Loading...
Backup Documents 03/25/1997 RREGULAR BCC MEETING OF MARCH 25, 1997 Naples Doily New Naples, FL 33940 Affidavit of Publication BOARD OF COUITV COMMISSIONERS FINANCE DEPT. - KATNY ARNATTA Po BOX 413016 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 -600098 57458644 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD State of Floride County of Collier Before the Undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that she serves as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Deity News, a deity rewspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, FLorids: that the attadxd copy of advertising was published in said rw:vspaper on dates listed. Affient further says that the said Naples Deity Nays is a newspaper pabtishad at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier tarty, Florida, each dry, and has been entered as second class =it matter art the post office in Noples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertiswent; and affient further says that he has neither paid nor pramisac any person, firm or coporotion any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in ttw said newpaper. KJBLIMD CNN: 03/23 AD SPACE: 41.000 INCM FILED ON: O3R4/97 . . Signature of Affiant 1L Sworn to and Subscribed before me this Z. Z.- day of PersonaLly known by me 't'LAC[ -Y h ` d T 'err„ L MM A car Cmaeum 0 CCWV Ono F0001r fs. moo "''9 •••i• • eom� eey nqr pan aeuyria. ec ff PIFAMN YrMWl ..Al, Fkaldd ROW � ow CaJ* ANAW Do imi�ieR�! 911 %OWS � I yOky• . ..:•.- n� r `(i .r i s ' �K w y� i •, a •.. r ;fY n . •. r 4 K c z S t J/ i •y N •i ' i f ri G+ .r _ •r 1rwA��r �.J �yY r x r t+lr ti M; I i • I / Y J y � s - r i r1 • ! _4rr • •`s i . • it l k ✓�IV r ff PIFAMN YrMWl ..Al, Fkaldd ROW � ow CaJ* ANAW Do imi�ieR�! 911 %OWS � I yOky• . ..:•.- n� r `(i .r i s ' �K w y� i •, a •.. r ;fY n . •. r 4 K c z S t J/ i •y N •i ' i f ri G+ .r _ •r 1rwA��r �.J �yY r x r t+lr ti M; I i ***my SOMM Ion 1M. % as nrderlYi' Msf N* it POO u of to •h. one *NO CO Igo kK dw 00 !7I* 1 ' c Od #qn ago* Two Cwt ane i of a a..f� rse�llstnf wr�� FM M a teoer+ded b� = w ad ft lawa C+ lart as Mal d PagilfM tit 1 174S�?, dl of 0& pd* reow of G #Aw Arasetrnse�na to *W an ordnance b and srlpera�ede Caler Counter Or. i illie► M-!� as ars�e+�ded. and twro*v � ore C Lv*v s ee+r policy aln aw t . 1oY pvAden amd also to provide Tor TAt n of r WTOC ir, use d t is rigtih -qf WIN* ** � sled a so d CAier County-, Ow pr Qenerd pr� of tdesr- °' coesmeWcalons carriers and pray ders; telectromanlcation lice Ise. Irmodea CAMP A=d %a c� `' !►' +Dl*W ad mama&^ r low d bare and or °'"ems crrA>ict ord srverabi r is *jsiw ink I4+G�es' an efledt" dale. lCardhied Tram! !ij i 1r� A. ADVERTM Trj&X i'EAmpos (ice CUAf• r;, Mrlf C QuhwW � Peler M �xn, regW ob p u G Ilse 'P M Or C4 Uft Dh* kt for now and uW boat and a* s e, !Dr ` MCa�M dl l4 T,Y i T� Artw &Xrbtd CO L.0 Trixpie Sum f+' �s?It 91.)1 f laf !$ wTd A in Set. 11, Tom► R25E. cwW Arq R >+ y MWMAM O �6�q Me ew-? Dirtrtd for day are tenls�t v In nd N'p d iM A! W1 Aaad in Sec. 25, TfiS, ce mt. WA s or f, �- ��lt r4weUrft Fad rMalrrs Devviopowof C®r9or- � o b Ourdy AM* CARNIVISSiCNA IJBW of 0.110p. Ydd Soles C~ denied a Jofryr 14 W Ur spa r1�a� A %--W to Darted o sar*Wrl otter w The Ispa w iorad wroao r an 1. #3 ** Miogr.-e hens the regrlr,d !nest wt. fd! ftrisa Sava"s prwa y In M111 an Se f" *t d PM- Owid 4J4&' hr o &V *Dire ct v CorlcMOld ttet Tor o dwx% in Me It iF-3 be MqW 111 RftakAw N-m n � CQM1MlJeP#CATtM � UTIM CMENT .. �. a �. �'i t t R t t O t t R R t 1 1. 1• f f••• t••! A I. 1 1• I t t t••/ • ttttel•s•a••••••rsst•t/stttt••• 1, �df IaaMllrs / v�der lkis dc+n be erft*!t and OCft wA be taker, toy . e Id sr0o►�e axAG" Of eOrh fin, p b desiraa0 by a rnmW sF. iet wri rx ,tom e+e CoM4 Apader aad - videmd s►rpo- '`� :�; •• ttttttaR�tettttt •••..•••atttt•tttttt•• A.CY a11H.or�nEiiT arEUIlitdNAki7iTAL SERvM w E" m lift * onr Ud 4Mww a of I+t rnadrrarr, droTssooe, wafer and wry. vF � I'• t Jr:r #..,,. F. Wi L pct. �t f S* form �� I/wnwu• � IC'Sr.IwanR.1. �.... ._.... -,• �.. .. a. Tarnral s M wpm* fair r+Kw drq go *a pW d '1 11: Flerflope Goof & for Pe100n Mar*„p�e t fir' B tAMa _Nw ��� r� !�t i00rda eu�r al" #t bud bfd �.Do oaf 1/1 ow if fkv CrNM f/ttlo O��nw Ow Nfol " VftiQ1 LV r l00 a Rood lrnDoct Fee Co *tufts !i'I LL4w ,� Join Yer+ivrG A� eerner�t fbr '�.R. 00 a b � trom Fund (341 as the F F � �cbd Service T iatrja for the !M/ir+a M tMr t0 t�rvetir property aw s� Fad Sf!�ett and reiop®d ex- �L ft Raft Road 86awfMwim Almd o =Mod to► Bid ft W -2124 Morco Kknd T4f* Cwshodlon to DoWim [+� NC. fir 1Ht air�o� et xli3,l0ilp. a far bra delefhr4 a, Na Fear b Pr*ssk;rd Sery{rt pprewjv* wft µms; 4u 1laoR the x C+�u * Conxnissioners cpprae an amud re- Viand Af%rU Rw&" Medarrs and A*cenf Rl yt4.Mlay ROWW aMr+Amdafti t0 ward SW#v7.2Wkrcor*octpck#W4 t're heard of Counter C wry akners avor wd for Owdlon of surplus rodo .,. die X4 eeorth apd rescue of Sainte F$wkda. °k 10 =r'cw ttae =Wsi!w of flue (S) Me&= dt.+y admxw ft �' sappart arebglanpas ArouoA a ooapernNve vufd+ose. Re h= pot PL Rw vurctases In excess d S15,QOii from Kc�iyr r�oder (C8udp! MANAi�t R�t F. OF COUNTY CONAZ s RS G, M6CEU A M* COR'RESi"Ce CE �� oasts b Fie R tar soord wtNt Action as Diree�ed Servko � i Board owwye &Ift t Ar *fK% arbt to fir FY 96 (2� Recomrrsendetlon b Kwe a Gdrvoyrorf Permit to Arm Mark MdoloL (� ROVY tte 9wfR's Ofte's eMrd of a t o No. ccsm4M fo RCC rIts, s."kes retch to ftte Sfterfff's O:iktii amd'sfl'" of a C,orrtpater Afd�d D�j System. l COUNTY ATTORNEY (1) Reconxn ethos to Areo A�ctontrst�odo ?Sorts �e on ogrterr�ertt brfwm Copier Cer�altr and ttte Mopes �s ftxrM In fit arna,r� of Sq9� try for the wWd of *rW devti pme d in a M�or� N 6�'� and yr amofbn Y ell Naples Daily hews Naples, FL 33950 Affidavit of Publication. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FINANCE DEPT. - KATHY ARLOTTA Po BOX 513016 NAPLES FL 35101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 -701237 5755MS5 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEE State of Florida County of Copier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who an oath says that she serves as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Nsplesl Deily News, a daily rawspeper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper an dates listed. Affiant furrier says that tht said Naples Deity Nara is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, FLorids, each day and has been entered as second cless wit ratter at the post office in Naples, in said Coffer Canty, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first pubtication of the attached copy of advertisement: and aflient further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or coporttion err/ discount, rebate, eornission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. nmis Eo ON: 03123 AD SPACE: 3.750 INCH FILED ON: 03/24/97 Signature of Affiant tom_ Srorn to and Subscribed before as this day of �� • %j n Persoro l ly know by me < .. " ?r @a, t l�si 1 Tuesaap, March 25, 1997 9100 a.m. 10TICZt ALL PERSONS WIER31O TO SPXM OM ANY AOCKDA ITFIM M=T R=0I82= PRIOIt TO XP=3I1O. R=QCZSTS TO AZSMKBSi TOM zOARD OM 648JMCT2 MEZCE AR= 1OT OM SETS AAA MCST = SUROWPrED 21 IUtXTI1O WXTE zxI'LiMATIOR TO TEZ COCIRT IQM6WR AT L=AST 13 VATS PRIOR TO TZZ ZM<TE OF TEZ MMTIMO AND WILL EZ BZARD tw= •PQSLIC PSTMOW0. ••. , . •., . •i . •1' .• ALL R=OISTZRZD PCDLIC SPSAMMS MILL = LIMITZD TO PxVz (5) KXMCTZX U L=88 PZ=USSIOM POR ADMTIOMAL T17Q IN GRARrZD By TES OIL13 ow. A88IST>ID LI8TZM230 DEnCZS FOR TES IDURIMO IMPAXIM ARZ AVAILAELZ I1 TZ: C0911'Z COMMISSIOIUMB' OFPICZ LUMCI3 RZCZ88 SCRZDULZD FOR 12:00 MOON TO 1s00 P.M. .._ . • W March 4, 1997 - Regular meeting. A. Proclamations Judith Brayer - Social Services - Services for Seniors - 10 years 1 March 25, 1997 Approved and /or Adopted with changes - 5/0 Approved as Presented - 5/0 Presented Mary Havener - Public Works -Water Dept - 10 years John Poczynski - EMS - 10 years C. kXSAtAt&t1Q21 A. ANALYSIS OF C8AZGZ$ TO RZBZRPZS FOR CODTTINiGZNCZ99 1. General Fund, (001) for FY 96/97 2. Community Development Fund, (113) for FY 96/97 3. Facilities Construction Fund (301) for FY 96/97 To be heard after 11 :00 A.N. 4. Present to the Board the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for excellence in Financial Reporting. To be heard after 11:00 A.M. 5. Present to the Board the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FY 1996. A. Kathleen C. Passidomo, Secretary - Collier County Junior Deputies League, Inc. regarding a waiver of performance bond requirement. 1•)4 fi -COM.0J� (1) Report to the Board of County Commissioners on Solid Waste Collection Service Surveys and request for direction regarding the status of Franchise Agreements. moved from Item 016B2 Award for 1995 presented Presented Staff directed to bring this item back as a regular agenda item on April 1, 1997 - Consensus To be brought back to BCC June 25, 1997, to decide if this bid should be let; Commercial not to be separated from Residential in bid; and Results of Pilot Program to be brought back to BCC before bid is let. 5/0 (2) Adopt a Resolution to authorize a loan from Fund Res. 97 -184 Adopted w/ (341) as the funding source for the Radio Road flexiability to change Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit Fact Sheet numbers to reflect more and related expenditures in order to survey property accurate cost 5/0 owners within the Radio Road Beautification area. 2 March 25, 1997 (1) Discussion regarding the University of Florida r- olzted Extension programs. (2) Recommendation that the BCC approve expenditures for the Collier County Parks and Recreation Special Event, Youth Midnight Basketball Tournament (Staff's Request) 5411'Ir I '� (1) Discussion of jail capacity analysis. S�:b ri r�I�.. � � i r•:IJ.ya Res. 97 -185 5/0 Staff to bring bac) ranking notice and short list with cost differential and use o? Rev. Mallory facility 5/0 10. 1loARD or c4tmwt Cd■fZSBZO�tB A. Presentation (15 minutes) of Collier County Agricultural Nc action. Study by Craig Evans. (Commissioner Berry) B. Discussion regarding scheduling a group interview for County Manager candidates. (Commissioner Hancock) C. Discussion regarding Naples Airport Authority Noise Compatibility Committee. (Commissioner Hancock) VO4FIN&O I ' II I #(- . 1. Al Perkins regarding various issues. IIFPIWI—V,%r# ♦�} a •�� }:� ., -+TZi �T�="� 6fl. • 7 .. n .. I .; -" . ... i. I'1' may:..; 3 April 21 for intern interviews; April 23 an, 24 for outside interview: and afternoon of April 2, BCC meeting to be held r, 1/2 hr. for each candidat, and evening of April 23 reception to be held. Commissioner Berr. appointed as non - voting member 5/0 (1) Petition AV 96 -036 for the vacation of a seven and Res. 9; -d6 - Adopted 5/0 one half foot utility easement on Lot 50, Block 64, Naples Park Unit No. 5, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 14 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. (2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Ord. 97 -15 - Adopted 5/0 approve an Ordinance authorizing exemption of local tax on electricity (even though current tax does not exist) used in the Immokalee Enterprise Zone. (3) Petition AV 96 -024, McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. as agent for owner, Eastridge Partners, LTD, requesting vacation of a portion of Tara Court and a portion of a ten foot (10') utility easement as shown on the Plat of Plantation, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 80 -82, and a portion of Tara Court as shown on the Plat of Plantation Unit Two, as recorded in Plat Book 17, Pages 95 -97, all of the public records of Collier County, Florida. (4) Recommendation to adopt an ordinance to repeal and supersede Collier County Ordinance No. 88 -90, as amended, and hereby establish the County's new policy concerning telecommunication providers and services; also to provide for the regulation of telecommunication companies use of the public rights -of -ways within the un_ncorporated areas of Collier County; also providing general provisions; registration of telecommunications carriers and providers; telecommunication license; telecommunication franchise (reserved); cable franchise; fees compensation; conditions of grant; construction standards; periodic evaluation, review and modification; repeal of Ordinance No. 88 -90, as amended; conflict and severability; inclusion into the code of laws and ordinances; providing an effective date. (Continued from 3/11/97) . • • .•,•ire;.• (1) Petition CU -97 -1, Arthur C. Quinnell representing Peter M. Andersen, requesting Conditional Use '4' of the C -4 Zoning District for new and used boat and auto sales for property located at 1995 Tamiami Trail East, further described as Lot 4, Triangle Subdivision and the northwesterly 98.28 feet of parcel A in Sec. 11, T50S, R25E, consisting of 0.97 acres. Res. 97 -187 - Adopted 5/0 Staff to come back in twc months w /report after having open communicatior with providers; and annual right -of -way use fees tc be looked at. 4/1 (Comm sr. Norris opposed) . Denied 5/0 (2) Petition CU- 96 -26, Roger Dale representing Our Savior Res. 97 -188 Adotpec Lutheran Church, requesting Conditional Uses '3' and '4' w /stipulations 5/0 of the RSF -2 Zoning District for day care centers and schools for property located at 10000 Airport Road North in Sec. 25, T48S, R25E, consisting of 4.59 acres, more or 4 less. (3) Petition A -97 -1, James H. Siesky representing Falling Appeal Denied 5/0 'Raters Development Corporation requesting an appeal of a Collier County Planning Commission's denial of a temporary use extension for a Model Sales Center denied on January 16, 1997, for property located at 6562 Trail Boulevard. (4) A Resolution amending Resolution 96 -305 to correct a Res. 97 -189 Adopted 5/0 scrivener's error in the legal description to land areas requiring an 8.95 foot variance from the required front setback in the MH Zoning district for Maria Silva's property located on the north side of Kathy Lane in Sec. 12, T51S, R26E. ONNF-0-4771 (1) Petition CU -96 -1 for a first extension of a Res. 97 -190 Adopted 5/0 Conditional Use for a church in the RSF -3 Zoning District for property described in Resolution 96 -192 adopted on April 9, 1996 pursuant to Section 2.7.4 (Conditional Use Procedures) of the LDC. A. Productivity Committee Update 16. Each Commissioner to determine 5 issues to be disc-.issed Ail matters listed under this item are considered to be routine Approved and /or adopted and action will be taken by one notion without separate with changes - 5/0 discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that itsm(s) will be removed, from the Consent A~- and considered separately. A. (1) Recommendation to grant final acceptance of the Res. 97 -183 & stip. roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of *Sherwood Park". (2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final w /Construction and plat of 'Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club Phase Maintenance Agreement & Two-A•, stips. 5 March 25, 1997 (3) Water and sewer facilities acceptance for Pelican w /stips. Marsh, Unit Eleven, Phase 2. (4) Water facilities acceptance for Willow Bend at w /Cash Bond as surety Stonebridge, Tract A. stips. (5) Acceptance of utility easement for existing utilities for Villas of Capri. (6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Award to Prestige waive the formal bid process and approve the Economic Printing, in the amount of Development Council's marketing materials printing price $32,065.00 quotes on various printed materials. (7) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Heritage Greens f /k /a Dove Pointe. (Continued from the meeting of 3/11/97) (8) Water facilities acceptance for Writtenberg Sales Trailer. (9) Water and sewer facilities acceptance for Northshore Lake Villas. (1) Recommendation to approve a Road Impact Fee Contribution Agreement for S.R. 951 Four - laning with 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture. lowed to Item •832 (2) Adopt a Resolution to authorize a loan from Fund (341) as the funding source for the Radio Road Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit Fact Sheet and related expenditures in order to survey property owners within the Radio Road Beautification area. (3) Award a contract for Bid No. 97 -2626, Marco Island T -Groin Construction to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of $313,100.00. (4) This item has been deleted. (5) Approve Amendment No. Four to Professional Services Agreement with Metcalf & Eddy for the NCRWTP 8 -MGD Expansion Project. (6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an annual renewal of the Maintenance and Arterial Roadway Medians and Adjacent Right -of -Way Professional Services Agreement. 6 March 25, 1997 w /Construction and Maintenance Agreement & stips. w /stips. w /stips. Deleted (3) Water and sewer facilities acceptance for Pelican w /stips. Marsh, Unit Eleven, Phase 2. (4) Water facilities acceptance for Willow Bend at w /Cash Bond as surety & Stonebridge, Tract A. stips. (5) Acceptance of utility easement for existing utilities for Villas of Capri. (6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Award to Prestige waive the formal bid process and approve the Economic Printing, in the amount of Development Council's marketing materials printing price $32,065.00 quotes on various printed materials. (7) Recommendation to approve for recording the final w /Construction and plat of Heritage Greens f /k /a Dove Pointe. (Continued Maintenance Agreement & from the meeting of 3/11/97) stips. (8) Water facilities acceptance for Whittenberg Sales Trailer. (9) Water and sewer facilities acceptance for Northshore Lake Villas. (1) Recommendation to approve a Road Impact Fee Contribution Agreement for S.R. 951 Four - laning with 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture. Moved to Its #8B2 (2) Adopt a Resolution to authorize a loan from Fund (341) as the funding source for the Radio Road Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit Fact Sheet and related expenditures in order to survey property owners within the Radio Road Beautification area. (3) Award a contract for Bid No. 97 -2626, Marco Island T -Groin Construction to Douglas N. Higgins, inc. in the amount of $313,100.00. (4) This item has been deleted. (5) Approve Amendment No. Four to Professional Services Agreement with Metcalf & Eddy for the NCRWTP 8 -MGD Expansion Project. (6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an annual renewal of the Maintenance and Arterial Roadway Medians and Adjacent Right -of -Way Professional Services Agreement. 6 March 25, 1997 w /stips. w /stips. Deleted (1) Recommendation to award Bid 1197 -2637 for contract Award to various firms painting. listed in the executive sur=ary on an item by item basis (2) Request the Board of County Commissioners approval for donation of surplus radio equipment to K -9 search and rescue of South Florida. (3) Recommendation to approve the acquisition of five (5) medium duty advanced life support ambulances through a cooperative purchase. (4) Recommendation to make sole source purchases in excess of $15,000 from Kelly Tractor, Incorporated, Ft. Myers, Florida. (1) Budget Amendment Report. C. (1) Recommendation that the Board approve Budget Amendments to finalize FY 96 Debt Service Appropriations. (2) Recommendation to issue a Clairvoyant Permit to Anna Marie Nicholas. Acquire from Aero Products Corp., in the amount of $486,065.00 B.A.'s 97 -210 & 97 -216 97 -1 (3) Ratify the Sheriff's Office's award of RFP No. In the amount of CCS097 -001 to RCC Consultants, Inc. for communications $80,092.00 consulting services related to the Sheriff's Office's acquisition of a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System. IT•i•ltrM w�• r �� (1) Recommendation to approve an agreement between Collier County and the Naples Area Accommodations Association, Inc., for the award of tourist development tax funds in the amount of $489,058.00 for advertising and promotion (Category B1). 7 March 25, 1997 AGalm CHANG S BOARD OF COUWrr COWaSSIOK9RS' KSSTING KARCH 25, 1997 ADD: IT= 8(C)(2) - RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BCC APPROVE EXPENDITURES FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY PARRS AND RECREATION SPECIAL EVENT, YOUTH MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT. (STAFF'S REQUEST). DIRLSTE: ITSK 8(C)(1) - DISCUSSION REGARDING THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA EXTENSION PROGRAMS. (STAFF'S REQUEST). DOTS: ITSK 6(A)(5) - RSQUSST THAT THIS ITEK BE RZARD ABTSR 11:00 A.K. - PRESENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FY 1996. (BCC REQUEST). -, 1 , .'. .�_ � _� n a .1' � �•� . i.' �� 7 �'.t�� t- � t s t '�- �. ��_ �, f: e y ,t �� z ,{ , �' � ,��a • :. ;_ � �- . •'-- ,: � .:; k - q +' ; `., T .�r� ev �l �,�fi t,�{Yre�; 'r�,F� L f fr `�'�a 'r'� � �.: �. �s ,:-y '� [... �1 }�4:�.wa. 1` f iv�r •�%a t x � � ri y � t ° ' ' ✓� `r+ ; � 'ti;. } � `�b.�+ ��: � � fr.rY` ti�.�!` s7`r{ -j' ;�� e�.. ..,x ,��yr+'�''� '� .� ! "� rte( ev. t U r .` , a+l'± UxL3�y -+X_r a � s "7t r.t .k r. r �•, � � � �`.';!V�1a y; 1 -n /�., n�y.�X:�ryj ii �Y4 _�! i.." :, s`. � L � i v r � .. ,. ... . - .. . . •y .', • � � • � 4 V .. � t �� �. r • •' ! !:. /p 1^ Y y.. ,.. ` � �- y, / ,fit i COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT i FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 3a, ,966 COLLIER COUNTY, RJORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 1 1 1 1 t i t a t t BETTYE MATTHEWS PAMELA S. MACXIE COUNTY ATTORNEY KENNETH B. CUYLER JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN TIMOTHY J. CONSTANTINE TIMOTHY L HANCOCK COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR W. NEIL DORRILL CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER DWIGHT E. BROCK DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING JAMES L MITCHELL, CIA, CFE, CBA Prepared by the Fhure OepaMno t COLWTY MANAGER W. ter. DOPOULL .uaw T AN i vu Tm ASSISTANT TO THE ASSISTANT TO THE COUNTY MANAGER COUNTY MANAGER COUNTY MANANIER AD R 04Y 000EUX ARJMOLO SAW SAAnOW ..rr,..� yr ►u�R: ASSISTANT N�OIIMATION COUNTY MANAGER MIP!E AIC NW3 OFFICE OF MANAOfT AND nlo�o�T awrPE siUrlcowsly w-wrooT seerlCS� ADMINISTRATOR COMMIISTY DEVRAPMENT SERVIf n PUBIC SERVK= AOMMiTRATGR PUOLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR ADMMITRATOR LED ,/t VINCR CAt nPO rcra OLLI F TOM COAIiECOD PAW p opmor MrwlMnas d Seel -- Rarbw and Parwdl9np Mws C Coda ErMoroawrarK VON- Sovloaa solid Wasia Rwcarara SarrNoas Exarakra slcrwwrs�W r+fonaaUon Tadnolow Pal► SarrNoN Nokwal Rsaowoas Phrwinp sarwNoss AgrkAA ARf-Nd ortatign RMsk Manapsrrrsrk IMaaar Raaornoas Po1MMkar Central Anlraal t:aNtd co SocNM Sarviam ub" W*wA Wastes Waosr Walsr Pwchmshv ry Parts and Rsasallon INTRODUCTORY SECTION Page TransmittalLMir......................................... ............................... i Certificate of Achi•vern•nt ................................... ............................... xiv Report of Independent Certified Public Acoountarts ................. ............................... 1 COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (COMBINED STATEMENTS-OVERVIEW) GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Combined Batanoe Sheet - AN Fund Types, Account Groups and Discretely Presented Component Units .......................... ............................... 2 Combined Statement of Revenues. Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - AA Gowmffw tat Fund Types, Expendabb Trust Funds and Discretely Presented Component Units ............. ............................... . ........... 8 Combined Statement of Reveries, Expendihxss and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) All Governmerxal Fund Types and ExpecxW* True Funds ......... ............................... 10 Combined Statement d Revernnes, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings - All ProprkXwy Fund Types ................. ............................... 13 Cornbinsd Statement of Cash Flows - AN Proprietary Fund Types ....... ............................... 14 Notes to The General Purpose Financial Statements ................ ............................... COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND AND ACCOUNT GROUP AND SCHEDULES 16 ,STATEMENTS GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES: General Fund Statement of Reveries, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual .......................... ............................... 52 Special Re"nue Funds CombiNng Balance Shoo ................................... ............................... 55 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures mid Changes in Fund Balances .............................. ............................... 58 Conbining Schedule of Revenues, Expendrtues and Changes In Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) .. ............................... 61 Debt Service Funds Combirtinp Balance Sheet .................................. ............................... 66 Combirirhg Statement of Revenues, Expen0tures and Changes in Fund Balanom .............................. ............................... 70 Combining Staiherno t of Reveries, ExpwK%xes and Changea in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (GAAP Budgetary Bars) ............................ 72 Capital Prof•cts Funds Combining Balance Sheet ................................... ............................... 79 Cornbinirtg Statement of Revenxus. Expendmxes and Changes in Fund Balances .............................. ............................... 81 Combining Sc hoduls of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances . Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) .. ............................... 83 I Pt fl,", fl N Er m 1-d �J R] m E p—Rop, imm6 Ike, PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES: EMIMM Fund• Pap Combining Balance Shoo ....................... I .......................................... 89 COWOinlng SMwrwt of Revenues, Expenses and Changes In Retained Earninigs .......................................................... 93 Cbmbirft Sdwdub of Revenues, Expenses and changes in PAtab Eamings, - &KkW and Acuw (Budg"y Basis) ......................................... 95 C4nt**V St*wrwt of cash Fkxvs ................ I ......................................... 99 kftrrMd Sam** Funds Combirvirm Bdwm Shoo ... .. .. .... .......................... .. Im C0n*ftV StOwymi of Revwx m, Exp enses ............ and Changes In RaWkod Earnings .......................................................... 105 COTbirft Schedule of Revenues, Expenses and changes in Fletak Exr*-V - Budge and Actual Mudgetary Buis) ........................................ 107 Combining State rrm of Cash Flm . .......................................................... 110 FIDUCIARY FUNDS AND ACCOUNT GROUPS: C22WALIM2 Trust and AQWKY Funds C*Tbk*V Balance $hog - AN Fiduciary Funds .................................................. 114 C4n*ir*V Stownent of Revenues, Expenditures and changes In Fund BWNXM - AN EVWK4"s Trust Funds ........................................ 117 Cornbir*V Sd*dLk of Revenues, Emwoftm and changes in Fund BMWKM - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) - AN Expendable Trust Funds ....................... I ............................... I ......... 119 Cwbvft SWwnwt of Changes in Assets and Lbbilltift - Al Agency Funds ............................................................ 124 A=unt QMM and SchedWes SCh*dLde Of Gwwld Fixed Assets by Cksawficabon andSource ........................................................................... 127 SdWJL• Of General Fixed Assets by Function and Classification 128 Sd*dLAS Of ChwVn in General Ficced Assets by Function .............................................................................. 129 SdwdLft Of General Long•Term Debt Im Schedule Of changes In General Long-Term Debt ................................................. 131 General GovwrvrwrtW Revenues by Source ..................................................... General Govwrwnwtd Expwdturm by Function 133 ................................................. Properly TEX LOW" WKI cabcd ons 134 ................ I ......................................... A84•18•d and Es*n@Md Actual Valtis 135 of TLxW* Prc; . ................................... ... .. - Property Tax Ron - AN Dbect and ovw*OV Govwmm" 136 .................................. ....... Special Assessment 81111ings Collections 137 and ..................................................... CCaVutmfion of L%W Debt Mwqh 138 ........................................................... CarpAadon of Direct and Overt Debt Im .................................................... Ratio Of Net GOMW Sanded Deft to Assessed 139 Values and Net BMW Deft Per Capita ...................................................... Ratio of Annual Debt Service Expwx*urn for 140 GWWnW Bonded OdA to TOW GWWW GOVWMrMntW EMMftM .. ......................................................... of Wow aid Sower Funds Revenue Bond Coverage 14t SDaola, d S . usty r Bonds o Principal OfficWs 142 Krlinms P VaPnW ......................................... 8tldl*X 143 ............ PmWtY VW^ C4rWuckn and Bank Deposits ................................................... 144 .................................. POO TaRx"n County Wide ............................................................ 145 Mboallonsous Sudedcal Data ................................................................ 146 Major kxknbin Within Collor County 147 .......................................................... Schedule of hwurance In Fm 148 ............................................................. 149 County of Collier b A JIM a� n CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COWER COUNTY COURTHOUSE .'. 3301 TMpA I TRMI EAST P.O. 413044 CIRCUIT COURT NAPIiS.FLORIDA3JV11 -304A COUNTY COURT COUNTY Dwight E. Brock CLERK BOARD OFER Gltrk COUNTY COMMISSIONERS March 3, 1997 To the of Collier County: It is with extreme pleasure that we present to you, the citizens of Collier County, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996. This report was prepared by the County's Finance and Accounting Department who reports to the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Responsibility for both the accuracy of the presented data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures, rests with the Clerk of the Circaiit Court as Chief Financial Officer of Collier Cormty. We believe the data as presented is accurate in all material respects, that it is presented in a mamaer designed to fairly set forth the financial position and results of operations of the County as measured by the financial activity of its various fiords and account groups and that all disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain the rnwdrnum understanding of the County's financial activity have been included. I: J The CAFR consists of four parts: Introductory Section, which includes this letter of transmittal, the County's organizational chart with a list of principal officials and the Certificate of Achievement for Exc dlenc a in Financial Reporting for the year ended September 30, 1995. Finmx-W Section, which includes the general purpose financial statements, the combined, individual fund and accourst group financial statements and schedules, as well as the independent certified public accountant's report on the general purpose financial statements. Statistical Section, which incWes a number of tables of unaudited data depicting the financial history of the County for the past ten years, demographics, and other miscellaneous utfermation. In 1922, Barron Gift Collier purchased the 2, 025.5 square miles of land on the southwest coast of Florida that today is knovrn as Collier County. Baron Collier necogaized the need for ftfttunxture to bring about economic developrnemt to the region. At a cost of more than one millm dollars, he finded the constnxmon of the Tammuz Trarg connecting A 5' Tampa and Naples to Miami. Shortly after the completion of the Tamiami Trail in 1928, train service came to Naples, and with it, another vital link to economic development. Today, Collier County is home to approximately 197,000 residents and continues to be ranked as one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States. In 25 years, the permanent population has increased by approximately eighty percent.. Between 1990 and 1995, growth maintained an annual rate of increase of approximately three percent. This rate is expected to sustain well into the 21 st century where the population is expected to reach 578,200 by the year 2020. Collier County is a non - charter county established under the constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. The County provides a full range of services for its citizens. These services include, but are not limited to, law enforcement, human and community assistance, civil and criminal justice services, the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges, streets and infrastructure, recreational and cultural activities, sanitation services, and water and sewer services. The primary government consists of six elected offices; the Board of County Commissioners, which is composed of five members, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Property Appraiser, the Sheriff, the Supervisor of Elections and the Tax Collector. The Board of County Commissioners is the legislative body for Collier Counrty, and as such, budgets and provides all the funding used by the various County departments and the separate Constitutional Officers with the exception of fees collected by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the Tax Collector. Under the direction of the Cleric of the Circuit Court, the Finance and Accounting Department maintains the accounting system for the County's operations, including the Supervisor of Elections. The Cleric of the Circuit Court, Property Appraiser, Sheriff, and Tax Collector maintain their own accounting systems. However, for purposes of the CAFR, the operations of the Co►inty as a whole, including all of the Constitutional Officers, have been presented. RKi It t _I It P_ Collier County is located in the southwestern portion of the State of Florida, with Naples being its largest incorporated municipality. The County has made impressive economic strides since the completion of the Tamiami Trail in 1928. The State of Florida certified Collier County as a "Blue Chip Community" in 1985. To obtain this certification, a county must meet state requirements in important areas of economic development including the creation of plans for growth management and comprehensive land use. With over two thousand square miles, Collier County is the largest county in Florida and the second largest county east of the Mississippi River. A part of the Everglades National Paris, the United States' only subtropical national park, comprises a portion of the County. ii 1.f i'. r,Y S'. yF_ 'd- x A 5 The County derives its economy primarily from service, retail, agriculture, construction, finance, and real estate. All industrial sectors have achieved substantial growth since the early 70's. Aggregate earnings increased from approximately $374 million in 1970 to $ 1.83 billion last year. Historically, employment within the County has varied significantly throughout the year due to the large influx of tourists and seasonal residents during the winter months coupled with seasonality in the agriculture industry. The average number of individuals in the labor force fluctuated from a high of 88,470 in December, 1995 to a low of 68,5 75 in July. During 1995, the largest number of new jobs were created in the retail trade and service industries. Growth in retail shopping will continue as a result of the $50 million expansion of the Naples Coastland Center Mall. In addition, established specialty shops and boutiques continue to target the expanding tourist market. The retail trade provides 23 percent of wage and salary jobs in the County with retail workers experiencing average annual earnings of $ 15,900 during 1995. The service sector, which includes hotels, restaurants, entertainment, education, health, legal, finance, insurance, and real estate professionals employs 37 percent of the wage and salary work force. Growth in this sector also remains strong. Health care services alone provide over 6,400 jobs to the area with average annual earnings exceeding $36,000 during 1995. Collier County is one of the highest agricultural producers in the United States. Farming activities are located approximately forty miles inland and are primarily centered around the community of Immokalee. Major crops include tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and melons, as well as the citrus business. Beef cattle are also a significant farming commodity. In summary, Collier County's excellent financial base, strong infrastructure, proximity to world class ports, and low taxes creates an attractive environment in which to live and work. Money Magazines' 1995 amlual survey rated Naples as one of the top ten most desirable places to live in the United States. Among the magazines' findings were that in the last 12 months, housing appreciation was the second highest in the country while property tax is among the lcwest in the state. Future job growth is projected to remain very strong and all economic indicators point to a promising future for Collier County. iii NL%M ttaxanm MMOYMM AS of sss'rEMM 0,1n$ Ei — SOUR WATE of FUMMA iM AID W 1 0 eU . XV OPW ,S b A 5 During fixal year 19% the County cow it-, Commitment to strearnia ,- operations to become more efBcies t while improving services to the comity. The County's more significant were: • CCTV (Collier C wnsy Television). began aking. on cable chancel 54. The station's primary purpose is to inform the public and present programming of general interest to the residtnu of Collier County. CCTV airs eight.}sours of programning each day from 4 P.M. to 12 F.M. Plans are in process for 7 -clay, 24 -hour progrwiming. • Over $1.4 million in franchise *ft were collected. from cable comps aces . operating within Collier County for their use of public right -of- ways. A policy of customer service was also aggressively pu rmW with the cable.cornpanies on behalf of County citizens, with the office successfully interceding in mmerous dtgarta between subscribm and the companies. • The Office of Madrt and Budget assisW.in the preparation of a nexus report, the rtault of which was that $726,900 of Community Dewcloprras functions previou* supported by ad vakAwn taxes were shifted to dw Community Development Food, which is supported by building permit fees and devdopcaerrt foes. • On Fehruery 27, 1996, Collier County wsumed regu *bdicdm over certain nODI= rcpt privately owned water and wastewater systeans opaz&* within the uninoocportted boundaries of Collier County. Since 1985, these utgtim had been mguLted by the Florida Public Service Comma n. Now, local regulation through the Office of Utility Regulation will enhw= rte resporm time to customer sm= inquiries and provide customer group involveaect in the rate setting lxooFig. This Offm is filly fimdod through regWwry fees from the regulated uti>ities. iv • Consolidation of the Long Range Planning and Growth Management Sections under a single umbrella called Comprehensive Planning now allows custorixurs to deal with only one section for long range planning and growth management issues, two areas which overlap considerably. • Working in partnership with the Friends of the Museum of the Everglades, the Collier County Museum was awarded a special category preservation grant of $360,902 from the Florida Department of the State to assist with the restoration of the historic Everglades City laundry building. This structure will house a branch nviseum. • The "Prepare to Survive!" program was developed by Collier County Animal Control in cooperation with the Emergency Management Department to eductte residents on providing for their pets before, during, and after hurricane emergencies. • Collier County Solid Waste Transfer Stations have incorporated fi-ets acceptance of both scrap metal and cardboard for recycling. These programs are expected to generate approximately $25,000 in revenues annually. In addition to the aforementioned completed projects, the fiscal year 1916 -1997 budget includes a number of programs that address population growth and economic development. The major focus of the Capital Improvement Program this year will be on utility water and sewer improvements as well as continued emphasis on road construction and public safety as well as renewed emphasis on stormwater managemem. The sewer and water capital appropriations total $46.6 million, road construction $27.2 million, and an expansion to the Collier County Jail is budgeted at S25.5 million. DEPARDONTAL FOCUS Each year, the efforts and accomplishments of a specific division within Collier County Government are highlighted. For fiscal year 1996, The Office of Emergency Management has been selected for this review. The Office of Emergency Management is charged, through Chapter 252 of the Florida Statutes, to make every rcasonable effort to ensure the public safety and welfare of Collier County residents and guests from the detrimental effects of natural and technological disasters. Although emergency management in Florida is synonymous with hurricanes and tropical storms during the summer months, the staff of three is kept very busy throughout the year in preparing for, responding to, and mitigating the potential threats that are common to this section of paradise. 0 5 i • Consolidation of the Long Range Planning and Growth Management Sections under a single umbrella called Comprehensive Planning now allows custorixurs to deal with only one section for long range planning and growth management issues, two areas which overlap considerably. • Working in partnership with the Friends of the Museum of the Everglades, the Collier County Museum was awarded a special category preservation grant of $360,902 from the Florida Department of the State to assist with the restoration of the historic Everglades City laundry building. This structure will house a branch nviseum. • The "Prepare to Survive!" program was developed by Collier County Animal Control in cooperation with the Emergency Management Department to eductte residents on providing for their pets before, during, and after hurricane emergencies. • Collier County Solid Waste Transfer Stations have incorporated fi-ets acceptance of both scrap metal and cardboard for recycling. These programs are expected to generate approximately $25,000 in revenues annually. In addition to the aforementioned completed projects, the fiscal year 1916 -1997 budget includes a number of programs that address population growth and economic development. The major focus of the Capital Improvement Program this year will be on utility water and sewer improvements as well as continued emphasis on road construction and public safety as well as renewed emphasis on stormwater managemem. The sewer and water capital appropriations total $46.6 million, road construction $27.2 million, and an expansion to the Collier County Jail is budgeted at S25.5 million. DEPARDONTAL FOCUS Each year, the efforts and accomplishments of a specific division within Collier County Government are highlighted. For fiscal year 1996, The Office of Emergency Management has been selected for this review. The Office of Emergency Management is charged, through Chapter 252 of the Florida Statutes, to make every rcasonable effort to ensure the public safety and welfare of Collier County residents and guests from the detrimental effects of natural and technological disasters. Although emergency management in Florida is synonymous with hurricanes and tropical storms during the summer months, the staff of three is kept very busy throughout the year in preparing for, responding to, and mitigating the potential threats that are common to this section of paradise. b A 5 Working as a team with other county agencies, the Office helped County residents save more than two million dollars in flood insurance premiums through the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Raring System in 1996. Emergency Management has also been tasked with maintaining a "Special Needs" registry for residents that would require extraordinary support during evacuations. The Office is also responsible for the development and maintenance of the Comprehensive Emergency Plan. This plan covers the spectrum from the hurricane and tropical storm threat to the not so obvious risk of terrorism and potential nuclear power plant emergencies. Between these possible scenarios lie flooding, drought, tornadoes, and inclement weather sheltering. In these periods of austerity, individual and family preparedness is a necessity. As a member of the County Speaker's Bureau, Emergency Management Personnel delivered 98 disaster preparedness talks throughout the community. In addition, the staff prepared and delivered 45,000 copies of the Collier County All Hazards Handbook during 1996. To accomplish its mission, the department manages the Emergency Operations/Communications Center in the County Administration building; and a mobile command vehicle that can be used at the scene of brush fires and hazardous material incidents. The Department also maintains two Emergency Resource Support trailers for possible deployment within the County to provide mutual aid to other jurisdictions within the State of Florida. y -i The Clerk of the Circuit Court, as the Chief Financial Officer through the Finance and Accounting Department, is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls to ensure that the assets of the County are protected from loss, theft, misuse and to ensure that adequate accounting data is compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and that the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. All internal control evaluations occur within the above framework. We believe the County's internal control structure adequately safeguards assets and provides reasonable assurance of the proper recording of financial information for both internal and external reporting purposes• vi �J p 0 n Id; J .11 El J I 6 A 5 Budgetary Control. State of Florida statutes require that all county governments prepare, approve, adopt, and execute an annual budget for such funds as may be required by law or by sound financial practices. In compliance with this provision, the budgets adopted by the County are either appropriated or non - appropriated in nature and are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepting accounting principles except as noted in the notes to the general purpose financial statements. Funds that have appropriate budgets cannot legally exceed their appropriations. The budgetary controls over funds that have non - appropriated budgets are set by enabling ordinances, such as bond ordinances, in which the expenditure authority extends many years into the fixture. Budgets are monitored at varying levels of classification detail, however, expenditures cannot legally exceed total appropriations at the individual fund level. Beginning fund balances, available for financing current appropriations, are considered in the budgetary process. As an additional control, the County employs an encumbrance system which reduces available appropriations within a fund upon the issuance of a purchase order, contract, or other forms of legal commitment. Encumbrances at year end do not constitute expenditures or liabilities. They are accounted for as a reservation of fund balance in the year the commitment is made. While appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year, the succeeding year's budget ordinance provides for the reappropriation of year end encumbrances. Internal Audit. The Clerk of the Circuit Court maintains an Internal Audit Department. The Internal Audit Department reviews and reports on the internal control environment of the various departments under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court to ensure they are operating effectively, efficiently and in a manner that is consistent with management's direction. Cash Management. The Clerk of the Circuit Court strives to keep abreast of current trends in cash and investment management in order to achieve the goals set forth within the County's investment policy. The primary objective of this policy is preservation of capital with significantly lower priority given to earnings. Idle cash balances are invested on a daily basis within the constnunts imposed by the Florida Statutes and the County's investment policy. For purposes of maximizing interest earnings while not jeopardizing capital, cash balances of all funds are invested in the County -wide cash and investment pool. The County consistently invests the majority of its available cash. Note 2, within the notes to the general purpose financial statements, categorizes the County's investment portfolio by the levels of investment risk assumed by the County. As can be gleaned from the Note, substantially all of the County's investments are either insured, registered, or physically held in the County's name. The significance of this is that the County has prudently b �► safeguarded its investments to mitigate potential losses which could result upon the bankruptcy or failure of an investment house/broker. As of September 30, 1996, the market value of the Board of County Commissioner's portfolio was $211,423,000 and was invested in the following types of investments: COMPOSITION OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, IM Sirius' Accepianoyt 7% i I i Lod Go verrrnsnt Supka Funds Trust U.S. Treasury obepums 2% Dow Depoes ® 13% D~9d Conpntslbn Mulud Funds <% SOURCE: IM COWREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT U.S. Apsncy Se=tiss 37% As highlighted in the fiscal year 1995 CAFR, certain derivative type irstruments were acquired during the period of 1993 to the early part of 1994. This sector of the portfolio, which has a carrying value of approximately $27,372,000, continues to be maintained at a loss and with an average life that exceeds the parameters specified in the investment policy. T1x current market value of these instruments is $25,500,000 with an average life of 20.6 years. To compensate for the lack of liquidity caused by this portion of the portfolio, the Clerk has limited current purchases to short term instruments with an active market. In addition, the Clerk is aggressively monitoring the market for collateralized mortgagee obligations in order to capture opportunities to liquidate any individual instruments that can be sold without sustaining a loss. Viii a�. f` fr: r. i 1. �S 6 A 5 The following table presents a historical perspective of Collier County's interest earnings over the past five years; Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year G m-A Fund S1,102,921 S 1,321,898 S 1,774,281 S1,948,309 Special Revenue Funds 1,169,268 1,358,278 1,996,633 1,835,593 Debt Service Funds 463,939 411,232 495,135 505,608 Capital Project Fords 1,927,945 2,260,253 3,428,435 2,532,581 Ecttaprise Funds 4,872,044 5,614,857 6,685,069 5,761,422 Internal Service a Funds 278,060 376,473 635,523 642,019 Trust and Agency Funds 156.967 131.163 140.749 107.947 Total lntemi Earnings S 2.221J" S 11,474.15 $15 15 5 A?. iA,,23,3AU General Gopemment Faarcdotrs. Total general government revenue; collected by Collier County during the past year amounted, to approximately S138,134,000. This amount inehdes revenues of the General Fund, Special Revenue and Debt Service find types. Taxes, the largest general gove wwm revenue source, is cornpri,Sed of $71,246,000 ad valorem, $10,038,000 locally imposed gas taxes and $8,712,000 of other taxes. GENERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES FOR THE FWAL YEAR ENDING 8EPTEM9ER 30, MS klfsoe�onran 2% kft eeat NCO.ea 3% i Fhaa and Faefaaim 2% Taxes 30% SPKW A�aaaafelalels 1% ctom a for 80%40N 9% 114090m yonty Lbws* s and 20% Pa., 4% SOURCE: 1908 COMPREHENSNE ANNUAL FmANCtAL REPORT ix b p 5 � Total general government expenditures amounted to S143,279,000, excluding capital Project expenditures. The two largest fimctions are General Goverment and Public Safety' General Government consists Prunarily of financial and administrative expenditures. Public Safety expenditures include the Sheriffs Office and Emergency Services. GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING EEPTEMQER 30,19ft sm u ric Enwamwrt PUt*C S* ,.& aw.� odx 8. IM "icd EnWmr nor t 13% Cukh rrrd "U"M 9W,* s Trwapartskn Remselm 4% T% 9% SOURCE: ION COMPREI IENSNE Ai6MAL F'MANCWL REPORT i ERterpriSe FWD& Collier County Maintains six Enterprise Funds which consist of County water and &w", Marco water and Sewer, Good'.ard water, Solid Waste Disposal, Emergency Medical Services, and the Airport Authority. Enterprise Funds are established to finance and account far the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of facilities and services which are intended to be entirely or predominantly self - supported by charges collected from the users served. Combined, these operations generated over 555,516,000. of revenues, both operating and non- oPmtt'n& with Water and Sewer operations cOn n- bating approximately $38,327,000 of that total. The Solid Waste operation generated approximazely $13,347,000 of that revenue. Intemal Serviice Fields. Collier County naium= sb, lrtterral Service Funds which consist of the InfDtmetion Technology, Self Insurance, Office of Capital Projects ManQement, Department of Revenue, Sheriff's Self Insurance and Fleet Management. Irtternal Service Funds are established to account for services provided by depumelrts of the government for the benefit of other departments of the governmem x a 6 A Combined, these fiutds had revenues of S22,321,000 with expenditures of 519,673,000. Fiduciary Funds. Collier County maintains 11 Expendable Trust Funds and 7 Agency Funds. Trust and Agency Funds are established to account for assets held by the County in a trustee opacity or as an agent fir individuals, private organizations, or other govetmnent traits. The largest agency funds of the County are the Deferred Compensation Fund, which accounts for funds held on behalf of County employees and the Pine Ridge and Naples Production Park Fund, which accounts for assessment collections and related debt service payments made on behalf of property owners. The total assets for all Trust and Agency Funds was $26,356,000 as of September 30, 1996. Debt Admini%Wdon. Collier County continues to meet its financial needs through prudent use of its revenues and debt financing programs. In fiscal year 1996, the County issued the $5,030,000 Collier Collier Public Paris and Recreation Municipal Service Refunding Bonds, and the $2,145,000 Guaranteed Entitlernent Revenue Refunding Bonds to refund outstanding bond issues. As a result of the refundings the County reduced its f total debt service requirements by $1,045,400. At September 30, 1996, the County had $198,93 8,000 of long term debt outstanding. r E L.Y u N111 H, n E,- OUTSTANDING LONG -TERM MOT AS OF 8> PTEM8ER 30, 1"S ENTERPRISE FUND OTHER NOTES PAYABLE 4% 6% COMMERCIAL PAPE 1011 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 4% LIMITED OBLIGAT REVENUE BONC 24% SOURCE: 1404 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT ENTERPRISE FUND REVENUE BONDS 50% Geneml F"cred Asseu. The general fixed assets of the County are those assets used in the performance of general government functions and do not include the fixed assets of Enterprise and Internal Service Funds, which are reported on the balance: sheets of those respective funds. Depreciation of general fixed assets is not recognized in the County's financial records. As of September 30, 1996, the County's investment in General Fixed Xi 5 6 A 5 Assets was $218,284,000 which represented an increase of $21,581,000 over that of fiscal year 1995. Risk Management. The County's assets and the health care of its employees are protected through a risk management program that is administered by the Risk Management Department. Under this program, a self insurance fur►d is maintained by charging premiums to all County departments based on certain formulas which are updated each fiscal year. The Risk Management Department, through its coordinated and continuous efforts in monitoring potential risk exposures and implementing sound health and safety control programs, coupled with effective claims administration, is striving to meet the goal of minimizing injury claims which result in economic repercussions to the County. IndrpendeW Aiidirt. The County is required by Florida Statutes to undergo a financial audit performed by an independent certi8cd public accountant. The accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP was selected by the government audit committee to perform the fiscal year 1996 audit. The results of this audit can be found in the bidependent certified public accountants' report included ui the Financial Section of this report. GFOA Certificate of Achiev�nt The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a C.- rtificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to Collier County, Florida, for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1995. The Cc-tificate of Achievement is a prestigious national award recognizing conformance with the highest standards for preparation of state and local government financial reports. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual finaxial report, whose contents conform to program standards. The CAM must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles end applicable legs! requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. Collier County has received a Certificate of Achdevement for the last ten consecutive yews, from fiscal year 1986 to 1995. We believe our current report continues to conform -o the Certificate of Achievement program requirements, and we are submitting it to the GFOA for consideration Diseliigr�rished Budgd Praeetadon Award The Government Finance Officers Assocatkm of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented an award for Dhstinguisbeci Presentation to Collier County for its atmu d budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1995. In order to receive this award, a government unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an XI] operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device. The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is valid for a period of one year only. ACXVOR'LEDGMENTS The timely preparation and publication of this Comprehensive Annual Fimancial Report represents a sign ficant effort by the Finance and Accounting Department as well as the excellent cooperation and assistance of other County employees who contributed to the preparation. In particular we would like to express our appreciation to Teri O'Connell, Derek Johnsen, CPA, Rose Bownu , CPA, Tom Kelley, CPA, and Maryalice Bailey, Accountants; Robert W. Byrne, CMA, General Operations Manager, Shirley Van Wet, Financial Analyst; Linda Murphy and Sandi Emerick, Frnanc ial Specialists; Neal Berryman and John Johnson, CPA, dedicated part -time employees and all of the staff of the Finance and Accounting Departrent. Sincere appreciation is also expressed to the Board of County Commissioners, the County Manager, Division Administrators, and the Department Directors for their assistance throughout the year in matters pertaining to the financial affairs of the County. We hope you find this report informative, accurate, and easily readable. If you should have any questions related to this report or if additional information is desired, do not hesitate contacting Tun Mitchell, Director of Finance and Accounting at (941) 774-8404. S, 4 Dwight Brock 9JamepsL. Mitchell, CIA, CFE, CBA ® Clerk of the Circuit Court Deputy Clerk Chief Financial Officer Director of Finance and Accounting i i t 0 xiii 5 � 6 A operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device. The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is valid for a period of one year only. ACXVOR'LEDGMENTS The timely preparation and publication of this Comprehensive Annual Fimancial Report represents a sign ficant effort by the Finance and Accounting Department as well as the excellent cooperation and assistance of other County employees who contributed to the preparation. In particular we would like to express our appreciation to Teri O'Connell, Derek Johnsen, CPA, Rose Bownu , CPA, Tom Kelley, CPA, and Maryalice Bailey, Accountants; Robert W. Byrne, CMA, General Operations Manager, Shirley Van Wet, Financial Analyst; Linda Murphy and Sandi Emerick, Frnanc ial Specialists; Neal Berryman and John Johnson, CPA, dedicated part -time employees and all of the staff of the Finance and Accounting Departrent. Sincere appreciation is also expressed to the Board of County Commissioners, the County Manager, Division Administrators, and the Department Directors for their assistance throughout the year in matters pertaining to the financial affairs of the County. We hope you find this report informative, accurate, and easily readable. If you should have any questions related to this report or if additional information is desired, do not hesitate contacting Tun Mitchell, Director of Finance and Accounting at (941) 774-8404. S, 4 Dwight Brock 9JamepsL. Mitchell, CIA, CFE, CBA ® Clerk of the Circuit Court Deputy Clerk Chief Financial Officer Director of Finance and Accounting i i t 0 xiii 5 6 A 5 The Goverment Finerace Ohioans Association d the ltn*W States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certli=M d Adaievernert for E=efence in F'ss■nctet Reportlrap to the County d Cosier, Fk-x for b Cwnprjtrenetvre Annual Fk= Report for the IwW year ended September 30, 1f85. The Certwcate of Act*wwrwt is a pneetl0ioua rrattad awwd recogni rp ooniorrnanca with the tdj;l t starrKkv& for preparation of state and kx d 9ove nimett *Wvw reports In order to be awarded a Certfficfto of Achiersmert. a go erm rt ur* must p A*h an eery reecJebOs aid efsdwdy orgard ad cOprotaerasivs annual &a report, "tK" co tents conform b prod M standards. Such reports must sad dy both geraeraliy aocepRed a=ourdrq pr,►r *kn and apocabie MW recluk"necta. A Cerulcaee of Adaievemert is v■sd for a perW of one year only Cosier County has recdved a Certlkxft of Addevernert for the Isar 10 Cal vac ud" years We beReva our curert report cortimm b 001%11 to Carttkmoe d Addrsenvert dam and we are NAXT ttlraQ t to GFOA for Cormideradon. xM U] � certificate: of � Achievement � for Excellence � in Financial Reporting Presented to � Collier County, � Florida F1 r 6 A 5 For its Comprehens ;ve Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1995 A Certificate of Achievement fc7 Excellence in FkkvxW Reporting is presented by the Cxvernrnent Finance officers Association of the United 'Mates and Canada to government units and pubh- employee retirement systems whose comprehem -4w annual financial reports (CAFRs) achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. F1 r 6 A 5 t ArfrHUR ANDERSEN LLP b A 5 aid • • ��• aka • a� Via' ���ra� ;111_ SSfi.J�! t• To the Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida: We have audited the accompanying general purposes financial stateumnts of CA&w Cwwtt. Fkw As (liar "County"), as of and for the year ended September 30, 1996` as listed in tine Tabu of Coahmas. Tie: general purpose financial statements and the supplemmdal statemols and sdnedds n An I b bekm are the respontb$ity of the management of the County. Our r is so eaeF s ow = opunau as these general purpose financial statements and the supplemental statements aid •de&dm bassi ao our audit. ® We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted audIti ng standards a d floe stamdmods ® for finandal audits contained in Gotwwnent Auditwg Simdw* (19% Rrvwsm4 iwosd by the Comptroller General of the united States. Those standards require than we pelaa ad peniIiors. floe sudit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose fisnnnod statesents are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis„ evidence ssppartiag the amounts and disclosures in the general purpcw finarncW statements. An audit abo includes amessaw the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by maaageummt. as wren as eveluaiting the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reamodAe bass for oar oPini'on In our opinion, the general purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respells, the financial position of the County, as of September 30,1996, and the results of its operations and the cash flows of its proprietary fund types for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles- L- accordance with Gdvmtment Auditing Standards (1994 Revision), we have also issued a report on our consideration of the County's internal control structure and a report on its compliance with laws and regulations, both dated January 17,1997. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the general purpose financial statements taken at a whole. The supplemental combining, individual fund and individual account group financial statements and schedules listed in the Table of Contents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the general purpose financial statements of the County. This information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the general purpose financial statements taken as a whole. 1 C"g4" L L Fort Lauderdale, Florida, January 17,1997. e e t I n 1 u n r� i n n b A 5 GENERAL. FIIJt+� THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL FUND IS TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE COUNTY'S OPERATING REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCIAL. RESOURCES AND THEIR USES IN CONDUCTING THE GENERAL OPERATIONS OF THE COUNTY, EXCEPT FOR THOSE RESOURCES ACCOUNTED FOR IN ANOTHER FUND. THE GENERAL FUND HAS A GREATER NUMBER AND VARIETY OF REVENUE SOURCES THAN ANY OTHER FUND, AND ITS RESOURCES FINANCE A "DER RANGE OF ACTIVITIES. THE RESOURCES OF THE GENERAL FUND ARE NORMALLY EXPENDED AND REPLENISHED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROCEEDS OF SPECIFIC REVENUE SOURCES THAT ARE RESTRICTED BY LAW OR ADKIINISTRATIVE ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS THE PURPOSE OF THE DEBT SERVICE FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL, INTEREST /,ND EXPENDITURES ON LONG- TERM DEBT, OTHER THAN DEBT PAYABLE FROM THE OPERATIONS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS. QAF'ITAL. PROJECTS FUNDS THE PURPOSE OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES SEGREGATED FOR THE ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR CAPITAL FACILITIES OTHER THAN THOSE FINANCED BY PROPRIETARY FUNDS. ENTERPRISE FUNDS THE PURPOSE OF THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR OPERATIONS THAT ARE FINANCED AND OPERATED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTERPRISES -- WHERE THE INTENT IS THAT THE COSTS (EXPENSES, INCLUDING DEPRECIATION) OF PROVIDING GOODS OR SERVICES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON A CONTINUING BASIS BE FINANCED PRIMARILY THROUGH USER CHARGES, OR WHERE PERIODIC DETERMINATION OF REVENUES EARNED, EXPENSES INCURRED, AND /OR NET INCOME IS APPROPRIATE FOR CAPITAL MAINTENANCE, PUBLIC POLICY, MANAGEMENT CONTROL, ACCOUNTABILITY OR OTHER PURPOSES. NTaVVL SERVICE, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCING OF GOODS OR SERVICES PROVIDED BY ONE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, OR TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS, ON A COST - RE]MBURSEIE -NT BASIS. TRUST AND AGENCY FilS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSETS HELD BY THE COUNTY UNIT AS TRUSTEE OR AGENT FOR INDMDUALS, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS. COINVIEW UNITS THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPONENT UNITS IS TO ASSIST THIRD PARTIES WITH THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCCNG OF VARIOUS PROJECTS THAT STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH, INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE COUNTY OR PROVIDE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TO THE PUBLIC. GENERAL IFDIED ASSETS ACCOUNT THE PURPOSE OF GENERAL FIXED ASSETS IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE ASSETS USED IN PERFORMANCE OF GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND EXCLUDES THE FIXED ASSETS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS. QUA B& LONG -TERM DEBT ACCOUNT GROUP THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COUNTY'S LIABILITY FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND OTHER GENERAL LONG -TERM OBLIGATIONS, WHICH ARE NOT OBLIGATIONS OF THE PROPRIETARY FUNDS. COLDER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES, ACCOUNT GROUPS AND DISCRETELY PRESENTED COMPONENT UNITS SEPTEMBER 30, 11196 GovwTwrw al Fund Types Proprietary Fund Types Special Debt Capital Intemel Gowal Reverm Service I'mocts Enterprise Service ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS Fund Funds Funds Funds _ Funds Funds Assets: Cash and hvestmerits $ 18.654,403 S 29,498,266 $ 7,137.530 $ 40,776,120 S 37,&16,491 i 14,420,334 invsstrrwts With trustee - - - - - RacaNab m: Special ssepernerots - 4,933 206,331 . 1. to 43,633 157,990 21,434 151,351 489,479 34,652 Trade, net 62,303 2,737,225 26,833 Unbaisd - - 1,332,624 Notes 256,974 - - Other 457,569 42,455 113,089 - Due hom cow l rds 3,374,026 809,508 12,344 105,529 121,345 106,587 Dim (mm oowgmwmwts 1,674,627 1,079,435 28,880 2,796,218 55,381 Advarroos and deposh 3,500 - 1,010 kwonbxy 114,121 - - - 6671,180 119,582 Prepaid casts - 2,500 - 1,725 1 2,320 - Rastrlded asssft: Cash and kwasbrmft specitl asseswrw to receivable: - - 39,716,004 current - - 926294 Deferred 13,346,837 Accrued t><erest 965,395 Notes aoetvsl* - 2,005,498 Due from cow gmwrvw to - - - 1,858,799 - Property, plant and egAxrwit (nd where qVk". o' accunx"d 4 r No ) - - 334,916,221 4,176,127 Oltw assets - 00w debit: Amount evattable In debt terw hrtds - - Arnourt to be provided for a6row of go 0 long-term debt - TOTAL As5ET8 AND OTHER DENTS i 23.926.615 s 32.062.232 i 7 247.576 i 44.t 52.383 s�,�,� i 16.885.135 6 A 5 FWuciW" Fund Typm Acootmt Gooffooft Con>poiwt unft coffiff County RSPXWV ErUy Trud Gerwvi cow COW* kwLnkw TOW wW Aga my GanwW long -Twm TOW MmMV Fhwm Dambprmt OnM Funds Fbad Aamb DWA RAwnwwxtn 001) ANN A&Ahoft - - (MwnWW4= 164-34k.022 S 48= s 8= 3 164,404.440 9,Q78 039 9,078,030 - 9,078,039 211,254 211,254 2D 919,410 919.410 2=351 2J828XI 1,132,624 - 1,132.024 25OW4 76.000 332.974 90,09 703,812 703,812 103,4M 4.432,746 4,432,746 4.,CM 5,mvow - - S,Mw - 4,510 4,510 1,044,351 1109,244 1 AM,244 16,545 18,545 39,716A04 39,716,004 928.294 - 926.294 13,345,837 - 13,345,837 M.305 - 905,305 Z005.40 - ZW5.4w IA8,790 1,868,799 557,376.618 218,264Z70 557=,618 9259,184 9.256164 7,239.948 7.239,90 7,M 946 .110,702 75 75,110,702 75,110,702 (CONTINUED) COWER COUNTY. FLORIDA b A COM&WW BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES. ACCOUNT GROUPS AHD DISCRETELY PRESENTED COMPONENT UNFTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 1966 C,mwnmwft Fund Types PrW)Wo 7 Fund Types Spsslsl Debt Cspul how Gumal Rwerwa Sella Projects Enlorprbs Service Fund Funds Funds Funds _ Funds Funds Liebmms: Vouchm psysbie end acawb i 6,542,314 S 1,072,578 S 7,626 S 4,771,388 S 2,639,649 S 379,535 Due to aCnt hrrds W6,284 203,277 - 7,315 1,900.672 9,051 Out to other porerrrrnnts 235 ,606 622.742 1,306 - 13,733 Warred ca. gm satlon psyabM SdI- txuarxe cWa pay - - 5,702,139 Currant mduraft of l..ee abip.tions 27.671 Curryrrt mat rbas C ndss payable 329,964 - Dakow rwwxms 23,460 1,431,208 11,841,625 - Relurxk" depoals 106 6'17 - - RdW srtooyee deposb - _ - 3,466 R4U*We pay" 1,810 506294 2.206,035 - Escrowed lrnped liras - - Due lo Holders of spew aeeeeernent bonds - - - - - F'ayeble Irom III soots: Vouchom payable - - 1.754,::66 Deterred m4rw a - - - 225.235 Currw>t ffwhwoes of notes payebie - - I A38.662 Currant nahrties of rwwwa bm& - 3.236,737 Due to othw pvwrrnw s - 306,560 Accrued I twasl psyabis - - - 2.028,379 - Cuakww dWooft _ _ - - 374,13E Rslskngo pay" - - - 837,%3 - Lrr-AM MebiRy 1 bards - - 4,324.693 - Guma1 abtlQsff payable Rmrwis bor4a and owltlt, of 1 � 1 11 dwess ps1abb (not) W,317,= - Canwnerciel pow loon poywo . Ncies poysbls - - 12,752,706 ArbRrepa teI I lmbft - - - leaes x - - 84,163 Ate! om ip 642,444 448,006 TOTALLIABMrnES $ 2ANI 21 i 3.836,066 S_ 7,09 S 16,830,872 i 131,771,150 S IN6,067 4 6 A 5 FMuckq Urns Reporting_EnMY Fund Typo _ Aooant Croups p►mrY Csowrrrria" -- Corr"nsrt Caller County Trust and Agency General General Long-Term COW Total County A� � n Only) Furls Fbad As ss Dab NsroaA n� _ $ 452;925 $ $ : $ 13,88.021 S : S $ 1305,021 4,432,746 1 257.147 4,432,746 2- gA,050 3,351,440 3,361,440 9 078,039 9,078,039 9,075,039 i 5,702,139 5.702,130 _ 27,671 - 27,671 _ 329,94 - 329.9E4 1,044,351 14,340,354 - 14,340.664 4.M2,914 4,126,741 - 4,120,741 3,40e 2,716,939 3,4W 2,716,939 429,791 429,791 429,791 5,366.644 5,366,644 5.366,644 1,754,368 - 1.754,368 • _ _ 2252 - 225.235 1,636,652 1,838,652 _ - 3.238,7:#7 3.234.737 _ 306,580 - 306.540 _ 2,028.379 2.025.379 374,136 374138 - _ 837.593 - 837.993 - 4,324,693 4,324,893 . 7,240.000 7,240,000 7.M.000 - 47,505,000 145,02,278 145AOZ 278 19,267,000 19257,000 19.287.000 191,589 '.2.944,367 - - 12,914,357 4,M 4,U79 4,079 _ 3E0.997 466,160 _ 486.160 7,481.966 8,952,515 — _ 5,62,515 $ 24,179,564 S - $ 62,350,850 $ 273,560.451 S - $ - $ 273,40,451 (cownNUED) '� 5 N 5 ICOWER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES, ACCOUNT GROUPS AND DISCRETELY PRESENTED COMPONENT UNITS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 1888 Gorwrrrertai Fund Types _ Pmprhtwy Fund Types Spam Debt Capital hMurrmt Gw wrl Revwxw semiom Pr 1mu Erdwprlme Sarvioa Fund Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds Cor*tuw coptm f - f f f - f 225.051,889 f 2,368.161 krvmabrrwrt h gm wa116wd awes Rataked *gx. - - - aar Raawvmv! far: Raamn bond rsb—.m 8.718.637 Rarovwl and rspbmim - 400,000 Utxmsw,od - 79,367,779 8.858.807 Fund t>slerr, : Ramwved for Lmo4wm rr.1 rocwvabls Encumbranns 322.333 4.543,578 - 17,084.150 - wrm*wy 114,121 - - - Prapaid comes - z500 - 1.725 - Drbt swvto - 4.800.675 . Trot fund pu?ommm Urrsamed: . D*Wgndedkr k,"d ews - 370.882 - - - DoM swvlcs z4x= - - Ft*" cmptW prolwN - - 10255.616 - - UrrdooWm and 15_M,DC 23,307.083 ' TQTAL EMPY MO OTl M CREW$ 18,02Z404 28,714,133 _ 7,238,946 27,321,481 314,528,105 121417,068 The rrrrlw b the pwrwal pu poam tlrrmrreM atalarWft wa w kftVW part d fft mlaMrrrwt 6 Jli 6 A 5 Fund Typss Account Groups Pft" Govwrmiwt Comporw't Unit Rspw*V Entity Carr County Trust GwwW Comm County k1 kxbw and Apanoy Gwwa1 long -Twm TOW Mousirg Finance Dw * pmwnt TOW Funds Ftaad Asaals Debt oftmorwo" Ong! Aug=* Au&wft Or*j) 227,409,859 s - i -S 227.40DA50 218,284,27'0 218,2164,270 218,284,270 9,718.637 - 9,718,637 - 400,000 - 400,000 _ 89213,858 - 89,218,888 - 76,000 - 78,000 6,081 21,938.142 21,938,142 114,121 - 114,121 - 4.225 4,80QE18 _ 4.225 4,500,875 2,1M,786 - 2.189,788 - - 2,169,758 - - - 370.492 - - 370,9 ZICD= 43e zzr3 10.2!,x 016 _ io zzma 38,800,103 48,5!5 SA03 35,945,10 2,175,887 218�284.M 878,013,378 124.525 _ 6.893 826.144,794 i 26.]®5.731 i 218.284270 i 6z36o�9 i 0199.563.0127 i 124.525 i 6.800 i e99.t#4524t5 i 1 1 1 1 i ' Ottw fYwactrp mum" (Uses): Prooe.ft from loans - 5,270,900 Proceeds from re/u1d(rrp baxds - 7,175,000 psynaent b reftsdad bond escrow aOwt - - (8,900,8211) Opradrg i anow In 7,800.050 4,212,347 4,823.784 Openift b w wfers Ott (17,067,001) (7,640,387) (216 Toth O6rsr lknnch sources (Uses) (9,176,947) 1,832,080 4,881,627 Emcees of revenum and Msr Irwrei+0 swAm over (under) sgwe - dQaes snd dhor rinerch uses (1,311,705) (3,509"M (3,125.462) Turd tmatwaes at boom of yen 17,334,190 31,824,M 10,366,400 Fund t #roes st and of year f 18ARZ.404 i ----a2am i 7239.M I The nolss b ft Orusal ptspeas ftrrarrcill agtrrrer*a ass an Ir t" past of tlds staterrrlrt 8 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA b A 5 1 COM181NED STAM&NT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES, EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS AND DISCRETELY PRESENTED CO'ONENT UNITS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, ION Gmwrsrrrrtal Fund Types it DdA General Fund Roman Funds Swvbe Funds Rerwuues: Taxes $ 57,262.770 i 21,779,006 3 2,203,885 Lkenew and pon. 86,775 6,109,231 - kterporrrxrrrtal 19,02,881 4,8033,306 3,128,841 Charges Tot mwvic 9,703,346 1,902.300 - Flres aid forfeitres 2,511,273 8[!.214 kfrwt Irnonrre 1,848,308 1,838,593 506,806 �rapsu faces - - g�f �y 1,184,317 - AAsodarrsamt 3,029,396 128,409 Tcdsl nworwas 94,434,531 37,531,567 5,838,114 E;wrdbres: Current General gawrarnwrt 28,032,606 3,143,455 p SOMh 45,613,383 7,901,615 ptrysicel arrAronmert 1,703,504 16,350,961 Transportetlon - 9,352,053 - Eoorwk a wkww wt 371,806 1,300,771 Human srvbes 4,710,385 830,127 - CuRtre and racrooft 8,077.630 4,186 268 Captad atfay - DoU swvice 1,167 13,645,193 ToW eaapwx*rss 86,589,294 43,054,487 13,845,193 Excest of revenues over (undor) o pencRures 7,8m,237 (5,43ZM (7,807.079) Ottw fYwactrp mum" (Uses): Prooe.ft from loans - 5,270,900 Proceeds from re/u1d(rrp baxds - 7,175,000 psynaent b reftsdad bond escrow aOwt - - (8,900,8211) Opradrg i anow In 7,800.050 4,212,347 4,823.784 Openift b w wfers Ott (17,067,001) (7,640,387) (216 Toth O6rsr lknnch sources (Uses) (9,176,947) 1,832,080 4,881,627 Emcees of revenum and Msr Irwrei+0 swAm over (under) sgwe - dQaes snd dhor rinerch uses (1,311,705) (3,509"M (3,125.462) Turd tmatwaes at boom of yen 17,334,190 31,824,M 10,366,400 Fund t #roes st and of year f 18ARZ.404 i ----a2am i 7239.M I The nolss b ft Orusal ptspeas ftrrarrcill agtrrrer*a ass an Ir t" past of tlds staterrrlrt 8 I � 6 A 5 Fbuciwy Fund Types Prkrwy Govenxrw t corny neat UrA s Reportlrq Entity CoAier comer County lndlntrW courty- Proleft Trust Total H n rg Floe Oevatolxrw t Total Funds Funds Wlemorandum Onty) Authority Authority _ PAemorwxJum Only) $ 8.306.789 S 448,463 i 89,996,015 $ .3 - i 89,998,015 9,334 6,204,340 - 6,204,340 2.3511962 30,081,683 30,081,860 514,433 130,047 12250,137 10,431 36,312 12,296, 880 666,244 3,265,731 3,265,731 2,532,561 107,947 6,830,037 1,209 93 6,831,339 15,499,554 15,499,584 - - 15,499,584 174,541 1,358,858 1,358.658 282,881 223,144 3,863,830 2,000 3,865,830 29,662,771 1,583,209 169,150,192 13,640 36,405 169,200,237 3,013.675 32,189,736 - 32,189,736 710,991 54,285.969 54.285,988 - 18,053,485 18,063,485 266,724 9,818,787 1,672,577 538 34,544 9,618.787 1.707.659 33,326 5,582,818 5,582.818 22,201 12,288,119 12,286,119 42,672,589 - 42,622.589 13,646,380 42,622.589 13,648,380 42,622,569 4,046,917 189,948,460 538 34,544 189,983,542 (12,959,798) (2,483.708) (20,796,268) 13,102 1,861 (20,783,305) 1 5,270,000 5,270,000 7,175,000 7,175,000 - (6,900.829) (6.900,629) 5,230.870 3,093,208 25,050.258 - 25,060.268 (Z65ZOM (573.961) (28,158, (28,156,796) 2.578,771 2.519,227 2,435.643 - - 2,435,643 (10,381,027) 55,519 (18,362,825) 13,102 1,861 (18,347,86?) 37,702,518 2,120,348 99,348,558 111,423 5,032 99.463,013 S 27.321.491 i 2175.887 i 80.963.933 S 124.525 f 6 893_ i 81.115.351 9 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES AND EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS L A FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 v H GownrnwM Fund Types Proceeds from loux - 5,800,000 5,270,000 (330.000) ProcMda from mkrx& g bonds _ Psymsnt to ndtandad bond escrow spent Opwabnp t wofta In 7,865,800 7,890,059 24,258 4,303,200 4ZZ347 (90,853) Operating 0 w Were cut (17,887 982) (17, 067, 001) 820,991 (7,973,500) (7.649.387) 324,113 ToW cthw financing sources (uses) (9.822,192) (9,178,94?) 645,250 1929,700 1,832.960 (96,740) Excess of rewrwas and other flnenciry sources am (under) engmv. ditures and o0wlbwckgtam (4.634.045) (1,311,705) 3,322,340 (14,924,030) (3,236,580) 11,687,450 Fund befarces st bogkw*V of year 17,334,199 17,334,199 - 27,854,005 32,622,749 4,768,684 Fund balances at and of yew $ 12700.154 S 16.072.494 i 3.322.340 $ 12930.035 i 29.386.166 5__j&456134 The nabs to tux pulsral purpose fklancial sWo. wo lGa in an I tepral part of this statement. 10 General Fund Special Rranue Funds - (Non -GAAP) Budget Actwt Variance Budget AchW variance Revenues: Taws S 59,304,300 $ 57,282,770 $ (2,041,530)$ 22,724= $ 21,776,090 $ (95,102) LIcanim and pan 80,700 88,775 8,075 5,087,000 8,438290 1,371298 khr9v+errrnarm 19,182,000 19,992,861 818881 5,596,943 4,843,209 (953,784) Charges for services 9,077,585 9.703.346 805,783 1,004,8(12 I A02,309 297,447 Firm and fortetaaes 3222. 200 2, 511 ,273 (710,927) 49,800 88214 38,614 kkweat incarne 938,800 1,VP8.306 909,700 837,504 1.835,593 998,089 krpw kcs - - SP$Ckd 1,228,8W 1,184,317 (44,4" Mtlacdernea+s 2,977,652 3,024,396 51,744 56,8E+9 128,409 71,510 Told rwernes 94,803,017 94, 434, 531 (358,486) 37,165,8`8 37,996,447 830,589 mow: Current Gerwal9overrsnent 27 ,643,894 26,032,608 1,611288 4,58g,W9 3,143,455 1,426214 Pu t is samy 46.320,863 45,673,363 647,280 9,069,123 7,901,615 1,167,505 PI antanins 1,931,425 1,703,504 227,921 20,031,775 18,369,961 3,671,294 10,172,474 9,352,063 820,411 Eoorardcerwiramnart 45,400 371,806 73,564 1,567,695 1,300,771 286,924 Humrnservices 4,720,460 4,710,365 10,095 1,169,915 839,127 330,788 Culk" and narea8on 8,553,025 8,077,630 475,398 7,436,749 4.166,288 3=,461 CW" attry - - - DdA service - 2,608 2,687 1 Total apenaures 8g,814,870 86,580294 3,045,575 54,019,588 43,065,987 10,953,601 Excess of remwn over (u+nd9r) CPWXUUrft 5,188,147 7,885,237 2,677,090 (iQ853,730 (5,089,540} 11,784,190 Proceeds from loux - 5,800,000 5,270,000 (330.000) ProcMda from mkrx& g bonds _ Psymsnt to ndtandad bond escrow spent Opwabnp t wofta In 7,865,800 7,890,059 24,258 4,303,200 4ZZ347 (90,853) Operating 0 w Were cut (17,887 982) (17, 067, 001) 820,991 (7,973,500) (7.649.387) 324,113 ToW cthw financing sources (uses) (9.822,192) (9,178,94?) 645,250 1929,700 1,832.960 (96,740) Excess of rewrwas and other flnenciry sources am (under) engmv. ditures and o0wlbwckgtam (4.634.045) (1,311,705) 3,322,340 (14,924,030) (3,236,580) 11,687,450 Fund befarces st bogkw*V of year 17,334,199 17,334,199 - 27,854,005 32,622,749 4,768,684 Fund balances at and of yew $ 12700.154 S 16.072.494 i 3.322.340 $ 12930.035 i 29.386.166 5__j&456134 The nabs to tux pulsral purpose fklancial sWo. wo lGa in an I tepral part of this statement. 10 i b A 5 Gump wnW futid Typa Osbt Suvk» funds CapW Pmoft Finds - (Nd�(3AAF7 Budget Acdnl 8� Actusl yw rw 95.552 943 42.622.569 52,900,374 14,304,969 13.645,193 669.786 - 14,304.959 13, 645,193_ 859.766 95,562 � 42,872569 5223,374 (6,802 0 (7,807, 995.380 (74.x,077) (18,54 99 �,yp7.581 S 2.260.200 f 2 203.865 f (56,335)$ 7.783.300 f 8,305,7a9 S 523.489 3.0 ,900 3128.841 42.741 3.146.710 157,735 2,351,932 514,433 (794.748) 76.M 156,400 505 60B 349,20e 02OA0 8.172.900 2,532,581 9.888,805 1211,738 1,893.985 ' (216328] 67 9W 174,541 106,641 5,891_,614 4.651 .627 (1,209,967) 733.478 262,881 (460A§) i 5.502,500 5,838.114 335.614 20,982,888 24,030.073 3,087,207 95.552 943 42.622.569 52,900,374 14,304,969 13.645,193 669.786 - 14,304.959 13, 645,193_ 859.766 95,562 � 42,872569 5223,374 (6,802 0 (7,807, 995.380 (74.x,077) (18,54 99 �,yp7.581 .l 11 - 24,000,000 1.500 (23.9 ,500) 10.175,000 7.175.000 (3.000.000) NW AM 51am,800 roAOOAm 4,623.784 (1.234,816) 3,024,772 5,208,745 i2,= 24.iX11) 5230.E (2652.099, 2711 A32 (3.241.100) (216328] 5,891_,614 4.651 .627 (1,209,967) _ 26.264.714 0271 (23.704,453) i (2 Q10 d� (3,1.462) (214.867) (48,306.363) (16,012225) 32.293,138 7 963,_1_ 10,305.400 2, L 1 53'i 9:1 33,749.260 (19',50;3.732) f 5.321 S 7 2?J4 946 i 2.187.624 $ 4.947.629 i 17.737.035 i 1 .l 11 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES AND EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,11786 5 A L A i FWuciwy Fund Type v J Trial E>paruloble Test Funds • (Non -(AAP) (Marnaaredun O►4y) Whna Revwnss: - 29,600.000 5,271,500 (24,326,500) Proossds Ram rehnQlr,p bonds Talats s 83,100 s 446.493$ 383.303 s 92,155,100 s 81706,015 s (2,150,085) Llm rand pa . 11,500 9,334 (2,168) 5,150.200 6,534,407 1,375,207 womr9mwtsrlarrtal - (32,185,523) (27,943,7157 - 31,011,603 30,116,473 (805,130) Ch"m for owvkm 20,000 19.032 (968) 11,180,182 12,139,172 MW Fine end *Xio xn 403,304 808,244 282,10 3,675,104 3,205,731 (400,373) kRwwt i mm ns 52,400 67,111 14,711 2,805,749 6,760,201 4,183,452 knwfoaa - - Fund b.lsr,cea at and of yew 8,172,900 9,880,666 1,603,966 Specy aasessa alts - - - 1,296,700 1,356,656 82,158 Mlem rocus 104,300 36,512 (67,78 3,8'12,327 3,477,190 (395.120) Totalrwrarasa 674,804 1,244,72E 570,122 150,108,846 163,543,6W 4,435,046 EVWXUWW Current OWWW gmwmnwt 188,300 141,103 47,197 32,401,863 20,317,154 3,064,699 Publcas/ sty 673, 850 803,396 70.252 56,063.436 54.178,300 1,885.040 Physk*arAixsnent - - 21,962,700 18,003,405 3,809,215 Transpals ion 303,276 286,724 125,552 10,565,750 9,618,787 WWI Econorricwwkwvnwd - 2,013,005 1,672,577 340,518 Hurn.n swvb n 57,500 33,326 24,174 5,947,675 5,582,018 365,057 Cutdn and rscYasBon 23,500 22,201 1,299 16.013,277 12,208,119 3,747,156 Capitol outloy 95,552,943 42,672,580 52,930,374 DdAoarytoo - 14,307,647 13,647,880 650,787 Trial opandt<res 1,336,220 1,066,752 209,474 254,826,560 186,900,795 67,856,791 Fx=n of rwmwn over (under) opwx 4ursa (661,822) 177,974 630, 505 (95, 719,741) (23,425,904) 72,293,837 Dow Fd m c rq sources (uses): Prate fram loans - 29,600.000 5,271,500 (24,326,500) Proossds Ram rehnQlr,p bonds - 10,175,000 7,175,000 (3.000,000) Psymwt b refunded bond escrow event - (6,9001806) (8 900.8291 57 Operstkq banters In 93,000 93,000 - 23,329,345 22,050,080 (1,279,2w Opwatkq bu wfte cub (358,900) (368900) - (32,185,523) (27,943,7157 4,241,006 Trial ottw ro mo ck sources (uses) cm, (265,0 24,017,936 (347.984) (24,305 420} Exoew a revarass and stew Itlr+ctrq soups over (uudw) epan- durw and other ran ock uses (927,52?) (87, 926) 830,508 (71,701,805) (23.773,886) 47,927,917 Fund - Is - a st begkv*V of yew 1.370,573 1.498,699 128,325 107,774,498 95,570,507 (12,204,49 ) Fund b.lsr,cea at and of yew i 443.051 s 1 3 7 35.723.428 719669 s The noon to the general pupae tkwlcisl stolsrnorts we an Irftp part of left statement. 12 t e i i 1 'e t r e e COWER COUNTY. FLORIDA COMIIINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS - ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30. IM Oparafknp reNw"m C hwgw for amvkm Tda1 opan>I r�vwr a Opm so r9 opwmw- Ponoxid asrvfoas Opwoov Dwrodsom Anx rtlta6on Trial apes* er¢feneM Opwwkp k>co M. Narroperatlnp rwerwm (apmwe): kAwaat 1'loorna knlareat enpanM ktcorrx Clain (bm) on dspmW of fbod asasta Grw is and mdit.>enta Trial non�afknp reYr vA* (e Vwnees) kroonr lb !A operaenp 1 W WW Opsr&*9 trarnio Opwi&V traraft. In Opsra4np b- aft s out Tdat r; 11 bwafafs Not km. Dspracimilon CO oonblbt11 moods k>crasa ln ntakred em, kp Retakred semknps at bopbrrrlrrp of yw Rs4*W mr*gs at and of yaw Find Typss 6 A 5 kiwi Tofaf Enbrptse Funds Service Funds cmwrnorandan Orly) s 49,254,906 s 21,554992 i 70.!,011,900 49,254,900 21,554,992 70,609,900 12,445,162 5,133,84;1 17,M= 25,363,300 13,743,791 39,137,181 8,006.249 795,401 9,004,050 354,936 4,782,706 304,930 (84,941) 47,092,737 16,073,055 00,705,792 2,102,171 1,001937 4,044,100 5,761,422 642,019 6,403,441 (6.934,547) - (6.934,547) 25,193 - 25.193 (160.3 123,554 70) (56,606) 4T7,775 477,776 4,782,706 (850,524) 705,563 (84,941) 1,311,647 2,647,520 3,969,167 3,960,413 (729,7857 47,900 (200,000) 4,030,313 (929,785) 3,260,620 (152,100) 3,106,525 4,572,275 2,495,420 7,067,665 4,782,706 334,736 5,117,525 9,355,061 2,830,159 12,165,720 80,121,355 7,028,748 87,150,103 s _ 89.474.416 $ 9.Q58.W7 $ 96.335.323 The nob* lo Crs pwnual purpose fkawnolsl sfabwnmfs am an I bp pat of V* $W mmt 13 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 a 5 Cash flows from capital and Mated Cash cor*t tiou roceivsd Prop palmy Fund Types - 10,421,694 Receipts from Capital parts krternsl Total 1,417,861 Erterprbe Fords Service Funds (Memorandum Only) Cash flows from opmft acdvbn: Prooaada from smis of scrap 15,411 Cash rscal d for sery R S 40,750,173 S 21,387,827 S 71,147,000 Cash rocsived from cudorner deposit (2,728,423) - (2,728.423) Cash rsosMsd harm sepses for sow - 60.643 60,613 cash. on behalf of COW 90v4rnmW is 1,333,770 - 1,333.770 Cash payments for goods and services (27,261,455) (13,303216) (40,564,671) Cash peyrnsrts to srtglvyess (10,450,813) (5.070.532) (15, '530,145) Cash payments to other 9wA rrrrrerks (1,325,390 (3.570,737) (1,326,300) Net cash provided by PR1ncApaf pwp.m an nA (524,742) - CPU a& sc6vdes 9,317,062 3,065,722 12,382,784 Cash flows from noncapial fkwtcinp activihs: InMrast and faecal "at few paid ro.866,078) Cash opsntk 9rarts rsosived 527,730 - 527,730 Cash trandms from eew hrds 4,050.790 47,900 4,096,890 Cash b-ago to COW hinds (729,785) (200,000) (929,785) Net casts Provided by (used ior) kisrsd and dividends an irrm0nar►b 5,764,862 645,085 rnn. F I tkrenwit sc Aloes 3,848,735 (152,100) 3,686,635 Cash flows from capital and Mated Cash cor*t tiou roceivsd 10,421.694 - 10,421,694 Receipts from Capital parts 1,41701 - 1,417,861 Proceads from disposal of }bald seeds 51,576 131,193 182,769 Prooaada from smis of scrap 15,411 15,411 Proceeds from rsrtal of bwd 8,91% 8,988 Proceeds from bans 122,000 122,000 Proceeds from nom 183,265 183,286 Proceeds from i'sauance chins - 175 175 Pwp=wft fo capial aowAdlom (31,529,9371 (1,472.484) (33,002.401) Principal and tnteroet payrrverts on .,mbxsd bonds (18,772) (18,772) Prkx*d payevab on Oondt (3.570,737) (3570.737) PR1ncApaf pwp.m an nA (524,742) - (524.742) Prtwod payments an capital Maas (28,300) (213,380) InMrast and faecal "at few paid ro.866,078) ro.e66.W6) Nd cash used for capital and raMMd flnancimp ac&Abn (30,o79,689) (1,367,465) (31,447,134) Cash flows from kwamb ac&4b&: kisrsd and dividends an irrm0nar►b 5,764,862 645,085 6,409,927 Not cash provided by I N*@& acOvItMa 5,764,662 645,085 6,400,927 NIA Incresae in cash (11,149,010) 2,191,222 (8,957,788) Cash, October 1. 1995 (wickidinp SM,1$4.251 in rsdric.d cash) 88,711,505 12,729,112 100,940,617 Cash, Seplernber 30, 1990 (brckx*V s39,718.004 in rssLlcted cash) s 77.562 496 $ L4_42Q,,Vj S (CONTINUED) 91.9 mu The now b ax parm purpose ram determents amen li ftV l pert of this stabrtwnl. 14 INm,- a ktv vft- , Capfai, and Fkm crop AdMbn: Th rs vwos non cash deveka<w cortbtbtations d $4, 350,438 in the County Water and Sewer District Fund. iThe kAo mstion TechnolM Fund received tort it0lorn of excess from various finds wM a -mkn of $500 ,939. The or1Oktal cost of Ones MUM was $50 AN vft no aorxstxut W depracaefiort. The Fleet Mertapwnwtt Fund received wfttutkm of excess from vwiotn horde with t depraciaked value d $343,600. The oAartei ocat of Case excess wets $472.690 watt $128,981 in somxnukrta4 dspra -' t' - 0 0 0 e A 15 6 A 5 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOMI.' TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES Pro Fund Types _ ktternel Total Enterprise Funds Service Funds (Msrnorandurn Ortiy) f 2,162,171 f 1,1161,937 f 4,044,1 CS Opwatiry income AdAsbrwtt b rscartcM oparMYg mcot, to net ash provided by IF 11 activliss: DepecloW wgAmn 6.969,249 795,401 9,084,a50 Arnorttration of capttal krtprwmrwtt projects 237.364 - 237,X4 Amtttisaaon of WWI costs 147,573 147,573 DelaMSS in aoca ft racalvable 1,126,896 a.40a 1,135,294 (Incnass) decree in due from ottw hods 15.902 (100.242) (54,340) Dactwee in Cue bam otw puwwmwtts 18.759 18.759 (k,cramm e) dscrtaee in kymn cry (197,773) 11.617) (IW,15�6) (Decreeee) in vouchers payetbie (5$96.075) (24,475) (1.019, Inasass (decnree) in due to cow hods 372,996 7,108 390,101 tnasaee (decrseae) in accrued weps (33,000) 3x.287 5285 kvxsare (deaaeae) in accrued oorrtpsrneesd absertoes 191,x00 16.043 207,845 ktaeaae in due to o0w 9omrnnw+ts 147,395 147,395 ktaseae in .aft errtployea deposit ai6 a16 (Decrease) in awtarrnr depmft pay at' e (2.M423) (2,728,423) Incl in saff4n* rwtce cllirts ptpble 412,123 412,123 Toles ad) nb wtbt 7,154,a91 1,183,795 8,335,676 Nel ash provided by op 11 g aetk4aes S 9.317.062 S 3.065.722 $ 12.382784 INm,- a ktv vft- , Capfai, and Fkm crop AdMbn: Th rs vwos non cash deveka<w cortbtbtations d $4, 350,438 in the County Water and Sewer District Fund. iThe kAo mstion TechnolM Fund received tort it0lorn of excess from various finds wM a -mkn of $500 ,939. The or1Oktal cost of Ones MUM was $50 AN vft no aorxstxut W depracaefiort. The Fleet Mertapwnwtt Fund received wfttutkm of excess from vwiotn horde with t depraciaked value d $343,600. The oAartei ocat of Case excess wets $472.690 watt $128,981 in somxnukrta4 dspra -' t' - 0 0 0 e A 15 6 A 5 s i m kJ e t e f t t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL. STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 Summary of SignVicant Accounting Policies Cash and Investments Trade Receivables Interfund Receivables (Due From) and Payables (Due To) Fbted Assets Long -Term Debt Revenue Bonds Administered by the State of Florida Conduit Debt Obligabons Defeased Debt Budget to Actual Contributed Capital Deferred Compensation Plan Pension Plan Obligations Segment information- Enterprise Funds Operating Tranafers Fund Equky Risk Management ... .: 16 6 A 5 PAGE NUMBER 17 28 29 30 31 32 39 39 40 42 43 44 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 51 51 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5� -NOTE 1 - MAAARY OF SUNFICANT ACCOLAMISIG POL pi ES The primary government consists of Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida that was established in 1923 by the Florida State Legislature. The County Is gavemed by a Board of County Commissioners which consists of five members elected within single member districts. In addition, there are five Constitutional Officers; the Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, Sheriff, Clerk of Circuit Court and Supervisor of Elections. The Constitutional Officers are elected county wide. The Board of County Commissioners budgets and provides all funding used by the separate Constitutional Officers with the exception of fees collected by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the Tax Collector. Under the direction of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Collier County Finance Department maintains the accounting system for the operations of the Board of County Commissioners and the Supervisor of Elections. The Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, Sheriff and Clerk of the Circuit Court each maintain their own accounting systems. For financial reporting purposes the operations of the Board of County Commissioners and the Constitutional Officers are combined and presented as the primary government. Component units are legally separate agencies that the primary government is financiaily accountable for or organizations which should be included because of the nature and significance of their relationship with the primary government. Financial accountability is determined by the primary government's ability to appoint the voting majority of the entity's board, impose its will on the organization, the existence of a financial benefft/burden relationship or fiscal dependency. The County's blended component units consist of organizations whose respective governing Boards are composed entirely of the Board of County Commissioners serving ex- officio. These entities are legally separate, however financial support has been pledged and financial or operational policies may be significantly Influenced by the County. In accordance with GASB Statement 14, 'The Financial Reporting Entity", these organizations are reported as If they were part of the County's operations. The financial position and results of operations of the following blended component units are accounted for in Enterprise Funds and can be found In the Proprietary section of this report: The District was established by Chapter 8&499, Laws of Florida, to provide water, sewer and effluent services to certain portions of the unincorporated area of Collier County. The District currently operates three wastewater treatment facilities and two water treatment plants. r and Sewer The District: was established by Collier County Ordinance 77-58 under authority granted by Chapter 153, Part III, Florida Statutes. The District provides sewer services to customers on a portion of Marco Island. Goodland Water District The District was established by a Special Referendum Election authorized by Collier County Ordinance 75-5 and Section 125.010 of Florida Statutes. The District provides potable water service to the residents of Goodland. 17 ' COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 L A NOTE 1 - MArikAARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACWJMNG PO CIF. - CONTINUED U THE REPORTING ENTITY - CONTINUED The County's discretely Pr esented com pone nt units consist of organizations whose five member bodies are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The County Is able to Impose Its wit on these entities because of Its discretionary ability to remove appointed members from the component units' Boards. GASB Statement 14, 'The Financial Reporting Entity", requires that the financial data of these organizations be reported In separate columns to emphasize that they are legally separate from the County. Accordingly, the funds of the following organizations can be found discretely presented in the combined financial statements: Facilities Auth The Authority was established In 1979 by Collier County Ordinance 79-75 for the purpose of assisting health facilities in the acquisition, construction and financing of projects within the County. The Authority has no assets, liabilities or equity and has not generated any revenues or Incurred arty expenditures. Therefore, no financial position or results of operations are reported in the accompanying financial statements. Outstanding conduit debt Issued by the Authority Is reported in Note 8. 'Conduit Debt Obligations'. / • • :• :� • • • iin Age «: :1 • if_: • ••:: • sfimula*V the cons;truction of residential housing for low and moderate Wxxxne %rrA through / of public financing. The Authority own &vvK* records, • does not Issue separate. stand alone ftnanciaI "em,9M& Their financial pa*lon a results of operations are reported In the accompanying financial staterrmft and outstanding condLdt debt Issued by the Authority K disclosed in Note S. 'Conduit Do I� t • • :1 • Collier .•. as lndLwW Q:u¢. •.•.11, =a11 .. i!L•dl� The Authority was cxeated In 1978 by Collier County Resolution 78-94 to fadkate the financing of projects that promote economic growth and kxxease opportur0es for employment In the County. The Atthorky maintains Its own financial records, but does not Issue separate, stand alone financial statements. Their financial position and mutts of operations are reported In the accompanying financial statements and the outstanding Iconduit debt issued by the Authority is disclosed in Note 8, ' Conduk Debt Obligations' s 1 18 V COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 54 C'-rrtplete f nwbc i Information on the individual component units can be obtained from their respective add offices or from the Finance Department of the Cleric of Circuit Court Coder County water and Sewer District 3301 East Tamiemf Trail Naples, FL 33962 Marco island Water and Sewer District 3301 East Tamiaml Trail Napier, FL 33962 Goodand Water District 3301 East TaffkrrJ Trail Naples, FL 33962 _. • �: 4 Z IVY907h, Collier County Health Facilities Authority 5811 PAW Boulevard, Suite 210 Naples, FL 33963 Collier County Industrial Deveiolxnent Authority 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 162 Naples, FL 33942 Collier County Housing Finance Authority 5811 Pelican Boulevard, State 210 Naples, FL 33963 The accounts of the County are organized on the basis of funds and account gnoupr. Each fund Is considered a separate ac cou ndng entity with a self - balancing set of accounts. Fund sWicUes, where applicable, have been designed to comply with all requirements of relevant bond resolutions. Account groups are a reporting device to account for certain assets and tlabibes of the governrnentai funds not recorded directly In those funds. The following fund types and account groups are used by the County: General Fund - The General Fund Is the general operating fund of the County. AM general tax revenues and other receipts that are not accounted for in other funds, are accounted for In the General Fund. The general operatng hwKis of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Proporty Appraim. SherlPf, Supervisor of Electlons and Tax Collector represent subfunds of the County's General Fund that are held and accounted for IrOvIduapy, but press W together with the Board of County Camnissioners' Genord Fund. Special Revenue Funds - Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted by legal requirements, regulatory provisions or admi ddmtive action. Debt Service Funds - Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accunxlation of rmxwm for, and the peyrnent of principal, interest and other oW dituree on long-term debt, other then bonds and notes payable from the operation d Proprietary Funds. SQ COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 sTt 1 6 A 5 t NV 1 L QL+ BASIS OF PRESFNTATIO(V - CONTINUF<D Capital Projects Funds - Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources segregated for the acquisition or construction of major capital faclRies other than those financed by Proprietary Funds. PROM - ABY -EUNO Enterprise Funds - Enterprise Furls are used to account for operations that are financed and operated In a manner sinrdw to private business enterprises where the Intent Is that the costs (expenses, Including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed prfmarfy ttx,ougft user charges, or where periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses Incurred, and /or net Income Is deemed appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability or other purposes. Internal Service Funds - Internal Service Funds are used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department to other departments of the County or to other governmental units on a cost reimbursement basis. FIDUCIARY FUNDS Expendable Trust Funds - Expendable Trust Funds are used to account for assets held by the County In a trustee capacity or where legally mandated. AiI of the principal and Income may be expended in the course of their designated operations. Agency Funds - Agency Funds are custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of results of operations. Agency Funds are clearing accounts for assets held by a government as an agent for Individuals, private organization, other governments or other funds. ACC=OUNT GROUPS General Fixed Assets Account Group - This account group is used to account for property, plant and equipment not used in Proprietary Fund type operations. The General Fixed Assets Account Group does not include public domain, or infrastructure, fixed assets such as roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems, fighdng systems and similar assets thst are krmvNable and of value only to the County. General Long -Term Debt Account Group - This account group is established to account for long -term debt and other IiabOties not accounted for in Proprietary Funds. r COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS i SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures or expenses are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the measurements made regardless of the measurement focus applied. The modified accrual basis of accounting Is used in the Governmental, Expendable Trust and Agency Fund Types. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. Available means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter, generally 60 days, to be used to pay IiabilRies of the current period. Primary revenues - Including special assessments, irtergovemnxwU revenues, charges for services, rents and interest - are treated as susceptible to accrual under the modified accrual basis. Property taxes are discussed later in this footnote. Other revenue sources are not considered measurable and available and are not treated as susceptible to accrual. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is Incurred. Exceptions to this general rule include accrued compensated absences and principal and interest on general long -term debt In applying the susceptibility-to- accrual concept to intergovernmental revenues, the legal and contractual requirements of the numerous individual programs are used as guidance. There are, however, essentially two types of these revenues. In one, monies must be expended on the specific purpose or project before any amount will be paid to the County, therefore, revenues are recognized based upon the expenditures recorded. In the other. monies are virtually unrestricted as to purpose of expenditure and revocable only for failure to comply with prescribed compliance requirements, such as with equal employment opportunity. These resources are reflected as revenues at the time of receipt, or earlier N they meet the availability criterion. Proprietary Funds use the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned and expenses are recognized in the period when incurred. Unbilled service revenues of the County Water and Sewer Fund are accrued at the end of the year by prorating aMW subsequent bdtings. The measurement focus applied to Govemmental Fund types and to Expendable Trust Fund types Is the flow of current financial resources. Only current assets and current liabilities are generally included on the balance sheet Fund balance Is consider9d a measure of available, spendable or appropriable resources. The measurement focus applied to Proprietary Fund types is the capital maintenance or flow of economic resources measurement focus. All assets and all liabilities (current or noncurrent) are included on the balance sheet Fund equity Is segregated into contributed capital and retained earnings. COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5 tXM 1 - SUMMARY OF Sr- WIFICAW ACCOIl"M POUCMS - CONTMIJED BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY DATA The following are the statutory procedures followed by the Board of County Commissioners In establishing the budgets for the County. 1) WkW 15 days after certification of the ad valorem tax roll by the Property Appraiser, the County Budget Officer prepares and presents to the Board a tentative budget for the ensuing fiscal year. The budget includes all estimated receipts, balances to be brought forward, and all estimated expenditures, reserves and balances to be carried forward at the end of the year as specified In Section 129.03, Florida Statutes. 2) Within 80 days of the certification of value, but not earlier than 65 days after certification, the Board holds a public hearing on the tentative budget and proposed millage rate. Al this hearing the Board amends and adopts the tentative budget, recomputes the proposed millage rata, and announces publicly the percentage, If any, by which the recomputed proposed millage rate excteds the rol led -back rate. If the millage rate tentatively adopted exceeds that proposed, each taxpayer within the jurisdiction is notified of the increase by first class mail, at the expense of the Board. 3) Within 15 days of the meeting adopting the tentative budget, the Board advertises the County's intent to adopt a final budget and millage rate. 4) A public hearing is held by the Board to finalize the budget and adopt a millage rate. This hearing Is held not less than two days and not more than five days after the day that the advertisement Is first published. Prior to September 30, the millage levy Is adopted by a separate vote. In no event is the millage rate adopted allowed to exceed the tentatively adopted millage rater. This is followed by the approval and ratification of the final buxdget. 5) The resolution approved at the final hearing Is forwarded to the Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, and Florida Department of Revenue, and not later than thirty days fotloviing the adoption of the Resolution, the Board certifies to the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Division of Ad Valorem Tax that it has compiled with the provisions of Chapter 200, Florida Statutes. 6) The County Manager approves intradepartmental budget changes that do not alter the total expenditures of the department. AN other budgetary changes must be apprcm3d by the Board of County Commissioners as a matter of policy. The initial adopted budget was amended during the fiscal year In accordance with the Florida Statutes. 7) Budgets are monitored at varying levels of classification. However, expenditures cannot legally exceed total appropriations at the Individual fund level. Section 129.07, Florida Statutes, as amended In 1978, provides that expenditures in excess of total fund budgets are unlawful. 0 1 22 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 6 A 5 SEPTEMBER 30.1996 Fommi budgetary Integration Is employed as a management control device during the fiscal year for all fund types. Budgets have been legally adopted by the Board for all Board funds except for Agency Funds and those funds described In Note 10, 'Budget to Actual'. The Property Appraiser and Ve Tax Collector adopt budgets for the* General Funds independently of the Board. The perk of the Circult Court (to the extern of his function as ex-off clo Cleric to the Board and the amounts of his fee structure as Clerk to the Circuit and County Courts), Sheriff, and Supervisor of Elections prepare budgets for the* General Funds which are submitted to and approved by the Board. Budgets are adopted on a biases consistent with generally accepted accounting principles for all Governmental Funds except as described In Note 10, 'Budget to Actual'. AN appropriations lapse at the end of the current year. Capital project costs are budgeted In the year they are anticipated to be obligated. In subsequent years, the unused budget Is reappropriated until the project is compbetod. Proprietary Funds are budgeted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, except that capital - related and debt transactions are based upon cash receipts and disbursements. Estimated beginning fund balances are considered In the budgetary process. Differences between estimated beginning fund balances and actual fund balances, If material, are submitted to the Board as budget amendments. Encumbrance accounting is utilized in the governmental funds as an extension of the statutorily required budget process whereby purchase orders, contracts to be executed and other commitments are recorded as reservations of fund balance. It Is the County's Intention to honor these encumbrances under authority provided In the subsequent year's budget. Fund balance Is reserved to Indicate this commitment. The County maintains a cash and Investment pod which is available to all funds. Intemst earned Is allocated based on the Individual fund's, average daily balance In the cash pod. Investments are stated at cost except for deferred compensation mutual funds which are reported at market. Cash equivalents are defined as short -tens highly liquid Investments with maturities of three months or less from the date purchased. Additionally, the individual funds' equity In the cash and Investment pod is considered to be a cash equlvalent. 23 COLLIER COUNW, FLORIDA PURPOSE NOTES TO THE GENERAL r 1 Inventory INVENTORIES AND PREPAJD COSTS • at cod vAdd XWocirnstas madoet, usbV the -In, **-<xt method. Imvntory in the t. niewdel Funds r• i I t of eqmx%tbW stgoes • coramnplion. we Is recorded .•• •. I kxtvkkW inventay corwxned. PAported invertorin aid prepeld coda resoumes. Inventories and F costs d Proprietaty Funds am reported as an expe roe when consumed. General Fbetd Assets am. gm as expenditures In the General Fund, Capital Prods Funds and other Gavernrrwntal Fund types at the time of purchase, and capitaltzed at cost In the General Fbcod Asset Account Group. Public domain, or ire, fbced assets consistkV of certain trrtGravennents Including roads, bridges, cubs and putters, streets and sidewalks, drai cage systems and liphtiip systems have not been c epitafted. Gf<ts or cunt rbutbns are recorded In General Fbced Assets at fair maicet value at the time received. There Is no depredation wcpense recorded on General Fbced Assets. The County maintains a policy to capitalize fbced assets which coat $600 or more and have a useful life In access of one year. MED ASSETS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS lAutd, buildings, Improvements and equoment are stated at cost. Contribtttkx $ of pn)perty are recorded at their fair market value on the date donated. Facilities constructed uskV system developrne t Impact fees, collected from developers and customers, are stated at cost. Excess cost over fair valtmi of assets acquired represents the excess cost of water and sewer syst+oms purchased over their estimated replacement cost at the date of acquisition. BThe County capitals major eocpendltures for additions and Major e:genditures Irnclude Items with a cost of $500 or more and with a useful life In excess of one year. Expenditwas for maintenance and repairs are dnerged to operating expenses. The cost of assets retied or sold, together with the related accumulated depredation, kz removed from the accounts and any gain or toss on disposition Is credited or charged to earnings. J 11" 8 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS V A 5 1 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 Depreciation on Posed assets acquired through contributions Is recorded as an experw and transferred from retained earnings as a reduction of contributed equity on the balance sheet. Depreciation is CWMAaded using the straight-line method. The estimated useful life of the various classes of depreciable fixed assets is as follows: [2=17- i Buildings 20-40 years Improvements other than buildings 2-40 years; Equipment 4-10 years. Excess cost over fair value of assets acquired 4-30 years; Capital lease obligations and the related assets of Governmental Fund Types are accounted tted for in the General Long -Terre Debt Account Group and In the General Fixed Assets Account Group, respec&*Wy. Capital lease obligations of Proprietary Fund Types and the related cost of assets acquired are reflected in the balance sheet accounts of those funds. For capkal lease obligations originating In Goverrxrtental Funds, an expenditure for the asset and the offsetting amount of the fire x g source Is reflected in the statement of revenues, expenditures and charges In fund belarnces. In Gonrerrxrrerttal Funds bond discounts and Issuance coats are rso ognized in the current period. Bond discaxUS and Issuance r, -1 for Proprietary Funds are deferred and amortized over the term of the bonds using the 11" method and the atmk t4k* method, reapecifvely. Bond disca;•rtts are presented as a reduction of the face arrtourrt of bonds payable while Issuance costs are recorded as deferred charges. COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMEPITS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 b A 5 EFEASANCE OF DEBT REPORTED BY PROPRIETARY FUNDS GASB Statement 23, 'Accounting and Financial Reporting for Refundings of Debt Reported by Proprietary Activities,' Is applicable to the Proprietary Funds. For refundings resulting In the defeasance of debt reported by proprietary activities, this Statement requires that the difference between the reac:quisition price and the net carrying amount of the old debt be deferred and amortized as a component of Interest expense. The straigfrt line method Is used for amortization of the deferred charge. INTEREST COST Interest cost Is charged to expense or expenditure as incurred, except for Interest capitalized In the Proprietary Funds, In accordance with the provisions of FASB Statement 34, 'Capitalization of interest Cost,. and FASB Statement 62, 'Capitalization of Interest Cost in Sk malons Involving Certain Tax - Exempt Borrowings, and Certain GMs and Grants.' when applicable. PROPERTY TAXES Property taxes become due and payable on November 1 st of each year and become delinquent on Apra 1 st of the following year. Discounts on property taxes are allowed for payments made prior to the Apra 1 st delinquent date as follows: November - 4 %, December - 3%, January - 2%. and February - 1%. Tax certificates for the full amount of any unpaid taxes must be sold riot later than June 1 st of each year. No accrual for the property tax levy becoming due In November 1996 Is Included In the accompanying financial statements, since such taxes are collected to finance expenditures of the subsequeftt period. Property taxes receivable and a corresponding allowance for uncoilec tibie property taxes are riot included In the financial statements, as there are no delinquent taxes as of September 30, 19%. t H COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 19% b A 5 1 Key dates In the property tax cycle for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, Eire as follows: Property Tax CXde Date Assesarnert roll compiled January 1, 1995 Assessment roll c enl W July 1, 1995 Millage resolution approved Bugktrtktg of fiscal year for tax levy Taxes due and payable (Levy date) Property taxes payable: Maximum discount (4%) Due date Delktquert (Lien Date) Tax des sold No later than 95 days forowing ceRlf1cation of assessment roll October 1, 1995 November 1, 1995 30 days after Levy Date March 31, 1996 April 1, 1966 Prior to June 1, 1996 The County kdom the pnNisions of GASS Stattemert 16, 'Accounting for Compensided Absences•. This Standard provides for the measurement of accrued vacation leave and other c ompent -atsd absences usiry the pay or salary rates In effect at the balance sheet date. it also requires additional armunts to be accrued for certain salary-related payments associated wRh the payment of compensated abwK*L It Is the County's policy to allow employees to acGurnulats an untkr*Ad number of hours of unused sick leave and Up to 240 hours of Unused vacation leave. Effective Mauch 1, 1 W6, the County modMled the policy for sick leave pay Upon termination. Employees of record on August 2, 1996 may be granted a side leaver payment Upon termination for arry service period earned WW to August 2, 1996 No err pk yee hired after August 2, 1996 shah receive payrrml for accrued sick Wwrm upon termination. Upon tem4nadon ern ployees are granted 1009E of alowable vacation hots at the current rate of pay. Accrued compensated abs� bowing tfyough Governmental Fund types are recorded In the General Long -Term Debt Account Group because it does not requre the use of available spendable resources at the balance sheet date. For Proprietary Funds, the liability related to vested sick and vacation leave is recorded on ttne Belance Sheet as a long -term liability. Total columns on the Combkred Statements - Overview (General Purpose FktarXIM Statetrwarts) are captioned •IMamorantdun Only' to indicate that they are presented only to facilitate fktandal analysis. Data in these columns does not presert flwtdal position, results of operations or cash Roos in confoni ty wkh generally accepted accounting principles, and such data Is not comparable to a consolidation. Interfund Wiri talons have not been made in the aggregation of this data. 27 u L' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5 NOTE 2 - CASH AND IiV11E The County maintains a cash and investment pool that is available for use by all funds. Each fund type's portion of this pod is displayed on the combined balance sheet under the heading of Cash and Investments. Investment income Is allocated monthly to participating funds based on the percentage of each fund's average daily balance In the total pool. In addition, certain Investments are separately hell by trustees in accordance with bond Indentures and other contractual agreements. DEPOSITS All cash deposits are held In qualified public depositories pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 280, 'Florida Security for Pudic Deposhs Act' Under the Act, all qualified public depositories are required to pledge eligible collateral having a market value equal to or greater than the average dally or monthty balance of all pudic deposits, tknes the depositorys collateral pledging level. The pledging level may range from 50 to 125% depending upon the depository's financial condition. Any losses to public deposits are covered by applicable deposit Insurance, sale of securities pledged as collateral, and If necessary, assessments against other qualified public depositories of the same type as the depository in default. At September 30, 1996, the County had demand deposits of $27,192,322, Including discretely presented component unit deposits of $55,418. These deposits were fully covered by federal depository Insurance or by collateral, in the Countys name as required by Sections 280.07 and 280.08 of tole Florida Statutes. INVESTMENTS The Countys Investment practices are governed by Florida Statutes 125.31 and the Countys krvestment policy which was adopted by County Ordinance 87-65. The County is authorized to invest In obligations of the U.S. Treasury, its agendas and irutrurnentalities, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, repurchase agreements, c ertiecates of deposits, and the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund. As with any kwestment, the securities held by the County are sensitive to deferent elements of risk. The major risks are market, legal risk and credit risk. Market risk rotates to the risk that the market value of an investment will dedino during the IBe d the Investment. The level of market risk Is determined by such factors as: the length of time before the Investment matures and the likelihood of an investment being sold before Its maturity in order to meet operational requirements. The County continues to hold various U.S. government agency secu Titles, including Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal National Mortgage Association cottateraltzed mortgage obligations (CMG's) that were purchased from 1993 to 1994. Due to rising Interest rates during 1995 the market values of these securities declined. At September 30, 19M the market value of these investments was approximately $25.5 million which is 4% below cost. The County does not ktend to sell these securities prior to the earlier of (1) maturity or final paydown. or (2), when the market value approximates cost. The County true" has the ability to hold these investrneM as It has sufficient eliquidity to meet operational requirements. Legal risk is the exposure to a transaction being determined to be prohibited by law, regulation or contract. IManagement believes the level of legal risk exposure to the Countys portfolio Is minimal. I )o COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS A 54 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 Credit risk relates to whether or not the County will be able to recover its Investments In a security at the security's maturity date. The County's Investments are categorized to provide an indication of the level of credit risk assumed by the County. Category 1 Includes investments that are Insured or registered, or sec trbes held by the County or its agent In the County s name. Category 2 includes uninsured and unregistered investments for which the securities are held by the counterparty's trust department or agent In the Couuntys name. Category 3 includes uninsured and unregistered Investments for which the securities are held by the counterparty or by its trust department or agent, but not in the County's dame. Investments that are not evidenced by securities In physical or book entry form are not categorized. At September 30, 1996, the Countys investments were categorized as follows: U.S. Agency Securities U.S. Treasury Obligations Total Category 1 Bankers' Acceptances Repurchase Agreements Total Category 2 Not categorized: Investment in Deferred Compensation Mutual Fund Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund Total not categorized Total investments Including cash equivalents Carrying Market Amount Value $ 80,132,152 $ 4,246,723 84,378,875 13,643,690 4,438,600 18,282,290 9,078,039 74,266,957 83,344,996 S 186,006,161 78,335,447 4,254,768 82,590,215 13,857,286 4,438,600 18,295,886 9,078,039 74,266,957 83,344,996 $ 184,231,097 Trade receivables for Enterprise Funds are net of an allowance for doubtful accounts as follows: Allowance Trade for Doubtful Receivables County Water and Sewer $ 1,1'19,244 Marco Water and Sewer 16,413 Goodland Water 23,001 Solid Waste Disposal 1,187,262 Emergency Medical Services 9,530,488 Airport Authority 24,090 Total $ 11,961,298 Allowance Net for Doubtful Trade Accounts Receivables $ - $ 1,179,244 - 16,413 - 23.001 - 1,187,262 (9,224,073) 306,415 24.890 S (9,224,073) $ 2,737,225 s a t 0 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE I'MUMIA1L, STATEIAENTS SEPTEMBER 30,19" b A Due from and due to other funds at September 30, 1998, were as follows: FWD Oeemal Fund SpecM Rev --m For Road DW*kb Wale MwMUNnrlt and Pokoon Control Un1 corper lad Anm Gnw t and Shred RwAnuss 6np vmnwi DMek is Fie Control DYtrkb hasceieneous Florid! Stshrtss Fes Coiectione UO ft [Msalcts 911 Enhon cA rnent Fee To" DwakvrW* 800 MFG tRCP Fund Mom" Debt Saw Funds Parks end Generti Obigellon Rsfundnp Bonds Mreo MWW Unted Gorwal ObigWon Bonds We of Capri Renw.Sons and E)ansion c+ptni PRojacis Funds: Per knprwwnarts Reed I ; I Districts Errnrparwy Medal Swvba Road Conelnucaon Watar Management OOar C 1FU Projects Enbrpolse Funds: County Water and Swear Said Mob DhpoW Akport Adhorty k tor $avim Funds kft..N an Tachndogy Se/ klau rose Oft* of Captor Projects LWWwnwit Department of Ravens F%d Mwugwnwnt Trot and AOwrcl Funds County Drug Abuse City" Jule" Cardscmd P f"erty Low Erdwasenwt TnknkV Ctrk of to CMPA Court Shwftf TM Caiecow PV* RkW and Mon PrO&CO n Park Told As Funds Due From = 3,374,025 8,030 15,024 270,848 10,821 5,947 354 7,654 272,875 14,933 409,505 6,906 5,180 256 12,344 959 74,570 30,000 105,529 12,630 105,715 121,345 100,960 281 5,346 105,557 70 20.991 3,m 58.M 3,610 4AW 12,at8 103,405 $ 4.432.744 Do To i_ 905,264 14,428 30,005 30,097 109,759 2039" 97 73 2,132 5.013 7,315 306 1,980,364 I. M,G72 8,604 251 a 158 9,051 15.295 3,961 426.346 51,472 593.061 !85,011 1,W.147 5' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,19" NM 6- EDIED A SETS $ 4,473,799 f j q 5 A ammery of In 0 .n.rel Fbsd Ameft for the yew « I September 30. 1906. is as fobws: 3.664.366 S (61,172.956) ImprwrmrRs Other Then Carntnutlon 3.305.527 3 314.276,534 1 b — Wsaar and LOW @Lg�— Bu6dirgs ET4 rtwnt in Pfoprws Toby Balance 10/11% S 26.003,343 S 88,663,546 3 31,995,832 S 42,317,314 3 7,532,324 S 196,M2,863 AddRions 3.166,695 679,275 79,576 13,304,465 7,563,931 25,376,942 860 Deletions (2278,816) (2276,816) 5.381 Transfers In 5,478,627 731,093 104,390 - 6,314,619 3.414.737 Transfrs out 1c ,550,61 (6,2M.T20) n.780,1M Balarra M0ms S 29.192040 t 95.041.450 3 --- 222M.Wt S M„391.744 S (715,4 Pmpletary Fund property. pW9 end equiMw t d Spternber 30,19M, consested d the WimA g: 521,561 Soled Waeae Disposal lmpmvrnents LOU : 271,130 Excess of Coat Otter Than AccunAmbed Corwtrucoon Over Fttt Vdua Lend Suildnys &Admya Ems' nr+t Depmdmb n in P m ft z of Jlwds Total E em pros Funds: County Water and Sewer $ 4,473,799 $ 85,747,697 $ 232,713,703 3 3.664.366 S (61,172.956) 45546,176 S 3.305.527 3 314.276,534 1 b — Wsaar and 5~ 860 4,743,740 5.381 (1.3352441) 3.414.737 GoodkedWater 385 1,211,441 (715,4 23,244 521,561 Soled Waeae Disposal 1,450,890 271,130 10.643,502 851,687 (4,912,793) 206,238 8,319.654 Emergency Medical SwAoas 221,568 3.127 2.786.091 (1.386.544) - 1.624.251 Airport Authority 1,269,400 776,966 30,027 397,603 892.376) 0,833 6,757,47: Total EnRrprlse Funds I.dw. SsrAm Funds: 7,224,314 67,017,801 249,343,340 7,505,150 (69,615,402) 50,333,401 3,305,527 334,916,221 )rdorrrrtion Tectaroiopy - 1.430,689 (830,393) - - 791.271 SM Insurance 36.424 (14.220) 22.20 Ono* d Cep41d P"4-ft irtanapanrnt 451.125 (240.757) 210,361 Oprlmark of Revenue 354.096 (74.679) - 309.21 i Fled Mtanaper w 146,123 4,422,632 (1,725,693) 2,643,06: Total In4ernal Srviea Funds 146,123 6,724,948 8.694,942) 4,176,121 Total Proprldary Furls i 7.224.314 $ R.163.T24 S 249.345.540 S 14230.096 S fT2 510.3441 S 50.333.491 i 3.303.527 S 339.092.347 31 i s r i e COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL. PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEIfENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5 ., Bonds and In d Corrxnerciel Paper Notes Payable Accrued Compensated $ 6,115 $ 5,030 $ (1,110) $ (4,796) $ 7,240 49.910 2.145 (2,040) (2.430) 47,585 19,375 5,270 (5,358) - 19,287 306 - (114) - 192 AbeerKes 6.582 1,080 - - 7,662 Le 617 41 (277) 381 Reba 615 611 - 4 Total $ � 5 20 $ 1133y.566 $ (%510) $ (7,225) $ 82,351 The following is a summary of changes in Proprietary Fund long-term debt for the yner ended September 30, 1996: 000's Omitted October Debt Debt Amortized September 1, 1995 Issued Retired Discount 30, 1996 Revenue Bonds $ 105,114 $ - $ (3,570) $ 10 $ 101,554 Notes Payable 15,855 1,310 (2.257) 13 14,921 Capftalfzed Leases 138 (26) - 112 Tote! $ 121,107 $ 1,310 $ (5,853) $ 23 S 116.587 KY� COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 Bonds and notes payable at September 30, 1996, were composed of the following: $5,000,000 1989 Marco Island Beachtront Renourishment Facilities limited General Obligation Bonds due in annual Installments of $270,000 to $630,000 through ,July 1, 2000; Interest at 6.60% to 7.10%. $ 2,275,000 $5,030,000 1996 Public Park and Recreation Municipal Service Taxing Unit General Obligation Refunding Bonds due in annual installments of $65,000 to 5795,000 through July 1, 2003; interest at 4.00% to 4.20%. 4,965,000 Total General Obligation Bonds $ 7,240,000 Revenue ponds and Certlficates d Indebtedness $5,000,000 1973 Improvement Revenue Certificates due in annual Installments of $25,000 to $350,000 through July 1, 2003; interest at 5.50% to 6.25 %. Race track revenues are pledged for the payment of these bonds. $ 2,095,000 $8,225,000 1992 Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds due in annual insia nw is of $240,000 to $635,000 through October 1, 2013; interest at 2.70% to 5.80%. Local government half-cent sales tax revenue is pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 7,480,000 $30,415,000 1994 Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds due in arxnxW Installments of $1, 090,000 to $2,790,000 through October 1, 2012; Iterest at 4.35% to 6.00%. Local government half -cent sales tax revenue Is pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 30,415,000 $5,770,000 1995 Road Improvement Refunding Revenue Bonds due In annual installments of $290,000 to $510,000 through June 1, 2010; interest at 3.60% to 5.375 %. Ninth cent and seventh cant gas tax revenues are pledged for debt service on these bonds. 5,450,000 $2,145,000 1996 Guaranteed Entitlement Revenue Refunding Bonds due In annual IustOrnents of $175,000 to $360,000 through October 1, 2002; Interest at 4.19% fbced rate. State revenue sharing receipts are pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 2,145,000 Total Limited Obligation Revenue Bonds $ 47,585,000 $25,520,000 Commercial Paper Issued by the Florida Local Government Finance Commission Pooled Corrxnercial Paper Program, variable rate for the cunt fiscal year of 3.35% to 3.81%, collateralized by non ad- valorem revenue. $ 19,287,000 33 I COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA I 11" 1 34 NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 NOTE 6 - LANG -TERM DEBT - CONTINUED (; ! A 5 DESCRIPTIONS OF BOND ISSUES AND NOTES PAYABLE - CONTINUED Notes Payable $160,500 1993 note to financial institution, by payable a collateralized ad valorem taxes collected within the Isle of Capri Fire District, payable in annual Installments of $22,928 through Apri 2000. Interest payable at 6.63% per annum. $221,300 1993 note to a Rrwx Institution, by 91,714 payable ai collateralized certain monies received from the State of Florida Public Health Unit Trust Fund, payable in mon&iy installments, including interest, of $4,245 through September 1998. Interest payat:le at 5.68% per annum. 99,875 Total Notes Payable $ 191,589 Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds $1,960,000 1981 Marco Island Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds due in annual instaoments of $7,736 to $100,293 through June 1, 2021; Interest at 5.00%. Principal and interest are payable from the net revenues of the system and special assessment collections. $ 193,421 $468,500 1962 Goodland Water District Water Revenue Bonds due in annual installments of $2,000 to $110,000 through September 1, 2021; interest at 5.00%. Principal and interest are payable from the net revenues of the system and special assessment collectkm. $1,250,000 1988 Marco Water and Sewer District Special Assessment Bonds due in 164,000 annual installments of $125,000 through May 1, 1998; interest at 6.75% to 8.00%. Prk,cipaI and Interest are payable from the net revenues of the system and special assessment collections on a subordinated basis to the 1961 Marco Island Water and Sewer Revenus Bonds. 110,000 $15,960,000 1990 Copier County Water and Sewer District Sewer Assessment Bonds due In arwKgd ktstapments of $ 290,000 to $1,120,000 through October 1, 2011; Interest at 6.10% to 7.15 %. Principal and interest are payable from special assessment colectloris and the net revenues of the system on a subordinated basis to the 1991, 1992 and 1994 County Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. $55,225,000 Collier County Water and Sewer District, Water and Sewer Revenue 2,750,000 Bonds, Series 1991. Due in annual Installments of $170,000 to $3.590,D00 through July 1, 2021; Interest at 4.40% to 6.5D %. Principal and inienxg are payable from the net operatkrg revenues of the system, system development fees and special assessment collections. 25,780,000 $13,090,000 Copier County Water and Sewer District, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1992. Due In annual in sWments of $595,000 to $965,000 through July 1, 2010; Interest at 3.2096 to 6.375 %. Collateralized by a parity first lien on the pledged revenues listed on the $55,225,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1991. 10,630,000 Total carried forward $ 39,627,421 I 11" 1 34 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEME14TS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ,.•Jill. � l... 1?:1.. �.? =1 �•..l 11�� • 1 I In annual installments of $375,000 to $2,315,000 through July 1, 2010; interest at 3.35% to 6.88%. Coflateralized by a parity first lien on the pledged revenues listed Total Brought Forward $ 39,627,421 $24,225,000 1994 Taxable County Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds due I In annual installments of $375,000 to $2,315,000 through July 1, 2010; interest at 3.35% to 6.88%. Coflateralized by a parity first lien on the pledged revenues listed on the $55,225,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1991. 22,260.000 $40,320,000 1994 County Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds due in annual kwMments of $55,000 to $4,315,000 through July 1, 2021; interest at 3.0% to 5.35 %. Collateralized by a parity first lien on the pledged revenues listed on the 555.225,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1991. 39,785,000 101,672,421 Unamortized bond discount ' (118.406) Total Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds 101,554,015 Less: Current portion of bonds payable from restricted assets (3236.737) Long -term portion of Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds Enterprise Fund Notes Panne $ 98.317.278 $5,890,100 note payable to private water and sewer company, payable through use of water and sewer system development fee credits by company or its assignees, or, to the extent of unused credits, payable at the current cash value of the credits (minimum of the original face value) to 2006. Non - interest bearing note; interest imputed at 7.00%. $ 115,353 $14,547,667 State Revolving Loan rote payable, to be drawn dawn as required for construction commitments, interest payable at 4.25% repayable in 20 annual pays commencing October 1, 1992, collateralized by a lien on pledged revenues consisting of net revenues (as defined in the loan resolution) from the operations of the County Water -Sewer System, proceeds derived from the levy of special ammsrnents levied upon the properties bonefitted by the project, system development fees and connection fees. The lien shall be subordinate In all respects to liens placed upon pledged revenues established by bonded indebtedness. 12.154,685 $1.469,999 County Water -Sewer District note payable to private developers, payable through use of water and sewer system development fee credits. Non - interest bearing note. 236,619 $3,563,470 Commercial Paper Issued by the Florida Local Government Finance Commission Pooled Commercial Paper Program, variable rate for the current fiscal year of 3.35% to 3.81%, collateralized by non ad- valorem revenue. 2,436,735 ' 14,943,392 Unamortized discounts (21,988) Total Enterprise Fund Notes Payable 14,921,404 Less: Current portion of notes payable from unrestricted assets (329,984) Less: Current portion of rotes payable from restricted assets (1.838.652) Long term portion of Enterprise Fund Notes Payable $ 12,752.768 W I e i i t i 0 t t COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 . .. �.. i/ �� �i� %f iii/ �: i � ' . � ► � u ' i IL 1997 1J98 1999 2000 2001 Thereafter Total debt service Lan amount rgxeswOV k tef 98t Total General Long -Term Proprietary Debt Funds Totals $ 10,114,320 $ 8,537,323 $ 18,651,643 11,119,625 6,997,309 18,116,934 16,856,406 6,976,133 23,832,539 7,883,065 6,845,244 14,728,309 5,459,737 7,723,614 13,183,351 53, 086, 602 113,117, 793 166,204,395 104,519,755 150,197,416 254,717,171 30,216,166 33,581,603 63,797,769 $ 74,303,589 S 116,615,813 S 190,919,402 The amount avalabie in Debt Service Funds to service general obligation bonds, men ue bonds and certiic ates d indebtedness, oonxnerc iW paper and notes payable obligations are $100,720, $6,742,856, $278,261 and $118,111 respecU+ely. Total Interest Interest Cost Net Interest Cost Incurred Capitsitzed Expense Enterprise Finds $,moo $ S 6.934.547 E-- COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5' i AZICV410144111 The constitution of the State of Florida and the Florida Statutes set no legal debt limit. Official statements and County resolutions authorizing the general obligation and revenue bonds establish certain accounts and determine the order in which certain revenues are to be deposited into those accounts as well as establish reserve requirements. All required balances were maintained. Water and sewer revenue bonds are payable solely from and secured by a first lien upon and pledge of the net revenues and certain other fees and charges derived from the operation of the County's water and sewer system. The pledge of the net revenues derived by the County from the operation of the water and sewer system does not constitute a lien upon the water and sewer system or any other property of the County. The covenants of the resolutions authorizing the County Water and Sewer District Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1994, 1992 and 1991 Series Include, among other things, an obligation for the County to fix, establish and maintain such rates and collect such fees, rentals or other charges for the services and facilities of the water and sewer system, and to revise the same from time to time whenever necessary, so as to always provide in each year net revenues, as defined In the resolutions authorizing the revenue bonds, which together with the system development fees and special assessment proceeds received In each fiscal year shag be adequate to pay at least 125% of the annual debt service requirements for the Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds; provided, however, that net revenues in each fiscal year at>aw be adequate to pay at least 100% of the annual debt service for the bonds. The Marco Island Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1981 and Series 1988 along with the Goodland Water District Water Revenue Bonds require the County to maintain such rates and fees (including special assessment proceeds) to provide revenue sufficient to pay necessary expenses of operating and maintakdng the systems and to meet at least 100% of the annual debt service for the bonds. The bond resolution of the $15,960,000 Coder County Water and Sewer District Sewer Assessment Bonds, Series 1990, provides for the establishment and maintenance of a reserve account in an amount equal to the reserve account requirement, which shad be maintained for the benefit of the holders of the bonds. The reserve account requirement Is defined as an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the maximum annual debt service for all outstanding bonds; (9) 125% of the average annual debt service for all outstanding bonds; or (01) 10% of the aggregate proceeds of the bonds. In the opinion of management, the water and sewer funds were in compliance wkh these covenants for the year ended September 30, 1996. 37 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 b q 5l NOTE 6 - LOt+ICrTERM DEBT - CoamNUE1, LEASE OBLIGATIONS The County committed to various capital leases. Capital leases are defined as leases which transfer benefits and risks of ownership to the lessee. At year end, equipment acquired through capital leases was recorded In the General Fbced Assets Account Group and in the Proprietary Funds In the amounts of $171,468 and ' $146,475 respectively. Capitalized leases payable at September 30, 19%, amounted to $493,031. These obligations, which are collateralized by equipment and vehicles, have annual ftWff ants ranging from $24,104 to $173,888 including Interest ranging from 0% to 6.0% and mature through 2000. Future n**T xn capital lease obligations as of September 30, 1996, were as follows: I i I 1 1 1 i 1 i 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total minimum lease payments Less: Amount representing Interest Present value of minimum lease payments General Internal Long -Term Debt Service Funds 140,500 33,388 140,500 33,388 127,500 33,388 24,104 Total 173,888 173,888 160,888 24,104 408,500 124,268 532,768 (27,503) (12,234) (39.737) $ 380,997 $ 112,034 $ 493,031 The County has entered into numerous operating leases. Rental mgm diturres for leased facilities and equipment for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, were as follows: Board of County Commissioners $ 617,823 Tax Collector 51,920 Total $ 669,743 Commitments for future minimum operating lease payments, contingerd rentals and subleases are not m 0 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 19% 6 A ►,AIL i! �l ?►;1 %�a►1�.� � `fj? • ? � • . '1 1 1 _ �. i. !.i � ,. Section 206.41, Florida Statutes, imposes an excise tax on motor fuel sold in Florida. This tax Is known as the Constitutional Gas Tax (also known as the 5th and 6th Cent Gas Tax). This tax is collected by the State Department of Revenue and transmitted to the State Board of Administration. The State Board of Administration makes payments necessary to reduce the bonded Indebtedness Issued pursuant to the provisions of the State Constitution for road and bridge purposes. Excess taxes are transmitted to the State Department of Transportation, which can appropriate funds for work done In Collier County and also transmit funds to the County Itself to fund highway capital improvements. In accordance with the above, the State Board of Administration administers Collier County Road Bond Certificates of Indebtedness dated 1879, of which $6,670,000 is outstanding as of September 30, 1996. This issue is not recorded in the f^ 3rai Long -Term Debt Account Group, because the principal and interest are required to be paid solely from tic gross revenue of the Second Gas Tax administered by the State Board of Administration. These bonds are not an Indebtedness of Collier County. sell... ��.�:�. a 1 ? =1 �.'�_ � �a► During September 1893, the County issued, on behalf of the property owners within the Naples Production Paris and Pine Ridge Industrial Park Districts, $17,335,000 of special assessment bonds. The bond proceeds from the issue were used to repay amounts previously borrowed under the County's line of credit arrangement. Special assessments are pledged by property owners within the Districts. The County is not obligated to repay the special assessment debt if sufficient assessment funds are not available. The County functions as agent for the property owners in collecting the assessments, forwarding the collections to bondholders, and initiating foreclosure proceedings, If appropriate. The special assessments received and the related debt service payments are accounted for In an agency fund on behalf of the property owners. As of September 30, 1996, these bonds have an outstanding principal amount of $15,205,000. The Indust W Development Authority, Housing Finance Authority and Health Facilities Authority, all component units of Collier County, Issue debt instniments for the purpose of providing capital financing to independent third parties. Industrial development revenue bonds have been Issued to provide financial assistance to public entitles for the acquisition and construction of Industrial and commercial facli tles. Housing revenue bonds have been Issued for the purpose of financing the development of multi - family residential rental communitles. The Health facility revenue bonds were issued to provide financing for the construction of a health park facility. These bonds were secured by the financed prcperty, a letter of credit or a corporate guarantee. The primary revenues pledged to pay the debt are those revenues derived from the project or facilities constructed. Neither the issuer, nor the County is obligated in any manner for repayment of the bonds. Therefore, the bonds are not reported as iiabiitles M the accompanying financial statements. As of September 30, 19%, the outstanding principal amount payable on all component unit conduit debt was $79,160,000 and Is made up of the following: Industrial development revenue bonds $ 29,320,000 Housing revenue bonds 24,000,000 Health facilities revenue bonds 25,840,000 Total $ 79,160,000 KLI a COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5 NOTE 9 - MU MM DENT The County has defeased certain outstanding bond issues by placing the proceeds of new bonds In Irrevocable trusts to provide for all future debt service payments on the defeased debt Accordingty, the trust accounts and the defeased bonds are not included In the County's financial statements. At September 30. 19®6, the following Issues were considered defeased: Defeased Orow Bonds Debt Outstanding 1988 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds S 7,790,000 $ 6,730,000 1986 Captal Improvement Program Reverm Bonda, Sub- Series 5 Mode A 12,245,000 10,715,000 Total Defeased General Long -Terre Debt $ 20.035,000 $ 17,445,000 Defeased Original Bonds Enterpise Fund Qebt Debt Outstanding 1983 County Water and Sewer District Refunding Bonds S 22,000,000 $ 17,470,000 1989 Pell an Bay Improvement District Water and Sewer General Obligation and Revenue Bonds 8,870,000 7,150,000 1991 County Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds (partially defeetsed $25 .900,000) 55,225.000 25,930,000 Total Defeased Enterprise f=und Debt $ 88,095,000 $ 50,550,000 General Lona -Term Debt Defeased Durina Current Year During March 1996. the County issued the $2, 146.000 Guaranteed Entitlement Revenue Refunding Bonds, Serbs 1996 to refund the $6, 000,000 Guaranteed Entitlement Revenue Bonds, Serbs 1977, which had interest rates ranging from 5.90% to 6.75% and an outstanding principal balance of $2,430,000. ,,. COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,19% b A 51 =iLnt !di• =Ill �UTI �i �,• • 1 :• The net proceeds were $2,119,486 after Bond issuance costs, Including underwriters disccount of $25,514. The net proceeds less $175,000 to fund Capital Improvements, along with $586,150 of sinking funds were used to purchase securities which were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to satisfy scheduled principal and Interest payments of the defeased debt. This current refunding met the requirements of an In- substance debt defeasance and the bonds were removed from the County's books. As a result of this current refunding, the County reduced Its total debt service requirements by $726,613 which resulted in an economic gain (difference between the present values of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $590,914. The outstanding balance of the defeased debt was redeemed on April 1, 1996. During January 1996, the County issued the 35.030,000 Collier County Public Park and Recreation Municipal Service Taxing Unit General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1996 to refund the $8,715,000 Collier County Public Park and Recreation Municipal Service Taxing Unit General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1986, which had interest rates ranging from 4.50% to 7.25% and an outstanding principal balance of $4,795,000. The net proceeds were $4,956,343 after payment of $71,923 In underwriting fees, Insurance and other Issuance costs. The net proceeds were used to purchase securities which were deposited In an Irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to satisfy scheduled principal and Interest payments of the defeased debt. This current refunding met the requirements of an in- substance defeasance and the bonds were removed from the County's books. As a result of this current refunding, the County reduced its total debt service requirements by $282,786 which resulted in an economic gain (difference between the present values of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of 3367,116. The outstanding balance of the defeased debit was redeemed on March 1, 19%. 41 0 t a 0 t v e COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5 Accounting principles used to prepare the budget are di feront from those used to prepare the financial statements In conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The following table reconck s the amounts on the CombkW Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget to Actual (which are presented on a non -GAAP budgetary bawls) to the amounts on the Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes In Fund Balances (which are presented on a GAAP basis). Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (budgetary basis) Basis Difference: Deferred revenue Interfund advance budgeted as operating transfer Repayrnertt of Ir"durd advance Excess of revenues and other firlarx*V sources over (under) eacpenditures and other financing I ses (GAAP basis budgeted funds) Entity Difference: NonAxxigeted funds: Law L.Itxary Inmate welfare lrnpscx Fees Escrow Extness of revenues and other awickv sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (GAAP bash) UNQ Capital Expendable Projects Trust $ (3,236,580) $ (16,012,225) $ (87,926) (364,880) 5,632,698 (1,500) - (3,599,960) (10,381,027) (87,926) 24,998 77,611 40,836 $ (3,599,960) $ (10,381,027) $ 55,519 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA I NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS L SEPTEMBER 30,1996 V Elm- 1L. I.:- I -1- 2 1 - -1 11 1 A'-K"J- I -� 11 'Wol7. . .' .-. , WIK4, County Waler and Memo wabr and Emergency Goodkend Sold waste Medical AirW SG*W Sewer water 0" . Sarvic" Aut wft Trial odabw 1, 1995 $ 206,275,110 ; 3,477,444 3 834,142 ; 4SZ750 ; 1,094,e42 ; 2,616,364 ; 214,792,86'2 Sol _ - 2,776,090 2776,004 Gkarke _ De *gm n 7,572,700 � 7,822,709 Customers 4,350,435 - - 4,354,436 Other Funds - 1 40,485 272,662 5,300 318.437 DIspostions (25,M - (229) - (25,aW) Depeclef m (4,328,830) (86,036) (20,855) (6,441) (277.426) (62,280) (4,782,786) Segbmbw 30. 1906 S 213.896.777 i_ 3.390.500 S Bi 3.338 S_ 405.774 i L080.840 $ 5.364.453 i 725.051.6 omm or cap" InMonnekion Sett Ptojecls DVwb,m Fled TacfwrolopY _h *knrQ8 Mwpwnw t d Rmwnw ManeOer o f Total Oclobar i, 1905 f 158.458 i 5,200 f 857,746 i 5,094 f 676.422 i 1.033,720 Contrbu dons Source: OQ Funds 500030 3,902 10526 mr 413,155 937.525 - (6,ue) - (60.4 (15.346) Dq"cis m (61,676) (1,543) (31,118) (3,633) (236.567) (334.73 Sepbrtsber 30, 190 f 606.719 i 7.550 i Q:7.740 S_ 12569 f 783 56� 3 2365.161 43 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 6 A 5 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 Under separate agreements with the Natkxual Association of County Officers and the Intemationai City Managers Association, the County offers its employees a choice of two deferred compensation plans created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The plans, available to all County employees, permit them to defer a portion of their salary until future years. The deferred compensation Is not avalable to employees or their estate untl termination, retirement, death, or unforeseeable emergency. AN amounts of compensation deferred under the plans, all property and rights purchased with those amounts, and alt income atiribuRable to those amounts, property, or rights are (untl paid or made avalable to the employee or other beneficiary) solely the property and rights of the County (without being restricted to the provisions of benefits under the plans), subject only to the claims of the County's general creditors. Participants' rights under the plans are equal to those of general creditors of the County In an amount equal to the fair market value of their deferred compensation account. Assets of the deferred compensation plans are recorded at fair market value and are accounted for in an agency fund. It is the opinion of the County's legal counsel that the County has no liability for losses under the plans, but must exercise due care as would be expected of an ordinary prudent investor. The County believes that It is unlikely It will use the assets to satisfy the daims of general creditors in the future. ►l�il L!►` T' *'Z L J ► • i J 11ki Retirement Plan The County early Implemented the provisions of GASB 27, 'Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Governmental Employers', In the following disclosure. Plan Description The County contributes to the Florida Retirement System (the 'System', a cost- sharing, multiple- employer, defamed benefit pension plan administered by the State of Florida, Division of Retirement. The System provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost -of- living adjustments, and death benetks to plan members and beneficiaries. The Florida Legislature established the System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and has sole authority to amend benefits provisions. Each year the System Issues a publicly avaiabie financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to the Florida Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement. ?_639 North Monroe Street, Building C, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1560. Funddt g Policv The System is non - contributory for employees and the County Is required to contribute an actuarially determined rate. During the fiscal year. the rate was 21 % of annual covered payroll. The cortrtxXiorus of the County are established and may be amended by the State Legislature. The Countys conbtxAkxu to the System for the years ending September 30,1996, 1995, and 1994 were $13,176,094,$11,770,770. and $11,332,000, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. 44 I COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,1996 6 A 5 The County maintains sic enterprise funds which provide water, sewer, solid waste disposal, emergency services and airport services. Segment information for the year ended September 30, 1996, is as follows: Operating revenue County Water Marco Water Goodland Sold Waste and Sewer and Sewer Water Disposal $ 33,098,456 $ 417,482$ 164,961 $ 11,891,753 Operating expenses: DepreclaWn and amortization 8,324,422 118,486 57,329 311,362 Operaft expenses 16,876,851 498,194 226,733 12,157,012 Operating income (loss) 7,897,183 (199,198) (99,101) (576,621) Operating grants - - - 384,243 Net non - operating revenues (expenses) (2,286,805) 16,162 29,997 1,398,824 Income poss) before operating transfers 5,610,378 (183,036) (69,104) 822,203 Operating transfers in 11,697 - 352,500 - Operating transfers out (433,890) _ - - (195,895) Net income (loss) $ 5,188,185 $ (183,038) $ 283,396 $ 526,308 Current capital contributions, net $ 11,947,506 $ - S - S 40,465 Property, plant and equipment Additions $ 37,750,924 $ 29,763 $ 25,243 $ _ 347,054 Delations $ 7,393,787 S - $ -$ 115,310 Net working capital $ 52,032,114 S_ 169,062 $ 769,550 $ 18,268,340 Total assets $ 400,171,253..$ 4,004,768 $ 1,423,900 S_ 28.121,613 Total long term liabilities S 109,999,981S 245,249 $ 160,372 $ _ 4,347,503 Total fund equity $ 279,846,519 S 3,525,611 $ 125.980 $ 2310051854 45 I Effwgw y Aiport SWOM Autwoft Totals S 3,090,168$ 5 566,088$ 4 49254,908 354,704 8 87,882 9 9,254,185 7,291,839 7 787,923 3 37,838,552 (4,550,375) ( (309,717) 2 2,162,171 93,535 - - 4 477,778 149,867 (158,589) ( (850,524) (4,400,508) ( (468,28$) 1 1,31:.647 3,470,800 1 155,416 3 3,990,413 - - - ( (729,785) (929,708); (312,870) S 4,572,275 S 272,433$ 2 2,781,408$ 15,041,812 329,098$ 3,800,648 $ 42,279,730 S 151,084 ; 57,233 ; 7,717,414 i 373,533 $ (372.049)$ 71240,550 S 2212,721 $ 10,365,000 $ 446,299,255 S 327.307S 1,158,771 S 116,237,183 i 1,670,488 $ 5,228,653 $ 314.528,105 M COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,1996 Operating transfers for the year ended September 30, 1996, were as follows: FUND General Fund Special Revenue Funds: Road District Water Management and Pollution Control Unincorporated Aress Grants and Shared Revenues Improvement DW icCt Fire Control Distriels Miscellaneous Florida Statutes Fee Collections Li g Distiatit Tourist Development Debt Service Funds: Golden Gate General Obligation Bonds Parks General Obligation Refunding Bonds Guaranoeed Enfibement Revenue Bonds Marco Mend Lkr*bd General Obligation Bonds Road and Other Improvements Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Isle of Capri Renovations and Expansion Capital Pro}eccts Funds: County -Wide Capital Improvements Parks Improverents ntr-Wide Parka Impeett Dfstticb Emergency Medical SeMce Rood Constructon Wadi Marogernam Oftnr Capital Projects Enlasprlse Funds: County Water and Sewer Goodand wow Sold wade Disposal Ser Airport Authority vice Internal service Funds: IMorm illon Technology Ofllce of Capital Pro}eds Management Departrnentof Revenue Fleet Management Trust and Agency Funds: Law Lbrary Criminal Justice Confiscated Property L)dky Fee TOW Transfer In $ 7,890,059 2,705,758 17,884 325,067 294,715 497,745 363,014 7,564 4,212 44,019 3,545,485 1,034,300 43,7$4 3,458,700 597,200 74,570 672,800 427 OW -5,230:t 11,697 352,500 3,470,800 155,418 3,990,413 1,200 11,700 35,000 47,900 3,000,208 93,000 -�3, 933,208 S 29.088.581 47 Transfers Out $ 17-'O%,0-61 31,611 123,440 6,877,498 92,585 23,695 75,861 326,610 298 089 -7 22,879 175,000 17,622 827 18, 380,416 339,383 317,170 1,815,130 ,652,00 433,890 295,895 729,785 200,000 200,000 215,081 274,700 84,200 573,981- S 29.088.581 b A 5' 1 [I r r C r COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS F1 n SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 5 Contributed Capital: Balances represent capital grants and contributions received from developers, customers other governments or other funds. Enterprise Funds - Reserved for Revenue Bond Retirement: Balances are reserved In conjunction with the issuance of County Water and Sewer, Marco Water and Sewer and Goodland Water revenue bond issues. They have been funded by initial deposits from the bond proceeds and by transfers from the operating accounts of the appropriate funds. The use of monies in the sinking fund is restricted to the payment of principal and interest on long -term debt. Enterprise Funds - Reserved for Renewal and Replacement: Balances are reserved In conjunction with the issuance of County Water and Sewer and Marco Water and Sewer revenue bond Issues. They are funded by transfers from the operating accounts of the appropriate funds. The use of monies In the renewal and replacement fund Is restricted to funding the cost of extensions, enlargements and addltbns to, replacement or major repair of capital assets. Enterprise Funds - Unreserved: Balances are not reserved for specific purposes. Internal Service Funds - Unreserved: Balances are not reserved for specific purposes. Fund Balances Reserved Reserved for Long -Term Notes Receivable: Balances represent long -term loans made to individuals which do not constitute expendable available financial resources. Reserved for Encumbrances: Balances are segregated for expenditure upon vendor performance. Reserved for Inventory: Balances represent Items which are not considered available and spendable resources. Reserved for Prepaid Costs: Balances represent insurance, travel and other expenses paid in advance and which are not considered available and spendable resources. Reserved for Debt Service: Balances represent monies legally restricted to the payment of principal and Interest on long -term debt. Reserved for Trust Fund Purposes: Balances are reserved as legally mandated or as otherwise stipulated by a donor. ,! ., , -.• Designated for Impact Fees: Balances represent affordable housing Impact fees deferred by the Board of County Commisskmers to be funded by the County In the future. Designated for Debt Service: Balances are designated for the payment of principal and interest on long -term debt Designated for Future Capital Projects: Balances are designated for future capital project expenditures. Undesigrmted: Balances are not designated for specific purposes. 48 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMEMS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 b A >� The County Is exposed to various risks of loss related to tort; theft d, damage to and destruction of assets; arras and ortisslons; injuries to employees and natural disasters. A self - insurance Internal service fund Is mimed by the County to administer Insurance activ&s relating to workers' compensation, health and property /casualty, which covers general liability, property liabtky, auto liability, public dfic W liability and crime tisbility. Under these programs, the self- 1roxance fund provides coverage up to a rnwcirrx m amount for each Bairn. The County purchases commercial insurance for claims In excess of coverage provided by the self - ksuranaa fund and for ail other covered risks of loss. The aggregate loss exposure on workers' compensation and property /casualty Balms Is $1,240,000. Settled claims have not exceeded the Insurance provided by third party carriers In any of the past three years. As divisions of the County, excluding the SherI f, participate In this program. Charges to operating departments are bused upon amounts believed by management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for the estimated operating costs of the programs. For the fish year ended September 30, 1996, the operating departments were charged approximately $7,867,005 for workers' compensation, health and property /caat>alty self- irrsurantce programs The dakrs loss reserve for workers' compensation, health and property /casualty of $5,063,139 reported at Septsrnber 30, 1996, was calculated by third -party actuaries based upon GASB Statement 10, 'Accounting and Fkmn cW Reporting for Risk Fkwx*V and Related Insurance issues', which requires that a Rabity for dakms be reported when it Is probable that a Iola has been kxxxred and the amount d that lose can be reasonably estimated. The estimated liabilities for unpaid losses related to workers' compensation and property /casualty were discounted at 4%. The Sheaf participates In the State -wide Florida Sheaf's Self - Insurance Fund for Its professional Ilebillty krsu mnce. The Fund Is managed by represertWoes of the participating Sher1l offices are provides professional liability Insurance to pardGpatkrg Sheriff agencies. The Florida Sheriffs Self-Insurance Fund provides ibblity Insurance coverage subject to the following lkrtltatlona, $2. 100,000 for any claim Involving a single ktdividusi, $2, 200,000 for any irwident which knroives multiple daims and aggregate, $2, 300,000 u/fim to net loss per SherIf durkg any policy period. Effeoove January 1, 1994, the SherNt elected to participate In the Florida SherftPs Seff4rsurance Fund program for woricsrs' compensation coverage. The Florida Sheriffs Association Workers' Compensation Insurance Trust (FSAWIT) Is a limited seff-Isuuarce kind providing coverage for the first X300,000 d every dah, Re-Isurance is provided through a third-party Itsuxer for ail Bairns exceeding $ 300.000 up to $2.000.000. Prior to this date the Sherr was a participant in the county -wide 904r suxarce Into, service hmd maintained by the Collier Carty Board d County Con missioners to administer these Insurance aotivl des. County's Excess Carriers SAID TyM Coverage Cavera9e Property damage claims $100,000 each $100,000 - $5,000,000 Auto liability dakms $100,000 each $100,000 - $1,000,000 Employee health claims $125,000 each $125,000 - $1,000,000 Workers' coffperoadon claims $150,000 each $150,000 - $5,000,000 The aggregate loss exposure on workers' compensation and property /casualty Balms Is $1,240,000. Settled claims have not exceeded the Insurance provided by third party carriers In any of the past three years. As divisions of the County, excluding the SherI f, participate In this program. Charges to operating departments are bused upon amounts believed by management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for the estimated operating costs of the programs. For the fish year ended September 30, 1996, the operating departments were charged approximately $7,867,005 for workers' compensation, health and property /caat>alty self- irrsurantce programs The dakrs loss reserve for workers' compensation, health and property /casualty of $5,063,139 reported at Septsrnber 30, 1996, was calculated by third -party actuaries based upon GASB Statement 10, 'Accounting and Fkmn cW Reporting for Risk Fkwx*V and Related Insurance issues', which requires that a Rabity for dakms be reported when it Is probable that a Iola has been kxxxred and the amount d that lose can be reasonably estimated. The estimated liabilities for unpaid losses related to workers' compensation and property /casualty were discounted at 4%. The Sheaf participates In the State -wide Florida Sheaf's Self - Insurance Fund for Its professional Ilebillty krsu mnce. The Fund Is managed by represertWoes of the participating Sher1l offices are provides professional liability Insurance to pardGpatkrg Sheriff agencies. The Florida Sheriffs Self-Insurance Fund provides ibblity Insurance coverage subject to the following lkrtltatlona, $2. 100,000 for any claim Involving a single ktdividusi, $2, 200,000 for any irwident which knroives multiple daims and aggregate, $2, 300,000 u/fim to net loss per SherIf durkg any policy period. Effeoove January 1, 1994, the SherNt elected to participate In the Florida SherftPs Seff4rsurance Fund program for woricsrs' compensation coverage. The Florida Sheriffs Association Workers' Compensation Insurance Trust (FSAWIT) Is a limited seff-Isuuarce kind providing coverage for the first X300,000 d every dah, Re-Isurance is provided through a third-party Itsuxer for ail Bairns exceeding $ 300.000 up to $2.000.000. Prior to this date the Sherr was a participant in the county -wide 904r suxarce Into, service hmd maintained by the Collier Carty Board d County Con missioners to administer these Insurance aotivl des. COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS n SEPTEMBER 30.1996 M nO1IE 17 - RISK MIWACKMEM - CONTINUED SHERIFFS SELF - INSURANCE - CONTINUED Premiums charged to participating Sheriffs are based upon amounts believed by Fund management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for the estimated operating costs of the program. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, the Sheriff was charged approximately $829.478 for the workers compensation self - insurance program. Coverage is provided on an occurrence basis. Also effective January 1, 1994, the Sheriff established a seff-funded employee health plan. An Internal Se+vice Fund was established to account for the activities of the plan. Excess coverage has been purchased which provides specific claim excess coverage for any one incident exceeding $125,000 to $1,000,000 and aggregate limits excess coverage of $1,000,000 for total claims paid by the Sheriff which exceeds $3,602.967 for any coverage year. Changes in the self- Insurance claims payable for fiscal year 1995 and 1996 were as follows for the County and Sheriff self- insurance programs: Property/ Group Workers' Casualty Health Compensation Total Balance October 1, 1994 $ 951,943 $ 1,107,000 $ 3,525.000 $ 5,583,943 0 Current year claims Incurred and changes In estimates 85,811 6,668,768 1,255,293 8,009,872 Claim payments (419,111) (6,665,768) (1,218,919) (8,303,796) Balance September 30, 1995 618,643 1,110,000 3,561,374 5,290,017 Current year claims Incurred and changes In estimates 499,494 6,498,351 1,588,094 8,585,939 Claim payments (238,075) (6,419,351) (1,516,391) (8,173,817) Balance September 30, 1996 $ 880,062 $ 1,189,000 $ 3,633,077 $ 5.702,139 NOTE 18 - LANDFlLL UAf�iLfiY On May 1, 1995, the County entered Into an agreement with a company for the pritratization of the County's larKS operations. Under the contract, the company is responsible for the daily operations, capital improvements, closure, postclosure and financial assurance requirements of the Naples and immokalee landfill sites. The County Is responsible for staffing and operating the scalehouse at each site. Contract provisions provide the County with early terminations options. Upon exercising early termination, the County would be required to make payments to the company for capital expenditures, management fees and additional operating fees. The County's estimated liability in connection with the lar>dfllis is Included in the Enterprise Fund Balance Sheet. on COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINMCI LL. STATEMENTS A 54 SEPTEMBER 30, 196x6 The Airport Authority Enterprise Fund has a Deficit Retained Eamirw Balance of (1135,830). The County Is kwolved as defendant or plaintiff In certain Litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of operations. In the opinion of legal coureA, the range of potential recoveries or Ilabiitm will not materially affect the financial position of the County. Gnat monies received and disbursed by the County are for specific purposes and are subpo to review by the grantor agerncies. Such audh may result In requests for reimbursement due to disakwed expenditures. Based upon prior experience, the County does not believe that such disatiowances, If arty, would have a material effect on the financial position of the County. Parks Roads Utilities Landfill expansion and closure Buildings S:orrnwater Drainage Total Project September 30, Future Authorization 1996 Commitments $ 544,= $ 136,182 S 408,448 33,859,698 22,558,083 11,301.615 44,662,176 35,814,346 8,837,830 1,500,248 633,662 886,586 9,193,832 7,330,007 1,863,825 2,791,185 2,379,480 411,705 13,238,800 12,581,252 657,548 3,265,658 298,274 2,967,384 $ 109,046,219 $ 81, 731,286 S 27,314,933 In the past, the County has acquired dgttt-ol-ways and received beach parking and mW construction services from various developers In exchange for impact fee credits. Amounts granted for Wiped fee credits were based on the market value at the time the property, Improvement or services were received. The developers, their successors or assignees may utilize the road Impact fee credits for future development aclhr dw No time limbs are set for use d the credit& As the credits are consumed, Impact fee revenue Is rimed. At September 30, 1996, the County had outstanding regional park impact fee and road Wiped fee agreements with developers, of approximately $73,283 and $2,131,175 respectively. 51 L r 1 P C A 0 L t w 6 A 5 GENERAL FUND GENERAL OpERATX)NS OF THE COUNTY. EXCEPT FOR THOSE RESOURCES RIMMED TO 9-4 X"---rJWW FOR IN ANOTHER FUND. THE GENERAL FUND HAS A GREATER NUMBER AND VARIETY OF REVENUE SOURCES THAN ANY OTHER FUND, AND ITS RESOURCES FINANCE A WIDER RANGE OF ACTIV IES. THE RESOURCES OF THE GENERAL FUND ARE NORMALLY EXPENDED AND REPLEMSHED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDfTURE3 AND Cl1ANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERALFUND b A 5 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1906 Ra"wpwa: TOM Licenses and Pa., m Chaves; for sambas Fine and forfellum It on mom fttoalansas Told rw nom Gars" pownnarx Lap}M11M eoaro d county Ca wrrtalonms EaeatM County inima" a&r**rk mKv Fk arrcW and admk**Vuw Aan+nYranra sambas l lu nan rsaouoss admk+ktrsw Clerk b to bond Property �� Tare coMcbr U901 damsel County anon ey Canpral wWm pkrrNrrp f4skral rMOtsass Cftw coot coat Covtroom aparmm- A maWarrar>cs Canty coot coal Sark aflorrwy Clark to •r coals 0618 p rww aein* k0wm Facll6ea manepwrrm. S pen4sor or declbro Raaf praparly rnarrspartrerrl $ 50.304,300 S 60,700 19,162,000 9,097,566 3,222,200 936,600 2,977,652 94,603,017 526,720 446,000 404.900 637,356 455,050 3,422,700 3,105,162 4,515,962 1,300,404 606,600 385,770 960,100 38,000 202.450 221,600 4,2'59,600 I AOZ 7 3,044,323 1,391,400 556.300 57XZ770 $ t6,775 19,962,661 9.703,346 2,511,273 1,646,308 3,022',106 94,434,531 527,235 453A690 353,027 633,240 443,962 3.454,763 3,238,730 4,507,348 1,265.686 680,145 326.678 942Am0 22.605 210.615 210.640 3,376,157 606.445 2,927,445 1,082,976 531.672 ToW gwm 9m-m 27,643,604 26,032,606 52 (2,041,530) 6,075 610,681 605,763 (710A M 909,706 51,744 (366,188) 1,485 (7,®90) 51,673 4,107 11,086 (OZO" (133,548) 8,634 124,608 16,455 36,604 16,160 15,305 (6,166) 10A60 861,643 194,322 116,676 308,424 23.425 1,611,268 Y 0 1 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 19M Pub1e ad*, Law - dacw.m Shwff Dalwdm ar+dU moc4on ShwfeT Enwgor cy and dWasW naew aarvlcsa Ei wgwicy rv,- mW.m sm�rdgn AmbMae= and naan w-vtw krarroldaa rtwlcal asalatarxe lidlnplar Muted ami ft Madcal a Mw ssrvbss Told pubic salaly Phpalcal a pAcm.1 rR Canwn/on and raaorses rnanapanwrt AgrktAk s a*v a dW dbn Aqudlc Plant C r*d OMw phyafcal owbantwt kr*r!<�dsalaa oamdary Tall plryaleai wMrornwo Eoonarric arPAM -rwt Houmi q and Uftm irnprowrwt l %m.w sarvbaa Hompble 1 NWI Can Raaportibl8y Ad MGM 11 ar>d11 hadlh Mandd hadh imp I ClIart MINIM= OI w human a or Pubb aarvbaa dNabn Wce Todal human sarvkm b A 51 S 32.870,000 S 3Z503= S 344,494 11,975.500 11,730,828 194,872 301,256 272.317 28,939 293,307 2,752 27,556 442.300 4x32,104 2D,192 448,300 4 99.074 9,224 46,3M.863 45,873,383 847,7,80 800,856 705,730 94,155 1.10B,540 981601 122,579 20,000 10,413 9,187 1,931 ,425 1,7[3,504 227021 177.200 172.943 4217 284,200 1" 823 49.377 445.400 371AN 73.594 91 AM 3S.513 54,347 438,900 449,115 (12.215) 1,133,WD 1,1x,110 (8,510) 710,400 710,400 2.220,400 Z241,123 (20.723) 127,300 l at.104 L." 4.720.440 4.710.345 10.096 (CONTINUED) 53 COWER COL! .7Y. FLORIDA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENOrr . SS AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) 6 A 5 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,1906 Cubra and r=arar Library od ift6ob OWsach aarNcea Puffs uud rsc mma ad In Part and we adlan adrnl *W vtb Rac edbo pmgrwr s Aoustk FscWn IWIL"W rr TdW altLrrs and .vaeoon Tow auras Eaaaa of wvww oar ssOsrtdhrss OUw i%mcb soiroa (umy OpsrsHrV A Eau in Operas tranafsrs out TcW dhw k%wck souaa (uw) E=m of wraraws and dsr ib—=++9 saran arar (rr+du) dgandkM and dw IYwcinp uses Fund bsI , d bsdrv*g d yar Fund bohnoa d end of yar S 2,463,000 S 2.334,776 S 73,224 110.700 10o.a1a 9,332 3,710.602 3,470.407 240.105 1,5001.723 1.403200 100,517 464,500 439,05 44,815 271,500 2CO,645 1.365 11,563,428 8.077,630 475 a9,614,a70 118.509 294 3.045,676 5,1116,147 7ASS.237 2,6",000 7,1136,1100 7.89U.060 24,250 (17,1167AOZ) (17A67AM 620.901 (9,822,19Yz (9.176A42) 645,250 (4,634,045) (1.311,705) 3.322.340 17,334,190 1734.199 $ 11700.154 S 16A22404 S 3.322340 54 t 0 e e SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 6 A 5 ROAD DISTRICTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED AND EXPENDITURES TO CARRY ON ALL WORK ON ROADS AND BRIDGES IN THE COUNTY EXCEPT THAT PROVIDED FOR IN CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS. WATER MffiffiEMW AND MLUMN OONTR - TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED COUNTY- WIDE TO PROVIDE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TO ACCOUNT FOR REVENUES DERIVED FROM AND EXPENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY. GRANTS AND SHARED - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE REVENUES RECEIVED FROM FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GRANTS. TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED WITHIN MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIED IMPROVEMENTS AND /OR THE MAINTENANCE OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. FIRE CONTROL DISTRICTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED WITHIN MUNIGPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICTS FOR FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL MISCELLANEOUS FLORIDA STATUTES FEE COLLECTIONS - TO ACCOUNT FOR FEES COLLECTED FOR STATUTORY PURPOSES. LIGHTING - TO ACCOUNT FOR TAXES LEVIED WITHIN MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICTS FOR STREET LIGHTING. 911 ENKANCEMENT FEE - TO ACCOUNT FOR FEES LEVIED ON EACH TELEPHONE ACCESS LINE IN THE COUNTY FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE 911 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM. - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE STATUTORY SURCHARGE ON RECORDING DOCUMENTS TO BE PAID TO THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE MODERNIZATION OF THE CLERK'S OFFICIAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. TOURIST -TO ACCOUNT FOR THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX - TO ACCOUNT FOR STATE REVENUES RECEIVED TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FOR VERY LOW TO MODERATE INCOME PERSONS AND THOSE WHO HAVE SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS. 800 MHZ IRCP FUND ACCOUNT - TO ACCOUNT FOR MOVING TRAFFIC VIOLATION SURCHARGES RECEIVED TO FUND THE COUNTY S INTERGOVERNMENTAL RADIO COMMUNICAMNS PROGRA&IL COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBMIM4 BALANCE SHEET ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUWS SEPTEMBER 30,180 b A 5 liv wow Grants and Road Mw wwrwtt and UMmxrpwaMd Stlarad knprvra IM AASM Didr"s PoMRion Contrd Anna Revwwn DIdrk is CaeAandm sainds RaoaHMt11 - f 1,023,429$ 1,884,497 S 10,231A03 S 13-145S 2,411,580 Iraweal 3,645 5,479 90.060 2 7,748 moon - 256,974 - Olhw 149,317 32,634 271,671 230 Due Itom d w Lunde 8,030 18,024 270,848 - 10,821 Dw bam dhw poraeaewls 521,558 3,073 15,954 776,307 - Prepaid cam TOM aawla f 1.706.177 S _ 1.743. 7 S 10.889.616 S 5.16.628 $ 2430.358 Li IAMINK Vwdws pafable and sotxuats f 237,5543 88,561 S 323 89 f 81,970 S 71,975 Due to odw Ands - - 14.426 3W" 39.097 Due 10 alfw ponrrarw 23,928 598.771 - 43 Dolermd iawwa 34,813 1,126,204 270,191 - Reb&m pe pepbh 1.300 Tdd kibnm 237,564 127,302 2,063,990 3n2,15D 111,115 Fund befanow: Raaarvad for Enoxr wwn Prepaid amb 217.780 59110 4A8,483 130.733 118.787 Unseeervad: Da iWmftd tor: kr "Am unoratp!rataa 5_A1 1,%7,0W 8,307,175 73.739 2,200.457 TcM And bdwwm 1,486,823 1,616.355 8,825,628 154,472 2,319,244 TOM b billlw and And ba wxm S 1.708.177 3 1.743.6x7 S --Jkmm f 543.628 f 2.430.369 liv t e e t w IAWooftnma 911 Pubic Fir*Contrd FWdeSUWM Wall p Ertwwwnwt Rscords Dk*tb FM Coirac8om DNbkts Fa ModwnUx*m S 203.032 S 21,103 S 415.445 $ 440,0623 6® 1,366 1,425 3,517 - 5,967 356 7,654 - S 213 342 S 21.528 $ 424.4 i _ 441.467 i _ X9.563 S 12,531 S 5,346 S 60,996 S - i 1.m - - 109,759 12,531 5.346 60 998 100 ,7 5k 1.668 200,831 9 L5 07 363,469 331.7215 656.866 A656.866 . 