. And then you want to move it closer to the residential area because of the guy wires, and there's some confusions on my part there. You want to move it closer to the residential area, you say, instead of 1750 feet away, which is according to law, you want to move it to 1060, except here on -- in 7(C) on page 17, it says, the request is to reduce the required tower to residential separation distance from 1750 feet to 270 feet. This is a reduction of 1480 feet. Well, that's not acceptable at all. I just -- I'm really having a tremendous problem. Certainly we want homeland security, but I'm having a tremendous problem with this location for a 700-foot tower being that it is -- the development that's taking place right now. We have to protect those homes as well. Can't see why we can't put it down the street a little bit further into the Everglades area where you're never going to have any Page 50 December 2, 2003 homes. You can have your 700-foot tower, and it won't bother anybody, and there won't be a safety problem there as far as in the line of airplane traffic. I know I gave an awful lot at one time. There's more, but go ahead. MR. BUGGELN: Commissioner Fiala, I think I heard some implied questions in what you had to say. The first thing is that we have not received a final FAA determination on the feasibility of the tower and the height that the FAA would find acceptable for this location. And frankly, we -- they are the ultimate arbiter of air-- of air traffic safety, and we abide every day by what they have to tell us. So in this case, we would be governed by their determination, and we would certainly -- that is certainly not something that anybody challenges. We fully accept that they are the arbiter of safety. The second thing is, I think that, perhaps, there's a little misconception here about the unfortunate accident that occurred at the -- at the site. The tower was lowered by 200 feet to accommodate additional users at the site. It was not lowered as a result of that accident. That accident occurred several years before we at Pinnacle decided to lower the height of that. It was not driven by that occurrence, so I just want to make sure -- I think you already understand that, but I just wanted to make sure that that's clear on the record. The second thing is that Pinnacle is obviously a landowner here. We own that 15 acres, and we're a member of the community. Those towers are strategically located in the -- almost the middle of the parcel. So in terms of noise, I think that you're implying from the comments about the generator or air-conditioners and that type of thing, I think that you'll find that when you look at the plan -- the Page 51 December 2, 2003 parcel on the overhead and then the surroundings of that parcel, you'll find to the north, we're directly bounded by the golf course and the several holes, I believe, that run along that boundary. So we are set back some distance from the homes if you take that into consideration from the noise point of view. You also see -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me interrupt you just a moment MR. BUGGELN: Yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to say, what I'm concerned about are the proposed PUDS that are in that area that are moving through the process now, and I'm not just thinking of the site as it looks today but as it's going to look in five years. MR. BUGGELN: Sure, sure, I understand that. But to be honest with you, we -- we expect that the tower will be there for more -- both of the towers, if that's what the board wishes, that those towers will be there for many years from now, and that we will be -- that's the use we'll have for this property. So those -- I think those are the points that I heard you raise. Hope I didn't miss anything specifically. I know you have probably a couple things on your plate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do, but I'll come back to them later. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, you wanted-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, wait, wait, I do have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He didn't answer this one, and this was where -- the rest of the paperwork that we received said that you were -- you were asking for a variance from 1750 down to 1060, but this one says down to 270. MR. MALLESS: James Malless for the record. That was a misinterpretation originally on the application on my part. That was Page 52 December 2, 2003 later corrected via conversations with Mike about how to measure the distances. So in that one section of the code for the tower separation, Mike's calculations that you see in front of you in the ordinance are now the correct measurements. CHAIRMAN HENNING: In the ordinance? MR. MALLESS: Or in the support documentation and -- for the variance ordinance that you would approve in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Question for the gentleman from the Coast Guard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I heard was, the signal from a boater that you receive is also going to have GPS locations that you can locate that person in distress? MR. ROWE: If the boater has his equipment, his radio hooked up to his GPS -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. ROWE: -- when you hit that emergency button, which is on the new radios -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. ROWE: -- it sends out a digital signal with all that information on it on Channel 70, which Channel 16 and 70 will always be, 24 hours a day, monitored. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. I understand that one now. The gentleman from Pinnacle stated that the county has some interest. How does that work out as far as -- is that a lease -- lease agreement or fee -- no charge for that? Not that I would consider that under my -- under my vote. MR. BUGGELN: Mr. Commissioner, typically Pinnacle, as part of, you know, being a member of the community, we generally do not charge the local jurisdictions that are providing emergency services, which benefit us as well in terms of fire, police response to the site. That is not something that we generally charge rent for. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. So you're saying, in response is, Page 53 December 2, 2003 you're not going to charge local government to have a -- something on the tower? MR. BUGGELN: Not-- no, sir, not if it benefits the community, which, I mean, if we're provid-- if there's an antenna there for the police or fire, then -- or ambulance, then we would -- we would accommodate that -- that entity where we could on the tower and with facilities to meet their needs in terms of housing their transmitter and that type of thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Are you saying no charge? I didn't get that. MR. BUGGELN: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. Thank you. Any further questions, or should we -- Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. Yeah, I did hear you say no charge. I'm just kidding. A couple of questions, if I may. Is this just for radio, or is it also going to have radar or microwave? MR. ROWE: Well, the Coast Guard's use is just radio. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other-- the other thing, we have the unique opportunity here maybe to get another opinion. We have Gene Schmitt from the -- director of the airport authority. I was wondering if I may call him forward to ask him if he has any concerns as far as Marco Airport goes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then we're going to Commissioner Coyle. Mr. Schmitt, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You heard the deliberations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt has not been sworn in. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So please swear at him. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SCHMITT: And I'm Gene Schmitt, the executive director of the Collier County Airport Authority. Page 54 December 2, 2003 I do have concerns about the height, although what we've been talking about up until now, I believe, has been mostly horizontal measurements, and I'm more concerned about the height of the tower. And I do recall the accident that you referred to. As a matter of fact, I was -- I worked with the FAA on that investigation, and I'm quite familiar with what happened there. Naturally, my concern is -- and the tower is lower. And the approach from -- to the Marco Airport, the navigational facility that is used for that approach is at the Naples Airport. And so you take a -- you use that facility to aim your airplane at the Marco Airport, and you do what is called a step down approach, step down meaning you can come down to a certain altitude. And at this point, when you cross the tower, they've given you separation if you look at the approach charts, and then as you pass the tower, you can descend down to another altitude and another altitude. For that reason, it's called a step approach. I -- the accident that we referred to earlier had to do with a mistake that was made where the airplane got below that altitude that they were demanded to fly at. And, of course, this was a classic pilot error type thing. But I have not received anything from the FAA on this, and until I do, I'll have to withhold judgment. But I can tell you that I will be very active in the -- in assimilating the information and distributing whatever information that we have from the airport. I do -- I do have a serious concern about this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is the 700-foot tower right in the path between the two airports? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: For the approach off of the Naples facility. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, then Page 55 December 2, 2003 Commissioner Halas. Was that it, Commissioner Coletta? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That covered it well enough. Thank you, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I believe, and I agree with Mr. Schmitt, that the issues concerning aviation safety are best left up to the people who understand it. And the FAA and the airport authority, I'm sure, will be looking at this very closely. But I'm still confused about the residential zoning variance, the separation distance. Commissioner Fiala raised the issue about going from 1750 to 1,060. I'm confused by the comment that was made that it has been changed. I would like some exact numbers on that, please. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, planning services. The original application submitted indicated that it was 270 feet from the nearest multi-family portion of Eagle Creek. He was measuring that from the northwest guy anchor point. The residential separation is from the tower base, which is at 1,060 feet. The anchor point is at a much closer -- at a much closer proximity, and that's where the original confusion lies, where the 270 number comes from. The correct separation that they're seeking would be a variance of-- the variance of 690 feet because it is currently 1,060 feet away from the residential component of the Eagle Creek Golf Course. And it is, indeed -- the Eagle Creek Golf Co -- the Eagle Creek PUD, there's a golf course tract and there's a residential tract, and that residential tract is, like I said, 1,060 feet away from the base of the tower. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's start from the beginning then. MR. BOSI: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the title for this item it says, Page 56 December 2, 2003 you're requesting a variance, a minimum separation requirement of 1750 feet to 1,060 feet, okay. That's roughly a 700-foot variance. Now, what did you say is the new number? MR. BOSI: There is no new number. That is the number. They're requesting a variance of 690 feet from the required residential separation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it is exactly as it is stated here then? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There was no error? MR. BOSI: Correct. The number that was introduced by Commissioner Fiala was, I believe, numbers that were -- that was included within their original application. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you want to move this 690 feet -- the tower 690 feet closer to the residential areas than its current -- MR. BOSI: No. There's no moving of the to -- here -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: The new tower. MR. BOSI: The issue is separation from a residential structure. Any new tower that's developed under the conditional use process has to be two and a half times the height of the tower away from any residential district. At the -- at the base of the tower at the proposed location, the tower would only be 1,060 feet away from that closest residential separation, the closest residential district. Per code, a 700-foot tower would actually need to be 1750 feet, so they do not meet that two and a half times separation, and that's what that variance is for. They're not moving it closer to a residential, but they want to develop a -- they want to develop the tower at that location, but the residential -- the residential component just -- it happens to be within that two and a half times distance requirement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the new tower, because of its height, will not meet the required setback distance from the Page 57 December 2, 2003 residential? MR. BOSI: Correct. The original tower was constructed -- since the day of construction, residential components had moved into the general location that -- because of the residential locating where they did, it has rendered the existing tower nonconforming of that -- of the two and a half times separation requirement. The new tower would not be able to meet that two and a half times separation requirement. That's what that variance is specifically for. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got it now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned about the initial 200 feet for -- in the vertical height and how that will affect the aircraft, especially in the limited visibility. I'm concerned if that 200-foot height will have a great problem here with aircraft as they're landing. Can the airport manager here -- MR. BOSI: Recent state legislation has dictated that local governments cannot weigh in on the federally permitting process of a local tower. And as Commissioner Coyle has pointed out, the FAA is the expert in the determining of the final height. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. BOSI: If we approve it at 700 feet and the FAA comes in and says, because of a safety hazard, 535 feet is all they're going to get, 535 is all that they're going to get. That's a determination that's made up of a number of factors that all of us here probably can't appreciate or understand as greatly as the FAA. And the FAA is going to provide their final determination, and it's going to be strictly based upon safety, the input of the local airport authority, and all of the factors that would go into it. So in regards to the final height issue, the FAA does have that final determination. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I have, if you Page 58 December 2, 2003 lowered the height of the tower to 500 feet, how would this fall into the equation as far as the setbacks and everything else that was just discussed by Commissioner Coyle? MR. BOSI: The 500-foot tower would only have to be -- would only have to be 1250 feet. It would still need a variance from that separation requirement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Back to the question of separation and distance between residential. You say from the base of this tower you want a variance to 1,060 feet. But where are the guy wires; is that the thing that's 270 feet from a residence? MR. BOSI: Correct. And I -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then the buildings on the property that -- you know, that are going to be housing the electrical and the generators and so forth, we haven't mentioned where they are in relationship to the residential community. MR. BOSI: The buildings of-- and this is just my experience of the tower industry. The buildings at the base of a tower are located within a close proximity to the base of the tower. So if the base of the tower is 1,060 feet away from their closest residential structure, then the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Bosi, why don't we let the petitioner answer that. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. MR. MALLESS: If I may, James Malless again. The tower and the equipment is approximately 275 feet, 290 feet away from the north property boundary. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you show us, please? MR. MALLESS: Yes. MR. MUDD: Here. Don't use your finger. MR. MALLESS: I'm sorry. Page 59 December 2, 2003 MR. MUDD: Use my pen. MR. MALLESS: Thank you. This is the compound. The existing tower is approximately here, the new tower would be built a little bit to the south. This is the north property line with the golf course for the Eagle Creek. And so this distance from here, the compound to the north, is about 275 feet. So -- and they're significant. If you look at the aerial, you'll see significant existing buffering between the residential so that they won't even be able to see, my guess, any of the buildings at the ground level or any noise. Because it's -- the buildings have a simple air-conditioner that's just very similar to what you have outside your home, so you would have the same noise level if you had a bank of air-conditioners in a condo building that you'd have if you're standing right next to the site. The second part about the generator and the noise is that the generator will only kick on if there's an emergency and there's no power, and that's when you really need the telecommunications at the site to work because there will -- you'll have to have your emergency folks being able to communicate with themselves there on the site. That's why we have the generators. I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says that the existing tower does not meet the standards that were approved after the tower was built. Can you tell me why? MR. MALLESS: Can I -- yes, I'll try. The existing tower is a -- is a legal nonconforming use. When it was originally built, it met all of the standards in place at that time. When you imposed additional standards in 1996 with your zoning code, you changed that standard. So the only way to have this tower, quote, meet the standard would be literally to pick it up off of the base and move it to some point where it was now 1750 feet away from any residential when the tower was 700 -- that's not normally done in the course of business. Page 60 December 2, 2003 I would surmise that the residential moving towards it made this tower nonconforming. The tower was conforming up until the point that the residential was built near it. I would also point out -- and I think it's interesting that there's a concern with towers on property values and aesthetics, and I understand those concerns. But this area -- when you were talking earlier, Commissioner, that there seems to still be a draw of residential into this area where the tower doesn't seem to have a negative impact on the marketplace. Intuitively we say maybe it should, but the people still seem to be moving to the area in their residential homes, which tells me that the towers are not as big of a negative impact as we sometimes like to think that they are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the new ones aren't built yet. MR. MALLESS: That is true, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MALLESS: The new tower's not built. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And one more thing, I just kind of thought it was laughable. It says, multiple towers on the site will reduce the visual impact. And I thought, how can-- how can a 524-foot tower reduce the visual impact of a 700-foot tower with now double the lights blaring all night long? MR. MALLESS: Well, I made that-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just thought that was kind of laughable. MR. MALLESS: I made that statement for two purposes. The first is, if you go -- if you take an area with zero tower in it and you put in a 700-foot tower, you now have 700-foot of visual impact. If you put a second tower next to an existing tower, your additional visual impact is a little bit of width, that at about a half of mile goes away. If you're more than a half a mile away from two towers at 30 feet, they look like one tower, essentially. If you get closer, you can see the separation of the towers. But you really -- Page 61 December 2, 2003 your additional visual impact is that 200-feet above it. And it's just simply the fact that, it's like you put in your zoning code, which is very luclidian (phonetic). You put similar uses next door because they have minimal impact on the adjacent thing. Your code says, in section 2.3.35.6.7, placement of more than one tower on a land site is preferred and encouraged. And I think that was done originally because you would rather have the visual impact in one location versus spread out. And the concern at the time in 1996 was the proliferation of towers and the visual impact over long corridors. So, you know, we think that that -- we represent that that part of your code, we are meeting the intent of it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We've got how many public speakers? MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we're down to two. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Maybe the public speakers can answer some of our questions, then we'll go back to the commissioners for questions. Please call them up. MS. FILSON: Michael DeBoer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Michael who? MS. FILSON: DeBoer. MR. MUDD: Sue, you're going to have to speak into that microphone a little bit. MR. MALLESS: He is with us. He's not going to be speaking. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next speaker? MS. FILSON: Okay. The final speaker is Keith Tompkins. MR. TOMPKINS: My name is Keith Tompkins. I'm the property manager for the Eagle Creek Homeowners' Association there. I attended the public meeting back in September. In fact, ! think I was the only person that attended. So I think-- I thank everybody Page 62 December 2, 2003 for their presentation. It was enlightening, as is today. As people have come back to Eagle Creek and are becoming more and more aware of this, I think their concerns are growing. Now, what changed between that time when I attended the meeting and today? I think that's it, that as people become more aware of it -- there are some safety issues. The initial plane crash that was talked about earlier-- one other part -- a thing you may not know about the story is one of the -- the wing that came off actually landed on Eagle Creek's property, just off one of the fairways there. There were people on the golf course playing when it happened and saw the wing actually come down. So the safety issue is not a minor one. Certainly something I was not aware of until today, nor are the homeowners of Eagle Creek aware of, were the -- is the opposition of the DOT to the tower. I guess I'd characterize it as opposition, their concerns about it. And given that the FAA has not made a final ruling on it, it just seems maybe it's premature for the commission to maybe approve it. Strictly a personal observation of it today. But if there's a possibility that the FAA's not going to approve this anyway, maybe the cart's before the horse here, if you will. The other issue I would say about the safety and the density out there, it is an ever growing -- a number of people, residences out there. There are two schools. There's a shopping center to go in across from Eagle Creek. There are several hundred homes going in at Lands' End Preserve just adjacent to Eagle Creek as well. All of that area, that's all approved to occur. Many, many more people are going to be there in a residential and a commercial fashion in years to come. If there's any way possible that this could be reconfigured so that you wouldn't have this 700-foot tower, I think for all parties involved, the FAA, the people of Eagle Creek, and the people that Page 63 December 2, 2003 live out in that area would likely prefer that given the issues. One last issue. The buffer between the tower that you see up there that exists today that would screen the tower is going to go away. It's, quite frankly, mostly Brazilian pepper. We're on a 1 O-year plan within Eagle Creek, so it's going to be sterile, to say the least. It's a concern I didn't really understand until today in looking at the picture. That's our obligation to remove that, and we're doing that at this time through there. But for all of those -- you know, the visual impact of it as well as the safety issue impact of it, I rise in -- just to -- representing the Thank homeowners of Eagle Creek to express the concerns we have. you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Halas, you had some further qUestions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. That's kind of a follow-up question in regards to what -- the question you asked in regards to, they provide government, local government access to this antenna. At what height is the local government access antennas located on this tower? MR. BUGGELN: For the record, Brett Buggeln, Pinnacle Towers. Commissioner, we have not been advised by the emergency services for Collier County what their exact intentions as to antennas or antenna heights would be on the new tower at this time. We're waiting for a response from them. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me, basically in communities that you deal with, what is the location of the height of those antennas for local government? MR. BUGGELN: I cannot -- I can't tell you exactly, sir. I mean, we have a lot of different jurisdictions that we provide this type of space to, and it's -- they're met -- we meet their requirements. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Page 64 December 2, 2003 MR. BUGGELN: Wherever we have available space and they need it, we put them there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- two things. One, I seen Mr. Schmitt standing up there earlier. I don't know if he had something additional to add, but I -- if he does, I'd like -- you don't. When the time is appropriate, I'm prepared to make a motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. But I would make the motion also, and I would make a -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I would like to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. You may. Or -- you know, Commissioner Coletta asked to make this motion, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion would be to limit the height to 500 feet subject to approval from the FAA. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I would have suggested that we move it altogether to another location, 700 feet down in the Everglades where it wouldn't be in the line of a burgeoning community or -- no, I shouldn't say burgeoning -- let me say growing community. I would like to see it in another area altogether. So I'm sorry, but I couldn't go along with that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Coyle, Page 65 December 2, 2003 I have concerns about general public safety and what the goal is of the Coast Guard. So I need to hear from the Coast Guard if this site is going to work at 500 feet or you're going to have to add another tower to accommodate the safety of a voting community. MR. ROWE: Presently at 500 feet, we would be missing that six-mile coverage, which is -- it's kind of strategically located for a tower at this location. There does appear to be a tower that we can use to fill that gap. So to build another tower, most likely, no. To use another tower, yes, to fill it. Now, the other thing is to move it far south into the Everglades? Going from 700 to 500, you lose six miles. You -- every hundred feet you lower it, you lose three miles. Every mile down the road, you -- every three miles down the road, you have to raise it. So if you were to relocate the tower in, say, a less populated area down in the Everglades, you would-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That isfft the motion right now. MR. ROWE: -- need a huge tower. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But that isn't the motion. The motion is at 500 feet, and we're going to deal with the motion. MR. ROWE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I would -- would like the board members to weigh a couple of things. When you begin to reduce the height, you reduce the circle of protection for boaters and you also reduce the range for detection of illegal activities. And I would prefer to see the board let the experts decide what the safe height is. I personally, you know, just based upon my general knowledge of the approach to the Marco Airport, believe that 750 feet is going to be very, very difficult to permit a reasonable approach from the Naples Airport navigational facility, but let's let the experts Page 66 December 2, 2003 determine that. They know more about the safety issues than we do. I would much prefer to see a motion that would say, let's defer this until the FAA makes a decision as to what -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was going to be my motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the height is. But I just don't like trying to get involved in somebody else's business and trying to second guess the safety of something that I know nothing about. And I would just prefer to see us proceed along that direction. But it's -- six miles is a long distance on the water, and we know from past experience that a lot of strange things have happened down in that part of the coast. And I think from the standpoint of homeland security, it's going to be important that we provide as wide a surveillance net as we possibly could get down there. And I would like to see us maximize the capability of this -- of this tower consistent with safety issues, and the safety issues will be evaluated by somebody who is much more familiar with that than I am. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I understand exactly where you're coming from, Commissioner Coyle, but also the gentleman just stated that the six-mile range could probably be covered with the addition of an antenna on a preexisting tower. So I think we probably covered-- hopefully we covered that aspect of it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle -- Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. I'd like to also remind you of the fact that most likely when you're trying to move this tower out into the Everglades, you're going to meet very serious resistance that's going to go on for years. The safety network won't be into place. You already have one tower that's of about the same height. The second tower really isn't going to have that much impact. But I Page 67 December 2, 2003 do think it's necessary to limit to 500 feet, not only for the safety aspects -- I'm sure the FAA's going to come through with the correct determination, but maybe it might be below 500 feet, that's why I included them in the -- that determination. We have to be -- we have to be considerate of the people that live in Eagle's (sic) Creek. They're going to have to look at this for -- just forever. And this gives them the consideration of the extra couple feet. I hope this motion will pass so we don't have to go on to one that might be of a higher magnitude. I think this tower's absolutely necessary for the safety, health, welfare of all the citizens of the State of Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So your motion stands? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion stands. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay. I'm going to call the motion. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion fails. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me call it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coletta voted in favor of the motion; Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Fiala voted not in favor of it, so -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I would like to make Page 68 December 2, 2003 the motion that we postpone any vote on this until we get the -- get the FAA input as to the tower height, and if it's a necessary tower in this area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just to clarify the motion. You want the FAA to weigh on on (sic) the safety issues of the tower as presently -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Proposed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- proposed; is that correct? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Much better said. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's fine. Just to clarify. And does that work for the petitioner? I need to ask that. Why don't we flip a coin, gentlemen? MR. MALLESS: Pardon me? Yeah, we recognize that we have to have the FAA before we can get our building permit for it. You know, it's -- and that they're the expert, so we'd rather have a decision today that says, to the height of the FAA, would be preferable, because if we're finished in three weeks with our site development plan and ready to go to permitting, we can then go forward. The result would be the same if the standard is the FAA height. If the FAA says 500 feet, then the height's 500 feet. If it says 600 feet, then the height would be 600 feet from the FAA standpoint. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MALLESS: So -- but we would accept -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, will you consider that as far as your motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I would like my motion -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'd like -- okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- as is it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'd like it to come back -- back to the board? Page 69 December 2, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. They were supposed to do this this past year anyway, so I think a couple more weeks' delay isn't going to hurt anything, but it certainly will benefit the neighbors. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I have a question then on the motion. How would that change, once the FAA -- let's say the FAA weighs in and -- at 700 feet, is that going to change -- how is the board going to feel? How is the commissioner of the district going to 'feel about that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to feel uncomfortable with it because I still worry about the residential area being so populated, and the population growing continuously, and the variance being so close to the residential community. I just have a real problem with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's how I feel. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if we're doing the prudent thing today by continuing this, just come back and lowering it down to 500 feet. But there is a motion and a second on the floor. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I see David Weigel with his hand up. I'll follow him, if you don't mind. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioner, Mr. Chairman. You know, it appears that this motion is for a continuance until the FAA determination is made and that it be continued and readvertised and brought back subsequent to the FAA determination. I believe that you can vote -- you've been -- you've heard this on both of the items here, and I think that your vote to continue can be one vote to both items if you wish to, as stated by Commissioner Fiala and as I've restated here. And Commissioner Fiala's correct in the sense that I would not advise you to have made an approval pending an FAA determination of a specific standard that you do not know. I would prefer and Page 70 December 2, 2003 advise you that when you approve a -- a petition that has standards, that you know at the time of approval what those standards will be, and so it's the appropriate measure to take into -- if you're going to take into account the FAA, then you need to wait and find out what they're going to say. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that -- County Attorney, does that also -- does that give us the leeway then to still come back if we so desire after we get the ruling from the FAA, that the Board of County Commissioners still has the right to set the height of the tower, so long as it doesn't supersede whatever -- the height that is recommended by the FAA? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. And Ms. Student reminds me that -- and it appears from the discussion of the board today that you would probably not be -- and I would advise you that you would not look to make any approvals beyond which has been advertised as conditional uses or variances beyond standard anyway, so that you wouldn't look to go to an 800-foot tower if things worked out with the FAA or that you wouldn't look in terms of the variance from the setbacks to something that's further than what's been advertised today. You may come back with a determination of something less than, but not exceeding the maximums that are before you today. And again, for purposes of the economics, if you wish to continue this to a date certain based upon the fact that the FAA is fairly assuredly going to rule between now and a date certain, there wouldn't be a cost of readvertising. We can merely continue it to the date certain. If that date certain fails because the FAA hasn't come back, the petitioner would recognize that a readvertisement has to be done. So I would suggest that under our policy that is in place by board resolution, we could go up to five weeks from today's date if Page 71 December 2, 2003 this has not been previously advertised for a date prior to today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: I just talked to the gentleman. He believes -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a mike? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I just talked with Mr. Malless and he basically feels that he'll have the FAA permitted height by the end of December, and he believes that this item could be heard again with that information in hand on the 13th of January. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And may I ask one -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that part of your motion, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And may I ask one more question while we're still in the talking stages? How far -- how tall is this proposed tower from ground level? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that part of the second? Who made the second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta -- Commissioner Coyle, bring it back -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- first meeting in January? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, absolutely, yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've read that it's taller than 700 feet once you go to ground level. It said 720, 724, I think it said, or something like that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that at FEMA level or -- MR. MALLESS: No. We requested permission to build a 700-foot tower. That would be -- by your code, that's the total height of the tower. COMMISSIONER COYLE: From existing grade? Page 72 December 2, 2003 MR. MALLESS: From existing grade. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no parking underneath, I hope. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MR. WEIGEL: And the record -- the record will reflect that it is continued to the January 13th board meeting. Item # 7D RESOLUTION 2003-429 REQUEST BY WILLIAM L. MCDANIEL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE RE-REVIEW OF CU- 00-11, LONGAN LAKES EXCAVATION, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7000 BIG ISLAND RANCH ROAD, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 25 F, AST~ COIJJIF, R COl JNTY~ FI~ORIDA- ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. MUDD: 7(D). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next item is -- Yep, used to be. Page 73 December 2, 2003 MR. MUDD: Which is item 17 -- it was 17(A) that was moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 7(D), conditional use re-review, CU-00-11, Logan (sic) Lakes Evacuation. Commissioner Halas pulled this from the summary agenda, so I don't know if it's prudent to address Commissioner Halas' concerns or hear a full-blown presentation. Commissioner Halas, what is your preference? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason that I questioned this is that this person is looking to extend his operation permit of the mining activities there. And upon inspection, as we've found in -- recently in regards to mining operations, we found that sometimes the miner, or the person that owns the pit, does not -- is deficient on some of the conditions in regards to -- that he's supposed to be upholding. And in this case, we found that what was given in the executive summary was that -- that the person didn't have a berm in place and also didn't have the planting of the grass in this berm, and also, I believe, he was deficient in regards to water pump noise. And I'm concerned that we will make sure that if we do extend this, that this person will remain in adherence to the rules and regulations of Collier County. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please, if you answer Commissioner Halas's question, does this adhere to the Land Development Code? MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, Commissioner Halas, I'm not sure exactly what the question was. What I will be able to tell you is, during the on-site inspection, those two deficiencies were discovered. Since then I have -- I've actually been out to the site. The berming has been completed. And I imagine I can defer to Tom Kuck from the engineering services who may be able to address how a monitoring is routinely done at an excavation site. MR. KUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. Page 74 December 2, 2003 MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck, engineering director. What we've done -- and I think I reported to you maybe a month or two ago -- but we've implemented a procedure where we do a monthly -- at least once a month check on every excavation site in the county to make sure it's in compliance. This wasn't in effect, you know, six months ago, but we just in the last couple months made it effective, and I think it will be. If you've got a specific question, I'd be glad to answer it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that was my particular question, because this did come up before. And I remember when you did come forth in regards to another mining operation and said that we're in the process of getting all these mines, to make sure they're in compliance. And then, of course, when this came up, that kind of triggered the flag again, and that's why I was concerned. I thought, well, I know this is an ongoing situation where you're addressing this, but I was concerned to the fact that -- that was brought up in the executive summary, that when you did go out there to the site, that you did find that this individual was not in compliance with the laws of Collier County. And so, that's why I had this pulled. And we want -- like you said, now you're telling me that every month you're going to go out to the site and make sure that these -- this particular mine or other mines, on a monthly basis, are in compliance. MR. KUCK: That's correct. We've established what I call a monthly inspection fee to cover the cost to go out at least once a month to monitor what's going on at every excavation site. And they say that -- I think it's working out real well. We may have been a little bit lax in the past, but this should correct some of the problems that we've had. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I appreciate your answer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? Page 75 December 2, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I -- just for a little history on this. This one here was a very big issue back in 2000, 2001, I believe, when we first came on the commission. And the people on Friendship Lane were very, very concerned with this particular mining operation. Under the previous owner there was all sorts of problems with noise pollution, wells going dry. And I -- the commission at that time at my suggestion agreed to put this one-year stipulation where it came back to us for review, and it's working. I mean, and now it's even better. We're going to have a monthly review. The one thing I want to point out is that, I think on these very big operations that are tremendous in size, that we should in the future consider bringing them back for our review and keep everybody on their toes going forward. The new owner there, Bill McDaniels, has proved to be quite an asset to the community. In fact, there's a local civic association that covers that area, Corkscrew Sanctuary Road area, and he's been elected the president of it. And he has been really working hard improving roads in his area with fill from the mines, and he became quite an active citizen. But I agree, these things have to be taken care of. I think our staff is doing a wonderful job of monitoring it. I'm glad you brought it forward. We will see this again next year to be sure that we're on target and everything will happen. I don't believe we have anybody here to speak on this issue. MS. FILSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No one has called me with any concerns about it, which speaks well for the operation that's there now. I'd like to make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, Page 76 December 2, 2003 second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, 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: Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Item #9A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ TO DISCUSS NICAEA ACADEMY PUD-AR-2607. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS APPROVAL- DENIED Next item is 9(A). That's Commissioner Coletta's reconsideration of PUD-AR-2607. Do we have any public speakers on this item? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anybody in the public that would like to weigh in to the Nicaea Academy reconsideration? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. The only reason I brought it up is to give the petitioner a chance to speak so that we could give due consideration before we put the cart before the horse. Page 77 December 2, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's your motion to -- MR. KANT: If I may, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. Do we have any public speakers on this item? MS. FILSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I already asked that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to deny the reconsideration. Mr. Fernandez, you want to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second. Before we vote on it, you want to sign up, make a public -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. I'd like to make a few comments if you -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You need to sign a public slip to-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Lobby. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- speak before the board. MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe I got a notice from the county that -- that put me on the agenda specifically, but I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a different item. And if you were here earlier when -- MR. FERNANDEZ: You switched it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- we were talking about the agenda, you cannot do that. And the petitioner cannot petition the board for reconsideration. The Board of Commissioners have to reconsider it, so it's on a 9(A) item. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Were you referring to a speaker slip or registered lobbyist? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Speaker slip, speaker slip. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wouldn't he have to be Page 78 December 2, 2003 registered to be a lobbyist, too? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I don't think so, under this, but he is registered as a lobbyist. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, he is? Okay. Fine, fine. That takes care of-- MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please call up the first public speaker. MS. FILSON: Michael Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to say a few words to you on this -- on this matter. We're requesting on behalf of the land owners and contract purchasers a reconsideration of this -- of the approval that was given for 250 units in a phased manner for this project. The primary concern that we have is that the project does enjoy legal access. There was some confusion in the statements that were made by the petitioner's agent at the time. And the -- there is no legal access to this property except from 951. So that's an issue that we need to address. It's not a viable project without legal access, of course. And we need to address that either through -- we think in this interim we can work with staff to try to come up with a resolution, and we're willing to concede that we -- and we think it's actually a better planning proposal to connect to Tree Farm Road. That's where we ultimately want to be. In fact, it's more cost effective for us to be hooked up to Tree Farm Road, but we're willing to provide a temporary access to the project directly to 951, and we're willing to come back and remove that temporary access and hook up to Tree Farm Road when that land becomes available to us, either through our own acquisition, acquisition of others, or by the county for public right-of-ways. We're willing to make a temporary investment and then come back Page 79 December 2, 2003 and provide for that. We're willing, of course, to continue with what was the contribution of 40 feet along the entire southern boundary of the property that's worth about $440,000 based on the purchase price of the property, and we're providing that as a donation to the county. And that was -- those were commitments that were made. But the conditions of approval also limited to -- limited the density to only 2.1 units per acre, which is less than any other project has been approved in this corridor in recent times for a residential project. This is not a huge project. It's 119 acres. And the base density alone would give us significantly more units than the 250 that was proposed. But probably the other big concern other than the density issue and the access has to do with the phasing. And we understand that's something that has been done from time to time, mostly in consideration of large projects like DRIs. But on a project with only 250 units, to be able to go to a financial institution and say, hey, look, we're going to do a project, we can do 125 now but we can't do the other 125 until, you know, these other improvements are there is a major problem. In other words, they're not going to acknowledge that additional 125. It has to be economically feasible on that first approval. And I believe that your staff in their presentation did make consideration of the number of units and that we have to get concurrency approval. You have a concurrency management system. What we're really asking for today is, allow us to get all our ducks in a row and come back to you on the 16th of December where we can come and give you an -- additional facts, hopefully additional solutions for you to consider. We're not asking you to approve it today. That's all we're asking for is that opportunity to come back to you on the 16th. Otherwise, we don't have a choice, we'll have to come back before you anyway, Page 80 December 2, 2003 because it is -- it's not a project that has direct access. I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you have at this time, but we'll hope you'll consider this favorably. As I said, it's -- it was an approval that, you know, just doesn't have an economic base without that access or the conditions that were applied to it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions from the board for Mr. Fernandez? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor and second to deny the reconsideration. Any questions 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FILSON: Who made the second, Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas Item # 1 OB Page 81 December 2, 2003 REVIEW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND ORDINANCE REVISIONS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION (WINONA STONE, ASSISTANT TO THE COUNTY MANAGER) - APPROVED W/STIPI ~I,ATIONS Moving right along would be 10(A). No, we continued 10(A). MR. MUDD: That brings us to item 10(B), which is the review of staff's recommendation for further assessment of alternative administration of the Collier County Airport Authority and ordinance revisions and provide direction. And Ms. Wynona Stone, assistant to the county manager, will present. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many public speakers do we have, Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: Eleven. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Eleven, okay. MS. STONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Wynona Stone, assistant to the county manager. Over the past 12 months, staff has worked with Commissioner Coyle in reviewing and assessing the Collier County Airport system and alternatives for administration. And today we're presenting four recommendations for further assessment and action by the airport authority for your consideration. If there are no questions at this point, if you would like me to go through each one of those, I'll be glad to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MS. STONE: Okay. On page one, recommendation 1 (A), is that the board formally request the Naples City Council and the Naples Airport Authority to join in discussion with the Collier County Airport Authority to determine if there's some type of merger Page 82 December 2, 2003 of the two authorities that could be mutually beneficial to both resulting in increased economic viability and improved aeronautical activities throughout Collier County. Further-- excuse me, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Just to clarify that a bit. Could I ask that -- that we not limit the scope of the discussions just to a merger opportunity? That we really should sit down and talk to see if there's any mutually beneficial way that we could work together for the best benefit of the county and the city. MS. STONE: Yes, sir. I think that certainly is under this category. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The merger thing is not essential to working together, and it might be objectionable by some. If we could -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's the best. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if the board-- if the board would agree that we just leave the discussion open without any preconceived expectations and merely talk about the opportunity to work together. COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I like that suggestion, yeah. Yes. Okay. MS. STONE: Okay. And further along with that, any of the discussions we recommend that Commissioner Coyle, as your liaison to your airport authority assessment, be involved in those discussions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. MS. STONE: Recommendation B is that the board direct the authority to determine the best use of the Everglades Airport property as it relates to the overall aeronautical activities in Collier County. Such should go into looking at the feasibility of rezoning if Page 83 December 2, 2003 there was to be a potential sale. We're not saying as staff that that is what the best interest of the use is, but believe that this needs to be further researched to come up with what the best actual use of that property would be for the citizens of Collier County. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And ifI could just amplify that a bit. The -- I believe that what we really need to do is sit down with the -- the city council of Everglades City and talk to them about what they would like to see with respect to their airport. And I believe that probably the Collier County Airport Authority would be the person who -- or the agency that would best sit down and have the initial discussions concerning that. It would be, I think, presumptuous for us to make a decision about what to do with the Everglades Airport without talking with the city council of Everglades Airport (sic). MS. STONE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so the intent of this particular recommendation, I believe, is to establish some lines of communication, evaluate some alternatives, see what can be done that would work in the best interest of the City of Everglades and Collier County. And I would like to ask Gene Schmitt if maybe he could initiate some of those contacts, if the board approves of this. Now, of course, Gene, this isn't direction. It's just a suggestion that board might wish to consider. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's an excellent idea, but I would further recommend that we remove some bones of contention that are really something we shouldn't be considering. One is the possible sale of the Everglades City Airport. This has caused much turmoil. I think you're going to hear that very shortly from the people here from Everglades, that-- the possibility this might even be considered for sale. Page 84 December 2, 2003 You know, any idea is worth consideration, but I think we come up with the opinion some time ago that this is something that should be removed from the agenda. And we go down there with an open mind with the idea -- and I truly believe at this point in time, unless somebody can show me something different, that we should give serious consideration at that meeting of weighing the possibility -- strongly weighing the possibilities of turning the Everglades City Airport over to its original owners, which is Everglades City. Possibly making a 50 percent profit by selling it to them for $15 in consideration of the $10 they originally sold it to us for and put a reverter clause into that so at some point in the future we won't have some city government 20 years down the road that may want to cash in on this as some sort of cash cow and turn it from something other than an airport. So by the reverter clause, it would come back to the county if it was anything but an airport. And that is the position that I'm taking unless somebody can show me there's a better way. I'll tell you the reason I'm opposed with keeping the status quo where it is now. Simply, ever year this is going to come up for discussion again. These people have no certainty on the future of what they have down there in Everglades City. They're dependent upon the airport, they want the airport. It's just about unanimous from one end to the other. We tested the water on a couple of ideas, and believe me, they were not accepted willingly. They did not think they were good. This is -- seems to be a uniform acceptance. Had it from Sammy Hamilton at a local council meeting where they have said that they -- if they had the airport, they could probably run it at break-even or even a profit by the fact that they are so good at economizing and making a nickel go so far, have some visions of using their local city crew. And my thoughts right out of the box, of course, you know, I would have -- we'd have to consult the county attorney and whoever Page 85 December 2, 2003 else, is that they would form their own airport authority with their city council being the airport authority. And that's the direction I'd like us to really keep in mind when we go down there to talk to them, how we can do that to make it work. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a very complex issue that involves things like liability, debt, ability to operate, grant applications. It's a very, very complex thing, and I really would like to encourage the board to give direction to the airport authority to go there with an open mind and find out what the people in the City of Everglades want rather than us developing a policy right now and mandating that we go down there and do it. I think that the important thing is we sit down with the people of Everglades and find out what they want. And it might very well be what Commissioner Coletta has outlined. But I'm trying to stay away from predetermining the outcome of a discussion. I want to do that with the Naples Airport, and I want to do it with the people of Everglades. I want to go to Naples Airport and have an open discussion without any preconceived ideas. We might find out that they have some pretty good ideas, and I think the same thing could occur in the City of Everglades. So I just don't want us to develop an agenda. And they're going to go down there and say, well, here's how we think it ought to go. We ought to go down there and find out what the people want, and that's what I'd like to see happen here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle -- I mean, Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have to go along with what my two other fellow commissioners said, is find out what the people in Everglades want, but I can tell you that airports are a rarity, and I think we're very fortunate that we're blessed with three airports, actually four airports here in Collier County. Page 86 December 2, 2003 And I know that we have -- are going to have a large influx of population here between now and 2025. And whether there's going to be a great growth potential in Everglades City and Chokoloskee, I think we need to keep all options open to make sure that we plan for the future and don't cut our nose off in spite of (sic) our face. And I think we need to have input from all sectors so that we get a great -- a good understanding of exactly the direction that we should go in the future to make sure that future residents have access to -- whether it's the Naples Airport, Immokalee Airport, or Marco Airport, that there is that -- we're leaving that part of the problem open so that we are addressing all issues, and I think that we need to look at the people in Everglades City for direction since it's in their area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I couldn't agree more. Direction from the people of Everglades City should be foremost in our minds when we make our decision. May I suggest that we hold off more discussion of Everglades Airport until we hear from some people from Everglades City? Possibly they might not be united in their ideas. They may have some different ideas, who knows? But I'd like to be able to hear from them before we give direction to staff of where we'd like to go. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Before I go to Commissioner Coyle, just a short announcement. There has been a bomb threat at the courthouse. At present time they are evacuating the courthouse. So if the people here, after-- when the board takes a lunch recess, would stay away from that said facility, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. And it's just, you know, for security reasons and safety reasons why they're evacuating the building. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'd like to add one thing. If Page 87 December 2, 2003 you see any strange packages lying around, please let us know, will you? Once again, I am -- I am a little worried about where we're going here. This is not the forum to work out what the alternative is for the Everglades Airport. All we're saying to the staff is, go talk and get some information. And that's -- you know, if we go beyond that and try to determine what we're going to do with the Everglades Airport today, we're going to be here for a long, long time. So -- but I would like to echo one concern Commissioner Coletta has, and I agree with him. I can't -- I can't find a way where we come out a winner by trying to sell the Everglades Airport. The zoning authority lies with the city. And it would be foolish to try to sell it as an airport because you don't get anything for it. And so I think, to give the people in Everglades some comfort, unless they can find a way that makes sense for all of us, selling the airport probably isn't -- isn't an option that should be considered. But let's -- let's stick to the purpose if we could, if I could encourage you to do that, and just give the staff direction to go down and talk with the people and develop recommendations to come back and present to us. And I'll be happy to participate in that to the extent that it's required. But I think the initial contact between Gene Schmitt and the airport authority and the people in Everglades City would be the first way to go because that's where some of those decisions have to be made. MR. MUDD: Commissioner-- Mr. Chairman, if I may. All the recommendations that you're talking about today outside of the ordinance change, we would expect that the airport authority would come back to the Board of County Commissioners at maybe their workshop before the budget that's part of that ordinance thing that we're talking about changing, and come back to you and give you a Page 88 December 2, 2003 status report on how they're doing as far as their investigation is concerned and what they found out in the process. Now, I will tell you, the only reason that the Everglades Airport even sits as a -- as a -- the idea about sale is it's the only airport that you can sell, okay? All the other ones are protected by land grant or protected by a deal that you made with the governor's cabinet years ago, and I'm talking about the Marco Airport at that juncture. So the other two aren't even in the range. Why did the sale even come up? Well, I will tell you, 1947, 1948, that airport came into being, Everglades City ran that airport. In 199 -- or '64 they gave it to the Board of County Commissioners because they were losing money and they wanted some help. We've been operating that airport since that time. And guess what? We found out that it doesn't make money. It absorbs money. I've talked to everybody on the airport authority that I can get my hands on, including every director even at the Naples Airport and the -- our airport director and said, can you tell me with a straight face that this airport's ever going to make money and it's ever going to be self-sufficient? I've had no one tell me with a straight face that they believe that it's ever going to make money. Now, if the City of Everglades thinks that they can, let them go do it, but keep your options open. That's the only reason -- and I told Commissioner Coletta that I would make sure the everybody understood that. You asked the staff and you asked Commissioner Coyle and myself during the strategic session to take a look at the airport authorities and take a look at every aspect of them. And why did you ask? Because I will tell you, amongst the five people that I'm looking at right now on this dais, your comfort level with the airport authority a year ago was next to zero. You had no confidence in what was going on. You had lots of questions. And I will say that over the last year, I think you are more well Page 89 December 2, 2003 informed about the airports and the needs thereof and the economic benefits, which we're still trying to get our handles on. I still haven't had anybody really tell me yet what it -- what it brings in, but they say it does bring dollars in. And your airport authority is looking out for that particular issue to try to find that. Dialogue has been open with everyone where -- items where you couldn't talk to other airport authorities, nobody would come talk to you. You couldn't even broach the subject. I think everybody's looking at it with an open mind. I'm talking about every airport authority in Collier County and every airport. So it isn't a bad thing what's happened over the last year. The only reason we even talk about the land at Everglades City is, it's because it's the only property that we own in Collier County as far as airports are concerned that even has it as an option, that you could actually close it and sell it. All the other ones have some kind of commitment or agreement or a law that prevents you from doing so. So that's the only reason it was there and even considered as a -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Wynona, do you have any -- MS. STONE: Yes. In conjunction with that, it was recommended that you direct the airport authority not to expend any FAA money until this issue has been resolved as to what you want to do with that. Now, they have applied for and have been awarded FAA grants for all three airports, is my understanding. The board as yet has not approved budget amendments for the county match funding for those. Actually right now in their five-year draft plan that we got September 3rd, it's in the FY-05 year that they are showing that FAA money for Everglades. They're not showing it expended this year as yet, but-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? Page 90 December 2, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm concerned, especially on Everglades Airport, if we're talking about holding their funds to one side for improvements, about the health, safety, and welfare for the people that use the airport and live nearby. It makes absolutely no sense. I mean, I hear everybody talking on this commission, and it sounds like you're all in agreement that there's a need for an airport there. I don't think anyone here is going to carry a cause forward that it should go away, that it should end. So if we -- if we're agree -- that much in agreement, we ought to seriously consider releasing these funds so we can make the necessary safety improvements to be able to protect the integrity, not only of the airport, but of the citizens. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I never did say that the airport should stay in Everglades. I've said before that I'd like to hear from the elected officials in Everglades City. But I think we ought to keep our options open. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if I understand what you've said, the money that is -- is to be obtained through grant isn't even programmed for expenditure in FY-04; is that correct? MS. STONE: Correct. It's not in their budget currently. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not like there is some crying need for the money. Now, the real question here is, we're trying to sit down with the city council in Everglades and work out what they would like to do. I think it's counterproductive if we rush into a grant funding process without first talking with them about what they would like to do. I think it's better for everyone involved to sit down and talk, let's decide what you want to do with the airport. They might have some other priorities that are different than our priorities. And wouldn't it be nice if we had those grant funds available to use for the priorities that they would like to set rather than the priorities that we would Page 91 December 2, 2003 like to set? So let's -- once again, let's talk with the people first, hold these funds in abeyance, don't make a decision. It's -- they're not programmed for expenditure this year anyway. I'm not aware of any serious safety issue there that requires these funds. So I would, again, on this particular issue, encourage support of the staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else, Wynona? MR. MUDD: Keep going. MS. STONE: Okay. Recommendation C is that you require the authority out source the Immokalee Regional Airport Industrial Park, and that is -- was also recommended by a study done by the Economic Development Council that was published May 23rd, 2003. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. STONE: Recommendation D is that the board direct the authority to advertise a request for proposal for out sourcing the operations of the Immokalee Airport. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I -- Commissioner Coyle, can you clarify that for me? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll try. The -- and I probably -- although I had a discussion yesterday with the staff about what my intent was in originally proposing this sort of thing. It doesn't necessarily -- it's not necessarily restricted to out sourcing. Actually what -- what I've found as we've gone through this process of talking with people about what the alternatives are, I can't find anybody who has a really good business plan that shows us a pathway to success in Immokalee. And s© it appears to me that we've exhausted most of the really good ideas locally. But wouldn't it be nice if the rest of the nation and the rest of the world knew that there was an airport here with pretty darn good facilities that could be utilized for a good business plan? Page 92 December 2, 2003 Maybe -- maybe there's a transport operation or a cargo operation that is looking for a base of operations that would love to come here, they 'u ' · · j st don t know about the existence and availability. So what I have suggested is that we ask the airport authority to prepare an advertisement to be run in the Wall Street Journal describing the facilities and encouraging requests for proposals for the utilization of the airport, and that way we have an opportunity, hopefully, to choose from a number of different proposals about how someone could come here and create an economically viable operation at Immokalee Airport. And I think we've got a lot of good selling factors, particularly with Ave Maria University in the town and things like that coming up. So that's the purpose of this. It's not necessarily just to turn it over to the operation of somebody. It's to solicit ideas about how somebody could come here and start a business that would be beneficial to Collier County. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, you know, realizing there's going to be a price tag on there and also realizing the Immokalee Airport is not an asset, it's -- it actually costs the general fund moneys to operate that, in thinking, what business person, what wise business person would come to Southwest Florida to operate an airport that runs in a deficit? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think all those things are relative. But it could be someone who is spending a lot of money running an operation from an existing high-cost airport. For example, if you're in Miami or if you're in Atlanta or Chicago and you're operating cargo operations with current security requirements and the labor costs associated with those, it could be very attractive for someone to come here and have a similar cargo operation. Even, perhaps, cargo operations from Southwest Florida Regional Airport might wish to have lower rent, lower wage-base, Page 93 December 2, 2003 lower cost operations or place to site here. It's sort of like getting a good anchor into a shopping center. That tends to attract other business. And I'm not suggesting what we do is just say, here's an airport, it's free. I'm saying, here's an airport where the rent's a lot lower. Here's an airport where we can even provide some trained technicians. I mean, there are airplane and power plant mechanics being trained right here in Charlotte -- in Collier County, and they're having to go to Miami and other places to seek employment. Wouldn't it be nice if we could say to a perspective employer, look, we've got trained technicians here, we've got a school that's producing trained technicians, and we've got facilities that are relatively cheap as far as rent is concerned. So we start deriving some income as a result of these operations. And then, hopefully, if we choose the right company, if we get the right business plan, it will grow and become more successful, and consequently produce more money so that it does become self-sustained. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. I think you sold me on the idea. Do you want to put a dollar amount on the advertising budget for this -- this item? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would suggest we start out with a single ad, and I think it should be of a reasonable size. What does -- let's find out what a quarter page ad costs. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. I'm a little bit concerned. You know, we're moving forward like Immokalee is something in the vacuum, that their feedback isn't important. They may not be a municipality like Everglades City, however, they do have a recognized form of leadership there. And at this point in time, probably the master plan -- the Immokalee Master Plan, which is in full swing, would like to play an Page 94 December 2, 2003 active part in this role in planning for their own community, you know. There's a lot of good ideas. I agree with you. I think you're coming up with some tremendous ones. The whole thing is is, let's get the involvement there too. We're talking about going to Everglades City to meet with the city council. I think that is absolutely wonderful. I can't remember the last time this commission has ever met with the Everglades City Council, and I think it's a wonderful great step. Also, too, we need to do the same thing at the same level with Immokalee, because if the people that know what the needs of their community are and what they would expect, it's the people that live there, the business community, the chamber of commerce, the civic association, they've all very active. And I really hope that we're not going to try to put this whole thing together based upon what our own theories are. We need to take the show on the road and go thereto. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just wanted to kind of chime in on there where Commissioner Coyle was talking about a large carrier. I believe that Charlotte County is, right now, trying to pursue one of the large freight companies to use their airport, Charlotte County Airport, and use that as an operations base for South Florida to open up trade routes to South America. And I know there's a couple of large freight companies. And this might be one way that we could get some activity involved in this. Of course, I think we're going to have to put money into that Immokalee Airport to encourage people to come, a large freight company. But I think that that's a viable operation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- I'd like to -- to address my Page 95 December 2, 2003 comments to something that Commissioner Coletta said, and that's about talking with the people in Immokalee. You know, a number of the key community leaders in Immokalee have been on the airport authority for years, so they're well informed about what the opportunities are. The other thing is that the purpose of this advertisement is to get ideas which then can be shared with the community. If we go the community out there right now, where are the ideas? We've been talking about ideas for Immokalee for years, and we haven't gotten very far. So I'm looking outside the community for some business proposals that can be then brought back to the community, the airport authority working with the board and with the community in Immokalee, then could reach some decisions about what kind -- which of these businesses, which of these ideas do we really like, and then that way we'd really have something to talk about. So it's not as if we're making any decisions. We're only making a decision to advertise and get some information. We might find out there is nobody who wants to do this, and we'll just have to look for some other alternative. But let's give it a try. Let's do the ad and see if we can get some information from outside this community that will help us attract the kind of business that we need to attract. And then when we get that information, we go to the community, we work it out, and hopefully make everybody happy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Wynona, take us on home. MS. STONE: Okay. Do you want me to go ahead and go into the recommendations for the ordinance? MR. MUDD: Yes. MS. STONE: Okay. Based on what your action is on the four items that we already discussed, staff would recommend that in the interim while discussions are going on on the other items, that you Page 96 December 2, 2003 make amendments to the ordinance or the code of laws governing the airport authority as listed on this listing. I don't know if you want me to read down all of them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, we can see. MS. STONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING' All right. Great. Well, we got 11 speakers. MS. FILSON: Twelve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon? MS. FILSON: We have 12 now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Twelve speakers, great. Enjoy the input. And, of course, I see there is a lot of folks here from Everglades City, and you can see where the board is going for this action. But if you have any other input, we would appreciate some direction and guidance so we can give our staff-- and you're more than welcome to speak or waive. If you do come up here, please give us the fishing report. Please call up the first public speaker. MS. FILSON: Chris Lombardo. He will be followed by Charles Beem. MR. LOMBARDO: Good morning. I'm Chris Lombardo. I am the city attorney for Everglades City and have been for the last 18 years. And I know the question you've been asking, I've listened to, is what do the people of Everglades City think and where is the city council, and I am here as their messenger to deliver the answer to that question. And Commissioner Coletta has already pretty much given you the answer, and that is, the city is very concerned about the future of this airpark, and wishes to see it remain an airpark. And in fact, last night we adopted a resolution, and I'm going to read that resolution to you shortly. But I want you to know a couple of things that I think are kind of interesting. And you know every Page 97 December 2, 2003 time I've ever been before you, I've always tried to throw out odd little facts that you may not know. That airport is known as X-01, which means X-01, the Everglades airpark, was the first state certified airpark in the State of Florida and the first one clearly in Collier County as -- by default. We feel that the airport is a vital aspect of our community. And I want you to remember that this is not just an issue for Everglades City, but it's also an issue for those populated outlying areas of Collier County, areas like Plantation, Chokoloskee, Lee Cypress, all those areas where you have people who require services. And we, as you know, provide a lot of support for those individuals as well. But that airpark provides not just a link to the community for eco-tourism and sports people who come in to go fishing and see the national park and do those kinds of things, and provide economic benefit to the community, it isn't also just a stopping point on the way to and from the Keys, but we know we have a lot of private pilots that like to use that airpark for that purpose. It's not just a cross country destination for pilots from the east coast and Central Florida who like the distance because it's a couple-hour flight -- it's a good flight to come down, have lunch and go back -- but it also provides a significant service to us from the standpoint of providing emergency services. That airpark -- as you all know and you're familiar with our area, we don't have a whole lot of uplands in the Everglades area. We don't have a whole lot of spots where you can land an aircraft. And we would tell you, an airport is like a marina. If you take it away, the odds of you getting it back are slim to none. You don't take away airparks and then expect to get another one in the years to come. There is no other place to put an airpark in that Everglades community. And the importance of that is, is for medical emergencies and medical evacuations, that airpark is critical. Page 98 December 2, 2003 In the event of a hurricane -- recall, we have one road in and one road out and there's a bridge. If we lost the bridge, the only real access point to all those people in that community is the airpark. There are other issues, too. As you know, we're providing wastewater treatment services for not just Everglades City, but also the outlying communities now. And we've made tremendous strides in the past years in improving that aspect of it. And we now provide not only service for Everglades City, but also Chokoloskee, Lee Cypress and Carnestown, and we expect soon that that Plantation -- the community of Plantation has been talking about going that way as well. There is a byproduct from wastewater that we all know as reclaimed water that we have to distribute. There have been periods of time we've had to truck that water away. Presently what we're doing is we are watering all of our median strips, but we don't have enough grassy areas in the Everglades community to handle the potential buildup for the whole area. And one of our stopgap measures on our list, and what we've told DEP, but don't worry because we have these big grassy fields by the airpark, and with the airpark, we can more than handle, you know, the potential future growth in that community, which benefits the county as well, because that shortage of land also means that the only place available to do a wastewater treatment plant on a regional basis is where it's sitting right now. We really want that park to stay. The city is very supportive of the concept of sitting down and talking about what happens in its future, where we go with that park. We strongly oppose the concept of closing the park or selling the airpark. That is something that the community is very, very worried about, and we would like to see it stay. The resolution adopted last night reads as follows: A resolution of the city council of the Everglades City, Florida, Page 99 December 2, 2003 establishing a position opposing the discontinuation of the Everglades airpark; Whereas, the city council of the City of Everglades City, Florida, has determined that the Everglades Airpark provides a unique and supportive position in the needs, desires, problems and necessities which confront, and are experienced by the people of Everglades City; and, Whereas, the city council believes that as inheritors of the community, are certainly deserving of a voice and representation, in the efforts adopted by the city to identify and resolve issues which concern the Everglades Airpark; and, Whereas, the business conducted in Everglades City arriving at the Everglades Airpark contributes significantly to the vitality of the city's economy and trade; Whereas, the Everglades Airpark is the most convenient runway to medical facilities for transport of critically ill patients and donor organs; and, Whereas, the city council feels it is important to provide an opportunity for the community of Everglades City to acquire the Everglades Airpark and continue to operate the airpark in order to continue providing for the community and appreciate its use through participation; and, There -- now therefore, be it resolved, the City Council of the City of Everglades City, Florida: The City Council of Everglades City openly opposes the discontinuation of Everglades Airpark. The purpose of the airpark is to provide to the needs of the community not only for day-to-day business activities, but also in times of emergency. The city council intends to use its best efforts to take possession and continue the operation of the airpark on behalf of the Everglades City Community and the Community of Everglades. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Lombardo. Page 100 December 2, 2003 Next speaker? MS. FILSON: Charles Beem. He will be followed by Claudia Davenport. MR. WILSON: Mr. Beem had a prior commitment and asked me to say that he was in favor of keeping the airport, what we are saying. MS. FILSON: Okay. Claudia Davenport. She will be followed by John Wilson. MS. DAVENPORT: Good morning, Commissioners. When we were doing the comp. plan back in '87, '88, '89, gathering all the information, at that time there was a reverter clause in the airport back to the Colliers. I understand that that has since gone. But Barron Collier did originally, when he gave three pieces of property, the school, the airport, and the sewer plant, have reverter clauses back to their organization. The school one's gone. The airport one, I think, is one. But thank God we still have the reverter clause in the sewer plant. Nobody can buy that. The airport is extremely important to Everglades City. People fly in and buy stone crabs. They fly in and stay two or three days. The economy would suffer greatly without it. So whatever it takes for you to work out a deal with Everglades City is certainly worth it to all of us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: John Wilson. He will be followed by Mary Freeman. MR. WILSON: Good morning, Commissioners, or good afternoon. My name is John Wilson. I'm here today to let you know that many people in Everglades City feel that the Everglades City Airpark should not be closed, reconfigured, nor sold to fund other airports in the county. Page 101 December 2, 2003 This airport is a base for a business. As a link to the outside world in a natural disaster, it is a necessary part of our community. Users of the airport bring in money. The amount of commerce this airport generates probably surpasses the grant funds that help support it. And many people fly in for stone crabs, the Seafood Festival, fishing, eco-tourism. Shutting down this income will severely damage our community, our small community. Tax dollars are also generated by this commerce. It should be noted that the airport was the first airport in the state, and I think Mr. Lombardo noted that. I must point out that libraries, parks, sewers, boat ramps, and museums and clinics do not turn a profit. Should they be closed, too? Our airport is vital to our community, therefore, I urge you to find a way to return the ownership of the airport to the City of Everglades City. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Mary Freeman. She will be followed by Victoria Nagle. MS. FREEMAN: I'm Mary Freeman. I live in Everglades City, and I oppose the airport being closed. My son flies in. He has me in a wheelchair, which I'm not quite there yet. And if you want to know the people that come to Everglades City, you need to come to our Seafood Festival. We have like 70,000 people. And the airport is very useful to a lot of them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Victoria Nagle. She will be followed by Patricia Huff. MS. NAGLE: I am Victoria Nagle, and I live in Everglades City, and I passionately beg you to let us keep our airport. Page 102 December 2, 2003 We are a small group of people, but we are a hard-working group. And sometimes we don't have the big bucks and the big names and the big people, but we have the big hearts. And we provide a service as far as tourism is concerned in our city that isn't offered anywhere else in our county. I urge you and beg you to let us keep that tradition. We'll try our very best to do our duty in maintaining that airport. Please let us keep it. MS. FILSON: Patricia Huff. She will be followed by Charles Wright. MS. HUFF: Hello. I'm Patricia Huff with Everglades City. As you've heard, it may be true that our airport does not bring in -- make -- turn a profit, but it does bring in dollars to our economy, and we feel that is very important. There has also been some talk about putting in a marina or a boat ramp there. I feel that this would take away from the current boat ramps and marinas that we have available. Right now we have four boat ramps in Everglades City, the Rod and Gun Club, Barron River Resort, Glades Haven, Captain Doug's. In Chokoloskee we have three sources of people putting their boats in, the ORA, Chokoloskee Island Park, and' Parkway Motel. So I feel that we need to look at this. If you are trying to consider using it as a marina or boat ramp, that you consider the other businesses that it could affect. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Charles Wright. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker-- Mr. Wright, I don't see him. MS. FILSON: Nick Saum. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Saum. MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Dave Keiser. MR. SAUM: Good morning. I'm Nick Saum. Page 103 December 2, 2003 Charles Wright had to leave. He wrote a very good letter to Everglades Echo last week, and I recommend that you read that. It deals with the economic impacts on the City of Everglades by the people who fly in. And it's not a cash cow. It never will be a cash cow in itself, but it does bring an awful lot of commerce into the City of Everglades, and it's a valuable resource down there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Dave Keiser. He will be followed by Robert Gretzke. MR. KEISER: My name is Dave Keiser. I'm a resident of Everglades City. I want to commend you guys for at least considering our airport and are willing to come out and talk to us about it and not jam something down our throat. The people in Everglades really need the airport. And even though we're sitting out there in the middle of the mangroves and the sawgrass, it's a very important park to our city, and I hope you guys will consider that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Gretzke? MS. FILSON: Mr. Gretzke will be followed by your final speaker, Douglas House. MR. GRETZKE: Hi. I'm Robert Gretzke. I live and work at Everglades Park, the airpark there. I've been -- my partner and I have been running operations since 1991 there. We're viable to helping out the park and the eco-tourism there. Also, I get to spend most of my days at the airport and see who comes in. The airport itself does not maybe make money, but it is part of the transportation innerstructure (sic). But what we see, the people going into town buying lunches, dinner, stone crabs, which have been stated before, airboat rides, Page 104 December 2, 2003 taking some of the park rides, it really helps the community financially for economic growth. Also, the national park system does use that airport for their manatee watch, checking out their panther watch. Without that airport, there would be some loss in that Everglades City area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thanks. MS. FILSON: Douglas House. He is your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. MR. HOUSE: I'm Douglas House of Everglades City. My family's one of the oldest families in Everglades City going back to the mid 1800s, and all my family lives there, so I get very emotional and very excited about this. When I first heard this, I got very upset. What I have to say is very little. When I come here today I feel very happy that we have who we have as our county commissioners. I feel very confident that you would do the right thing for us. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. House. At this time I think it's appropriate for the county commissioners to give our staff direction in a motion and also consideration of the ordinance change. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only thing I wanted to do is bring up the fact that I would just like to give these people a little measure of comfort as we go through the process and remove the consideration of selling the land for anything other than an airpark from discussion so that we can go forward from that point and remove anything as far as -- we're going to send the airport authority down there to negotiate. I would hate to be the airport authority going in and say, well, okay, we're going to talk about selling the airport and putting it into Page 105 December 2, 2003 development. Poor Gene. I'm telling you right now, there's not enough armor to protect him. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why we want to send Gene rather than us. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You better believe it. You go with Gene. You're a member of the airport authority there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So is that a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thatts a motion for that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's deal with the topic in whole. We have certain staff recommendations. Commissioner Coletta, is that a part of your motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's part of my motion with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And certain considerations on the ordinance has changed; is that part of your motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, is that part of your second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just would ask that the motion maker and the seconder include the clarifying remarks that we've made today about Certain things. You'll recall that I amplified on some of those recommendations to some extent. If you agree with those, I would ask that you include in your motion the -- the clarification-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Of each item. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of each item that we have discussed. Is that too complex, or do you -- you understand what we're Page 106 December 2, 2003 talking about, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I wrote it all down. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As long as it doesn't conflict with the one part of my motion that has to do with the selling of Everglades City Airport. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Actually it's supportive of that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, is that a part of your second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Any further 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: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We're going to take an hour lunch break, and be back at 1:25, correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. 1:25, and there's a time certain item at that time with -- the Mosquito Control District chair wants to talk to you about the particular -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: At 1:25? MR. MUDD: We'll let them know that it's going to be about 25 Page 107 December 2, 2003 minutes late. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. (A luncheon recess was taken.) Item # 1 OD RESOLUTION 2003-430 AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT TO EXPAND BOUNDARIES FURTHER INTO THE GOLDEN GATES ESTATES. (JOHN DUNNUCK, ADMINISTRATOR, PI IBI.IC SFRVICES DIVISION) - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're hearing Item 10(D) -- Commissioner, you have a hot mic. Ladies and gentlemen, if we could have your attention, please. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Item 10(D), approve the resolution authorizing Collier County Mosquito Control District to expand boundaries further into the Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? Mr. Dunnuck? (No response.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great job, that's all I want to say. Great job. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 108 December 2, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: you, sir. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank · Item # 10E RESOLUTION 2003-431 ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE APPROVAL OF FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR OFFICIAL TOI~RISM l:ll ISINESS- ADOPTED W/CHANGES Next item is 10(E), approve a resolution, adopt a policy to approve the funding of payment of (sic) reimbursement of travel expenses, official tourism business. And I pulled this from the consent agenda. And Commissioners, I have two items that I have concerns, and that is -- somebody pulled my tab, which item was that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16(A)(2). MR. MUDD: This is 16(A)(2), and it has to do with tourism expenditures. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 16(A)(2). Oh, okay. The -- on the first page of the resolution, we go down to (A), the second paragraph, says the County Manager or his designee must approve travel authority by -- travel by authority by persons not employed under the contract by the county. So I would like to change that instead of the County Manager or his designee to the Board of Commissioners. That's on page 2. Page 3, the next page, No. 5, authorize other expenses, it says expenses that are approved by the tourism director reimbursable include but not limited to, I think we have a lot of language in there spelling out what can be expended of tourist tax dollars. I would like Page 109 December 2, 2003 to remove "but not limited to" language. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're on 16(A)(2)? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Page 3. I want to remove this language. And-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Including but not limited to? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. I want to remove that language. And then the page -- second page, just flip it over, on (A), second paragraph, instead of the County Manager or his designee, have the Board of Commissioners approve it. It would be like what we do on change orders and other things. So I'm going to make a motion to approve with those two changes. MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, would you also look at C-57 It's not only B-5, but also C-5 have has that same language, including but not limited to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, yeah. Remove all the including but not limited to. And that's my motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask why? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, we have a lot of things spelled out what it could be expended for. And the wording not limited to opens it wide open. So if you want to buy a car, you know -- I mean, that's an extreme, but I'm just saying that there's a lot of language in here, there's a lot of detail, and if we need to further amend it in the future, we can do so. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just some points that I want to draw out of this. One, this is something that everything that has to do with the -- just the tourist director. Is there other things out there that Page 110 December 2, 2003 are similar to this as far as other departments go that are cleared through the County Manager? Is this the normal way that we do business and we're suddenly shifting it? I think the County Manager is a pretty respectable person for handling these things, but I want to get a better grip on this. Is this the beginning and end-all of this particular thing, or does it extend to a whole bunch of others? MR. MUDD: No, sir, this is the one exception that we would have in Collier County, because they have a separate Florida statute that controls their actions, because they are different and they have to -- they have to go out and actually sell the county -- sell the county and its tourism -- as a tourism destination for some folks that don't know what the county is. And they have to retract it. And when they do that, sometimes they get themselves in an upper scale environment in order to pull those people forward. And when you do that, you should reimburse them. It shouldn't all be coming out of their salary. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. If we bring this back to the Commission, the way we're contemplating doing right now, will this so encumber the process that Jack won't be able to get business done, or would it still fit into the scheduling? MR. MUDD: Well, if you do (A), the second paragraph, where it says the Board of County Commissioners instead of the County Manager designee. So it would be the Board of County Commissioners -- from what I understand is what you're asking. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: -- must approve travel by authorized persons not employed or under contract by the county who are called upon to contribute time and services as consultants or advisors or participants for travel on the county tourism business. I believe that Mr. Wert should know ahead of time, at least two to three weeks ahead of time, so that we could get it to the Board without a problem. And then if it happens over the summertime, you Page 111 December 2, 2003 have an ordinance where it gives the County Manager the authority to approve routine actions, but to bring all those actions back to you when you come back to session. And you see that normally after every summer break where we have actions that the Manager approved in your absence, to keep business moving. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one last comment, then I'll be through. Also, if we do this, I don't think we're going to be taking on -- I mean, this is something that I assume is not going to be a weekly event that's going to happen, but in all likelihood this would be something on the consent agenda that we could read it and if we had questions, we could pull it off. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the Seeing none, all in favor of the Any opposed? Motion carries. Now go to the County Attorney's -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Public comment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public comment. Ms. Filson, do we have any public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. Page 112 December 2, 2003 Item # 12A APPROVAL OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE INVOLVING LITIGATION IN COLLIER COUNTY V. NAPLES GERIATRIC PROPERTIES, LLC AKA SUMMER HOUSE CASE NO. 03-229-CA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWFNTIETH .Il IDICIAIJ COl IRT - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, go to the County Attorney's. Approve settlement agreement and mutual release involving litigation in Collier County versus Naples Geriatric Properties, LLC, a/k/a Summer House. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Excuse me, I don't know if you have any questions about this, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the Board of Commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it's pretty straightforward. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I did have -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I do, I do. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- some questions, but I did get some information earlier this morning that basically painted the bigger picture. And that was -- what was brought to my attention is the fact that I think that out of $900,000 of impact fees, that we've been successful in collecting about 700,000. And these are just a few items that are left over from getting everybody in line. And so once I got the scope of what we were talking about as far as the amount of impact fees that we've already collected and then what's left, then I had a better understanding of what we were really accomplishing here. MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate that, Mr. Halas. And for the Board to know in regard to this settlement agreement, as well as some of the Page 113 December 2, 2003 others that have come before you that have not been settlement agreements as opposed to outright wins in court, we have looked very carefully after not merely the School Board impact fees related to the issues with these adult living facilities, but have had significant success in regard to other impact fees that come directly back to the county, whether it's Parks and Rec., road, water, utilities and other fees. And so we're very proud of that. And this, although this settlement agreement is not in the mega thousands amount, it still has that-- achieves that same positive end of returning and obtaining fees for Collier County, and not necessarily just for the School Board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'd like to make the motion that we authorize the Chairman of our Board to execute the settlement agreement and mutual release on behalf of the county. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Coletta, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, I just wanted to mention that possibly the summary might have had a little more detail. It was Jim Mitchell that brought me up to speed on this to remove any resentment I might have had against this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Page 114 December 2, 2003 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item # 12B APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLEEN MACORT AND ACCESS NOW, INC., IN REFERENCE TO CASE NO. 2:03-CV-109-FTM-29SPC THAT IS NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION- APPROVED Next item is 12(B), to approve a settlement agreement with mutual release between Collier County and Colleen Macort and Access Now, Incorporated in reference to Case No. blah, blah, blah and now pending in the United States District Court. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 115 December 2, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAl, COMMI JNICATIONS We are at the end of today's business. County Attorney David Weigel, do you have any closing remarks? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you, just a couple. I wanted to let you all know that the public vehicle ordinance amendment has been prepared, has been workshopped and worked through the PVAC, the committee, and is going to be advertised to come back for the first meeting in January. You may recall, Commissioner Henning had brought up the issue about sexual offender problems with the ordinance in the sense that it had aspects of limitation for drivers of cabs and other transportation in the county, but it had what one might call a loophole in regard to going back and capturing in both senses of the word the issues of sexual offenders or sexual predators. It has been very thoroughly reviewed and updated in many respects. We think we will have, based upon essentially a national review in working with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the FDLE, that we will have a topnotch amended ordinance to bring back at the first meeting in January. Secondly, the updated, upgraded ethics ordinance which is to provide for additional clarification in part at note of Commissioner Coyle will also be advertised for that first meeting in January, to let you know now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. County Manager? Page 116 December 2, 2003 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Two items: First of all, I received a letter -- or you received a letter reference from John Passidomo, who is representing the firm that owns the Fleischman property of interest. Basically says in there, they accordingly agree to allocate a period of 60 days, commencing on November 18th, 2003, within which they will entertain an offer from the county to acquire the land and negotiate a contract for purchase and sale of the land. If you do that 60-day and add it on to the 18th of November, that means that we should have -- we should have a negotiation period that expires on January 19th, 2004. I will tell you, I have heard of nobody else coming to the table saying -- or coming with barrels of money for us in order to cost share this particular purchase of property. And I've re-- got Norm Feder to take a look at what he would need for right-of-way and for things -- for that right access road to come off of Golden Gate Parkway on the future intersection improvements of Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette-Frank. He estimates that $2.7 million of that purchase of the property would be covered by impact fees. You have -- and Commissioner Fiala and I have been having a fight over the $1 million from the Big Cypress basin, okay, on our annual allotment. But if you add that to it, that will bring $3.7 million for the purchase. We are going to be short anywhere from 15 to $20 million. I'm going to need some nod from this commission -- and I will bring back the paperwork, because they're doing the appraisals. We should have the first appraisal done here within the first of the week. The second appraisal -- and it's a complicated appraisal. The first appraisal cost us over $13,000. The second appraisal, we'll push for the same -- transportation's doing it because they need to acquire the land for the right-of-way. I Page 117 December 2, 2003 should have that one done here in about two weeks. With that said, I will come back to this Board on the 16th of December at your meeting with an item for your approval for purchase of the Fleischman property. And the reason I bring this up -- and Jim Mitchell is sitting there on the dias -- I would like to get in conversations with Jim with the Clerk's office to start working on the commercial pre-product -- commercial paper product that we're going to need in order to borrow the money in order to purchase this property. And if I can get that direction from you to start that paperwork with the Clerk, knowing that on the 16th I'm coming forward with (sic) you for approval to purchase the property and to start the negotiations for purchase of the property under our two appraisals. I just want to let you know, I got the letter from Mr. Passidomo that kind of sets the time standards, but we're going to have to borrow money in order to buy this property, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Mudd, is there any reason that we can't use some of the money from our enterprise funds for purchase of some of that property? Is there any legal reason for justifying their purchase of that property? And secondly, how about Parks and Rec. funds? Are they -- they had talked about a possibility of a park in the area. We can't find ways to divide that cost up among those, rather than dealing with it from a single source of funds? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm pretty sure that once we buy the product or buy the parcel of property, we'll get our people coming to the table after that period of time. I really believe that -- that our Collier Conservation folks will come forward and buy a parcel that they want to keep in conservation, because it is so critical to the headwaters of the river. I think those are coming, but we're six months away from those Page 118 December 2, 2003 things coming, from anybody sitting down and saying yeah, I'd like to give you more dollars. I mean, I even had Clarence Tears call me up and say, hey, look it, I've got to buy a section of land, 640 acres from you. Sell me it -- sell me that parcel from excess land that's on the Airport Authority out in Immokalee and this way you can take the monies and put it right to the purchase of the Fleischman property. People are thinking out of the box, okay. I didn't jump on that, but that was his suggestion. He called me and says, this is a little bit weird, but, hey, it's a possibility. I said, okay, I'll consider it. But yeah -- but those kind of arrangements take time. And if we're serious about buying the Fleischman property -- and it is needed for stormwater, it would be part of the stormwater budget in future years. They have an $8 million budget this year. Can I get some of the monies out of there in order to do it? I probably will. But-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason I'm asking is, if we're going out to borrow money to get it now, I'm just wondering if our borrowing can be reduced if we have participation by some of the other funds that have a legitimate reason for -- for purchasing some of that property. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. But none of-- none of those funds basically in their budget for this year had anything projected for that purchase or a park there to outline the stormwater lake that we would build. I mean, we're several years away from having that in the Parks and Rec. budget. And your enterprise funds, there's nothing out there that the enterprise fund is needing -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is interested in. MR. MUDD: -- that I know of, I mean, unless we want to put a well field out there someplace and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: An oil well-field. MR. MUDD: Water well-field. It's worth more than oil. Page 119 December 2, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the last question has to do with Conservation Collier. One of the things that concerns me is if we go ahead and buy the property without some commitment from Conservation Collier, then we will own it and we will own some wetlands there. I think Conservation Collier people understand as well as anyone that once we own it, we're not going to do anything with it. We're not going to develop it. So why should they invest money in it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the Board of Commissioners have the final say-so on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, we do. But I -- it's good to have an advisory commission who's sort of on board from the beginning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you know, you still have to maintain it and everything else. And we don't necessarily have to maintain it in a pristine -- you know, we can let it overgrow and that doesn't necessarily help the-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or plant some Brazilian peppers in there and that sort of thing. MR. MUDD: No, I don't think you have to plant anything, there's plenty already existing in that particular parcel. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Is there anything we can do that will help them move more quickly on making those decisions? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I can draft a letter for the Chairman and have him sign it and send it to the advisory board letting them know that we're seriously considering buying the Fleischman property, that we're having to go out and borrow those dollars and it is a financial burden on the county at this particular time, and anything that they can do to consider the portions that are wetland in there as part of their program would greatly be Page 120 December 2, 2003 appreciated. I think we could do that and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we do that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or they can be expended. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes, one or the other. There are choices here, right? Yeah, I would support -- support such a letter, if that -- if the Chairman would-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You got three nods. MR. MUDD: Now, the part I'm trying to get is some kind of direction from the Board to start working with the Clerk's office to start working the paperwork for this commercial product -- this commercial paper loan that we're going to need to make this purchase. And he needs 45 -- and the reason I'm bringing it up is because Mr. Mitchell has told me that he needs 45 days in order to make that happen. You get 45 days on the 16th of December, and I've got to -- I've got to have it by the 19th of January. I'm out of the 45-day window. And so this is about as late as I can talk about that particular issue. And when I got this letter, it was -- it was a little late coming in my office to make this agenda. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we answer that, let me go to Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know how valuable this property is and that we need to acquire it. I'm getting some concerns here on bonding and how much are we bonding our future away? And it would probably be nice if staff could maybe every quarter let us know how much revenues we've bonded away so that we kind of keep a running total so we don't end up bonding our total future away. MR. MUDD: Well, your sales tax is gone, Commissioner, okay? I will tell you, based on-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know that. That's what concerns me, because we just don't have any other sources of revenue and I'd Page 121 December 2, 2003 like to know exactly where we stand as far as bonding our future away. I mean, it's just -- all it is is just ties in. I know how important this is, and I know this is something we need to do, but I also think we need to keep a handle on exactly where we are as far as bonding. MR. MUDD: This commercial -- this is not a bond issue. This is short-term commercial paper that needs to be paid back within five years. So if we're going after this, that means that I -- when we have any UFR money in your general fund like we did this year, the first thing we're going to set aside is how we're going to pay back this short-term loan. So it's going to -- it's going to be right up there in our discussions as we do our budget for next year and as we talk about our strategic session. Because I'm going to try to give you an idea of what we're going to be able to bring forward as far as UFR money is concerned this year so you get an earlier idea of that particular process. But that's short term, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I understand that. But if I remember correctly, looking at when we went through the budget process this year-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas just wants information, that's all. MR. MUDD: We're going to provide it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, but the UFR, the amounts for our UFR fund was going up in an exponential rate and I'm hoping we have the funds there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- I see a big benefit to what the people voted for in the last election and that's the green space. In this area there are a lot of people, not only in District Four, but a lot of people in my district or Commissioner Coletta's district that would enjoy that, traveling down Golden Gate Parkway. So I'm very much in favor of-- the only thing they need to do is get beyond that intersection of Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway, but I'm in Page 122 December 2, 2003 favor of giving direction to prepare a commercial paper note. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give it my blessing if we open it up for duck hunting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll support it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's enough direction. Great, thank you. Anything else? MR. MUDD: I have one more -- I have one more other item and that is, the Board gave us direction to come back to the Board within 45 days with an agreement with NCH on out-of-county transport. If we were going to make that suspense, that would have been this meeting. Yes, sir. Because that 45 days would fall in around the 10th of December, and our-- we've had conversations with Mr. Morton and we have every intent to come to the Board on the 16th of December with some kind of resolution for that, okay. I just wanted to let you know that we haven't forgot about it, we are working toward that particular item and think we have an agreement that everybody can come away with and say, yeah, we did due diligence and we're squared away, so we solved the problem for the future and at the same time we've also worked the debt issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. MUDD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't have anything else. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have a letter here from Mike Barbush he asked me to read. Dear Collier County Commissioners: My term as president of the Goodland Civic Association has come to an end. I want to thank you and staff for the countless hours you have put in to help Goodland. Goodland is one of the last areas in Collier County where development has not overrun the unique character of the village, Page 123 December 2, 2003 thanks in large part to the hard work of the Civic Association, in conjunction with the zoning overlay process. The overlay is the most useful tool to gauge communities' concerns. Thank you for your recent approval of four amendments to the LDC for Goodland. Special thanks to Ray Bellows for all his hard work in this regard. Jim Mudd has always had time for me and I appreciate his friendship and advice. Thank you, Commissioner Henning, for your help with the dredging project with the Army Corps of Engineers. Your presence that day meant a lot. And to Donna Fiala, your kindness and caring for Goodland knows no bounds. I greatly appreciate your limitless energy and time you dedicated to our causes. In conclusion, thank you, Commissioners, for protecting Goodland. There will be more battles to preserve this unique village that is very proud to have you represent us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was considering adopting Goodland and moving it into my district. They are such great people down there. I really enjoy them, and working with them. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. A couple of things. This Saturday I believe we have our annual -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Snow Fest. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Snow Fest of Golden Gate. Do you know the hours of it, Commissioner Henning? CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Yes. It's from 8:00 a.m. till dusk. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And when that is through, at 7:00 on Friday -- well, this is the day before, we're going to have the lighting of the towers, which I believe you're going to be one of the MC's for, if I'm not mistaken? CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a -- it's going to be a small ceremony. Next year is going to be the most outstanding event. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's going to be a small Page 124 December 2, 2003 ceremony but it's going to have great quality to it. We're going to have Santa Claus there, he's going to come in on a fire truck. We're going to have singing, carols, the whole business. So bring the family out, enjoy it. If you have any questions, call Commissioner Henning, he'll give you the information. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What color is your beard going to be? be? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: What color is your beard going to COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, come on now, Santa Claus doesn't tell. But also on 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, there's going to be a lighting of the tree in Everglades City Hall. Bring an ornament to put on the tree. They're going to have hot chocolate, cookies, and a grand 'ol time. You're all welcome. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: A couple of months ago there was a discussion about, among other things, speed bumps on Estey, and also during that discussion there appeared to be a lot of support on the Board for doing something with the intersection at Davis Boulevard and Airport Road. There was an issue that was raised by a couple of Commissioners who said they would like to see something done with that. But both the County Manager and I are unsure if there was sufficient guidance at that time to direct the staff to proceed with an investigation of whether or not there could be any improvements made. And so I've agreed to bring it to your attention and see if there is sufficient interest on the Board to direct the staff to at least begin to evaluate some improvements at that intersection. Not an overpass, but, you know, something short of that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like right turn lanes? Page 125 December 2, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, right turn lanes in all directions and all that sort of stuff. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would this be more appropriate for the MPO to have it brought up as a regular item there so we can hear it out? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Probably not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. You know, this DRI, the government center DRI calls for those intersection improvements, and it should have been done a long time ago. I'm in full agreement to proceed and see what the opportunities are myself. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Count me in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But then if we need to go to the MPO to get some funding, we can do that, right? MR. MUDD: What we'll do, Commissioners, we'll start working on the investigation of this thing, okay, and then get it in-- right now it isn't in the five-year plan. So the investigation gets it into the five-year plan and the update, and then we can start getting it done. But as it stands right now, there's no energies at all being expended on this particular effort. So I got your direction, we'll start evaluating and get it in there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Last week was the Florida Association of Counties conference, and Commissioner Halas was present, myself and members -- staff members from the County Manager's office. David Weigel was there and other staff members. It was very informative. And I apologize, I wanted to bring the legislation agenda of FAC, but what I can do is just copy it and send it to you in a memo. What I walked away from that was, the Association is made up of counties in the State of Florida, all of the counties in the State of Florida, and the make-up of the counties, you know, you have small, Page 126 December 2, 2003 and ours being a medium county, and then you've got rural counties or small counties, and kind of torn within how the monies flow from Tallahassee into those counties. So the Association recognized the need of small counties and we're going to try to help them out in the future. But the real answer is the amendment of the constitution allowing for those small counties to collect, not from the first homesteaded -- $25,000 homesteaded property values, but the second. Because what Commissioner Halas and I heard from the small counties is, one of the counties, I think it was Sumter County, 55 percent of their improved properties do not even qualify -- are not even worth $25,000. And that's a heavy hit on their-- drain on their general funds. And it calls a lot from Tallahassee to support those counties and -- you know, we all send money up to those counties, so that part of that's ours, which is good, because the way I look at it, the smaller counties with less population is not a bad thing for the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing also, Commissioner Henning, is that most of these small counties are also at max of 10 mills. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so they're really struggling to try to make ends meet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what the Association is trying to do is look at tools to give to the small counties to raise their own funds. And there will probably be a Constitutional question on the ballot, the future ballot, once we get through these 55 questions on the '04 election. But, Commissioner Halas, I was very proud of his knowledge of all the issues through the State of Florida, and especially with small counties, and I was proud of our staff for being there supporting us and having some great input. So I'll get those details to the Board of Page 127 December 2, 2003 Commissioners through a memo. COMMISSIONER HALAS: If there's any documents that you're missing, I do have some of those that I brought back with us, so we can supplement your packet that you want to get passed out to everyone. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great. Any other business? We are adjourned. *****Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner Coyle and carried unanimously, the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted:***** Item # 16A 1 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A NET TRANSFER OF $3,652,700 FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL FUND 113 RESERVES TO THE FUND 113 SOFTWARE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROJECT - AS OI JTI~INFD 1N THFJ FJXF, CI ITIVF, SI ~MMARY Item #16A2 - Moved to Item #10E Item # 16A3 RESOLUTION 2003-418 AMENDING RESOLUTION 2003-340 WHICH ESTABLISHED A FEE SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN DIVISION 1.10 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. RESCINDING THE P.U.D. MONITORING FF, F,S Page 128 December 2, 2003 Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 2003-419 GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "INDIAN WELLS GOLF VILLAS". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY- W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTFNANCE SF, CI ~RITY Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 2003-420 GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VENTURA, PHASE ONE". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY- W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECI IRITY Item # 16A6 RESOLUTION 2003-421 GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF" VENTURA, PHASE TWO". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY- W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SF. CI IRITY Page 129 December 2, 2003 Item #16A7 APPROVING THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "CHASE PRESERVE FIRST REPLAT", AND APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SF, CI JRITY- W/STIPI IIJATIONS Item # 16A8 APPROVING THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES, PHASE 1", AND APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SFJCIJRITY- W/STIPIIIJATIONS Item #16A9 AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT A 100% REIMBURSABLE ARTIFICIAL REEF-MONITORING GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,500 FROM THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SIX ARTIFICIAL REEF SITES IN COIJJER COl INTY Item #16Al0 CP-2003-07: PETITION CARNY-2003-AR-5043 FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE ANNUAL, "SNOWFEST" CARNIVAL ON DECEMBER 6 AND 7, 2003, AT THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK LOCATED AT 3300 SANTA BARBARA BOI JI~EVARD. Page 130 December 2, 2003 Item #16Al 1 CP-2003-08: PETITION CARNY-2003-AR-5058, FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE 10TM ANNUAL "CHRISTMAS AROUND THE WORLD" CARNIVAL ON DECEMBER 13, 2003, AT THE IMMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX LOCATED AT 505 FJSCAMFIIA STRF. F.T Item #16A12 RESOLUTION 2003-422 APPROVING THE RESCINDING OF THE $329,046 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING THAT WAS TO BE USED FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT ON LINWOOD AVENUE WITHIN THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, THE TERMINATION OF THE CDBG AGREEMENT DUE TO THE INABILITY TO MEET THE GRANT DEADLINE FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS, AND THE ATTACHED RF,SOI.I ~TION Item # 16B 1 AWARD BID #03-3572- "BAYSHORE BRIDGE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT PHASE 2" TO THOMAS MARINE CONSTRUCTION INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $297,400 AND Al ITHORIZING ANY BI IDGF. T AMF. NDMFNTS RF. OI HRFD Item # 16B2 Page 131 December 2, 2003 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE FUNDING FOR THE RURAL SAFETY REFUGE SHELTERS PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED IN FY03 IN THE AMOIJNT OF $135~125 Item # 16B3 APPROVING ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENTS - RECOGNIZING THE VOLUNTEER GROUPS LISTED ON THE AGREEMENTS AS THE SPONSORS OF THE LISTED ROADWAYS Item #16B4 REJECTION OF BIDS RECEIVED UNDER BID #03-3512 "REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SERVICES", AND APPROVING CONTINUATION OF SERVICES FOR REAL ESTATE APPRAISING UNDER RFP #01-3204 - FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX (6~} MONTHS Item # 16C 1 RESOLUTION 2003-423 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.OO TO RECORD LIEN- FOR ACCOI INT NO. 104854 Item # 16C2 Page 132 December 2, 2003 RESOLUTION 2003-424 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR AL SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD LIEN- FOR ACCOI INT NO. 148302 Item # 16C3 RESOLUTION 2003-425 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.OO TO RECORD LIEN- FOR ACCOI JNT NO. 27863 Item #16C4 RESOLUTION 2003-426 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD LIEN- FOR ACCOI JNT NOS. 31668 AND 32117 Item # 16C5 RECORDING OF SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS. Page 133 December 2, 2003 FISCAL IMPACT IS $22.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS- AS DF, TAIIJF, D IN THF, F, XF, CI ITIVFJ SIIMMARY Item #16C6 AWARD BID #04-3573 -"ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY AND SCHEDULED SEWAGE HAULING" TO SOUTHERN SANITATION, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED AMOI INT OF $150.000 Item # 16C7 SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RECORD SAME IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. FISCAL IMPACT IS $66.00 TO RECORD THE LIENS- FOR ACCOI JNTS I~ISTF, D IN THFJ EXECI JTIVF, SIIMMARY Item # 16D 1 DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO CREATE AN ANIMAI, SF, RVICES ADVISORY BOARD Item #16D2 BUDGET AMENDMENTS TOTALING $34,016 TO MOVE UNITED WAY 4-H FOUNDATION GRANT FUNDING FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FI Item # 16D3 Page 134 December 2, 2003 AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF TWO STATE OF FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES MATCHING GRANT APPI,ICATIONS IN THF, AMOIJNT OF $77~171.10 Item #16E 1 PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FROM BID #031- 11-0825 AND BID #03-04-0828 AS COORDINATED BY THE FLORIDA SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND THE FLORIDA FIRE CHIF~F' S ASSOCIATION Item # 16E2 AWARDING RFP NO. 03-3551 A CONTRACT FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT (ESTIMATED VALUE $280,000) - TO AT&T WIRELESS, NF, XTFJ~ COMMIFNICATIONS AND VF,RIZON WIRFJJFJSS Item # 16H 1 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND PRE-LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION LUNCHEON AT A COST OF $35.00 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2003 FROM 12:00 NOON TO 1:30 P.M. AT TIBURON GOLF CLUB, TO SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE: THE EDC HOSTS THE COLLIER COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND GIVES EDC FOUNDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE & TRUSTEE MEMBERS, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GUESTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE A PREVIEW OF THE 2004 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AS WELL AS WRAP UP FROM THE RECENT Page 135 December 2, 2003 SPECIAL SESSION. GUESTS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH THE PANEL AND ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGISLATION RELATED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND ISSI IF.S. Item #16H2 COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND PRE-LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION LUNCHEON AT A COST OF $25.00 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2003 FROM 12:00 NOON TO 1:30 P.M. AT TIBURON GOLF CLUB, TO SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE: TO INTERACT WITH LOCAL EDC MEMBERS AND IJEGISI.ATORS Item # 16I 1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR REFERRED- The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Page 136 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE December 2, 2003 FOR BOARD ACTION: 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Districts: Tuscany Reserve Community Development District - Fiscal Year 2004 Meeting Dates. Minutes: o o o 10. Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agendas for June 18, 2003, August 6, 2003, August 27, 2003, September 10, 2003 and September 24, 2003; Minutes of June 18, 2003, August 6, 2003, August 27, 2003, September 10, 2003 and September 24, 2003. Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for October 13, 2003; Minutes of September 8, 2003. Black Affairs Advisory Board - Minutes for January 27, 2003; February 24, 2003; March 17, 2003; April 21, 2003. Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for October 15, 2003. Historical & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for October 15, 2003; Minutes of September 17, 2003. Development Services Advisory Committee - Minutes for September 3, 2003 and October 1, 2003. Revenue Commission Advisory Committee - Minutes for August 13, 2003 and September 10, 2003. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U - Agenda for October 24, 2003Minutes for September 16, 200? Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 22, 2003; Minutes for September 17, 2003. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for' October 15, 2003; Minutes of September 17, 2003. H:Data/Format 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Conservation Collier - Agenda for October 20, 2003; Minutes of September 8, 2003. Enterprise Zone DeveloPment Agency - Minutes of July 23, 2003, Draft Minutes of September 24, 2003. Pelican Bay Services Division - Budget Sub-Committee - Agenda for October 8, 2003, Minutes of September 10, 2003. Collier County Affordable Housing Commission - Agendas for January 16, 2003, April 17, 2003, May 15, 2003, June 19, 2003, August 15, 2003, September 19, 2003; Minutes for February 20, 2003; March 20, 2003; April 17, 2003, May 15, 2003, and August 15, 2003. Collier County Library Advisory_ Board - Agenda for October 1, 2003; Minutes of August 20, 2003. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for October 16, 2003 and October 23, 2003 H:DatafFormat December 2, 2003 Item #16K1 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 174 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MICHAEL S. COMBS, ET AL, IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO 60018 - AS DETAILED IN THF. FJXECI ITIV'F~ SI IMMARY Item #16K2 TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AEC NATIONAL INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY AND DECLARING A VALID PUBLIC EMERGENCY AND WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE RETENTION OF REPLACEMENT CONSULTANTS- AS DETAILED IN THE F, XF. CI ~TIVF. SI JMMARY Item #17A- Moved to Item #7D Item #17B RESOLUTION 2003-427 PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL USES 7, 11, AND 16 FOR EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CHURCH ALONG WITH THE ADDITION OF A CHILD CARE CENTER AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY IN THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL WITH MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (A-MHO) ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIVER ROAD, ABUTTING THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- W/STIPI JI.ATIONS Page 13 8 December 2, 2003 Item # 17C DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 2003-03 / RESOLUTION 2003-428 AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-1 FOR THE TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER FROM DECEMBER 30, 2002 TO DECEMBER 29, 2007 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF 1-75 AND COLLIER BOULEVARD, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS TOI,I~GATF, COMMERCIAI, CF, NTF, R Page 139 December 2, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:02 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL T O M"~-E~~I G.~C h a i-r~an · , ,~These minutes a~,ved by the Board Oncorre~ted,?/~/~,,~,~, ~,reseme,~ or as , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE NOTTINGHAM Page 140