200,831 18,182 3631466 331,725 658,668 S 213342 S� 21.528 i --VA-,CL S 441.487 S 866.563 (CONTINUED) 56 6 a 5 r• � 6 A 51 l (aM ITFC LNr� FLNp 1 ANC S baacfms prysbls wd scuumb S 200,244 S 000 MHz 3,4353 1,074574 Tour* Irlowr5rs IRCP Fund - Ai°im Davdoprrrwt Pwtwn rp A000ult Told Cash and m mob wes RaosMblait s 11.673,277 s 93,909S 425,161 s 29,400.80 Irrlwsat 35,382 403 1,355 157,950 NAss - - 256,974 of m - - - 457',500 DLm bawl a0rw Nrds 272,875 - 14,933 509,505 Due km oBw gorwrsrrrrts 252,506 - 1.079,435 Prrgsid oast - 2,500 2.500 Tad assts S 11 A02.534 S 366 907 S 446.950 i 32052x32 l (aM ITFC LNr� FLNp 1 ANC S baacfms prysbls wd scuumb S 200,244 S 4.959 S 3,4353 1,074574 Dos to ~ /olds - - - 203.277 No to ~ gum... w tis - 622,742 Dshrrod rarwtlws - - 1.431 ,205 Rata I g Daflb 500,904 506,294 Tad isbOdu 707,230 4.959 3.435 3.535,009 Ftmd bafeross: Raswrad for Enmwnbrarrom 3=.561 9= 73.706 4.50AM Pr Ursaawmt 2.500 2,500 Daa�rrad for Irrgad #on - 259.024 - 370,902 to l - Qwd 7,754,735 83,339 367,318 23,307,003 Tdd "W' 11,275,296 351,91e 443,524 28,224.133 Tdd 6bis and MW bdsnoss S 11 982.534 s 368.907 S 448.969 i 320e2xi2 57 COMMOM STATEMENT OF REY@AJES, EXPEN OrrURES AND CHAPMES W FtW BALAMM ALL SPECIAL REVOWE FUNDS b A 5 FOR THE FUCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMER 70, ,N6 wow Grarts and Rood NAerrgarrNrM and unkroorpw*od Shared blip umfod Districts Pokbm Ccntrd Areas Rawx»a OiafIM Revenrwa: Tmm S 2,232,062 i 629,161 S 8,891,406 i - i 1279,073 Lkwrwes and psrtrrRs 15,403 340 6,092,488 - kdogommwrew 1,222,946 677,314 10,423 1,534,235 - CNvgas for services 111,820 292,276 958,363 140,940 Fkm and forfsiturss 81,896 1n6arard h AXn@ 123,887 134,079 572,061 552 141,636 SPOCr ateeaarrlerks Niacstiansous 6966 1,184,317 135 13,6'79 _ 15AM 1,264 Tdei remrues 3,713,054 3,117,642 16,620,341 1,850 1 582,913 Enm*R ass: Cucrsrrt Qwwd porarr>rrnrd - 2,669,706 304,700 Public ta1My 5.605,656 493)576 . Plryadcal sn"morm, TrarwWlaflon 8,2075E3 3.275,446 109297 22,958 MAW $6,800 1.115,221 150.706 EconomicarrAort<mnt - 15,718 - Fkarm scrub. - - 639.127 Cutire and rsr aft n 1,137,424 171,415 526,103 Daft 3srtim. h" and flseal charges 1,187 Tcbisrvwxaraes 8,202,563 3,334,743 9.461,524 1,930�8t14 1.793,217 r, ' d rem wa over (urldsrlagsrr� ass (4,4W,479) _2,7,101) 7,166 )517 (tea (zio,3o4) Olhra firanctrrg sources (uses): Pn asda ftom bens - Opwaft tarwfan in 2,705,756 17,554 325,067 294.715 407,745 Oparso lrswfia - out 611 51�440j (6,677,496) (gZW r lk ra Total othencir>Q sources uass 2 ,874,147 (105, j6,36Z 294,715 405,160 Emees of rerwmws and dhsr lkcer dreg sources am (urmW) aagon. dltures and dfw thockip (uaas) (1)515,331') (322,%7) 816,366 14,120 174,866 Ford taaI , at bapkrrtip d yea► 3,743,965 1,939.012 81009,236 140,362 2.144,388 Ford bslrnoas at end d year i 1.4b8 i 1.618.355 i 8.825AZ8 i 154.474 i 231944 (CON(TOROM 58 COLLIER COUNTY, R.ARDA 6 A 5 COMBIP Ki STATOWIT OF RlEVEMNS, 0049MI UREi AID CIIA/SM M RM 9ALAMlCFIl ALL SMWM ftsiv tJE R"M (COK VMM iff FOR T FISCAL YEAR ENDED SE"EIMM 30, In$ Revenues: Tmw L)Dwvm and pg., Chagas far Servkes Flies and f riMurM Tofal revanxs Eiqardh+as: Current General 9onrren rt Pubic sadely Phyabr rntonnant Traraporfsilon Econoeio arrvtorarwot Human 9srAM Cusun end reuadion Debt Service: kftest and food chrpss Total eogxndituras Exom of nnarexs over (under) spec iaaas wacellerwax 911 Public Fn Control FlorldsStalulss Lka" EnhWrAWrWt Records Dtrdtrfds Fee Cofsdkxa DW&icts _ Fes Modreitdkn S 702,152 S S 1,045,806 S 681,7565 000 - 5,000 190.403 22,341 3,314 32,428 20,701 46,979 730,003 9,630 1,078,032 702.457 237,382 32.952 136.035 1 08ZO30 - 606,434 - 793,697 - 1,062 030 32,952 793,807 606,434 136.035 (Milan (23,32 _ 284,335 96,023 101,347 Oltw rem 1:6 sources (Low): _ ProcMds It W loans opw transfers in 303,614 7,584 ' operspng boWen out (23,006) [75 al f .81 OS TowcOverbook wurcW uses 339,919 (75,961) (319,046) . Excess of rsvenuas and COW fYw+- ckv sources am (under) a w. dasas and ottw ftw�dnp (aces) (12,018) (90.183) (34,711) 96.023 1 01,347 Fund balmoa at bsgV tq Of year 212 ,849 115,305 396,180 235,705 755,518 F une balwnc s at sna Of YGW S -831 S i 6.182 S 3a3.4Gi S 331.720 i 1!56.866 59 t 0 0 i e m e 000 MHz Tarot kworeft IRCP Fund DMbpnwnt PwWamhip Accouit Total f 8,114,866 $ -S -S 21.776.006 - 6,108,131 - 1,082,877 4,008,8 21,191 - 182,315 1,902,306 - 88,214 748,027 18,041 20,508 1 r635,M3 1,184,317 43,895 128,406 8,425,963 1,000,418 202,823 37,631,567 3,143,455 - - 113,814 7,901,815 11,470,360 - - 18,366,981 9,362,083 1 285.053 1,300,771 a36,127 2,331,348 4,1 a8,2W 1,187 14,301,738 1,286,043 113,819 43,084,487 S,Z70 000 570,000 4,212,3(7 (298,0x9) _ (7.61D,387) 4,971,911 - 1832,980 CZ403X1 (204,135) 89,204 f3.WQAP 19,879,158 555,053 354,321D 31,x24,093 i 112759Dx S 331916 S 443 324 f ZLZK 33 60 6 A 5' COLLIER COMM FLORDA r I4BNq :CHEDULt OF RMENUES. EVONXTURN AND CHANGES N4 RM SALAd4CU BUDGET AND ACTU AL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUPM MM S THE F F M. b a 5 OR FISCAL "-M 1„« Rstwsws: Tasras ljC� std pwaft Ch"n for alsMrM Fkws and *wtmb s TOW rwiws�ss EWW%ftgw cwrw t Gsrl" OWatwtsnwWt Puhic sooty P1Wpks1 awk.1.0 TmropmUmcn EoaWOnWk wlrkorstwWt llWSrnn swti/oes Gin rand tsosraft Debt Swvlea pIft Etsl kfusst rand bcml tHw E=m of rwAmm ow (Widt) apwrdlee M O6w so ckWp samm (Wises): Proa+sds ban kmn Rtud DMrkb WMw k4wogwmt wd Pdk on Cw" Mon-G W S. 2216,100 f 2,732,062 f 13,962 f 63,700 f 829,181 f (30.519) 15,000 15,403 403 300 340 (160) 1,108;000 1222946 114946 1202904 712,127 (469071) 16.000 111,620 96,820 379,900 292976 (87,824) 121,300 123,667 2,567 11000 134,079 19,479 - - - 1.226,600 1.184,317 (44.463) - 6,966 6,966 - 135 135 3,478,400 3,713,054 234,654 3,785,504 3,152,4155 mm 0'p) - - 4,639,815 3225,446 1,414,3'.10 8,805,050 8202,563 602,487 114,200 109 297 4,903 8,606.050 8,202,583 602,487 4,754,015 3,334,743 1,4199T2 (5,328,650) (4,489,479) 837,171 (966,511) (182,28M 788.223 Opwo" 1 ssn -0 in 2 ,697,900 2,705,758 70A - 17,684 17,864 1 Opole I a+ders of (44,900) (31,611) 13,269 (150,800) (123,440) 77,360 Toles cfw IN a ch sanm (um) 2,653,000 2,674,147 21,147 (150,600) (106156M 45,244 Eicws of nrmw a and dlw * rr dn9 sanm Darr (onset) mp1w d>otra =Wc&wfkwch (umm) 8673,650) (1,815,332) 668,318 (1,119.311) (267.844) 631,467 I Fund I enoes at boo.* p deer 2914AM 398:1, 966 369,155 2214,401 2,433AN 219,453 Fund Oirtoee at and of yaw f _ 241.150 f 1.466.623 f 1227.473 S ---I AUK $ 2146_Q12 f 1960.922 I 61 11,139,274 9,451,524 1,687,750 2,86436 1,93004 733,354 4,036,562 7,496,884 3,482,322 (421,784) (280,503) 141,160 415-500 325 ,067 (90,433) 344,100 294,715 (40,365) 6 A 5 1 (8,466 (61352,4291 135,671 344,100 294,715 (49,3!861 (2,451,736) ShwW R.vwwm 3,506,193 (77,664) 14,120 Urk cwporabd Arom (Non•CAAP) 6,050,015 Gnwft and 140,352 140,362 &rdgd Aatud 1/arlanoa &+dpat Ac1u+l _ wt.nc. $ 9,043,900 S 6,80!,400 $ (152,491)$ $ - $ 5,051,500 6,4?2,555 1,371,055 25,5W 10.423 (15,186) 2,225596 1,6342$6 (501,362) 62 770,600 958,363 167,763 1.702 43,000 81,806 36,806 234,500 572,061 337,561 1,o00 552 (446) 6,745 13,679 6,934 14,154 15,501 1,347 15,175,836 16,960,408 1,774,572 2,242,454 1,650,M (502166) 3,020,817 2.689, 766 351.049 $32,237 304.700 327,537 6,443,531 255 ,000 5.60506 22,958 837,875 233.042 526,966 77.400 493,876 25,906 33,110 1,434 95,800 95,800 39,395 15.718 23,677 - - 1,180,915 830,127 330,766 ® 1,379,531 1,137,424 242,107 211,900 171,415 40,485 11,139,274 9,451,524 1,687,750 2,86436 1,93004 733,354 4,036,562 7,496,884 3,482,322 (421,784) (280,503) 141,160 415-500 325 ,067 (90,433) 344,100 294,715 (40,365) ro 903.800) (6,677,498) 716,304 (8,466 (61352,4291 135,671 344,100 294,715 (49,3!861 (2,451,736) 1,145,465 3,506,193 (77,664) 14,120 01,604 6,050,015 8,320.750 2,270,735 140,352 140,362 i 3.598277 i 9.467206 $ 5.868.018 $ 177 $ 154.472 $ 232156 __ 62 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA C h M 2 SCHIEDUL.E OF REVENUES, E)WOMUM AHD CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (YUDOETARY SAM) ALL SEECiAL REVENUE FUNDS JCONTINUEM b A 5 FOR THE FOCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER i0, 1106 Rarsrum Tarty UcKo s and pu I kks+y"rrrnrtd Ctnrnss for ssnbw Fkns and far**m Tc W msw w EVoldiksw Current G491" Qom ... 0 t PuD1ic so* PHgakA arwkorrrnrt Trsrporbbm Eca=ft arrrkarrim HMsrrn aarv'rss C &" and r�asaon Debt -q 1, Prirm d kfrarsst and Aacd dwgn Tdd n¢woMass E=m of ArAnu s am (urdsr) opwdkxw krrpryKernrtt pub Fks Calkol Districts i 1 317,800 i 1,779.073 i (.66,527)$ 731,800 i 702,152 $ (29.446) 288,424 _ 117,718 - - - 800 am - 76,100 140,940 64,840 2,400 5A00 2.800 40,009 141,638 101,567 9,000 22,341 13,341 6,000 _ 1,284 (4,73 23.580 322,200 330,919 - 1,439,789 1,562,913 123,144 743,800 730,093 (13507) _ - - 1,125,300 1,082.030 44.770 1,489,701 1,115,221 374,480 - - - 288,424 150,708 117,718 - - - 585,841 526.103 59,736 ' 1,500 Ism - - 1,188 1,167 1 - 2„346,654 1,794,717 551,937 1,126,300 1,06r4030 44,270 (906. 885} ( 231804) 675,081 (382,700) (351,937) 30,763 omw 1k.+ckp sasaa cu•••r Procpsft from tames Opardkp karnIm in 467,900 497,745 9,845 357,800 353,614 5,814 opffs p k=Wws out (108300) (92 5tH5} 13,715 (35 (?3ISM 11.905 Told dh r ranch rp souross (uses) _ 381,800 405,4.80 23.580 322,200 330,919 17,719 Exosw of r mum and ~ *wl- ckv arias onar (under) s pri- Aram and otAsr rknnckp (uses) (525..285) 173,356 698,641 (80,500) (12.018) 48,482 Fund brWim d WO krp of yssr 1,852,834 2,136,888 284,054 120,500 212,849 92,349 Find bsYmcas d and of year S 1.327.344 i 2310.044 i 982495 i 80.000 S_ 200.831 $ 140.831 Cpl 6 A 5 IrfaMr mn Fbrkle SbbAms Fee Coloeb" L§2h*V Dktftb audio ACWW vwWom Budi9d AdAmd V*W= $ i 1,083,300S 1.045'e76 3 (37A*9 6.000 6,316 (254) VM 3,314 379 11,100 32,428 21,326 9,535 9,630 95 1,004,400 1,073,032 (16 116,615 32-952 83,663 - 889.000 793.OP7 95= 116,615 32i952 SMAW 83,863 793P7 95,103 (107A80) R3,322j 83,758 205,= 254,335 7$J906 7,564 7.584 (75'881) (326.610) 9A90 (75,881) (75A6I ) Ms= 019p" 17,254 (107A0) (99.183) 7,897 (130x0) (34.711) 96,180 lokm 115-I65 6,886 332,000 396,19D 05,180 64 Rarwaws: Taus l bww and pwsf�s C4w19as for awM . Flews and krhkues Total raft n w Curvet 13wwrd porenr.m Pubk eddy PAyMcet wnkorrrwt Trwwpaldkn Eaonanft arriaerwt 1km,w senloes Cukaw and reaudb Prtitetpd kAN and fbcaf dwgas Tdw wpwdtras Emom of rwowun ow (trader) wpwMm Oew &O ckrp awnosa (tees): Proosads koen kern Opws9 t N opwfty tranafws out Total alhw lbmw rq soups (uses) Exam of rewaws end orm fkw►- dnp sources orwr "of) expwr- dtuw and co w fb m krQ (toss) (51,500) 95,023 147,523 (597.000) 101 357 696.347 189.600 235,705 38,105 539,000 755,518 116,516 s 146.100 s 331.726 s 183.626 s 42000 s ab6.e66 s a14.Qa5 •Ti II "a � J�`TT • �. • • 911 Ertwco wt Fee Pubk Records Modwr imm Budget Actud Vwlw o Budget AcWd Varw= s 6"200 s 681,756S (6.4"s - s - s 173.000 190.403 17,403 4,000 20.701 16,701 30,000 46.979 16.979 W2.200 702,457 10.257 200,000 237,362 34,362 a00.000 136.035 a63,965 743.700 904.434 137,266 _ 743,700 604.434 137,66 600.000 136.006 563 965 (51,500] 96,023 147AM (597,0001 101,347 aD6.347 Fund' I " d boO trap of yaw Find bdwnoss d wfd of yew 65 (axelem (2,403362) 4,202,814 (493,100) (204,135) 288966 12,507.629 13.879,156 1,171,529 538,000 556,053 17,053 i 5.909 9�! 3 11 T75�9O S 5 374.343 S 45.900 S 351.918 S ���� 66 6 A 5 Stal4 Howky lnoo Parts P TourW DwMopnwt &Age Act* AcWW 1hrw= i 6,751 A00 S 6,114,8 S (68,941) i - 1,035 0 1,002,977 27AM 160 21,192 21,002 28SAM 748,027 461,027 18,041 t 6,041 . 43,865 43,065 7,008,960 8,925,963 140 1,036.200 1 Aeo,918 46,718 13,618,356 11,970,390 1,647,969 _ 1,528,300 1,285,0513 243247 5,298,477 2,331,348 2.928,131 243,247 1,2650`53 14,301,735 4,576,100 1,52A,300 16077,836 (11310378) 4.435,103 (493,100) (204.135) 206305 _�7s3�77+� 5,600,000 5 x70,000 (330,OM C306A0o) 5.204.200 4,971 Al (732 28� (axelem (2,403362) 4,202,814 (493,100) (204,135) 288966 12,507.629 13.879,156 1,171,529 538,000 556,053 17,053 i 5.909 9�! 3 11 T75�9O S 5 374.343 S 45.900 S 351.918 S ���� 66 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CO pyG SCHEDULE OF REVENUES. EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES BU GET AND ACTUAL. (BUDGETARY BASK) ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (CONr1NUED) L j� FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER ", IM 6 A Raamm: Tmm llanaaa and;m'l a hiwpvrarranwfal Ct+arpn kv awvHoaa Finn and fotlalaw lnlwnt Iroorna speck! sasasarnwks >iria6arraaa TdW rararun EVwxURLrn: Currw t Cianarai povwnrwR Pubic aadty Physical wr4onnart Tnnapwbdion Eaonmk orAmanartt CuiLan and .so odlon DOA SwAcir Prtncipd le lls al and iaCai dLwpn Tdai wgwL am" EWAW Of raAMM as (uXIW) opwiskraa Cahw irsr>ck amcm (Loft): Pr f m lows opwa9np tranafis In Opwafirp k -oft a 40 800 K*C IRCP Fund Accant Total Bud0et AcWd ywwrwx BudOdt Actin ywtwv o S S Tall dw ltrsrrci Mium (uaw) - - 4,580,660 $ - S 22,724,200 $ 21,776,008 f (946,102) - 20,031,215 16,350,981 - 5,067.000 6.438,296 1,371208 - 1,567,605 1,300.771 264,924 5,506,003 4.643,200 (953,784) 185,000 182,315 (2.885) 1,804,662 1,902,'300 297,447 1,188 1,187 - 49,000 88214 38,614 14,000 20,508 8,506 637,504 1,835,503 906,089 . 1,228,800 1,184,317 (41,483) 56,890 128,409 71,510 109,000 202.823 3AM 37,185,656 37,906.447 830,580 Tall dw ltrsrrci Mium (uaw) - - 4,580,660 3.143.455 1,425,214 228,806 113,619 114,967 9,00.123 7,901,615 1,167,508 - 20,031,215 16,350,981 3,671294 - 10,172,474 9,352,053 820,411 - 1,567,605 1,300.771 264,924 - 1,i69A15 639,127 330,766 7.435.749 4.166 86 3,270.461 - 1,500 1,500 1,188 1,187 1 Z25,aW 113,619 114,967 54,019,360 43,065,967 10,953,801 �p WM - 80,7A 118,810 (18,853,730) (5,089,540} 11,734,190 - 5.600,000 5.270000 (330,000) - 4.303.200 4,212.357 (90,853) (7 p73,500) (716om) 324,113 1,92.700 1,63'2.900 (96,7401 E>rm d rw mm and dsr S wi- d mumm guar (wdef) oven. Auw ad d tYwrhp (o) 2Q.am 80,204 116,810 (14,924,030) 1167,450 Fuld bdwww at bmo -1 rp d year MA06 364,320 (21,486) 77.854.005 32,672,74151 4.788.664 Fund bdwicn d and d VOW f �¢, S 443.524 S_ ! i 12930.035 f _ A1241 six f 16.456-134 67 i t i i DEBT SUMCE FUNDS b A 5 CQNjj GATE GENERAL OBUGAT_ - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER. - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE REFUNDING OF THE 1986 PARKS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. RACE TRACK FIQ#VfU!E CERT0CATES - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT OF CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDING THE EXPANSION OF THE COWER GOVERNMENT CENTER. GUARANTEED ENTMEk*3ff REVENUE BONDS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE REFUNDING OF THE 1977 GUARANTEED ENTITLEMENT REVENUE BONDS AND NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS. TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE REFUNDING OF THE 1986 ROAD IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS. - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT ON MARCO ISLAND. SALES TAX REVENUE REFUND14G BONDS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTHOUSE EXPANSION AND THE PARTIAL REFUNDING OF THE 1965 REFUNDING SALES TAX BONDS. OM AND OTHIER -TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON THE COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM. - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED TO PURCHASE LAND AND CONSTRUCT PARKING FACILITIES. TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADSIDE IMPROVEMENTS. R E OF CAPRI REMOVATKM AND - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG-TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS. - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF RESOURCES FOR AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON LONG -TERM DEBT INCURRED IN THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT. 3 J Poft Gowal Rome GLwwMssd Gn Tau Gblydbn Track Erdismmt Rawm iAroo tatrld RMxx*q Rw4omjo RvAnA Raf %ft Unbd Qanald Bonds c rwww" Bonds Bonds ObIDattan Bonds Coh ww I Mtn i 61,517S 428,120 $ 790,042 i 006,550 i 29,546 Raodrabtas BQocAd Mssaamar! I^=od ORW . 186 1290 690 2,005 71 Dus *am Wwr hxxk 6908 - - 5,100 DA from attar 0owmlarks Tdw anab 1 {AM MEJS AND FUND RAI ANCFC t 68.611 i 429.419 i 290 932 i 607.036 i 34.708 Usb=M. Void -AM payable and actruds S 2,667 3 f_ 4,691 i Total bbOom 2,687 _ 4 gD1 Fund psiw�oss; Roamed for Dd t sw vbo Ultwluwd 378,000 238,268 564,360 DaVaUd for dab! mvba 65,924 51,419 47,775 113,256 34,796 Total Raid lwlanos 65.924 420.41 D 200L041 067,035 34.798 Told bbwhs and Rnd bdwwn i 6e.a11 S_ 429.419 S 790 932 i 087.636 i 34.796 68 6 A 5 SP.«W Sdn Tax OIAOI Hon Eucid and MM of Capri FI'llm RWWM Revenue LAkl nd RanumNons DBpsrbim X10 Bonds 1 Sonds _ Asewmner t And Ei pw*m Carp Ow Total S 5342.570 S 246,920 3 685 S "I S 504 S 21,505 S 7,137,530 - - 4,933 - - 4,933 16,223 461 2 130 17 70 21,434 - - - 42,455 42.455 256 - 12,344 26A60 - 25,860 ::' 4L• f t .7L• s -S S 3,63OA29 1,729,064 778,261 5,350,063 276,261 $ 5,369 000 S 278161 S S 50 S 50 667 47.864 667 47,854 W7 S 47.904 S 69 S S 7,628 7,628 - 4.800.675 6.137 64,121 2.439,273 6,137 64,121 7,230,948 6.137 s 64.121 S 7147.676 i COLLIER COUP(rY. FLORIDA b A 5 COMfwt�60 tTATEM W OF REVMXW EXPEOWIME11 NO CIIANM w RM 6AI.MCtII ALL am aERVICE no= FOR TM FMAJ. YEAR EMM $6ffEJMER !1, 1106 Goldar Gde Ptrlot Gar" Raoe Guwu tnd Gm Tam GarM Ot>ip"fon Tru* Errlfhw,m Rom= mww hind Obligom Rdumkig Raverxa Bonds Bonds CsrtaYatss Rwenut Hands R"tn ft U mbO Garret Bonds Oblparon Bw ds Revenues: Tames f - f 905.870 1 - f f 583.300S 082,918 345,800 379.800 6,383 25,041 25,423 37,509 15,943 Tcud reverxas 915,253 372,541 405,223 520,509 899,871 I Oeht m%ics: P-krcip" r"kerrmart 45, 000 585.000 235,000 230,000 =,000 450.000 kiawat end f cvd drpsa 1,405 350.852 138,995 700,983 256,901 224,734 Tatd opw%Mu a 45,408 945,552 373,995 930,983 575,901 704,734 Emom of ranrrmaa omrar (order) smp wx*j s (45,'106) (30,509) (1,3471 (524,750) 44.905 (4.M) Oew fkrtdnp soim (um). Proceeds fmm lohmM np tmonm, - 5,030,000 - 2.145,000 - Paymrwt 10 rahsmdsd bond as m apart - (4,456 343) - (I J 4,48M - - Opao6np f wafts in 44,019 - - Opastlnp haoft out (22,879) (175.00d1 (17,822 Told o&w fa w wk sa.-as (mass) _ 44,019 50,778 25,514 (17,522) E=m of rwerwas and otm lkfsn- dry aouraaa vnmr (tndwji agww- dfhaaa and oft, fbwti:b (teas) 8.367) 20,160 (1.$n (496.248) 44005 (2x.4641 Fund tmalerloes at boo. kmp of year 2,387 45,755 430,778 785,287 5?2,727 57,281 Fund bU=m at and of yaw i - i x.924 i 429.419 f 285 041 $ A57.f336 i 34.798 1 i 1 6 A 5 I I e i71 S" T= OWp Wn EucW and 1*,*CW6 Flw0 Rom Rol RvAna RvicaW - Dqm*wt PAhmdkq Owmk br*vmnwb Bards Asomwnvrt _ And EVwisiom conpL" TOW S 20,777$ S 2.203,086 2359,5DD 42,741 3,120,641 274,370 110,757 2,5e4 2,340 eW 1,570 505,600 2,633J670 110,757 2,584 2,340 29,439 _44,319 S,838,114 255A000 5,368,000 1.000,000 47,406 22,929 43= 8.622,318 2,345,137 934,634 36,750 5,020 10-107 7" SA22AM 2A00,137 6,292,634 1,036,750 53,306 33,036 51,446 13.6e.193 33,741 (6,181AM (1,034,1 (50 (3 17,1 (7,007,079) 7,175.000 3.545.466 1,034.300 4.523,784 3,545.4% 1,034,300 (827) 4,081,027 33,741 (2.6X,412) 134 533 (56,906) 96,MD (4.424) 10,561 (7.127) 71,245 (3.125,462) 10,305-400 51325A52 2,914,673 Mal I I e i71 CowER COMM FLOwoA b A 5 I COMA STATEM W OF REYEIi M. E>MMOffUM A#O CK#,%V S Pi FUM BILL) JX= BUM" P&W ACT & WM BUM"A" RMM ALL OE07 swrVICE F.R= FOR TM FISCAL nM EKED SEPTEMBER X, IN$ Gaidw► GO Ganwal ObB xb" Bonds Pwb Gww W O* Wm Rgm tp Bach I SudDd AduM Vwwnco Bud9d Aduat Vwimrm 1 Rarwxwa: Taal i 941 ADO i 90s,s70 i (32,130) trraraet k>carw 700 0363 5,a63 Tdd rwwy 941,700 915.253 (26,447) I E�wd4asw: Di ft sstvba P*I*d k"ed and two dwgn 45,100 45,000 100 1,400 1,406 520.000 5116,000 442.543 (6) 300r0Q2 81,461 TOWagwdhaw 48,500 4a,406 94 962,543 945862 10,661 E)m=n of ravwxwa ow (urdw) a�wdlisaa 1 (45,500) (4a, _ 94 (2o 8431 (30,6001 (91 76 1 ottw ti'wrfdl�'°ts°" (uaaar 5,030.000 5,030,000 P -Yl,wR r*ndr0 bad Meow now - (4,954,40x) (4,956,343) 57 OpwvM ttw aft si1 44,100 44,019 (a1) OPW*kl0 twolwa =A (37.x001 14,121 Totr1 cOm bock swces (U�) 44,100 44,019 (at) 3a,!1)0 50,778 14,178 Exams of nwrxwa and cdw *wi. cnp mm" am (woddar) d4+w► d hxu and abw ra —ch 9 (um) (2.400) (2.367) 13 15,757 20,106 4,412 Fux; t, p' , d boofti9 dyow 2,400 2,357 (13) (15,757) 45,755 61,512 Fund baba at and d yaw i = _ S f - i - S 66 924 S 66.924 E g I 72 i i i t 0 0 i 1 1 b a 5 Raos Tra* ftmm t7ar0l=m Ciuwwftod Ertaarnnt Rovwm Bonds Bud2st ► ACW V*W= Budod Aetud VarW= i -i -f -$ -f •S 340.000 346.000 - 379,000 379AOD 14,000 26 1 12,041 13,000 20,423 13,423 360,600 372,041 12,041 39Z Oo 406,223 13,423 236;000 236,000 230.000 230.000 139,600 1300990 002 700,963 700,903 374,000 373,900 002 930,953 930AW 0 4001 (1,367) 12,643 (530,1031 (524,700) 13,423 2145.000 4,145,000 (1,944,406) (1,"4.40M - (175, (175,0 25,514 25,514 (14,200) (1,3671 12" (512,009) (490,240] 13,423 302AM 430778 37,670 513,369 766,207 271,910 f 3713J1I0 f 429.419 f 50.719 f 7170 f 206.041 f ,am ml i 73 ICOLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA COVA60 O STATEMENT OF REVf9ARS, E)0434XTtX= AND CHAN= N FUND BALAPMM BUDGET AND ACTUAL (OAA► BUOQETARY BMW) ALL DEBT SVtVICE Ftyf S (CONT.WED) 6 A 5 FOR THE FWAL YEAR ENDED SEM3MER 30,111li C,ss Tax Remrxw Rehrdtg Sonde Marco brand L#rrffed Gemmel Obip Mon fonds Budget AcWW Varlan a Budget /laud VarW= Rewnuss: Taus a 563,900 s 563,300 f .11 706,300 s e6$918 5 (29.9M - - r0arsat 1 K=. 16,100 37AM 19,400 6,000 16,963 10,953 Toad mvwwrw 601,400 620,809 19,400 712,300 690,671 (12,429) EnWINA+M. Debt sarvfce Fl4*d reftwrrsrt 320,000 320,000 - 460.000 460,000 - tr0wast and ftecal dmpas 284,900 255 M 8 8,402 225,761 224,734 1,047 TaadaQWxDsse 584,300 575,901 6,402 705,781 704.734 1,047 Excess of reveraras over (under) wpsroakarms 17,097 44,908 27,811 6,519 (4 863) (11,36?) 0aW 6rrarx6 sources (uses): Proceeds from *A i& bands - - Papnert to nAnded bond escrow apart - - opsraft ba oft In - - Opma tr-a* art - (27,800) (17,6221 10,176 Tali abler lbo ch amacen(Una) _ _ (27,800) (17,622) 10,175 Excess of revermn and after *wi- dn9 sources aaer (urder) srpen- denes and allw ttrrndnp (uses) 17,097 44,908 27,811 (21261) (22,465) (1204) Fund' st boo ft p ot year 591,727. 622,727 _ 31,000 2101 5701 36,000 Fund b at end of year a _ 608.824 s esT.t135 a 58.811 s - : 34.796 1i 34.796 74 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 6 A 5 a" TAR &Mvmn fthrm y Roads foal and oe w mvmmmft 2.W= 2,369,600 _ 100A00 774,378 174,3.18 110,757 119757 2rM'= 2A33, M 174,3'78 - 119757 110,757 205A0 256,000 10,000 5,343,000 5,368,000 (15A0o) 2.397 99 2,346,137 52 _ 1,519,300 934,634 554,M 2,819309 2,80,137 82 282 8,842,300 8,292,634 50,6 (202,dJ9) 33,741 235,440 X81 862,300) (6,181,877) 800,423 - - 3,000,000 (3,000,000) 4,780.200 3.515,445 (1.M4.735) - _ - (3,000,000) 3 0`00 _ 4,780,70 3,545,4f5 (1 .34,736) (204AM 33.741 738.50 (2,082,100) (2A38,412) %'654,312) 3,834,19 5,375,362 _ 1,490,453 2,40,300 2,914.673 451,373 .c• ._�, eta r L'� A� * �♦ 'c./ 75 COWER COUNTY, FLOR MA COMB/iRG STATEMENT OF REVENUES. E)049M rURZS AND CHANGES N FUFD BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL (GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) ' ALL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS (CONTIN UEM 6 A 5 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, It" Rwnmxac Taros Wwo"'.1mm� k ovd 4 em Tobd rs+rwauaa DWA aanioa Prklcipal Iso ug-wk k*a told Aaem dmp" Told evvmm 6oasa of rswrum ow (urw2w) wepwdl JM 00wrr Ikmnckp soaroaa (uaay: Prooasda from rwum* p bond. Pap m I b nroi A bond ..crew apwt Opwi*V tr—oft kr opwaiap trwoft out Total d or tinanohp sawm (uaas) Exam of nvwaaaa and alwr kurs.- ckv sme" am (roar) asap et~ suw wd char tinaneiap (r ) Furl I r - it boo. h d year Fund I wroas A rand of yaw Spscw Obiprbm Rawaaa Banda Embd and Lakdo d Aassawnwd f -f S -S •f -S 2,000 2,584 2,340 2.340 2,800 2,584 2,340 2340 1.000,000 1.000.000 - 40,000 47,480 1.514 37,400 38,750 050 4,400 5)120 (1,420) 1,037,400 1,038,750 050 53,400 _ 53,308 94 _ (1.034,800) (1,034,10 634 cm. tw 2.434 1,034,300 1.034,300 1,034,700 1,034,300 (500) 134 634 (53.400) (50,988) 2,434 500 533 33 97,200 f1em 1,820 i - f _ Q�7 S _ 867 f 43-800 f 47,864 f 4.064 76 6 A 5 DIVW* CanRUW IMF of C40 Rsna wftm end ExpwMon HoMA wit Buw #A" Ver*= 8wdp�t AcMal ViK1�na� s "Po f 25,7(7 s (023)s - 42.741 42,741 400 062 262 1,000 1.575 _ 30.000 20,430 (501) 1,000 44,x/9 Q710 7J,000 22.029 71 44,300 43,003 301 10,060 10,107 _Q _ 7,D0 7,W —� 33M 33,038 14 51,500 51.446 54 C30P (3.507) (547) (49,9009 (7.117) 42.773 (1300) (61n 473 - (4QXq (7,127) 42,773 (4,360) (4.424) (74) 4,%0 lox) 6,211 57,000 71,246 14,245 i - 3 0daL i 0.137 3 7_t u$ 04.121 i i 1 COMBf�ifi STATEIBE1iT OF REVEWES, EXPENMURES AND CHANCES IN FUND BALANCES aJDOET AND ACTUAL PAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS (CONTM UIEO) 6 a 5 FOR THE RSCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, MG Tote Rawnuaa: TMM Budpd Actw Variance f 2.280,200 3 2.203,866 S (56,335) knten9owr- rrttrts 3,065,900 3,128,641 42,741 Am ad hom. 156,400 505,806 349,206 ToW rw#ww a 5XZ50D 5,836,114 335,614 Debtaan4m Prtncpat ovdu.m 8,554,400 8,622,318 (67,918) tntnraat and Sad Ctrarpes 5,750,560 5,022,875 777,684 ToW op dBraa 14,344,969 13,645,193 859,786 E.)c m d rwmnuea orar (urdw) Oraa _ ro eo2.+s� ,807, MW OQw ttrrrctnp soaves (ua ): Procesda harm mhrw*v bonds 10,175,000 7,175,000 (3.000.000) Paynwnt b reIlm dsd Coed swm agw t (6,900,886) (6,900,829) 57 opwaltro trarrdsna in 5,858.800 4,823,784 (1,234,816) OpralYlp trfnalrs out (3,241,100) (218,3 3,024,772 Told dher rh m ci w roes (UM) 501,814 4,861,877 (1,209 967) Eros d rw ww a end attar tYw).. Ciro awsm war pa" agm- dbjm end Ww bw c6 (r ) Rw0.b45) (3,125,452) (214,007) Fund', Is n, 9 boo. A dyer 7,963,189 _ 10,365,400 2,402 1 Ford beltm a at and of year = 5 062 324 i 7239948 i :187.624 i I 78 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 6 A 5 TO ACCOUNT FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS, DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TO BE FUNDED BY A COUNTY -WIDE ONE MIL LEVY. PARKS MWVEhENTS - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF PROCEEDS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF PARKS GENERAL REFUNDING BONDS. PROJECTS INCLUDE LAND ACQUISITION, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN COMMUNITY PARK SITES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY. - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF LIBRARY IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM ALL QUALIFYING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THESE IMPACT FEES MUST BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF COUNTY -WIDE LIBRARY FACILITIES. PARKS WAC`r • TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICTS OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PARK IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM ALL QUALIFYING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE IMPACT FEES MUST BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF COMMUNITY PARKS BY DISTRICT. TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE BY DISTRICT OF ROAD IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM ALL QUALIFYING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE IMPACT FEES MUST BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TRANSPORTATION RELATED FACILITIES BY DISTRICT. EMERGENCY MEDICAL - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM ALL QUALIFYING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE IMPACT FEES MUST BE USED FOR ACQUISITION /CONSTRUCTION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES. TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF LOCAL OPTION, STATE ALLOCATED GAS TAX AND COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM PROCEEDS. PROJECTS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS TRANSPORTA71ON IMPROVEMENTS. WATER - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS RAISED SPECIFICALLY FOR WATER MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. PRIMARY FUNDING IS AD VALOREM TAXES. MARCO MM BEACH 8E%Afflhc&2aff - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF PROCEEDS FROM A $5,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE FOR THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT OF CERTAIN BEACHES ON MARCO ISLAND. OTHER CAPMAL - TO ACCOUNT FOR MAJOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FINANCED FROM RESOURCES OTHER THAN PROCEEDS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF LONG -TERM DEBT AND THE ONE MIL LEVY. S 850470 i 12.051 375 i 952.822 S 286 ?,32 S 1.109.188 S 44,152-W S 51,535 S 1,032,670S 11,541 S 130,780S 14,804 S 2,771,388 73 2,132 5,013 7,315 1,?A9 - - 1,309 540.378 18,79E 11,841,825 15,090 840,434 = 50,270 2,209,035 618,521 1,673,177 13,773 190,050 38,415 18,330,872 23ZA07 7,500207 81,707 58,104 2444,810 17,084,150 I " 1,725 1.725 i - - 3,109,911 867,202 40,078 {1,795,702) 10,256,018 232,467 10.778,198 939,049 46,182 1,150,773 27,321,491 .� � 71• 1h • v .�I i. t sj v .c 80 6 A 5 En wpwwy WOO 1s1w ocw k%d;d Rood wow B"d Gpw SWOM Unsbucdon mwogwnwt RwlourWvnwt Pr*cts TotW f 725.000S 10,572,035 S 940,51 S 2951295S 919,39E S 40,778,120 - - - - 208.331 206,331 2,057 33211 2,971 446 28,157 151,351 28 103,306 - 5,000 113,000 74,570 30,000 105,529 46,923 1,912,743 30,579 2,798,218 . 1,725 1,725 S 850470 i 12.051 375 i 952.822 S 286 ?,32 S 1.109.188 S 44,152-W S 51,535 S 1,032,670S 11,541 S 130,780S 14,804 S 2,771,388 73 2,132 5,013 7,315 1,?A9 - - 1,309 540.378 18,79E 11,841,825 15,090 840,434 = 50,270 2,209,035 618,521 1,673,177 13,773 190,050 38,415 18,330,872 23ZA07 7,500207 81,707 58,104 2444,810 17,084,150 I " 1,725 1.725 i - - 3,109,911 867,202 40,078 {1,795,702) 10,256,018 232,467 10.778,198 939,049 46,182 1,150,773 27,321,491 .� � 71• 1h • v .�I i. t sj v .c 80 b a 51 Co xt Mcm Feft Rood Cap" Parks CaurtY -VVW* knpod kr>Rrae! h,lporemerts knVoanmsrts Lbn y Dlsbids Dlablds Rsvww s: Taws 3,324,115 - hrlarporerrxrwed Clwpae for aanbca 29201 108,682 - - - 197 95,290 htaraet a NMI re 38,124 09,555 26,916 25,302 679,153 krFd leas SPWW 47,150 799,644 4,7r*2,601 9,300,763 aeaeerrrerrto mkCalerreas - 49,913 - 202,786 . 4910 Tatal nrmvles 709.025 399205 626.762 • 5.01b.100 10260.115 :)Pendlt M: General 9orerrx4rert 3,324,115 - Pubft saidy 7,269,1T7 - - PMsicel wwworrrert 47,150 - - Trwmportalk n 149,992 - 9,313,611 Cube and ndaefion 1,366,282 4951,723 4,474,604 Tctalapol um 10,790,434 1,355,262 499,723 4,474,664 9,313,611 Fxmees of rarwam oww (under) cverdMrrae (10.081,406) (956,077] 329,039 — 610,516 974,534 Otrw lfre wk 0 aonroas (aces): Opsra&g trar aft s In 3,452,700 597,7A0 - Opmebnp bwaf m oat 0160,416) (339,363) (317,170) Total oOm t>ra ch coraoes (uses) 3,070,264 597.200 (339.36;1) (317,1701 E=sms or rwerraw and Ww fnn. ctlp sources am (order) Ow* dkm and o0rer Arrcrck (um) (7,003,122) (!56,877) (10,344) 29:1,346 974,534 Fundbewimdb000dipatyw 9,421,693 1,956,300 430,391 3,091,992 5,32,699 Fund baiarraes d and d year f 2410.571 i 1.597.463 S, 420.047 S 3- 303.330 i 6.303.393 81 842.916 11. 361.831 50.337 32.501 274.808 2199.77-1 190,532 - 3,514,647 598,276 7,667,453 - 399,004 399,004 804.7 21,600 1,072,421 13,971,674 1,047 23,436,374 402,005 6.731.674 5m,m 13,971,674 399,004 795,199 424,762 44, 610 (2,619,843) (346.96!) (762,896} (149,836) _ (12,969,796) 74,570 672,600 427,800 5,230,670 (1,615,130) (2.652.099] 74,570 (1, 615.130) 672,600 427,800 2,578.771 11900 (4.34073) 323,933 (162.696) 277,964 (1O,361,OZ7) 113,247 15,013171 615,116 866,660 872,809 37,702,518 S 232.467 S 10.776.196 S 939.049_ S 96.162 ; ^_l..1� S 27 321.401 82 b A 5 Emuplwr Marco MW id one.. Lft" Road WSW Bftch cap" Santa CanAnic6on Moog~ Pr *ft Taal 6.70 2,340,318 5.000 26.844 2.361.902 - 18,754 300 - 514.433 44.640 705.310 45.037 32.501 46,041 2,532,561 506176 - 15,499'564 _ 174,541 174,541 . a50 _ 24,640 282,661 842.916 11. 361.831 50.337 32.501 274.808 2199.77-1 190,532 - 3,514,647 598,276 7,667,453 - 399,004 399,004 804.7 21,600 1,072,421 13,971,674 1,047 23,436,374 402,005 6.731.674 5m,m 13,971,674 399,004 795,199 424,762 44, 610 (2,619,843) (346.96!) (762,896} (149,836) _ (12,969,796) 74,570 672,600 427,800 5,230,670 (1,615,130) (2.652.099] 74,570 (1, 615.130) 672,600 427,800 2,578.771 11900 (4.34073) 323,933 (162.696) 277,964 (1O,361,OZ7) 113,247 15,013171 615,116 866,660 872,809 37,702,518 S 232.467 S 10.776.196 S 939.049_ S 96.162 ; ^_l..1� S 27 321.401 82 F �•�_ t • 7• • y� 3 • .• r t•3. • T��i j7� n 83 1 BUDGET AND,BUDGETARY BASM ALL CAWTM- PROJECT FUNDS b A 5 FOR THE FWAL,fM EMM SEPTEMBER 30, "M ca"t"de Gw" wvmvwrwft ftft Yrruovrrrwft Reroeatta: Ta f f S f -i •i k"gomrrrrrrirl 854210 - (854210) Ctrarpes for pekes 340,100 292,961 (47,108) - 10e e82 10e,e62 irla t 1r1=1 36 ,000 366,124 331,124 - eD,995 W= wvw fps - - 8"o - ABeatlerreoes 488,000 46,913 (4439,oe7) 201,37e 2D2.705 1,392 Total nr*w n 864,100 709,029 (155, 1,054,3e6 399,206 (085,le1) E3p«+ftures• General pawm wd 4,041,377 3.324,115 717,212 - - Publc on" 26286,267 7,266,177 21,017,110 - PhysialwrAt rrwt Tnrnpo %Wa 74,000 150,000 47,150 149,992 25,850 8 - - - Cutimand -so rdb - - 3,283,161 1,355,2152 1,927,879 ToWopwrdkrrs 32,551,614 10,790,434 21,781,180 3�M,161 1,366,282 _1,977,879 Exrras of ravtrurr am (rridw)opw%ftrrs (31,687,514) (10,081,406) 21,606,106 (2,218,775) (964,077) 1,262,868 Ottw & a mine Vass (ups): Proceeds from ions 19,000,000 - (19,000,000) - - Opw*kV b m fern In 3,511,145 3.458,700 (52,445) 597,200 597,200 Opwa&V bar aft n out (380,416) (380,416 Total other fFnnch I saroea (ups) 22,130,729 3,078,254 (19,052,445) 597,200 597,200 - E.xeas of rwAwn p and oew flew► dno worms are (under) �).. Mures and other &wrcU►p (uses) (9,556,785) (7,003,122) 2,553,863 (1,621,575) (358.877) 1,262,@88 Fund' larrcesatboomilpofyear 9,567,554 9,421,693 (165,861) 1,912,249 1,966,360 44,111 Fund balances at end of year f 30.769 $ 2.418.571 $ _2.M7.002 i 290.674 $ 1.59ZA i 1.306.e09 n 83 1 i � s -s -s -s s -s 197 147 20.00D M918 8,918 65,500 242,302 228,802 E00500 785,369 184,899 1,923,800 2,246,785 323,185 820,900 814,317 193,817 1,989,100 2,539,284 530,144 535,421 449.723 36.866 7,276,049 4,474,844 2,801385 536,421 499.723 35,898 7,278,049 4,474,884 2,801.385 86,079 314594 229,515 (5,288 049) (1,435 380) _ 3,361,589 alb .• r �i •• jlmm. WA (4 /4XM (24,78" 390,047 (51506.449", (2.252,560) 3,257,069 414.838 (187,222) (a02 0".8y 8,816,173 105.286 (8,510408) s - s [217�0111s (21201116 1.108 524 i [21471Ads (320 (CO 84 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPEIDITUR>ES AND CHANOES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDM SEPTEMBER 30, It" Cepsil au4�r. Gan" pom ... m Pubic e&Nety Pf ..A CIN.0 c Trwuparfaafrin Cut" wid reaw0m Total oupwm Auer Emcee d mvw%m oiwrl (under) upwomim Other lb=K* eouoes (una): Prooesde ltom lown Op- I ig 0 mft In Opwalle p l oofts out Tali edw lytrwhip soc+oes (aces) Ezom of nwwwns end Other f rmv- dnp eorroes mw (uwler) wpw* cfa"" wad cow Ild a cb (uses) 868,360 506.278 290.104 19,595,897 9.313,611 10,282.286 19,595,897 9,313,611 10,-W.,286 868,380 508�m 290,104 (13,697,0521 (1,826,503) 12,070,450 (613,384) (?Z65iXn 385,790 74,570 74,570 74,570 74,570 (13,697,062) (1,826.W 12.070.459 (613.380) (152,020) 461,360 Fund beianr at boo ft p d year Road lrnped DWricts (Non4AAP) Emwpency MWcal Sovkm (Noy -GMP) S 1.725 ¢44 i 3.115.480 S 1.389.836 $ 208 04 S (Q.Q�h]i (?768051 Budget Actual vwtwxe Budget AcWW Variance Rsvw ns: Tone 1 i S i i - i - S - - "govwnr m ew Chwpes for ewrbes 95,245 95299 54 - - - Mti*weal i Co. 203 ,600 879.153 675,553 35,000 441610 9.640 W pod fan 5,400.000 6.50 Am 1,107,656 240,000 327,046 87.046 . Spcid saseewrrmta MeoeMnaus - - 4,910 4,910 - Trial rwvwwns 5,608,845 7,467,018 1,788,173 275,000 371,666 96,666 Cepsil au4�r. Gan" pom ... m Pubic e&Nety Pf ..A CIN.0 c Trwuparfaafrin Cut" wid reaw0m Total oupwm Auer Emcee d mvw%m oiwrl (under) upwomim Other lb=K* eouoes (una): Prooesde ltom lown Op- I ig 0 mft In Opwalle p l oofts out Tali edw lytrwhip soc+oes (aces) Ezom of nwwwns end Other f rmv- dnp eorroes mw (uwler) wpw* cfa"" wad cow Ild a cb (uses) 868,360 506.278 290.104 19,595,897 9.313,611 10,282.286 19,595,897 9,313,611 10,-W.,286 868,380 508�m 290,104 (13,697,0521 (1,826,503) 12,070,450 (613,384) (?Z65iXn 385,790 74,570 74,570 74,570 74,570 (13,697,062) (1,826.W 12.070.459 (613.380) (152,020) 461,360 Fund beianr at boo ft p d year 15,822,606 4,942.073 (10,680,623) 821.580 143,415 (67.165) Fund beiwvn st and of year S 1.725 ¢44 i 3.115.480 S 1.389.836 $ 208 04 S (Q.Q�h]i (?768051 85 e 0 0 i 0 i i i Rae Col§Uucdm Wdw Mwagwnw t Bue9d Aetwl Wr1snc. sudod AcWW y wm s 7,783,300 s 6,306,760 s 523,489 $ - s - $ - Z24D= 2,320,316 80,318 52,800 5,000 (47,5001 z 90 16.754 16,374 - 300 300 150,000 705,310 555,310 30,000 45,037 6,037 600 660 50 - - 10,176,200 11,351,83, 1,175,541 81,500 50,337 41 - 1172,806 369,004 773,901 25,872,401 13,871.674 11,700,917 25,WZ491 _ 13,971674 11,7oo,a17 1,172,806. 398,004 773901 (15,496,201) (2,$19,843 1 &M,355 (1,001,4461 (348,867) 732.738 2.000.000 (2.o00.o00) - 572,a00 maw n a2l.0001 n,a1s,13a1 2of,.a70 179,400 (1,615,13 (1,794,1301 672,a00 672,a00 (15,317,21) (4.234073) 11,062„728 mw.aus) 323,933 732,736 15,991,824 15,013,171 (5178.853) 613,700 615,116 1,416 S— 674.11M s 10.776.193 i 10.103.575 S 204.$96 S 939 Q� i 734.1 S4 86 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA COMw0I0 SCHM" OF REVENUES, EXPENDITW4M AND CIIAMES IN FUND BALANCE KIDOET AND ACTUAL MJDQETARY !Wit) ALL CAPITAL PROJECT FINDS (CONTN UED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR END6t10 SEPTEMBER 30.1!!06 Gum ptsrwrtrnwtt Mftm WWid Beach Renotriatrnwrt 07wr CapW Pmj" ( m -GAAP) . fta softly sudod ACWW VaAnoe 8uw Adud Vw*= Ph""— wkorliwnt 566,771 604,557 Ravwsm- 3255.500 21,500 32.!5.000 Trwopo uem T$XM S Y -5 • f -: - i I A07 bdug wrnm W - - - 26.614 25,644 Chargn for AM005 29,095 - - k>tared' 11 27,045 32,501 5,456 45,700 40.041 3,341 knped faaa - - - - SgcIM aaaaawnwils - 57,900 174.541 105.641 bhoaawwom - 42,500 24,640 (17560) Tcem rwreraos 27,046 32,501 5,456 156,100 274,566 115,756 Gum ptsrwrtrnwtt 219.154 190.532 26,622 . fta softly Ph""— wkorliwnt 566,771 604,557 62.104 3255.500 21,500 32.!5.000 Trwopo uem - 2,500 I A07 1,403 Culbnt aM ,804o Ion - - 432,000 AM005 29,095 Tote! opwxxtrw 665,925 795,199 90,725 3,601,100 424.702 3,256,398 E=m of rw wan over/ (under)etperdkuraa (656,860) _ , 96,162 (3,535.000) (149,636) 3,365,164 Othw q sotroaa (uaaa): Prooeads Iran bwo 3,000,000 Imo (2.906,500) Oparaft trarwlws in 427,800 427.500 Oparatkrp b_ oft atA - Total cOm finan h souroaa (uaaa) Ewen of rw f ns and o61w fkwn- dn0 amm ow (a10w) wvp dolts.. and othw Ikwrxklp (um) Fund brwvm d be(IY m k of yew 3,427,500 429.300 (206,500) (656.560) (762,696) 96,182 (107,200) 279,464 356,654 MAW 856,680 613,500 660.500 67.009 Fund biwoo at and d yaw S S 96.182 S @�] i 706.300 Y 1.150 973 S 453.673 87 e I� e 1 i i i r ToW Bud oM Actud VaArco 29,174,61:7 7,667,453 i 7,783,300 i 8.306,789 t 523,489 3,140,710 2,351,942 (794,746) 437,735 514,433 78,494 620,845 2,532,581 1,911,736 8,172,900 9,860866 1,493,966 67,900 174,541 106,641 733,475 262,881 (450,545) 20„982,886 24,030,073 3,067,207 4.260,461 3,514,647 745,834 29,174,61:7 7,667,453 21,307,214 5,170,278 1,072,42: 4,097,654 45,420,888 23,438,374 21)964,514 11,528,631 6,731,674 4,794,957 (74,990.OT7) (18592.496) 55,997,581 24,000,000 1,300 (23,998,500) 5,208,745 5,230,679 22,125 =4,03i) (2. 271,932 28,284,714 2,580,271 (23,704,4431 (48,306,363) (16,012.225) 32,293,136 51252,992 33,749,260 (19,503,732) i 4947.6?& f 17.737.035 3 12789.404 88 t t I TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER AND SEWER AND EFFLUENT SERVICES TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY'S UNINCORPORATED AREA, TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF SEINER SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF MARCO ISLAND. 6000LAW WATER_ - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF POTABLE WATER SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF GOODLAND. WASTE QNSPOSAI - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES TO USERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF EMERGENCY AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDICAL SERVICES TO USERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. A99XVI1lUTHQ$QY - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISION OF LANDING FACILITIES AND THE SALE OF FUEL AT THE AIRPORTS. COMOMW BALANCE SHEET ALL Ek-nUWRISE FUNM SIMMOER j Property, pram and egtriprnent Lind Carty water WArco water Goodlend sole 1Nasb ASSETS and Sewer and Saw Water Disposal knpromrwats~thenbuk*ps 232,713,703 arrant .ants: Cash and kw oubi rMs RacsiNEtec S 20,114,068 S 25,649S 606,155 S 16,942,617 kasraet 234.159 1,072 2.323 250,546 Trade, net 1,179,244 18,413 23,001 1,187,262 LkbMod 1,332,824 of aeeeb 3,305,527 Due tram oltw hrds 12,530 - 108,715 Due 6om ~ powrmralts 1,237,050 - - kww"y 642,961 - 69 . Prspdd costa 12,320 - - Told cuff rlt ants 23 ,528,046 44,134 723,568 18,489,342 ReeI'r - assets: Cash and krrasbrwft SpscW assaspnsrds receivable: 36 ,922,139 351,841 40,667 324.825 Cumrd 925.006 1.422 1,054 - Defarrsd 13,055,323 171,273 120241 - Acmusd ktersst 956,924 5,573 7,779 No= rscatvt is 2,005,496 - Dns horn other yovsrrxnWft 13,950 _ - 222,429 Total rastrfclsd seats 53,889,640 530,109 178,771 547,254 Property, pram and egtriprnent Lind 4,473,798 860 365 1,459,860 &M*w 85.747,807 - 271,130 knpromrwats~thenbuk*ps 232,713,703 4,743,740 1,211,441 10,643= EgWgmsnt 3,664,368 5,381 - 80 851,7 ar Crtruc6an in progress 45,546,178 25.244 206,236 Exow of cost am fair vakre of aeeeb 3,305,527 375,451,490 4,740,961 1,237,050 13,232,447 Low soarmAnteddsprscistion (61,172,966) (1,335,244) (715,469? (4.9127,_9''. Nd property, ptent and Oq*wMrd 314,278,534 _ 3,414,737 521,561 8,319,654 w aMets 8,475,033 15,788 785,363 Totai assets $ 400.171253 $ 4904.766 $ 1.423.900 S ZB.t21.613 89 m b A 5� Serybn ALOyrtly Tool S 61,024S 3,755S 37,848,401 410 058 480,470 306,415 24,890 2,737,25 1,332,624 121,345 - 55,361 55,361 48,110 - 801,180 12,320 415,968 84,967 43,286,025 171,887 1,895,625 39,716,004 928,2fl4 13,346,837 604 4,515 965,395 - 2,005,408 1,622,420 1,858,799 172,491 3.522,560 58,640,825 1289,400 7224,314 221,588 776,966 87,017,601 3.127 30,027 249,345,540 ' 2,786,091 397,603 7,505,150 - 4,555,833 50,333,401 - 3,305,527 3,010,806 7,049,840 404,731,623 (1,386,544) (292,376) (69,815,402) 1,824,262 6,757,473 334,016,221 164 t 2212721 t 10.365.000 S -9,25a, 448199 255 (CON- nNUEO) m b A 5� COLLIER COLW Y, FLORIDA COMBOMW BALANCE SHEET ALL ENT1:WFME FLNX POWFARMI SEPTEMBER 30,,M b A 5 Long lam bbObs: L&VM liability - 4,324,803 Raverxua bonds pryW* (r sp 97,918,594 240,684 160,000 Haws pamfitim, 11,807,768 . Accrued compensated abewioas 475,619 4,566 372 22,810 Total brig vrm isbffjn 109,999,981 245,246 160 372 x.'+47,503 Tow kbWtes County water Marco Water Goodterb sold Waa4s Fund *Wky.. and sower and Savor wayr ohpoai C xnw t vbwties: Vou hm F ) gl and accruals i 1.920.924 S 30.503 S 1,795$ 443,431 Due to ww hind. 305 Rsb*vsd urrtrigs: Reeamed for Currant mabrllvs of nova pafftis 329,984 Raver bond re8rerm - Tow carat ftbWjm 2,257 ,218 30,503 1.796 443,431 cunt kabWn I I d'. born r.sI cfae nutr lhruwved 55,991,113 V*Xhem Nfw Deferred reveraue 1,342,847 _WOOD a2jW7 Cu fft and rs" of rlotas perabta 546,917 135,103 437,842 22 500,080 Currert maburklas of reveraus bonds 3,170,000 62,737 4,000 _- Due to other povarrwlerta 285,010 Total li bO bas Accrued 6 on pvvW 2.020,829 8,867 683 4.004.768 S Cua4ww deposits RehYlepe payable 18,782 891,172 133.801 8,070 212,944 25,M Tow cum kabMtes peyable fmm restrtcvd assets 8,073,537 203,405 10,753 324,825 Long lam bbObs: L&VM liability - 4,324,803 Raverxua bonds pryW* (r sp 97,918,594 240,684 160,000 Haws pamfitim, 11,807,768 . Accrued compensated abewioas 475,619 4,566 372 22,810 Total brig vrm isbffjn 109,999,981 245,246 160 372 x.'+47,503 Tow kbWtes 120,324,734 479,157 172,920 5,115,759 Fund *Wky.. C°r*UAad captal 213,896,777 3,300,506 813,338 406.774 Rsb*vsd urrtrigs: Reeamed for Raver bond re8rerm 9,868,829 17,408 42 800 - Renewal end nplemim 300,000 100,000 lhruwved 55,991,113 17,895 305,042 _WOOD Tow r"ad eemkps 85,949,742 135,103 437,842 22 500,080 TctW end @qL*y 279,84Q510 3,525,611 1,250 960 23,005,854 Total li bO bas and Turd equey S 400.171 253 $ 4.004.768 S 1.423 900 j 28.121.613 91 e v t t H 1 1 1 1 1 1 EMWWWY MK" Akpwt swwcn Autaty ToW = 123924 s 119,072 s 2,839,649 1,960,364 1,960.672 329A64 123,924 2,079,436 4,930,305 43,961 304,573 1,754,366 47,041 178,194 225,235 - 1291,735 1,838,652 - 3,236,737 - 641 306,500 - 2,028.379 - 4,581 374,136 120,436 837,593 91,002 1,900,140 10,603,662 4,324,693 90,317= 1,145.000 12,752.786 327,307 11,771 842,444 327,307 1,156, 771 116,237.183 542,233 5,136,347 131,771,150 1,069,609 5,364,483 225,051,689 9.718,637 400,000 560" (135,830} 79,367,779 560.679 (135,830) 89,476,416 1,670,466 5,222653 314,529,105 $ _Z21 UZL s 1 o.3es.000 s 446.299.265 92 6 A 5 COLUER C011N". FLORIDA 6 A 5 COMORAW STATEMIEMT OF REYENt", EXYEMSE= AM CHANGES N PMTAPM EXPOO s All OfrM% 1M FUHM FM THE FISCAL YEAR EMDED SEPTEM O R 30, IM operatrt9 revenues: Ctorges far servloaa Tdd oparoft rerwwn opwovV openm: Parsonnl services opwdkv DopvoWdm Anwrtlzadcn TdW cps oft opomm OPWWkV In XXI (lost) Nwj operattl0 raamm (opow S): b*arad Ir=a, heated srgartss Gain (loss) an dsposd of lbod seeds Graft end entRl.rm ToW nw opsatlrt0 rwowRm (el;sness) kx-m (km) belors apsrdtrp transfers Opwab 9 transfers: opum baWw in Opmuft bwwe out Total opentln0 burdsrss Net iCo. (bas) DvMmcidbn of asltrtbw7 esesb Increase (densest) ln stained semil0s Rshined esrnt+0t d beer. k of bear Rddned esr" d end of year County water Mm= water Gocdbxid sow wnw nd sewer end sower wdw DWpoW s 33,096,456 s 417,482 3 164,f11,3 11,891,753 33,098,456 417,482 164,961 11,801,753 384,243 (2,286,805} 6,441,153 68,334 23,131 304.4" 10,435,668 429,880 203.002 11.782.518 8,184,744 110,502 57,329 71998 139 678 7,8" _ 237,364 25,201,273 816,680 284,062 12,468,374 7,89',183 (199,198) (99tIC") (578,821) 4,549,002 39,146 38,380 1,059.079 (6,748,315) {22,984] (81383) 15.411 384,243 (2,286,805} 16,162 29.997 1,398,824 5,610,378 1( 83,03 (69,104) 822,203 11,697 352.500 - (�, (m,W (422,193) 352.500 M51W 5,188,185 (183,036) 283,398 525,308 4,328,839 88,938 20,845 6,441 9,517,024 (98,100) 304251 532,740 56,432,718 231,203 t 33,391 21,976,331 f 65.949.742 $ 135.103 $ 437.842 5 22.509.080 i i 93 1 0 t i 'e 94 b A 5 Emwgomy 8a ion Auto* TctW i 3.006,166 i 505,0853 49,254,906 3A08,186 566A66 49.254.906 5,197,930 320,120 12,445,162 2,003,900 467,803 25,393,390 364.704 87,882 6.860,249 364,936 7,646,543 875,605 47,092,737 (4,550,375) (300,717) 2,162,171 34,574 41251 5,751,471 794 (156,865) 6,998 (6,934,547) 25,193 20,064 (51 An (160.370) 03,535 - 417,776 A149,667 (158,5 (850,524) (4, WoWM (456,2e6j 1,311,647 3,470,800 155,416 3,900,413 3,470,800 155,416 (729,785) 3,2W,M% (920.706) (312.870) 4.572.275 277,426 62,269 4,782,786 (652,282) (250,581) 9,355,061 1 x12,061 114,751 80,121,355 i 560,679 i 0 35.8301: 69.476.418 t i 'e 94 b A 5 CO5.1 JER CWM, FLORIDA COMMMINO SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS 55 .432.718 206,000 231200 BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) 6 5 (10.6461 ALL ENTERPRISE FUNS (213,064) _ (114,471) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, IM i (1x3.0361 County Wow and S ww p4w-,< AAP) Marco WSW and Saww ps"14 A('1 Bu420 Actual Variance Btd d Aca.I Vwwloa opme lrp rnwwm: chwgwtorawvfoas S A S 33,008,458 S 346,231 S 521,800S 417.482.6 (104,11x) Total oparath g mvwnrw 32, 752,223 33.006,456 348,231 521,400 417,482 (104,118) op-ov wspwaas P4wawral srvktis 8,613387 8.441,153 172,214 50.400 88,334 (x,954) nj -Aq 22.009,'380 15,417.888 7,401,94 454,800 429.880 24,740 cpow au0sy 47,822,568 20, 417932 27,204,82$ 88,000 26.794 30,238 Toted ogwabr8 414 r 77,145, 494 42, 278, 730 34,888,744 580,000 524,068 55,042 np gg 9 11=10 00m) (44, 303 2801 (9,178 294) 35,214,975 (58,400) (107,478) (49,076) No -quaft rowwm (aspwom): kaaraat k+cerwo 3.712,900 4.540,002 838.102 30.400 30,148 054) CAnh cortMi9am reoabod 5,862,300 7,188.023 1.323.723 - - Piocwda Rom b dbpoad d bad asaMs 24,979 24,979 - - Procosds km bons p top m (3".100) (3,334.741) 635.359 (122,800) (112.737) 10.063 hyweM and 6acal dwgm Mbcahwoo s t mm, s (6,6x4, 000► (8.333,231) 20,789 (28,400) (22,064) 5.416 Grwds wd wdNla m Total nen.opwaliq rw#wwm (wgw+ma) (988,0001 1,892,032 2,880,932 (111 800) (08 375) 15225 lima (loos) baton opwattn0 traratws (45.362,180) (72$6 282) 36.075.907 (1702[10) (204.061) (33,851? Ogwaft tr —oft :: Opwfty harodwa in 11,607 11,807 Opwaslnp 6--oft s out _440 2 (433.85 6,310 TOW opwatk a a oft _ (440,200) (422,1 18,007 Not I K=Ia Qom) (45.802.380) (7,708,456) 38,093,914 (170,200) (204,CSI) (33.861) Ratahwd aerri+ps at boo. h p d ywr Rafahred wmiips d wd of ywr RaoonctiMbm- Nat Y— ew Qom) Mudgdmy bmia) Abw w we for do bW aceovda DopmdoNon and arnorll dkm Cmh owdtbu hm reoatead Pr000ads (tom bans h A W=l (apmaa) Nwv-c A bm an dbpaW d aw�aes Grwft and wdOwnwda Net hroorr» (kw) (GAAP bwals) 56,432, 718 55 .432.718 206,000 231200 23,203 f 10.830.340 $ 48.774.269 f 38.043.914 i 37 000 f 27.132 f (10.6461 f (7.708,456) f (204.061) 25 300.800 26.784 3,334,741 112.737 (3.324.422) (118.488) (7.166.0¢3) (213,064) _ (114,471) i 5.188.185 i (1x3.0361 0 S Q22,429) 96 6 A 5 IC-ma a wow &on•G/u,J� Sawa w..a DWPM i MW 4>AAP1 s ,84 500 s 141981 $ 461$ 12.205.744 6 ,1,891.753 t 031399,) 184,500 184.901 461 12.205,744 11,891,753 (313,991) 25.300 23,131 2.189 412.100 394,494 17,806 243.700 228,646 14,854 12.769.096 11.782.518 1.006,578 336.500 336,500 581.252 301,240 290,(12 805500 251,977 353,523 13.742,448 12,456,252 1264.,96 (421,000) (67,016) 353,954 (1,536.704) (586,499) 970205 34.700 36,360 3.860 977,300 1.050,079 81579 28 26 A.oOV) (3.000) (9,400) (6.3631 737 . 5,500 15,411 9,Y11 398,368 806.672 210.304 22.800 28.997 4,397 1,379,366 1.881,190 301,822 A96,4M (40,0191 356.381 (157,336) 1,114,891 _ 1 Zn,OZ7 3S2 500 )52.500 1 309.000 1369.000 ' (I'M � (1.� � 20.305 362.900 362,500 (316,200) (295,895) 20 303 I (45 900) 312,401 358,351 (473,536) 818.799 1292 332 442,800 133,391 (309,209) 16,019,899 21,976,331 _ 5,966,632 5 MIR s 445.6n s 49.1 n 3 15.546.183 3 22.795.127 i ZINJO4 f (ED) i 312,461 i 816.796 25,244 301 .240 3,000 (57.329) (311,362) Q22,429) 96 COLLABR COIIUTY, FU W" b " - 5 CG9MMN0 W.HM" OF FMVEMU, EXAE 4U AND CVAVn M RETA(1 W 6ARMM W"W NO ACTUAL (1 WMTARY INAiis) ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS MONT1 A)M FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENOEO SV" AfM M 30,1!!6 Norrapwidbp rewwrat (tgarse): If*~ Emerpwwcy Medical SerAm (Norr� Aipon Aut -ft Plan4AAP) (10,033) Cash ow*t%abrls rsemi (1.310,000) BtdR!! Atttwl Vafier" Budad Actor Varmnoo 21.498 21,496 6,166 (51,933) (50,121) OpwatSnp mrawrat: Chaqw br.arloa s 2,432,8336 3,006,186S 683.335 S 615,400S 566,OOS s (49,312) ToW opark+p rewwwa 2,432.033 3,096,106 063,335 615,400 500,006 (49,312) - (15SAM 1.104209 Abotfarwwa irooma 20.662 794 Opwoury cwt pum aervlots 5.102,330 5,197,930 (95,600) 300,600 320.120 66,600 Xm 1,547,954 1,331,277 216,077 003,466 2.615,005 (2,122,217) Cag6r miry 51,036 35,704 16,132 4,605,250 1,206,521 3,510,729 TOW eF N . sgwerrs 6,702,120 6 564,811 137,209 5,667,516 4,422,326 1,465,182 Opa oft Irrooew pay (4,269 267) (1,466,71 h 600,544 (5272,11 (306 230) 1,415,060 Norrapwidbp rewwrat (tgarse): If*~ 32.772 34,574 1.602 59294 41,261 (10,033) Cash ow*t%abrls rsemi (1.310,000) (534) - - R,776,tOQ) Proaeds 8on1 ft dapoar of food ataab i 1312.8701 21.498 21,496 6,166 (51,933) (50,121) Procaedt *om bars Prtxlpal s - 256,477 1,310.000 1.053.523 porom Miisrar and faor dsrpta - (1261.094) - (15SAM 1.104209 Abotfarwwa irooma 20.662 794 (20.060) 500 0,960 8.466 Grates and attl o w 140,576 67,650 (52,92 2,256,699 2,776,102 516.401 TatW nampwafirg rawwrs (egwrsa) 194230 144,516 (48,714) 1,321,054 3,827,533 2,906,400 moons (ots) 14 k op % m Lranslrrs (4, 075.057) (3,324 227) 750,830 (3,951,054) 71,295 4,022.349 Opwsft "arm" : Opwa*v barwo In Ops mbv bwww out Tdal opwoov trenrlars Not Irroorrs (b•) Rdatrsd «r.i,o. at boo - kg of year Ratairsd aarr*W at and of year RecencJ • rborr Nat hoW- 0D-) PjdOMwy bolk) Capbftod wawa Piklclpr per.- Afrwanlot br doubbU aoeouMs In H, and anlortb atlon Cash oontrfnabrs ►eoelred Prooea4s*am loans kraeat kMIN (erperse) Noncarh lea an dspoer of aatals Grants end - Oft mm Net I mmi poet) (GAAP basis) 3,473,838 3,473,M 629,016 155,416 (473,e00) (3.138) (3,136) _ 3,470,000 3,470,000 428,016 155,416 (473.800) (004,257) 146.573 750,830 (3,322.038) 226,711 3,548.749 900,619 1,232,961 324,342 3,443,795 114,751 (5,328,014) i 304.362 i 1.378.534 S 1.075.172 s 121.TZ7 i 341.462 i_ 218.735 s 146,573 s 226,711 35.704 3,634,400 (782.6'.!?) (354,704) (87.6821 (1.310,000) (534) - 5.885 R,776,tOQ) i 1929.706) i 1312.8701 97 I i f I1 0 TOW a+124 AMW VW*I" i 4s 722,306 i 49}1,901 s 542.606 46.712 3o�t 49.254_,906 _ 5(2,606 12AM.=7 12:445,162 136,135 36618,367 31,905,651 6A32.536 53M3.308 22,066.161 31,375,235 104663060 66,400,174 38,163,906 05,960,77172 (17,244 266) 38,706.512 4A56,5e6 5.761,422 004.036 SAeZ= 7.106.023 1.323.723 6.186 (SAM (11.616) 256.477 1,310,000 1.053.523 (4,11SAODj (3.450.476) 665,422 (7A3259� (6.721,4631 1,131,131 20AN 25.193 (t,W 2.796643 3.470, 424 673.761 1636,562 _ 7,575,603 5.739,131 (54,114 16) (9,6&1,573) 44,445,dp 5,624.454 5.362.561 (461 A03) ¢.128=0 8,101923) 26,615 3695,916 3,260620 {C5,26� (50.418,300) (6,407,945) 44,010.355 77x135.401 1 60.121,363 2.605,954 s 27.037.101 s 73.713.410 s 40.676.309 i (6.407.945) 20.423.254 3.450.478 (712,M (9.2544,165) (7.184. (1.310.000) (213.064} (174,942) 7/ Ib 98 6 A 5 COLLIER COUN", FLOP" COMB>w O STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL ENiTERPRISE F1N M FOR THE FWAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,1lN Cash Wows from op --map sc vfhs: Cash rsodved for services Cash reoetaed tram mosiorier deposits Cash reostisd on bsinM of o0ir povrniierits Cash payments for pods rid services C 0h paym - lo e pla) - Caeh psymants to other povwrvnwRs Net cmeh proYfds by (used far) opwa*V o*Alfa Cah bus lam non-caplfel lhowk ac&A bu: Cash opera" pnnb rsoaHred Cash Landers lam dhw funds Cash transfers to dhr funds Nd Oath prorbisd by (need tor) non• cww rA me m0 scowilla Cah fleas tram Capital and meted rhock aLtlY�leK Ceti Oor*&Jb" received Receipts iRxm Caps "ft Procseds from di pond of fbard assets Prooe.ds from sob of strop P, frasm r-Ad of WW Proceeds frem Horns Procsuds from nobs Par 0 f ' copim Prkrcipel and 0 *a per on mdhaed borxfa Prkrc al porrrer+ls an bonds PrYicyd parneres an mobs k1I01ed and fkxal apmt faa paid Nd cow presided by (used " capital rid rolled tfn ch sc*&n Cash own Lon kwediip acowass: kttned and dvtdrids an kweabnsrib Nd cah prodded by kivedkip sal An Not a .s.. (docresee) In cash Cash, OCftw 1, 1195 O=kx kip $63,184.251 In res- 1p cash) Cosh, Septrnber 30. 1996 (kckx* p $39,716,004 in reshocksd rash) 6 A 5 Courky Marco water aoodrid sad wash Water and sewer Arid Sww water Disposal 87,250 23,329 S 33,854,583 s 418,244 s 178.1303 12,127,ww9 (2,825,017') 91,573 vo 3.500 1,333.770 (27,838.285) (26,764) - (13,278,199) (471 A25) (216,672) (11.9411.937) (4,444.141) (87,63 (72.083) (497,277) (1,326,390) 13,314,808 (29,747) (60,545) (315,015) cs : -0 440,090 352,500 72,074 • (295.895) (433, 352,500 2 10,310,324 87,250 23,329 24,979 - 25 15,411 (27,838.285) (26,764) (25.244) (301,240) (16.772) - - (d,455,000) (112,737) C3.00m - (524,742) (6,533,230) (25,671) (SAM (28,034,708) (T8,122) (13,294) (265.801) 4,C2O,l 58 41,125 37,444 943,072 4,620,155 41,125 37,441 963,072 (10,533,832) (68,744) 316,105 508,515 67,570,056 445,234 431,737 16,689,127 99 0 0 0 0 v r Emwgwcy savion AuRaty ToW t 2,417,457 f 563,080 t 40,759,173 - 1,461 (2,729,423) - - 1,333,770 (1,300,526) (45,196) (27261,4515) (51MM) (312,502) (10,459,613) (1,325,) (3.799,000) 206,823 9,317,062 97A50 - 527,730 3,470,800 155,416 4,050,790 (729,7$5) 3,'.958,450 155,416 3,848,735 _ 794 - 10,421.694 - 1,417,661 1,417,661 21,209 5,300 51,575 - - 15,411 - 8,988 8,986 - 122,000 172,000 183,M 193245 (35.704) (3,302, (31,529.M - (18,772) 4 (88,59 (6,858,07 (13,641) (1,654,105 (30,079,8l1R) 35.331 47,732 5,764,862 35,331 47.732 5,764,862 (214,920) (1,244,134) (11,149,010) 451,631 3,143,517 88,711,505 100 6 A 5 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COM8000 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS OCONTU.IED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, In$ RECOPICLJATION OF OPERATMKi MICOME 0-063) TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) OPERATWO ACTMTES Opsa& 6 xxx. (bss) Aa LEUTw+t to rsoor , I opus* fo=nt (Ion) to rwt ash pa LIP' by (und"opsnittnq w&Ab s: Ama tatlon d capU kr provsnwt profwts Anw&xion d bond bsuw cu cosh (kxx a ) I rsssa in a000u*s rsca abit Dmmn in dus ham o0w funds (Vcnms) in hvonk v a iv - t (dscrssst) it voudws payable horassa (dt xn ) In due to o0w funds honest (dwrome) in scout rrspts kfr - In soautd comp - - I abowim konnse (daonfsst) h dw to ottw povwrrrwrb korsstt (daonfsss) In otwiomu dtpoaka pyabb TOW s *=V"Wft Net afh p1cm d by (used tor) operatln6 aeflvi n 6 A 5- County M w WoMr C*WCB" Said weft wow and SW*W And Sow Wsfu okltlosd s 7,867,183 $ (199,163 (99,101)s (870,621) 6,164,744 110,562 57,329 73,968 - 237,354 136,676 7,695 - - 616,118 762 (6,831) 235,946 15,902 (148.1372) (862,550) (42.068) (13.OM (166.420) 36.802 321 768 (103.122) 133,8E0 374 372 340 147,427 - (2.625,017) 91.573 80 3.500 _ 5.417,423 166,451 38,556 261,806 s _ 13.314.606 s (29.747)s f8D' 1s (315.0151 SrtndA d Non•cmh krrsstkrp, Capital and Fhwm:k AcbAm Thars vwt nortcsah dtrebpu owt*Aftm d $4=,435 In tlrt Cwtj Wahr and Stwer DkWd Fund. 101 i� I U 1' 1 1 1 1 1 Emwgwr-y Wscd AVpod Swvkft A!gntL_ Tool (309,717)S . 2,162171 354,704 87.882 6,aeo.249 237,364 - 147,573 283= ROM 1.128,666 15= (3=Z (45299) (197.773) 34.253 94,775 (NSIOM 373,160 372,= 20= 3A93 (33.M2) 52.931 4,125 191= (32) 147,395 - - 1,481 C2,728, 751 516,540 7.154,01 102 !n LJ I I INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 6 A 5 -TO ACCOUNT FOR EXPENSES THAT INVOLVES THE EFFECTIVE USE OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY WHICH PROMOTES SHARING INFORMATION AND RESOURCES TO THE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE COUNTY SELJF - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE SELF INSURANCE COSTS OF PROVIDING COVERAGE FOR PROPERTY, GENERAL AND VEHICLE LIABILITY; TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH BENEFITS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS; TO ACCOUNT FOR PAYMENT OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS, IN LIEU OF INSURANCE. OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS MMJAGE]iAENT - TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL ASPECTS OF COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS AND TO ACHIEVE TIMELY AND COST EFFECTIVE RESULTS, WHILE PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING THE TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICE REQUIRED. TO PROVIDE COST EFFICIENT BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCESS, ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT AND REVENUE CONTRACTUAL MANAGEMENT IN THE COUNTY MANAGER'S AGENCY. SHERtFrS SELF - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH BENEFITS TO SHERIFF EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS; TO ACCOUNT FOR PAYMENT OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS, IN LIEU OF INSURANCE. FLEET - TO ACCOUNT FOR FUEL, OIL, LUBRICANTS, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF COUNTY VEHICLES AND THE USE OF CERTAIN COUNTY OWNED VEHICLES BY COUNTY EMPLOYEES. 0 Vaicfws;) " and axrusls i 53,449 i 77,610 S 92,783 i 42,358 5df Ineuranoe cis' psyMOAN - 818,226 - Due to ether funck 8,604 281 8 158 Du: to clhw porsrrenrts . Currant mebrves d lasss m 1polorr - - 27.871 Rabrsd - i*l sa deposb 3,485 - - Tod arrsrt begin _ 62,063 899,635 92,791 70,387 Lamp lrm a timum Cspgtzsd idea obiprtlon - 84,163 Se/ hamenoe claims Iwf" - 4,244,913 - - Accrued oortrpsnaW abeanes o 30,188 21,557 284,745 101,671 Told "lsrm begin 30,189 4,266,470 254,745 105,034 Tatr MAIN" 92,242 5,166,105 367,537 256,421 Fund aquly.. Cailbtled cepd 006,719 7,559 947,740 12,589 LL% rom rrod 528,968 3.463,232 390.999 421,212 Tot& &vw* uey 1,133.687 3,460,791 1,338.739 433,601 TOM tisbWln and And eguRy S 1225 929 S 6.826.691) S t - 696,276 f 690222 103 Of1bs of Deprbrwt infommtbn SOH Capital Projects of Ted yviogy Wwxvnoe Mene9errwt Revs" C EM9 assets Cash and kwu*rmft i 3228,188 i 8,576,680 i 1,182,428 S 379,392 Reodkwbim him 572 25,967 3,460 10506 Trade, Not 6,933 1,764 - 105 Due from cow funds 100,960 281 - - AtOra xm and dspooft krArdary - - - - TOW wrsrtassets 434,853 8,604,692 1,485,906 381,005 Prop". plant and o**xrwt 9uidlrrpa Equomt - 1,430,669 36,424 - 451,125 - 354,095 1,430.5% 35,424 451,125 364.096 Law acclrnrLlad dspncglbn _ (639,383) (14.220) (240.757) (74,879) Not property, plant and egtri rwd 791,276 22,204 210,388 309,217 ToM assets $ 1 ?25.929 $ 8.626.696 S 1.696T8 i 690.222 Vaicfws;) " and axrusls i 53,449 i 77,610 S 92,783 i 42,358 5df Ineuranoe cis' psyMOAN - 818,226 - Due to ether funck 8,604 281 8 158 Du: to clhw porsrrenrts . Currant mebrves d lasss m 1polorr - - 27.871 Rabrsd - i*l sa deposb 3,485 - - Tod arrsrt begin _ 62,063 899,635 92,791 70,387 Lamp lrm a timum Cspgtzsd idea obiprtlon - 84,163 Se/ hamenoe claims Iwf" - 4,244,913 - - Accrued oortrpsnaW abeanes o 30,188 21,557 284,745 101,671 Told "lsrm begin 30,189 4,266,470 254,745 105,034 Tatr MAIN" 92,242 5,166,105 367,537 256,421 Fund aquly.. Cailbtled cepd 006,719 7,559 947,740 12,589 LL% rom rrod 528,968 3.463,232 390.999 421,212 Tot& &vw* uey 1,133.687 3,460,791 1,338.739 433,601 TOM tisbWln and And eguRy S 1225 929 S 6.826.691) S t - 696,276 f 690222 103 6 a 5 1 6h@W. SON FUd klne C Marrp~ TOM t 2,669,367 S 966,779 S 14,420,334 - 3,125 34,662 - 18,031 26.633 6,346 106.567 - 1,010 1,010 - 119,592 119,592 2,669,307 1,133,31 1 4,709,006 - 148,123 146,123 4,471,632 6,724,946 4,588,755 6,871,J89 - (1,725,693) (2,0049 t 2.009.367 2,843,062 4,178,127 S 3.978 4.� S 18.863.135 e S 6.,86 S 105.120 S 379.536 639.000 1,45-7 15 - 9A51 - - 13,733 - 13,733 27.571 3,488 647,180 118.853 1,660,905 - - 64.163 - 4,244,913 29,723 443,068 - 29,723 4,777,102 657,185 148676 6,668,067 783.554 2,358.161 2,027,161 3.044,315 9,868,907 2.022,181 3.827.809 12,217,086 i 2-OW.M i 3A76.445 S 18.886.136 1 104 6 a 5 y .�t 105 OtBaa Of Oapa WOO krtOR►NWI Sett C PIM Pro*ft Of Tedriolm kw urarros mw gwrwnt Revenue OpwaBnO rwAm ws: C1lnyss for serwloss $ 1 222,135 S 7,887,005$ 3,315,801 S 2,281,077 TOM openN rsysnrws 1,Y12,135 7,887,005 3,315,861 2,281,027 Operallr+0 Overmw Penorral eervioes 568,084 284,787 2.390XM 1,305,834 operatl O 455,712 7.503,777 431,91+5 833,050 Depraca8on 151,558 2,230 42,809 42,578 Tdaioparard srpansss 1,165,354 7,770,794 2,874,582 1,981,280 OperrtlnOlrKa, 56,781 116,211 441,109 279,758 Nm- op•ratln0 raMWM (MQWW..): kOsrest 1 KXXIM 7,996 442,419 55,331 23,188 Gain (bs) on deposal of lbsd Mats - (1,738) 131 5 Taal rrors pera8rp remwn (menses) 7,996 440,881 55,462 23,193 hoomw 19 in aperattn0 bow" 64.777 556,892 496,671 302,961 Oporatinp trardere: OpwWkg b wWe it 1.200 - - 11,700 opwwk+9 transfer &A (200, _ Total oparawv ftwers 1,200 (200,000) 11,700 Net iloo , 65,977 556,692 298,571 314,651 n prseaConof oontrI tAm assets 61,078 1,543 31,118 3,833 kraesse in reaiwd ean* 127,655 556,435 327,689 318,484 Raairwd eamiipa at beow kg of year 396,313 _ 2,864,797 63,310 102,728 Retairwd ssr.6 at end of year $ 526.9 $ 3.453232 $ 300.909 S 421,212 105 t i 0 i e Shwfrs Sst< FWd twice MWWgwnord Total i 3,729,510S 3,130,624S 21,564102 3,720,510 3,139,624 21,564,092 6os,3eo 5,133,863 3,167,782 1,551,496 13,743,701 556,42E 705,401 3,167,782 2,713974 _ 19,673,055 581,72E 426,350 _ 1,661,437 63 877 49.208 642,010 125,186 123,554 63,877 174,374 785,583 625,806 800.724 2,647,520 35,000 47,400 35.000 _ i152,10� 825.605 695,724 2,495,420 238,567 334,739 825,606 872291 2,830,159 1,396,578 2,172,024 7`026,748 i 2022581 i _ 3.044.315 S� 4.868007 106 6 A 5 Chops for evAcm Total,; id n4 nrarxns OPsI&p opwmw Psraal0 asr, b" OPa I*g cap" MA16Y TOM agaratinp sigwn opmab I mc=ow (bsa) Non4pwm" Mrrs,rsa (open.): r+.r..t taoana Praoas>s km to dq=w of bw crab Pwcwds tiara kwurwom clot+rrs Prfnttpr pF)ranls Talot rmi apm I q rwnam (oorpsr ) k�cvras @on) balsa apsra" - - OPecbq frarbc Opulav tialo I in nF ON - - - oft Tall gnra I I sufss Nd breaf7l! POW Roibdrosd wrrdW d IN gk A of Vow Rststrsd orarrrp at end of yorar Rocandsf m fiat rrloorrrs Om) (bud0afary bads) P11rrc4d poslansibs OsprockAm and srraft eorr daff t+l - - - clsinr piryabb Lan at disposal of fbad o on% Not 6 ca. (bas) (GAAP basis) RIM', �. Inforrnstbn TaOmiogy (Non -GAAP) Set/ Irmnrce (Non -GMP) Budo Adud Valbnoo Budad Adult Varlanca S 1,211,300 3 1,222,135 S 10,836 S 8,806,623 i 7.867,005S (999,818) 1,211,300 1,222,135 10,835 8,886,623 7,887,005 (999,818) 808 ,500 558,084 48,416 289,300 284,787 24,513 622,100 465,712 16.388 9,557,451 7,228,054 2,328,797 18,500 7,088 11,412 19,800 15,537 4,263 1,247,100 1,020,864 226,218 9,806,561 7,500,978 2,357,573 (35. 201,251 237,051 (979 426) 37.027 1,357,955 11.800 7.996 (3.804) 277,500 442,419 164,919 11,800 7,996 (3 004) 277,500 442,419 164,919 (24,200) 209,247 233,447 (l02, 820,446 1,522,874 1,200 1,200 - 1.700,000 1.700,000 (1,79,000) (1.700.000) _- 1,2W 1m0 (23AM 210,447 233,447 (702,428) 820,446 1,572,874 105j= 349,313 292,513 6,507,200 2,894,797 (3,612,403) i 83.800 i 804.760 f 525.960 S 5.804.772 i 3.715243 i 02.069.529) $ 210,447 S 82,448 7,068 15,537 (151,55x) (2,230) (275,123) (1,738) S 65,E i 556.882 107 eottba of cgptw Profs t (Non GAAP) Depabnent W Rrnmje (Non -GMP) Budpat Aduai Vw*ncs _ Budpel Actual VWW" e a 108 6 A 5 3---2,W,062 S 3,315,691 S 455,629 S 2,303,042 S 2,261,027 S {42,015) 2,660082 3,315,891 455.629 2,3031042 2,261,027 (42.015) 2,511,600 2,399,978 111,622 1,240,200 1,305,834 (65,434) 422.062 431,995 (9.933) 837,900 633,059 204,641 206,500 72,270 134,230 _ 258,892 169,324 89,368 e 3,140,162 2,904,243 235,919 2,336,792 2,106,017 228,775 r (260,100) 411,448 691,548 (33,750) 153,010 186.760 14,800 55,331 40,531 - 23,188 23,1x6 4338 438 5 5 - 175 175 _ - - (26 369) (26,369) 14.800 55,944 41,144 (3,176) {3,178) (2,300) 467,392 732,692 (33,750) 149,834 183,584 11,700 11,700 (200.000) (200,000) _ (28, 0 28,000 f200. (200,000) (16,300) 11,700 28,000 267,392 732,a92 (50,050) 161,534 211584 970 822 83 ,. (90T ,8L 152,560 102,728 ei 505.622 i_ 330.702 S (174.920)S_142.500 S 264.262 i 161.782 S 287,392 i 161,534 72-270 169,324 26;569 (42.609) (42,578) i 296.571 S 314.1 (CONTINUED) e e a 108 6 A 5 COLLAR COUNTY, FLOMDA COIAMMISIfi SCHEDULE OF REVENUM E70PENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EAFORM BUDGET AND ACTUAL PUDGETAKY BAM" ALL IINTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS PONTNUEDI b A 5 FOR TM FISCAL YEAR IMMM SUMMER W, "M 109 Heat Mayornerr (Non•QINIP) Tafal IN'llyst Acted Variance 8u** Adual Varlor" "Wa0np rsmwm C1rwyas for aarvtas S 3,073,700 f 3,139,824 S 00,924 f 18,339,777 S 17,825,402 S (514,245) Taiai opara0np rommes, 3,078,700 3,136,824 00,924 18.339,727 17,825,432 (514,245) opwwg: py9W ssryloss 624,100 006,380 18,720 5,271,700 5,133,883 137,837 Opole 1,562,000 1,561,408 534 12,991,513 10,300,888 2,090.027 Capital *Amy 1,237,558 1,200245 29,313 1,741,050 1,473,484 288,500 Tani opars8np axprras 3,413,058 3,365,091 48,567 20,004,283 18,907,213 3,097,050 ppm as I co 0 pass) (334,M) (225,467) 109,491 (1,064,530] 918,289 2.582.805 Nonapratlnp rarnrans (�ogrrsos): kwraat m K=lw 33.400 40,208 15,808 337,300 578,142 240.842 Pr000ads from fie deposal of fbard masts 03,800 130,750 08.950 63.800 131,193 87,393 Proowde from trrsriarran claims Prlrrclpd piss - 175 (20.30Q) 175 (26 30D) Tofaf ,umg sag rr amm (opsrim): 97,200 179 ,958 82,758 401,100 603,141 202,041 a I=, (k=) balara r barnfars {237,758) (45.509} 192,249 o_ 438 1,001,410 2,884,848 Opens" us oft s: CVomdkVbmmft In 35.000 35,000 1,747,900 1.747,900 Oparaft b roifars out - - (1,920.000) (1,900,000) 28.000 Total op 14 bwafars 35 ,000 35,000 (180,100) (152.100) 28,000 Not 6 Co. (toss) (202,758) (10,509) 192,249 (1,443,538) 1,449,310 2,892.840 Ratekrsd Nminpe at bapinrrklp dyer 729,568 2,172,024 1,442.408 8,487,030 5,832,172 (2,834,858} Rdotacd *mm.k st and d year f 520.800 S 2101 h 15 f 1.834.71 S S 7.023.494 $ 7.081.482 i 57 908 Raaoncdo0on: N+t irmema (loss) MudedwY basis) S (1 C,509) S 1,449,310 CaQRliaed sxpwrss 1208 245 1.472,484 Principal pop meats Dproz� rid (560.428} (798.401) Self botan eilirrss paysbla (2!5.123) Lana an deposal of }bard asaols (5.584) (7, Not I m=.ra (loss) (f3AAP basis) $ 035.724 S 1.809.815 109 Cash ftm tram apsraft adhfliss: Cash rermi - from o0w Ands far @=* and am lcos Cash rscslvsd Mom raf - - fbr sarvtoss Cash pahrren1,1br @Dods and sarvfoas Cash pgtewfte b s w4wi ss Hd cob pwAcbd M OF r1@ acllrraa C=h &Xm Mae naraepSM &wick o ecbmw Cash ba xdm Mam dhsr hnds Cash barrairrs b dhw Asrds Nd cash F oft by (UNA eoncaI Snere*gastivn Cash bee More copOW and mkbd kowkq adfAn: Prooaads Mun d opmd of find swot Praoasds Man kwanos dMms P" -- ft lbr a+Pld a Prks;ipat PO) rnenis an copm Issas Nat cmh (used ft) cspRM and raWAd roa ckp scdvki s Cash Mow ftm 0 Num p srihr m: k- and dvkknds on kwoobr rata Net cash pen Wed by brAw " scSvOm Nat krr, =- (deasasa) In cash Cash, Odobsr 1, 1995 Cash, Saplamber 30, 1998 v COWER COWITY, FLORIDA COMffNn/NO STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW= A 5 AU K"NOIAL SP3 %%Z RA J FOR TFE RSC& W.M Dow S"wMm W,1Mi omcs Of osswbr W irNal.ke n SO Captw Project of Todwx o wmswce mwwoonwt Ravanue i t ,11 4.241 S 7,865,333 S 3,315,091 S 2,201,027 (413.751) (7,283,525) (397,194) (064.40M (533,5401 (262__ (2,404,04" (1,213,094) 1 05,941 302,211 514,451 322,035 1,A0 . 11.700 (200.0m (200,0001 11,700 435 5 175 (7,088) (15,537) (72270) (1aQ,324) (20.30x1 (7,058) (15537) (71,057) (195.am 8.055 445,795 55,007 22,030 8,055 445,795 55,097 22,030 MAW W 792.472 297,891 161.477 157,000 7,784,206 1,184,537 217,915 S 326.168 S 8.576.060 i 1.462 428 i 379.392 110 s Mom" mwugwn" ToM i 3,060,067 i 3,130,686 S 21,367,827 dDAW 00" (3,022, (1,3410M (13,30:!00) 706,914 x12.370 3,066,722 t - 36,000 47,900 (2D0.000) 36,000 1152,100) - 130,750 131.193 - 175 - (1,208.245) (1,472,464) (1.077,466) (1,367,4 63,677 40,90E 046,005 63,677 49,60E 045,065 770,791 (517) 2.191,222 190,576 986,706 12,229,112 S__��.367 S 966179 i _ 14.430.334 (CONTINUED) � 111 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 A 5 Co&"Won STATEmm OF CASH FLOV0 ALL N nmm SERVICE FUMS (CtkOD& ED) FOR THE FISCAL nM Vd= SEPTEMBER 39. "N RECONCLIATM OF OPERATWG MiCOME TO NET CASH PROVDED BY OPERATWO ACTMM Officed Ogobrwf IMrxmHMO SeM Captai Projects of Tedrxg Qy Wmirance Rever e Opws" 1 lom.w S 58,781 S 116211S 441,1093 279,758 Adjt mWwft 10 raconc- operatkap a o=, . to net cast► p wA" b/ apenI adWOM: Dspraofafon aapeu»e (Incur) daaaaaa in soccul is recoKI" (kaaaue) deawe h due from cow told: (lruaaoes) in due lo Cant funds n raaea in dur Pram dtnw povwnnnwb (kuaw w" In advwn - wad dspools Decrease is nvwro v kxrwe (downse) it vouchers payable kaCrsrae in accrued wages kunaes (deaawe) in cwnpwwabd ab -nces kaaMee in robed arnp" depooft kaaaese h ed l4rouranea ci�rrs payabb Tdal A4u*nwtts Net cash provided by op acttvbes Nowt to kweeblp CsplbK and Fim ciry ActNbss 151,558 2.230 42.6W 425M (8.933) 33,477 (105) (100.961 1328 - 8,8p4 (1.� 33.357 (891164) 38.223 (31,34) 12,711 534 16,229 7,627 11,823 1.858 (20297) 24,313 818 - 275,123 t 10,160 248,000 73,W 43.077 $ 168-941 i 362211 S 514.451 S 322835 The % Om.. e8on TedtwiM Fund, ocnbbLbom d =aft from the various funds wth a value of S609A39. The .10 coat d eaaee aerate was i5O9 939 vath rw accusratalsd depreciedoru- The Fist blanpwnwrt Fund raoaivad cwt t&m d ,pate tram vwkxat funds wth a value of 5343,09. The ortpkadl cwt d tlaeae wma waa )472,660 vAh 1128,961 In accurnAnte4 dipncaMfa►. 112 S1 wffs 349 FIW �Asr q ToW knurw= = 551,725S 428,356 S 1,881,937 546,425 795.401 (18,031) 6,406 a (610) (100,242) (74) 7,108 19.758 18,756 8.1" 3,431 11.617 - 6,443 (24.475) 1.1613 36,267 (1,452) 16,043 ala 137,000 412,123 ' 145,186 W,020 1,193,785 S 706.914 S 992374 S 3.005.722 1. 1 x� �1 e 113 6 A 5 a- 0 It i FlDUCiARY FUNDS b A 5 r• jL �• •• • r •• ••r� ••• - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COURT FINES ASSESSED TO BE USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING PURPOSES. GAC LAND SALES, ROADS AND CANALS TRUST FLMD - TO ACCOUNT FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE MIWON THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,300,000) IN PRINCIPAL AND SETTLEMENT FEES RECEIVED FROM A 1977 SETTLEMENT WITH GAC PROPERTIES, INC., AND INTEREST THEREON TO BE EXPENDED FOR THE RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN UNACCEPTED ROADS WITHIN THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA TO DEVELOP FACILITIES OTHER THAN ROADS AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REW INING FIDUCIARY FUNDS: ANIMAL CONTROL PUBLIC LIBRARY LAW LIBRARY INMATE WELFARE COUNTY DRUG ABUSE CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT FEES ESCROW UTILITY FEE DEFERRED COMPENSATION CLERK OF COURTS SHERIFF PROPERTY APPRAISER TAX COLLECTOR DEPOSITS PINE RIDGE AND NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK CCU" COWN, MAR" COMWVQ &4LMCE OHM ALL nOUCWW FL#= sEpmuefiV 30, IM 6 A Ar*TW valet Law r.rra C-irty CA"" has= Ca*w utx" UW" w.ae Dma AW= Jrdba coo Kvwm* so Mobs PMO*AbW trreat 218 248 14 230 CM DA ftm ww 2,005 70 201391 Due Dom cow TOM slab 3 496.973 f 260 -166 f =�_ 1979 i 110 03 VUAhwo p"@M and woulft s 1.532S 2.299 S 68,6" s 483S Due to caw Ands 364.168 5,385 no - 900 0 pet " n R RndaCh dopooft Es. Esai m briped bas Due b hAM dWwW Tctd bb=n 1,532 2,299 452797 5'666 Find Cabnosc Pbsasr v lbr. Ercurbrarloas TraKArdpupaw 70,574 78,874 45,176 254,206 I'M 110.203 Told And OsAnass 70.574 75,674 46,176 254,296 1,979 110,203 Totel SOMm and And $ 61.173 3 406 f 260.166 S 1 -079 f 11020 CCONTPOJED) 114 115 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBOONC3 BALANCE SHEET at ALL FIOl1CIARY FUNDS OCONiWJM SEPTEMBER 30, 1905 i b AGENCY EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS FUNDS Law CW Aso4ud Enbrarrwt GAC land Saint. krpar3 Few L"Ry Ddrnwd CM1c of 6 P,4" Tru+wV Roach rd Cr" E4tlyw Fort CorrprwRlon Court. y Cwt rd YN6rilfi s 336,!!56 f 40,600 6 376.00S S51,36e S 349,574$ s 4,100,597 ttiw6nurfsrl66+t+6rt 4 52Z 501 1,213,165 Raaadal k6rwt 1,320 126 1,242 2,655 362 Corr 67,231 Ou6 Gam olf6►�nri 3,673 56,243 `4 Is Dam tom dflarporrrsrwrb . 4,476 Y 1,044,351 ' Tad! wins S 337.p1e S M.660 S 1.172.464 f 604 211 f 437.167 f� 4 5 f 5 -3SS -463 VauchM psirth and WWUMM s s S f • s 29,077 S s 22.336 DLO 10 dlwr Ends 15.296 3.961 44,173 fi Due b dlwr pm wnls - - 687,413 O46rrradamrpmemb pope* 4.'522,501 1,213,165 n rrad ww.awr 1.044.331 RdladaDd dopmft 200 3.217,902 Esoorad Yrrpraet boa 420,791 Ous b IlGldara d apatdl asaawrrwr't Corrda Tdd hCrbn 15,294 3,961 1,044,551 429,7P1 29,077 4,522,501 5,385,483 Fund dr.+o.L Rawvwi 6r. Enosn ranow 4.061 Trod sod P +Dam 322.620 40,726 _ 371`624 464,420 406,090 TOW fold Enlanoaa 322.620 4D,728 377,905 464.420 406.090 Tdd sdfsil w rid AM Tadn m s 337.916 f --4LW S 1.422456 S 654211 S 477.167 i 4.522501 s 5.385_ 3 115 Pftftv. p1maly Tai orw Won owa A ftw Carols psyce s ProdL coon Perk Told f 103,!96 f -S 2.475.162 f 967.244S 5,362,076 f 16,013,976 1,64!9,179 666,741 937,753 9.076,039 2,919 11,347 20,961 2,665 603 90,699 1,ODS 4,000 12,619 103,405 4,479 1,044,351 f�i�S 3.319.790 i 970.193 f 5.366.644 f 2e_356.731 f 59.414S -S 2E9,729 f 430 f -S 462.946 48.067 593,061 165.011 1,237,147 1.620,237 2,506.050 1,646.979 659,741 937.753 9,079.039 1,048,351 904.772 4,022,914 I 429,791 5.3M.664 5.399.944 1.961.390 969.741 3.319.790 970,193 5,399.944 24,179.994 II 1 1 J 116 b A � 2.169.796 ' 2.175.967 f 14510 f 656.741 f 3 ]1Lg f 970163 f 5 a44 f 46.366_nt II 1 1 J 116 b A � COLLIER COUNTY. FLOPWA COMW � STATEOMW OF Rr*19@J M EXPEPIXTIMS AND CHANGES N FUND BALANCES EXPENDAML.E TRAt:T FtNI M FOR THE FM" YEAR EKED NEMIMI ER M. Apt b A 5 Ftoveram Tares Lbwwe and p wmb Charges for srrkw Ftnw end loAettures Total rararnas 0 XIMM gonna.- Pubic sw* Twopwbkn t4unm sar>Ilow Cull rye and roctaalton Tots) opwxnu w Ex mw of rwmwn am (unfit) owrwa res Arknid Gor*d Pubic LOW Ltrsry tre,rree 1fW1lsrs cam" on a Abuse crbntw ,<r.tta. i -S i -i -S -S 9.334 19,032 111,015 - - - - - 1,542 208 059 3,844 4,17E - - 424 1.3W 19,301 1,429 185,204 _ 32210 23,479 112,443 185204 1,90E 209,410 2.672.572 - 8,071 - 107,593 . 33,326 22,M - - - - 33,3261 2 872,577 107,593 8,071 _ (1,116) 1,27E (2,790,129) 77,611 _ (6,106) 299,410 OQrr thnnck souucvs (uses)- Operam tandrs In OporowvErum" out ToM elw Manck sources (Lew) Eaosas d revenues end cOw ltna} crn9 souses ear (under) ennpen- dttnuw rid odor 1ho olnp (Loss) 3,00006 (215,001) 2,785,127 (1,116) 1,270 24,908 T7,611 (274,700) (274,700) (0,105) 14,710 Fund boo now at bs¢mtnp d your 71,890 77,590 21,178 178,887 8,084 95,493 Fund birnow st and of year S 70.574 S 78.874 S 46.17E i 254298 S 110203 117 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS Law CorMkCet�d Eido com GAC Land Saks, Impod FMS UMY Property Trdr*v Road end Ganda Escrow Fee Tdal S - s - s _ s - s 446,431 446,493 e: 9,334 118 err 28.230 42,E 2,013 _ 15,433 40,636 1x29 107,947 - 17,711 223,144 362,M 44,022 42,644 40,63Q 446,171 1,563,209 - 133,032 3,013.6/5 564,619 385M 710,991 266.724 - 266,724 33,326 22,201 564,619 _ 36,579 266,724 133,032 4,016,917 (201,916) 5,443 (224,OM 40.636 315,090 (2,463,706) _ 93,000 3,093,206 (b4_= - (573.W (64) 93,000 2.519,227 (2D6,140) 5.443 (224,060) 40,636 4m,090 36,.519 606,76x 35,2W 601,966 423,564 z12D,30 s 322x24 s ID.rxb s 377 905: 444.420: I0e.090 s 2175 6x7 118 err CO LkR COIAM, FLORIDA COM NSM SCHEDULE OF MWI M RS, EXPENDITURES AND CNIAMOES N FUND •AI.AMCES bpwwk- Owmaf porwrarrwt Pib4e a ty Tranpsr- l . tpa� 57,300 33.326 24,174 - C 9b" ww wrasalien 23.'300 22.207 1.299 TdW opwvftmm 57,500 73,126 24,174 23,300 22.201 1,299 Emm of rwwam ww {urdw)OWWKlfaas (23,400) {1.110) 22 64 (11,00 1,276 12,27_! Ot w 9mv* 9 OKWO s (uns): 01 1 tran I In A+w dWe Ownluw out _ Total ~ 9-0 swaoa Q�1 _ Emma d mvww and Ww iwrt- dp owaosa asw ~ OWWIr' dbasawlddhwitrrKligOn* 22.264 (11000) 1,276 12.276 Fvd tr.tr.wa at boo -h d year 6D,WO 7_ 1 pO 71,000 04.300 77.356 6,091 Hard tdwwn at wd d ym i 77200 3 70.574 $ 73 774 i RM i s 78.074 i 20.374 119 BUDGET AND ACTUAL MUDOETARY NASM) EX/ INDADLE TRUST FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEFTEROM 30. I WO L V A S ' EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS Ar krrl Cor*ol Pub ft Lbmy Budget Acted Vwirrca Budod Acted ywlwr � Rows: Tama i i S - i - S • i Lbwnss wd pwmms t 1500 9334 R,161f) Chwgw Iw 20.000 19,032 (99B) - - F1m and ibrlsitass . Ya nd Yrcartrs 2.400 3.644 1.244 3,300 4,776 676 bfsosewmms - 9,000 19,301 10 307 TdW rwAmwa 34,100 32.210 (1,100) 12.300 23,479 10,979 bpwwk- Owmaf porwrarrwt Pib4e a ty Tranpsr- l . tpa� 57,300 33.326 24,174 - C 9b" ww wrasalien 23.'300 22.207 1.299 TdW opwvftmm 57,500 73,126 24,174 23,300 22.201 1,299 Emm of rwwam ww {urdw)OWWKlfaas (23,400) {1.110) 22 64 (11,00 1,276 12,27_! Ot w 9mv* 9 OKWO s (uns): 01 1 tran I In A+w dWe Ownluw out _ Total ~ 9-0 swaoa Q�1 _ Emma d mvww and Ww iwrt- dp owaosa asw ~ OWWIr' dbasawlddhwitrrKligOn* 22.264 (11000) 1,276 12.276 Fvd tr.tr.wa at boo -h d year 6D,WO 7_ 1 pO 71,000 04.300 77.356 6,091 Hard tdwwn at wd d ym i 77200 3 70.574 $ 73 774 i RM i s 78.074 i 20.374 119 12.200 6.071 4.129 12.200 6.071 4.129 1,oes _ 23a.000 ze9,410 34.410 (274,700) (274,700) 974.Zn 04,7009 14,710 30.410 (7,2M (6.105) 1.095 (24.700) 7,200 6,064 664 24,700 95,403 70.703 6 a 5 s - s 1.976 s_ 1.979 s - s 110.203 s 11o.2no NINE EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNOS &,mm* 1 rhma Abu Cfh" Jtrkfc� Btsdod AEI V WM m Buded Ac4ud VsrYnw 3000 1542 (3.456) 230.000 266.060 36.050 424 424 1,360 1,360 5,=. 1 pg6 , 230.000 260,410 30.410 12.200 6.071 4.129 12.200 6.071 4.129 1,oes _ 23a.000 ze9,410 34.410 (274,700) (274,700) 974.Zn 04,7009 14,710 30.410 (7,2M (6.105) 1.095 (24.700) 7,200 6,064 664 24,700 95,403 70.703 s - s 1.976 s_ 1.979 s - s 110.203 s 11o.2no NINE 120 �1 COLL*^ GGt W-Y. FLOP DA CONgpw1O SCF MA" OF REVENUES, EXPE IDI URO AND CHAN= IN FUND BOA ANCE'S EO00ET AND ACTUAL (BU0NTARY SAIM EIWENOA.LE TRUST FUNDS (CONTMAEM L A FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEFTENDER N, 19" v A j EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS CorO6c@ o4 Prop" Law Erdarowrwwrt TrWr*y EVKNWAW Gomm oorwnnwt PIMa =NW 633.050 564.810 06.231 40.!00 36,679 2.021 Trww0wbdon - 1luran - C:bn and wcl ma - Tay wwwwo 633,050 564.619 66231 40,600 35.M 2.021 Essw d nvrww amd paOW VOWWbA- 901,916) 2!12.600 (10,000) 5.443 15,443 OOwr bm clop wow (uw): Opwdknptrarw0 to Opwaw - Ywwires" _ (3420t71 (64200) Told attar tis+c' wuow (U-0 (6A.200) (84200) Emm of mrorwao and edwr Owl- cwg wow wwA(a~ wo- dkow and dJwr ti+anrh (pow) (576.946) (266.146) 292 600 (10.000) 5.443 15.443 Fund' I at book p of ywr 607 56A _ 606.786 1,182 35227 35,266 58 Fwd botwww at and d par i 26.636 i 322 620 i 293 942 S 25227 i 40.726 i 15301 121 BudDd Actud VwYwm Mod Aclud Vwwnop Rwwrawo: Tawrs Lbw"" and Owl - - CJmgw far a laaa Fktw and 1, §,-, 116301 334,643 216,33Y 30.000 - 42 000 12.009 k*Md humm Iboo9mawa► 20.000 26230 4230 600 2,013 1.113 Totd rww 138,301 362,673 2210M 30,1100 44,022 13,422 EVKNWAW Gomm oorwnnwt PIMa =NW 633.050 564.810 06.231 40.!00 36,679 2.021 Trww0wbdon - 1luran - C:bn and wcl ma - Tay wwwwo 633,050 564.619 66231 40,600 35.M 2.021 Essw d nvrww amd paOW VOWWbA- 901,916) 2!12.600 (10,000) 5.443 15,443 OOwr bm clop wow (uw): Opwdknptrarw0 to Opwaw - Ywwires" _ (3420t71 (64200) Told attar tis+c' wuow (U-0 (6A.200) (84200) Emm of mrorwao and edwr Owl- cwg wow wwA(a~ wo- dkow and dJwr ti+anrh (pow) (576.946) (266.146) 292 600 (10.000) 5.443 15.443 Fund' I at book p of ywr 607 56A _ 606.786 1,182 35227 35,266 58 Fwd botwww at and d par i 26.636 i 322 620 i 293 942 S 25227 i 40.726 i 15301 121 i 6 A 5 EXPEmoAME TRUST "M OAC fad Sin. Rotas rd Cww" U1lty F« l#idOK Adusf yot r" &Wgd Ac%W Varwm 03.100$ 440,p3 : 363,393 25.700 25.433 C +619 t s2s 16x00 17.211 CIb.0e0q _ 121,000 CAM 63.100 440.122 366,G¢2 MAW W 133.032 43.006 393.m 288.n4 126.552 - 393 a 258.72, - -- 128.542 176.100 133.032 43.M �.� (224.090) 46.198 loom 315.000 406A90 93.000 93.000 1 93,00D 93.000 406.090 400,090 Q72AM C224.0009 46.198 50.702 001,965 3 2KL4W i 377.905 i 64.419 $ - i IOO.Oi10 i (CONTINUED) 1 122 COIMWOM 6CtODULa Of A&vtiWAS. LVV..+it+tT B AND CA MOU w FUND 6AUA++oi A St100ET AND ACTUAL (1UDGETANY BAM) EXpVv3Am.E TRUST FUMS (CONTNUED) FOR THE FWAL. YEAR DOW SEVMMM R 30, 19" Goo wd rnsrf 188,300 ToW 47.197 9mmo Pu6fe "My p� AcWW yarlsres Rw�erws: TOM res i 83,100 f 448,493 i 389,399 License and Pop is 11.500 01334 (2AW chwo s for swvfew 20,000 19,072 t" Fines n1d fatwuss 403.]04 888.244 262,940 krsrs11t 1110 s 52,400 67,111 14,711 1iso118oraolus 104,300 96,512 (67,786) TOW rsysrans 874.804 1,244,726 570,122 Goo wd rnsrf 188,300 141,109 47.197 9mmo Pu6fe "My 673.850 809.986 70,252 Tnrwpwfrlfon 363,278 288.724 126,552 Hurrn sstvfaK 57.500 33.328 24,174 Cuftm end 23,500 _ 22.201 _ 1.298 Tctd ampormMuovs 1.338,22E 1.088.752 28(1,474 Excess of rsrwmm ores/ (~OWWNt— (881,822) 177,874 836.588 0a w tlnsncin8 sources (u m): 0psradnp tranrI in OpOradrq trsra" out TOW COW " such saws (1.11.4 Esuss of reversals and dew 9rrr� ci+8 soirees awrfrs+dd) ww+- dlurss and alhor lm o cii8 (wa) Fuld I 11ncss d tas.' esr, d yew Ford hslorm s st srd d vow 93,000 83,000 (358,800) (358.900) - u (827.52?) (a7AM 838.596 1,370573 1.496,888 126.326 f 449.051 i 1.410.QT3 i 987.922 123 COLLIER COUMTY, FLORIDA COW MNC3 STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND UASILITIE8 ALL AGENCY FUHOS 124 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30. 11W 6 A 5 6elrroe BMerros Oafober 1, 1006 Ad ill" DOW" SwWrbr 30, 1906 Asada: krea"'as Im tudee i 931.712 S 030.456 i 348.077 i 4.571.501 C011dta[S' U AkK Delured am*W alm paiabb NU i �3 i -468 i .¢� i 4522501 Asada: Cub red kwo ms t S 3,016,183 S 58.007.173 S 58,413,75D S 4,109,517 kewet�a w1r furl ss !134.626 290,005 28006 1.213,166 Due roar dhr hnvft 55.243 56.243 ' Due ftm dhr Opremvm 4.476 4.476 kwelli y 96,078 _ 9e,m5 Tdai A4rseb $ 4.S�Q 4S� S 50A60 610 f 56 S32 5C0 i 5308.463 l.Ybiix _ Voxh rs psyab sr-4 acaub $ 3 46.792.946 S 46,770,610 S 22,336 Due fo dhr Ands 311.964 62,977 330.763 44,178 Dus b Ow pope m wt#s 743.943 36A05,176 36,751,306 607.813 Deferred cm iper*0 F 934,826 278.330 1213.105 Rehndeble dWash 2948,334 19,038,637 10,778,070 3,217.992 Tdal Liabilities S __4 849.007 $ 103.070.074 S 102641.670 i 5 J08.4a 3ha1>$ Asada: Cash and I Pae>:ra $ 74,950 S 2271A00 S 22A3,053 i 103,096 kreebr0 we' 11 1,306,946 50,617 150,064 1,046,079 Dus from dhr funds 243 1.506 243 1,006 Asada $ 1.472130 $ _ZA73.421 S 2.304.160 i 1251 360 ®Total ! LkrbMlet: Vouchers;sysbb and sccnwls $ 44,393 S 1,070,085 i 1,063,064 $ 59,414 Due b dhr finds 30 ,600 40.507 25,300 45,057 Deferred canpeneaRion payable 1.396,946 599.017 1_50 064 1,846,e79 Total Lkublwbe $ 1.472130 $ , .710.409 i 1239246 i 1 A81.360 1 1 """a: kreeb, oft Tom t,wte. S 651 A61 S i 32.5M: S 066.7„ L'a°D OMerred oaenpsn..6a, peysbb S 56,.901 f ,34.37, i 32591 i 056.741 MORTNUM _ _ 124 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CiiANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES ALL AGENCY FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ' A 54 6slanoa Berne Ocb*w 1. 1995 Addb" Ddafts Septw'nbsr 30, 1996 Cash and $ 2.542,147 $ 287,895.777 S 287,762,712 S 2,475.162 knembimft woo buds* 722.486 156.456 41,169 637,753 Racamd*.. Oam 7217 536,170 540,522 2,865 Due from o0w funds 6,356 1 952 4,305 4,000 TcW Aaaats i 288.348.711 f 3.319.780 Lrbwrs: Vouc m Wtvtb and scauft S 496,496 i 7,623,632 S 7,851,300 S 286,729 Dus tc c&w funds 499 ,316 80,988.797 89,675,052 593,081 Dus In cVw pwsrmnnts 1,550.908 195,019,746 194,959,417 1,620,237 Deferred oompwwMk rt psyabls _ 722.488 156,466 41,169 837,753 ToW UmbMbes $ 3.278.188 S 292,768.631 $ 292.727.037 $ 3,319.780 Aseefs: Cash and twog&rw s S 948,207 $ 490,432 $ 471.395 S 967,244 Racdvsbr: trhrrset 4,604 2,919 4,604 2,919 Total Assets $ 952.811 $ 403.E $ 475.E $ 970.163 UdAliss: Vaxhws Wp"s and scaum s $ 10,635 S 453,154 S 163.369 $ 430 Due b COW funds 111.625 53,366 165,011 Raf , 1 11s deposits _ 830,551 434,649 460,478 804,722 Total Umbdbn i 952811 $ 941.189 S 923.837 f 970.163 Pins Pmducbm Pot Ase ts: Cash and its S 4,412,061 $ 2,636.069 $ 1,686,074 $ 5,382,076 Raotivabla: klfm 16,236 1,038,118 1,043,007 11,347 Spocim assaaxnenb 255 2.423291 Z42Z O4'3 603 Due fr,pm dhw hnds 14,380 12,618 14,380 12,618 Trial Awab $ 4.442932 $ 6.110.096 S _____LjQ6j54 S 5286144 Liebilitbr Vouchers paryabls and socrusls S 1,223 f 1,630,967 f 1,632,19D S - Dus b holders d spsclsl apasrnw bonds 4,441,709 2,735,492 1,790,567 5,386,644 TdW Liabilities $ 4.442932 i 4.366.450 i 3,422-747: S 5.386.644 125 t i e COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LWBILMES ALL AGENCY FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30. 1996 5 BWW= Balsnoa Oc%*W 1. 1995 Ad(WJ" Deis& ►s Saplsm w 30, IM AlNow. Cash and * w". rfa hNvolm wftfitrudse Reosbabiw. S"cw aeaaaernerfs kieraai Obwr Due hom cow Mda ow hom *wr yorwmur is r Trial Aeaels LlsbOw. Vachm WtOW and aces k Dw to COW "Ift Dw b COW gwmwrwtfs Deft, oompsnsdlon payable R4ftn d%msta Due b hal 1 of wocW assessment bolds TOW Umbilles S 11,693,568 f 351,701.400 $ 3MM,993 S 13,017075 7.537,921 2131,105 590,967 9.076.039 256 2.423,291 2,422,943 a3 20,840 1,041,037 1,047,611 14266 7,217 536,170 510.522 2.666 20,958 74,416 16,911 76,465 i 19.578.838 S . 4,476 - 4.476 96.076 _ 96,076 S 19.578.6 S _,&7j1LW S 35b 296.046 f $ 552.747 S 57,578.783 $ 57,780.622 S 350.901) 953. 775 90.125,747 90,231,135 846,337 2. 303, 851 231,924,922 231.720,773 2,506.050 7,537,921 2,110,436 570.321 9,078,039 3,788,81,5 19,473,286 19.239.457 4,022,714 4,441,709 2,736,492 1,790,557 5,306,844 i 19.578.838 S . 403.948.869 $ 4M.33--2815 S 22.194.892 126 e e i THIS SELF4W ANCING GROUP OF ACCOUNTS IS USED TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE FUCED ASSETS UTI1 IN THE PERFORMANCE OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS AND EXCLUDES THE FDXED ASSETS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS. COLDER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF GENERAL FIXED ASSETS BY CLASSIFICATION AND SOURCE SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 OWWW find Aseft Lad �P ., F- s 0 ft olio lmn b ktnp &KOM" Cantrtc0on In pop�ss Tab f3arlral Find Asssls a Pt" W d In GrR - Fiwd Aft ts: Pdo1 b 10'144 &M V0100 101194 b 9K1m Ail't0AAB Flom: l2am fund Speem rM finds Fs - ww Sins pant funds Proptmoy Ands DrAiopw aualomv cw&bL ws for Enirp im hnds Trial krwslirwt in GwwW Food AsMts b A 5 Oared Of Count' Ca'.16 atom Shw f Tabs S 29,192,010 S .5 AIM= 96011,4W - 96A" fw 32,770801 - 52.71!1.'5101 34,066,3011 10,312,368 53,307,744 SAM= - 8,876,636 S 34.388,206 S 82.4107 S 36,208.733 58,700,904 4.4.0,423 03,0= 18,813,011 12,423,710 31,310,721 22.100398 - 2'2,100,368 7,646,672 - 7,840,672 56.466,972 - 50,496,612 71,624 571,759 04,303 664,455 - 606.466 776,sm 779.640 $ 188.971 At t S 18.312.366 S 210204.278 127 r 128 CO " COUIM,FLOF" b A 5 SC11EOU1.E OF G'D*JM F= ASUFM 6Y Ft TICMM AM CLA8SMATM 6£PrE MM 30,1699 O!w Pon Land 8U/dkgs 6u6dnp� EtWpm" TOW Bowd of Cam* CwwM=Wnors: owmaiprwn.wd s 116531242 s CAM= i 2,7211532 s 11,170.66 s 66,!00.121 Pubk Wd , 329,416 23376,799 213.09 9.1, AM 33,734.65 Pfiyaktl wn*ann nt 1,306.464 1,426,711 4,429,306 1 ANA27 8,J47AO9 TrwwpwWon Eaonaa, t 6.83.601 324.91 22.19 3291.,104 36.996 12AZ3.167 38,689 am4m m w tiwwe a-w 189,592 11,1O1,0M 3,797 9932M 11077,1109 CMleawdwewion 6,730,526 14AMx601 25,366Aa9 7.93254 34,133,20 C n*wdien In propow a,ars,saa 8,879.16 Told Dowd d Cow*j C mombnsn f 29.1 uk4k 3 _ S Q3A1 j>oea f 32.776301 i 34O66M i 199!71 A11 owe. _ PuOie ashy Told Ow�wW Fbood Aasots s s f 29.192.40 $ f T 986 s i_ 16,112,361• i 18'31 218194979 32.776301 s 52 3D7.7M i _iWAi Told OwwW Find Assws Oonwst go' a - f 11 =242 f 43A%= f 2.721,532 3 11,170.93 i 99,'900,121 P+bk wad,., 329A13 23,376,796 213.06 21.124,106 52A46,424 Pbyabd WrAmra wf 1,306,464 1,426,711 4,429,X!6 l AOS t27 6,567A X Trwn,wbfon 6A63A01 524W 22.19 XMIAN 12.23,187 Eawrande - 39AM 39,699 mwnn warvbw 169,902 11,101A89 3.797 693,3M 11A'77A09 C1iw wd wdwwdio n Cwrotidon In P wp 6.730,526 14 JUAW eA78335 23,366,039 7A83234 54A53A20 61479,635 Tall s 29.192040 i 3 s 52197.744 i r 128 COLLIER OOUNTY, FLOR6]M 6 A 5 SCSEMU OF CH44NGES N GEM9M FtKW ASSETS SY FUNCTION FCR THE FMC AL YEAR DCM SEPI MOM 30. 1906 GWWW GWWW Fred Ago" I owe Tnwnbm Fled AwMs /OMA15 AddboM 04b40rxM M+ C7<d iYY5196 Scum d Canty Cae wftowwo OnreMpomlrt S 65,750.011 S 1,457,326 f 115,3121 4KY,7s S 1,010= s 69.5 1121 PkAftso* 25.67,146 6.117,41E 753,667 1,046.066 324,596 33,7K,005 R Tmrapwtom $.153.310 /0.101.97 454.223 2.339.940 41.30 19.130 200.572 7l,4C� 4867,90s Et 77,400 17.600 6,067,906 12.73,167 611 rl1 m11 4 PACT M I 17 Soo 12.71,167 wmft 41,231 4,756 7.101 M~ CMM 4nd 180fdlon 386M MaryMrrlow QeA eld IR @"a 11,943.77 47.516.615 72.59E 2. 437,569 25.495 35.904 131.667 4.74C.900 110,770 /1,977.606 54.437,420 Cwwkuo5on in pcww 7,532, 4 __ ? 55_3 li 1 _ 6.206.720 6.676%576 Tcd18a1rd Of Cbufy WmMrornrs f ` 160.29512E f _ 22.797.614 S _ 1 273.412 $ MS 7_760 316 S 19p.971.911 PkAft ally S 16 407,M f 2,906,126 f 1,007,401 S s S 14312,350 Trial G4r - Find Awub S 196 702 663 f 25_]fri 952 f L276.616 S 671 d �y S 7 7m T>s f 216152 270 ToW O m1>r Fit Amem G1nw11pow1n111r4 S 66,759,011 f 1.457,326 S 115,312 S 40.029S 1,010,533 S 69!100,121 P110se gamy 42.054.763 11.025,574 1.757,301 1.016.08E 324.596 52,045.424 P1 T74n1po llft 6.153.310 10 701,567 454,225 2,339,940 41,30 200.572 19,130 77,400 17.600 6,067,906 12.73,167 611 rl1 m11 4 PACT M I 41.231 4.7% 7,101 36,00 M~ CMM 4nd 180fdlon 11,90.700 47,516,6m 22,506 2.437,560 25.465 13107 36,901 4,740.900 11[2770 11,977.606 54,453.420 C wvmcoon in poplMa 7.532,324 7,543.901 6.2[70.720 6,676,335 129 t a t e THS SELF BALANCING GROUP OF ACCOUNTS IS USED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE UNMATURED LONG -TERM iNDESTEDNESS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT THAT IS NOT A SPECIFIC L1ASHM OF ANY PROPRIETARY FUND OR TRUST FUND. GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT INCLUDES LIABILITIES ARISING FROM DEBT ISSUANCES AS WELL AS NONCURRENT LIABILITIES ON CAPITALIZED LEASE OBLIGATIONS AND ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES THAT ARE NOT CURRENT UABIUTIES PROPERLY RECORDED IN GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS. COLLIER CCUrm, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF GENERAL LyOWG TERM OM SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 54 am of Cbrx or Carly Cra,a Pmp" Tax aup.nbs Carrnwbnss Court Stwff Apprio— CoMcfor of Eksob s TOM MBE EBOYM FOR THE PAYMENLM Aff out 04MM In daft aanaoa A&Nb for cfarlarsf owoftn !lords s +00,720: s : s : s 100,720 ftm m batfs and mobom d, , - 6,742.866 6,740,976 c n mwdsl pops bmn t>•Iuo 278.261 270.24, Mohs pgfbb 1+x.111 118.11+ TOM onwt woirtAs In debt m, 'm luxe 7,239,946 7,7e.94 Adna rt to to prasOW for rafran0 d own" bn w" dm[ owww owpom b0rr0 7,190,281 7,136,261 Rwmw bondo and Oart;ca4s of 1 11 rblaas 40,642,144 40,642,144 CwnmmW papa loan pyrrrbb 19.006.739 19,009,739 f", pub 73,x77 73.477 AM&apa rat a fabfN 4,079 4,079 CsyUMd bm ob6go" 26.000 364,997 360.997 AWnAdOOmpawaladabaraa 2,677,546 476,547 3,890,161 249,690 329,330 96.232 7,661,985 Tdd srrwt lobs prorAd W tar ft rMt+w m of psnaral bro4wmdabt 0D 771,306 _ 478 W7 3,690,181 249,690 664,947 36.292 75.110.702 TOM amount woo mm and to be; 1 14 d s 77.011253 s -----ALLjHL s 3_890.1at s 240.890 s 664347: 3e?32 s !92]60d!'0 Glwraal ob6pdon bads s 7,240,000 s -3 -s f -s s 7,20,000 Rarraaw bads ad OaOorn d- .1 - rbabrass 47,363,000 47,565.000 cwmwm paps bar pgmaa 19,267,000 19,2",000 "me pwome 191,369 191,369 At OMP Mbb fibtal♦r 4,079 4,079 ctiprsd b w d*pi tm 26,000 3!94,997 390.907 AmpAdoonpass- mbs 2.677.303 47a,947 3,800181 249.990 320.360 36.232 7,661,905 TOM ynsr br" rrr daft s s (7e W7 s 3.490 141 s s 84!_]47 s 3a?S2 s 62960 450 130 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1906 b A 5 eAccrued cortperrs6sd absences 365 ,331 113,616 478,947 Told Clerk of Cirault Court 365,331 113,616 - - 478.947 (CONTINUED) s e U, 131 Balance Balance t�noo 1011/95 Issued Radred DAaaaad 9I OW Gen" ooiQa6on DaWs: 1976 Golden Gals prrral obllpetion bonds $ 45,000 $ - s 45,000S .3 1966 Pe fa panral obipatlon rvAm K* bonds 5.315.000 520,OD0 4,796.000 1960 Mrco lsbend irr I "nsral ob#patyon bonds 2,755,000 480,000 2.M,000 1906 Parks gwm o An " rsf Nx* bonds 5,030,000 65,000 4,965,000 Total General Obligation Bonds 8,115,000 5,030,000 1,110,000 4,795,000 7,240,000 I I -ednaee' ReAnA Bonds and Cardflcates of I 1973 knpmvarnrt rwmm cerflfieates 2.330.000 235.000 - 2,005.000 1977 Guerarwsed a Me. m revrxrs bonds 2.050,000 230,000 2,430,000 - 1990 Special obtipatlon rearm bonds 1,000.000 1,000,000 1992 Capttd kr¢ovrnrrl revenue refunding beads 7,735,000 255.000 7,480,000 1904 Capital knprwmrwt reMe m .wfLmKIN bonds 30 .415.000 - 30,415,000 1905 Road lmpromim revenue reftmxb bands 5770,000 - 320,000 5.450,000 1996 GwrarMW or>6tlan i revenue rekxN k19 bonds 2, 145,000 2,145.000 Total Revenue Bonds and Cermicates Of' IRMP'm 49,910.000 2,145.000 2,040.000 2,430,000 47,585.000 _ Long -Term L kdAies: r Commwcial paper loan payable 19,375,000 5.270,000 5.358.000 19,257,000 190General 2 H-2 note payable 47,486 47,486 1993 l-1 role payable 114,643 - 22,929 - 91,714 1993 J-1 note payable 143778 43.903 99,675 0 Arbltripa rebels fl tfty 615,375 811,296 4,079 CaptaRaad leave abipal1 ' 24,211 41,000 39211 25,000 Accrued oompanaoP sbaroes _ 2,367,785 309,800 - 2,677,585 Total other patrol bnQ-trrn debt 22,688,278 5,620,800 6,122,825 - 22,186,253 Lkat�� Total Board of County Commissioners 80,713,278 12,795,800 9,272,825 7,225,000 77,011,253 eAccrued cortperrs6sd absences 365 ,331 113,616 478,947 Told Clerk of Cirault Court 365,331 113,616 - - 478.947 (CONTINUED) s e U, 131 r COLDER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF CHANGES M GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,1998 6 a 5 202 Bafanoe - l011 195 bland Radrad SMmce Dal aasd 9130198 Ceplataed haws cbipesons i f Aoaued oonpwwlsd absences 3,251,674 638,307 3,69.181 TdW ShwfR 3,251,874 838,307 3,800,181 CapRstald bass abipalbns 133.623 133,623 - - Aocrwd ooniparlaMsd s6ewww 216,756 2„934 240.890 Told Properly Appraiser �1�tY 360 ,379 2,934 133,623 249,000 Capftl=d base obipa H 159,679 - 104,662 - 354,997 Accrued r c pe -- abswroes _ 324,315 5,0135 329,360 Totai Tax Cdector 783,994 5,035 104,602 654,347 Aocnnd "m ip - -ask absentm 26,013 10,219 - 36,232 Tom( Supwvkw of Elecb" 26,013 10,219 - - 36,232 Total i $x.520.889 S i�,Q§,�1 i 9 511.130 i 7ZZ5.000 i 82360.8E0 Total General Long-Term Debt 1976 Golden GMs go nl abipalbn bonds i 45,000 i - i 45,000 i - f - 1988 Perks pwrww dAwon rwAardllp bonds 5,315,000 - 520,000 4,795,000 - 1959 Mww WbM lml*d pwwrel cblp dm bonds 2 ,755,000 - 480,000 - 2,=.WO 1998 Parka pwrwal ablpatlan oshms& p bands - 5,030.000 65.000 - 4,965,000 1973 kr p vmnwnt rwanue - IM - 1 2,x10,000 - 235.000 - 2AW00D lWn Guwwftod - Mw.wnt nimna bonds 2,660,000 - 230,000 2,430,000 - 1900 Specid cbfaMlon rawren bonds 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - 19Q2 Capfal a p umniz rarwan nhiKfinp bonds 7,735,000 - 255,000 - 7,45D.WD 1994 CspW impruanw t ranntn r@ftAK* p bonds 30 ,415,000 - - - 30,415,000 1996 Road knprwwrnnt rerwen rsftndinp borxfs 5,770,000 - 320,000 - 5.460,000 1996 Guarenlnd enWarn rt rsmm rellndh bonds 2,145,000 - - 2,145.000 Comrrwrcid paper kwn payabM 19,375,000 5,270.000 5,358,000 - 19„Zn7,000 1992 K-2 rob pal 47,466 - 47,486 - - 1L1031.1 noes pay 114,643 - 22,929 - 91,714 19031 -1 rote payable 143,778 - 43,903 - 99,875 Arbinpe rsI I fabify 815,375 - 29 611,5 - 4,079 Capfthad bees abfpafons 617,513 41,000 277,516 - 350.97 Aoonwd oornpwwalsd ebewma 6,562,074 1,079 911 7,661,955 Trial i 85.520.809 f 13 585.11 i 9 511.130 f 7Z25.00D s_ 360.660 132 i i Ll I 0 I i I G STATIS MAL SFCTK)N b A 5 STATISTICAL SCHEIMAES DIFFER FROM FlNWAAL STATEMENTS BECAUSE THEY USUALLY COYER MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR AND MAY PRESENT NONACCOUNTING DATA. THESE SCHEDULES REFLECT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA, AND FINANCIAL TRENDS OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 A 5 GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES BY SOURCE (1) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (UrwxRed) W4 or Yew Tam Permh pawmwrtai SWAM Forfebim OQwr Tobb 1957 S 32,470,001 S 2,886,856 $ 12,414,791 S 4,470,958 $ 1,660,055 3 2,612,863 S 56,715,544 % 572 5.1 21.9 7.9 3.3 4.6 1966 45.483,309 4227,550 15,100,312 4, 861,989 2,414,319 2,914540 75,002,026 % 60.6 5.6 20.2 6.5 32 3A 1989 51,583,977 6,345.697 16,160,693 5,144,630 2,974283 4,343,535 86,572.815 % 50.6 7.3 18.7 6.0 3.4 5.0 1990 57AQZ452 6,468,302 19,606.20:1 5,733,800 3,213,467 6,350.119 90,373,343 % 58.4 6.5 19.7 5.8 32 6.4 1901 % 66,960.809 4,924,865 19,353,443 6,426,060 3,012,929 7,915,502 108.693,617 61.7 4.5 17.8 5.9 2.8 7.3 1902 74,147,765 5,977,117 19,349,053 7,453,536 3,119,850 7,875,356 117,872,477 % 62.9 5.1 16.4 6.3 2.7 6.6 1903 75,584,053 5,580,335 23.925.093 7.802,886 3212.996 7,957.014 123.872,150 % 61.0 4.5 19.3 6.2 2.6 6.4 1984 78,826,364 6,339,920 24,573,018 10,921,919 2,903,353 7,611,&2 131,178,196 % 60.1 4.9 18.7 8.3 2.2 5.8 1905 64,061,182 5,953,968 25,803,749 10,515.405 3,029,520 8.784.572 138.148,125 % 60.9 4.3 181 7.6 22 6.3 1906 81,242,733 6,195,006 27,729,896 11,836,018 2,599,487 8.531,631 138,133,571 % 58.8 4.5 20.1 6.6 1.8 62 (1) MckKin Grwral, Special Revenue, end Debt Service Funds. Opwwft tea oft in here been a ckxisd from ad yam, Sturm Cater County ComprMewM Anm M Fkwx:W Report. 133 i 6 A 5 ICOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION (1) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS 1 (1) Inadadss GisrwW, SpwW Revi rxra, and Debt Sorvtce Funds. Op. i&V ftWm out have lawn axciudsd for al pears. 0 J I source: CoMr Canty C4rrgweiw*n AnmmW Ftrw Report. I 134 's Year Goaasrmwt BdMy Envtronnwt T►ansDat iMon ErMrorrnwt barvtcss Recreation 64sv1as Tabds ' 1967 S 13,208,870 $ 22,163,593 $ 2313,080 S 5,753,4e5 3 895.080 S 3201,889 S 2,823,948 S 7,433,150 S 57,610,853 % 22.9 38.5 4.0 10.0 12 5.6 42 12.9 1968 1 5,636,989 25,343,890 2,001,861 8241,994 871,053 3,830,007 3,558,453 6,706113 61,281,570 % 24.3 39.4 3.3 9.7 1.4 8.0 5.5 10.4 ' 1969 18,952,398 33=1347 2.908.382 6,620.039 1.390,417 3,722.961 4.388,473 6,847.078 78,059.543 % 24.3 42.5 3.7 8.5 1.5 4.8 5.6 8.8 1990 22,071,840 39,914,780 4,372,867 8,516,518 1,142,970 4,153,303 4,969,014 7,858,251 90,817,323 % 24.3 43.9 4.8 7.2 1.3 4.6 5.5 8.4 1901 23,287,074 44,075,886 6,425,346 8,962.967 2,050.678 4,386,967 5,072,210 8,286365 100,461,533 % 232 43.9 6.4 8.9 2.0 4.4 5.0 82 1992 26,009,525 45,173,847 12,298,916 5,972,493 1,269,338 4,934,702 5,882.942 9,642,135 111,963.898 % 232 41.3 11.0 5.3 1.1 4.4 5.1 8.6 1903 % 28,564,861 210 48,062,340 352 10299,424 7.7 6,80,597 5.1 375,767 0.3 5,269,996 4.0 6,856,980 5.0 26,743210 21.7 132,771,957 1904 29AOZ425 48,105,704 6,820788 7,582,423 417,488 5,562,963 7,911,078 10,807,144 117,090993 % 25.5 411 5.8 6.5 03 4.8 8.8 92 1996 28,896,575 419,748,170 6,859,981 7,827,462 973,404 5,311,490 9,340,755 7,844,780 118,402,597 % 24.6 42.8 5.9 6.8 0.8 4.8 8.0 6.5 1998 29,176,081 53,574,996 18,053,485 9,352,083 1.672.571 5,549,492 12,243,918 13,646,360 143,278,974 % 20.4 37.5 12.6 6.5 1.2 32 8.8 9.5 1 (1) Inadadss GisrwW, SpwW Revi rxra, and Debt Sorvtce Funds. Op. i&V ftWm out have lawn axciudsd for al pears. 0 J I source: CoMr Canty C4rrgweiw*n AnmmW Ftrw Report. I 134 's } COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA I PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS ON THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS rME Conrnbebrom Tax Discounts Plus Tens Caiacfbd Plum !Lary Car! Yew PoPuMon Tait Levy cdwcborra Allowed Dhootats DY =Aft to Tom Levy Par Perearr 1907 127.700 S 37,300 S 34290 S 1,114 S 35,464 94im S 29209 19416 135.300 44.546 41,653 1.330 44353 95.14% 32924 t 9fl9 143.700 50.312 46,340 1,521 47,661 95.13% 350.12 1900 152,100 57,272 52.492 1,705 54,197 94.63% 376.54 1991 161,600 05,961 60.516 1,955 62,471 94.71% 406.10 1002 166,500 69,915 64 040 2.114 00,154 94.6211 414.419 1903 174,064 66,224 62,416 2,119 64,535 9459% 390.61 1994 1416.641 09,983 63,833 2,219 66,052 94—In 374.96 1905 146.641 71, 057 64.772 2284 67,056 94.33% 360.116 1990 197,400 78,4116 71,876 2.525 74.401 94.40% 30917 Ad vaioran, froea levied apply "to Governmental Funds under the control of County Can nisaW wa. Properly to ferias, booed an asee«eed vo m as of .larxaay 1, be=, due and pr t** an Norernbv 1, of each yen. A 4% dbootnl is sawed if Or fees are paid in Nowmbsr, wllh Bw daoamt dec*ft by I % each ,,north Il m eafnr, Acca 2n*, fees oo/acMd vA bs 10D" li d f w Tax Levy. Taxes t c e, is dshquwt an Apr/ 1 of each year and tax carb5cated fa the fua amount of any unpaid teem and aeaeaarnee Is must be sold not labor than June 1 d each year. Property Immas rmcolvwbis and a oorramporrdnp romw for uncdectfbie property bom we net hcMxded in ft fkwrcii sbft.w mo Mrene arm no def hies t terse as of Sepbrnber 30.1990 Sources: Tax C 2actor Annual Report and the C011W County DerrcprapW and Econo, ProAe. s 135 t COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 A 5 ASSESSED AND EST*MTED ACTUAL VALUE OF TAXA6l.E PROPERTY (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (L*WUAad) PIWWIV k SM=Md as d Jexwy 1. NW towas Owed an I mass . ars glad and, Eaoar+r dui an On k 4waMp Pis -as dw 1. 7hwvkM asasssn+ets NO kv4W sp a 10 a oaPaln lec ym r aasac4ed in t11a b year wi tp dump iTMt net sueasu" calendar VW- 'The bnb of assessed Yoko rspiad by Inn a4M k 100% of sdAm Yolua. 136 EXFMEIKM Rio d Tall VMtdow Tomb* Assessed To Fical Assessed Gonrnffw*M D' OR) AMaaMd Tdid Esanslad Yasr Vako • and Ymtku&x i htamaaAW Ord Ovw VMu ion Adel VaMo 1937 s 0,51 ,027 s 40201 $ 646,44;1 s 7.197 s 7.73303 100% 1900 9.055234 526.253 605,740 6,w 6,434,4211 10D% 1908 10,011216 400,637 740.714 6,601 9.253054 100% 1900 12,994,100 4851330 796.517 10,348 1Q69Q,754 100% 19111 14.633,015 1.001,237 448,648 12757 12,748,373 100% 1982 16,408,600 1,158,919 929.009 1400E 14,307,776 100% 1983 16,740AM 1,191,043 946,629 14,575 14,546,302 100% 1984 17,242,040 1,313,051 1,030,154 16,704 15,313,063 100% 1996 12,617,175 1,52 be 1,093,563 17,979 15 =194 100% 1896 19,04A D4 1,566,934 1,144.7718 16071 10,930,061 l OD% PIWWIV k SM=Md as d Jexwy 1. NW towas Owed an I mass . ars glad and, Eaoar+r dui an On k 4waMp Pis -as dw 1. 7hwvkM asasssn+ets NO kv4W sp a 10 a oaPaln lec ym r aasac4ed in t11a b year wi tp dump iTMt net sueasu" calendar VW- 'The bnb of assessed Yoko rspiad by Inn a4M k 100% of sdAm Yolua. 136 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA p 5 PROPERTY TAX RATES - ALL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (lhte~ Bans for proprq to rats in 1 mid per $1,000 of assessed vakae. ProWty is sesssssd as of ,lweatry 1 mid tow brad on flor araswrwnta we WAW aP r 9 41 p to ft tax race in sMe the to yaw w10 become due on Norembw 1. ThwuRors, asssswrwb and ttx krrias sppicabN b a certain UK year are codsdsd in Bas fiat yew sndttg d ft the todo A calm do yaer. Stns tiscd year 1995 the ngh ge rails for copkal projects are irtckidsd in the CAwowd Fund., rake. Soumess: Cadiw County annul adopisd budget end Vts Properly Appraiser ReaptAstion Report. 137 COWER COUNTY OTHER Spedd Debt Caplet Cow" Fiscal General Rsrernm Service Prt4me Scttod k depsndw4 Yew Ftnd Funds Funds Funds Trial Diabid Dietrich Tod 1967 3.1754 .6761 .1386 0.8341 44222 7.1590 1.4705 13.451E 198E 3.3330 Am .1040 1.0000 5.2751 7.5400 1.5615 143086 1960 3.4077 .8098 .1076 1.0000 5.4151 7.8630 1.4302 14.9093 1900 33070 .7428 .1572 1.0000 5.2070 8.0240 1.7531 14.9641 1981 3.3602 .6637 .1378 1.0000 5.1517 8.2500 15718 14.9735 1992 3.3295 .7864 .1126 0.8580 4.11685 7.9570 1.4829 142864 1993 3.2580 7726 .1044 0.5474 4.8874 8.0000 1.4455 14.1329 1994 16729 .7823 .1106 0.0000 4.5658 8.0960 1.5448 142146 19Z 3.6028 .6834 .1062 0.0000 4.3924 8.3227 1.5026 142179 1994 3.4918 .7091 .0690 0.0000 42966 8.8000 1.53F3 14.4351 Bans for proprq to rats in 1 mid per $1,000 of assessed vakae. ProWty is sesssssd as of ,lweatry 1 mid tow brad on flor araswrwnta we WAW aP r 9 41 p to ft tax race in sMe the to yaw w10 become due on Norembw 1. ThwuRors, asssswrwb and ttx krrias sppicabN b a certain UK year are codsdsd in Bas fiat yew sndttg d ft the todo A calm do yaer. Stns tiscd year 1995 the ngh ge rails for copkal projects are irtckidsd in the CAwowd Fund., rake. Soumess: Cadiw County annul adopisd budget end Vts Properly Appraiser ReaptAstion Report. 137 COWER COUNTY, FLOR DA A S SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BUINGS AND COLLECTIONS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (od) Fara1 Aaaamarrbt Asasarrrarks CaMcftm Outebrukv Yew Due Co6ocled To Anm rt Due Asawrrorka 1997 f 746,012 t 1,100,503 147% f 5,563,415 1969 273,001 1,363,568 510% 8.253,003 19611 253,747 1,310,353 497% 5,164,122 1900 188,935 998,800 522% 4,221,012 1991 259,102 843,908 239% 3.579,451 1962 2,135,998 5,570,15A 251% 23,637,372 1993 2.732,548 2970,481 133% 21.707,500 1994 1,919,042 3,07560 157% 15.963,460 1995 1,953,051 2,307,329 118'% 17,125.145 1996 2,108,154 2,968,564 140% 15,471,790 E e Hlar plrCar*gn d r ,- 1, is ara a ran* d pwp.mAa rtfada durinp m im has Wad d row aanaa m I rods 1wAad and arty payrrwrrt dua b uft d prCgarYas. eck dw Ptr Rklpa " Nq*w Produdipr Park waa whidr *n County ads as agar* for to borrQrF. , I F] L Scursn Cobs Courty Asaaarnant Ra=p Report t u 138 o A 5+ COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPUTATION OF LEGAL DEBT MARGIN Septambw► 30, 1966 (UNAUDrrED) The con Asm ore a sure of Fkeds, Fbrtde Stab" 200.181 and Cofer County wet no Wo debt kniL COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT Sept rkw 30, 1966 (u Peratri Arrratnt Net Debt Appk able to Appfrabb to wftw4m (1) Cofer County (2) _ CaMr County s 7,136.290 100,00% s 7,130,230 (1) a ckrdas amourb mWabfe In NO Service Funds for pworw t of Ir*erwst and prt�cipel. m Aq*= ; - I n b debrrtinad by mw raboo of neeaad vatnbm of property wb*rd m hm mMon to ttn ovw %ppWg unt to en vakAdm or property sri od to uaxatl, In the rapa tkrp witty. Smwm Cain County Ca r pratnnwhrw Hurd Fk� Report. 139 6 A 5 ' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RATIO OF NET GENERAL BONDED DEBT TO ASSESSED VALUES AND NET BONDED DEBT PER CAPITA LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (UP) service Ratio of FW Not Banded Fral Assessed Vska Grose Banded Monies Net Bonded Bondad Debt to Debt Per ' Year Pop aWn (M MMorr) Debt Avok b e Debt Asasea d Vskis Capita 1987 127,700 S 7,734 S 9258,000 $ 353,348 $ 8,914,652 0.12% t 69.81 1988 1316,300 8,435 8,702,000 69,329 8,632,671 0.10% 63.60 1989 143,700 9,253 13,260,000 49,529 13210,471 0.14% 91.93 ' 1990 152,100 10,893 12,522.000 70,092 12,451,908 0.11% 81.67 1991 161,600 12.749 11,681,000 120,110 11,580,890 0.09% 71.54 ' 1902 188,500 14,306 10,879,000 96,965 10,782,035 0.08% 63.99 1993 174,684 14,546 10,021,000 47,489 9,973,511 0.07% 57.10 1994 186,641 15,313 9.102,000 66.638 9,035,384 0.06% 48.41 t 1996 186,641 15,313 8,115,000 105,423 8,009,577 0.05% 42.91 1996 197,400 18,931 7,240,000 100,720 7,139280 0.04% 36.17 t 4 0 Sources: Coisr C twty Drrwprapft and Ecotxx, Proffia. Ptop" Appraiser ReapILMOm Report ' CoMw Couriy CanpreheruM Anmmf Fktricie! Report. 140 6 A 5' COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA RATIO OF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL BONDED DEBT TO TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (Un& dtbsd) TOM Ratio of TOM Irtsrast Ganaral Debt Service Racal And FWal Total Ea4parldlhsu To Gana Year PAncipd Chw9ft DdA Swvla (1L_ ElipwMm 1997 s 01.000 $ 382.044 S 453,044 S 57,910,953 0.01% 199E 558,000 580,753 1,148,753 64,291,570 1.79% 1966 442,000 SMS12 998,912 78,060,543 12996 1960 738.000 928.985 1,884,685 90,617,3x1 1.9396 1961 541,000 838,439 1,879,436 100.481.533 1.67% 1962 802,000 768,493 1,590,463 111,983.566 1.42% 1993 656,000 737.046 1,595.048 132,771.957 120% 1964 919,000 681,009 1,600,009 117,062.693 1.37% 1995 967,000 822.924 1,809,924 116,402,597 1.38% 1996 1,110,000 587,002 1,897,002 142,964,537 1.10% (1) kWILKIas Gsnaral, Speaal Raverxie, and Debt Service Funds Sass: CoNW Cooly Compntwr&Sv Amuml FirwnclM Repon. 141 H �J Souoe: Coiw Canty Campreherrslve Annum! Flim Report. 142 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER FUNDS REVENUE BOND COVERAGE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (1) (UrwAW A 5 FbcmI Gross Ns(Revamw Available For ' Year Reverm f1) Expenses (3) _ Debt Service Prt�_ Interest Total Cownge (4) 1987 3 10,747,682 S 5,048,812 S 5,898,870 f 337292 S 2,148,757 S 2,484,040 229% ' 1968 14,534,226 5,969,868 8,574,358 603293 3,393,242 3,996,535 2.14% 1969 18,364,206 5,528,519 12,865,888 1,318,405 4,759217 6,077,62'2 212% 1990 22,073.967 8.808,388 13,26 5,579 1,389243 5,655AM 7,025,272 1.89% 1961 24,197254 10,337,864 13,859,820 1,438293 5,572,337 7,010,630 1.96% 1992 29,161,021 12,026,998 17,134,023 1,434,958 7,237,096 8,672,056 1.97% 1993 32,168,456 13,142,832 19,023,677 2,128293 7,352,527 9,480,820 2.01% ' 1994 35.638 564 15,142,536 20,496.029 2,441.8% 7,033,492 9.475,151 2.16% 1995 37,250,837 17,051,916 20,198,921 4,230,737 6,226,952 10,457,640 1.93% 1996 38,661,804 18,135,792 20,555.812 4,095,477 6,767,030 — 10,862,507 1.89% x (1) C ml4P OPPOW to the Canty Water Sewer District, and Mauro Water and S *m District and Goon WW Wmw D*M. a As 1990, oovrrape also appbiaa to the Pelican Bay Wster"Sewer District m X8&+9 M#Wwn pka o0w Uroorne acvv of wtaw*wy Asks. M TdW m'; dspreciamr, , arrlorriz95on. O&wr&wy kwna and bond itw x:6,767,030.. (4) Not rwAmn d A%d by total debt service rogL*w wit. H �J Souoe: Coiw Canty Campreherrslve Annum! Flim Report. 142 i i COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA O A [ SALARIES AND SURETY BONDS OF PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS A J SEPTEMBER 30, 1906 (Urmidted) Name and TWO of Off cW Santry surw Bored Bell" J. Mathews - Chairman. Sam of County Cammbsiorws f 43,605 S 2,000 Jour C. Nal I - VIm Ctakrtwt. Board of County Cormissbnars 43,605 2.000 Tbm" J. Carowarn - Mwnbrr, Some of Caurty Goner iorws 43M zo00 Tho" L. Huroock - Munbar, Board of County Cama s 43,095 2000 Pamela S. Mee lft - mwrtw, Board of County Corer t"Wrmrs 43 ,605 2.000 Dwiprt E. Brody - Cterk rA Circuit Court 82,959 5.000 Don HurOw - Sherfff 86.832 10,000 Mary W. Mcxu n - Supervisor ct Electrons 72SW 5,000 Abe Sldrrrw - Property Appraiwr 82.950 10,000 Guy LCarfbn - Troy Coloctor 82,959 250,000 W. Nod Dorrf - County Menapw 118.305 Blark t Bond .� ' Extrriaa pargtteRes Smm Cafes County Psyrol Depertnent 143 b A 5 ' COLUER COUNTY, FLORIDA DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (1)rardi d) pit- Ficar pwcwt Capita Schaal (blarnpbynrart yaar Popu,tabon (1) h aaaa kxwm (1) Erxo&nwt Q) Rain M 1067 127,700 4.7% 1 21,960 17,051 52% 1966 135,300 52% 24,675 16,960 4,5% 1960 143,700 6.2% 25,MM 2D.V1 4.33% 1990 152,100 5.8% 27,672 21,547 5.3% 1981 161,600 6.3% 27,412 23,135 6.8% 1992 166,500 4.3% 27,509 24,152 SAM 1903 174,664 3.5% 28,574 25,437 6.5% 1994 166,641 6.9% WA 24,364 82% 1905 186,641 0.0% WA 27,631 6.9% 1906 197,400 5.8% 30,201 24.426 6.4% WA a Dab not asrarty avaiabie. i Sources: (1) FWWN SbOdk -:al Abstract, Unkwaiy of Fbrlda. (2) Coiier County Sctwd Bond. based on ftA lima ***miwt m.c&r wt ravlsad 1995. t (3) Florida Dpartrrm t of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statla =; and DMWm of Effvbrrwt Ssaalty, Dapartrnert of Cameros, State of Fbrida -+; - ead as a pwcerwapa. It 144 6 A 5' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPERTY VALUE, CONSTRUCTION, AND BANK DEPOSITS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (UrwudHd) Row:* tlel (1) FMd Nun6a of Volus In Number of Number of Von Bank Depoe t Year P"ft (2) (Tl>QSmnda) 2 PWmts(_ Ur" 0_ On Thouterge) (3) On Thoussrr4t) (4) 1967 252 5 36,007 3,059 6,085 S 2912,116 S 1,323,150 1966 270 51,697 2,687 6,496 436540 1,505,433 low 30D 77,720 3.024 6,121 466 346 1.672,041 1990 382 51,656 3.048 6332 422736 1,910,521 1�1 466 80,243 2,361 3,000 241.467 2,066219 1992 339 77,186 2,870 4,552 360,141 2,067215 190;1 320 51.956 2.254 3,415 303,951 2,097,133 1994 296 82,211 2,684 4,073 397,861 2,707.107 1995 268 47,724 14,191 4,323 475,769 2670 991 1996 275 60,789 14,555 5,01 529,1334 3,112,346 (1) lrr*4n Duplose, Mobile Homes, Mub -Fw* snd Sk0s Fw* Stucbxn, M Depertrn t d C W rn my Dwmbp Tw t - Pam>t/urd report by type of *ucbxe (new Wueluas onM. Number of udbo of non4sakienbel cmv*uc*m in not wa iabts. () Vettoe it stshad st .,w vow. (4) Florida Bodo rs Aeeocistlon. SOS= Catisr Caudlr Deperbm t d Carrrramty Dwalopew t and to Florlds Beim' Aeaodstlon. 145 t i i a COLDER COUNTY, FLORIDA L A PRINCIPAL TAXPAYERS COUNTY WIDE (� H 1965 TAX ROLL (U i/l. .r y. Trial Property Taees LwW 249.720.W AnwurKs for twgwyws wRh akoft rrrrrs hm not been carble . Samos: Property Appraiser's bxpoy'w istkrp in order of feria WAmd. 146 Property Paraerd of Togas TOW OwnedTa�aysr L NW Taxer Levied FWds Power i Uptt Car"rtlr t 1.507,555 0.00% Urisd Tafephorm Carrrp" of Florida 1,473211 0,50% W C I Carrmsaft 1,000,000 0.44% The Rk Canon HaW 1,057,049 0.42% CRy Natfaral Berk of IYiarni 1,019,309 0.41% Cater Dwabpmw t Corporation 1,007,350 0.40% 11aroo Island UEIAbs 500,429 0.20% Hak+latt Par mollp 487,002 0.20% Lee Couriy Electric 472,501 0.19% C. C. Hopi", Inc. 447,390 0.18% i/l. .r y. Trial Property Taees LwW 249.720.W AnwurKs for twgwyws wRh akoft rrrrrs hm not been carble . Samos: Property Appraiser's bxpoy'w istkrp in order of feria WAmd. 146 COLDER COUNTY, FLORIDA MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICAL DATA SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UroxRhd) b A 51 Cmity Number of Schoois: EMW-t1flC 2026 square mks Him schods 4 M k"a Schoois 7 EapLiOn Ehrnwfty Schoois 19 Vocations, Toctwlic;w 1 Oft Residents Number of admirftbatom 1905 115,900 snd non4ratrucdond Number or tesdwrs 1,715 1,649 1994 122;000 1947 177,700 1944 135,300 1940 143,700 Pa 11 Issued 16,936 i990 152,100 EstkrWAd ow s+tru *m cceb $ 623,520,312 1961 161,400 Ponca Proterlton r21 1902 156,514 1993 174.664 Number of stations 7 1994 144,641 Numbs of empioyees: 1995 164,641 CsrWW low wdoros i m Cerww 386 1904 197,400 corfecom ofliosrs CNOan 175 empbpees 233 CerfMed Juddd empbyees 20 cam DWblctal: As of 3splenmber 30, 1996 2,364 E1o: -ili Number of elatiorw Number of employees 2 Nurrew of vokm*wz 11 6 Emom Number of rs01 sred valsrs 96,226 Nsrmber d rotors 4rned out for Miss of atreeee Nurr+ber of dyad 1" (3) 1,590 het Oerwrst d"mm 77216 - 78% Number of trafltc A" 950 124 Number of county nwktokwd ;oft 49 Number of ttbrartes 4 Number of vokxnm In IErarfea 361,565 Number of water end swwsr cmrtoewrs 33,600 Daly wow cwwur+mftn pock season (ys9mms) 11,Oe6,700 me" of wow tiles 517.4 Mies of eenituy sealers 5962 Mose of pknsry and ssoonduy (1) Emkdn Ir 4 F ndent Fire Dhbtcts (2 iY11Qe facdoei tao (2) bcludss Ciy Poioe and State Troopers (3) b cWn LJphtinp Db ft* (4) files Sbuebares and Rsravaborw Smm Cdtiw Ccu* Dem Wq*k and Ecwm* ProfN 147 6 A 5 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA MAJOR INDUSTRIES WfTHM COWER COUNTY SEPTEMBER 30, 19W ® i r' Industry Firma Empbjse Card' 1w and Other LodgkV 62 3,406 Hadlh MMoaa 302 6,376 Budrw &envies 377 3,706 Flrwxw, kAwearroe and Red Estate 724 4,473 Arrauwnwt and RmcresOm Servloee 112 3,045 Services - Other 1,402 7.1W services 3,130 29. W Eating and Drirddrrg Places 361 6,234 Food Skm 137 3A00 Ault Deders and SwAce Statlau 104 1,403 Horns Furr&n and Fume *Ve 213 1,137 Rata1 Trade - Odw 307 1,006 Append and Accessory Stone 194 1,40 General Mmrdsv4se Slone 21 t AW &Adnp Hardwm and Garden 59 640 ReW Trade 1,400 10A08 Federal Goverrrrrrd 10 547 Stale Goverrmert 38 761 Local Gov rnmerd 22 6,514 Govemnerd 70 7A42 AWWtL e, Forestry and Fletwiss 306 10,702 Carsbuclion 029 7,217 Merrufaetu" 166 2,300 Trarnportallon, C r rr%x*cw ion and Pubic Utilities 215 2,001 MltrokwWo Trade 346 1,064 mr*v 5 34 Other 1,951 2408 Total 6.806 70.733 ' Average mrnbar of people employed In 1006 a 1 Sauce: Florida Dgmtr ent of Labor a EnVioyrnent Seoutr, Buesu of Labor MOW lift. -di on x 148 p 5' COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE IN FORCE SEPTEMBER 30, IM (Urwxmsm Type cc po" A-w Type of ca+sraps Lents of Usbly Ca r"m Data Annual Prwnkxn Property (1) $1,000,000 Uoyds of LorfdaNNotUdMld 09C3WA $ 310,400 $5.000,000 CrumA I'm NO 0W30M $ 42.342 Genral Umbilty (2) $250,000 par oecurrer« a Uoyds of LandoNNorthflsld 09/3498 $ 'Inokrdsd in above 7,631 51. 000.000 apprspste (3) Security ofD ewer 09/.K M $3,000,000 exoses Excess DIC $20,000,000 R"W Surplus Lirns o9y9496 $ 86,9n $5,000.000 Crum 3 Forster $5,000.000 Noreffaw E=ew Lisbly 54. 750,000 X250,000 St. Pad Iwraarbe 0960x98 $ 141,500 E Property $250.488,454 Cron 3 F%xON OW30M $ 254.738 Automobile L kbly $1,000,000 National Union Firs 0110096 s 61,004 Accidental Death and $75.000 ktwntional Death The Hwtford kneranee 09x3496 $ 19,532 Dhmvw bwmw9 (AD a D) 525,000 In Line of Duty Compenlf $25,000 Fresh Pursuits Airport Uabfty $1, 000.000 each oaxurence Arneriesn Eagle Insurance Co. 0 30M 5 9.921 O ckrd*np Products and Ccn pisbd Operations Aircraft Umbiy s2,000.000 kckx*v Passenpr AAU 03M 3197 $ 76,920 Boier & Machinery 325. 000.000 par Accidrt Hartlad Stearn Boier 09x30196 $ 7,150 Pubic Officlals various rnounts an Carrinrm Varian Various Bonds (3) Officwls Emm Woriwrs' Canpr*Wm C4mpwasbon $5,000,000 WC Lkni Sddy National 0W30M $ 47,816 E=ses Group Medical $1, 000,000 Sems* LOS Of Denver ow ow Various per ioa,ed Life and AccWw fat mwr�Oerrt Doom and OM ms 1 )es Annual Sdwy mom ow3ofm Velours C OV*rt Law Enforownet officers Professional Lbubly $2,200,000 FlorWs SsN kmUarnce OW30"96 $ 16.103 Annud prsrniurn on Auto Ud ly doss not Inckrde ShrNrs Depatrnat. (1) knckxks real, peso . sub physial drnspe, Inland mairne equipment, adra a errs, EDP. vnelsre WL vaiubie papers and reomds flood. sw xFnlae, al w and pa lm i nnoa bonds. (2) Inckudes Pubic Ofticiste Enna a Ocnissions, Medical Allardets Malpractice (3) Pubic Oft" Lkubilty Source. CAw County Risk Msnapeannt Dapatmant 149 k p I I 11 1 ;1 1 !1 1 '1 iI n r� 0 LT VAITO • : • �• �. Lll• REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 1 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups 2 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - All Governmental Fund Types and Expendable Trust Funds 8 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) - All Governmental Fund Types and Expendable Trust Funds 10 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings - All Proprietary Fund Types 13 Combined Statement of Cash Flows - All Proprietary Fund Types 14 Notes to the Financial Statements 16 MANAGEMENT LETTER 51 0 0 fl ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP 0 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CF.RTI rED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS To the Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida: A 5 We have audited the accompanying general vu:pose financial statements of Collier County, Florida, Board of County Commissioners (the "Board ") as of and for the year ended September 30, 1996, as listed in the Table of Contents. These general purpow financial statements are the responsibility of the management of the Board. Our responsibility is to express an. opinion on theme general purpose financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Govermnent Auditing Standards (1994 Revision), issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the eneral 8 purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the general purpose financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and signifkant estimates made by management, as w-!U as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. As discussed m Note 1, the financial statements present only the Board and are not intended to present fairly the financial position of Collier County, and the results of its operations and the cash flows of its proprietary fund types in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, the general purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Board., as of September 30, 1996, and the results of its operations and the cash flows of its proprietary fund types for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards (1994 Revision), we have also issued a report on our consideration of the Board's internal control structure and a report on its compli.uKe with laws and regulations, both dated January 17, 1997. L L P Fort Lauderdale, Florida, January 17, 1997. Asm*W Cash and ittueefaeo is inveaYnartb v th hobo R*20od*K Special aaeerxrwts Lldwvd Trade, net Urtbdlsd Notes Offwr Due lrvm Coewla,tiorld Of ms Due hom dim lands Due ham dlw governments Advances and deposts Prepaid oodsoos * Reorscfed assets: Cash end hv*surw is Special rttc*my arts rw*mbie: Gems Deferred Accrued Merest Was rsoeivaGe Due horn ottw povernrtwts Propo ty, pirtt and e**Mwt (nd wtws apQ/es6ie, of srxtt>t goo depreolodon) OM+er seeds Ottw debts: Amounts waW* in debt service funds Amounts to be provided tar Poorsmertt of per,eral long4en„ debt TOTAL ASSETa Am OTMM OEnrrS COLLIER COMM BOARD OF COUNTY COMI MSS1ONERS CLOMBINED BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS SEPTEMBER 30, 1906 L v Getierrtnwtal Fund Types Proprietary Fund Types Garwal Spacial DWA Fund Rem%A Funds Service Fun4s Ptra� Funds Erterprlse Funds Service Funds S 9,966,771 S 26,530,713 S 7,137,570 S 410,776,120 S 77,646,401 S 11,750 - 4,9x1 206,331 _ 43,633 157,960 21,434 151,361 469,479 34,65 25,916 - - - 2.737,025 26,633 • 1,332,624 255,974 _ - - 457,569 42,456 113,O6A - - 4,833,214 509,506 12,344 9511 121,345 105 2,100,331 104,570 - 28 I,M.00S 1,079,435 26,560 2,7b6,218 55,361 3. - 1 0 114,121 121 . 651,180 119, 2,500 1,725 12,320 - 39,716,004 926,294 - 13,346,837 . 965,395 - 2,005,496 - - 1,858,799 - 734,916,221 4,176,127 - 9,256,184 .� S 18.366.483 S 31203.679 3 7 247 575 $ 44.152363 S 446 299255 $ 16,215,766 1 2 BB 0 0 FWuciwy Fu ml Typm Accotat Groups Prirm" C-04errmwt Trot Genwal w Agowy Clwwrad Lmia.-Tenn Total Fvda _n!!!jAs$4b Deft (Awrowxlum Only) 856 Ass s 144,M9A6I 4 22.3M 4.5ZUM 211254 20.861 919,410 Z790,M 1=624 256.974 87,834 703,947 37= 5,721=6 Z205.1 82 5,237Ng 4,510 1,044 351 1,9W,244 16--45 39.716,004 928,294 13.3416,837 965,366 2.005.496 1,856,799 199.971.911 539,054,2—A 9,256.184 7,239.946 7239,948 69,771,305 6D,771 305 199.971.911 S 77.011 _ f 1154.751.506 (CONTINUED) COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMM18SlONERS COMSOM BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30,1096 b A 51 Gorermm" Fund Types __ Proprietary Fund Types GsrwM SpKW DW C"041 lrternel Fund Revenue Funds Swvto Funds Pmit c% Funds Er6wprtse Funds Sw#to Fund t U►sli l71£?- EOL1fTY AND CM4FFt CR D Ta Lieblliac Vaud ws Pvytk said aoausts f 2,16D,806 S 1,0fi,640 = 7,828 S 2.771,366 S 2,839,649 S 371A Due b Ca ft6donel Offt s 70.106 203,2T7 - 2,315 352 6,7-r Due b cew h+rda 74,570 - - 5,000 I,M,32D 21 Due b o?wt 2mwr rrsrts Ddanvd cwry 6247 622,742 - 1,309 - t3.T. room peiyabis S 94rounr ce deirns ps,11W _ Cunrd nNholi s of be" abipdiaw _ - 27.67 Current mdw bas of non pslrsbU - _ - 329 Defwrad raw wm ReM�debk 23,480 1,431,208 - R40red ariirby" dsF o - - - - 3,41 Rolm'" Prfat4a 1,610 506394 2.2m,05 - Esarsrsd Srnpect fees _ Due to hoidxs of special sse*aarnsnt bands - - Psywo Strom resuirw *seats: vm,a rs pa7*bis Dehrrsd rwaxxs _ _ - 1- 754.30 Current moxtas of notes pay.bie - - - - 225.235 1,R1t.052 Clarsrt wmkgtles of rwmmn bonds - 3.2x.737 Due b otlw pmwmwnts A4muW tnia _ 3WSW payable Cudwwr depoats _ _ - - - 2.1371379 374,M ReriimW pry abM - - $37,51;Y3 Lr XN kboty GOW'AWal sbipsbon bonds _ _ 4.324,69:1 pWy Revenue trails *nil ewwcates a kvkb a kwu P"IIAS (nom) - - 96,317,278 Cawrw tw paper ben peysbie _ - Nods I h, - i 2.752.766 AdA spa raI I 1sbWy _ _ - Cep*stmd %me obfigo" Accn'd COmgmns W - t - — 642,444 448,* TOTAL. LiA84 -MES S 2,345,699 S 3,836,411 S 7,628 3 16,630,672 $ 131,771,150 $ 6,020,6! 6 A 5 Fund Tvpw Acco rt Gr Tn„c Genwal WW AQw" Gww* LerV -Twm Trial Funds Fbsd AwAft PAemoranam pr*A 2 33,338 $ 19,257 : i S 9064 !39 304.167 165,011 2,M56182 644,031 4,522,501 4 =501 5.063,139 329,964 1,044.351 14,340,864 804,712 804,422 3,488 2718,9x9 429,791 ' 429.791 5,386,644 5,388,644 1,754,368 225,235 " - 1.838,652 . 3.236.737 308,560 2028,379 374,138 - 837,59) 4,324,183 7,240,000 7,240,000 47.585,000 145,902,278 19,287,000 19267,000 191.589 4.079 12944,351 4,079 - 26.000 110,163 2.x.58? 3,968,115 _ 124o5A1 s s . S 77,01 IM i 250,230 099 (CONTMED) 5 t;uwtn LA-Km t Y &OMU L+ GkAM FY CkOAMISSIONERS COMBINED BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30,19% ^ (� The notes :D the general Purpose financial statenwits are an irleWW part of this statemot, 6 Govemmrnt l Fund Types Propr$etary Fund Types Gerwal Spacial Debt CalAai irtlenW Fund Rare Funds Ssrvkat Funds P_Lojects finds Enterprise Funds Service Fur U&B mr t a xry Nn OTHER CRF_L`IT S (CONTINUED) Equity and Otwr Credits: COr*txReQppital f S i 225,051,689 f 2,358. 4uesb.m in general fbeed asscts Rstakwd swr*vs: Rsssrnd kr. Rsysrxn bond roWwr t - - 9,718,637 Rwwwd and nep%cwnarR 400,000 tkwemwvod - 79,357,779 7,836; Fund twtances: Rsmvod for Lo v4wm rx*ea rec eMabie 322,333 4,543,578 17,064,150 114,121 - Pmpoid I _ 2,500 1,725 Debt service - 4,800.675 - Tnatt knd p xpases Urwomved: 0e84wlad for kr*ed foss - 370,992 _ Debt sarvbe - 2,439,273 - Fuhre copu Pis 10,2555,616 - °d 15,SM,040 22,450,198 TOTAL EOUrTY AND OTHER CREDITS 18,022,404 27,367,258 7,2:38 948 27,321y491 314,528,105 10,194,1 TOTAL Lvftrr Es. EOurTY AND OTHER CREDITS f 18.3158.493 f 31 203.879 S 7.247.578 i 44Z 52.383 f 446.299.255 S 18.215. The notes :D the general Purpose financial statenwits are an irleWW part of this statemot, 6 Fund Types Acom" Groups Pftwy Gammwd Trud Gorwrw and Agwicy CenwW Larg-Term Funds Fbad Assets OW TdW (►�Aarnonnd � Onh) I 217,4*,850 199,971,911 9, 71 a,637 400,000 6,081 21.936,142 - 114,121 4.225 4,800.675 1 80+9,312 1,889.312 370.W2 2,439,273 10=.516 36,(M.238 1 675.393 190,971,911 604,521,497 1426, .Z 77.011 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CADN6433101£RS COMBNEO STATEMENT OF REVENUES. E*vEkQfTURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES AND EXPEHOABL.E TRUST FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 Govenrrwtat Fund Types Low. Tamp Lkames and permis a dmgom.v. s tw Cheryae for ncvkmg Firm and krf bib knprad to" Spx*f asaeser++erzRs Misam" W us Tcdd rmwxxs Curren rArwrof gowrrrrw t Pudic nasty Ptysica9 wwkarrrw t Ttansp rGRSon Evw=nic ww wart Haan swvkxs C44Lre and recreation Cap3a1 ouAay Debt service Trial dues Emom of rewnues over (under) 09"Xit res Other (kuan kv sources (uses): Operaling bmroWs in • Corummorw otfi en OPa N*V tr&Wws out - CautitutiorW oRicers Proceeds from karu Pmceeds from refu rc*V boruft Paynwt to nAnded bond escrow agent Opera" k'arueten in Operaf v trans(ars out Tdai otuer rnwr -kV sourop (uses) Exees of rrrsrrxe and other lirw ckV sources aver (under) o pen - dturp and ottw fivanckV use: Fund balances at begknni V o(yeer Furl bdwvo s at and of yen Garueral Spr.1a1 Debt Fund Revenue Funds _ Service Funds - i 57,262,770 S 21,7-76,098 3 2,203,045 06,775 6,108,231 - 19,992,661 ,,606,306 3,120,641 3,964,520 1,711,906 - 2,511,273 60,214 - 1,640.300 1,835,583 SWAN - 1,104,317 - 2,863,202 81,430 88.329,509 37,394,185 5,836,114 9,840,617 3,007,420 2,225,812 7,901,615 - 1,703,504 16,359,981 - - 9,352,063 - 371,006 1,300.771 - 4,710,365' M1 27 8,077,630 4,1 116,288 1,187 13,645,193 26.930,534 42928,452 13,645,193 61.396,975 (5,534,267) _ (7.007.079) 4,660,649 175,332 - (53,fJ9,405) (6.868.225) (41.328) • 5,270,000 - - - 7,175,000 - - (6,900.82g) 474,700 4,037,015 4,1x2 ,784 (13,955,624) (780,1112) _ (175,000) (62,710,680) 1,832,9w 4,681,627 (1,311,70 (3,701,307) (3,125,452) 17,334,199 31,068,575 _ 10,365,400 The notes 10 910 general purpose rruarudat statements are an iutegrat pert d this statarnarrt 8 e i e t t e i s t i Fiduciary Fund Types Prfrw Gomffwnert Caul Ezprxdab+e TWl Projects Funds Tnxt Funds (Mertwrand�rn pr�rl L $ 8,306,789 $ 446,493 $ 89,906,015 - 9,334 6,204,340 7-351.962 9,618,787 30,061,660 514,433 19,032 6209,801 22,201 665,244 3,265,731 7-532.581 107,947 6,630,037 15,499,584 42,622,569 1,056,752 15,409,584 174,541 (12,959,798) 218,810 1,358,858 282,881 36,512 3,0641025 29,862,771 1,285,562 162,510,141 141,103 12,989,140 603,398 10,731,625 - 18,063,485 266,72 , 9,618,787 1,672.577 33,326 5,582,818 22,201 12266,119 42.622 569 - 42,622,569 - 13,646,380 42,622,569 1,056,752 127,193,500 (12,959,798) 218,810 35,316.641 4,844,961 (60,609. ) 5,270.000 7,175,000 (6,900,829) 5230,870 93,000 14,459,369 (2,652,099) [358,900) X921,785) 2,578,771 (265,9 (53,883. (10,381.027) (47,090) (18,566.581) 37,702,518 1,922,483 98,393,175 f_ 27.321.491 $ 1.875293 $ 79.826-594 n 6 A 5 GOM604ED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES � I BUDGET AND ACTUAL (BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES AND EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 19W Goverrtffw" Fund Types The noes to the pow* purpose fYtanciat statements are an integral put of this swerneN. 10 Genoa! Fund Special Revenue Funds - (Nan -GAAP) &xVd A&AJW Vtirttnoe BudgA Achi l I Vartance Revwxrra: Try $ 56,304,300 S 57,25z770 t (2,041,530)$ 22,724,200 S 21,776,068 S (946.102) Liceneoa and permits 00.700 86,775 8)075 5,067,000 6,439,296 1,371,296 2w 19,10z000 19,9?2851 810,081 51596,993 4,843,209 (953,764) Chrnns kr sb-*" 4,385 500 3.964,520 (420,984) 1,431,1!82 1,711,906 260,044 Fhes and forfadtrss 3,222,200 2,511,273 (710,97n 49,800 88,214 38,614 Irtaredtncome 938AM 1,846,308 906.708 837,504 1,835,503 MOW Specisl s:sasarrierrts - 1,718,800 1,164,317 (44, 483) LGoodansom 2676,366 2,663 M2 (13,186) 26 Mg 81,430 54,531 TotW rw#wxms 89,789,688 88,322,5M _ (1,460,17Sj 36,962,858 37,759,085 796,207 Ctxrent Garw* governmert 10,471,830 9,640,617 631213 3,769,1 W 3,007,420 762,249 Pttft:Safety 2.346,463 2.226,612 119,851 9,069,123 7,901,615 1,167,506 PNI" sr*t Wmert 1,931,425 1,703,504 227,921 20,031 75 16,359,961 3,671,294 Trwwpo►tatim - - - 10,172474 9,352„063 820,411 Ecrxrornic w*Vwtment 445,400 371,606 73,504 1,567.695 1,300.771 266.924 Human services 4,720,460 4,710,365 10,095 1,169,915 639,127 330,788 Goya and recreation 8,553,028 8.077,630 475,395 7.436,749 4,166,286 3270,461 DOM service z688 2667 1 raw vpertdures 28,468,606 _ 26,930,534 1,538'm 53,219,588 42929,952 10,289,636 Ex esa o( revenues over (-odor) cgmndhres 61,321,062 61,396,975 77,863 (16,256,730) (5,170,887) 11,085,843 Other firuncin6 sources (uses): Opsrv&V transfers in - Cons� Of5crxs 2.340.000 4,669,649 2- 329,646 300 175.332 175,032 OWSdrp tram out - Cor s*Wortal Often (54.205,997) (53,899.405) 306.592 (6,851,300) (6,869,2251 (17,925) Proceeds from low 5,600,000 5-71-0.000 (330.000) Pmaoeds from veftrex 9 bonds Payrnert to Wurxiad bored escrow agert - OpWO&V trmfen n 474,700 474,700 4,302,900 4,037,015 (2+%,885) Operathq "Wen aut (14,912,930) (13,955,624) 957,306 (1,122,200) (780,162) 342,038 ToW oRher &wxxV sources (uses) (66,304,227} (62,71000) 3,593,547 1,929,700 1,832960 (96,7'10) Excess of reverxxs and ottxr fntncin9 sourxs over (trader) exp - dtbtres and cow fewrten9 uses (4,983,145) (1,311,705) 3,671,440 (14,327,030) (3,337,927) 10,989,103 Fund batrrx- at be o. inp o(year 17,334,199 17,334,199 27,215,065 31,867,231 4,632166 Fund balances At end of yew S 1235. 1.054 $ t 6.022.454 S 3.671.440 S_--j2&86035 $ __?,B� 304 $ 15.641.299 The noes to the pow* purpose fYtanciat statements are an integral put of this swerneN. 10 GoKrrwrwtW Fund Types 6 A 5 Debt Ser"m Funds GapRal Pro}ects Furxts - (ivm -GMi'► Budget _ Actual ywtar+ce Budget Acted _ Vartwce $ 2,280,200 S 2,203,885 $ (56.335)S 7,783,300 $ 8,306,78H S 523,489 3,085,900 3,128,641 42,741 3,146,710 2,351962 (794,748) 437,735 514,433 78,068 156,400 505,606 349206 820,615 2,532,581 1,911,735 6,172.900 91866,86b 1,093,966 - 87.900 174,541 106,641 733,476 2"1 (450,595) 5,502,500 5,636,114 335,614 201982,866 24,030,073 3,067'207 95,552,943 42,622,589 52,930.374 14,304,959 13,645,193_ 8''x9,766 - 14,304,959 13, 645,193 83L9,756 95,552,943 42,622,569 _ 52,930,374 (8, 802,459) (7,807,079) 995,380 (74,590,077) (18,592,48e _ 55,997,581 (66,100) (41,328) 24,772 - - 24,000,000 1.500 (23,998.500) 10.175.000 (8,900,88t3) 00 7,175,0 (8,900,829) (3,000,000) 57 - - 5,858,600 4,623,7t4 (1,234,816) 5,208,745 5,230,870 22,125 (3,175.000) (175,000) 3, 000,000 (2,924,031) (2,652,099) 271,932 5,891,614 4,681,627 (1, 209, 967) 26284,714 2,560,771 (23,704,443) (2,910,845) (3,125,452) (214,607) (48.305,363) (16,012,725) 32293,136 7,963,169 S S.C52_324 I 10,366,400 7239.?; S 2,402,231 2167.624 S 53,252,992 33.749,260 4-947.829 S (19,503,732) _ 17,737.035 $ _ 12709.408 t.. r.m LAo4jN I r LW h^AU (.* wun 1 r G4j*A%%34W(m e K.$ COMBINED STATEMENT Of REVENUES. EXPENORURES AND C►UNGES IN FUND BALANCES BUDGET AND ACTUAL ( BUDGETARY BASIS) ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES AND EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS (CONTINUED) A L /1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEWEP. 30, 1996 6 Revwxxs: Tants Llcervm Em Pa., W"mo+rerr>tslerrht Charges for rerrtrn Fha a w,d forfa u es k emat traarre irrvact lees Spachl asees:rnarts hibcsi nexus Total ravarrxs fie: Cirrat Gwm-M 97verrvrmnt Ptti~ savvy Physical err*orenent Transporia8cm Ecome is srrArontrml Hurrm savices Culh-ra and recreation Gapdat outtay Debt service Total expwidrhres Excess of revwx.*es over (under) c9wx ores Operatlrg bwx1m in - Cartstitutio nri Omms Operat}V trxxfeM out - ConsMLWW OA1rxs Proceeds kom Ioens P1tx:aeCs from rs ux*V bonds Payrnatt to refunded bond escrow agent Operetkg trarWers In Operating transfers out Tsai other flrn xwV soumw (uses) Excess of manuea and other Mwxw g sama aver (under) oq- - dturss and otl+er ti-MV*V uses Fund bahmes at begivirg of year Fund baarxea at end of year Fiduciary Fund Type Total Ev?endasle Trust Fun4s - (Nom -GAAP) OnW 8?d Lot Actual VsrMnoe Bert Actual VwWnce 673,650 843,396 70252 12,089,236 S 83,100 S 446,4933 363,30.! 3 92,155,100 S a0,9G6,015 i (2,159,085) 1 l ,510 91334 (2, 168) 5,150,200 6,534,407 1,375,207 10,5M,750 • - 31,011,600 30,116,473 (x46,130) 20,000 19,032 ('"m 6275.Ov 6,2W)WI (662108) 403.304 666244 262,¢10 3,ti75,104 3,265.731 (400,373) 52,400 67,111 14,711 2,805,746 6,70x,201 4,183,452 95,552,943 42.622,569 . 8.17 -2,900 9.8(96.886 1.897,998 14.307.647 13.&47.880 - 1298,700 1.358,a56 &2,158 104,300 36,512 (67,76 3,541,083 3,064,025 (477,0331 _ 674,804 1,244,726 570,122 153,at72,516 _ 157,201,467 3,306,971 188,300 141.103 47,197 14,429,799 12.96t#,140 1,440,659 673,650 843,396 70252 12,089,236 10,731,625 1,357,611 (6.900,886) (6.900829) - 21,962,700 18,053,485 3,899215 393. 275 266.724 126,552 10,5M,750 9,818,787 90,963 - 2,013,095 1,872,577 340,518 57,500 33,326 24,174 5,947,875 5,582,818 365,057 23,500 22,201 1,299 18,013,277 12,266,119 3,747,158 - - 95,552,943 42.622,569 52,930,374 - 14.307.647 13.&47.880 650.767 113-'.5,226 1,066,752 269,474 192,882,322 127,195,000 65,687,322 (661,671) _ 177,974 839,508 (38,989,806) _ 33,008,487 68,99,293 93,000 93,000 (358.900) (358,900) (265,9W _�2-QS 2,340,300 4,644,981 2,504,681 (61,123,397) (60,809,958) 313,439 29.E00,000 6,271,500 (24,328,500) 10,175,000 7, 175,000 (3,000,000) (6.900,886) (6.900829) 57 15,937,945 14,459,369 (1,478,576) _ __�La493,061) _i17,921.785) 4,571,276 (r,464, _�•8$1.722� (21,417,823) (927,522) (87.926) 839,596 (71,453,905) 123.875.235) 47,578.670 1,370,573 1,498,899 129,326 107,135,998 _94,814,989 (12321,009) $ 443 051 $ 1.410.97'3 S 967.922 S 35.682.093 S _70 93 77 4 S 35257.661 The notes b the general expose financial statements are an integral part of V" statement. 12 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 S 1 A 8 V +W L.1♦ -4l 1 l YJ/Y«/ Vf -.1 1 V.ANMIJJ fta%J COf1481NED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINf_D EARNINGS - ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES � A FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 19916 Ops wkv reverxas: C.4argm for servfcss Total operatng mwermes Opowi'a Personal srr Aces Opwaftv Dep —bbon Amorlizodorw Total opareft expenses Operstkv irnorne N-- op-ory - ( ): Irderesi k,c«ne kteresf expense Mscelaneous k�carrwt Gah (kna) on dspmai d fbc d assets Grants and ertMerrnxts Totai non - operating revenues (expenses) Income before operstng transfers Operating transfers: OWWkV transfers n - CortistkWona Officers Opera&v transfers out - Corummorw Officers Operatig transfers in Operatng trarufers out Total oprr&*V transfers Net hoorne Deprecbtlon 4 contributed assets Ir, a in retained e—vo Retained aarnkVs at beginNng of year P,atained ear i sat end of year Pmpeabq Fund Types Internal Total Erterprise Funds Service Furls (LIvno Jun Or S 49,254,906 S 17,825,482 S 67,0E0 3G0 49,254,906 17,825,482 67,0 12,445,162 5,133,863 17,579,025 25,393,390 10.578,009 25,9W.399 8.869,249 795,401 9,684,850 384.934 :384.936 47,092,737 16,505,273 631-06,010 2,1 F2,171 1,320,209 _3_,:M,380 (365, 5,761,422 578,142 5,339,564 (6.934,547) - (5,5134,547) 25,193 - 25.1913 (180,370) 123,564 (56,606) 477,778 - 477,778 5,117,525 (850,524) 701,706 t�81 1,311,647 2,021,915 3_333,562 11,697 11,897 (365, (1..65,565) 3,978,716 47,900 4,1Y25,616 (364,200) (200,000) (44.200) 3,250,628 (152,100) 3,108,528 4,572,275 1,869,815 6,442,090 4,782,786 _ 334,739 5,117,525 9,355,061 2,204,554 11,559,615 80,121,355 5,632,172 85,753,527 $ 89.478.416 $ 7.836.726 S 9713.142 The rvates to t1x gerwrai purpose fnanciai stateffwts are an rte" part of ttrs statemmnl 1 13 COLUER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30.19% The noes to the general Purpose fr>arncial statements are an ntegral Part of this statement. 14 Proprietary Fund Types Internal ToW Entuprne Funds Servioe Funds (Mernorandxm Only Cash flogs from operaGnq acmbes: Cash receN*d for services Cash reccoiied from aAft or depoeft S 49,759,173 $ 17,718,960 $ 67,478,133 Cash received from retirees for services (2.728,475) (2.728.' Cash received an bes' of other goverrrrlenis 1,333.770 1.333.770 Cash Pis far goods and services Cash peMnerts to wn><obyaas (27261,455) (10,280,62 (37,542,075) Cash pwf wets b O&W goverrerwts (10.459.813 ) �•�.`i32i (15539.145) Net ush prwlded by (1.328,390) (1 3p0) open—j6--j activzn _ 9,317,062 2,758,!06 11.675,870 Cash flows from norlcaptal ffna X*V SaMbes: Cash op *kV grants remNed 577 730 Crash transfers from other hinds Cash transfers to other funds 4,050,790 47,900 527,730 4,098.@30 Not Cash provided by (used }or) non- (729.785) C ,�O) (096,785 fhand'v alcomes — 3,1349,735 S2,1 3,896,635 Cash flows from capital and re b ted activities: Cash ow*1bu0arts received Receipts from ts pry 10.421,694 10,421,694 Proceeds from disposal of foeed assts 1,417,661 51,576 1,417,661 Proceeds ftm sale of SOW 15,411 131,193 182,765 Proceeds from rental of land 8,988 15,411 Proceeds from barn 122,000 8,988 Proceeds from notes 183.265 122,908 m Proceeds fro rntrance ctarns 183,265 Payrmerlts for s Principd and vterest payments on mak ed bonds (31.529,937) 175 (1,472.464) 175 (33,002,401) PrinCiPal Payrrerts on bands (18,77 (3 7) 7 (7,,73377) P6-90l payments on notes ym ,570.737) {524,742) (3.5700 ) PmcJpal payments on capital leases Interest ( (524,74?) �.�) and fiscal agent fed paid - 0� (6 656 O76) Not Cash used for capital -(6�__ and related fnanc*1g acbybn (30,079,W (1,367, _ (31,447,134) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest and dividends on ireestmerts 5,764,862 581,188 6,346,050 Net cash provided by twisting activities 5,764.86-2 - 581,1 BB 6,346,050 NO( increase in cas'h (11,149.010) 1.420.431 (9,728,579) Cash. October 1, 1995 (widu&nq 553. 184,251 in restricted cash) 88,711 ,505 10 330,536 99,042,041 Cash. September 30, 19% (rnctuting 239,718,004 in restricted cash) f __ 77.562 495 S 11 750 967 5 $9,313,462 ((;ON INU ) The noes to the general Purpose fr>arncial statements are an ntegral Part of this statement. 14 1 Operating hmm COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMM *IERS COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES (CONTINUED) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES Adpdnert b rerxncte operating tcorne to rot carih provtcfed by operating actAties: Depeciitim Arnorlftab- of captal irnproverna projects Arnorttation of Nord tss,," costs Decrease in amounts rsceNat•,le prr_rsese) decease in due from dtxr funds Dscosse In due from ottxr govv+vneris (Decrease) h advances and depo..ca (Increase) decrease in irnrrtory (Decrease) in vouchers Wyatie hcreasa (decrease) In due to cow tunds increase ( decease) in arxrued wages lrcreaae ( decrease) in acaued compensated absences hvase In due to oCw goverrxr ants Increase in retired empbyee deposits ( Decrease) In aadorner deposits peyable Increase h se - imirance ciairm payable Total &*Am er>ts 6 A 5 Proprietary Fuxl Types kMemal Trial Enterprise Funds Service Furls (Merrwrandurn OTC $ 2,162,171 $ 1,320,209 $ 3,482,380 8,80,249 795,401 9,664,650 237,364 - 237,364 147,573 - 147,573 1.126,B86 8,406 1,135,294 15,902 (100,242) (84,340) 18,759 16,759 (60) (eq (197,773) 3,431 (194,342) (995,075) (24,475) (1,015,550) 372,993 7,108 380,101 (33,007) 38,287 5285 191,802 16,043 207,845 147,395 147,395 - 816 816 (2,728,423) (2.720,423) _ 275,123 27`. 123 7,154,891 1,038,599 8,192,490 1 cash p vAded by operating adivitles S _x.317.062 S 235E.806 S i i .b75IQ (GC NNTITR(.lM) i Theta were nom-ca developer contruRlons o($4,350,436 in the Camty Water and Sewer District Fund. information Technology Fund received contrtbubons of assets from various funds w9th a value of 5509 ,939. tie origkrai c%W of fuse assets was $509,939 with no acrAxnuiated depreciation. Heat Management Fund received confnbutions of assets from various funds with a depreciated Yahue of 5343,699. ffrhe ortgini rest of &base assets was $472,680 with S 128,981 in accumulated depremabon. 15 n 1 t 1.11 fl 1 1 1 1 e 0 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 6 / n SEPTEMBER 30, 19% H Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Caste and Investrr*rts Trade Receivables Interfurxi Rbcelvables (Due From) aril Payables (Due To) Fixed assets Long -Term Debt HErvenue Bonds Administered by the State of Florida Conduit Debt Obligations Defeased Lrbt Budget to.Actual Contributed Capttai Deferred Compensation Flan Pension Ptan Obligations Segment Information.. Enterprise Funds Operating Transfers Fund Equity Risk Management Landfill Liability Defick Fund Balances/Retained Eamings Significant Contingencies, Significant Commitments PA.Qf NUMBER 17 27 28 29 30 31 38 38 39 41 42 43 43 44 46 47 48 49 50 50 50 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENT: A 5 SEPTEMBER 30, 19% NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POWES THE REPORTING ENTITY The primary govemrnent consists of the Cctt4er County Board d County Comm7sskiners CBoarcr). The Board consists of five members elected within single member distrkxs. There are five Constkutlor-W Officers; the Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, Shem, Cleric of Ckcuk Court and SupwAsor of Elections. The Corns*WorW Officers are elected county wide. The Board of County Commissioners tudQets and provides all funding used by the separate Constitutional Officers with the omeption of fees coi'llected by the Clerk of the Grc ult Court and the Tax Conector. Urtdw the direction of the Cleric of the circuit Court, the Collier Cary Finance Department maintains the accounting system for the operations of the Board of County ' and the Supervisor of Elections. The Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, Sheriff and Clerk Of the Circuit Court each maintain their own accounting systems. These staterr*wtis re!lect the financial position and results of operations for the Board onty and do riot reflect the activities of the five Constitutional Officers. The Board's blended component units consist of organizations whose respective governing Boards are composed entirely of the Board of County Commissioners serving ex- officio. These entities are legally separate, however financial support has been pledged and financial or operational policies may be significantly influenced by the Board. In accordance with GASB Statement 14, `The Financial Reporting Entity, these organizations are reported as if they were part of the Board's operations. The financial position and results of operations of the fcilowing blended component units are accounted for in Enterprise Funds and can be found in the Proprietary section of this report: Wiler County Water and Sewer District The District was established by Chapter 881199, Laws of Florida, to provide water, sewer and effluent services to certain portions of the unincorporated area of Collier County. The District currently operates three wastewater treatment facilities and two water treatment plants. Marco Island Water and Sewer District The District was established by Collier County Ordinance 77 -58 under authority granted by Chapter 153, Part III, Florida Statutes. The District provides sewer services to customers on a portion of Marco Island. (201and Water District The District was established by a Special Referendum Election authorized by Collier County Ordinance 75 -5 and Section 125.01(q) of Florida Statutes. The District provides potable water service to the residents of Goodland. e t COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GEW -RAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 19% 6 A 5 WM 1 - SUMMARY OF SIQNFIS',/1i''rT ACCOUN UG POLICIES - 9X&9U= THE REPQFM%a' ENTTY - CONTIfJM Complete financial InfonnatIon on the Individual component units can I-* obtained from their respective adminkomIive d5ces or from the Finance Department of the Clerk of Cir(-,uk Court Geier County Water and Sewer Dlstrkc 3301 East Tamleml Ttal Naples, FL 33962 Marco island Water and Sewer DkArkt 3301 East Tam{arni Trail Naples, FL 33962 Gocdland Water District 3301 East Tamiami Tral Naples, Fl- 33962 BASIS OF PRESENTATION The accounts of the Board are organized on the basis of funds and account groups. Each fund is considered a separate accourting entity with a self - balancing set of accounts. Fund structures. where applicable, have been designed to comply with all requirements of relevant to-,kJ resolutions. A cotxit groups are a reporting device to account for certain assets and liabilities of the goveffinentai funds not recorded directly In those funds. The following fund types and account groups are used by the Board: U-N RNMENTAL FSJNDS General Fund - The General Fund is the general operating fund of the Board. All general tax revenues and other receipts that are not accounted for in other funds are accounted for In the General Fund. Special Revenue Funds - Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restrid©d by legal requirements, regulatory provisions or administrative action. Debt Service Funds - Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulatkxi of resources for, and i the payment of principal, interest and other expenditures on long-term debt, other than bonds and notes payable from the operation of Proprietary Funds. COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 6 A 5 SEPTEMBER 30, 19.96 NCTE I - SLNMARY OF SICNI0CANT ACCOUNTING f'C)1JCfES - CONTINUED BASIS OF PRESENTATION - CONTINUED QCapkA Projects Funds - Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financiaal resources 11076gated for the acquisition or constrtx:tion of major capital taclities other than those financed by Propr$ftry Funds. PROPRIETARY FUNDS Enterprise Funds - Erderprlse Funds are used to account for operations that are f'inanced and operated In a manner similar to private business enterprises where the Intent is that the costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or serrlces to the general public on a continuing basis be financed eprimarty through user charges, or where periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses Incurred, and /or net income is deemed appropriate for capital mairhtenance, public polic^�, management control, ac cou ntabiQy or other purposes. Internal Service Funds - Internal Service Funds are used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department to other departments of the Board or to other governmental units on a cost reimbursement basis. IFIDUQIARY FUNDS Expendable Trust Funds - Expendable Trust Funds are used to account for assets held by the Board in a trustee capacity or where legally mandated. Ali of the principal and income may be expended in the course of their designated operations_ Agency Funds - Agency Funds are custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve meastxement o(resu lts of operations. Agency Funds are clearing accounts for assets held by a government as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other govemments or other finds. ACCOUNT GROUPS General Fixed Assets Account Group - This account group is used to account for property, plant and equipment not used In Proprietary Fund type operations. The General Fixed Assets Account Group does not include public domain, or Infrastructure, Posed assets such as roads, bridges, curbs and 9-Mers, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems, lighting systems and similar assets that are immovable and of value only to the Board. 8 General Long -Term Debt Account Group - This account group Is established to account for long -term debt and other liabilities not accounted for in Proprietary Funds. 7- COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures or expenses are recognized In the accounts and reported In the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the moasurements made regardless of the measurement focus applied. The modified accrual basis of accounting is used in the Govemmental, Expendable Trust and Agency Fund Types. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accounting period In which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. Avalable means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter, generally 60 days, to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. Primary revenues - including special assessments, intergovemmental revenues, charges for services, rents and Interest - are treated as susceptible to accrual under the modified accrual basis. Property taxes are discussed later in this footnote. Other revenue sources are not considered measurable and available and are not treated as susceptible to accrual. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is Incurred. Exceptions to this general rule include accrued compensated absences and principal and interest on general long -term debt. In applying the susceptibility- to-accrual concept to intergovemmental revenues, the legal and contractual requirements of the numerous individual programs are used as guidance. There are, however, essentially two types of these revenues. In one, monies must be expended on the specific purpose or project before any amount will be paid to the Board; therefore, revenues are recognized based upon the expenditures recorded. In the other, monies are virtually unrestricted as to purpose of expenditure and revocable only for failure to comply with prescribed compliance requirements, such as with equal employment opportunity. These resources are reflected as revenues at the time of receipt, or earlier If they meet the availability criterion. Proprietary Funds use the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized In the period In which they are earned and expenses are recognized in the period when Incurred. Unbilled service revenues of the County Water and Sewer Fund are accrued at the end of the year by prorating actual subsequent billings. The measurement focus applied to Governmental Fund types and to Expendable Trust Fund types Is the flow of current financial resources. Only current assets and current liabilities are generally Included on the balance sheet. Fund balance is considered a measure of available, spendable or appropriable resources. The measurement focus applied to Proprietary Fund types is the capital maintenance or flow of economic resources measurement focus. All assets and all liabilities (current or noncurrent) are Included on the balance sheet. Fund equity is segregated Into contributed capital and retained earnings. nn. COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANGAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1496 b NOTE t - SUMMARY OF SIGNJF1CANT A CCOU ITING POUOFS - CONTiNUf =D BUDGETS AND BUDQETA.RY DATA The following are the statutory procedures followed by the Board of County Commissioners in establishing the budgets for the Board: 1) Within 15 days after certificatbn of the ad valorem tax roil by the Property Appraiser, the County Budget Officer prepares and preseM to the Board a tentative budget for the ansuing fiscal year. The budget indudes aN estkated receipts, balances to be brought forward, and all estimated expenditures, reserves and balances to be carried forward at the end of the year as spe(:ifled In Section 129.03, Florida Statutes. 2) Within 80 days of the certification of value, but not earlier than 65 days after certification, the Board holds a public hearing on the tentative budget and proposed milage rate. At this hearing the Board amends and adopts the tentative budget, recomputes the proposed milage rate, and announces publicly the percentage, if any, by which the recomputed proposed milage rate exceeds the roiled -back rate. It the mifiage rate tentatively adopted exceeds that proposed, each taxpayer within the jurisdiction is notified of the increase by first class mad, at the eipense of the Board. ® 3) Within 15 days of the meeting adopting the tentative budget, the Board adverises the County's intent ® to adopt a final budget and milage rate. 4) A public hearing is held by the Board to finalize the budget and adopt a milage rate. This hearing is held not less than two days and not more than five days after the day that the advertisement is first published. Prior to September 30, the milage levy is adopted by a separate vote. In no event is the mirage rate adopted allowed to exceed the tentatively adopted milage rate. This is followed by the approval and ratification of the final budget. 5) The resolution approved at the final hearing is forwarded to the Property 49raiser, Tax Collector, and Florida Department of Re.,enue; and not later than thirty days following the adoption of the Resolution, the Board certifies to the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Division of Ad Valorem Tax that it has complied with the provisions of Chapter 200, Florida Statutes. 6) The County Manager approves intradepartmental budget changes that do not after the total expenditures of the department. All ofI)w budgetary changes must be approved by the Board of County Conunissb ers as a matter of policy. The initial adopted budget was amended during the fiscal year in accordance with the Florida Statutes_ 7) Budgets are monitored at varying lev6s of classification. However, expenditures cannot legally exceed total appropriations at the individual fund level. Section 129.07, Florida Statutes, as amended In 1978, provides that expenditures in excess of total fund budgets are unlawful. 0 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,19% _VZLL WWI BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY DATA - CONTINUED Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the fiscal year for all fund types. Budgets have been legally adopted by the Board for all Board funds except for Agency Funds and those funds described In Note 10, 'Budget to Actual . The Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector adopt budgets for their General Funds independently of the Board. The Clerk of the Circuit Court (to the extent of his kx ctlon as ex- offK:io Clerk to the Board and the amounts of his fee structure as Clerk to the Circuit and County Courts), Sheriff, and Supervisor of Elections prepare budgets for their General Funds which are submitted to and approved by the Board. Budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles for all Govemmental Funds except as described In Note 10, 'Budget to Actual'. All approlxiatlons Lapse at the end of the current year. Capital project costs are budgeted in the year they are anticipated to be obligated. In subsequent years, the unused budget is reappropriated until the project Is complFrted. Proprietary Funds are budgeted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, oxcept that capita!- related and debt transactions are based upon cash receipts and disbursements. Estimated beginning fund balances are considered in the budgetary process. Differences between estimated beginning fund balances and actual fund balances, If material, are submitted to the Board as budget amendments. ENCUMBRANCES Encumbrance accounting is utilized in the governmental funds as an extension of the stattAcdy required budget process whereby purchase orders, contracts to be executed and other commitments are recorded as reservations of fund balance. It is the Board's intention to honor these encumt4ances under authority provided in the subsequent year's budget. Fund balance Is reserved to indicate this commitment. CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AND INVESTMENTS The Board maintains a cash and Investment pool which is available to all funds. Interest earned is allocated based on the Individual fund's average dally balance in the cash pool. Investments are stated at cost except for deferred compensation mutual funds which are reported at market. Cash equivalents are defined as short-term highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less from the date purchased. Additionally, the Individual funds' equity in the cash and investment pod is considered to be a cash equivalent. COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIgONE"S NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMEhUS SEPTEMBER 30,19% 6 A 5 CIE - S PAMMff QF SIGNIFICANT IES - INVENTQRIE� AND PPEPAID COSTS lrr.-wtary is valued at coed which approxlrnates market, using the first -in, first -out method. Inventory in the Goverrtrnental Funds consists of expendable supplies hold for consumption. Th 3 cost is recorded as an expenditure at the time Individual inventory Items are consumed. Reported inventories and prepaid costs ere equally offset by a fund balance reserve which indicates that they do not constitute avalable spendable resources. inventories and prepaid costs of Proprietary Funds are reported as an expensewhen consumed. IGENERAL FIXED ASSETS General Fixed Assets are recorded as expenditures In the General Fund, Capital Projects Funds and other Govemmental Fund types at the time of purchase, and capitallzed at cost In the General Fixed Asset Account Group. Public domain, or irdrastructure, fixed assets consisting of certain k'nprovemertts including roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems and Ik�ttting systems have not been capitalized. Gifts or contributions are recorded In General Fixed Assets at fair market value at the time receF.,ed. There Is no depreciatkxt expense recorded on General Fixed Assets. The Board maintains a policy to capitalize fixed assets which cost $500 or more and have a useful life In excess of one year. FIXED ASSETS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS Land, bu,tldirV, improvements and equipment are stated at cost. Contributions of property are recorded at thook fair mark.— value on tfte date donated. Facik%s consiruded using system dfrieloprnertt impact fees, collected from developers and customers, are stated at cost. Excess cost over fair value of assets acquired represonts the excess cost of water and sewer systems purchased over their estimated replacement cos! at the date of acquisition. The Board capitaltzes rnajxx expenditures for additions and improvements. Major expenditures Include Items with a cost of $500 or more and with a useful Iife In excess of one year. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to operating expenses. The cost of assets retired or sold, together with the related accumulated depreciaa -xi, Is removed from the accounts and any gain or loss on disposition Is credited or charged to earnings. J.; LI COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS C SEPTEMBER 30,19W b A 5 ►,�11 :1„i..�i �. ..�.��� 'Wit IZC2 i� t �• log FIXED ASSETS OF PROPRIETARY FUNDS - CONTINUED Depreciation on foxed assets acquired through contributions is recorded as an expense and transferred from retained earnings as a reduction of contributed equity on the balance sheet. Depreciation Is calculated using the strafgt 4kw method. The estimated useful life of the varlow classes of deprciciable fixed assets Is as follows: Estimated Fixed Asset Useful Life Buildings 20-40 years Improvements other than buildings 20-40 years Equipment 4-10 years Excess cost over fair value of assets acquired 4 -30 years CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATIONS Capital lease obligations and the related assets of Govemmental Fund types are accounted for in the General Long -Term Debt Account Group and in the General Fixed Assets Account Group, respectively. Capital lease obligations of Proprietary Fund types and the related cost of assets acquired are reflected In the balance sheet accounts of those funds. For capital lease obligations originating In Governmental Funds, an expenditure for the asset and the offsetting amoamt of the financing source is reflected In the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes In fund balances. Contributed capital is recorded in Proprietary Funds that have received capital grants or contributions from developers, customers or other funds. Reserved retained eamings and fund balance represents those portions of fund equity not appropriable for expenses /expenditures or those portions legally restricted for a speck future use. Designations of fund balance represent tentative plans for expenditures. BOND DISCOUNTS AND BOND ISSUANCE COSTS In Govemmental Funds, bond discounts and issuance costs are recognized in the current period. Bond discounts and issuance costs for Proprietary Funds are deferred and amortized over the term of the bonds using the interest method and the straight -line method, respectively. Bond discounts are presented as a reduction of the face amount of bonds payable while Issuance costs are recorded as deferred charges. COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 6 N A 5 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 NOTE 1 - &W —AARY OF S?GNIFICANT A000Ut 1NG POUCIES - CONTINUED DEFEASANCE OF DEBT REPORTED BY PROPRIETARY FUNDS GASB Statement 23, 'Accounting nd Financial Reporting for Refundin s of Debt Reported b Pro 9 P� r►9 9 eP� Y Perry Activities,' Is applicable to the Proprietary Funds. For refundings resulting in the defoasance of debt reported by proprietary activities, this Statement requires that the difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the old debt be deferred and amortized as a component of interest expense. The straight -line method is used for amortization of the deferred charge. INTEREST COST Interest cost is charged to expense or expenditure as Incurred, ca ft except for interest alized in the P P Proprietary Funds, in accordance with the provisions of FASB Statement 34, 'Capitalization of Interest Cost,' and FASS Statement 62, 'Capitalization of Interest Cost in Situations Involving Certain Tax - Exempt Borrowings, and Certain Gifts and Grants,' when applicable. PROPERTY TAXES Property taxes become due and payable on November 1 st of each year and become delinquent on April I st of the following year. Discounts ors property taxes are allowed for payments made prior to the April 1 st delinquent date as follows: November - 4 %, December - 3 %, January - 2 %, and February - 1 %. Tax certificates for the full amount of any unpaid taxes must be sold not later than June 1 st of each year. No accrual for the property tax levy becoming due In November 1996 is included in the accompanying financial statements, since such taxes are collected to finance expenditures of the subsequent period. Property taxes receivable and a corresponding allowance far uncollectible property taxes are not included In the financial statements, as there are no delinquent taxes as of September 30, 1996. d 0 H- U 1 25 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL. STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,19% A 6' .. � . :Ili . �.�i►11 � Key dates In ft* property ttuc cycle for the fiscal year endod September 30, 1995, 81'e as fellows: Property Tax Cycle Date Assessrnerit roll compW January 1, 1995 Assessment roll cert>ited July 1, 1995 MilLage resdutiort approved No later than 95 days fdlowhg candkmdon of asse4ssrneni rail whist taxes have been lovied October 1, 1995 Taxes due and payable (Levy date) November 1, 1995 Property taxes payable: Maximum discount (4%) 30 days after levy Date Due date March 31, 1996 Delinquent (lien Date) April 1, 1996 Tax certificates sold Prior to June 1, 19% ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES 5 The Board follows the provisions- of GASB Statement 16, "Accounting for Compensated Absences'. This Standard provides for the measurement of accrued vacation leave and other cmnpens,,dod absences using the pay or salary rates in effect at the balance sheet date. It also requires additional amounts to be accnjed for certain salary - (dated payments associated with the payment of compensated absence& it is L`►e Board's policy to allow employees to accumulate an unlimited number of hours of unused sick leave and up to 240 hours of unused vacation leave. Effective March 1, 1996, the Board mcdified the policy for sick Towle pay upon termination. Employees of record on August 2, 1996 may be Was nted a sick leave payment upon termination for any service period earned prior to August 2, 1996. No employee hired after August Z 1996 shall receive payment for accajed sick leave upon termination. Upon tenWnatkon employees are granted 100% of allowable vacation hours at the current rate of pay. Accrued coml:xx ated absences flawing through Governmental Fund types are recorded in the General long -Term Debt Ac7cotxtt Grow because 4 does not require the use of ava6able spendable resources at the batame sheet date. For Proprietary Funds, the liability related to ve.Aed sick and vacation leave is recorded on the Balance Sheet as a long -term liability. TOTAL COLUMNS ON THE COMBINED STATEMENTS - OVERVIEW Total columns on the Combined Statements - Ovorvfew (General Purpose Financial Statements) are captioned "Memorandum Only' to Indicate that they are presented only to facilitate fimnelal analysis. Data In these columns does not present financial position, results of operations or cash ftow:3 in conformity with generally accepted accounting principals, and such data Is not comparable to a consdkiatkxt. Interfund eliminations have not been made in the aggregation of this data. P7., COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS6 � 5 SEPTEMBER 30.1996 J NM 2- CASH AND I N ESTMEN T S The Board of County Commissioners maintalns a rash and investment pool that is available for use by all finds. Each Ruud type's portion of this pool is disptayod on the cornbined balance shl.uet under the heading of Cash and Investments. Investment incorne is allocated monthly to participating funds based on the Percentage of each fund's average dally balance In the total pool. In addition. cetlakn investments are Separately held by trustees in accordance with bond indentures and other contractual agreements. P IT !4 cash deposits are held in qualiflod public depositories pursuant to Florida Statutes Security for Public De �� �. 'Flcxida posits Act.' Under the Act, all qualified public depositories area required to pledge eligible collateral haWg a market value equal to or greater than the average dally or monthty balance of all Public deposits, tirnes the deposttorys collateral pledging level. The pledging level may range from 50 to 125% depending upon the depository's financial condition. Any losses to public deposits are covered by applicable deposit insurance, sale of securties pledged as collateral, and if necessary, assessments against other qualified public depositories of the &-ime type as the depository in default. At September 30, 1996, the Board had demand deposits of $8,149,215. These deposits were fully covered by federal depository insurance or by collateral, in the Board's name as required by Sections 280.07 and 280.08 of the Florida Statutes. IN- VESTMENTS The Board's investment practices are governed by Florida Statutes 125.31 and the Board's Investment policy which was adopted by County Ordinance 87.85. The Board is authorized to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury, its agencies and instrumentalities, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, repurchase agreements, certificates of deposits, and the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund. As with any investment, the securities held by the Board are sensitive to different elements of risk. The major risks are market, legal risk and credit risk. Market risk relates to the risk that the market value of an investment will decline during the life of the investment. The level of market risk Is detnrminod by such factors as: the lerVh of time before the Investment matures and the likelihood of an investment being sold before Its maturity In order to meet operational requirements. The Board continues to hold various U.S. government agency sec-uritles, Inciuding Federal Horne Loan Mwgage Corporation and Federal National Vcrtgage AsaorJatk3n cdtotornitzod �9a4R' 0"694(tons PMO'S) :.'rat were Purchased from iQUk3 to twit At Seapn -4 rr the -Ariew VMU11M r7/ t}lnro .....e. �.,.. .r. r......i.•n+�.A� #-W .i t0iN1Kn1 4*1141.II.IL 0,& L "W,1.ual ,�iW.ldSlttllt(S13HS Itus, �nte"d' to SLII' ttlese securities prior to the earlier of (1) maturity or final paydcmn, or (2) when the market value approximates cost. The Board currently has the ability to hold these investments as it has sufficient liquidity to meet operational requirements. Legal risk is the exposure to a transaction being determined ell to be prohibited by law, regulation or contract. Management believes the level of legal risk exposure to the Board's portfolio is minimal. I COIAJER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 6 A 5 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 V ..a11 �. • lL_ �llb �.i!! a� Credit risk relates to whether or not the Board will be able to recover its investment in a security at the security's maturity date. The Board's Investments are categorized to provide an Indication of the level of credit risk assumed by the Board. Category 1 includes investments that are Insurod or registered, or securities held by the Board or Its agent In the Board's name. Category 2 includes uninsured and Unregistered investments for which the securities are held by the counterparty's trust department or agent in the Board's name. Catagory 3 includes uninsured and unregistered investment: for which the securities are held by the counterparty or by Its trust department or agent, but not in the Board's name. Investments that are not evidenced by securities in physical or book entry form are not categorizeJ. Aa September 30, 1996, the Board's investments were categorized as follows: Credit Rik tCa eaory CateoorY t U.S. Agency Securities U.S. Treasury Obligations Tota, Category 1 t 2: Bankers' Acceptances Repurchase Agreements Total Category 2 Not catea riz : Investment in Deferred Compensation Mutual Fund Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund Total not categorized Total investments including cash equivalents Carrying Market Amount Value $ 80,132,152 $ 78,335,447 4,246,723 4,254,768 84,378,875 82,590,215 Receivables 13,843, 690 13.a57,286 4,438,600 4,438,600 18,282,290 18,295,886 4,522,501 73,595,305 78,117,806 $ 180,778,971 4,522,501 73, 595,305 78,117,806 $ 179,003,907 NOTE 3 - TRADE RECFTVABLES Trade receivables for Enterprise Funds are net of an allowance for doubtful accounts as follows: 28 Allowance Net Trade for Doubtful Trade Receivables Accounts Receivables County Water and Sewer $ 1,179,244 $ $ 1,179,244 Marco Water and Sewer 16,413 16,413 Goodland Water 23,001 23,001 Solid Waste Disposal 1,187,262 1,187,262 Emergency Medical Services 9,530,488 (9,224,073) 306,415 Airport Authority 24,890 24,890 Total $ 11,961,298 $ (9,224,073) $ 2,737,225 28 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COWASSIONERS f A 5 NOTES TO THE GENERAL_ PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEME SEPTEMBER 30,19W NOTE 4 - WTER UND 1E FROM) AND PAYABLE$ (DUE TO­) Due from and due to 04w funds at September 30, 1996, were as follows: FUND Ow From _ Ow To Gers" Fund S_ 2,100,331 3_ 74,570 Emw9mc7 Neckar Services Road Cauttx;fJ n 74,570 30,000 Oltnr Capu Pr*cts - — 5,000 104,570 5,000 Eniarprlse Funds: AtPort Aulta ly — 1,960,320 bAwnal Swice Funds: —x,320 Self kours-60e 261 261 ! 281 261 Trust and Agarcy Funds: P" Ridge and Naples Pmluctbn Park 165,011 165,011 Total AN Funds S 2,205.1n S = 1 =- 2.245.82 I e i 29 Proprk4ary Fund propwty, pktrit and wluiprnerot r✓t SaWr►bw 30, 19%, con wad of IM (oaa«ing: kWovwnents Lou: Excess of Coat Othw Than Accurmdatsd Construcbcn Ovw Fair VOue Land Buildings Bungs _ _q 'grtxnt Depreciation in Progress dAssets Toth Enbwprise Funds: County Wabw and Sewer $ COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS $ 85,747.697 $ NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STAT VENTS 3,664,388 $ SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 45,546,176 $ NOTE 4 - Fl%ED ASSETS Maroo W alw and 6 A 5 A —v—y d dwV" in Genova( Fixed Assds for t'» year waded SapNn,ber 30, 1996, is as ioiows: knprovernwks Proiadswarngernwx Od w Than Con�n 660 Land _ auhdk Egui rtsvnt In Proyrasa Total _ Efatann 10/1!95 S 20=,345 $ 88,M;W S 31,965,832 S 25,910,178 S 7,532,324 S 100295,228 AddlSone 3,188,805 879275 79,576 10."6,33 7 7,563,931 22,397,814 Dole9kxra (1275,412) (1.275.4 12) Trarrfwa In 5,478,627 731,003 104,690 6,314,619 Tranden tat _(1,5_'4,618) (6,209,720) e760,31n8 Be6erKa B 300 S 2°.192.0A0 f 95 041.45Q i � 1 S � $ = LtZfAV S 199.871 Proprk4ary Fund propwty, pktrit and wluiprnerot r✓t SaWr►bw 30, 19%, con wad of IM (oaa«ing: kWovwnents Lou: Excess of Coat Othw Than Accurmdatsd Construcbcn Ovw Fair VOue Land Buildings Bungs _ _q 'grtxnt Depreciation in Progress dAssets Toth Enbwprise Funds: County Wabw and Sewer $ 4,473,799 $ 85,747.697 $ 232,713,703 $ 3,664,388 $ (61,172,956) 45,546,176 $ 3,306,527 S 314,278,534 Maroo W alw and 22,204 once of Capihl Proiadswarngernwx soww 660 (240,757) 4,743,740 5,381 (1,135,244) 384,096 3.414,737 GoocUnd Wmw 365 146,123 1,211,441 (1,725,693} (715,48 25.24 521,561 Said Waste Dlspasal E--g —y Medics! 1,459,890 271,130 10,643,502 651,667 (4,912,793) 2062.38 8,319,654 &Wviom 221,568 3,127 2,768,091 (1,366 .544) 1,624262 Akp*rt Aut -ty 1269, 400 776,966 30,027 397,601 _ 112,376) 4,555,a-13 6,757,473 Tabu F,*wprise Funds _Z.22 4 781 < 87,0178601 249,315,540 7,"!50 (69,815 402) 50,333,4f)1 3,305,527 334,916 221 b6m- l Swvice Funds: k"wotcn Todmiop 1.430,669 (639.393) 791276 S46lnxaarnom 36.424 (14220) 22,204 once of Capihl Proiadswarngernwx 451,125 (240,757) 210.366 Deperbr wnt d Rovemm 384,096 (74.879) 309217 FMet Wvwmgornwo 146,123 _ _ 4,422,632 (1,725,693} 2,843,062 Total k*wnal :orvice FLcxh 146 1J 23 _6724 946 (2,6-14.942 _ 4,176,127 Total Proprietary Funds $ 249. -W�.$� S 14230.92�- S - 192.510.3441 S �Q.� 4 °1 S 3.305 527 $ 1092 -348 30 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5 MM 6 - LQNG- TER•WI SUMMARY DEW OF CHANGES IN GENFf3� LONG -TERMM DEBj The fo4I0v&V Is a summary of changes in genera) long-term debt for the year emled September 30, 1996: 000's Omitted October Debt Debt Detx September 1, 19% Issued Retired Defeased 1996 General O, bl�tion Bps o 8,115 S 5,030 S (1,110) $ (4,796) $ 7,240 Revenue Bonds and Cert catm of Indebtedness 49,910 2,145 (2,040) (2,430) 47,585 Commercial Paper 19,375 5,270 (5,358) 19,287 Notes ` Payable 306 (114) 192 Accrued Compensated f fences 2,368 310 2,678 Capitalized Leases 24 41 (39) 26 Arbitrage Rebate 615 - 611 4 Total $ _ 80,713 S 12.796 $ .2,=272 $ (7,225 L $ _77,012 The following is a summary of changes In Proprietary Fund long -term debt for the year ended September 30,1996: g44's Omitted October Debt Debt Amortized September 1, 1995 Issued Retired Discount 30, 1996 Revenue Bonds $ 105,114 S - $ (3,570) $ 10 $ 101,554 Notes Payable 15,853 1,310 (2,257) 13 14,921 Capitalized Leases 138 - (26) - 112 Total $ 121,107 $ 1,310 $ (5,853) $ 23 3 116,587 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 19% ` A 5 DESCRIPTIONS OF BOND ISSUES AND NOTES PAYABLE Bonds and notes payable at September 30, 19%, were composed of the following: General bNgation Bonds $5,000,000 1969 Marco Island Beachfront Renoudshment Facilities Limited General Obligation Bonds due In annuaJ Installments of $270,000 to $630,000 through July 1, 2000; Interest at 6.60% to 7.10%. $ 2,275,000 $5,030,000 1996 Public Park and Recreation Municipal Service Taxing Unit General Obligation Refunding Bonds due in annual installments of $65,000 to $795,000 through July 1, 2003; interest at 4.00% to 4.20%. 4,965,000 Total General Obligation Bonds $ 7,240,000 _enue Bonds and Certificates d Indebtedness $5,000,000 1973 Improvement Revenue Certificates due in annual installments 0 525,000 to $350,000 through July 1, 2003; interest at 5.50% to 6.25 %. Race trick revenues are pledged for the payment of these bonds. $ 2,095,000 $8,225,000 1992 Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds due In annual instanments of $240,000 to $635,000 through October 1, 2013; interest at 2.70% to 5.80 %. local govemment half -cent sales tax revenue Is pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 7,480,000 $30,415,000 1994 Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds due in annual installments of $1,090,000 to $2,790,000 through October 1, 2012; interest at 4.35% to 6.00 %. Local govemment half -cent sales tax revenue Is pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 30,415,000 $5,770,000 19% Road Improvement Refunding Revenue Bonds due in annual installments of $290,000 to $510,000 through June 1, 2010; interest at 3.60% to 5.375 %. W-Ah cent and seventh cent gas tax revenues are pledged for debt service on these bonds. 5,450,000 $2,145,000 1996 Guaranteed Entitlement Revenue Refunding Bonds due in annual installments of $175,000 to $360,000 through October 1, 2002; interest at 4.19% foced rate. Stato revenue sharing receipts are pledged for the debt service on these bonds. 2,145,000 Total Limited Obligation Revenue Bonds $ 47.585,000 $25,520,000 Commercial Paper issued by Vie Florida Local Government Finance Commission Pooled Commercial Paper Program, variable rate for the current fiscal year of 3.35% to 3.81%, collateralized by non ad- valorem revenue. $ 19,287,000 32 n COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 6 SEPTEMBER 30, 19% A 5 NOTE 6 - LONGTERM DEBT - COf+fT1Nt1ED DESCRIPTIONS OF BOND ISSUES AND NOTES PAYABLE - CONTINUED Notes Payable $160,500 1993 note payable to a financial VmtkuUon, cdlateraflzed by ad valorem taxes collected within the Isle of Capri Fire DWAct, payable in annual ktsialirne.nO Of 522,828 ttuotgh Aprl 2000. Interest payable at 6.63% per annum. 91,714 5221,300 1953 note payable to a financial institution, coltat"Ized by certain rnor4es rwA*.,od from the State ot Fiorw Public Health Unit Trust Fund, payable In monthly installments, Indudk-g interest, of $4,245 through September 1998. Interest payable at 5.6896 per wvxxn. 99,875 Total Notes Payable $ 191,589 i I�€nterDrise Fund Revenue Bonds $1,960,000 1981 Marco Island Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds due In annual kW Aments of $7,736 to $100,253 through June 1, 2021; interest at 5.00%. Principal and interest are payable from the net revenues of the system and special assessment collections. $ 193,421 $468,500 1982 Goodland Water District Water Revenue Bonds due in annual Installments of $2,000 to $110,000 through September 1, 2021; interest at 5.00 %. Principal and interest are payable from the net revenues of the system and special assessment collections. $1,250,000 1988 Marco Water 1&4,000 and Sewer District Special Assessment Bonds due in annual installments of $125,000 through May 1, 1998; Interest at 6.75% to 8.00 %. Principal and Interest are payable from the net revenues of the system and special assessment collections on a subordinated basis to the 1981 Marco Island Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. 110,000 $15,960,000 1990 Collar County Water and Sever District Sewer Assessment Bonds due In annual installments of $290,000 to $1,124,000 through October 1, 2011; interest at 6.10% to 7.15%. Prncipal and Interest are payable from special assessment cogections and the net revenues of the system on a subordinated basks to the 1991, 1942 and 1994 County Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. 2,750,000 $55,225,000 Coiller County Water and Sewer District. Water and Sewer Revenue Bands, Series 1991. Due in annual Installments of $170,000 to $3,590,000 through I July 1, 2021; interest at 4.40% to 6.50%. Principal and interest are payable from the net operating revenues of the system, system development fees and special assessment collections. 25,780.000 $13,090,000 Collier County Water and Sewer District, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1992. Due in annual instaUments of $595,000 to $965,000 through July 1, 2010; Interest at 3.20% to 6.375%. Collateralized by a parity first linen on the pledged revenues listed on the $55,225,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1991. 10,630,000 Total Carried Forward $ 39,627,421 n COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEPS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,19% b A 5) Total Brought Forward $ 39,627,421 $24,225,000 1994 Taxable County Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds due in annual kistallments of $375,000 to $2,315,000 through July 1, 2010; interest at 3.35% to 6.88%. Collateralized by a parity first lien on the pledged revenues listed on the $55,225,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1991. 22,260,000 540,320,000 1994 County Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds due In annual Installments of 555,000 to $4,315,000 through July 1, 2021; interest at 3.0% to 5.35 %. Collateralized by a parity fiml lien on the pledged revenues listed on the $55,225,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1991. 39,785,000 Unamortized discounts (21.968) Total Enterprise Fund Notes Payable 14,921,404 Less: Current portion of notes pay -able from unrestricted assets (329,0 Less: Current portion of notes payable from restricted assets X1,838.652) Long -term portion of Enterprise Fund Notes Payable $ 12,752.768 101,672,421 Unamortized bond discount (118,406) Total Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds 101,554,015 Less: Current portion of bonds payable from restricted assets (3,236,7371 Long -term portion of Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds $ 96,317,278 Enterrpriag Fund Notes Payable 55,890,100 note payable to private water and sewer company, payable through use of water and sewer system development fee credits by company or its assignees, or, to the extent of unused credits, payable at the current cash value of the credits (minimum of the original face value) in 2006. Non - interest bearing note; interest imputed at 7.00%. $ 115,353 $14,547,667 State Revolving Loan note payable, to be drawn down as required for construction commitments, interest payable at 4.25% repayable in 20 annual payments commencing October 1, 1992, collateralized by a lien on pledged revenues consisting of net revenues (as defined in the loan resolution) from the operations of the County Water -Sewer System, proceeds derived from the levy of special assessments le-Aed upon the properties benefttted by the project, system development fees and connection fees. The lien shalt be subordinate in all respects to liens placed upon pledged revenues established by bonded Indebtedness. 12,154,685 $1,469,999 County Water -Sewer District note payable to private developers, payat:le through use of water and sewer system development fee credits. Non - interest bearing note. 236,619 $3,563,470 Commercial Paper issued by the Florida Local Govemment Finance Commission Pooled Commercial Paper Program, variable rate for the current fiscal year of 3.35% to 3.81%, collateralized by non ad- valorem revenue. 2,436.735 14,943,392 Unamortized discounts (21.968) Total Enterprise Fund Notes Payable 14,921,404 Less: Current portion of notes pay -able from unrestricted assets (329,0 Less: Current portion of notes payable from restricted assets X1,838.652) Long -term portion of Enterprise Fund Notes Payable $ 12,752.768 0 v e a 0 a e e e s i i t e COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY C7OMMISSIONEPS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5 Gerwai Long -Term Debt. Proprietary Funds Totals .997 $ 10,114,320 $ 8,537,323 $ 18,651,643 19% 11,119,625 6,997,309 18,116,934 1999 16,856,406 6,976,133 23,832,539 2000 7, a83,065 6,B45,244 14, 728,309 2001 5,459,737 7,723,614 13,183,351 Thereafter 53,086,602 113,117,793 166,204,395 Total debt service requirement 104,519,755 150,197,416 254,717,171 Less amount representing Interest 30 ,216,166 33,581,603 63,797,769 Total S 74,303,589 $ 116,615,813 $ 190,919,402 The amount avallable In Debt Service Funds to service general obligation bonds, revenue bonds and certificates of indebtedness, commercla paper and notes payable obligations are $100,720, $6,742,856, $278,261 and $118,111, respectively. INTEREST CAPITALIZED Interest costs on long -term debt incurred and capitalized during the year ended September 30, 1996, were as follows: Enterprise Funds Total Interest Interest Cost Net Interest $ 6,973,904 $ (39.3572 $ 6,934,547 35 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 6 A 5 LEGAL. DEBT MARQI The constitution of the State of Florida and the Florida Statutes set no legal debt limit. i �llll � L Official statements and Board resolutions authcrizing the general obligation and revenue bonds establish certain accounts and determine the order in which certain revenues are to be deposiled Into those accounts as well as establish reserve requirements. All required balances were maintained. Water and sewer revenue bonds are payable solely from and secured by a first lien upon and pledge of the net revenues and certain other fees and charges derived from the operation of the County's water and sewer system. The pledge of the net revenues derived by the Board from the operation of the water and sewer system does not constitute a lien upon the water and sewer system or any other ixoperty of the County. The covenants of the resolutions authorizing the County Water and Sewer District Revenue Refunding Bonds, 1994, 1992 aril 1991 Series include, among other things, an obligation for the Board to fuc, establish and maintain such rates and collect such tees, rentals or other charges for the services and facilities of the water and sewer system, and to revise the same from time to time whenever necessary, so as to always provide in each year net revenues, as defined in the resolutions authhorWng the revenue bonds, which together with the system develop-Anent fees and special assessment proceeds received in each fiscal year shall be adequate to pay at least 125% of the annual debt service requirements for the Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds; rxcrAded, however, that net revenues in each fiscal year sha be adequate to pay at least 100% of the annual debt service for the bonds. The Marco Island Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1981 and Series 19138 al,xV with the Goodtand Water DL.Arict Water Revenue Bonds require the Board to maintain such rates and fees (khduding special assessment proceeds) to provide revenue sufficient to pay necessary expenses of operating and maintaining the systems and to meet at least 100% of the annual debt service for the bonds. The bond resolution of the $15,960,000 Collier County Water and Sewer District Sewer Assessment Bonds, Seres 1990, provides for the establishment and maintenance of a reserve account In an amount equal to the reserve account requirement, which shall be maintained for the benefft of the holders of the bonds The reserve account requirement Is defined as an amount equaJ to the lesser of (i) the maximum annual debt service for all outstanding bonds; (ii) 125% of the averacle annual debt service for all outstanding bonds; or (iii) 10% of the al0rerlatn of th, tthe aggregate proceeds of the bonds. year ended September 30, 19%. 36 a e t 0 H n L U e s r U&I-JER COUN1Y BOA,RO OF COUNTY GUMMISSIUNE►tS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 19% b A 5 The Board convnitted to various capttai leases. CapIW leases are defiried as leasc>s which Uartster benefits and risks of ownership to the Wssee. At year end, equipment acquired through capital leases was recorded in the General Fixed Assets Account Group and in the Proprietary Funds in the a.mourtta of $171,468 and $145,475, respectively. Capitalized leases payable at September 30, 1996, amounted to $138,034. These obiigatiorss, which are co4ateralized by equipment and vehicles, have annual ktstainner'IS ratlging from $24,104 to V,6,388 including imerest ranging from 0% to 5.39% and mature $:-rough 2000. Futtxe minimum capital lease obligations as of September 30, 1996, were as follows: 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total minimum lease payments Less: Amount representing interest Present value of minimum lease payments $ General Internal Long -Term Debt Service Funds Total 13,000 $ 33,388 $ 46.388 13,000 33,388 46.389 - 33,388 33,388 24,104 24,104 26,000 124,268 150,268 (12,234) (12,234) $ 26,000 $ 112,034 $ 138,034 The Board has entered into numerous operating leases. Rental expenditures for leased facilities and equipment for the fiscal year ended September 30, 19%, were as follows: Board of County Commissioners $ 617,823 Total $ 617,823 Commitments for future minimum operating lease payments, contingent rentals and subleases are not significant. 37 .,.,...u_', . 1.0,,i.l I arv.vw yr wuivi r wrvrnni�awivcr�� NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS n SEPTEMBER 30,19% H i •Il i . N.L114;-W. u� iy� ► _ _ • • to Section 206.41, Florida Statutes, imposes an excise tax on motor fuel sold In Florida. This tax is known as the Constitutional Gas Tax (also known as the 5th and 6th Cent Gas Tax). This tax is collected by the State Department of Revenue and transmitted to the State Board of Admtnlstratkrn. The State Board of Administration makes payments necessary to reduce the bonded indebtedness issued purstrant to the provWom of the State Constitution for road and bridge purposes. Excess tares are trans nkted to the State Department of Transportatlon, which can appropriate funds for work done in Collier Couay and also transmit fix-ids to the Board itself to fund highway capital improvements. In accordance with the above, the State Board of Administration administers Collier County Road Bond Certillcates of Indebtedness dated 1979, of which $6,670,000 is outstanding as of September 30, 1996. This issue is not recorded In the General Long -Term Debt Account Group, because the principal and interest are required to be paid solely from the gross revenue of the Second Gas Tax administered by the State Board of Administration. These bonds are not an indebtedness of Collier County. ;17.3335.000 Pine Ridge Industrial Park arxi Naples Production Park Scecial Assessmgnt Bonds. Series 1993 During September 1993, the Board issued, on behalf of the property owners within the Naples Production Park and Pine Ridge Industrial Park Districts, $17,335,000 of special assessment bonds. The bond proceeds from the Issue were used to repay amounts previously borrowed under the &3ard's line of credit arrangement. Special assessments are pledged by property owners within the Districts. The Board is not Obligated to repay the special assessment debt if sufficient assessment funds are not avaltable. The Board functions as agent for the property owners In collecting the assessments, forwarding the collections to bondholders, and Initiating foreclosure proceedings, if appropriate. The special ass sments received and the related debt service payments are accounted for in an agency fund on behalf of the property owners. As of September 30, 1996, these bonds have an outstanding principal amount of $15,205,000. 38 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30.19W f n 5 The Board has defeased certain outstanding bond issues by placing the proceeds of new bums In irrevocable trusts to provide for all future debt service payments on the defeased debt- Accordingly, the MW accounts and the defeased bonds are not Included In the Board's f1nancW smxT+®nt& At September 30, 1996, the following issues were considered defeased: Defeased Original Bonds �f}nerl- LQmTgym Debt Dent OutstarxiN 1968 Sale* Tax Revenue Bonds $ 7,790,000 $ 6,730,000 1396 Capital Improvement Prowarn Rev9fvA 130nd!, SLb-SwSn 5 Mode A 12,245,000 10,715,000 Total Deiaased General tong -Terre Dett $ 20,035,000 $ 17,445,000 Defeased Original Bonds E Fund Debt Debt Outstanding 1983 County Water and Sewer District Refunding Bonds $ 22,600,000 S 17,470,000 1989 Pelican Bay Improvement District Water and Sewer General Obligat:on and Revenue Bonds 8,870,000 7,150,000 1991 County Water aM Sewer Revenue Bonds (partially defeased 525,930,000) 55,225,000 25,930,000 Total Defeased Enterprise Fund Debt $ 8_6,095,000 S 50,550,000 General Lana, -Term petit Defeasui , ri. CQrrerrt Year During March 19%, the Board Issued the $2,145,000 Guaranteed Entitlement Revenue Refunding Bonds. Series 1996 to refund the $5,000,000 Guaranteed Entitlement Revenue Bonds, Serirss 1977, wbwch had interest rates rangirx,; from 5.90% to 6.75% and an outstanding principal balance of 52,430,000. 39 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMEN -rS SEPTEMBER 30, 19% 6 A 5 General Long -Term Debt Defeased Durino Current Year - ntin The net proceeds were $2,119,486 after Bond issuance costs, including underwriters discount of $25,514. The net proceeds less $175,000 to fund Capital Improvements, along with $586,150 of sinking funds were used to purchase securities which were deposited In an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to satisfy scheduled principal and Interest payments of the defeased debt. This current refunding met the requirements of an In- substance debt defeasance and the bonds were removed fraTt the Counts books. As a result of this current refunding, the Board reduced its total debt service requirements by $726,613 which resulted in an economic gain (difference between the present values of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $ 590,914. The outstanding balance of the defeased debt was redeemed on April 1, 19%. During January 19%, the Board Issued the $5,030,000 Collier County Public Park arxi Recreation Municipal Service Taxing Unit General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 19% to refund the $8,715,000 Collier County Public Park and Recreation Municipal Service Taxing Unit General Obligatkxt Refunding Bonds, Series 1986, which had interest rates ranging from 4.50% to 7.25% and an outstanding principal balance of $4,795,000. The net proceeds were $4,956,343 after payment of $71,923 in underwriting fees, insurance and other Issuance costs. The net proceeds were used to purchase securities which were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to satisfy scheduled principal and interest payments of the defeased debt. This current refunding met the requirements of an in- substance defeasance and the borxds were removed from the Board's books. As a result of this current refunding, the Board reduced its total debt service requirements by $282,786 which resulted In an economic gain (difference between the present values of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $367,116. The outstanding balance of the defeased debt was redeemed on March 1. 1996. 40 COU -JER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENVIAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 b A C J � f'Tt 10 - BUDGET TO A A Ac oot roV prkiclOes used to preW9 the budget are different from those used to prepare the financial statemerns In cordOrmlty With generaffy accented accounting prindples (GAAP). The following table j reconcles the amounts On the Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures arxl Changes in FL;nd BaWleft - Budget to Actual (watch are prosonted on a. non-1,AAP budgetary basis) to the amounts on the COrnbk'Od StatemeM of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes In Fund Balances ( Which are presented on a GAAP tx, -fs). I Special Capttai Expendable Revenue Projects Trust Excess of revenues arxi other financing sryurces over (under) 8XPend'aures and other financing uses CoWgetary bad) (3.337.927) $ (16,012,225) $ (87,926) Basis Difference: Deferted revenue 5.632,698 - Interfurd advance budgeted as Operating transfer (364,8W) - Repayment 0t L-Umfund advance _ 1,500 (11500) _ Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (GAAP basis budgeted funds) (3,701,307) (10,381 027) (87,926) Entity Difference: Non-budgetod funds: Impact Fees Escrow - 40,836 Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (GAAP basis) $ (3,701,307) $ (10,381.027) S (47,090) I i i i 41 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATFJAENTS 6 A 5 SEPTEMBER 30,19W MOTS S1 - C01�I$IBUTEtZCAMAL The fo lowfig is a summary of changes in contributed capital: ENIERER E ELINOZ C,cwtyvrater Marco Water O+tice Of Emergency and sne Goodlaod Sod Waste Modical Airport TecMiolopy — Irsu ance Sewer — S°—wir — - Water D"o" Servbes _ - Aultxri<y Total _ October 1, 1905 $ 2CO3, Z78,1 10 ContrWkm 3,477,444 S 831,192 $ 462,750 S 1,094,8 +12 S 2845,384 S 214,742,032 Source: Gnwft Dk4'AM'4 - (8.888) - 2776,o®9 2.776,094 Dwrlopers 7,622,709 (61,678) _(ice (31,118) (31 !333) (235,56!) _ (334,739) 7,622,709 C A*Trws 4,350,436 S 917.740, S 12589 S 783.55t S_ - 4,350,438 Ot-w Funds - 1 40.465 272,&2 5.349 318,437 (25,639) - (z) - (25.M Depracts'Son (4,328,639) (861936) (20,1:55) (6,441) (277.4%8) (62.289) (4.782.786) Septsrnbw 30. 1986 S-213.9= 3 ---3 S 613 >r 496.779 S 1.09S1.8K� S_ 5_JB4.� i 225.Q4�.889 INTERNAL �M=f f015 42 O+tice Of Wornwdion Sell cap" PrOacts 'kpertrnert Fleet TecMiolopy — Irsu ance of Rewnu e M _ _ Trial October 1, 1995 ConbtxAons $ 158,458 S 5,200 S 967,746 $ 5,894 $ 676,422 S 1,833,720 Source: Mar Funds 503,9 i9 3,902 - 10,528 413,153 937.525 Dk4'AM'4 - (8.888) - (09.45-7) (76.345) D%w (61,678) _(ice (31,118) (31 !333) (235,56!) _ (334,739) Soptdrtoer 30, 1996 S 606.719 S 7.548 S 917.740, S 12589 S 783.55t S_ 2368.161 42 ICOWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 43 NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 L H h 5 NOTE 12 - DEFERRED COME NS"ON Under separate agreements with the National Association of County Officers and the International City Managers Association, the Board offers its employees a choice of two deferred comps tsation plans created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The plans, available to all Board employees, permit them to defer a portion of their salary until future years. The deferred compensation is not available to Illy, or their estate until termination, retirement, death, or unforeseeable ernergency. All amounts of compensation deferred under the plans, all property and rights purchased with those ' amounts, and all income attributable to those amounts, property, or rights are (until IoAd or made available to the employee or other beneficiary) solely the property and rights of the Board (wAhout being restricted to the provisions of benefits under the plans), subject orty to the ctairm of the Boani's general creditors. f articipants' rights under the plans are equal to those cf general creclrta, of the Boars] in an amourg equal to the fair market value of their deferred compensation account- Assets of the deferred compensation plans are recordod at fair market value and are accounted for In an agency fund. It is the opinion of the Board's legal counsei that the Board has no liability for losses under the plans, must exercise due care as would be ex v petted of an ordinary prudent Investor. The Board believes that it is unlikely it will use the assets to satisfy the claims of in genera creditors the future. ATE 13 - PcNSION PLAN OBLIGATIONS P,etirement Plan The Board early implemented the provisions of GASB 27, 'Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Governmental Employers', in the following disclosure. Pian Description The Board contributes to the Florida Retirement System (the 'System, a cost- :haring, miitiple- employer, defined benefit pension plan administered by the State of Florida, Divisicn of Retirement. The System provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost -of- living adjustments, and death benefit; to plan members and beneficiaries. The Florida Legislature established the System under Chatxer 121, FkirkLa Statutes, and has sole authority to amend benefits provisions. Each year the System issues a publicly available financial report that Includes financial statements and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to the Florida Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, 2639 North Monroe Street, Building I C, Tallahassee, Florida 32339 -1560. f Fstndina Policv The System is non - contributory for employees and the Board is required to contribute at an actuarially determined rate. During the fiscal year, the rate was 21 % of annual covered payroll. The c ontrkxAions of the Board are established and may be amended by the State Legislature. The Board's cortributions to the System for the years ending September 30, 1996, 1995 and 1994 were $5,266,510, $4,816,900, and $4,667,266, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. 1 43 COLLIER COUNTY, 80ARD OF COUNTY COMMtSSiONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 6 A 5� The Board mairdans sbr enterprise funds which provide water, sewer, solid waste drsposal, emergency medical services and airport services. Segment information for tt►e year ended September 30, 1996, is as foiaws: Property, plant and equipment: Additions County Water Maroo Water G cx land Soid Waste 347,054 and Sevier and Sewer Water DiToR - $ 115,310 Net working capital Operating revenue S 33,098,456 S 417,482 S 184,961 $ 11,891,753 Operating expenses: 400,171,253 $ 4,0O4,768 $__1,423,900 $_28,121,613 Depreciation and amortization 8,324,422 118,486 57,329 311,362 Odd operating expenses 16,876,851 498,194 :16,733 — 12,157,012 1,250,980 $ 23,005,854 Operatng home (loss) 7,897,183 (199,198) (99,101) (576,621) Nor? - operating grants __ - - 384,243 _ Net non -- operating revenues (experses) (2,236,805) 16,162 29,997 1,398,824 k)come (loss) before operating transfers _ 5,610,378 (183,036) (69,104 822,203 Operating transfers in 11,697 - 352,500 - Opera&V transfers out (433,89 - - (295,895) Net income (loss) $ 5,188,185 $ 18( 3,036)$ 283,396 S 526,308 Currerg capital itwtions, net S 11,947,506 $ - S - S 40,465 Property, plant and equipment: Additions S 37,750,924 $ 26,763 $25,243 $ 347,054 Deletions $ 7,393,787 $ - $ - $ 115,310 Net working capital $_52,032 114 $ 169,062 $ _ 769,550 $ 18,268,340 Total assets $ 400,171,253 $ 4,0O4,768 $__1,423,900 $_28,121,613 Total long-term fiabNes $ 109,999,981 $ 245,249 $ 160,372 $ 4,347,503 Total kind equity $ 279,846,519 S 3,525,611 $ 1,250,980 $ 23,005,854 44 t. Emergency MedC&I Airport sw4es Autw 0 Totals 3,096,168 S 5FA,08a $ 49,254,908 354,704 87,&82 9,254,185 7,291,839 787,923 37.8-38,552 (4,550,375) (309,717) 2,162,171 93,535 -----477,778 149,867 (158,569) (850,524) (4,400,508) (468,286) 1,311,647 3,470,800 155,416 3,990,413 (929,708) $_(3l ZL7jo $___4_,572 75 272,433 2,78y408 $ 15,041,812 329,09 42,279.730 151,084 57,233 3 7,717,414 7,414 3 373,533 $__A372 9)S 0,5 2,212,721 S 0 S 446 3273Z7 $__116,237 183 S 1,670,488 S 5,228,653 $ 314,528,105 45 COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMWSS10NERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 Operat tv transfers for the year ended September 30, 1996, were as follows: FUND Gzerand Fund — -- Special Revenue FundL: Road Cistts Wstsr k[ensgement and Pokftm Controi UnituxxWeled Ar"s GrurRs and Stared Revenues k4xoy mant Dwricts Fire Contra Districts Tourist Development DMbt Strvka Funds: Golden Gata General Obligation Bones Road and Other Improvements Gpoial Obfiflation Revenue Bonds Guarant"d Entitlement Ponds Capital Proiects Funds: County -Wide CarAai Improvements Parks improvements County -Wide Litxary Parks impact Districts Emergency Medical Service Road Construction Wate- Management Other Capital Projects Entaryrise Ftrnds: County Water and Sewer Goodland Water Emergency Medical Service Airport Authority lntemal Servh.:e Funds: information Technology Oflice of Capital Projects Management N,Pe trnent of Rm -enue Fk.let Management Trust and Agency Funds: Criminal Justice Confiscated Property Lftl ty F et Total _ Transferx_In i 474,700 2,697,900 199,000 284,715 487,800 357,800 4,037,015 44,019 3,545,465 1,034,300 3,458,700 597,200 74,570 672,600 427 800 —_5,219,L870. 352,500 3,470,800 155 416 3, 9 , 7 B 716 46 MCI 35,000 47.900 _ 93,000 — _ 93,000 b A 5 Transfers Out E 13;9,5,624 44,019 298,200 _ 165,843 780 162 175,000 380,416 339,383 317,170 1,615,130 ___ 2,652,099 364,200 364,200 200,000 200,000 274,700 64,200 f 1 Ei 48 � COWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL 96 H STATEMENTS n SEPTEMBER 30, 19 NOTE 16 - FUND E�IAFY Contributed Capital: Balances represent capital grants and contributions received from developers, customers, other governments or other funds. Retalned Earnings Enterprise Funds - Reserved for Revenue Bond Retirement: Balances are reserved In conjunction with the Issuance of County Water and Sewer, Marco Water and Sewer and Goodiand Water revenue bond Issues. They have been funded by initial deposits from the bond proceeds and by transfers from the operating accounts of the appropriate funds. The use of monies in the sinking fund is restricted to the payment of principal and interest on long -term debt. Enterprise Funds - Reserved for Ren, -wal and Replacement: Balances are reserved In conjunction with the issuance of County Water and Sewer and Marco Vlater and Sewer revenue bond issues. They are funded by transfers from the operating accounts of the appropriate funds. The use of monies In the renewal and replacement fund is restricted to funding the cost of extensions, enlargements aM additions to, replacement or major repair of capital assets. Enterprise Funds - Unreserved: Balances are not reserved for specific purposes. Internal Service Funds - Unreserved: Balances are not reserved for specific purposes Fnd Balances Reserved Reserved for Long -Term Notes Receivable: Balances represent long -term loans made to Individuals which do not constitute expendable available financial resources. Reservers for Encumbrances: Balances are segregated for expenditure upon vendor performance. Reserved for Inventory: Balances represent items which are not considered available and spendable resources. Reserved for Prepaid Costs: Balances represent insurance, travel and other expenses paid in advance and which are not considered available and spendable resources. Reserved for Debt Service: Balances represent monies legally restricted to the payment of principal and Interest on long -term debt. Reserved for Trust Fund Purposes: Balances are reserved as legally mandated or as otherwise stipulated by a donor. Fund Balances Unreserved Designated for Impact Fees: Balances represent affordable housing impact fees deferred by the Board of County Commissioners to be funded by the Board in the future. Designated for Debt Service: Balances are designated for the payment of principal and Interest on long -term debt. Designated for Future Capital Projects: Balances are designated for future capital project expenditures. Undesignated: Balances are not designated for specific purposes. GOWER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEF> NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 19% IN The The Boars is exposed to various risks of loss related to tort; theft of, damage to tend destruction of assets; errors and orrnissions; k*xies to ewrnplayeas and nal xaf disasters. A self- fnstx'arce Ir:zernai service fund Is mek aired by line Board to administer' krsvrrca acoybes relating to workers' comper%sadion, health and pXDperty /may, which covers general Ilablbty, property lfabifty, auto (fablity, puLi c official U011y and crime Gabiity. Uirder these programs, the self- h-atwance fund provides coverage up to a tin amount for each chin. The Board p urchasea commerctiai kwxan,;e for claims in excess of covtyage pravlded by the &W- Irnscxance fund and for all other covered risks of loss. Property damage Balms A Ao Ilabillry Ozims Employee heath cdalms Workers' compensation claims Courr/ s Coverage Excess Carrier's Coverage $100,000 ea ch $100,000 - $5,000,000 $100,000 each $100,000 - $1,000,000 $125,000 each $125,000 - $1,000,000 $150,000 each $150,000 - $5,000,000 The aggregate loss exposure on workers' compen.aaticn and property/casualty clai ns is $1,240,000. Settled clakns have not exceeded the imurance provided by third party carriers In any of lie past three years. AN diviskxts of the County, excluding the Sheriff, participate in this program. Cha!ge; to operating departments sra based upon amounts believed by management to meet the required annual paycouts during the fiscal year and to pay for the estimated operating co-As of the programs. For the fiscal year ei�Jed September 30, 1996, the operating departments were charged approximately $7,887,005 for workers' cxx tpensatlon, health and property /casualty self- insurance programs. The claims loss reserve for workers' compensatkxn, health and property /casualty of $5,063,139 reported at Septerber 30, 1995, was calcUatod by third -party actuaries based upon GASB Statement 10, 'Accounting and Flnancial Reporting for Risk F'v-ancing and Related insurance Issues', which requires that a liablity for claims be reporter/ when IT is p-cbabfe that a. loss has been incurred and the amount of ftie loss can be reasonably estimated. The estimated liabilities for unsaid losses related to workers` compensation and property /casualty were discounted at 4%. 48 1 0 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I COWER COUNTY HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBEH 30,19% 6 A 5 NOTE 17 - RISK M/+NAGEMENT COUNTY'S SELF - INSURANCE - CONTINUED Changes in the self4nsurance ciairr5 payable hr fiscal year 1995 and 1996 were as follows for the County sett Insurance programs: Balance October 1, 1934 Current year Cams inct red arrJ &.VVft In estirnates C1alm payments Baiance September 30, 19% Current year dalms Incurred and changes in estimates Claim payments Balance September 30, 1556 N TE 1 - LANDFIU_ LIABILITY Property/ Casualty b 951,943 b a5,811 (419,111) 618,64.9 Group V- hxkom, 4,070,071 (4,268,071) 608,000 499,494 3,655,423 (238,075) (3,713,423) $ 380,062 b 550,000 S 1,255,243 5,411,175 (1,218,919) (5,906,101) 1,561,374 4,783,017 1,588,094 5,743,011 3,633,077 b 5,063,139 On May 1, 19%, the Board entered into an agreement with a company for the privatisation of the Board's Iandffll operations. Under the contract, the company is responsible for the dally operatkxis, capital Improvements, closure, poctclosure, and financial as: urance requirements of the Naples and Irrunokalee landfill sites. The Board is responsible for staffing and operating the scalehouse at each site. Contract provislons provide the Board with early termination options. Upon exercising early termination, the Board would be required to make payments to the company for capital expendlt,_ues, management fees and additional operating fees. The Board's estimated liability in connection with the landfdis is Induded In the Enterprise Fund Balance Sheet. 49 COLDER C()UNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTES TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMEhf f:i [� A SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 v NOTE 19 - 11MUE The lirPOCt AuthorkY • • has a Deficit Retained Earnings Balance of : 31 bKM 20 - �.��carrr LITIGATION The Board Is kwofved as deferdara rr plalrOf In certain litigation and claims arisinKi In the ordinary course of operations. In the opinion of legal courtsei, the range of potential recoveries or iiablikies w1I not materially affect the financial pxation of the Borard. 1D FE Grarx monies received and disbursed by the Board are for specific purposes and are subject to review by the • grantor agencies. Such audits may resit In requests for reimbursement due to disallowed expenditures. Based upon prior experience, the Board does ncA befieve that such disallowances, if any, would have a material effect on the financial position of Lhe Board. CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENTS Expended as of Proiect September 30, Future Authorization 1996 Commitments Parks S 541,622 $ 136,182 S 408,440 Roads 33,859,698 22,558,083 11,301,615 Utilities 44,6.52,176 35,814,346 8,837,830 LandfiA expansion and closure 1,500,248 633,662 866,586 Buildings 9,193,832 7,330,007 1,863,825 Airports 2,79 1, 1 a5 2,379,480 411,705 Beach Restoration 13,238,80') 12,581,252 657,548 Stormwater Drainage 3,265,658 298,274 2,967,384 Total $ 109,045,219 $ 81,731,286 $ 27,314,933 K;t.1PACT FEE AGREEMENT In the past, the Board has acqu +.red right -of -ways and received beach parking and road construction services i from various developers In exchange for impact fee credits. Amounts granted for lnq)act fee credits were based on the market value at the time the propewty, improvement or services were recx* red. The developers, their successors or assignees may u lize the road impact fee credits for future development activities_ No time limits are set for use of the credits. Ps the credits are consumed, impact fee revenue is recognized. At September 30, 1996, the Board had outstanding regional park impact fee and road impact fee agreemerds with developers, of approximately $73,283 and $2,131,175, respectivc4y. 50 H-- fl Cl COLLIER COUNTf, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY CONL'viISSIONERS MANAGEMENT LE rER SFPT-EMBER 30,1996 � A 5 ARTHUR ANDERSEN 6 A � 5 MAAiAGEMW NT LEiiER PLRStJANT TO THE RULES OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL FOR THE STAT�OF 1�I ORI ` \ ,' -e -; Fi�rt LZ•_.ier���r F� ... .. To the Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida We have audited the financial statements of the Collier County, FloricA, Board of County Commissioners (the "Board ") for the year ended September 30, 1996 and have issued our report thereon dated January 17, 1997. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in G(,vrrn7n,-nt Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable ® assurance about whether the Lroancal statements are free of material mi>statement. ® The purpose of this letter is to comment on those matters described in Rule 10.534(1)(f) as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida. Accordingly, in connection with our audit of the financial statements of the Foard, as described in the first paragraph, we report the following: fl; J CURRENT YEAR CONINFMS AND RECONLMEti"DATIONS As a par: of our audit of the general purpose financial statements of Collier Cowity for the year ended September 30, 1996, we considered the County's internal control structure in deternining the scope of our audit procedures for the pugose of rendering an opinion. This letter, contains our recommendations and suggestions to improve the operations of the Board of County Commissioner. T£CKNOLOGY ASSESSMENT The cv- -rent computer system used by the Board req:ures four entries to post on,? journal entn•. In addition to the original debit and credit, an entry r.-ust be made to the ending ba.hm ces in order to have a properly stated ending balance because the system does not calculate totals. ".,he County should consider assessing its computer system needs and determine if operating efficiency can be improved through technology. 51 n it H- N C �7 n 0 e 0 u P ARTHUR ANDERSEN GRANTS ADMINISTRATION 6 A 5 Controls could be improved by establishing procedures over accounting for and monitoring compliance with grant requirements, by implementing the following recommendations: 1. Implement a formal procedure requinng person; responsible for administenng programs to notify the finance department of grant or award activ-ity, including when grants are approved by the Board, then again when expenditures commence. 2. Personnel responsible for administering plants should read the approved agreements (including the expenditures allowed, reporting requirements and other compliance requirements) for each grant when the agreement is received from the grantor agency. In addition, the progam administrator should compare the approved requirements to the initial application to ensure the actual request is the same as the approved requirements. 3. Require persons responsible for administering programs to develop and utilize compliance checklists, including reporting requirements, for each grant. These checklists should be periodically reviewed by the Internal Audit department. 4. Review grant expenditures on a monthly base for propriety, and prepare and update a summary schedule of expenditures and revenues on a quarterly basis Reconcile revenue; and expenditures to the general ledger, aid to each other (as revenues recognized should be equal to expenditures), to ensure revenue recognition is proper. S. Consider implementing centr-aiized filing of all' grant documents. As an alternative, the finance department could maintain a complete and accurate control listing of all grants (current and pnor year), which would include a reference to the location of all applicable grant documents. CLOSING THE BOOKS During April 1996, the Board's Finance Department established the CAFR Effidencc,• Task Force. This Task Force focused on improving the yearend dosing and financial reporting processe!,. However, the Board's Finance Department does not have comprehensive written procedures for the yearend dosing of the Board's financial records including the preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ( "CAFR ") and planning for the external audit. The lack of formalized procedures in this area, coupled with unplanned attrition at critical levels in the Finance Department, significantly delaved the annual closing and reporting processes. The Board should establish formal yearend dosing procedures which would streamline and expedite Ffe process of providing timely and accurate financial information after yearend. 52 P., 1 L 0 0 B n 0 n U AR UTHR AN DERSEN 6 A 5 BANK ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION We noted an instance K'he_re the Board's Finance Department recorded cash receipts to the general ledger prior to the funds being actually received dunng fiscal 1496. This resulted in the misstatement of revenues and cash which was corrected by an audit adjustment. In addition, there was no evidence doc-umenting supervisory review of the bank reconciliation process and the operating account accumulated numerous reconciLng amounts which were not cleared timely. The Board's Finance Department should ensure that established procedures to reconcile the operating account monthly are being adhered to and that reconciling items are investigated and resolved on a timely basis. Additionally, the account reconciliation supervisory review process should be documented to ensure adherence to the Board's procedures. _ ACCOUNTS RECErVABLE TRIAL. BALANCE The Enterprise Fund's accounts receivable tral balance is not regularly reconciled to the accounts receivable aging report and these reports were not reconciled at year end. litany of the reconciling items have been unresolved in excess of 12 months. The County should reconcile thes» reports monthly as well as identify and resolve material unreconciled items. ACCOUNTrING POLICIES Fixed Assets In 1996, the Board made several acquisitions of property to be used in operations. These acquisitions included a building that had a significant piece of land attached. However, the entire purchase was treated as a buiding and the total land and building cost is currently being amortized. The County should separate the cost of the land from the building to ensure amounts are properly reported over the life of the asset. Internal Service Fund The County operates an 800 `ti-IZ syste_rn for communication for vanous user departments. Tlie operating fees are accounted for within a capital preiects fund. The actual operation of the communication system is more closely related to the type of activities typically accounted for in an internal service fund. The Board should consider accounting for user charges within an internal sernce fund. AMORTIZATION OF CO,NTR.IBL I'ED CAPITAL Contributed capital is currently being amortized by the County over 40 years based upon the net book value rather than the total contributed amount. In addition, all contributed assets are being amortized over 40 years without regard to the actual expected useful life of the assets. The County should amortize contributed capital using the original value of the contributed asset. Also, the remaining useful life of the capital contributed should be monitored and used in the amortization process to ensure that contributed capital is properly stated. 53 � ARTHUR ANDERSEN 6 .`I RECOGNITION OF DEFERRED IMPACT FEE The Board's accounting pobcy for impact fees is inconsistent between residential and commercial accounts. The difference relates to the timing of the recording of deferred revenue. The County should consistently state deferred revenue from similar sources. Also, deferred revenue should be recognized as contributed capital when the resident or commercial contractor i5 assessed. This would ensure the proper statement of contributed capital. FD(ED ASSETS The subsidiary ledgers supporting fixed assets recuire many manual adjustments to reconcile to the general ledger. The ma)onty of these adjustments are the results of the transfer of assets between various funds. The County should consider implementing a system that can track all movements of assets via the computer. In addition, the Board should periodically reconcile the amount of capital outlays to the fined asset listing, and this listing to the General Fixed Asset Account Group or the Proprietary fixed asset account. i'nis would assist in ensuring proper recording of account balances at yearend, as well as ensuring all fixed assets are accounted for within the correct fund 54 I R 1 A Ai,, DER RTHUSEN 6 A 5 STATJS OF PRIOR YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations contained in this section are those that were not implemented or were only partially implemented by the Board during Gie currant year. Certain other prior year recommendations, which are still applicable, have been repeated in the current year comments and recommendations. All other prior year comments have been fully implemented and were not repeated in this section. Recommendation Current Status _ Accounting for Rebatable Arbitrage The County employs an accounting system that The County has taken a more commingles funds from various sources indnding aggressive role ir. the management of its multiple bond issues, taxes and either revenue sources. Cash disbursements are not identified as to specific debt, including arbitrage. Certain employees have received technical source of funding. Earnings are posted to the pooled training and professionals have been cash account without regard to the orignal source of engaged to perfo:-m the annual and the invested balances. Further, although the County final calculations. receives a market valuation of is portfolio from its investment advisor, the market value information is not Additionaily, due to the limitations of entered into the books and records. the current systein environment, not all recommendations have been The County does not have sufficient information to implemented. However, these prepare arbitrage rebate and expenditure calculations limitations are being addressed as we based on activity for specific bond issues. The orgy identify our long -range computer alternative left to the County is to use a first in, first out needs. basis for the historical activity. The accounting system also does not Headily pro••ide the County with the information necessary to monitor activity for each bond issue which might enable the County to take actions which could reduce its arbitrage liability. In order to facilitate the County's efforts to comply with the arbitrage rebate requirement, under Section 138 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, we recommend the following changes be made: 1. Bond proceeds and earnings thereon should be segregated in their own accounts or subaccount_s so that activity can be monitored. i rus does not mean that pooled investment needs to be elimirumted as part of the investment strategy of the County. It merely means that the accounting for investment activity needs to be segmented. 2. At the end of each fiscal year, investments need to be adjusted to market value. These adjustments should be posted and then later reversed. By posting the entry, a perm".ent audit trail will be established for rebate computations. 55 � ARTHUR ANDERSEN Recommendation 3. Project expenditures should be iclentified as to source of funding (tax revenues, bond proceeds, etc.) and the appropriate cash relieved. Segregation of bond proceeds is only useful if after the bond closing gross proceeds are reduced by the appropriate expenditures. b A 5 Current Status 4. If items 1 through 3 above are implemented, then for new bond issues, account balances and expenditures should be monitored to evaluate and control the account progress in meeting one of the spending exceptions. 5. Many of the County's bond documents contain covenants requiring completion; of rebate computations annually and /or retaining independent professionals to prepare the computations. Further, pnident fiscal manager identify the arbitrage iiabiihty, if any, annually, even for issues where the bond documents do not contain such a covenant. At the conclusion of this portion of the engagement, the liabilities will have been calculated for all relevant issues as of Sevtember 30, 1995. We recommend that the calculations be updated at the conclusion of each fiscal year or earlier, if required, due to final reporting dates. 6. The County should establish a tickler file of key dates for each issue to support the County's effort to comply with Section 148 on a timely basLs for each interim and final reporting date. This date monitoring should be established for each existing and future issue, and should be adjusted as necessary if bonds are redeemed or advance refunded. County -Wide Systems Planning The County's more significant information systems are The County is currently in the process several generations old and management has of identifying its long -range computer considered its options to replace or upgrade them. For needs. A task force, including example, the County's Human Resources and Finance representations from several agencies, departments information systems will soon be has been created to participate in this obsolescent. When these information systems are project. The Clerk of Courts continues 1 replaced, it is likely that the current system to play an active role in this effort. 56 0 e n P'. 7 r u ARTHUR ANDERSEN Recommendation architectures wiil change due to new technology. Additional'.y, the Department of Revenue has installed a new billing system. Because of these factors, the County has a significant interest ui ensuring its investments in information resources are as effect ,,ve as possible, that o'trsolescence and redundancy are minimized, and that the County as a whole can receive the maximum value out of the information it controls. The County should develop a strategic long -term County-wide information systems plan. The plan, and resulting architecture would provide a framework that will guide future system development in the County whether carried out by a specific operating department or County-wide. This framework ideally will result in the following benefits: 6 A 5 Current Status As part of the continuing audit plan the Internal Audit De-�artment evaluates and tests areas of concern and report the results to management. r • Llaximize the ability of Count;,, departments to share data and remove data redundancies. • 1 tiro _ize the likelihood that equipment or software purchased for one department will be incompatible with others in the Cour.ty. • Assure that all hardware and software purchases made by the County are compatible with long -term County directions to minimize short -term obsolescence of purchases. • Form an understandable basis for technical and compatibility strndards across the County that can be altered and modified by County personnel over time as technology changes. • Reduce long -tern information technology cost A through economies of scale and reduced maintenance costs. 1 Information Systems Control Review In a complex information, systems environment such as that of Collier County, it is essential to establish and maintain organizational controls to ensure system integrity. Based on our assessment, the design of controI5 in place is adequate to achieve their objectives except for the performance of periodic evaluations of 57 6 A 5 Current Status As part of the continuing audit plan the Internal Audit De-�artment evaluates and tests areas of concern and report the results to management. r H11 n i U. e e J A THUR AN�DE R SEN _ Recommendation information system controls. The internal auc:it department should evaluate organizational controls and test their operating effectiveness on a periodic bass. Capital Project Budgets For fiscal 1995, the County appropriated over 574 million for capital projects, of which 530 minion was expended. Many of these proleCts are ccn.;tr sc'.ed over periods in excess of one year. The funding sources are typically nor, ad valorem taxes and /or impart fees. The County should budget all Capital Project funds on a project basis and discontinue annual appropriations. The County should consider a five year capital budget. Water and Sewer Accounts Receivable Sutnidiary Ledger The recorxiliAtion between the accounts receivable aging report and the general ledger has a substantial unloc.ated difference. This discrepancy has existed for over a year and the monthly difference has varied each month The County should review the Water and Sewer billing application to identify unlocated tra tractions between the subsidiary ledger and general ledger account. Ernergencv Medical Services Reteivabies The County's receivable is approximately 59.3 million, of which 94% is reserved. As of September 30, 1995, the balance included approximately 54.4 million which is being marusged by collection agencies. Of the remaining 54.9 Trillion, 53.7 is over 150 days past due. Many of these receivables are over three years old and are small dollar a n"nts. i he County should write-<Tff those accounts which management believes to be unco0ectible and where reasonable attempts have been made to collect balances due. 58 6 A 5 rurrc nt Status A five -year Capital Improvement Element was ad()pted for fiscal year 1997. The County is currently exploring the feasibility of di.continuing annual appropriations for capital projects and budgeting on a project basis. However, there exist system limitations which have prohibited full implementation of these recommendations. Unreconciled differences are currently being analyzed. Prxedures will be implemented to inaintain the reconciled balances after thrc- differences have been identified. The legal issues surrounding writing off these accounts have been addressed and we are currently working with the Department of Re venue Services and the County Attorney's office to complete this trarse,ction. I E-v�l e H, a n P-- J ARTHUR ANDERSEN Recommendation Compensatory Time Recordkeeni,n Compensatory time is maintained manually on an PilFctronic spreadsheet. A i'erk inputs approved and u-aed hours farm time sheets. Ti;e time sheet application does not delete unused time as it expires. The County should integrate compensatory time recording into its payroll processing application. This would reduce the effort required to maintain this separate system and improve ins inteuity. b A 5 Curre ;It Status This has been identified as part of the long -range wmpacr needs. OTHER REQUORED CQNQvfL?vICATIONS In connection with our audit of the finarbal statements of the Board, we report 6-ie following matters described in Rule 10354(lxf) as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida: 1. No inaccuracies, irregularities, shortages, defalcations, and /or violatic,rv; of laws, riles, regulations, and contractual provisions were reported in the preceding annual firundal audit. Z The fimrvJal report of the Board of Ccunty Commissioners ( "Board ") Led with the Department of Banking and Finance, Slate of Florida, pursuant to Section 21832, Florida. Statutes, is substantially in agreement with the general purpcs -- financial statements of the Board as of September 3Q 1995. 3. Th-- Board is not and was not during the fiscal yerr in a state of financial einergency as a consequence of condiborts described in Section 218S03(1), Florida Ststut(s. 4. No violations of laws, rules, regulations and contractual provisions were discovered within the scope of the financial audit that may or may not have materir,Lv affected the binar>oal statements. S. No illegal or improper experdiih� u were discovered within the scope of the audit that may or may not have materially affected the financial statements. ® 6. No matters requiring correction (as defined by Rules of the Auditor General ® 10- 534[l)[07.) that did or did not materially affect the firAro ial statements were noted. a 11 59 0 e e B 1 1 1 4 1 i 1 i 1 B 1 1 e i AHR ANDRTER USEN 6 A a 7. Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida was establihed in 1923 by the Florida State Legislature. The County is governed by a Board of County Commissioners which consists of five members elected within singie member districts. In addition, there ere five Constitutional Officers; the Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, Sheriff, Clerk of Ci-cuit Court and Supervisor of Elec -bons. The Constitutional Officers are elected county 'vide. The County's blended component units consist of crga.- ti7.ations whose respective governing Boards a: e composed entirely of the Board of County Commissioners serving ex- officio. These entities are legally separate, hov�,ever finanoal support has been pledged and f:nancial or operational policies may be significantly influenced by the County. Collier County Water and Sewer Ditn ct The District was esrtzbiished by Chapter 88 -499, Laws of Florida, to provide water, sewer and effluent services to certain portions of the unincorporated area of Collier County . The District c,=eridy operates three wastewater treatment facilities and two water treatment plants. ?Marco Island Water and Sewer District The District was established by Collier County Ordinance 7-58 under authority g;-anted by Chapter 153, Part III, Florida Statutes. The District provides sewer services to customers on a portion of Marco Island. Good-land Water District i'ne District was established by a 5peaal Referendu Election autinonzed by Collier County Ordinance 75 -3 and S Referendum Election 125.01(q) of Florida Statutes. The District provides potable water service to the residents of Goodland. This report is intended solely for the informabor. of the management of the Board and the Auditor General for the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. "In Ij Fort Lauderdale, Florida, January 17, 1997. .o 1 Dear Mr. Bradley: We have reviewed your firm's Management Letter as submitted regarding the audit of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996. In accordance with Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General and Section 11.45 of the Florida Statutes, your firm's Management Letter and the attached written statements of responses will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on March 25, 1997, along with the presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The following written statement contains a response p to all of the auditor comments in the aforementioned Management Letter. Respectfully Dwight E. Brock. Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County, Florida DEB /jlm attachment ..cu„ County of CoAlWr CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT A 5 COURT C011KA COUNTY COURTHO(JU Y t IX TA MIAMI TRAIL EAST .9 • 41 P0. !OX 41-V 4 cw•� NAPLES. F1040A 33911 -SQ41 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT Dwight E. Brock COUNTY RECORDER Clvrk CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS March 12, 1997 Mr. Thomas Bradley Arthur Andersen, LLP Suite 700 100 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 -1166 1 Dear Mr. Bradley: We have reviewed your firm's Management Letter as submitted regarding the audit of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996. In accordance with Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General and Section 11.45 of the Florida Statutes, your firm's Management Letter and the attached written statements of responses will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on March 25, 1997, along with the presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The following written statement contains a response p to all of the auditor comments in the aforementioned Management Letter. Respectfully Dwight E. Brock. Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County, Florida DEB /jlm attachment 6 A 5 KANAGEXENT LETTER RESPONSES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR MMED SEFTEKi3ER 30, 1.996 Tcchmalogy As2u33MgDt We concur with your comments and have initiated the process of determining our long -range computer needs. We have identified this as a high priority item and it is expected that a solution will be in place within an 18 month period. Grants Administration We concur with your comments. At the current time there is not a centralized grant administrator. To ensure compliance with grant requirements and to improve efficiencies The CAFR Efficiency Task Force is a continuing unit of employees who are involved with the year end process. This unit was created to identify efficiency opportunities, not only during year end, but during the entire fiscal cycle. The Task Force, under the direction of a staff team leader, was successful in identifying numerous opportunities that were implemented during a very difficult year Land. It is management's intent to invite participation of the County's external auditors to add to the diversity of this unit. The attrition within the Finance Department along with attrition experienced by the external auditors did not contribute to a smooth year end closing. However, with the recommendations from the external auditors, alone with the CAFR Efficiency Task Force, we are eagerly planning the fiscal year 1997 closing. U. throughout the County, the Clerk of Courts will be an active participant with all involved agencies to expedite review of this recommendation. Closing the Books We agree with the need for the Office to maintain formal year end closing procedures. We identified this weakness over a year ago and have taken action to document not only the year end procedures, but all operating procedures. We currently have what is referred to Procedures Manual. This manual as the Basic: Operating documents the day -to -day routines. Emphasis was placed on these procedures prior to year end procedures due to the nature of the acti• ;ity. It is our intention to have formal year end procedures completed this fiscal year. The CAFR Efficiency Task Force is a continuing unit of employees who are involved with the year end process. This unit was created to identify efficiency opportunities, not only during year end, but during the entire fiscal cycle. The Task Force, under the direction of a staff team leader, was successful in identifying numerous opportunities that were implemented during a very difficult year Land. It is management's intent to invite participation of the County's external auditors to add to the diversity of this unit. The attrition within the Finance Department along with attrition experienced by the external auditors did not contribute to a smooth year end closing. However, with the recommendations from the external auditors, alone with the CAFR Efficiency Task Force, we are eagerly planning the fiscal year 1997 closing. U. MANAGEMENT LETTER RESPONSES 6 N 5 Page Two Bank Account Reconciliation We concur with your comments and have implemented procedures to ensure that funds received are properly recorded. In addition, although all reconciliations are reviewed by management, procedures have been implemented to ensure evidence of these reviews are properly documented. Accounts Receivable Trial Balance We concur with your comment regarding the need to consider the 800 "Z system for treatment as an internal service fund. To ensure the accuracy of this potential treatment we will analyze fiscal year 1997 transactions to date. Should circumstances warrant internal service treatment, efforts will be made to report as such for the year ended September 30, 1997. Amortization of Contributed Capital We concur with your assessment of contributed capital amortization. We will enact prospective measures to ensure a more proper matching of amortization and expected useful life. These adjustments will be in place for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997. U We agree with the need to reconcile the accounts receivable in concert with the Revenue Services Department are working trial balance on a regular basis. Although it is standard procedure to reconcile this account, along with all balance sheet accounts, on during a critical a monthly basis, the period resulted in attrition experienced delays your comments and the land and property will in completing the the assets. reconciliations. Internal Service Funds We concur with your comment regarding the need to consider the 800 "Z system for treatment as an internal service fund. To ensure the accuracy of this potential treatment we will analyze fiscal year 1997 transactions to date. Should circumstances warrant internal service treatment, efforts will be made to report as such for the year ended September 30, 1997. Amortization of Contributed Capital We concur with your assessment of contributed capital amortization. We will enact prospective measures to ensure a more proper matching of amortization and expected useful life. These adjustments will be in place for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997. U The unresolved aged reconciling items continue to be addressed by the Finance Department. The Finance Department, in concert with the Revenue Services Department are working to identify the monthly variations. Once the variations are identified, procedures will be strengthened to maintain the reconciled balances. Accounting Policies Fixed Assets We concur with your comments and the land and property will be segregated to ensure proper recordation over the life of the assets. Internal Service Funds We concur with your comment regarding the need to consider the 800 "Z system for treatment as an internal service fund. To ensure the accuracy of this potential treatment we will analyze fiscal year 1997 transactions to date. Should circumstances warrant internal service treatment, efforts will be made to report as such for the year ended September 30, 1997. Amortization of Contributed Capital We concur with your assessment of contributed capital amortization. We will enact prospective measures to ensure a more proper matching of amortization and expected useful life. These adjustments will be in place for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997. U U I MANAGEMENT LETTER RESPONSES 6 A 5 Page Three e ReccqllitiOn of Doferred Impact Fee All attempts will be made to maximize consistency, where appropriate, between residential and commercial accounts. Our contention has been that there were differences in the nature of the transactions, even though the source is generic. On advice from our external auditors we will revisit this policy as it relates to consistency and the related deferral of revenue. Fixed Assets We concur with your comment that the current fixed asset 1 reporting module does not lend itself to efficiencies. As was previously stated, ode have begun the process of evaluating our long -range computer needs and have included fixed asset reporting in this process. 4. P. 1 H-1 e '1 u i F- t v e b A 5 COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 TOGETHER WMI REPORT OF llNDEPF.NDhN -F CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS e COLLIER COUNTY, F -ORIDA CI -FRK OF TTJE CIRCUIT COURT ITSCAL YTAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 1'446 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 1 iFINANCIAL. STATEMENT'S Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Group 2 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - All Govemmental Fund Types and Expendable Trust Fund 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - All Govemmental Fund Types 4 Notes to Financial Statements 5 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Combining Balance Sheet - Fiduciary Fund Type 4 Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities - Agency Fund 10 INDEPENDENT CERTI FIE D PUBLIC ACCOU INITA NTS' REPORT ON THE INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE 11 INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE 13 MANAGEMENT LETTER 14 e ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP b A 5 IREPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Ciroiit Court Collier County, Florida: We have audited the financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit Court {the -Clerk-) as of and for dw year ended September 30, 1°96, as listed in the Table of Contents. These finandal statements and ate supplementary information referred to below are the responsibility of the Clerk's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and the supplementary information based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Gov-_rnmm1 Auditing Standcrds issued by the Coxr,ptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the finari1 statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes exauvning, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the firanrlal statements. An audit aLo includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant el made by management, as well as evaluating the overall finandal statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion In our opinion the lire Al statements referred to above present fairly, in all mat,. 'Al respects, the hnarxtial position of the Clerk as of September 30, 1996, and the results of its operation; for the year then ended it conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In accordance with GOvemment Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report on our consideration of the Clerk's internal control structure and a report on its compliance with Laws and regulations, both dated December 20,19%. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. The supplementary information included on pages 9 and 10 is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required par; of the finandal statements of the Clerk. Such infc,rm,tion has been Subjected tain s to the auditing procedures appb�ed in the audit of the firnncial statemer is ard, in our opinion, is fairly stated in ell material respects in relation to the firAncud statements taken is a whole. l Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. u G p - I - I i� fi • ni • • WI 1 � A 5 � C r• it x C� ,q � m e°o0.w .�-. G t!1 ,� ° OW a� it .-• p r G E E E E � E c O p 0 r C ea��0 0ppp y6 cs8< e� u. .- E ci Q P V L i7 F' nl r.i n (D Gc :.7 kn 4A In n M rJi c t- ri h r77� f2 n VA w ke o z y `n r Ln " cc cc n I fA Lc. � W ? C N G c E n �Ln n [� iiT.�nw ri n n m x w CA j o UA H `O WI 1 � C v , c ,q m e°o0.w a ,� ° OW 72 E E E E � E c O p 0 r C cs8< e� u. 0 e t a s v e 0 i 0 i i i COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CLERK OF Ti;E CIRCLTIT COURT 6 A 5 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BAI.ANCF - ALL. GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES AND EXPENDABLE TRUST FLrND FOR T FIE FISCAL. YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,1996 Fiduciary Governmental Fund Types Fund Type Total Special Expendable (Memorandum General Revenue Trust _ Only) REVENUES: Charges for services 53,486,913 S 190,403 5 111,015 53,788,361 Miscellaneous 235 46,979 1128 223,837 Total revenues 3,722,373 237382 112,143 4,072,198 EXPENDITURES: Current - General government: Personal services 5,567,177 - 7,209,:00 6,776,377 Operating expenditures Capital outlay 900,822 10,789 1,563,199 2,475,610 107,063 125,246 99,373 331,682 Total expenditures 6,575,062 136,035 2,872,572 9,583,669 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over expenditures (2-852,689 ) 101,317 (2,760,1 29J (5,511,471) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Operating transfers in 4,308,150 - 3,(00,208 7,308,358 Operating transfers out 1 455,4 61 (215,0 il) (1,670,542) Total other financing sources 2,852,689 2,785,127 5,637,816 Excess of revenues and other financing sources (uses) over expenditures 101,347 24,918 126,345 FUND BALANCE - October 1, 1995 755,518 21,178 776,696 FUND BALANCE - September 30, 1996 �_= S 85(Z S 96.175 L-203.411 The accnmpanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this statement- - ' - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � o �l � °ƒ f }■ kzz |� ) 29J q� ƒJ ] z � � � 6 - ) }) k =w •( . 2 � ®\ _� ƒ I � � o �l � °ƒ f }■ kzz |� ) 29J q� ƒJ ] z � � � �� TJiL COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CLERK OF TIIE CIRCUIT COURT 6 A 5 t NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER E PTE M B F.R 30,1946 i (1) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES: ■ The following is it summary of the more significant accounting principles and policies: La) Defining the Governmental Reporting_Ltity- The Clerk of the Circuit Court, as an elected constitutional officer and county agency, is considered a part of Collier County Board of County Commissioners (prim-ry government). As such, Cie Clerk of the Circuit Court's financial statements are included in the Gndncial staternents of Collier County. Based on the criteria established by GASB No. 14, there are no component units included in the Clerk of the Circuit Court's financial statements. (b) Fund Accoun! "n- 1 The accounts of the Clerk of the Court are organized on the basis of funds and an account group, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. 'Ihe operations of each fund and account group are accounted for with a separate set of self - balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures, as appropriate. Government resources are allocated to, and accounted for, in individual funds, based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. The following fund types and account group are used by the Clerk of the Court: Governmental Fund Type General Fund - The General Fund is used to account for all financial transactions ++pplicable to the general operations of the Clerk of the Court which are not required to be accounted for in another fund. S2ecial Revenue Fund - The Special Revenue fund is used to account for tFe proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted by law or administrative action for specific p u rposes. Fiduciary Fund Type Trust and Agency Funds - Trust and Agency Funds are used to account for assets held by public officials in a trustee capacity or as an agent for individuals, private organiza tions, other governments and /or other funds. Account Group General Lon& -Term Debt - This self- balancing account group is used to account for the long- term portion of compensated absences. -5- t 0 v 0 d, L' 0 c Measurement Focus- L A C Governmental Fund Type - Tne General and Special Revenue Funds are accounted for on a 'spending' or 'financial flow' measurement focus. Only current assets and current liabilities are included on the balance sheet. Accordingly, the reported undesignated fund balance (net current assets) is considered a measure of available, spendable or appropriable resources. Governmental Fund type operating statements present increases ( revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Fiduciary Fund Type - The Expendable Trust Fund is accounted for in essentiaily the same manner as Governmental Funds. The Agency Fund is custodial in "lure (assets equal liabilities) . %nd does not involve the measurement of results of operations. Account Group - The General Long -Term Debt Account Group is concerned only with the measurement of financial position. It is not involved with the measurement of results of operations. long -term debts, which are not intended to be financed through Fiduciary Funds, are accounted for in the General Long -Term Debt Account Group. (d) Basis of Account�- Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the measurements riede, regardless of the measurement focus applied. The modified accrual basis of accounting is followed by the General, Special Revenue and Agency Funds. The modification in such method from the accrual basis is that revenues are recorded when they become measurable and available as net current assets. Expenditures are recognized when the a elated fund liability is incurred, except expenditures covering, multiple periods. (e) Budgetary Process- Chapter 129, Florida Statutes, governs the preparation, adoption and amendment proof-,:; of the Clerk of the Court's annual budget. The Clerk of the Court's budget and amendments are prepared independently of the Board of County Commissioners and are approved by the Florida State Department of Revenue. A copy of the approved budget is provided to the Board of County Commissioners. The budget for the General Fund is prepared on the modified accrual basis. The level of control for appropriations is exercised at the fund level. f(_}_ Fixed Assets- Acquisitions of tangible peru-,nal property are recorded as expenditures in the Clerk's General Fund at the time of purchase. These assets are reported to the Collier County, Florida, Board of County Commissioners and are recorded in the Board's General Fixed Assets Account Group. MM. 1 (p) Compensated Absence-,- b A 5 It is the Clerk of the Court's policy to allow employees to accumulate an unlimited nuinlwr of hours of unused sick leave and up to 240 hours of unused vacation Ie,ivo. Upon termination, an employee is vested in a portion of the unused sick leave based upon length of service (with a maximum pay --)ut of 1,610 sick hours). All employees are vested in 100% of allowable accumulated vacation hours. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, the liability relating to the vested unused sick leave and the full amount of the allowable accumulated vacation leave is recorded in the accompanying financial statements. Because the amount of accrued compensated absences would not normally be liquidated with expendable available resources, it is recorded in the General Long -Tenn Debt Account Group. (h) Total Column on Combined Balance Sheet - The total column on the combined balance, sheet is captioned 'Memorandum Only' to indicate it is presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in this column does not present financial position or results of operations in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. lnterfund elirninations have not been made in the aggregation of this data. (2) CASH AND INVFSTMENTS: Deposits- At September 30, 1996, the amount of the Clerk of the Court's deposits with financial institutions was $7,262,010. These deposits were entirely covered by federal depository insurance or by collateral pursuant to the Florida Security for Public Deposits Act (Florida Statutes Chapter 280). At September 30, 1996, the investments with trustee. totaled 51,213,165, which equals it.; market value. These investments are deferred compensation plan assets which are invested in mutual fu -id pools (commercial paper and bankers' acceptances) and are not specifically identified or segregated in the Clerk of the Court's name and, therefore, are not categorized to give the level of risk assumed at year -end. This amount is not required to be categorized pursuant to GASB Statement Number 3, 'Deposits with Financial Institutions, Investments (including Repurchase Agreements) and Reverse Repurchase Agreements,' because it is not represented by underlying securities in either physical or book entry form. (3) RETIREMENT PLAN: The Clerk early implemented the provisions of GASB 27, Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Government Employers, in the following disclosure. Plan Description - The Clerk contributes to the Florida Retirement System (the "System "), a cost- sharinf; multiple - employer, defined benefit pension plan administered by the State of Florida, Division of Retirement. The System provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost -of- living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. The Florida Legislature established the System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and has sole authority to amend benefits provisions. Each year the System issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to the Florida Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560. Funding Polia- The System is non - contributory for employees and the Clerk is required per statute to pay monthly contributions at actuarially determined rates. During the fiscal year, the rate was approximately 18% of annual covered payroll. The contributions of the Clerk are established and may be ar.-ended by the State Legislature. The Clerk's contributions to the System for the years ending September 30, 1996, 1995, and 1994 were $853,365, $666,860, and $659,185, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. -7- P". J C C `_J 0 I] n 0 (4) DEFERRED COMPENSAMN PLAN: 6 A J Under an agreement with Public Employees Benefit Service Corporation (PEBSCO) and ICMA Retirement Corporation, the Clerk of the Court offers employees a deferred compensation plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code, Section 457. The plan is available to all Clerk of thi! Court employees and permits them to defer a portion of their salaries until future years. The deferred compensation is not available to employees until termination, retirement, death, or unforeseeable emergency. All amounts of compensation deferred under the plan, all property and rights purchased with those amounts, end all income attributable to those amounts, property or rights, are (until paid or made evnilable to the employee or ether beneficiary) solely the property and rights of the Clerk of the Court (without being restricted to the provision of benefits under the plan), su* -(--t only to the claim9 of the Clerk of the Court's general creditors. Participants' rights under the plan are equal to those of general creditors of the Clerk of the Court in an amount equal to the fair market value of the deferred account for each participant. The Clerk of the Court believes that it is unlikely that it will use the assets to satisfy the claims of ; general creditors in the fulLre. (5) SELF- rNSURANCE PR06RA.MS: The Clerk of the Court participates in the County-wide self- insurance program. The Collier County, Florida, Board of County Commissioners maintains an inter,Aal service fund to administer self- insurance activities relating to workers' compensation, and health end life insurance. The Count: absorbs lasses up to a specified amount annually. Excess and other specific coverages are purchased from third -party carriers. Charges to operating departments are based upon amounts believed by the Board's management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for the estimated operating costs of the program. For fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, the Clerk of the Court was charged approxima lely 5503,000 for these programs. (6) GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT: The following changes in general long -term debt occurred during the year f-nded September 30, 19%: Long -term debt payable at October 1, 1995 Increase in accrued compensated absences Long -term debt payable at September 30, 19`hi S 36,331 113,616 6 :I COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT V A 5 COMBINING BALANCE SEi�FET - FIDUCIARY FUND TYPE SEPTEMBER 30`19% Expendable Trust Agency Tout ASSETS AND OTHER DEATT Cash and investments S 493,973 S 4,109,597 5 4,608,570 Investments with trustee - 1,213,165 1,213,165 Due from the Board of County Commissionrrs 58,243 58,213 Due from other governments — 4.478 4,478 Total assets and other debit S 49837a 5 5.385,483 S 5.881.956 LIABILITTE$ AND FUND EQiJITY LIAE1111IE5: Vouchers payable 5 35,013 5 22,335 5 57,348 Accrued liabilities 33,616 33,616 Due to the Board of County Commissioners 312,592 44,178 356,770 Due to other funds 71,576 - 71,576 Due to other governments 887,813 887,813 Deferred compensation payable 1,213,165 1,213,165 Deposits - _ 3,217,992 3,217,99, Total liabilities 452,797 5,385,483 5,838,280 FUND EQUTIY: Fund balances - unreserved, undr_signated 46,176 i — 46,176 Total liabilities and fund equity S_ 49$.m 1—Ia5m S 5,884.456 i 1 1 r -9- t' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT STATTMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AGENCY FUND FOR TUE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30.1 b A LI A B ILITTES Vouchers Payable Balance S 46,811,744 $46,789,;09 Balance Due to the Board of October 1, September 30, Account 1995 Additions Deletions 19% ASSET-5 311,984 - 311,9&1 - Cash and investments $3,916,183 5 58,607,173 558,413,759 $4,109,597 Investments with trustee 9.3-1,826 299,005 20,666 1,213,165 Due from the Board of 2,958,334 19,038,637 18,778,979 3,217,992 County Commissioners 54119.087 58,243 - 58,243 Due from other government9 - 4,478 - 4,478 Documentary stamps 98,078 - 98 [1?8 - Total 5A �2 Q$2 La2Q .22 Sa5lu „m 55.385.483 LI A B ILITTES Vouchers Payable 5 S 46,811,744 $46,789,;09 $ 22,335 Due to the Board of County Commissioners 44,178 44,178 Due to other constitutional officers 311,984 - 311,9&1 - Due to other governments 733,943 36,905,176 36,761,306 887,813 Deferred compensation payable 934,826 278,339 - 1,213,165 Deposits 2,958,334 19,038,637 18,778,979 3,217,992 Total 54119.087 5103.078.074 $102,6}1 a 55385.483 -10- t 7 t 1NDEPE7tiDENT CERTIFIED FUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON THE INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE f7 I e a i t e w � A AM HUR ANDERSEN LL(' b A 5 IINDEPL7 UNi CERh_UhED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT S' REPO 4tT J 0 ON THME JRNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE Honorable Dwight ;r Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County, Florida: We have audited the financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit Co as of ty art, and for the year ended September 30, :996, and have issued our report thereon dab!d December 20, 1996. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits amtained in C-, .- me►t Auditing Stzndar6, issued by the ComptrolL>r General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable A-- mrance about whether the finnnca] Statements are free of material misstatement. Th,e management of the Collier County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit Court is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fuL' ing this respormlility, r_sttimees and Judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of tnternal control structure policies and procedures. The objectives of an internal a)ntrol structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded a,3airst loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance vvitl► marugement's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of financial statemenb; in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of inherent lim-itations in arty internal control structure, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any eval Abon of the structure to fut-are periods is subject to the risk that proced,, res may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. In planning and performing our audit of the financiai statements of the Collier County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit Court for the year ended September 30, 1996, we obtained an understanding of the internal cnntrol structure. With respect to the internal control structure, we obtained an under.tanding of the design of rr_levant policies and procedures and whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed control rusk in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not to provide an opinion, on the internal :miitrol structure. Accordingiy, we do not express such an opinion. -II- 9 i P i 9 u J 5 t ARTHUR b A ANDERSEN Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose a matters in the internal control structure that might be material weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that e -rors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in a normal course of perforating their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control structure and is operations that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above. However, we noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and is operation that we have reported to the management of the Collier County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit G)urt in a separate letter dated December 20, 1996. This report is intended for the information of the management of the Collier County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit Court and the Auditor General of the State of Morida. However, this report is a matter of public record and it- distribution is not limited. ® Fort Lauderdale, Florida, ® December 20, 19%. J f I F C 1 -12- e i 6 A 5 � U-11 1-i INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE S- f r i 0 ARTHU? AND -1ZSEN LL b A 5 P'. IL*iDEF'c.NDENT CaT J IED PUBLIC ACsOUNTAJN TS' REPORT ON COIvY� Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Comer County, Florida: We have audited the firarx-iai statements of the Coiier County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit Court, as of and for the year ended September _M, 1990, and have issued our report thereon dated December 20, 19%. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financiad audits contained in Gov- rnrrtnt Auditing S andards, issued by the Corn ptroller General of the United States. Those standard_- r-quire that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Compliance with laws, regulations, Lontzacts and grants applicable to the Collier Couitty, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit Court is the :Yxpersikri.iity of t.ne Collier County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit Court's management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financal statements are free of material misstatement we perfr rmed tests of the Collier County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants. However, the objective of our audit of the finasx3al statements was not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of mr tests disclosed no ustimces of noncompliance that are required to b�! reported herein under Government Auditing Standards. This repo: is intended for the information of the mnnageLient of the Collier. County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit CovA and the Auditor General of the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and. its distribution is not limited. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. 0 a -,z- R L i COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COLTR•t MANAGFMFNT LETi CR S EM-EM B ER 30, 19% 6 A 5 ARTHUR ANDERSEN 6 A 5 MANAGEMENT LETTER PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF All u:r THE AUDITOR GENERAL FOR TIfF STATE OF FLORIDA Suit,, 7(X) Fort Liudcnl�llr Fl- ?; t i• i l i o the Honorable Dwight )w Bras Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County, Florida: We have andited the financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Clerk of the Circuit Court (the "Clerk ") for the year ended Septnr_aber s0, 19% and have issued our report thereon dated December 20, 1995. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standaris zrnd the standards for firundal audits contained in Gov�ernmert Auliting Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require tl-,at we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable a--surance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The purpose of the letter is to comment on those matters described in Rule 10.55`1(1):fj as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida. Accordingly, in conned :on with our audit of the fire nci l statements of the Clerk, as de-..rnbed in the first paragraph, we report the following: A. CUR.RFNT YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS Consistent with the prior year, there are no material weaknesses in finanaal management controls at the Clerk However, opportunities will cortinue to arise to improve existing practicr..s. Accordingly, the follo'o,i ,g r-comnendations to improve fin racial management, the Clerk's accountnf; procedures and internal control structure were developed during &.e September 30, 1996, audit. Mn- We noted during our audit that the Clerk did not record Deferred Compensation on its general ledger. Accotdir,gly, to GASB Cod. Sec. D25, governmental entities utilizing governmental funds in their financial statements are required to du -play iRC Sec. 437 deferred compensation plan balances in an agency fund. &Corrarccnd¢ii We recommend that the Clerk record Deferred Compenration on its general ledger incl, on a quarterly basis, recancile all employee contnlmuons made (deductions per the payroll negis-ter) to the contributions reported on the PEBSCO (1nve-n%tment Trustee) quarterly statements of account. We noted during ae* audit that the Gerk did not record interest receivable. The ar;iou.nt was directly added to cash prior to bong received. As a result, the aatourct of interest rec+nvable becomes a recorxiting item on the ban's reconciliation every month- -14 - � ANDERSEN 6 A 5 u Recomnu dation We recommend that the Clerk record interest receivable on its general ledger. Ths will allow for proper classification of the interest receivable amount during the year and at year end, and will facilitate the bank reconciliation process. Goyv menW Accountinn_Trainin We noted during our audit that employees of the Clerk's Bookkeeping Department do not receive governmental accounting training. Recommendations We recommend that the employees of the Clerk's Bookkeeping Department attend governmental accounting training,. B. OTHER MATTEPS In connection writh our audit of the financial statements of the Clerk we report the following matters described in Rule 10554(1)(f) as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for he State of Florida: 1. No inaccuracies, irreoulArities, shortages, defalcations, and /or -iolabons of laws, rules, regulations, and contractual provisions were reported in the pr,-ceding annual financial audit. 2. The Clerk is exempt from filing the annual financial report with the Department of Banking and Finance pursuant to Section 218.32(lxb) because it is a reporting entity of Collier County (primary government). 3. No recommendations were made in the September 30, 1995 audit witli respect to the operations of the Qerk- 4. The Clerk is not and was not during the fiscal year in a state of financal emergency as a consequence of conditions descnbed in Section 218..503(1), Florida Statutes. 5. No violations of laws, rules, regulations and contractual provisions were discovered within the scope of the firMncial audit that may or may not have mat, -zm ly affected the financial statements. 1 6. No Megal or improper expenditures were discovered within the scope of the audit that may or may not have materially affected the financial statements. 7. No matters requiring correction (as defined by Rules of the Auditor General 10- 554[1][fj7.) that did or did not materially affect the financial statements were noted. -]5- I ANDERSEN b A 5 S. T%e Clerk as an elected constitutional officer and county agency, r; considered a part of Collier County, Florida (primary government). As such, the Clerk's financial statements are included in the general purpose financial statements of Collier County. 9. The Clerk complied with Section 28.24(15xd), Florida Statutes regarding the conection and use of Public Records' Modernization Trust Fund monies. Thos report is intended solely for the information of the management of the Clerk and the Auditor General for the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. B i L1 F1 n 1;-. I.' i ] County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT z C:OIUER COUNT`! COURTHOUSE U ~ 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX A 13044 cb„rn NAPLES. FLORICIA 34101.3044 Dwight E. Brock Clerk February 11, 1997 Thomas J. Bradley Cynthia D. Borders -Byrd c/o Arthur Anderson I.LY 100 Northeast Third Ave. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, F1 33301 -1166 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIorjERs RE: Clerk of Courts Audit for the Year Ending 9 /30/96 The purpose of this letter is to recap what was discussed in our meeting on Friday, Feb. 7th and to respond to the current year recommendations referenced in the Management Letter dated 12/20/96. a. Deferred Compensation: As mentioned during our meeting, Deferred 1 Compensation has always been carried on the Boards books. A bi- monthly verification is currently performed when contributions are made. A quarterly reconciliation will be implemented to insure contributions reported are in agreement_ with the quarterly statement of account as recommended in your letter. b. Interest Receivable: This recommendation has been noted. Bookkeeping will begin recording interest as a receivable ra =her than an in- transit item. With the implementation of these recommendations and the open communication between all parties involved, I'm looking forward to smooth fiscal '97 audit. Included with this you will also find the representation letter pertaining to this audit. y n re lyTynski Fiscal Supervisor Y 0 C M i:D-UIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPERTY APPRAISER iFINANCIAL STATEMFNTS FOR FISCAL YEAR FNDFD SFPTEMETR 30,199§ TOG Ell fER WITH REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTTFI7ED PUBLIC ACCOUNT,"LNTS H n a E 1 t s e i 1 1 0 B f 1 0 i i i v h ,) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPERTY APPRAISER FISCAL, YEAR ENDED SEPTENIBER 30,19% TABLE OF CONTENTS Page REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS I FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups 2 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - General Fund 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - 4 Budget and Actual - General Fund Notes to Financial Statements 5 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities - Agency Fund 9 INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUi3LIC ACCOUNTAN 'TS' REPORT ON THE INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE 10 INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE 12 MANAGEMENT LETTER 13 J-� �---j i LI 0 J L AuHUR ANDERSEN LLP 0 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CFTTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUN "CANTS To the Horsorable Abe Skinner Property Appraiser Collier County, Florida: A 5 We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Property Appraiser (the "Property Appraa. r "), as of and for the year ended September 30, 19%, as listed in the Table of Contents. These financial statements and supplementary inforrlation anT the respormbility of the Property Appraiser's management. Our responsibility is to express a,-i opinion on these financial ,statements and supplementary uzformation brsed on our audit. We conducted ow audit in accordance wIlth generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for finar,dl audits contained m Gaurrnrnmt Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the L'ruted States. Those standards require LbAt we plan and perform the audit :,) obtain reasonable assu.-wice about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement- An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and dtwlosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by marvxgement, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for oar opinion. Ln our opinion, the firu;ncial Statements referred to above present fairly, in all r:wterial respects, the financial position of the Prop"r Appraiser as of September 30, 1996, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In accordance with Gavemment Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report on our consideration of the Property Appraiser's intern�l control structure and a report on its compliance with laws and regulations, both dated December 20, 1996. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. The supplementary information included on page 9 is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the fina -ncw statements of the Property Appraiser. Such in; ormation has been subjected to tlw auditing procedrues applied in the audit of the financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly presented in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken +is a whole. (.tip L_ Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20,19%. N 6 A -1 ��� U Zu r� f NI n L. r I �r 00 r A 4� � wl O � 4 FMw-j tj 7 L�.I u v o C u O �jI [] ( J H !2 •� 4 Q Ni S U 'D v,,. o �J OQ C a "a O E- SO I' O O O� d U1 G co :7 y u c� _ N _r e 0 i i r COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPERTY APPRAISER STATEMEt -4'T OF I?EVENUFS, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE -- GENERAL FUND FOR THE FISCAI. YEAR ENDED SEFTEMBER 30,1 RED /ENUES: Charges for services S 2,897 231 Miscellaneous 384 _W384 Total revenues —3 ?00,615 EXPENDITURES: Current- General government: Personal services 2,243,584 Operating expenditures C,26,%7 Capital outlay 126,421 Debt service - Principal retirement 133,623 Interest 5 805 Total expenditures Z 036 401 Excess of revenues over expenditures 1'A 214 OTHER. FINANCING USES: Return of excess fees to other governments (16,340) Operating transfers out _ L17,8 4 Total other 6narx.Ing uses _'VA 2i4 Excess of revenues over expenditures and other financing uses _ FUND BALANCE - October 1, 1945 FUND BALANCE - September 30,19% The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -3- -- ------- - - - - -- COI.i_IER COUNTY, FLORIDA f� A 5 4 PROPERT'1 APPRAISER STATEMENT OF REVENUES EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - GENEFAL RIND FOR TiIF FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPT -EMBER 30, 1996 Vanance Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) S - 103,394 303,38-1 12,879 (80, 999) 68,379 (133,623) (5,8061 139170 164,214 (16,3-10) (147,874 REVENUES: Charges for services 5 2,897,231 S 2.897,2'11 Miscellaneous _ 303,3s:4 Total revenues 2,897,231 3,200,615 EXPENDITURES: Cur v..nt- C-eneral government: Personal services 2,256,463 2,243,5.i'4 Operating expenditures 4.15,968 526,9E 7 Capital outlay 194,800 126,421 Debt se-vice- Pritx-ipal retirement - 133,6::3 Interest 5,8(6 Total expenditures _ 2,897,237 3,036.4111 Excess of revenues over expenditures - 164,214 OTHER FINANCING USES: Return of excess fees to oche. governments - (16,3 0) Operating transfers out - —(14 7 874) Excr,.,s of revenues over expenditures and other financing uses _ FUND BALANCE - October 1, 1935 - FUND BALANCE -September 30, 19'96 The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this statement. S - 103,394 303,38-1 12,879 (80, 999) 68,379 (133,623) (5,8061 139170 164,214 (16,3-10) (147,874 r COLLIEI< COUNTY I LQRIDA PROPERTY APPRAISER 6 A 5 No "TES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 LI—SUMMARY OF SIGNIFiCA,�NT ACCOUNTING POLICIES: The following is a summary of the more significant accounting, principles and policies: (a) Defining, the Govern mental Re rtin Entjy- The Property Appraiser, as an elected constitutional officer and county agency, is considered a part of Collier County (primary government). As such, the Property Appraiser's financial statements are included in the general purpose financial statements of Collier County (the "County Based on the criteria established by GASB 13, these are financial statements. no component units included in the Property Appraiser's Lb Fund Accoun"n The accounts of the Property Appraiser are organized on the basis of funds and an account group, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund and account group are accounted for with a separate set of self- balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Government resources itre allocated to, and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are Io be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. The following fund types and account group are used by the Property Appraiser: Governmental Fund Type General Fund - The General Fund is used to account for financial transactions applicable to the general operations of the Property Appraiser and not required to be accounted for in another fund. Fiduciary Fund Type Agency Fund - The Agency Fund is used to account for assets held as an agent for individuals. e i i IAccount Group r t r e a e i 1 1 1 i w b A 5 General Long -Term Debt - This self - balancing account group is used to account for the long -term portion of compensated absences. c tileasurement Focus- Governmental Fund Type - The General Fund is accounted for on a "spending" or "financial flow" measurement focus. Only current assets and current liabilities are generally included on the balance sheet. Accordingly, reported undesignated fund balance (net current assets) is considered a measure of available, spendable or appropriable resources. Governmental Fund type operating statements present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Fiduciary Fund Type - The Agency Fund is custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and does not involve the measurement of results of operations. Account Group - The General Long -Term Debt Account Group is concerned only with the measurement of financial position. It is not involved with the mea�urernent of results of operations. Long -term debts, which are not intended to be financed through Fiduciary Funds, are accounted for in the General Long - Term Debt Account Group. C41 Basis of Accounting- Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of tha measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied. The modified accrual basis of accounting is utilized by the General Fund. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting revenues are recorded when they become measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current penod. Available means collectible within the current period or soon thereafter, generally 60 days, subsequent to year -end. Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting when the related fund liability is incurred if measurable except for unmatured interest on general long -term debt, which is recognized when due. Cel Budgetary Process- Chapter 195, Florida Statutes, governs the preparation, adoption and amendment process of the Property Appraiser's annual budget. The property Appraiser's budget and amend,nents are prepared independently of the Board of Counr.y Commissioners and are approved by the Florida State Department of Revenue. A copy of the approved budget is provided to the Board of County Commissioners. The budget for the General Fund is prepared on the modified accrual basis. The level of control for appropriations is exercised at the fund level. (0 Fixed Assets- Acquisitions of tangible personal property are recorded as expenditures in the General Fund at the time of purchase. These assets are reported to the Collier County, Florida, Board of County Commissioners and are recorded in the County's General Fixed Assets Account Group. b- e e d e 6 A 5 (� Compensated Absences- it is the Property Appraiser's policy to all— employees to accumulate an unlimited number of hours of unused sick leave and up to 240 hours of unused vacation leave. Upon termination, an employee is vested in a portion of the unused sick leave based upon length of service. All employees are vested in 100% of allowable accumulated vacation hours. For the year ended September 30, 1996, the liability relating, to the projected vested unused sick leave and the full amount of the allowable accumulated vacation leave, plus applicable fringe benefits, are recorded in the accompanying financial statements. Because the amount of accrued compensated absences would not normally be liquidated with expendable available resources, it is recorded in the General Long-Term Debt Account Group. (h) Total Column on Combined Balance Sheet- The total column on the combined balance sheet is captioned "Memorandum Only" to indicate it is presented only to facilitate financial analvsis. Data in this column does not present financial position or results of operations in conformity H,,ith generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations have not been made in the aggregation of this data. (2) CASH AND lN`VE.5Tp.1FNT5: Deposits- At September 30, 1996, the amount of the Property Appraiser's deposits with financial institutions was `-!89,732. These deposits were ent:re!y covered by federal depository insurance or by collateral pursuant to the Florida Security for Public Deposits Act (Florida Statutes Chapter 280). At September 30, 1996, the investments with trustee totaled 5658,741, which equals its market value. These investments are deferred compensation plan assets which are invested in mutual fund pools (commercial paper and bankers' acceptances) and are not specifically identified or segregated in the Property Appraiser's name and, therefore, are not categorized to give the level of risk assumed at year- end. This amount is nit required to he categorized pursuant to CASE Statement Number 3, "Deposits with Financial Institutions, Investments (including Repurchase Agreements) and Reverse Repurchase Agreements," because it is not represented by underlying securities in either physical or book entry form. 3) RE IREVIFNT PLAN rThe Properly Appraiser early implemented the provisions of GASB 27, Accounting for Pensions by Stale and Local Government Employers, in the following disclosure. Plan Desc:riklion- The Property Appraiser contributes to the Florida Retirement System (the "System "), a cost- sharing, multiple- employer, defined benefit pension plan administered by the State of Florida, Division of Retirement. The System provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost -of- living adjustments, anti death benefits to Plan members and beneficiaries. ITe Florida Legislature established the System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and has sole authority to amend benefits provisions. Each year the System issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to the Florida Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560. 7- B J L' s J J 0 u 0 I'll 6 A _� Funding Policy- The System is non - contributory for employees and the Property Appraiser is required per statute to pay monthly contributions at actuarially determined rates. During the fiscal year, the rate was approximately 19% of annual covered payroll. The contributions of the Property Appraiser are established and may be amended by the State Legislature. The Property Appraiser's contributions to the System for the years ending September 30, 1996, 1995, and 1991 were 5289,225, 5272,D66, and $254,542, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. (4) DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN: The Property Appraiser offers his employees deferred compensation plans (through two providers) created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code, Section 457. The plans are available to all Property Appraiser employees and permit them to defer a portion of their salaries until future years. The deferred compensation is not available to employees until termination, mtirement, death or unforeseeable emergency. All amounts of compensation deferred under the plans, all property and rights purchased with those amounts, and all income attnbulable to those amounts, property or rights, are (until paid or made available to the employee or other beneficiary) solely the property and rights of the Property Appraiser (without being restricted to the provision of benefits under the plans), subject only to the claims of the Property Appraiser's general creditors. Participants' rights under the plans are equal to those of general creditors of the Property Appraiser in an amount equal to the fair market value of _he deferred account for each participant. The Property Appraiser believes that it is unlikely that it will use the assets to satisfy the claims of general creditors in the future. (5j SELF- INSURANCE PROGRAMS: The Property Appraiser participates to the County -wide self- insurance program. The Collier County, Flonda, Board of County Cornmi_ssioners maintains an internal service fund to administer self - insurance activities relating to workers' compensation and health and life insurance. The County absorbs losses up to a specified amount annually. Excess and other specific coverages are purchased from third -party carriers. Charges to operating departments are based upon amounts believed by the Board of County Commissioners' management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for the estimated operating costs of the program. For fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, the Property ,Appraiser was charged approximately 5170,000 for these programs. (6L�ENERAL LONG- TER`.1 DEBT: The following changFs in general long -term debt occurred during the year ended September 30, 1996: Long -term debt payable at October 1, 1995 Principal retirement Increase in accrued compensated absences Long -term debt payable at September 30, 1996 8- $ 380,379 (133,623) 2,934 e 0 0 e e e t e e t a w COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPERTY APPRAISER STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES - AGENCY FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,19% Employee Deferred Compensation Plan Fund ASSETS Investments with trustee LIABILITIES Deferred compensation payable Balance October 1, 1995 Additions -9- 6 A 5 Balance September 30, Deletions. 1996 5 32 `;41 5 638,711 S 3291 5 638.741 I u C! e �LJ H111- INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON'TIIE INTERNAL. CONTROL STRUCTURE r; n r� J u e e 6 a 5 1 /\uHUr? ANDERSEN LL(' L IINDFTe,.Db.'ti? CER`iTFTED PUBLIC ACCOUNTAID. ?S' RFr'URT 0 ON THE LN-rERNAL CON -MOL STRUCTURE a To the Horxmsble Abe Skinner Property Appraiser Collier County, Florida: 0 'R b A 5 We have audited tlx: finanrel statements of tip Collier County, Florida, Pmve`rty Appraiser (the 'Property Appraiser "), as of and for the year ended September 30, 1996, and leave issued our report thereon dated December 20, 19'X. We conducted our audit in accordance with genearlly accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits r=tained in Grnv--rnrunf Audihng Standards issued by the Cc.-m nlroller General of the United States. Those standards rccjui:e that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reas,^,nable assurance about whether the financial state-ments are free of material misstatement. Tho management of the Property Appraiser is resTxmsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by maragernent are required to assess the expected 'oenefits and related costs of intern) control structure poicies and procedures. The objectives of an internal control structure are to provide management wide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that asset; are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized w',e or disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorisation and recorded properly to permit the preparation of financial statements 'n accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of inherent iimit,ations in any internal control structure, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of t1e structure to future periods is subject to the nsk that Procedures may become inadequate because of klanges in conditions or that the effectiveness of she design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Property Appraiser for the year ended September 30, 1996, we obtained an understanding of the internal control structure. With respect to the internal control structure, we obtained an understanding of the design of it- levant policies and procedure and whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed cor trol risk in order to determine our auditing pmcedures for the pvrpose of expressing our opinion an the financial statements and not to provide an opinion on the internal control structure. Accordingly, we do :got express such an opLriion. -10- � ARTHUR ANDERSEN 6 A 5 Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in tine internal control structure that might be material weaknesses under standar cLs established by the American Institute of Certified Public AccounLants. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would b,r material in relation to the flnanoal statements being audited may occur and not be detected witl;iri a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the interval control structure and its operations that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above. However, we noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we have reported to the management of the Property Appraiser in a separate lette -r dated December 20, 1996. This report is intended for t<be information of the management of the Proper- -,y Appraiser and the Auditor General for the State of Fionda. However, Lh s report is a matter of public re:ord and its distribution is not limited. k�- Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. a v r, F 0 J I - 11 - e i n b A 5 IINDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE e i t I ARTHUR /ANDERSEN LL..[' 6 A 5 UsMUENMENT CERTMED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON 1- 22WLIANCE I To the Honorable Abe Skinner Property Appraiser Collier County, Florida: We have audited the financiau statements of the Collier County, Florida, Prc.Ferty Appraiser (the "Property Appraiser "), as of and for tlhe year ended September 30, 1996, and have issued our report thereon dated December 210, 1996. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for f w<ial audits contained in Gove"nurnt Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require thnt we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Enand.al statements are free of material misstatement. g� Compliance with laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to the Prop4!rty Appraiser is the ® responsibility of the Property Appraiser's management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the Property Appraiser's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants. However, the objective of our audit of the financial statements was not to provide MI opinion on overall ccmpliarr_-e with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion - i1w msults of our tests divlo d no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported herein under Co nment Auditing Standards. This report is intended for the information of the management of the Property Appraiser and the Auditor General for the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of p•ablic record and its distnbution is not limited. L L Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Decrm bar 20, 1496. u n-- 1 - 12 - U.- 0 C Q PROPERTY APPRAISER 111 MANAGEMENT LETTER IFOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,19% C E-1 r C! J r 0 e 6 A 5 I n �•1 F, c ;1 ARTHUR ANDERSEN MANAGEMENT LETTER PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA To the Honorable Abe Skinner Property Appraiser Collier County, Florida: 6 A 5 'ill i'l' 7i'N1 A'„rt�,�� ir We have audited the financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Property Appraiser, (the "Property Appraiser") for tl-,e year ended September 30, 1996 and have issued our resort thereon dated December 20, 1496. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standard:: and the standards for finendel audits contained in Gmpernmrnt Auditing Standards issued by the Compt- roller General of the United States. Those standards .require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements arz free of material misstatement. The purpose of this letter is to comment on those matters deschbed in Rule 10554fIXQ as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida. Accordingly, in connection with our audit of the firur',cW statements of the Property Appraiser, as described in the first parag: aph, we report the following: A. CU'RREYE EAR RECO'vLNTF— NDATIONS Consistent with the prior year, Lhere are ne material weaknesses in financal manager,lent controls at the Property Appraiser. However, opportunities will continue to arse to improve existing practices. Accordingly, the following recommendations to improve financial management, the Property Appraiser's accounting procedures and internal control structure were deve!ored during the September 30, 1996 audit. L Deferred Compensation The Property Appraiser does not reconcile the total amount withheld from employees' pay to the amount contributed per quarterly statements submitted by plan administrators. C-irrently, only the amount submitted is reconcled to receipts sent from the plan administrator. As such, a potential error in posting to the employee accounts by the plan administrator would not be detected. We also noted that no quarterly statements were available from one of the plan admnistrators. The Property Appraiser should, on a quarterly basis, reconcile total deductions per tl.e payroll register to contributions reported by the administrator. All employees should be encouraged to monitor their account and follow up on discrepances in a timely manner. The Property Appraiser should also request quarterly statements from the plan administrators in order to implement this recommendation. 1 -13- ARTHUR ANDERSEN 2 Segregation of Dutics � � 5 We noted a lack of proper segregation regarding cash receipts for certain sales of miscellaneous items at the Property Appraiser office. The same person reconciles cash receipts, records receipts in the general ledger and deposits the cash at the bank. These functions should be segregated. At a minimum, management should periodically, on an unannounced basis, reconcile the cash receipt log to the general ledger to ensure that all sales have been recorded. 3. unused Vacation Leave The Property Appraiser's compensated absence policy limits the number of accrued vacation hours employees are permitted to cam forward. We noted that certain employees exceeded this policy. The Proper+j Appraiser should adr,ere to its established policies and formal autho,-iLation should be documented in the employee's personnel file when exceptions are approved. B. PRIOR YEAR RECONLMEN—DATIONS There were no recommendations made in connection with the September 30, 1993 audit. G OTH --7R MATTERS In cormect:on with our audit of the financial statements of the Property Appraiser, we report the following matters descibed in Rule. 10.354(1)(f) as required by tine Rules of the Aud for General for the State of Florida: I. No inaccuracies, irregularities, shortages, defalcations, and /or violations of laws, riles, regulations, and contractual provisions were reported in the preceding annual financial audit. Z The Property Appraiser is exempt from filing the annual financial report with the Department of Banking and Finance pursuant to Section 218.32(1)(b) because it is a reporting entity of Collier County (primary government). 3. The Property Appraiser is not and was not during the fiscal year in a state of financial emergency as a consequence of conditions descnbed in Section 218503(1), Florida Statutes. 4. No violations of laws, rules, regulatim-s and contractual provisions were discovered within the scope of the financial audit Lhat may or may not have materially affected the hnarcial statements. 3. No it egai or improper expenditures were discovered within the scope of the audit that may or may not have materially affected the financial statements. 6. No matters requiring con c*.ion (as defined by Rules of the Auditor General 10.53- }(1J(f]7.) that did or did not materially affect the financial statements were noted. 7. The Property Appraiser as an elected constitutional officer and county agency, is considered a part of Collier County, Florida (primary y government). As such, the Property Appraiser's financial statements are included in the general purpose financial statements of Collier County. rus report is intended solely for the information of the management of the Property Appraiser and the Auditor Ceneral for the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. - 14 - To: Cynthia D. Borders -Bird Arthur Andersen LLP 6 A t1 5 Fax #-. 954 - 763 -1677 Re: Recommendations per Audit of FY 1996 Date: March 3, 1997 Pages 1, including this cover sheet. Cynthia, As to date, we have no formal statements to make on current year recommendations. However, we will look over your comments and will concur with the implementation of such recommendations. If you have need of further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Glennda Roberts or rrmy; elf. Re ands. Sheri Flegal ExecAitive Secretary s i s 0 '.I f 1 1 i 1-1 Frorn me ae-h o1.. Exeaa,,* 9s�2stuy 0)&W C—Irf Frcp-ry /;Rx 3301 Txrawrt Trad East fkxk*-,g G2 N.apim. FL W i1 -4996 9A 1-77&4255 F= 941- n._2071 r t COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SHERIFF 6 A 5 FTNANCIAL STATEMEVrS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPT MBER 30,19 T0GF nIER WMf REPORTS OF IN'DEPE'NDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS i t f ". iii H. 'Y COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 5 SHERIFF FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,199 TABLE OF CONTENTS page REPORT OF INDEPENDENIT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 1 FINANCIAL SIATEN!ENTS: Combined Balance Sheet - AH Fund Types and Account Groups 2 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - General Fund and Expendable Trust Fund 4 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - General Fund 5 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings - internal Se; vice Fund 6 Statement of Cash Flows - Internal Service Fund 7 Notes to Financial Statements 8 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Combining Balance Sheet - Fiduciary Fund Types 14 Combined Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities - All Agency Funds 15 INDEPENDENT CER T IHED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON THE INTERNAL CONTROL. STRUCTURE 16 INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE 18 MANAGEMENT LETTER 19 ARTHUR, ANDERSEN LLf 6 A 5 REPORT OF IItiDEPFNDFti? CFRTTFTED PLBLIC ACCOUi�TA1r -T To the Honorable Don Hunter Sheriff Collier County, Florida: We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Sheriff (the "Sheriff "), as of and for the year ended September 30, 1996 as listed in the Table of Contents. These firanc:,al statements and supplementary information referred to below are the responsibility of the Sheriff's management. Our responsibiLty is to express an opinion on these financial statements and suppleizientary information based on our audit_ We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing tandards and the st r g a.�dards for financial audits contained in Gcverrment Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the En,Incal statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclrsures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by mangement, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opirdon. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Sheriff as of September 30, 1995, and the results of its operations and cash flows of its proprietary fund type for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting 1 prioples. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report on our consideration of the Sheriff's internal control structure and a report on its compliance with laws and regulations, both dated December 20, 1996. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. The supplementary information included on pages 14-15 are presented for purpoe;es of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements of the Sheriff. ibis info;- mation has been sn*, ted to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly presented, in all material respects in relation to the L -Ancial statements taken as a whole. I LAP Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20,19%. @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � \ g ; � /0/ / 2 p� /o( 2 � O \ \ � \\ I \ � ` /2 I I 3 q gl \/ �! � ( I S / Gm 2JR%gte R ± <00a, r § � § E% r» e m r � U / J � E 5 � � \ / 2 � \ g ; � /0/ / 2 p� /o( 2 � O \ \ � \\ I \ � ` /2 I I 3 q gl \/ �! � ( I S / Gm 2JR%gte R ± <00a, r � /rN cn / § E% r» e m r � \ m J Y'� , v \ %In— » � � t', ­4 � / r � \ m j Y'� , v \ %In— » \ � t', ­4 � / r / \ \ � � E Y'� , v \ %In— » t', ­4 / \ r Y'� , v \ %In— » t', ­4 / \ ( � 7 2 .§ .0 §0 .7 u { % _ »�/ {G\ \ ] / § \ o § =Ea2\�U%EE� 3 2 \ � \ o m o § < § § § § § 2 / 2 ( o / / }w\\\) fU3oEGO <3f / a t e e e t 0 e 0 t 2 CG i!. x Yom) ►+I :JI Jf xl Z C L C u f 4 r 00 r r LO 00 ul ? C G a U 7 tic 1-1 w �a( � L rte•' Q � T r' Q O w v �' Cl G C ;y 6 O a u E s o a 5 v y v y 6l f0 Q F= F 7 r, o O d v 5 • .1 J :D � .,l w 'n � .•J � 00 Y. U c , o J { lf1 In Lr C ,L f✓ r �!: � '� '-j y C I f f '7 to rl N -'73 (•- I r � �o In] 7 fn G J rI r u f 4 ul ? C G a U 7 w �a( � L rte•' Q � T r' Q O w v �' Cl G C ;y 6 O a u E s o a 5 v y v y 6l f0 Q F= F 7 r, o O d v 5 D :D .,l w v 0 e e v t a v t 0 e C01.I.IER COUN -IY, rr,ORIDA SHERIFF b A 5 COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND AND FYPENDABLE TRUST FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 REVENUES: Miscellaneous EXPENDITURES: Current - General government: Personal services Operating expenditures Public safety: Personal services Operating expenditures Capital outlay Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCE..S (USES): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources Excess of revenuer and other financing sources over expenditures and other financing uses FUND BALANCE - October 1, 1995 FUND BALANCE - September 30, 1996 Total Expendable (Memorandum General Fund Tnist Fund Only) - _ 5L185,204 185,2(1-1 911,36 911,356 _ 31,564 _ _ 31,564 942,920 _ - 942,920 35,437,493 33,437,493 6,626,891 _.IG ?,593 6,734,484 42,061,384 167,593 42,171,977 1,382,387 !__ 1,382 387 44,389,691 _',07,593 44,497,284 (44,389,691} _ 7 611 (44,312,080) 44,933,300 44,933,300 543 -- - (543,609) 44 3389,691 44,389,691 77,611 77,611 176,687 176,687 S 5_22LM 5 254.298 The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this combined statement. .4- v t s s t s A s t B 1 e COLLIFR COUNTY, FLORIDA b A 5 SHERIFF STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE- BUDGET AND ACTUAL - GENERAL FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 RED /ENUES: 'Miscellaneous EXPENDITURES: Current - General government: Personal services Operating expenditures Public safety: Personal services Operating expenditures Capital outlay Total expenditures Excess of expenditures over revenues OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USE5): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources Excess of expenditures and other financing uses over revenues and other financing sources FUND BALANCE - October 1, 1995 FUND BALANCE - September 30, 1996 Budget _Actual 5 - -= 924,000 35,100 959,100 35,648,000 7,109.400 42,757,400 1,216,800 4933, 300 (44,933,300) 911,356 _._ 31,564 9`12,920 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) 12,644 3,36 16,180 35,437,493 210,507 _ 1526,891 482,509 4 2 ,364,384 693,016 ___11382,387 (165,587) 4.1389,691 343,609 (•1,;189,691} 543,609 44,933,300 4.1,933,300 - - __J!`43,609 (343,609) 44,933,300 44y.89,691 (543,609) The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this statement. - 5 - COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA b A SHERIFF STATEMENT OF REVENUES EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS - INTERNAL SERVICE FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 Intern al Semite fund OPERATING REVENUES: Charges for ser-✓ices 2.729,510 OPERATING EXPENSES: Claims and claims expersses 2 851,114 Reinsurance premiums 205,172 Administrative and other expenses _ 1L1,496 Total operating expenses _ 3.167,782 Operating income 561,728 NONOPERATING REVENUES: Interest income 63,877 Net income 625,605 RETAINED EARNINGS - October 1, 1995 1,396,576 RETAINED EARNINGS - September 30, 1996 5_2-012,181 The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this statement. COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFF b A STATEMENT OF CASII FLOWS - INTERNAL SERVICE FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPfFNIBER 30. 1996 1_iterr,al Service Fund CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Cash payments for claims and claims related services 5 (2,705,928) Cash payments for reinsurance premiums (205,172) (111,496) Cash payments for administrative services and sapplies Cash received from other funds for services 3,668,867 Cash received from retirees for services 60.633 Net cash provided by operating activities — 706,914 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING .ACTIVITIES: b3,8T1 Interest on investments Net increase in cash 770,791 CASH - October 1, 1995 1,898,576 CASH - September 30, 1996 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Operating income 5 So1,728 Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash provided by operating activities Increase in accounts payable 8,186 Increase in self - insurance claims payable 137.000 Net cash provided by operating activities S 706,914 The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -7- r N C L, I 0 J C b A 5 COIJAER COUNTY, FLORIDA SHERIFF NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS S E PTE!�.f ER 30, 1996 (1) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES: The following is a summary of the significant accounting principles and policies: (a) Defining the Governmental Renortinp Fntity The Collier County, Florida, Sheriff (the "Sheriff ") is an elected Constitutional Officer of Collier County, Florida (the "County "), pursuant to londa Statutes Chapter 30. The Sheriffs financial statements are included in the County's financial statements as the Sheriff is a component urut c-r Collier County, the primary government. These financial statements are intended to present only !.he operations of the Sheriff and not those of the County overall. There are no component units of the Sh ?riff. (b) Fund Accounting The accounts of the Sheriff are organized on the basLs of funds and account groups, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for using a separate set of seLf- balancing accounts which comprise its assets, liabilities, fund e.luity, revenues and expenditures or expenses. Govemrent resources are allocated to, and accounted for, in individual funds, based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the meant, by which spending activities are controlled. The following funds and account groups are used by the Sheriff: Governmental Fund Type General Fund — The General Fund is used to account for financial transactions applicable to the general operations of the Sheriff which are not required to be accounted for in another fund. Proprietary Fund Type Internal Service Fund — The Internal Service Fund is used to account for the fmanang of a self- insured employee health plan. Fiduciary Fund Types Trust and.Agencv Funds — Trust and Agency Funds are used to accounr. for assets held by public officials in a trustee capacity or as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other governments and /or other funds. These funds uzc:ude an Expendable Trust Fund and Agency Funds. I - 9 - C! b Account Groups A General Fixed Assets -- This account group a used to account for tangible Exed assets which have an estimated useful life in excess of one year. General Long -Term Debt — T }us account group is used to account for C-w principal amounts of general long -term indebtedness, as well as the long -term portion of compensated absences. ` Nfea urement Focus Governmental Fund Type - The General Fund is accounted for on a "spending" or "financial flow" measurement focus. 'r means that only Current assets and Current liabilities are ;4!nerally included on the ba!ance sheet. Accordingly, any reported undesignated fund balarxe (ret current assets) is considered a measure of available, spendable or appropriable resources. The operating statement presents increases (revenues and other financing sources) and dec7eases ( expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Proprietary Fund Type - The Proprietary Fund i, accounted for on a cost of servic,r measurement focus. Ali assets and all liabilities (current and noncurrent) are included on the balance sh.-et. Fiduciary Fund Types - The Expendabie Tr-ast Fund is accounted for in essentialhr the same manr:er as Governmental Funds. Agency Funds are cZjstodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of results of operatU ,,ns. Account Groups - The General Fixed Assets Account Group and the General Long-Term Debt Account Group are concerned only Kith the measurement of financial position. They are rot involved with the measurement of results of operations. Long -term debts, which are not intended to b> financed through Fiduciary Funds, are accounted for in the General Long -Terra Debt Accorxnt Group. Fixed assets, which are not used in Fiduciary Fund operations, are accounted for in the General Fixed Assets Account Group. (41_Basis of Accountinr; Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures or expenses arl! recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied. The modified accval basis of accounting is followed in the Government Fund Type and Fiduciary Fund Types. Under this basis, revenues are recorded when they become measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. ,-available means collectible within the curert period or soon thereafter, generally 60 days, subsecuent to year -end. Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting when the related fund liability is incurred. Exceptions to this general rule include: (1) principal and interest on general long -term debt, which is re�_o;3nUed when due; and (2) expenditures that are not divided between years by the recording of prepaid expenses. Proprietary Funds use the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized in .he period that they -ire earned and expenses are recognized in the period incurred. 'J r 1 (e) Budgetary Process 6 5 Chapter 30, Florida Statutes, governs the preparation, adoption and admintstr.ition process of the Sheriff's annual budget. A budget is only required to be prepared for the General Fund. Toe She:.fi s budget and amendments are approved by the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board"). The budget for the General Fund is prepared on the modified accrual basis, except that pnrxtpal and interest payments are budgeted as operating expenditures. The annual budget serves as the legal authorization for expenditures. Expend:tu.-es cannot 'segAlly exceed the total amount budgeted for that fund. All budget amendments, which rhange t!:e :es adopted total appropriation for a fund, are approved by the Board of County Comraissaoriers T=.e :e•:ei of control for appropriations is exercised at the fund level. (0 Encumbrances Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts and other c,)m=attmerts fcr "-e expenditure of funds are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the appbca�le appmpr-pr ter, :s used in the General Fund. All encumbrances lapse at year-end. Thereforr. er :sstbrars:es Lv-e rct compared to authorized appropnatiors and no portion of fund ba' ince ts reserve,_4 (g) General Fixed Assets Acquisitions of tangible personal property are recorded as capital outlay at the t=--%e of purchase kll fixed assets are valued at histoncal cost or estimated historical cost if act -ual hivoricaI costs are not available. Donated fixed assets are valued at their estimated fair valu- on the dente donated. No depreciation has been provided on general fixed assets. Ch Compensated Absences The Sheriff's employees accumulate annual sick and vacation leave based on the number of years of continuous service. In addition, the Sheriffs employees accumulate compensatory hours. Upon termination of employment, employees receive payment for 100% of accumulated vacation leave and overtime earned, and up to 35% of 1,00) hour of accumulated sick leave, depending on length of service. Accrued compensated absences are recorded in the General Long -Term Cebt Account Group because the liability will not be liquidated with available spendable resources at the 4 al.ance sheet date. (i Total Column on Combined Financial Statements The total column on -he combined bined financial statements is captioned "Memorandurn Only" to indicate that it is presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in this column does not present financial position or results of operations in conformity with generaL'y accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. lnteriand eliminations have not been mada in the aggregation of this data. I'll 7. L t 1 0 -10- 1 (2, CASH AND INVESTMENTS: 6 ^ 5 Florida Statutes and the SherifFs Investment Policy aulhohic investments in ce-tihcates of deposit, savings accounts, repurchase agreements, the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund administered by the Florida State Board of Administration, obligations of the US. Government and government agencies unconditionally guaranteed by the US. Government. Certificates of deposit, savings accounts and bank balances whose values exceed the amount of federal depository insurance are collateralized pursuant to the Flonda Secunty for Public Deposits Act. Included in the balance of cash and investments is an investment with the Stake of Florida's Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund with a carrying and market value of 5671,652. In addition, the investments with trustees (investment in mutual funds for the deEen-ed compensation plan) totaled 5 1,845,879 which equaled their market value. These amounts are not categorized pursuant to GASB Statement Number 3, "Deposits with Financial Institutions, Investments (including Repurchase Agreements) and Reverse Repurchase Agreements," because they are not represi!nted by underlying securities in either physical or book entry form. 3 RETIREMENT PLAN: The Sheriff early implemented the pro,.isions of GASB 27, Accounting, for Pensiors by State and Local Government Employers, in the following disclosure. Plan Description - The Sheriff contributes to the Florida Retirement System (the "System "), a co it-sharing, multiple - employer, defined benefit pension plan administered by the State of Florida, Division of Retirement. The System provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost -of -living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficianes. The Florida Legislature established the System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and has sole authority to amend benefits provrisuru. Each year the System issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary infcrmation. The report may be obtained by writing to the Florida Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C, Tallahassee, Florida 32;99- 1560. Funding Policy- The System is non- contnbutory for employees and the Sheriff is required per statute to pay monthly contributions at actuanally determined rates. During the fiscal year, the rate was approximately 26'. of annual covered payroll. The contnbut:ens of the Sheriff are established and may be amended by the State Legislature, The Sheriffs centnbutnons to the System for the years ending September 30, 1996, 1995, and 1994 were 56,317,431, 55,586,913, and 55329,493, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. (4) DEI ERRED COMPENSATION PLAN: The Sheriff offers his employees deferred compensation plans (through various providers) created in accordance with the Internal Revenue Service Code Section 457. The plats, available to all Sheriff employees, permit them to defer a portion of their salary until future years. The deferred compensation is not available to employees until termination, retirement, death or unforeseeable emergency. G I - 11 - s e it ;- f`�1 e H, ri F� d n 6`A 5 All amounts of compensation deferred under the plans, all property and rights purchased with those amounts, and all income attributai);e to those amounts, property or rights, rre (until paid or made available to the employee or other bcneficiary) solely the property and rights cf the Sheriff (without being restricted to the provisions of benefits under the plan), subject only to the claims of the Sheriff's general creditors. Participants' rights under the plans are equal to those of general creditors of the Sheriff in an amount equal to the fair value of the deferred account for each participant. Assets of the deferred compensation plans are recorded at fair value and are accounted for in an agency fund. In the opinion of management, the Sheriff has no liability for losses under the plans, but must exercise due care as would be expected of an ordinary prudent investor. T'ne Sheriff beli,,,ves that it is unlikely that it rill use the assets to satisfy the claims of general creditors in the future. (5) SELF - INSURANCE PROGRAly1: cipates in the State -wide Florida Sheriffs' Self- Insurance Fund (the "Fund ") for The Sheriff's Office parti its professional liability insurance. The Fund is managed by representatives of th'! participating Sheriff offices and provides professional Lability insurance to participating agencies. T'h,? Fund provides liability insurance coverage subject to the following; limitations: $2,]00000 for any claim involving a single individual, 52,200,000 for any incident which involves multiple claims and an aggregate of 52,300,0(X) ultimate net loss per Sheriff during, any policy period. Effective January 1, 19911, the Sheriff elected to participate in the Florida Sheriffs Self- Insurance Fund programs for workers' compensation coverage. The Florida Sheriffs' Asso<iahon Workers' Compensation Insurance Trust (FSA.�':IT) is a limited self- insurance fund providing coverage for the first 5300,000 of every claim. Re- insurance is provided through a third -party insurer for ad claims exceeding 5300,000 up to 52,000,0(X). Prior to this date, the Sheriffs Office was a participant in the county -wide self - insurance internal service fund maintained by the Board to admciister these insurance activities. Premiums charged to participating Sheriffs are based upon amounts believed by t]-e Fund management to meet the required annual payout during the fiscal year and to pay for the estimated operating costs of the program. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, the Sheriff was charged approximately 5329,478 for the workers' compensation self - insurance program. Coverage is provided on an occurrence basis. Also effective january i, 1994, the Shenff established a self - funded employee health plan. An Internal S-ervice Fund was established to account for the activities of the plan. Excess coverage has been purchased which provides specific claim excess coverage for any one incident er,cee3ing 512.5,000 to S1,0UJ,000 and aggregate limits excess coverage for total clai-ns paid by the Sheriff, which exceeds 53,602,967 for any coverage year. Changes in the balance of estimated insuran 1995 and 1996 follow: ce claims payable for the fiscal years ended September 30, Fiscal Year Ending: 1995 1990 Balance October 1, 5301,000 502, 000 New Claims and Changes Claim Balance in Estimates Payments September 30, S 2,598,697 S(2,397,697) 5 502,000 2,842,928 (2,705,928) 639,000 b A {� GENERAL FIXED ASSETS: The following changes in general fixed assets occurred during the year ended September 30, 1996: Balance Balance October 1, September 30, 1993 Additions Deletions _ 1996 Machinery and equipment �jf,,iQIZ &3� 52 128 5(i,003,4(1I) ; 18,312.359 (7) GENERAL LONG -TERM DEBT: The following changes in general long -term debt occurred during the year ended September 30,1996: Long -term debt payable at October 1, 1995 S 3,251,874 Net increase in accrual for compensated absences 638,307 Long -term debt payable at September 30, 19cA 5 3,89(1.1$1 General long -term debt is comprsed of the following: Noncurrent portion of compensated absences 5_3.89i1.1$1 (8) INTERFUND RECEfVAHLF_S (DUE FP,O'�1`, A,1D pAYABLES (DUE TO): Amounts due from and due to other funds at September 30, 1996 are as follows: Due from Due to Other Funds Other Funds General Fund 5 21,224 5 387 Agency 1,603 19,062 E-cpendable Trust 2,005 5,383 � 24,834 S 24Ml r. I-) I r? 1� 1 -13- COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6-A 5 SHERIFF COMBINING BAL.ANCF. SI_IEI• - FIDUCIARY FUND TY ?FS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 E.:pendable Agency Trust Total ASSETS: Cash 5 103,896 5 2513,161 5 362,037 Investments with truste-,s 1, &15,879 1,&45,879 Due from other funds _ 1,605 _ =,05 3,610 Total assets a_L.9dilm 5-2fz L6 5,2..211.536 LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY: LIABILITIES Accounts payable and accrued expenses S 59,414 5 483 S 59,897 Due to other funds 19,062 5.385 24,447 Due to Board of County Commissioners 27,025 27,025 Deferred compersation payable 1,845,879 1,8-3.5,879 Total liabilities 1,951,380 _ 5 868 1,957 248 FUND EQUITY Fund balances - unreserved —"--54 298 254,298 Total liabilitic-, and fund equity L-1211,3$0 5_.:W. L6 52,"11,546 t s t 0 e 0 A 1 i 1 e 0 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SIIERIFF 6 A 5 CONBINED STA7-EMEN -r OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND L.IAMLITIES ALL AGENCY FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YYEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 199ii Balance October 1, 1995 Additions Dcietioru TOTAL - ALL AGENCY FUNDS ASSETS: Balance September 30, Cash S 74,950 52,271,999 5(2,243,053) S 103,896 Investments with trustees 1,396,946 599,817 (150,889) 1,843,879 Due from other funds 243 1,605 — _ 2.13 1,605 Total assets 5 1.472, Q 52873.921 �(?.1�.1$S) 5 1.9 1.380 LIABILITIES: Account.: payable 5 44,393 $1,078,085 5(1,063,064) S 59,414 Due to other funds 10,:x53 13,562 (3,863) 19,062 Due to Board of County Commissioners 20.437 27,025 ;20,437) 27,025 Deferred compensation payable 1,396,946 599,817 (1 0 184 } 1.81:.879 Total liabilities 5 1.472139 $1.718.489 111.."[32ZU) S 1.951.380 -15- J t L 'f. u 1.1�- t 0 f B 1 1 1 0 INDEPEYDENT CERTME-D PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON THE INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE a J, J t n L J I"J e L 9 a /AR iHU ,-�NDRSEN LLP b A 5 LN- DEPENMEN-T CERTTFTED PUBLIC ACCOL?r'TANTS' F.EPORT ON THE IN-TERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE To the Honorable Don Hunter Sheriff Collier County, Flonda: We have audited the finzrcal statements of the Collier County, Ronda, Sheriff (the "Sheriff'), as of and for the year ended September 30, 1996, and have issued our report thereDn dated December 20, 19{'x6. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Go ernmen! Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United Stags. ; liose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether t:7,e financial statements are free of mater.al misstatement. The management of the Sheriff is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fulfilling this responsibility, e;ti -rates and judp;nents by management are required to arssess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control structure pc:licies and procedures. T"rnc objectives of an internal control structure are to provide management w,th reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorved use or disposition, and that transactions a.-e executed in accordance with management's autherizztion and recorded properly to permit the preparation of fuuncal statements in accordance w.th generally accepted accounting principles. Because of inh limitations mitations in any internal control structure, errors or irregularities may nevertheless ccc-.:r and not be detected. Also, pTOjection of any evaluation of the structure to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. In planning and performing our audit of the financal statements of the Sherff for the vear ended September 30, 1996, we obtained an understanding of the internwl control stru- .cure. WA respect to the internal controll structure, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessec: control risk in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the Einandal statements and not to provide an opinion on the internal control structure. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disc;ose all matters in the internal control structure that might be matenal weaknesses under standards established by the American institute of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is a c:>ndition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or imegulAnties in amounts that would be material rn relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected witltn a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control structure and its operations that we cons1der to be material weaknesses as defined above. 16- ARTHUR ANDERSEN 6 A 5 However, we noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we have reported to the management of the Sheriff in a separate letter dated December 20, 1995. This report is intended for the information, of the management of the Sher-If and the Auditor General for the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. ® -17- t 0 t b A 5 IINDEPETIDENT CE-P- IED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE C' a r ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP 6 A 5 IC,;QF1 F- N -DEN'T CERTIITED PCBLIC ACCOU- .N- TkN-TS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE MI To the Honorable Don Hunter Sheriff Co'a:er County, Florida: We have audited the l nanc.Al statements of the Collier County, Florida, Sheriff (th ! "Sheriff ", as of and for the year ended September ?,c), 1995, and have issued our report thereon dated December .20, 1996. We conducted our audit in accordance —ith generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for finandal audits contained in Gavernr -,mt Auditing Standards, i sued by the C.omF troller General of the Urtitr_d States. Those standards rr_cuire that we plan and perform the audit !o obtain reasonable assurance about whether the finandal statements are free of material misstatement. Compliancx with laws, reg a aborts, contracts and grants applicable to the Sheriff i the responsibility of the Sheriff °s management_ As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the hnanaal statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the Sheriff's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants. However, the objective of our audit of the fnandal statements was rx,t to provide an opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion - The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required t ) be r- ported herein under Garxr -trnmt Auditing Standards. This report is intended for the information of the management of the Sheriff and the Auditor General for the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distrib;taon is not limited. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1995. G a C L P -18- e ti SHERIFF ® MANAGEMENT LETTER FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1" d 7 J 0 ii. 6 A 5 oy r' ,y ARTHt1R ANDERSEN MANAGEMENT LETTER PURSUANT TO THE RUI.ES OF THE AUDITOR GF24ERAL FOR Ti{E STATE OF FLORIDA To the Honorable Don Hunter Sheriff Collier County, Florida: 6 A 5 :4 We have audited the financial statements of the collier Countv, Florida, Sheriff, (the "Sheriff') for the year ended September 30, 1996 and have issued our report thereon dated Dec ember 20, 1996. We ccnduc ed ou: audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Gcrot- mrnent Auditing Standards issued ':iv the Comptroller General of the United States. Thosc standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material Misstatement. The purpose of this letter is to comment on those matters described in Rule 10.5-- i(lXf) as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida. Accordingly, in cornection with our audit of the financial statements of the Sheriff, as deseibed in the fiat paragraph, we report the following: A. CUPR ENT YEAR RECONLM E� -DA `Fl 0 N S Corzstent with the prior year, there are no material weaknesses in financial manag >ment controls at the Sheriff. However, opportunities will continue to arise to improve visting practices. Accordingly, the following recommendations to improve financial management, the Sheriffs accounting procedures and internal control strac. are were developed during the September 30, 1996 audit_ 1. Insurance The Sheriffs Office does not carry property insurance on its air fleet. As funding required for replacement of such assets is not guaranteed, any loss could potentially limit the operations and the service Lhe Sheriffs Office provides the c3tizens of Collier County. The Sheriffs Office should explore the benefits of purchasing property insurance for its air fleet. -19- r a� r• ARTHUR ANDERSEN A 5 B. PRIOR YEAR RECONLM N-DATI0NS Automate Payroll Processing, System The Sheriffs office should further automate the payroll system with time and .,tt(!ndance reporting in order to lower payroll processing cost and increase accuracy and timeliness of ir,forrnabon. Sts t'.:s- Not implemented. The Sheriffs Office is still evaluating different solutions in order to uplement t;,e recommendation. Payroll Direct Deposit A recommendation was made to mandate ' at ill payroll related disbursement: b+t made via direct deposit or implement awarenes.a programs and incentives to sigtificnntly increas e participation. Status- 'Partially implemented. The Sher -Hs office continues to encourage its employeet., to select direct deposits. Reconciliation of Deferred Compensation The Sheriffs office should, on a quarterly basis, reconcile total deductions per Lh,! payroll register to coniributiorn reported by the r.dmiristzators. On an annual basis, the Sheriffs Office should request a listing of participants receiving distributions and investigate any inehgib.e recipients. X11 employees should be encouraged to monitor their account and follow up on di,crepancies in a timely manner. Status- Implemented. C OTHER MATTERS In connection with our audit of the financial statements of the Sheriff, we re,,oit the following matters described in Rule 10.554(1)(£) as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida: I. No inaccuracies, ir.•egulanties, shorts es, defal cations, and /or violations of laws, rules, regulations, and contractual provisions were reported in the preceding annual fir,andal audit. 2_ ?"he Sheriff is exempt from filing the annual financial report with the Departrrtent of Banking and Finance pursuant to Section 218.32(1)(b) because it is a reporting entity of Collier County (primary government). 3. The Sheriff is not and was not during the fiscal year in a state of financial emergency as a conseluawe of conditions desrnbed in Section 218 -5"1), Florida Statutes. 4. No vio'.ations of laws, ru=les, regulations and contractual provisions were discovered within the scope of the financial audit that may or may not have materially affected the financial statements. -20- Cl i 4�� ARTHUR ANDERSEN 6 A 5 S. No illegal or improper exp endit :res were discovered within the scope of the audit that mav �- may not have materially a;fected the finandal statements. 6. No matters requiring correction (as defined by Rules of the Auditor General 10-354(1J(f)7.) ihzt did or did not materiAlly affect the finandal statements were noted. i. The S�+eriff as an elected constitutional officer and county agency, is considered a part of Colhe- County, Florida (prima-^f government). As such, the Sheriffs financW statements are included in the general purpose financial statements of Collier County. This report is intended sole,- for the informction of !.fie management of the Sherif:: and the Auditor Central for the State of Florida. However, L.,is report u a matter of pubii record and its distnbubon is not lirruted. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. t t v i L", 11 i N- I., e r v COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 1996 RESPONSE TO ".NAGEMENT LETTER 6 /{ 5 A. Current Year c'oT ments and Recommendations 1. Property 'Insurance on Air Fleet Col ier CoiAntY Sheriff Response and Intended F.ction The Sheriff's Office carries liability and content property coverage for all aircraft. A cost /benefit decision was made not to carry hull replacement insurance. Thf: Collier County Sheriff's Office obtains aircraft through federal surplus programs or forfeitures of seized property Pit mininal cost. Hull replacement insurance would far exceed surplus replacement costs. 6 A 5 f. COLLIER COUNiY, FLORIDA SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS FINANCIAi�STATi NIENTS Fog EIS_ ,L YEAR ENDED SEPTEtN RED; 30, 1986 TOGETHI_-R WITII REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUN.CANTS r� [-a1 f,. r r' IV COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 A 5 SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 1 FINANCIAL STATE 1viENTS: Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups 2 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - General Fund 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - General Fund 4 Notes to Financial Statements 5 INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS REPORT ON THE INTERNAL CONTROL. STRUCTURE 9 INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC A.CCOUNTAN 7E' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE 11 MANAGEMENT LETTER 12 AIRTHU) ANi)[-:iZSf.N I_ Y b A 5 P-11 REPORT OF INDFf'ENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS To the Honorable Mary Morgan Supervisor of Elections Collier County, Florida: We have audited the accompanying fuancial statements of the Collier County, Flordda, Supervisor of r`lectionu (the "Supervisor of Elections"), as of and for the year ended September 30. 1496, as listed in the Table of Contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Sur ervisor of Elections' management_ CUir responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Goncrnme, t Auditing Standards issued by the Comp!roiler General of the Urat.ed States. Thos- standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the finarcial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the a nounts and disclosures in LI)e financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overtll financial statement presentrtion. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the firancAl position of the Supervisor of Elections as of September 30, 1996, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accountinE principles. In accordance with Govermmtrnt Auditing Stmuiards, we have &I-so issued a report on our consideration of the Supervisor of Election's internal control structure and a report on its compli,mce with laws and regulations, both dated December 20, 1996. C� L L. P Fort Lauderdole, Florida, December 20, 1996. C M. r t: r .,Y 9' b A 5 COLLIER COUN -1-Y, FLORIDA SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS COMBINED BALANCE sli iur - ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS SEPTEMBER 30,1996 ASSFI'S AND OTHER DEBIT Crash Amount to be provided for retirement of general long -term debt Total assets and other debit LIABILITIES AND 7UND EOU'M LIABILITIES: Vouchers payable Due to Board of County Commissioners Due to other constitutional officers Accrued compensated absences Total liabilities FUND EQUITY: Fund balance Total liabilities and fund equity Governmental A count Fund Type Group General Total Long - Tern. (Memorandum General Debt Only) 5 517,992 $ - $ 517,982 36,232 36,232 , l Z4$2 5—ILL-2 5 554.214 5 30,137 c S 30,137 484,551 484,551 3,291 - 3,294 - 36,232 36,232 517,982 36,232 554,214 5517.98 S 36,232 S 554,214 The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this combined balance sheet. COLLIER COUNTY, FT_ORIDA SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS STATEIvI',"T7T OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FLJNQ BALANCE - GENERAL FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ® EXPENDITURES: Current- General government Personal services S 712,852 Operating expenditures 321,254 Capital outlay 48,870 Total expenditures 1,082,976 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Operating transfers in 1,530,600 Operating transfers out _ 447 624) Total other financing sources 1,082,176 Excess of other financing sources over expenditures and other financing uses FUND BALANCE -October 1, 1995 FUND BALANCE - September 30, 1946 S The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this tatement. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 A 5 SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN F1.rND BALANCE - BUT)GE7 AND ACTUAL - GENERAL FUND FOR ZJIE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEWEMBER 30, 1996 EXPENDITURES: Current - Genera/ government: Personal services Operating expenditures Capital outlay Total expenditures 0niER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Total other financing sources (u ;es) Excess of other finan,-�ng sources over exp-c-nditures and other financing uses FUND BALANCE - October 1, 1995 FUND BALANCE - Septeml -w 30, 1996 Variance Favorable Budget Actu al (Unfavorable) 5 812,300 S 712,,352 5 99,448 499,100 321,2 1 177,846 80�(i0 18,170 31,130 _ 1,391,4f1d 1,082�'q(, 308,424 1,530, 600 1,530,1 OC - _(139,200 ) (447,:124) (308,424 1,391,40(1 1,082,976 —(3M,424 The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this ;statement. - 4 - L t L, l' U_ 0 H, J n 1 E COLLIIER COUNTY FF.ORIDA SUPS- 11VISOR OF ELECTIONS 6 A 5 NOTES TO FINANCIAL. STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (1) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES: The following is a summary of the significant accounting principles and policies: (a1_ Definingthe Governmental Reporting Entity- The Supervisor of Elections, as an elected constitutional officer and county agenc3,, is considered a part of Collier County (primary government). As such, the Supervisor of Elections' financial statements are included in the financial statements of Collier County (the "County "). Based on the criteria established by GASB 14, there are no component units included to the Supervisor of Elections' financial statements. (b) Fund Accountj�- 1-he accounts of the Supervisor of Elections are organized on the basis of a fund and an account group, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund and account group are accounted for with a separate set of self- balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures, as appropriate.. Government resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds, based upon the purposes for which they arc to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. The following fund type and account group are used by the Supervisor of Election:,: Governmental Fund Type General Fund - The General Fund is used to account for financial transactions, applicable to the general operations of the Supervisor of Elections which are not re'zluired to be accounted for in another fund. General property taxes levied by the Board of County Commissioners for the Supervisor of Elections are reported as operating transfers in. Excess revenues at the end of the year, due back to the Board, are shown as operating transfers out. Account Group General Long -Term Debt - This self - balancing account group is used to ,account for the long -term portion of compensated absences. b A 5 (c) Measurement Focus - Governmental Fund - The General Fund is icc_ounted for on a "spending" or "financial flow" measurement focus. Only current assets and current liabilities are included on the balance sheet. Accordingly, any reported undesignated fund balance (net current assets) is coti:idered a measure of available, spendable or appropriable resources. The operating statements present increases (revenues and other financing sour: es) and decreases (expenditures and other financing use :) in net current asses. Account Group -The General Long -Terin Debt Account Group is concerned only with the measurement of financial position. It is not involved with the measurement of results of operations. Long -term debt, which is not intended to be financed through other funds, is accounted for in the General Long -Term Debt Account Group. (d) Basis of Accounting- Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting, .relates to the tinning of the measurements made, regardless of the measurement fcx-us applied. The modified accrual basis of accounting is followed by the General Fund. Undcr this basis, revenues are recorded when they become measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. Available meaet, collectible within the current period or soon thereafter, generally t �() days subsequent to year -end. Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accoun'ing when the related fund liability is incurred, if measurable, except for unTnatured interest on general I. mg -term debt, which is recognized when due. (e Bud etsy Pn�cess- Chapter "129, Florida Statute, governs the preparation, adoption and amendtn >nt process of the Supervisor of Elections' annual budget. The Supervisor of Elect-ions' budget and amendments are approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The budget for the General Fund is prepared on the modified acr_rual basis. Tl:e annual budget serves as the legal auLhorvation for expenditures. Expenditures cannot legally exceed the total amount budgeted for each fund. All budget amendments which change the legally adopted total appropriation for a fund, are approved by the Board of County Comr-iissioners. The level of control for appropriations is exercised at the fund level. ( Fixed A.ssets- Acquisitions of tangible personal prolv.rty are recorded a5 expenditures in the Genert4 Fund at the time of purchase. These assets are reported to the Collier County, Florida, Board of County Commissioners and are recorded in the County's General Fixed Asset Account Group. (g) CoM gnsated_absence_i- It is th^_ Supervisor of Elections' policy to allow employees to accumulate an unlimitc -d number of hours of unused sick leave and up to 240 hours of unused vacation leave. Upon termin.rt:ion, an employee receives 100 percent of allowable accumulated vacation hours and a percentage of the unused sick leave, depending on years of service. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, the lial�i'.ity relating to the 0 I b A 5 cakulaled amount of such unused sick leave and the full amount of the allowable eccvmulated vacation leave is recorded in the accompanying financial statements. Because the amount of accrued compensated absences would not normally be liquidated with expendable available resources, it is recorded in the C',eneral Long -Term Debt Account Group. ffil Total Column on Combined Balance Sheet - 1he total column on the combined balance sheet is captioned "Memorandum Ohl t" to indicate that it is presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in this column does not present finandal position or r -cults of operations in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations have not been made in Liu! aggregation of this data. 2 CASH AND INVEST'MFP47S: De�sits- At September 30, 1946, the amount of the Supervisor of Elections' deposits was $5(6;642. These deposits were entirely covered by federal depository insurance or to the extent that balm ices exceeded federal depository insurance limits, they were collateralized pursuant to the Florida Secun ty for Public Deposits Act. (31 RETIREMENT PLAN: The Supervisor of Elections early implemented the provisions of GASB 27, Accounting for Pensions by State and Locrl Government Employers, in the following disclosure. Plan Descrintion- i1w Supervifor of Elections contributes to the Florida Retirement System (the "Sys :em "), a cost - sharing, multiple- employer, defined benefit pension plan administered by the State of Florida, Division of Retirement. the System provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost -( Niving adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. The Florida Legislature e: tz blished the System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and has sole authority to amend benefits provsions. Each year the System issues a publicly available finaix-J'al report that includes financial statratents and required supplementary inforination. The report may be obtained by writing to the Fl.)rida Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, 2639 North Monroe Street, Buil3 ng C, Tallahassee, Florida 32349 -I.W. r✓undinaolic-1- T'ne System is non - contributory for employees and the Supervisor of Elections is r( q -aired per statute to PAY monthly contributions at actuarially determined rates. During the fiscal year, the rate was approximately 20% of annual covered payroll. The contributions of the Supery sor of Elections are established and may be amended by the State Legislature. The Supervisor of Elections' contributions to the System for the years ending, September 30, 1996, 1995, and 1944 were $85,466, ;')74,166, and $58,420, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. (4) 5EL.F- INSURANCE PROGRAMS: 'The Supervisor of Elections participates in the County -wide self - insurance program. The Collier County, rlorida, Boflrd of Covnty Commissioners maintains an internal service fun 3 to administer self - ir»urance acti,.itieg relating to workers' compensation, and health and life insurance. The County absorbs losses up to a specified amount annually. Excess and other specific coverages are purchased from third -party carriers. E 6 A 5 Charges to operating departments are based upon amounts believed by the lic,ard's management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for the estimated operating costs of the program. For fiscal year ended September 30, 19e6,, the Supervisor of Elections was charged $46,686 for these programs. (5) GFNERAL LONGTERM DEE3T: The follov: ing changes in general long -term debt occurred during the year ended September 30, 1996: Long-term debt payable at Octolx :r 1, 1995 S 26.013 lnaease in accmied compensated ahsencc.s 10.219 Long -term debt payable at September 30, 1,;% iM 212 (6) DEFEP. El COMPENSATION PLAN: The Supervisor of Elections offers employees a deferred compensation plan creat 2c in accordance with Internal Revenue Code, Section, 457. The plan is available to all the employees and permits them to defer a portion of their salaries until future years. The deferred compensatic n is not available to employees until termination,, retirement, death, or unforeseeable emergency. All amounts of compensation deferred under the plan, all property and rights purchased with those amounts, and all income attributable to those amounts, property or rights, are (until paid or made available to the employee or other beneficiary) solely the property and rights of the Supervisor of Elections (without being restricted to the provision of benefits under the plans), subject only to claims of the Supervisor of Elections' general creditors. Participants' rights under the plan are equal to those of general creditors of the Supervisor of Elections in an amount equal to the fair n-,arket value of the deferred account for each participant. The Supervisor of Elections believes that it is unlikely that it will use the assets to satisfy the claims of general creditors in the future. The deferred comjx:rsatinn Ilan i reported to the Collier County, Floride Commissioners and recorded in an Agency Fund of the County. y $card of County 4 u r trF[ J • I j G i INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' R C) EP RT ON THE INFERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE I C flll H,;, :j J k =1 r [1- A[UHUR ,`ANDERSEN LLB' � A 5 IINDEPE?DENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT U. IN ON THE U-T E Al- CONTROL STRUCTURE To the Honorable Mary Morgan Supervisor of Elections Collier County, Florida: We have audited the financial statements of the Collier Co", Florida, Superv;sor of Elections the " Superrsor of Elections'), as of and for the year ended S- tember 30, 1996, and h!ve issued our report hereon dated December 20, 1996. We conducted our audit irr. accordance '^Ith generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for finam al audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comp roller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit t:) obtain reasonable assurance about wheLhe- the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The management of the Supervisor of Elections is responsible for establishing irnd maintaining an internal control stricture. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expecwd benefits and related costs of internal control str ucture policies and procedures. The objectives of an interred control structure are to provide managern:.nt -oAth reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against less from ul-autliorized use or disposition, and that transach nos are executed in accordance with management':] authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of financial statements in accorde .ce with generally accepted accounting prinrciples. Because of inherent limitations in any internal contol structure, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of the structure to futuz* periors is snbjeci to the risk that procedures may become ina.:lequate because of rhanges in conditirirs or that the effect;veness of the desip and operation of polices and procedures may deteriorate. In planning and performing our nudit of the financial statements of the Supervisor ,)f Elections for the year ended September 30, 1996, we obtained an understanding of the internal control structure. With respect to the internal control structure, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed control risk in order to determine our auditing procedures for the pus -pose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not to provide an opinion on the internal control structure. Accor:iingly, we do not express such an opinion. Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure that might be material weaknesses under standards eAablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control structure elements doer: not reduce to a relatively low level the rsk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would be mat,:Tial in relation to ARTHUR ANDERSEN b A 5 the firAncW statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by emp'ioyees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above. This report is intended for the information of the management of the Supervisor of F3ections and the Auditor General for the 5tate of Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. t per, C�.�� t�? Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 19%. L';I �l L' K, I� s c w 6 A 5 u J 0 " INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE J •t 1 l 1 � ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP b A 5 rN- DEPI~NDENT CER"I-11TI-D PUBLIC ACCOU TANTS' REPORT ON ('-0?4PLIANCE To the Honorable Mary Morgan Supenisor of 'Elections Collier County, Florida: We have audited the financial statement, of the ollier County, Flonda, Supervisor of Elections (the "Supervisor of Elections "), as of and for the year ended September X 1996, and }lave issued our report thereon dated December 20, 199,6. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards ind the standards for financial audits contained in Go ernrnrnt Auditing Standards issued by the Com �trcller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Compliance with laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to the Supery sor of Elections is the responsibility of the Supervisor of Elections' management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we F erformed tests of the Supervisor of Electiuns' compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants. However, the objective of our audit of the financial statements was not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to I* reported herein under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended for the information of the management of the Supervisor of Sections and the Auditor General for the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of 1zublic record and its distribution is not limited. Fort Lauderdalp, Florida, December 20, 1996. r LII B 0 L U. 6 H!-1- p� () A 5 SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS MANAGEMENT LETTER FOR TTIE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 10-19% ARTHUR ANDERSEN A 5 LLP MANAGENM -NT LETTER PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF i r? ,�,; " rat, I� :•,,r -� ,. .. THE AUDITOR GENERAL FOR THE STATE Or FLORIDA To the Honorable Mary Morgan supervisor of Elections Collier County, Florida: We have audited the financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Supervisor of Elections, (the "Supervisor of Elections ") for the year ended Septwml--r 30, 1996 and have issued our report thereon dated December 20, 1995. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards at►d the standards for firtnncial audits contained in Gavin ment Auditing Star2l=ds issued by the Cornplroll--r General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to o "Dtain reasonable assize -arv`e about wlwthc -r the finanaal statenne:.ts are free of material misstatement T w purpose of thus letter s to comment on those matters described in Rule 10.554•(lxi) as required by the Roles of the Auditor General for the State of Florida. Accordingly, in connecd,m vrith our audit of the f nalxial statements of the Supervisor of Ejections, as described in the first para.- ;rash, we report the following. A. CU-RRE -1T YEAR RECOMMI'NDATIORS Consistent with the prior year, there are no materal weaknesses in financW managi�ment controls at the Supervisor of Elections. There were no mcommendations made in connection with the September 30, 1996 a u dit. B. PRIOR YEAR RECOM. 2, 'vOP_TIO;s+S There were no recommendations made in connection with the September 30, 1995 audit. G OTHER MAi7 tit S Jn connection with our audit of the financial statements of the Supervisor of Election., we report the following matters described in Rule 10- 554(i)(f) as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida: 1. No inaccuracies, irregularities, shortages, defalcations, and /or violations of laws, rules, reg•.ilations, and contractual provisions were reported in the preceding annual fimrvcW audit 2. Tlw Supervisor of Elections is exempt from filing the annual financal report with the Department of Banking and Fireence i u -scant to Section 218.32(1)(b) because it is a reporting entity of Collier County (primary government). a t f�RTHUR 6 A 5 A NDERSEN 3. The Supervisor of Elections is not and was not during the fiscal year in & state of finanaal emergency as a consequence of conditions described in Section 218..03(1), Flond<< Statutes. 4. No violations of laws, rules, regulations and contractual provisions were discovered within the scope of the financial audit that may or may not have materially affected the financial statements. 5. No illegal or improper expenditures were discovered within the scope of the audit that may or may not have materially affected the financial statements. 6. No matters requiring correction (as defined by Rules of the Auditor General 10_i}4(1][f]7.) that did or did not materially affect the financial statements were noted. 7. TIw Supervisor of Elections as an elected constitutional officer and county ag >ncy, is considered a part of Collier County, Florida (primary government). As such, Uie Supervisor of Election's financial statements are included in the general purpose financial statements of C)Uier County. This report is intended solely for the information of the management of the Supervisor of Elections and the Auditor General for the State of 'Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distril:1ution is not limited. LAP Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. K H-';- F�ll P", YI Ell 6 A COLLIER COUN-rY, FLORIDA TAX COLLECTOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED S YMER 30, ?9% TOGETHER WMI REPORT OF P,-ZDEPE-,N-DE.,4T CIJZTMM- PUBLIC ACCOLTfFrAINTS s: t COLLIER COUrn -Y, FLORIDA TAX COLLECTOR 6 A FISCAL YFAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 301 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pale REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 1 FINANCIAL STATEIMENT Combined Balance Sheet - All Fur.d Types and Account Group 2 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - General Fund 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - 4 Budget and Actual - General Fund Notes to Financial Statements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statr_n-ient of Charges in Asses and Liabilities - Agency Furds 10 INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON THE JNTERNAL CONTROL SIRUCTURE 11 INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUINTANTS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE 13 11ANAGFMENT LETTER 14 I ARTf- uR ANDERSEN LLP REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUN-rANTS To the Honorable Guy L. Carlton Tax Collector Collier County, Florida: We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Tax Collector (the "Tax Collector"), as of and for the year ended September 30, 1946, as listed in tine Table of Contents. These financial statements and supplementary information referred to below are t x responsibility of the Tax Collector's management. Crur responsibility is to express an opinion on thr.e financial statements and supplementary information based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance k-ich generally accepted auditing standards and the standards MR for financjd audits contained in Go^ >ernmen: Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in th- firtiandal statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all rnatexial respects, the financial position of the Tax Collector as of September 30, 1996, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report on our consideration of the Tax Collector's internal control structure and a report on its compliance with laws and regulations, both dated December 20, 1946. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the firamcial statements taken as n whole. The supplementary information included on page 10 is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the finandal statements of the Tax Collector. This i:-:,formation has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statement-, and, in our opinion, is fairly presented, in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20,1996. 6 A 5 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUN-rANTS To the Honorable Guy L. Carlton Tax Collector Collier County, Florida: We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Tax Collector (the "Tax Collector"), as of and for the year ended September 30, 1946, as listed in tine Table of Contents. These financial statements and supplementary information referred to below are t x responsibility of the Tax Collector's management. Crur responsibility is to express an opinion on thr.e financial statements and supplementary information based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance k-ich generally accepted auditing standards and the standards MR for financjd audits contained in Go^ >ernmen: Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in th- firtiandal statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all rnatexial respects, the financial position of the Tax Collector as of September 30, 1996, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report on our consideration of the Tax Collector's internal control structure and a report on its compliance with laws and regulations, both dated December 20, 1946. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the firamcial statements taken as n whole. The supplementary information included on page 10 is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the finandal statements of the Tax Collector. This i:-:,formation has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statement-, and, in our opinion, is fairly presented, in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20,1996. s. '= e 4: I+ �r 1+. f� V Q Q� X IJ i 6 A 5 9 n x 7 to In 'SG In G7 en en rT "1 l%1 t`v o ri ems, 0 0 0o = ire tr, ell en i d ^J r^ ^y am} C CI r0r�1.e)��cpp Ln .... ; .:1 -r x .• cal vi � x r; r � I G r-I n Jn C4 �i L 9 V C !' 2 In CA 0 r: :e. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA 6 A TAX COLLECTOR STATEvfBT`rT OF REVE'tiTjF5� EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUiv_D BALANCE - G ENER.A L FUND FOR TrIE FISCAL YEAR EyDED SEPTEMBER 30,1996 REVENUES: Oiarges for services 5 6,576,5M Miscellaneous 1,1.0, 764 Total revenues 6,70298 EXP END CIURES: CUT: ent- General government: Personal services 2.925,437 Operating exp?nditures 932.438 Capital outlay 437,035 Debt sernce- Prmdpal retirement 104,6132 Interest _ 818 Total expenditures 4 " 410 Excess of revenues over expenditures 2,284,888 O'i 11 R FINANCING USES: Return of unused fees to other governments (213,0-19) 01-,erating transfers out _�2,07118b9) Excess of revenues over expenditures and other f nan=g uses - FUND BALANCE - October 1, 1995 - FLTiD BALANCE - S. ptembe: 30, 1996 - The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral par-. of this >:.atement. i A'. 1 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA b A 5 TAX COLLECTOR STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDrTURES AND CIiAI°IGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - GENERAL FUND FOR THE FISCAL YE.'LR EI� ."D ED SEPTEMBER 30,1 REVENI ,JES: Charges for services Miscellaneous Total revenues EXPEv -DITUF ES: Cu_ -rent- General government: Personal services Operating expenditures Capital outlay Debt service - Principal retirement Intrrest Total cxpendikures r_xcess of revenues over expenditures OTHER FLNA- NC2-;G USES: Ret-,Lm of unused fees to other governments Operating transfers out Excess of revenues over expenditures and other financing uses FUND BALANCE - October 1, 1995 FUND BALANCE - September 30, 1996 2,925,437 2,9:5,.137 Variance 9? 2,438 437,035 Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) 2 U18 4,422,410 5 6,576,534 5 6,5'6,534 5 130,764 1: 0,764 �2,_OT1.869) 6,707,298 6, 717 29 3 2,925,437 2,9:5,.137 932,438 9? 2,438 437,035 4? 7,035 I M, 682 1 C 4, 682 2 U18 4,422,410 4,42 ?410 - 2,284,888 2,284,888 - (213,019) (21. x,019) - �2,_OT1.869) 2 0? �8b J9 5 - The accompanying notes to financial statements are an integral part of this zatement. 4 - n 6 A COLLIER COU'.vTY, FLORIDA TAX COLLECTOR NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS S EYTEM. B ER 30, 19% Q) 5UMMARY OF SIGNIFICA ?y'T ACCOU T NG POLICIES: The following is a summary of the more significant accounting principles and polices: (a) Defining the Governmental Reporting Entity- The Collier County, Florida Tax Collector (the "Tax Collector "), as an elected cc nstitutionai officer and county agency, is considered a part of Collier County, Florida (primary governzil -nt). As such, the Tax Collector's financial statements are included in the general purpose financial statements of Collier County (the "County"). Based on the criteria established by GASB 14, there are no component units irx-luded in the Tax Collector's financial statements. (b) Fund Accounting- The accounts of the Tax Collector are orgaruzed on the basis of funds and an n,_count group, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund and account group are accounted for with a separate set of self - balancing accounts that comprise its insets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Government resources are allocated to, and accounted for, in individual funds, based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. The following hand types and account group are used by the Tax Collector: Governmental Fund Type General Fund - The General Fund is used to account for financial transactions applicable to the general operations of the Tax Collector which are not required to l e accounted for in another fund. Fiduciary Fund Type Agency Fund - The Agency Fund is used to account for assets held ,rs an agent for individuals, private organizations, other governments and /or other fund_:. 1 Account Group General Lonz-Term Debt - Thi-, self - balancing account group is used to account for the principal amounts of general long -term indebtedness, as well as the long -term portion of compensated absences. 5 6 A 5 (c) Measurement Forus- Governmental Fund Type The General Fund Ls accouunted for on a "spendirg" or "financial flow" measurement focus. Only current assets and current liabilities are generally in lulled on the balance sheet- Accordingly, the reported undesignated fund balance (net current assets) is considered a measure of available, sFendable or appropriable resources. Governmental Fund type operating statements present incrras-,s (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net cu. -rent assets. Fiduciary Fund Type - The A,renc^y Fund is custodial in natu -re (assets equal bi bilities) and does not involve the measurement of results of operation:.. Account Group - The General ? ring -Term Debt Account : roup concerned only with the measurement of firancial position. It is not ir,vclved with ',hie measurement of results of operati m:;. Long -term debts, which are not intended to be financed tlirvugh Fiduciary Funds, are accounted fo • in the General Long- Term Debt Account Group. (d) Basis of Accounting.- Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized in the accounts and reported in the finandal statements. Basis of accounting relates to the tinning of the measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied. The modified accrual basis of accounntmg is utilized by the General Fund. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues am recorded when they 1�ecome measurable and a•.-ailable as net current assets to finance expenditures of the current period. Available means collectil le within the current period or soon thereafter, generally &) days, subsequent to year -end. Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting when the related fu-n,i liability is incurred, except for unmatured interrst on general long-term debt, which is recognized when due. (e) Budgetary Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, governs the preparation, adoption and amendment process of the Tax Collector's annual budget. 71,e Tax Collector's budget and amendments are prepared independently of the Board of County Commissioners and are approved by the Florida State Departnent of Revenue. A copy of the approved budget is provided to the Board of County Commissioners. The budget for the General Fund is prepared on Che modified a=nal basis. The level of control for appropriations is exerci-,d at the fund level. LQ- 'ixcd Assets- Acquisitiors of tangible personal property are recorded as expenditures in the General Fund at the time of purchase. These assets are reported to the Coilier County, Florida, Board of County Commissioners and are recorded in the Board's General Fixed Asset Account Group. (g1, Com eennsated Abi.,ences- It is the Tax Collector's policy to allow employees to accumulate an unlimited number of hours of unused sick leave and up to 240 hours of unused vacation leave. Upon termini. tion, an employee is vested in a portion of the unused ?ick leave based upon length of service. All em Dlcyees are vested in 100% of allowable accumulated vacation hours. For the year ended September :10, 1996, the liability relating to the projected vested unused sick leave and the full amount of the allowable accumulated vacation leave, plus applicable fringe benefits, are recorded in the accompanying firanciai statements. 1 t: J b A -45 Because the amount of accrued compensated absences would not normally be liquidated with expendable available resources, it is recorded in the General Long -Term Debt Account Group. Total Column on Combined Balance Sheet- The total column on the combined balance sheet is captioned "Memorandum Only" to indicate it is presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in this column does not present Enancial position or results of operations in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations have not been made in tl a aggregation of this data. L2j CASH AND [NVESiMEN -TS: DejN,si t s- At September 30, 1996, the amount of the Tax Collector's deposits with finar -ml institutions was $4,241,453. These deposits were entirely covered by federal depository insurance or by collateral pursuant to the Florida Security for Public Deposits Act (Florida Statutes Chapter 2';0). At September 30, 1996, the investments with trustee totaled 5837,7553, which equ,ds its market value. These investments are deferred compensation plan assets which are invested in mutual fund pools (commercial paper and bankers' acceptances) and are not specifically identified or segregated in the Tax Collector's name and, therefore, are not categorized to give the level of risk assumed at year -end. This amount is not required to be categorized pursuant to GASB Statement Number 3, 'Deposits with Financial Institutions, lnvestmer,ts (including Repurchase Agreements) and Peverse Repurchase AgzTrements," because it is not represented by underlying securities in either ph,.sical or book entry form. (3) REi?REM£NT PLAN: The Tax Collector early implemented the provisions of GASB 27, Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Government Employers, in the following disclosure. Plan Desai)?tion- The Tax Collector contributes to the Florida Retirement System (the "System "), a cos t- snaring, multiple - employer, defined benefit pension plan administered by the State of Florida, Divi ;io:n of Retirement. The System provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost -of -living adjustrr.ent,, and death I to plan members and beneficiaries. The Florida Legislature established tha System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and has sole authority to amend benefits provisions. Each year the System issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statem -ants and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to the Florida Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, 2639 North Monroe Street, Buddrig C, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1560. Funding Po1ia- The System is non - contributory for employees and the Tax Collector is required r-er statute to pay monthly contributions at actuarially determined rates. During the fiscal year, the rate was approximately 18% of annual covered payroll. The contributions of the Tax Collector are established and may be amended by the State Legislature. The Tax Collector's contributions to the System for the years ending September 30, 1996, 1995, and 1994 were 5361, 097, $353,865, and 5343,288, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. I T F� a, 4' 1 In addition to the pension benefits described in Note :L the Tax Collector will redeem 800 hours of unused sick leave in exchange for providing postretirement health care benefits to 0 employees who retire in good standing on or after attaining age 55 with at least 10 years of service. 'The Tax Collector will fund medical premiums until retirees are eligible for Medicare coverage. Cunvntly, no retirees meet these eligibility requirements. (5 ) DEr RRED COMPENSATION FLAN: The Tax Collector offers his employees deferred compensation plans (through two providers) created in accordar►ce with Internal Revenue Code, Section 457. The plants are available to all Tax Collector employees and permit them to defer a portion of their salaries until future y >ar3. The deferred compensation is not available to employets until tern nAtion, retirement, dea-h or unforeseeable emergency. All amounts of compensation deferred under the plans, all property and rights p,irctiased with those amounts, and all income attributable to those amounts, property or rights, are (until paid or made available to the employee or other brneficiery) solely the property and rights cf the Tax Collector - (witho-at being restricted to the pr,,-vision of benefits under the plans), subject only to the claims of the Tax Collector's general cediton. Participants' rights under the plans are equal to those of general creditors of the Tax Collector in an amount equal to the fair market value of the deferred account for each participant The Tax Collector beboev -3 Lt it i, unlikely that it will use the assets to satisfy the claims of general creditors in the futum. LL SELF- l,'NSURkNCF PROGRAMS: The Tax Collector participates in the County-wide self - insurance program. The Col '.ier County, Florida, Board of County Commisrone,-s maintains an internal service fund to adrranist,*r self- insurance activities relating to workers' compensation, and health and life insurance. The County absorbs losses up to a specified amount annually. Excess and other specific coverages are purchased from third -party Carriers. Charges to operating departments are based upon amounts believed by the Board of County Commissioners' management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for I he estimated operating r:osts of the progam. For fiscal year ended September 3(), 1996, the Tax Collector was charged approximately 53)7,(000 for these proUams. '�_ Gr_NERAL LONG-TERti4 DEBT: The following changes in general long -term debt occurred during the year ended September 30,1996: Long -term debt payable at October 1, 1995 5783 9g1 Principal retirement (104,682) Increase in accrued compensated absences 5,03,; Long -term debt payable at September 30, 1996 g684..11: (4) I'Ob7RF7LREME\'T BENEFITS: T F� a, 4' 1 In addition to the pension benefits described in Note :L the Tax Collector will redeem 800 hours of unused sick leave in exchange for providing postretirement health care benefits to 0 employees who retire in good standing on or after attaining age 55 with at least 10 years of service. 'The Tax Collector will fund medical premiums until retirees are eligible for Medicare coverage. Cunvntly, no retirees meet these eligibility requirements. (5 ) DEr RRED COMPENSATION FLAN: The Tax Collector offers his employees deferred compensation plans (through two providers) created in accordar►ce with Internal Revenue Code, Section 457. The plants are available to all Tax Collector employees and permit them to defer a portion of their salaries until future y >ar3. The deferred compensation is not available to employets until tern nAtion, retirement, dea-h or unforeseeable emergency. All amounts of compensation deferred under the plans, all property and rights p,irctiased with those amounts, and all income attributable to those amounts, property or rights, are (until paid or made available to the employee or other brneficiery) solely the property and rights cf the Tax Collector - (witho-at being restricted to the pr,,-vision of benefits under the plans), subject only to the claims of the Tax Collector's general cediton. Participants' rights under the plans are equal to those of general creditors of the Tax Collector in an amount equal to the fair market value of the deferred account for each participant The Tax Collector beboev -3 Lt it i, unlikely that it will use the assets to satisfy the claims of general creditors in the futum. LL SELF- l,'NSURkNCF PROGRAMS: The Tax Collector participates in the County-wide self - insurance program. The Col '.ier County, Florida, Board of County Commisrone,-s maintains an internal service fund to adrranist,*r self- insurance activities relating to workers' compensation, and health and life insurance. The County absorbs losses up to a specified amount annually. Excess and other specific coverages are purchased from third -party Carriers. Charges to operating departments are based upon amounts believed by the Board of County Commissioners' management to meet the required annual payouts during the fiscal year and to pay for I he estimated operating r:osts of the progam. For fiscal year ended September 3(), 1996, the Tax Collector was charged approximately 53)7,(000 for these proUams. '�_ Gr_NERAL LONG-TERti4 DEBT: The following changes in general long -term debt occurred during the year ended September 30,1996: Long -term debt payable at October 1, 1995 5783 9g1 Principal retirement (104,682) Increase in accrued compensated absences 5,03,; Long -term debt payable at September 30, 1996 g684..11: (8) OPERATING LEASE CONINI AEN'TS: The Tnx Collector leases space for tyro satellite offices Linder operating lease agreements, one of which expires on March 31, 1997, and the other March 31, 1998. The minimum future rental payments on these leases are 51,167 and 5.',,296 per month respectively, and are adjusted annuidly (or changes in the Consumer Price Index. The minimum rental commitments under current operating leases are as follows: 1997 5 30,484 1998 5.85 Total minimum lease payments Ste' .?13 Rental expenditures under operating leases for the year ended September 30, 1996 totaled 551,920. (9) [MERFUND RECEIVABLES (DUE FRO. AND PAYABLES (,DUE TO): Interfund receivable and payable balances at September 30, 1996 were: 6 A 5 tGeneral long -term debt is comprised of the following: Fund Funds _ Funds 6% capital lease obligations payable to a corporation, 5 collateralized by data processing equipment, - payable in General Fund 5 55,361 - annual installments of $127,0, including interest Agency Funds through maturity in 1999 5 354,99;' 27,698 Noncurrent portion of compensated absences 329,350 4,314 5. LIE _,a 2' '12,090 The minimum future lease payments under these capital leases as of September 30, 1S96, are as follows: Delinquent taxes Fund - Y_eaz Ended September 30, Hunting and Fishing License Fund - 1997 S 127 .500 Vessel Registration Fund 4,000 1 998 127 X00 S 59.361 1999 127.500 Total minimum lease payments 382.500 9 Less amount representing interest 271503 Present value of net minimum loase payments Ua22Z (8) OPERATING LEASE CONINI AEN'TS: The Tnx Collector leases space for tyro satellite offices Linder operating lease agreements, one of which expires on March 31, 1997, and the other March 31, 1998. The minimum future rental payments on these leases are 51,167 and 5.',,296 per month respectively, and are adjusted annuidly (or changes in the Consumer Price Index. The minimum rental commitments under current operating leases are as follows: 1997 5 30,484 1998 5.85 Total minimum lease payments Ste' .?13 Rental expenditures under operating leases for the year ended September 30, 1996 totaled 551,920. (9) [MERFUND RECEIVABLES (DUE FRO. AND PAYABLES (,DUE TO): Interfund receivable and payable balances at September 30, 1996 were: Due from Other ?ue to Other Fund Funds _ Funds 5 General Fund 5 55,361 - Agency Funds Occupational License Fund = 27,698 Mctor vehicle Registration Fund 4,314 Tax Collection Fund - '12,090 Delinquent taxes Fund - '.10,751 Hunting and Fishing License Fund - Vessel Registration Fund 4,000 —3,897 671 S 59.361 9 6 H 5 FLORIDA COLLIER COUNTY, ITAX COLLECTOR ISTATEMENT OF CH.A.NGES IN ASSETS AIND LIABILITIES - AGENCY FUNDS IFOR TEiE FISCAL YEAR LTIDED SEPTENMER 30,19% I i I Balance October 1, Balance September 30, T atal - All Agency Funds 1995 Additions Deletic ns _ 1996 IA55ETS Cash 5 2,542,147 5287,695,727 5287,762,712 5 2475,162 Investments with trustee 722,166 156,456 41,169 837,753 Accounts receivable 7,217 536,170 540,522 2,865 Due from other constitutional officers 4,3.08 - 4.308 - IDue from other funds 2S0T3 — 1,952 1 _ 4,OTO Total assets 3, 278. 185 X88,390,305 5288 34E 3.319.780 ILIABILM S IDue Accrued liabilities to other funds 5 421,609 53,884 5 7,623,632 6,351,894 5 7,811,198 6,346,417 5 234,043 39,361 - Due to Board of County Commissioners 415,432 83,616,E 83,528, 310 533,699 Due to other constitutional officers 125 125 Due to other governments 1,559,938 195,019,747 194,959,117 1,620,238 Deferred compensation payable 722,466 156,456 41,169 837,7:3 i I Other liabilities 74,887 40,.'.01 34,686 I Total liabilities 5 3.278,E X768.631 529�iM 5 3.319.780 I � I I I -10- e 1 1 1 0 H I DEPENDFNT CERTMED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON THE DMILNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE N 1-1 u."] FJ s b A 5 I ArmiuR ANDERSEN LLf L I - U141-1 IUNDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REP DET ON THE I,tiTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE 6 A 5 To the Honorable Guy L. Carlton Tax Collector Collier County, Florida: We have audited the financial statements of the Collier County, Florida, Ta.,: Collector (the "Tax Collector ), as of and for the year ended September 30, 1995, and have issued our report thereon dated December 20, 1995. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for firvndal audits contained in Gcverrnuni Audil:rg Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Tr►e management of the Tax Collector is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control structure policies and procedures. The objectives of an interrual control structwe are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance tlwt assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and rw--arded properly to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally aa:epted accounting principles. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of the structure to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Tax Collector for the year ended September 30, 1996, we obtained an understanding of the internal control structure. With respect to the internal control structure, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed crnitral risk in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the finaneio:l statements and not to provide an opinion on the internal control structure. Accordingly, we do twat express such an opinion GJ 0 1.1l � ARTHUR � A 5 � i ANDERSEN Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure that might be material weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the fi-tiandal statements being audited mnv occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control structure and its operations that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above. However, we noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we ® have reported to the management of the Tax Collector in a separate letter dated D >cem>xr 20,19%. p� This report is intended for the information of the management of the Tax Coll,?dor and the Auditor General for the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. 1 Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. 0 t e e 1?- 6 A'SM LNDEFENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUIYTA�YTS' REPORT O� ti COIvffLIA.NCE H.-I N., �Y- .j ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP 6 A 5 1 - IINDEPE NDEid'T CERTIFIED PUBLIC a.000UNIANfS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE To the Honorable Guy L. Carlton Tax Collector Collier County, Florida: We have audited the firanard statements of Lhe Collier County, Florida, Ta). Collector (the "Tax Collector'), as of and for the year ended September K, 1996, and have issued our report thereon dated December 20, 1996. We conducted OUT audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Gooernmrn, Auditing Standards, issued by the Coml -troller General of the United' States. These standards ro-qui.n! that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether Lhe Enancial statements are free of material misstatement. Compliance with 14w•s, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to the "-fuc Collector is the re,sporu-ibility of the Tax Collector's management. As part of obtaining reason ible assurance about whether the finanoal statements, ire free of material misstatement, we performer:. tests of the Florida, Tax Collector's compliance- -with certain prostisions of laws, regulations, contracts a:id grants. However, the objective of our audit of the financial statements was not to provide ar, opinion on overall compliAnce with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion The results of our tests di3clos.42d no instances of noncompliance that are required x, be reported herein under Gcwrntrcnt Auditing Stand¢rds. This report is intended for the information of the management of the Tax Collector and the Auditor General for the State of Florida. However; this report is a matter of public record rr,d its distribution is not limited. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, December 20, 1996. t - TAX COLLECTOR MANAGEMENT LEI ER FOR THE FISCAL YEAR EZ! DED SEF1120ER 30,19% i i I� 0 1 1 A 9 b A 5 1 1 1 B 1 e t e e t 'e 'e v ARTHUR ANDERSEN MANAGFMEI�IT i.ETTER PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF THE AUDITOR GINERAI. FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA To the Honorable Guy L. Carlton Tax Collector Collier County, Florida: 6 A 5 ;hur :�:- - - - - - X1 NorithcL �..- i ;? , 44 ' We have audited the financial. statements of the Collier County, Florida, Tax Collector, (the "Tax C_oi]ector") for the year ended September 30, 1996 and have issued our report thereon dated December 20, 1996. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Governmeni Auditing Stmrdards issued by the Coml troller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable as u.-ar- ce about whether the financial statements are firer of material misstatement. The purpose of this letter is to comment on those matters descnbed in Rule 10a5.1(lj(f) as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida. According)y, in conneet.cn with our and -it of the F:.-andnl statements of the Tax Collector, as described in the first paragraph, we report the following. A. CURR01T YEAR RECONIMEN- DATIONS Consistent with the prior year, there are no material weaknesses in firnancW management controls at the Tax Collector. However, opportunities will continue to arise to improvt existing practices. Accordingly, the following recommendations to improve financial management, the Tax Collector's accounting procedures and internal control strurtwv were developed during the September 30, 1996, audit. 1. Drfrnrtd Com_.pc_nration The Tax Collector does not reconcile the total amount withheld from employees pay to the amount contrinutPd per quarterly statements submitted by plan administrators. Currently, only the amount submitted is reconciled to ^•ceipts sent from the plan ad urustrator. As such, a potential error in posting to the employee accounts by the plan admini-strator would not be detected We also noted that no quarterly statements were available Lrom one of the plan administrators. The Tax Collector should, on a quarterly basis, reconcile total deductions per the payroll register to contributions reported by the administrator. All employees should be ercDurap-d to monitor their account and follow up on dascsepanae5 in a timely manner. The Tax Collector should request quarterly statements from the plan adr.>iristrator.; in order to implement this recommendatiari. 2 SeVmptioa of Duties During the course of our audit we noted lack of proper segregation of duties relating to certain cash receipts procedures. The same person verifies cash receipt balance sheets, records ash receipts in the general ledger, makes deposits to the bank and attaches validated deposit slips mi t1w. balance sheets. We recommend that someone independent of the deposit function daily review deposit slips and agree these to the cash balance sheet. -14- ARTHUR ANDERSEN b A 5 3. Unclaimed Checks The Tax Collector does not have a specific policy to han"We unclaimed checks. .=lorida Statutes states that such checks should be submitted within a certain, time period. The Tax Colle(lor should implement 1 a formal policy to periodically review such unclaimed checks in order to ensure timely submission. B. PRIOR YEAR RECONLNf . QATIONS A recommendation was made in connection with the 1995 audit to offer emplo.rees direct deposit in order to reduce costs for payroll processing. The recommendation related to conc:.itions not considered I o be a material control weakness. rStatus_ Not implemented. The Tax Collector is still in process of modifying the payroll system in order to allow direct deposits to be made. C. OTHER MATTERS In connection with our audit of the financial statements of the Tax Collector, we report the following matters described in Rule 105:.4;1) 1 as required by the Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida: I. No inaccuracies, irregularities, shortages, defalcations, and /or violations of laws, rules, regulations, and contractual provisions were reported in the preceding annual financial audit 2 The Tax Collector is exempt from filing the annual financial report with the Department of Banldng and Finance pursuant to Secrion 218.32(i)(b) because it is a reporting entity of Collier County (primary, government). 3. The Tax Collector is not and was not during the fiscal year in a state of fina -icial emergency as a corsequence of conditions described in Section 218-503(1), Florida Statutes. 4. No Oolations of laws, rules, regulations and contractu l provisions were discovered within the scope of the financial audit that may or may not have materially affected the firvtncial statements. 5. No illegal or improper expenditures were discovered witlan the scope of the audit that may or may not have materially affected the financial statements. 6. No matters requiring correc -ton (as defined by Rules of the Auditor General 10.554[1][f)7.) that did or did not materially affect the financial statements were noted. 7. the Tax Collector as an elected constitutional officer and county agency, is considered a part of Collier County, Florida (primaryy government). As such, the Tax Collector's fin:clocial statements are included in the general purpose financial statements of Collier County. This report is intended soiely for the information of the management of the Ta.c Collector and the Auditor General for the State of Florida. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a4644, =� L P December 20, 1996. B 1 1 F It �I a I' a �i J aUt 0/.,. eCAZA01Z C.F.C. COLLIER COUNTY TAX COILECT01 `parch 10, 1997 A..rthur Andersen Suite 1700 Phiilip3 Point -tat .cNcr 777 south Flagler Dr4-'�e West Palm Beach Fl X340= t %ttention: Ms. Cynthia D. novae` s-Byra, CPA audit - c— ,ment_ for 1995 -1996 Fiscal Year Ir: reply to your cc-=, ents and reccrm, endat ions t:) the Tax Collector's Office. :at i rtceived this date, 1 offer the. follow.n ccrzents : As c_* sepce7Zer 3C, 2491, we have �, ,, lemeate�' a polio} to request a c%arterly statement form all of the plan administrators. These statements will be reconciled to the tcta_ de- 'ucticns per .,he payroll register. 2. lzG-- .GZ� Z ON 0 This c.o=,ent was suggested by the Audito::s in June 1396. At t.`lat time the ACCOU:nC_ g Uepa rz�'Zent seL up a `0 --icv Chas. someone independent of the deposit fu_ ^.ct'_on reviews de=OBit slips daily and makes certain that t:zey agree with the cash balance sheet. Deposit slips are then attached to the cash ba,a;tce sheet. (:a X"`" )trd_BLCa C.t • 4A%'L£S. FLORCA 379b214l7 A 5 i L • RESOLUTION Y.O. 97 -_]A4 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LCAN FROM FUND 34L AS THE FU`iDING SCURCE FOR THE RRADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MUL.ICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FACT SHEET AND RELATED PRINTING AND MAILING EXPENDITURES IN ORDER TO SURVEY PROPERTY OWNi'sRS WITHIN THE RADIO ROAD M.S.T.U. AND TO APPROVE 'CHE FA(7 SHEET FCR SAID SURVEY WHEREAS, the 9oard of County Commissioners on Dec(mber 17, 1996 adopted an Emergency Ordinance No. 96 -94 which providee, `er the creation of the Radic toad Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit; and WHEREAS. the _reaticn cf the Padio Road Beautifica =ion Municipal Ser, ✓ice TaxJnc, Unit rcrdes for the levy of id valorem taxes to provide curbing, irrigation facilities, lighting, landscape plantings and maintenance of the median areas; and WHEREAS, this Resolution provides for conducting a survey in order to obtain expressions of sentiments from the property owners within the bc,indaries of the Radic Road Beautification D'.unicipal Service Taxing Unit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CF COLLIER COUNTY, F1,0RIDA, that: Section One. The Board of County Commissioners herf2by finds that the distribution of a Fact Sheet and Survey to provide factual information to the property owners within the boundaries of the Radio Road Beautificat. ion Municipal Service Taxing Unit Le in the best public interests of the citizens of Collier County .ind within the particular area designated as a Municipal Service Taring Unit. Section Two. The Board of County Commissioners herc!by finds that the information as set forth in the Fact Sheet attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", appropriately provides fair and imparr-ia_ $information to the citizenry and property owners with-'r, the boundaries of the Radio Road Beautification hunic-,pal Service Taxing unit. - 1 - Section Three. The Board of County Commissioners: hereby approves the Radio Road Bea,jtification Municipal Service Taxing Unit Fart Sheet and Survey in subsrantiaily the form attached hereto as Exhibit ^A" and approves the S.irvey as an appropriate means to solicit public feedback. Section Four. The cost of the Fact Sheet and Survey in an amount not to exceed $5,000 is hereby authorized as a loan from the Assessment Receivahle Fund No. (341). Said loan shall be repaid from the Radio Road Beautification MSTU with appropriate interest within one (1) year of the date of this Resolution. This Resolution adopted this ­�S day of March, 19197, after motion, second and majority vote. ATTEST: DWIGHT E'. .BROCK, CLERK Approved as. to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weige County Attorney -2- �3GA.RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS :'GLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: TIM HY JCK, CIIAIRMAN J "A" The Buurd of County h(r.v re(cl o, mimerous nupw w( relalr'e/ to landccalling the R..,hn R, Jd ( (0'1;(11!(' ^('1.., . . {; l'"r - 4, ...1 1'1,1 q.. . R,,ldc .1)'(1 shit/ :11 '/1 <!irct lion lu _�lrl I + ( tL" /,r,�l+e I n W'. 11,. ( , 11, d 'rc rnunC r/ AN 1, 111 nrler(' l L'.riNh In hru( I id with the landscariligTr(lfec; This lcict short amI srin er are being mailed to rorl in order to ohtuin tour inpia into the ht'U1Nili( a.11()l /111)10( I (ukl Ill,' +;ih,('gllelll I,tvinL 1h, h',( 1 11!01 111/1 t'110 c01(111r()j('( 1. Why are Radio Road Landscape Beautification lrnpro \ements under consideration? What Beautification Improvements are proposed? Due to numerom inquiries regarding land�capine the proposed imprrn enlents for the Radio Road beautification to the Radio Road curndor. the corridor \kill include &-sign. construction and Board of County Commissioners on Dt-cemher maintenance of median landscaping plants and 17. 1996. established a Municipal Ser. ice Ta\ino I tries. im' anon, i ur` ir. end accent li htin '. hli knit (M.S.T.U.). The purpose of the `IS i 1. Is (proposal calls for approximately three miles to r fund landscape Inlrr( \\inli;tl< and ( +n'n:n^ be lanJ.caped r \i ;ili Ili \1 <i\irai \car,. maintenance alon, Radio Road. The p opined Radio Road Beautificatinn ',IS ft 1� similar to the units that current/\ e\ist in Goldin Gale. What is the proposed schedule for 'Marro Island. Lek Goli Estates and Irrmok.dce. implementing the Beautification Project? Where is the ; °ct located`' Assuming an annual on,!-half mill of tax le\\. The landscape beautification project 1s the proposed impm\ements \\ill be constructed to atcd ;ilon i thi Pt idio PoaCI n ll\ - _ !I! 1,0\. % \;Ih hct\\ ci n Airport Pullen_ Road and ,an:j i :wIlpIcu,m in :11t \1 .1 Ji :_noted utti Barh.lru Iloule\ard (R.ifer 1(\ n:;1pt :rrnu1:11 ta\ Ic\\. 0': rr, ;,used �chcduli \\(!11 Exhib., "A" he three pha,cs starlinL' In I�)`)�. %�Ith estimated compictlon In 2000. What are the estimated costs of the proposed improvements`' mile of landscaped r.IJLl a seg III er,I is: Landscape i1n ji,or, Design c Pcrm;tnn S 0,000 Landscapc I71 ,aura C onitruction _ 0.000 Total 5300.000 Annual Lar.dscnpe Maintenance t 111edlan Oni� S 50,000 Annual 'Maintenance ( Entire Right-of-tl a\ I 30,000 Total 3 -Mile Construction Estimate (Median Onl }') 5900.000 E,wnatcd Perpetual \nr ual Maintenance Cost Nedian Only) S X0.000 Estimawd Perpetual Vnnu.Il %1.aintenance Co,t I Entire Right -of -\\ a\ ) 5140,000 What will he the approximate cost to individual homeowners`' A sin_le family unit %alued at S 1 25,000 with a S25,000 homestead exemption would pay an annual tax le,, \ of S50 if the one -half mill leis is adopted mth a six -year completion. Ho% %ever, if a one mill le\s i; adapted liar three .\ ears. the same sin,-,le family unit would pad stn annual Slnn. Under the one mill alternati%e, the millage would he reduced to approximately one -half following project Completion. Hoy v can 1 obtain more information on this Beautification Project? Count-, staff \\ ill he ayailahle to meet \%ith indi-, idual homeommer asso:iations to rc. rem the impart of the project upor. 'Iielr dc,, elopment. Additional questions can he drrectni to the Transfxxtatwn Department at (941) 774- � -41)4. Exhitit "A'' I , -!-* -! Tw. 1-1 L 17. TTT- C► ' r Svirvey CJ+t Decc °n,her I/. I yv /, th, Br,,rrd nl C. >x,rn (�,ur,nrissio,rc��+ ullprurc•d F. �;��,�L�'mt (7rrli,rrinc �' No. 96 -8a creating the.' Reudrn Ro,ld Beenat/icunu,t .111„11c tpu/ .Sen'tc L' Tu,vir,g L nri i.11 S. T L.l ,pith e, •,,t 1, '. � , ' ,,,,� .,�., ��� , tt, i ;h e S /', t< c• /n'ul ,ele•11 lrl�:' a 111 U1Ni ,11 Wli! .1 - - and rentrnitig said curs C '� lhut rt?C ,nrope'r 10/d n ill retit ­ ? This sI0-s el to the appropr i- u!e uddresc and depcu(ntent iTr, neck" to scut this stu -, e•, . /' /Cc;se• use tupr, the pn.st nflice shill trot process it stu /,led Question 41 [)4) cou supp rl the Board of Count\ Comn,i,, ioner�� aitu,n t0 iri.Ili a N- !,lip, Rua,! [ auuGcauun \1.S.T [,. to pr(­ I& for the des, =n. construction and maintenance of median landscape improsements ssithin the road right - of -„as. such a� plantings. irrigation facilvies, curhm; and accent lighting, for that portion of Radio Road Lint het"crn \irport pulling Pl).1d C ,,, :r.t Rt1ad I t and Santa Barbara Boule,ard, hemp appro,imalek three 1, 31 mile: in lentnh.' 1 ES___ NO Question 42 In order to meet Ihe rey.nremenls o! the \1 S T1 .. ;hall the Roard nt'Cnuni% C„mm <, Ier< i•mati residents ben, re ,l,trrcd „ tr:, '1`0111 \chin the Radio Road Reaun(i;atior \1 i T l . h,,undanu. • iih adsisorn authonr. 10 ma'l.e recomrnendauons on thi Imaniii; allair,,,t the \1 T l and other durie- a, mas he assierted (rum t me to time hs the Board of Counts Commis,nvler>' 1 ES No Question 43 ,)„ 1111.1 ,uppOrt .1 �,ni I f .('1 nnll ies, for the 1�ir,l three 131 •ears m Order to ;\peditc the commencement eompletic•n of the imprrosement> and ;hen at aiwh ume re\eri h; ch Io the one -half 1 `1 mill :1, iltfrenll, >el l�,rlh �J11) "��I1. :',.i - ,71•``J I1, prop 1di for present and future malignance sersices and other nri,cellanenu, appres.•d espendituues'.' Sur eti must be returrle(i oil or f)eforc .- \pr-il 30 • i Date: April 4, 1997 To: , +.i> supervisor of Records and Minutes, Clerk to the Board From: Ann Marie Saylor, Administrative Assist mt Public Works Division Subject: Resolution 97 -184 Please find attached a copy of the final Fact Sheet and Survey that will be mailed to all property owners within the Radio Road Beautification NISTU. This item w�is on the Board agenda March 2S, 1997. Minor changes wt re made to the Fact Sheet due to Board direction and with the approval of Commissioner Constantine. Per our previous phone conversation, I trust this attachment will complete your file regarding the above subject. resolution. Cc: Edward Finn, Operations Director F11 IIXII The Board of County Commissioners has received numerous inquiries related to landscaping the Radio Road corridor between Airport /Pulling Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Staff was given direction to survey the property owners to determine if sufficient interest exists to proceed with the landscaping project. This fact sheet and survey, are being mailed to ybu in order to obtain your input into the beautification project and the subsequent taxing district t.huz1 will fund said project. "Why are Radio Road Landscape Beautification Improvement's under consideration ?" Due to nu- merous inquiries regarding landscaping beautification to the Radio Road corridor, the Board of County Commissioners on December 17, 1496, established a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (M.S.T.U.). T-he purpose of the MSTU is to fund landscape improvements and ongoing maintenance along Radio Road. The proposed Radio Road Beautification MSTUI is similar to the units that currently exist in Golden Gate, Mw-co Island, Lely Golf Estates and Immokalee. "Where is the Project located ?" The landscape beautification project is located along the Radio Road corridor between Airport /Pulling Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. (Refer to map) "What Beautification Improvements a;re, proposed ?" The proposed irnprover -i,.-nts for the Radio Road corridor will include (Icsign, constn-.ction and maintenance of median landscaping plants and trees, irrigation, curbing and accent lighting. The proposal calls for appro timately du= miles to be landscaped over the next several years. "What is the proposed schedule for implementing tie Beautification Project ?" Assuming an annual one. -half mill or less tax levy, the proposed improvem :.nLs "ill be constructed in six or seven phases, starting in 1498, ,A iih estimated completion in 2003 or 2CO4. At a designated one mill construction phas,: tax levy, the proposed schedule would be thre ° phases starting in 1998, -with estimated completion in 2004. "What are the estimated costs of the proposed improvements ?" Based on specifications developed for roadway beautification projects, there are three levels of landscape improvements that could be selected for the Radio Road corridor. The three levels of improvements vary in the type, quality and quantity of landscape material and irrigation. Golden Gate Parkway east of Santa Barbara Boulevard is an example of level 3 roadway landscape improvements. T his "Parkway" level of beautification is very appealing but costly. The improvements for Radio Road could be designed at a level that substantially improves the condor's appearance while minimizing construction and maintenance costs. The table below provides cost estimates for the three levels of roadway landscape improvements. "What ,will be the approximate cost to individual homeowners ?" If we assume level 1 landscape improvements, a property valued at 5100,000 with a $25,000 homestead exemption would pay an annual tax • levy of approximately $25 if a third of a mill (.33) is levied with a planned seven year project completion schedule. If we assume level 3 landscape improvements, a property valued at S 100,000 with a $25,000 homestead exemption would pay an annual tax levy of approximately $38 if a one -half mill is levied with a planned six year project compl _Lion schedule. However, if one mill were levied, the project could be completed in 3 years. A property with a S75,000 net taxable value would pay approximately S75 a year for two years, ful lowed by a reduction to a maintenance millagc: of approximately three - tenths (.30) of a mill or $22 a year. Actual cost and millages may vary depending on improvements constn:.cted, total tax base and each property's taxable value. How can I obtains more information on this Beau tificIltion Project? County staff will be available to meet with individual homeowner associations to review the impact of the project upon their development. Additional questions can be directed to the t ablic Worts Division at (941) 732 -2575. ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Total Protect (3 -mile) Costs LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS Per Mile Costi Level 1 Level 2 L.tv_ i Landscape Design and Permitting S 30,000 S 30,000 S 30,000 Landscape Construction and Irrigation 135,000 215,000 270,000 Per Bile Construction Estimate Totals (median only) 165,000 245,000 300,000 Total Protect (3 -mile) Costs Construction Estimate 3 -mile Project 495,000 735,000 900,000 Estimated Perpetual Annual Maintenance Costs (medians only) 120,000 135,000 150,000 Estimated Perpetual Annual ,Maintenance Costs (entire R.O.W.) 210,000 225,000 240,000 Estimated Annual Tax Collection[Management Costs 30,000 30,000 30,000 40141' woo iuddKim Radio Road Beautification Improvement Area — ... _► .ice Id i •f�,.�" . � 1( r', .i _ � `�—: �—�� a� � J �'•,, v I I •h et � � . �, `.ter -�• -�c:r �'r: �� District Boundaries 'rj(k= j. I: 1: �fi <•.. } �.'...�,,n;r--- +7'ir�rnrli.(�a 3,dr:,.,i'.(.�.I. • —_ * �f CI;a.,.�rr �:' "�. � f��j,�' ,. ..? i1 ' IF � �' �3r , '`�� �, � r.f �_" -, r � _ •h, •ci Y 1 f � � 1�' ; 1� � � ems. • 1 _ �,.... _----- A ---►-� � �j •�•�- ��„ � : �.1 . i -• • � i _ � �. .J L •-�" I '- Cc�� +rf�•/ •, �- i ,. , V. ', .. •III . is , - -•.�' -t. _ �'_ 7 _ y -�,` . 1-i.; /� ' , I, �` i t7! , Ij Santa Barbara Blvd `� • .r t"17 -n I ! ( —� ! ►.tea' •/ '►.. �•� j { r r 'L'4 e r� ►�i �'lraiL'!1Y eviiesti M®und ire 8 B 2 On December 17, 1996, the Board of Count, Commissioners approver,' Ernergenev Ordinance No. 96-84 creating the Radio Road Beautification Afunicipal Sem'ice Ta wg Unit (M.S. T.U.) with • tax levy of one -half mill or less per year. All propeny ou-ners within this area are asAed to take • moment and answer 1he following questions by marking in the appropriate space provided and returning said survey. Please note: proper folding will return this s:,trvey to the q propriate a&b -ess and department (postage is prepaia). In order to seal this sui vvy, please use tape; the post office will not process if stapled. Question #1 Do you support the Board of County Commissioners' action to create a Radio Road Fleaautification M.S.T.U. to provide for the design, construction and maintenance of median ia►ndscape improvements within the road right -of- way, such as plantings, irrigation facilities, curbing and accent lighting, for that portion of Radio Road lying between Airport /Pulling Road (County Road 31) and Santa Barbara Boulevard, being approximately three (3) miles in length? YES NO Question #Z In order to meet the requirements of the M.S.T.U., shall the Board of County Commissioners designate a Beautification Advisory Committee composed of residents being registered voters from within the Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. boundaries, with advisory authority to m :icc recommendations on the financial affairs of the Mi.S.T.U. and othe- duties as may be assigned from time to time by the Board of County Commissioners' YES N O Question #3 Do you support a one (1.0) mill levy for the first two (2) years in order to a cpedite the commencement/ completion of the improvements and then at such time revert back to the one.lialf (.5) or less millage as currently set forth in Ordinance #96 -84 to provide for present and future maintenance services and other miscellaneous approved expenditures? )'ES IN Survey must be returned on or before April 30. RESOLUTION NO. 97- 185 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES TO BE INCURRED AT THE YOUTH MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT iN ORLANDO, FLORIDA, AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 87 -5 allows for thi: expenditure of County funds to effectuate the purposes of the Ordinance provided that said expenditures are approved by the Board through an implementing resolution setting forth the specific purposes of the expenditures; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Clerk of Courts office has conferred with the County Attorney's office regarding the need for clarification about the specific expenditures which the Board of County Commissioners intends to approve as serving a valid public purpose, even if the expenditures are not covered by the exact expenditure categories set forth in Collier County Ordinance No. 87 -5; and WHEREAS, the 'viidnight Basketball Program League provides at risk youth in the community an opportunity to participate in an organized and structure) activity; and WHEREAS. participants have been chosen for their exemplar. behavior with Midnight Basketball and the Golden Gate Gate community. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The expenditures in the amount not to exceed 51,500 for the Collier County Youth Midnight Basketball Tournament in Orlando, Florida, March 27 through March 29, 1997, are hereby found by the Board to serve a valid public purpose and are also hereby approved. The specific expenditures hereby approved are: Expenditures for registration, hotel, per diem (meals) to be provided to the participants participating in this special event. 2. The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the disbursement of 51,500 to pay for said expenditures. 3. Funds to cover the cost of this expenditure have previously been donated to the County and are available in Fund 130 - 157710 - 366900 Contributions - Private Sources. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: ATTEST. DWIGItf'E. BROCK, CLf.=,F_K _ - B Y - y Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: "xni,o Marta�c�% Chief Assistant County Attorney iS J BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: TIMO L.IIANCDCK, Chairman LJIII,r L. ., •t,, II.,, 1:. 11 /. -,_. ..',il Rf.QUT.CT FOR LEGAL AD\TRTISIHC nF PUIkLIC Hi.AW(kGS To: Clerk to the Lnard: Pleat. plaCe th• fr,llnvine at a: 1 2 Cj 1 / X/ Mo nul Legal Advertisement / / Other: (Dlspiav Adv., location, etc.) Originating D � t /Dlvt Public Works Parsons -Date: February 2 ^v, 1997 (Sign clearly) p �., Petition llo. (If none, gtva brief dascription)t Petition AV 96-036 Petitiooen (Naar 6 address)t Michael Podolski, 3770 Fieldstone Blvd. 11504, Naples, FL 3,1109 Pan 6 Address of ant persons(s) to W notified by Cleric's Officer See Attached List of Property Owners (if more sane sanded, attach saparste 0,eet) hearing baforstt /X/ bCC / / 32A / /Otbar a•+ra: + y- s+,.r.seocca+..+w�►r.�.+.rr ,�•..+�sa.wr.r........,+.+�rM Fvegvestad bsaring dater March 25, 1997pesed on advartisement sppeariag 15 days bsfo•-s nearing. Nevaaapar(s) W be txscdz (Covplatx only if iaportaat / X/, / X/ Maples Daily Pliva or legally required /X /) / / Other a "1'a"e1t11tV-fMtr�4'P1"fi'�•FM Proposs,d Tautt (Include legal description 6 cos'.on lrxation 6 sisa)t Petition AV 96-03E for the Vacation of a seven arx3 one half foot utility easement on Lot 50, Blcr_k 64, Naples, Park Unit No. r- 5. As recorded in Plat Book 3, page 14 of the Public Recocds of Collie- 3ounty, Florida. Caspenioa petition(s), if arty, 6 proposal bearing date: —' 06- esmaserire - . � he a+v+ -rs syy- ►twy- ty,rre...t� Does Petition Pea Include A*-.trtistng Corti Tes J X/ Mo / / If yes, wfiat account st w 10 De charged for advertising costs !'.L- 163614- 649l00 .+..�s++..,r, ... ...�, .�,. r. +�,.+�., ..+►+.+�,��.+ a .< Reviewed by: pp y: , Approved D Division Head DAte Casnty Manager Date Ra , M er� , P. F,. -- List Attsch%rntA:(1)ExeCutive Summary (2)Rescluti.on (1) Petition DIM.18 TTON INS- RtIC'TTONS A. For hearinxs before BCC or 3ZA: Initiating person to complete one copy and obtain Division Head approval befo:e subnitting to County Manager. NOTEt If lexal document Is involved be Lure that .env necessary legal review, or request for ssme Is submitted to COinty Attorney before aubmitring to Ceuity MsnaWer. T'�e Manager's office will distribute copies: / X/ County Manager agenda file; / X/ Requesting Division; / X/ Original to Cl,rrk's Office d. Other hearings: Initiating Divislon Head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Oiflce, retaining a copy for file. 2ft CL"K'S OFFICE USE 0. +�. Dar Re t/iyred DetiAdv.rtired (Date of PIt. 1 2C1 RESOLUTION NO. 96- RESOLUTION FOR PETITION AV 96 -036 TO VACATE A FORT -ION OF A SEVEN AND ONE HALF FOOT UTILITY EA.3EMENT LOCATED OF A PORTION OF LOT 50, BLOCK 64, NAPLES PARK UNIT NO. 5, ON THE PLAT OF NAPLES PARK UNIT NO. 5, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 14, OF THE PU31LIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 177.101, Florida Statutes, Mark Lamoureux, agent for owner Michael Podolski, does hereby request the vacation of a portion of a seven and one half foot utility easement located on a portion of lot 50, block 64, on the plat of Naples Park Unit No. 5, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 14, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, The Board has this day held a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of said plat as more fully described below, and notice of said public hearing to vacate was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, The granting of the vacation will not adversely affect the ownership or right of convenient access of of ~er property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMM;SSIONERS OF COLLIER, COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following be and is hereby vacated: See Exhibit "A" attached to and incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk is hereby directed to record this Resolution in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and to make proper notatiois of this vacation on said plat. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA BY: _ TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, Chairman Approved as to from and legal sufficiency: Heidi F. F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney RUSSAm /010296/Reso AV 96- 036_doc A. TRIGO & ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Land Surveyors '12, C 2223 Trade Center Way Naples, Florida 33942 Antonio Trigo, PLS (941) 594.8443 President FAX (941) 594.055-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A strip of land lying in Lot 50, Block 64, Naple! Park Unit No. 5 as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 14 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of Lot 50, Block 54, Naples Park Unit No. 5; thence S.00 059'40 "E. 130.00 feet; thence N.89 057'30 "W. 7.50 feet; thence N.e0 059'40 "W. 130.00 feet to the south Right --of -Way of 98th Avenue North; thence S.89 057 30 "E. 7.50 feet along said Right -of -Way to the POINT OF BEGINNING. i Prepared by: V �' , P.i,.J. p d Certificate No. 2982 e : cembAr 18, 1996 NoteO-Zee sheet 2 of 2 for Sketch of Description. Ex w►' b Y� I f _ SIL Lot 49 SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION GO r)i rn a 98th Avenue North 2 G I 60' R/W S.89"57'3T E. 7.50' P.O. B. Northeast corner Lot 50, Block 64 Naples Pork Unit No.5 Lot i Lot 50 c v o E 0 o n 0 C) � o Uj t a U-) q (7 N.89'57'3TW. N.89"57'3Cl W. 50.00' OEHEMAL NOTES. 1 PAC, hdioao.o PoW of 2 PA$ hwsoatft Point of 3 M an in iee QM�r %m r9d. 4 Bem*v acs aawp *d or►d ars bogod at, tto Sa'th >Ne» of 98%h Ave. North as Wbq &W 5T W E. Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 A_ TRIGO & ASSOCIATES, INC. 0117E I�sc�mRia. t E:, 1996 P 1 AD p LY; Y PUpli�q 0a2IV N B°f: AT SCALE. M.S. i't3lli� � 3fAY WAPLM AMMA 54M SHEET 2 OF 2 RLF NO. 98 0690.01a LUW !liAifY1::M PUMMM 4 3004 12CI LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS n ithin 250 feet of the Easement Nickolo & Domenico I AG mta Parcel No. 627701(k001 860 Camens Road Naples, FL 33963 Ni" & Suzanne Lamoureux Parcel No. 627714,1*005 193 Ridge Drive Naples, FL 34108 John T Connor, TR Parcel loo. 62771400003 165 Carica. Road Naples, FL 34108 Mauro & Anna LaGrasta Parcel No. 627751).00,04 380 Flamingo Avenue Naples, FL 3a 108 lnu Wanmor Parcel No. 62775160006 869 S 97th Ave. North Naples, FL 34108 John P & Diane Ervin Parcel No. 62775200005 8-54 Ave. N Naples, YL 34108 Ralph E & Joan M Sww-tz Parcel No. 62776160(105 8G0 48th Ave. N Napes, FL 3410A Annetxa M & Jahn E Murphy Jr., TR Parcel No. 6277624D006 P. O. Sox 8687 Parcel No. 627763:1.0 D06 Naples, FL 33941 Parcel No. 6277636009 May Alvarez Parcel No. 62776400(108 M3 98th Ave. N Naples, FL 34108 C C Development Co. Parcel No. 62777560106 868 99th Ave. N ✓/ Naples, FL 34108 1 2C1 e OF Ems _3 (]@9r..F1DMC THIS =WER ) ,4 TO: FAX 720: -- FAX NO: (941 774 -8408 MD: (941) 774 -84£35 i 1 &TZ SENT: —3/4-1 r :, s s s .• s S G• • S• i.s:.sta:.z• S S' • L'4 • S •i • .:.G..• .. •i �!G • : r i� • ii G •�: • 1'. 2 C 1 March 5, 1997 Ms. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 33940 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition AV -96 -036 Dear Judy: Please advertise the above referenced notice two times, one time on Monday, March 10, 1997 arld one time on Monday, March 1.7, 1997 and send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together wi-h charges involved to this office. Sincerely, Sue Earbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. P.O. No. 700897 12C1 NO`T'ICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, will hold a public hearing on TUESDAY, ;ikRCH 25, 1997, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Flo,,.-i.da. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The Board will consider Petition AV -96 -036, Mark Lamoureux, _gent for owner Michael Podolski, recFaesting a vacation of a portion of a seven and one half foot utility easement on Lot 50, B1cck 64, Napies Park Unit No. 5, aE recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 14, all of the Public Records of Coll.- -r. County, Florida. All interested parties arc invited to attend, to register to speak: and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Eoard prior to the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the ,proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record 'ncludes the testimony and evidence upon which th appeal is to be rased. BOARD OF COUDITY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) 12C1 March 5, 1997 Re: Notice of Public Hearing re Petition AV -95 -035 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to the petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Monday, March 10, 1997 and Monday, March 17, 1997. If you have any (Tsestions regarding this petition, please contact ?fir. Russ duller, Transportation Services, 941) 774 -8494. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Very truly yours, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. sb I2C1 March 5, 1997 Michael Podolski 3770 Fieldstone Blvd. 01504 Naples, Florida 34109 RE: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition AV -96 -036 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 7.5, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the maples Daily News on 14onday, March 10, 1997 and Monday, March 17, 1997. If you have any questions regarding this petition, please contact Mr. Russ Muller, Transportation Services, (941) 774 -8494. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. cc: Mark Lamoureux :12C1 , March 5, 1997 Mark Lamoureux Engineering 870 97th Avenue North Naples, Florida 34108 RE: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition AV -96 -036 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice per:.aining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Monday, March 10, 1997 and Monday, March 17, 1997- if you have any questions regarding this petition, plea =e contact Mr. Russ Muller, Transportation Services, (941) 774 - -8494. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbi.retti, Deputy Clerk Encl. cc: Michael Podolski Join C. Norris District 1 T,mod y L Hancock, AXP District 2 T'mod y 1. ccxutanSine Dstrx:t 3 Parrr.La S. mac'l0e District 4 Barbara B. Berry Distrd 5 March 5, 1997 3301 East Tamiami Trail • Naples, FbrWa 34112-4977 (941) 774 - "7 • Fax (941) 774 -3602 12 CI Re: Notice of Public Hearing re Petition AV- 96 -03E Dear Property Crrrner : LVOV N Please I>e advised that the above referenced peti.ticii will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on '['uesday, March 25, 1997, as indicated on the enclosed noticE:. The legal notice pertaining to the petition will be puhlished in the Naples Daily News on Monday, March 10, 1997 and Monday, March 17, 1997. if you have any questions regarding this petition, please contact Mr. Puss Muller, Transportation Services, (941) 774 -8494. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Very truly yours, URIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. sb NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Daily Naples, FL 33940 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lamb , who on oath says that they serve as t'te Asst. Corp. Secretary of the Naples Daily, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising, bG'irtg a Notice of Public hearino in the matter of Petition AV -96 -036 Lamourqur /PcdolSrs� was published in said newsQjp�-r 2 times In the issues starting on 3 / 10 / 9 and ending nn 3 / 2 0 / 9 7 AtfiaM further says that the sa+d Naples Daily News 5 a newsoaper moks;ti at Naplom n sa+d Coclir±r Canty. FiorY . and mat the sand new3pacw has heretofore town armruan,.ty pubkstied in said Cnfaei Couity. Ffxida, eadi day and has been entw-d as second Vass mail matter at ttr, ;rst otfrx n Naties. n said r. o0w County. Fbrda, for a period of 1 year next prang me fist puhlicatm of tie atta *d copy of advamt ,rrwyt, and afiv'fnt hrmrr says that tr has ry-- L pad not promised arry porsm, firm or uxptuation any drscount. rebate. cc,rrnission or refurd for the purpose of v-a,nrr,J tr.s ar?rerti errnf for pubk-:iW) in the sad newspaper. i (Signature of Atfiant) Swom m tnland subscrib befo(e e 97 this,- day of arc 1 9 (Signature of rritary publrr r'.F7: •. JLxNt,ti A. Flanigan ::i ' �': 1 „rr f, N.M•la;l ?M CCSQF,787 EXPIRES „�;•4r'Fr �EDNd1' 19, Personally known Moduced identrtcatior- Type of Identification ProducPCt i f*1)M OF PUl” HEJi M H*e is htr*y Ow, slid ilia of Coon'/ (a omn of Croft %* hob a Wk tl60; an TU MA" 2, 1457. rn isle I0131mck a l iet O M1WA Crtebir ]711 EW To. isim 1 rd ilo inn. TM metirq SW Pe ft AV-%4* Marts Lmnmms) , ow Iw f9lirMf Mkfloef W4 Vowton No *X uffl jro � m l oon L.d 5k ft* K leapta f'Qk % cis reoorAell fn Pfd Datic 1 PM 14 d d ft Pad* Re. mdt d (' it C&j*, Fie ift At i*We*d paffes as knelled 10 d- ftet4 to mder b Spook and fa stn* ♦•tale .�b(ecfi� � in fo the t9oand prf or b ft 4Vk A" Pa so Ville !t opvctod o �esWon nu a� � "m"", msy nerd to omit shod o ver- 00f11n reMI d idle PVOKOVS k m�1e, "kh f vw j ' ft `�rlwpf �1d E � tlpm tl%kh to alv" % to be 9OAM C F C7 xM1Y C D$M4 SSl01iF3t5 CMM �� C 9 /V St a Ik C arts [i► t0,. 2fl ft liim map las Daily Haas Naples, FL 33940 Affidavit of Publication BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FINANCE DEPT. - KATHY ARLOTTA PO BOX 413016 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001730 -70097 57452285 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersig-ed authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says !hat she serve3 as tiwe Assistant Corporate Secretary of the "Les Daily Hens, a daily rrraspa;*r publSrhed st Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached ropy o. advertising was publisi•.ed in said newspaper on dates listed. Affront further nays that the said Naples Daily News is a nrurspaQer put,liahed at Kepley, in said Collier County, Florida, and that ttx scid newspaper has heretofore been rxntinuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has bum entered as second class pail natter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period Of 1 yes" next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor proaisec any person, fire or coporation any discount, rebate, caamission or refund for the purroose of securing this advertisement for pthtication in the said newspaper. PU°,LISHED Oft: 0/10 AD SPACE: 4.000 INCH FILED C#i: 03 /10/97 Signature of Affiant 1201 Sworn to and Subscribed before ae this �� day of; 1 Personally known by ee ,f jj �i i� Judith A. FWdW • MY aA04SSION / CL 09M EXPIRES z• Fabwsy 19, 2DOD saoM nmu nnr itau N*J*XL sc CC) �. L C*1 Cr_1 L — { �- r7 P I2C- RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 186 RESOLUTION FOR PETITION AV 96 -036 TO VACATE A PORT�ON OF A SEVEN AND ONE HALF FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED OF A PORTION OF LOT 50, BLOCK 64, NAPLES PARK UNIT NO. 5, ON THE PLAT OF NAPLES PARK UNIT NO. 5, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 14, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 177.101, Florida Statutes, Mark Lamoureux, agent for ornmer Michael Podolski, does hereby request the vacation of a portion of a seiven and one half foot utility easement located on a portion of lot 50, block 64, on the plat of Naples Park Unit No. 5, as re:zrded in Plat Book 3, Page 14, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, The Board has this day held a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of said plat as more fully described below, and notice of said public hearing to vacate was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, The granting of the vacation will not adversely affect the ownership or right of convenient access of other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following big and is hereby vacated: See Exhibit "A" attached to and incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk is hereby directed to record this Resolution in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and to make proper notations of this vacation on said piat. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED:.;/ r�7 ATTEST: ' DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk ApSroved as to from and legal sufficiency. Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLT UNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY):. HA' NCOCK, Chairman 2162748 OR; 2298 PG; 2134 IICOIDRD is OtiICIAL WORD! of COLLIII COOITT, PL 03/26/11 it 10:47AM DWIGIT 1. BROCK, C1,11I 11C 11R 11.50 COPIIS 4.00 NISC 5.00 IttD: CURI TO T" BOARD RUSS/tm /010296/Reso AV 96- 036.doc 1171I0111C1 4T1 1lX'R It? 7240 tj IP A. TRIGO & ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Land Surveyors 2223 Trade Center Way Naples, Florida 33942 Uh.; L d tau; iDb 1 2C- 1 Antonio Trigo, PLS (941) 594 -8448 President FAX (941) 594.05154 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A strip of land lying in Lot 50, Block 64, Naples Park Unit No. 5 as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 14 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of Lot 50, Block 64, Naples Park Unit No. 5; thence 5.00 059'40 "E. 130.00 feet; thence N.89 057'30 "W. 7.50 feet; thence 3.00 059'40 "W. 130.00 feet to the south Right -of -Way of 98th Avenue North; thence 5.89 °57 30 "E. 7.50 feet along said Right -of -Way to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Prepared by: raA. T rCertificate L.S. o d No. 2982 et, er 18, 1996 Note: -I(ee sheet 2 of 2 for Sketch of Description. Ex 6'b'4' A 298 PG; 2136 I I, SKETCH OF ]DESCRIPTION 1 2C- 1 I 98th Avenue North 60' R/W 5.89'57'30" E. 7.50' P.O.B. Northeast corner Lot 50, Block 64 Naples Pork Unit No.S Lot 1 I t c `f 4 O E po Lot 2 C�! O r 0 O Lot 49 Lot 50 Lj b b m Lot 3 0 a Z 0 N.89'57'30" W. N.89'57' W W. 50.00' Lot 4 Lot 5 1 P.0-r- kwiom Point Of conw"Wgwrnem 2 P.o.e. k4catse Pains of 8 3 M 4bitmom ono In tact aFr t wea. + 84=**p ore or oned and are boxed an the NOT A. SURVEY soya, kw 0 MAh Awe. r+oeeh as beVq S.8! 573Cr E vwA. TRIGO t& .ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE : Dec*mber tft 1996 XMXAL LM PLAMMM Ma 1RADC Cffir= 'WAY DPJWVN 8Y: AT :yCJCE N.T.S. XAt7L= 77.0MA 94U* SkEL7 2 of 2 ma. ha 96 oago.01 a -C 4C 4K M -4 -. ,r ATTACHMENT B PETITION FORM FOR VACATION OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND (EXCEPT FOR VACATION OF PLAT A11D SI14ULTANEOUS REPLAT) Date Received: Petition /:AV- Petitioner (Owner : WCA L_ ODOLSKI Address: * Telephone: 5 -I City /State: - L O Zip Code: 3410 _ Agent: MARK LAMOUREUX P.E. Address: Telephone: - City /State: Zip Code:_ Address of Subject Property: 91(0!..7 NI A I TRAIL City /State: NA Location: Section I_ Zip Code:a Township 48 S _ Range Legal Description: Lot 50 Block 64_ Unit _ subdivision: NARL_C-5 J!ARK Plat Book a Page(s) Reason for Re3uest:_ YT o 6F_ ABLE TO 130ILD or4 `ire Current Zoning: affect density? Does this I Hereby Authorize Agent Above to Represent Me for this _0C Petition: �// -1K `I es No W.ktA oR a OP k..-4 12 q6 s to o e� T- i na re f _itioner (owner) Date HICAA%L PODOLSYJ OWIiER-11 Print Name (Title) Please see "Policy and Procedure of Vacation ar,d Annulment" for the list of supportive materials which must accompany this petition, and deliver or mail to: Transportation Services Collier County Government Complex Naples, FL 33962 Telephone: (941) 774 -8494 *(1) If applicant is a land trust, indicate the name of beneficiaries. (2) If applicant is a corporation other than a public corporation, indicate the name of officers and major stockholders. (3) If applicant is a partnership, linited partnership or other business entity, indicate the name of principals. (4) List all other owners. Collier County, Florida �, 2 V a 11/28/84 -Si0 REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS To: Clerk co the Board: Please place the following as a: C(OPY = Normal Legal Advertisement Q Other, (Display Adv., 1pc+tiw, etc..) Originating Dept /Div: Housing & Urkan ImprO. Person: —C'ir rl Y1 'C ' Date: 3/4/97 (Sign clearly) An Ordinance authorizing exemption of local tax on Petition No. ,(If none, give brief description): electricity used in the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Petitioner: (Name & address): Name & Address of any, persnns(a) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space needed, attach separate sheet) Nearing before: = BCC C 9ZA r----Other Requested hearing date: 3/25197 Based on advertisement appearing.} days before hearing. Newspapers) to be used: (Complete only if important Naples Daily News or legally required LT-7) [`7 Other � -rest- i- a- ►-- kr.ti.�- r+r-kr -+ r+ t++++- r- k�rft�- �-r�^+r+- r�+rr+rt+yr�. -i. Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & size): An Ordinance authorizing exemption of Local Tax on electricity (even though current tax on tine, nlr* eyi: r ) uaPd in the Immokelee Enterprise Zone. Companion petition(s), if any, 6 proposed heaving date: Does Petition Fee Include Advertising Cost? Yes = No C If yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs 001- 138710 - 649100 tta» rs�r►- rrr+ver�- rrti- ti- t,k- rr+r�r�,rt ►+ri.w+r+wti.�r+r,� -a+rt- '►'*ri- +y-.r+rr Reviewed by: Approved by: Division Head Date �� YJ County Manager Date Vince Cautero Michael A. c ees List Attachment3:(1)�)4naac (2)— (3) DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. For hearings before ACC or EL1: Initiating pernon to complete one copy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County 'tanager. NOTE_: If legal document is Involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, Is submitted to County Attorney before submittinz to County manager. The Yanager's Office will distribute copies: = County manager agenda file; = Requesting Division; = Original to Clerk's Office B. Other hearings: Initiating Division Head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. ' d1r/rf^frfR ttr+nrr4-r-Mr�l- trlrf�l f-�ri� �- �.�y -�.�y FOR CLERK'S 07FICE USE ONLY D�afte Received Date Advertised Date of P.R. 12C ORDINANCE NUMBER 97- AN ORDINANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY AUTHORIZING EXEMPTION OF LOCAL. TAX ON ELECTRIC ENERGY USED BY QUALIFIED BUSINESSES IN THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE; PROVIDING CONDITIONS; PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CODIFIER; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, on March 28, 1995, pursuant to Sections 290.001 - 290.016, Florida Statutes, passed Resolution 95 -248 which nominated Tracts 112.03,113 and 114 of the 1990 Census, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, known as the Immokalee Community to Florida Department of Commerce to be designated as a Florida Enterprise Zone; and WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Commerce pursuant to Section 370.28, F.S. on October 17, 1996 designated the lmrrrokalec Community as an Enterprise Zone effective January 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County to increase the economic viability and profitability of business and commerce located within the enterprise zone; and WHEREAS, §212.08 (15) F.S., authorizes an exemption equal to 50 percent of cer-Wn sales taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes for qualified businesses located in an enterprise zone when the local governing body h;ts, by ordinance, authorized a reduction of at least 50 percent of the local Jurisdictions utility tax for electric energy (even if the loral jurisdiction does not currently have such a tax) for qualified busirimses in the enterprise zone, and WHEREAS, §166.231 (8)(a), F.S. authorizes the exemption of not less than 501/6 of the tax imposed on purchasers of electrical energy pursuant to the provision of § 166.231, F.S. for qualified businesses located within the Immokalee Enterprise Zone and determined to be eligible by the Department of Revenue. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.. that: 1202 SECTION 1. TITLE AND CITATION This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Collier County IExemption of Electricity Sales Tax for Energy Used in Enterprise Zone ". SECTION 2. INTENT AND PURPOSE The intent of this Ordinance is: (t) Any business located within the Immokalee Enterprise Zone shall be eligible to receive an exemption of utility tax imposed by the County or the purchase of electrical energy if such business is a qualified business under the provi:;ions of §212.08, F.S. and is determined to be eligible for the exemption by the Department of Revenue. (2) To receive the exemption, a business must file an application with the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency on a form provided by the Florida Department of Revenue. A qualified business may receive the benefit h.,-rein provided for a period of 5 years from the billing period beginning not more than 30 says following notification to Lee County Electric Cooperative or other qualified business by the Florida Department of Revenue that an exemption has been authorized. The benefit of this Ordinance shall expire on December 31, 2005. Any qualified business', hich has been granted an exemption under §212.08(15) F.S., shall be entitled to full benefit of that exemption as if expiration had not occurred on that date. Notwithstanding the expiration reference above, if a subsequent audit conduc',A by the Florida Departmmit of Revenue determines that the business did not meet the criteria mandated in §212.03(15xd) F.S., the amount of taxes exempted pursuant to this ordinance shall immediate!)- be due and payable to the Florida Department of Revenue by the business, together with the appropriate interest and penalty, computed from the due date of each bill for the electrical energy purchased as exempt under this subsection. SECTION 3. CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or Ix)rtion of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such 12C2 portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION 4. INCLUSION OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provision of this Ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of Laws and Ordinance of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance maybe renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section ", "article ", or any other appropriate word. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this __day of .1997. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: TIMOTHY HANCOCK Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: HEIDI F. ASHTON Assistant County Attorney I OF PAGES (including this, cover) IIIIItIIItIIiIIIIIililiilIlllliIlilI11111I111IlIIlIIIIIiIIIIi : HM =011: mm= nanz �s ac NO.: 263 -41" IIIIiI1iIIIIiIIIIIII11IiIlIiII1IIiIIili liillIlIiIItIIiIII1II1 MU HOMW - kaWTES & RECORDS Loe TxON: Collier County Courthouse I []M lib: (8 1-3) 774 -8408 f 3?=XE'NO: (813) 774 -8406 3 03-36 10:41 00° e2' 13 92634864 OK 3 0643cok i 03-06 11:13 Wr 02' 15 9263. 864 ov 3 06800 > 11:22 OW 01 ' 54 92634864 OK 3 069C AX --- lit® arc�nt:.����97 Time : nt: 12C March 6, 1997 Ms. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 33940 Re: Notice of Public hearing to Consider an Ordinance Authorizing Exemption of Local Tax on Electric Energy in the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Dear Judy: Please advertise the above referenced notice one time on Monday, March 10,1997 and kindly send the Affidavit of Publi- cation, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Cleric Purchase Order (Charge to 001 -- 138710- 649100) I zcz NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: Al ORDINANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY AUTHORIZING EXEMPTIO14 OF LOCAL TAX ON ELECTRIC ENERGY USED BY QUALIFIED BUSINESSES IN -HE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE; PROVIDING CONDITIONS; PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CODIFIER; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Collier County Housing & Urban Improvement Department is requesting the adoption of an ordinance authorizing exemption of local tax on electricity used in the Immokalee Enterprise Zone. A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Any person who decides to appeal a derision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. BOARD OF COU14TY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) Naples Doity News Naptas, FL 33940 Affidavit of Publication BOARD OF COUN.TY COMMISSIOMERS FINANCE DEPT. - KATHY ARLOTTA PO BOX 6130'16 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 38710 649100 57452279 NOTICE OF INTENT TO State of Florida Comty of CCLLier Before the tmndersigned authority, personally appeared 0. Lamb, who on oath says that she serves as the Assistant Cor;.orat» Secretary of the Haptes Daily Nr'ws, a daily ncwsp4pr.r pun i shed at Naples, in Collier CrA;nty, Rorie: ttat the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. AFfiant further says that the said Naples Daily Hews is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newsp"r has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has beer entrred as sacmd r.tass msaiL tatter at the poet offico in Ywples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next prer -eding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and aff{ant further• says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or coperation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of aecurirg this advt-rtisesent for publication in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 0310 AD SPACE: 5.083 IttcH FILED ON: 03/i0/97 1202 MOTKX OF Nit �t , (7i�lAN�"a v"My IAAARSH llnl. ei4 9kOf o0 T g AJL n1e'tiaMty al iio�t 'b ,10 AA4. CRDIIUA E' OK • IM " (MKS i[R tOUkTII ALM ICS fZ O L QC FTmH at At11 P!K TIM .+~.� it on an s W"Wiling 49 f/0d . llatilihlll► vWd In Is on des �. dtif txri+ss am M MO i'iN =f l 0 bard .%Wftgl . and W' 1AW-IIR1d it Q ' Ifth 'w+s. jmMFw� ;r b bt ��1s18i� FMA1ro % a sv* grit p !� . f10.1bE71J -- -- -------- -- -- - -- --- `-----^-------------------------- Signature of Affient Sworn to and Subscribed heforz ae this day of /� "�� 19 -/ J Personalty krwwn by weJ�_ ' C,1 dUdlCi A. Pa dpan are rxrAMtssX,w f CCStWV FxP1RES •any February 19­000 ' 12C 2 ORDINAtNCE NUtilBER 97- _15 AN ORDINANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY AUTHORIZING EXEMPTION OF LOCAL TAX ON ELECTRIC ENERGY USED BY QUALIFIED BUSINESSES IN THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE; PROVIDING CONDITIONS; PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CODIFIER; PROVIDING A SEVF.RABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, on March 28, 1.995, pursuant to Sections 290.001 - 290016, Florida Statutes, passe Resolution 95 -248 which nominated Tracts 1 12.03,1 13 and 114 of the 1990 Census, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, known as the [mmokalce Community to Florida Department of Commerce to be designated as a Florida Enterprise Zone; and WHEREAS,. the Florida Department of Commerce pursuant to &action 370.28, F.S. on October 17, 1996 designated the Immokalee Community as an Enterprise Zone effective January 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County to increase the economic viability and profitability of business and commerce located within the enterprise zone; and WHEREAS, §212.08 (15) F.S., authorizes an exemption equal to 50 percent of certain sales taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes for qualified businesses located in an enterprise zone when the local governing body has,, by ordinance, authorized a reduction of at least 50 percent of the local jurisdictions utility tax for electric energy (even if the local jurisdiction does not currently have such a tax) for qualified businesses in the enterprise zone, and WHEREAS, §166.231 (8)(a), F.S. authorizes the exemption of not less than 50% of the tax imposed on purchasers of electrical energy pursuant to the provision of §166.231, F.S. for qualified businesses located within the Immokalee Enterprise Zone and determined to be eligible by the Departrncnt of Revenue. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMM1USSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 12C 2 SF,CiION I. TITLE AND CITATION This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Collier County Exemption of Electricity Sales Tax for Energy Used in Enterprise Zone ". SECTION 2. INTENT AND PURPOSE The intent of this Ordinance is: (t) Any business located within the immokalee Enterprise Zone shall be eligible to receive an exemption of utility tax imposed by the County on the purchase of electrical energy i f such business is a qualifie ! business under the provisions of §212.08, F.S. and is determined to he eligible for the exemption by the Departmem of Revenue. (2) 'Io receive the exemption, a business must file an appl cation with the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency on a form provided by the Florida Department of Revenue. A qualified business may receive the benefit herein provided for a period of 5 years from the billing period beginning not more than 30 days following notification to Lee County Electric Cooperative or other qualified business by the Florida Department of Revenue that an exemption has been authorized. The benefit of this Ordinance shall expire on December 31, 2005. Any qualified business which has been granted an exemption under §212.08(15) F.S., shall be entitled to full benefit of that exemption as if expiration had not occurred on that date. Notwithstandin;; the expiration reference above, if a subsequent audit conducted by the Florida Department of Revenue determines that the business did not meet the criteria mandated in §212.08(I5xd) F.S., the amount of taxes exempted pursuant to this ordinance shall immediately be due and payable to the Florida Department of Revenue by the business, together with the appropriate interest and penalty, computed from the due date of each bill for the electrical energy purchased as exempt under this subsection. SECTION 3. CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION 4. INCLUSION OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provision of this On:iinance shall hecome and be made part of the Code of Laws and Ordinance of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word 'ordinance" may be changed to "section ", "article ", or any other appropriate word. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Depa -tment of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. Florida this 'day of �1« l _,1997. ATTEST,: DWIGHT �,I$ROCK, CLERK Approved as to.form and legal sufficiency: HEIDI F. ASHTON Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CO COUNTY, FLORID T MOTHY ANCOCK Chairman 12C 2 Mi STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) 12C '2 I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the ,wentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a trud copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 97 -15 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commnissioners on the 25th day of March, 1997, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 26th day of March, 1997. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and Cl'erkl ` Ex- officio to Board.-of"., County Commissioners By: Maureen Renyod Deputy Clerk Collier U,unty, florid• 11 /:6188. -S50 RLQUF_ST FOR LLCAL AM'FATISINC OF PtMLiC Hf.ARiNa � 2C 3 To. Clerk to the board: Pleete place the fnllovinR At as /X / Nernst LeAsl Adverttsement / / Other: (Display Adv., location, etc.) raw r � -a►rs� rs, � Originating Dept /01vr PUBLIC WCtKa Persons RLISSELL D. KJLLER Dater 02/20/97 _ (Sian clearly) w+ Petttieer ho. (If none, give brief deseriptioa)t PETITION AY96 -024 .itAIt' N Petitioner: (Rase b address) t BASTMIDGE PAS, LTD. 2828 CORAL WAY, PEWTIOUSE SUITE, MIAMI, FL 33145 11ame A. A&rass of any ptrsons(s) to Da notified by Clerk's Officer SEE ATTACHED LIST OF OWNERS (If exrea ayaca aswded, attach separate Cbeat) Uaring beforet / X/ I= / / SU / /OCber M 1t,e+,atrsted bearing dater 03/25/97 Maned an advertisesent emmaring 15 447e boron bearing. !i<rvapaper(s) to be used' (CesplatR Only if important /X /. /X / Maples Daily Hew cr legally required IX/) / / Other est Pro}+owed Taal: (Include legal description i cateewo location i sL")f PETITION AY 9(724, MC.Atd.X ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. AS AGENT FOR O5'JfdER, EASTRIDGE P Lx, IC OF TARA, COURT AND A POi2TICN OP A TEN FOOT (101) UTILITY EAS@i U AS SHOW ON — pL]�T Op ON THE PLAT OF PLANTATION UNIT TWO, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, PASS 95-97, ALL OF THE PLJBLI REr -OP:)S OF COLLIER C OW11Y, FLORIDA. CO,a9sm10a p+titioa(a), if any, i Proposed Aaartog dater nra.ssne ey,� ati DODO F"titioer yet Include Advertistn Cost? Yes / / No account should be char / X / It yes, what ged for advertising costa 101-163610-329100 ...wen.•. Rcrievrl byt Approved bye Division lead+ --. Date County Manager Ante 11 or� F --- List Attachatntas(1) EXE X)TIYE Sik IRY(2) RF–')O PION (3) PETITION ref trt"aTf a��+rfrr reef ran DISTXTIM09N 1RSIRUC'T70MS A. For hearings before UX or bZA: Initiating pereon to conplete one copy and obtain Iqvlslon Head approval before aseritting to County manager. Rai I If IeA4l doeueocnt is involved, be sure that any necesearylesal re +iev, or regveet for s,iae�y !e subeitted to County Attorney before subwlttlnR to County manager. 2Te Fianater's office will distribute topless / X•/ CauntT !tanager agenda file; 1X/ Requesting Division; /X / Original to Cleric's Office I. Other Aearinga: Initiating Division Read to approve and eubnit original to Clerk's Ufflce, retaining a copy for tile. aww rove e,, a POR CI.E"'S OFTICZ USE ONLY ee, D�teRe tree DAC�" Aev.rrlaee JJII y 12C 3 EASTRIDGE PARTNERS EASEMENT VACATIONS Adjacent & Near -by Property Owners List h!Q11h S04111 Tract A, Parcel No. 1 Tract B, Parcel No. 1 Eastridge Partners, Ltd. Eastridge Partners, Ltd. 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite Miami, Florida 33145 Miami, Florida :,3 1.45 E= Tract B, Parcel No. I Eastridge Partners, Ltd. 2328 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite Miami, Florida 33145 Tract F, Parcel No. I Eastridge Partners, Ltd. 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite Miami, Florida 33145 Plantation Subdivision, Lot l Frank & Marta E. Salazar 2379 East Thmiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 Plantation Subdivision, Lot 2 Robert L. & Rebecca L. Pennypacker 109 Plantation Circle Naples, Florida 33942 Plantation Subdivision, Lot 3 Louise J. Detrick 111 Plantation Circle Naples, Florida 33942 Plantation Subdivision, Lot 4 Coastal Equities of Naples,Inc. 5007 East T�miarni Trail Naples, 11orida 33962 PLintation Subdivision, Lot 5 Warren T. & Mary L. Caudette 115 Plantation Circle Naples, Florida 33942 West Parcel No. 14 United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc. 10 South 6th. Street, Suite 203 Richmond, Virginia 23219 I zc 3 RESOLUTION NO. 96- RESOLUTION FOR PETITION AV 96 -024 TO VAC41 -E A PORTION OF TARA COURT AND A TEN FOOT (10') UTILITY EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF PLANTATION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 -82, AND A PORTION OF TARA COURT AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF PLANTATION UNIT TWO, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, PAGES 95 -97, ALL OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 177.101, 336.09 and 336.10, Florida Statutes, McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc., as agent for owner, Eastridge Partners, Ltd., does hereby request the vacation of a portion of Tara Court and a ten foot (10') utility easement as shown on the plat of Plantatior, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 80 -82, and a portion of Tara Court as shown on the plat of Plantation Unit Two, as recorded in Plat Book 17, Pages 95 -97, all of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the Board has this day held a public hea ing to consider vacating a portion of said plat as more fully described below, and notice of said public hearing to vacate was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, the granting of the vacation will not adversely affect the ownership or right of convenient access of other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following be and is hereby vacated: See Exhibit "A" attached to and incorporated herein BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, that the road easement more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein is hereby accepted as the replacement easement for that portion of Tara Court vacated hereupon. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, that the utility easement more particularly described in Exhibit "C" attached, hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby accepted as the replacement easement for the utility eac;ernent vacated hereupon. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk is directed to advertise the adoption of this Resolution once in a paper of general circulation in the County within 30 days following its adoption. 1 2 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution, the proof of publication of thy; notice of public hearing, and the proof of publication of the notice of adoption of this Resolution in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to make proper notations of this vacation on said plat. This resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK. Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi F.% ^hton Assistant County Attorney RDM trn:021297.Tara Court dx BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: _ Timothy L. Hancock, Giairrnan t_-AH�u,-t n PAL/a6 1 of L� 12C 3 VACATION OF EASEMENT EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION VILLAS OF CAPRI A PORTION OF TRACT "E ", PLANTATION LAKES APPLICANT: EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD. A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF TRACT 'E" OF PLANTATION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82, INCLUSIVE, OF TirlE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "A" OF SAID PLAT OF PLANTATION AND RUN N78 °53'45 "W FOR 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN S 1 1'06' 15 "W FOR 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N78 053'45 "W FOR 37.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCA'JE SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE RUN 30.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 70'18'30-, A CHORD OF 28.79 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF S65 057'00 "W TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY; THENCE RUN 124.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 142 043'51 ", A CHORD OF 94.76 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF N77'50'20 "W TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN N06'28'25 "W FOR 59.88 FEET TO A NON - TANGENTIAL INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE_ CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE RUN 1 16.58 FEET AL014G THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 380.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17'34'40 ", A CHORD OF 116.12 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF S87041'05 "E TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S7V53'45 "E FOR 79.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL BEING IN AND A PART OF PLANTATION AND PLANTATION UNIT TWO AND CONTAINING 0.31 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTR;:C'TIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. clwa etu yltj a w4 WILLIAM C. McANLY, P. L-S. #1543 SIGNED: �^ z DATE: i14�SG, I' of y !O "DUA z4t— Od Y CIO HOLM QNY wry � � tui •wiwyr� AMLLfM7 : , I 1 2C I LL 0 y. 4 LLM Q CL LW 4, I I 4 \ xlq rl � i Y 1 _c i/ � brie � i 9a�eE� ►a�S' ;�i ;: rl ^`�_ Irsr —_ — •..w�..w I �� ;RYi Sii *R! ?Z s'1 .,vrar7W.7iPn'� �il� I � a =ib1t�: "- A! "�s :l1 . J —_ � ••r �ac.�o� ror`.:� �j► lam Y1aY11aa1a191 ►! QYO'd OIQY2! �K4ri")i -r H PAUL 3 aF H 2C 3 VACATION OF EASEMENT EXIIIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION VILLAS OF CAPRI A PORTION OF TRACT "A ", PLANTATION LAKES UTILITY EASEMENT APPLICANT: EASTRIDGE PARTNER, LTD. A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF TRACT "A" OF PLANTATION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEI -NG FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 10' UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG SOUTH LINE OF TR = ACT "A" OF PLANTATION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONTAINING 0.13 ACRES, MORE OR LESS: WILLIAM C. McANLY, P.L.S. #1543 SIGNED: C� DATE: rt j` rK T 4 2 a`r r y O 7 + +r �yy 1 N ^X 7 S O 0 O 0 F wn Jq Al 0 r ZO 12C 3 RADIO ROAD ilF�tFiiyl #jSatt --- -- tcac� ^� iiYEEt +Lit. ?i6Ei � n'�aor rr.. i!t:ii; #tai ?tt� � '!3. i..OU.ot1�Y,itMr 1 - -- .L.YiY_t�tti`lti I � tattY3.:tiYYtl. rt j` rK T 4 2 a`r r y O 7 + +r �yy 1 N ^X 7 S O 0 O 0 F wn Jq Al 0 r ZO 12C 3 _This,7nstrument Was Prepared By, Record. and Return To: Brian J. McDonough, Esq. Stearns Weaver. Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitt_erson, P.A. 150 West Hagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 ROAD KAY err EXHi6ir- a PA Cwt ( of S 1 2C (RESERVED) THIS Fd%SEMEIF, granted this 1A_ day of %f4tz_ , 1456, by EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limiter partnership (hereinafter referred to as 'Grantor"), whose post cfEice address I4 s 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite, Miami., Florida 33145, Attention: Mr. Francisco Rojo, to the BOAR:) OF COUTI TY COMMISSIONERS OF CCLLIER COLPNTY, FLORIDA, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee "), whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 344112. RECITALS A. The Grantor is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Easement Property"). B. The Grantor desires to grant a non - exclusive easement over the Easement Property in favor of the Grantee, an(:i the Grantee desires that such easement be granted. ACRE F..FSENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the following grants, agreements, covenants and restrictions are made: 1. Recitals. The Recitals hereinabove contained are true and correct and are made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. 2. Grant of Easement. The Grantor hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, non - exclusive easement, license, and privilege for W `- e'r' CJ ' S/ TA (,E ? °Fl 2C roadway purposes, upon the following described lands being located in Collier County, Florida, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 3. Real Estate Taxes; Maintenance. Gran':cr shall. be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes, sales and use taxes and other impositions assessed against the Easement Property and for maintaining the Easement Property in accordance with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances and regulations. 4. Limitina Access to Easement Axea. In the event the Grantor shall desire to construct a gate across the entrance to the Easement Area or otherwise limit the Grantee's access to the Easement Area, Grantor shall be permitted to do so, can condition that the Grantor shall construct, at Grantor's sole cost and expense, a cul -d -sac or turnaround area on the Granter's property which is adjacent to the Easement Area, of sufficient size to permit vehicles to turn around and exit the entrance to the Easement Area (the "Alternative Easement Area "). In such event, (i) the easement interest granted herein shall be terminated by written instrument executed by Grantee in recordable form and (ii) Grantor shall execute an easement agreement in favor of Grantee With respect to the Alternative Easement Area, which shall be in the form of this Agreement, excepting therefrom this Section 4. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused thesE cresonts to be executed the date and year first above written. Witnesses: Print Name: r1icqt4rL S _DT 0 C` Q.. Print Name : ! EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership By: Related Capri Housing, Inc., a Florida corporation, its sole general partner Francisco Rojo, ice Presiden= 3 G+vu1YJ�MS •r.l �Y.W/Y�- lY�a��Y1/wa•+r+r. �.���+.r. ru.r rr....�.....- +.........�, .. r..�.._.y � ��..... � �.... � -... �... Pa U 3 of 12C STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before! me this 1.14 day of �yf.�i�/y 1 1996, by Francisco Rojo, as slice President of Related Capri Housing, Inc., a Florida corporation, the sole general partner of Eastridge Partners, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, on behalf of the corporation and ar3 an act of the partnership. Personally Known OR Produced Identification 'Type of Identification Produced _ G: \W -B.TM \30365 \360 \FJ+SF. -RD Notary Public, State of Florid-a at Large Commission No.: My Commission Expires: FW'S lW E9 WH Na aA�482 M5vM 1v MAR. 29,1999 3� 9A k6 y vF S 1 2C 3 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF TRACT 'E" OF P].A.NTATION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82, INCLUSIVE, OF T-HE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "A" OF SAID PLAT OF PLANTATION AND RUN N78 °53'45'W FOR 20.00 FEET TO TIM POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN S11 °06'15 "W FOR 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N78'53'45 "W FOR 37.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CDNCAN E SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE RUN 30.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A CENn;..AI, ANGLE OF 70'18`30}, A CHORD OF 28.79 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF S65'57'.00'W TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY; THENCE RUN 124.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 142043'51', A CHORD OF 94.76 FEET AND A CHORD :BEARING OF Ni7050'20*W TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN N06'2$'25 "W FOR 59.88 FFZT TO A NON - TANGENTIAL INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE CONCAVE SOtrrHW-fi rERLY; THENCE RUN 116.58 FEET ALONG, THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVDG A RADIUS OF 380.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE 017 17 °34'40 ", A C ORD OF 116.12 FEET AND A CHORD ;BEARING OF S87"41'03 "E TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE. RUN S78'5,'45 "E FOR 79.29 FEET TO THE P'ODIT OF BEGINNING, ALL BEING IN AND -'A PART OF PLAINTATION AND PLANTATION UNIT TWO AND CONT MING 0.31 ACR. ES, MQ.RE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO EASEMA'1TS, RESTRICTIONS AND RFSERVA771O S OF RECORD. EY.HIbI r Q `it-- 1fA C-,*— 5 OG S a..�� � C; (.� l! I _ t..•- J u..` ,� �' „,mot+ � 1 2C 3 crow otayt t tI I �` it �eteektteeeeeee► t+�ttttlsett�tt� ;ce�nacescitiiii 7nTnr 0 P-Z ­this,,Ynstrument Was Prepared By, Record and Return To: Brian J. McDonough, Esq. Stearns Weaver Miller weissler A- 1hadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 UTILI TV FASEMENT �xulg ►r G 12C i'AIaE I �� RESERVED) THIS EASEMENT g ranted this 1 4 day of ' " 10)119141( '�, 1996, by EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership (hereinafter referred tc as "Grantor "), whose post office address is 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite, Miami, Florida 33145, Att ,E•ntion: Mr. ;7rancisco Rojo, to the BOA2I) OF COUNTY COM2MISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GO'.BRNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD CF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee "), whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112. W I T N E S S E T H: That the Grantor for and in consideration of ?:he sum of Ter. Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideratior. paid by the Grantee, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, its :successors and assigns, a perpetual, non - exclusive easement, license, and privilege to enter upon and to install and maint:ain utility facilities, on the following described lands bei:ic located in Ccl.lier County, Florida, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO ARID MADE A PART HEREOF. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the Grantee ani its assigns, together with the right_ to enter upon said land, excavate, and take materials for the purpose of constructing, cperating and maintaining utility facilities thereon. Grantor and Grantee are used for singular or plural, as context requires. 9M 16i•f C pALOFq 12C 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to he executed the date and year first above written. Witnesses: EASTRIDGE PARTI;ERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership By: Related Cai»-i Housing, Print Name: mciAei s.__ Ste`- U Inc., a Florida corporations, its sole general partner _print —Name: �; � —� EY - Francsco Rojo, V c President STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged befor,a me this day of ­ -_ 1 1996, by Francisco Rojo, as Vice President of Related Capri housing; 1n.c., a Florida corporation, the sole general partner cf Eastridge Partners, Ltd., a F:_orida limited partnership, on be'l-:ai of the corporation and as an act of the partnership. Personally Known V/ OR Produced Identificat c)n Type of Identification Produced Fria or Stamp Name---? — Notary Public, State of Florida at Large Commission Pio.: ��,KAL�U My Commission Expir s: ANDREW GAXC1A NOTARY P69RX STA ^:E (F Co�cz� NG. a:s 4%C MY COMMlsSKW 00'. MAR. 29.1499 G: \M-aJM\30361 \360 \EA5E -u; L,�r. L:)1: l- 1 ?_G S PAS 3 °F y EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description Villas of Capri Apartments 15 FOOT WIDE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY EASB,[ENT A portion of land fifteen feet wide more particularly described by the following centerline, lying in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida: Commence at the southeasterly corner of Tract "A ", Plantation, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 80 through 82, inclusive of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and rur N78 °51'05 "W for 20.00 feet; thence run S 11 °08'56 "W for 11.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence run N78'51'05 "W for 35.00 feet to a point herinafter referenced w Point "A ", thence nun S 11 °0'6 '56 "`.V for 49.00 feet to a Point of Termination, thence return to the aforementioned Point "A ", and run N78 °51'05 "W for 17.56 feet to a Point of Termination, containing 0.03 acres, more or less, subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record. Prepared By. Zv iiliarn C. McAniy, P.L.S. Florida Registration No. 1543 McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 5 101 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL. 34113 _ fjo `f U 0 1 2 C �IIIIIM TRACT "B", PLANTATION, P.B. 15, PAGES 80 -82 TARA COURT, PLANTATION, P.B 15, PAGES 80 -82 P.O.C. '' / P.O. B. SOUTHEASTERLY CGRNER OF TRACT "A', PLANTATION, Cz / P.B. 15, PACES 80 -82 f c" _ O o fj ,n j 1 5 C.U.E. co Q I I �- 1. :Qa- Q P.O. T.'1 P01 NT A•- i I TP sCT "F', PLAN TA TICrt, LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE L1 N78'S1'05 "w 20.00 L2 `.11'08'56 "W 11.00 P. 0. T. TARA COURT, PLANTATION UNIT TWO. P B 17. PAGES -07 TRACT '•B', PLANTATION UNIT T'A;C, P B ? 7, PAS. S 9---97 LEGEND C.u.E. COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGiANING P.O C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.T POINT OF TERti'INATION P.B. PLAT BOOK `OR: TW FMATM GROklP OF FLMMA WANLY ENGINEERING \ ocsanosat AND DESIGN, INC. VILLAS OF CAPRI APARiMEkTS �wnco LA SCyPtr wn wrc...c SKETCH of •5 FOOT WIDE •l I ""°S` °` "%'. s` l . - - 1. : O— i 11 - — Ell_ ° - ---- T �.xrs. ria�w. - N REVISJOHS TfiiZ Instrument Was Prepared By, Record and Return To: Brian J. McDonough, Esq. Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Al.hadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 ;Miami, Florida 33130 (RESERVED) 1 2C 3 ' THIS EASEMF21'T granted this A— day of _ Air�� '�- , 1996, by EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor "), whose post office address is 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite, Miami, Florida 33145, Attention: Mr. Francisco Rojo, to the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee "), whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112. RECITALS A. The Grantor is the owner in fee simple Df that certain real property more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (che "Easement Property "). B. The Grantor desires to grant a non - exclusive easement over the Easement Property in favor of the Grantee, and the Grantee desires that such easement be granted. AGREEKiT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby aclnowledged, the following grants, agreements, covenants and restrictions are made: i. Recitals. The Recitals hereinabove conrained are true and correct and are made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. 2. Gant of Easement. The Grantor hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, its successor£; and assigns, a perpetual, non - exclusive easement, license, and privilege for Izc roadway purposes, upon the following described lanc1:3 being located in Collier County, Florida, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 3. Real Estate Taxes; Maintenance. GrElntor shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxer, sales and use taxes and other impositions assessed against the Easement Property and for maintaining the Easement Property in accordance with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances and regulations. 4. Limiting Access to Easement Area. In the event the Grantor shall desire to construct a gate across the entrance to the Easement Area or otherwise limit the Grantee's access to the Easement Area, Grantor shall be permitted to do so, on condition that the Grantor shall construct, at Grantor's role cost and exoense, a cul -d -sac or turnaround area on the Grantor's property which is adjacent tc the Easement Area, of sufficient size to permit vehicles to turn around and exit the ertrance to the Easement Area (the "Alternative Easement Area "). In such event, (i) the easement interest granted herein shall be terminated by written instrument executed by Grantee in recordable form and (ii) Grantor shall execute an easement agreement in favor of Grantee with respect to the Alternative Easement Area, which shall be in the form of this Agreement, excepting therefrom this Section 4. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written. Witnesses: EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership A� By: Related Capri Housing, Print name: rl(CgASL S Inc., a Florida corporation, its sole general partner Print Name : J _r�blF BY _ Francisco Rojo, ice President N STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) 1 2C The foregoin instrument was acknowledged befo: :E! me this day of i 1 1996, by Francisco Rojo, as 'lice President of Related Capri Housing, Inc., a Florida corporation, the sole general partner of Eastridge Partners, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, on behalf of the corporation and as an act- of the partnership. / Personally Known !/ _ OR Produced Identification Type of Identification Produced Print or Starve: Notary Public, State of Florida at Large Commission No.: My Commission Expires: vcwx GA" Es FL UK lf'KM OF N9!lfM: X 1994 G. \W- 0.7?! \30364 \360 \ZAS3 -f.D X - l TG: � IAXL;I�rrm": 12C 3 lo AI s�.•t� �ti-r: FAX NO: (94D 7 ul -84�Q8 MOM 10: (9d1) 7TH -84Q6 I - L :•.S:SSSSS• • S SS' . •i ::SS�SLS.S• •� L.' S S S• S L S4' S . S.:G4L:5iSSS. 12C 3 March 26, 1997 Ms. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 33940 Re: tdotice of Public Hearing to readvertise Petition AV -96 -024 Dear Judy: Please advertise the above referenced notice one time on Sunday, April 6, 1997 and send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. P.O. No. 700897 12C 3 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that on the 25th day of March L997, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, adopted Resolution 97 -187, re Petition AV -96 -024, pursuant to Sections 177.101, 336.09 and 336.10, McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc., as agent for owner, Eastridge Partners, Ltd., requesting vacation of a portion of Tara Court and a portion of a ten foot (10') utility easement as shown on the plat of Plantation, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 80 -82, and a portion of Tara Court as shown on the plat of Plantation Unit Two, as recorded in Plat Book 17, Pages 95 -97, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Resolution 97 -187 may be viewed in the Office of the Clerk to the Board. Office, Minutes & Records Department, 4th Floor, z,driinistration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East TE.miami Trail, Naples, Florida. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA TI140THY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) Maples Daily News I"Lvs, FL 33940 Affidavit of Publication BoAim OF C"TY comissimERS FIWJKE- DEPT. - TOBI G",RLIMr PO BOX 413016 MAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERE?KE: 001230 -70r*97 57466455 MoTICE of PUBLIC HEA State of Floride CoLnty of Ca t l i er Before the undersigned authority, persormlty ayp"red S. Lamb, who an oath says that M "rves as the Assistant Corporate Sr.retary of the NW(" Daily Mcis, a daily newsp%per publish d at Maples, in Copier C.oratty, Florida: that the attached copf of advertising s+ea pubtished in said re- wVscper on dates Listed. Affient further says that the said Maples Daily Msys is ■ r*wspmprr pubtithed at M pLes, in said Collier Caurty, Florida, and that the said neumpaper hm heretofore been omtinuousLy published in said CoLLier Ccrmty, FLorida, each My maid has beet entered as secrxid ctesa mail scatter at the post office in Maples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a p-riod of 1 year next preceding the first pubLication of the attsd-A -d cWy of advertise—nt ; and affiant further says that he has rmither paid nor yroaised any perron, fins or ccporation arty discaunt, r- t;ete, comsaission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisewnt for pubLication in the said nedspaper. P''LSLISMED CRI: 04/06 12C .op js�� 011 to 2W. dw i! 1Y AD SPACE: 3.333 IMCH FILED rXi: 04/07/97 Signature of Affiant Sworn to and Sws;ribed before ae this � day of �'I�_ 19"x/ Personally known by me IE F. 7. 4: 0 -;U 3 i.. iiAv�xt..r ". al t Judah A.Flrlipsn .r. my C%*Assm F CGam EXF'm '., Cx�o< Fstatw) 19.2000 R .T ?•'' &OMED Tom TROY AN Mw mm. WC. 3 TO. zrot3aT CN: FAX 190: (941) 774 -8408 PROM N3: (r -941) 774 --8406 •I' : H I 2C 3 AIM AIMM SEN. , OS r 02 '00 ov. 3 .2 S0 00000 Fr('7 a3--04 09:24 Oel' 03'00 423 e55 6489 OK 4 068800600e00%ii EF79 015-04 16.14 W 01'44 c34199'70393 OK 3 LAG S•" P,4'34 • •i.:tISS3S-S'♦01.• • L S S W010148 ■ 5 :tISS:9SS'SG:•SS O�r 01 20 S �� S� SSS � � r ��• SSQSS•Si..• • SL S S . ♦r S • S S �SLS S iS'i Gy S.. S�S•iiS•i. • �Li S� S• •� �• • G Si'.'�4iiii I 2 3 March 5, 1997 Ms. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily .Jews 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 33940 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition AV -96 -024 Dear Judy: Please advertise the above referenced notice two times, one time on Monday, March 10, 1997 and one time on Monday, March 17, 1997 and send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved co this office. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. P.O. No. 700897 12C 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, will hold a public hearing on TUESDAY, xARCH 25, 1997, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, C',31lier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Flo:rida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The Board will consider Petition AV -96 -024, McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc.. as agent for o,Amer, Eastridge Partners, Ltd., requesting vacation of a portion of Tara Court and a portion of a ten foot (10') utility ea: >ement as shown on the plat of Plantation, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 80 -82, and a portion of Tara Court as shown on the plat of Plantation Unit 'Iwo, as recorded in Plat Book 17, Pages 95 -97, all of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Board prior to the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and there-fore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is r:iade, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 130!-,RD OF COUNTY CONL'YIISSIONEP.S COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CH IRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) 12C 3 March 5, 1997 McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 5101 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, Florida 34112 RE: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition AV -96 -024 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Monday, March 10, 1997 and Monday, March 17, 1997. If you have any questions regarding this petition, please contact Mr. Russ ?duller, Transportation Services, (941) 774 -8494. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. CC: Eastbridge Partners, Ltd. i 2c 3 March 5, 1997 Eastridge Partners, Ltd. 2828 Coral Way Penthouse Suite Miami, Florida 33145 RE: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition AV -96 -024 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 255, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Monday, March 10, 1997 and Monday, March 17, 1997. If you have any questions regarding this petition, please contact Mr. Russ Muller, Transportation Services, (941) 774 -8494. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. cc: McAnly Engineering I 2 3 3301 East Tam:ami Trail • Naples, Florida 341124977 John C. Norris (941) 774 -8097 • Fax (941) 774 -3602 District 1 Timothy L. Hancock. MCP Dtstrici 2 Tirrvxhy 1. Coratantine. (iiCricl 3 Nrrwia S. MacXie DiAric? Barbwa B. Berry D lj ict S March 5, 1997 Re: Notice of Public Hearing re Petition AV- 96 -0;?4 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised. that the above referenced petit:'_on will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997, as indicated on the enclosed noti(-e. The legal notice pertaining to the petition will be p•iblished in the Naples Daily News on Monday, March 10, 1997 and Monday, March 17, 1997. If you have any questions regarding this petition, please contact Mr. Fuss Muller, Transportation Services, (941) 774 -8494. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Very truly yours, D4:IGHT F. BROCK , CLERK Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. sb I �G j March 5, 1997 Re: Notice of Public Hearing re Petition AV- 96 -C24 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to the petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Monday, March 10, 1997 and Monday, March 17, 1997. If you have any questions regarding this petition, please contact Mr. Russ Miller_, Transportation, Services, 941) 774 -3494. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Very truly yours, DWIGHT E. BRCCK, CLERK Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. sb NAPLES DAILY NEWS Pubfstwd Daily Naples, FL 33940 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personalty appeared B. Lamb who on oath says that they serve as the Asst. Corp. Secretary of the Naples Daily, a daily ne•rrspaper published at Naples. in Collier C xinty. Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising. being a _ Notice Of Public Hearing in the matter of petition AV -96 -024 McCanley /Eastridge was published hi said newsoaver 2 times in the issues starting nn 3/ 10 /19 7 and wing 3 2 0 97 Affiant further Says that UV ethyl Napk3s Daty M,-ws .9 a newspaper PJt)A&�ed at Naples, in Sad: CCOW Cantty, Ronda. and mat the said newspaper has heretofore bey contrx"Zty publ*hed n said Co6er Canty. Fonda. each day and has been ente. -ed as second da!,s mac mazer at ttr pCsl Ofttce in Naples. n said COger County. Fonda. for a penod of 1 year next prece(J" the first Pub4cabon of the attac'ed cripy of advertiserrent. and af'eani further says that he ttas neither paid not prormsed any person. firm or corporation any dmca,nt. reoate. cfrnrrxss+- n or refund for the purposp of 7ecLxr)g rSrs advertisement for pubhcanon in the said rewspaper (Sgr�ature of Afftant) Swom 'o and subscribed before me this 21 day of March 1997 (Signature of notary p�pt Adtih A. Flanigan j Mr i (.r fSS!(Xi / CGSO V EriiSE: �, Dl h�1.�� �fi�if� °. -•'�l: Ta�^v rAM.kS�c nX.F �•r FersonaKykrcwn F- o6red de)trfra! ion Type Of identification ProdroeCt 12C 3 I IOTXE OF Pty X tEARM Nttka Is hereby 9N'ar *W tna Somd d Casty Cotntnisebmn of Cd:r Cotety ' Ht 25, M7 bt ft a dror 3rJ Floor, 4krinlslrofbn Building, Confer Canty . Govart"No CeaMer 170 i Ead To- niant , raR, ►lapks, Florida. The meelbp t+ti beds d A A.M The Bowl wQ oral. sktar effflon AV -"24, #xMy FrAd nwt p and , os ocent for a�Nr�t[' I' i v loo rer = vocat on d o por! pro fart atct o '. pwUl (f o felt Hoot (10) UMV sosemed os thorn of the d Plontolof% as recarge4 In Pk>t ilcak 4 Pam :A and o }gal, of Toro Cart as Shawn on fhe plat of ?iat- 0* Ur It Two, as rfcmW in Plot !Sack 77 j PPo�w . IS47, at of tee Pibk Records of Cdte- Cnx*y, Flw1do. AN nla•es*d Wks are Invited to d- b % spent w d b u rrA eBoore a �Mb:c I►4'�iBn°' fo ttie Any pawn who docks to tamped o dedson at Rte Board trM ftaed o record at' tM Q� Cftdnps pecialffht0 thrleta, and tev e, may nwd to efist!! Rtot a ver- baft record d t+e mcaw*o I6 mode{ ttt#tt?, , -!Cord hdoin the **=N =N Q b a ftc! mm wtkh the lipped Is to be DWI) OF COUNTY COMMSSKX4FYS COLL E2 COUNTY FLORIDA T1MCT1IY L ilMIE047C CHAIAWAN Dwifr E. AROCIC CLAP% � l'�� h)10, 20 No. %6725 wunrYOY-••.. •••^Il�ii�Lr�rItYFAAbW.ACM�iIrr rrFa�rro.......w�r �w.urr.aa..�s --- -..._ ...�..._...__..�.__...._._..--- * *# 2172672 OR; 2306 PG; 1016 UCOIDiD in OFIICIAL UCOIDS of COLLIER COUNTI, FL 04/21/41 at 09 :24AX DWIGHT B. BIOCI, CLIRK IBC Fill 6.00 COMS 1.00 NAPLES DAILY NEWS Pub4shed Dally Naples, FL 33940 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared R. La mh , who on oath says that they serve as the A s s t. Corp- S E c r e t a r y of the Naples Daily, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Fiodda; that the attached copy of the advertising, being a Notice of public fiearincl in the matter of Petition AV -96 -024 mcCAnley /Eastridge was published in said newspaper 2 times in the issues starting on3/10/97 and ending nn3/20/97 Athant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper Published at Naples, in said C,onter County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has twretofore been contirxxusty published in said Goner County, Ronda, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post offir�e in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 r next precer� the first bon of the attached Y� pubFc -a' copy of advertisement: and atfiant further says that he has nC ther paid not promised any person, firm or ccxporatbn any discount, rerate, commisson or refund for the purse of siring this advertisement for publication on the said newspaper (Signature of Affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 21 day of_ Ma rrh t 93Z (Signature of notary putAk) Ju*th A. FtZtiW 1.IY Co"'OSSIN ,f Cr.5 787 FXPI, :p Febraary 19. M l'i •..•.•� . MU T" FoN Personally known V _— Oduceaf identificatim Type Of identification PrrYiFrvt Leta: C1111 TO 1011I CI BOAID I H FLOOR .I BIT 1240 4c poulity Coaaattoi f*$ of -cow Cash ISAW a. boo" 4M rjmA Fkwr* m oat�y Gvvet tact' CrnMir �- Ar jt;tibg • AV- "4, McMltl., 6101 -1 rinkit and ; Dnkft kv,, Lade, oo�af• far, , ountr Et�drldlei� 1 -Ceart rrtirx!'� t d {t M of Q`nI ad a Oath a0�1 prd� a 7w Fool {ll� tdARtr faoatat+�n► eat as b P I� Blot Paget 'sod ?*Dx of Y s'a Cold so sttowa an 1 sdaf ' anon UM Ttuol, ft ttlsarded M Plat ie .ft pok .lbEdtdo of rqu w awl land " .;7 .. I" Palo oft ik lli�` o ba of tb a tuarit of 11>pre Isevl0. lr eftfllliw a w bak) rtiaotra;A � WWI IM oftnm web' 9M?D OF C0LWY C4Mti11S6gtt;rRS COLt 18t CAtJIFFYa%.t7i�DA r . • �Chft h 'N, 20 Itle Bills CIILbQ UR; LJUb t'G: lul :L ?r.? 71 IOXR% :C�JE: :P ?;CIAi r, ?CCLGS 71 COtLIII COOI?i, Pt s it '9.:"kX NIX I. BROCK, CLIH d3: P. RESOLUTION NO. 97- 187 1 C 3 RESOLUTION FOR PETITION AV 96 -024 TO VACATE A PORTION OF TARA COURT AND A TEN FOOT (10') UTILITY EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF PLANTATION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 -82, AND A PORTION OF TARA COURT AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF PLANTATION UNIT TWO, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, PAGES 95 -97, ALL OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 177.101, 336.09 and 336.10, Florida Statutes, McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc., as agent for owner, Eastridge Partners, Ltd., does hereby request the vacation of a portion of Tara Court and a :en foot (10') utility easement as shown on the plat of Plantation, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 80 -82, and a portion of Tara Court as shown on the plat of Plantation Unit Two, as recorded in Plat Book 17, Pages 95 -97, all of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida: and WHEREAS, the Board has this day held a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of said plat as more fully described below, and notice of said public hearing to vacate was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, the granting of the vacation will not adversely affect the ownership or right of convenient access of other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following be and is hereby vacated: See Exhibit "A" attached to and incorporated herein BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, that the road easement more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein is hereby accepted as the replacement easement for that portion of Tara Court vacated hereupon. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, that the utility easement more particularly described in Exhibit "C" attached, hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby accepted as the replacement easement for the utility easement vacated hereupon. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk is directed to advertise the adoption of this Resolution once in a paper of general circulation in the County within 30 days following its adoption. OR: 2306 ?IJ: 1018 1 2C 3 4' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk is hereby dire+:ted to record a certified copy of this Resolution, the proof of publication of the notice of public hearing, and the proof of publication of the notice of adoption of this Resolution in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to make proper notations of this vacation on said plat. This resolution adopted after motion, second and majoritj vote favoring same. DATED:�Z��% ATTEST... , DWIGF{T,E. BROCK, Clerk App, oved s to form and legal sufficsency. Heidi F. hton Assistant County Attomey RDM:tm:021297:Tam Coam.doc BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLI OUNTY, FLORID Timothy L ancock, Chairman 5XHI &iT , PA6,F, I c, F- `f 12C 31 VACATION OF EASEMENT EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION VILLAS OF CAPRI A PORTION OF TRACT "E ", PLANTATION LAKES APPLICANT: EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD. A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF TRACT "E" OF PLANTATION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLL7 S: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "A" OF SAID PLAT OF PLANTATION AND RUN N78 053'45 "W FOR 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN S11 °06' 15 "W FOR 60.00 FEET; "THENCE RUN °53'45 N78 "W FOR 37.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE RUN 30.68 FEET ALC►NG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 700'18'30", A CHORD OF 28.79 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF S65 057'00 "W TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY; THENCE RUN 124.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 043'51 c� 142 ", A CHORD OF 94.76 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF 050'20 1477 "W TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN N06 "28'25 "W FOR w 59.83 FEET TO A NON - TANGENTIAL INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE ° CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE RUN 116.58 FEET ALONG THE rn ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 380.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE 034'40 OF 17 ", A CHORD OF 116.12 FEET AND A CHORD SEARING OF S87 041'05 "E TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN 578'53'45 "E FOR 79.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ►-� ALL BEING IN AND A PART OF PLANTATION AND PLANTATION UNIT TWO AND CONTAINING 0.31 ° `O ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. WILLIAM C. McANLY, P.L.S. x'1543 SIGNED: DATE: _ 614 t tiT A Z �� Z F �{ o i ••� �'�� •� � „ RtouruMn�/ "Z 1711111 . !Q /10111Rm Y 90 1171If1s now CC Lk. CL O 7 0 as o "j � 4 I i I II it \� j� i �l o . q 3 In.► � r7[Im R D / . cl mrcx olmra 12C 31 s1 m E^ o I ............ feb'tki;r ^R�RIt }i S�i =4Cxi� Hilli3liii lR�� dlflla��f ;:t�t+1�t^ I II I I I I' I t I I� I� I� I 4, I� a •I't J • 7 I F� 1 CL 21, t 1 i I I In.► � r7[Im R D / . cl mrcx olmra 12C 31 s1 m E^ o I ............ feb'tki;r ^R�RIt }i S�i =4Cxi� Hilli3liii lR�� dlflla��f ;:t�t+1�t^ E)Wrt's 1 T A 3 bF �} 12C VACATION OF EASEMENT EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION VILLAS OF CAPRI A PORTION OF TRACT "A ", PLANTATION LAKES UTILITY EASEMENT APPLICANT: EASTRIDGE PARTNER, LTD. A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF TRACT "A" OF PLArlJIATION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 10' UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG SOUTH LINE OF TRAc --'C "A" OF PLANTATION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONTAINING 0.13 ACRES, MORE OR LESS: WILLIAM C. McANLY, P.L.S. 61543 SIGNED: / � DATE: 1— 1'(4 l ��; 3' m N w 0 rn ►v 0 N ra mm" ncc n WttQ� `�.�! ;.. u 0a U �4n2 l#{ I" y� >r I � 1 �*g Zk4 v x ^T j i 1 ' j 3 O rri �'l � C ff 2 � C j ,w71'1•�T y.�7aTV7 "021 ot(IYH OF '{ 12C 3 ` 11 a j;;.� �S►SG'iSa' 'ei� rkifk��kiii;k {�1 Y AltRkSil= �tr!!R .7l (RajkiliGittRtt' kR3kkaks9kaiky' caaaeesaty�yd� • II f I' I i i! I; I I It 1 mac err: I I I I` Iv I` >r I � 1 �*g Zk4 v x ^T j i 1 ' j 3 O rri �'l � C ff 2 � C j ,w71'1•�T y.�7aTV7 "021 ot(IYH OF '{ 12C 3 ` 11 a j;;.� �S►SG'iSa' 'ei� rkifk��kiii;k {�1 Y AltRkSil= �tr!!R .7l (RajkiliGittRtt' kR3kkaks9kaiky' caaaeesaty�yd� tAHiPbir 13 This Instrument Was Prepared By, pA UC ( °� S Record and Return To: 1 2C '43 Brian J. McDonough, Esq. 1 Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 (RESERVED) qt • 0 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the following grants, agreements, covenants and restrictions are made: 1. P.e _jj_�L 1 q. The Recitals hereinabove contained are true and correct and are made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. 2. Grant of Easement. The Grantor hereby coriveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, non - exclusive easement, license, and pr:.vilege for THIS FP.SEMENT granted this A_ day of �*4+r� , 1996, by EASTP.IDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor "), whose post office address is 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite, Miami, Florida 33145, Attention: Mr. Francisco Rojo, to the BOARD OF COUNTY CGi- jM,TSSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, its ,,uccessors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee "), whc,se post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112. O RECITALS A. The Grantor is the owner in fee simple of ghat certain N W o real property more particularly described on Exhibit 'A" attached °r' �.erete and made a part hereof (the "Easement Property'). B. The Grantor desires to grant a non- excl,isi.ve easement over the Easement Property in favor of the Grantee, G.nd the Grantee ° desires that such easement be granted. w NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the following grants, agreements, covenants and restrictions are made: 1. P.e _jj_�L 1 q. The Recitals hereinabove contained are true and correct and are made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. 2. Grant of Easement. The Grantor hereby coriveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, non - exclusive easement, license, and pr:.vilege for !a 6,E : of 51 roadway purpose_, upon the following described lands being located in Collier County, Florida, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 3. Real Estate Taxes; Maintenance. Granter shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes, ;3ales and use taxes and other impositions assessed against the Easement Property and for maintaining the Easement Property in accordance with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances and regulations. 4. Limiting Access to Easement Area. In the event the Grantor shall desire to construct a gate across the entrance to the Easement Area or otherwise limit the Grantee's access to the Easement Area, Grantor shall be permitted to do so, on condition that the Grantor shall construct, at Grantor's sole cost and expense, a cul -d -sac or turnaround area on the Grantor's property which is adjacent to the Easement Area, of sufficient size to cermit vehicles to turn around and exit the entrance to the Easement Area (the "Alternative Easement Area ") In such event, (i) the easement interest granted herein shall be terminated by written instrument executed by Grantee in recordable form and (ii) Grantor shall execute an easement agreement in favor of Grantee wi -h respect to the Alternative Easement Area, which shall be in the form of this Agreement, excepting therefrom this Section 4. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the date and year first_ above written. (Witnesses: Pri-nt Name: fl(CL 5 T o Print tWame : _ 'i cP 1 <�`t,sA`� EASTRT_DGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership By: Related Cap: -i Housing, Inc., a Flo: -i:ia corporation. ..ts sole general partner By. Francisco Rojo, ice President. N w a 0 N ?AUf 3 M- f- %C STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS-. COUN-rY OF DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ♦ _�i , 1996, by Francisco Rojo, as Vice President of Related Capri Housing, Inc., a Florida corporat:ian, the sole general partner of Eastridge Partners, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, on behalf of the corporation and as an act of the partnership. Personally Known Y OR Produced IdentificationZ Type of Identification Produced Print or Sta&p--9'A`"me: Notary Public, State of Florida at: Large Commission No.: My Commission Expires: Max OF G: \K-n..TK\3C3G4 \360 \SASE -RD ( on XL4 -"�t� i� N W O "U O N Ln 9A 1.6 y0FS 1 2C 3 1 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF TRACT "E" OF FLA•NTATION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82, INCI '-U.SIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA W-UNG FURTHER DESCRIBED AS F011,MS: CUA TCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "A" OF SAID PLAT OF PLANTATION AND RUN. N78 053'45 "W FOR 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF ESGINNING; THENCE RUN S11'06'15'W FOR 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N78053'4,5 *W FOR 37.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCCRVE SOUTHEASTERIM; THENCE RUN 30.69 FEET AMgG THE ARC OF SAID CUWE, HAVI G A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 70-18'30-, A CHORD OF 22.79 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF S65 "57'00'W,.T0 A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY; THENCE RUN 124.56 FEET ALDING THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 142'43'51', A CHORD OF 94.76 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF N77'50'20 *W TO A POINT OP TANGENCY; THENCE RUN NC64'l8'25 "W FOR 59.59 FEET TO A NON - TANGENTIAL INTERSECTION WITH A CURE CONCAVE SOCTI'LiWE S` ERL.Y; THENCE RUN 116.59 FEET ALANG THE ARC OF SAM CURVE, HAVI? G A RADIUS OF 380.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE c� OF 17.34 -40% A CHORD OF 116.12 FEET AND A CHORE) BEARING OF o C97.41'05'E TO A POINT` OF TANGENCY; THENCB. RUN S 3 *5345'E FOR 79.13 FFfiT TO THE PISwr OF BEGINNING, ALL BEING LN f.ND A PART OF PLANTATION A24D PLAN NATION UNIT TWO AND CONTAINING 0.31 ACRFS, MORE OR LESS, SUR ECT TO EASUAEAI'I"S, RESTI'.ICTIONS AND RESi-'AMCM OF RECs3'M 0 k i V s n11� ! wouw. asatinr lei _ £kHltwr T c-,*- 5 c� S 12C 31 I x1....... it 1.4sasstsajtlal Exu lsrr C This Instrument Was Prepared By, Retord and Return To: 2C 3 Brian J. McDonough, Esq. Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler_ Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 (RESERVED) UTILITY EASMEW Ti:IS EASEMENT granted this 114 day of _ 1996, by EA.STRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor "), whose post office address is 2828 Coral Play, Penthouse Suite, Miami, Florida 33195, Attention: Mr. Francisco Rojo, to the BOAI:D OF COUNTY CO�LMISSIONERS OF COLLIER. COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER CO21-rY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee "), whose post office address is 330'_ Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112. W I T N E S S E T H: That the Grantor for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys, gr;,rits, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, non- exclusive easement, license, and privilege to enter upon: and to install and maintain utility facilities, on the following described lands being located in Collier County, Florida, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the Grantee anc. its assigns, together with the right to enter upon said land, excavate, and take materials for t_he purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining utility facilities thereon. Grantor and Grantee are used for singular or plural, as context requires. 9 cv w 0 rn c� N cao 2C 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written. Witnesses: Print Name: T1K�.1�i4L Ste'- c� -print Name: 4 �7 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE i EASTRIDGE PARTNTERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership By: Related Capri Housing, Inc., a Florida corporation, its sole general partner 1 Francisco Rojo, President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.l�L day of _, 1996, by Francisco Roje, as Vice President of Related Capri Housing, Inc., a Florida corporation, the sole general partner of Eastridge Partners, Ltd., a F:.orida limited partnership, on behalf of the corporation and as an act of the partnership. Personally Known V/ _ OR Produced Identification Type of identification Produced G:',H -E' Tt \30364 \360 \EX9E -CTL C-:) 'Js r.� 4� G7 G71 CZ A Print' or Stamp NA c - -�'� &� Notary Public, State of Florida at Large v Commission No.: `'O My Commission Expir s: ANDREW QA'7A NUTAXY PURR STK.E OF C OMM SUM NCB. C.c41 w MY COMM SWW EXIT. )AAiL 24.1949 E><4 I& t-' C ?A (,C- SOP Y 12C 31 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description Villas of Capri Apartments 15 FOOT WIDE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY EASETiiI:NT A portion of land fifteen feet wide more particularly described by the following centerline, lying in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida: Commence at the southeasterly corner of Tract "A ", Plantation, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 80 through 82, inclusive of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and run N78 °51'05"W for 20.00 feet; thence run S11 °08'56 "W for 11.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence run N78 °51'05 "W for 35.00 feet to a point herinafter referenced as Point "A "; thence run S 11 '08'56"W for 49.00 feet to a Point of i ermination; thence return to the aforementioned Point "A ", and run N78'5 1'05"W for 17.56, feet to a Point of Termination, containing 0 03 acres, more or less, subiect to easements, restrictions and reservations of record. Prepared By: Afilliam C. McAnly, P.L.S. Florida Registration No. 1543 McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 5 10 1 Tamiami Trail Fast, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34113 0 rn r--A a 0 TRACT "B­, PLANTATION, P.B. 15, PAGES 80 -82 TARA COURT, PLANTATION, P B 15, PAGES 80 -82 P.O.C. J P.O. B. SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT -A-, PLANTATION:, L2 n B. 15, PAGES 80 -82 i f � � i,R Uc- q of 4 i L V TRACT "F ", PLANTATION, P.B. 15, PAGES 80 -82 LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE L1 N78'.51'05 "W 20.00 L2 St t *:18'56 "W 11.00 TARA COURT, PLANTATION UNIT TWO. P E4 17. PAGES 95 -97 THE RELATED GROUP OF FLORDA VA.LAS OF CAPFU APARTWWS SKETCH OF 15 FOOT WME COLIJIM COi,' M UTLITY EASETfT I A 7 u s, 4 " f. OOLLIM em m. PIOWA . . _T__ .. .. T .,_...: LEGEND C U. E, COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING P.O.0 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O. T POINT OF TERMINATION P.B PLAT BOOK WANLY ENGINEERING I REM90NS DATE AND DESIGN, INC. ( -CJWf w.0 0"M Q. u.o UOWW.c 5101 MAPJ.0 twM [•St, 113 71D7 -.ats. no.o• 3+,� cr, G� �J 1 -� M J! GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 60 o -� 1 5 C.U.E. — J�; �`- < z�Cc J11� —� Op "W IN FEET �y w ' 8 1 Irx:h = 30 !t c :< co 0 - r -V Z - J � i P 0. T. ^� P. 0 T.' ( PO 1 NT =J O TPA CT °P," PLANTATION KNIT TWO. ­15' C.u.E f P.B 17, PAGES 95 -97 TARA COURT, PLANTATION UNIT TWO. P E4 17. PAGES 95 -97 THE RELATED GROUP OF FLORDA VA.LAS OF CAPFU APARTWWS SKETCH OF 15 FOOT WME COLIJIM COi,' M UTLITY EASETfT I A 7 u s, 4 " f. OOLLIM em m. PIOWA . . _T__ .. .. T .,_...: LEGEND C U. E, COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING P.O.0 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O. T POINT OF TERMINATION P.B PLAT BOOK WANLY ENGINEERING I REM90NS DATE AND DESIGN, INC. ( -CJWf w.0 0"M Q. u.o UOWW.c 5101 MAPJ.0 twM [•St, 113 71D7 -.ats. no.o• 3+,� cr, G� �J 1 -� M J! This Instrument Was Prepared By, Record and Return To: Brian J. McDonough, Esq. Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 2172674 OR: 2306 PG: 1032 KICOUID is OINCIAL 11CO1DS of COLLIII COOETT, IL 04121/97 at 09:24AX OUGHT I. BIM, CUR RIC 111 42.00 IIDIIIIG 2.00 DOC -.70 .70 COHIS 9.00 Zeta: f+ l� J C11I1 TO TH1 BOARD - IM10RIC1 4T1 IL001 1IT 7240 (RESERVED) THIS EASEMENT granted this A- day of eye.,144 4— , 1996, by EASTRIDGE FA.RTNERS, LTD., a Florida limiteci partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor "), whose post office address is 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite, Miami, Florida 33145, Attention: Mr. Francisco Rojo, to the BOARD OF COUNTY CONCviISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee "), whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112. RECITALS A. The Grantor is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property more particularly described on Exhibit: "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Easement Property "). B. The Grantor desires to grant a non - exclusive easement over the Easement Property in favor of the Grantee, arid the Grantee desires that such easement be granted. AGR8EXE= NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the following grants, agreements, covenants and restrictions are made: 1. Recitals. The Recitals hereinabove contained are true and correct and are made a part hereof as if fu:_ly set forth herein. 2. Grant of Epsemen�. The Grantor hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, non - exclusive easement, license, and privilege for 12C*'3 roadway purposes, upon the following described lands being located in Collier County, Florida, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 3. Real Estate Taxes; Maintenance. Grantor shall be responsible for the payment_ of all real estate taxes, sales and use taxes and other impositions assessed against the Easement Property and for maintaining the Easement Property in accordance with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances and regulations. 4. Limiting Access to Easement Area. In the event the Grantor shall desire to construct a gate across the entrance to the Easement Area or otherwise limit the Grantee's access to the Easement Area, Grantor shall be permitted to do so, on condition that the Grantor shall construct, at Grantor's sole cost and expense, a cul -d -sac or turnaround area on the Grantor's property which is adjacent_ to the Easement Area, of sufficient size to permit vehicles to turn around and exit the entrance to the Easement Area (the "Alternative Easement Area "). In such event, (i) the easement interest granted herein shall be terminated by written instrument executed by Grantee in recordable form and (ii) Grantor shall execute an easement agreement in favor of Grantee with respect to the Alternative Easement Area, which shall be in the form of this Agreement, excepting therefrom this Section 4. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written. Witnesses: Cam_ Print Name : rl(CL4A�j L S � Print Name : C z EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership c By: Related Capri Housing, cr Inc . , a Florida corporation, its sole -- general partner r-J CIL By: Francisco Rojo, ice President 12C 34 STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before :ne this II day of 1996, by Francisco Rojo, as Vice President of Related Capri dousing, Inc., a Florida corporation, the sole general partner of Eastridge Partners, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, on behalf of the corporation and as an act of the partnership. Personally Known / OR Produced Identification Type of Identification Produced Print or Staihp_- NA-me: Notary Public, State of Florida at Large Commission No.: My Commission Expires: imm.-mv — 1p1 XzW GA3GA G: \w- BJM\30364 \360 \EAiE -RD Mr 1i0., �A/�R 29 1999 C n C. Q r� G c u .a 2C 3 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND TIEING A PART OF TRACT 'B' OF PLANTATION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 80 THROUGH 82, INCLUSI:YE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 'A' OF SAID PLAT OF PLAMATION AND RUN N7$ °53'45'W FOR 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN S l 1'06' 15' W FOR 60.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N78'53'45 "W FOR 37.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE: SOUTHEA.STERI Y; THENCE RUN 30.68 FEET AU3NG THE ARC OF SAM CURVE, HAVIrNYG A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A CENT3 AL, ANGLE OF 70.18'30', A CHORD OF 28.79 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF S65 °57'00' W TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTIAEASTERLY; THENCE RUN 124.56 FEET AU:)NG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A CF.2MAL, ANGLE OF 142 "43'51', A CHORD OF 94.76 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF N77050'20'W TO A POINT OP TANGENCY; THENCE RUN N(X *211'25'W FOR c 59.89 FEET TO A NON- TANiGEN'TIAL INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE � CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, THENCE RUN 116.58 FEEL AU)NG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 390.00 FEET, A CEI`rn'AL ANGLE � OF 17'34'40', A CHORD OF 116.12 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF S87'41'03'E TO A POINT OF TANGENCY, THENCE RUN S711.53'45`E FOR a 79.29 FEET TO THE POIN-T OF BEGINNING, ALL BEING IN AND A PART OF � PLANTATION AND PLANTATION UNIT TWO AND CONTAINING 0.31 ACP".IES, MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTR[CITONS AND RESEX&ITO S OF I WOM I I` A" 2: w - �w�.i� ��,..r OG MOl1W. t Q Mi two Owv _. m t'1 ��-'��, 41 wsawd WdbA" Ii: _ 11 2C 3 1 Y rf I Ll, III h v 4 4 O O A � / 1 � I , � I 6L— -- `f �� I avor Ou" N qi soft ;•aa:sa•ea•i�i33i TOTt: L P. 03 �eaa Q #l!t5s cn U~ 1 Y rf I Ll, III h v 4 4 O O A � / 1 � I , � I 6L— -- `f �� I avor Ou" N qi soft ;•aa:sa•ea•i�i33i TOTt: L P. 03 12C 3 JOINDER BY MORTGAGEE The undersigned FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, a corporation organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1716 et seq., a Co- Mortgagee, under that certain mortgage from EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, dated as of August 1, 1996, recorded on September 5, 1996, in Official Records Book 2225, Page 173, as assigned by assignment recorded in Official Records Book, 2225, Page 208, both of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, in the original amount of $9,800,000.00 covering all /or a portion of the property described in the foregoing Easement, does hereby acknowledge that the terms of said Easement are and shall be binding upon the undersigned and its successors in title. IN WITNESS VTHEREOF, these presents have been executed this day of January, 1997. WITNESSES: FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION Print Name: :,o� %7 r_ lnt Name Sjnn f' �. of I ! Na e Title: ThtlTPtas F. Neal, Jr., �lce Pres.d n t STATE OF G 1 R ) COUNTY OF T� BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this da appeared t" i �-Ck} known by me to be the of Federal National Mortgage Association, a corporation organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association. Charter Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1716 et seq., and he /she acknowledged to and before me that he /she executed the said instrument- ' , acting in his /her said official capacity, for and as to the act and deed of said Association, and in its name, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and after being duly authorized and directed. _WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State aforesaid, on this, t. e day of January, 1997. ary Publ c State of E(i If+ Print Name V o My Commission Expires: \N -B.'M \30364 \360 \JOINDER.PNM C t^` 4 c: cr G t- c C., 12C 3 JOINDER BY MORTGAGEE The undersigned FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, Mortgagee, under that certain mortgage from EAST'RIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, dated as of August 1, 1996, recorded cn September 5, 1996, in Official Records Book 2225, Page 220, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, in the original amount of $9,882,443.00 covering all /or a portion of the property described in the foregoing Easement, does hereby acknowledge that the terms of said Easement are and shall be binding upon the undersigned and its successors in title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these presents have been executed this �day of �. WITNESSES: FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA Print Name t4azia Zamora BY: — Print' Name: C. Laura ,ani er Name: %,- C- 4�-C,-e Title: � rGc- , - STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day appeared peter _ G. LaDham known by me to be the Senior Vice President _ of First Union National Bank of Florida, and lie /she acknowledged to and before me that lie /she executed the said instrument, acting in his /her said official capacity, for and as to the act and deed of said Bank, and in its name, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and after being duly authorized and directed. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State aforesaid, on this, the day of 7. Notary Public State of/Florida o....,, P� "Met, LAURA BRANIGER I?y ;; iS� }37nrrHk�&es May 2, 1997 a;,,.?`�' Comm. No. CC 275148 \W - &7M \30364 \360 \JOI NDER. PJ O r� c...a 0 rn 0 w 00 12 3 JOINDER BY MORTGAGEE The undersigned FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, an agency and instrumentality of the State of Florida, Mortgagee, under that certain mortgage from EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, dated August 29, 1996, recorded on September 5, 1996, in Official Records Book 2225, Page 274, of the Public Records of Collier County, ?lorida, in the original amount of $2,585,000.0 covering all /or a portion of the property described in t:he foregoing Easement, does hereby acknowledge that the terms of said Easement are and shall be binding upon the undersigned and its successors in title. IN WITNESS WHERECF, these presents have been executed this_'.' day of January, 1997. WITNESSES: P_ int Name : Print T,4ame: tlgiov_ � Q�Un STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF LEON ) FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY By: l 7 �lX Name: Susan J e gh Title: Execut' _ /Director BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day appeared Susan J. Leigh, known by me to be the Executive Director of FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, an agency and instrumentality of the State of Florida, and she acknowledged to and before me tha- She executed the said instrument, acting in her said official capacity, for and as to the act and deed of said Agency, and in its name, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and after being duly authorized and directed. WITNESS my ;zand and official seal in aforesaid, on this, the 1.3" day of January, G: \W- RJN. \3G364\ 360 \JOi'7DER. P4F tary Public Stat the County and State 1997. of Florida ,Lr- Itit Print Name My Commission Expires: O �J C�J G?l G7 w ko 1 ? C 3"1 JOINDER BY MORTGAGEE The undersigned UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE, a Co- Mortgagee, under that certain mortgage from EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, dated as of August 1 1996, recorded on September 5, 1996, in Official Records Eook 2225, Page 173, as assigned by assignment recorded in Official Records Book 2225, Page 208, both of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, in the original amount of $9,800,000.00 covering all /or a porti'Dn of the property described in the foregcing Easement, does hereby acknowledge that the terms of said Easement are and shall be binding upon the undersigned and its successor; in title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, of GeFrE'Fit 3< , 19S4. WITNESSES: these presents have been executed this day /ri/n_tName:V•_�yc,�.ti� UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE, By Print Name: ame : STEVEN V VA , I n Title: VAC F'R,E WjENT STATE OF p !(IcJ ) COUNTY OF BEFORE \M1�,,t the undersigned authority, this day ���N �t'.Y��c�,�Z �,, known by me to be the _ of UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, AS anp,aar ed. ' -I -, .' :� TRUSTEE:, and he /she acknowledged to and before me that he /she executed the said instrument, acting in his/her said official capacity, for and as to the act and deed of said Trustee, and in its name, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and after being duly authorized and directed. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the Ccunt:y and State aforesaid, on this, the )3,-,'day of �, 199ra . j,,.,,..�'Y Notary Public State of — _LHSISTG3RWr; W'RKL Print Name Notary Public. Stsut of Now York My Commission Expires: No. OIGR5012466 Qualified in New lrprir Courm Co ini"ion Exairee .Juno 15, 1997 ,: \N -B,TM \30364 \360 \JOINDER.US r r CD cam: C'; c c c **' 2172675 OR: 2306 PG: 1041x Naples Daily News 11COIDID is OIFICUL RICOIIDS of COLLItI COUTI, IL Naples, FL 33940 04/21/97 at 09:24111 DQIGHI I. BROCI, CLIRI RIC FPI 6.00 Affidavit of Publication COPII.i 1.00 Retz: -- ---- - - - --• ctatt TO i IRTIROFFICI 4 "B FLOOR II7 7240 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FINANCE DEPT. - TOOL GAMLING PO BOX 613016 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 - 08 7097 57466455 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. lamb, who on oath says that he serves as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on da;as listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily Neva is a newspaper published st Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said rwsaap•r has heretofore been continieusly polished in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as setcrd class sail wetter st the post office in Naples, in said Collier Canty, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he hai neither paid nor promised any person, firm or coporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing thie advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED GA: 0406 AD SPACE: 3.333 INCH FILED ON: 04/07/97 i 31"ture of Affiant MOM OF F O LIC HEARING W .st -4 -0: : fit elwa of cmnh MW � M MQY!lRi 10 'A of Ilea e[ ev c l wd's DWIM 00.1le"'to eetarieFlt:lit amm go ft 0W i OI "ee�:l,ecr�dMl Ifs fReofjl 1� [10416 1M Moe tl Tom CWt A9s � .Aill q� d Pb�dRas UqE as P1aRaffltol • n IOM IM. at thf.Pbtc ReMft ell CAar CWr, r�ar�- hwafEaf R 1fT' t icy bt Vlore is fit 5.vm to and Subscribed before me this �_ day of, r Personally known by we y�'.'��' >C i Arp I-- ¢ �� liat>'milQFS Collier Ceuftty �4iauwS, " M .. t/d.l1991S Judith A. FW ipan • P" CcN.il AI$3 W / C ioem EXPIRES ^I f r D Fsbnruy 19. 2000 }su T 1Cr r�,sr s4nwrrs, eC. '1 2C 3 Collier County, Florida REOJESI FOR LEGAL ApvERTISING OF punLIC NEARINGS To: Clerk to the Scard: please place the following as a: ,. .1 2 IK ) Norlsal Legal Advertiswnent ( ) Other: _ (Display Adv., location, etc.) NwtawaNNwNww► aaawawawNlN► uww► wfaNf► uweNwe• fww•awa ►watuawwweNwwfuwNweNNfw♦ JaN NawNaawNwaww►wNNawwwwfNw Originating Dept.Miv. Person: Date: OFFICE OF FRANCHISE ADMIN. /CMA (sign clearly) wa•. fww► waaAfww• w• eaww•• fwfflwflfaw•►►• aw! 1• aa1► Iwf• r•► aA••♦ wawaRtaaawwwwla ♦taatwa•fwwfaa•a•,Ifwfaaa. aRwaalfff ♦afwwwt eafw ♦fwt• PeiAtion No. (If none, gi•,e brief description): ff +ff•1 ww1► Hww•♦•♦a•aw►ww••r►• A•• A .ewA•w.•f.ww• ►•1 ► ....... •rlrf ►N wwwwwlwl Nwwf Hwflaaawt ♦ww..wwwlrwwwfa 'M•wwa ww rfwaKH► Petitioner: (nom t address): Name i address of any persons(s) to bt notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space needed, attach s"rate she^r) Nea. ing before: C 1I BCC I 1 8ZA ( i Other — — - • a••. a. f•.►•.•►.w 1f •►•atr.+ + ♦•.•................. n........... +.r...•... uA••►•• u►•• aaaawe,► aw +Rfw ►►waww•wwww.lwwrwfn••a•wt•• Rec, r-ited hearing dat•: 2 1 g�`•ed o' r<J "rriserrnt appe3rirg ] Q, days tK r! hearing. New.peper(s) to be used. (co�lr - te - if ixiwrtant ( i, ( jC) ilapl es Oaily Nw5 or legally required ( ) i 1 other wN•wawa »a•wA +wawwww►ft tf► fu•• ASr.•► wa. w• •aw.,a.wa•fa•t+aa +w►t•••►•a•utf awawww arfwaawf ww♦ rwrusaaeuewww•wwa►tt wa ►••f f.w•wf Prorosed Te•.t. (Include legal description L coeman location i size): Recommendation to a£oJpt an Ordinance to repeal land supercede Collier County Ordinance No. 88 -90, as amended, and herby establish the County's new policy concerning Telecommuni.catior� provides and services; .. - Ccaat)ion petition(s), if urrf, 6 p-oposed hearing date. wtfw l►► lf►•►►f faflw /ffwfffw /•f ►.lwffwafa•Jt•awff4f taf• afwr ♦If•.►6rftlw!•faf ►lftffftlf ff♦ Rff• fwR ►fffflff1f1f1fa�.w•wlfw ►!lwfw ones petition Fee include A\ W.rtislrlg Cost? Tel I ) go ( I if yes, chat account slrnlid be charged fw advertising costri. 111-100210 •N9�rwwNrlfarfwff ♦w Ralaaaawat wa•awAt•••t••1w ►w Aefw Nwfrf if aw •laaff llfaNafwffaN NNf Na Na ffff•aaa Naaaf ftww..awww wwfw•wN Revit -wed by -IM Approved try: Divition Rend __Date_ County Manager _ Date_ List Attachments:(t) Title (2) Executive SUM. (3) Ordinance •rr.f ►fau•►►awwf awwawwNNwww AA ♦twtr•f►w ►rf.•••ru ► farof w ►trawtww•afaawwwattwww :wafafNwf wa. aaufwaafaaaa NRwurawuwwuaa QISIR'BtJJlIQN J�t5TRt1CTI0NS A. Ear hearings before BCC or BZA: Ir.itistitV person to complete one copy and obtain Division Head approvat before submitting to County Manager. NOTE: IfSegst doc+�nrertt is ir*rotved be Burg that ortY_necesiSary legal rr�view, or request fx sme Is subasitted to Carty AttoMer�tiefore at►rs ±ttiotoSZEit MMMM. The Manager's office will distribute 03pies: ( ) County K"ger agenda file; C ) Requesting Division; C ) original to �;ler•k's Office B. Qhtr hearings: initiating Division N•tai to approve and submit original to Clerk's officer, retaining a cap), for file. ♦ wwwfrwwfwNffaaNNrNNNNewwaaaaNwaaawawwfreawwwwwww •aw►r ►erauawaNRNwf NaaNNa►awwN..fa rwNNlNNNf►..NwwwNf wa roll C RK' S F-EM USE JJ DATE RECEIVED DATE ADYERTISO DATE OF P.N. Ordinance No. 97 - INDEX TELECOMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS ORDINANCE Fur, SECTION 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1.1: Purpos: Section 12: Definitions 2 Section 1.3: Registration 5 Section 1.4: Telecommunications License 5 Section 1.5: Telecommunications Franchise 5 Section 1.6: Cabic T,,ievision Franchise 5 Sxtion 1.7: Application to Existing Franchises & Agreements 5 Section 1.8: Penalties 5 Section 1.9: Other Remedies 6 Section 1.10: Sevembility 6 SECTION 2: REGISTRATION OF TEL.EC_'OMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS AND PROVIDERS 5 Section 2.1: Registration Required Section 2.2: Registration Fee 7 Section 2.3: Purpose of Registration 7 SF;( —HON 3: TELECOMMUNICATIONS LICENSE 7 Section 3. L Telecommunications License 7 Section 3.2: License Application 7 Section 3.3: Detennination by the County Section 3.4: Agreement 13 Section 3.5: Nonexclusive Grant 1 Section 3.6: No Fights Granted 13 Section 3.7: Temi of Grant l 3 1. 2 C ;a" Section 3.8: License Route 1() Section 3.9: Location of Facilities lt> Section 3.10: Construction Permits 1 Section 3.11: Compensation to County I I Section 3.12: Service to County Users I I Section 3.13: Amendment of Grant I I Section 3.14: Renewal Applications 12 Section 3.15: Rene,val Determinations 12 Section 3.16: rbiigation to Cure as a Condition of Renewal 12 SECTION 4: TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE 12 This Section is Reserved. SECTION 5: CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE 13 Section 5.1: Cable Television Franchise 13 Section 5.2: Franchise Application 13 Section 5.3: Determination by the County 15 Section 5.4: Agreement 16 Section 5.5: Nonexclusive Grant 16 Section 5.6: Tenn of Grant 16 Section 5.7: No Rights Granted 15 Section 5.8: Franchise Territory 15 Section 5.9: Location of Facilities 16 Section 5.10: Construction Permits 1:3 Section 5.11: Compensation to County 113 Section 5.12: Cable Television Franchise Fees N Section 5.13: Nondiscrimination 1 `� Section 5.14: Service to the County Section 5.15: Interconnection 1" It 1'e -C'4 SECTION 6: FEES AND COMPENSATION %'.3 Section 6.1: Section 5.16: Resources for Public Purposes, I -Net & PEG Section 6.2: Application and Revicw Fee Access 20 Section 5.17: Emergency Aiert Override 21 Section 5.18: Amendment of Grant 22 Section 5.19: Renewal Applications Z2 Section 5.20: Renewal Determinations 22 Section 5.21: Obligation to Cure as a Condition of Renewal :!3 SECTION 6: FEES AND COMPENSATION %'.3 Section 6.1: Purpose ,3 Section 6.2: Application and Revicw Fee :.3 Section 6.3: Other County Costs �: 3 Section 6.4: Reserved Compensation for Public Ways 3 Section 6.5: Compensation for County Property 2.3 Section 6.6: Construction Permit Fee 24 Section 6.7: Annual ROW Use Fees G4 Section 6.8: Telecommunication Fees 24 Section 69: Cable Fees 24 Section 6.10: Regulatory Fees and Compensation Not a Tax 21 Section 6.11: Report and Auditing 21 Section 6.12: Books and Records 2-) Section 6.13: Late Payment Penalty 2 i Section 6.14: Rate Notification 2 SECTION 7: CONDITIONS OF GRANT 2:") Section 7.1: Section 7.2: Section 7.3: Section 7.4: Section 7.5: Section 7.6: Location of Facilities 2`' Compliance with One -Call Utility Location 26 Construction Permits 26 Interference with the Public Ways 26 Damage to Property 2 Notice of Work 2 i ff 12 C' 4 NgQ Section 7.7: Repair and Emergency Work 27 Section 7.8: Maintenance of Facilities 27 Section 7.9: Relocation or Removal of Facilities �7 Section 7.10: Removal of Unauthorized Facilities 27 Section 7.11: Emergency Removal or Relocation of Facilities 28 Section 7.12: Damage to Grantee's Facilities 23 Section 7.13: Restoration of Public Ways, Other Ways and County property 2.3 Section 7.14: Facilities Maps 29 Section 7.15: Duty to Provide Information 2`> Section 7.16: Leased Capacity 29 Section 7.17: Grantee Insurance 20 Section 7.18: General Indcmnification 30 Section 7.19: Performance and Construction Surety 30 Section 7.20: Security Fund 31 Section 7.21: Remedies- Liquidated Damages K Section 7.22: Coordination of Construction Activities 33 Section 7.23: Assignments or Transfers of Grant 34 Section 7.24: Transactions Affecting Control of Grant 35 Section 7.25: Revocation or Termination of Grant 35 Section 7.26: Notice and Duty to Cure 35 Section 7.27: Hearing 36 Section 7.28: Standards for Revocation or Lesser Sanctions 36 SECTION 8: CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 37 Section 8.1: General 37 Section 8.2: Construction Codes 37 Section 8.3: Construction Permits 37 Section 8.4: Applications 37 Section 8.5: Engineer's Certification 38 Section 8.6: Traffic Control Plan 38 Section 8.7: Insurance of Permit 38 Section 8.8: Construction Schedule 38 Section 8.9: Compliance with Permit 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to tt 12 12 1,1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2�. 1-4 25 12C 4' :SECTION 9: PEA.IODIC EVALUATION, REVIEW AND NIODIFiCA'TICIN. 40 Section 9.1: Modification R" f. Section 8.10: Display of Permit 38 Section 8.11: Survey of Underground Facilities 39 Section 8.12: Non - complying Work 39 Section 8.13: Completion of Construction 39 Section 8.14: As -Built Drawings 39 Section 8.15: Restoration of Improvements 39 Section 8.16: Landscape Restoration 39 Section 8.17: Construction Surety 39 Section 8.18: Exceptions 39 Section 8.19: Responsibility of Oxner 40 :SECTION 9: PEA.IODIC EVALUATION, REVIEW AND NIODIFiCA'TICIN. 40 Section 9.1: Modification 40 Section 9.2: Public Hearings 40 Section 9.3: Proposed Changes 40 Section 9.4: The Negotiation 40 Section 9.5: Mediation 40 Section 9.6: Contract Amendment 40 Errs) 12C 4 ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THF. REGISTRATION OF TELECOMMUN- ICATIONS CARRIERS AND PROVIDERS; FOR TELECOMMUN- ICATIONS LICENSES; FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISES; FOR CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISES; FOR FEES AND COMPENSATION; FOR CONDITIONS OF GRANTS BY THE COUNTY; FOR CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY; FOR PERIODIC EVALUATION, REVIEW AND MODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION INTO THE; CODE, OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 88-90, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, 'WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. Florida, enacted County Ordinance No. 88 -90, the Collier County Cable Television Franch;se Ordinance on rlovember 15, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Board enacted Ordinance No. 94 -12 on March 17, 1994, which amended Ordinance No. 88 -90; and WHEREAS, the Board enacted County Ordinance No. 96 -15 on March 26, 1996, which further amended Ordinance No. 88-90; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to enact this Ordinance to repeal and supersede Ordinance No. 88 -90, and expand the provisions to include all telecommunications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SEC °PION ONE: THAT THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE; IS ENACTED: SFCTION 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS This Ordinance repeals and supercedes Ordinance No. 88 -90, as amended. This Ordinance is entitled and should be cited as the "Collier County Telecommunications Standards Ordinance." S,xtion 1.1: Purposes: The purposes and intent herein is to: 12G 41 1.1.1: Establish the County's policy concerning telecommunication providers and services; 1.1.2: Establish guidelines, standards and time frames for the exerc se of the County's authority with respect to the regulation of telecommunica:ion providers and services; 1.1.3: Promote competition in telecommunications in the County; 1.1.4: Minimize unnecessary County regulation of telecommunications providers and services; 1.1.5: Encourage the provision of advanced and competitive t:�lecommunirations services on the widest possible basis to the businesses, institutions and residents of the County; 1.1.5: Permit and manage reasonable access to the public ways )f the County for telecommunications purposes on a competitively neutral basis; 1 .1.7: Conserve the limited phy.;Ical capacity of the public ways held in public trust by the County: 1.1.8: Assure thai the Cnunty's current and ongoing costs of granting and regulating private access to and use of the public ways are fully paid for 'ay the persons and entities s"-king and using such access and causing such costs; 1.1.9: Secure fair and reasonable compensation to the County and tic residents of the County for permitting private use of the public ways in he County; 1.1.10: Assure that all telecommunications carriers providing facilities or services within the County comply with the County's ordinances, rules and regulations; 1.1.1 1 : .fissure that the County can continue to fairly and responsibly protect the public health, safety and welfare with respect to telecommunications; 1.1.12: Enable the County to discharge its public trust consistent wit.i rapidly evolving Federal and Florida regulatory policies, industry competition, and technological development. Section 1.2: Definitions: For the purpose herein, and the interpretation and eriforeement thereof, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings unless the context of the sentence in which the word is used indicates otherwise: "Cable Act" means the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 1.7 U.S.C. §532, et seq., as now and hereafter amended. "Cable Operator" means a telecommunications carrier providing or offering to provide "cable service" within the County as that term is defined in the Cable Act. "Cable Service" has the same meaning as in the Cable Act. "County Authorities" means the Board of Collier County Commissions and/or their designee(s). "County" means the County of Collier, Florida. "County Property" means and includes all real property owned by the County, other than public streets and utility easements as those terms are defined herein, and all property held in a proprietary capacity by the County, which are not subject to right -ef- -way licensing and franchising as provided in this Ordinance. "Excess Capacity" means the volume or capacity in any duct, conduit, manhole, handhole or other utility facility within any public way that is or will be available for t,sc for additional tclecommunicxtions facilities. "FCC"' or "Federal Communications Commission" means the Fcde-al administrative agency, or its lawful successor in function, authorized to regulate and oversee telecommunications camc;rs, services and/or providers. "Florida Public Servicc Commission" means the Florida administrative agency, or its lawful successor in function, authorized to regulate and oversee telecomr«ur►ications carriers, services andior providers in Florida_ "Grantee" is all inclusive and includes each respective person or entity in privity with the County under this Ordinance regarding any telecommunications matter and the respective franchisee, grantee, and/or other permittec acquires any privilege, right, franchi:.e, permit, and /or license pursuant to this Ordinance. "Herein" means within this Ordinance. "Other Ways" means the highways, streets, alleys, utility easements ancUor other rights - of -way within the County, but under the jurisdiction and control of a governmental entity other than the County, including all dependent agencies of the County. "Overhead Facilities" means utility poles, utility facilities and t as ommunications facilities located above the surface of the ground, including the underground supports and foundations for such above - ground facilities. 3 1 2 c '4— + "Person" includes corporations, companies, associations, joint stock companies or associations, firms, partnerships, limited liability companies, and individuals; and includes their lessors, trustees, receivers and other authorized representatives. "Public Street" means any highway, street, alley or other public right of way designed or used for motor vehicle travel and under the jurisdiction and/or control of the County which rights and/or interests have been acquired, established, dedicated or devoted to such purposes and not inconsistent with telecommunications facilities. "Public Way or Right of Way (ROW)" includes all public streets and ut:lity easements as those words are defined herein, now or hereafter owned by the County, but only to the extent of the County's right, title, interest and. /or authority to grant a license or franchise to occupy and use the ROW for telecommunications facilities. "State" means Florida. "Surplus Pole Space" means that portion of the usable space on a utility pole which has the necessary clearance from other pole users, as required by the orders and regulations of the FCC, to allow its use by a telecommunications carrier for a pole attachment. " Telecommunications Carrier" means and includes every person that directly or indirectly oATns, controls, operates or manages plant, equipment or property within ih_ Caunty, used or to be used for the purpose of offering telecommunications service. "Telecommunications Facilities" means plant, equipment and proper y, including and not limited to, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestais, antennae, electronics and other appurtenances used or planned to be used to transmit, receive, distribute, provide and /or offer telecommunications service(s). "Telecommunications Provider" means and includes every person who provides telecommunications service over telecommunications facilities without any ownership or manas;ement control of the facilities. "Telecommunications Service" means the providing or offering for rent, sale or lease, or in exchange for other value received, of the transmittal of voice, data, imag,:, graphic and video programming information between or among points by wire, cable, fiber optics, laser, microwave, radio, sateilite or substantially similar facilities, with or without be nrfit of any closed transmission medium. "Telecommunications System" See "Telecommunications Facilities." "Underground Facilities" means utility and telecommunications facilities located under the surface of the ground, excluding the underground foundations or supports for Overhead Facilities. 4 ^l C. t ti 1 "Usable Space means the total distance between the top of a utility pole and the lowest possible attachment point that provides the minimum allowable vertical clearance as specified in the orders and regulations of the Florida Public Service Commission. "Utility Easement means any easement owned by the County and acquired, established, dedicated, devoted or used for public utility purposes not inconsistent with telecommunications facilities. "Utility Facilities" means plant, equipment and property, including but not limited to the poles, pipes, mains, conduits, ducts, cables, wires, plant and equipment located under, on or a'L)ove the surface of the ground within the public ways of the County and used.. or to be used for the purpose of providing utility or telecommunications services. Section 1.3: Registration: Except as may otherwise expressly provided herein, all telecommunications carriers and/or providers engaged in the business of trarisrnitting, supplying or furnishing of telecommunications service originating or terminating in the County shall register with the County in accordance with Section 2 herein. Section 1.4: Telecommunications License: Except as otherwise provided herein, each telecommunications tamer that desires to construct, install, operate, maintain, or otherwise locate or relocate any telec.,ommunications facilities in, under, over or across any public way of the County for the purpose of providing telecommunications service to persons and areas not within the unincorporated County shall first obtain a license granting the use of such public ways frorn the County pursuant to Section 3 herein. Section 1.5: Telecommunications Franchise: This Definition is Rc :,cried Section 1.6: Cable Television Franchise: Except as otherwise provided herein, each telecommunications carver that desires to construct, install, operate, maintain or locate telecommunications facilities in any public way of the County for the purpose of providing cable service to persons in the County shall First obtain a cable franchise from the County as provided in Section 5 herein. Section 1.7: Application to Existing Franchises and Agreements: This Ordinance shall have no effect on any existing franchise or agreement until: the expiration of said franchise or agreement; 1.7.2: an amendment to an unexpired franchise or franchise agreement, unless both parties agree to defer full compliance to a specific date not later than the respective agreement's present expiration date. Section I.$: Penalties: Any person found guilty of violating, disobeying, omitting, neglecting or refusing to comply with any applicable provision herein shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense. A S I 2U -4 separate and distinct offense may be deemed committed each day on whic i the violation occurs or continues. Section 1.9: Other Remedies- Nothing in this ordinance limits any judicial or other remedies the County may then have at law or in equity. The County has such other remedies as are contained in Section 1-6 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, or as otherwise provided by Florida law. SECTION 2: REGISTRATION OF TELECOMMUNICATION, ; CARRIERS AND PROVIDERS Section 2.1: Registration Required: Not later than ninety (90;, days following the effective date of this Ordinance (unless the time pericd for the specific application is extended by the County's Franchise Administrator for go xi cause) all telecommumca °:ions carriers and providers that offer or provide any telecommunications service for a fee directly to the public, within the County, or whose facilities traverse the County, shall register with the County pursu ;.nt to this Section 2. Registration shall be on forms to be provided by the County Franchise Administrator, which forms shall provide for the following requirtcl information: 2.1.1: The identity and legal status of the registrant, including any ffiIiates. 2.1.2: The name, address and telephone number of the officer agent or employee responsible for the accuracy of the registration statement. 2.1.3: A description of registrant's existing or proposed telecommunications facilities within the County. 2.1.4: A description of the telecommunications service that the registrant intends to offer to provide, nr is currently offering or providing within the Cc unty. 2.1.5: information sufficient to determine w;rether the registrant is ;object to public way licensing or franchising under this Chapter. 2.1.5: Information sufficient to determine whether the transmission, origination or receipt of the telecommunications services provided or to be provided by the registrant constitutes an occupation or privilege subject to any telecommunications tax, utility message tax or other occupation tax imposed by the County. 2.1.7: Information sufficient to determine that the applicant has applioi for and received any certificate of authority required by the Florida Public Servi(:e Commission to provide telecommunications services or facilities within the County. 2.1.8: Information sufficient to determine that the applicant has applied for and received any construction permit, operating license or other approvah required by the 6 12C Federal Communications Commission to provide telecomm unrt:azions services or facilities within the County. 2.1.9: Such other information as the County Franchise Administrator may reasonably require. Section 2.2: Registration Fee: Each application for registration as a ielecommunications carder or provider shall be accompanied by a twenty -five dollar (525.00) fee. Section 2.3: Purpose of Registration: The purpose of registration under Section 2 is to: 2.3.1: Provide the County with accurate and current information concerning the telec:omrnunications carriers and providers who offer or provide telecommunications services within the County, or that own or operate telecommunic,allon facilities within the County; 23.2: Assist th° County in enforcement of this Ordinance; 2.3.3: Assist the Cour:ty in the collection and cnforcernent of any taxes, franchise fees, license fees or other charges that may be due the County; 2.3.4: Assist the County in monitoring compliance with Federal, State and local laws, rules andlor regulations. SECTION 3: TELECOMMUNICATIONS LICENSE Section 3.1: Telecommunications License: A telrcoramunicatIms license shall be required of any telecommunications carrier whe desires to occupy specific public ways of the County for the purpose of providing telecommunications service.; to person's or areas within the incorporated areas of the County. Section 3.2: License Application: Any person that desires a telecommunications license pursuant to this Section 3 shall file an application with the County which shall include the following information: 3.2.1: The identity of the license applicant, including all affiliates o-' the applicant. 3.2.2: A description of the telecommunications service that are offered or that will be offered by licensee over its telecommunications facilities. 3.2.3: A description of the transmission media that will be used by the licensee to offer or provide such telecommunication services. 7 12C 4 3.2.4: Preliminary engineering plans, specifications and a network map of the facilities to be located within the County, all in sufficient detail to identify: a. the location and route requested for applicant's proposed telecommunications facilities. b. the location of all overhead and underground public utility, telecommunication, cable, water, sewer, drainage and other facilities in the public way along the proposed route. C. the location(s), if any, for interconnection with the t,�iecommunications facilities of other telecommunications carriers. d. the specific trees, stu-uctures, improvements, facilities and obstructions, if any, that applicant proposes to temporarily or permanently remove or relocate. 32.5: If applicant is proposing to install overhead facilities, evidercc that surplus space is available for locating its telecommunications facilities on existing utility poles along the proposed route. 3.2.6: If applicant is proposing an underground installation in existing: ducts or conduits xvithin the public ways, information in sufficient detail to identify: a. the excess capacity currently available in such ducts or conduits before installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities; b. the excess capacity, if any, that will exist in such ducts or conduits after installation of applicant's telecommunications facilitic 3.2.7: if applicant is proposing an underground installation within new ducts or conduits to be constructed within the public ways: a. the location proposed for the new ducts or conduits; b. the excess capacity that will exist in such duct; or conduits after installation of applicant's telecommunications facilitie<.. 3.2.8: A preliminary construction schedule and completion date. 3.2.9: Acknowledgment that the applicant's traffic control plan shail conform with FL- DOT's manual on uniform traffic control procedures as related to public safety, including lane closures and construction wont in the public way. I ?. C , 3.2.10: Financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles demonstrating the applicant's financial ability to construct, operate, maintain, relocate and remove the facilities. This requircment can be waived or modified by the County's Franchise Administrator if such information is then current and on file with the County's Franchise Authority. 3.2.11: Information in sufficient detail to establish the applicant's technical qualifications, experience and expertise regarding the telecommunications facilities and services described in the application. This requirement can be waived or modified by the Franchise Administrator if such information is then current and on file with the County's Franchise Authority. 3.2.12: Information to establish that the applicant has obtained all other governmental approvals and permits to constn.ict and operate the facilities and to offer or provide the telCCOmmunications services. 3.2.13: All fees, deposiis or charges required pursuant to Section 6 of this Chapter. 3.2.14: Such other and further information as may be reasonable requaroi by the County's Franchise Administrator. Section 3.3: Final Decision by the County: Within one hundred twf:nty days (120) days after receiving a complete application under Section 3.2 herein, the Franchis,° Administrator will issue written deter urination to grant or deny the application in whole or in part, applying the following standards. If the application is denied, the written decision shall inJude all reasons for the denial. 3.3.1: The financial and technical ability of the applicant. 3.3.2: The legal authority of the applicant. 3.3.3: The capacity of the public ways to accommodate the aaplicant's proposed facilities. 3.3.4: The capacity of the public ways to accommodate additional utility and telecommunications facilities if the license is granted. 3.3.5: The damage or disruption, if any, of public or private facilities, improvements, service, travel or landscaping if the license is granted. 33.6: The public interest in minimizing the cost and disruption of construction within the public. ways. 3.3.7: The service that applicant will provide to the community and n;gon. 12C 3.3.8: The effect, if any, on public health, safety and welfare if the license is granted. 3.3.9: The availability of alternate routes and/or locations for the prcqx)sed f ac il1 tics- 3.3.10: Complianc,:t with applicable Federal, Stale and local tekcc- rnmunkatiom lave, rules, regulat.ions and policies. 3.3.11: Such other factnrs as may demonstrate thad lie grant to use the put'c ways Will serve the community interest. Section 3.4. Agreement: No license granted hereunrdcr shall L" efft%:t"ve Until the applicant and the County have executed a ATitten agreement setting forth tix particular terms xxi provisions under which the license to occupy and use public ways of the Ca��ty will be granted- provisions County's Franchise Administrator is hereby delegated full authority to execute each such agreement on behalf of the County. Section 3.5. Nonexclusive Gr,,nt: No license granted under this Szction shall confer any exclusive right, privilege, license of franchise. Section 3.6. No Rights Granted: No license granted under this Section shall convey any right, title or interest in the public ways, but shall be deemed a bare lic=se with no interest couple thereto only to use and occupy the public ways for the limited purposes and term expressly stated in the grant. Further, no license shall be construed as any warranty of title to any persons or entities. Section 3.7. Term of Grant: Unless otherwise expressly specified in a license agreement, a telecommunications license granted hereunder shall be in effect for a term of five (5) years from its effective date. Section 3.8. License Route: A telecommunications license granted under this Section sl :ail he limited to a grant of the specifically identified public ways and defined portions thereof. Section 3.9. Location of Facilities: Unless otherwise expressly specified in the respective license agreement, all facilities shall be constructed, installed and located in accordance with the following terms and conditions: 3.9.1: Telecommunications facilities shall be installed within an existing underground duct or conduit whenever excess capacity exists within such utility facility. 3.9.2: A licensee with permission to install overhead facilities shall install its telecommunications facilities on pole attachments to existing utility poles only, and then only if surplus space is available. 3.9.3: Whenever any existing electric utilities, cable facilities or telecommunications facilities are located underground within a public way of the County, a licensee 12C 4 with permission to occupy the same public way roust also locate its telecommunications facilities underground. 3.9.4: Whenever any new or existing electric utilities, cable facilities or telecommunications facilities are located or relocated underground within a public way of the County, each Grantee that currently occupies the same public way shall relocate its facilities underground at no cost to the State or County. Absent extraordinary circumstances or undue hardship as deternrined by the County Franchise Administrator and the County's Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, each such relocation underground must be made concurrently to minimize disruption of the public ways. If the existing Grantee does not relocate concurrently, then it must relocate underground within a reasonable period of time, which shall not be later than the end of the grant term cnless an extension of time is granted by the Comity's Franchise Administrator with concurrance by the County's Public Works Director. 3.9.5: Whencvcr new telecommunications facilities will exhaust they capacity of existing ducts, conduits, manholes and other facilities within a public street or utility easement to reasonably accommodate future telecommunications carriers or facilities, the Grantee shall at that time provide additional ducts, conduits, manholes and other facilities for nondiscriminatory access to future telecommunications tamers. Section 3.10: Construction Permits: All licensees are required to obtain construction permits for telecommunications facilitics as required in Section 8 herein provided, however, that nothing in this Section 3 shall prohibit the County and a licensee from a&. axing to alternative plan revie'w,, permit and construction procedures in a license agreement provided such alternative procedures provide substantially equivalent safeguards for responsible constriction practices. Section 3.11: Comperisa: ion to County: Fach license granted under this Section 3 is subject to the County's right., which is hereby expressly reserved, to annually fix a fair and reasonable compensation to be paid for the rights granted to the license:. Nothing in this Ordinance restricts the County_ and the licensee from agreeing to the compensation to be paid to the County by that Licensee. Section 3.12: Service to County Users: A licensee may be permitted to offer or provide telecommunications services to persons or areas within the County upon submitting an application for approval pursuant to Section 4 herein. Section 3.13: Amendment of Grant: 3.13.1: A new license application and grant shall be required of any telecommunications carrier that desires to extend or locate its telecommunications facilities in any public way of the County which are not expressly included in a license previously granted under this Ordinance or under Ordinance No. 88 -90, as amended. im ]. z C 4 3.13.2: If ordered by the County to locate or relocate its facilities in any public way not included in a previously granted license, the County shall summarily grant a license amendment without further application. ection 3.14: Renewal Applications: A Grantee that desires to rem:w its license under this Section 3 shall, not more than one hundred eighty (180) days nor less ti-an ninety (90) days before expiration of its then current license, file an application with the County for renewal of its license which application shali include the following: 3.14.1: Information required under Section 3.2 of this Section. 3.14.2: Any other information required by the license agreement between the County and the Grantee. Section 3.15: Renewal Determinations: Within ninety (90) day:, after receiving a complete application under Section 3.14 herein, the Franchise Administrator ;hall issue a written determination granting or de.rying the rcne,Nal application in whole or in oart, applying the following standards. If the renewal application is denied, the written determination shall include the reasons for non- renew ?I. , 5.1: The financial and technical abiiity of the applicant. 3.15.2: The legal authority of the applicant. 3.15.3: The continuing capacity of the public ways to accommocate the applicant's existing facilities. 3.15.4: The applicant's compliance with the requirements herein and the license agreement. 3.15.5: Applicable Federal, State and local telecommunications laws, rules, and regulations. 3.15.6: Such other factors as may demonstrate whether the continued grant to use the public ways will serve the community interest. Section 3.16: Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal: No license shall be renewed until all ongoing violations or defaults in the licensee's perform2nce of the license agreement, or of the requirements herein, have been cured, or a plan detailing the corrective action that will be promptly taken by the Grantee has been approved in writinl; by the County's Franchise Administrator. SECTION 4: TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE This Section is Reserved. 12 12C 4 SECTION 5: CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE Section 5.1: Cable Television Franchise: A cable television franchise shall be required of any cable television operator who desires to occupy any public way of the County to provide any cable television service to any person or entity in the unincorporated area of the County. Section 5.2: Franchise Application: Any person that desires a cable television franchise pursuant to this Section 5 shall file an application with the County which shall include the following information: 5.2.1: The identity of the franchise applicant, including all affiliates of the applicant. 52.2: A description of the cable service that is or will be offered or provided by the franchise applicant over its existing and/or proposed facilities. 5.2.3: A. description of the transmission media that will be used by the franchisee to offer or provide such service. 5.2.4: Preliminary engineering plans, specifications and a network map of the facilities to be located within the County, all in sufficient detail to idea; fy: a. the location and route requested for applicant's proposed telecommunications facilities. b. the location of all overhead and underground public utility, telecommunication, cable, water, sewer drainage and other facilities in the public way along the proposed route. C. the location(s), if any, for interconnection with telecommunications facilities of other providers or PEG access facilities. d. the specific trees, structures, improvements, facilities and obstructions, if any, that applicant proposes to temporarily or permanently remove or relocate. 5.2.5: If applicant is proposing to install overhead facilities, evidence that adequate surplus space is available to locate its telecommunications facilities on existing utility poles along the proposed route. 5.2.6: If applicant is proposing an underground installation in existing ducts or conduits within any public way, information in sufficient detzil to identify: a. the excess capacity then available in such ducts or conduits before installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities; 13 1 ?c b. the excess capacity, if any, that will exist in such ducts or conduits after installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities. 5.2.7: If applicant is proposing an underground installation wi -hin new ducts or conduits to be constructed within the public ways: a. the location proposed for the new ducts or conduits; b. the excess capacity that will exist in such ducts o;' conduits after installation of applicant's telecommunication facilities. 5.2.8: A preliminary construction schedule, including estimated completion dates. 5.2.9: Acknowledgment that any traffic control plan of the applV:ant shall conform with FI.- DOT's manual on uniform traffic control procedures as related to public safety issues regarding lane closures and construction work in the public way(s). 5.2.10: Unless waived by the County's Franchise Administrator, F.nancial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles demonstrating the applicant's financial ability to construct, operate, maintain, relocate and remove the facilities. 5.2.11: - Jnlcss waived by the County's Franchise Administratcr, information in sufficient detail to establish the applicant's technical quailfc.ations, experience and expertise regarding the telecommunications facilities and services described in the appl! cation. 5.2.12: Information to establish that the applicant has obtained all other governmental approvals and permits to construct and operate the facilities and to offer or provide the telecommunications services. 5.2.13: Whether or not the applicant intends to provide cable service, open video s ervice or other video programming service, and sufficient information to determine whether such service is subject to cable franchising 5.2.14: An accurate map showing the location of all existing cable television facilities in the County that applicant intends to use or lease. 5.2.15: A description of the services or facilities that the applicant will offer or make available to the County and other public, educational and govemmental institutions. 1 2C 4 1 5.2.16: A description of applicant's access and line extension policies. These policies shall conform to the provisions contained within Section 5.9 herein. 5.2.17: The area or areas of the County the applicant desires to serve and a schedule for build -out to the entire franchise area. 5.2.18: All fees, deposits or charges required pursuant to Section 6 herein. 5.2.19: Such other and further information as may be reasonably mquested by the County's Franchise Administrator. Section 5.3: Decision by the County: Within one hundred fifty (150) days after receiving a complete application under Section 5.2 herein, the Franchise Adtinistrator shall issue a written determination granting or denying the application in whole or in part, applying the following standards. if the application is denied, the written determination stall include the reasons for denial. 5.3.P The financial and technical ability of the applicant. 5.3.2: The legal authority of the applicant. 5.3.3: The capacity of the public ways to accommodate the applicant's proposed facilities. 5.3.4: The capacity of the public ways to accommodate additional utility and cable television facilities if the franchise is granted. 5.3.5: The damage or disruption, if any, of public or private facilities, improvements, service, travel or landscaping if the franchise is granted. 5.3.6: The public interest in minimizing the cost and disruption of construction within the public ways. 5.3.7: The service that applicant will provide to the community and region. 5.3.8: The effect, if any, on public health, safety and welfare if the lranchise requested is granted. 5.3.9: The availability of alternate routes and/or locations for the proposed facilities. 5.3.10: Applicable Federal, State, and local telecommunications laws, rules, and regulations. 5.3.11: Such other factors as may demonstrate whether the grant to use the public ways will serve the community interest. 1 [. C ►, Section 5.4: Agreement: No franchise shall be granted hereunder unless the applicant and the County have executed a written agreement setting forth the particular terms and provisions under which the franchise to occupy and use public ways of the County will be granted. The Franchise Administrator is hereby granted full authority to execute such agreements on behalf of the County. Section 5.5: Nonexclusive Grant: No franchise granted under this Section shall confer any exclusive right, privilege, license or franchise. Section 5.6: Term of Grant: Unless otherwise expressly specified in a franchise agreement, a cable television franchise granted hereunder shall be valid fo,- a term of ten (10) years from its effective date. Section 5.7: No Rights Granted: No franchise granted under this Section shall convey any 171oht, title or interest in the public ways, but shall be deemed a franchise only to use and occupy the public ways for the limited purposes and term stated in the grant. Further, no franchise shall be r.onstrued as any warranty of title to any person or entity. Section 5.8: Franchise Tr -mtory: A cable television franchise grunted under this Section shall be limited to the geographic area of the County to be served by the franchise Grantee, acid the specific public ways necessary to serve such areas. the cable television Gntec shall riot exclude from its services any high -cost (per customer) are<L, any rural locati m on, or any person based on that person's income. Section 5.9: Location of Facilities: Unless otherwise specified in a franchise agreement, all facilities shall be constructed, installed and located in a.cordance with the following terms and conditions: 5.9.1: The County, at its sole discretion, may require at not cost to the County the Grantee to locate and identify its rable television facilities within the public rights - -of -way. 5.9.2: The County reserves the right, upon reasonable notice, to require the Grantee at its expense to protect, support, temporarily di:;coznect, relocate or remove from the County's street any property of the Granted by reason of traffic conditions, public safety, street construction, real or plane c excavation, change or establishment of street grade, installation or planned installation of sewers, drains, water pipes, power and/or communication lines, tracts, or other types of structure or improvements 1.'r governmental agencies or any other structures proposed for public improvement. Reasonable notice for this provision means at least ninety (90) days, except in the case of emergencies where no specific notice period shall be required. The County shall endeavor to notify and seek comment from the Grantee with respect to minimizing disruption to the Cable System, where public works projects may affect the Grantees cable system. 16 12C 4 5.9.3: Cable Television facilities shall be installers within an existing underground duct or conduit whenever available excess capacity then exists within such utility facility. 5.9.4: A franchisee with permission to install overhead facilitie:; shall install its telecommunications facilities on pole attachments to existing utility poles only, and then only if surplus pole space is then available to that firarichisee. 5.9.5: Whenever any existing electric utility, cable facility or telecommunications facility is located underground within a public way of the County, a franchisee with permission to occupy the same public way must locate its cable television facilities underground at no cost to the County. 5.9.6: Whenever any nr_w or existing electric utilities, cable facilities or telecommunications facilities are located or relocated undergn)und within a public way of the County, each Grantee that currently occupies the same public way shall relocate its facilities underground at no cost to the State or County. Absent extraordinary circumstances or undue hardship as determined by the County Franchise Administrator and the County's Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, each such relocation underground must be 171712dc concurrently to minimize disruption of the public ways. If the existing Grantee does not relocate concurrently, then it must relocate underground within a rra:;onable period of time, which shall not be later than the end of the grant term unless an extension of time is granted by the County's Franchise Administrator witY concurrance by the County's Public Works Director. 5.9.7: Mhenever a public way exists to accommodate the Grantee's system, the Grantee shall no' locate its facilities off the public right of way and shrill make every effort to locate its telecommunications facilities within the public way before seeking private easements within the County. The Grantee, at no cost to the County of the State, shall relocate its facilities and appliances which are in conflict with County projects to upgrade or construct roadways. 5.9.8: The Grantee shall locate, place and construct its telecommunications facilities so as riot to interfere with the construction, location grid maintenance of sewer and/or water mains, lines or connections. The Grantee shall take appropriate preventative measures to protect existing facilities within the public rights -of -way. 59.9: Grantee shall restore and replace landscaped areas, pavement, pedestrian lighting, sidewalks, curbs, gutters or other facilities damaged by the Grantee and or its contractors with like material to their former condition at the Grantee's expense, and shall thereafter, from time to time, but no longer than one (1) year from the completion of the job, readjust, fill and finish the same as may be 17 12C 4 necessary due to settling of the earth associated with the Grantee's disruption of the public way. 5.9.10: Whenever new telecommunications facilities will exhaust the capacity of existing ducts, conduits, manholes and other facilities within a public: street or utility easement to reasonably accommodate future telecommunications carriers or facilities, the Grantee shall at that time provide additional ducts, conduits, manholes and other facilities for nondiscriminatory ac :cess to future telecommunications tamers. 5.9.11: The Grantee shall adhere to all Federal, State and local laws, rules and regulations regarding the location, construction, and maintenance of its telecommunications facilities within the public right -of way. Section 5.10: Construction Permits: All franchisees are required to obtain construction permits for telecommunications facilities as required in Section 8 h(,-rein prodded, however, that nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit the County and a franchisee from agreeing to alternative plan review, permit and construction procedures in their franchise agreement, provided such altemative procedures provide substantially equivalent safeguards for respcnsible construction prattlers. Section 5.1 1: Compensation to County: Each franchise granted under this Section is subject to the County's right, which is hereby expressly reserved, to ann> ally fix a fair and reasonable compensation to be paid for the rights granted to the franchisee; provided, nothing in this Ordinance prohibits the County and the frarchi.see from agreeing to the - ompensation to be paid to the County. Section 5.12: Cable Television Franchise Fees: The Grantee shall pay the County throughout the term of the franchise, as compensation, an annual franchise fee of five percent (5''r ,)) of the Grantee`s gross revenues, unless otherwise expressly provided otherwise in the franchise agreement. 5.12.1: All payments of franchise fees shall be due and payable quarterly by April 30, July 31, October 31 and January 31 for the preceding thre! (3) month period ending respectively on March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31. Franchise fee payments shall be accompanied by a report itr;mizing and setting forth the revenues/receipts and showing the calculation of the correct payment for the preceding quarterly period. 5.12.2 Gross revenues mean all revenue received by the Grantee arising from or attributable to the sale of cable services provided by Grantee: within the County or derived from the operation within the County of its System, including, and limited to all of the following: monthly Cable Service f -cs; installation, connection, disconnection, reconnection up /down grade fees for the provision of Cable Service; leased access fees, late fees; bad debt recovery; interactive Cable 13? 1 I 2_ C 11. Service fees; receipts for service and/or rentals; also :advertising revenues attributed to the operation of the Cable System and vidco or audio program services; also lea_;.d channel fees; video and/or audio program service equipment rentals; also advertising revenue received by G-aratee from video or audio program services; also revenues received by Grantee: from shopping and substantially similar channels. This sum shall be the basis for computing the fee required by Section 5.12 herein. 5.12.3 Gross revenues shall not include any of the following: converter or other equipment deposits, bad debts, franchise fees, FCC regulatory charges, any sales, excise or any other taxes collected by Grantee on behalf of any state, city, county or other governmental unit; refunds to subscribers by Grantee; sales type commissions actually paid to others; reimbursement for expenses (including returned check fees, copy expenses and similar items); or items excluded by local, State or Federal law. 5.12.4 To the extent permitted by law, gross revenues include: nwenues received for the provision of data transmission, point to point telecommunications, telephone or telephony services. Where advertising or other revenue arising from or attributable to the sale of cable services by Grantee is received by unrelated third parties not under control of Grantee, and some portion of that revenue is remitted to Grantee, only the portion of such revenues due and owing to Grantee (whether or nor actually received) shall be included in the calculation of gross revenues. Section 5.13: Nondiscrimination: Each franchisee shall make its cable television ser- ices available to any customer within its franchise area who shall nNuest such service, %without discrimination as to the terms, conditions, rates or charges for grantee's services; provided, however, that nothing in this Section shall prohibit a franchisee from making reasonable classifications among differently situated customer groups. Section 5.14: Service to the County: Each franchisee shall make its cable television services available to the County at its most favorable rate for similarly situated users, unless other -x!se expressly provided otherwise in the agreement. Section 5.15: Interconnection: For the purpose of and to the extent required to accomplish transporting I -Net and PEG access channels, the Grantee shall interconnect its telecommunications system with other systems in nearby areas, upon the directive of the County's Franchise Administrator. To fulfill this obligation, the Grantee sliall familiarize itself with all technical requirements needed to cause such interconnection. 5.15.1: Interconnection of the systems may be accomplished by direct hard cable connection, microwave link, satellite, or other appropriate means. 19 5.15.1: Upon receiving a directive from the County's Franchise Administrator to interconnect, the Grantees shall immediately initiate negotiations with the other affected system(s) in order that all costs may be shared equitably among the Grantees for both construction and operation of the interconnection link. Such interconnection shall be made within the time limits r.s established by the County's Franchise Administrator 5.15.3: The Grantees may be accorded reasonable extensions of the time to interconnect, or the County may rescind its order to interconnect upon petition by one or more Grantees to the County. The County shall grant the request if it finds that the Grantees had negotiated in good faith and had failed to obtain approval from the other affected Grantees, or the cost of i ntcrconnection would necessarily cause an unreasonable or unacceptable increase in subscriber rates. 5.15.4: The Grantees shall cooperate with any interconnection corporation, regional interconnection authority or local, State and/or Federal regulatory agency established for the purpose of regulating, financing, or otherwise providing for the interconnection of cable systems beyond the boundaries of the County. Further, the Grantees shall cooperate with other telecommunications operators to standardize the number of channels likely to be interconnected; also to establish a uniform frequency or channel assignment plan :hat would permit the maximum number of systems to interconnect and to standardize uniform channel assignments throughout the affected region. Section 5.16: Resources for Public Purposes, I -Net & PEG Access: The Grantee shall designate no less than two (2) fibers of installed capacity on its fiber optic system within the County, exclusive of PEG channels, for civic purposes. The fibers shall he available to the County and County designated public agencies to serve as an Institutional Network (I -Net) and shall he reserved for use by the County in a manner consistent with Federal ar.d State laws, rules and regulations. 5.16.1: The County, at its sole discretion, may either: (a) pure ia,.e at the marginal construction cost, or (b) lease at the marginal operating cost, any portion of such I -Net capacity excluding PEG channel signal carriage. I -14et capacity acquired by the County pursuant to this provision shall not be sold or leased by the County to any entity which may use that capacity to compete directly with any services then offered by the Grantee. 5.16.2: Upon reasonable notice the Grantee shall extend, without cost to the County of the State, the I -Net to any public building located within Grantee's cable system service area that is also located two hundred fifty feet (250') or less from the nearest possible interconnection with that Grantee's telecommunication system. 5.16.3: The Grantee shall cooperate with the County in the design and selection of components necessary to implement its application and, if requested, shall (a) 20 41 furnish terminal equipment at Grantee's cost and (b) manage the tags and authorizations of said equipment at no cost to the County. 5.16.4: The Grantee, upon presenting to the County a right of first refusal, may use such capacity reserved under this Section for its own purposes. The Grantee shall give the County not less than ninety (90) days advance written notice of its intent to exercise its right under Section 5.16. 5.16.5: Agreements regarding use of the I -Net is subject to all loci], State, and Federal laws applicable thereto. To the greatest extent permitted by law, the County agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Grantee from ar:d against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs directly related to the material under the County or other public agency user control carried on the I -Net, including and not limited to copyright infringement, libel, slander, defamation, patent, trademark, and /or invasion of privacy claims. 5.16.6: The parties agree that I -Net contributions by or on behalf of the Grantee to the County do not constitute an in -kind payment or franchise fee. 5.16.7: Reservation of PEG Channels. The Grantee shall reser ,/e at least six (6) PEG access channels on its residential distribution system, on the effective date of the franchise. One (1) upstream channel shall be reserved as a PEG access return feed when and where available. The PEG provider shall furnish the signal transportation equipment, including modulators. 5.16.8: The County's Franchise Administrator shall provide the Grantee at least forty - five (45) days prior notice of the required up /down stream a --tivation. 5.16.9: PEG access signal transportation on the Grantee's cable system or interconnection facilities shall be provided without charge to the County and /or to any PEG Access Center. 5.16.10: In the event a previously activated PEG access channel is not utilized for more than twelve (12) continuing months, the Grantee, upon ninety (90) days advance written notice to the County, shall have the right to reclaim the unoccupied "dark" channel(s). The County or its access provider sh:dl have the right to reclaim the channel(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Periodic Evaluation and Review process, Section 9 herein. Section 5.17: Emergency Alert System: The Grantee shall insudl and maintain an emergency alert system (EAS) pursuant to the then current FCC's rules and with the then current Florida Emergency Alert System Plan. The County's Public Safety Communication Center shall be provided with access to the system so that the Center can communicate emergency messages 21 12G and alerts to residents of the County. The emergency alert system shall be activated by the Grantee pursuant to the rules as then promulgated by the Florida Emergency Alert System Plan. Section 5.18: Amendment of Grant: 5.18.1: A new franchise application and grant shall be required of any telecommunication operator that desires to extend its franchise territory or to locate its cable television facilities in public ways of the County which are not expressly included in a franchise previously granted under this Chapter or under Ordinance no. 88 -90, as amended. 5.18.2: If ordered by the County to locate or relocate its telecommunication facilities in public ways not included in a previously granted franchise, the County shall grant a franchise amendment without further application to facilitate such ordered changes. Section 5.19: Renewal Applications: A Grantee that desires to review its franchise under this Section shall, not more than thirty -six (36) months before expiration of its current franchise, file an application with the County for renewal of its franchise which application shall include the following information: 5.19.1: The information required by Section 5.2 herein. 5.!9.2: Any additional information, if any, that is required by the franchise agreement between the County and the Grantee. Section 5.20: Renewal Determinations: Within one hundred fifty (150) days after receiving a complete application under Section 5.2 herein, the Franchise Administrator shall issue a written decision granting or denying the renewal application in while or in part, applying the following standards. If the renewal application is denied, the written determination shall include the reasons for non - renewal. 5.20.1: The financial and technical ability of the applicant. 5.20.2: The legal authority of the applicant. 5.203: The continuing capacity of the public ways to accommodate the applicant's existing facilities. 5.20.4: The applicant's compliance with the requirements herein and the franchise agreement. 5.20.5: Applicable Federal, State and local telecommunications Iiws, rules and policies. 22 12C 4 5.20.6: Such other factors as may demonstrate whether the continued grant to use the public ways will serve the community interest. Section 5.21: Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal: No franchise shall be renewed until all ongoing violations or defaults in the grantee's performance of the franchise agreement, or of the requirements in this Ordinance, have been cured, or a plan detailing the corrective action that will be taken by the Grantee has been approved in writing by the County's Franchise Administrator. SECTION 6: FEES, COMPENSATION AND REVIEW Section 6.1: Purpose: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the payment and recovery of all direct and indirect costs and expenses of the County related to the enforcement and administration of this Ordinance. Section 6.2: Application and Review Fee: 6.2.1: Any applicant for a license or franchise pursuant to Article 3, 4 or 5 herein shall pay a fee of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). 6.2.2: The application and review fee shall be deposited with the County as part of the application filed pursuant to Section 3, 4 or 5 in this Ordinance. o.2.3: Ari applicant whose license or franchise application has been withdrawn, abandoned or denied shall, within sixty (60) days of its application and review fee written request, be refunded the balance of its deposit under this section, less: a. five thousand dollars ($5,000); and less b. all ascertainable costs and expenses incurred by the County in connection with that application. Section 6.3: Other County Costs: All license and/or franchise Grantees shall, within thirty (30) days after written demand therefor, reimburse the County for all direct and indirect costs and expenses incurred by the County in connection with any modification, amendment, renewal or transfer of the license or franchise or any license or franchise agre, :ment. Section 6.4: Reserved Compensation for Public Ways: The County hereby reserves its right to annually fix a fair and reasonable compensation to be paid to the County for the rights granted to each respective telecommunications license or franchise Grantee. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit the County and the Grantee from agreeing to the compensation to be paid to the County. Section 6.5: Compensation for County Property: If privilege is granted by lease, license, franchise or other manner, to use and occupy County Property for the installation of 23 120 4 telecommunications facilities, the compensation to be paid to the County shall be fixed by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. Section 6.6: Construction Permit Fee: Prior to issuance of a construction permit, the permittee shall pay a permit fee in a�xordance with the fee schedule scat by Collier County Resolution No. 96 -594, as may be amended from time -to -time, or by any successor Resolution andlor Ordinance that performs the function of that Resolution. Section 6.7: Annual ROW Use Fees: Unless otherwise expressly agreed in the respective license or franchise grant agreement, each license or franchise Grantee shall pay an ainnual use fee to the County equal to fifty cents ($0.50) per linear foot for facilities up to three inches (3 ") in diameter; seventy five cents ($0.75) per lineal foot for facilities greater than three (3 ") inches but less than six inches (6 ") in diameter; one dollar ($1.00) p(:r lineal foot for facilities greater than six (6 ") inches in diameter but less than nine (9 ") inches in diameter; and one dollar twenty-five cents ($1.25) per lineal foot for facilities greater than nine (9 ") inches in diameter but less than twelve (12 ") inches in diameter; to reimburse the County for the County's direct and indirect costs and expenses in connection with reviewing., inspecting and/or Supervising the use and/or occupancy of the public ways on behalf of the public. For facilities, if any, exceeding twelve (12 ") inches in diameter, the fee shall be set and re -sel by the Board of County Commissioners by Resolutions. "I -hose fees shall be paid in full to the County annually on the anniversary of the respective grant agreement. Whenever an entity is required by this Ordinance to install additional capacity in the right of way for future use by others, such capacity shall be exempt from any Annual ROW Use Fee until such time as that capacity it is placed into actual use; see, for one example, Section 7.1.6. Section 6.8: Telecommunication Fees: Telecommunication franchisees shall be subject to the franchise fees, payments and costs as provided for in Section 4 herein. Section 6.9: Cable Nees: Cable television Grantees shall be subject to the franchise fees, payments and costs provided in Section 5 herein. The payment of franchise fees by Grantees is for the right to construct and operate its telecommunications syst= within the public way and is in lieu of a ROW use fee. Section 6.10: Regulatory Fees and Compensation Not a Tax: The regulatory fees and costs provided for in this Section 6, and any compensation charged and paid for the public ways provided for in Section 6.4 of this Section, are separate from, and additional to, any and all Federal, State, local taxes as may be levied, imposed or otherwise owing from a telecommunications carrier or provider, its customers or subscribers, or on account of lease, sale, delivery, or transmission of telecommunications services, unless otherwise expressly provided otherwise by Federal or State statute(s). Section 6.1 1: Report and Auditing: The County, on an annual basis, shall be furnished a statement within ninety (90) days of the close of that calendar year, certified by an official of the franchisee who is responsible for that Grantee's financial statements, reflectiiig the total amounts of Gross Revenues as defined herein, and all payments, and computations for that immediately 1) a 1 4C 4 preceding calendar year. Upon ten (10) days prior written notice to the Grantee:, the County shall have the right to conduct an independent audit of Grantee's records. If, after resolving any dispute arising from such audit, Grantee has made a franchise fee underpayment of three percent (3 %) or more, the Grantee shall be responsible to pay all reasonable costs of such audit and promptly remit payment for same to the County. If the under payment is less than three percent (3 %), the County shall bear all of its costs associated with that audit. Section 6.12: Books and Records: The Grantee's books and records concerning its Gross Revenues and its calculation of payments to the County, shall be available for inspection by appropriate Staff of the County, or their designees, at reasonable tir.ies to determine the amount of compensation due to the County from Grantee under the franchise. Such records shall be kept by the Grantee so as to clearly and accurately show same. Without cost to the County, the Grantee shall prepare and make available to the County at times reasonably requested by the County and in the form as may be prescribed by the County after consultal ion with the Grantee, such reports with respect to its telecommunication enterprise and the grass revenues derived therefrom, as the County may deem reasonably appropriate. Section 6.13: Late Payment Penalty: If Grantee makes an under payment and/or fails to make any payment on or be-ore the date that it is due, Grantee shall pay interest at a rate of one percent (1 %) per month on all under payment and/or late payment. Section 6.14: Rate Notification: The Grantee shall file no less frequently than annually all tariffs, amendments, or modifications affecting the sale of its services and shall provide written notification to the County within thirty (30) days of each such proposed change(s). SECTION 7: CONDITIONS OF GRANTS BY THE COUNTY Section 7.1: Location of Facilities: All facilities shall be constructed, installed and located in accordance with the following terms and conditions, unless otherwise expressly specified in a license or franchise agreement: 7.1.1: A Grantee shall install its telecommunications facilities within an existing underground duct or conduit whenever excess capacity exists within such utility facility. 7.1.2 To the extent that a public way exists to accommodate the Grantee's system, the Grantee shall not locate its facilities off the public of way, and shall make every effort to locate its facilities within the public way before seeking private easements within the County. The Grantee shall relocate its facilities and appliances which are in conflict with any County project. The relocation shall be performed by the Grantee at no cost to the County and said costs shall not be passed on to Grantees' customers. 25 12C 4 7.1.3: A Grantee with permission to install overhead facilit :es shall instact its telecommunications facilities on pole attachments to existing utility poles only, and then only if surplus pole space is available. 7.1.4: Whenever any existing electric utilities, cable facilities or telecommunications facilities are located underground within a public way of the County, a Grantee with permission to occupy the same public way most also locate its telecommunications facilities underground without cost to the County. 7.1.5: Whenever any new or existing electric utilities, cable facilities or telecommunications facilities are located or relocated underground within a public way of the County, each Grantee that currently occupies the same public way shall relocate its facilities underground at no cost to Vic State or County. Absent extraordinary circumstances or undue hardship as determined by the County Franchise Administrator and the County's Public works Administrator or his/her designee, each such relocation undergrounl must be made concurrently to nsinimize disruption of the public ways. If the existing Grantee does not relocate concurrently, then it must relocate underground within a reasonable period of time, which shall not be later than the end of the grant term unless an extension of time is granted by the County's Franchise Administrator with concurTance by the County's Public Works Director. 7.1.6: Vhenever new telecommunications facilities will exhaust the capacity of a public street or utility easement to reasonably accommodat.- future carriers or facilities, the Grantee shall provide additional ducts, conduits, manholes and other facilities for nondiscriminatory access to future careers. Such additional capacity shall be exempt from any Annual ROW Use Fee until such time as that capacity it is placed into use. Section 7.2: Compliance with One -Call Utility Location: All license or franchise Grantees shall, before commencing any construction in any public way, comply with all utility location regulations of the Sunshine State One Call of Florida, Inc., or its successor in function. Section 7.3: Construction Permits: All license or franchise Grantees are required to obtain construction permits for telecommunications facilities as required in Section 8 herein. However, nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit the County and a Grantee: from agreeing to alternative plan review, permit and construction procedures in a license or franchise agreement, provided such alternative procedures provide substantially equivalent safeguards for responsible constructior. practices. Section 7.4: Interference with the Public Ways: No license or franchise Grantee may locate or maintain its telecommunications facilities so as to unreasonably interfere with the use of any public way by the County, by the public, or by other persons or entities authorized to use or be present in or upon that public way. All such facilities shall be moved by the Grantee. :l 2 C 1T temporarily or permanently, as determined by the County's Public Works Director and the County's Franchise .Administrator. Section 7.5: Damage to Property: No license or franchise Grantee nor any person acting on a grantee's behalf shall take any action or permit or suffer any action to be done which may impair or damage any tangible County Property, any public way of the Cotinty, any Other Way, or other tangible property located in, on, over or immediately adjacent t: -lcreto. Section 7.6: Notice of Work: Unless otherwise expressly provided for in a license or franchise agreement, no license or franchise Grantee, nor any person acting on the grantee's behalf, shall commence any non - emergency work in or about any Public W' iy of the County or any Other Way without giving at least ten (10) working days advance notice to the County. Section 7.7: Repair and Emergency Work: In the event of an ur,expected repair or emergency, a Grantee may commence such repair and emergency response wort: as are required under taose circumstances, provided the Grantee shall notify the County as piomptly as possible before such repair or emergency work, or as soon thereafter as is possible if advance notice is not possible. Section 7.8: ;Maintenance of Facilities: Each license and/or franc-Ilse Grantee shall maintain its facilities in good and safe condition and in a manner that complies with all applicable Federal, State and/or local laws, rules and/or regulations. Section 7.9: Relocation or Removal of Facilities: Within thirty (3 �) days following written notice from the County, a license or franchise Grantee shall, at its own expense, temporarily cr permanently remove, relocate, change or alter the position of any tcl�xomrnunMations or other tacilities within the respective public way(s) whenever the County authorities shall have determined that such removal, relocation, change or altcr�tion is reasonably ncce:;sary to accommodate: 7.9.1: The construction, repair, maintenance or installation of any County or other public improvement in or upon any public ways. 7.9.2: The operations of the County or other governmental entity in c•r upon the public ways. Section 7.10: Removal of Unauthorized Facilities: Within thirty (30) days following written notice from the County, any Grantee, telecommunications carver, or other person that owns, controls or maintains any unauthorized telecommunications system, facility or related appurtenances within any public way(s) of the County shall, at its own expense, remove such facilities or appurtenances from each such public way of the County. A telecommunications system or any other facility is unauthorized and subject to removal under any of' the following circumstances: 12G 4 7.10.1: Upon expiration or termination of the grantee's telecommunications license or franchise. 7.10.2: Upon abandonment within the public way of the County. 7.10.3: If the system or facility was constructed or installed without. the prior grant of the required telecommunications license, franchise and/or permit. 7.10.4: If the system or facility was constructed or installed without the prior issuance of a required construction permit or other permit for same. 7.10.5: If the system or facility was constructed or installed at a location not permitted by the grantee's telecommunications license or franchise, and permits. Section 7.11: Emergency Removal or Relocation of Facilities: The County retains all rights to cut or move any telecommunications facilities located within any public way of the County as the County then determines to be appropriate in response to any public health or safety emergency. Section 7.12: Damage to Grantee's Facilities: Unless directly and proximately caused by willful, intentional toil or malicious act by the County, the County shall not be liable for any damage to or loss of any telecommunications facility within each and every the public way(s) of the Countv as a result of or in connection with any public works, pub is improvements, construction, excavation, grading, filling, and/or any other work of any kind in the public ways by or on behalf of the County. Section 7.13: Restoration of Public V13ys, Other Ways and other County Property: 7.13.1: When a license or franchise Grantee, or any person acting on its behalf, does any work in or affecting any Public Way, Other Way or other tangible County Property, it shall, at its own expense, promptly remove any obstructions therefrom and restore each such way(s) and/or tangible County property to as good a condition as existed before the work was undertaken, unless otherwise directed by the County. 7.13.2: if weather or other conditions do not permit the complete restoration required by this Section 7.13, the Grantee shall, if requested by the County, temporarily restore each such affected way or property. Such temporary restoration shall be at no cost or expense to the County or State. The Licensee shall promptly undertake and complete the required permanent restoration when the weather and other physical conditions no longer prevent that permanent restoration. 7.13.3: A Grantee or other person acting in its behalf shall use suitablt; barricades, flags, flagmen, lights, flares and other measures as required for the safety of the public to prevent injury or physical damage to any person, vehicle or tangible property by reason of such work in or affecting such way(s) ar.d/or property. 28 12 C l Section 7.14: Facilities Maps: Each license or franchise Grantee shall provide the County with an accurate map or maps certifying the location of all telecommunications facilities within each public way. Without cost to the County, each Grantee shall provide the County annually with updated maps. This provision shall not apply, however, if in the respective calendar year no changes are made to any facilities covered by the respective :-nap: Section 7.15: Duty to Provide Information: Within ten (10) days of a written request from the County's Franchise Administrator, each Grantee shall fumisr, the County with information sufficient to demonstrate: 7.15.1: That the Grantee has complied with all requirements of this ordinance and all sales, message and/or telecommunications taxes due the County in connection with the telecommunications services and facilities provided by the Grantee have been properly collected and paid by the Grantee; and also 7.15.2: That all books, records, maps and other documents mainta-ned by the Grantee with respect to its facilities within the public ways shall be made available for inspection in Collier County by County Staff at all reasonable times and intervals and without delay. Section 7.16: Leased Capacity: Each Grantee shall have the right, without prior County approval, to offer or provide capacity or bandwidth to its customers; provides: 7.16.1: Grantee shall furnish the County with a copy of any such lease or agreement, at no cost to the county. 7.16.2: The customer or lessee has complied, to the extent applicable, with the applicable requirements herein. Section 7.17: Grantee Insurance: Unless otherwise expressly for provided in a license or franchise agreement, each Grantee shall, as a condition of the grant, secure and maintain the following liability insurance policies insuring both the Grantee and the County, and the County's elected and appointed officers, officials, agents, and employees as co- insured: 7.17.1: Comprehensive general liability insurance with limits not leas than: a. Five million dollars ($5,000,000) for bodily injury or death to each person; b. five million dollars (55,000,000) for property damag: resulting from any one accident; and, C. five million dollars (55,000,000) for all other types of liability. 12 Q L1 r 7.17.2: Automobile liability for owned, non -owned and hired vehicles with a limit of three million dollars ($3,000,000) for each person and three million dollars (S3,000,000) for each accident. 7.17.3: Worker's compensation within statutory limits, and employer's liability insurance with limits of not less than one million dollars (S x,000,000). 7.17.4: Comprehensive form premises - operations, explosions and collapse hazard, underground hazard and products completed hazard with limits of not less than three million dollars ($3,000,000). 7.17.5: The liability insurance policies required by this Section 7.17 shall be maintained by the Grantee throughout the term of the telecommunications license or franchise, and such other, period of time during which the Grantee is operating without a franchise or license hereunder, or is engaged in the removal of its telecommunications facilities. Each such insurance policy shall contain substantially the following endorsement: It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be canceled nor the intention not to renew be stated until ninety (90) days after receipt by the County, by registered mail, of a written notice addressed to the County Manager of such intent to cancel or not to renew. 7.17.6: Within sixty (60) days after receipt by the County of said nctice, and in no event later than thirty (30) days prior to said cancellation, the Grantee shall obtain and furnish to the County replacement insurance policies meeting the requirements of this Section. Section 7.18: General Indemnification: Each license or franchise agreement shall include, to the extent permitted by law, grantee's express undertaking to defend, indemnify and hold the County and its officers, employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit or defense, arising out of, resulting from or alleged to arise out of or result from the negligent, careless or wrongful acts, omissions, failures to act or misconduct of the Grantee or its affiliates, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors in the construction, operation, maintenance, repair or removal of its telecommunications facilities, and in providing or offering telecommunications services over the facilities or network, whether such acts or omissions are authorized, allowed or prohibited by this Chapter or by a grant agreement made or entered into pursuant to this Chapter. Section 7.19: Performance and Construction Surety: Before a license or franchise granted pursuant to this Chapter is effective, and as necessary thereafter, the Grantee shall provide and deposit such monies, bonds, letters of credit or other instruments in form and 12C 4 substance acceptable to the County as may be required by this Chapter or by an applicable license or franchise agreement. Section 7.20: Security Fund: Each Grantee shall establish within sixty (60) days, from the date of license or franchise award, a permanent security fund with the County by depositing fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) with the County in cash, or an unconditio.lal letter of credit or other instrument acceptable to the County Attorney, which fund shall be maintained at the sole expense of Grantee so long as any of grantee's telecommunications facilities are located within any public ways of the County, or the fund is otherwise refunded to the Grantee by the County. 7.20.1: The fund shall serve as security for the full and complete performance herein, including any costs, expenses, damages or loss the Co,inty pays or incurs because of any failure attributable to the Grantee to comply with any code, ordinance, rule, regulation or permit of the County. 7.20.2: Before any sums are withdrawn from the security fund, the County shall give written notice to the Grantee: a. describing the act, default or failure to be remedied, or the damages, cost or expenses which the County has incurred by reason of grantee's act or default; b. providing a reasonable opportunity for Grantee to first remedy the existing or ongoing default or failure, if curable; C. providing a reasonable opportunity for Grantee to pay any monies due the County before the County withdraws the amount ther(of from the security fund, if applicable; d. that the Grantee will be given an opportunity to review the act, default or failure described in the notice with the County Manager or his designee. 7.20.3: Grantee shall replenish the security fund within fourteen (14) days after written notice from the County that there is a deficiency in the amount of the fund. 7.20.4: The rights reserved to the County with respect to the letter of credit are in addition to all other rights of the County, whether res,.rved by the license or franchise, or-authorized by law, and no action, proceeding or exercise of a right with respect to such a letter shall affect any other right the County may have. 7.20.5: The letter of credit shall contain substantially the following endorsement: 12C 4 It is hereby understood and agreed that this letter of credit shall not be canceled by the surety nor the intention not to rer", be stated by the surety until thirty (30) days after receipt by the County, by registered mail, of a written notice of such an intention to cancel or not to renew. 7.20.6: The Grantee shall renew the letter of credit not less than thirty (30) days prior to its expiration and provide a copy of the renewal to the County. Failure to comply with this provision shill entitle the Cou:lty to draw down the letter of credit in its entirety. Section 7.21: Remedies - Liquidated Damages: Unless modified in the respective document, the following shall be inserted into each franchise, license, and/or grant: If the Grantee's failure to comply with provisions of this document and/or with the County's Telecommunications Ordinance, as amended from time -to -time, results in injury to the County, and as it will be difficult to prove the extent of such injury, the County and the Grantee hereby agree to the following liquidated damages, which represent both parties' best estimates of the damages resulting from the injury. 7.21.1: For failure to complete construction within the initial service area or extend service in accordance with the license or franchise: fifteen hundred dollars ($1500.00) for each offense. A separate and dist nct offense shall be deemed committed each calendar day on which a violation xcurs or continues; 7.21.2: For failure to comply with material requirements of the license, franchise, or the County Telecommunications Standards Ordinance: three hundred dollars ($300.00) for each offense. A separate and distinct offense shall be deemed committed each calendar day on which a violation occurs or continues; 7.21.3: For failure to comply with the following requirements: one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each offense. A separate and distinct offense shall be deemed committed each calendar day on which a violation occurs or continues with respect to: a. timely completion of construction; b. compliance with applicable plans, permits, technical cades and standards; C. properly locate facilities as specified by or approved by the County; d. restoration of the public ways and other property affected by the construction; 32 1. 2 C 4 C. submission of engineering design "as built" drawings following the completion of the work as required by this Chapter; f. remittance of timely payment and satisfaction of ail claims. demands or liens for labor, material or services provided in connection with the work. 7.21.4: For repeated, willful, or continuing failure to submit reports, maintain records, provide documents or information: five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense. A separate and distinct offense shall be deemed committed each calendar day on which a violation occurs or continues; 7.21.5: For failure to comply with material requirements of the County's Customer Service Standards for Telecommunications providers: five hundred dollars (5500.00) for each offense. A separate and distinct offense shall be deemed committed each calendar day on which a violation o,�curs or continues, and. 7.21.6: For failure to comply with transfer provisions: five hundred dollars (5500.00) from the date of any unlawful transfer. A separate and distinct offense shall be deemed committed each calendar day on which a violation occurs or continues; 7.21.7 For failure to comply with any provision the County's Telecommunications Ordinance for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided: one hundred dollars (5100.00) for each offense. A separate and distinct offense shall be deemed committed each calendar day on which a violation occurs or continues. 7.21.8: Penalties shall commence to accumulate only for days of non- compliance which occur after the final date set by the County for achieving compliance, in accordance with the procedure required herein No penalties will be assessed for violation period which has existed prior to the expiration of the period set by the County herein for correcting the defect. 7.21.9: Damage amounts shall be increased throughout the term hereof by the County by Resolution to account for increases in the consumer price index for the Southeastern United States (GNP -PI). Section 7.22: Coordination of Construction Activities: All Grantees are required to cooperate with the County and with each other. 7.22.1: By February I of each year, Grantee shall provide the County with a schedule of their proposed construction activities for the current year. 7.22.2: If deemed necessary by the County for the respective calendar year, each Grantee shall meet with the County, other Grantees and Ilse -s of the public ways 33 12C 4 artnually (or as determined to be needed by the County) to schedule and coordinate construction in the public ways. 7.22.3: All construction locations, activities and schedules shall be coordinated, as ordered by the County, to minimize public inconvenience, disruption or damages. Section 7.23: Assignments or Transfers of Grant: Ownership or control of a telecommunications system, license or franchise may not, directly or indirectly, be transferred, assigned or disposed of by sale, lease, merger, consolidation or other ac* of or inaction by the Grantee, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior expressed written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, as expressed by ordinance and then only on such reasonable conditions as may be prescribed therein. 7.23.1: No grant shall be assigned or transferred in any manner within twelve (12) months after the initial grant of the license or franchise, unless otherwise provided for in the license or franchise agreement. 7.23.2: Absent extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances, no grant, system or integral part of a system shall be assigned or transferred before construction of the telecommunications system has been completed. 7.23.3: Grantee and the proposed assignee or transferee of the grant or system shall provide and certify the following information to the County not less than one hundred and fifty (150) days prior to the proposed date of transfer: a. Complete information setting forth the nature, terms arid condition of the proposed transfer or assignment; b. All information required of a telecommunications license or franchise applicant pursuant to Articles 3, 4 or 5 herein with respect to the proposed transferee or assignee; C. Any other information reasonably required by the County. 7.23.4: No transfer shall be approved unless the assignee or transferee has the legal, technical, financial and other requisite qualifications to own, hold and operate the telecommunications system pursuant to this Chapter. 7.23.5: The Grantee shall reimburse the County for all direct acid indirect fees, costs, and expenses reasonably incurred by the County in considering a request to transfer or assign a telecommunications license or franchke. 7.23.6: Any transfer or assignment of a telecommunications grant, system or integral part of a system without prior approval of the County under Section 7 or 34 .Z 2C 4 pursuant to a license or franchise agreement shall be void and is cause for revocation of the grant. Section 7.24: Transactions Affecting Control of Grant: Any transactions which singularly or collectively result in a change of ten percent (10 %) or more of the ownership or working control of the Grantee, of the ownership or working control of a telecommunications license or franchise, of the ownership or working control of affiliated entities having ownership or working control of the Grantee or of a telecommunications system, or of control of the capacity or bandwidth of grantee's telecommunication system, facilities or substantial parts thereof, shall be considered an assignment or transfer requiring County approval pursuant to Section 7.23 herein. Transactions between affiliated entities are not exempt from such County approval. Section 7.25: Revocation or Termination of Grant: A license or Franchise granted by the County to use or occupy public ways of the County may be revoked for the following reasons: 7.25.1: Construction or operation in the County or in the public ways of the County without a license or franchise grant of authorization for same. 7.25.2: Construction or operation at an unauthorized location. 7.25.3: Unauthorized substantial transfer of control of the Grantee. 7.25.4: Unauthorized assignment of a license or franchise. 7.25.5: Unauthorized sale, assignment or transfer of grantee'E, franchise or lic:.nse assets, or a. substantial interest therein. 7.25.6: Misrepresentation or lack of candor by or on behalf of a Grantee in any application to the County. 7.25.7: Abandonment of telecommunications facilities in the public ways. 7.25.8: Failure to relocate or remove facilities as required in this Chapter. 7.25.9: Failure to pay taxes, compensation, fees or costs when and as due the County. 7.25.10: Insolvency or bankruptcy of the Grantee. 7.25.11: Violation of any material provision of this Chapter. 7.25.12: Violation of any material term of a license or franchise agreement. Section 7.26: Notice and Duty to Cure: In the event that the Frinchise Administrator believes that grounds exist for revocation of a license or franchise, he shall give the Grantee 35 120 4 written notice of the apparent violation or noncompliance, providing a short and concise statement of the nature and general facts of the violation or noncompliance, and providing the Grantee a reasonable period of time not exceeding thirty (30) days to furnish evidence to the Franchise Administrator: 7.26.1: That corrective action has been, or is being actively and expeditiously pursued, to remedy the violation or noncompliance. 7.26.2: That rebuts each alleged violation and each alleged noncompliance. 7.26.3: All reasons why it would be reasonable in the public inter,::st to impose some penalty or sanction less than revocation. Section 7.27: Hearing: In the event that a Grantee fails to provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Franchise Administrator as provided in Section 7.2E herein, the Franchise Administrator shall refer the apparent violation or non- compliance to the County Administrator. The Grantee shall be provided with notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the County Administrator or specific designee of the County Administrator concerning the matter. Section 7.28: Standards for Revocation or Lesser Sanctions: Only the Board of County Commissioners can revoke a franchise or a license agreement, which are quasi-judicial dete,nninations. If upon its review and thcreafter the Board of County Commissioners is persuaded that the Grantee has violated or failed to comply with material -3rovisions herein, or of material provisions of the respective franchise or license agreement, that Board shall decide whether to revoke the'.icense agreement or the franchise, or to establish znd impose some lesser sanction(s) and may require cure. The Board should considering the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation as reflected by one, several, or all of the following factors, W hich factors can be weighted according to the specific case: 7.28. 1: Whether the misconduct was egregious. 7.28.2: Whether substantial harm has resulted. 7.28.3: Whether the violation was intentional or was avoidable by Grantee by the exercise of due diligence. 7.28.4: Whether there is a history of prior violation(s) of the same or other requirements. 7.28.5: Whether there is a history of good overall compliance. 7.28.6: Whether the violation was voluntarily disclosed, admitted and/or cured promptly. 36 I 2 4 SECTION 8: CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Section 8.1: General: No person shall commence or continue with the construction, installation or operation of telecommunications facilities within the County except as provided in this Section 8. Section 8.2: Construction Codes: Telecommunications facilities shall be constructed, installed, operated and maintained in accordance with all then applicable Federal, State and local codes, rules and regulations, including, to the extent applicable, the National Electrical Safety Code. Section 8.3: Construction Permits: No person shall construct or install any telecommunications facilities within the County without first obtaining a construction permit therefore, pro v;ded, however: 8.3.1: No permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of telecommunications facilities within the County unless th-; telecommunications carrier has filed a registration statement with the County :)urivant to Section 2 herein. 8.3.2: No permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of telecommunications facilities in the public ways unless thc. telecommunications carrier has applied for and received a license or franchise Fursuant to Articles 3, 4 or 5 herein. 8.3.3: No permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of telecommunications facilities without payment of the construction permit fee established in Section 6.6 herein. Section 8.4: Applications: Applications for permita to construct telecommunications facilities shall be submitted upon forms to be provided by the County and shall be accompanied by drawings, plans and specifications in sufficient detail to demonstrate: 8.4.1: That the facilities will be constructed in accordance with all then applicable codes, rules and regulations. 8.4.2: The location and route of all facilities to be installed on existing, utility poles. 8.4.3: The location and route of all facilities to be located undc;r the surface of the ground, including the line and grade proposed for the burial at all points along the route which are within the public ways. 8.4.4: The location of all existing underground utilities, conduits, ducts, pipes, mains and installations which are within the public ways along the underground route proposed by the applicant. 37 12C 4 8.4.5: The location of all other facilities to be constructed within the County, but not within the public ways. 8.4.6: The construction methods to be employed for protection of existing structures, fixtures, and facilities within or adjacent to the public ways. 8.4.7: The location, dimension and types of all trees within or adjacent to the public ways along the route proposed by the applicant, together with a landscape plan for protecting, trimming, removing, replacing and restoring any trees or areas to be disturbed during construction. Section 8.5: Engineer's Certification: All permit applications shzIl be accompanied by the certification of a registered professional engineer that the drawings, plans and specifications submitted with the application comply with applicable technical codes, rules and regulations. Section 8.6: Traffic Control Plan: All permit applications whicY involve work on, in, under, across or along any public ways shall be accompanied by a traffic control plan demonstrating the protective measures and devices that will be employed, consistent with Florida Department of Transportation rules and regulations, to prevent injury or damage to persons or property and to minimize disruptions to efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Section 8.7: Issuance of Permit: Within forty -five (45) days alter submission of all plans and documents required of the applicant and payment of the permit fees required by this Chapter. the Building Official, if satisfied that the applications, plans and docurnent comply with all reouircments herein, shall issue a permit authorizing construction of the facilities, subject to such further conditions, restrictions or regulations affecting the time, Klass and manner of perfonning the work as he may deem necessary or appropriate. Section 8.8: Construction Schedule: The permittee shall submit a written construction schedule to the Franchise Administrator ten (10) working days before commencing any work in or about the public ways. The permittee shall further notify the Franchise ,administrator not less than two (2) working days in advance of any excavation or work in the public ways. Section 8.9: Compliance with Permit: All construction practices and activities shall be in accordance with the permit and approved final plans and specifications for the facilities. The Building Official and his representatives shall be provided access to the work and such further information as he or she may require to ensure compliance with such requirt:ments. Section 8.10: Display of Permit: The permittee shall maintain a copy of the construction permit and approved plans at the construction site, which shall be displayed and made available for inspection by the Building Official or his representatives at all times wl!cn construction work is occurring. 38 12C 4 Section 8.11: Survey of Underground Facilities: If the construction permit specifies the location of facilities by depth, line, grade, proximity to other facilities or other standard, the permittee shall cause the location of such facilities to be verified by a registered Florida land surveyor. Unless permitted to remain by the County Building Official or ether designee of the County Administrator, the permittee shall relocate any facilities which are not located in compliance with permit requirements. Section 8.12: Non - complying Work: Upon order of thz Building Official, all work which does not comply with the permit, the approved plans and specifications for the work, or the requirements herein, shall be removed. Section 8.13: Completion of Construction: The permittee shall promptly complete all construction activities so as to minimize disruption of the County ways 2nd other public, and private property. All construction work authorized by a permit within County ways, including restoration, must be completed within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of issuance. Section 8.14: As -Built Drawings: Within sixty (60) days after completion of construction, the permitter: shall furnish the County with two (2) complete sets of plans, drawn to scale and certified by the County as accurately depicting the location of all telecommunications facilities constructed pursuant to the permit. As -built documents shall be provided in both hard copy paper and electronic (data file) formats. The electronic version must be based upon FL Statc Plane Coordinates NAD 1983. The Grantee shall provide Graphic Data System (GDS) electronic data files. Intermediate DXF Files will be accepted as an alternative to the GDS data Files. Section 8.15: Restoration of Improvements: Upon completion of any construction work, the permittee shall promptly repair any and all public and provide prorerty improvements, fixtures, structures and facilities in the public ways or otherwise damaged during the course of construction, restoring the same as nearly as practicable to its condition before the start of construction. Section 8.16: Landscape Restoration: All trees, landscaping and grounds removed, damaged or disturbed as a result of the construction, installation maintenance, repair or replacement of telecommunications facilities, whether such work is done pursuant to a franchise, license, or permit shall be replaced or restored as nearly as may be practicable, to the condition existing prior to performance of work. All restoration work within the public ways shall be done in accordance with landscape plans approved by the Community Developmental Services Division. Section 8.17: Construction Guarantee: Prior to issuance of a construction permit, the Grantee shall provide a letter of credit, as provided in Section 7.20 herein. Section 8.18: Exceptions: Except to the extent as may otherwise: be specified in a license or franchise agreement, all telecommunications carriers are subject to the requirements of this Section 8. 39 .1 2C 4 ' Section 8.19: Respotimbility of Owner. The owner of the facilities to be constructed arid, if different, the license or franchise Grantee, are responsible for Foerformance of and compliance with all applicable provisions of this Section. SECTION 9: PERIODIC EVALUATION, REVIEW AND MODIFICATION Section 9.1: Modification: The County or Grantee may, at any time after the effective date of the license, or franchise, commence a review to examine changes which either party wishes to make to the respective document. Section 9.2: Public Hearings: The County may conduct public meetings or public hearings to provide the public opportunity to comment on the issues which ;re to be considered at that meeting or hearing. Section 9.3: Proposed Changes: The party initiating the process will provide the other with a full description of the changes it proposes, as well as the reasoning behind the proposed changes. If the County is the party proposing the changes, the Grantee shall develop a thorough analysis of the impact of such changes upon its operations and/or its cus:omens, taking into consideration the acceptability of such changes and their cost, if any, to its rates and Grantee's return on investment. Grantee shall consider all the alternative means for recoveing such costs. Section 9.4: Negotiation: Following receipt and analysis of a proposal, the County and the Grantee shall negotiate the proposed changes in good faith. If the parties are unable to reach aarccment within ninety (90) days, or whatever longer period may be mutually acceptable, either party may call for mediation of the disagreement. Section 9.5: Mediation: The County and Grantee will indemnify, agree upon and designate a mediator, whose; fees will be shared equally by the parties. Section 9.6: Contract Amendment: At the completion of the process stated herein, the County Commission shall amend the license or franchise as necessary to implement the changes agreed upon by the parties. SECTION TWO: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event that this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any section, su 3section, sentence, clause, phrase, or other portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, declared invalid, in whole or in part, by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, said decision shall nod. affect the validity of the remaining portions herein. IM 12C 4 SECTION THREE: INCLUSION INTO THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the code of laws and ordinances of Collier County, Florida. Sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FOUR: REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 88-96, AS AMENDED. Collier County ordinance No. 88 -90 as amended by Ordinance No. 94 -12 and as further amended by Ordinance No. 96 -15, is hereby repealed. SECTION FIVE: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective at 8:00 A.M. on the __ day of 1997 after having been filed with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and Legal Sufficiency: Thomas C. Palmer Assistant County Attorney h.'v ainanccO7\1eImortmxmicalimn -tcp .. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEP,:; COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. al TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK., CHAIRMAN M 12C 4 te,c -k-lcl The provisions of tins Ordinarze may be waived, accepted, or modified by any cable television franchise, teteconinumications license, or talcoommmicatioma franchise, and the provisions of this Ordinawc, sad any ca" television ftwhiw granud h=tindcr, are xibject to Section 626 of the Federal Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. Sutmodon 546, Section 166.046 of Florida Stares, and all otter applicable Stato and FedeW laws. 1. The definition of a cable operator should be changed to eliaaiasae the rY:fiTc= to "teiecammuaications carrier," and to conform with the Cable Act as follows:' "Cable Operator" means a AVA" K ,f k4! 2. The definition of "Telecommunications Scrvioc" should be changed as followt: — Teleroataanslcatioos S-ervke" mesas the providing or offering for m-K, sale or Ica sc, or in exchang , for other value receiv-od., of the 4anaanittal of voice, data, in'age, grapes and video perrwwwmng mfottn Am bets or mong points by wire, atble, fi5c; optics, laser, mitsowave, radio, satellite of similar facilities, with or without benefit of any cirmed transatission nmAium. The gM3v pion of cable scn icc by a ale ,ZD=i ' Language to be deleted is shown in "strikeout" and lar4page to be added is double underlined. I 2 4 MARCH 25, 1997. PUBLIC HEARING. Re: COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS SEVEN CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AFTER CONSIDERING COMMENTS OF SOME OF THE AFFECTED UTILITIES. 1. PAGE 5, LINE 22: DELETE THE WORD "NOT". 2. PAGE 7, LINE 31: CHANGE "INCORPORATED" TO "UNINCORPORATED ". 3. PAGE 13, LINE 23: DELETE THE WORD "TELECOMMUNICATION'S". 4. PAGE 25, LINES 38 &. 39: DELETE THE WORDS "AND SAID COSTS SHALL NOT BE PASSED ON TO GRANTEE'S CUSTOMERS ". 5. PAGE 26, LINES 28 & 29: CHANGE TO READ: "... COMPLY WITH ALL PROCEDURAL. RULES OF THE SUNSHINE STATE ONE CALL OF FLORIDA, INC., OR SIMILAR ENTITY, OR SUCCESSOR IN FUNCTION." 6. PAGE 28, LINE 18: DELETE THE WORD "THE ". 7. PAGE�d, LINE 5: ADD "OR PERSON AUTHORIZED BY §471.003, F.S.," 12C i "Usable Space" means the total distance between the top of a utility pole and the lowest 2 possible attachment point that provides the minimum allowable vertical clearance as specified in 3 the orders and regulations of the Florida Public Service Commission. 4 5 "Utility Easement" means any easement owned by the County and acquired, established, 6 dedicated, devoted or used for public utility purposes not inconsistent with telecommunications 7 facilities. 8 9 "Utility Facilities" means plant, equipment and property, including but not limited to the 10 poles, pipes, mains, conduits, ducts, cables, wires, plant and equipment located under, on or I t above the surface of the ground within the public ways of the County and used or to be used for 12 the purpose of providing utility or telecommunications services. 13 14 Section 1.3: Registration: Except as may otherwise expressly provided herein, all 15 telecommunications carriers and/or providers engaged in the business of transmitting, supplying 16 or furnishing of telecommunications service originating or terminating in the County shall 17 register with the County in accordance with Section 2 herein. 18 19 Section 1.4: Telecommunications License: Except as otherwise provided herein, each 20 telecommunications carrier that desires to construct, install, operate, maintain, or otherwise 21 locate or relocate any telecommunications facilities in, under, over or across any public way of 22 the County for the purpose of providing telecommunications service to persons and areas not 23 within the unincorporated County shall first obtain a license granting the use of such public ways 24 from the County pursuant to Section 3 herein. 25 26 Section 1.5: Telecommunications Franchise: This Definition is Reserved 27 28 Section 1.6: Cable Television Franchise: Except as otherwise provided herein, each 29 telecommunications carrier that desires to construct, install, operate, maintain or locate 30 telecommunications facilities in any public way of the County for the purpose of'providing cable 31 servic° to persons in the County shall first obtain a cable franchise from the County as provided 32 in Section 5 herein. 33 34 Section 1.7: Application to Existing Franchises and Agreements: This Ordinance shall 35 have no effect on any existing franchise or agreement until: 36 37 1.7.1: the expiration of said franchise or agreement, 38 39 1.7.2: an amendment to an unexpired franchise or franchise agreement, unless both 40 parties agree to defer full compliance to a specific date not later than the 41 respective agreement's present expiration date. 42 43 Section 1.8: Penalties: Any person found guilty of violating, disobeying, omitting, 44 neglecting or refusing to comply with any applicable provision herein shall be fincA not less than 45 one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense. A 5 M 12C 1 Federal Communications Commission to provide telecommunications services or 2 facilities within the County. 3 4 2.1.9: Such other information as the County Franchise Administrator may reasonably 5 require. 6 7 Section 2.2: Registration Fee: Each application for n:gistration as a 8 telecommunications carrier or provider shall be accompanied by a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) 9 fee. 10 11 Section 2.3: Purpose of Registration: The purpose of registration under Section 2 is to: 12 13 2.3.1: Provide the County with accurate and current information concerning the 14 telecommunications carvers and providers who offer or provide 15 telccommunicatio -s services within the County, or that own or operate 16 telecommunication facilities within the County; 17 18 2.3.2: Assist the County in enforcement of this Ordinance; 19 20 2.3.3: Assist the County in the collection and enforcement of any taxes, franchise fees, 21 license fees or other charges that may be due the County; 22 23 2.3.4: Assist the County in monitoring compliance with Federal, State and local laws, 24 rules and/or regulations. 25 26 SECTION 3: TELECOMMUNICATIONS LICENSE 27 28 S =tion 3.1: Telecommunications License: A telecommunications license shall be 29 required of any telecommunications carrier who desires to occupy specific public ways of the 30 County for the purpose of providing telecommunications services to persons or areas within the _ yy 31 unincorporated areas of the County. 32 33 Section 3.2: License Application: Any person that desires a telecommunications 34 license pursuant to this Section 3 shall file an application with the County which shall include the 35 following information: 36 37 3.2.1: The identity of the license applicant, including al] affiliates of thy: ,applicant. 38 39 3.2.2: A description of the telecommunications service that are offerixi or that will be 40 offered by licensee over its telecommunications facilities. 41 42 3.2.3: A description of the transmission media that will be used by the licensee to offer 43 or provide such telecommunication services. 44 7 y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 12C SECTION 5: CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE Section 5.1: Cable Television Franchise: A cable television franchise shall be required of any cable television operator who desires to occupy any public way of the County to provide any cable television service to any person or entity in the unincorporated area of the County. Section 5.2: Franchise Application: Any person that desires a cable television franchise pursuant to this Section 5 shall file an application with the County which shall include t31e following information: 5.2.1: The identity of the franchise applicant, including all affiliates of the applicant. 5.2.2: A description of the cable service that is or will be offered or provided by the franchise applicant over its existing and/or proposed facilitiex. 5.2.3: A description of the transmission media that will be used by the franchisee to offer or provide such service. 5.2.4: Preliminary engineering plans, specifications and a network map of the facilities to be located within the County, all in sufficient detail to identify: a. the; location and route requested for applicant's proposed i facilities. b. the location of all overhead and underground public utility, telecommilnication, cable, water, sewer drainage and other facilities in the public way along the proposed route. C. the location(s), if any, for interconnection with telexommunications facilities of other providers or PEG access facilities. d. the specific trees, structures, improvements, facilities and obstructions, if any, that applicant proposes to temporarily or permanently remove or relocate. 5.2.5: If applicant is proposing to install overhead facilities, evidence that adequate surplus space is available to locate its telecommunications faciilities on existing utility poles along the proposed route. 5.2.6: If applicant is proposing an underground installation in existing ducts or conduits within any public way, information in sufficient detail to identify: a. the excess capacity then available in such ducts or conduits before installation of applicant's telecommunications facilities; 13 12C 1 (3 %) or more, the Grantee shall be responsible to pay all reasonable costs of such audit and 2 promptly remit payment for same to the County. If the under payment is less than three percent 3 (3 %), the County shall bear all of its costs associated with that audit. 4 5 Section 6.12: Books and Records: The Grantee's books and records conceming its 6 Gross Revenues and its calculation of payments to the County, shall be av�ulable for inspection 7 by appropriate Staff of the County, or their designees, at reasonable times to determine the 8 amount of compensation due to the County from Grantee under the franchise. Such records shall 9 be kept by the Grantee so as to clearly and accurately show same. Without cast to the County, 10 the Grantee shall prepare and make available to the County at times reason<bly requested by the 11 County and in the form as may be prescribed by the County after consultation with the Grantee, 12 such reports with respect to it_s telecommunication enterprise and the gross revenues derived 13 therefrom, as the County may deem reasonably appropriate. 14 15 Section 6.13: Late Payment Penalty: If Grantee makes an under pa) -ment and/or fails to 16 make any payment on or before the date that it is jue, Grantee shall pay interest at a rate of one 17 percent (1 %) per month on all under payment and/or late payment. 18 19 Section 6.14: Rate Notification: The Grantee shall file no less frequently than annually 20 all tariffs, amendments, or modificatiorLs affecting the sale of its services and shall provide 21 written notification to the County within thirty (30) days of each such proposed change(s). 22 23 SECTION 7: CONDITIONS OF GRANTS BY THE COUNTY 24 25 Section 7.1: Location of Facilities: All facilities shall be constructed, installed and 26 located in accordance with the following terms and conditions, unless otherwise expressly 27 specified in a license or franchise agreement: 28 29 7.1.1: A Grantee shall install its telecommunications facilities within an existing 30 underground duct or conduit whenever excess capacity existi within such utility 31 facility. 32 33 7.1.2 To the extent that a public way exists to accommodate the Grantee's system, the 34 Grantee shall not locate its facilities off the public of way, acid shall make every 35 effort to locate its facilities within the public way before seeking private 36 easements within the County. The Grantee shall relocate its facilities and 37 appliances which are in conflict with any County project. The relocation shall be 38 performed by the Grantee at no cost to the County. and said eests shall not 39 * ,,, e. 40 41 7.1.3: A Grantee with permission to install overhead facilities shall install its 42 telecommunications facilities on pole attachments to existing utility poles only, 43 and then only if surplus pole space is available. 44 25 12C 1 7.1.4: Whenever any existing electric utilities, cable facilities or telecommunications 2 facilities are located underground within a public way of the County, a Grantee 3 with permission to occupy the same public way must also locate its 4 telecommunications facilities underground without cost to the County. 5 6 7.1.5: Whenever any new or existing electric utilities, cable facilities or 7 telecommunications facilities are located or relocated underground within a public 8 way of the County, each Grantee that currently occupier the same public way 9 shall relocate its facilities underground at no cost to the State or County. Absent 10 extraordinary circumstances or undue hardship as determined by the County I 1 Franchise Administrator and the County's Public Works Administrator or his/her 12 designee, each such relocation underground must be made concurrently to 13 minimize disruption of the public ways. If the existing Grantee does not relocate 14 concurrently, then it must relocate underground within a. reasonable period of 15 time, which shall not be later than the end of the grant term unless an extension of 16 time is gruited by the County's Franchise Administrator with concuirance by the 17 County's Public Works Director. 18 19 7.1.6: Whenever new telecommunications facilities will exhaust the capacity of a public 20 street or utility easement to reasonably accommodate future carvers or facilities, 21 the Grantee shall provide additional ducts, conduits, manholes and other facilities 22 for nondiscriminatory access to future carriers. Such additional capacity shall be 23 exempt from any Annual ROW Use Fee until such time as That capacity is placed 24 into use. 25 26 Section 7.2: Compliance with One -Cali Utility Location: All license or franchise 27 Grantees shall, before commencing any construction in any public way, comply with all —�' Z8 pr%;edu ml utility ie {eras min of the Sunshine State One Call of Florida, Inc. 29 similar entity, or successor in function. 30 31 Section 7.3: Construction Permits: All license or franchise Grantees are required to 32 obtain construction permits for telecommunications facilities as required in Section 8 herein. 33 However, nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit the County and a Grantee from agreeing to 34 alternative plan review, permit and construction procedures in a license or franchise agreement, 35 provided such alternative procedures provide substantially equivalent safeguards for responsible 36 construction practices. 37 38 Section 7.4: Interference with the Public Ways: No license or franchise Grantee may 39 locate or maintain its telecommunications facilities so as to unreasonably interfere with the use of 40 any public way by the County, by the public, or by other persons or entities authorized to use or 41 be present in or upon that public way. All such facilities shall be moved by the Grantee, 42 temporarily or permanently, as determined by the County's Public Works Director and the 43 County's Franchise Administrator. 44 26 12C _. 4 1 2 7.10.3: If the system or facility was constructed or installed without the prior grant of 3 the required telecommunications license, franchise and/or permit. 4 5 7.10.4: If the system or facility was constructed or installed without the prior issuance 6 of a required construction permit or other permit for same. 7 8 7.10.5: If the system or facility was constructed or installed at a location not permitted 9 by the grantee's telecommunications license or franchise, and permits. 10 1 t Section 7.11: Emergency Removal or Relocation of Facilities: The County retains all 12 rights to cut or move any telecommunications facilities located within wiy public way of the 13 County as the County then determines to be appropriate in response to any public health or safety 14 emergency. 15 16 Section 7.12: Damage to Grantee's Facilities: Unless directly and proximately caused 17 by willful, intentional toil or malicious act by the County, the County shall not be liable for any 18 damage to or loss of any telecommunications facility within each and every tho public way(s) of 19 the County as a result of or in connection with any public works, iblic improvements, 20 construction, excavation, grading, filling, and/or any other work of any kind in the public ways 21 by or on behalf of the County. 22 23 Section 7.13: Restoration of Public Ways, Other Ways and other Courty Property: 24 25 7.13.1: When a license or franchise Grantee, or any person acting on its behalf, does 26 any work in or affecting any Public Way, Other Way or other tangible County 27 Property, it shall, at its own expense, promptly remove any obstructions 28 therefrom and restore each such way(s) and/or tangible County property to as 24 good a condition as existed before the work was undertaken, unless otherwise 30 directed by the County. 31 7.13.2: If weather or ether conditions do not ;permit the complete re=storation required by 32 this Section 7.13, the Grantee shall, if requested by the County, temporarily 33 restore each such affected way or property. Such temporary restoration shall be 34 at no cost or expense to the County or State. The Licensee shall promptly 35 undertake and complete the required permanent restoration when the weather 36 and other physical conditions no longer prevent that permanrnt restoration. 37 38 7.13.3: A Grantee or other person acting in its behalf shall use suitable barricades, flags, 39 flagmen, lights, flares and other measures as required for the safety of the 40 public to prevent injury or physical damage to any person, vehicle or tangible 41 property by reason of such work in or affecting such way(s) and /or property. 42 43 Section 7.14: Facilities Maps: Each license or franchise Grantee shall provide the 44 County with an accurate map or maps certifying the location of all telecommunications facilities 45 within each public way. Without cost to the County, each Grantee shall provide the County 28 I eb 4 1 for protecting, trimming, removing, replacing and restorinl; any trees or areas to 2 be disturbed during construction. 3 4 Section 8.5: Engineer's Certification: All permit applications shall be accompanied by 5 the certification of a registered professional engineer or oerson�3�Sht)LlT.t'dLh�' & 471.003. F.S., 'r' —" 6 that the drawings, plans and specifications submitted with the application comply with applicable 7 technical codes, rules and regulations. 8 9 Section 8.6: Traffic Control Plan: All permit applications which involve work on, in, 10 under, across or along any public ways shall be accompanied by a traffic control plan t 1 demonstrating the protective measures and devices that will be employed, consistent with Florida 12 Department of Transportation rules and regulations, to prevent injury or damage to persons or 13 property and to minimize disruptions to efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 14 15 Section 8.7: Issuance of Permit: Within forty-five (45) days afler submission of all 16 plans and documents required of the applicant and payment of the permit fee:; required by this 17 Chapter, the Building Official, if satisfied that the applications, plans and document comply with 18 all requirements herein, shall issue a permit authorizing construction of the facilities, subject to 19 such further conditions, restrictions or regulations affecting the time, place; and manner of 20 perforining the work as he may deem necessary or appropriate. 21 22 Section 8.8: Construction. Schedule: The permittee shall submit a written construction 23 schedule to the Franchise Administrator ten (10) working days before commencing any work in 24 or about the public ways. The permittee shall further notify the Franchise Administrator aot less 25 than two (2) working days in advance of any excavation or work in the public ways. 26 27 Section 8.9: Compliance with Permit: All construction practices and activities shall be 28 in accordance with the permit and approved final plans and specifications for the facilities. The 29 Building Official and his representatives shall be provided access to the work and such further 30 information as he or she may require to ensure compliance with such requirements. 31 32 Section 8.10: Display of Permit: The permittee shall maintain a copy of the construction 33 permit and approved plans at the construction site, which shall be displayed and made available 34 for inspection by the Building Official or his represen atives at all times when construction work 35 is occurring. 36 37 Section 8.11: Survey of Underground Facilities: If the construction permit specifies the 38 location of facilities by depth, line, grade, proximity to other facilities or other standard, the 39 permittee shall cause the location of such facilities to be verified by a registered Florida land 40 surveyor. Unless permitted to remain by the County Building Official or other designee of the 41 County Administrator, the permittee shall relocate any facilities which are not located in 42 compliance with permit requirements. 43 38 (including this cover) IIIIIIIII11IiIlIIIIII111II1i11III Hill li11II11 1111111111111I11f TO: _ MT" r,oc.wxQH: X&MM n&ns NNS FIX BM. 263 -48" 111111Ii11Il1iliiilllll[ II[ IIIIII [IIIIIIII[[ItII[IIIIf fill [fill PRO21: aU IE HOFF aLS — caul MS & RECORDS LocA=ON: Collier County Courthouse PAX NA : ( 813) 774 -8408 , FHONE'HO: (813) 774 -8406 2C 964 02-21 ii 16: 18 :i:S�S:••iS 965 •ice 10:41 iS'Si L .1: 867 02-24 14:10 Daita sent: Time sent: /�jG y 12C 4 February 24, 1997 Ms. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 3 =940 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Telecommunications Standards Ordinance Dear Judv: Please advertise the above referenced notice one time on Friday, February 28,1997 and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk Purchase Order (Charge to 111 - 100210- 649100) 12 c y. NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE 14otice is hereby given that on TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997 in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a. County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REGISTRATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS AND PROVIDERS; FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS LICENSES; FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISES; FOR CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISES; FOR FEES AND COMPENSATION; FOR COP1DITIONS OF GRANTS BY THE COUNTY; FOR CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY; FOR PERIODIC EVALUATION, REVIEW AND MODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION INTO THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 88 -90, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Office of Franchise Administration is requesting the adoption of an ordinance to repeal and supersede Collier County Ordinance No. 88 -90, as amended, and hereby establish the County s new policy concerning Telecommunication providers and services. A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Fny person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) Naples Daily News Naples, FL 33940 Affidavit of Publication BOARD OF C"TY COMMISSIONERS FINANCE DEPT. - KATHY ARLOTTA PO BOX 413016 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 -700012 5744Sb01 NOTICE OF INTENT TO State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned auth)rity, personall appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that she e as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the h Daily Mews, a daily newspaper published at Na in Collier County, Florida: that the attache copy of advertising moss pub l i :shed in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples t News is a newspaper published et NepLes, in Collier County, flo.•ida, wnd that the said r_vspe�xr has heretofore bassi continuously ptv+lished in said Allier Ccuity, Florida, a day and has been antarsd es scored clans mai ontter at the post office in !iapies, in said Collier County, Florids, for a period of 1 y next preceding the first publ'l*cction of the attad,ed copy esf advertisement; and affient further says that he has neither paid nor pre " person, firs cr coporation any dismount, reta *.e, commission or refund for the purpose se -uring this advertisement ftr pubt.ication said newspaper. KJOL1SHED ON: 02/78 AD SPACE: 6.417 INCH FILED ON: 02 /28/97 A Signature of Affiant _TZ Sworn to and Subscribed before me this n��— slay of L" 1 Personelly known by ae_- ,�tl��i i/ 1 L t; 4 W on t,r w I Wt _ , r is. mm FXPiFiS F�Y Ts. 2D00 IOimfO ?MJ Twr 130 selq WAM ac C.., a'- 6` 1 L t; 4 W on t,r w I Wt _ , r is. mm FXPiFiS F�Y Ts. 2D00 IOimfO ?MJ Twr 130 selq WAM ac Collier Canty, Flori(ft REMEST FOR LEGAL ADYEiRTISING OF PU@LIC "IF= Cterk to the Board: Please place the folloving as a: WorwL Legal Mverziseee -_-it L= Other: L HH}y,...••••s1T•• }..• .•rsrr+.. •N1 }Hf.• }►.HHf..� 1 3A I 11fzw84-S50 tt isplay Adv., location, etc.) riginating Dcpt/Div: Com-oev.Serv. /Current Plamirw Person: -- (Sign clearly) f }MH. } } ►f NN }.t} }•' }•f'r"fr Hf fM1f•IM«•�•N ~�H «rr•••m►ww ietition No. (if nxr, ,ir brief de- Scription): CU -97 -1 I .'•'............... H•f•w'w'ew f".'•'^^'�'1N }� «O ►1}H }f r }«r }• }Hf H petitioner: (dame L afire -ss): Arthur C. Quinell —F . U iC- Marco Island, Fla. 34146 -0524 asrne E Address of arc/ p_rscn(s) :: be ratified by Clerk's Office:_ Peter M. Andersen nterprise Avenue (If more space rw -edcd, :L:Kh sr�+ -ace sheet) Fla. 34104 Naples, Nearirvl before: )= 6:: j= BZA C= other_ •. «H Req ested•hearingwdatt 3 2 S X97 1w�•'••Bas!d on advertisement appearing L� rys befo FarirV. Z Mevspaper(s) to M .rs-d.. (Coraple_e only if important Q, or legally required f—i) ® Maples Daily aevs Li /f f/II'/Y'w- M1'1ti111111f4 •••HNf• }•f11 •wf •. N. «1H MM +.•�+� -• �� __ _... _ . proposed Text: (1n.lude legal description 1 conmar+ location L size):P•tition No 01)•97 -1 Arthur e- ouirrelt repre5 ting Peter__ m. Andersen, rrwestirq CorditiorOl Use "G" of the C-4 zoning district for new and used boat and auto sales for �rooertY located at 19? Tamiami Trail East, further described es lot G Triangle Subdivision and the northwesterly 9b.2a feet of Parcel A. in ;It& t cn 11 Township 50 South Ik a 25 East Collier County, Florida misting of 0.97 acres. Coapenion petition(%), if arty, G proposed hearing date: - -_ ♦e.a.•r►. -ate r� r•r f • s f } ++w -+.• •..H-lrff H• H+HIf rt•+sMM/MH•H•M. «f Dorms Petition Fe-. Include Advertising Cost? Yes /= No /=7 If yes, shat account should be diar!)ed for advertising costs: 113 - 138312- 649100 P.O.�`r700012 H HTM•.HH •ti• H♦ •TfHHt?.MH•7?! H.H HHH>• Reviewed by: �y A °mod b Division Ncad `' Date��� �� canty karager Date, List Attachments:0) (2)! (3) — •MH.MH •N.... NH.H IHMti'}f..f.•.H' }r f! }N.HNMIMNHHH�••••M•w.+•►• DISTRIBMIC+N I11SMrTIMI A. For heerinos before 9M or ZZA- Initiating person to complete one copy and obtain Division mead approval before si mitting to Canty K--p -- .NOTE: tf legal doctsxnt is involved. be sirs that any necessary leepl review, or �egxst for sane is ubmrirted to County Attorney before stbaitting to County Manager• The Marm.)er's Office Witt distribute copies: agenda file; R ling Division; ___f Or'gHl to Clerk's Office ecitles 1 Of nienl to Clert•s ice. re ns eoav 'for file. I 3 1 RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW AND USED BOAT AND AUTO SALES (SIC GROUPS 5511, 5521 AND 5551) CONDITIONAL USE '14" IN THE C -4 ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.15.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAS't, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67 -1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91 -102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Use 114" of Section 2.2.15.3 in a C -4 zone for new and used boat and auto sales (SIC groups 5511, 5521 and 5551) on the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accorda..ce with (subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida that: -1- 13A I The petition filed by Arthur C. Quinnell representing Peter M. Andersen with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 4, Triangle Lake and the Northwesterly 98.29' of Parcel A, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 38, of the Public Records of Collier County. Florida, all lying in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use 114" of Section 2.2.15.3 of the C -4 zoning district for new and used boat and auto sales (SIC groups 5511, 51521 and 5551) in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "B ") and subject to the following conditions: a. The Planning & Technical Services Manager may approve minor changes in the :location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by the conditional use. Expansion of the uses identified and approved within this conditional use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall compl,i with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the tame of submittal, including Division 3.3, Site Development Plan Review and approval, of the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91 -102). b. Final approval for a Site Development Plan is contingent upon presentation of an FDOT Connection Permit or Notice of Intend to Issue such a permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of 1997. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY//: MARJORIE M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY CU -97 -1 RESOLUTION /19134 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN -2- FINDING OF FACT 13 A BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING C014MISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU -97 -1 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.15.3.4 ofthe Land Devlopment Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular refe..�!nce to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for approval L07jia-M FINDING OF FACT CHAIRMAN /19242 CHAIRMAN: Exhibit "AA Ift a; J a� �Q L n .�saz g7�•:�� yy a `o .j, Exhibit *a" 1 i Cii 1 1— G f � •v M . v ( n s h � � t i r dr 1 3 A 1 r � r Y g7�•:�� yy a `o .j, Exhibit *a" 1 i Cii 1 1— G f � •v M . v ( n s h � � t i r dr 13A 1 FM a: " r• � ;• r TO- I.00ATZ FAX NO: a_M. M ♦�: R� a:�; a�a.a►a fy' Ra:�F�44::��'}� FAX HO: (941) 774 -8408 IlEK2CK HO: (941) 774 -8406 r..T. SENT - 7— Tim SO" TOTAL co r�- •a� �a ar TOTAL 13A 1 February 24, 1997 Ms. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 33940 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition CU -97 -1 Dear Judy: Please advertise the above referenced notice one time ors Sunday, March 9, 1997 and send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. P.O. No. 700012 13A 1 140TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, will hold a public hearing on TUESDAY, N.ARCH 25, 1997, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The Board will consider Petition CU -97 -1, Arthur C. Quinnell representing Peter M. Andersen, requesting Conditional Use "4" of the C -4 zoning district for new and used boat and auto sales for property located. at 1995 Tamiami Trail Ease, further described as Lot 4, Triangle Subdivision and the northwesterly 98.28 feet of Parcel A, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0.97 acres. All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Board prior to the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) 13A I February 24, 1997 Peter M. Andersen 3406 Enterprise Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition CU -97 -1 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 1997. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. cc: Arthur C. Quinell 13A 1 February 24, 1997 Arthur C. Quinell P.O. Box 524 Marco Island, Florida 34146 -0524 RF.: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition CU -97 -1 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that 1-he above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 1997. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk E: �c 1 . CC: Peter Andersen Naples Deily News Naples, Ft. 33940 Affidavit of Publication BWD OF COUNTY COMAISSICHERS FINANCE DEPT. - KATHY ARLOTTA PO BOX 413016 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 - 700012 57450717 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lseb, who on oath says that she serves as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Maples, in Collier County, Florida: that the sttacheH copy of advertising was published in said newspnper on dates Listed. Affient further says that the said Maples Daily ?s!•vs is a newspaper published ott Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier Cwnty, Florida, each day and has been entered as secrxd clsss sail setter at the post office in Maples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached crpy of advertisesent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, fire or coporstion any discount, rebate, oomission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertiserent for publication in the mid rawaraper. PUBLISHED OM: 0309 AD SPACE: 4.333 IMCH FILED CAN: 03/10/97 Signature of Affiant 13A 1 Sworn to and Sutsscribed before ae this J/ day al % Personally known by ae .3 . U(M k FWOM 1!Y COAiA551a! t CC50E7S7 EIMS Z Febew i 19, MM � 1 P tL�lO® 71a{I nK t t� �41fI7�KCi. nG ji M —° �^ r Collier Coemty, Florida REC EST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISIM OF Fi0UC REMIMM To: Clerk to the Board: Pteare piste the following as a: n J K orias l Legal Advert i sa.ent Q Other: 13A 2 A&., toation, etc.) C Originating Dept /Div: Ccn.Dev.Serv_ /Current Plamin3 Person: 11 Date: _ (s clearly) •w. -••fs• K• •• ••••• • •K •t...••.f�«Kf►w1T•Hwf«1f1K Hw/ 11rw1Hf .11/f1M1Nf/fwlf•1s11/Hf/Hf wM1ww.1HMH Il/2d u -SSD Petition ro. (If none, give brief description): CU -96 -26 ♦H+•• • K• w.• f • ► • • f.•.•r.►f +.+►....►w w+ +H.+•fw w f w. Kw>7« -rfw w w w.w MK«wf*•r►wMf MHws•www•wHS+,.w►K...w..+• Petitioner: (Marne t address): q er -aIe 10000 Airport Rd., N. Naples . Fla. ig 104 Name A Address of any person(s) r-c be notified by Clerk's Office._ Our Saviour Lutheran Church (If wore space needed, attz -h seaa-ate sheet) . ' Naples,Fla. 34109 Bearing before: L= &CC BZ.A Q other ♦ ♦ ► •.. w •• • • • K ♦ «. • N •M••f H• KK •t•f •• ww-ww• MKHw•. M• wwlf • «flwr•w1w�w•wf••..+.•+•+. Requested hearing date: 3/25/97 Based on advertisement appewirg Z2: .ays before hearing. wevspaper(s) to be used: (CorV1 a :e only if irpertant L=, GOC fz' Maples Daity News or legally regrired /—' Other wK► f+•.•+ ssf•f•.. •..s- r- .+..+.r«r•w• : ++�•aKKw. «: ef::= s Mw/w/sf. H► +f.Ka►•mtat/tr.— ^-.-.... Petition No. CU- 96 -26, Roger Dale representing Our Savior Lutheran Church, requesting Conditional Uses "2 ", "3" and of the RSF -2 zoning district for church expansion, day care centers and schools for property located at 10000 Airport Road North in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.59 acres, more or less. Companion petition(&), if any, L proposed hearing date: Does Petition Fee Trr_lude Advertising Cost? Yes brjW No /'___j if yes, what accmr%t shoutd be charged for advertising costs: 113 - 133312- 649100 P.O. #700012 MfKHf. K K K f N 1w••.f•••1 HK •f f f.ff f K.♦ lMKfMMfMfMKf Reviewed by: f Approved br: Division Head Date ! County Martisyer Date List Attachments:0) (2)_ (3)_ f 1Mt...fs f Kw.. -•.1Hw fNfffw K•H.MfKlwKlf.MfNi/1 f 1NN/NNf11MNH.•••+r~. DISTRIBUTION INSTRIXTIORs A. For hearinos before BCC or GZA: Initiating person to complete me coq and obtain Division Recd a-p9mv9 before sttsaitting to Cotnty Managar. NOTE: If tegat document is invo(ved be awe that wry necessarr legal review, or request for same is stbtrirred to Canty Attorney before subaittIM to Comrmty Manager, The Rrovrger's office rill distribute copies: 1___j County4 a9ercia file; !-- Reques siaet; /—' Oriyirmal t-o— Y-7- office /{ 13A 2 RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DAY CARE CENTERS AND SCHOOLS CONDITIONAL USES "2 ", "3" AND "4" IN THE RSF-2 ZONING DISTRICT FOR CHURCH AND RELATED USES EXPANSION, DAY CARE CENTER AND SCHOOL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.4.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legs- slature of the State of Florida In Chapter 67 -1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County, Pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91 -102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Uses "2 ", "3" and "4" of Section 2.2.4.3 in an RSF -2 zone for church and related uses, day care center and school on property hereinafter described, and ` has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of r Collier County, Florida that: -1- 13A 2 i. An appropriate portion of the native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in Section 3.9.5.5.4 CCLDC, as amended. j. The landscape buffer along the east side of the project site shall be vegetated to achieve an eighty (30) percent opacity rating within one year of the date of this approval. BE IT FUR'T'HER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of _ 1997. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: �'.a1r»n,c.- 0 f i I & Lk L'i NARJORIE M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY CU -96 -26 RESOLUTION /18839e. BOARD OF Z014ING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN -3- 13A z The petition filed by Roger Dale representing Our Savior Lutheran Church with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Uses "21', "3" and "4" of Section 2.2.4.3 of the RSF -2 zoning district for church and related uses expansion, day care center and school in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C ") and subject to the following conditions: a. The Planning & Technical Services Manager may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by the conditional use. Expansion of the uses identified and approved within this conditional use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the rime of submittal, including Division 3.3, Site Development Plan Review and approval, of the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91 -102). b. All elevated lighting fixture specifications shall provide for directing illumination to the surface of the parking lot only with shielding to ensure that there is no horizontal illumination on the adjacent property. C. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at project entrances at the tine said entrance is constructed. d. A fair share contribution toward the installation of the traffic signal system at the intersection of C.R. 31 and Curling Road shall be required at such time as a signal may be warranted. It shall be the County's sole determination as to whether or not such a signal system is warranted. Any such signal system shall be owned, operated and maintained by the County. e. Turn lanes may be required at the entrances to Curling Road to alleviate potential operational problems at project access points at the time of any Site Development Plan submission. f. Compensating right -of -way shall be required for development of required turn lanes when deemed necessary by Collier County. g. Entrance design shall be consistent with the requirements of the LDC. h. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic -free) plan for the site shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/ construction plan approval. -2- 13A 2 FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU -96 -26 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2, 2.2.4.3.3 and 2.2.4.3.4 of the Land Devlopment Code authorized the conditional uses. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in ease of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district! Compatible use within district Yes No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for approval DATE: FINDING OF FACT CHAIRMAN /19241 CHAIRMAN: AM I " I Exhibit "A" I jA 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OUR SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES A TRACT OF LAND IN ThM NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTlftWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. FROM 711-a NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION, RUN S 89 012'25" E, A DISTANCE OF 100.0 FEET TO THE P.Q.B. THENCE CONTINUE S 89 012'25" E, A DISTANCE OF 452.88 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE RUN S 00 008'12" E, A DISTANCE OF 297.03 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, 101.01 FEET TO THE PT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 223.18 FEET, A DELTA OF 25 055'53 ", A CHORD OF 100.15 FEET BEARING S 58046'03" W; THENCE RUN S 45048'07" W, ALONG A RADIAL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 275.17 FEET TO THE PC OF A CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, 190.22 FEET TO THE PT, SAID CURVE HAVING THE RADIUS OF 237.93 FEET, A DELTA OF 45048'21", A CHORD OF 185.19 FEET BEARING N 67"06'03" rl ; T11ENCE RUN N 00 °00'14" W, ALONG A RADIAL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 475.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 200, 142 .30 SQUARE FEET OR 4.5946 ACRES MORE OR LESS PARCEL A, UNIT 2, FOUR SEASONS, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12, PAGE 6, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 18,465 SQUARE FEET OR 0.424 ACRES MORE OR NESS. 7: StVrVIT \0SL INGS C -t21 Exhibit wBw _� 0 y 13A 2 AY•YOIIT KRA11O ROAD IC.II " ► I i way •n u � � —Ti m. iw fss s.ra - ion-- --t0". %D-- - r � • to � f � —Ti m. iw fss s.ra - ion-- --t0". %D-- 13A 2 FAX # OF PAGES 2 (M UDING THIS COVER) 1),eTO: FAX NO: CXAMCDM: )�,, FAX HD: (941) 774 -8408 PE MM 100: (9411 774-8406 DATE mar: 3 TIM Ste:- ;.,S� 02-21, 16:18 r::ii S- A i 4•i ii i - :1•i : :: •S5 S 02-2rs 10:43 L. iI •i :: %. Si r :.:.:•i:S i:i: 02-2 15-24 .•. . • .. t :rs 02-27 15:32 ::l 4•.L.• • • •z z ._ r :•.•'- JE TOTAL ' c. 13A 2 March 3, 1997 Ids. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 33940 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition CU -96 -26 Dear Judy: Please advertise the above referenced notice one time on Sunday, March 9, 1997 and send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl.. P.O. No. 700012 13A 2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, will hold a public hearing on TUESDAY", MARCH 25, 1997, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The Board will consider Petition CU- 96 -26, Roger Dale representing Our Savior Lutheran Church, requesting Conditional Uses "2 ", "3" and "4" of the RSF -2 zoning district for church expansion, day care centers and schools for property located at 10000 Airport Road North in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.59 acres, more or less. All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Board prior to the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings i:3 made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) 13A 2 March 3, 1997 Our Saviour Lutheran Church 10000 Airport Road North Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition CU- -96 -26 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 1997. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. CC: Roger Dale 13A 2 March 3, 1997 Roger Dale 10000 Airport Road North Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition CU -96 -26 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 1997. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. CC: Our Savior Lutheran Church Naples Daily News Naples, FL 33940 Affidavit of Publication BOARD Of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FINANCE DEPT. - KATHY ARLOTTA PO BOX 413016 MAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 - 700012 57450542 NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEA State of Florida Canty of Collier j Before the urdersigned authority, personalty :,peered B. Laate, who on oath says that she serves) as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples' Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached wVl of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at naples, in said Collier Canty, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each My and has been entered as second class mail Batter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier Canty, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached cc" of advertisement; and affiant further srys that he has neither paid nor promised any person, lira or coporation any distant, rehete, cowmission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisesent for publication in the said newspaper. PM -ISHED ON: 03/09 AD SPACE: 4.167 INCH FILED ON: 03/10/77 Signature of Affiant ,Y dI SwDrn to and Stbscribed before se this day of �Nr 1 � Persorrlly known by se 13A 2 of Goa std pid s AN� - l40./ifA/ R AL f wn • Y m / am XPw a QD Fp �Ig 2DOO � TV'M ar511lAMCF. aC. 13F2 RESOLUTION 97- 188 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DAY CARE CENTERS AND SCHOOLS CONDITIONAL USES "2 ", "3" AND "4" Ito THE RSF -2 ZONING DISTRICT FOR CHURCH AND RELATED USES EXPANSION, DAY CARE CENTER AND SCHOOL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.4.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 25, TOW14SHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67 -1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91 -102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Uses 112 ", 113" and 114" of Section 2.2.4.3 in an RSF -2 zone for church and related uses, day care center and school on property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida that: 13A L The petition filed by Roger Dale representing our :savior Lutheran Church with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein be and the same is hereby approved for conditional Uses "2 ", "3" and "4" of Section 2.2.4.3 of the RSF -2 zoning district for church and related uses expansion, day care center and school in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C ") and subject to the following conditions: a. The Planning & Technical Services Manager may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by the conditional use. Expansion of the uses identified and approved within this conditional use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including Division 3.3, Site Development Plan Review and approval, of the Collier County Land Development Code (ordinance No. 91 -102). b. All elevated lighting fixture specifications shall provide for directing illumination to the surface of the parking lot only with shielding to ensure that there is no horizontal illumination on the adjacent property. C. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at project entrances at the time said entrance is constructed. d. A fair share contribution toward the installation of the traffic signal system at the intersection of C.R. 31 and Curling Road shall be required at such time as a signal may be warranted. It shall be the County's sole determination as to whether or not such a signal system is warranted. Any such signal system shall be owned, operated and maintained by the County. e. Turn lanes may be required at the entrances to Curling Road to alleviate potential operational problems at project access points at the time of any Site Development Plan submission. f. Compensating right -of -way shall be required for development of required turn lanes when deemed necessary by Collier County. g. Entrance design shall be consistent with the requirements of the LDC. h. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic -free) plan for the site shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/ construction plan approval. 13A J. An appropriate portion of the native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in Section 3.9.5.5.4 CCLDC, as amended. J. A six (6) foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the east property line. Said masonry wall shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a building lying north or east of the existing parking lot and illustrated as future Kindergarten through 8th Grade classrooms on the Conditional Use Site Plan. BE IT FUR'T'HER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of fi mss/! , 1997. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER LINTY, FLORIDA BY: T MOTHY ANC CK, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIG°i'I' P7 BROCK, CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORD AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: MARJOR E M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY CU -96 -26 RESOLUTION /18839. 2 13A 2 FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU -96 -26 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2, 2.2.4.3.3 and 2.2.4.3.4 of the Land Devlopment Code authorized the conditional uses. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plea: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case: of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingres�& egress Yes ✓✓ No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noisy, glare, economic or odor effects: �/ No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: , Compatible use within district Yes ✓ No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should �. be recommended for approval DATE: 9-7_ CHAIRMAN: FINDING OF FACT CHAIRMAN /19241 � d Exhibit "A" 13A � FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU -96 -26 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2., 2.2.4.3.3 and 2.2.4.3.4 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan- Yes � No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & eg� ss Yes !/ No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or T.ffect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes l/ tlo Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached2//�should no recommended for approval 54 "4 DATE: — ��_ MEMBER: ' FINDING OF FACT MEMBER /19241 I -)M G FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU -96 -26 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2., 2.2.4.3.3 and 2.2.4.3.4 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Pla. Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & e ess Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relaticn to nois , glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the distr' t: Compatible usehin district Yes ������////// No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) fe be recommended for approval DATE: MEMBER: ' FINDING OF FACT MEMBER /19241 13� . FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-96 -26 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2., 2.2.4.3.3 and 2.2.4.3.4 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes �,/ No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes X_ No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or _ Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes _� No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be recommended fo approval DATE: G MEMBER: FINDING OF FACT MEMBER /19241 13A 2 4 FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU -96 -26 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2., 2.2.4.3.3 and 2.2.4.3.4 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affE!ct other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management P1 fi: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & e ess Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to no is , glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use ithin district Yes No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy at ched) (should not) be recommended for approval j%A C_...._ - V DATE : FINDING OF FACT MEMBER /19241 13a 2 FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU -96 -26 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2., 2.2.4.3.3 and 2.2.4.3.4 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes ", No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes '- No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes '- No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy at ched) Lphould not) he recommend d for approval DATE: M EM --� FINDING OF FACT MEMBER /19241 1�) el FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL''USE PETITION FOR CU -96 -26 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2., 2.2.4.3.3 and 2.2.4.3.4 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management P1 Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & gress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use ithin district Yes � No Based on the above findin s, this conditi 1 use should, with stipulat' , (copy a =4: ho d not) be recomne ed or approval 1 DATE: MEMBER FINDING OF FACT MEMBER /19241 1 5A FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU -96 -26 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2., 2.2.4.3.3 and 2.2.4.3.4 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth ManagepeTt P an: �Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingr — ress dyes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noi lare;— economic or odor effects: bl- No affe or Affect mitigated by fect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compati e se I�ithin district Yes v� No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attff �r should not) be recommended for approva DATE: S / 97 MEMBER: FINDING OF FACT MEMBER /19241 13A--2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OUR SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPI,gS A TRACT OF LAND IN THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNIER OF SAID NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF =r- NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION, RUN S 89 012'25" E, A DISTANCE OF 100.0 FEET TO THE P.O.B. TF=C`E CONTINUE S 89 012'25" E, A DISTANCE OF 452.88 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE RUN S 00 008'12" E, A DISTANCE OF 2977.03 FEET TO A POINT OZI A CURVE; THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO 7-HE LEFT, 101.0:1 FEET TO THE PT, SAID CURVE PLkVING A RADIUS OF 223.18 FEET, A DELTA OF 25 °55'53 ", A CHORD OF 100.15 FEET BEARING S 5 8 ° 4 6' 0 3" W; THENCE RUN S 4 5 ° 4 8' 0 7" W, ALONG A RADIAL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 275.17 FEET TO THE PC OF A CURVE; THENCE RUN IOR'Tri- WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, 190.22 FEET TO THE PT, SAID CURVE HAVING THE RADIUS OF 237.93 FEET, A DELTA OF 45'48'21", A CHORD OF 185.19 FEET BEARING N 67006103" W; THENCE RUN N 00 000'14" W, ALONG A RADIAL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 475.00 FEET TO -HE POINT OF BRGIMMM AND CONTAINING 200,142.30 SQUARE FEET OR 4.5946 ACRES MORE OR LESS t_r• PARCEL A, UNIT 2, FOUR SEASONS, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12, PAGE 6, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNT`.', FLORIDA. CONTAINING 18,465 SQUARE FEET OR 0.424 ACRES MORE; 012 LESS. y : S.Ai li7 \OSS. CWGO C -421 Exhibit "B" -- - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - AM101tT PUUAPG ROAD ICJL 11 1 CaA;,Ag WSW D�v (OSIK 9'%0 CA" fW& WWI-Or-myl 7- m q.g 0 0 MCC borm Now Tiff F7 P2 LU- MFI;o 0- AA n �141izalr-- r1:441 �, !I OUR SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH Cf*"rx)NAL USE SITE PLAN -11#i; 11 61Af OF mr:�co am SWAM Lwpdxm 3A - 13A 3 Cotlier Canty, Florida II�21s /ac REOAST FOR LEGAL ADYERTISINC OF PUSLiC WA INS To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: t= Lx ' JX Normal Legal Advert i s.ewent Other: — (Display A,dv., location, etc.) /NNw- e-f7f1.9.Lfa11N♦ MMrtbalNfaa.lNa•HMMN•a� J���afir.� .��( HtN.MMa1MN.QM••••rMaN. orlginating Dept /Div: Cua.Dov.Se-r -r. /Current Planning Person: �f>r." (sign ctcarty) «fa•1Haw•.•ra•saN a•M •••�••.►�IMSNaa1 ►N•av M1NNN1•a NNaaN MNNaa •aN•bN0•af'a•aN•.'N S•N+raa•�w Petition Ho. (if none, give brief drseriptien): A -97 -1 NN •fwa .... N a 1 • a f +...+++'v++N�M.M..1fNN M♦ N +M1... fNNa.NfM. N.MNN.aN. NNN. NNa+rtfNN1f.N M.... Nr..a-trr. Petitioner: (Hann, a addre::): _James H. Siesky of Siesky, Pilon & Rood 1000 Tamiami Trail N, Naples,Fla. 33940 flan! L Address of any perso(s) := 5e notified by Clerk's Office: Falling Waters Development QQr -VA__ (if mare spat! need -d, attach sGa-ate sheet) 7200 Davis Blvd. Naples, Fla. 33942 ft!arinrg before: ,[__ &CC = RZA r= other • w • w H • 1............a f .faaN aaa N NaMNI alaV•w faa lNNaMNaM•f Nfa ••aa oa f .. ••a-f NNa •••♦ • Na M . • s aa���� «� Re4ves:ed hearing date:_ �a Based on advertisement appearing 1-15 Sys before hearing. jAeA :trar.paper(s) to tie used: (Corrpie:e onty if irportant Maptes Daily flevs or legally re<*jired =) J"— Other 6...-. ... • . a. «f ♦. f • N•wfNN•NH ••N a.M• M.Na •NlN1N• waMT.NN• --N• H N Mti+N•aN Prag7sed Text- (Include legal des�iption i cmrnrxr location i size): A -97 -1 James H. Siesky,Pilon & Wood representing Falling Waters Development Corporation requesting an appeal of the Collier County Planning Commission's denial of its request to exten the use of a model home located at 6562 Trail Blvd. CcApar)ion petition(s), if any, L prcgosed hearing date:_ .1. Ma1�ly.t al..l.11.1tF.t a1NHN+►.aNM1!^HNM MNaalfNlr'f.aaf Mft.MN�1NHa..alMawNa• ors Petition Fee lrx_tur'.e Adveitisintg Cost? Yes r_vr No L--T if yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: 113 - 1.35312- 649100 P.O.A700012 NMf NTa as MN.ta •N.NlNa aaaNNa'ff+raN MfNaa HNNfa'M.ffMa�a••• Reviev!d by: Approved by= D i yi s i on Read VA-1—Date Date 01-P / - ` 7 County Nxaget Dat List Attach eints:(T) (2) (3) a.+aa«a ♦ NaT.I. N f NM•aNNN •N -.aNN NfN aN NN •Na •N�•a DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. For hearings before DCC or (iZA: initiating person to complete one coq and obtain Division Nesid approval before sxkwitting to County F1arwgw. NT(: if begat 4-0c— tsnent is irnalnd be sure that +M+11 necfStAN I.SHi_�t" °r request for sane. isVritted to County Attorney before wkeittina to Caa ty 1 • T4* rjewoer's office rill distribute copies: .,1:. �s /� Coen �file � office 13A 3 FM t: Y 1 t /•' :/ • :4• TO: IAC.ATICU - :a ur:_r:•r • W •.: �• �.�• •• Ir: • Ii• :'t 1 FAX ND: (941) 774 -8408 PEOCKE Mo: (941) 774 -8406 DATE .2 /Aq TIM SENT. / 5_ • REM it 10:43 i i iL it G� / i.�•li•i:ii4i5: • •i 5i' i •L /•'' • M / ii•::iL:4SSbS•' I H. 13A 3 February 24, 1997 Ms. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 33940 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition A -97 -1 Dear Judy: Please advertise the above referenced notice one time on Sunday, March 9, 1997 send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Sincerely Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. P.O. No. 700012 13A 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, will hold a public hearing on TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The Board will consider Petition A -97 -1, James H. Siesky of Siesky, Pilon & Wood, representing Falling Waters Development Corporation requesting an appeal of the Collier County Planning Commission's denial of its request to extend the use of a model home located at 6562 Trail Boulevard, Collier County, Florida. All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Board prior to the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIP.MAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) I. 3A 3 February 24, 1997 Falling Waters Development Corporation 7200 Davis Boulevard Naples, Florida 33942 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition A -97 -1 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 1997. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. CC: James H. Siesky I 3A 3 February 24, 1997 James H. Siesky Siesky, Pilon & Wood 1000 Tamiami Trail North Naples, Florida 33940 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition A -97-1 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 199"'. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti., Deputy Clerk Encl. CC: Falling Waters Development Corporation Naples Daily News Naples, FL 33940 �j Affidavit of Publication / A 3 HOARD OF C•OlAM COMMISSiOMERS FINAIKE DEPT. - KATMY ARLOTTA PO 3OX 61:016 KAYLES FL 341 01-301 6 PUXJC � REFERENCE: 001234 - 700012 I� 57450720 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA « *is, =ili4 State of Florida +Dfi�fit County of Collier TO- Wort the undersigned authority, personally appeared S. La•b, who on oath says that she serves as She Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily Maws, a daily newspaper published at Naples, 4 in Collier County, Florida: that the attached ct,pf of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Maples Daily °�:�•ss- _+mac.• Neva is • rwdsp per published at Wtes in said Via: ^ ' Collier County, Florida, and that the said nevspaper• has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has bean entered as second class wail ;Y utter at the post office in Maples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promisad t. arty person, firm or ceporation any discount,. 3'...x. b ~. rebate, cooaission or -*fm;d for the purpose of securing this advertiseaent for publication in the said newspaper. PU9LIS1IED ON: 03/09 AD SPACE: 4.083 INCH FILED ON: 03/10/97 S ivnture of Aff iant Sworn to and Subscribed before a- this day of � — 191 Perstorelly knomom by me Cn S' ,. JuuM A. Fimlparl �" ?.• : MY t,C)WDASuriON F Cm0ffm BMWs ' Ls- �• �` FeOnxry 19.2000 y` • go"= ne+n nor PAM WIPM M arc m 131 "4 Collier County, Florida 11/2f)/fX S50 REoMST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC W RINGS >: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: t r Lazes Kor=al legal AD+ertisewent L =i Other: (Display Adv., location, etc.) N�Nf'Mf f. f�f*'4. +T fMMN7"r• 1.t f f?fM1.. Date- — wiginating Dept/Div: cow DeY Sere /Current Planning Person: 1 • - (Sign clearly) .' •. •MwH1�f.•INw.NN.•NNH NN•••-•••r•. •+• r. M!1 N.w VN f M N.1�....+T.Iw.�.'•..�•MM14. NN'•. N... w NwlM 'etition No. (If none, 9iK brief dscription): V-96-9 Scrivener's Error 1- M1N ....sa11N...f.M►..v.Mw�.+.rN. N4NM' f.. M1s.. NN.+.. f1. 1• M/' 1. 1MMM�. H. .MH7fHHHt'/.HMH.M..NNf.•!••+..: �etitiorer: (Name L a- &rest): Maria Silva -- 70 Kathy Lane - Naples, Fla. 33962 - taw,e L Address of any persrr-(s) tc be notified by Clerk's Office. (If more space needed, at ;ach se=a-tte sheet) Searing before: L � i4C L3= BZA �-7 Other w••••-••H • w•• wN1• NI• N• w .M.NNM.'.HNN�.11•'f�M...•.1•H. Nw•N ••••••w •w••• tegrested•h ^ ' S1 f wring date• /7 Q7 eased on advertisement appearing G -dys before hearing. wcvspsper(S) to be used: (C.Oeple:e Only if iagortant zzzz'7 Naples Daily Nevs or legally required /=.o) /—= other ♦ • w.- e�r.AAOS • •. w • . ►• •-► • ••+f N H w. w sfff •� Nwww ffwfMNMNMM* tf.wHrNw4H.Nw s M•N�•s.Hti ••sH•. • •..+..�•'• Proposed Tent: (Include legat des--xiption L camon location L size): Resolution amending ParaC(ra Five c Resolution 96 -305, A Variance, for property hereinafter described in Collie: bounty, Fla., to correct a Scrivener's Error in the property's legal description. tia� anion petitirrn <s), if any, i proposed hearing date: N MN17'M. Ny "wlrN IAMf•+k -O!M ♦.M. N•. w..i.lR.�s /..N M►M7HNM.. MfNN• • M..•.'�'•� Does Petition Few Irxtcck Adve•rtisiry Cost? Tes 1$g7 No /_/ If yes, chat account should be charged for advrertising costs: 113 - 136312- 649100 P.0. #700012 H•tN+r►1N•MNM47fOMy ' eeMSN'•' H.tNOHNMH Ha' !4.'a?H.ffMfNM'.'•'•.N•f•�•.•.• Reviewed by: ./1611 /.pproved by Division Newd i Dat.� ? !ugh f Date List Attaci+rtts:(T) (2) (3) •OMM�t w�s�Nrw•+N.N••+ HNNlMfMN.M.• H.NMM.NI..fN.H.N�••e ^�+�'• -. DISTRIBUTION (NSTRUCTIops A hearings before bCC or 5ZA: tlnitiatirg person.to eogAtte orrc copy ar+d obtain Division head approval before RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION AMENDING PARAGRAPH FIVE OF RESOLUTION 96 -305, A VARIANCE, FOR PROPERTY h1 HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION. WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals adopted Resolution 96 -305, pertaining to the Variance for Maria Silva approved on June 25, 1996, and WHEREAS, following said action adopting Resolution 96 -305, staff was advised that a dimension in the site's legal description was incorrectly listed in Paragraph Five of said Resolution by mistake and constitutes a scrivener's error. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the legal description of Paragraph Five of Resolution 96 -305, is hereby amended, by adding the corrected legal descriptions to read as follows: NOW THEREFORE BE I7 RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Stanton Mobile Home Sale's Inc., representing Maria Silva, wi'h respect to the property hereinafter described as: Beginning at the SE corner of Section 12; thence S 0' 00' 00" E, 335.26 feet to the point in the north right -of -way line of Highway 41; thence N 54' 36' 00" W 1672.10 feet along the north right -of -way line of Highway 41 to a concrete monument; thence N 0' 13' 30" E 1046.63 feet to the north line of Kathy Lane; thence N 89' 56' 30" W 472. 532.74 along the north line of Kathy Lane to the true Place of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continuing N 89' 56' 30" W 60.00 feet along the north line of Katny Lane; thence N 0' 34' E 135.00 feet; thence S 89' 56' 30" E 60.00 feet; thence S 0' 34' W 135.00 feet to the true Place of Beginning of the parcel herein described. Being situated in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Words struck through are deleted; Words underlined are added. -1- ' I 3A 4 , This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Dc,ne this day of 199 ?. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORIA AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: MARJOR E M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY ! /ray /S';P.IVENER'!Z ERROF. RESOLUTi4Ali 1 3A • .4 PAX # cP I..Ma= (xw=im,ii ' ISIS QOVM) ii TO: I LOC M(M: 1 PAX HD L� • w: • : •• ta• w• t�.- w• �rr.�: • �titi: poom W (941) 774 -8406 DATE SENT: %r 10:43 3 %r % L% %r %% • %r .% .r .. %r %% . Z • :.:�5%:LS• .� : zr Ifs %I j • � «••�� % • • SR •• 09:24 •iS SR %% :..'L • S :SS:SSSS•i %R L �� i G it S 4 ••7 ©� i -_: �5 i,�,_••/�_'•i^ L �`�= • 'C % 13A 4 March 5, 1997 Ms. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 3394C Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition V -95 -3 Scrivener's Error Dear Judy: Please advertise the above referenced notice one time on Sunday, March 9, 1997 and send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. P.U. No. 700012 13A 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, will hold a public hearing on TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The Board will consider a Resolution amending Paragraph Five of Resolution 96 -305, a variance granted to Maria Silva, for property on the north side of Kathy Lane, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, to correct a Scrivener's Error in the property's legal description. All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Board prior to the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) I 3A -4 March 5, 1997 Maria Silva 170 Kathy Lane Naples, FL 34114 RE: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition V -96 -9 Scrivener's Error Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 1997 . You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Encl. Maples Daily News Naples, FL 3 191.0 1 3 A 4 Affidavit of Publication WARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FINANCE DEPT. - KATHY ARLOTTA Po Box 413016 NAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 -700012 571.50989 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA State o: Florida county of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that she serves as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said t n�.sp -per on dates listed. Affient further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Maples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class nail Potter at the post office in Maples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next prnccdiryj the first publicstion of the attached copy of aeiverti"eent; aced affient further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or coporaticn any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this edvertisewent fcr publication in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED OM: 03/09 AD SPACE: 4.000 INCH FILED ON: 03/10/97 Signature of AM t am to and Subscribed be ore oe this `( day of 1 -17 Personally known by be jI J i my CAFAIri15" t 00508T% ExFmiEs s xlt: Fek"y 19.2=1 7„ i. p•' Dow= flR! My i ►M SW AMCF. IMC 1 3A 4 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -189 A RESOLUTION AMENDING PARAGRAPH FIVE OF RESOLUTION 96 -305, A VARIANCE, FOR PROPER"Y HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER. COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO CORRECT A. SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION. WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals adopted Resolution 96 -305, pertaining to the Variance for Maria Silva approved on June 25, 1996, and WHEREAS, following said action adopting Resolution 95 -305, staff was advised that a dimension in the site's legal description was incorrectly listed in Paragraph Five of said Resolution by mistake and constitutes a scrivener's error. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the lega'_ description of Paragraph Five of Resolution 96 -305, is hereby amended, by adding the corrected legal descriptions to read as follows: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Stanton Mobile Home Sale's Inc., representing Maria Silva, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Beginning at the SE corner of Section 12; thence S 0° 00' 00" E, 335.26 feet to the point in the north right -of -way line of Highway 41; thence N 54° 36' 00" W 1672.10 feet along the north right-of -way line of Highway 41 to a concrete monument; thence N 0° 13' 30" E 1046.53 feet to the north line of Kathy Lane; thence N 89° 56' 30" W 4:;2. 4 532.74 along the north line of Kathy Lane to the true Place of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continuing N 39° 56' 30" W 60.00 feet along the north line of Kathy Lane; thence N 0` 34' E 135.00 feet; thence S 89° 56' 30" E 60.00 feet; thence S 0° 34' W 135.00 feet to the true Place of Beginning of the parcel herein described. Being situated in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. I �A 4 This Resolution adopted after motion, /second and majo.city vote. Done this � day of 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA B Y: IMOTH'1 X. RAACO-CK, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Dt'iIGHT E. BROCK., rLERK AiPRO D AS. TO FORM ANT) LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: MARJOPC E M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY f /ray /3S--R11E':ER'S EP.ROR RFSOL,aiCiN! words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. I )b j RESOLUTION 97- 190 RELATING TO PETITION NO. CU -96 -1 FOR EXTE14SION OF CONDITIONAL USE OF PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all Counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ord nance No. 91 -102) which establishes comprehensive zoning regulations for the zoning of particular divisions of the County, among which is the granting and extending the time period of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 1996, the Board of Zoning Appeals enacted Resolution No. 96 -192, attached hereto and incorporated herein, which granted a conditional use pursuant to Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended, for a church, on the below described property; and WHEREAS, Subsection 2.7.4.5 of the Land Development Code provides that the Board of Zoning Appeals may extend the one (1) year time period for a conditional use which has not been commenced; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida that: The written request of Barbara Ct.wley of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, Inc., representing Naples New Haitian Church of the Nazaarene for the first of three (3) permitted one (1) year extensions, in interest of the following described property: Lot 99, Naples Grove & Truck Co., Little Farm #2, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 27, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. is hereby approved pursuant to Subsection 2.7.4.5 of the Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91 -102), and the expiration date for Resolution No. 96 -192, attached hereto and incorporated herein as -1- 1 38 1 ' Exhibit "A ", and all conditions applicable thereto, is hereby extended for one additional year until April 9, 1998. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board and in the records of the Petition for which the extension is granted. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this '2 day of Viz;,' , 1997. BGARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: T MOTFiY I,/ "RA.NCOCK, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROOK; CLERK APP OVED AS TO FOi{M AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: TJ M.ARJORX M. STUDENTcC ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTOR.RNEY f /CU -96 -1 Extension /Res RESOLUTION 96- 192 1 3 B /U 1 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHURCH, CONDITIONAL USE 2, IN THE "RSF -3" ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.4.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR "^^ PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67 -1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has .�..� conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and crew enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91 -102) which includes a Comprehensive. Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the dui;: ?!X appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, -+.+e has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations wade and �t provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Use "2" of Section 2.2.4.3. in an "RSF -3" zone for a church on the property "Y hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A ") r that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be --r :c heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having -- considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida that: The petition filed by Barbara H. Cawley, AICP, of Wilson, Mil.! <r, Barton & Peek, Inc., representing the Naples Ned Haitian Church of the Nazarene with respect to the property hereinafter described as: I ) b j Lot 99, Naples Grove & Truck Co., Little Farn 12, as recorded in Plat Book 1,,Page 27, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. _ be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use 2 of Section I 2.2.4.3 of the "RSF -3" zoning district for a church in accordance with —" the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "B ") and subject to the following conditions: 1. Arterial l6vel street lighting shall to provided at both access points prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. y 2. The church shall be responsible for both northbound and southbound turn lanes from Bayshore Drive into the ^* property when requested by Collier County. The northbound right turn lane may, however, be deferred until further site- specific traffic analysis indicates the need f.r the turn lane is present. 3 The southbound left turn lane should be a requirement of the buildout development. If further traffic analysis . '- indicates the need for the left turn lane before the second phase of development, the second phase should be dependent upon the turn lane being in place prior to the issuance of building permits for the second phase. If the turn lane is not required until buildout, it shall -' be required to be in place prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the second phase. s. a. The applicant shall confirm a positive drainage outfall, and the adequacy tr­reof, for purposes of project buildout. Should the drainage outfal:. require capacity improvements, the benefiting parties :;hall incur a fair �.� share cost of such improvements. _._ 5. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the - State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit rules and be subject to review and approval by Current Planning Environmental Review Staff. Removal of exotics shall not be required east of Constitution Drive unless required in the wetlands in accordance with SFWMD '- permit. 6. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to re Aew and approval by Current Planning —� Environmental Review Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 7. Prior to Final Site Development Plan approval the Petitioner shall submit a management plan pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.9.5.3. a. All conservation areas shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section -- 704.06 of the Florida Statues. Conservation areas shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's owner entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. 9. Buffer zones will be placed around wetlands in accordance with south Florida Water Management District requirements. ,. -2- .a rc:a -•ter. 1o. Prior to final Site Development Plan approval the 13 B petitioner shall supply a letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), indicating that the bald eagle nest which was located to the west of the property is no longer being used. I 11. The petitioner shall supply an appropriate wildlife habitat management plan as required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish,Commission (FGFWFC) in relation to the bald eagle nest located to the west of the property, prior to an approval of any final development order. 12. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic -free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation /preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan /construction plan approval. The exotic removal plan may be phased as approved by Current Planning Environmental Staff. 13. Site lighting shall be directed to surface areas to be illuminated in such a manner as not to cause a glare to adjacent property owners. 14. Security lighting shall be provided on all parking areas and immediate environs of the building. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Commissioner Mac'Kie offered the foregoing Resolution and moved for its adoption, seconded by Commissioner 11 Constantine and upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: Commissioner Mac'Kie, Commissioner Constantine, Commissioner Hancc Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner Norris NAYS: ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: ABSTENTION: Done this 9th day of BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ATTEST: 4 bWIGHT E. BR6& -, cCFERK AP OVED *AS TO FQ]tM AND LE AL 'SUFFICIEh4 t': 'Tile ....••.• MAitJORJE M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY CU -96 -1 RESOLUTION /16482 ril , 1996. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY�JO C. NORRIS ,CHAIRMAN -3- FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 1 3B FOR PETITION NO. CU -96 -1 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.2.4.3.2 of the Land Devlopment Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan* Yes � No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes x 110 C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noes , glare, economic or odor effects: ,No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within istrict Yes ,-No Based on the above findings, this col 'onal use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) shoul not) be recommended for approval DATE: )2-1 CHAIRMAN: - FINDING OF FACT CHAIRMAN/ EXHIBIT "A" U ------ — -- — Q-- �;-- --- --- BAntQW, DANE 9 °o m _ s A •° r y i �1 N I ( r � I It Ili. • ;138 in i i '• tII a; � a i i i i e R � � i ( 9 °o m E : i 14 r� fR- o"p� o ►I I: - I rt Z I 4 ri I , i 1 ' x i of 47 c _ t _ s A r c ( r � I in ( E : i 14 r� fR- o"p� o ►I I: - I rt Z I 4 ri I , i 1 ' x i of 47 c _ t , 0 i _ s s r c ( r � I , 0 i NAPLES HAITIAN CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE�� ' ONDMONAL USE SITE PLAN _ s s RESOLUTION NO. 97- 183 1 bA 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN "SHERWOOD PARK ", RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on August 25, 1995 approved the plat of Sherwood Park for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 88 -76, as amended), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Compliance Services Section of the Development Services Department has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Sherwood Park, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTIIER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATE: 21--- s�Z BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTESTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DWIGHTf E. BROCK, CLERK J —4—` By: MOTHY ANCOCK, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal suffi iency: e2i F. Ashton Assistant Collier County Attorney 1 6A CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGRZMCKNT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS THIS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (this "Agreement ") is entered into this -.S day of 4, 19 J7 by and among TIAPLES HERITAGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, an independent special district and body politic of the State of Florida (the "District "), U.S. HOME CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the Developer ") and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "Board "). RECITALS: A. Simultaneously herewith, the Developer has applied for Board approval of that certain plat of the subdivision to be known as Naples Heritage Golf & Country Club, Phase Two -A (the "Plat "). B. Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code (the "Code ") requires the District and the Developer to provide certain guarantees to the Board in connection with the construction of the improvements required by the Plat. C. The District and the Developer desire to provide the required guarantees to the Board hereby. NOW, 'THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth. the District, the Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as follows: OPERATIVE PROVISIONS: 1. Required Improvements. The District will cause to be constructed: Those certain roadways, drainage and water management facilities and water and sewer utility facilities shown on the construction plans for Naples Heritage, Phase Two -A, except those improvements within the golf course (collectively, the "Required Improvements ") . Subject to Paragraph 3 hereof, the Required Improvements will be constructed within thirty -six (36) months from the date that the Board approves the Plat. 16A 2 2. Security for Required Improvements. A construction fund (the "Construction Fund ") has been established by resolution of the District adopted on December 9, 1996 (the "Bond Resolution ") from which the cost of construction of the Required Improvements shall be paid. The Construction Fund shall. be held in the custody of a bond trustee (the "Trustee "). Proceeds of bonds authorized to be issued by the District pursuant to the Bond Resolution shall be deposited, at a minimum, in the Construction Fund as follows: $853,766.37 for costs of the Required Improvements (the "Construction Amount ") and $85,400.00 representing ten percent (10 %) of the Construction Amount (the "Reserve Amount "). The Reserve Amount shall be retained as a reserve in the Construction Fund pursuant to Paragraph 5 hereof. In addition to the foregoing, proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited with the Trustee to be held as capitalized interest which shall be sufficient to pay interest on the Bonds during the seventeen (17) month period following the issuance thereof. In addition, proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited with the Trustee in the Debt Service Reserve Account established by the Bond Resolution in an amount sufficient to pay approximately twelve (12) months of debt service on the Bonds. There shall be sufficient monies in the construction fund to construct the required improvements and all other improvements authorized by the Bond Resolution, as well as to fund the Reserve Amount. 3. Construction of Required Improvements. (a) Annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A is a Construction Schedule relating to the Required Improvements (the "Construction Schedule ") . The District shall commence construction of the Required Improvements within sixty (60) days following written construction approval to the District from the Development Services -2- 16A 2 Department and the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds (the "Commencement Period "). The District will pursue construction of the Required Improvements to substantial completion within twelve (12) months following the end of the Commencement Period (the "Construction Period ") . (b) In the event the District fails to: (i) commence construction of the Required Improvements within the Commencement Period; or (ii) substantially complete construction of the Required Improvements prior to the expiration of the Construction Period, upon written notice to Developer by the Board, Developer shall immediately become responsible for the construction of the Required Improvements. The obligation to construct the Required Improvements within the Construction Period shall be a joint obligation of both the District and the Developer. 4. Development Services Director's Preliminary Approval of Required Improvements. The Development Services Director shall not consider. the Required Improvements complete until a statement of completion by the District's or Developer's consulting engineers, I together with the final project records related thereto, have been furnished for review and approval to the Development Services Director of Collier County, Florida (the "Director ") for compliance with the Code. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement of completion from the District, the Director shall either (a) notify the District or Developer, in writing, of its preliminary approval of the Required Improvements; or (b) notify the District or Developer, in writing, of his refusal to dpreliminarily approve the Required Improvements, therewith specifying those conditions that the District or Developer must fulfill in order to -3- 16A 2 obtain the Development Services Director's Preliminary Approval of the Required Improvements. In no event shall the Board refuse Preliminary Approval of the Required Improvements if they are constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. 5. Maintenance and Reserve Amount. The District or Developer, as the case may be, shall maintain all Required Improvements for a minimum of one year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one year maintenance period by the District or Developer and upon submission of a written request for inspection, the Development Services Director or his designee shall inspect the Required Improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Code shall recommend approval to the Board. The District or Developer's responsibility for maintenance of them Required Improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for -he County. Sums equal to the Reserve Amount shall be maintained by the Trustee on deposit in the Construction Fund until the final approval of the Required Improvements. The Board shall reflect its acknowledgment of such finding by notifying the District, in writing, of its final approval of the Required Improvements. Upon receipt of notice of such final approval, the District shall no longer be required under this Agreement to maintain the Reserve Amount on deposit in the Construction Fund. In r_he event that during the inspection the Director finds that all or some portion of the Required Improvements are not in compliance with the Code, the Director shall promptly specify, in writing, to the District those deficiencies that must be corrected in order to bring the Required Improvements into compliance with the Code. The District shall apply the Reserve Amount to payment- of the cost of correcting such deficiencies. In the event the District fails to pursue such corrective action, the -4- 16A 2 Developer shall bring the Required Improvements into compliance with the Code. Upon correction of the specified deficiencies and written notice thereof, the Director shall again inspect the Required Improvements and, if found to be in compliance with the Code, shall submit such findings to the Board for its final approval thereof. 5. Plat Recordation. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is a "Construction and Maintenance Agreement of Subdivision Improvements" Y.ithin the meaning of, and meeting the requirements established by, Division 3.2.9 of the Code. The parties acknowledge and agree that following the Board's approval of the Plat: (a) The Developer shall not be entitled to record the Plat until the Board receives: (1) written notice from the Trustee that sums at least equal to the Construction Amount and Reserve Amount are on deposit in the Construction Fund (the "Trustee Notice ") ; (2) Written notice from District and the Trustee that: (a) The project for which bond proceeds have been received by District includes the Required Improvements; (b) Such Bond proceeds are sufficient to finance the Required Improvements as well as all other improvements to be financed by the Bonds (collectively "the Project") and to fund the Reserve Amount. The Trustee's representation that funds are sufficient to finance the Project for which Bond proceeds have been received as well as to fund the Reserve Amount is based upon the District Engineer's -5- I bA 2 estimation of construction costs which is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and (c) The project cannot be amended or changed without the consent of the Board (the "Project Notice "); (3) A representation and warranty from the District that all governmental permits to enable the District to commence construction of the Required Improvements have been obtained ( "Permit Warranty "); and (b) Upon receipt by (of] the Board of the Trustee Notice, Project Notice and the Permit Warranty, Developer shall be entitled to record the Plat without further condition, other than payment of any related recording fees established by applicable law and the execution of the Plat by all required parties. 7. Liability. The County shall have no liability whatsoever to the bond holders. Neither the enforcement of the terms of this Agreement by the County nor the failure to enforce such terms shall create any liability whatsoever to the bond holders, the District, or the Developer. Any disclosure document prepared by the District or Developer in the offering of such Bonds shall provide a statement as described above relating to the lack of liability of the County. 8. Miscellaneous;. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are, and shall be, binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the District, Developer and Board. By Execution below, the Trustee shall evidence its acknowledgment of and assent to the matters addressed herein. Any notice, demand, request or 16A 2 instrument authorized or required to be given or made hereby shall be deemed to have been given or made when sent by certified mail, return receiprt requested, to the appropriate party at their address set forth below: To the District: Gary L. Moyer, District Manager 10300 N.W. 11th Manor Coral Springs, Florida 33071 To the Developer: Peter R. Comeau U.S. Home Corporation 8670 Davis Bouleavard Naples, Florida 33962 To the Board: c/o County Manager Collier County Government Center 3303. East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 With a Copy to: Collier County Attorney Collier County Government 'enter 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, F'_orida 34112 To the Trustee: First Union National Bank of Florida Attn: Ms. Vivian Cerecedo 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District, the Developer and the Board have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of this ��. day of yj /,2cG_ 1997. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: ATTEST: 4 District Secretary Witness Al r Wi ness EC�Zrir3frN �. 1 r(/rnX�� w DISTRICT: NAPLES TAGS CPMHUNITY DEVELO CT By Peter R. Comeau, Chairman iD ;ice' _11. U.B. TION By Peter R. Comeau, Vice President Land Development Division -7- r .s 1' AT"fEST E . BRbCK, Cleric Approyed as to''Agrm •,arid -Le�t,kl Suff iciency. . (73a ' "avid C. Weigel Collier County Attorney Acknowledged and assented to: 16A 2 BOARDx BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLI$ O , FLORID mothy ancock, Chairman 2 /Z, /� FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANX OF FLORIDA as Trustee under the within- mentioned Bond Resolution By V7''1 C. CF'E�.ETL'0 Its: ! fJ�JG�1t Date:— 2•Tap1eaHeritage \eonmmein.agm -8- 0 c �M W 2 z a r x r� o� a� 0 n r 1 bA 2 ari a wo < �- �- a d Oa co =r a o CIO i 0 N 0 N O N O O �J N 0 c �M W 2 z a r x r� o� a� 0 n r 1 bA 2 16A 3 Ty THIS ASSIG V AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of , 1997, by and between the PELICAN MARSH COMMUNITY DEVELdIPMENT DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (hereinafter referred to as "Assignor"), and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND EX- OFFICIO BOARD THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, its successors and assigns, (hereinafter referred to as "Assignee "). WHEREAS, Assignor is the Grantee under that certain non- exclusive Utility Easement from WCI Communities Limited Partnership (f /k /a WCN Communities of Naples, Inc.) to Assignor concerning certain water and sewer facilities and irrigation distribution lines located within the real property referenced in said Utility Easement, a copy of said Utility Easement being attached hereto and nade a part hereof as Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the regLirements of that certain Interlocal Agreement between Assignor and Assignee dated as of December 31, 1993, and approved by the Assignor at its meeting held on December 20, 1993, the Assignor shall and is required and obligated to convey, in accordance wi-h standard County procedures, certain water and sewer facilities and irrigation distribution lines to the County and its Water -Sewer District without cost to the County or its Water -Sewer District; and WHEREAS, certain water and sewer facilities and irrigation distribution lines located within the aforedescribed Utility Easement have been conveyed to Assignor from WCI Communities Limited Partnership (f /k /a WCN Communities of Naples, Inc.) by Bill of Sale and Warranty Deed, which water and sewer facilities and irrigation distribution lines are simultaneously herewith being conveyed to Assignee from Assignor; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that Assignee obtain the rights of Assignor as the Grantee in said Utility Easement. NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH that for and in consideration of the premises and in consideration of the sum of Ten and 00 /100 Dollars ($10.00), receipt of which is acknowledged by Assignor from Assignee, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1) Assignor hereby conveys, grants, transfers, demises, releases and assigns unto Assignee, its successors and assigns, all of the rights of Assignor as Grantee under the Utility Easement referenced hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A ". Assignee hereby accepts said assignment. PtLM-W.LhJ4%Uoi.l1\Am4n2M 1 1 bA 3 2) Governing Law. This Assignment shall be construed and enforced in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of ?lorida. 3) Modification; Additional Assurances. No change, amendment, modification or cancellation of any part of this Assignment Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by Assignor and Assignee. 4) Binding Effec . The terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall inure to the benefit and be binding upon Assignee and Assignor and their respective successors and assigns. IN WIT2:ESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date and. year first written. Attest: Assistanillecretary STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER ASSIGNOR: PELICAN MARSH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT By:." I f. v 4 ohn A. Pistor is Chairman The foregoing Assignment Agreement was sworn to and subscribed before me by JOHN A. PISTOR, Chairman of the PELICAN MARSH COMKUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, on behalf of the Pelican Marsh Community Development District who is personally known to me. WITNESS my hand and official seal this( day , 1997. 1 `T,kY P& OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL O n 7(, STEPHK LTkETTE WATTS COMMISSION MUMBER < CC279282 MY COMMISSION EXP. OF FAG APR. 22 1997 ?aL.i�niti)h4y117dt 111A.,ipa2J23 2 hwl" Rotafy Public Print Name. My Commission ires� ATTEST: DWIGHT E..9ROCK, Clerk Approved as to from and lega sufficiency t mac• �' Assistant County Attorney STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER 16A 3 ASSIGNEE: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFI.(iiO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF TKE'COLLIER COUNTY WAT- -R -SEWER 0ISTRICT BY: `t'�oTN Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared TIM HsNcQti'� well known to me to be the Chairman of the Board of County Commiissioners, Collier County, Florida, As The Governing Body of Collier County and as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of The Collier County Water -Sewer District, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing Assignment Agreement for the purpose therein contained under authority duly invested by the Board of County Commissioners, and that the seal affixed thereto is the true seal of said Board. WITNESS my hand and off is al sez� 1 in the County and State last aforesaid this ��1 day ofij rGh 1997. n (Notarial Seal) This instrument prepared by: Anthony P. Pires, Jr. Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 640 Naples, Florida 34108 (941) 566 -3131 ftQ4W r%%;e UaiL i 1 Vu**.z _M Notary Name ►SAM Print Name. My Commission Expires: ,474 MMO M �'�•oc 3e _ w�ei11��111rc ux. -.r�.n Kf IF: 14 - w1ft h m3 oftodummorpmawsmom i 0. This Instrument Was Prepared By, Record and Return To: Brian J. McDonough, Esq. Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 2162798 OR: 2298 PG: 2263 is 0tIICIIL [ICO18f of COLLIII C00ry, , n 13/21111 it 11:53M M2? 1. 110x, CL1[1 [1C I11 11,50 Ii011I% 2.00 DOC -.10 .10 COlI1S E.00 [eta: Cull "MBoAn IM101?IC1 4?1 11? 1240 IL001 (RESERVED) 16A 5 THIS EASEMENT granted this LCD day of / v "�%P�!� , 1996, by EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor "), whose post office address is 2828 Coral Way, Penthouse Suite, Miami, Florida 33145, Attention: Mr. Francisco Rojo, to the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY 'DF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee "), whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112. W I T N E S S E T H: That the Grantor for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, non - exclusive easement, license, and privilege to enter upon and to install and maintain utility facilities, on the following described lands being located in Collier County, Florida, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the Grantee and its assigns, together with the right to enter upon said land, excavate, and take materials for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining utility facilities thereon. Grantor and Grantee are used for singular or plural, as context requires. un; 400 ru; 4401 16A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written. Witnesses: Ap/� d�v Print Name: r'1K�F}4L S U (� Print Name: r=— STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS: CCUNTY OF DADE 1 EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership By: Related Capri Housing, Inc., a Florida corporation, its sole general partner BY _ 7 a Francisco Rojo, V ce President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z/� day of &XL4�� 1996, by Francisco Rojo, as Vice President of Related Capri Housing, Inc., a Florida corporation, the sole general partner of Eastridge Partners, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, on behalf of the corporation and as an act of the partnership. Personally Known ✓ OR Produced Identification Type of Identification Produced 3: \N -B,JM \70364 \360 \EASE -U Print` or Stamp Name ---'� Notary Public, State of Florida at Large Commission No.: My Commission Expir s: ANDUycAXCIA NOTARY PIJKX STATE OF CUMdSUM NO. CC41 M MY COMIrtl�iOff EXP. MAR 24,1999 5 OR: 2298 PG: 2265 16A 5 EXHIBIT "A" l,egxl Description Villas of Capri Apartments 15 FOOT WIDE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT A portion of land fifteen feet wide more particularly described by the following centerline, lying in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collies County, Florida: Commence at the southeasterly corner of Tract "A ", Plantation, as recorded in Plat Book I5, Pages 80 through 82, inclusive of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and run N78 °51'05 —W for 20.00 feet, thence Pin S I 1 *08'56"W for 11.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence run N78 "71'05"W for 35.00 feet to a point lierinafter referenced as Point "A "; thence run S 1 1'08'56"W for 49.00 feet to a Point of Termination; the--Ice return to the aforementioned Point "A ", and nun N78 °51'05 "'JV for 17.56 feet to a Point of Termination, containing 0.03 acres, more or less, subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record. Prepared By: 14Villiam C. McAnly, P.L.S. Florida Registration No. 1543 McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. 5101 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34113 TRACT "B ", PLANTATION, P.B. 15, PAGES 80 -82 P.0.C.- SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT "A', PLANTATION, P.B. '15, PAGES 80 -82 TARA COURT, PLANTATION, P E 15, PAGES 80 -82 tt / P. 0. I3. / OR: 2298 PG: 2266 16A 5 TRACT "F ", PLANTATION, P.B. 15. PAGES 80 -82 LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE. L1 N78'51 '05"W 20.00 L2 S11'O8'56 "W 11.00) —� N . 1 GRAPHIC SCALE G �, 1 `n 0 �` 30 0 15 30 60 ,. v, 1 1 S' .. U E -- - 1 _ I IN FEET 900 cr 2 P 0. T. POI NT "A 1\ P 0. T. rGACT "P,., �'LANTAT CN tirJlT 'YIC,. P8 17. PAGES 95 --97 TARA COURT, PLANTATION UNIT TWO, P_B 17, PAGES 95 -97 Fort; Tt& RELATED GROUP OF FLORK)A of scFW nat. VRLAS OF CAPM APARTMENTS SXFT'CiH OF 15 FOOT WIDE �C•OUJFR COUNTY UT1_JT'y EASD&'MT C.U.E. COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT P.O.B POINT OF BEGINNING P.O.0 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.0 T. POINT OF TERMINATION P.B PLAT BOOK WANLY ENGQEERING a REMSIONS DATE AND DESIGN, INC. - or'Wv" c. RAM04c. LOO 9RA" c AND 1A11DSC.v[ ^"TjCMK SiCt ?AAA~ UAt CAST. SUTC 2D2 OR; 2298 PG; 2261 16A 5 JOINDER BY MORTGAGEE The undersigned FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, a corporation organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1716 et seq., a Co- Mortgagee, under that certain mortgage from RASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, dared as of August 1, 1996, recorded on September 5, 1996, in Official Records Book 2225, Page 173, as assigned by assignment recorded in Official Records Book 2225, Page 208, both of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, in the original amount of $9,800,000.00 covering all /or a portion of the property described in the foregoing Easement, does hereby acknowledge that the terms of said Easement are and shall be binding upon the undersigned and its successors in title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these presents have been executed this 1*day of January, 1997. WITNESSES: FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION Print Name: ri.nt Name: o M e el STATE OF G G ors GZ /; ) COUNTY OF Fr, L CLi ) BY Nam Title : Thomas F. N2at: Jr. , V. P:otr,' -dc tt BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day app ared h,��' known. by me to be the j/, LL ffe- of Federal National Mortgage Association, a corporation organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1716 et seq., and he /she acknowledged to and before me that he /she executed the said instrument, acting in his /her said official capacity, for and as to the act and deed of said Association. and in its name, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and after being duly authorized and directed. WITNESS my hand and official'\seal in the County and State aforesaid, on this, the., Mday of nua 1"997. No any PubX � A_St e mf Ede Print Name ' ��brc wh'+�+�� "'�' My Commission Expires: MV en*V& VA, L00 rv, LLU) I 6 5 JOINDER BY MORTGAGEE The undersigned FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, an agency and instrumentality of the State of Florida, Mortgagee, under that certain mortgage from EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, dated August 29, 1996, recorded on September 5, 1996, in Official Records Book 2225, Page 274, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, in the original amount of $2,585,000.00 covering all /or a portion of the property described in the foregoing Easement, does hereby acknowledge that the terms of said Easement are and shall be binding upon the undersigned and its successors in title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these presents have been executed this. day of January, 1997. WITNESSES: 01,. M " Prinz Name: /r1o; r %s Print Name:. ;� STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEON FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY By: Name" Susan- �L igh Title: Execut' �I Director BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day appeared Susan J. Leigh, known by me to be the Executive Director of FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, an agency and instrumentality of the State of Florida, and she acknowledged to and before me that she executed the said instrument, acting in her said official capacity, for and as to the act and deed of said Agency, and in its name, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and after being duly authorized and directed. WITNESS my hand and o ,4ficial seal in the County and State aforesaid, on this, the-,,` day of January, 1,997. \w -&,T( \30364 \360 \JOINDER.FHF I ot&ry Public Statj of Florida J �a&r T' l 641 t) Print Name My Commission Expires: OR: 2298 PG: 2270 * ** 1 6A 5 JOINDER BY MORTGAGEE The undersigned UAITF.D STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE, a Co- Mortgagee, under that certain mortgage from EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, dated as of August 1, 1996, recorded on September 5, 1996, in Official Records Book 2225, Page 173, as assigned by assignment recorded in Official Records Book 2225, Page 208, both of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, in the original amount of $9,800,000.00 coveri.'g all /or a portion of the property described in the foregoing Easement, does hereby acknowledge that the terms of said Easement are and shall be binding upon the undersigned and its successors in title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these presents have been executed this .3 day o f - Beee+cr , 19 9 9'. WITNESSES: UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, hS TRUSTEE, P int Name: Print Name: r i By: , e: Title :v�ri V. VAf�reocr ,. - .. ��,._v EsrOENT STATE OF VICE PR (,(� k ) COUNTY OF fudersigned EFORE M r the authority, this day pear d .4�v��3L�D known by me to be the ��, � �`:�s of UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE, and he she acknowledged to and before me that he /she executed the said instrument, acting in his /her said official capacity, for and as to the act and deed of said Trustee, and in its name, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and after being duly authorized and directed. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State aforesaid, on this, the day of 9e�� 1996. Notary Public State of 1. t Print Name NMIY Public. Statc of New Yort My Commission Expires: No. 01GR5012466 Oustifiod in New York Cour" O: \a -3JM \30364 \360 \JOINDER. US Cammmion Ern jum 15. 1 9q7 /6AS Form 2 - Rtr. 4r2M - Bond No. SUN-319045 (Fertormancc Bond) Utilities AAOe pt aaoe Documents - Doc #320 KNOW ALL PARTIES BY THESE PRESENTS; that Fastr 4c Partnaa, Ltd 2828 Cond Way, Peatbouse Suitt Miami, Florida 33143 referred to as "Owner'), and Hartford Fire Insurance Company Hartford Plaza Hardbrd, Connection 06115 (he mineAer rciarod to as -Surety-), are held and firmly bound unto Colba County, Florida (hereinafter cal1d "Couwn, in the total aggregate penal sum of Two Tboatand Six Hundred Thirty Six and Fifty carts Dollars ($2,636.30) in hrwf l moray of the United Siste, €or At payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind oaraehvs, our heirs, execumM wsoce=OM and asaigos, )OMOY 2D4 several}y. hey by these preerm. Owners and Surety are nuned for si:sgnlar or plural, as the context requirta. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Owner entered inW a certain Utilities Fapiities Cambucbm Contract, dated the _jU day of May, 1997, a copy of which u hereto aMxbod and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the ComrtY has a aerial insarest in the p=*cm== of said Contract; and WHEREAS the Co=y has adopted Orauncea sad Raohgions (b "Land Be'vd0umem R ") concerning the Owner's obligstiote to the Cooaay rcpT ng the ooastr xbM o°rtve!'ars a and warranty of wsta. faailitits at the vrnst of Capri, Project No. SUP 094 -123 -A car- sttuctod within the Umnoorporatd area of Collier County; NOW. THEREFORE, if the Owner than well, truly and f:zzhMy prrform its obligations and d=cs to the Cotmty under said Land Development Kew and all thr undertalaza covenauM tn=Ls, conditions, and agreements of said contract during the ongmal rata tbae C and any cdemmom thcrtof which may be Sr anted by the Own=, with a wdham notice to the Surety and during the pot ty Perms eg*hshed by the County, and thcx calla, and if the Owncr ahan satisfy an dais and am red under daaaads dsm2ps which it such oodrza, and d an fully indemnify and sun hraratiess the Caaaty ftom an casts and may, CS - by reason of fzilure to der so, and dwq rn:nobmn and repay the Couuty an outlay and expea m which the County may incur, in making 8Wd nay ddaalt, then this obligation than be void, otherwise to reran . in full face and efl m PROVIDED, FURTIMP, that the said Surety, for valet recand berdiy,, sftu and that no change, rftasm of time, aazexation of "fton to the terms Of the 000t M a to work to be lrxmed thereanda or the Rzc&c3Ww a000atpasIWS same slam is tray way affica obligation on this Band, and it does hereby waive ttatace of awy such Change. eactemioa of time, allrngion a addition b the terms of the contract or to the worlr a to the specification. A ASP' M V[CiM, FURMER, that it is o proWy spud that the Bond null be deemed =waded a tocadcaIly and immo li 1 11, withoft kI and scpaate amcad.oeata 1-p pIn upon sumendawa to the Coatract not in ng tM conhaa p6m trm thm 20 pera rt, so as to bind tiro Oww and ibe Sorely to the full and faith" 111 t- cnasnce of +the 000tract as sa amaodad not= "Amendment ", wwbcocm used in this Bood, and wbaba referring to this Rand, the COW= of otbRar docnmems dMD mdndo my aheratx,n, additm or modifxa m of my chuactar wbatsoeMer. IN WrrNESS WHEREOF. the patina beech have ctwso I this Instrtta cm to be c=utcd this 12th day of May, 1997. EuaWp Ltd fly: M L N+dr�MO�► , V. P BBdom me, the above mood authority, p=maliy appeared this 12th day of May, 1997. r -1 r-AA"ul'm h6o rows --- - - M- n Printed Name Bafam me, the above signed authority, personally Prepared by: Mary C. Amm 3979 N.W. 131st StreM 0103 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 :mow cARqA t,ic srATE of A.00 CO&GU UM Na oc44M HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE 00hlPANY ,,. day of May, 1997. oLoan Moan W Caw�i.kw OC490" wr. out. "no by ANG HARTFORD FIFE INSURANCE COMPANY M:,afa„ CafraataoaR � : , POWER OF A I I RJEY der Kava all dare by Raase Praees The M K*J T M FVM DANCE COMPANY. a corpar,rofi diy orpr+pd I �aM Crdn+t aye! Mrinq Ib principd alias In M City d llryoni Goutly d ►Irdpel. art d Co�rarleu� aypart C7MXU SJ AM SON, ALW C ACS W and D. AJACg4n S7rVZW d AffAbQLUr4 ROMA er v ninsC , al b wlli fir/ power arid aulSwrfly b aad� a wW Ailrfisy{,}�r►Fac� in lrir NRbraM ctgrad�r r ma* raw a - k n in Delmar d 1f � � � admw%dge a"p •+d r bonds and w4wbld,pa arm alnr am obIgnil y in 1* Con"M in ils buairwaes Of pwW,arasmkV M /dMy d pwsom hd*q pis of Pao or Pr'waft %at V M pwk"nwm d cantatas ofie 1wn kw ww'" I a "' aC gurardaatip M parlrna,raca d bwxa oa carrtarSla efan suretf borda we aocwptad by ItSims and rrrrar dV ies, and alsmevg or pYwra+laMnp Oaflds and andaAaMiapa naiad a PsmylAod W rl aadiorr at prooMdnps a by Ise Mowa4 and b bind fad HARTFORD FIRE MiMiANCE COMPANY /srw0lr w fug and to ram 040`71490- w R Oath bonds and urdwlaktags and cow f a j& cbGg"wy In M na%" Mead faaw shred by an Eaaa`n Ira Oflka r of M HARTFORD FIRE to-* A/10E COMPANY and aaedad and attested by am G&W d such 00c am and Araby rdba wad oarlRrrras at td fs said ADbfawy(*6M0 Fed may do in purfafance taw 'nae Pcawar of a>torr" a prwftd by and under suftrfy of rid folo jft prvfironc (t) 9�'{.aae adopted by M Ssodlnoidrs of to FIARTFORO FRZE P SLWJV CE OOWANY of a nwefng d1y caged and hid on M W dry d Mrdn 1971. ARTICLE N SECTCH i Tlae Pnd.dwa or anY Vk *4 ,mw wtf, adbp .ma 4^17 Y a Aaaiaawe aaenaary, aa1d, Iwo Ponar and aar,lasy b app4rK for ►. "ice of em cuibag a emesev orx wid �+ 1*� SWOON) In wa new dlawa( ww or aware n.tl7aer vice and 800farY. aAa4rwpbfe,� and lewf a She power as and d arty ailae a ralaaaw arty dada I1aaYare VbrPl4arewa YMeidws Adrlart aufwq pM4n b I11r1t iELrMN 11. Nmn- ts4mfed MW hero paw nb wAho ty. W01*0 b to aware and anNe40orn of au pow d @ON m, Yawed b b 4m cuw and chew► a bw d 1110 CP"V" and b aaLOr f1a teat d to Ca+geay ITwareb ahr wed M bena, a" wm%w rigs, arty cow ara,10 Gbag —Y w f• "W" fwed, and"wrch anwwnwo asarad by"each AftwnW A%d aaaas be as Meg open M c4wp • IF 4 -,`400 by an baarw4 Ofter red awed end mW~ by one cHr of aaleh Omcw L The pow` of albrrry is sigrad and sssiod by %ceir,lie under and by M aufao►fy Of M *Ada lg Resokition adopted by Qwa D'eedrars d M HARTFORD FVM RiSURANCE COMPANY at a i WO dy tailed and held on M 121h day d Feb m". 1993. rawsot 90 to awwams of aaa 4Yaw Oaf on we d fro c4xww a" k door Y dry mars samm d aawmy v a ON aawaraa wb40q Mob br %CXW dad "aww Parr d aOMM ar aarfsrada arse area 1.aaw b mrrbas or aea40f No a" be wr ad arras yea "CaaeaT N day aaa Power so m�mw wd cow" br Almraaa awAmpa a ww ►:arms esa "be ntl WA aaae" spa fa camwasw b Sea Aram "aa aaefao a Oar awd er aWaleewq b aleda Ile In ti %Milt >Ntrweoaa, M HARTFORD FRtE iN8URANC E COMPANY Aar cauued 0 pnawre to be signed by Yb Vbs- Pngod'a t and fa oorpol seer to be ►eau alteed, dh atrrfie4 by b Seer try. J* 1M day of May. 1996. 'weft HARTFORD FIRE MISURANCE COMPANY ARM RiR1rd R aaalaa40aaan �/��`/�� awa.ary ■F/ STATE OF COHNECTKXJT } : Paul L Marab,Ra COLWTY OF HARTFORD 1 Vicwi"iasid/rit On tea 1 fa day d May. A.D. 1986, belae e1* pwsondy cwm Paul L AlarsI I b nw bKmw+ who bainp by iwa daly faacrn did dept 4040 wild 4040"`. flat to rasI I in M Carty d Hartford Stem d Corrrwdart to ha is M Vial Pra,idwt of M HARTFORD FIRE *CX*tAIiC E COMPANY. M corporation demoted in mid nahidi eaaalad rim abort trlrurnwrt Mt he I, - M a" of Me said corporsaon; tat M ter aibod b M ssW Ywturnwt a arch corporate weak 1wl R aas ao aibied by cede d M Bore d Dteraas d aid caporsfal and Nat Ile aigimd hid rwia Iweb by We order. STATE C>F COfWECTICIJT 4040 . nysp t:dUe(T'1/ Of HAATFOFlp M' oar.al.eraa�ab4w...aaa a0. rdea L M uraderaiWmid, Secretary d M HARTFORD FVM INSURANCE COMPANY, a Ca ojee aA Caporalbn, OO HEREBY CERTIFY tM M faspuYnp wad all - - POYWR OF ATTORNEY rffrnslns in iN krw WW het not bean rerclrmd and tartwwffKm, the Me Raaobfk xu of M Board of Directors, sr forth in to Power of Aturmy. are now in 1Snw Signed wd MGW e M CAY or Heroord. Deted M 12th day of May 19 97 PhAlmot L Past 6A CONSTRUCTION ARID MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION 1 � IMPROVEMENTS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS THIS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (this "Agreement ") is entered into this S day of 114q,, �_ , 19� 7 by and among HERITAGE GREENS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, an independent special district and body politic of the State of Florida (the "District "), HERITAGE GREENS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership (the "Developer ") and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "Board "). RECITALS: A. Simultaneously herewith, the Developer has applied for Board approval of that certain plat of the subdivision to be known as Heritage Greens (the "Plat "). B. Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code (the "Code") requires the District and the Developer to provide certain guarantees to the Board in connection with the construction of the improvements required by the Plat. C. The District and the Developer desire to provide the required guarantees to the Board hereby. NON, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the District, the Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as follows: OPERATIVE PROVISIONS: 1. Required Improvements. The District will cause to be constructed: Those certain roadways, drainage and water management facilities and water and sewer utility facilities for Heritage Greens, except those improvements within the golf course (collectively, the "Required Improvements "). Subject to Paragraph 3 hereof, the Required Improvements will be constructed within thirty -six (36) months from the date that the Board approves the Plat. I bA 7 2. Security for Required Improvements. A construction fund (the "Construction Fund ") has been established by resolution of the District adopted on December 27, 1996 (the "Bond Resolution ") from which the cost of construction of the Required Improvements shall be paid. The Construction Fund shall be held in the custody of a bond trustee (the "Trustee "). Proceeds of bonds authorized to be issued by the District pursuant to the Bond Resolution shall be deposited, at a minimum, in the Construction Fund as follows: $2,462,534.00 for costs of the Required Improvements (the "Construction Amount ") and $246,253.00 representing ten percent (10 %) of the Construction Amount (the "Reserve Amount ". The Reserve Amount shall be retained as a reserve in the Construction Fund pursuant to Paragraph 5 hereof. In addition to the foregoing, proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited with the Trustee to be held as capitalized interest which shall be sufficient to pay interest on the Bonds during the seventeen (17) month period following the issuance thereof. In addition, proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited with the Trustee in the Debt Service Reserve Account established by the Bond Resolution in an amount sufficient to pay approximately twelve (12) months of debt service on the Bonds. There shall be sufficient monies in the construction fund to construct t}.e required improvements and all other improvements authorized by the Bond Resolution, as well as to fund the Reserve Amount. 3. Construction of Required Improvements. (a) Annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A is a Construction Schedule relating to the Required Improvements (the "Construction Schedule "). The District shall commence construction of the Required Improvements within sixty (60) days following written construction approval to the District from the Development Services I 6 7 Department and the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds (the "Commencement Period "). The District will pursue construction of the Required Improvements to substantial completion within twelve (12) months following the end of the Commencement Period (the "Construction Period "). (b) In the event the District fails to: (i) commence construction of the Required Improvements within the Commencement Period; or (ii) substantially complete construction of the Required Improvements prior to the expiration of the Construction Period, upon written notice to Developer by the Board, Developer shall immediately become responsible for the construction of the Required Improvements. The obligation to construct the Required Improvements within the Construction Period shall be a joint obligation of both the District and the Developer. 4. Development services Director's Preliminary Approval of Required Improvements. The Development Services Director shall not consider the Required Improvements complete until a statement of completion by the District's or Developer's consulting engineers, together with the final project records related thereto, have been furnished for review and approval to the Development Services Director of Collier County, Florida (the "Director ") for compliance with the Code. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement of completion from the District, the Director shall either (a) notify the District or Developer, in writing, of its preliminary approval of the Required Improvements; or (b) notify the District or Developer, in writing, of his refusal to preliminarily approve the Required Improvements, therewith specifying those conditions that the District or Developer must fulfill in order to 16A 7 obtain the Development Services Director's Preliminary Approval of the Required Improvements. In no event shall the Board refuse Preliminary Approval of the Required Improvements if they are constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. 5. Paintenance and Reserve Amount. The District or Developer, as the case may be, shall maintain all Required Improvements for a minimum of one year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one year maintenance period by the District or Developer and upon submission of a written request for inspection, the Development Services Director or his designee shall inspect the Requited Improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Code shall recommend approval to the Board. The District or Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the Required Improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for the County. Sums equal to the Reserve Amount shall be maintained by the Trustee on deposit in the Construction Fund until the final approval of the Required Improvements. The Board shall reflect its acknowledgment of such finding by notifying the District, in writing, of its final approval of the Required Improvements. Upon receipt of notice of such final approval, the District shall no longer be required under this Agreement to maintain the Reserve Amount on deposit in the Construction Fund. In the event that during the inspection the Director finds that all or some portion of the Required Improvements are not in compliance with the Code, the Director shall promptly specify, in writing, to the District those deficiencies that must be corrected in order to bring the Required Improvements into compliance with the Code. The District shall apply the 16A 7 Reserve Amount to payment of the cost of correcting such deficiencies. In the event the District fails to pursue such corrective action, the Developer shall bring the Required Improvements into compliance with the Code. Upon correction of the specified deficiencies and written notice thereof, the Director shall again inspect the Required Improvements and, if found to be in compliance with the Code, shall submit such findings to the Board for its final approval thereof. 6. Plat Recordation. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is a " Constniction and Maintenance Agreement of Subdivision Improvements" within the meaning of, and meeting the requirements established by, Division 3.2.9 of the Code. The parties acknowledge and agree that E a g `ollowing the Board's approval of the Plat: (a) The Developer shall not be entitled to record the Plat until the Board receives: (1) Written notice from the Trustee that sums at least equal to the Construction Amount and Reserve Amount are on deposit in the Construction Fund (the "Trustee Notice "); (2) Written notice from District and the Trustee that: (a) The project for which bond proceeds have been received by District includes the Required Improvements; (b) Such Bond proceeds are sufficient to finance the Required Improvements as well as all other improvements to be financed by the Bonds (collectively "the Project ") and to fund the Reserve Amount. The Trustee's representation that funds are sufficient to finance the Project for which Bond proceeds have been -5- 16A 7 received as well as to fund the Reserve Amount is based upon the District Engineer's estimation of construction costs which is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and (c) The project cannot be amended or changed without ;:he consent of the Board (the "Project Notice "); (3) A representation and warranty from the District that all governmental permits to enable the District to commence construction of the Required Improvements have been obtained ( "Permit Warranty "); and (b) Upon receipt by [ofl the Board of the Trustee Notice, Project Notice and the Permit Warranty, Developer shall be entitled to record the Plat without further condition, other than payment of any related recording fees established by applicable law and the execution of the Plat by all required parties. 7. Liability. The County shall have no liability whatsoever to the bond holders. Neither the enforcement of the terms of this Agreement by the County nor the failure to enforce such terms shall create any liability whatsoever to the bond holders, the District, or the Developer. Any disclosure document prepared by the District or Developer in the offering of such Bonds shall. provide a statement as described above relating to the lack of liability of the County. 8. Miscellaneous. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are, and shall be, binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the District, Developer and Board. By Execution below, the Trustee shall evidence its acknowledgment of and assent to the matters addressed herein. Any notice, demand, request or -6- 1 bA l instrument authorized or required to be given or made hereby shall be deemed to have been given or made when sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the appropriate party at their address set forth below: To the District: Gary L. Moyer, District Manager 10300 N.W. 11th Manor Coral Springs, Florida 33071 To the Developer: James M. Reinders 277 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, Florida 34145 To the Board: c/o County Manager Collier County Government Center 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 With a Copy to: Collier County Attorney Collier County Government Center 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 To the Trustee: First Union National Bank of Florida Attn: Ms. Vivian Cereced.o 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District, the Developer and the Board have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of this day of , 1997. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED DISTRICT: IN THE PRESENCE OF: HERITAGE GREENS COMMUNITY DEVELO DISTRICT ATTES By G Xr y L J Km M. Reinders Chairman District Secretary DEVELOPER: HERITAGE GREENS ZVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERS By: ONTO LO NAPLES ZINC. By: Wih ss (_ D.60VSE Ja es Reinder President Witnesj' '/')r�j1SptONtO*I -7- ATTEST:- . DWIGHT. • E BRQCK, "- Clerk A proved as to.:forin azid- legal Sufficiency. David C. Weit el x)- Collier County Attorney Acknowledged and assented to: I bA 7 BOARD: BOARD OF COUNTY CO)MISSIONERS OF COLLIER sOUNTY FLO ZD By: !� ' T? mothy liancock, Chairman 31�l7 FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA as Trustee under the within- mentioned Bond Resolution By: ---- V. FRET / Its: �IC,t � /d4A�_ Date:- I-,2,f 17 2•hericage %conamain.ag" 8� INC. 404H adcow4eft" WO *md Art. ;0,CK 6A 7 At WOM ftwoM" Est =nose, • ft M W4,v F1ebn arr 25, 1997 Mr. Jack G. ftj9 me Agno1i, Barber i amrdage, Inc. 7400 North ',�amiami 'Trail, Suite 200 Florida 34108 -Ref: Y:eritage Greens pro- 'dear Mr. Maenna: il".rouot^ this letter, we wish to notify your office of the following actionp t`at Bonness Inc, is of.fefiN to execute in order to initiate work at lieritace Greens As You know, our Imp son bid for the dtvelo errt of the infrastructure is for $1,3I4,514.00 ( Qz a million three huncsed and faaartee thouaard five and fourteen dollars and zero cer:ts ; : this a6�t dots not consider a.:y earthwork. The earthoork activity was considered exclusively part of the golf course development: therefore the lung sum figure presented for the development of t'x? ;r trastructure lacks this acti-rity. For this reason v-je are willing to develop $2, infrastructure including th* necessary earthwork for a total lump sum of S2,4b2,534.04 {quo million four hundred and sixty two thcx;sand five hundred thirty four dollars and zero cents ). You have any questions or yenta on our not to =ntact our offic ice, please do not hesitate e. Re soectful l i Davi i'urc DH /mjb �� �. ,� ,� ,� �.. ..� �, g ��:..- f:! .. .,, IC'.. - � it � r. � � � _ r � � r � i � p. � �� � i � � �_ i � _ o _ r �s � � a � r � r ss � � a � � w � r sm. � r �s � rr •w. � � w � r � � � s � � � � � � � � �_ � � � ��� �� w •� i� �� �� �� oa . �� . 1eor . �� ws �� w ■� wr ■�' wr" i� e�i � . w �'r r �. � w � �,, � -w � �" y M'. � I bA 7 if p — , Q � • • V • • all -1 N .a -4A 0 c C 7 > r > > p > pp 71 A C 0 m •. � 0> m _. rm U y I x +n q 4I p S m > rn m m m m z m m m Q Q m mCA D W m z Q M i I � m > rn m m m m z m m m Q Q m mCA D W m z Q M i EE v .......................... ............................... �• _.. _.. .. ...... _... gz m > rn m m m m z m m m Q Q m mCA D W m z Q M i 0 rn O rn O A rn m z (A -4 c �dl � I! �J1 o rn O pO O I6Bl 44 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "County") whose mailing address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112, and 951 LAND HOLDINGS JOINT VENTURE, a Florida General Partnership, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") whose mailing address is 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 350, Naples, Florida 34103. WHEREAS, Developer holds fee simple legal title to the real property (the "Properties ") located in the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, said Properties being described in Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, Developer represents that no obligation or undertaking hereunder is barred or prohibited by any contractual agreement with any other person or entity; and WHEREAS, Florida Department of Transportation ( "FDOT") and County are desirous of making improvements to S.R. 951 (Isle of Capri Road), said improvements being the four- laning of S.R. 951 from U.S. 41 to the Marco River Bridge; and WHEREAS, The improvements to S.R. 951, herein referred to as "widening improvements," require an excavation site, excavation of fill material from the site, removal of excavated material for use of S.R. 951, and restoration of the fill site located on property owned by Developer are collectively referred to as the "First Contribution ". The excavation site located on property owned by Developer is more particularly shown in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Collier County and the FDOT recognize that the cooperation of adjoining landowners will accelerate road improvements and result in substantial cost savings pursuant to the criteria set forth within Collier County Ordinance 92 -22, as amended, recognizing that the off -site rill excavation contribution is an integral part of and a necessary accommodation to the transportation network; and WHEREAS, both parties to this Agreement acknowledge that the Road Impact Fee Credits ("Credits ") established under this Agreement shall run with the Properties, and shall be reduced by the amount of the Road Impact Fee due for each building permit issued thereon, until all such Credits have been exhausted; and WHEREAS, both parties to this Agreement ac'nowledge Road Impact Fee Credits shall be a credit only against Road Impact Fees, and that such Credits shall not offset, diminish or reduce any other charges, fees or other impact fees for which Developer is responsible in connection with the development of the Properties; and WHEREAS, the Developer has assisted the County and the FDOT in accelerating the needed improvements by providing a fill material excavation site in return for certain assurances by FDOT and County having to do with timing of the widening improvements and that development of the Properties can occur in accordance with previous and future approvals of the County and that the provision of providing an excavation site, excavation of fill materials from the site, removal of the excavated material for use on S.R. 951, and restoration of the fill site in accordance with County/State /Federal permit requirements will qualify for Road Impact Fee Credits in accordance with County Road Impact Fee Ordinance No. 92 -22, as amended, as further detailed herein; and WHEREAS, such proposed plan is in conformity with contemplated improvements and additions to the transportation network; and WHEREAS, such proposed plan, viewed in conjunction with other existing or proposed plans, will not adversely impact the cash flow or liquidity of any Road Impact Fee Trust Account in such a way as to frustrate or interfere with other planned or ongoing growth necessitated capital improvements and additions to the transportation network; and WHEREAS, such proposed plan, viewed in conjunction with other existing or proposed plans, will not create a detrimental imbalance between the arterial and collector roadways; and WHEREAS, the proposed plan is consistent with the public interest; and WHEREAS, both parties to this Agreement acknowledge that the burdens and benefits of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, both parties to this Agreement acknowledge that this Agreement is not to be construed as a development agreement under the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and respective undertakings of the parties hereinafter set forth and the sum of TEN ($10.00) DOLLARS, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are herewith incorporated as a part of this Agreement. 2. The Developer shall receive an Impact Fee Credit in the amount of $243,500 for the provision of providing an excavation site, allowing excavation of fill material, allowing removal of fill matenal for use on S.R. 951, and restoration of the fill site in accordance with County/State /Federal permit requirements collectively referred to as the "First Contribution ". The restoration of the fill site is more speciftcalty described as follows a. Littoral Zone Plantings of all three lakes set forth in Exhibit "B" in accordance with permit requirements. b. Final Lake Excavation in accordance with April 4, 1995 Agreement whi,,h obligates excavation to a minimum depth that is greater than required by permit conditions. c. Final Lake Bank/Lake Slope grading if required after completion of additional lake excavation. The value of the above -noted `First Contribution" of $243,500.00 has been determined by unit price analysis of the County and by contract proposal of the Developer. 3. This Agreement shall be effective on the date it is executed by said Developer and the County. 4. Developer assumes responsibility for completion of remaining work described in Paragraph 2.a. above in accordance with County/State /Federal permit requirements related to littoral shelf planting. Developer releases County, its officials and employees from any and all obligations or claims relating in any way to or arising in any way from the lake excavation, the completion of lake excavation /restoration /operations or other work on the Developer's Properties including, but not limited to any work related in any way or arising from the County/Developer Agreement dated April 4, 1995, entitled, "Collier County Agreement Relating To Widening Of State Road 951." Developer also hereby expressly assigns any and all claims it may have against Westwind Contracting, Inc. and the Florida Department of Transportation for any lake excavation or completion of lake excavation /restoration /operations or other work on the Developer's Properties relating in any way to the widening of State Road 951. In exchange for the value of First Contribution, the assumption by Developer of responsibility for the littoral shelf planting, the assignment of claims referenced in this paragraph and the release by Developer of County from the obligation to repair or complete any of the work described in Paragraph 2 above or that relates to or arises in any way from the County/Developer Agreement dated April 4, 1995, as to such work, Developer shall be entitled to Road Impact Fee Credits in the amount of $243,500. Such credits shall be effective upon execution of this Agreement by both parties and installation of the littoral shelf planting referenced in Paragraph 2.a. of this Agreement. County and Developer agree that County has no further right to enter upon Developer's Properties to excavate, remove and use fill, and that all fill and /or other stockpiled materials located on the Properties is the sole property of the Developer. 5. Effective immediately, until development of the Properties is completed, or until the balance of the Road Impact Fee Credits have been reduced to zero (0), the County shall apply portions of the Road Impact Fee Credits toward the Road Impact Fees which the Developer is required to pay for each building permit which is applied for on the Properties, or other property described in Section 6, reducing the balance of the Road Impact Fee Credits by the same amount due for each building permit so issued. 6. All Road Impact Fee Credits granted to any developer hereunder shall be cssignable in whole or in part to any successor or assign designated by said Developer, including and without limitation, a Community Development District subject to credit application within Road Impact Fee District Four, as defined in Ordinance 92 -22, Appendix B, as amended. In addition, such Road Impact Fee Credits may be used by any Developer, its successor or assign, for any land development project in Road Impact Fee District Four, regardless of whether such project directly connects to S.R. 951. 7. County shall provide Developer with a certified copy of this Agreement, including all exhibits attached hereto, such that Developer's certified copy of Exhibit "C' (Road Impact Fee Credits Ledger), shall serve as the ledger sheet to document Developer's balance of Road Impact Fee Credits. 8. This document incorporates all agreements or understandings applicable to the matters contained herein, and the parties agree that there are no commitments, agreements or understandings concerning the subject matter of this Agreement that are not contained in this Agreement. Accordingly, it is agreed that no deviation of the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representation or agreements, whether oral or written. It is further agreed that no modification, amendment or alteration of the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document executed with the same formality, and of equal dignity herewith. 9. Unless otherwise specifically stated herein, the Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be signed on the day and year first written above. ALTO COUNTY: i DATE: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Deputy Clerk Approved'tis to form and legal suffi envy J A Y/� Heidi F. Ashton Assistant Collier County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER UNTO', FLORIDA > BY:? /�G�� l�ld TIMOTHY ! HANCOCK, Chairman DATE: / 1,1 Wvd-mm ignature) Name: or Type e) N Name: � (Print or Type) STATE OF P1 e'L _ COUNTY OF 1 681 951 LANDHOLDINGS JOINT VENTURE by: GB 100 L;9D., a Florida limited partnership; by: GB 1" a Florj�a 7,9tion, General / �l By: Aubrey J. 4001 Tamiami Trail "North, Suite 350 Naples, FL 34103 foregoing Devel Co 'b 'on A nt was adcnowled ore this 1A dam 1 by behaK of / He is rsonally known to me r whe-4ar,,pmduce as iden . cation. (Signature of Kotiry / Public) s� eoodoa ay service Isr No. CC400347 � clft.a ia SeriaUCommissinn #: My Commission Expires: GFAHW1213961SR 951 Fid Crk RIF Cre&.doc .SCI ►���U ._./ • /�fh (Print Name& Notary Public) NOTARY PUBLIC I 6e 1 AN lands tying in Sections 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of Township 51 south, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as the Fiddler's Creek Planned Unit Development and /or other properties under the ownership of 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture. All lands tying in Sections 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24 and 25, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, under the ownership of 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture and/or lands induded in the Fiddler's Creek Planned Unit Development. EXHIBIT "B" 1 6b1 WILSON, MILLI -R, BARTON & PEEK, INC. L•ngineers, Pinnum, Surveyors, Lnndscnpe Architects, Environmental Consmlinnis & Consintetion Mnnneers Wit- I' dmional Ctmet. S- lte 2m. 32fn111aiky Lane at Altpott (load, Harks, Florida 33942 a (1131 647 -1048 Fax (113) 6434716 9 Descriplinn of Drninnge Basin 'F' Fiddlers Creek, being n part of Section 22, Township 51 Snn11t, Range 26 Fast, Collier County, Florida All that part o-f Section 22, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at llte northwest corner of Seclinn 22, Township 51 South, Range 26 Cast, Collier County, Florida; thence along the north line of said Section 22, Somb 88'58' 10" East 1239.50 feel to the cast right -of -way line of S.R. 951 and Ilia POINT OP nEG1NNlNG of the parcel herein described; Ihence leaving the north line of snid Section 22 along the east line of said S.R. 951, South 02'29'39' West 1537.88 feel; thence leaving said rlght•of -way line, South R6'54' 19' Last 1322.20 feet; thence South 89'27'22' Last 125.79 feet; thence South 80'38'36' East 86.82 feet; (hence Soulli 48'57'39' East 143.49 feet; (hence Sonlll 22'38'28" FasI 101.19 reel; thence South 07'161,1" Fit sl 159.01 reel; Ihence South 22'27'01" Hnst 80.97 feel; thence Somh 51'50'54' Fast 124.40 feet; (hence Soulll 74'04'40" East 144.06 feel; thence Soulb 85'45'26" East 197.62 feel; thence North 82'02'11" Fast 108.47 feel; thence North 28'53'36' Fast 104.27 feet; thence North 10'26'56' East 87.33 feet; thence North 46'09'58' Fast 74.36 feel; thence North 21'31'39" West 415.87 feet; thence North 44'30'45' West 108.93 feet; thence westerly 320.48 feet along the arc of n Inngential eirci lnr curve concave to the north, having n radius of 950.00 feel, tbromgh a central nngle of 19'19'42" and being subtended by a chord which hears Smlih 80'39'02' West 318.904 feet; thence Norlb 89'41'07' West 174.49 feet; Illence North 86'54'19" West 545.22 feel; thence North 00'07'48' East 13.42 feet; Ihence North 00'08'40' Last 196.23 feel; thence North 04'01'46' West 93.71 feet; thence North 14'00'54' West 98.36 feet-, Ihenco North 17'10'10' West 124.32 feet; Illence North 07'55'21" West 125.90 feet; Ilence Norilt 04'35'27" Fast 125.22 feet; Ihence North 14'34'20" Fast 100.45 feel; thence Nortit 22'02135' East 123.55 feel; thence North 19'59'23" Last 130.40 feel; Ihence Nor11t 48'22'42" Last 124.41 feel; thence North 63'49'29" East 89.64 feet; thence North 71'49'39' Last 87.83 feel; thence, North 01'01'50" East 211.67 feel to the north line of said Section 22; thence along said north line, North 88158'10" West 1354.43 feel In the Point of Beginning of Ibe parcel Iterein described; coutnining 50.61 acres more or less; subject to casements and restrictions of record; bearings are based on the north line of Section 22, 'Township 51 South, Range 26 Fast, Collier County, Florida, being South 88'58'10" Fast. W11 -SON, MILLER, nARTON & MEEK, INC. fly �� (.a DATE //- 9'- 7y Michael C. LaMure, P.L.S. #4247 Not valid unless embossed will, lite Professional's sent. W. 0. 33911 Rcf: 3.1-303 QCn:kj(I) Dale Nnvernhnr R. 1 994 •: EXHIBIT "C" IN AMP KOUM : :•:of u' : a IMPORTANT: This Road Impact Fee Credit Ledger is intended to document the balance of Road Impact Fee Credits applying ONLY to the following property: A parcel of land lying in Section >, Township > South, Range > East, Collier County, Florida; being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING BALANCE .......................... $ ROAD IMPACT I IMPACT FEE wt1NTY OFFICIAL om BE DATE I PERMrr NO. FEES DUE I CREDIT BALANCE I SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE) 1 685 NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8 MGD EXPANSION AMMMXENT NO. 4 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Amendment #4 to the Agreement dated April 11, 1995 (hereinafter "AGREEMENT ") is made and entered into this �;, day of /� / 19 7%, by and between the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida and Governing Board of the Collier County Water- Sewer District (hereinafter referred to as the "OWNER") and Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, whose new business address is 3740 Executive Way, Miramar, Florida 33025 (hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT "). W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT currently have a valid professional services agreement for the provision of professional services for the NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8 MGD EXPANSION (hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT "), said services more fully described in said AGREEMENT; and WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT agree some modifications to the services being contemplated under said AGREEMENT are necessary; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that he has the expertise and the type of professional services that will be required for completion of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and provisions contained herein, parties agree as follows: ARTICLE ONE 1 685 ' ' 1.1 CONSULTANT shall provide to OWNER professional engineering services in all phases of the project to which this Amendment applies. 1.2 CONSULTAN-T shall provide professional services in addition to those as outlined in said AGREEMENT as noted in Schedule A of this Amendment, as attached hereto. ARTICLE TWO 2.1 OWNER agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for services rendered hereunder as prescribed in Schedule B, entitled "Schedule of Fees For Services - Basis for Compensation", as outlined in said AGREEMENT with the modifications to Attachments A and C to said AGREEMENT which are attached hereto and made a part hereof. ARTICLE THREE 3.1 The schedule for said Project, shall be as shown in the revised Schedule C as attached hereto. ` r ARTICLE FOUR 1 6B5 4.1 The AGREEMENT, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for the NORTH COUNTY RZGIORAL WATER TABATXM;T PLANT 8 maD EZPANSION the day and year first written above. ATTEST: (As to Chairman) ig t E. Brogk, tlerk i - Approved aa.to form and legal adf!iciency: :- -//2z�yl- (:�7_ sistan ouunty orney Witnees witness BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT By: 4F� Timot y ancoc , AICP'"' Chairma Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. I,- &By: 0 Roberto rtiz, Vice Pzeei ent (CORPORATE SEAL) O x O. d Z W W W) cc x0 U r w d w w m � U w yl V► 0 � z u �I c U P, c� r e» W W W LL O 1 6B5 aea a Be 8 a ujfp o w IQ �N N N 4f# 4 N O a' N 4 � pppppppp 888gs8888888 8 N /, N w m W M M H 88S S OO S S F Z. w t � 0 ox m co N M fp ul ? N M d N i mN 44TT1) �i1 N Z w CL W 02 L LL. f= o w 888 8 89 W O z W N N S Y yO o 0 L6 th `"I O O W V f t0 1441111 z M M N L M W ,z W P O O m ca d oaC�m m 4 o0 ;, x w o D) 888 8 �8 8 a w r� a 0O u. aU Y S2 N N N N N M O 1 6B5 �$ssss8o8Q8Qs�QQ� z ogSZ�jgggg$V o w IQ �N N N 4f# 4 N O a' 4 � pppppppp 888gs8888888 8 N }- w w m W M M H M = �2 o UA t oh 8808o8888888 .9 0 N Q cr U N o d cm W d nncm F� mN 44TT1) �i1 N N w CL W 02 2 O LL. f= o w Z j W 8 ro 2 iA � U Q UDU O ti o zs L6 z N O O O hQ- 1 .° U rK- 0) mp w Z co ,z W P O O m ca d oaC�m m wj n o0 ;, x w o D) YJw< oaz 0O u. aU N en • �- ddd m dd 1 6B5 z N O w En w N U U U D � w0 Go w 8 '< two N L) z a p �z1 O m � ; N O waIx U a Q N �QM o O 4 zw } cc cc L :)s 5: " tntW m w3L%W �L' �U m w oaa<v, §f..zxwH m _za O V� <N z M w w��a►= pU<CLK 0 a_ .j N �� az0 z Ewmocoxx�WPOO �N�Yh�cnaow cc000d000d dddddd<ddddd � 8 � � e V4 R 44 W r N om g 8 S o♦ � Y_ n N iMf N s 8 0 n K $ f QQr r Q N r^f e S o o R N QQ tl U 10 r o r N 4 N N 40 w N f- � N NO U z w �_ 4* U W w LL O m � N a � J � K m O LLJ �$ssss8o8Q8Qs�QQ� Uj~� ogSZ�jgggg$V o w IQ �N N N 4f# 4 N a' pppppppp 888gs8888888 8 H N 4^ to to SZ SZ m W M M H M = �2 t 8808o8888888 .9 0 2 N o d cm W M N OO fDoQU v7tD nncm F� ��''11 (V � M N♦ Y Ql W IIVV M NNN 44TT1) �i1 N N w CL z 888888888888 8 �� 8 ro 2 .j N 4IISNhNOH�_ Zi fC"VVMNM H N N1MA H M1 N y� O z N O w En w N U U U D � w0 Go w 8 '< two N L) z a p �z1 O m � ; N O waIx U a Q N �QM o O 4 zw } cc cc L :)s 5: " tntW m w3L%W �L' �U m w oaa<v, §f..zxwH m _za O V� <N z M w w��a►= pU<CLK 0 a_ .j N �� az0 z Ewmocoxx�WPOO �N�Yh�cnaow cc000d000d dddddd<ddddd � 8 � � e V4 R 44 W r N om g 8 S o♦ � Y_ n N iMf N s 8 0 n K $ f QQr r Q N r^f e S o o R N QQ tl U 10 r o r N 4 N N 40 w N f- � N NO U z w �_ 4* U W w LL O m � N a � J � K m O LLJ MAK-a!)-yi wtu ii-Du b�4 ►► RJ 8 I 16 r-4 + ...1.. ','-- -- - -.... _. -.. .. J... J- N ..i� -' P• Off. # }s• -- l - -.. _1...._... .... .....�..... .. i=7•. '0`: ice' -T`:. I.. i s = �... ... ......._ i : :: ....... : .. .... ...... m. SQ} .... -- A_.. A, _ZI..._ .. • ......._�... _ . .... -.... ... ... -. .. .. .. :. ..._.. NI . ..... .... . .. _ k ............ ( ........... - ........ ' I .._. . $ ............... T.... ..... :...-- -.. ............ .............. • .. r ...F. : J.. {%• .. .. ...•�.. .. 1. ... ......... ._ ........ - I .... ...a....... t..__._ -------- --------- �I g� 0 -r, - AIK . NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8 MGM EXPANSION 1 6B 5 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Amendment #4 to the Agreement dated April 11, 1995 (hereinafter "AGREEMENT ") is made and entered into this c- day of���� 19 j J, by and between the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida and Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (hereinafter referred to as the "OWNER ") and Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, whose new business address is 3740 Executive Way, Miramar, Florida 33025 (hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT"). W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSUL'T'ANT currently have a valid professional services agreement for the provision of professional services for the NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8 MGD EXPANSION (hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT ") , said services more fully described in said AGREEMENT; and WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT agree some modifications to the services being contemplated under said AGREEMENT are necessary; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that he has the expertise and the type of professional services that will be required for completion of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and provisions contained herein, parties agree as follows: ARTICLE ONE I bB 54 1.1 CONSULTANT shall provide to OWNER professional engineering services in all phases of the project to which this Amendment applies. 1.2 CONSULTANT shall provide professional services in addition to those as outlined in said AGREEMENT as noted in Schedule A of this Amendment, as attached hereto. ARTICLE TWO 2.1 OWNER agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for services rendered hereunder as prescribed in Schedule B, entitled "Schedule of Fees For Services - Basis for Compensation ", as outlined in said AGREEMENT with the modifications to Attachments A and C to said AGREEMENT which are attached hereto and made a parr_ hereof. ARTICLE THREE 3.i The schedule for said Project, shall be as shown in the revised Schedule C as attached hereto. I i ARTICLE FOUR 16B 5 4.1 :ha Ai T, as amended, shall rww&ia in full force and off Oct . IN %ZMMS NHXRBop, the parties hereto have executed this Naetuleant to Professional Gervices Agreement for the EORTZ COMM RxGI CMri►L WM" TuATSUT nAXT G no jXp&=ow the day and year first written ATTfi3'T : (As t o Cha i rm") S4I1FtD Op COUNTY OOM U S S I OKSRB. POR COLLIER COUNTY, : OOR DA, A. `' POLITICAL 8mmstow OP .i$8 STATE or 1IrOR=& ARD &S I- OFFICIO THU oovwmr m BOARD OT I= COLL= COMM RAM -89OR DISTRICT /�- N 14 8y: By Clerk , chairs" 3�z� 17 " vetl as, tO .fcrm and -legal sufflci}!ftcy: List Count ttorney ✓i�". Cne"" g�w �— fitness Metcalf 4 Eddy, Inc. o Ort s, vice eo L (CORPORATE REAL) s Os, r164..w%4#r v •.%4v., — e An Air b Water Technologies Company February 25, 1997 Mr. Peter Schalt Collier County Government Office of Capital Projects Management 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building D Naples, FL 33962 S C�>JLc RECEIVUJ 6B 5 ' Re: NCRWTP 8 -MGD R-O. Expansion Projf-a M &E Project Number 017533/017534 Contract .Amendment No. 4 Dear Pete: FEB 2 6 1997 OFF: CE Of - ?Rv�1=v I S MANil-z - We have incorporated the changes to the amendment as discussed with you on February 19. Tabulated below are additional services which Collier County has asked us to perform as part of the design of the North County Regional Water Treatment Plarlt expansion These services are above and beyond the scope of work on the project. These services include items identified in the Constructability Review plus other services requested by the County CA4A: Provide services during construction inclusive of shop drawing review, generate responses to requests for information , and attend progress meetings. S241,20000 CA4B. Investigate and design the recycling of concentrate from the membrane softening arrays into the reverse osmosis arrays S28,00000 CA4C: Design a pigging system for the raw water main. Under this item an operations protocol will be developed. 534,500.00 C.A4D. Incorporate the well drilling and development portion of the project into the contract documents. 57,500.00 CA4E� Develop a maintenance protocol for the new raw water production wells. 510.100.00 CA4F: Incorporate into the contract document HDPE Pipe as an alternate material for the raw water main. S12,003.00 CA4G: Design a bypass for the raw water main directly to the deep injection wells prior to the cartridge filters. S14,000,00 3740 ExeCWive Way, Miramar, Florida 33025 TEL 954 - 450.7770 FAX 954- 450 -5100 A t -AQ-1. Lnvesugme ana Oeb'91l MLAWJLduutu to u +c uilul149C ul u'c wtu IJV11aLJ ",Its S18,763.00 1 bB 5 CA4I: Investigate and specify a cured in place liner to increase the existing raw water fiberglass pipeline from its original pressure rating to 150 psi. 52,300.00 CA4J: Reconfigure the electrical conduit in the well field from a concrete encased ductbank adjacent to the raw water main to direct bury conduit in the same trench as the raw water mains. 54,900.00 CA4K: Modify the design to incorporate low pressure membranes in lieu of the standard membrane. $12,952.00 CA41-: Investigate and design the ventilation for the transfer and concentrate pump stations to minimize corrosion of equipment in the room. $26,200.00 CA4M: Investigate the possibility of discharging the existing membrane softening concentrate directly into the deep injection well system in lieu of the existing concentrate wet well $22,800.00 CA4N Incorporate into the contract documents conversion/replacement of the computer operanng system to a multitasking system using an Ethernet Parallel Networking System $9,800.00 CA4& Modify the contract documents to delete the variable frequency drives solid state bypasses for the reverse osmosis feed pumps. $13,600,00 CA4P. Modify in the contract documents various conduit material designations 5900.00 CA4Q Design the lightning protection for the well houses. 52,800.00 CA4R: Provide bid phase services for the additional work items in amendments number 1,1 and 4. 52,200.00 CA4S: Prepare record drawings for the additional work items in amendments number 1, 2 and 4. $11,166.00 CA4T: Modify the contract documents to conform with and comply with the revised Collier County front end specifications. $3,300.00 • Mr. Petcr Schalt February 25, 1997 Page 3 16B 5 CA4U: Modify the contract documents to realign the raw water transmission main to avoid conflict with an existing 10 -inch water main. $14,450.00 CA4V: Submit and facilitate review of various processes and raw water line changes modified by amendments 1, 2 and 4 for the FDEP construction permit and Collier County Right of Way and Site Development permits. $8,808.00 CA4W: Incorporate third parry testing for various electrical items into the contract documents. 900.00 These miscellaneous items, CA4A through CA4W are discussed in detail in the attached pages. This discussion includes a tabularion of the costs for each specific item. We trust the aforementioned provides you with the required documentation to process this request. Please let me know if you have any additional needs regarding this contract amendment. Very truly yours, o �, K-71 R berto S. Ortiz, P.E. Vice President RSO/lp CC Mike Newman (CC) John D. ilermann (M &E) Jeff Moms (M &E) NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE � � B CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 raM CA4A • :CJ41A • 8f$AV1CZ9 DURif4G CO1'�T,CR17CiJiOK . . , . - . LABOR GRADL FUNCTION RR :.. RATLTERHR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 34 $123.00 $4,182.00 F- NGINEER V PROCESSIELECTRICAL 192 $123.00 S23,616.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 412 599.00 $40,788.00 ENGINEER III MECHANICAUPROCESS 380 5!7.00 530,460.00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHA.VICAL 100 587.00 $8,70000 ENGI`:EERIIi ELECTRiCA- ANSTRUMENTATION 300 587.00 526,100.00 F.11GRrEER 11 PROCESS/MECHANICAL 80 5:5.00 56,000.00 4NG1'EER II EL.ECTRJCALTNSTRL'MENTATIU.% 80 $75.001 $6,000,00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 20 563.00 $1,260.00 CONTRACT ASST CLERICAL 2b5 542.00 511,130.00 E`GE F-ER V i QA QC 15 Si 23.00 j 51.845.00 ENGINTER 1V QAQC S99.00 SLEr OTAL S I>l0,01s 1.00 NUSSiMER TA TER. Tirtu dt Msimal S2.500.00 u I irre a N131cnal 516,845.00 LAY.DAS/YOHALEII Tcrs A Matcrul S27,400.00 COORD WITH SUB LUMP SUM 54,674 00 TOTAL S231—%0.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS RF_?RODUCTION S4.700.00 S HIFP L\ G 53,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $241.200.00 NORTH COLL.IEM ARGIONAL WA' 'ER TREATMENT PLANT UPGAADIE OW ACT Ah ENDmENT NO.4 13AQCCROUND Colhcr County has requested MAE to pe form scrvioes die Ing the aaastructm of the expansion of the Notch Rcgzonal Water Treatmew Plash Thesc services snll eousag of sbq drawing review, responding to request far information and clanfw=ons and attendance at project becrings These services will be performed m conjunction with others who will pcfo: m on -sire based services Tic services will be performed on "as requested by Collier County" basic SCOPE M.4E will perform eonsuuction phac SCrvX= as follows. The assam Lions used to derive the proposed co arc also included below. The labor hours identified for each item are only an approxinmoon and may not reflect actual time charges l) Attend vrotoct prowess tt>ocun Tx taut construct on puma will be for fifteen mouths M&E will anc d two first two moue s and ooe progress meeting during each eve month progress meetings during each Of for the remaining duration of ect (13 month ) Two peopk wtU spend the fits[ two months mccu consisting of MRE's Project and Procxss I agincer. All remaining meetings will 21) be attended by MP3F_'s Protect Manager Six as requucd .A 11 be attended by one parson by each of NI&E's structural, raw water traxis; xenon warn a A total of seveincen protect progress meetings is included 10 dus proposal. Meeting minutes fiAll be prepared i y otters and will not be the respotmbility of M&E Eight (8) hours per meeting per Person h been asSllfIie� 2) Rrvicw &bqp dEnw pys- A total of n mayor subuul als will be trade consisting of the foliowtng. (1) eloancal. (2) reverse osmosis studs, (3) inQ n, (4) od it control; (5) coarpW,er controls, (6) geaual (includes site work. s1rucrilres, and IiVAC) and ( piping and pum a. Chic hundred hours (100) hours of review tunic has been allcxatcd per system as an appro zu1tc value for esvn aeon of the fee for this work Fifty regular shop drawing use also included in this scope of cos with 8 hoer: ; Of review tinfe allotted per shop drawing Shop drawing review by M&E will consist of the evicw of catalog cuts, dtagrrttns. illustrzwns, samples and orrubmwns Of comptianoc anth the contract doCum x1U. Ile ns to be evtcwcd by others (not NJ&E) will corma of schedules, test raulLs, tmpecnon reports, Instalbui n instnxiums. gi aramces, wartautws. bonds, test c mftcstts inch3ding field and shop Ieas. code approvals. and c Perations and ma nLenam manuals M&E will. however, as dtreaod by the COtlnty. vcnfy compliance of OOs and mainte lance manuals with the spocibcd design Cbop Ong rrvk w will consist of one subnuttal red resubtainal tcviews in excess of one submrrtal and one resirbtmttll will be belled to the County by Millar an I backcharged by Collier County to the contractor and will reflect charges billed above and beyond the value. o I s QW1tr3ct Inca red by M&E at the rates set forth in this Ooatract. A log to track shop drawings will be prepoirex by others (not M iE) 3) R -- L svn[uigto written cow r rnagSH (RFI s1 and cl tlon dunue consxroct,on It is assumed that 150 RF1's/clanficatlons will be subi rutted and that d c level of effort per each watt be 4 hours. A log to track RFI's will be prepared by others rm M&E) a) Eraivarc vvrtt_I_n contractor re- - sts ORF1's) for subst tuttons to or deviations from the orate pocn _LS and r. Evaluate wni en contractor RF'I's for SubstiftMoas ar deviations f r0M the Qrrn!idc etc ern- ncndatrons to the� Contract Documents and pr�"'4c recommendat on to Collier County It is *SMUned that 20 subsnn icros/dcviations will be stibm tied at a review t me of 4 hours each 5) C PrA— "ct —S walk alk thrNph n protect when *MgKa is deemed svbstantW by p� Prwi4c assistance to the Owncr;, in o --f cvclopring a punt h list of item needed to be complete. M&E will assist the County and its on -site rCPXCSCW2MVC to complete this ism however it is the responsabihly of the Owner to produce this list. The walk through wtlI ,co st of two 8 hour site resits. Two people will attend the first visit (16 boors to(al) Six people will ancnd the sec nd visit (48 hour. total) Comments and items win be Compiled in the field by Others (not WrE) on the day of U. srte vi=Ls. TYPE OF FFF Time and Rrimbursable Cost - S2411100 (addition to Task A. 10.8 - Other i ** TOTAL PAGE-002 ** NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE I 6B 5 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ITEM CA4B CA413- INVESTIGATION AIND DESIGN OF RECYCLE OF MEMBRANE SOFTENING CONCENTRATE LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER ItR SUBTOTAL, ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL to $123.00 51,230.00 FNGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 32 S123.00 53,936.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 56 599.00 55,544.00 ENGINEER III PROCESS/MECIIANICAL 587.00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHANICAL 587.00 FNGrNEER III ELECTRICAL/R+STRUMEN'TATION 587.00 ENGINEER 11 PROCESS ,MECHANICAL 140 575.00 $10,500.00 ENGINEER 11 ELECTRICALTNSTRL'ME',-rATION 16 575.00 51,200.00 DRAFTER IV DR.% TING 52 $63.00 53,276.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL 16 542.00 5672.00 ENGINEER V QAIQC 61 5123.00 S738.00 ENGINEER IV QA QC 6 599.00 5594.00 TOTAL 527,690.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 5200.00 SHIPPING S4000 GRAND TOTAI, 527,930.00 LUMP SUNI 528,000.00 BACKGROUND The North Regional Water Treatment Plant currently treats water from the Tamiami Aquifer by the process of membrane softening. To maximize the use of the water from the Tamiarru Aquifer, Collier County has requested M &E to investigate the possibility of recycling concentrate waste from the existing membrane softening plant to the influent of the new reverse osmosis treatment process. SCOPE M&E will investigate the possibility to recycle concentrate waste from the membrane softening process into the influent for the new reverse osmosis process. M&E will present a technical memorandum defining (1) the proposed method for recycling of the concentrate, (2) the advantages and disadvantages of this strategy, (3) an estimate of probable construction cost. Upon review and acceptance of the technical memo by Collier County, M&E will proceed to design and modify the contract documents to incorporate recycling. NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 16B 5 Assumptions made in the preparation of this scope and cost are as follows: • County will provide information regarding characteristics and flow for membrane softening concentrate. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S28,000.00 (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRAD>i -r- r- ( V!7 U CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 " " ITEM CA4C MAR 1414P " CA4C - DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PROTOCOL FOR RAW WATER MAIN CLEANING SYSIMM or'- ;.- ; 0_- Cr r'! ?Ai LABOR GRADE FUNCTION ML RATE PSRIM -- 1 SstaorUTAE,1 ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 5123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESSIELECTRICAL 5123.00 ENGrNEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 52 599.00 55,148 00 ENGCVEER III PROCESS/MECHANICAL 105 $87.00 59,135.00 ENGfNEER III HVACMECHANICAL 58.7.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAUrNSTRUMENTATION 587.00 ENGINEER ❑ PP.00FSSMECHANICAL S75.00 ENGINEER Il ELECTRICAUINSTRL,'�(E'47ATIOti 575.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 80 563.00 55040.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL 16 542.00 5672.00 E.N G ENE ER V Q'k 4 5123.00 5492 00 EN'GINEER IV Q111 QC S9900 SUBTOTAL 520,4!3'.00 NISSIMER I`T. LUMP S1.7S1 54.500 00 PSG LUMP SLti1 57,740.00 COORD WITH SUB LL-%1P SU`.%I 51,224 00' TOTAL 533,951.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 5295.00 SHIPPING, 5183.25 GRAND TOTAL 534,429 25 THE & SLITERIAL 534.500,00 BACKGROUND Collier County has requested M&E to design a pigging or cleaning systemt for the raw water transmission main. a � The scope of services for this item is broken down into six main components inclusive of (1) regulatory aspects (II) conceptual design for pigging of the transmission main, (III) conceptual design for disposal of pigging effluent, (IV) detailed design, (V) permit for effluent disposal (VI) development of operations protocol. Each of these scope items including the associated level of effort and price follows these pages. `J T NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6B J Assumptions made in the preparation of this scope and cost are as follows: • Disposal of effluent down the dusting concentrate injection wells is permit able under a minor modification • Pigging effluent only contains inert and inorganic materials • The County will pay all permit application and chemical analysis (if arty) fees • Assumptions as identified in task 'Detailed Design ". Time and Material - $34,500.00. (addition to Task A_4 - Final Deign) 6 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 1 6B ITEM CA4C.1 CA4C.1 - REGULATORY ASPFCrS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE TER HR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL $123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 5123.00 ENGINEER IV PROTECT MANAGER a 599.00 5792.00 ENGINEER III PROCESS/MECHANJCAL 1 587.00 587 00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHANICAI. 587.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAL/TNSTRUMENTATION 587.00 ENGINEER. 11 PROCESS/MECHANICAL 575.00 ENGINEER it ELFCTRICAL7NSTRL -,(ENl ATION 575.00 DRAFTER IV DR UTTNG 563.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL. $42.00 ENGINEER V QLQC $123.00 ENGINEER 1V QA QC 599.00 SUBTOTAL 5879.00 !.iISSIJrER INTER. LLW. SL'-.I 51,000.00 COORD WITH SUB LUMP SL-%f S 100 00 TOTAL 51,979.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION S4000 SHIPPING 521.23 GRAND TOTAL 52,040.25 TEME & NtATERIAL 52.100.00 K42-M Preliminary Discussions with FDEP will be held to determine the fraslbiliry or ability to "permit" disposal of pigging effluent down the existing deep injection wells. Discussion will include a determination of regulations and rules that may pertain to such disposal practices. A technical memo documenting summary of regulatory issues will be prepared. NIUKIti I,ULI.tLll au.�stvlvna..,nar,a. aan�..ua,.uw+• A AwC-4 A v. �•�� --- CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 bB 5 If it is bete ==A that u=8 such prja= is not ka bk, we will provide a revised proposal to explore other war a mjcctm � be L � the assumption that &WOW of down the deep an that adecTuate tea kpa is avWabk to u the waste stream to within wha rarer a ena is required by the FDEP. Tine and Material -$2,100.00 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 y 6 B D ITEM CA4C 19 j CA4CI3 - COKCEPT DEVELOPMENT PIGGING OF RAW WATER TRA14SKUM014 MA0 LAHOR GRADE FUNCITON HR. RATE PI R = SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRD4CIPAL 5121.00 F-NGLN'EER V PROCESS'E.LECTRICAL S12300 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 4 594 00 53%00 ENGTNEERIII PROCESS/MECHANICAL 12 ST700 SI -Oh"co ENGINEER III HVAC MECHANICAL 71'100 ENGINEER III ELECTRICALAN'STRU%(EN- rATION SE7 as ENGL`EER II PROCES&MECHANICAL S-300 ENGINEER II ELECTRICALTNSTRL')AENTAT1Oti S"7 00 DRAF7-r-R IV DRAFTING 56300 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL 2 K=im Sal x ENGINEER V QA QC SIn 00 ENGINEER IV QA-QC 54900 SUBTOTAL 5132100 PSG 16 S90 00 S1.44000 COORD WITH SL13 LUMP SLR( S14400 TOTAL 53.107100 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPROOCCTION S4000 SHIPPING 540.00 GRA.N D TOTAL S3,188.00 TIME & MATERIAL $3,200.00 C PE M&E will prepare a basis of design for the layout of the transmission main for the proposed pigging system. M &E will prepare an outline of an operating protocol for the pigging system. NORTH COLL ZR RXGIONAL WATXR TRZATltiQ.i'IT PLANT UPGR DB CONTRACT Abff"M "14O. ♦ 1 6B 5 The Rigeug system will wo" of bah a pia W",*" and roociver fa the ium"Um Of and cemovW of pigs from the transmission main. The coeSgm2boe of vaiviaa sad p*M wM be inaxigatd We will also ittvesuSZe the use of the well pumps in associadon with the Wcuxim d the piaaiaa system for boll► capacity and pcessurt requirements indusive of amapaaod presmre losses sad dssirad pia vti=M- We wal r000arroead, based upon the material cizasact=istics of the main and the =ncVased "M cads, Mm of pia for tins apphcatim MdtE will pmpare a technical memorandum showing the cattiocptml design of the 0904 s7 ;, Timc and Material - 53,200.00 10 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREA'T'MENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 6B 5 ITEM CA4C.III.A CA4C.nLA • CONCEPT DraLOPME.NT, DISPOSAL OF nGGII'ic EFFLUENT. CHARACTLRiZATIOH AND QUA ErWATION LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR RATE PER AR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 5123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 5123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 4 $99.00 5396.00 ENGINEER III PROCESS/MECHANICAL 12 S87.00 51,044.00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHANICAL 587.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION $87.00 ENGINEER 11 PROCESS/MECHANICAL S75.00 ENG;tiEER II ELF cTRICALTNSTRUME`TATION $75.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 563.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL 2 542.00 584.00 ENGINEER V QA/QC 5123.00 ENGINEER IV QA/QC 599.00 S 1.524.00 Sl; BTOT,IL PSG 16 590 00 11,440.00 COORD WITH SUB LLN(P SU`1 5144.00 TOTAL 53,108.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 540.00 SHIPPI?:G 540.00 CRA.N D TOTAL S3, 168.00 TIME 6. MATERIAL $3.200.00 M. 01VI Characterization and Quantification MdcE will develop projected characteristics of the pigging effluent under this task. We will hold discussions with Collier County plant operations personnel and others to project the characterizations of the waste stream. Characterization of the waste stream will be supplemented with information regarding the type of material being pigged and the characteristics of the raw water that the main will convey. NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 16B 5 Qmndficadon of the pigging effluent will be based on the anticipated anmber of pig runs through the transmission main 'ibis information will be summarized in a technical memo and will establish the basis of design for disposal of the Cmuent. Time and Material - $3,200.00 12 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6B 5 ITEM CA4C.13LB CA4CULB - CONC UT DEVUI OP`ffVT D[SPOSAL OF nGGU4G UnUENT, DCVFJ.OP MLTRODS TO DLTPOSE OF PtGCU4G LFFLUr6Kr LADOR GRADE FUNCT11014 Im ttATL PZK rqx tiUETOTAL ENGINEER V PRL4CIPAL 5123.00 LNGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 5123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER t S99.00 5792 00 LNGINEER III PROCESS/MECHANICAL 20 SE7.00 S1.74000 ENGLVEER III HVAC/MECHANICAL SS7.00 ENGINEER Iii ELECTRICALANSTRUMENTATION 5:7.00 ENGINEER 11 PROCES&MECHANICAL 575.00 ENGINEER Il ELECTRICALINSTRU"%4F- rTAT1ON 575.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING S63.00 CON RACT ASST. CLERICAL 4 542.00 5168.00 ENGINEER V QA-QC 5123.00 ENGINEER IV QAQC 594.00 SUBTOTAL 52,700.00 PSG 14 90.00 51.260.00 COORD WITH SUM LUMP S 0 1 S126.D0 TOTAL S4,0E6.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION SHIPPING 2000 GRAND TOTAL 4.106.00 TIKE h �L►TER. AL $4,100.00 SCOPE Develop Methods to Dispose of Pigging Effluent We will define treatment methods to achieve the effluent disposal objectives determined in Step I of this proposed scope of scnices. It is not anticipated at this time that treatment methods other than filtration will be required since it is asstuned that the pigging effluent will only contain inert inorganic material. The majority of the transmission main will be constructed of PVC and it is not anticipated that biological degradation or adhesion will occur 13 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ffit We will investigate the following filtration technologies: filtration using the cartridge filters (filters used will be those provided for the RO system and will possibly use alternative cartridges than those used in the RO process) • filtration using bag filters • filtration using strainers sand separator M&E will develop a basis of design for the proposed pigging and pigging effluent disposal system and submit a technical memorandum summarizing results of our findings. Time and Material - S4, 100.00. 14 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ITEM cuGTv 16B 5 CA4C.EV - D"A "DLVG?# LABOR 0itADE FUNCTION FIR. RATE rER EIR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRD;CIPAL $123.00 &NGI.'r'EER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL $123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 12 599.00 S1,188.00 LNGL4'EER M PROCESSUECHANFICAL 60 587.00 55.220.00 ENGINEER III HVACIMECHANICAL 587.00 ENGTNEER III ELECTRICALANSTRLUEN TATION 597.00 ENGINEER 11 PROCESS,'MECHANICAL $75.00 E.VGC.ticER II ELECTR1CAIJINSTRUN(EN'TAT1ON 575.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING t0 S6100 SS 040 00 CONTRACT ASST CLERICAL. t 542.00 S33600 EtiG'N -EFR V QA QC 4 5123.00 S491.00 ENGINEER IS' QA,QC 599.00 SUBTOTAL S12.276.00 PSG 8 590.00 S71100-0 COORD :S'ITH SUB LL'SIP St--%i 572.00 T O'T AL S 13.06II.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODt;CTION S1000() SHIPPING S2000 GRAND TOTAL 513,188.00 TIME A MATERIAL $13100.00 After review of the options available with Collier County, we will prepare contract documents to implement the Basis of Design. 15 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMLNT NO.4 1 bB 5 Since the basis of design has not been established at this time, we have established an estimate to complete this work based upon the following assumptions: Pigging effluent will be conveyed directly to the deep injection wells. No bypass or intermediate pumping is required. The concentrate pump station will not be used. Design inchndes: • bypass piping to bring effluent to deep wells • piping and valving needed for pig launcher and receiver • filtration using bag filters and the existing cartridge filters. Bag filter will be on a pad outside the plant g- • tray -king system for pig • pig launcher and rt ccivcr The estimate provided in this proposal for 'Detailed Design' is not a firm estimate since it does riot mx=marily reflect the cost to perform these services since the basis of design had not been established at this time. After the concept design is completed, this number will be evaluated for its validity. TYPE OF FEE Time and Material - S13,200.00 16 NORTH COLLIER REOGIONNAL AT TREATMENT PLANT GRADE ` ITEM CA4C.V b SCOPE We will prepare and 'walk through" the FDEP permit required for disposal of the pigging effluent down the concentrate injection well. '[APE OF FEE Time and Material - S4,700.00 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ITEM CA4C.VI CA4C Vi - DEVELOPMPM OF OPERATIONS PROTOCOL LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER FIR SUBTOTAL ENCKINEER V PRINCIPAL $123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 5123.00 ENGNEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 8 599.00 5792.00 ENGINEER III MECHANICAL/PROCESS $87.00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHANICAL 587.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICALINSTRUMENTATION 587.00 ENGINEER II PROCESS/MECHANICAL S75.00 ViGINEER 1I EIECTRICALiNSTRUNEN7ATION S75.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTTNG $63.00 CONTRACT ASST CLERICAL S42.00 ENGINEER V QA.QC 5123.00 ENGINEER IV Q.LQC 599.00 SUBTOTAL S'. 92.00 PSG 32 $90.00 52,880.00 COOPD WITH SUB LUMP SUM 528800 TOTAL 53.960.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODI:CTION S35.00 SHIPPING S18.00 GRAND TOTAL 54,013.00 TIME A 1L%TERLAL 54,000.00 l • We will develop a protocol for the operation of the pigging system. The protocol will develop and list procedures for pigging of the raw water transmission main and the disposal of pigging effluent. Time and Material - S4,000.00. 18 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 6B ITEM CA4D CA41) - INTYA;PATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL $123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECMCAL $123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 32 S99.00 S3,169.00 ENGINEER RI MECHANICAL/PROCESS 587.00 ENGINEER IR HVAGMECHANICAL 587.00 ENGLvEER III ELECTRICALINSTRUMENTATION S97.00 E.','GrNEER H PROCESSIIECHANICAL 16 5.75.00 51.200.00 E_NGLVEER [l ELECTRICAI./INSTRI,'MENTATION 575.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 563.00 CONTRACT ASST. CI -FRICAL 16 S42.00 S672.D0 ENGINEER V Q I.QC 4 5123.00 5492.00 ENGINEER IV Q.AGC 599.00 SUBTOTAL 55,532.00 MISSI.MER INTER. 16 590.00 51,44000 COORD wrtii SLB LUMP SI,-%( S144.00 TOTAL, S7,116.00 OTHER DIRECT COST REPRODUCTION 5300.00 SHIPPING 542.00 GRAND TOTAL 57,458.00 LUMP SUM $7,500.00 BACKGROUND During the design phase, Collier County requested that the raw water transmission main, well structures and treatment plant work be incorporated into one contract. The drilling and development of the wellfield was created as a separate construcdon contract by others. Subsequently, after final completion of the design documents, Collier County has requested that the drilling and development of the raw water wells be additionally incorporated into the construction contract for the water treatment plant to crate a single construction contract for the entire project. The creation of a single construction contract would make the entire project the responsibility of one contractor, thus easing coordination between the various work construction contract items. 19 • NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6B '15 SCOPE M&E will incorporate into the contract documents the contract for the drilling of the raw water production wells. The final deliverable will consist of a single set of contract documents that will address construction of the raw water production wells, well structures, raw water transmission main and water treatment plant facilities. Coordination will be conducted with Missimer International, the designer of the raw water production wells, to assure consistency within the new integrated contract construction documents. Assumptions made in the preparation of this scope and cost are as follows: • Design services are not provided under this item. • Contract Drawings incorporated into the design package are by others and not provided by M&E. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - $7,500.00 (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 20 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 Z b B 5 ITEM CME CA4E - RAW WATER WELLS MMNTEXANC8 PROTOCOL DEVELDPMFJ4T LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL ENGLNEER V PRINCIPAL 4 $123.00 5492.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 4 $123.00 5492.00 ENGINEER IV PROTECT MANAGER 16 S".00 S1.59400 ENGINEER III MECHANr'ICALPR0CESS 16 587.00 51.392.00 ENGINEER III HVAG'`IECHANICAL 587.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENTATION $87.00 ENGINEER 11 PROCES&NIIECHANICAL 8 575.00 5600 00 ENGINEER II ELECTRICALTNSTRUMENTATION 573.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTrNG $6300 CON -TRACT ASST. CLERICAL 8 542.00 5336 00 ENGINEER V QA QC 2 5123.00 S114600 ENG ENE ER IV QA.QC 599 00 SUBTOTAL $5.142.00 St1551MER r\TER. 48 590.00 5+.32000 COORD WITH SUB LUMP SUt1 5+32 00 TOTAL 59,894.00 OTHER Di RECT COSTS REPRODUCTION S 100 00 SHIPPING 5:0.00 GRAND TOTAL 510,01400 TIME A NtATERLIL 510,100.00 BACKGROUND The proposed Collier County reverse osmosis wellfield will consist of ten primary production wells and one standby production well that tap the bower Hawthorn Aquifer at a depth of approximately 700 to 800 feet below land surface. Wells tapping the Lower Hawthorn Aquifer typically require very little regular maintenance and have a long life expectancy. However, these wells flow freely at land surface that may present problems when replacing motors on submersible well pumps or while conducting other repair and/or maintenance activities such as periodic chemical treatment. 21 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6Bry 5 M&.E will ante vnth its subconslrt= Mis imer International to develop standard protocols and s=hed xm for performing regolm or as- needed maintenawe on the Lower Hawthorn pm&x;dm weds. These sped5awns will provide for. • Controlling well flow • Disposal of raw well water • Monitoring of well performance • Criteria for scheduled maintenance v Vohu= and types of nmMtenarx.-e chemicals • Placement and disposal of chemicals • Safety considerations 110 • Time and Material - $ 10,100.00. (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) W NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6 B ITEM CA0 CA4P - RAW WATER MAIN HDPE ALTERNATIVE LABOR GRADE F", CT 10 HR RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL 11GINEER V PRINCIPAL I 5123.00 5123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESSTLECTRICAL 5123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 16 59900 S1.51400 ENGINEER III MECIIANICALFROCESS 40 58700 53,43000 ENGINEER III FIVAC kfFCIIANICAI. 537 00 ENGINEER 111 FLECTRICAI.TNSTRLNIFNTATION 587.00 ENGINEER II PROCESSMECHA.NICA1. 32 57500 52.40000 ENGINEER II ELECTRICALTNSTRi -Ni E',TATN }N 575.00 DRAFTER 1N' DRAFI-ING 32 S6300 52.016.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL A $42.00 5336.00 ENGINEER V QA QC 2 S123.00 524600 ENGINEER IV QA, QC S" 00 SUBTOTAL S10,135.00 ABB LUMP SUM 51.600 00 COORD WIT}I SUB LUMP SUM S16000 TOTAL 511,945.00 REPRODUCTION 540 00 SHIPPING S1800 GRAND TOTAL 112.003.00 BACKGROUND Collier County as a result of items identified in the "Constructability Report' conducted for this project, has requested that M&E consider the use of HDPE pipe as an alternative to the PVC pipe specified for the new raw water transmission main. SCOPE M&E will explore the possibility of using HDPE as alternate bid item for use of HDPE pipe in lieu of the specified PVC. We will perform a surge analysis to determine what additional features should be incorporated into the system to minimize this phenomena. M&E will prepare a technical memorandum defining the results of these analyses and recommendations. NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6B 5 After aaxptanct by Collier County, M&E will modify the contract documents to incorporate HDPE as an alternate bid item and to also incorporate into the raw water transmission system additional features, if nomssary for surge attenuation_ MdtE will also incorporate into the contract documents for the HDPE pipe, spare repair parts, repair tools and training for County personnel. This scope of servx= is based upon the following assumptions: HDPE is suitable for the water chemistry of the raw water. HDPE is made in sufficient thickness to address the system hydraulics. TYPE OF FEE Time and Reimbursable Cost - S 12,003.00 (addition to Task A_ 10.8 - Other Services) 24 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 1 6 B 5 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ITEM CA4G CA-4G - RAW WATER HAM BYPASS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL ENGrNEER V PRINCIPAL 5123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 16 S123.00 $1,968.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 16 599.00 51,584.00 ENGINEER III MECHANICAUPROCESS 587,00 ENGINEER 111 HVAC/MECHANICAJ, 597.00 ENGINEER III ELF CTRJCAL T--STRL7NENTATJ0N 24 58700 52,088.00 ENGINEER II PROCESS tiLECHANICAL. 24 575.00 S1.80000 ENGINEER II ELECTRICALTNSTRUMENTAT70N 57500 DRAFTER IV DRAFf1NG 80 S6300 55.040.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL 24 542.00 S1,00800 ENGrNEERV QA, QC 2 S123.00 524600 FNGINEER IV Q,VQC 2 599.00 S198.00 TOTAL, $13.937-00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION S4000 SHIPPING 51800 GRAND TOTAL. S13.99000 LUMP St;.111 114,000.00 BACKGROUND Collier County as a result of items identified in the "Constructability Report" conducted for this project, has requested M &E to design and incorporate into the contract documents, a bypass line directly from the raw water main near the pig receiving station to the deep injection well. The purpose of the bypass line is to allow for disposal of raw water upstream of the cartridge filters during startup. 25 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ,, cr PE M&E will provide design services to incorporate into the contract documents a bypass line for the raw water main from near the pig receiving station to the deep injection well. M&E will design modifications to the system software and operating system to permit bypassing of water at the discretion of the plant operators and during specific operations. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S14,000.00 (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 26 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 1 6 B 5 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ITEM CA41H CA4H - DRALNAGE FOR WELL HOUSES I -ABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR RATE TER HR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRPNCIPAL 1 5123.00 $123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESSfELECTRICAL 2 $123.00 $246.00 ENGINEER TV PROJECT MANAGER 24 599.00 S2,376.00 ENGINEER III MECHANICALIPROCESS 12 S37.00 S1,044.00 ENGINEER III HVACAIECHANICAL S37.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICALt14STRUMENTATION 40 587.00 53,480.00 ENGINEER 11 PROCESS/MECHANICAL 575.00 ENGINEER 11 EL F.CTRICAL NSTRUME`'TATTON 573.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 60 56100 53,780.00 CONTRACT ASST. CL.ERICAI, 32 542.00 S1,344.00 ENGINEER V OA/QC 2 5123.00 $246.00 ENGINEER 1V QA/QC 2 599.00 s' 9R.00 SUBTOTAL 512,1137.00 MISSIMER INTER 24 S90.00 S2 160 00 LAICDAS,'YOHALE,M LUMP SUM $3,000.00 COORD W111i SUB LUMP SUM 5516.00 TOTAL S18,513.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION S200.00 SHIPPING 530.00 GRAN TOTAL $11763.00 BACKGROUND Collier County as a result of items identified in the "Constructability Report" conducted for this project, has requested M&E to investigate and consider the deletion of the sump pits in the well house structures. The well head structures inclusive of the vaults and buildings are provided with sump pits for diversion of miscellaneau Spills and flows from these structures. 27 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6B 5 SCOPE M&E will investigate the possibility to delete *4 the sump drainage pits from the well houses. M&E will identify alternate means to facilitate drainage of the well structures during maintenance. M&E will define in a technical memorandum the proposed alternative to sump pits. After review and acceptance by Collier County, M&E will incorporate into the design and contract documents, provisions for the revised well house structure drainage systems. This scope of services is based upon the following assumptions: • modifications to well house drainage will consist of the deletion of the pits and the resloping and/or containment • floor areas subject to drainage flows. TYPE OF FEE Time and Material Cost - S 18,763.00. (addition to Task A. 10.8 - Other Services) 28 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6 B 5 ITEM CA41 CA41- CURED IN PL►CI LINER FOR EXISTLNG RAW WATER MAIN LABOR GRADE FUNCnON HR. RATE PER lilt SUBTOTAL EN'GIN`EER V PRINCIPAL S123.00 FN'GI`EEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL S123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 4 599.00 5396.00 ENGINEER III MECHANICAL/PROCESS 2 S87.00 56%.00 EN'GIN'EER III HVAC/MECHANICAL 187.00 EN'GrN'EFR III ELECTR1CAil[NSTRU IETTATION i87.00 EN'GIN'EER ❑ PROCESS/MECHANiCAL 4 575.00 5300.00 ENGINEER 11 ELECTRIC U1 INSTRUMENTATION' 573,00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 8 563.00 5504.00 CONTRACT ASST CLERICAL 4 542.00 5168.00 ENGINEER V QA/QC I 5123.00 5123.00 EN'GIN'EER IV QA/QC $9900 TOTAL. 52,187.00 OT11ER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 520.00 SHIPPING S18.00 GRAND TOTAL 52.223 00 LUMP SUM 52,100.00 BACKGROUND Collier County as a result of items identifies in the "Constructability Report" conducted for this project, has requested M &E to Assign and incorporate into the contract documents, a cured in place liner to enhance the pressure rating of the existing raw water influent pipeline. As part of the original plant construction, fiberglass piping for the future RO raw water pipe was placed into the floor slab of the main process building. After repeated failures of the fiberglass raw water piping for the membrane softening system, it was determined through conversations with the manufacturer that LM pipe was rated for 50 psi which is below the requirements for the reverse osmosis influent raw water system. The new reverse osmosis feed raw water piping requires a minimum pressure rating of 150 psi. SC OP This scope of services includes the preparation of contract documents for the installation of a cured in place lining to increase the pressure rating to 150 psi for the existing fiberglass pipe that will be used for the new RO treatment system. MRE will also investigate the pressure rating for the costing pipe flange connections and modify the contract documents to increase, if required, to enhance the pressure rating of the connections to 150 psi 29 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 16B r This scope of services is based upon the following asst mp6ons: • The existing raw water pipe pressure can be increased with a liner to a minimum rating of 150 psi.; • The liner will not significantly decrease the influent diameter of the pipe; • The flange connections can be enhanced to achieve a pressure rating of 150 psi. TYPE OF FEE Lurrp Sum - S2,300.00 (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 30 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE ,� CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6B ITEM CA4J CA4J - RECONFIGURATIOM OF WEL.LFIFLD ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND PTMG LABOR GRADE FUNCrIOY HR. RATE MR HR SUBTOTAL ENGLYEER V PRINCIPAL 5123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESSIELECnUCA1. $123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 2 $99.00 5198.00 FNGR:EER III MECHANICALTROCESS 587.00 ENGINEER III HVAC fECHANICAL SE7.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRIC AIANI MUMENTATION 18 S87.o0 51,566.00 ENGINEER n PROCESS,MECHANICAL 575.00 ENGINEER 11 FLFCTRICAL/INSTRL'ME,TAT70N' 8 575.00 560000 DRAFTER IV DRAMNG 563.00 CONTRACT ASST CLERICAL S4200 ENGINEER V QA QC 1 S123.00 S12300 ENGINEER I V QAlQC $99.00 SUBTOTAL 52,437.00 AB B LUMP SUM 52.135.00 COORD WITH SUB LUMP SUM 521500 TOTAL 54,357.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION S20.00 SHIPPING $18.00 GRA.YD TOTAL 54,895.00 LUMP SUM S4-9W.00 BACKGROU'1D Collier County as a result of items identified in the "Constructability Report" conducted for this project, has requested M &E to design and incorporate into the contract documents, the consideration of modification of the well field ductbank to either a concrete ductbank with PVC "EB" conduit in lieu of the specified "GRS" conduit or direct bury cable. Collier County has also requested as identified in the "Consquctability Report" the reduction in the separation of the dual proposed raw water transmission mains to two feet in lieu of the distance as currently identified. Collier County has also requested the relocating of the electrical duct bank and dual raw water mains in the same trench excavation. 31 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 b B SCOPE M&E will explore the possibility of modifying the wellfield duct bank from a "GRS" concrete encased duct bank to PVC "EB" conduit in a concrete encased dud bank or a direct bury cables. M&-E will investigate both code and practical considerations for proposed modification to the line. M&tE will also investigate the possibility of including both the transmission mains and the electrical duct bank in the same trench. M&.E will also investigate the locating of the raw water main to two feet away from each other. M&E will present in a technical memorandum the results of these analysis. After discussion with and approval by Collier County, M&E will incorporate into the contract documents design modifications. The placement of the concrete duct bank was incorporated as part of amendment number 2. This scope of services is based upon the following assumptions: (1) That the final design will consist of a conduit type modification only. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S4,900.00. (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) M 32 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ITEM CA4K CA4K - INCORPORATION OF LOW PRESSURL MEMBRANES LABOR GRAD£ 1 FUNCTION SUL SLATE PER FM SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 2 5123.00 5246.00 e4GLtiEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 24 S123.00 $2,952.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 8 599.00 5792.00 ENGCNEER III MECHANICAIJPROCESS 60 587.00 55,220.00 UNGLV£ER III HVAC/MECHANICAL S97.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAUTNSTRUMENTATION 16 587.00 51,392.00 ViGrNEER II PROCESS/MECHANICAL 24 575.00 S1,90000 ENGINEER 11 ELECTRJCAUtNSTRUMENTATION S75.00 DRAFTER rV DRAFTi`G 563.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL $42.00 ENGINEER V QA'QC 4 512100 549100 ENGINEER IV QA/QC 599.00 TOTAL S 12,894.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPROD(XTION 540 00 sHIPPrN,G 518.00 GRAND TOTAL 512,952.00 BACKGROUND Collier Countv as a result of items identified in the "Constructability Report" conducted for this project, has requested that M&E incorporate into the contract documents ultra low pressure membranes. The ultra low pressure membranes will require less pressure to treat the raw water than those specified. "Ultra low pressure membranes" were not originally identified in the contract documents since the use of the said membranes was relatively new to the market at the time and Collier County did not wish to take the risk associated with a new product. Since that time the membranes have been used in various capacities at various locations. The use of lower pressure membranes will result in a cost savings for Collier County through the reduction of energy use. 33 ' NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 16B 5 MdtE will modify the contract doc uneats to incorporate the use of "ultra low pressure membranes- in lice of the standard mcmbranes specified. As directed by Collicr County, the larger honsepower pumps that were specified for operatioa with the standard membranes will be maintained in the redesigned system to permit the option of using sitazimrd membranes in the future. M&E will modify the contract documents to incorporate ultra low pressure mcmbname$ into the corstxt documents. Time and Reimbursable Cost - S12,95100. ( addition to Task A.10.8 - Other Scnices) 34 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6B 5 ITEM CA4L CA4L - [..N- V`E3TIGATION AND DESIGN Of VENTILATION FOR TRANSFER AND CONCENTRATE PUMP gTAT10Ng LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 512300 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 5123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 8 S99.00 S792.00 ENGINEER III MECHANICAL/PROCESS 5087.,00 ENGINEER III HVAGMECHA.`IICAL 120 587.00 510,440.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAI,TvSTRUMEti ?ATTON 60 587.00 53,220.00 ENGINEER 11 PROCESSNECHANICAL 16 $75.00 51,200.00 ENGrtiEER II ELECTRICAIJINSTRU IENTATTON 40 S75,00 S3,000.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 60 $63.00 53,780.00 CONTRACT ASST CLERICAL 542.00 ENGINEER V Qk()C 12 5123 00 51,476 00 ENGINEER IV Q,LQC 599.00 TOTAL S25,90ft.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 5200.00 SHIPPItiG 540.00 GRAND TOTAL S26.14800 LUMP SUM 526.200.00 BACKGROUND Collier County as a result of items identified in the "Constructability Report" conducted for this project, has requested that M &E investigate and provide design services for means to enhance the ventilation in the transfer and concentrate pump rooms (2) to minimize corrosion of the equipment within these rooms. It was identified in the report that interior corrosion is extensive. 35 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 _,. 16B 5 MRE will investigate options to enhance the ventilation of the transfer and concentrate pump room to minimize corrosion. Mdt.E will also investigate corroded instrumentation and electrical equipment and appurtenances. MdtE will propose a recommend alternative in a technical memorandum format. After review and acceptance by Collier County, M&E will design and modify the contract documents for the various ventilation proposed change. This proposal inchrdes a modification to permit replacement of corroded instrumentation and electrical equipment and appmIcnance. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - $26,200.00. (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 36 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 L p ITEM CA4M 6 [7 CA4M- IN T- %- nGATTON AND DESIGN FOR DIRECT DISCHARGE FROM THE MEMBRANE SOFTENING CONCENTRATE TO THE DEEP INJECTION WELLS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 5123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELEC -PJCAL 24 2123.00 52,932.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 24 $99.00 S2,376.00 ENGINEER 111 MECHANICAL/PROCESS 64 587.00 53,568.00 ENGINEER III HVACMECHANICAL 587.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION 24 587.00 52,088.00 ENGINEER If PROCESS'MECHA.NiCAI, 32 57500 52,400.00 ENGINEER lI ELECTRICAI.TN'STRLNfENTATTON S7500 DRAFTER IV DRAF'T'ING 80 S6300 S5.04000 CONTRACT ASST CLFRIC.V. 8 54200 ENGINEER V Q A QC 4 S12300 5492.00 ENGINEER IV Q-kQC 59900 SUBTOTAL $20,916.00 MISSIMER TN-TER. 16 590.00 $1,440.00 COORD WWI SUB LV'%fP SUM 5144.00 TOTAL. S22,500.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS R. F PROMCTION S20000 SIt1PPING 540.00 GRAND TOTAL. S22,740.00 LUMP SCNf $22,500.00 BACKGROUND Collier County as a result of items identified in the "Constructability Report" conducted for this project, has requested that M &E investigate the possibility to discharge the concentrate directly from the existing membrane softening treatment skids to the deep injection wells. Currently the MS concentrate is piped to an intermediate pump station and is pumped down the injection welts. The piping of MS concentrate directly to the deep injection well would result in a savings due to the fact that the existing concentrate pump station will not experience significant use. 37 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 16B 5 MAE will investigate the possibility of directly discharging concentrate from the existing membrane softening system to the deep injection wells. M&E will analyze the compatibility of this practice with the capacity of the deep wells, concentrate trader and considerations for the concentrate discharge from the new RO system. M&E will prepare a technical memorandum addressing these issues. After review with Collier County, M&E will incorporate the direct discharge into the contract documents. This scope of services is based upon the following assumptions • That it is possible to discharge concentrate from the membrane softening system down the deep injection wells directly. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S22,800.00. (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 38 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 1 '! 6 D D CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ITEM CA4N CAIN - CONVERSION/REPLACEMENT OF COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM LABOR GRADF. FUNCTION HR- RATE PER RR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 4 312100 3492.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 16 5123.00 51.961.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER E 599.00 5792.00 ENGINEER III MECHA.NICAL/PROCESS SE7.00 ENGINEER III HVACMECHANICAL $87.00 E.'NGI EER 111 ELECTRIC AIANSTRU iEN'TA11O` 16 587.00 51,392.00 ENGINEER it PROCESS MECHANICAL 575.00 ENGINEER 11 ELECTRICAL1NSTRL'MEN7ATION 60 575.00 54.500.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING S63.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL. 8 542.00 5336.00 ENGINEER V QA QC 2 5123.00 5246.00 ENGrNEER TV QA'QC S99 00 TOTAL $9,726.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUC ON' S20.00 SHIPPING SI1.00 GRASD TOTAL S9.764.00 LIMP Sum, $9,1100.00 B P,CK G ROUND Collier County as a result of items identified in the "Constructability Report" conducted for this project, has requested that NLU upgrade the computer operating system to an "Ethernet" Parallel Networking system. The current system that was installed is a DOS based system on 486 based computers. The use of an "Ethernet" Parallel Networking system allows each computer workstation to handle specific tasks thus eliminating the redundancy in the work stations. SCOPE M&E will provide design services to upgrade the plant's computer operaWig system to an "Ethernet" Parallel Networking system inclusive of both software and hardware modifications. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S9,8W.00. (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 39 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE L p CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 v D ITEM CA40 CA40 - DELETION OF VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES SOLID STATE BYPASSES FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS FEED PUMPS AND WD HARMONIC MINIMIZATION LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 512100 ENGINEER V PROCESSIELECTRICAL 12 5123.00 $1,476.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MACNAGER 8 S".00 S792.00 ENGINEER III MECHA.NICAL/PROCESS S".00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHANICAL S9700 ENGINEER III ELECTRICA ANI STRUMENTATION 68 $87.00 53,916.00 ENGINEER 11 PROCESS/MECHANICAL S75.00 ENGINEER 11 ELECTRICALTNSTRLIIENTA.TION 32 S75.00 52,400.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 72 563.00 54,536.00 CONTRACT ASST CLERICAL S42 00 ENGINEER V QA. QC 2 S123.00 524600 ENGINEER I%' QAQC 59900 TOTAL 513,09fr.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 5400 00 SHIPPING $5000 GRXND TOTAL 513,548.00 LUMP SUM $13.600.00 BACK ROUND Sr"si 65� 50,— 61 �a Collier Count}•, as a result of items ideni fled in the "Constructability Report" conducted (for this project, has requested that MA E modify the contract documents to (1) delete the variable frequency drivesAfor the reverse osmosis feed pumps, (2) verify efficiencies of the motors included under the plant expansion for compliance with the FPL rebate program, (3) perform a detailed harmonic analysis of the existing electrical distribution system to determine the extent of the total harmonic distortion present and to determine if "clean power" or 12 pulse type variable frequency drives arc required to minimize harmonic distortion produced by expansion equipment, (4) investigate possible harmonic mitigation techniques to correct the existing electrical distribution system harmonic distortion to within the recommended practices established by IEEE Standard 519.1992, (5) and, design a harmonic distortion mitigation system that would bring the total harmonic distortion limits below 5% as well as improving the plant True Power Factor to avoid any future penalties that may be imposed by FPL. SCOPE M&E will delete the requirement for the reduced voltage solid state by-pan unit for the reverse osmosis feed pumps. M&.E will verify that the efficieticies of the motors included raider the plant expansion are in compliance with the requirements of the FPL rebate program. M&E will perform a detailed harmonic distortion analysis on the existing 40 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 16B 5 electrical distnbution system, and will provide a report including measured data and interpretations. M&E will determine if "clean powrr" or 12 pulse type drives will be necessary to minimize the addition of harmonic distortion to the existing distortion levels. If the existing distortion levels exceed recommended limits, M&E will investigate Possible alternative for controlling harmonic distortion. M,&E will present a technical rnenorandum defining (1) preliminary design concept, (2) the advantage and disadvantages of a harmonic distortion mitigation system, and (3) an estimate of probable construction cost. M&E will provide engineering services including modification of the contract documents as required for incorporation of a harmonic distortion mitigation system. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S13,600.00. (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 41 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 1 L p CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 1 v L7 ITEM CA4P CA4P - MODIFICATION OF VARIOUS CONDUIT MATERIAL DESIGNATIONS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SiJB7OTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL $123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 5123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT M- -4AGER S99.00 ENGI.EER III MECHANICAL/PROCESS 58700 ENGINEER III HVACIMECH;C- AL 58700 ENGINEER III F,LECTRICAIAN'STRI,'IAE%,TATiOti g 58700 5696 00 ENGINEER 11 PROCES S,"A ECHA.`N IC AL S75 00 ENGINEER 11 ELECTRIC AIJNSTR ME\TAT10. 575.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTINC) 563.00 CONTRACT ASST, CLERICAL 2 S42 00 $94.00 ENGtNEF.RV Q "L QC 1 S12300 $123.00 FNGrNEER IV Q'I 59900 TOTAL 5903.00 OTHFR DIRECT COSTS RF.PROD(,CTlO` S10.00 SHIPPING $3.23 GRAND TOTAL 5918.23 LUMP SUM 5900.00 BACKGROUND Collier County as a result of items identified in the "Constructability Report" conducted for this project, has requested that ?+I&E modify in the contract documents the following conduit materials (1) under slabs and in the ground, PVC schedule 80; (2) for stub ups and risers, PVC coated GRS; (3) for the well field concrete encased duct bank, EB PVC. SCOPE M &E %hill modify the contract documents to modify the conduit as follows (1) under slabs and in the ground to PVC schcduie 80; (2) for stub ups and risers to PVC coated GRS; (3) for the well field concrete encased duct bank to EB PVC. These modifications will be verified with applicable and County codes. TYPE F FEE Lump Sum - S400.00. (addition to Task AA - Final Design) 42 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE p CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 6B 5 ITEM CA4Q CA4Q - LIGHTNING PROTECTION FOR WZU HOUSES LABOR GRADE FuNCTiON HR RATE PER HR SUETOTAL F_YGINT-ER V PRINCIPAL 3123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/HLECTRICAL 512300 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 2 599.00 5198.00 ENGINNTER III MECHANICAUPROCESS 587.00 ENGINEER III HVAC/M. ECHA -NICAL $87.00 E.NGr'r'EER III ELECTRICAIJTNSTRUMEN- TATIO. 24 587.00 52,088.00 ENGINEER Ii PROCESSiNiECHANICAL 573.00 ENGINEER II ELECTRICALiT`STRU- %IE \TATION $73.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 4 $63.00 $232.00 COP-TRACT ASST, CLERICAL 2 St2.00 584.00 ENGINEER V QA, QC 1 5123.00 S123.00 ENCINEER I," Q,VQC 59400 TOTAL 52.745.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODt;CT10.N 520.00 SN1PPr`G 518.00 GRAND TOTAL 52.783.00 1'U'%'P St ?T 52,500.00 BACKGROUND Collier County as a result of the Constructability Review for this project has requested M&E to include as part of the design and contract documents a lightning protection system for the three well house buildings. The irLswlation of a lightning protection system for the well houses was not included in the scope of services or subsequent contract amendments. SCOPE P,Ietcalf and Edda will provide design services including the preparation of contract documents for the installation of a lightning protection system for the well house structures. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - $2,8W.00. (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 43 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE '( 6 p G 5 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 V D ITEM CA4R CA4R - BID PIWE SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ITEMS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR- RATE PER HR 'RJBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL $123,00 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL $123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 59900 ENGINEER III SIECHA.`ICAUPROCFSS 58700 ENGINEER III HVAGMECFIANICAL 58700 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAUINSTRUkIENTATION SS 00 ENGINEER II PROCESS1.1ECHA -LAICAL S7500 FNGrNEER Il FLFCTRICAI/TN. TRUMFNTATION 575.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 56300 CONTRACT ASST C1,F.RICn1. S4200 ENGINEER V Q,S QC S12300 FNGIVEER IV QA QC 59900 St:ETOTAI. TLC L(- \f P SUM S 1.000.00 LAKDAS'YOHALE\I LUMP SUM S 1.000 00 C:(X)RD 1ATTH SUB IJl'\(P SUM 5200 00 TOTAL 52100.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS RFPRODI CrION SHIPPING GR,�LvD TOTAL LU\(P SUM 32,200.00 BACKGROUND Collier County, as part of amendments no. 1, 2 and 4, requested additional design services. As part of the original scope of services, M &E was requested to provide bid phase services (identified in the original scope of services as item A.5) of the work constructed. Collier County has Requested M &E under this amendment item to provide bid phase services for the additional design items included in amendments no. 1, 2 and 4. 44 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 16B 5 SCOPE M&E will provide bid phase services for the additional design items included mtder contract amendments no. 1, 2 and 4. Bid services include items as designated under task A.S in the original scope of services. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - $2,200.00. (addition to Task A.S - Procurement and Construction Bid Services) 45 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 K MdcE will provide bid phase services for the additional design items included under contract amendments no. 1, 2 and 4. Bid services include items as designated under task A_5 in the original scope of services. TYPE OF FEE 1-ump Sum - $$2,200.00. (addition to Task A.5 - Procurement and Construction Bid Services) 45 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 (� D 5 ITEM CA4S V D GUS • PREPARATION OF RECORD DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ITEMS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR RATE PER HR lSUIITOTAL ENGNEER V PRINCIPAL 5113.00 ENGINEER V PROCESS-TLECTRICAL S123.00 EtiGr,NEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 8 599.00 5792.00 ENGINEER III MECHA,NICAUPROCESS S87 00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHANICAL 58700 ENGENT -ER III ELECTR1CAtINSTRUME`'TATTON S9700 ENGrNEER 11 PROCFSS'MECHA.11CAL S7! 00 ENGN'EER II ELECTRICALTNSTRU'MENTAT ON S7500 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 60 S6300 S3.72000 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL 4 S4200 S16900 ENGINEER V QA QC 2 S12300 S24600 ENGINEER IV QA QC 59900 SUBTOTAL S4.9lf6A0 I.AKDASYOHALEM 60 S9000 S5.40000 COORD RTrH SUB LL-%IP SUM S54000 TOTAL S10.926.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 5200 00 SrI1PPP'G 540 00 GRAND TOTAL 511,166.00 BACKGROUND Collier County, as part of amendments no. I, 2 and 4, requested additional design services As part of the original scope of services, M&-E was requested to provide record drawings (identified in the original scope of services as item A.5) of the work constructed. Collier County has Requested M&E under this amendment item to furnish record drawings for the additional design items included in amendments no. I, 2 and 4. 46 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6 Q 5 ITEM CA4T 1 v CA4T - MODIFICATION OF FRONT END SIECMCATIONE TO MATCH COUM COUNTY REVWW FRONT END SPEC7FICATIOIIS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION Hit RATE PER RR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL $123.00 ENGINEER V PROCFSS/ELECTRICAL $123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 2 599.00 S198.00 ENGINEER III MECHANICAUPROCESS 24 587,00 52,088.00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHANICAL 587.00 ENGINEER II ELECTRICALI NSTRUMENTATION 587.00 ENGINEER II PROCESSIMECHAFIICAL 4 575.00 $300.00 ENGINEER 11 ELECTRICAUINSTRUMENTATION 575.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 563.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL, 8 542.00 5336.00 ENGINEER V QA/QC 2 S123.00 524600 ENGINEER IV QA/QC S99.00 TOTAL 13.168.00 OTHFR DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 540.00 SHIPPING S18.00 GRAND TOTAL 53,226.00 LUMP SUM 53.300.00 BACKGROUND In light of ongoing and past construction projects, Collier County has raised their front end specifications since the completion of final design. Collier County has requested M&E to modify their front end documents to correspond and comply with the front end contract specifications. SCOPE M&E will modify the contract documents to correspond and comply with the new front end specifications. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S3,300.00. (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 49 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 16B 5 SCO M&E will perform design services to (1) access the impact of the "located" exiting raw water main (2) relocate and redesign the new raw water transmission main location giving possible consideration to relocation of the existing 10- inch water main_ This scope of services is based upon the following assumptions: • Collier County will provide an accurate survey of the existing 10 -inch finished water main. TYPE OF FEE Time and Reimbursement Cost - $14,450.00. (addition to Task A. 10.8 - Other Services) NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 go-Ow 1 bB 5 Metcalf & Eddy will provide to documentation to facilitate the review and approval of a revised FDEP construction permit and Collier County site development and right of way constriction permits. The FDEP construction permit and Collier County permits were applied for originally under the original scope of work and only apply to the facilities as modified in that scope of work. TYPE Lump Sum - S8,808.00. (Addition to Task A.9 - Permitting 16B 5 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 SCOPE M&E will provide bid phase services for the additional design items included under contract amendments no. 1, 2 and 4. Bid services include items as designated under task A.S in the original scope of services. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S2,200.00. (addition to Task A.5 - Procurement and Construction Bid Scrviccs) NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 SCOPE M&E will provide bid phase services for the additional design items included under contract amendments no. 1, 2 and 4. Bid services include items as designated under task A.5 in the original scope of services. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S2,200.00. (addition to Task A.5 - Procurement and Construction Bid Services) I NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 168 5 ITEM CA4S 1 CA4S - PREPARATION OR RECORD DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ITF.NIS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL. ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 512100 ENGINEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL S123.00 ENGIINEER [V PROJECT MANAGER 8 599.00 S792.00 ENGINEER 1[] MECHA.YICAUPROCESS 58700 F.'4GINEER Ill tiVAC/MECHANICAL 587.00 ENGr 4EER III ELECTRICAUTNSTRUNENTATION 587.00 E- NGItiEER 11 PROCESS /MECHAMCAL S75 00 ENGINEER II ELECTRICALI`STRUMENTATION 575.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 60 563.00 53.780.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL 4 542.00 516800 ENGINEER V QA QC 2 S123.00 5246.00 EtiG[N'EF,R IV QA QC S9900 SUBTOTAL 54.986.00 LAKDA&YOtiALEM 60 590.00 55.400.00 COORD WITH SUB LUMP SUM S54000 TOTAL 510.926.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 5:.00.00 SHIPPING 540.00 GRAND TOTAL S11.166.00 BACKGROUND Collier County, as part of amendments no. 1, 2 and 4, requested additional design services. As part of the original scope of services, M&.E was requested to provide record drawings (identified in the original scope of services as item A.5) of the work constructed. Collier County has Requested M &E under this amendment item to furnish record drawings for the additional design items included in amendments no. 1, 2 and 4. 46 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 i 16B " M&E wiIl fturtish additional services in accordance with contract item A. 10.3 to provide record drawings for the additional design items addressed as part of amendments 1, 2 and 4. WAymffP1`a Time and Reimbursable Cost - S 11,166.00. (addition to Task A. 10.3 - Record Drawings) 47 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 L p ITEM CA4T v [7 CA4T - MODIFICATION OF FRONT END SPECIFICATIONS TO MATCH COLLIER COUNTY REVISED FRONT FIND SPECIFICATIONS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL ENGDraR V PRINCIPAL $123.00 ENGINEER V PROCESSIELEC'TRICAL S123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 2 $99.00 S[98 00 ENGINEER III MECHANICAI/PROCESS 24 587.00 S2,088.00 ENGINEER III HVACIMECHANICAL S97.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAL/TNSTRUMENTATION 58700 ENGINEER n PROCES&MECHA.NICAI, 4 575.00 S30000 ENGLNEER II ELF.CTRJCAIITNSTRUME.NTATIOti x75.00 DRAFTER rV DRAFT -ING $63.00 CONTRACT ASST CLERICAL 8 542.00 5336.00 ENGrN*EER V QA/QC 2 5123.00 5246.00 ENGINEER IV QA/QC 599.00 TOTAL 53,16&00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION S4000 SHIPPTNO S18.00 GP-kND TOTAL 53,226.00 LUM. F SU \t 53,300.00 BACKGROUND In light of ongoing and past construction projects, Collier County has revised their front end specifications since the completion of final design. Collier County has requested M &E to modify their front end documents to correspond and comply with the front end contract specifications. SCOPE hi&E will modify the contract dxuments to correspond and comply with the new front end specifications. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - S3,300.00. (addition to Task A.4 - Final Design) 48 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6B 5 ITEM CA4U CA4U - WELLFIELD TRANSMISSION MAIN REALIGNMENT LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL $123.00 ENGrNEER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL $123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 32 $99.00 S3,168.00 ENGINEER III kfECHAINICAL TROCESS S87 00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHANICAL 58700 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAULNSTRUMEN'TATION SR7 00 ENGINEER 11 PROCESS,' MECHANICAL 16 573.00 51,200.00 ENGrNEER 11 ELECTRICAL/rNSTRUMENTATION S75.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 32 563.00 52,016.00 CONTRACT ASST, CLERICAL 8 542.00 5336.00 EINGINEER V QA QC 5123.00 ENGrNEER 1V Q.VQC 599.00 SUBTOTAL 56,720.00 ABB LLtifP SUM 56,800.00 COORD WITH SUB LUMP SUM S68000 TOTAL $14.200.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION $200.00 SHIPPING S50.00 GRAND TOTAL, $14,450.00 BACKGROUND The raw water transmission main design was located using "as- built" drawings of the utilities on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier County. These drawings indicated the presence of a 10 -inch water main along the road, subsequently the new raw water transmission mains were located to avoid the existing water main. After completion of the final design, Collier County readdressed the location of the existing 10 -inch water main by performing a field investigation to locate the line. Collier County has subsequently requested M &E to reassess the location of the new raw water plain to avoid conflict with the existing 10 -inch water main. 1n NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 bB 5 SCOPE M&E will perform design services to (1) access the impact of the "located" exiting raw water main (2) relocate and redesign the new raw water transmission main location giving possible consideration to relocation of the existing 10- inch water main. This scope of services is based upon the following assumptions: • Collier County will provide an accurate survey of the existing 10 -inch finished water main. TYPE OF FEE Time and Reimbursement Cost - S 14,450.00. (addition to Task A. 10.8 - Other Services) C NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CON'T'RACT AMENDMENT NO.4 ITEM CA4V 16B 5 CA4V - PERMIT REVISIONS LABOR GRADE FUNCTION HR. RATE PER HR SUBTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL $123.00 ENGMER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL $123.00 ENGINEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 16 S99.00 $1,584.00 ENGINEER III MECHANICAL/PROCESS 587.00 ENGINEER III HVAC/MECHANICAL 587.00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAIANSTRUMENTATION 587.00 ENGINEER II PROCESS .MECHANICAL 24 575.00 51,800.00 ENGINEER 11 ELECTRICALTNSTRUMENTATION 575.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING 40 $63.00 S2,520.00 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL 8 542.00 5504.00 ENGINEER V Q11, (X 5123.00 ENGINEER IV QAiQC 599.00 SUBTOTAL 56,408.00 ABB LUMP SUM 5000.00 COORD WITII SUB LUMP SUM 5100.00 TOTAL, 57,508.00 OTHER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION S1,200.00 SHIPPING 5100.00 GRANT) TOTAL SS,808A0 BACKGROUND Collier County has requested M &E to modify various processes as part of amendment number four. These processes and plant functions include concentrate disposal, use of alternate membranes, and bypassing of raw water. As a result of these changes, the FDEP requires that documentation be issued that identifies these modifications as part of the modified E -DEP construction permit. In addition, various site changes inclusive of the relocation of an existing 10" water main and above -grade piping requires modifications in the Collier County Site Development permit ad right of way eonstniction permit. 51 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WA'T'ER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 16B 5 SCOPE Metcalf & Eddy will provide to documentation to facilitate the review and approval of a revised FDEP construction permit and Collier County site development and right of way construction permits. The FDEP construction permit and Collier County permits were applied for originally under the original scope of work and only apply to the facilities as modified in that scope of work. Lump Sum - $8,808.00. (Addition to Task A.9 - Permitting 52 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.4 1 6 g ITEM CA4W CA4W -THIRD PARTY ELWrIUCALTESfIN1G LABOR GitADE FUNCTION IM RATE PER RR WINTOTAL ENGINEER V PRINCIPAL 5123'00 ENGMER V PROCESS/ELECTRICAL 5123.00 ENGLNEER IV PROJECT MANAGER 2 599.00 SI.5E4.00 E,NGIN'EER III MECH.LNICAUPROCESS 557.00 ENGINEER III 11VAGMECHANICAL S87'00 ENGINEER III ELECTRICAMNSTRUMEN TATION S3700 ENGINEER II PROCESS,MECHANICAL $75.00 ENGINEER 11 ELECTRICALINSTRL?.tENTATION S S75.00 5600.00 DRAFTER IV DRAFTING S6300 CONTRACT ASST. CLERICAL I 542.00 542,00 ENGINEER V S12300 FNGINEER IV VA -QC 599.00 TOTAL 5940.00 071IER DIRECT COSTS REPRODUCTION 540.00 S1900 SHIPPI'NG GRAND TOTAL. 5898.00 $900.00 LUMP SUS[ BACKGROUND Collier County has requested that M&E consider requiring a third party electrical testing company to perform equipment acceptance testing for the expansion equipment included as part of this contract. Currently, acceptance testing is required to be performed by the equipment supplier or the general contractor. The advantage of using an independent, unbiased third party is that he will be more objective and will probably do a much more thorough job. M&.E recommends that the contract documents be modified to incorporate the requirements for an independent electrical testing company. SCOPE M&E will modify the contract specifications to incorporate the requirement that the acceptance testing be performed by an International Electrical Testing Association certified independent electrical testing firm. TYPE OF FEE Lump Sum - $900.00. (addition to Task AA - Final Design) 53 2 z W L UJ W s0 Uw d W W < W LA. �O W WN 0 � .•l = W U = W U W Y W H m N W w w LL O 888 8 Be 8 8 W 8pyyy 0 W LU W !(800 lD C9 C ~ N is 1Vp � � .�- fpm t7 888 8 88 8 8 m co _N M M N M N Z 40 888 8 W R a M » M N N q1 ifl',1 Mtrnnt,t,rr •ntr •n z O W h W � z O z 0 U Q W C W W 0 Hd W -1 U Za0 Q W � W J O 0 W Q cc W UJ d W U Q zw �OMX cr wFO w� O W h ow w cr w m �lla-aoaz« a a' W Y�KmaaaW <'7jOy= LU .WI H �� ~�QJ �2wF �v=iaOr4~n� N OC N M Y 1ff ii n 9D Of WAO[fCOGiOt70C ddd�.2d.l.,t•,t1d.t i .: a 8 St 0 el R r � M 0 8 O 0 OOr � N s g o h A r 8 » r7 8 8 O O N n N �- N W w N N 0 O J F- Q � W W W W J L6 m 0 a � J C3 o �w O 8pyyy 0 W LU W !(800 lD C9 2 p88 A Q z 1Vp � � .�- fpm t7 tp(�� � Q7 R M 4 •O N N �f N N O _2 O < f W w rn w U 0 0z O W � w g U w W Q Q W 0 w aJ C, Q �+ tu z QQ Z O O O W -0 U z Q O ? >- Z ? H W F m y a � <a N W wU n H W z �0 �w< UVJ oa? �0 W w U. CL O ►- N M f ddd h m dd ifl',1 Mtrnnt,t,rr •ntr •n z O W h W � z O z 0 U Q W C W W 0 Hd W -1 U Za0 Q W � W J O 0 W Q cc W UJ d W U Q zw �OMX cr wFO w� O W h ow w cr w m �lla-aoaz« a a' W Y�KmaaaW <'7jOy= LU .WI H �� ~�QJ �2wF �v=iaOr4~n� N OC N M Y 1ff ii n 9D Of WAO[fCOGiOt70C ddd�.2d.l.,t•,t1d.t i .: a 8 St 0 el R r � M 0 8 O 0 OOr � N s g o h A r 8 » r7 8 8 O O N n N �- N W w N N 0 O J F- Q � W W W W J L6 m 0 a � J C3 o �w LIM 7 tjA 1 •- �y S ................ . -. i ...r... _ .. �... . .. ... .._r•_ ..� .. �... .. .. ..... ............. ..................................... ... .. .l •_. J. .. /__. ... \....1.. .. J... • ....... ...... .•.. ... .... •. :. ...1 .. .. -.f _. ..;. ...�.... �....�_. .. �... .. ... .. ......... ... :: .. .. _ : :. I.. .. �. _.. .... ♦. :..J ............ __• G - .... ............ I .. .. . '�. L.. - -- -- . ......... -- •• - -.... �_' ..�. ..�. .. ...i... _ ......... .. ...... ._�... --..... --. .. .......................... .. �........ .• . -- ....... ..... . ' . ... ..1... .. .. .. I C -- 1 .. :... ............. . .. -_ . ........ ._ .... �......... ._....... . _...... .. : _... 1��11l!. •� .. .... :.� ..r. __. .__ ...I ........... .. .: t Q .� ._ .. ... .. -.�. -� ... .. _ _ :W i ..;� I .......... ; . -- .. _. _. [ . f... �_. _ ... f.._ - ........ 168 5 S u g. ... , • fill's .44111 0 ° 168 5 S u g. ... , • fill's .44111 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE March 25, 1997 16ta ((`` 1 1. Miscellaneous Items to File For Record With Action As Directed 2. Districts: A. Pelican Marsh Community Development District - December 18, 1996 and agenda. A. Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - February 5, 1997 and agenda for March 5, 1997. Referred to BCC. B. The Beach Renourishment /Maintenance Committee - February 6, 1997 and agenda for March 6, 1997. Referred to BCC. C. Marco Island Beautification Committee - February 4, 1997 and agenda for March 4, 1997. Referred to BCC. D. Mackle Park - February 5, 1997 and agenda for March 5, 1997. Referred to BCC. E. Collier County Planning Commission - January 16, 1997 and agenda for March 6, 1997. Referred to BCC. F. Library Advisory Board - January 22, 1997 and Director's Report - January 16, 1997. Referred to BCC. G. Code Enforcement Board - January 22, 23, 27 and 29, 1997. Referred to BCC. AGEND ITEM NO. MAR 2 5 1997 P9•-.,/- RECEIVED PeCtcan .Marsh MAR 1 1110 1 Community Development District WaP4 es Genoy Gem ssioners 10300 N.W. 11th Manor*Coral Springs, Florida 33071 *Phone: (305) 753.0380*Fax: (305) 345 -1292 March 6, 1997 Memorandum To: From: Reference: Antony Pires. Jr., Esquire Woodward, Pirea & Anderson 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Ste. 640 Naples, FL 33963 ALTiQIi .�� INFO: FILE: STAFF FILE: W. Neil DorAll County Manager c/o Collier County Governmental Center 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 33962 Phyllis Jones Coopers & Lybrand 12800 University Drive Suite 400 Ft.. Myers, FL 33907 Gary L. Moyer, Manager Minutes of Meeting held December 18, 1996 Enclosed for your records is a copy of the minutes of the meeting held by the Board of Supervisors of Pelican March Community Development District as referenced above. GLM /ir enc. Misc. Correa WWI -;;Z.6 - q I item# I i .6 Copies To: 11 y: OF M1ZEnNG PELICAN MARSH COKMUNM 1 6G 1 DEVELOPMZNT The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pelican Marsh Community Development District was held Wednesday, December 18, 1996, at 9:00 A.M., in the Executive Dining Room of First Union National Bank, 6801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Present and constituting a quorum were: John Pistor John Abbott Ed Oates Carol Girardin Also present were: James P. Ward Anthony Pires, Jr. Chuck Adams Chairman Vice Chairman Supervisor Supervisor Assistant Manager Attorney District Staff • .. X11 Mr. Pistor called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. and stated the record will reflect that all Board members are present with the exception of Ms. Marnell. SECO]ND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the November 20, L996 Meeting Mr. Pistor stated each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the November 20, 1996 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions. There not being any, -On---MOTION by Mr. Oates seconded by Mr. Abbott with all in favor the November 20, 1996 minutes were ap2roved. ZEM;D ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution Opening an Account with First Union National Bank Mr. Ward stated as indicated in the memo that you received from staff, we are requesting the Board to authorize the transfer of assessment revenues that we are receiving from the County directly to our Trust Accounts with First Union for payment of the debt service on our bonds. Bank to bank transfers are difficult as December 18, 1996 6G they require us to release the bank from any and all liability related to the transfer which is impossible for us to do by State law. As a result, we actually have money sitting in SunTrust Bank that we cannot transfer because of that reason. We would like to open the bank acco7int with First Union which will be considered an interbank transfer and will be substantially easier than the way it is working right now. Mr. Oates asked how are you going to get your money out of SunTrust Bank? Mr. Ward responded we are going to write a check and transfer the funds to First Union. Mr. Pistor stated I never saw a Resolution like that. Mr. Ward stated the actual signature Resolution is not here, I will have to send it to you for signature. Mr. Oates asked can you use the one that was included in our Agenda Package? Mr. Ward responded yes. Mr. Pistor stated but it has some holes. Mr. Ward stated that is okay. They will take it. Ms. Girardin asked why are we doing this now? Mr. Ward responded last year the debt service assessment was billed directly. It came in directly to the District and we just automatically deposited it with First Union. That was not a problem at that point. The County Tax Collector transfers it by wire directly to SunTrust Bank into our bank account and we cannot get it out by wire. The trust relationship requires us to transfer these monies immediately upon receipt. Mr. Pires stated that is part of the Supplemental Trust Indenture. Mr. Oates stated don't forget to inform Mr. Carlton that you are ganging banks. On MOTION by Mr. Abbott seconded by Mr. Oates with all in favor the Chairman was authorized to sign a Resolution form transferring the present District account from SunTrust Bank to First Union Nationals Bank. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney There not being any, the next item followed. 17 & Ens 1 6G 1 There not being any, the next item followed. C. Manager Mr. Oates stated I would Hike to report that Mr. Ed Griffith took my wife and me around the Bay Colony and Pelican Marsh Golf Courses. We spent two and a half hours on this tour which also included all of the preserve areas. It really looks nice. I would suggest that if you have some time, that is really is worthwhile. Mr. Pistor asked did you go through it a year ago? Mr. Oates responded yes. One year makes a significant difference. Mr. Pistor asked how do the other nine holes of the Pelican Marsh Golf Course look? Mr. Oates responded it looks absolutely beautiful. Mr. Pistor asked do we have 18 holes? Mr. Oates responded we have 18 holes in Bay Colony and 18 holes in Pelican Marsh. It has only been open since the first of December but it looks like it has been there for years. Mr. Adams stated it is beautiful. It really came in nice. Mr. Oates stated there is a difference in the way the second nine holes was constructed. It does not have as many mounds, pockets and shadows. Other than that, it looks like it has been there forever. tWIM ORDER OF BU'SBqiSS Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments There not being any, the next item followed. On MOTION by Ms. Girardin seconded by Mr. Abbott with all in favor the invoices dated December 5, 1996 were approved, with the deletion of the invoice to Ms. , Marnell in the amount of $200.00. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 A.M. Jams Ward John Pistor istant Secretary Chairman 3 16G I AGENDA PELICAN MARSH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Wednesday Executive Dining Room First Union December 18, 1996 9:00 A.M. 6801 Pelican Bay Blvd. 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes of the November 20, 1996 Meeting 3. Consideration of Resolution Opening an Account with First Union National Bank 4. Staff Reports A. Attorney B. Engineer C. Manager 5. Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments 6. Approval of Invoices 7. Adjournment W l'1 < O a W ••• W 2 7 W N N N R •r d O H J V O V w J ¢ J J O < N W •- o m z W � 2 Y O i W < < J T( V W w Z N rI s- = N = K Z O J � � V < Z N o z n < W 7 � W 2 < •+ N v � 7 •. J n ••l v f : � V O W J .- •- r z O O A N •- � R N CZ ••. K T Q .•- •u Y A F �- > Z r < > O C O V s wi p v �•• F- W F- v i 7 O O V W V W N Z a a � o 0 O O 2 ¢ O 'J• r O I H < 2 W V 16G 1 O O O n O O O a n -0 J P N n n O O • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 O O d ti P P f P N J M P P r J P O 7 O J N -0 d J n N r1 M N O N O O N M N M -0 H H ♦ ♦ •'• n M H O N O L N N N N N N N N N N W N N N H Y 2 V O ►• O d ¢ ••• R' 7 N D N W Z ¢ Z m 7 O J O N N O K W J b W Y Y J I 1- _ �► Z 7 W V ►- F X > O W ¢ 7 O 7 W O W 2 S N 1 1 W J 0 J b b O K O P ¢ ¢ ¢ ♦ ♦ J W W O N o W d O O W \ J J V 4 2 N N N Z Z m N Q p Z Z O O O d Q L O P ►• H ►- O O O ^ � J N 1� W 2 2 S N \ N N M J N '/• P u C N N O O O ^ ^ ^ N J N H OP d• A W .- ^ L L d �- ^ ^ .- of ^' O O ^ P O .- O d N 0 O O = Z 2 Z V V W < < < r o o n or R W K L L W W > O O O CL 2 < < a ••• 7 7 s •- �- Y K b N N •• O O O 2 b V W W W % 2 [ N ¢ K V ¢ ¢ V V V V W �- < K ¢ 2 > 4L CL m 01 0 O N N ¢ O O O = T 2 d ►- '- 1- �- m < J J N O O O Z ¢ N N < O O O Y J J J J J J J J J !IC J � < V v V r •� Y. r r. •� w r W W r Y. b V L < J U N W V d R J 1 O Y1 H H i 1! 1— C� A O r O f+ 1- 16G 1 G O O O O O O n O b O O A 00 c, m p O O O O O O P O O A O P M M N N N I N M N N N M N N N N M }C W N N H/' N ` W .Z• T Z Z .Z+ Z 2 W O W •-• O H O 7 '' •'^ •Z.. W m W M W W V V W m J X n Z i Z O S ! 1 O W N N O !. < P N J u J m u J 7 o O O W N 4D < < O W Iq N O O On IViI V P •L-• P O Y a N ►• ~ r 1 W O 7 N < W r- Z N r r a •� i O � .� m W r N N •� •- N ♦ J V V u V V N 11C7 Z Z N > Z W W V d d < < W ¢ ¢ < { Q d 1 W lU O < < < Ly V Q N N ¢ 1 s ¢ ¢ H H W { w u u v u O J 7 7 7 Z •-" O i L n /— O Y Y W W III Y. U V 2 > W W O Z �L Z J u u u u •+ .+ ¢ J. M .-. .-I I"' Y rN-+ J J a O < { { < { 2 Z < ¢ ¢ O O 19 m ¢ ¢ T Z ¢ ¢ a O 7 L < < < t W ,. mm 1 n n •- h- T /- 1 L a ¢ 2 O I� N ►- H Z W Z Z Z 7 Z Z < N N N F- < n a ! •+ a < < o 0 o O = z od ¢ z a ra n n x { < o z < T Z 7 Z 7 I•i W < O O O 4 < < O O Y Y U 7 u N x z •+ •-I •+ •-• J J i Z Z Z 7_ Z Z W ¢ a N 1 bG 1 O P N O re 1 'u 0 w RI O 2 W V V O � � < 4 2 J N V J Z W N 1- N 1 N �- N O 1 ►� O J P � N I N O J P (> N Z < r 2 O > J YI W d • K Z U' O •- Z Z a O 2 W m < 3 ¢ •-. � t W 2 N � N O ►+ 1- W a N W S J a m J W S W = O r N .w R W N N r N N \ z O O Z a .� u N J n ¢ < O a O 2 V a O 7 O > J `- < l9 a .O O u� W \ V > 4 N d N J W \ a w O t W < < W J N 4 N d < d •'� = N O W < H Z w .- Z_ P J 40 J ♦ M -0 M P • !1D M M ' M 1� N N J M J A M J M O N N O M 1 N M N P M P O N N O M M J M N N N p b -0 O N 11• •- N N A M N h .- M .w O M O P N O re 1 'u 0 RI O 2 W V O � � < 4 2 J N V J Z W N 1- N 1 N �- N O 1 ►� O J P � N I N O J P (> N Z < r 2 O > J YI W d • K Z U' O •- Z Z a O 2 W m < 3 ¢ •-. � t W 2 N � N O ►+ 1- W a N W S J a m J W S W = O r N .w R W N N r N N \ z O O Z a .� u N J n ¢ < O a O 2 V a O 7 O > J `- < l9 a .O O u� W \ V > 4 N d N J W \ a w O t W < < W J N W r r 7 � d N d < d •'� = N O W < H Z w .- Z_ f" O O < v � CL .' u :3 O v a N V z O J r O J �. V a a W v .n W J �- J < a W ►- a W +- K W r N o . O u • O v . O u • O u . O v • O u • O u . O u . O v s < O J O W z O W Z J O u N J < n u U 2 2 v to 2 7 u V Z 2 L w J d d :) J d d m J 4 d 7 J d 0. J d d 7 J d d 7 J d a D J d d 7 J d d D 0 M 1 2 o K V N < w J w ►- v J W ►- r x O i n O K . 2 w a z O T_ < Q n W �• a d W - ac d W N W Z O Z a T '-• w a L O d 4 J d d _ > d d = > d n L a d d x > d d T_ > d d x > d d Z > d z 7 •n a W r- 2 > 2 > N < > O O = n < Z O J - > O < O < O < < K < 9 O V O V O V O u O u O V O U O U O V O P N O re 1 'u 0 d 16G 1 O J N O O H O O O O O n • O O O N ti O n O O O J O H H O J H 90 m O OO H !p 1 J H O P H w O N O O b O J H P N M N O N N N ♦ • N N M N M N N N N N N N N ♦• N M N N n d N V < < < = Q J J d L N N J O N N N 2 W W N �'• \ F- < d J J • Y J W W Z � H Q W Q m d W W W /- V x Y W > < J Z 2 Z Z Z J H \ N N H < O t72 F- �- O .( O 11 < y O N N N W W Q V W ► W J < Q 0! J < d \ \ W W W l'J N < Y K J J O J u \ < OC O = W d J J J < m < t d O d O N m d 'n K K � O O 7 m v V J Z E O = N o O f O J H ,O _ ti ► ! N 1 ♦ J d T. i v O r V 7 T V V V 7 Y 'I d 7 A O O O X11 W 'Y W YI 1.1 V V V 7 O 0. /- �- ►- H ►- �- N Y Y Y in J J J J J J J J J J 4 A d 7 O O 2 4 d d IY 7 Y ^'� '- 1� ►- H ►- d > > > x Q N H 7 7 7 � � ►- Y E N N N V > ! N H N < M ? 0 O UI 0[ Y a Y Y Y Y V l7 W V Z 3 7 O 't Y H Z Z 7. � r S Q K W K 7 H Q K OC < Z 7 a = > 7 O d d d 1- J O W F- H �- M ►- W O O O O O O L Z Z O 2 d V V V V V V J J 7 W V O N J W d d d J -C J Z Z W IY W h- Y L < 0: m Q 0; Q O H N N N OC O O d d d O W V J J J J J J O O O < J W < O J J J W O O O O O O O O y V u x .. t a vl � .. 1. � O m v o. y V u V y y n r W u a N Z J 7 C Vi H r 7 O n a O A m O 1 r) u O 16G 1 Ib O O O N to J O O O O h O O O O O O O H O .n In P N eD N O O O O N O v♦ O O O O O O !�• W W 1 Z K O W H r J K 1 Y K 7 b• K N r .I N O p n W n H n C C'� P N n n I� n ♦ J N M M N r r d• M N M M � N ,Y/ N N N N p H N N M M N M ♦ O n 7 M N M M M H m O 1 J N W O ? O Z K < r < < < J V1 W m K 1 Z P > N V 7 z z N N N N N N N N N N N U V V V V W W W �V iV W •V •L IU W W I 7 Z Z Z r r r r r r r > > > J J J J J J J J 't ❑' K to VI N N N W VI VI Y• W W W W Y- �- r r r •- •- `- N N N r r Y- �( 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 t L = 11 < T T T Y T T T T Q K Q T V V V V V QI n O O O 7 z z Z z z z z z 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 VI •n N N N N W r O O O O O O O O Z Z Z < < < < •� r < W z 2 Z Z z d N K K K K K K GC K K Y Y < W W W W W W W W W W W W W K K K K N N N N N N < < O O O O O O O O K K K W 0 0 O O O V V V V V V u V < < < v of fD co w w •D J Y J J w d O J O W W 1 Z K O W K r J K 1 Y K 7 b• K N r J > < 7 2 v a a < r 7 < r+ < r r m O 1 J N W O ? H Z K < r < < < J V1 W m K 1 Z P > > > V < d V V• O K Z ►- < O K K K Y < V O r �] Z O J L > N W W W 2 d A A J O W L O L J N O N N N < W H N Z d L V• M K O r a 1 N 1 1 I d Z N n n p h 1 •T m 3 •! P w P -t ,o O � C 7 ul C •- O O C W r P A d P d d O O •- W 2 •- •- .- •- K n 7 K V 7 z z N N N N N N N N N N N U V V V V W W W �V iV W •V •L IU W W I 7 Z Z Z r r r r r r r > > > J J J J J J J J 't ❑' K to VI N N N W VI VI Y• W W W W Y- �- r r r •- •- `- N N N r r Y- �( 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 t L = 11 < T T T Y T T T T Q K Q T V V V V V QI n O O O 7 z z Z z z z z z 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 VI •n N N N N W r O O O O O O O O Z Z Z < < < < •� r < W z 2 Z Z z d N K K K K K K GC K K Y Y < W W W W W W W W W W W W W K K K K N N N N N N < < O O O O O O O O K K K W 0 0 O O O V V V V V V u V < < < v of fD co w w •D J Y ,• Naples, Florida 16G 1 February 5, 1997 LET IT BE KNOWN, That the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee met in Regular Session on this date at 3:00 P.M. at the Foundation Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples with the following members present: Dr. Alan Varley, Chairman Mr. Herbert Hasson Mr. Russell Mudge, Vice Chairman Mr. George Hermanson Mr. Thomas C. Brown (absent) Mr. John Hoyt Mr. Rodkey Craighead Mrs. Cora Obley Mr. Frederick Flatto Mr. Anthony Pires (absent) Mr. Edward Griffith Mr. Charles Popper Mr. Glenn Harrell Mr. George Werner Mr. Bernon Young (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Ted Brown, T. R. Brown Company; Sgt. Todd Taylor, Collier County Sheriff's Department, various residents of Pelican Bay (approximately 8); Mr. James P. Ward, Division Administrator and Mrs. Barbara Smith, Recording Secretary. 1. Roll Call 2. Introduction of new Advisory Committee members 3. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman for 1997 4. Approval of Minutes of January 8, 1997 Meeting 5. Update on Clam Bay Ecosystem Consultant Management Report 6. Security Update - Sgt. Todd Taylor 7. Adjournment Dr. Varley called the meeting to Order at 3:00 P.M. and asked that the record show Messrs. Tom Brown, Anthony Pires and Bernon Young with excused absences. F 44V � 1 � I[�Y .. .z : Y -'A TI• .� Dr. Varley introduced the new members of the Advisory Committee which have just recently been appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Both of the new members introduced themselves and gave a -2201- L bV 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE T February S. 1997 brief sketch of their background and expressed their appreciation for being selected as a new member. ELECTION OP CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR 1997 Dr. Varley called for nominations for 1997 Chairman and Vice Chairman. Mr. Werner nominated Dr. Varley as Chairman, the nomination was seconded by Mr. Popper. Mr. Hoyt moved to close the nominations, seconded by Mr. Mudge, and approved unanimously. There being no further nominations, the motion to elect Dr. Varley as Chairman for 1997 was approved unanimously. Mr. Mudge nominated Mr. Werner as Vice Chairman, the nomination was seconded by Mr. Harrell. Mrs. Obley moved to close the nominations, seconded by Mr. Griffith, and approved unanimously. There being no further nominations, the motion to elect Mr. Werner as Vice Chairman for 1997 was approved unanimously. Dr. Varley stated that he appreciates the confidence placed in him. Dr. Varley expressed that he has some concerns of where this group is going. We seem to occupy a kind of nebulous spot that is more often than not, in my opinion, outside the management loop of our local government. We tend to get ignored, except to raise money and provide a forum for complaints and occasionally, in a crises, we pretend that we are the ones responsible. Maybe that is all we are supposed to do, but I -2202- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COXXITTEE 1 6G 1 Pebruar9 S. 1997 certainly was lead to believe that we were to occupy a much more active part as a liaison between the Commission and the county government. Dr. Varley expressed that over the past year that he has been Chairman, he is very puzzled by the lack of expectation and input to this group. In my year of being Chairman, I have not had one single communication with a County Commissioner that I did not initiate myself. I have not gotten a single question, phone call or request for an opinion and I know that Commissioner Hancock has attended our meetings as regularly as he could and has made a real contribution. I know the Minutes are sent to all of the Commissioners, but during the past year there have been a couple of big problems here with mangrove restoration and getting through the Capital Reserve Budget concept. I would have expected that we would have had more input from them. On the other side, there is the County Manager. According to the Ordinance that created us, he is formally charged with running our MSTBU through Mr. Ward. As Chairman for the past year, I have heard nothing from him. Ire the four years I have been on the Committee, I do not believe he has been to a single meeting. I have never seen a single written report, memorandum, letter or any communication from the Manager that reflects any of his opinions on our Division. Dr. Varley continued that he is not sure what this means, but I do think that it warrants taking a look at where we are, -2203- PELICAN[ BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 L r Z February 5. 1997 1 y l7 what we want to accomplish and what we can do. What I would like to do is suggest that everybody think about this and at the next meeting I would like to reserve a little time to talk about are we going in the right direction, are we doing what we want to do and if not, how can we do it a little better. A couple of things in my thoughts are that if we are going to be a responsible part of the Pelican Bay government, I think we are going to have to render more advice and input into the County Board of Commissioners. When the time and circumstances warrant it, we are going to have to demand more recognition and more attention from them. The same thing is true with the County Manager's office. If we are going to be responsible we are going to have to demand more from Mr. Ward in terms of input and involvement in terms of what is going on in the Pelican Bay Services Division. The last thing we need to think about is, do we need some kind of a oversight committee structure where we can divide things up and have people begin to keep an eye on the various parts of what is going on. I would very much appreciate it if you would think about it and come prepared at the next meeting to discuss this issue. Dr. Varley thanked the Committee for his reappointment and stated that he would do his best to Chair this committee over the next year. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THZ JANUARY 8, 1997 MEETING Mr. Hoyt moved, seconded by Mr. Flatto and approved unanimously, the Minutes of the -2204- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 r a February 5. 1997 January 8, 1997 meeting. UPDATE OR CLAM BAY ECOSYSTEM CONSULTANT MANAGEMENT REPORT Mr. Ted Brown reported that the site visit commenced at about 8:15 A.M. with continued involvement until about 5:30 P.M. With the exception of a brief luncheon break at one of the beachside accommodations, we were in the field the entire time. As reported to the news media, the visit went very well. One cannot necessarily infer from that, that everything that we will seek to do will be granted to us just exactly as we would like to, but I think I can say with some measure of confidence that there wei e no "deal breakers" that were identified and suggested to us that it just isn't going to work. In that context one of the more significant matters that we wanted to discuss was the methodology for disposal of fill that will be generated from the dredging activity which will be required to improve the flow within the Clam Bay estuary. We are now estimating that we will be moving somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 - 60,000 cubic yards of material in order to do what it is we need to do to get water moving in and out of the system properly. That is a huge amount of fill compared to anything that has ever been undertaken here before. In order to establish some magnitude, that contemplates a channel 50' wide, between 3' -4' deep, from the Gulf to a depth of about 1,5001, then turning south moving 30' wide and a depth of 3' -41, until you reach Outer Clam Bay. We had those conversations in that level of detail and there was nothing that -2205- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G I February 5. 1997 anyone bulked at. Mr. Ted Brown continued that with respect to Clam Pass and its present configuration and the need to get it open was also discussed and the up shot of what came out of that was a decision by the Army Corps of Engineers to direct the County to continue to process their existing application with the assurance that we would continue to process our application. So rather than reverting back to the old permit, they are going to proceed forward and simply approve the application they presently have pending. As you recall, at the County Commission, Mr. Huber presented a budget request which was approved in response to that meeting. The expectation is that they will have authority to begin physically excavating sometime around the middle to end of March. Mr. Brown stated that one of the concerns that we had that has now been resolved, is whether it was important for our planning purposes to tie into the work being done by Turrell & Associates and the County. You can see from what has been described, it is less important than previously thought because our effort will be considerably more expansive than what they have done before. To the extent that they get ahead of us, and they will of course, they will simply be moving some material that we would otherwise have to move. To the extent they do that, they will be assisting our effort. Yesterday was spent with the full consultant team, including Dr. Hillestad and Dr. -2206 - PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 FfbrunrV 5, 1997 Snedeker. They were also both present at the site visit. Mr. Brown reported that we have begun to formulate and develop thoughts in terms of things which you will see in the application itself. With respect to tree removal which has been a constant source of inquiry and interest to a variety of people, I will report that within your consultant team there is a divergence of opinion about what is the right thing to do there in itself. As with all things, a compromise was achieved. We have basically discerned that from both an ecological and aesthetic point of view, there is a need to remove some measure of the trees. From an ecological point of view there is also a need to leave some of the trees in place and then when coupled with the collateral damage potential of trying to be overly aggressive, plus the cost parameters, the goal will be to define those areas within the system itself where the trees are most vulnerable to presently fallen. Dr. Hillestad and Dr. Snedeker will be responsible for defining this in more detail. Those trees will be removed, cut and probably stacked within the system in a manner which will not impair the regeneration nor impair the flow of water moving in and out of the system. These specific recommendations will be prepared and provided to me by the 18th of the month. Mr. Brown continued that Mr. Lewis has completed his first draft, which will be E- mailed to me on Friday, of his plans for the remediation areas which I will call the veins and small -2207- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 February 5. 1997 arteries of the system. Mr. Tackney has provided me with his first draft for the refinement of the deeper channel cuts. The soil disposal areas have now been identified and there are three. Two areas for immediate use and a third, which will be in a contingent area to be used later on in the life of the permit or management plan, as required to the extent that additional excavation is needed downstream. In each of those areas to give you an aura of magnitude and comfort, in one of the areas alone if we were to just use that one and took the estimated fill of 50,000- 60,000 cubic yards, we would only raise the elevation of this area by 2 -1/2'. So visually, from wherever one would look at it, it would not be noticeable. These areas will all be vegetated at the perimeter with plantings of red mangrove and other species that Dr. Snedeker and Dr. Hillestad will develop a palette for and the internal areas will be planted with upland species that are compatible and complimentary to the ecology of Clam Bay. This really is the only alternative. There is no cost effective way to move that amount of dirt out of Clam Bay and dispose of it off -site. My sense is that the Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Florida and Collier County have recognized and agree with that. There will still be some hurdles to overcome there, but I feel very optimistic that Dr. Snedeker and Dr. Hillestad can help us immeasurably in getting that part of the program underway. Mr. Brown reported that with regard to the Seagate culverts, -2208- PELICAM BAY ADVISORY COXXITTEE ` 6b 1 February S. 1997 we basically have final design drawings. I have met with the County Attorney to discuss this and another issue that occurred to me as I began to analyze data that was sent to me about what your legal structure is and I finally think I understand it. In that context, I also learned by getting a precise legal description of the area you serve, the Seagate culverts are technically outside of the Pelican Bay Services district. Normally what that means is that you are not authorized to spend the funds outside of the district that you serve, absent a specific finding that there is some kind of a nexus or tie in that you justify that for the larger event. In discussing that with the County Attorney this morning, we are both convinced that we can find a way to do that which is both morally and legally defensible. We will still need to deal and confront the fact that it is on private land. I was reluctant to go ahead of the curve until I was clear in my own mind about the level of support I would have from the County in terms of our, ability to expend your resources to do that project. Now that I feel good about that, we will be contacting the owners of those culverts and begin the negotiation of a permanent easement for both access and maintenance. Mr. Brown explained that freshwater management and adjustment continues to be an area that the more I learn, the more I am convinced I don't know. What I want to say is that I think the theme you will see evolve with the plan is going to be an -2209- PELICAN HAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16G 1 February 5. 1997 approach that says at the right place, at the right time, at the right amount. I am convinced, with the series of meetings that I have had during the last three days, that there are more meaningful ways to more efficiently use the freshwater resources we have available to us at Pelican Bay and without doing any disservice at all to the ability to maintain and sustain the level of green that everyone has become accustomed to and expects to continue. on the other hand, it is important to say that it is important and will be important that we show within the context of this plan, our willingness to confront and deal with that issue. In that regard I want to pass on one other piece of information that I have known about, but is important for you to understand. The water management districts have been charged by the legislature and are presently undertaking a series of hearings around the State of Florida, in which varieties of people are testifying regarding the setting of minimum flow and levels for consumptive use of water for now and into the twenty -first century in Florida. What is different about that, which has historically been the case, is that we have always assumed that because we get 53 inches of rain a year there is plenty of water available for everybody. What has been precluded from their share of that water in the past has been the environment. Now, instead of all our water resources flowing to either urban development or to agriculture, there is a third' claimant on that resource. My own expectation is that urban -2210- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE + 6G February S, 1997 users will end up last on the totem pole. Agriculture may be on parity with the environment, but the environmental agenda in Florida is very strong and I think you can anticipate a refinement of your use component in the freshwater component through this process I am recommending to you. If you don't want to do so, sometime within the next three to five years you will be compelled to do so. The compelling method will be through pricing. You will find freshwater becoming increasingly more and more expensive and that will be the way they will begin forcing people to use it more rational and more conservation oriented. In some respects what I am anticipating and am putting into this because I don't now all of the answers and cannot get the answers in the time frame allowed, is to put in place a series of protocols early after receipt of the permit in which you will begin to study in cooperation with some folks that I will identify, how much water do we really need and how can we go about using what we really need more effectively and more efficiently. Today I visited a golf course the same length as Pelican Bay's, where they only irrigate 72 acres and use only 2001000 gallon of water a day. It has a system so sensitive that if you get an inch of rainfall in a day that would be average over the size of the development, the first reaction would be that we need to supplement. They recognized that within certain areas of a golf course such as shaded areas, the evapo- transpiration of water out of that area goes slower than -2211- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COXXITTEE 1 6G i Febrvary 5r 1997 areas that are in full sun. The computer will automatically adjust the sprinkler to apply 1/4 inch in that area and 3/4" in another area. I don't know that is the answer for you, but what it tells me is that there are a lot of opportunities to figure out what we can do better and that is what this plan is going to drive to without reaching any predetermined conclusions so that you and everyone else will have a participation on- going, after that fact, in trying to figure out what works best for the community going forward. Mr. Brown continued that we are making progress. If you recall the last outline, I can tell you that all the way up through the Seagate culvert sections are now in draft form. The parts that are being worked on and will be forthcoming shortly, are really the technical parts in developing the documentation and support drawings that enable us to file. We are hoping to have the rough draft available in the next couple of days. I will ask you to read it, mark it up and send it back. The last thing we need to talk about and will require some dialogue, as a result of meetings with Commissioner Hancock and the County Attorney's office, is that this Committee would have a more definitive role in making the real decisions that affect the on -going management of this resource into the future. In that context it would require the County Commission to amend the Ordinance which gives you the legal status which you have. I am t persuaded and have confirmed today that they have the ability to -2212- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 C February 5, 1997 do that, but neither I, Commissioner Hancock or the County Attorney have the feel for how either side really feels about making that adjustment. In that context, the rest of the Commissioners have not had this idea approached to them. Commissioner Hancock apparently thinks it is a good idea. Equally important to that is the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for because you might get it ". I think it is important for me to now have a sense of whether you really want it or not. You have agreed to assess yourselves to pay for this mangrove effort and WCI has put up some money. I suspect in the future you will need to address money again as the years go by, not in the immediate short term, but certainly as the years go by. The County has, at least historically, shown a reluctance to participate with you at anything near the level that you are contributing now and are likely to have to contribute in the future. As we began to talk about that, it occurred that they ought to find a way to allow you to select, hire and fire your consultants without necessarily having to truck it back and forth to the County each step of the way, so that you effectively become the willpower and manager of that resource and manage the money that is involved with it. From the County's and I think from the Commissioners point of view, it is reasonably attractive as well because it takes the heat off of them. They have never made the intellectual and financial commitment to the level you have and yet they continue to actually own the resource. In this -2213- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 February S, 1997 context this would not totally free up their overall supervisory, maybe ultimate veto, but the form of this is not very well defined. What I need is to get the feedback from you today, that if the opportunity were to present itself where you basically establish the working budgets, hire the consultants and people you want to hire to implement this thing, go through the bid process on your own and have your own bid openings right here and all that that entails, are you interested? Let me throw out some of the negatives that go with that. To the extent that you begin to assume different levels of responsibility for that arena, you take on additional levels of potential liability. It may necessitate that you have to hire a lawyer to advise the Committee on issues of bids, etc. So there are some ancillary kinds of things that you begin to look, smell and feel much more like a real governing body in that context, but you are still a public body and you are constrained about all of those kinds of things that complicate your lives. If you have no interest in this approach and would simply like to proceed as you have proceeded as the MSTBU with Mr. Ward being the intermediary to the Board of County Commissioners, that would be news that I need to have and I can just shut that part of the program off. Mr. Mudge stated that this sounds like re- instituting the Pelican Bay Improvement District, which was the way this whole thing started out in the 1970's. We had our own Board of Supervisors, organized by the State as a Community Development -2214- PELICAN HAY ADVISORY COKMITTEE 1 6G 1 February S, 1997 District. We were able to raise taxes and assessments. We made the decisions and the people in Pelican Bay paid for it. As it is now set up, after having the County take over the Pelican Bay Improvement District and dissolve it, they took over the management and responsibility and established us as an Advisory Committee to give advice. Generally they did what we wanted. Now it appears that the County may want to change this from an Advisory Committee to a Pelican Bay MSTBU Taxing District with that responsibility, which also brings in the responsibility for the liability of something that goes wrong. Mr. Brown stated that you have to be very careful when you use the word "County" because my conversations have been solely with Commissioner Hancock. I don't think there is any envision that would change your legal structure to anything other than what you are with respect to all the responsibilities that you now do, minus one, which is the administration of the estuary and in that context, this permit. In that context that is one of the bigger things you are biting off in doing in the present format. This thought sort of came to the both of us at the same time, because I went in to see Commissioner Hancock saying I was troubled about a couple of things. I told him at some point in the next sixty days I am going to be asking the Pelican Bay Services Division to sign a application for a permit. The way this legal structure is, it is a County obligation and the County has not a clue as to what I am doing. If I go and deliver this -2215- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COXXITTEE 1 6G 1 February 5. 1997 permit and it now comes down to the County Commission and they take a look at it and they buy into it, which is basically what they have to do, they are obligating themselves for several millions of dollars worth of expenditures, but the money isn't coming from the County. This whole thing has the potential of blowing up in everybody's face at the end of the day, after we have gone and done what it is we needed to do. The bottom line is, what evolved out of that dialogue, that I know out of conversations which you have had with me, that there is, I believe, interest on the part of this Committee to assume a more pro- active role in managing their money in this resource. From what I know of how this has worked historically with respect to the County, it seems maybe the County Commission might be very receptive to that because they take a lot of heat from this community of interest, for their lack of involvement. Maybe there is a win, win situation here and we can contract in some way in which we can delegate authority from the County Commission to this Committee to run this facility, to assess as you deem appropriate and to perform the conditions of the permit and provide quarterly or semiannual reports to the County, but you would be the decision makers. Mr. Mudge stated that the only way that could be done is to make this Committee the taxing authority. Mr. Brown replied that the answer is, if you like the idea, there is a legal way to do it. Exactly what form it will take or -2216- PELICM HAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 Fabruarl S. 1997 how it will play out I cannot answer for you now, but I can tell you that Commissioner Hancock has expressed a willingness to entertain this idea. Whether or not any of the other Commissioners would or not, I have no idea. I can tell you that Mr. Weigel told me this morning that he does not know, some of the Commissioners like the feeling that they have their finger on the pulse of the deal. On the other hand, none of them like to do anything with it. That is what this dialog is all about. I do not want to push this agenda along and have it get into the whole process and then find out that this Committee has no interest in handling the responsibility. I indicated that I was going to surface this at today's meeting and get some feedback. I don't want to deliver something you don't want. Mr. Griffith asked if when you are referring to facility or additional responsibility than we already have, are you talking about the Clam Bay system itself, which is the conservation area? Mr. Brown replied that it is already on your plate. Ordinance 90 -111 which created the Advisory � Committee provides that you are in charge of the maintenance of the conservation or preserve areas. It has generically been recognized and on your plate. That is not real precise language and does not tell you what that is, but if you look at the geography of what is Pelican Bay, Clam Bay is the preserve area as far as I can tell, of the conservation area. If you do nothing at all and that is a very real option and one that needs to be seriously weighed, then Mr. -2217- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 February S, 1997 Ward or I will have to prepare an Executive Summary of this printed application which he will put on the Consent Agenda of the County Commission and it will be approved to be executed by Mr. Ward on behalf of the Pelican Bay Services Division to be filed in the next thirty days. Then we will go forward and process it and at the end of that time we will come back with a permit which you can accept or reject. On the assumption that you will want to accept it, then the County will have to authorize it to be signed off on and then it will be ordinary business as usual. What I was trying to suggest and the dialogue that we had, was that after you get the permit, what do you do with it. Someone has to physically manage its implementation and many of these permits require the retention of a independent scientist, ecologist or biologist to be a project manager of that undertaking. Absent your authority to hire that person to manage it on your account because it is your money, the County will have to do that and now you are bogged down in a whole other set of bureaucracies and they may appoint Mack Hatcher or someone, but it will be all driven downtown as opposed to being driven out here. It is much like everything else and was summed up by Dr. varley when he asked what real authority do we have. Mr. Harrell stated that we really have the responsibility, but not the authority. Mr. Mudge stated that when the County took over the Pelican Bay Improvement District in 1990 and dissolved it in 1991, they -2218- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COM41TTEE 1 6G 1 FebraarV S. 1997 took everything, along with the responsibility for the maintenance of the conservation area which was with the Pelican Bay Improvement District. They have the responsibility for the maintenance of the conservation area, there is no question about that. Mr. Werner stated that we visited this issue when we first talked about whether we had the authority to do anything. Mr. Popper asked if we could not get drawn up in a very simplistic form, the things that would be different so we can study it? It gets rather confusing and in -depth as to what you are referring to as opposed to what we are doing now and if we could get this summarized on paper, I could personally deal with it far better than in this format. Mr. Brown stated he has been talking with the Commissioner in the same vague generalities that he has been sharing with you. What I think I have in my minds eye of what I envision happening, I think Mr. Budge characterized it best although it would only be limited to this particular permit, but it would take you back to that District format in terms of the authority that I would envision vested in this Committee. Mr. Popper stated that what he is trying to get at is that there may be other things involved. We have looked at permitting having to do with water management and hard surface runoff and each time we get to a point and find we do not'have the authority or the power to act upon it and my question is would that - 2219 - PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 February 5. 1997 increase the level of authority that this Committee has? Mr. Brown stated that outside of the permit, it probably would not. This may be the opportunity to, have the dialogue which you alluded to, which was not planned by any of us. Or. Varley asked if the question is, do we have absolutely no interest, or is there an interest in some form if it could be worked out to the County's satisfaction and to our satisfaction? Mr. Brown replied that he just wants to know that he is not just spinning his wheels in something you have absolutely no interest in. I want to be clear that I do not guarantee that I can deliver anything in this arena. This is an area of exploration that made some sense to me, but I do not want to do it if it is not what you want. Mr. Popper asked if this process would hold up the whole effort? Mr. Brown replied that it is an add on to the effort, but does not slow it down. Mr. Hermanson asked in the meantime who will sign the permit application? Mr. Brown replied that Mr. Ward would be authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to do that. Mr. Hermanson asked if that were anticipated to be a problem? Mr. Ward replied in the negative. Mr. Brown stated that if he is told to explore that dialogue he will do that and continue to report the progress to you. You -2220- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMKITTEE 1 6G 1 February S. 1997 do not have to accept what will be worked out, but at least we will continue to talk about it. When I was talking with Mr. Weigel this morning, his initial concern was that this had to be resolved by the time of filing. I told him it did not. All we had to do was get authority for Mr. Ward to sign and we could work this out while we are working on the permit. There would be no need for you to do anything more than let me continue to negotiate the permit until it is issued. You have virtually another six to nine months to sort through this. My sense is if it can be done and there is support to do it, then it can come together relatively quickly. It is not all that complicated to draft the Ordinance and get it onto the calendar. It has to go through all of the processes of an Ordinance downtown. It has to be noticed in the newspaper, a public hearing, people can come and object and somebody will have to defend it. It has all the complications associated with an Ordinance, but if it is worth pursuing, now would be a good time. Mr. Hermanson stated that he feels we should have a dialogue with Commissioner Hancock. I wish we could garner more responsibility for our own fate. There is a lot of responsibility in our Ordinance and there are a lot of districts in Florida that set their own budgets and their own fate. That is a long term thing, but this is an example of where it would make sense to do that. Mr. Popper stated that in a larger sense we are doing -2221- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE r+ February S. 1997 1 6 G that now and we do our own budget. We wanted extra security, we have the police force here now. I need to see what we have and what we don't have and the Lenefits. Mr. Brown replied that in ninety percent (90 %) of the decisions that you will make in the implementation of this, it would probably not make a great difference because the County Commission will ratify their action. You are the people paying for it and are likely to be the only ones paying for it in the future. Theoretically, the money goes down to the County and they expense it as they deem appropriate. You can send them your recommendations, but if they don't accept them you are powerless to do anything about it except stop sending the money which is an alternative. I have no strong feeling about it one way or the other. I felt like with some of the conversations you have taken up with me after the meetings and indicated your frustrations, when the conversation surfaced with Commissioner Hancock we evolved to this point. Given where we are in my necessity with this plan in describing how this process will be managed, I needed to get some feedback. I will try to produce what you are looking for, but my only caveat and caution is that it is my money and I would like to be in charge. Mr. Harrell stated that we know who we are now, but we are just appointed and there could be views that this Committee makes that people do not like and suddenly we have more responsibility and burden than I may want. -2222- BELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6 G 1 February 5. 1997 Mr. Mudge stated that it then reduces the County's responsibility. Mr. Harrell stated that we are not elected and it could be a view that isn't popular. Dr. Varley stated that he feels the fifteen people sitting here would do a better job of managing. Mr. Harrell stated that they would certainly be more accountable. Mr. Craighead asked if we would not be opening Pandora's Box? As of now we are all appointees. If we get this extra authority and responsibility, including the power to tax, I am not so sure we are not becoming a semi - public body and would have to be elected by the people in Pelican Bay in order to do this. At the budget hearing, somebody got up and challenged our budget. He asked how we could just sit up here and arbitrarily do this. That was a pretty good question. Mr. Harrell asked what would happen if the Commissioners appointed a group favorable to their position? You can at least vote a Commissioner in and out. Mr. Craighead stated that we get to vote one Commissioner in and out. Mr. Harrell stated that he is thinking five to ten years down the road and are we starting something we really don't want to start. I agree with Mr. Popper, we really need to know more. Mr. Craighead asked if the Pelican Bay Improvement District -2223- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COXKITTEE 1 6G 1 pabrnar4 5. 1997 Board was elected in a district wide election? Mr. Mudge replied in the affirmative and there are two remaining Board members. Mr. Griffith stated that this whole discussion is something that was gleaned off of Commissioner Hancock. Did Commissioner Hancock contribute some thought to this as well and is this why you are approaching us on it? Mr. Brown replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hoyt stated that he does not see any real difference in what has been addressed here. Right now we advise the County Commission that these contracts should be entered into, that goes to the Commission, the Chairman signs it off and away we go. You mentioned that we are going to commit for several millions of dollars and I do not believe WCI is ready to go several millions of dollars. Mr. Brown stated that was a poor choice of numbers, but he does suspect you will spend more money over the life of this permit than this initial investment. Mr. Hoyt replied that may be true, but we have to do it judiciously and right now do not have full faith in credit to stand behind a contract and that is where the County comes in. Mr. Brown agreed. Mr. Hoyt stated for us to enter into those types of contracts we have to have a pretty good understanding of our taxing authority. It is a whole new world that this group is not ready -2224- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 February 5. 1997 for. Mr. Werner stated that he does not think Mr. Brown is asking for a commitment now, he wanted to know if it is worthwhile to continue to pursue this issue. Obviously, no one knows enough to say aye or nay. Mr. Brown stated that you have exhausted the level of dialogue we have had, other than that the County Attorney and I have begun the have dialogue about the methodology of doing so. I want to caution you that I am not standing before you in two capacities. One is, I think that if you do this you may want to get somebody to explore that in more detail. I just want to know that the sense of the group is that is another issue for another day, this isn't the vehicle in which we want to confront the County over, we have a bigger agenda we have been trying to redefine our role in, leave it alone. I am happy with that. I am looking for the feedback you are giving me for a sense of what direction you want me to keep working on. Mr. Werner stated he thought it would be beneficial to learn more about it, without making any commitment whatsoever. If we don't like what we see, we don't do it. Mr. Hasson stated we ought to do what Mr. Popper suggested and get a ballot sheet on this item. Mr. Brown stated he will do that. Dr. Varley stated that he has been involved in this and the thing we are doing right now is not the real problem. We are -2225- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 6G 1 Tebruary 5. 1997 going to end up with a long term monitoring program and I don't see any evidence that the County is going to be a part of this at all. It seems to me that if we are going to manage that conservation area, we are going to do it and the County is not. The question is, do we want to do it with some authority or do it in the way we are doing it now and has taken us two or three years to get to, where you have gotten us to in about three months. Mr. Brown stated that you have analyzed it correctly. Mrs. Obley expressed that if the cost is prohibitive we may not go along with it and say "nature take your course ". Dr. Varley stated that is a very real possibility and is something that should be done locally, if we are the ones that are going to pay for it. Mr. Ward explained that the concept being presented is intriguing and we should take a long hard look at it. I have been involved in Pelican Bay for many, many years now, first as Manager of the Pelican Bay Improvement District and as Division Administrator for the Pelican Bay Services Division. The one thing that I have clearly learned through the years is that your ability to control your destiny in terms of how you provide services and the level of service and the assessment rates that you have in this community, is an important aspect of this particular community. There were many ways for us to get there. What you had with the Pelican Bay Improvement District was sort -2226- rLLiC;" HAY ADVISURX C:UMMITTtL 1 0 U j February S. 1997 of the ultimate mechanism other than the creation of a municipality. What we have now is the least of that mechanism in terms of it being an Advisory Board. There is a lot of discussion that can go on between where we are today and where you were with the Pelican Bay Improvement District a number of years ago in forms of authority. I think those kinds of discussions, at least with respect to the Clam Bay situation, now is an opportune time for us to have those discussions with the County and how you implement that authority for the restoration of Clam Bay into the future. I don't think there is a need to necessarily take it to the ultimate which is elected representation for purposes of assessment authority and things of that nature, but I am sure that there is some level of authority between that and where we are today that would be acceptable to both the Board of County Commissioners and this this Advisory Committee that gets us some of the way there in terms of more or additional authority that doesn't necessarily bring with it all of the additional downside risks for liability. I think there is a lot of discussion that can go on between where you are today and the ultimate authority that the old Pelican Bay Improvement District Board had, that will be beneficial for the long term restoration efforts of Clam Bay. Certainly from what I have seen in the past three years in the short term program and took us a long time to get to was very long and arduous. What Mr. Brown has done in the last few months has been incredible. That is -2227- pELICAM BAY ADVISORY COM14ITTEE 1 6G 1 February 5 1997 because we have had the ability to put together the right team of players necessary to get to the point we are today and now we see light at the end of the tunnel in that restoration effort. That will be extraordinarily important in the long term restoration efforts. What I go through on a every single day basis in trying to get things done is very, very arduous and quite frankly very cumbersome and hard. I think these fellows now know some of my frustrations, like just getting them paid for example. I think there is a lot of discussion that can go on for additional authority that maybe doesn't bring the additional liability that goes with it, but maybe gives you a more focused input into the Clam Bay restoration. At least initially, it is an opportune time for you to have those discussions with the Board to take a look at that and see if you want to take on that additional authority. This might be a good staring point to have those discussions. Dr. Varley stated that he feels the consensus is that we would like to know more about this. The answer is not an unequivocal no, but we would like to know more about it. Mr. Brown stated that. he would continue to work the system and also continue to report to you and see where it leads. Mr. Brown indicated he would get the chart to the members that would lay out the comparison. Mr. Ward's comment is really the right way to think about this. If you think of "0" being where you are now in terms of real authority and where you would be if you were -2228- pELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMKITTEE 1 6G 1 February 1. 1997 a pure district with full authority at "10 ", there are a lot of numbers in between and I don't know exactly where it might fall, but there is someplace in between that will give you "more bang for your buck" in the community. Mr. Flatto stated that we are all concerned that if we go to the next level is our liability responsibility as individuals in playing with property owners tax money. Mr. Brown explained that he would respond with the caveat that this advice is free of charge and worth what you think it is worth. My. sense, having served on a board that had that responsibility, is that risk profile you would have can be generally covered by insurance and secondly, the risk profile is relatively diminimus, absent fraud or some level intentional malfeasance in office. To the extent that you attend a meeting, listen to a presentation, ask a question and make an informed and conscientious vote, I don't really think it is a big deal in terms of exposure. That does not mean you will not be personally accosted by the citizenry, but you take that risk when you sit up here even in this forum at this point. Then I would say, if we come to the place where we really have some meat on the bone to talk about where the County says we would support this, it is going to be presented to you and perhaps at that point Commissioner Hancock would come in and explain to you why they have gone as far as they have and no further and what they think it means, etc. Then it might well be advisable for you to retain -2229- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 February S. 1997 - counsel to really look at that issue and other issues that would affect you and other members of the Committee. This would be an opinion that would give you some comfort in that regard. Dr. Varley asked who attended the site visit? Were all of the major players in permitting there? Dr. Brown replied yes. We left out Marine Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA. That was done at the recommendation of the Army Corps of Engineers. Their recommendation was not to get it loaded down. Those agencies are consulting agencies under the Federal mantra. They will need to be consulted. Dr. Varley asked if they could put a wrench in the permitting? Mr. Brown replied not really, but yes. They don't sign the permit, but they will have to be responded to and we made the decision at least from the dialogue that Mr. Clough and I had, that it was not a good time to bring them. There will be a separate work day for them, closer to the time we are ready to file the permit. Dr. Varley asked if it was expected to file shortly after March 1? Mr. Brown replied in the affirmative. Dr. Varley asked if Mr. Brown had any newer feeling as to how long it will take to get through the approval process? Mr. Brown replied that he remains the eternal optimist and my -2230- PELICAN SAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 February S, 1997 sense is the more difficult part of the permitting process will emanate from the State of Florida, rather than the Federal Government. Mr. Clough's words to me were that he wanted to get this done quickly, he liked it. I do not know what that means, the devil is still in the details, but I think this is not a regulatory driven undertaking. We are involved in a serious restoration effort. They sat in a room with twelve consultants around a table, with the regulatory community there, plus three representatives from the County. We are all having serious discussions about serious problems. We had slides, maps, engineering drawings. We tromped through the mangroves for the better part of six hours, addressed their concerns, thoughts and ideas and the context of all of that is that it is viewed as serious legitimate effort. The only person who was not there that I would have liked to have there was Ilene Barnett. Her calendar was confused and she was on vacation. Mr. Brey from the Joint Coastal Commission out of Tallahassee was there and quite frankly from our point of view, he was more important because he had less familiarity with the project. This application will be filed as a joint coastal permit. Ms. Barnett has been out there many times and she knows what we are about and we know what her concerns are already. We needed to hear from Mr. Brey and he was there to give us his input. I felt good about that. Dr. Varley asked if the tree removal talked about was the dead trees or trees in the channel cut? -2231- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COK?XITTEE 16 G I Februa - 5, 1997 sense is the more difficult part of the permitting process will emanate from the State of Florida, rather than the Federal Government. Mr. Clough's words to me were that he wanted to get this done quickly, he liked it. I do not know what that means, the devil is still in the details, but I think this is not a regulatory driven undertaking. we are involved in a serious restoration effort. They sat in a room with twelve consultants around a table, with the regulatory community there, plus three representatives from., the we are all having serious discussions about serious problems. we had slides, maps, engineering drawings. we tromped through the mangroves for the better part of six hours, addressed their concerns, thoughts and ideas and the context of all of that is that it is viewed as serious legitimate effort. The only person who was not there that I would have liked to have there was Ilene Barnett. Her calendar was confused and she was on vacation. Mr. Brey from the Joint Coastal Commission out of Tallahassee was there and quite frankly from our point of view, he was more important because he had less familiarity with the project. This application will be filed as a joint coastal permit. Ms. Barnett has been out there many times and she knows what we are about and we know what her concerns are already. we needed to hear from Mr. Brey and he was there to give us his input. I felt good about that. Dr. Varley asked if the tree removal talked about was the dead trees or trees in the channel cut? -2231- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COXMITTEE 1 6G 1 February S, 1997 j Mr. Brown replied dead trees. Dr. Varley asked if the spoil was going to be kept on site and mounds will L-,e built? Mr. Brown replied yes, but he does not want to use the word "mounds ". That is why I tried to tell you that if I put it all in one location, it would only raise it about 2 -1/2'. Plus, when they are planted you will not be able to discern, other than the vegetation, any difference. Both will be visible depending upon where you are in the project. Dr. Varley stated that if the culverts are on Seagate property, the Seagate people have been here and have been very much interested in this. Is there any way of having them enter into and be a part of this and help pay for it? Mr. Brown replied, pay for it, I do not know. Their agenda is the navigability issue. Clearly the channels that are being recommended will have some potential for making that an improvement. We frankly are not taking a position on that. I think there is some prospect that the Federal and State Government will take a position on that in the permit conditions and then we will have to deal with that when it comes up. There have been several from the Seagate community that have cornered me at various times. They have an aesthetic appreciation for what we are trying to do with the mangroves, but it is of less concern than can I get enough water to get my boat in and out of the pass. That has not been our agenda. We have studiously -2232- PELIC" MY ADVISORY COMITTEE 1 6G 1 avoided that being ever in our agenda because it is clearly not the government's agenda in terms of restoring this system. This is a conservation area and I don't think they are going to encourage us to allow motorized boats. Mrs. Obley expressed that when you talk about Seagate, that is the City of Naples. That culvert area is a part of Naples Cay and that is what you are referring to as private land. Mr. Brown agreed. SEC MI TY n2m Sgt. Taylor reported that everything is going well. There has been a stop in the burglaries, which has been a main concern. There were approximately eight (8) dwelling burglaries in November, four (4) in December, none (0) in January and none (0) so far in February. There a,ay be a lot of reasons, maybe the group decided to move on, we do believe we are working with a professional group that travels the country and hits certain areas certain times of the year. Naples seems to be on their map during November and December. This year it has been approached a little differently. This year we put out teams of deputies in the upscale communities where they have been hitting, from Pelican Bay to Pelican Marsh to Audubon, to a score of other communities which have been affected with the same burglaries. We started that around the first of the year and the pressure we have put on has certainly helped. One of the things that I did ask and has been advertised, is that we really need the citizens -2233- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COXXITTEE February 6G 1 ruary S. 1997 involvement in Pelican Bay to call in suspicious people. Without going into the exact hours or days that we have been out, we have had eight to twelve deputies in the Pelican Bay area, some in unmarked vehicles that look rather suspicious and the ones on foot are usually dressed in all black or camouflage and it is a little disappointing that we have not gotten the first call of a suspicious vehicle or person running around. Sgt. Taylor continued that the Alarm Ordinance was passed by the County Commission. It i to go into effect on April 1, 1997. I have not seen a copy of the Ordinance, but it is his understanding that there is no mechanism there for monies to be funneled back into the MSTBU. Mr. Mudge asked who the "responsible party" was in relation to this Ordinance. Many of the residents here leavrs during certain period of the year and have someone close by pay attention. Every once in a while I have to go to an alarm and I am told by the deputies to stay away until it has been checked and cleared by a deputy. Under those conditions, I am the responsible party, am I not? Sgt. Taylor replied that no, the responsible party is the person who owns that residence. It is their responsibility to maintain that alarm system and keep it in good working order. Mr. Mudge stated that in Naples there is no way to have an alarm system go back into the police or Sheriff's station. Sgt. Taylor agreed, there are only a few of those systems -2234- PELICAN SAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6G 1 PebraarV 5. 1997 that he is aware of and those are bank alarm --. The rest of the alarms in the County are answered by alarm companies. There are just a vast number of systems out there and to have them funneled in to our center would be overwhelming. We would not be able to keep up with it. Mr. Popper asked that in the event your alarm goes off and you call your service to report a false alarm and give them a code, will they still call the Sheriff's office? Sgt. Taylor replied that the procedure that is set up is that once they get the alarm into their center, they are to notify the Sheriff immediately so that there is not a delay in time. The second call goes back to the actual business or residence in an attempt to contact someone that may have set it off by mistake. At that time they will verify the code, number and password. If everything checks out, the third call they make is back to the Sheriff's office to cancel the call and we do not respond out. Mr. Hermanson asked how many years we have had the extra patrols? The reply was two years. Mr. Hermanson asked if there eras a comparison in burglaries both before and after? Sgt. Taylor replied that several months ago there was a complete crime analysis done going back about three years. I will supply that to you again. I did not use all crimes, but the top fifteen (15) for the comparison. -2235- PLLICAIt HAY ADVISORY COXXITTEE 1 6G 1 Pebruary S, 1997 Kr. Hermanson asked if there has been an improvement? Sgt. Taylor replied that off the top of his head, there has been a tremendous improvement over last year. Last year there were an incredible number of burglaries in Pelican Bay and it lasted for about three months. The numbers are way down from last year. Krs. Obley stated that we should constantly keep in front of the public, the idea that they need to call and report any suspicious people or activity in their area. Mr. Harrell indicated that the five officers that we have now are new and we do not know who they are. Sgt. Taylor explained that Deputy Gangl has transferred into the District Community Policing Program and is now a Community Policing Officer for the entire North District. He has been attending a lot of the civic activities in Pelican Bay. Mr. Griffith asked if any correlation has been made with any of the break -ins being professional or tied to construction workers, etc.? Sgt. Taylor replied that it is real easy to divide them up. There have been a couple that we knew right off the bat that did not involve the professional group. The professional group hits their method of operation down to a tee. They come into an area around 6:00 P.M. in the evening, set up in the palmettos along the golf course with binoculars and watch three or four designated houses. They watch for movement and wait for the -2236- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COKIKITTEE 1 6G 1. February S. 1997 couple to dress and leave for dinner, etc. They then go to a sliding glass door, pick up the bottom left hand slider of the door and use a pry instrument to break out the door. They go in and take selected jewelry. They always know where to go and take the good stuff and are only there a certain period of time. The ones we have had an alarm on have had response times of anywh:>re from two to three minutes and they are gone. When we get a professional, we know immediately what we are dealing with. Dr. Varley asked if there was any casing of the house beforehand? Sgt. Taylor stated that when the professionals get to Naples they will initially case the different neighborhoods during '-he day time. We are talking a group of individuals that will come in, not just one person. Some are get away people who drive the cars after the burglary is committed and possibly a rotation of people who do the actual burglaries. It is a group of people involved. Hr. Flatto asked if the various associations could be encouraged or insist upon a neighborhood watch person? Sgt. Taylor stated that crime prevention is a downtown division and they have officers trained to certify a neighborhood in crime prevention. But you are right, there needs to be more of an emphasis on that. Sgt. Taylor stated that there have been changes in Pelican Bay. We also had one officer promoted to a detective downtown -2237- PMICJV! MY "VISORY COXX1rrEE 1 6G 1 8ebruar9 S, 1997 and Deputy Harmon got married and was living in Marco and asked to be relocated to Marco. There are three new officers. One of our most recent additions is Deputy Scharolett Saweikis. She is the answer to your traffic enforcement. Deputy Saweikis lives in Pelican Bay, works the day shift and writes a lot of tickets. We also have Deputy Schwartz and Deputy Proper and both come with ten to twelve years of law enforcement, each in other agencies. COMMITTEE REQUESTS XEDI" CUTS Dr. Varley stated that he has heard a fair amount of people with regard to median cuts and asked the status. Mr. Ward replied that the Coronado and Marbella plans are close to completion of our review. They do not have the median cuts in those plans as they are scheduled for approval. The median cuts you now see in Pelican Bay are completed and will be the last of the median cuts, pending any further application for additional cuts. Dr. Varley stated that the last he heard there was a letter written to Mr. Archibald that said that if there are any changes there would be several people that have to review this, including US. Is that the way it stands now? Mr. Ward replied in the affirmative. EROTIC REMOVAL asked the status of the exotic removal program. Dr. Varley Mr. Ward replied that bids had been received about three -2238- PELICAN HAY ADV130RY COXMITTEE 16G 1 Ytbtuary S. 1997 weeks ago. It was bid in context with the County's exotic removal on the west side of the berm. Our numbers came in pretty close to budget, but the County's came in well over budget. The bids were rejected and we are re- bidding that project to try to obtain more favorable pricing. I should know in another two to three weeks what those bid numbers will be. We do not plan on doing the work until after Easter and will be in a position to start that work at that time. As soon as I get the bids in, I was going to map out the areas to be worked on and the time schedule. Dr. Varley asked if the asphalt would be repaired after that? Mr. Ward replied that portion of the berm would be repaired. since we are going to move along the berm in increments through the years, we will repair the berm under which the construction occurred this year, which will run from the Registry to the Glenview turn - around. Next year we will do the Glenview turn - around to the Foundation facility. The following year we will move up to Systems III and IV. EMERGENCY PDMPB Dr. Varley asked the status of that project. Mr. Ward replied that the emergency pumps were permitted last month. The conditions that are contained in the permit itself make it very difficult, if not impossible, to actually construct and operate that pumping system. Mr. Brown and Wilson, Miller are now in the process of re- negotiating the conditions that are -2239- BELICAY BAY ADVISORY COXMITTLE 1 6G I February S. 1997 contained in that permit with the regulatory agencies that will allow us to be able to go in and construct and operate those portable pumps and pipe work. Technically there is a lot of problems with it in tei-ms of getting it operational. It literally is impossible for us to do. They have placed conditions in the permit which are extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to meet. There are competing conditions, not moving any materials up and down the beach during turtle nesting season. We know we have to put gas in the pumps during this season, and we know we can't move gas up and down the beach, that is a problem. There are conditions that the pipes have to be removed after each use. That doesn't work either. There are a lot of competing conditions that a number of regulators put in there without looking at the whole system and that just needs to get worked out. Dr. Varley stated that his concern is that the turtles are due to arrive May 1, will we get it done before that time? Mr. Ward replied that he cannot promise that at this point, but they are diligently working on getting some of the conditions modified such that we can get it done. Dr. Varley stated we could certainly get the north pumps completed. Mr. Ward stated that it has the same 'problems. The way the permit is worded, it is difficult to even size the pipes that are going in because of competing clauses in the permit. -2240- PELICAY BAY ADVISORY COXXITTEE 1 6G 1 ' Fobruary S. 1997 BIJZPATHS Dr. Varley stated that Mr. Archibald has a bikepath improvement plan for Pelican Bay and asked that now he is gone from the County, will this plan continue? Mr. Ward replied that plan is completed. The County accelerated that program from a three year program to a two year program. They have a very good and active program relative to keeping it up to date, much better than they have had in the past. My staff is working with them currently on roadway stripping which is fading. There has been some re- stripping and we are working on ways to improve that. Dr. Varley asked the plan for sidewalks and streets this year? Mr. Ward replied that it is all complete at this point, everything is done. Dr. Varley stated there are a lot of sidewalks awfully broken up. Mr. Ward replied that he would check. CONSULT PAYMENTS Mr. Werner asked if the consultants bills were now getting paid? Mr. Ward replied in the affirmative, all done and all up -to- speed. B VDOET Dr. Varley asked if at the next meeting Mr. Ward could run -2241- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 6 G 1 Y�ruary S, 1997 through where we stand with the various programs and departments? Are we where we are supposed to be in doing things that we said we would, are we on track, on budget, any big problems in the operation? Mr. Ward stated that everything is totally on track and all Within budget for this year and all within the time schedules that we had anticipated. We are to some extent at least in my opinion in terms of landscaping, ahead of where I intended us to be over the one year period. The exotic removal program is where I expected it to be at this particular point in time. We went through this year earlier and spruced up the entrance ways and made those look better for the holidays and for this season. We did some of the replanting work earlier than normal. In terms of our budget, we are well within our constraints for 1997, on schedule and on time with all of those programs. oj-rl, 3 E Mr. Popper stated that a year or so ago we got into the question on signage and asked where that project now stands? Mr. Ward reported that in our budget we put that decision out for the 1998 -1999 Fiscal Year. That is when it is funded in the Capitol Program. Mr. Popper asked if we were not going to study it now and get into it the following year? We did some preliminary work and Mr. Tom Brown helped in that endeavor. Once we got into the Capital Budgeting phase I think I -2242- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COXXITTEE 1 6G 1 S, 1997 recognized that there was no need to take it any further until we actually got to the point of wanting to do it. That will be on your plate at the time we fund it. I was going to recommend to you at that time, that we set up the necessary committees to start reviewing the signs and mailboxes, etc. zuzzza-iaw Mr. Budge asked the status of the traffic light at Hammock Oak and Vanderbilt Beach Road? Mr. hard replied that the light is scheduled for that location and that it is waiting to be installed. I do not know today where that is today, but was told two weeks ago they are ready to put it in place. Mr. Mudge stated that the U.S. 41 median is not in our Jurisdiction, but the section from Gulfpark Drive south is going to be eventually landscaped. Off and on we have talked about whether there has or has not been irrigation sleeves installed. Mr. Griffith stated that he has been working with Wilson, Miller on this issue and it appears the sleeves were not done at that time. Mr. Griffith indicated that he should have a definite answer next week. CLA?i PA88 OPENixa Mr. Mudge stated that at a recent Commission Meeting, Mr. Huber was getting approval to go out for bids to open Clam Pass. The approval will be to do the same kind of clearance as before. -2243- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COXXITTEE � 6G 1 February S. 1997 I would hope that this time they would put all of the sand on the south side of the pass. As you can see all of the sand put on the north side migrated south and that is what reclosed the pass. Now the north side is in great shape. If they could clean out that inside and dump it on the south side, they would have a much better system. DEAD PZ2�E TR .pA Mr. Mudge stated that there are still some dead pines around and we have responsibility to remove them and asked if there is a plan to do so? Mr. hard replied that there are some dead pines and they will be gotten to. $PRIMER 220RADES Dr. Varley stated that Mr. Ward had indicated that when things were slack, he was going to look into upgrading the sprinkler system. It sounds to me from what Mr. Brown reported that we ought to start thinking about what it would cost and what we would have to do to start upgrading this system. Mr. Ward replied that what he and Mr. Brown talked about that issue and in that regard is what he is trying to indicate to you in terms of the freshwater system, that is a 3 -5 year kind of window that will eventually get looked at by the agencies. What he is recommending to you is that we look at that on the front side of that window, versus waiting to have a regulatory agency impose regulations, conditions or regressive rate structures on -2244- PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COXXXT'TEE 1 6G February S. 1997 this community to that affect. I think what we need to do is see what the permit looks like when it comes out. As a part of the discussions we have over the next twelve months we need to take a look at that system and see what happens. The subdivision that he was talking about happens to be Collier's Reserve, and we need to relook at that when the permit comes out as to how address those issues. I am not sure what the conditions will look like. ADJOURMC NT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M. Dr. Alan Varley, Chairman THE NFM REGULAR MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR 3:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1997. -2245- I bG 1 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION CLAM BAY RESTORATION FUND "JANUARY 31, 1997" F.Y. 1997 Exp. Incurred PIISD WC] Ba Bnd?,et To Date Portion Portion EXPENDITURES Environmental Consult. Akerman, Senterfitt, et. al. $85,000 $45,941 $22,970 $22,970 $ Lewis Environmental Serv. $72,500 $52,930 $26,465 $26,465 $ Tackney & Associates $46,000 $14,453 $7,227 $7,227 $ Wilson, Miller, et. al. $90,000 $13,142 $6,571 $6,571 $ Dr. Samuel Snedeker $5,000 $263 $131 $131 Others _ $1,500 $100 $50 $50 Sub -Total $300,000 $126,829 $63,414 $63,414 $1 Capital Outlay Improvements General $150.000 $ 0 $1 , Sub -Total $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $1; Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector $16,000 $8,649 $8,649 N/A ; Property Appraiser $10,700 $ J N/A $ Revenue Reserve $12,600 $0 N/A $1 Sub -Total $39,300 $8,649 $8,649 $0 $: TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $489,300 $135,478 $72,063 $63,414 $3! ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - JANUARY DATE INVOICE NO. INVOICE AMT. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson 2/13/97 1684242 $25,058.47 Lewis Environmental 2/7/97 97025 $1,243.00 Lewis Environmental 2/7/97 97024 $1,858.75 Lewis Environmental 2/14/97 97028 $749.23 Lewis Environmental 2/14/97 97029 $1,089-80 Dr. Snedeker 1/31/97 01 -31 -97 $1,185.07 Tackney & Associates 2/12/97 542 $9,242.25 TOTAL INVOICES $40,426.57 �*4rn*f f on , ufrr Collier County Govt. Complex Bldg. - J 3301 Tamiami Trail, East, Naples, FL 33962 Telephone (AC 813) 774 -4434 JIM WARD 801 LAUREL OAK DR. NAPLES, FL. 34108 FEBRUARY 24, 1997 DEAR JIM, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR REVIEW: - CRIME REPORT FROM 11 -16 -96 THRU 12- 15 -96. - oELICAN BAY RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY REPORT FOR 1996. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS 28 RESIDENTIAL BURGLARIES IN PELICAN BAY DURING 1996. - TRAFFIC SUMMARY FROM THE S. M. A. R. T. MACHINE. STUDY WAS CONDUCTED ON PELICAN BAY BLVD. ON 2- 11 -97. THE AVERAGE SPEED WAS 28.9 MPH. I'M CURRENTLY WORKING ON A COMPREHENSIVE CRIME COMPARISON FOR 1994, 1995 AND 1996. I SHOULD HAVE IT COMPLETED FOR THE NEXT REPORT. WE WERE EXPERIENCING PROBLEMS WITH THE MAGNETIC DECALS ON THE PELICAN BAY PATROL CARS. THE DECALS WERE EITHER FALLING OFF OR BEING STOLEN. WE HAVE REPLACED THE MAGNETIC DECALS WITH WINDOW STICKERS. THE PELICAN BAY DEPUTIES HAVE BEEN INCREASING THEIR COMMUNITY CONTACTS WHILE ON PATROL. I HOPE THE INCREASED VISIBLY HAS BEEN NOTICED. SINCERELY, GT. TDDD P. NORTH NAPLES T LOR SUB - STATION Collier County Sheriff's Office 1 V G i Crimes by Day of Week �+ From 11/16/96 through 12/15/96 For Grid 12101 PELICAN HAY AREA Class s i f icat i on Sun Mon Tue s Wed Thur- Fr- i :mat Total ER ACT 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 G -STRUCT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 GLARY OF DWELLING 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 M I NAL MISCHIEF 0 0 0 0 1 ND THEFT ALL 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 T /:3T'DLEN PROPERTY 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12 T /STOLEN VEH TAGS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TY TH:_F T ALL 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 TY /GRAND THEFT 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 IEME.3 M DFFRAUD 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 K /INJURED PERSON 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 -FICIOUS INCIDENTS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ;FFIC ACCIDENT 0 - - -- 0 - - -- 1 - - -- 0 - - -- 0 - - -- 1 - - -- 0 - - -- 2 - - -- and Total: ---- c - - -- 3 - - -- - - -- 1 - - -- 1 - - -- 8 — - -- 4 22 Collier County Sheriff's Office Dispatches by Day of Week 1 6 G From 11/16/96 through 1`/15/96 For Grid 1201 Pr_L I CAN BAY AREA Dispatch spatch Type Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Total SX RECD /USE CLEAR TEXT a 0 0 0 0 1 1 S IDENT 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 .?. RM 26 13 23 L= 24 23 20 1 52 ULAMCE 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 GLARY 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 c' VOY OR ESCORT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MINAL MISCHIEF 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TURBANCE 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 EST I C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NK DRIVER 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 E 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 AND RUN 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 SE COMPLAINT 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 KING VIOLATION 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 PICIOUS INCIDENT 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 6 PI C IOUS PERSON 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 S PIrIOUS VEHICLE 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 5 ER 911 /WELFARE CHECK 7 7 7 5 3 8 13 50 IFY VIN 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 rand Total: 39 25 32 3'S 34 38 41 244 #-w-w 'i RAF= F I C SUMMARY -w-w -W START:TUE 02/11/97 18:03 EHD:TUE 02/11/97 18:23 HR Total cars �i 0 TO D'S MIE GANGLE 1 0 Traffic for Pelican Bay Blvd.S.B.Traffic 2 0 3 0 Pasted speed Thirty M.P.H.(30) 16G 1 4 0 5 12 6 68 7 255 8 256 9 428 10 359 11 637 12 598 ' 13 523 14 579 15 645 16 516 17 506 18 42 19 0 20 0 21 0 P W -V brand fax tmmmim memo 7671 P" . 22 0 23 0 Total cars= 5624 DOW , Min speed- 10 MPH Max speed= 51 MPH • r Avg speed- 28.9 MPH ; .. 50th percentile- 29 MPH ' 85th percentile- 33 MPH Ten mile pace- 25 to 35 MPH END OF REPORT NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING I bG 1 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 1997 Board of County Cowls 6nprS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THE FOUNDATION CENTER, 8962 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ON MARCH S, 1997 AT 3540 P.K. I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 1997 MEETING III• UPDATE ON CLAM BAY ECOSYSTEM CONSULTANT MANAGEMENT REPORT IV. DIRECTION OF PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE V• COMMITTEE REQUESTS VI. ADJOURNMENT ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMIT'T'EE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT, FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. Norris Hancock constantl MWK.tc Barry Misc. Corres: Date: 3' 2 5- q 2 Item# /U. 6 Copies To: 16G 1 City Council Chamber 735 Eighth Street South Naples, Florida 34102 Beach Renourishnwnt/Maintenance Committee Regular Meeting - Febmary 6, 1997 Chairman Lydon called the meeting to order and presided. ROLL CALL ................... ............................... rTEM 1 Present: Richard Lydon, Chairman Bruce Anderson Frank Blanchard William Boggess Hubert Howard Charles Huttinger (Arrived at 9:30 am.) Robert Sitta Absent; James Brennan Bonnie MacKenzie Charles Metz Fred Sullivan Also Present; Jon Staiger, Ph.D., Natural Resources Manager Harry Huber, Collier County Capital Projects Manager/Technical Advisor Dr. Michael Stephen, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Virginia Neet, Deputy City Clerk Michael Poff, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Kenneth Abernathy Other interested citizens and visitors Media: Eric Staats, Naples Daily News 16G 1 Beach Reno urishmen0dai atenance Committee - February 6, 1997 ANNOUNCEMENTS ............. ............................... r1 EM 2 Committee Member Boggess announced that he would be leaving the meeting early, and Member Anderson informed the committee that, due to prior commitments, he could not attend the March meeting. The following items were added to the agenda: Item 7 -a Discussion regarding a letter of support for the proposed legislation to specify a funding source for Florida beach renourishment projects. (Requested by Member B lanchard) Item 4 -a Update: Use of jail inmates for beach maintenance activities (Requested by Member Howard) Item 5 -a Discussion regarding the amount of unencumbered Category A, B, and C funds (Requested by Ch&rman Lydon) .............................. ............................... ITEM 3 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ,MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7 AND DECEMBERS, 1996 AND JANUARY 3, 1997 MEETINGS. Chairman Lydon noted that due to a lack of quorum at the December 5, 1996 meeting, the November 7, 1996 meeting minutes had not been formally approved. The Committee noted corrections and amplifications to the minutes which are reflected in the final versions. Member Anderson suggested that the motion to approve the December 5, 1996 meeting minutes also include ratification of Committee actions taken prior to the presence of a quorum (Items 1 - 5). Referring to the January 3, 1997 Meeting (Item 5), Member Boggess requested that the record reflect his dissenting vote which he had submitted subsequent to the meeting. After further discussion regarding the appropriateness of changing this vote, the Committee agreed to Member Boggess' request and the minutes were amended accordingly. MOT70N by Blanchard to APPROVE the November 7, 1996 Meeting Minutes; seconded by Howard and carried 6.0. (Anderson -yes, Blanchard yes, Boggess yes, Brennan- absent, Howard yes, Hurtinger- absent, MacKenzie - absent, Metz- absent, Sitta -yes, Sullivan - absent, Lydon -yes) MOTION by Boggess to A PPRO VE the December 5, 1996 Meeting Minutes and to RA TIFY the Committee's December 5th actions relating to Items I through 5; seconded by Blanchard and carried 6-0. (Anderson -yes, Blanchard yes, Boggess - yes, Brennan - absent, Howard- -yes, Huttinger- absent, MacKenzie- absent, Metz - absent, Sitta -yes, Sullivan- absent, Lydon -yes) MOTION by Blanchard to APPROVE the .bnumy 3, 1997 Meeting Minutes; seconded by Hc°,,-.7d and carried 6-0. (Anderson -yes, Blanchard yes, Boggess - yes, Brennan- absent, i ;.r.;:ard yes, Huttinger- absent, MacKenzie- absent, Metz - absent, Sitta -yes, Sullivan- absent, Lydon -yes) 2 I bG Beach Renourishment(Maintenance Committee - iFebrumy 6, 1997 .............................. ............................... ITEM 4 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF UTILIZATION OF BEACH TECH 2000 AND ROTAR SIEVING DEVICE. (9:22 am.) Collier County Capital Projects Manager Harry Huber informed the Committee that the correct name for the equipment is BeachTech 3000 (not 2000 as listed on the agenda) and indicated that he would propose a schedule /policy regarding its use at the next Committee meeting. He also indicated that he would submit a request at the February 25, 1997 Collier County Commission Meeting to acquire a second BeachTech 3000. Referring to the rotar sieving device, Mr. Huber confirmed that it had been leased for one month and would commence operations from Fourth to Tenth Avenue South within the next week, which would continue for three weeks. Chairman Lydon then commented on prior complaints relating to rock piles left by the BeachTech and requested prompt removal. It is noted for the record that Committee Member Charles Huttinger arrived a2 the meeting at 9:25 a. m. At this time, Mr. Huber introduced Mr. Huttinger, who was appointed to the Committee by the Board of County Commissioners on January 21, 1997. In response to Chairman Lydon, Mr. Huber updated the Committee on the use of Collier County Jail "trustees" (DLTI offenders, etc.) for beach maintenance activities and described the program as effective. He also noted that the trustees were accompanied by a Collier County Sheriff Deputy and no adverse public reaction was reported. Member Boggess relayed a suggestion to use a faster and less expensive tractor either in place of, or in conjunction with the BeachTech 3000 and questioned whether using the BeachTech 3000 around -the -clock would eliminate the need for additional equiprr,!nt. .............................. ............................... ITEM 5 DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTIONS REGARDING REQUESTS FOR TDC FUNDING FOR REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND THE NAPLES PIER REPAIR PROJECT. (9:33 a.m.) ... ............................... ..........................ITEM S -a DISCUSSION REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF UNENCUMBERED CATEGORY A, B, AND C FUNDS (Requested by Chairman Lydon) Chairman Lydon referred to the Committee's prior recommendation regarding the use of Tourist Development Council (TDC) funds for renovations to the outward portion of the Naples Fishing Pier, noting that this recommendation specifically excluded the use of Category A funds. He pointed out, however, the County Commissioners' preference for using Category A funds and suggested that the Committee reiterate its opposition. Natural Resources Manager Jon Staiger then relayed the TDC's approval for the use of Category 3 I bG 1 Beach RenourishmenUMaintenance Committee - February 6, 1997 A funds for other projects; namely, acquisition of beach access points and beach parking areas which, he added, was echoed by the Board of County Commissioners. He noted that the Board had agreed to amend its ordinance in order to include the Pier as an eligible expenditure. Collier County Capital Projects Manager Harry Huber referred to the Executive Summary which stated, "The TDC had voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners amend their local ordinance to include public fishing piers as provided for in Florida Statutes. The vote included reducing the allocation for Category A uses." Mr. Huber added, however, that formal adoption of the amended ordinance had not yet occurred. Chairman Lydon requested that Mr. Huber provide information regarding the amount of unencumbered funds in Categories A, B, and C as of January 31, 1997 (or other specified date). Because of forthcoming demands for these funds for Gordon Pass maintenance, he suggested that Mr. Huber provide the Commissioners vrith an updated projected budget to illustrate current and future demands on Category A funds. Member Howard then suggested that Chairman Lydon relay the Committee's strong recommendation against this use of TDC funds for this purpose and also urged Committee Members to individually voice their opposition. After further discussion, it was determined that Chairman Lydon and Dr. Staiger would draft the Committee's letter of opposition and submit same for approval at the next meeting. ... ............................... ........................... ITEM 6 DISCUSSION OF CHANGES TO THE GUIDELINES FOR CATEGORY A TDC FUNDING TO INCLUDE GORDON, CAPRUBIG MARCO, CAXAMBAS, AND INDIAN KEY PASSES AND CERTAIN INTERIOR WATERWAYS. (9:45 a.m.) Natural Resources Manager Jon Staiger informed the Committee of the County Commissioners' concerns regarding broad guidelines and the related potential for misuse of Tourist Development Council (TDC) funds. Although the County had previously agreed to more specific guidelines, they had yet to be formally approved by +he Board. Dr. Staiger also relayed discussions with members of the Collier County Legislative Delegation regarding additional statutory language regarding inlets since the law is silent on inlet ma,iagement, despite its direct relationship to beach erosion. Dr. Staiger additionally pointed out that the Department of Environmental Protection recognizes the correlation between inlets and beach management and continues to fund inlet management. Member Boggess reminded the Committee that Chapter 125 of the Florida Statutes specifically refers to inland rivers and lakes and suggested that the law intended to omit estuaries, bays, and passes since these areas have little to do with tourism; he also suggested contacting the State for clarification. In response, Member Blanchard referred to the DEP's position that inlet management must be developed in order to maintain beaches and noted efforts to correct the omission. Dr. Staiger proposed submitting a written request to the Collier County Legislative Delegation and requested the Committee's support. MOTION by Boggess to PREPARE A LETTER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION URGING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE STATE LAW TO BETTER DEFINE THE USE OF CATEGORY A FUNDS; seconded by Blanchard and Curried 7 -0. (Anderson yes, Blanchard yes, 4 16G 1 Beach Reno urishment/Maintenance Committee - February 6, 1997 Boggess yes, Brennan- absent, Howard yes, Hettinger -yes, MacKenzie - absent, Metz- absent, Siva -yes, Sullivan- absent, Lydon -yes) It is noted for the record that Member Boggess left the meeting at 9:56 a.m. .............................. ............................... ITEM 7 REPORT ON THE RECENT FLORIDA SHORE & BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION TECHNICAL CONFERENCE (9:56 a.m.) .. ............................... ...........................ITEM 7 -a DISCUSSION REGARDING A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO SPECIFY A FUNDING SOURCE FOR FLORIDA BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS. (Requested by Member Blanchard) (9:56 a. m.) Dr. Michael Stephen, Coastal Engineering Consultants, provided an overview of the recent Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association Technical Conference. He outlined the paper which he had presented at the conference, co- authored with Dr. Jon Staiger, Michael Poff, and Harry Huber, relating to the Collier County Beach Restoration Project. This was of particular interest, he said, since Collier County had funded its own beach renourishment project. Mr. Stephen then commented on what he described as other instructive, technical information presented at the conference and specifically noted topics on the evolution of beach profiles and the causes/solutions to "hot spots." Dr. Stephen then provided background information regarding proposed House Bill 103 which, he stated, could raise 535- million per year for a fixed annual budget for beach restoration at the State level. The revenue source is a cruise ship departure charge of $1.00 to $5.00 per passenger. Since the State typically funds approximately 35% of a total project, these funds would equate to an estimated 5100- million annually in total new beach - related construction. In additional to beach restoration projects, these funds could be used for sand searches, dune re- vegetation, and inlet maintenance /navigation projects. Dr. Stephen commented on efforts by other organizations to raise $80,000.00 in order to lobby support for the proposed legislation and recommended that the Committee also relay its support. Mr. Huber then offered to submit a resolution for City Council and Board of County Commissioners' approval supporting this proposed legislation. MOTION by Blanchard RECOMMENDING THAT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HOUSE BILL 103 BE SURMn7ED TO CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OFCO UNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR A PPRO VA L • seconded by Huttinger and carried 6-0. (Anderson -yes, Blanchard yes, Boggess- absent, Brennan- absent, Howard-yes, Huttinger- -yes, MacKenzie - absent, Metz- absent, Sitta- yes, Sullivan-absent, Lydon -yes) After the vote, Member Howard questioned whether City or County funds were available to assist 5 I bG 1 Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Committee - February b, 1997 in efforts to secure lobbyists. Mr. Huber mentioned the Beach Watch lobbying organization and suggested that both the City and County contribute through membership. Dr. Staiger stated that although the City had not joined Beach Watch this year, it was in the process of joining the Florida Shore and Beach Association. He agreed, however, to relay the recommendation to the City Council if the Committee wished that both the City and County enroll in Beach Watch. MOTION by Blanchard to ,RECOMMEND THA T BOTH THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS E9 CH JOIN THE 1997 BEACH WATCH ACTIVITIES WITH EACH GOVERNING BODY CONTRIBUTING $3,000.00; seconded by Sitta and carried 6-0. (Anderson -yes, Blanchard yes, Boggess- absent, Brennan - absent, Howard yes, Huttinger -yes, MacKenzie- absent, Metz- absent, Sitta -yes, Sullivan- absent, Lydon -yes) Later in the meeting, Dr. Staiger informed the Committee of upcoming Department of Environmental Protection Agency workshops relating to a proposed long -range beach management plan. Break 10:11 am. to 10:22 am- It is noted for the record that the same Committee Members were present when the meeting reconvened- ................. ............. ......I........................ ITEM 8 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SEARCH FOR BEACH - COMPATIBLE SAND TO BE USED FOR FUTURE RENOURISHMENT EFFORTS. (10:22 a. m.) Dr. Michael Stephen, Coastal Engineering Consultants, reported that the Department of Environmental Protection had not yet responded to transmittals from the Committee, but stated that he would again communicate with the Department in hopes of a response within 30 to 60 days. .............................. ............................... ITEM 9 UPDATES: PARK SHORE BEACH RESTORATION, WATER TURKEY BAY /SOUTH CHANNEL DREDGING, INDIAN ROCKS BEACH PROJECT. (10:24 a.m.) Collier County Capital Projects Manager Harry Huber provided information regarding current projects noting that the Marco Island beach renourishment project (Caxambas Pass maintenance dredging) was advertised for bids with the bid opening scheduled for February 19, 1997, Additionally, Mr. Huber reported that the bid opening for the Clam Pass project had been scheduled for February 26th and the Marco Island T -groin construction bid opening would take place on March 5th. These projects, he added, must be completed prior to the start of sea turtle nesting season (May 1st). He also explained that the Water Turkey Bay /South Channel dredging project was revised and would commence in September. Permits for these projects are pending, he said, and the Board of County Commissioners had approved the Tourist Development Council applications for the Caxambas Pass dredging, the T -groin construction, and Clam Pass permit- 0 16G 1 Beach Rene uri shmentfMaintenance Committee - February 6, 1997 related costs. The Board had also approved the Professional Services Agreement with Coastal Engineering for Wiggins Pass Inlet Management. Mr. Huber then indicated that the Marco Island annual monitoring report would be available by the next Committee meeting and also reported that all of the beach restored last year would require tilling prior to April 15th. Natural Resources Manager Jon Staiger provided the Committee with information regarding the four -year old Indian Rocks Beach Restoration Project where sand was excavated from off the mouth of Tampa Bay, transported by barge to the restoration site, and placed on the beach by barge - mounted conveyors. Dr. Staiger stated, however, that due to resulting hardbottom damage, it was unlikely that this restoration technique would be permitted in the future. He pointed out that this method could be a viable local alternative since the hardbottom is farther offshore here. Dr. Michael Stephen, Coastal Engineering Consultants, also reported that the Indian Rocks Beach Restoration Project cost of performance equation was comparable to that of a hydraulic fill. Other advantages of this technique were noted and Dr. Stephen suggested additional research into Department of Environment Protection Agency permitting requirements. Committee discussion then focused on the Park Shore beach restoration and Mr. Huber explained that the vacant lot at the intersection of Park Shore Drive and Gulf Shore Boulevard North could be used for access and relayed the contractor's request to operate throughout the daylight hours. Mr. Huber explained that 7:00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. could prove the most cost effective operating hours and also clarified that traffic associated with this project would be essentially limited to Park Shore Drive. Chairman Lydon noted concerns about the related impacts to the Park Shore Bridge; however, Dr. Staiger pointed out that the bridge is continually used for construction traffic. Alternative hours of operation were discussed and the Park Shore residents' request for uninterrupted beach access for a portion of each day was noted. In response to Chairman Lydon, Mr Huber explained that the previously approved Tourist Development Council application for sand stockpiling would cover trucking and spreading costs; however, the cost of stabilizing the access point may not be included. He reported that the project had been permitted by the DEP and relayed a projected total cost of $125,000.00 ($12.50 per cubic yard); he estimated that the project would take three weeks. Public Input: (10:38 a.m.) Ken Abernathy, Board of Directors of the Paris Shore Association, relayed Park Shore and the Gulf Shore Condominium Association preference for 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. operation in order to expedite the project. He also indicated that the residents would not object to closing the sidewalk for safety purposes. Member Anderson predicted that this project would be cited as an example when future beach restoration projects are considered and urged that it be done correctly and with a minimum of Beach Renourishment/Maiintenance Committee - February 6, 1997 disruption. 16G 1 Chairman Lydon then referred to the Collier County Sea Turtle Protection Plan Monitoring Program and informed the Committee that this report would be reviewed at the April meeting. (A copy of this material is contained in the file for this meeting in the City Clerk's Office.) Michael Poff, Coastal Engineering Consultants, noted that although renourished beaches have fewer sea turtle nests, hatching rates are higher than in natural areas of the beach. ............................. ............................... rly-M 10 AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING, THURSDAY 06 MARCH 1997. (14:45 a.m.) Chairman Lydon suggested that the continued search for compatible sand be on the next agenda and Member Blanchard updated the Committee on current litigation regarding the use of Tourist Development Council funds for Marco Island beach projects. Committee discussion then focused on beach tilling with Member Huttinger noting disadvantages and impacts on sea turtle nesting. Committee Member Blanchard noted recent reports indicating that penetrometer tests, used to determined the need for beach tilling, are an inappropriate measurement for west coast sand. Chairman Lydon suggested additional Committee discussion regarding this issue at the next meeting; however, Dr. Michael Stephen, Coastal Engineering Consultants, noted prior, unanswered communications to state agencies objecting to this requirement. Member Blanchard then suggested that the Committee register its objection with Senator Connie Mack and Congressman Porter Goss. ADJOURN.................... ............................... ITEM 11 11:03 a.m. RICHARD LYDON, CHAIRMAN JON C. STAIGER, PH.D. Natural Resources Manager Prepared by: Virginia A. Neet Deputy City Clerk Minutes approved: 16G 1 NATURAL RESOURMS u aT 735 EIGHTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES, rZXP=A 34102 941- 434 -4655 FAX ED FEB 2 7 1991 Board of county Commissfows The Beach Renourishment /Maintenance Committee announces a public meeting to which all interested persons are invited. DATE: Thursday 06 March 1997 TIME: 9:00 A.M. PLACE: City Council. Chambers, City Hall, 735 8th Street South AGElQDA 1. Roll Call. 2. Announcements. 3. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the 06 February 1997 committee meeting. 4. Presentation by Kevin Dugan, Collier County Natural Resources Department, regarding publication of boater guides for Collier County waterways. 5. Report on utilization of BeachTech 3000 and Rotar sieving device. 6. Report on the 25 February DEP conference to discuss long - range erosion control budget planning process. 7. Discussion of changes to TDC funding guidelines. 8. Discussion of House Bill 103 progress. 9. Updates: Park Shore beach restoration, Water Turkey Bay/ South Channel dredging project, offshore sand search. 10. Agenda for next meeting, Thursday 03 April 1997. 11. Adjourn. / 1/ ft"i s M"00 coastati th e l to a � wry Misc. Corres: Items Copies To: Beach Committee Agenda, 06 March 1997 1 6G 1 � Page 2 FORMAL ACTIOIN MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM DISCUSSED OR ADDED TO THIS AGENDA. AMY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THIS COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY DEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, wHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON IWOf THE APPEAL IS TO BE HLARD. ANY PERSON WITH A DI3ABILM REQUIRING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES FOR THIS MEETING MAY CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 434- 4101 WITH REQUESTS AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING DATE. For additional information, please contact Jon Staiger at 434- 4655. C Jon Staiger, P .D Natu 1 Resources Manger JC5\vpdata \b*achcow \bch0306.97 I 6G 1 , or;.. Jon C. Sta iger, Ph.D., Natural a=' Resources Manager 735 Eighth Street South Naples, Florida 34102 {� Tel. 941-434-4655, Suncom 974-4655 Fax 941-434-3059 434 3059 Mr. Timothy L. Hancock, AICP, Chairman Board of County Commissioners 0 Collier County Government Center n 3301 Tamiami Trail East W Naples Florida 34112 Ref.: Use of Tourist Development Tax revenue Dear: Commissioner Norris: The City- County Beach Renourishment /Maintenance Committee understands the desirability of using TDC tax revenue for acquisition of public beach access and associated facilities. However, the Committee is still concerned about the use of Category A funds for such purposes. The core of the issue is that the County and City both must implement various inlet management plans that include dredging and construction of groins and other stabilizing structures, in addition to planning for the future renourishment of the beaches restored in 1995/96. The TDC funding spreadsheet prepared by the Office of Capital Projects Management includes that renourishment effort in 2007 and renourishment of the Marco Island beach in 2010. A 1995 Presidential Order has eliminated U.S. Army Corps of Engineers responsibility for future maintenance of Gordon Pass, the inland waterway from Naples Bay south to Marco Island, and the channel into Everglades City, Indian Key Pass. Gordon Pass will need to be dredged in the near future, as will sections of the channel from Naples to Marco. The latter will undoubtedly be expensive, because there are no approved disposal sites for the spoil, which is too muddy to be used for beach renourishment. The Beach Renourishment /Maintenance Committee requests that the Board of County Commissioners revisit the use of Category A funds for purposes not directly involved in beach, inlet, and waterways management. Sincerely, Richard Lydon, Chairman JCSNWordata\Beach Cotnmittee\TDC funds for access.doc '4i ..t 16G 1 MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Gil Scholes, Chairperson. Members present were Jane Hittler, Joanne Rusitzky, Richard Eggers, Dee Bare Z and Margaret Paulson. Victoria Williams was excused. Also present was Steve Fabiano, Collier County Transportation Dept.; Mike McGee, McGee and Associates; Scott Miller and Scott Hayne, Environmental Care, Inc.; Pat Berry, The Bottom Line; Vivien Ellis, Marco Island Taxpayers Association; and Kathleen McNamara, Marco Island Eagle. MOTIONS 1. A motion was made by Eggers, seconded by Hittler to approve the minutes of the January 7th meeting as presented. Motion carried. 2. A notion vas Bade by Paulson to recommend Scholes for the at -large position on the committee. The notion was seconded by Bare. Motion carried 5 in favor with Scholes abstaining. l!! 2tltt!!!!!!!! t!!!!! t!!!!!!!! RtlR!! R!!!!! RRlRltlRR !!!!!!!!t!!tR!lttRlR!!!R!! �t Fabiano presented and reviewed the Expenditure Budget Status dated January, 1997. He referred to Page Three of the report which listed open purchase ` orders. Fabiano noted the increase cost for mulch due to the additional sod replacement. He explained the purchase order for seawall construction at the Hittler Park at a cost of $2000 which will include high grade pressure treated lumber. Mike McGee's report McGee reported that he was happy with the overall progress of the project. plant material looks good Palms at the Jolley Bridge are coming back - a recent accident on S. Barfield destroyed a Gumbo Limbo Tree - construction vehicles have damaged the plant material in the median in front of the Royal Seafarer Condominium. Fabiano agreed to address this issue with the contractor, a construction lien may be required. - Dune Sunflower has been installed along South Collier - Alamanda plants will be fertilized in the following week - watering program is working well. Scott Hayne reported they have completed two herbicide treatments on the turf. They have completed refurbishment on Sandhill and South Heathwood medians. They were instructed to straighten a tree in the Sandhill median. McGee reported that the design plants for South Barfield were not yet completed. Fabiano will report on availability of funds for the South Barfield medians at the next meeting. McGee suggested making the necessary modifications while doing the refurbishment on the these medians. All agreed P{ that this would be determined by the amount of dollars available for the work. �f c` Marco Island Beautification Advisory Committee G 1 f February 4, 1997 Page Two s' Fabiano reported that the watering °;,• P g project was going well. He has received no further information regarding the effluent water line expected for Collier Boulevard. He will continue to pursue this issue. Environmental Care has installed plant material in front of the "Welcome To Marco" sign. The plans to move the sign are on hold at this time. s Scholes asked the committee to consider FY 97/98 projects to be recommend for the annual budget by April. The stone for the Marco Cat is on hold until the grant has reached finalization. Fabiano stated that they may consider an artificial rock vs. a permanent rock for liability reasons. f, The committee discussed there responsibilities to the community and what input they would have in future projects of Marco Island. Several projects that they may consider would be greenspace, bike paths, Plummer Park renovations and maintenance. McGee suggested that the first order of business was to develop a master plan. They could start with the "Vision" master plan and select items of interest from this list to develop a "master plan" for the committee. The committee will continue to discuss this issue at the March meeting. Fabiano presented the plans for "Naples- Scape." Fabiano presented two resumes, Gil Scholes and Joseph Kubica, submitted for the at -large vacancy 3/1/97. The committee discussed both resumes and agreed that the experience and knowledge of history of Scholes was important to the project at this time. A motion was made by Paulson, seconded by Bare to recommend Gill Scholes for the at -large position. Motion carried 5 in favor and 1 abstained (Scholes). With no further business to' discuss the meeting was adjourned at 3;20. Next meeting will be held on March, February 4, 1997. Respectfully submitted by The Bottom Line. 4 1 6G"° 1A MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION Collier County Government Center RECEDE) Naples, Florida 33962 FEB 2 7 1997 AGENDA Board of County �omr,,1 i j c Tuesday, March 4, 1997 - 1:30 P.M. HACKLE PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of February 4th meetinq. 3. Budget Report - Steve Fabiano 4. Landscaping a. Current conditions report - Mike McGee b. Comment from Environmental Care c. South Barfield design plans 1) Proposed refurbish.ng and plantings - Mike McGee 2) Available funds - Steve Fabiano 5. Watering 6. Update on Jolley Bridge Gatevay and "Welcome to Marco sign. 7. Action by CCBC on at -large vacancy recommendation to become effective 3/1/97 �. Reviev of Vision /Cnllier. County Long Range Planning projects related to Green areas, etc. (if received, as requested) 9. Projects to recommend to Transportation Services, Public Works Division for FY 97/98 Budget. 10. Other business 11. Adjourn �• MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - FEBRUARY 5, 1997 6 G The Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Frank Blanchard, Chairperson. Members present were Buddy Harris, John Dougherty, Charles Huttinger, Giles Goral, Mike Glime, Gil Scholes, JoAnn Varie, and Joe Christy. Also present were Harry Huber, Collier County Capital Projects; Pat Berry, The Bottom Line; Dave Sommers, Hideaway Beach Association; and approximately 20 residents. A notion was made by Glime, seconded by Huttinger to approve the minutes of the January 8, 1997 meeting as presented. Motion carried. Huber reported that the request to purchase the new beach cleaning machine is scheduled for the County Commissions Consent Agenda later this month. He plans to lease the rock cleaning device for the new machine. Huber reported that the revisions to Ordinance 189 -11 originally scheduled on the County Board agenda January 19th has been postponed until February 11th. Blanchard and Huttinger gave an overview of the progress of the Ordinance to date. Huber stated that there will be a thirty day delay for public input and it will be back on the Board agenda in March for final approval. A copy of the changes will be sent to Tom Oilif. Huttinger and Blanchard will make a presentation to the County Board of Commissioners regarding the Ordinance and asked that all committee members attend the meeting to show support for this issue. Enforcement of the ordinance remains a major issue. An on -site Park Ranger is a possibility. Huber reported that Maura Krause and a representative from U.S. Fish and Wildlife have inspected the Hideaway Beach area relating to the T -Groin installation and found no problem. There has been no permit issued to date. Huber will meet with Florida Game and Fish representatives this month to discuss the effects to Sanddollar Island. The schedule has been revised as follows: February 5th - out for bid March 5th - bid opening May 1st - completion Plans and specifications for the project were received late from the engineering firm. Huber may ask for an extensicn into sea turtle season. A question was raised regarding a late provision in the engineering contract. Huber explained there was no such provision at this time. Blanchard reported on a recent meeting he attended in St. Petersburg. He viewed a presentation of T -Groin installations and how successful they are. Huber reported the schedule for the Caxambas Boat channel project as follows: February 6 - pre bid conference February 19 - bid opening Huber will present the results at the March meeting. Expected completion date for the project is May 1st. He may request an extension to May 15th. Due to the unresolved issue regarding the breakwaters there has been a delay with "Notice to Proceed." The legal issue has been postponed till the middle of May and is holding up the dredging project. r � Marco Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee Meeting - February 5, 1997 1 6G 1 Page Two Harris presented an aerial videotape of the beach taken on January 27th at 5:30 P.M. at high tide. Harris informed the committee that the Civil Air Patrol will be using a new plane in the future. It was suggested that a "no swimming or diving" sign be installed at the breakwaters. Huber reported that he has received a draft of the annual monitoring report and will distribute it to the committee at the March meeting. There were several questions regarding the T -Groin installation at Hideaway Beach. Huber discussed specifications of the project. He reported that approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sand would be used for the project. He will distribute a specification drawing of the project at the next meeting. It was reported that a new Florida House Bill 1103 will increase port charges for all cruise ship passengers with the funds earmarked for beach renourishment. The committee agreed to support the bill with letters to Burt Saunders or Fred Dudley. Public Comment A resident of Hideaway Beach was concerned that they have no beach left. Sandbags are drifting away. He would like to see Hideaway renourished. It was explained that the T -Groin installation is the best alternative to the problem per the engineering firm. A complaint was made against the large boats causing damage to the Hideaway Beach area. After discussion, the committee agreed to address this issue and requested copies of all correspondence, photos, documentation relating to the problem. Sommers suggested using the remaining dollars in the Marco Island Beach Renourishment Fund for the Hideaway Beach project. As there was no further business to discuss ?he meeting adjourned at 10 :30. Respectfully submitted by The Bottom tine. F. op 0 AGENDA 1 6 G aA 1 i MEETING OF MARCH 51 1997 RECEIVED HACKLE PARK FEB 2 7 1ag7 1. Agenda. Boarc 2. Approval of Minutes of February 5, 1997 3. Beach Cleaning Schedules - purchase of second ■achine !. Collier County Ordinance 189 -11 - BCC agenda for 2/18 5. Hideaway Beach sand addition 6. Videotape presentation of beach - Harris 7. Caxambas Boat Channel project - schedule 8. Hideaway T- Groins project - schedule 9. Old Business 10. New Business 11. Public Consent 10. Adjourn till April 2, 1997 Morris --=� Hancock Constantine 77 ,7 -- Mac Barry 3 -q 7 Item# /6. 6' ` Copies To: TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 16, 1997 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met C i on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the f Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mike Davis Rich Nelson Michael J. Bruet Russell A. Budd Ed Oates Mike Pedone Fred Thomas Gary Wrage ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Bob Mulhere, Collier County Planning Services Page 1 ' 1 AGENDA - _ 1 6G 1 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1997 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST NAPLES, FLORIDA: ' NOTE- ANY PERSON WHO DECIDED TO APPEAL A DECISION OF t = THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO TR'-. "ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL- MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF ]MINUTES: 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: 5. _ BCC REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A_ Petition No. SV -96-5, Toys "R" Us, Inc., requesting a variance be made to the Sign Ordinance allowing a third wall sign to be placed on the rear of the building located in the Ridgeport Plaza on the northwest corner of Airport Road (C.R. 31) and Pine Ridge Road (CR. 896) in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) B. Petition No. TU -96-7, Albert Hubschnan, Vice- President of Falling Waters Corporation, requesting a 3 year extension of a Temporary Use Permit for a model center at 6562 Trail Boulevard. (Coordinator: Chahram Bada ntchian) C. Petition No. V- 96-29, Craig R. Woodward, Esquire, representing James and Ruth Ann Walcott, requesting an after -the -fact 1.95 foot variance to the required 7.5 foot side setback to 3.55 feet for property located at 1582 Biscayne Way, further described as Lot 8, block 284, Marco Beach Unit 8, in Section 16, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) 1 . D. Petition No. DOA -96-5, Dr. Neno J. Spagna of Florida Urban Institute, Inc., representing Ashley M Papineau, Partner, Tollgate Commercial Center Partnership, requesting an amendment to the Tollgate Commercial Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order 92 -1 for the purpose of extending the time that the development order remains in effect for the Toll gate Commercial Center (DRI), located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate I -75 and C.R. 951 interchange, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East and Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) E. Petition No. CU- 96-23, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning Shoppe and Beau Keene, P.E., of Burce Green & Associates, representing Ferril A. Boutilier, requesting Conditional Use "2" of the RMF-6 zoning district for a church for property located on the north side of Guilford Road, approximately 900 feet west of Tamiami Trad East, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2.04 acres, more or less. (Coordinator. Chahram Badamtchian) F. Petition No. CU- 96-24, Jeff Swiatek representing Jeff Swiatek, John and Clay Winfield, requesting Conditional Use "4" of the C-4 zoning district for used car sales for property located at 4870 Golden Gate Parkway, further described as Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block 248, Golden Gate, Unit 7, in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of .4 acres, more or less (Coordinator. Ron Nino) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.- DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 11. ADJOURN 1 -16-97 CCPC AGENDA/md January 16, 199 6G 1 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'll call this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order and begin by calling the roll. Mr. Nelson? MR. NELSON: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Budd? MR. BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Bruet? MR. BRUET: Present. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Thomas? MR. THOMAS: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Davis, here. Mr. York? (No response) Mr. Oates? MR. OATES: I'd like to -- I'm here, and I'd like to report that your sending me to the Rose Bowl was very successful, and my Buckeyes did win. 2o[2. BUDD: And the Gators did appreciate it. MR. OATES: They did. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Pedone? MR. PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Wrage? MR. WRAGE: Here. CHAIRMAN? DAVIS: Any addenda today to the agenda? MR. MULHERE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Approval of minutes; we didn't have any. Any Planning Commission's ebserces coming up? Any BCC report, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHE'RE: The only thing I -- I would have to add in that vein would be that -- see, there -- there were several petitions heard by the board that were previously heard by the Planning Commission. The -- there were two -- two boat dock conditional uses -- boathouse conditional uses, and both were approved. There was some discussion relative to boathouses can Marco Island. There was a letter from the Marco Island Civic Association in opposition, and the board basically felt that because the petition was in the works and that there was no prohibition -- that there was criteria, but no prohibition that -- that that petition would have to be treated just like any other. There's two other issues, and one is that we're currently working on a zoning overlay, as you know, for Marco Island. At this point that does not address boathouses; it simply treats them the same way that they're treated throughout the county through the conditional -use process, but that may change. The other aspect is that the board directed staff to look at boat docks and boathouses and the criteria that we use for approval and try to come up with some, probably, more specific criteria on -- on things like view impacts and navigational hazards. And so we're working on that and probably will bring that forward to you in the -- in this coming LDC amendment cycle which you will hear sometime in March or April. So you're going to have same -- some different criteria, I think. Now, whether or not that's acceptable -- you know, we can -- through the process we can PacyP ? 16G 1 January 16, 1997 determine that. And the only -- the last thing I had to add was that there was a -- a variance in Naples Park. I think it was for a little strip center to extend the building along the same line as the existing building was constructed. It was, like, a 700- square -foot addition, and the board did deny that. And I think that -- I mean, I don't want to speak for the board, but I -- I presume that they didn't feel as though they met the criteria established and then, therefore, denied it. But I just wanted to, you know, keep you aware of those. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. MR. THOMAS: That was the building we -- we agreed to square off; right? MR. OATES: Yeah. ?Jo. It was -- well, yeah. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Kind of. MR. OATES: Square off, I guess, would be right. MR. THOMAS: The q, ;estion I have -- you're -- we're talking about a -- a development overlay for Marco -- MR . MULI ERE : Uh - huh . MR. THOMAS: -- that's in the works. MR. MULHERE: Uh -huh. MR. THOMAS: You got one for Chokoloskee -- not Chokoloskee. Is it Chokoloskee or Ochopee? MR. MULHERE: No. The only thing we have for Chokoloskee is an -- is a -- a waiver of subdivision requirements for previously established parcels. There's no overlay, though, out there. MR. THOMAS: Okay. And what about the overlay from Immok -- Immokalee? MR. MULHERE: That -- that's not going to happen until, You know, we get some direction to do it. And, you know, the Marco Island overlay is called for in their master plan. It says within one year of the adoption of the master plan there will be a zoning overlay created. So -- MR. THOMAS: But at the time we approved our master plan, you all weren't even thinking about any kind of separate overlay. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I -- ; understand that, but it -- I can't really -- I mean, I think it has to come from -- it has to either come from the community or from the board in terms of direction for us, you know. MR. THOMAS: So we need to petition the board in order to get that direction? MR. MULHERE: I would say yes. The community would need to do that, yeah. Now, I -- I don't_ know -- I mean, I understand that -- from Barbara that in looking at some things like the -- the downtown redevelopment -- MR. THOMAS: That's what I'm talking about. MR. MULHERE: -- there are going to be issues that have to be resolved; and it may be through that process that we come f award and say, you know, these development standards need to be relaxed, and we need to either create an overlay or, you know, 16G 1 January 16, 1997 something along those lines. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MR. BRUET: Bob, back to the -- MR. THOMAS: Well, now the -- the reason why I asked you the question, we've been pushing for this for a long time, and all of a sudden out of nowhere it's happening in other communities. And that's why I'm -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't know of an -- no -- yeah. There was -- there was two years spent -- spent on the Marco Island master plan; and as a result of that, the -- this -- the master plan called for this overlay. I wouldn't know that that -- I wouldn't -- I personally wouldn't phrase it "out of nowhere," but -- MR. THOMAS: Well, I mean, from my perspective this is coming out of nowhere, because we wanted to do it at the same time when we did our master plan -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. MR. THOMAS: -- and we were flat told •Denied; you can't do it.• 2,M. MULHERE: I -- I have no prejudicial opinion on it either way. I think it's something that my staff and -- and I -- we would -- we would be more than willing to look at that issue. And you and I have talked about it a lot. I understand, but I think from my perspective it's not something that I can just jump into, because I need some direction to do that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Bruet. 24R. BRUET: Bob, back to the boathouse issue. I don't recall any big issues brought up here when we discussed them. How -- how did the denial come about? - -11R. MULHERE: They didn't deny them; they approved them. MR. BRUET: Oh, okay. MR. MULHERE: They did approve them, but there was some discussion over how we might treat them in the future. MR. NELSON: Mike. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, Rich. MR. NELSON: One last one on boathouses. Bob, you mentioned that we, therefore, night be seeing some new criteria; and you mentioned line of sight., navigational. We -- we're doing all that now. I -- I just don't -- MP.. MULHERE: Well, we -- we are; but the code really isn't very specific, and we're looking at something a little bit more specific. Another -- another example that I directed the staff -- I have some staff members looking at this. One of the things that has always concerned the -- although you don't see much abuse -- but really the purpose of a boat dock is -- as written, is for mooring a vessel, and yet our codes would allow someone to administratively -- let's say you had 100 foot of water frontage. You can come in -- if you set back 15 foot off the side property lines and go out 20 feet, you can come in within a 70- foot -by -20 -foot -- 1,400- square -foot platform. And that gets larger as your water frontage gets larger, obviously. So without even having to come to this board or anybody, you can have that kind of coverage, which I look at as really being more of an January 16, 1j97 u I extension of an accessory use, almost a patio or a deck, versus simply mooring a boat. So there's the issue there -- and I think we need to look at -- of water coverage. And, you know, we'll probably be bringing something forward, and it's been somewhat controversial in the past, and -- and maybe it's not something that -- that, you know, this board or the Board of County Commissioners wants to -- to look at. The state, as I understood it, has on several occasions -- does -- they do restrict coverage, but not on single family. I-M. THOMAS: You say "restrict coverage." What if I have restricted coverage with a 60 -foot boat parked parallel to the back of the house or with a 12 -foot beam on a 15 -foot dock? MR. MULHERE: I think -- I -- I'm talking about just the facility itself. I'm talking about, you know, just the construction of the facility, what's the purpose of it. And I think even if we just put some criteria in there under the purpose and intent that say the purpose and intent of a boat dock facility is for the mooring of a boat. MIR . THOMAS: Hmm . MR. MULHERE: And -- and then you -- you would have the opportunity, in looking at a design, I think -- based on that purpose and intent, in looking at some design and say, well, we think this is excessive or not excessive. And -- and I don't know that we'll come up with anything more specific than that, but just to give you some -- some -- and -- and the staff some provision -- you know, we work with people right now. If we look at a design that we don't think is appropriate, hopefully we've got that resolved before it comes to you, not in all cases, though. And so I think that the language in there is -- is not strong. It's not clear, and by clearing that up and mayb7e being a little bit more specific in the criteria that we use, we'll be a little bit -- we'll have a little bit more of an opportunity to influence the design of those dock facilities and maybe have something that's more palatable. And even if it does get to you, you would also have that same ability, you know, in -- in directing an applicant that -- you know, would they be willing to change the design one way or another. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There -- there may be an opportunity for us to pursue this, which I'll talk about in a moment here. Under chairman's report, I've been in contact with Mr. Mulhere, and we -- there's -- part of the advisory board ordinance requires that there's annual reports done; and I guess this year's our turn. And Mr. Mulhere has put together a -- a good report on behalf of this board, which I think is going through the channels. At some point in time here, we'll all receive a copy of it. Just yesterday I had a meeting with the newly elected chairman of our Board of County Commissioners, and from that discussion came the idea of us having a joint workshop with the Board of County Commissioners. He -- he mentioned the first opportunity of a fifth Tuesday in a month when they don't normally meet where we could sit dawn with them and openly discuss a lot of issues we just talked about and have a good exchange back and forth. So hopefully we'll -- we'll have some more feedback on just when that's going to 16G 1 January 16, 1997 be. I think if you could, Mr. Mulhere, send a memo to Commissioner Hancock -- MR. THOMAS: April looks like the first op -- first opportunity. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yup. I believe -- I believe April is -- you're right, Fred, that we're certainly desirous of a -- a joint workshop for -- for discussions along those lines. I think that'll get the ball rolling for us. So I think we should all be thinking about issues that we might want to discuss in that forum. MR. OATES: As a suggestion, since you're the one that discussed it with him, maybe it should come over your signature rather than Bob's. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: I'll prepare it from you through me or something like -- prepared from me to you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Great. I appreciate that. Yeah, we'll work that out. All right. Our first petition today is SV -96 -5. I'd ask all those present that are going to testify on this issue to please stand so the court reporter can swear you in. (The speakers were sworn.) Thank you. Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning service staff. This is a request for a third sign for the Toys R Us store on Airport Road. They're alleging that they -- MR. OATES: Maybe it's on but -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A little closer and we got it. MR. BADA4TCHIAN: Okay. They're alleging that they don't have enough visibility on Airport Road and they don't have a sign at Airport Road; therefore, they are asking for a third sign. However, they are entitled to a pole sign on Airport Road which they have not installed yet. Staff recommends denial of this variance since there's no grounds for this realest. Whatever hardship they have is self- imposed. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Chahram, I noticed in their application most of the criteria was just marked "N /A." The meaning of the criteria wasn't even provided by the applicant, was it? NR. BADAMTCHIAN: I called the office. They don't have any representation here. The application they send me all says N /A. And I called the office, and I couldn't talk to anybody, really, who filled this out. I talked to a gentleman who was the architect for the project, and he basically said they were asked to do it. I don't' believe there's anyone to be representing them today. MR. THOMAS: But you said they can put a pole sign up out on -- is that in their plan? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. MR. THOMAS: Is that in their plan to put a pole sign up? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have more than 150 -foot road frontage. They can put a pole sign if they wish so. n -- C 16G 1 January 16, 1997 MR. THOMAS: But it hasn't got in the plan yet? MR. MULHERE: They have not asked for it, no. And part of the consideration that we looked at was, you know, what type of recommendation do we make on this sign and then after that come in and put up a pole sign, because they would be perfectly well permitted to do that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nelson. MR. NELSON: I think my question's probably answered from the fact that there wasn't a lot of communication between the petitioner and staff. But is the pole sign the same size as the wall sign, the pole sign allowances? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The pole sign can be 100 -- that's outparcel, 60 square feet -- MR. MULHERE: 60 square feet. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- around 1,200 square. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The wall sign can be larger, because it can be -- 15 or 20? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Twenty. MR. MULHERE: -- 20 percent of the to exceed, I believe, 200 square feet -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Two hundred fifty MR. BRUET: And they're considered can -- face of the wall not 250 square feet. square feet. a corner lot; so they MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's a shopping center outparcel, and our code provides for two signs for outparcels. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The one sign they're entitled to is for wherever they'd like to place i*_ to the public right -of -way. The second sign they're entitled to is one that's recently been defined in the--ccde as one to serve the purpose of advertising to the shopping center that's behind them, and -- and so that accounts for their second sign. Although I make the observation, gentlemen, that the sign that the code currently allows, that the use is for the shopping center traffic, that we might very well want to look at that being -- that sign being smaller. SLR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And more in tune with its purpose. My observation would be that the Toys R Us sign really has -- that -- that the intent is for it to be facing the shopping center -- MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- has on purpose been made quite a bit larger so that, in fact, the use is from eastbound traffic on Pine Ridge Road. Now, I really don't think that was the intent of the ordinance. Just an observation. MR. MULHERE: I agree. And I think, you know, partly because of their desire to orient the structure to the shopping center versus to the adjacent arterial road network, they probably had little choice in putting some signage where their front door was. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh -huh. MR. MULHERE: Now it's kind the best of both worlds that I think they're looking for. MR. BRUET: But they've elected to place the building as Page 7 16G 1 January 16, 1997 it sits? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of staff? And anyone from the public that would like to speak? If you could state your name and spell it for the record. MS. BARKER: Certainly. My name is Sally Barker. I'm here today representing the Second District Association in North Naples. The board of the Second District Association met on Monday and asked me to convey to you their opposition to this variance request. As you probably know, the Second District Association was a major player in having the recent commercial design guidelines drafted and implemented in the Land Development Code. And the reason for doing that was in large part because of the Toys R Us building. When Toys R Us was designed and the site plan was laid out, they had a number of choices. They could have turned the building around to face Airport Road, as Barnes and Noble did; they chose not to. They could have made the building architecturally pleasant; they chose not to. They chose to go with the generic, long, blank walls and flat roof; and now they're asking to make a poor situation even worse by requesting a third sign. And in light of this, the Second District Association requests that you deny this request. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mrs. Barker. Anyone else to speak on this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? MR. OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move that we submit to the Board of Zoning Appeals a request for denial of SV -96 -5. - MR. BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Moved by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Bruet. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Carries unanimousiv. Our next petition is 70 -96 -7. I'd ask all those that are going to testify on this issue to please rise so they can be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR— PEDONE: Mr. Chairman, I have to recuse myself from voting on this issue, as I do quite a bit of business with the Falling Waters development. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pedone. Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning. Chahram Badamtchian for planning services staff. The Falling Waters development, they own a model home on Trail Boulevard across the street from Pelican Bay. It was built almost two years ago. On June 1st it's going to be two years, and they are requesting a three -year extension of their tepporary use permit for that model home there. Since this model home was built, our code has changed. Now we require that model homes be D-a rto 0 January 16 ,1 A9'7 I built where they can build and develop the lot in accordance with that model home. Basically this is a multifamily model home unit, and the area is a single - family area -- single - family zoning district. I have received three letters in opposition to this request, and there's also some problem with the code com -- code compliance services. They have a design which is denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and they went ahead and built the sign without a permit. Staff recommends that this CCPC denies this request. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Thomas. MR. THOMAS: If we deny this request, what are they to do then? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: At this moment -- they can appeal. MR. THOMAS: No, no. We deny the request, the Board of Zoning Appeals denies the request, then what happens to that multifamily structure sitting in the single - family residential? MR. MULHERE: Well, first of all, they wouldn't be able to use it as a model anymore; so all the signage would come down, and they wouldn't be able to use it for that. They can either move the structure or sell it, renovate it and /or sell it to be renovated so that it functions as a single - family home, you know. It's -- have you been by there? MR. THOMAS: No. MR. MULHERE: Okay. You know, I mean, I have not been inside of it, but from the outside appearances it looks to me like it probably could be either renovated or created to function more like a single - family home from the outside appearance. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions? All right. Would the petitioner like to make a presentation? MR. SIESKY: Jim Siesky representing Falling Waters. I think it is basically a single - family home. There's only one dwelling there, as I recall. I've been inside, and there are two outbuildings that would be garages. But other than that it's a single - family dwelling just built on the style of a Falling Waters condominium. As I read the code, this -- the Planning Commission has several things to consider when it makes its decision here. First is the number of existing model homes or model sales offices in the immediate area, and according to the report, there are none. This is probably one of the last of the breed on Trail Boulevard. Second is the classification of the right -of -way where the mobile home -- excuse me -- model home fronts. And while we know Trail Boulevard is really Old 41 and what you're really fronting is 41, everybody sees it as you drive by. The character and makeup of the surrounding area, it's all single - family; we know that. It has been for a couple of years. The potential effect of the model home on adjacent surrounding properties -- well, I think this falls in line with No. 5, and that's the existence of complaints. My house -- you probably have the plat map there. My house is at Lot 26 on Caribbean Road, and we never notice this house. My -- ray neighbors have never mentioned it to me. You have one Page 9 §�97 January 161 , complaint from somebody at 147 Caribbean Road, Denise Hale, but that must be somewhere -- must be Lot 21, 22, or 23. Lot 24 is vacant; so I don't see how that would affect any sale. Matter of fact, none of the complaints that you have received of the three complain about, i-t's loud; it's lighted too much; it's otherwise offensive. The only complaint is it's a model home in this area. And if you've been here for any period of time, you know we've had model homes on Trail Hculevard for 20 years. That's how long I've been here. I've also spoken to Albert Hubschman, and they have purchased a parcel of property up near Audubon. It's going to be developed as Falling Waters North Preserve, and he intends to put a model on that location. And what he requests is to amend this request from a three -year application to not later than the end of this year -- the end of 1997 or whenever he has his permanent structure available at Falling Waters North Preserve, whichever comes first. He ,rill then terminate the use of this structure as a model home. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Siesky, you talk about the models along 41, and my observation is, traditionally, they have been -- it certainly has been "model row" going back to the Michigan Home days. Rut they have been single - family home models designed for the surrounding area, where this is not the case with Falling Waters. MR. SIESKY: I don't dispute that, but at the time I believe Mr. -- or Chahram -- I'm not trying the last name -- Chahram _,aid that the code was changed because of this model home. At the -ime it was put in there, it was permissible, and now it's been made clear that you cannot put a model home that would not serve this type of a subdivision. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Mr. Thomas. -MR. THOMAS: I am confused. I don't mind telling you 'm confused. It looks like a single - family dwelling, according to ghat you said, Mr. Mulhere. It is a single - family dwelling, according to what you said. Now, I don't understand. ;`fR. MULHERE: Well, it's -- it's -- it's -- it's really question of what the intent is. The -- the code allows you to have sales facility within a subdivision for the purpose of marketing that product within the subdivision:. The code does not allow you to build a model home for the purpose of marketing a multifamily project :S miles away. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nelson. M.R. MULHERE: That's it in a nutshell. MR. NELSON: I guess that was going to be the point I was going to emphasize. It seems that simple to me, that if, in fact, we have changed the code and /or -- not changed. But if, in fact, the code indicates something that isn't in existence on this particular site and it comes up for extension, that's our opportunity to deny it and get back on track. We can't be extending things that are against code, I don't think. MR. SIESKY: Well, I would differ with you, because i_,nless the terms of the extension of a temporary use have been erangtrci, there are only five things for this committee to consider. MS. STUDENT: If I might, Marjorie Student, assistant Page 10 16G 1 January 16, 1997 county attorney, for the record. Mr. Siesky's correct. You're going to be guided by the five considerations in the case expressed and analyzed in the staff report. And there may be something in one of those criteria that could -- you know, where you might be able to get to, well, if the code doesn't allow it anymore, then it may be because of some compatibility issue or something that the code was changed. I don't know. That's a finding based on the testimony presented today that you'll have to make. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MR. OATES: Mr. Siesky, you state that Mr. Hubschman and Falling Waters people would be willing -- would ask for an extension no longer than December 31, 1997, and sooner than that if they get their model completed in the Audubon area? MR. SIESKY: Yes, sir. I want to make you understand the model we're talking about is not a sales trailer, but an actual model being constructed, that's true, which would, in effect, be at the most a six -month extension rather than three years. MR. BRUET: One thing I would like to point out in that discussion, I think that building, if we remember back, was built in about 30 days; the wall, the landscaping. I mean, it was really something to behold. If you're considering giving him time to get out of there, he can do it in a lot less than one year. That would be what I would throw out there. MR. OATES: Has he closed on the property? MR. SIESKY: No, sir. The closing has not yet taken place. MR. BRUET: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of staff, the petitibner? Mr. Thomas. MR. THOMAS: I'm -- I'm sorry, fellows. I'm just having a real problem. If there's a problem, I'm trying to see as people drive in who live there who visit the area, how are they negatively impacted by this operation. And the only thing I've seen in anything you've said to me is the question ahcut some signs put up that weren't supposed to be put up, which seems to be a code enforcement problem that can be dealt with. MR. MULHERE: I look at it this way. A temporary use permit is a special use that's permitted, not a use by right, and we Administratively grant the authority for a temporary use permit up to two years. Beyond that there's a reason why you need to go to the Planning Commission and beyond that to the board for approval. And the board in, I think, two Land Development Code cycles ago, about a year ago, amended the code because they wanted to make the purpose and intent clear of -- in locating a model home. The -- the idea of locating a model home in a neighborhood to market a product that isn't even located in that -- in that subdivision or that neighborhood is not permissible. Marco Island, you know, is a single fam -- lot of single- family products. You have model homes in a lot of different locations, but basically those are marketing those single - family pxcducts thzougbout the island. I guess, you know, the comparison would be, you know, within a single- family subdivision, do we allow Page 11 16G 1 January 16, 1997 the construction of a multifamily product to market it because of the visible -- the exposure that that location offers to market something, you know, that may be located much further away. You are going to bring additional traffic into the neighborhood that you otherwise wouldn't bring in based on that premise. So, you know, I -- I recognize that it's not exactly a black -and -white issue, and it comes to purpose and intent. And we've, I think, gone about as far as we can in changing the code to make it as clear as we can. I just -- this comes right out of the code, 'Model homes located within residential zoning districts or within a residential component of a PUD shall be restricted to the promotion of a product or products permitted within the residential zoning district or PUD.' That doesn't say -- it says marketing. And the point is that, you know, Falling Waters is not marketing -- Development Corporation is not marketing single - family homes, although their model home is located within a single - family subdivision. They're marketing products that they are building in Falling Waters Development Corporation in East Naples and down on 951 heading towards Marco Island there, the Beach -- Beach Club -- Beach Resort. So, you know, our opinion is that it's not appropriate. MR. THOMAS: What about the middle -road position that they're coming up with, just to keep it long enough for them to get another office built further up the road? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's the first that we heard of that. I'll tell you what, that probably -- practically speaking, if -- if they wanted to challenge your position on this and appeal it to the board and then still go to code enforcement, it probably would take that long before we could force an issue anyway. If they're wi-1Iing to acquiesce within a certain a period of time, that's a consideration, I think, a valid consideration. MR. THOMAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nelson. MR. NELSON: Yes. Again, I think my objection, because it isn't serving the neighborhood, actually falls on the fourth or the fifth of the five criteria in that is it compatible with the neighborhood. It's offset. In other words, when there's a model home, there's always a negative effect on a neighborhood, but it's offset by the positive side that it's selling homes in that neighborhood, and that's a good thing, to get the homes sold. This has no negative offset. But I'd like to -- Mr. Siesky, it was also brought up that your company put up signs after the Board of County Commissioners indicated you could not. Did you explain that? MR. SIESKY: Sure. We have sued -- Collier County did not file suit. The Hubschman's did file suit for declaratory judgment to see whether or not that was appropriate action by the Board of County Commissioners, and that's still pending. MR. NELSON. But while you were waiting for an answer, you put the signs up? MR. SIESKY: I think it's unrelated to this. MR_ BRUET: Yeah. I don't get the connection. Page 12 January 16, :b 6G 1 MR. NELSON: It had to do with the complaints with -- In other words, the staff indicates we had numerous complaints and this also -- MR. THOMAS: It boils down to that they take an issue with a rule that the county made, and they're fighting that in a legal situation. We cannot deal with that at this particular point. I don't even see that as a form of a complaint. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of the petitioner? Mr. Wrage. MR. WRAGE: I don't have any questions, just -- I wrote down here I have a problem with the three years, but the option that's been offered, I had already wrote one year before I even heard that. And that's what I would think. I certainly agree with Mr. Mulhere that if they go through the process, it's going to take long anyway. If they're willing to agree to no later than December 31st, I would certainly entertain that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Siesky. Anyone else that would like to speak on the issue? While Miss Barker's coming up, Marjorie, did you have a comment? MS. STUDENT: Again, Mr. Chairman, just because we need to support the record with some findings, whatever the commission's decision may be, whether it's a motion for or against, I need you to state with particularity what the reasons are for it. Thank you. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. Ms. Barker. MS. BARKER: Yes. For the record my name is Sally Barker. I'm a resident of the Pine Ridge subdivision and a neighbor of the Falling Waters, quote, Model Center, unquote. I would like to register my objection. I wrote a letter, which is probably included in your packet, but I think I need to tell you a few other things as well. Two years ago when that model center went up, it did so -- when it did so, it generated a great deal of controversy within the subdivision, a lot of negative comments, not only because of the way it was built. They built it past normal construction hours, on Sunday. Every ordinance that you can name governing construction, th -y probably violated to build it. Anyway, it became such a contentious issue that Harrison Hubschman attended the July meeting of the Pine Ridge Civic Association general membership. AL that meeting Harrison Hubschman promised that when the temporary use permit expired in July 1997 that model center would be gone. And now we hear they're asking for another three years. Frankly, it's just another one in a long chain of broken promises. The neighbors, many of whom would like to be here today but cannot because they either work or they're retired or whatever, object to the model center on a number of bases. You have to understand what this thing looks like. Fortunately, they've done some very heavy landscaping; so you can't see it that well from Trail Boulevard. But what they have done is they have taken a group of arilt_if:amily units and sliced off one and built that. So what you have is a very long, narrcw unit. For example, one wall, I think, is 25 Page 13 I 1 bG 1 January 16, 1997 feet -- maybe it's longer than that, 45 feet -- with no windows, because it would be the internal wall next to the unit next to it. So it's no: really suitable as a single - family home. It would take a great deal of renovation or addition to make it suitable as a single - family residential home. It's -- it's a condo unit, is what it is, standing by itself. And, frankly, it's ugly. They have garish lighting at night that is -- well, you can see up and down U.S. 41 if you try. The signs, as we've already been through, are in violation. Frankly, it's just not a good situation for the Pine Ridge subdivision, which has, you know, been stuck with this thing for two years. And, God help us, we don't want another three. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Miss Barker. Anyone else to speak on this subject? Close the public hearing. MR. OATES: I would move that we deny Petition TU -96 -7E as submitted and based upon the applicant's changing, that we allow this model to continue through and no later than December 31, 1997, and sooner if they close on the land and build a -- a model unit in the Audubon area. MR. THOMAS: Second. MR. DAVIS: Made by Mr. Oates, second by Mr. Thomas. In the way of discussion, it strikes me, having observed -- and I think Mrs. Barker put it succinctly, that that's all it is; it's a slice out of a condominium. I -- I -- I just -- I can't vote for the motion, because it -- in my mind, the criteria of compatibility isn't anywhere close to being met. Mr. Nelson. MR. NELSON: I feel the same way. I can't support it either, especially since we've pointed out that that approximate time frame would be available to them in the appeal process that's there. I don't think there's any compatibility here either. MR. BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I've always looked at it as sort of commercial operation within a little residential community. I never thought it was very appropriate, and I would have trouble supporting the motion also. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify the record, when we speak of compatibility, would you mind identifying for the record of the five criteria listed, would that be -- what one that would be. MR. NELSON: It would be No. 4 for me. MS. STUDENT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other comment on the -- Mr. Oates' motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Excuse me. Why don't we go down -- I think we probably got a split vote here; so we'll begin up at this end by Mr. Nelson. MR. NELSON: Nay on that if that is what you're asking for. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. MR. BUDD: No. MR. BF,UET : No. Page 14 January 16, 1997 16G 1 MR. THOMAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No. MR. OATES: Yes. MR. PEDONE: Abstained. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Oh, that's right. We've got 3 yeses and 4 nos. So that motion fails. Is there another motion? MR. BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we move forward and support the staff's opinion for a denial of TU -96 -7E on the grounds that it is not compatible with the surrcunding community and that it is a -- plus it also does not comply with the current Land Development Code, Section 2.6.33.4.1. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Bruet, could you be a little more specific on which one of the criteria that you are alluding to. MR. BRUET: Well, No. 4 is the LDC requirement, and No. 5 deals with the compatibility issues. MR. BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I second that motion. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Moved by Mr. Bruet, seconded by Mr. Budd. Any discussion on that motion? MR. OATES: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will not be able to support that motion. It seems to me that we had a solution where we could resolve the problem for all concerned, including the people in Pine Ridge, if there is a problem. and we're taking an approach I don't think that will, in the long run, do the county, the people of Pine Ridge, or the developer any good. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think in the case of a developer -- and we often see this before that's gone out of their way to work with the community that they're in that might be the case. My observation is that that certainly hasn't been the case this time. - - MS. STUDENT: I just -- well, I guess -- I guess to No. 5 about the existence of the complaints. MR. NELSON: Or may have absolutely nothing to do with it. MR. THOMAS: My thought on that .situation is this, that through a change in our rules is the reason why this is no longer allowed. That's the first thing I'm dealing with. The second piece is that unless we're going to force th ^_m to dynamite the building after we deny this, the building is going to still be there; and they'll probably even find somebody to buy that building and live in that building. So we haven't changed the appearance. All we've done is taken down some signs and maybe changed the lighting on the building. We have a middle ground that we can take, and that is to give them until '97, December 31 or whenever they get CO'd for the other sales office, whichever comes sooner, which avoids a lot of manpower on the part of the county to go on and deal with an appeal and all the rest of the issue that we have to deal with. It just seems to me it makes best economic sense to go on and give them a short -term renewal and let this thing go away. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other discussion on the motion? Xr.. Bruet. M. BRUET: I would just like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that, you know, when we change the Land Development Code Page 15 'd I 6G 1 January 16, 1997 over time, it's usually changed because that's what the community wants, and I think that's the case here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anybody else? Mr. Wrage. MR. WRAGE: Just to say I can't support the motion. Mr. Oates said it very elegantly. I can't repeat that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All right. Let's have a roll -call vote again starting with Mr. Nelson. MR. NELSON: Aye. I'm in favor. MR. BUDD: Yes. MR. BRUET: Yes. M.R. THOMAS: No. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. MR. OATES: No. MR. WRAGE: No. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So we were 4 to 3. That motion passes. Next on the agenda, Petition V- 96 -29. Mr. Reischl. And if I could ask the reporter once again to please swear in all those people who are going to testify on this issue today. If you'd please stand. (The speakers were swo. -n.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Reisc'.il. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for an after - the -fact variance on Marco Island for a single - family home pool structure which encroaches approximately 2 feet and has for approximately 20 years. The encroachment was -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Could you say that again? For approximately 20 years? MR. REISCHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: It was disclosed during a 1996 survey, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Petitioner, if you could state your name for the record. MR. WOODWARD: Craig Woodward. I represent the owner of the property, and we concur with staff. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Woodward. Is there anyone else here today to speak on this issue? MR. THOMAS: Nobody was sworn. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Close the public hearing. Is there a motion? MR. OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move we submit Petition V -96 -29 to the BZA with a recommendation of approval. MR. BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Moved by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Budd. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Next tip, DOA -96 -5. Once again, I'd ask all those that Page 16 16G 1 January 16, 1997 are going to testify on this issue to please stand, raise their right rand so that the court reporter could swear you in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. The petition before you has to do with extending the life of the Tollgate commercial center by five years, less one day. The current development order is no longer effective after December 31st of 1997. There's quite a few acres of lands that need to be developed yet. Statute -- Florida Statute law provides for five -year extensions, and we have no reason to take any opposition to the extension of this development order by five years, less one day, to the date of December 31st of the year 2 ,302. Let me note that on page 1 of your staff report there's an error in a reference under purpose and description of amendment that October 30th should read December 30th. We recommend the amendment to the Tollgate development order of regional impact. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions of Mr. Nino? MR. OATES: No. I have no questions; but i just love reading his comments, because they're always so succinct and never -- never say yes and never say no. I always know, Ron, when you wrote them without even looking at your name. I really do enjoy them. MR. NINO: An interesting Editorial comment to that. We were at a DRI meeting recently, and I asked the regional staff, you k _now, what's the significance of these dates? You know, they're crazy. You know, what's going to happen if we don't extend it? No one could answer the question. MP.. OATES: Says so on page 37 -J at the bottom right. - CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Since the petitioner was other than staff, was the only other person that stood to be sworn in, apparently there's not a lot of people here to protest today. DR. SPAGNA: Well, there is one small change that I would like to add, and that's on page 3 of the staff report, the first paragraph, the second to last and last sentence: Therefore, all f,_iture development_ is subject to the requirements of the Land uevelopment Code architectural standards landscaping and parking. We're just simply asking for an extension of the date and no changes ir, the development order itself. We have -- back in -- MR. NINO: If I may interject, Dr. Spagna, we're not changing. That -- the development order is totally unrelated. The changes in the development order do not affect landscaping architectural standards, but that -- that sentence is a true factual sentence. It does apply to the extent that they've received variance or the PUD provides standards that are different than the current LDC requirements, it wouldn't have any effect. But to the extent that the PUD is silent, development at Tollgate is subject to architectural standards. So that's a true statement. But aside from that it really has nothing to do of -- has any import to the actual amendment and, quite frankly, I don't know why Neno is objecting to the October. DR_ SPAGNA: Well, I don't object to it. And I appreciate what Mr. Nino is saying, but I don't want to be back here Page 17 16G 1 January 16, 1997 before you or the board in three or four years from now arguing about landscape standards or the architectural control code. We had to -- back in January of 194 we came in here before the board and requested and got approval for special landscape buffer changes and the architectural development of the project, because at that time they had added some more property to it that formerly was part of the State Road 84 right -of -way. And when the state closed it down, well, they received part of it. And Mr. Papineau just does not want any questions regarding that. We've put all of the infrastructure in, the drainage, the roads, everything else. And according to that special .resolution that the board -- or it was an ordinance that was passed, and we just don't want any problems coming up in the future, because we all agree here today that, well, that don't mean anything. So my request on behalf of the petitioner is that that be taken out of there so there not be any misunderstanding whatsoever in the future. MR. MULHERE: I'm not planning on taking a sentence out of the staff report. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Mr. Thomas. MR. THOMAS: I want to make sure I understand, because I feel what Mr. Spagna's feeling, because historically said, you come in for any changes, any new rules shall apply, okay. That's what you historically said. But I think I heard Mr. Nino say -- and I want to make sure this is what I heard you say -- that where the PUD or the documents have certain guidelines and what have you, the new rules that we've just applied do not apply, but where the -- the -- the PUD or the development order is silent on an issue, these do impact. Now, let me ask you a question. MR. NINO: That's what those sentences -- MR. THOMAS: Wait. But let me ask you a question. Now, got to ask a question. Does the original DOA in the PUD, the development order and the PUDs associated with it, have any reference t,o architectural standards, the new thing -- MR. NINO: No, they don't. MR. THOMAS: So that's something they remain silent on? MR. NINO: Yes. MR. THOMAS: So all those new arcnir_ectural standards are going to impact on them -- MR. NINO: Yes. MR. THOMAS: -- whether they amend this or not? MR. NINO: Correct. MR. THOMAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of the Petitioner? Thank you, Dr. Spagna. DR. SPAGNA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anyone else to speak on this issue? Close the public hearing. MR. THOMAS: I would like to make a motion that we recommend for approval DOA -95 -6 -- 96 -5, rather. )AR. BRUET: Second. CH IF{HAN DAVIS: Motion by Mr. Thomas, second by Mr. Page 18 January 16, 1997 Bruet. Any discussion on that motion? 1 6G 1 All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Carries unanimously. DR. SPAGNA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Petition CU- 96 -23. Ask everyone that's going to testify on this issue to raise right -hand. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services. Mr. Bill Hoover requests a Regional Use 2 of our zoning district for church and church - related facilities to be located on Guilford Road, which is in East Naples, not far from the Avalon Park. And this church will have -- this site is -- consists of 2.04 acres, and they will build a building 4,136 square feet for 185 seats. Staff has received two letters in favor of this church from property owners to the west and to the east of this subject lot, the adjacent property owners. This lot has sewer and water available, and staff recommends approval of this conditional use. MR. THOMAS: It's consistent with the Land Development MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is consistent with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan; however, there are two other churches on this road. MR. OATES: That's not bad, is it.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It may cause some traffic delays on Sunday. That's basically the only negative impact I could come up ,rtYf. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Badamtchian, in your opinion as an expert that this board has accepted many times before in planning and zoning, this -- you're saying that you're recommending approval, and would you --- would you feel that its close proximity to an arterial is important in your approval? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is important, because it's not going to cause traffic jam on any local. road except for distance of like six, seven hundred feet. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh -huh. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And there is no traffic light. However, that's a state road, and county has no authority to install a traffic device if deems necessary. That's going to be the state's decision. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All right. Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Nelson. MR. NELSON: With regard to the traffic on -- on a Sunday -- are all of these Sunday morning church services churches? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. MR. NELSON: When this is constructed then, on Sunday morning if, in fact, they happen to have their services at the same time and let out at the same time, what sort of an impact do you expect on the street in terms of complete blockage for how long? Page 19 16G 1 January 16, 1997 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We expect, like, 15 to 20 minutes worst -c&se scenario. We don't expect that all three churches to finish at the exact same time, the service finish at the exact same time. And they can -- this is a 2 -acre property zoned RMF -- that can build a 20- or 30 -unit building, 12 unit will have a greater traffic impact than this church. MR. NELSON: I read that in your report, and I appreciate that, but you see, that's over a much wider - spread period. That's always been the problem with doing some of these traffic analyses. It looks like a roadway at an intersection is doing just fine except sometimes in peak hours it's absolutely impassable. And I think that means something too. You may not know the answer to this. Are there any other situations in the county where we have three churches on a dead -end street? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think the petitioner may be able to speak to that. MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioners. I can think of one area that's on Seagate Drive where there is three churches. The main difference there is each one of those churches is probably twice as large as all three of these churches together. I attend that Methodist church there sometimes, and they've ju:t bought some new property. But there's a Congregationalist there, and is that a Catholic church across the street -- MR. OATES: Yes. And let me tell you, that's packed -- MR. HOOVER: Yeah. All three of the churches are doing real well. The growth is -- I think the -- all of those churches represent -- they're all three popular denominations, but that's the only-church they have for all the people in North Naples. And with all the growth -- and I believe those churches get out about the same time, and they have a sheriff's deputy down there to sort of sort things out. But we're probably looking at churches that are dropping probably around 2,000 people out of there about the same time. MR. OATES: Saint William's has about 1,500 during the r=eason. MP.. HOOVER: At one mass? MR. OATES: Uh -huh. M.. HOOVER: Oh, okay. So it's even greater than that. We're proposing a 185 -seat church maximum, and the other two churches together are running between 200 to 220 seats. So that puts us at about 400 seats, which would be 25 to 30 percent of the size of that one Catholic church. The -- one thing: The -- that road right here - Seagate Drive is probably at -- it gets a lot of traffic. This particular road here can handle nine times as much traffic before it would drop the level of service D. So it's not a very heavily traveled local roadway. Additionally, the only real negative that the road's going to have is making left turns out onto U.S. 41. And I talked to Ed Cant a little bit about that. I talked to the church. The members they have right now, 75 to 80 percent of the church members live east of the site out in the Lely area, Naples Manor, in that vicinity. So Page 20 January 16, 1997 16G 1 our church people are going to be taking -- the majority will be taking a right turn onto U.S. 41. So that should minimize the left turns out onto 41, which is probably the only significant turning movement. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh -huh. Okay. Any questions? MR. BRUET: I just had one quick one for staff. Has there been any letters of opposition? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. MR. HOOVER: I think there might be a neighbor here. So I'd like to run through a couple of points on the issue. The property -- there's two separate lots. It's 2.04 acres in size, and right now somebody could come in and buy each of the lots, put a duplex on both of those, which would allow the preserve area to be eradicated in the rear, because all you're going through is a building permit process, so you could put one duplex in the front, the other in the rear; or you could put a 12 -plex three stories in high -- three stories high right in the middle of the property, and that would not require a public hearing on it. What we've tried to do through the site plan is demonstrate that we would be a good neighbor. We put a preserve area, the water management, and a green area at the northern third of the site against the mobile home park. And because Chahram felt that they might have some concerns when we started working on this project, we set the building back 174 feet. Additionally, we pledge that any f_,,.iture buildings would be set back a 115 -feet minimum away from there. The owner of eight apartment buildings to the east of us on that 1 -acre site has given us a letter supporting the petition, and wf'we"also put in a 15 -foot buffer between the church -- the house of worship and the eight apartments even though only a 10 -foot, Type -A buffer was required. That way it will match the same kind of buffer we have on the west boundary. We aligned the exit driveway so that v,-!hicles leaving at night -- they -- the headlights would not be glaring directly into somebody's house. Additionally, the church L,etitioner has advised me they only have meetings two nights a week on typical basis that are regularly scheduled. We've provided a 57 -foot front setback instead of the required 35 feet, and to the west of us there's two single - family 1-�omes, one home behind the other. The owner of both of those -- he r-nts out, I believe, the front house -- has also provided us a letter c -f no objection. And we've put the building back -- setback 210 feet f-rom the two single - family homes to the west. So I think we've done a real good job with the help of the petitioner on mitigating any impacts on the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions for Mr. Hoover? Mr. Bruet. MR. BRUET: Yeah. Maybe staff -- again, if an individual did buy both lots and put 12 units on it, that would g gate -- you said that would generate more traffic then the c hm=h? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. On a daily basis more traffic Page 21 16G 1 January 16, 1997 than the church; however, on Sunday at noon the church will generate more traffic than those 12 units. MP.. BRUET: But over a week or over a month 12 units would generate more traffic long term? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. MR. OATES: Do you have any idea how much more? Twice as much? Three times? MR. BADAMICHIAN: Each unit generates around six and a half traffic trips per day times 12. That's what; 72 trips a day times 7,500 trips. MR. OATES: Thirty -five hundred. And the church, if they have 185 and they all came in their own car, that would be 185; right? They probably are not going to come in their own car. There're probably going to be two or three in a car. Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nelson. MR. NELSON: Mr. Hoover, I agree you've done a -- it seems like you've done a very good job of preparation. And the ccmmments that you've received from the neighbors, were those unsolicited comments? MR. HOOVER: I -- I -- okay. They -- they approached both neighbors, explained the project, and both neighbors didn't give us a letter of no objection. Their letter supports that -- they went 'cry and saw the -- their letter will explain that they went by and saw the other properties that the Jehovah Witnesses have in the community, and they were impressed with how well they were taken care of. MR. NELSON: Okay. That leads then to the second part of my question. Did you approach all the neighbors on the street? NO, just the surrounding neighbors? And this last is a just another stzgglestion. I think it would make -- I know it would be harder, but :t would make our job a little easier since this is a working community and many people can't just come to meetings whenever. If yr)u had approached all the neighbors, at least all of those that are down the street from the church and would be impacted by the traffic fr�r example, and you had come in here with, you know, a very overrArhelming -- a favorable majority, that would have been significant tc; us, I think. MR. HOOVER: Now, there is single - family homes on the street; however, between the project's entrance and U.S. 41, we basically have commercial properties: two other churches and predominantly apartments. There -- I believe there's probably less thLzi -- probably about five or six single - family homes between our entrance and U.S. 41. So the uses are more intensive between our property and 41. They get less intensive as you go to the west. (Mr. Bruet exited the boardroom.) MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Hoover. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this petition today? Please come forward, and if you could state your name for the record. MR. STEVENSON: Charles Stevenson. I live on Guilford Rcvad approximately opposite to where the proposed church is to be located; and I, too, did find it curious that I was not or my Page 22 16G 1 January 16, 1997 neighbors to either side notified, perhaps that it may be some input that we would want to put into this. And I -- you know, I thought this -- if I had been given some notice in advance, I could have committed letters too; but I did show up for the meeting here, and I do want to speak for myself, and I do have a couple, three neighbors on the side, that because they were working, as you say, and couldn't make the meeting. And there's a couple things that I want to address that I don't -- kinds take in opposition to the gentleman here. As far as the traffic that does go up and down that road, it is considerable. There are a lot of people that live down -- down Guilford, and there are roads that go off to the side -- (Mr. Bruet entered the boardroom.) MR. STEVENSON: -- and there is a lot of traffic. I think you mentioned six trips a day is what an average is -- MR. BA.DAMTCHIAN: No. From multifamily units. MR. STEVENSON: Okay. well, anyhow, there is a lot of traffic that goes up and down that road, and this adds to a very bad situation where Guilford Road meets East 41, the East Trial. That is directly opposite from where the major exit is from the Towne Center, which has the movie theatre and which has the Bealls, which has the weight- lifting deal. It has a lot of businesses on that end of the shopping center that all exit directly opposite to where Guilford Road And as a matter of fact, I believe about a month ago a wcl:nan was killed at that intersection in just a similar situation as we're talking about. She had left Lakewood, only drive two - tenths of a mile maybe, and was killed at that intersection just basically heading to the Wal -Mart up the road. So there is a major impact at that intersection for all of us who leave Guilford Road on a daily basis trying to get across that intersection. By the time people leave the -- the Glades Entrance, where the stoplight is at the Glades, by the time they get tJ Guilford Road, they are up to 50, 55 miles an hour, the next s= oplight being by Lakewood. And that's another couple tenths of a .;i.le down the road. But the fact of tine matter is that by the time we gook towards downtown, we're looking at cars coming at us in a blast a,r 50 miles an hour. It's very difficult to get across the road from t� nth sides. And as far as the impact on the road structure there, I think that it is considerable; and I think that if you do consider this use for this land, that a corranitment should be made by these People to petition the state to get a stoplight at that intersection. ;:t. is -- spoke to Mr. Chahram, and I think we measured out in scale it was from a -- Palm -- Palm -- Palm Drive there. Do you remember? T!= was -- it was considerable. It's enough to get up to 50 to 55 miles an hour if you'd like to on that stretch of the road. And I think a stoplight there is more than necessary. It could be timed in sequence to the one at the entrance to Lakewood so that you wouldn't have traffic backed up, because the one from Lakewood is down just a little bit from it. Page 23 16G 1 January 16, 1997 But putting three churches -- and there will be daily activity at it, I'm sure. I don't know what they plan for day -care facilities, anything of that nature, but there will be daily activity there. There are three major apartment complexes on that road, and th -:n there are the homeowners that live up and down that road. And so you will have traffic backing up on there. It already does, put it that way. Adding to it will make it even worse. And so, as I say, I think that somebody should be recTuired to pursue the State Department of Transportation to get a light put up there, something done to help the traffic situation there, because it is absolutely terrible trying to get across the road. As the gentlemen here said, yes, if you're turning to the ricrht, it's no problem. But the majority of the people that live down thr-re and have to exit there go to the left; and that's where the pr <.;blem is. If you're turning to the right, you can get out in a matter of a minute or so if you wait and there's nobody in front of YOU; traffic will switch, and you can get out. But as far as trying to get across the road, that's where you have the big problem. So I think that the -- the traffic is considerable and does deserve some looking into. As far as the design of the church itself, I just got several things I'd like to ask. First of all, what -- if there is going to be day -care hours during the week, that is a question of mine. They did say that two nights a week, apparently, they will have functions at the church. If they are going to put a fence around it -_ now, one of the new churches that just set up down the road from it, they built the church, and they just put a big chain -link fence ar�•:,nd it that makes it look like an impound there without any type of lanfiscaping around it. And so I would suggest that if they were going tc put a fence around their property, that it be set back perhaps another S foot off of where it normally would be so that shrubbery col. ,,ld be planted in front of it so it doesn't look like, as Z say, an im.; sound there. The lighting, of course, I would expect to be -- if you JIn approve this, to be of a low level, nonabtrusive type. We are directly across the street from this. Let's see, what else did I write down here? I guess that's about it, you know, the traffic, the lighting, the setbacks, and if a fence, the landscaping -- the landscaping is very important to us who have to drive by this. The ch;�rch that did set up two doers down -- as I say, it's a nice - looking church, but they put a fence around it with no landscaping, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. So proper landscaping I think is very important, and I guess that's about it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Thomas, I think you've got cr-iestions. MR. THOMAS: Yeah. I got -- no. I got a question first and then a statement. Did we send out notices to everybody within 300 feet of this property? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We sent out 147 notices. MR. THOMAS: So everybody within 300 feet of this property got a notice about this action? Page 24 16G 1 January 16, 1997 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. We have done that. MR. THOMAS: Okay. One of my concerns -- and I come through that way all the time, because I do the movie theatre and that little sports bar over there, what have you, and I know that's a bad intersection. MR. STEVENSON: Terrible. MR. THOMAS: But to me this seems like part of a solution, because if they don't build a church there and somebody builds 12 units, that totally increases the travel at the peak hours, you understand, where people are coming down 41. You're trying to get out either in the morning or in the afternoon. Whereas, the church activity will be either late in the evening on the two nights a week t:lat they mentioned or on Sunday mornings. Okay. So that to me seems like it would not make the problem you have now better, but not exacerbate it as bad as it would be if they were to put multifamily homes on there that they could do without even coming before us. The question I also have of the petitioner -- I kind of agree with him, because I seen that church with the chain -link fence around, whether we can arrange that when you put the fence up to have the landscaping exterior to the fence. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nelson. MR. NELSON: I had a related question. MR. OATES: Why don't you let Mr. Hoover answer his gp.;estion. MR. STEVENSON: Stevenson. MR. OATES: No. No. Mr. Hoover. MR. STEVENSON: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah. If you could address, Mr_.- Hoover, the question on the fence and the landscaping. MR. HOOVER: Okay. I'll just go ahead and address Yr. Stevenson's concerns, because I think most of them are already :_here if you dig deep in the petition. And I think maybe we could work with staff. On some of this stuff, I don't think we have a problem if you want to make it a condition of approval, because we've ,Dffered some stuff. And, number one, is the church intends to -- to not construct a fence. It's going to be a hedge for buffer -- MR. THOMAS: That's what you're going to do? MR. HOOVER: Correct. We felt that the hedge is more aesthetic; it's a little bit less expensive, at least initially. You do have more maintenance with a -- because you got to put a irrigation system in and stuff; but we will offer that there will no fence; it'll be a hedge along both the east, the west. And I think where we have a preserve, we aren't going to have to put a buffer in because you can't see through it anyway. MP.. MULHERE: Let me just add a comment. I'm not suggesting -- there may be some desire to do that in the future. I think what -- I'm sorry -- the gentleman -- MR. STEVENSON: Stevenson. MR. MULHERE: - Mr. Stevenson. was requesting was that z.f a fence is built, that it be placed inside landscaping; that's probably less restrictive on you -- Page 25 16G 1 January 16, 1997 MR. HOOVER: Why don't we just agree that we won't construct a chain -link fence. MR. STEVENSON: Yeah. And you said you would put landscaping facing the Guilford Road side? MR. HOOVER: Yes. Where the parking lot is, we're already required to have a hedge out there. Additionally, the site plan shows -- it shows two trees along the edge of the parking there too. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think the point of this discussion is that Mr. Hoover feels comfortable that most, if not all, of your concerns are going to be addressed. So I think that's probably information you can communicate to the speaker between now and the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. MR. HOOVER: Right. There is no child -care center during the week, absolutely not. We didn't ask for that. The lighting, we've already offered that the lighting would be low level. And additionally, I do have -- in the traffic study I did look at the comparison. The apartment would generate 530 trips a week; the ch,,;r_ch, 382. So that's a reduction of 28 percent. Additionally, the apartment building -- the majority of the trips leaving the site for a residential unit, I would say probably 70 percent, 75 percent are going to be to the left. Because we have the majority of the people i_ving to the east of this, we're going to be running our traffic on ay, and right now I think the trips on a Sunday are somewhat less th-, :, during the week even with three churches on there; so our people going to be making a right instead of a left, which would be !iy,.ical for the apartment building. So I think that's my points I j:. Led to cover. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add that there is a t.oulation which says that the petitioner will contribute fair -share -a ;t to any improvements to that intersection should they become -,� essary. You know, there are certain warrants that you have to you know, before you can get a light, but there are other po�-ential improvements that might take place. I'm not sure what the )_,,,,r -range plans for the state are in that. area, whether -- you know, r „ean, there's always the potential for a -- a limited- access median. mean, that's a full -- that is a wide -- Z mean, you come out. it.cre's four cars pulling out of the movie theatre, you know, to make left -hand turn. It definitely is a situation that warrants �.r:,sideration and needs to be looked at and, of course, working with state, potentially our own transportation department could provide :�c�;r.e information, and we'll have scr:eone present at the board meeting rr, discuss it. MR . HOOVER: We -- I dial generate the numbers of what the people -- all the traffic on the street with our project would include. So let's say Ed Cant took that data and then took the shopping center data; that's going to give you -- you could do an intersection analysis off of that, and he could probably have a pretty gv�A feet whether it is close to meeting the warrants or not, and if it was close, Ed's department could, you know, run these warrants and Page 26 January 16, 1997 1 6G 1 determine if a traffic signal was necessary. If it is, they do have a stipulation on there we'd have to pay a fair share on that, and we do agree to pay fair share of that traffic signal. CHAIRMEN DAVIS: Okay. It sounds like your project may very well -- it's certainly going to stimulate the traffic signal discussion that Mr. Stevenson -- MR. STEVENSON: Yeah. All I would like to have is a commitment from someone to pursue apparently at the state level -- because I don't know that at the county level any decisions or input -- maybe some input can be given to them, but someone associated with this would pursue at the state level a traffic light at that intersection, you know, do the studies. Have it done through the county, whatever, to show the impact on that intersection rather than myself doing it. Because, myself as an individual, I know how far I will get. But if I do have an attorney representing a group who has an interest who has a reason to pursue this, they'll get a lot further than I will. I would like to -- you know, as part of that commitment from them that they will pursue as much as they can getting a traffic light put up there, because I think everybody in here who has ever been through that intersection realize what a nightmare it is. And, myself, I have to go through it four times a day minimum, and I just saw a woman killed there, you know, three weeks ago, and I don't want to be on the next list. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. Mr. NQlson, did you have a -- MR. NELSON: I had a question of Mr. Stevenson. I was initially concerned about this being the third church on the street and the impact on Sunday morning or the other times; but from what T've heard today, the impact of a 12 -unit apartment seems to have greater consequences, both in terms of traffic during rush hour, meaning during working hours. And from what you've heard and from the concessions you've heard Mr. Hoover making -- and from our history with Mr. Hoover, he does usually a very good job of design work and implementation. Are you more comfortable now with the church than you would be an alternative? MR. STEVENSON: Yeah. I'm not -- I don't understand the traffic studies as far as number of trips generated from a 12 -unit condo as compared to -- what are the total number of parking spots in that unit in this church? MR. NELSON: Twelve. MR. STEVENSON: No, in the church. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Eighty -eight spaces. MR. THOMAS: Eighty -eight spaces. MP.. STEVENSON: Eighty- eight. MR. OATES: Why are we dragging this thing out? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We're going to need to finish. MR. STEVENSON: Okay. But as I say, if everybody could tell me, oh, yeah, this is going to have one -half the traffic that a 12 -unit condominium will have or apartment complex, I agree with you 100 percent then, and I have no problems with it. It's just the traffic exiting the highway, I think, is very important and, of Page 27 1 6G 1 { January 16, 1997 course, our -- our impact being directly across the street, not having light shining into our homes. I don't expect there to be any noise problems or anything of that nature -- and proper landscaping around it, that's all. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there anyone else here today that wants to speak on this issue? Seeing no one, I close the public hearing. MR. THOMAS: Can I get your attention, sir. I recommend that we send to the Board of County Commissioners CU -96 -23 with a recommendation of approval subject to all staff stipulations. MR. OATES: That's after you filled out -- MR. THOMAS: Mine's already been done. MR. BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Moved by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bruet. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Carries unanimously. Mr. Badamtchian, as Mr. Hoover pointed out, I think this Traffic light discussion is the board -- is going to be an important one. And if Mr. Cant's there, I know he's very capable in identifying whether or not the warrants are met, because I think Mr. Stevenson sakes a very good point about that traffic light, and who better than our owr, county transportation department to -- MR. HOOVER: Maybe Bob and I can discuss that a little :-pit with Ed Cant, and Ed can tell us if it's close to meeting the warrants. And if so, I'll talk -- - - CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Hoover, we're going to leave it in your capable hands along with Mr. Cant. MR. THOMAS: I suspect, though, that the church won't rigger the warrants as quick as a 22 -unit condominium or apartment. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Moving right along, Petition CU- 96 -24, if all those who are going to speak on `_his issue could please stand ;nd be sworn in by the clerk. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: For the record my name is Ron Nino. Would you pass those out. MR. THOMAS: You want some of this? MR. NINO: I passed out a revised site plan that the petitioner gave me in the last couple of days. What we have here is property that's zoned C -4, currently functions as a car wash. The petitioner is asking -- asking -- feels that there is a warrant for used car sales activity and wishes to engage in a used car lot to the extent that his property has some capacity to accommodate that. We struggled with this petition. Our inspection of the property suggests that it's a tight situation, that -- that it would appear inevitable that the activity of selling used cars or new cars and car washing are two different activities and the opportunities for conflict between the two seem to be significant. For example, under Page 28 January 16, 19 g V u 1 our findings on page 3 of our staff report under Item B, we note the following conflicts: Conflicts between users for automobile washing and those wishing to view used cars given the limited size of the property seems unavoidable. Unencumbered flow through the car wash will be impossible to maintain in the event a portion of the lot is used to display for sale automobiles. And sight angles for automobiles moving through the site will be diminished posing potential conflicts. And throughout we -- we -- that's the major -- the major problem here. Now, that was based on -- of course, the plan that the petitioner submitted, which had the vacuum islands -- the existing vacuum islands are much closer to the road. And under that scenario you really did have a problem. And I'm nct suggesting that we want to change our recommendation here. However, the petitioner submitted, as I indicated, a revised site plan whereby he's prepared to pick up the -- the vacuum pumps and put them right back up against the wall thereby creating three -- three drive - through aisles. We're still -- you know, we're still -- based on our review of that property, we still think that under the best of conditions it's a tight site and feel that it fails to adequately respond to the findings of fact and recommend denial. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of Mr. Nino? Are the petitioner present and like to make a presentation? if you could state your name for our record, please. MR. WINFIELD: My name's John Winfield, and I'm one of the owners. We have recently purchased this property from an individual. This car wash has been operating approximately six years at a break -even or less operation. We feel like that we are not going to impact the traffic by the plan that we have proposed if you look at the revised plan. We're talking about a limited -use facility, obviously, a maximum of five total cars on the lot with two customer parking spaces. The car wash is a turnover business where our i approximate time frame is around 5 minutes per car. MR. OATES: Approximately what? MR. WII3FIELD: Approximately 5 minutes per car. And we feel like with our revised traffic pattern and facilities -- our vacuum facilities, you know, receive very little use. As a matter of fact, they're there only for those who choose to use it. This is a full - service car wash except for interiors. And so the vacuums are there just as convenience for the few that do use them. The automobile -- the proposed unit, as I said, it's limited to five spaces with two customer parking spaces. We feel it will have no impact on traffic, as far as the car wash is concerned, onto Golden Gate Parkway. We have a one -way turn out of our facility on that in conjunction with the diagonal traffic patterns that we have associated with that. And also our drive- through on our car wash has a separate exit to leave the property. And we don't feel that we're going to add anything to traffic problems as far as the traffic in the car wash use. As I said, strictly this is related to bringing a product where it is -- it is not a conflicting product, in our opinion; it's V Page 29 4 16G 1 January 16, 1997 something to help supplement the value of the property. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions of the petitioner? i-ir. . Nelson. MR. NELSON: It wasn't and still isn't clear to me on what the traffic flow is through the car wash even according to your latest -- MR. WINFIELD: Okay. MR. NELSON: Do people come in -- MR. WINFIELD: They only come in -- MR. NELSON: -- and then go this direction (indicating)? MR. WINFIELD: That's correct, and out again. It has an arrow by your -- MR. NELSON: And then back out here (indicating). MR. WINFIELD: That's correct. The car facility -- if you look at it, they would pull in on a diagonal, and they would exit onto Golden Gate Parkway, which is a right turn only. MR. NELSON: All right. So the -- the -- all of the traffic really going -- MR. WINFIELD: Through the car wash -- MR. NELSON: -- traveling behind is going to be traveling behind the used cars, the cars that are for sale? MR. WINFIELD: That's correct. MR. NELSON: All right. And so the safety factor of people, you know, leaning down and being out of sight when people turn in backing away from the cars, you know, to get a better look, that's all still going to be there. MR. WINFIELD: Correct. _ MR. NELSON: Okay. MR. WINFIELD: But what we have is we have a single -lane car wash. We're not going to have cars stacked two or three cars wide because the facility won't handle that -- MR. NELSON: But, see, when people are looking at a car, they're not looking down to see what lane they're in. They're looking at a car, and they can get fixed on that car and be backing away, and all sorts of things happen. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Oates. MR. OATES: Along with Mr. Newr..an's (sic) question, what's this one going that way (indicating)? KP WINFIELD: The arrow that goes through where it says site plan, that is the access into the physical car wash. MR. OATES: Okay. Okay. How do they get -- MR. WINFIELD: They come through the car -- MR. OATES: This one here (indicating) is to the car wash? MR. WINFIELD: That's correct. MR. OATES: Well, how do they get back out here again? MR. WINFIELD: They don't. They come through the car wash where your left hand is, and they exit where the arrow is in the lower left -hand corner of your paper. MR. OATES: Yeah, but what's the arrow -- MR. WINFIELD: The car wash goes through -- Page 30 January 16, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You come in here (indicating). 1 bG 1 MR WINFIELD: -- and then back out that way (indicating). There's also a -- MR. OATES: He says you go out here (indicating). MR. WINFIELD: No, I do not. MR. OATES: Oh, I see. All right. Okay. That's -- you share that property with someone else -- And with the MR. WINFIELD: No. That is our property. current conditions, if someone wanted to come in and vacuum their car only, they could go out and exit to the right. But the vacuum pumps are in the center of the property currently, and this is proposing to relocate them. MR. OATES: I think -- MR. MULHER.E: Just out of curiosity, how many employees are in your car wash operation? MR. WINFIELD: Two. Two. MR. MULHERE: It's full - service? MR. WINFIELD: Correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions? MR. NELSON: I just have a comment. It is somewhat confusing looking at the map, but I've used the car wash frequently, evidently not frequently enough for the previous owners' business interest. You know, I've been on the site, and with what they're talking about with the vacuums, I feel comfortable than in moving the vacuums, there is enough room to get around, and there is sufficient access that the petitioner has indicated. MR. BRUET: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anyone else to speak on this petition? Close the public hearing. Mr. Budd, I agree with you, and apparently I haven't used it frequently enough either, but I -- Z I don't see a conditional use of used cars in particular on this area being compatible with our neighborhood, as I look at Mr. Budd, since we're the ones that live in the neighborhood. MR. NELSON: I was addressing the traffic. I think there's enough traffic, but I do have a problem with used cars in that urea. I don't think it's an appropriate location. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That I agree witi.. Is there a motion? MR. OATES: Let me see you make it, support the staff MR. NELSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommendation for denial of Petition CU- 96 -24. MS. STUDENT: And would you, again, state -- the criteria that are referenced in the staff report, would you state which one or ones of those as a basis of your motion. MR. NELSON: Compatibility with adjacent properties and Item D as far as a compatible use in that commercial district, and I'd say consistent with that the effect on neighboring property with economic effects. I don't think the car lot is an appropriate use. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there a second to that motion? MR. OATES: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Seconded by Mr. Oates. Discussion on Page 31 16G 1 January 16, 1997 the motion? I+LR. OATES: Excuse me. One question. Mr. Budd, the ingress and egress, is that going to be a problem? MR. BUDD: Strictly on the basis of the -- the use, I have a problem, but as far as the traffic -- 14R . OATES: Okay. MR. BUDD: -- I don't honestly feel there's a traffic issue. MR. OATES: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Unanimous recommendation of denial. MR. OATES: Chairman, while you're filling that out, it is that we're going to have our next meeting on Friday morning the 7th; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Thank you for reminding me. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Oates. MR, mULHERE. We're all creatures of habit. We'll all be here Thursday morning but -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Our -- our next meeting -- MR. BRUET: Looks like it had a conflict or something. CHAIRMAN DAVIE: -- we moved out a day to February 7th. MR. MULHERE: 7th. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: it'll still be 8:30. It'll still be in r;;is location. The dilemma .,;as, there was no room for us to use on c,ir normal meeting day. So I guess all of our public advertisings -- MP.. MULHERE: They've all gone out to my knowledge. And T'.I check, but I'm confident that they've all been advertised for the CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Old business? New business? We had no ,,cdenda to the agenda. we are adjourned. There being no f,:rther business for the good of the County, the rr.:,eting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:03 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MIKE DAVIS; CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING January 16, 1997 BY: Melissa Milligan 1 6G" 1 1 Page 33 RECEIVED 1 bG 1 AGENDA FEB 2 7 1997 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT !oner MARCH 6, 1997 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDED TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY CONMI SSIONERS ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF NIINUi ES. lanuar, 16, 1997 4, PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5 BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Petition No. BD- 90 -26, Wayne Furfey of Custom Dock & Repair, Inc., representing Blanche S Word, requesting a 110 foot boat dock extension to allow for a 130 foot finger pier with pilings for future boat lift for properr iocated at 7 Capn Boulevard, further described as Lot 43, isle of Capri #l, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator: Ross Gochcnaur) B. Petition No BD- 96 -27, Wayne Furf-n of Custom Dock & Repair, Inc., representing Bahama Bay Club, requesting a 5 foot boat dock vocnsion to allow for three finger piers extending 25 feet into the waterway, for property located at 1132 Swallow Avenue, further desenbed as Lots 14 & 15, Block 338, titarco Beach Unit M 10. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) (Contirmed from February 20, 1997) C. Petition No. BD -97 -2, Wayne Furfey of Custom Dock. & Repair, Inc., representing Michael Hatch, requesting a 13 foot boat dock extension to allow for an 18 foot boat dock and lift for property .,., located at 405 Cristobal Street, further described as Lot 584, Isles of Capri #3. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Misc. CorrQs: Morns Date: 5 -9 7 Hancock -.� Constantine 1 Item# L �. Mat ' K i e Cooies To- 1 6G 1 D. Petition No. PSP -97 -1, John P. Ashcr, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Earl L- & Shirley A. Frye, requesting Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval for Radio Square PUD located on the southwest corner of Radio Road (C.R- 856) and Donna Street, cast of Airport- Pulling Road (C.R- 31), in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 9.43 acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) E. Petition No. V- 96 -25, Todd Pressman of Pressman & Associates, Inc., representing J.H. Williams Oil Co., Inc., requesting a 37 foot variance to the required 40 feet side setback established for car washes in the C4 zoning district to 3 feet for property located at 1095 North Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), further described as a portion of Tract "G" of Marco Beach, Unit 4, in Section 8, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of .74 acres, more or less. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) (Continued from February 20, 1997) F. Petition No. CU -% -26, Roger Dale representing Our Savior Lutheran Church, requesting Conditional Uses '3" and "4' of the RSF -2 zoning district for day care centers and schools for property located at 10000 Airport Road North in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.59 acres, more or less. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) G. Petition No. CU -97 -1, Arthur C. Quinnell representing Peter M. Andersen, requesting Conditional Use "4" of the C4 zoning district for rew and used boat and auto sales for property located at 1995 Tamiami Trail East, further described as Lot 4, Triangle Subdivision and the northwesterly 98.28 feet of Parcel A, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0.97 acres. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) H. Petition No. PUD-96-3(l), R_ Bruce Anderson, Esq., of Young vanAssendcrp & Varnadoe P.A., representing Sal Angileri and RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Angileri PUD for the purpose of adding seroce stations and comenience stores as a permitted use in Area "C" of the PUD for property located V2 mile cast of Livingston Road on the north side of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) in the interchange Activity Center ]crated in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.77 acres, more or less. (Coordinator: Bryan Milk) (Continued to April 3, 1997) OLD BUSINESS A. January 1997 LDC Amendment Cycle. NEW BUSINESS 10. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 1 i. ADJOURN 3-6 -97 CCPC AGENDA/md RECEIVEDI6G 1 FEB 2 7 1997 Naples, Florida, January 22, 1997 Board of County commissioners LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 2:00 p.m. in the Main Library with the following members present: Misc. Corres: CHAIR: Syd Mellinger Date: 'a5' VICE - CHAIR: Jaculyn Dering Sabina Musci I Martha Gordon Doris Lewis ALSO PRESENT: John W. Jones, Library Director Copies To: Larry Malinconico, Pres., Friends of the Library Luz Pietri, Sr. Secretary The Board welcomed the two newest members: Martha Gordon and Doris Lewis. Mrs. Mellinger also introduced the newest Friends President, Dr. Larry Malinconico. In the absence of a Secretary to the Board, vacated by Mrs. Murrell D. Stephan, Mrs. Mellinger appointed Sabina Musci as the new Secretary. She accepted it. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Mellinger asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of December 11, 1996. Mrs. Dering noted that on page two, 2nd paragraph, seventh line, the line should have said, "the Board can be polled via the telephone ", not "vote" via the telephone. Mrs. Mellinger declared that the minutes be approved as corrected. REPORTS OF OFFICERS Mrs. Mellinger reported having received a holiday greeting from Tom 011iff addressed to all members of the Board. She also reported having received a letter from Barbara Bova which she shared with the Board. She had also sent letters to the newest members of the Board welcom.inq them. Letters were also sent to Barbara Berry welcoming her to the BCC and and for her election as Vice -Chair and to Tim Hancock, for his election as Chairman and for his support of the Regional Library. COMMUNICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS In reference to the Marco Island branch construction, Mr. Jones reported that the elevation and the parking lines had been done. He also sta d hat the entire roof will have to be redone. He k,,.4s co cR lcn6 t#AtiFA '`AM4r —, I 6G"l 1 ' also reported that the Marco Chapter of the Friends had asked for a 'Wish List' for the new Marco Library. In reference to the status of the Regional Library, Mr. Jones stated that an Executive Summary to move $200,000 into the Regional Library account had been done. The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for the Library's Employee of the Month. After some consideration, Ms. Musci moved, seconded by Mrs. Dering and carried unanimously, to select Becky Wilson as Employee of the Month for December. Mrs. Dering then moved, seconded by Ms. Musci and carried unanimously, to select Carol Somers as Employee of the Month for January. One of the Board members, Mrs. Dering trying to reserve a certain book. She changes so that a patron could request Jones stated that the Library does not able to handle such requests but would supervisors to try to find a solution. had run into some problems suggested making some books over the phone. Mr. have enough staff to be discuss it with the other Mrs. Mellinger read a Resolution which will be sent to Mr. Neil Dorrill on behalf of the Library Advisory Board upon his resignation, thanking him for all his efforts on behalf of the Library Department. Mrs. Mellinger entertained a motion for approval. Mrs. Gordon moved, seconded by Ms. Musci and carried unanimously approval of the Resolution. NEW BUSINESS - None GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Mrs. Dering mentioned that the 'Accelerated Reading List' from Seagate School which had been placed at the Collier North Branch by Mrs. Dering had disappeared from that branch. Mr. Jones said he still had his copy and would be glad to share it with her. DIRECTOR'S REPORT No new developments to report on other than the written one previously mailed to all. Board members. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS Dr. Larry Malinconico reported that this is the 40th anniversary of the Friends of the Library and the Board is planning a celebration with a contest, publicity and prizes associated with it, culminating it with a banquet in either October or November. The Friends are recruiting new directors for various committees, which are badly needed, especially from the branches. He further stated that more publicity is needed for the cookbooks which are 25% sold. . - -- ...11" ,- ...... 1 bG There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Derinq moved, seconded by Ms. Musci and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 3:05 p.m. 1 1 bG DIAEOTOR'8 REPORT January 16, 1497 BOARD: The Library Advisory Board now has two new members, they are: Martha Gordon, representing District 05 and Doris Lewis, representing District 14. FUN 6: We have recently been the recipients of a $30,000 grant from the State. The purpose of the grant is to provide additional wiring for the branches. The new wiring will allow the branches to participate in our future computer network. Due to the increase in our funds from the County, our State Aid has been increased by $30,000.00 this fiscal year. XAR CO : This project is on schedule and the final drawings are due in February. Our new complex will include a 6,000 square foot addition to our 5,600 square foot building. In addition, a 3 1/2 acre park and parking lot will be included. COLLIER NORTH: We have done some minor remodeling to increase the size of our children's room. In addition to the work already completed, we plan to paint and recarpet the area. STAFF: We have hired two new professionals in the past week: They are: Erin Caskey, a Children's Librarian who will be assigned to the HQ's children room and Marilyn McKay, who will be the new Branch Librarian at the Golden Gate City Library. In addition, Marilyn Reany, formerly of the Circulation Department has returned from Library School with her M.L.S. She has been assigned to the HQ's Reference Department as a Librarian I. NEW CLASSIFICATION: After a complete study of our job classification, the County has authorized us to use the classification of Librarian II. This new pay classification has been assigned to our Branch Managers and the Head of Technical Services. 1 FRIG' LECTURE SERIES: 1 bG 1 The three programs for this year have now been scheduled. They are: Jan. 28th - "Charles Dickens" featuring Dr. Elliot Engel Feb. 10th - "The Old Rebel" featuring John W. Jones Mar. 25th - A drama on the life of Charlotte Hronte featuring Quinn Hawkesworth CIRCUL&TIOM: Our circulation continues to grow at the rate of 18 - 20 %. This would project out at 1.85 - 1.9 million for the current fiscal year. 16G 1 January 22, 1997 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE RECEIVED CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FEB 2 8 1997 Naples, Florida, January 22, 19 "ro of �oun,,�y CGRb�'�S�'i0nrrs LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board met on this date at 8:40 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: M. Jean Rawson Charles Andrews Mireya Louviere Celia Deifik Richard McCormick ABSENT: Jim Allen Louis Laforet ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Chief Asst. County Attorney Shirley Jean McEachern, Asst. County Attorney Linda Sullivan, Code Enforcement Director Frank Kowalski, Esq., Attorney to the CEB William Hazzard, Esq., Attorney for Lely Morris Hancock Constantine Kac'K1t Berry Coues: Dale: UL'rl' o /(j . G . Copies To: Page 1 1 -16- I W7 6: OdPM FTCM 643 83AS P. i 1 bG 1 • • :. �• a : • :: • • K• �: •Sh if fm .• ' • . & q € H D A Date: January 22, 1997 at 6:30 o'clock A.M. Location: Collier County Government Center, Admn. Bldg, 3rd Floor VOTE: ANY PZ3 SOV MRO DECIDYS TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD MILL XMW A RECORD OF TSB PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THERZ 0RZ MAY RED TO 09SURE THAT A V? TTK RECORD OF THE PROC]=IXGS IS MADE, MHICR RECORD ICES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH 'THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. REZZUER COLLIER COUNTY 1908 THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD $HALL BE R.ES POlRS ZW-g FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 2. $,Qjy CALL 2 • APYR OF AGEI4DA 3. APPROVAL OF MINjTf, S 4. PUBLIC SBARINGS N/A t �• SQSZNBSS 6. OLD BUSZ2PESS BCC VS. LELY BAREFOOT BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC., INC., • FLA. CORP. AND LELY BAPEFOOT BEACH MASTER ASSOC., INC. • FLA . CORP. CF,2 ?1C.. 96-012 . REPORTS P/A 8. NEXT tg=ING DATE January 23, 1997 9. &DJOUR29 16G 1 January 22, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Collier County Code Enforcement Board will come to order. Let's have the roll call starting with my left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Jean Rawson. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let the record reflect that we have two absences, but nevertheless, we have a quorum; is that correct? MR. KOWALSKI: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Let's first start with the approval of the agenda. Everybody have an opportunity to read the agenda of today's January 22nd -- can I have a motion for approval of the agenda? MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we approve the agenda of January 22, 1997. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. McCORMICK: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All in favor signify by saying aye. The agenda is approved. We have several minutes that we need to approve. I think we may have approved some of them last time, but in your packet you have minutes from 11/25, 12/12, 12/13, the last three meetings. Has everybody had an opportunity to review those minutes? MR. ANDREWS: Can we do -- do that all in one motion, or do we have to do each one separately? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Can we do that in one motion? - MR. KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. My counsel advises us that it's okay to do it in one motion, Mr. Andrews. MR. ANDREWS: I -- I move to -- to accept -- accept them as is, those three. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MS. LOUVIERE: I second the motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded that we approve the minutes of 11/25/96, 12/12/96, and 12/13/96. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Minutes will be approved. I don't have the originals, but I suppose Ms. Cruz will bring them to me, and I'll be happy to sign them. There are no public hearings except for the one that's under old business set for today, and we need now, then, to move to old business, which is the continuation of the Board of County Commissioners versus the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association and the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, CEB No. 96 -102. Before we get started and I call on the respective counsel, it seems to me that there were a couple of preliminary items Va (7P 7 16G 1 January 22, 1997 that we needed to discuss. First of all, I believe that our attorney had suggested last meeting -- and I would ask if he would do this now. Mr. Kowalski, would you ask all the members of the board if they've had an opportunity to review the -- the records? For the record the reason that we are doing this is because we have already had one full day of testimony in this case. It is not exactly the same board that is sitting today. As a matter of fact, the two members that are absent today, Mr. Laforet and Mr. Allen, were seated for the first day of testimony, and Mr. Andrews and myself are the only two here that have heard all the testimony. So because we're going to have several days of testimony, and we're going to have some of our members in and out, it's very important that they read the transcripts and review the exhibits before the following day's testimony. So I would ask, Mr. Kowalski, if you would question the board members to be sure that that has been accomplished. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you, Madam Chairman. That's consistent with the procedure that we had decided upon at the last meeting relating to this matter. Mr. McCormick have you had that opportunity? MR. McCORMICK: Yes, I have. MR. KOWALSKI: And have you availed yourself of it? MR. McCORMICK: Yes. I've read the minutes and also looked at the exhibits. MR. KOWALSKI: You mean the transcript? MR. McCORMICK: The transcripts, yes. MR. KOWALSKI: Ms. Deifik? MS. DEIFIK: Yes. I've read the transcripts, and I've looked at the exhibits. MR. KOWALSKI: Miss Louviere? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. I've read the transcripts and looked at the exhibits. MR. KOWALSKI: I don't think it's -- it's essential from a legal standpoint that the persons who actually heard the testimony have done that, but I do understand -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: But we have. MR. KOWALSKI: -- that you have done that; is that correct, Madam Chairman, you have? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. It's -- it seems to me that the last time we heard this case was in July; so yes, I reviewed the July 25th transcript and went through the exhibits that were introduced both by the county and the respondent last night. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you. And, Mr. Andrews, have you done that as well? MR. ANDREWS: Yeah, I've read the transcripts. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Now, before we begin -- MR. ANDREWS: The best I could. CHA PPERSON RAWSON: Before we begin is there anything else that the board wants to bring up? I think, Mr. Andrews, you said you had a motion for the board? Page 3 16G 1 January 22, 1997 MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. I got -- my name is Charlie Andrews. I -- I have a suggestion. In as much as we've got so many meetings, such long meetings, a lot -- a lot of us have -- this -- this is not a career for us. For you lawyers this is a career, but not -- not for us -- not for us guys. So I would like to suggest -- and I think we could cover -- cover this -- I'm sure we could cover it in less than four days -- not to take a lunch break and to run the meeting to one o'clock and adjourn the meeting at one o'clock, which gives us five hours. And we -- a lot of us have -- have other interests, and I think we could accomplish -- be more efficient -- we'll waste -- we'll waste a whole hour taking a lunch hour, and by the time you get back you're groggy and -- and those afternoon things, matinees, are not too efficient. So I would like to make a motion to -- to our board that we do just that. We don't need -- we don't need anybody else -- we don't need anybody else to -- to advise us on it, I don't think. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, could I just comment on something? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Sure. MS. McEACHERN: I'm Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant county attorney and -- MR. ANDREWS: Can't hear you. MS. MCEACHERN: I'm Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant county attorney, and we learned just very recently that on Monday this room is only available to us until two o'clock. So that may be a very good suggestion for Monday, just to continue as long as we can until -- until two o'clock, which is something to consider. MR. ANDREWS: Well, you know, I -- I don't -- I don't mean if we're right in the middle of something that we can't run over 15, 20 minutes, half hour. But I'rn suggesting instead of taking a lunch break, go right through and -- and try to end at one o'clock, so we can kind of plan things for -- I know -- I know a couple of our -- of our people are -- it's -- it's a real imposition on them. It's costing them a hell -- a hell of a lo~ of money. I'm retired, but I still -- I'm working harder here for this mess than, you know, when I was making a living. So I -- I'd -- I'd like to make -- make a motion. Anybody want to second it? MR. McCORMICK: I'll comment. I think that it's a good idea, Charlie. I would like to -- to only have -- to still have part of the day to do other -- other things besides this hearing. But I don't think we can get any assurances from either parties that we could go this five - hours- per -day route and still finish up next week; and I've -- I've scheduled these four days for this case, you know, worked my schedule around it up to this point, and I don't want to see it go a day longer than what we've got scheduled. So I'm inclined to -- to do a full day today, get a feeling of where the case is and where we are at the end of today and maybe, you know, go half a day next week; but I don't want to -- to lose this day and have to add on a.t the end. MR. ANDREWS: Well, that's fine. But I've been -- I've been listening to this thing for about five years -- pan,- 4 I bG 1 January 22, 1997 MR. McCORMICR: Yeah. MR. ANDREVIS: -- and you -- you haven't. MR. McCORMICR: Right. MR. ANDREWS: And I can -- I can almost memorize it. We're going to hear the same thing over and over and over. This will -- this will make people hurry a little bit, a little -- a little more efficiency instead of all that outside extra gab. So I -- I hope there -- I hope I can get a majority on this thing, because I'm not sure I can even hold out for -- for -- I'm not doing it for that reason. I think it would be more efficient, save a lot of time. Taking a -- a one -hour lunch -- lunch break is just a waste of time. MS. LOUVIERE: I -- I tend to agree with Rich. We -- we -- this case has gone on for a long period of time. The Board of County Commissioners is very anxious to see it resolved, and we -- we are here. You know, we need to just move this along; so I -- I -- we need to just listen to it today, and if we only have the room for a few hours on Monday, then we'll listen to it then. I -- I tend to think that we need to listen to it all day if we have to. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody else have any other comments? Mr. Andrews has made a motion. Is there a second? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The motion dies for lack of a second. I will be very cognizant of the fact that we need breaks. And so just catch my eye, any of you, especially the court reporter, and we'll take breaks when we need them, and we'll take a lunch break. And we'll probably all be a little happier if we can get up and stretch once in a while, but we'll forge ahead. -Now, when we left off last July, the county was presenting its case; so I will -- MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. HAZZARD: I have two additional preliminary matters CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: -- if -- if I might. First, Madam Chairman -- for the record, Bill Hazzard representing the respondents. The county attorney's office has graciously agreed to rmy request to take a witness out of turn today. As you might have -- you might recall from our discussion in scheduling on December the 13th, I was unable to commit on behalf of my witnesses, and as it turns out, one witness, who is quite key to our presentation, is scheduled to be out of town next week and would not be available in the -- in the normal course of my presentation. And so I appreciate the county attorney's indulgence in allowing us to call that person today. As we had initially agreed, we -- we thought we would bring the person in first thing after lunch at -- at about 1:30 or so_ In a discussion that Miss McEachern and I had yesterday afterwon. she indicated that she did not want to interrupt a -- a witness of hers midtestimony to -- to put on a witness; and that -- that makes some sense. My witness -- if -- if the county's completed page 5 1 bG 1 January 22, 1997 with testimony and at a good stopping place this morning, my witness is about 15 minutes from here and could -- could get here with a phone call if we wanted to take a break at whatever time the county suggests is -- is good, and then I'll make that call and possibly resume with -- with that out -of -turn witness. So I just wanted to alert the board and, again, thank the county for that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. That's fine. I was copied on some of that correspondence, and I appreciate that, and there's no problem. The board understands if the respondent takes a witness out of turn, it's -- basically, you have to sort of, like, shift gears and think of this as the respondent's witness rather than the county's witness; but our job is just to, basically, hear the facts and make a decision. So we're happy to hear from all the witnesses whenever they might want to testify. MR. HAZZARD: I -- I appreciate that. The second item, preliminary matter, Madam Chairman, is a bit more sensitive. At the close of the December 13th proceedings, Mr. Kowalski gave what I thought was an eloquent statement to the board members with respect to the need to keep an open mind and listen to all the evidence prior to making a decision. My review of the -- of the transcripts and my clients' review of the transcripts lead us to believe that Mr. Kowalski's comments were prompted by some comments made by board members; and my clients, frankly, are concerned that three members have expressed opinion on the record that indicates that they've already made up their minds on critical issues in this case, unfavorably to my clients, without having heard any evidence presented as yet by my clients. There are no formal procedures, as -- as you're well awar'e, adopted by this board to govern this situation, and my research has found no cases in Florida describing how I should properly move for a Code Enforcement Board member to disqualify him or herself from the proceedings for bias. So in order to preserve the record, on behalf of my clients, I'm simply requesting that Miss Louviere, Mr. Laforet, and Mr. Allen disqualify themselves from further participation in the proceedings based on their comments of record on the 12th and 13th of December. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, of course, two of those board members are not present here today to respond, if -- if a response from them is necessary; but let me hear what the county attorney has to say. MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the board, for the record -- MR. HAZZARD: Could I -- could I have just one second with counsel? (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. ANDREWS: Here we go. This is where all the time goes. MR. MANALICH: For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief .3ssist,ant county attorney. The county's position is in opposition to the request mainly on the basis that we believe Mr. Kowalski properly instructed the board on keeping an open mind and making no decision on Page 6 16G 1 January 22, 1997 the matter until after the case is heard in its entirety. MS. LOWIERE: I have -- I have nothing but an open mind for this issue. I have spent hours researching this and reading everything that was given to me. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, in -- in fairness, and I think what I indicated to counsel when we just spoke, at least my reading of the law as it applies in the judicial setting is that it is a second grounds for removal of a judge to debate the merits of a request to remove himself based on bias. And so I would -- I would really like to avoid creating a -- a second ground, and -- and I would like to not engage in a -- in a back and forth on the merits of my -- of my motion for that reason. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand, Mr. Hazzard. Now, Mr. Hazzard has made a motion that three of the board members recuse themselves on -- on the basis of bias; so at this time I'm going to ask Mr. Kowalski, is this something that the board needs to vote on? MR. KOWALSKI: I would recommend that the -- that the board do that, and if the -- if Madam Chairman would like, I would state my understanding of the law to the board if it will -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Please. MR. KOWALSKI: -- assist you in -- in resolving that motion. A decision maker, whether it be a judge or -- or a member of an administrative board, will be disqualified from participating in a decision if that judge or board member has a bias. Typically, that is reflected in -- in a bias against one of the parties or their counsel. There has been no suggestion by the respondent, nor have I observed anything which would lead me to believe that there's any personal bias or animosity directed by any of the board members toward the - respondent or their counsel. The issue that's been raised is whether the board members have prejudged this matter. If, in fact, any of the board members, in the opinion of the board, have prejudged this matter to the extent that that board member can no longer have an open mind, will not listen to the testimony and make a decision based upon the evidence presented, then in that circumstance, I think that the board should disqualify any of the members who have so prejudged the case. If, on the other hand, the board determines that the comments that the -- that have been made by members of this board simply indicate a -- a review of the record to dace, some concerns that the board member may have, and some suggestions to counsel as to what issues need to be presented in order to resolve the outstanding issues in their mind, then that would not constitute a bias that would -- that would justify the disqualification of those board members. And so I think that the -- that the board member should; number one, not express an opinion again involving the ultimate issues in this case; number two, in your own hearts and minds, not prejudge the case. You will obviously have inclinations as you hear the evidence, but until you have heard all the evidence, don't decide how yvu are going to rule. And thirdly, I'd ask you to keep in mind these guidelines in voting to decide whether any of the board members have -- have violated the prohibition against prejudgment. Page 7 1 bG 1 January 22, 1997 But I do -- I do emphasize to the board that simply having reviewed the evidence in one's mind, having preliminary indications of what matters and issues might concern you, is not sufficient for disqualification. Only if a board member has expressed a view that they will not maintain an open mind and -- and base a decision upon all the evidence in the case, should that member be disqualified. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Procedurally, then, I think since a motion has been made to this board to act, then the motion needs to come from a board member that we disqualify. Procedurally is that correct? MR. KOWALSKI: Or -- or that -- or that a motion be made that none of the board members be disqualified, one way or the other. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, just a comment procedurally. It's -- it's my understanding, frankly -- and it was not my intention to ask the board to vote on particular members. My understanding of the law as it would apply in the judicial setting -- and as I said, I didn't find any law in the Code Enforcement Board setting. But my understanding would be that it's an individual decision on the part of each of the board members, and if each of those three board members reaches their own decision and decides to either remain on this case or remove themselves from the case, my understanding is that's procedurally how it should go as opposed to a -- a vote of four members in terms of -- or seven -- six -- six members in terms of each of the one other member. I think it's an individual decision for the sitting members. MR. KOWALSKI: Madam Chairman, may I -- may I be heard? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: In -- in light of that -- those remarks by respondent, I would suggest that the board not vote on -- on the motion to disqualify. I would suggest that the one sitting member who -- whom -- who is the subject of the motion to disqualify who is present in the room today simply advise the board whether she intends to disqualify herself on the basis of bias or believes that she can maintain an open mind. Simply state yes or no, I will grant the motion or I will deny the motion without any explanation. MS. LOUVIERE: No, I will not disqualify myself. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Miss Louviere. MR. ANDREWS: Mr. Chairman. MS. LOUVIERE: Also I think he asked the same of Charlie. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. Mr. Andrews was not one. MR. HAZZARD: Mr. Laforet. MR. ANDREWS: I wanted to ask you a question. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, Mr. Andrews. MR. ANDREWS: Were -- were you finished? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, sir, I was. MR. ANDREWS: Was -- is there two -- is -- the two absent today, were they excused? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, one of them was. I think Page 8 16G 1 January 22, 1997 Mr. Allen told us at the last meeting on the record that he would not be in town today; so I believe we knew about Mr. Allen. I'm not sure where Mr. Laforet is. MR. ANDREWS: Well, this is -- because he's not here today and -- and he's excused, is that going to put us in the same bind of getting down to four or five again and the same -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. I think we've -- we've covered that, Mr. Andrews, that the -- we understand because this board is going to have to meet for several days to hear this case that some board members will be here on some sessions and some on others, and that's already been the case. And so the transcript will be available for them to read; and they will be, not only allowed, but really required to go through the exhibits that were presented and read the testimony of the days they missed so long as we have a quorum here on the day that we finally vote on the final decision. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, have -- having all the preliminary matters covered, is -- are there any other preliminary matters before we begin? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. In that case we'll call on the county attorney to proceed with their evidence. MS. McEACHERN: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Code Enforcement Board. I'm Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant county attorney here on behalf of the petitioner, Collier County. The county at this time wishes to recall Dennis Mazzone to pick up its redirect questioning of Dennis Mazzone. THEREUPON , - DENNIS MAZZONE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. MAZZONE: For the record my name is Dennis Mazzone. I'm employed as a Collier County code enforcement investigator. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MCEACHERN: Q. Good morning, Mr. Mazzone. A. Good morning. Q. Mr. Mazzone, have you had an opportunity in your role as the county code enforcement inspector to review the Code Enforcement Board Ordinance, which is 92 -80? A. Yes, I have. Q. Do you know how "violator" is defined in the Code Enforcement Board Ordinance in your own words? ' A. Yes. A violator would be a person who has been alleged to violate or who has actually violated a code of Collier County that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction to enforce. Q. Thank you. If you recall on your cross - examination by Mr. Hazzard, is it not true that typically a notice of violation of a c-mounty ordinance is issued to the property owner of the land upon which the violation is said to exist? A. That's correct. 16G 1 January 22, 1997 Q. Okay. Is it also not true, then, that one of the respondents, Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association, was named on the notice of violation and, in fact, issued the notice of violation because they are, from the county's standpoint, an owner of Tract R, which is the road upon which the violation is alleged to exist? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the Master Association, who is the second respondent -- and for the record that's Lely Beach Barefoot Master Association (sic), you -- if you recall I believe you testified on cross that you named them on the notice of violation because that was the instruction that you received from your superiors; is that correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. Okay. Upon further questioning on your cross - examination, Mr. Hazzard asked you and you stated on cross that the Master Association has an interest in the property; is that correct? A. Yes. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. At this point, Madam Chairman, I would like to mark as the -- the next exhibit for the county, which I believe is Exhibit No. 16 -- and Exhibit 16 is a verified complaint in the circuit court case, the 20th Judicial Circuit, Case No. 95- 0073- CA -01. It is Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association, Inc., and Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc., versus Collier County. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm not -- before she marks this exhibit, I'm not really positive whether that's Exhibit 16 or not, but maybes 'the court reporter is or you are. I'm looking at the book that the county has provided us with, and there's only 11 tabs in it. MR. MANALICH: Well, that's because -- MS. McEACHERN: That's also because some of the exhibits are graphs -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MS. McEACHERN: -- and pictures. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, procedurally as long as we're on the right exhibit, I -- I have no problem. If that's Exhibit 16, would the court reporter please mark Exhibit 16. (County's Exhibit No. 16 was :*parked for identification.) MR. HAZZARD: May I see the exhibit? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MS. DEIFIK: Miss McEachern, what would it be in the boox? What tab? MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, that's not in the book, but we have extra copies we'll distribute at this point if there's no objection from counsel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's do this. We have marked for identification purposes County's Exhibit No. 16. We need to proaicle a copy to opposing counsel before you -- MS. MCEACHERN: I did. He has it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Before you provide it to the Page 10 16G 1 January 22, 1997 board, let's see if there's any objections to the introduction into evidence. MS. McEACHERN: Do you have any objection? MR. HAZZARD: Oh, I'm sorry. No, I don't have any objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Having no objection being heard from the respondent, the board will now look at what has now been introduced into evidence as County's Exhibit No. 16. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, as a preliminary matter, I thought at the last meeting I did pass out this -- it's a list of the county's exhibits. I can pass that out again if that helps you keep track. Would you like that? MR. McCORMICR: I would, yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I -- I don't believe that was in our book. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I have -- I do have one list of exhibits. Oh, yes, I do. Sorry. Had it in the wrong book. It -- it's in the front of -- of the county's book. I stand corrected. We all do have a list of the Collier County exhibits, and there were, in fact, 15 of them entered in July. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Mazzone, you also have a copy there now of the County's Exhibit 16; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. I would ask you to turn to paragraph 3 and ask you to read aloud into the record. paragraph 3. A. Paragraph 3 reads, the privately owned road is appYDximately 1.8 miles long with its northern origin at the southern right -of -way line of Bonita Beach Road. At the southern end of the road is Barefoot Beach, a public beach owned and operated by the county as a county park. The private road provides the sole land -based point of entry to Lely Bare -- to Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision, a community of private -- privately owned homes. Master Association is an organization comprised of various homeowners groups within the subdivision the members of which depend on the road for entry to their homes and depend on the guardhouse located on the road for security against unauthorized entry into the subdivision. Master Association represents the interests of subdivision residents who are -- who are the intended beneficiaries of the various documents that are the subject of this suit. Q. Mr. Mazzone, I ask you then, is that the interest to which you referred on cross - examination which forms the basis for the master association being named as a respondent in the Code Enforcement Board action? A. Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let me do this. I don't mean to interrupt you. Just for the record let's identify what he's reading fxcw. This is a verified complaint filed by Lely Barefoot Beach Pzoperty Owners' Association and Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association versus Collier County. It's been filed in the circuit Page 11 1 bG 1 ' January 22, 1997 court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, Case No. 95 -0073, and it was filed on or about January 9, 1995. MS. McEACHERN: Thank you. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Mazzone, at any time prior to issuing the notice of violation in this Code Enforcement Board action with respect to the master association, did you ever consider that the master association was named in this proceeding as a retaliatory measure for filing this particular lawsuit in circuit court against Collier County? A. No, ma'am. Q. Mr. Mazzone, is it your understanding that, in fact, the master association was named in order to give them an opportunity to be heard in this proceeding? A. That's correct, a matter of fairness to them. Q. Thank you. Mr. Mazzone, if the master association were shown in this proceeding to not be an owner of the subject property on which the violation sits or does not have any other property interest in the subject land on which the violation sits, is it -- is it your opinion as a code enforcement investigator assigned to this case that in such a case the master association might not be a violator if a violation is found? A. That's correct. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. At this point, Madam Chairman, I have the county's next exhibit, Exhibit No. 17. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: While you're showing that to opposing counsel, I might suggest to the board members that you take the list of the Collier County exhibits, just to keep this all straight in your mind, and as they are entered, you might add to your list.* We just entered 16, which was the complaint, and now we're going to discuss whether or not we're going to enter 17. (County's Exhibit No. 17 was marked for identification.) MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, if I may for identification purposes, the County's Exhibit 17 is a first amended complaint filed in 20th Judicial Circuit Court, Case No. 94- 1641- CC -BCW. It -- the plaintiff is Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc., versus the Villas at Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association, Inc. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are you moving for introduction into evidence No. 17? MS. McEACHERN: At this point I think the county's position is it would like to keep it just as an exhibit and -- and not enter it into evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, if what you're giving us is a complaint that is of public record filed in the 20th Judicial Circuit, I think we can probably take judicial notice of those public records. But I'd like to know from Mr. Hazzard if he has any objection to the board looking at it. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I would -- I would simply point out that this is not the complaint that's the currently operative complaint in this case. There's been a subsequent amended complaint filed precisely because of a concern on my clients' part Page 12 16G 1 January 22, 1997 about the inaccuracy of some facts contained in the general allegation section of this complaint; and in order to be more accurate, a -- a second amended complaint is the current one that we're operating under in this case. MS. MCEACHERN: Madam Chairman, be that as it -- as it may, I'd be real curious to know when that other amended complaint was filed, because I showed this complaint to Mr. Hazzard the last time we were here. But number two, if they still -- this is -- this is the second complaint. They have a first one, and this is the first amended one. So it's the second initial pleading that the master association has filed in this case, and they made these assertions, and I think that it can -- it's very relevant to whether or not the master association has an interest in the property on which the violation sits. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's do this. If this is something that was filed in the court, I think we can look at it. If there is a second amended complaint, Mr. Hazzard, if you could get that for the board, I think it would be prudent for us to review it as well. MR. HAZZARD: I have my own copy of it. I can get copies made and present it to the board as soon as possible. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That would be fine. Because if we're going to look at this first amended complaint and you're telling me that there's a second amended complaint that was filed with the court, then in all fairness, we should see them both. But we'll -- you don't want to introduce this as an exhibit; is that correct? MS. McEACHERN: Introduce it as an exhibit, not as a piece of evidence -- not into evidence. -MR. McCORMICK: On -- on that point can I ask our attorney to explain to me what the difference is in our review of this whether it's an exhibit or a piece of evidence. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. McCormick, if it's not offered into evidence, then you, as board members should not give it any weight in -- in considering that item for -- for your decision. There are limited circumstances under which a document that's not an exhibit can be shown to a witness and questions asked of the witness about the -- the document. But generally, the documents are offered as exhibits, and -- and they are not evidence in the case, and you should not consider them unless they are offered as exhibits and admitted. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is it proper for us to look at it, Mr. Kowalski? MR. KOWALSKI: I would -- I would suggest that you not. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, at this point we would like to move it into evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there an objection to moving it into evidence? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, Madam Chairman. First of all, I'm not sure that this witness is at all qualified to speak on this piece of evidence in any manner whatsoever, and I've already described for the court that this is not -- for the panel that this is not the current operative complaint in this case and the reasons why it's Page 13 16G 1 January 22, 1997 not. So I would object. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, if you'll recall on cross - examination, Mr. Hazzard moved for a motion to dismiss -- to dismiss the master association on the basis that the master association has no property interest in Tract R, the land on which the guardhouse sits, and no interest in the guardhouse; and therefore, they were named incorrectly. He also withdrew that motion to dismiss with -- after a lengthy discussion on it to resume it; and we are addressing that issue, because there are -- I'm not asking Mr. Mazzone in any way to interpret this complaint. It speaks for itself. MR. KOWALSKI: Excuse me. Before we go any further, our court reporter has observed that counsel for the respondent needs to speak into a microphone for her assistance and so that it can be recorded. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Hazzard, why don't you respond. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I would simply note for the record that counsel has mischaracterized the reason for my motion at the July the 25th hearing, and it was simply that Inspector Mazzone, on behalf of the county, which bears the burden of proof in this case, was unable to explain to us at that hearing why the master association was named as a respondent; and on that basis I moved for the master association to be dismissed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Now let's deal with the business at hand. The county has asked us to introduce into evidence Exhibit No. 17, which we have not yet seen, but which we understand to be the first amended complaint filed in the circuit court in 1994. Because there is an objection to that being introduced into evidence, I need a motion from the board as to whether or not you want to introduce County's Exhibit 17 into evidence so that you may review the document. In terms of what questions are asked, we'll reserve any rulings on those until the questions are asked. Do I have a motion from any board member about Exhibit 17? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Having -- having heard no motion from any board member to introduce Exh:.bit 17 into evidence, then the board won't look at it. You can proceed with your questions, though. MS. McEACHERN: I want to make sure I understand. I can -- I am still permitted to ask him questions with regard to -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You can ask him -- MS. McEACHERN: -- Exhibit No. 17. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, you can -- you can ask him any questions that you want; and if there's an objection to those questions, then I'm sure we'll hear from Mr. Hazzard, and we'll deal with them as they come up. But, I mean, I'm obviously not going to try and tell you how to practice law, but you can ask witnesses questions about exhibits that are not introduced into evidence. MS. LOUVIERE: I -- I'm -- I'm a little bit confused. I'm sorry. Can we just go back to this a little bit? Exhibit 16 is your complaint, and Exhibit 17 is an amended complaint? KS. KCEACHERN: It's in another lawsuit in which the -- the plaintiff, the party bringing the lawsuit, is Lely Barefoot Beach Page 14 16G 1 January 22, 1997 Master Association; and it's against the Villas at Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. So you would -- so you are naming an additional -- MS. McEACHERN: It's a -- it's a separate lawsuit other than what's shown in Exhibit 16. MS. LOWIERE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: But as -- but as we proceed -- and Ms. Louviere, that has not been introduced into evidence to us, and so we don't have a copy of it to look at. But I think I'm hearing that the county may ask some questions of the witness about it nevertheless. MS. L.O(MERE: Okay. Thank you. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Mazzone, have you had an opportunity to look at Exhibit 17? MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: It's not Exhibit 17. My objection for the record is that there's been no Exhibit 17 entered into evidence in this matter. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, and you're correct, Mr. Hazzard. Why don't you just refer to it as what it is? MS. McEACHERN: Okay. I was trying to refer to it for identification purposes only. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Okay. Mr. Mazzone, have you had an opportunity to review the first amended complaint brought by Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc., a Florida not- for - profit corporation, versus the Villas at Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association, Inc., in circuit court case of the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Case No. 94- 1641- CC -BCW? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Mazzone, would you tell us who the plaintiff is in this action? MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam -- Madam Chairman. If I could move to the microphone. It's -- it's hearsay. This witness has no firsthand knowledge, and -- there's been no predicate laid that this witness has any firsthand knowledge of the facts underlying the court document that counsel purports to question him on. It's completely hearsay. And while I recognize that the Rules of Evidence don't formally apply in this setting, there needs to be at least some basis for this witness to testify, and none's been shown to this point. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, one of the key elements of the hearsay definition is that it is out -of -court statements made by someone who cannot testify today; and the master association is, indeed, a party to this action, and it is not hearsay. And furthermore, this board can also take judicial notice of this public record. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, all that being said, would Page 15 16G 1 January 22, 1997 you tell me what the question you asked him, again, was? Could we hear that read back? (The requested portion of the record was read.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do I have any advice from my counsel? MR. KOWALSKI: I think that it would be appropriate for the board to allow very limited testimony, but it's not appropriate to try to introduce into evidence the contents of a document that -- that has not been admitted by having the witness read or -- or tell the -- tell the board what he thinks it contains. I -- I do -- I do advise the board that the strict Rules of Evidence don't apply, that -- that you don't need to worry about concepts like judicial notice, but that the issue that the board might want to concern itself with, in -- in my view, is -- is whether the document is relevant. In -- in light of the admonition that the board has received that -- that there was a later amended complaint, we'll just move along, get to the issues. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, it is also admissions made by a party opponent. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, Z think your question was who's the plaintiff and who's the defendant. And, you know, I would agree that, other than having read the document, he probably wouldn't have any firsthand knowledge of that. But if you would ask him some general questions about the lawsuit having been filed and his knowledge of it and what it was about, you know, the board would certainly listen to that. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, the only knowledge he has is what's on the face of this complaint. And if this board is infesting the county that the county cannot ask the witness questions about the master association's statements in this complaint, then the county would like to make a proffer. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well -- and I'll allow you to do that. It -- it seems to me that maybe this is not the best witness to ask questions of. Apparently, we have the plaintiff in that suit represented here in court today, because -- or in the -- the board hearing today, because the plaintiff is also a party in this action; and I wouldn't have any problem with your asking the person who filed the lawsuit any questions about the lawsuit. But Mr. Mazzone probably has very limited knowledge from a personal standpoint other than having read the complaint, which the board has decided not to introduce into evidence here today. So I would ask you to make, you know, very limited questioning of Mr. Mazzone based on his personal knowledge; and you know, if you want to make a proffer, that's -- that's fine. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Mazzone, do you have personal knowledge of the statements that have been made in the complaint, in Case No. 94- 1641- CC -BCW? A_ No, I don't. Q. Have you read that complaint? A. Yes. That's -- the only knowledge I have of it is what Page 16 16G 1 January 22, 1997 I've read. MS. McEACHERN: And that is as far as I wanted to ask him as to what is stated by the master association in that complaint. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, even though the formal evidence rules don't apply in a -- in an administrative hearing, nevertheless, he has just admitted that he doesn't have any knowledge other than what he read, which obviously, is hearsay; and the board has decided not to read this complaint. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. MCEACHERN: If I may kindly interrupt, the county's position is it is not hearsay. The party who has made these statements is here through their attorney today. They are a party in this proceeding. It is not hearsay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, why don't you just go ahead and ask your questions, and we'll hear if there's any objections to them. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Mazzone, I would ask you to turn to page 3 and read the -- and I'd like you to turn to paragraph 11 on page 3; and if you would, read paragraph 11, which is an allegation made by the plaintiff in that case. MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam Chairman. As it's already been pointed out by the board's own counsel, it would not be appropriate for evidence that the board has chosen not to enter in this case to be entered through the back door by virtue of this witness reading from the document that the board has chosen not to admit into evidence. And this witness has already stated on the record that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the facts that he is purportedly about to read. That constitutes hearsay, and I would object to the continuation of this line of questioning. If the point that the county is trying to make is did he have some reason to cite the master association, well, that was covered July the 25th, and perhal.3 he can explain to us the reasons that he couldn't explain on July the 25th. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, with all due respect, I'd like to give the definition, of hearsay. Hearsay is an out of state -- out -of -court statement made by someone other than the declarant. For purposes of -- of today, Mr. Mazzone is the declarant. The statement is made by somebody other than the declarant, an out -of -court statement. This document is an out -of -court statement, but the rest of the definition of hearsay is that the person or entity who made that out -of -court statement is unavailable. This is a statement made by a party to our present action, and that party is available to testify in this proceeding; and therefore, it is the county's position this is not hearsay. If anything, it's an admission against interest by a party opponent. MR. HAZZARD: With all due respect to the county, that's not the definition of hearsay, and I would suggest that the board rely on the advice of its own counsel in this matter. Page 17 16G 1 January 22, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And I'm going to call on our counsel now. How -- how should we proceed here, Mr. Kowalski? Should we proceed with this line of questioning? Should we do a proffer? MR. KOWALSKI: I -- I think that it would be very appropriate for the county to get this evidence in through -- through the author and -- and not through this witness. I -- I don't think it's appropriate to try to get this evidence in either through the document or through testimony by this witness who -- who doesn't have any personal knowledge of it. That's not to say that you can't get the evidence in, but this is not the witness to do it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Basically then, what we are suggesting is that either you call the author of the complaint to get it in through; or you know, if you want to do a -- a proffer that's -- that's fine. We probably have to explain to the board what that is, and you have to understand that, you know, we can't consider that. That's really for the appellate level. So it's your -- your choice. (A discussion was held off the record.) MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, the county would like to make an offer (sic) of the (Taestions and the answers with regard to this particular document that's not in evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do -- do you think that that is a -- the best way to proceed, Counsel? MR. KOWALSKI: Let -- let me suggest that -- that that be done at the conclusion of the county's case in -- in the event that the evidence does not come in some other way to -- to avoid duplication and to move this matter along, not -- not to take the time unnecessarily now. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. Because you're going to do a puffer, Miss McEachern, and because you're just basically going to put on the record what questions you would have asked and what answers you would have expected; and because Mr. Hazzard won't be allowed to cross - examine a proffer, I think the suggestion is good that if the evidence hasn't come in some other way by the end of your case, we'll let you go right through your proffer for the record then. MS. McEACHERN: Thank you. (A discussion was held off the record.) MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, before I proceed -- before the county proceeds, just one point of clarification. With regard to County's Exhibit 16, the county wants to make sure that is in evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It was admitted. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. Thank you. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Mazzone? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. On cross - examination you identified what is now the County's Exhibit 15 as an old photo of the guardhouse, gatehouse facility. Do you recognize this as that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. Now, when we look at Exhibit 15 -- I'm going to have to stand here in front of the microphone and then walk over by Page 18 you and then show the board the middle of the road here (indicating) that's in the A. Yes, I do. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. approach the board just so small? members -- do you (indicating) this middle of the road? 16G 1 January 22, 1997 recall identifying in structure here And, Madam Chairman, may I they can see this closer since it's so CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MS. DEIFIK: Where's the new gatehouse? That's the old one. MS. LOUVIERE: Do you have a date of that -- of that area? MS. MCEACHERN: No. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, for the record and in response to Miss Louviere's question, we would stipulate that it at least predates 1988 when the current guardhouse was constructed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. HAZZARD: All we know is it's -- it's old, but it's -- it's certainly pre -1988. BY MS. Mc EACiIERN : Q. Mr. Mazzone, have you researched the county records in your capacity as a code enforcement inspector to determine if the community development_ administrator ever approved this structure that I just pointed to you that's in the middle of the road? A. Yes. Q. And did you find an approval? A. No, I had not. -Q.- * Mr. Mazzone, do you know if this structure is still existing in the middle of the road today? A. No, it's not. Q. Okay. Mr. Mazzone, in -- in your opinion as a code enforcement inspector, if that structure were still existing today, would it be, in your opinion, a violation of the PUD Ordinance No. 85 -83? A. Yes, it would be. Q. And why? A. Because it's a freestanding structure, kiosk, in the center of the road not -- not at a -- extending from Tract A or as a -- a part of the structure at Tract A as required in 85 -83. Q. Okay. Mr. Mazzone, in fact, does this picture, the old photograph, does it show the gatehouse facility? A. Yes, it does. Q. And does it show it in Tract A, to your knowledge? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. Mr. Mazzone, one of the documents -- is it correct that one of the documents that you did review prior to issuing the notice of violation and in preparation for your testimony in these proceedings was Ordinance No. 85 -83? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 85 -83, was the Page 19 16G 1 January 22, 1997 gatehouse facility located -- which was located in Tract A to be used as an entry -gate facility for security purposes? A. That's correct. Q. And that was stated in the PUD ordinance that that's what its purpose was? A. That's -- that was stated in 85 -83. Q. Okay. Mr. Mazzone, is there today an entry -gate facility in operation on Tract A? A. No, there isn't. I believe it's housed by a realty firm, and I think part of their maintenance operation is housed inside that building. Q. But the building is still existing? It's just the use A. That's correct. Q. Okay. In Tract A? A. That's correct, Tract A. Q. Okay. Mr. Mazzone, if the property owner of the entry -gate facility for whatever reason decides to move the entry -gate facility from Tract A in the PUD to Tract R in the middle of the road outside the PUD, in your opinion as a code enforcement inspector, is that a violation of Ordinance No. 85 -83? A. Yes. The ordinance states specifically that the -- the guardhouse facility is to be located on Tract A. Q. Does it make any difference, in your opinion as a code enforcement inspector, as to whether there is a violation or not if the new structure, which is now located in Tract R, is called a guardhouse rather than a gatehouse? A. No, it's still a violation. Okay. MS. McEACHERN: I have no further questions. MR. HAZZARD: May I have an opportunity to reexamine the witness? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. RECROSS - EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Good morning, Inspector Mazzone. How you are this morning? A. Good morning. Fine, thank you. Q. Inspector, I'd like to review with you the last line of questioning counsel was asking first while it's fresh in your mind. What's the basis for your contention that the structure identified in the middle of the road on this old photograph would be a violation under the operative PUD ordinance? A. In that it's a -- a freestanding structure in the middle of the road and not an appendage or a -- an extension from the guardhouse structure that's required to be on Tract A. Q. And, Inspector Mazzone, in reaching that conclusion, have you reviewed Section 4 of the PUD ordinance -- MR- HAZZARD: And for the board members, that's behind Tab 12 of the respondents' book of exhibits, and in particular, it's gage 15 behind Tab 12. Page 20 16G 1 January 22, 1997 A. Yes, I have. Q. And turning to page 16, Inspector Mazzone -- MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, would you ask Mr. Hazzard to identify what ordinance? MR. HAZZARD: It's the -- the operative PUD ordinance, 85 -83. Q. Is that what your understanding is that we're talking about, Inspector? A. Yes, sir. Q. On page 16 of that ordinance under Section 4.3 -- do you have it in front of you? Do you see a section entitled "Minimum Setbacks" by chance? A. Yes, I do, sir. Q. Do you see language that says portions of the security gatehouse facility may extend into and over Lely Beach Boulevard right -of -way? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you tell us what it is about that language that prohibits the structure shown in the photograph? A. The minimum setbacks would be that of the main structure that's to be built on Tract A, and it -- it would be something that would extend from that main structure over a portion of the road, perhaps, but not be a -- a freestanding structure by itself in the in the center of the road, something that's not attached to the building. Q. And my question to you sir is, what's the basis for your statement? A. My belief that the -- it says a portion of the security gatehouse facility may extend -- extend would be just that, an extension, an appendage, a -- a -- a portion of the allowed building to extend over the road or into the road, but not, certainly, become something as a separate structure constructed in the middle of the road. Q. And just for clarity, Inspector Mazzone, the language is not "a portion," is it? A. It says "portions of.' Q. It's plural, portions; correct? A. That is correct, sir. That could mean the -- the swing gate, a part of the roof line. It could mean several areas of the building. Q. And -- and where are you getting your definition of what that could mean? A. Well, practical application. Q. Is it fair to say that you are simply making it up? A. No, sir. Q. Is it written down anywhere? A. I believe that would be most people's understanding of that -- that section. It's my answer. Q. It's your interpretation of what ex -- extend means in this ca:,e? A. That's correct, sir. Page 21 16G 1 January 22, 1997 Q. Did you speak to anyone with respect to authoring this document who could tell you what that meant when it was authored? A. No, I didn't, sir. Q. Inspector, you're not changing any of the testimony that you gave in July, are you, sir? A. I have no reason to, sir, no. Q. Okay. You testified in July that the guardhouse is in the -- in the location where the plan that's in the Collier County records showed it was going to be, and you're not changing your testimony as to that, are you? A. The guardhouse being which facility, sir? Q. The facility that we're talking about here today that you allege is a violation. A. Could you please repeat that, then. Q. Yes. You testified that the guardhouse that we're here about today is in the location where the plan that's in the Collier County records showed it was going to be. And my question to you is, you're not changing your testimony about that, are you? A. No, I'm not, sir. Q. Okay. Now, you testified for -- in July that you did not design the notice of violation in this case or decide who it should be sent to; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you testified also in July that you did not recall whether you knew the guardhouse was on land zoned agricultural special treatment when you wrote the notice of violation. Are you changing your testimony about your recollection at this time? A. No. I -- I don't recall my thinking that when the ordinance -- when the NOV was being composed. Q. Okay. Well, Inspector Mazzone, let me ask you along that line, is that something you can tell by standing and looking? In other words, can you tell that the guardhouse where it sits today is on land zoned agricultural special treatment by looking at it? MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I object. This is way beyond the scope of my redirect, and counsel is limited to his questions based upon my redirect. MR. HAZZARD: I -- I'm not sure I know where that limitation comes from in these proceedings, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, she's giving me rules of procedure and -- that we use in a regular courtroom, which is that -- to say that you limit your cross - examination to questions that she asked in direct. The Rules of Evidence, you know, really are relaxed in a hearing such as this one; and I know that you would have the right to call Mr. Mazzone yourself and ask these very same questions. We could do that, or we could just save time and let you do it now. Do you have a suggestion, Counsel? MR. KOWALSKI: I — I agree with -- with Madam Chairman that -- that as a practical matter objections about being beyond the scope may not be constructive. But -- but I do caution the board not to allow W. Hazzard to be repetitive of -- of questions that he had asked some months ago that I know the board has reviewed, and my Page 22 16G 1 January 22, 1997 concern would be whether these questions are simply redundant. MR. HAZZARD: My question, I believe, was a -- a new question, in fact, following up on his prior testimony. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, back to the original objection. You're -- you're correct that it exceeds the scope; however, he'd have the right to call him and ask questions anyway. You know, so for the purposes of expediency, I'll.— I'll let him go on but with the admonition that, please, if -- you know, Mr. Hazzard -- you can just say all the questions that I answered in July I wouldn't change my mind about, then we don't have to go through them one at a time. But if you have additional questions based on his testimony then, that's different. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Inspector Mazzone, my question which I did not ask you in July was, you cannot look at the guardhouse at Lely Barefoot Beach and tell what the zoning for the land beneath it is, can you? A. No, sir, you cannot. Q. Okay. Does that require a survey to be done in order to -- to tell what land that guardhouse sits in? MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I object. This is beyond the scope of his expertise. He is a code enforcement_ inspector. He is not a land -use expert. He is not a zoning expert, and if Mr. Hazzard feels that he is, then I think that he should voir dire Mr. Mazzone. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, Mr. Mazzone you can answer the question, if you know. THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that question, please? BY MR . ' HAZ ZARD : Q. My -- my question was, it takes a survey to tell what -- what land the guardhouse is sitting on; isn't that right? A. Well, I am not an expert, just so that I don't answer the question pretending that I am, but I don't believe it would actually take a survey. I think somebody that is familiar with map reading and -- and how that land is lard out on the maps of the -- of the county can determine what district"-- what portions of the roads -- roadway is -- is located in -- Q. And your testimony is that you cannot recall whether you did that or not in advance of preparing the notice of violation; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Inspector Mazzone, I think your testimony in July was used to admit County's Exhibit No. 7, which is the building permit file in this case. I think it's a 14 -page composite. Do you recall that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Prior to our attempt to reconvene this hearing in October, you were asked to find the original permit application file that was copied to make County Exhibit 7; isn't that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And -- and you did find that, didn't you? Page 23 16u 1 January 22, 1997 A. Yes, sir. Q. And where were those documents? A. They -- I believe they were in a box in the county attorney's office with other documents. Q. Okay. And I think Miss McEachern has been kind enough to bring that original file to us today; is that correct? MS. McEACHERN: Yes. And I'd -- also I'd like to make it very clear on the record that the county attorney's office did nothing to hide this permit. We just had tremendous volumes of papers and discovered it. MR. HAZZARD: I'm -- I'm not suggesting that anyone did. Obviously, it was -- a copy of it was made, and so they certainly had it. I'd just like an opportunity to examine Inspector Mazzone on the original now that we have it as opposed to the copies. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: This is not going to be a repeat of any questions you asked him in July? MR. HAZZARD: No, Madam Chairman. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Inspector Mazzone, it was your testimony in July and it's still your position today that the county was deceived somehow into issuing this building permit whereby the guardhouse was built in its current location; isn't that correct? A. I can't recall my using the word "deceived." Q. Okay. Well, at least in his opening statement, Mr. Bryant said that the permit was erroneous; it mislead the county; it was not truthful in application. So -- so perhaps "deceived" is a strong word, not -- but mislead, untruthful in the application? MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I object. Whatever statements Mr. Bryant made were not under oath and they are not testimony; and therefore, they are not evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So noted. That's -- that's true. What Mr. Bryant said is what Mr. Bryant says, but you may ask Mr. Mazzone what he says. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. And Inspector Mazzone, I'm simply trying to establish, isn't it the county's position in this case that this building permit application was somehow erroneous, that the county thought this guardhouse was going to be built in a different location than it was actually built in? Isn't that -- isn't that the county's position or your position as a code enforcement investigator? A. That would be my position, yes, sir. Q. Okay. Inspector Mazzone, I'd like you to look at -- I'm going to hand you a page in the building permit application, and then' I would like to show it to the board. In terms of the exhibit, the -- the title of this page is "Building Permit Application," and it has some typed material on it and then some handwritten pencil material. And at least in the packet that Miss McEachern has given me. it is the one, two, three, four, five, sixth page back. CHAURPERSON RAWSON: Is this part of Composite Exhibit No. 7 that's already been introduced by the county? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, it is, Madam Chairman. Page 24 16G 1 January 22, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then we should have it. MR. HAZZARD: That's correct. And I -- I would -- just to -- I would like for you to try to find it in your packet, if you could. It's this page (indicating). CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's our Exhibit No. 7 in the county's book. For the board's use, I believe it's behind Tab 5 in the county's book, which is the gray book. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Inspector Mazzone, I've pointed out the page, and I think each member of the board has it in front of them; however, on the board members' copies, there is some language that did not copy very well that appears handwritten about two- thirds of the way down the left -hand side of the page. It's in pencil, and it would not copy well, but can you read that language? MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I object on the basis that it's hearsay. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, the document's already been entered into evidence by the county itself, and the -- the document is not hearsay in this matter. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it's -- MS. McEACHERN: It's the same argument that Mr. Hazzard made with regard to the county's attempt to enter in Exhibit No. 17. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So noted. Mr. Hazzard, what -- which page are we on in our exhibit which is behind our Tab 5? Is it the -- MR. HAZZARD: Behind Tab 5 in the county's book. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is -- is it the third page? MR. McCORMICK: I think it's the only page that at the butt -orn it has stamped "Received March 7th." MR. HAZZARD: In my version of the county's book, it's the eighth page. And you can see, Madam Chairman, about two - thirds of the way down on the left -hand side, there is obviously something written that has not copied well; and I'm simply trying to clarify for the record what that is on the original document. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, the county respectfully insists that the respondent and the county are treated equally the same, and if the statements that were objected to with regard to County's Exhibit No. 17 constitute hearsay, then this, too, constitutes hearsay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand your objection. Now, basically, you're asking Mr. Mazzone if he can read the writing on the page of the building permit application that was received on March the 7th, 1988. You probably should ask him if he wrote it before you ask him if he can read it. I certainly can't read it, and if he didn't write it, he probably can't either. But why don't you ask him if he wrote it. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Well, Inspector Mazzone, that's not your -- your writing there, is it, sir? A. No, it isn't, sir. Page 25 16G 1 January 22, 1997 MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I'm simply trying to make it clear to the board what the item of evidence that has already been entered as an exhibit in this case has written on it; and it's an important writing, and the board should understand what that says. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we have already introduced into evidence in our packet -- as Composite No. 7 from the county this entire packet. So whether he can read it or -- or not, you know, if you want us to look at the original -- since we have in our possession a copy -- to see if we can read it, I don't have any problem with that. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, the basis of the board's refusal to allow County's Exhibit 17 is the same -- the objection is the same as I've made here. It's the same thing. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. MS. McEACHERN: It was not allowed into evidence because this board determined it was hearsay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. I understand what you're saying. I'm not letting him answer the question. What I'm suggesting to Mr. Hazzard is, we have the document; it's been introduced; we have the right to look at it; I can't read it. If he wants to show us the original of that page, that's fine. I don't belyeve it's proper to ask the person who didn't write that to read it if he -- I certainly can't. But -- but the board will be happy to look at the original of that page and see if we can decipher it ourselves. MR. HAZZARD: Well, Madam Chairman, respectfully, Inspector Mazzone testified in July that he reviewed this very document, and part of the reason why he issued a notice of violation in this case is based on his interpretation of these documents from 1988-. There is a key piece of language that has been obliterated only because it's written in pencil. I'm not suggesting that anybody did anything to purposely obliterate it, by any means; but there's a piece of -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, why don't you ask based his decision on the writing on that page of application? And then if he did, then we can talk didn't, you know, the board will be ho.ppy to look see if we can decipher it. BY MR. HAZZARD: him if he the building permit about it; and if he at the original and Q. Inspector Mazzone, let's go broader than that. in fact, review the building permit application prior to notice of violation; is that correct? You did, issuing the A. Yes, sir. Q. And is this among the many pages of documents that you reviewed? A. If it was a part of our document, yes. I reviewed all the pages. Q. And, Inspector Mazzone, did you take any notice of the handwritten language that's two- thirds of the way down the page in pencil on that document? A. I don't recall that written notice on there, sir. Q. Doesn't that language suggest to you that the county Page 26 166 1 January 22, 1997 knew that the guardhouse was going to be built some 200 feet away from the structure in Tract A? MS. McEACHERN: Objection. The witness just testified that he does not recall if he reviewed that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he can answer the question. If he didn't review it, then, you know, he's got to give a response to -- for his answer to that question; but he can answer that question. Q. My question, Inspector Mazzone, is, do!sn't that handwritten notation suggest to you that the county knew that this guardhouse was going to be constructed some 200 feet away from the structure in Tract A? MS. McEACHERN: Objection, Madam Chairman. He is asking him in present tense, and I object to the form of his question, then, because he has answered that he does not recall if he read that writing. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Mazzone, why -- why don't you just tell us this so we can move this along? Looking at this page called Building Permit Application, there's some writing that's apparently in pencil that's almost indecipherable on our copy. Did you rely on the information on that piece of paper in making any decisions? THE WI'T'NESS: No, I did not, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. And, Inspector Mazzone, having reviewed this document now, should you have relied on information written on that document issuing your notice of violation? MS. MCEACHERN: Madam Chairman, it's irrelevant. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he can answer that. A. No, sir. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. And, Inspector Mazzone, what is it about that handwritten notation that -- that you believe should be discounted your evaluation? A. Well, the fact that it is som9thing that -- I don't know who wrote it. I don't know what it was really intended to -- to be interpreted as on this permit. I -- I don't how it appeared there. Q. Inspector Mazzone, do you know who wrote anything that is contained in the handwritten portions of County Exhibit 7? A. I'd have to go over all the portions to give you a precise answer. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I believe the clerk probably has in in opened a special file for this case, and I think the clerk has all these records. I -- I know we did that in the last big case we had, requested from Mr. Brock that he allow us to file this with the clerk, which is not usually the case, but I believe that the clerk has all these records. MR. HAZZARD: Am I understanding that the exhibits are not present in the hearing room today? MR. MANA.LICH: You're requesting the documentary exhibits? Is that the request? Page 27 166 1 January 22, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I -- I would imagine they're all in the clerk's office. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. My understanding is that they're either in the clerk's office or here in this room. I know the graphic exhibits are, and I believe they also have a file with the documentary. Now, whether that was brought up or not, I -- I don't know. We could take a pause and ask the court reporter who is acting on behalf of the clerk here. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, frankly, I've never heard a proceeding where the exhibits are not present in the hearing room. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, but this is not a -- MR. HAZZARD: I understand. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- usual court. And I will -- Z will tell you this, Mr. Hazzard, and then we will take a break and see if we can find it. The clerk never kept any records for this board until recently pursuant to our request. They finally let us file things with them in the Seminole case because they were just too cumbersome for any one person to keep, and it wasn't proper to keep them on either side, and I certainly didn't want them iii my private law office. So the clerk now keeps the records ror us in these big cases, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that's where all the original records are, because that's where we told the board members to go and look at them and review them. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman. I -- I don't want to drag this thing out beyond the bounds of reasonableness. I simply want to make sure that the exhibit that this board is relying upon, entered in this case, is an accurate exhibit. It appears as though this exhibit has handwriting on it that cannot be read, and I simply would intend tO A-sk the -- the Chair to substitute a legible copy of this exhibit in the record in this case. I mean, I don't want to belabor this point, but I -- but I think that it's in the interest of accuracy and a clear record. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, as I said before, we will be happy to look at the original. If we can find the original document, you can pass it through the board, and we'll all look at it. So why don't we take -- MR. HAZZARD: Well, I do have the original. It's in Inspector Mazzone's hand. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All right. Well, why don't we take a few minutes and pass that through the board and let the board look at the original document? Because if we took a copy of that, it would look just like the one we've already got. MR. HAZZARD: Well, Madam Chairman, somehow I would like ' to make a record of what that writing is for purposes of accurately preserving the record. I can read it, or the Chair can read, or Inspector Mazzone can read it. But if it's not going to copy, we need to have it in the record. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think we'll probably put the original in the record as -- so you can preserve it as evidence that way. MR. McCORMICK: I -- I think that it's relevant that we Page 28 1 bG 1 January 22, 1997 all read the same thing and we know the same t`:ing, because I don't know if my copy is the same as your copy, if it's more legible. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. Exactly. We have an original. Let's just pass it around, let's all look at it, and then later on they can darken the copy, and we can have the bottom that we can read it. We're not -- we're spending ten minutes discussing this. MR. HAZZARD: I -- and I am simply looking to do this in the most expeditious manner -- MS. LOUVIERE: Let's do it. MR. HAZZARD: -- and I've not been objecting all along. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Why -- why don't we pass this record through the board and let the board all review it and -- let's do that, and then we're going to take a break. MS. DEIFIK: Is there anything on those other pages that we should be looking at? MR. HAZZARD: Not to my knowledge. MR. KOWALSKI: Madam Chairman, for -- for the record -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: -- is it my understanding that -- that the Chair has instructed the court reporter to accept the original document for Exhibit 7 and -- and to deposit it with the clerk of courts for it to be a part of the record -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. KOWALSKI: -- in this case? Thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: What do you think that means? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. All the board members have reviewed the original of the document, which is a part of Composite Exhibit 7, which has some writing in pencil on about the eighth page within that document. And I have instructed the clerk to put this original in as part of County's Exhibit No. 7, which is the legible copy. Now, because I said we would do this, we will. We're going to take a 10- minute break, and we'll be back here at 10:25. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, before we adjourn -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. MANALICH: To take advantage of this break, could you ask the court reporter, perhaps, to go down to the clerk's office and see if they can bring up the original exhibit documents, which should all be down there if they're not here? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: In that case, we'll take a 15- minute break. Yes. We'll be adjourned. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Collier County Code Enforcement Board will come back to order. Let's see. We left off with Mr. Mazzone on the stand, and the board had just reviewed a part of Composite Exhibit No. 7. Next -- we are still on -- under the questioning of Mr. Mazzone, I do believe. It was your cross; is that right, Mr. Hazzard? MR. HAZZARD: That's my understanding, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Continue. MR. UA2ZARD: Madam Chairman, before the break one board member -- and I'm not sure who it was -- asked me whether this -- this Page 29 1 6G Z ' January 22, 1997 one page was the only one among the 14 in Exhibit 7 that the copy was not clear on. Z can't remember who that was, but I think my -- it was Miss Deifik. I think my answer was that yes, it is. Actually, I've changed that answer. No, it's not. There is another page that I would like the -- the board also to take recognition of and to have incorporated in -- in the spirit of accuracy of the exhibits, and I'm holding it in my hand. It's a yellow page. Unfortunately, many of these pages are titled "Building Permit Application," but it is the -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Ours would not be yellow, because we have Xerox copies. MR. HAZZARD: Correct. It -- it -- but assuming that the Chair will order that this page be amended to the exhibit or substituted as a more accurate copy of the exhibit -- it's -- it's the original actually. I'm describing it as yellow for purposes of the record, and it can -- it's the fifth -- I believe it is -- I'm sorry. It's the sixth page into Exhibit 14 (sic), the sixth page back into County Exhibit 14 (sic). As you can see, I'm holding it in my hand. There is a -- there's a yellow sticky stapled to this page the top of which reads, "Please, please, please do this," and then it says, "Return to zoning," and there's a figure who appears to be a -- some sort of a caricature on it. And that -- that item did not make it into the exhibit package as well, and I would like to make sure that we have an accurate copy of the exhibit -- of this page as well. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's -- let's do this, then. Because we don't have a copy that has anything that looks like a sticky on it, why don't we substitute the original in the clerk's file with -- along with the original of the other sheet, which was, I think, the eighth page. To preserve that evidence as well, let's substitute the original in the clerk's file. MR. HAZZARD: And Madam Chairman, for the record I -- Z do want to make it clear for persons who may be reading this transcript what the language is that each member of the board took note of as I passed it around on the -- MS. McEACHERN: I object, Your Honor. MR. HAZZARD: -- other page that we discussed. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I object. The document speaks for itself. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I would have to agree. The document does speak for itself, and the board members have all read it; and hopefully, you know, in -- in the course of the testimony today one or the other parties are -- are going to tell us who wrote that and what it means. But I think it probably is already in evidence, and the document has already been admitted in its original form as an exhibit. Because it is rather illegible -- I don't know that it's necessary for you to read it into the record unless my counsel tells me otherwise. MR. KOWALSKI: No, ma'am. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, then for the record we hate -- we have two additional pages to go in as part of exhibit -- County's Exhibit -- CHAIRPERSON RAVJSON: Correct. What I would like to do Page 30 16G 1 January 22, 1997 is substit.:t- those for the copies. MR. HAZZARD: And give this to the clerk, Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Please. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Inspector Mazzone, just a couple final questions -- perhaps just one final question. I just want to confirm that you have no knowledge as to who made the writings on any of the 14 pages that you've identified in County's Exhibit No. 7 that we've been discussing; is that correct? A. On this particular page, that's correct, sir. Q. Okay. And I believe one of the reasons why we took the break was so that we could find the -- the original exhibit, and I believe that we have that now. And I would like for you to simply review the entire exhibit and tell me whether you have knowledge as to whose handwriting appears on it in any place. If you'd give me one second to get that from the clerk. Inspector Mazzone, you have in front of you County's Exhibit No. 7, and I'd ask you to carefully look at it and tell me whether you know at -- on any page who the handwriting belongs to on that exhibit. A. Are you asking me if I can attest to the fact that I know that these signatures belong to the same parties that are on these pages? Q. I'm asking you whether you can identify the handwriting that's on any of those pages with your own personal knowledge. A. You're speaking of -- speaking of the entire document, are you not, sir? -Q." ' Yes, sir. A. Yes, I can. Q. Okay. What -- what handwriting can you specifically identify on that document? A. The second page, that of Jack Laubock (phonetic) who was a previous zoning investigator with Collier County. Q. And what -- what is it that the handwriting says, if you can read it? A. It's his signature, sir. Q. And you recognize that signature as -- it's familiar to you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that second page, what is the document that he has signed for clarity in the record? A. It's -- it was previously known as an inspection report. Q. Okay. Thank you, Inspector. That's -- that's it in that entire exhibit? A. Yes, sir. Q. Inspector Mazzone, when Miss McEachern was asking you questions earlier this morning, you testified that in your review the conmunity development administrator never approved the -- what you've called at various times a kiosk that's shown in the old photograph that's been entered as an exhibit; is that correct? Page 31 1 bG 1 January 22, 1997 A. That's correct, sir. Q. And in your review who was the community development administrator at the time that structure was built? A. I don't recall, sir. Q. Can you tell me when that structure was built? A. No. I don't have the exact date, no, sir. Q. Can you approximate when that structure was built? MS. McEACHERN: I object, Your Honor -- or Madam Chairman. He's asking for speculation. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I'm simply -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he can answer the question. Do you know when it was built? THE WITNESS: I -- I don't know. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. And -- and you do not -- therefore, you do not know who was the community development administrator when it was built; is that correct? A. That's correct, sir. MR. HAZZARD: I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Any redirect? And you can exceed, because you can redirect based on what he asked that exceeded his redirect (sic). MS. McEACHERN: Thank you. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Mazzone, is there an address on the building permit for the construction that was supposed to be done? A.— Yes, there is. Q. And what is that address? A. Number 1, Lely Beach Boulevard. Q. And do you know where No. 1 Lely Beach Boulevard is? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, just for the record, this was asked and answered on the first day of testimony. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead and answer. It's -- it's short, but we don't want to be repetitive. THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Looking at -- looking at County's Exhibit No. 15, which is the old photograph, do you -- is No. 1 Lely Beach Boulevard seen on -- in this photo? A. Yes. It's where the original guardhouse was positioned on Tract A. That is -- that is No. 1 Lely Beach Boulevard. Q. All right. I'm going to ask you to point to it. A. (Witness indicating) Q. Mr. Mazzone, it your testimony, then, that the building permit states that the construction that is to be done is to be done at the gatehouse facility that is shown in the old photograph? MR. HAZZARD: Objection. I would object, Madam Chairman. To quote counsel, the application speaks for itself. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let me ask you this: Is that -- Page 32 1 6G 1 January 22, 1997 what you're pointing to, the address is No. 1, and that's what the building permit is for? Is that the thrust of this question? THE WITNESS: That's correct, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Mazzone, is the new guardhouse that is the subject of today's proceeding, the alleged violation, is that address No. 1 Lely Beach Boulevard? A. No, it is not, ma'am. Q. Mr. Mazzone, do you know if there is any county record that is a building application for the present location of the guardhouse? A. No, ma'am. MS. McEACHERN: I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further, Mr. Hazzard? MR. HAZZARD: Just one question. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Inspector Mazzone, what's the basis for your knowledge as to these addresses? A. The county records, sir. Q. What county record tells you what the address is of each of these properties that you've been asked to describe? A. As stated on this permit, certainly there's a No. 1 Lely Beach Boulevard. If we go through our -- our phone directory or research like that, we can pinpoint it down to an address linked to the number on that specific location. There's other ways of telling. I can't recall exactly how we determined that this was the specific location, but I believe I've seen it written, the -- as No. 1 Lely Beach-Boulevard, also known as the guardhouse facility or gatehouse facility, whatever it was referred to previously. MR. HAZZARD: I have no further questions, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Anything further from this witness? MS. McEACHERN: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Mazzone. THE WITNESS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Call your next witness. MR. MANALICH: The county calls Earl Starnes. THEREUPON, EARL STARNES, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. STARNES: Madam Chair, for the record my name is Earl Starnes, and I reside in Cedar Key, Florida. MR. MANALICH: The witness has been sworn in, correct? Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION ELY MR.. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Starnes, would you please state what is your occupation or professional degrees that you hold. Page 33 16G 1 January 22, 1997 A. Well, I'm a retired professor from the University of Florida. I was chair of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning there for 12 years. I have a degree in -- a doctorate and master's degree from Florida State University in urban and regional planning; an architecture degree from the University of Florida. Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Starnes. MR. HANALICH: Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to have marked as an exhibit and show to opposing counsel and the board's counsel a curriculum vitae or resume of Mr. Starnes that I'd like to present at this time and introduce into evidence as County Exhibit 18, I believe. And if we could have a -- if we could have ruling on that exhibit, then I have -- if accepted, I will have additional copies for the board members. MR. HAZZARD: I have no objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's going to be admitted. His resume will be admitted without any objection aF Exhibit No. 18. I assume you're going to try to qualify him as a -- an expert; so let's get through that as fast as we can. Are you going to have any objections to that? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I'm not certain what area of expertise he's going to be offered into -- as -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Fair enough. (County's Exhibit No. 18 was marked for identification.) BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Starnes, you have before you what's been marked as County Exhibit 18 entitled "Curriculum Vitae." If you'll look through it quickly, it consists of sever. -- eight numbered pages and two additional pages which -- which at the top have a description of cases. Is that a complete copy of your curriculum vitae? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And I think you've previously described some of the professional degrees that you've held as well as your education. Is that properly reflected in this unCer education, professional registration, and affiliation on page 1 of your resume? A. It is properly reflected there. Q. Okay. And could you tell us, please, on pages 2 and 3 -- does that accurately reflect your professional experience in the field of land planning as well as architecture? A. Yes, it does. Q. You are a professor emeritus; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And that is from where? A. University of Florida. Q. In what field? A. Department of Urban and Regional Planning within the College of Architecture. Q. Okay. Reflected on pages 3, 4 through 6, does that accurately describe your political and civic activities listings and honors and papers presented and /or published by you in -- in these fields? -- -- 1 10 166 1 January 22, 1997 A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And beginning on page 7 and 8, are those research projects that you have personally been involved in in these areas of practice? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You have also been qualified as an expert witness, I believe, in a number of cases which you have outlined on the two unnumbered pages at the end of this resume? A. That is correct. ve you been so qualified in the Q. okay. in what fields ha courts as an expert? A. Comprehensive planning, land -use planning, and urban design. MR. MANALICH: Okay. At this point, Madam Chairman, unless there's any objection, I'd like to qualify him as an expert in the fields that he has described; namely, in land planning, architecture, land use, comprehensive planning, growth management, all of which he's described personally and in his resume. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any objection? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I thought I heard him say comprehensive planning, land -use planning, and urban design. I have no objection to those specific areas. MR. MANALICH: Which one do you object to, Mr. Hazzard? MR. HAZZARD: I -- I had just written down what the doctor described as his previous areas that he's been qualified in as an expert, and I have -- have no objection to his qualifications in any of those three areas. BY MR. MANALICH: -Q.- * Did we omit any other areas in which you have previously A. Well, I have been qualified in growth management, which is the alternative for comprehensive planning. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then he's qualified as an expert. You may continue with your questioning. MR. MANALICH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Starnes, have you also acted as a consultant to both the public and private sectors in regard to these fields of expertise? A. That is also correct. Q. Are you here today as an expert witness on behalf of the county? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you being compensated? A. I am. A hundred -- compensation is a hundred and twenty dollars an hour plus legitimate travel expenses. Q. Is that at all contingent on the outcome of this action? A. I certainly hope not. (Laughter) ¢. I assure you it is not. In any event, within the -- the field of architecture and land planning and land uses, is there an emerging area of study having to do with the proliferation of gated Page 35 16G 1 January 22, 1997 and walled communities? A. As recently as 1994, there appeared in Planning Magazine, which is a journal of the American Planning Association, an article related -- entitled Fortress America, and it dealt with gated communities. And what has happened is throughout the South, and particularly Florida and Texas, and the Southwest, California, Oregon, and Arizona, gated communities have begun to proliferate the landscape. And the -- it has only recently taken much attention on the part of researchers, but that article appeared in Planning Magazine, and I think it -- to my knowledge, it was the first one in the last decade or so that's appeared. Q. Have you familiarized yourself with the literature that has since appeared on this subject? A. Yes, I have. I -- I have reviewed an article written by Dr. Ed Blakely (phonetic), who is chair of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Southern California. That -- that research was sponsored by the Lincoln Land -- Land Policy Institute in Boston, and it deals with this issue of fortress America, and he attempts to categorize gated communities along three particular lines. I've also read a -- a book published in 1994 called Privatopia (phonetic), which was published by Yale University Press, written by Evan MacKenzie (phonetic). It doesn't deal directly with the gated communities themselves. It deals with the -- with the -- with the social and government's phenomenon that has emerged through home ownership associations and that kind of thing. It's a more general document. Q. In addition to the literature that you've reviewed, have you also spoken to other experts or persons involved in this field? A. I've spoken with a -- a faculty colleague at the University of Florida who has done some work with Dr. Blakely when she was at -- at Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley. And I've also spoken -- and it may be considered hearsay -- with a planner from Laguna Niguel in California. It's a -- it's a town of about 55,000 people in the southern end of the sta.:e. And -- and what I talked to her about was gated communities. But there is in -- in their ordinance, their planned unit development ordinance, they provide that in order to gain some benefits or bonuses, the unit -- the planned developments must include public parks. And they've had some difficulties with the public parks being located inside the gated communities. They are, however, guaranteed access. In some cases it works well, she says; in some cases it doesn't. Q. Professor Starnes, have you reviewed the notice of violation that has been presented by the county in this case? A. Yes, I have. Q. And are you aware that one of the allegations in that notice of violation is that there's an impediment to access created by the guardhouse at this particular development at Lely Barefoot Beach with regard to reaching by road a state parkland facility approximately 2 miles to the south of that guardhouse? A. Well, there's a statement here in the document, and I Page 36 16G 1 January 22, 1997 assume it's in the record. The existence of a framed guardhouse structure also impeding traffic is probably the language right from the -- Q. You've reviewed that previously; correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what other materials have you reviewed in preparation for your testimony today? A. Well, a long time ago, when Mr. Bryant asked me to -- engaged me to become involved in this, he gave me a group of materials. One included the administrative appeal to the county manager's office by the plaintiff, the planned unit development ordinance, and several amendments. I'm not at all certain that I have all the amendments that have been made. I also read the state preserve management plan written by the then Department of Natural Resources, which has later become the Department of Environmental Protection; and I've reviewed some documents that refer to right -of -way easements for public access. Q. Now, in addition, obviously you've spoken to our office and, I believe, some county staff members -- or if I recall correctly, was it just our office -- in regard to this case? A. I've only -- I've only had conversations with your office. Q. Okay. Have you visited the site which is the subject of this alleged violation? A. I visited the site first in July and then again in October and then in December and as late as yesterday. Q. Now, based on everything that you have reviewed and the site that you've visited, do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty as to whether the guardhouse which exists at Lely Barefoot Beach at the front of the road intersecting with Bonita Beach Road deters access to the parklands to the south? MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam Chairman. That's the ultimate issue, or one of the ultimate issues, for determination by this body. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, under the Rules of Evidence, I don't believe that he's precluded from issuing an opinion on an ultimate issue. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he's an expert and he's been so qualified, but -- MR. HAZZARD: He's not been qualified as an expert in law whatsoever, Madam Chairman, and the ultimate question in this case is a -- a legal determination. MR. MANALICH: Well, I think this is -- falls within his expertise and that the testimony will further outline how he reaches those conclusions as to what is, within the field of land planning, the impact and significance of a gated structure where it's located. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, now, what did you ask him, if in his opinion it violates that ordinance? Is that what you asked him? MR. HAZZARD: In essence, Your Honor, I think -- Madam Chairman, .I think what he asked him is, is the notice of violation Page 37 16G January 22, 1997 right? MR. MANALICH: I think I can and will ask him that. But right now I'm actually asking him based on everything he's reviewed -- and he's described how he's familiar with this -- whether -- within his profession he's able to determine whether, in any manner, that structure affects access to the parklands. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Which is not the same as saying, is it a violation? I'll let him answer that question. A. In my opinion, from a planning standpoint, the gatehouse or guardhouse or whatever we want to call it located in the center of the road today does impede traffic, and I base that opinion on the ethos of gateways in planning. Gateways have been a part of developing villages and communities for all times, and the gateway itself -- a gateway to any place sets aside that which is beyond the gate exclusive of that which is outside the gate. So the gateway does have a -- a -- in terms of planning, it does have an impediment to free flow of traffic, and it is intended to do so. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Have gateways, historically and presently, been shown to have any impact -- any impacts psychologically on access? A. Well, I think from a standpoint of planning and -- and the aesthetics of community development, the gateways do have an impact upon -- upon the free flow of traffic; and I think the fact that the gateway exists, it's -- was purposefully put there to do that. Q. Now, are there any other unique physical features at the site that you've visited that contribute to this deterrence of access that you observed? A.— Well, I think the fact that it's located rather close to the -- the Bonita Springs Boulevard and the sweeping arms (indicating) of the -- of the walls that -- that -- that really point to the gate, really create the -- the sense of a private development and a private gateway and -- Q. Now, is this -- go ahead. I'm sorry. A. No, that's okay. Q. Is this an area that is somewhat narrow for passage because of any physical features there? A. I think it -- it may not be physically narrow, but it's certainly a narrowing in the sense of one's approach to the facility. Q. Is the fact that there is a guard in the guardhouse at all contributing to the access problem? A. I think any time there's a guard in a -- in a guardhouse or gatehouse, the presence of a -- of a person there makes one think about credentials upon approaching the guardhouse; so I think it does have a -- a -- reinforcing the impediment. Q. Are there speed bumps along that road? A. Yes, there are speed bumps. Q. Does that impact access? A. I think the speed bumps certainly control the traffic, and I think the term is "calm traffic" through Lely Beach Boulevard; and I think it is an impediment, certainly, to the free flow of Page 38 January 22, 1997 traffic. Q. Are gates or guardhouses typically within the field of land planning considered to be compatible with access to public areas? A. Well, only if the gate is there to control the -- the use of the public facility. By and large gates do control access; and I know that, of course, the State Division of Parks and Recreation certainly use gates at theirs, but they're there purposefully because they have to collect a fee. But gates do impede the flow of -- free flow of traffic into public facilities. Q. Is this type of guardhouse consistent with what one would see at any of the number of walled, private communities that you've described that are proliferating throughout the nation? A. I think it's fairly typical. Usually they are located in the center or on the side of the road, but they're certainly quite common among these gated communities. Q. Would this type of guardhouse -- if I told you that in pleadings the master association that Mr. Hazzard represents had stated that they wanted to create a gated enclave at that property, would this guardhouse be consistent with that desire? A. I think it certainly would he. There's no question in my mind, in my opinion, that there would be. Q. Are you aware in your discussions with my office that there was an informal survey conducted at this location some time ago regarding access? A. I am, and I have reviewed the survey instruments, and I've reviewed the results. Q. Is your opinion today which you have expressed indicating that this guardhouse deters access to the public facilities, is that opinion at all affected or changed by that survey? A. No. Because of -- in order to do a survey, one has to be very careful about the method. In the case of that particular survey, the -- the persons surveyed were users of the facility, the public facility; and the survey was conducted by, I presume, a uniformed forest manager or -- or park manager. And I think that the fact that the -- the survey population includes only those who have used the facility or found their way to the facility -- MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I have to object at this point. This witness has not been qualified in any respect as an expert in survey techniques and has no basis to offer the opinion that he's offering on whatever survey this is that the county attorney is quizzing him about. MR. MANALICH: This is the survey that was offered as part of their exhibits. CFAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, if he used the survey that has already been introduced into evidence as an exhibit for forming the basis of his opinion, then I think he can testify about the survey. MR. HAZZARD: Well, Madam Chairman, first of all, it's not been made clear what survey it is that he's talking about. Mr_ Manalich quizzed him about an informal survey that his office made him -- made available to him. So I would like to know if, in fact, Page 39 16G i January 22, 1997 it's the survey that's been entered as an exhibit; and I would also like to know the basis for this witness's knowledge of survey techniques and how that survey was taken. And -- and he's giving testimony on proper survey techniques. I'd like to know where his expertise comes from in that regard. It's certainly not from comprehensive planning, land -use planning, urban design, or growth management as I understand those topics. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. MR. MANALICH: We are referring to Mr. Hazzard's survey that he has included as part of his package. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I think categorizing it as Mr. Hazzard's survey is extremely inaccurate. This survey that's attached to my package is done by county personnel. MR. MANALICH: His exhibit. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, you -- would you do this. Do you know what number it is, Mr. Hazzard? MR. HAZZARD: it is the -- if it's the one that -- that I presented to this board, it is the appendix document. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. In this book (indicating)? Okay. MR. MANALICH: In order to speed things up -- BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Starnes, do you happen to use surveys in your field of practice? A. In teaching planning and very much a part of the curriculum of every master's course in urban planning, there are a series of courses called methods; and included among those methods are survey methods -- Q.- And I know A. -- ranging widely from telephone surveys to mail surveys to in -depth surveys to open -ended surveys to all kinds of surveys. So I -- I think that most any planner is considered to be, upon graduation, hopefully an expert in survey techniques. Q. In any event, just to streamline things and to not get bogged down on this, all I'm asking in regard to the survey -- I'm not asking you to give an expert opinion as to the validity of this survey. All I want to know is, is the opinion that you are very eminently qualified to give that you have earlier given regarding access by this guardhouse -- is that opinion at all affected by these survey methods that have been apparently used in Mr. Hazzard's exhibit that was presented? A. My -- my opinion regarding the location of the gateway and its impediment to the free flow of traffic was not based upon the' survey itself Q. And A. -- or their instruments. Q. And do the reports contained in that survey regarding people who claim they didn't have problems with access change your opinion about the guardhouse being an impediment to access? A. No, they did not. Q. Let's move on to signage at the site. Is there any Page 40 i b'U i January 22, 1997 signage out there for the county park? A. There is some signage there. Q. Is it sufficient to overcome the impediment to access posed by the guardhouse? A. I really don't think it is. I think that the information that is there -- it's not that easy to find. In fact, I had difficulty finding it the first time I went out there. Q. You're familiar that in the ordinances there is reference to a gatehouse complex at Tract A, are you not? A. Yes. Q. And Tract A is located, if I'm not mistaken, on the side of the road; correct? A. I believe that's correct. Q. And it was also further south down the road from where the present guardhouse is right now; correct? A. I believe that's also correct. Q. Assuming all that to be true, does the location of a gatehouse as provided for in the ordinances -- in Tract A as opposed to the present location -- does that have the same impediment to access, more, or less than where the guardhouse is right now? A. I think it does. I think it's an -- it's an early symbol or it's a symbol as one turns into that development that this is a private development. Q. So are you saying that the guardhouse presently situated up front by Bonita Beach Road has greater impediment to access than back at Tract A? A. I would -- I would conclude that. That would be my opinion, yes. -Q.- ' Do the existence of private structures and residences in the vicinity of the site of the present guardhouse contribute to the psychological impact to access? A. Well, I think the feeling upon when you enter the development -- this is clearly a private development, and these are very large and, by and large, very expensive- looking homes. Q. To finish then, Mr. Starnes, would you please, then, clearly state what is your opinion as a land planner with regard to whether this guardhouse affects access to the state park. A. In my opinion, it does. I think it makes a -- a statement that this is a private enclave, and I think as -- as it as it does that, it certainly impedes the choice to use the public facilities at the southern end of the boulevard. MR. MANALICH: Thank you, Mr. Starnes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Hazzard. CROSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Good morning, Professor. How are you this morning? A. Fine, thank you, sir. Q. Professor Starnes, Lely Barefoot Beach is a private dave.l opment , is it not? A_ That is my understanding. Q. And the road that you traveled upon entering the Lely Page 41 I bG 1 January 22, 1997 Barefoot Beach subdivision is a privately owned road, is it not? A. It is my understanding. Q. And what was your purpose in traveling on that road? A. My purpose was to familiarize myself with the site and with the public facilities at the south end of the site. Q. Did the owners of that road give you permission to do so? MR. MANALICH: Objection, not relevant. A. No, they did not. Q. You were trespassing on private property, weren't you, sir? A. I don't think so. MR. MANALICH: Objection, not relevant? A. I don't think so. MR. MANALICH: If they want to make an admission that it is to trespass to travel along that road at the park, we will certainly ask the board to consider it that way. MR. HAZZARD: I'm sorry. The professor did not testify that he was going to the park or planning to use any park facilities. He merely testified that he was out there checking out this road. BY iii- HAZ ZARD : Q. Professor, if I may continue -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think he answered the question. He said he didn't think he was trespassing. MR. HAZZARD: Right. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Professor, you stated that you visited the site in July, October, December, and yesterday; is that correct? A.- That is correct. Q. What time of day did you visit the site? A. I think one of the visits was in the morning, probably in July was in the morning. The other visits were in the afternoon. Q. So would you have visited the site on each occasion during the hours that the county's park facility was open? A. That is correct. Q. And as you approached the guardhouse in question, you found that there were no gates blocking the roadway; isn't that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Now, you testified that this guardhouse is typical of those that you know of in gated communities. Is it typical for gated communities to have no gates over the road? A. Some have and some do not. Some have control points, and some do not have control points. Q. Have you ever visited a gated community that -- that had an open roadway that you could drive down on without being stopped by a gate? A. As a matter of fact, there's some even recently built in Gainesville that do not have -- they are walled developments, but they do not have gated control points. Q. Okay. So is there anything inconsistent with gates Page 42 16G 1 January 22, 1997 being open all day long, as you see it, in this gated community between others that you're familiar with? A. I don't think there's anything inconsistent with it. I think the fact that it is a -- a gated community and it -- that boulevard serves a public facility at the southern end is different than most communities I've -- I've seen. Q. And isn't it true, sir, that the method of operation with these gates being up that allowed persons like yourself to drive straight down this road all the way to that public facility is consistent with allowing persons to reach that public facility? A. I think it is, and I think it -- it operates in terms of the public easement on that road. Q. And, sir, are you familiar, in the -- in the course of your review of the various documents that you were provided with, with a county -- county contract signed with the developer of Lely Barefoot Beach entitled a "Use /Access Agreement "? Is that among the documents you were asked to review? MR. MANALICH: Objection, Madam Chairman, relevancy. Q. I'm simply asking if that was among the documents that you were asked to review. A. I'm not certain that it was. It's not on my list, although I had quite a pile of documents when Mr. Bryant sent them up to me. Q. Okay. That Use /Access Agreement has been entered as a county exhibit in this case. I'm going to show it to you and ask if that refreshes your memory as to whether or not it's something that you have reviewed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he can ask him whether he's revi -ewed it or not. I think he says he probably hasn't, but in terms of "have you reviewed it," that question is not irrelevant. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Professor Starnes, I've handed you what's been marked as County Exhibit No. 9 entitled a "Use /Access Agreement." Is that a document that you reviewed in connection with rendering the opinions you've been asked to give in this matter? A. I don't recall precisely whether I did or not. Q. Okay. Would you look at paragraph No. S of that Use /Access Agreement? MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, at this point I'd like to be heard on this objection. It probably should be done now since this is going to arise, I suspect, later on also. The county basically we recognize that this was a county exhibit that Mr. Hazzard is referring to. I will mention that that was with prior counsel. As you know, Miss McEachern and I came into this case after his departure from the office. Basically, we at this point would like to offer a continuing objection to any discussion regarding Use /Access Agreement or option agreement as not being relevant. In addition, we believe that it exceeds the scope of this board's review to consider those documents, being contracts and n-ot ardina mces of the county; and third, I would cite to the board -- if you'll give me just one moment. 16G 1 January 22, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well now, we've got this introduced into evidence. We've reviewed it. We've all read it. Is -- is the second part of your objection that we aren't to consider it? MR. MANALICH: That's correct. As I said, former counsel presented this. We would be willing, if the board so rules, to withdraw that exhibit, that county exhibit. The third basis for our objection is Section 90.403, exclusion of evidence on the grounds of prejudice or confusion; and in particular, I would cite to the chairman the case of Perper versus Edell, a Florida Supreme Court decision. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let me just say this: If you're going to cite cases to us, could we be provided copies of them as well as our attorney and Mr. Hazzard? But for the record you can give the citation. MR. MANALICH: Okay. I'll be happy to do that. It's 44 So. 2d 78. And the reason I'm -- I'm raising it is that -- that our supreme court stated that if -- we conceive the rule to be that if the introduction of the evidence tends in actual operation to produce a confusion in the mind of the jurors in excess of the legitimate probative effect of such evidence, if it tends to obscure rather than illuminate the true issue, then such evidence should be excluded. Our position is your only jurisdiction here is to consider matters of ordinance violations, not contractual disputes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Let -- let me do this: Let me answer your objections kind of backwards. This particular exhibit has been introduced into evidence before, and we've all reviewed it. We've all read it. MR. HAZZARD: And my point, Madam Chairman, by the county itself. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We can't now unread it. However, we hear what you say; and in terms of this particular exhibit, we have to determine what weight to give any pieces of evidence that are presented to us, but we can't unread what we've read. We will actually have to -- we can't exclude it now. We can, based on your comments, determine what kind of weight we want to give it, though. Now, that was your second objection. Your first objection was in terms of the relevancy of asking this witness questions about that document? MR. MANALICH: Correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Well -- and I don't disagree with you. If this witness testified, as he did, that he doesn't recall ever seeing this document, now to go through and ask him specific questions about each sentence in the document that he hasn't' read before doesn't seem permissible, although there's nothing wrong with asking him questions about the document. If you're going to do that, I think you're going to have to give him time to read the whole document before you do that, Mr. Hazzard, but you certainly would have the right to thereafter. But I believe he testified that he didn't remember reading this document. So I'm going to assume that he didn't base any of his opinions on having read this document. MR. HAZZARD: And I would assume so as well, Madam Page 44 16G 1 January 22, 1997 Chairman. I have to tell you, Madam Chairman, that I'm completely perplexed at the basis by which the county asks to somehow withdraw from evidence a document that the county has entered into evidence. This same Use /Access Agreement has also been accepted into evidence with the county's -- without objection from the county as a respondents' exhibit, and it appears behind page 3. I think -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We -- we've had it twice. It's in both books. We've read it, and so this board will just have to consider what weight to afford it like we do all the rest of the evidence that's been introduced. MR. HAZZARD: And it's my understanding, then, that the county's objection to this document, that it itself has entered into evidence, is overruled? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I don't know that I have the power to overrule. I'm just saying we've got it. We've read it. We will consider what weight to give it. We've -- it's been introduced by both of you; so it's been done. MR. HAZZARD: Okay. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Professor, I would like you to have an opportunity to look at that document. I rec -- I know that you've -- you've looked at many, many piles of paper probably with respect to this case and that one is not ringing a bell for you, but I'd like for you to have an opportunity to look at it, and in particular pay attention to paragraph 8 of that document if you would, and let me know when you've had an opportunity to -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Now, that was the next thing I was going to talk about. If -- if you're c-,oing to ask him specific questions about a document that appears to b4� four pages long, I think in all fairness to the witness, we're going -o have to give him time to read all four pages and respond based on nis expertise as he can. MR. HAZZARD: And I simply plan to ask him, Madam Chairman, whether the -- the operation of this guardhouse is consistent with the outline in this document as he's observed it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If he can answer that question. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I have an objection to that, because there's no evidence before this board that the actual operation of the guardhouse is even consistent with that Use /Access Agreement, and he's asking this witness to interpret this agreement that he's never reviewed. He's not an attorney. He's not offered as an expert to testify to the interpretation of a contract, and the interpretation enforceability or nonenforceability of that agreement is way beyond the scope of this board's jurisdiction. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman_, two points. First of all, I know that the Rules of Evidence don't apply in this case, and we're just trying to do -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, they do but they're relaxed. MR. HAZZARD: Right. But this is Mr. Manalich's witness, and I've never before been exposed to a situation where we ;sear stereo objections from co- counsel. I would request that the counsel responsible for the witness be the counsel to object or not 16G 1 January 22, 1997 object. If that's not going to be the pattern, how many more lawyers can I bring along to sit with me at the table to think up objections? No more. My understanding -- right. And we have a hundred and sixty -five in our firm; so, you know, if we're going to let every lawyer sitting at the table object -- I think the rule of one lawyer, one witness should apply. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Now, I -- I understand what you're saying, and I -- and I think that's probably a good suggestion, one witness, one lawyer. But back to the use /access, I don't know whether this witness can answer any of your questions or not, but you have the right to ask them. But I do think that in due deference to the witness, you should give him ample opportunity to have read the entire agreement; and if you want to wait to let him do that during the lunchtime and come back afterwards, that's fine. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I think in the interest of time, I'll ask the witness a few questions that, perhaps, does not require him to have read this document. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Professor Starnes, just to be clear, as you approached -- on your various visits to Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision, as you approached this guardhouse, it was during park operating hours; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And as you approached this guardhouse, there were no gates that blocked the road to prevent your access down the road; is that correct? A. There were no gates. -Q.- . And, Professor Starnes, is it also correct that no guard physically stopped you as you approached this guardhouse? A. That is correct. Q. And is it also correct that you observed a sign to the right -hand side of the road as you're driving south that instructs visitors to the county park facility to proceed past the guardhouse without stopping? A. That is correct. Q. And, in fact, you did so; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Professor, in your expertise in comprehensive planning, land -use planning, urban design, and growth management, do you recognize that the county and the entities that own the Lely Barefoot Beach access road are empowered to enter into contracts? A. That is my understanding. Q. And would it be unusual for those entities to enter into a contract that describes how access to this public facility should occur? A. Well, I -- I -- I've been seating -- sitting on several public boards and agencies throughout my life, and it is reasonable to make arrangements with private entities. Q_ Okay. And you mentioned the surveys that -- that you reviewed but that were not a -- a part of your opinion. In those 16G 1 January 22, 1997 surveys did you glean from them the volume of car traffic that actually does reach the Barefoot Beach County Park at any given time? A. No, I didn't. That I did not glean from them. Q. Okay. If I were to tell you that in the -- what we refer to down here as the season, that frequently in excess of a thousand cars a day -- according to the county's own statistics -- access that park, would you have any basis to dispute that? A. I would have no basis to dispute that. Q. Would you have any inkling as to what restriction, if any, that guardhouse has on the number of cars that actually do access the park? A. I'm not certain, and I -- I don't have the facility to go within the minds of the people who may have turned back. Q. Do you have any information that leads you to believe that the county could accommodate more than the cars that are actually accessing that park? A- I -- actually there's a restricted parking area at the -- at the end of the boulevard in -- in both the county and the state facilities. So I think those parking lots probably restrict the number of available spaces. Q. Okay. Professor, you were making some reference in your testimony to the general -- general signage as you approach this facility. As you were driving on Bonita Beach Road toward the Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision, did you notice any signage on Bonita Beach Road that alerted you to the existence of the county park? A. I don't remember any specifically; and that road is under construction, much of it is, and maybe signs are -- are not there. -Q.-' Okay. If I told you that there are at least two signs that instruct cars approaching Lely Barefoot Beach on Bonita Beach Road that the county park is upcoming, would you have any basis to dispute me on that? A. I would not. Q. Okay. Do you know, Professor, who erected the sign that you have previously referred to that instructs visitors to the park to proceed without stopping at the guardhouse? A. I do not know who erected it. Q. Okay. Did you happen to notice whether the county emblem is on that sign? A. I don't recall that. Q. Okay. These photographs are already entered into evidence as part of Exhibit 16 in the respondents' book. I'm just going to show you a -- a photograph and ask you if that's the sign that you've been talking about. A. I'm not -- yes, I guess it is, but there's also one on the wall on the right -hand side. Q. For the record the photograph that I've shown you says -- the sign says, "All Park visitors Shall Proceed Directly to Pzers,erve Mithout Stopping." Is that your recall of what that sign says? A. Correct. 16G 1 January 22, 1997 Q. And you mentioned something that's on -- on a wall. What wall is it that you're describing? A. I think there's another sign on the -- on the curved wall on the right -hand side, as I recall. Q. Do you recall what that sign says? A. I think it says something very similar. Q. Okay. So in your -- in your view, there were at least two signs that instruct people to proceed to this county facility without stopping; is that right? A. That's my recollection. MR. HAZZARD: I have no further questions, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All right. Yes, Mr. Manalich. MR. MANALICH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Starnes, when you went to the park, at the time you went, you'd already been in contact with our office; correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you knew what was the situation out there; right? A. I did know, and I did also know that as a member of the public I could use the facility and the right -of -way. Q. So you were, is it fair to say, in a different position than, perhaps, a visitor who did not know about the controversy raging between the county and the private property owners in approaching that guardhouse? A. That is correct. Q. Did you know you didn't have to stop for the guard? A.- I knew I didn't havc. to even before I got there. Q. Now, Mr. Hazzard referred to some signage along Bonita Beach Road some distance away from the guardhouse. In your opinion, would that be sufficient to overcome the psychological impediment that would be encountered by someone who's not familiar with that situation when they approach that guardhouse? MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam Chairman. This witness has not been qualified in psychology by any stretch of the imagination. MR. MANALICH: He's testified earlier as to -- in the field of land planning the message, psychological and physical, that gates have sent throughout history. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, he is not qualified to make any determination about whether -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, you can rephrase -- MR. HAZZARD: -- the sign can overcome the psychology. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You can rephrase the question, because I think he can certainly render an opinion as to whether or not he thinks the sign helps with whether or not there's a free access. SY MR. MANAL I CH : Q. Does the signage that you have observed or has been described to you today in the questions at all -- or eliminate the 16G 1 January 22, 1997 access impediment posed by the guardhouse? A. I think it certainly helps. I -- I don't think that it overcomes the impediment of the facility in the center of the road unless the person really takes time to read it and understand it. Q. At the beginning of his questions, Mr. Hazzard asked you about whether you had trespassed at this location. If the implication of his question is that simply by being on that road during regular hours you were trespassing, is that the type of mind set consistent with a walled, private community? A. I think it is, and I think people -- I think the general public feel they are imposing upon a private enclave. MR. MANALICH: Thank you, Mr. Starnes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further, Mr. Hazzard? MR. HAZZARD: Just a couple quick follow -up questions, Madam Chairman. RECROSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Professor Starnes, you said you reviewed some easements that give the public some access to that road; is that correct? A. I -- I recall having one document that dealt with easements, the public- access easement. Q. Okay. And did the document that you reviewed give that easement for a specific purpose? MR. MANALICH: Objection, beyond the scope of the redirect. I never asked at all in the redirect about easements. MR. HAZZARD: Well, we can bring the professor back next week -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's -- - MR. HAZZARD: -- when it's my turn, if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's -- that's true, but if we're going to talk about a document -- MR. MANALICH: Well, I would submit he could have asked about that in his cross, and he didn't have to bring him back next week. He just gave up the opportunity to ask about it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I'm going to let him ask whatever questions he wants in the interest of saving time so he doesn't have to call him back. But if we're going to talk about a specific document referring to an easement, we need to know which document we're talking about. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Professor, what document are you talking about that you've reviewed? A. I'm not certain. It was in the pile of papers that ' Mr. Bryant sent to me originally. Q. Did that document, if you can recall, provide that the easement was for a specific purpose; namely, to reach the county park facility at the end of the road? A. That's my recollection, and there was also a copy of same material related to the state preserve and access to the state preserve. Q. Okay. Professor, in your experience -- if -- I earlier Page 49 1 bG 1 January 22, 1997 mentioned to you a thousand cars a day going down that road. Is it good, sound planning to send a thousand cars a day down that road to reach the park facility at the end? MR. MANALICH: Same objection, beyond the redirect. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And I don't disagree it is far beyond the redirect, but again, I'm going to allow him to answer the question. THE WITNESS: I wish you would rephrase the question, please, or restate it. MR. HAZZARD: Would you read the question back, please. (The requested portion of the record was read.) A. Well, I haven't the vaguest notion. I'd have to do some kind of traffic analysis as to the -- as to the capacity of -- of Lely Beach Boulevard. I'm assuming that a thousand cars a day would be no problem on Lely Beach Boulevard. Q. Okay. And, Professor, on those occasions that you have visited the guardhouse, was the guard located inside the facility when you approached? A. The two times I recollect seeing a guard, they were -- both times they were in the guardhouse. Q. And the other two times you didn't even see a guard there? A. I don't remember whether I noticed it or not. MR. HAZZARD: No further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further? MR. MANALICH: No. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is anybody going to call Professor Starnes back since I understand the county is paying him by the hour? - MR. HAZZARD: I don't expect to, Madam Chairman. MS. LOUVIERE: I just -- can I ask -- can I just make one quick statement? I just read on the ord -- in the PUD, the ordinance -- what do you think this means? THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon? MS. LOUVIERE: In the planned unit development -- THE WITNESS: I can't really hear you. MS. LOUVIERE: In the planned unit development, there's this -- there's a paragraph that I want to read to you. THE WITNESS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Just one minute. Did you read the PUD, sir? THE WITNESS: I've read the PUD, but I don't have it with me. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. That's why I'm going to read this paragraph to you. MR. HAZZARD: What page? MS. LOUVIERE: The PUD master plan -- on page 10. The PUD master plan indicates that the meandering north /south access road extends from Bonita Beach Road to the south boundary of the project. Vehicular access to the state -owned lands south of the Barefoot Beach project is to occur via this north /south access road. No modification may be made to this road as planned which would interfere with access Page 50 16G 1 January 22, 1997 to the state -owned land to the south. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: What's your question? MS. LOUVIERE: So my question is, if you have a guardhouse sitting there, wouldn't that be considered a modification to the -- to the road and, therefore, impeding access to the north /south to the lands? THE WITNESS: Well, in my opinion as a planner, it would. MR. HAZZARD: Follow -up question to that if I may, Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MR. HAZZARD: In order to answer that question properly, Professor, wouldn't the -- the sentence that Miss Louviere read -- the last sentence was, "No modification may be made to this road as planned which would interfere with access to the state -owned land to the south." And I've emphasized the -- the words "as planned." In order to properly answer the question, would you not need to know what the road, as planned, involved? MS. LOUVIERE: It would be assumed that if you have a PUD master plan written out and you look at your graphics, your master plan, that's what they mean by "as planned." Normally, that's -- MR. HAZZARD: Miss Louviere, I -- I don't intend to debate you about it. I was asking the professor the question. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. THE WITNESS: I -- I'd have to presume at the point in time that the "as planned" meant the way the road was built. MR. HAZZARD: And, Professor, if the road was built with a guardhouse in the middle of it, would that same paragraph that's just been read to you indicate that the guardhouse can exist in the middle of this road? MR. MANALICH: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he can ask him a hypothetical because he is an expert. But you probably need to phrase it as if it were a hypothetical like -- like you did the thousand cars. He doesn't know whether that's a fact or not, but he can still form an opinion based on that hypothetical. MR. HAZZARD: I don't believe -- the question that I phrased was, if the guardhouse was planned for the middle of this road, wouldn't the road, as planned, contemplate a guardhouse? THE WITNESS: I think if that were a condition of the plan itself, yes. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, can I have my last turn? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. Mr. Starnes, would sound planning practice advise the construction and approval of a guardhouse in the middle of a roadway chat is supposed to serve for public access easement purposes? THE WITNESS: Well, in my opinion, it would not. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. PLR. HAZZARD: And I just have one more question about Page 51 16G 1 January 22, 1997 the paragraph that Miss Louviere pointed out. Professor, the first sentence said the PUD master plan indicates that the meandering north /south access road extends from Bonita Beach Road to the south boundary of the project. Does that sentence indicate to you that the road that we're talking about is part of the PUD? THE WITNESS: I don't suggest that it does. I'm not sure. I think the road is -- in terms of the PUD, was separated from the PUD. I don't know that to be a fact. MR. HAZZARD: Okay. Thank you, Professor. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further? Anybody have any further questions of Professor Starnes? IiS. DEIFIK: Well, some of the happiest years of my life were at the University of Florida. Will you take me back to Gainesville with you? (Laughter) THE WITNESS: They had a big celebration up there recently I'm told. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, you know, then I'm going to excuse Professor Starnes so he can go back and teach the youth of America and save the county some money, if -- if that's okay with everybody. All right. Thank you very much, Professor Starnes. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, at this point I see it's quarter to 12. Mr. Hazzard correctly pointed out at the beginning of the proceedings today that we have agreed that he will take a witness out of order from his case, and I would expect -- or I would suggest that either we break for lunch now and come back with his witness or proceed directly into his witness and eventually, then, we can go back to Curs. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think -- I think he said he needed to call his witness; so why don't we take a break for lunch now. He can call his witness, and -we'll put his witness on at, what, one o'clock. Does anybody have any problem with coming back at one o'clock? I need to know from my board. MS. LOUVIERE: I'm fine with that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I mean, I'm not saying you're happy, but do you have a problem? MR. ANDREWS: I can't come back. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Pardon? MR. ANDREWS: I can't come back after the -- after the break. I'll tell you why afterwards. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Gentlemen, Mr. Andrews has indicated that he cannot come back after the lunch break. You know, ' that still leaves four of us, and Mr. Andrews, of course, can review the transcript of the afternoon's testimony. I just wanted to point that out to you. I think we've agreed in the -- in the past that that's what we can do. Board members are going to be in and out. As long as they, you know, keep up to speed and that we're all -- at least a quorum of us are here on the day that we vote -- but I just +,ranted to make you aware of the fact that he's indicated that he will not be back after lunch. Page 52 aA � 2 Z J u 1997 Okay. With that, we will adjourn until one o'clock. (A lunch break was held 11:47 a.m. to 1:05 p.m.) (The following proceedings commenced, Mr. Andrews being absent.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Collier County Code Enforcement Board will come back in session. we are in the midst of hearing evidence on the Lely Barefoot Beach case. Let the record reflect that Mr. Andrews is not with us this afternoon, although he was this morning; but there are four of us left, Mr. McCormick, Miss Deifik, myself, and Miss Louviere. And I believe when we broke for lunch Mr. Hazzard was going to take a witness after the lunch break out of sequence; is that correct? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, again, I appreciate the -- the board and the county attorney allowing me the courtesy of taking a witness out of sequence, and I would like to call John Agnelli. And we've been -- THE WITNESS: Do you want me over there? MR. HAZZARD: Yeah. We've been having the witnesses just sit in the -- sit in the first chair there, if you would. And I think Ms. Donovan is going to swear you in. THEREUPON, JOHN AGNELLI, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: -Q.- Would you state your name for the record, please. A. John Agnelli. Q. And, Mr. Agnelli, what's your occupation? A. I'm president of a company called Intellinet. Q. Mr. Agnelli, how long have you been the president of Intellinet? A. Approximately 16 months. Q. And what was your occupation prior to becoming president of Intellinet? A. I was president and CEO of Lely Development Corporation. Q. How long were you with Lely Development Corporation in your career? A. Approximately ten years. Q. So would that have been from about 1985 forward? A. Yes, sir. Q. Just to clear up any confusion initially, Mr. Agnelli, you're not currently on the payroll of Lely Development Corporation, are you? A. No, sir. Q. And you're not being paid by my clients in any way to testify today, are you, sir? A- Lao, I'm not, sir. Q. And you were not subpoenaed to testify either, were you? Page 53 16G 1 January 22, 1997 A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, why are you taking your time away from running Intellinet Corporation to be here today? A. I'd just like to see this thing brought to an end, that's all. Q. Okay. Mr. Agnelli, I take it in the course of your dealings with Lely Development Corporation you are familiar with the Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision; is that right? A. Extremely. Q. Can you recall when it was that you first visited the Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision, whether that was in your capacity or involvement with Lely or even prior to that? A. Oh, I was at Barefoot Beach, gosh, not long after I came here, probably the early '70s. Q. Okay. And do you recall the -- what's been referred to in this case as the old guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard being constructed? A. I can't say, Mr. Hazzard, that I was there when it was being constructed, but I can -- I can tell you there -- just to avoid confusion, there is a large structure there that had a sales office on the ground floor and an apartment on the second floor and a multiple car garage and a courtyard adjacent to it. That's the gatehouse. In front of that was a guardhouse with gates and everything. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Agnelli, there's a picture 1 -ing in front of the podium there which has been entered as an exhibit in this case. It's an aerial photograph. And does that approximate -- A. That's it. Q. -- what you're talking about? A. Exactly. Q. Okay. Do you -- can you tell us your earliest recollection of when that structure that's in the middle of the road in that picture was present in that location? A. To my best recollection, it would be sometime, you know, in 1975, 1977, somewhere in there. Q. Okay. So it's -- so it -- it was some 20 years ago that that guardhouse was in the middle of the road? A. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Agnelli, during your tenure with Lely Development Corporation, do you recall Lely Development Corporation giving Collier County an option to buy land at Lely Barefoot Beach sometime in 1987? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, Mr. Agnelli, did the -- did Collier County personnel, as far as you know, look that land over -- A. Absolute -- absolutely, yes. Q. Would Collier County personnel have had to pass through the guardhouse that's in the road at Lely Barefoot Beach in order to look that land over? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know whether any county commissioners at -- at the time, 1987, looked over that land? Page 54 1 6G 1 4 January 22, 1997 A. I know that Johns Pistor did. I wasn't there when r a was ssor, there, but I know recall on more than one occasion my p Dick Rla.as, leaving the office saying he was picking up Mr. Pistor and they were going to go look at the beach. And I recall -- as I recall, all the commissioners invest -- looked at the property, what you could see of the property, before the acquisition was made. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Agnelli, anyone, including county commissioners, who went to look at that property, ifothey went by land, would have had to pass through the guardhouse Boulevard; is that correct? A. Absolutely. Q. Okay. Mr. Agnelli, I'd like to show you the -- what's been entered into evidence previously in this case as the option agreement, if I could get that from the clerk -- court reporter. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So the board knows, this is behind Tab 2 in your black book. MR. HAZZARD: Weil, so that we don't have to taknfitheu option of the black book, I'll just give 11r. Agnelli a copy P agreement. Q. Mr. Agnelli, would you look over that document that I've given to ycu that's titled "Option Agreement" and let me know when you've had an opportunity to review it, please. A. „kay. Q. Agnelli, are you familiar with that document? A. I've seen it before, yes, sir. Q. And is that the document, to your knowent Corporation to preceded the sale of park land by Lely De velopm Collier County? -A.-' Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, do the terms of that option agreement contemplate closing Lely Beach Boulevard to potential park visitors under certain conditions? MR. MANALZCH: Objection, Madam Chairman. Z'm going to renew the earlier objection that was presented to the board earlier regarding this entire line of questioning about this option agreement on the basis of relevancy and that any probative value that it has is outweighed by its risk of confusion and misleading the -- the board. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to clear that up very quickly, if I may. One of our defenses in this case is an estoppel defense, and we assert that Collier County is prohibited from bringing an action against this guardhouse because Collier County was part and parcel to the agreement by which it came into being. And I believe this document's already in evidence, and Mr. Agnelli can give us testimony that will support in no uncertain terms that defense. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't think that this board I think we probably has the power to rule on an estoppel only have the power to do the limited thing, to decide whether or not there's been a violation. Now, in terms of your objection, it's so noted for the record. However, it's been introduced into evidence. We've all read it; so we'll just have to consider its weight. I think this witness Page 55 16G 1 January 22, 1997 has testified that he worked for Lely Development Corporation at the time it was entered into, and he's familiar with the document; so he can probably answer questions about it. But your objection is certainly noted for the record. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Agnelli, my question was, did the terms of the option agreement between Lely Development and Collier County contemplate closing Lely Beach Boulevard to potential park visitors under certain conditions? A. I don't know. The word "closing" isn't in here, but definitely it contemplates limited access, somewhat limits on the access to the road, yes. Q. Okay. And what was your understanding of what was agreed upon between Lely and Collier County in this option agreement in terms of access? A. Well, I can tell you without looking at it because it was -- it was a very big issue, and the agreement -- the option agreement calls for a use /Access Agreement down the road, and it was clearly recognized by Lely and agreed to by the county that unlimited access at all times of the day was not desirable for this community, and the property would not have been sold under those circumstances. Therefore, the county agreed than_ when the park was open, the access was unlimited. Initially it was unlimit -- it was limited to the number of parking spaces, and in fact, we referred to the number of parking spaces. And I clearly -- clearly recall a drawing showing the number of parking places which were going to be built on the -- on the county property. The idea was that we didn't want people parking wherever they felt like parking. They were to park on the county property in a numbered parking place. That was contemplated by the deal at the beginning. The park access was to be closed when the park was full. The park access was to be closed during non - normal hours for the park, and traffic was to be monitored and controlled at the entrance to the Lely property or just south of Bonita Beach Road to prevent itinerate parking wherever people felt like it when the parking was full on the site. Q. Okay. A. And that was clearly defined all the way through this whole -- through this whole deal. Q. Now, Mr. Agnelli, this option agreement, as you -- as you suggested, does contemplate incorporating those items that you have mentioned into the sale of this property should the county carry through with the option agreement. And, in fact, the county did carr$ through and buy the property; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, would Lely Development Corporation have offered Collier County the option to buy this land without the agreement as to how access would operate? A. Well, I -- I think the answer is -- is self- evident; it's in the agreement. We wouldn't have put it in the agreement, insisted that it be in the agreement, if we didn't want it in the Page 56 16G 1 January 22, 1997 agreement. And it was critical to the agreement because of the nature of the community that was being -- that this road passes through. Q. Okay. Mr. Agnell'., if you would turn to the back of the option agreement, I'd like you, if you could, to tell me if you recognize any of the names that are on the signature page there. A. Well, I recognize, of course, Virg -- Virginia Magri, Max Hasse. The witnesses to seller are Robert Dickerson, Terinda Vascatch or Balitch (phonetic) -- I can never remember her last name -- Richard L. Klaas; and the witness below is Thomas Smerden (phonetic). Q. Okay. And do you also recognize under the line approved as to form and legality -- A. I'm sorry, Ken Cuyler. I missed that, yes. Q. And Mr. Cuyler was the county attorney who reviewed this contract at the time; is that correct? A. I believe so. Q. Mr. Agnelli, when the county did go forward and purchase the property, it also signed another agreement at closing that you've referred to as the Use /Access Agreement; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, Mr. Agnelli, the Use /Access Agreement is behind Tab 3 in the exhibit book. I have a copy of that for you as well, Mr. Agnelli, if you would like to review it. But it seems like you have fairly -- fairly strong recall of this situation, but I'm going to give it to you anyway. A. Thank you. Okay. Q. Mr. Agnelli, does that Use /Access Agreement, again, contain the discussion and description of the way this property was to be, accessed as you described it when you were talking about the option agreement? A. Yes, sir. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, again, I'll renew an objection to this line of questioning, same relevancy grounds. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Your objection will be noted. Again, this is a -- an exhibit that his already been in`roduced into evidence, and the sitting members of the board have all reviewed it what weight to -iivP tt ;-n 3s- 7ar`.ai___na ':Ir "!l imate eiecision as to 11-- /Access Agreement . Would Lv ' eve ^ •'­ed '_he deal ►.o sell the own .,A 1111 I ...,w. . - : ... I I ..1.... 11 - �., .. Use /Access Agreement. And for clarification purposes, the state owns the property that abuts the county property to the south down to Wiggins Pass. The -- as I understand it -- and you can research this -- the conditions on the state property is that it cannot be used Page 57 16G 1 January 22, 1997 unless there were parking provided for people to visit that site. And there was no parking provided -- parking area provided for on that site. That's a passive recreation area. Lely certainly knew this, and we were aware of it, and we wanted to be very careful about -- because we weren't concerned about Collier County residents. That is a state park. The Delnor- Wiggins Park and the north side of it is a park that abuts the county property. So we just wanted to be extremely careful about how the community was being accessed and, therefore, the need for the terms that are in the option agreement and the terms that are in the Use /Access Agreement. Q. Thank you for clarifying that, sir. And, Mr. Agnelli, after this deal was closed where Collier County bought the land that it today operates as the county park, did anyone have the ability to close access to Lely Beach Boulevard at the intersection of Bonita Beach Road and the subdivision entrance as it's described in these agreements? A. We -- well, according to the -- as we understood the agreement that we'd had drafted, we had the ability -- we being the -- whoever controlled the guardhouse, had the ability to do that when the parking lot became full. Q. Okay. But at that time the guardhouse was not located up at the entrance to the subdivision, was it? A. I thought it was. Q. Okay. A. I thought it was, yeah. Q. Well, it's shown in this picture at the front of the gatehouse building; is that correct? A. The -- the bottom picture. The old picture? -Q .- Yes. A. Yes, it is. Q. Okay. And we've seen in this case that the permit application for building the guardhouse that's in controversy today was a 1988 document -- A. Okay. Q. -- but the closing in front of you is November 1987. So my question -- A. I'm sorry. Did you say closing or opening? Q. Closing, the closing of the sale, yes, sir. Yes. At the time of the closing of the sale to the county, was there an ability to close off entrance up at the entrance to the subdivision? A. Yes. Q. To close access? A. Yes, there was. ' Q. And how was that to occur? A. At that time I believe it was the guardhouse that was in front of the gatehouse. Q. Okay. A. Immediately to the east of the gatehouse. Q. And was that a workable proposition in that location? A. It was workable as the community was at that time, which was just the beach garden areas being developed. Page 58 16G 1 January 22, 1997 Q. Okay. In anticipation of the park opening and the necessity to be able to close access to the road under the conditions described in the Use /Access Agreement and the option agreement, did Lely apply for a building permit to build a new guardhouse? A. Yes, we did. Q. And, Mr. Agnelli, was that a permit that was applied for and given to Lely on the same day on which it was applied for? A. No. There was a great deal of discussion over a period of time regarding many items concerning the new guardhouse. Initially, the -- I guess the building rules were because it was in a V zone, it had to be at a certain elevation above sea level, and in this case I think it would have put the floor of the guardhouse about 11 feet above the road, which would have been slightly impractical. There were meetings with county personnel, because we had to resolve the issue of the floor level of the guardhouse. We had to resolve exactly where it would be located, because the intent was, A -- now the old picture doesn't show it, and I don't think you can really pick it out on the newer pictures, but there is a -- Lely granted easement to the county for the north parking lot, which is a parking area right on Bonita Beach Road that abuts the Lee County parking lot. That is an easement running across the entry property of Lely Barefoot Beach. The county did not want to block or hinder any traffic going into that parking lot; so we had to locate the guardhouse far enough south so as not to impede that traffic. Additionally, we widened the road, thus allowing people to make a simple U -turn to the south of the guardhouse if the parking lot was full. If we had left the guardhouse in its original location, it would have created quite a mess because it wasn't wide enough to allow far turning down there. So there were a number of meetings with the county regarding the location and the elevation of the guardhouse and how many traffic lanes we had going in and out of it. It was not something that was a -- an administrative function. There was a lot of negotiating that went on before that building was started. Q. Mr. Agnelli -- MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Hazzard, can you put that picture up where we can see it, because everybody keeps referencing it, and it's driving us nuts. MR. HAZZARD: Sure. This -- this picture 'sere? MS. DEIFIK: Right. MR. HAZZARD: Let's put it on the easel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Don't -- don't cover up Miss McEa.chern . MR. HAZZARD: Would it be best to put it here? MS. DEIFIK: Well, doesn't Mr. Agnelli need to look at it? THE WITNESS: No. I remember it pretty good. MR. HAZZARD: You all need to see it. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Vx . Agnelli, as we're learning in this case, a picture is often worth a thousand words; so I'm going to show you a diagram that may help explain further what you just described, and it is in Page 59 1 bG 1 January 22, 1997 our exhibit book. The small version of it is behind Tab 5, and the blowup I'm getting ready to show you. Q. Mr. Agnelli, the document -- the -- the blowup of what's behind Tab 5 in the exhibit book Inspector Mazzone testified came out of Collier County records. Does that drawing show what you were describing, the difficulty with a northern access parking lot in terms of locating the guardhouse, and can you use it to show this board what you were talking about? A. Yes, I can. The -- so you can read it, this -- this was the -- there's the gatehouse, which you see in that photograph there (indicating). You see this road just beyond it if you look at that picture. This is the original guardhouse which, I believe, shows directly in front of that gatehouse. This is the existing, the -- the now existing subject of this hearing, gatehouse here (indicating). This is the driveway, this easement, that we provided to the county (indicating). I believe the land at this point is Barefoot Beach land, and the easement allows access to this -- we call it the north -- we called it the north parking lot, and then the Lee County parking lot is right here (indicating). Bonita Beach Road -- I believe that's the center line, Bonita Beach Road being right there (indicating). Q. Now, Mr. Agnelli, is it your testimony that there was extensive discussion with Collier County over where this guardhouse was going to be located? A. Yeah, there was, because initially Z think the -- the measurement would show that the guardhouse was going to end up in here someplace (indicating) Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Ag -- Mr. Agnelli, for the purposes of a crea-r record, could you use words to describe -- A. The guardhouse is going to end up either in the center of the road leading into the north parking lot or perhaps even to the north of that road and would have created tremendous congestion in the area of the entrance to the north parking lot and the proposed guardhouse site. Q. Okay. And was it Collier County's desire, as you understood it, to avoid that type of congestion in locating this new guardhouse? A. My recollection is, yes, we had extensive discussions because of, as I said earlier, the elevation of the floor of that guardhouse and its position with respect to the entrance to the north parking lot. Q. Okay. Mr. Agnelli, did Collier County officials know where this guardhouse was going to be built when they eventually issued the permit to build this guardhouse? A. Absolutely. Q. You don't have any doubt about that? A. None whatsoever. Q. Mr. Agnelli, I'm going to read you a statement that was wade during opening in this case back on July the 25th by County Attorney David Bryant at that time. And I just want to get your reaction to it. This is not testimony in the case. It's just simplY Page 60 16G 1 January 22, 1997 a statement to the board from the county. Mr. Bryant read -- and this is from page 6 of the July 25th transcript. Mr. Bryant said, It's the county's position that it, the guardhouse, was built there improperly; that it was not properly permitted to be there; that the permit is drawn from the county by the builder of the building for the developer was a permit that was erroneous. It misled the county. It was not truthful in the application. It should never have been given to the developer as it was. Now, Mr. Agnelli, what's your reaction to that statement? A. I -- I think that's convenient memory. The county through its staff inspected this building a number of times before it issued a certificate of occupancy. It had unlimited occasions to question the location and everything else about this building. The permit was -- the location was negotiated at length as to where it was going to go. I -- I know Mr. Bryant, and I think he's -- he's a terrific guy, but I know that the facts of the matter are that this was not just a rubber -stamp permit that came through the county building department and the permit was issued. A lot of negotiation went on and -- and, as I said, typically, as with any building with the county, there were a number of building inspections by county staff. Q. Okay, Mr. Agnelli, I'm going to take that from you and put it on the easel so that the board members can get a better look at that document as well. Does anyone need this closer to them? MS. DEIFIK: We have it. MR. HAZZARD: You have the copy? MS. DEIFIK: The photo was nicer to look at. MR. HAZZARD: Do you want me to put the photo back? MS. DEIFIK: (Nodded head.) BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Agnelli, do you know County Code Enforcer.en_ Inspector Dennis Mazzone? A. No, sir. Q. Inspector Mazzone testified ii. this case that C-.)llier County thought Lely was planning to build an addition to the attached two -story gatehouse at the side of the road when Lely applied for the building permit in question today. Is there any possibility that Collier County could have been mistaken and thought you were planning to put some addition on the two -story building? A. I suppose anything is possible. I think we've got a great building department. They're very thorough. But the -- the submission of plans, if anything, as I indicated earlier, would show the guardhouse farther north than it actually was constructed. So if there was initial reaction in that area, it would have been clarified by the negotiations that I -- again, that I had just mentioned a couple minutes ago. Q. And I recognize, Mr. Agnelli, that you do not recognize the name of Inspector Mazzone. I take it you did not deal with Inspector K&zzone at all in securing this permit? A. I personally didn't deal with -- with Mr. Mazzone. No, Page 61 16G 1 January 22, 1997 I didn't. I got involved when -- when the issue of location and elevation came to the fore. Q. Okay. Mr. Agnelli, the county in its testimony in this case has made several claims about what the developer intended to do and what was planned and all that sort of thing. Has anyone from Collier County Code Enforcement contacted you to learn exactly what you knew about this case prior? A. No, air. No, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, after Lely completed construction of the guardhouse at the location shown on the plan drawing, what happened to the old one that's in the photograph? A. At our expense, of course, we removed it. Q. Mr. Agnelli, you mentioned earlier, I think, Lely got a certificate of occupancy for that new guardhouse; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did Lely rely on the certificate of occupancy and all the county approvals of the new guardhouse in removing the old guardhouse? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, if Collier County had given Lely any indication whatsoever that the new guardhouse could not exist where Lely built it, would Lely have knocked down the old guardhouse? A. No, sir. Q. After the new guardhouse was completed and the old guardhouse was knocked down, do you have any recollection about how long it was before the county actually opened its park? A. I don't recall the exact time frame, no Q. Okay. Does around 1990 or so ring a bell for the county opening its park? A. I believe so, because I think -- as I recall -- it's somewhere in these documents -- Lely was responsible for the road being completed, Lely Beach Boulevard being completed to the northern boundary of the county property, and I believe it was by mid -1989 was the required date. Q. Okay. A. So that would jive. Q. In connection with the opening of this county park, did you, Lely, make any plans with county personnel in terms of operation of the guardhouse and how the terms of -he Use /Access Agreement were actually going to be implemented? A. Yes. We had -- we made plans. We spent some money, and we had a -- we had what I thought was a terrific idea. We had made up a series of plastic cards approximately -- I believe they're about 10' by 15. On the one side of the card were the rules and regulations about speeding, park only in numbered parking spaces, etc., and on the other side was a big number. And the cards were numbered to correspond with the number of parking spaces in the county park. And the county park was going to number the parking places. The idea was that as people came in they be given a card. They would stick it up on their dashboard. It was big enough they wouldn't forget it, and there was a drop box. As they left they could just drop it in a box, Page 62 I bG 1 January 22, 1997 and then we would always know how many spots were available; and when it was full, we would have a little sign that we would put up saying, sorry, the parking lot is full. Q. Do you recall who you made those plans with concerning the placard and that sort of thing? A. Mostly Murdo Smith and Mr. Crawford, who were parks and recreation, and I believe -- at least I was led to believe they were responsible for this type of thing. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Agnelli, do you know whether Collier County ever lived up to its responsibilities under the Use /Access Agreement? A. Well, I don't know. I'm not going to make a judgment call. All I will tell you is that at the opening of the park, I noted that there were no numbers on the parking spaces for the ribbon cutting. And I asked Mr. Crawford why there wasn't, and he said, "We'll discuss it later." But that might have been my first inkling that we were going to have a problem. Q. Was there ever implementation of this placard program that you described that Lely paid money to produce the placards for? A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, who were the ;_ntended beneficiaries of Lely's agreement with Collier County concerning park access from your perspective? A. The general public. Q. And in terms of residents at Lely Barefoot Beach, were they also intended to benefit from this access agreement? A. They were intended to benefit from the Use /Access Agreement by having, you know, privacy in -- in a guarded entrance durihq -- particularly during the evening hours. Q. Okay. Mr. Agnelli, would it be fair to say that the -- that the guardhouse at Lely Barefoot Beach was moved from its former location that's in the old picture to its current location today in order to implement the terms of the Use /Access Agreement? A. That was -- that was a big reason for moving it, yes, sir. Q. There was another reason as well, wasn't there, that it then also put additional land in the subdivision behind the guardhouse; is that correct_? A. It resolved a minor planning problem. The access could have been changed into this other property, that they could have come in off of Garden A, but it made it a lot simpler to come in directly Off of Lely Beach Boulevard, yes. Q. Okay. Mr. Agnelli: have you come to learn that Collier County now claims that the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD does not cover the land where the guardhouse sits today? A. I think that's been mentioned, yes. Q. Okay. Do you recall. when you first heard that? A. I don't recall the date, Mr. Hazzard, but during this -- the dispute over this guardhouse issue. Q. Okay. In all the time that you were working with Lely Development Corporation and the Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision, did Page 63 16G 1 January 22, 1997 anyone from Collier County ever mention to you that the site where the guardhouse was going to be placed was not within the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD? A. No one ever mentioned it, and that would be a surprise to me if it wasn't. Q. Does anything in the PUD ordinance itself cause you to think that the road where the guardhouse sits today is located within the PUD? A. Yeah, it's Tract R -- Q. Okay. A. -- part of the -- described in the PUD document, I believe. Q. Mr. Agnelli, I'm going to give you the PUD ordinance and ask you to look at a couple of items in that with me. A. Yes, sir. Q. If you just hold on one second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Just so the board knows, are we looking at what is behind Tab 12 in our books? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON P.AWSON: Thank you. MR. MANALICH: Which ordinance is that, Mr. Hazzard? MR. HAZZARD: 85 -83, subsequently amended as 88 -62. And it's behind, as the chair pointed out, Tab 12 in the respondent's book. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr_. Agnelli, I don't expect you to have intimate knowledge of that rather thick document, but have you seen before the PUD ordinance for Lely Barefoot Beach? -A.- Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, would you turn to page sixty -- 65. I'm sorry -- 64 of that document. In fact, maybe turn one -- one earlier to 63 of that document. A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you found page 63? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you see where the section on roads and drives is described? Down further do you see a description of a main north /south road, Mr. Agnelli? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there anything in that description that leads you to believe that Lely Beach Boulevard from its intersection of Bonita Beach Road running south is pert of this PUD? A. I think it's clearly stated, isn't it? I mean, it's clear to me. It says that, the master plan indicates that a meandering north /south access rood extends from Bonita Beach Road. Q. To the south boundary of the project? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And is that language repeated again on page 65, Mr. Agnelli? Do you see a section titled "Main North /South Road Construction Timing "? A. I'm sorry I was -- on page 64. Page 64 January 22, 1997 Q. On page 65. A. Page 65, yes, it describes that, and that's the date I referred to earlier that the road had to be completed to what is now the county park. Q. That was the recollection that you had earlier that there was a time certain on deadline for completion of the road? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that language, again, talking about construction timing, describes the main north /south access road extending from Bonita Beach Road to the south line of the Barefoot Beach project; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Finally, Mr. Agnelli, would you flip forward in the ordinance to page 4. A. Yes, sir. Q. And page 4 describes the project plan and land use tracts; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And part of that section, if you flip through page 5 and into page 6, do you see a Subsection B? A. Yes, sir. Q. And does that language there contain the very same language that's in several other places of the ordinance that we've described? A. Very clear. It's from the -- the intersection with Bonita Beach Road to the south line of the plat of Lely Barefoot Beach. Q. Mr. Agnelli, if I told you that Collier County's surveyor claims that the legal description attached to the PUD ordinance shows that the boundary -- northern boundary of the PUD does not reach all the way to Bonita Beach Road, would you have any explanation for that? A. No, I wouldn't, because that's -- as far as I've ever known, that's where it went. I don't know what -- who would have owned that. We completely rebuilt the entrance to Lely Barefoot Beach in 1987, I believe. Q. Okay. A. 187, 188. MR. HAZZJLRD: I have no further questions for you at this time, Mr. Agnelli. The county may have some. CROSS- EXA4-INATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Agnelli. A. Good afternoon. Q. Just a few questions. You've testified regarding the use access and option agreements obviously over the county's objection. But first would you agree with me that neither of these two documents has any mention of a guardhouse or gatehouse within its contents? A. I guess I could read �hrough them. If you say that they aren't, then they -- Page 65 16G i January 22, 1997 Q. If you can take a quick look, you're somewhat familiar with the document. I don't locate any reference to a guardhouse or gatehouse here, and I just want to know if you agree with me. A. I'm just looking for one paragraph, and then I'll answer you. I can't find it where I thought it might be. Q. You are somewhat familiar, I think you described, with the PUD documents in this case? A. Yes, sir. Q. The PUD docum ?nts refer to a gatehouse complex at Tract A; is that correct? A. I haven't read the PUD recently, but if you say that it does, then -- Q. Okay. They do not mention the guardhouse that Mr. Hazzard described as being back in the late '70s originally in the middle of the road; correct? A. I think -- as I recall, there's language in the PUD that talks about easements into and over the road. And I -- I'm -- my understanding, and I can only give you that, is that that was the language that particular person used to give the developer the right to build that guardhouse where it was. So that's -- Q. Is that the language that has earlier been referred to as extending over and into the gatehouse? A. That's what I recall, yes, sir. Q. Now, if the guardhouse is located where it presently is now, you're not asserting, are you, that that is now an extension of the gatehouse, are you? A. No. But to make myself clear, the language that I just referred to, I -- we believed gave us a right to put the guardhouse in the Tniddle of the road and within -- you know, within limitations somewhere between Lhe gatehouse and Bonita Beach Road. Q. Mr. Hazzard has asked you about the use access and option agreements as being a contract between, the county and the developer. Is it also not true that a PUD ordinance is, in essence, a contract between the county and the developer? A. I -- that's a legal question, but I wouldn't argue with that, no, sir. Q. Let me ask you this. I understand you're not a lawyer, but a PUD document, is it not presented to the county with the development plan that the developer himself want.s approved by the county? A. I think it initiates that way, but typically there's negotiations that occur, yes, sir. Q. And then eventually being a developer through those negotiations, the terms of the PUD are fixed into law through an ordinance approving the PUD; right? A. Yes, sir. Q. In the Use /Access Agreement that you have before you, if I could turn your attention to paragraph 2 on page 1 at the bottom A. Yes, sir. Q. -- is that not a statement that you as the seller will guarantee unrestricted access to the park land over the main Page 66 16G 1 January 22, 1997 north /south road? A. Well, I'm not a lawyer, but there's a word in front of access that I think is critical, and that's "legal." So the -- Lely guaranteed unrestricted legal access to the property, yes. Q. okay. Why is that critical? A. Because of this whole dispute, be Lely wanted to have some control over that access when the park wasn't open. Q. Now, with regard to that point, I believe in paragraph S of that agreement there it a standard operating procedure which was agreed to by the parties; correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, as I read that- do you disagree with me that the control of access to the property and wher,her there would be any closure at the intersection of Bonita Beach Road was to be done by the seller only upon the request of the park or county representative? A. That's correct except that the county didn't put a representative there, and the early part of that paragraph, for clarification only, was never adhered to either, because at the time they opened this park, other parks charged an entrance to help defray some of the expenses of County personnel. We started to do that for the county, by the way, the day the park was opened and nearly got blown out of the water. We very quickly stopped, and I think we gave the county S32 that we collected. But the agreement was that this park would be run like any other park. There was an agreement that there would be a dollar parking fee like other parks. We started collecting that money for the county. That was terminated the morning the park was opened. And there wan never -- we offered to pay for telephones for a'park superintendent so they wo,sldn't have to walk or drive that distance between the preserve or the park and the gatehouse so they could just call the gatehouse. We offered to supply them with a cellular phone. The residents of the community have offered this more than once. So I agree with you; that's exactly what j.t says, upon request of the park superintendent or represen= ative. Est despite a lot of objections to the contrary -- the whole thing was done with every intention of cooperating 100 percent. There was never an intent to do anything less than that. And offers were made to spend money to make this a very simple situation for the county. Q. As far as curtailing access at the entrance of Bonita Beach Road, could you not have taken other measures, you or the county, to have curtailed that access if and when the parking lot was full short of building a full - fledged guardhouse where you did? A. Well, the guardhouse was built primarily for the residents, particularly at night. And it's a very common -- I could name you probably a dozen communities off the top of my head that have even much stricter access provisions than Lely Barefoot Beach. All they wanted to know was that when the park was closed, that they had control of access in and out of the park, and that's why the necessity of the guardhouse. (Exhibit No. 19 was marked for identification.) Page 67 I bG 1 January 22, 1997 MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, at this point I wish to have marked as an exhibit, Collier County No. 19. This is a document we referred to earlier which is the lawsuit, first amended complaint between Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc., versus The villas, et al. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is this the -- is this the -- no, this doesn't get in. This was the same thing that was marked earlier as 17 and not introduced? MR. MANALICH: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And now it's 19? MR. MANALICH: Fight. I guess I'd like to hear from Mr. Hazzard before we go any Eurther if he has any objection. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, we have the same objection we've raised this morning. I don't know how counsel intends to present this document into evidence through Mr. Agnelli, but I would maintain that it's irrelevant, and Mr. Agnelli has no knowledge of this document unless he says other-4ise. MR. MANALICH: Madam. Chairman, the purpose of the document is for Mr. Agnelli to react to a statement made in here by one of the plaintiffs who are respondents in this case as to the purpose of the guardhouse. MR. HAZZARD: And as we've already discussed earlier this morning, Madam Chairman, this is not the operative complaint in this case and was specifically revised in order to accurately portray the basis for this separate complaint. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I believe that. you probably can ask him a question about something to react to a statement whether or not you introduce that into evidence or nol:. But I recall this morrTing that Mr. Hazzard said there has been a second amended complaint filed. And so if we're going to look at the first amended, then we have to look at the second amended. But I'll let you proceed. Are you moving to introduce this into evidence at this moment? MR. MANALICH: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: As Exhibit 19? MR. MANALICH: I have no objection if Mr. Hazzard at some later point wishes to supplement the record with the subsequent amendment. My purpose is still served regardless of that amendment, in my opinion. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, my only comment would be I don't quite understand using Mr. Agnelli as the vehicle to enter this exhibit. If Mr. Agnelli has any knowledge whatsoever of this lawsuit,. I'd be very surprised. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, I'm not asking him to attest to the contents of this document. I simply want -- he was reacting as to negotiations and other transactions that were occurring. He testified at length about the Use /Access Agreement even though I see Mr. Klaas's signature on there. I'm only asking for him, how does this square with his just -fresh testimony as to why -- the necessity of moving the guardhouse. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think you can probably ask Page 68 16G 1 January 22, 1997 him that question whether you get that particular document in evidence or not. And it seems to me that if you're going to get that particular document into evidence, then he's going to have -- if he's the vehicle by which you're going to introduce it, he's going to have to be familiar with it and identify it before you can introduce it into evidence. But I still think you could probably ask him the question whether it gets in or not. So, you know, proceed however you wish. MR. MANALICH: All right. Well, in order to speed things up, we'll proceed as you have suggested. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Agnelli, you don't have before you and you don't need to, I don't think, at this point unless you want to have it, but I have before me a first amended complaint which I have shared with Mr. Hazzard and Mr. Kowalski, which 44 a lawsuii_ brought by Lely Barefoot Beach Master. Associatinr,, Inc., which is one of the respondents in this case that the county had cited them along with the property owner association. Ir: this particular lawsuit they sued The Villas at Barefoot Beach Homeowner Associat -Ion. One of the statements they make is the following. This is through the master association attorney in the pleading. The gatehouse was moved at the r.egsest of the defendant Villas to a location that made The Villas part of the gated enclave of communities at Lely Barefoot Beach. Does this not indicate that a primary reason for the movement of the guardhouse from the original position to its present location was so that this would be insurin(; a gated enclave for all the residents? -A.-' I'd say that the result was just as you've described it, and I -- I can tell you categorically, that was not the primary reason. And I'll also tell you -- I'm not aware of that lawsuit, by the way. But I'll also tell you that some of the residents of The Villas are upset with the location of the gatehouse. They wish it was farther south and not before you get to their property. I don't understand that, but believe me, I tock the telephone cells. Q. You can't please all the people all the time. A. Exactly. MR. McCORMICK: Could I have somebody explain to us the location of The Villas, where it sits, either on this aerial or on some other exhibit? THE WITNESS: I'll be happy to if you want. MS. DEIFIK: Also can someone explain to me; is that the entrance to the north parking lot that I see at the bottom of this aerial photograph? THE WITNESS: No. Because it wasn't built yet. The north parking lot is the area where all these Australian pines are -- MS. DEIFIK: Well, what's that building there at the very bottom? THE WITNESS: It's a condominium. It's not on the property. MS. DEIFIK: Oh. Page 69 1 bG 1 January 22, 1997 THE WITNESS: This is Bonita Beach Road (indicating). And then the north driveway access comes in about here (indicating), swings to the north, and then comes into the county parking lot. And here it's reflected on that drawing. MS. DEIFIK: And you can get to the beach from the -- if you park in the north parking lot? THE WITNESS: Oh, sure. There's the beach right there (indicating). It goes to the beach. It was done for that reason. MS. DEIFIK: So you can get to the beach either way? THE WITNESS: Lely gave that to the county. Okay? MS. DEIFIK: Uh -huh. MS. LOUVIERE: Who owns all the beach? MS. DEIFIK: We do. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We do. THE WITNESS: The access is the probl.,�m. Now, again, to answer your question, this is -- MS. r "r:IFIK: The Villas. THE WITNESS: -- the original guardhouse (indicating) The guardhouse was moved to this point here (indicating). The rest of this property, which is grass, and it's pretty extensive, this really doesn't do it justice -- let's see where it is here. It's this property here (indicating), all ^f this property here (indicating). And I think it was about, gosh, I want to say about 10 or 15 acres or is about 10 or 15 acres. So that, Mr. McCormick, there's the old guardhouse location (indicating). There's the new one (indicating). So the entrance to this property is right here (indicating). Okay? MR. McCORMICK: Uh -huh. THE WITNESS: Now, what some people are saying, the only reason that this was moved from here to here (indicating) was these guys wanted their entrance inside the gatehouse. Well, as I said earlier, if push came to shove, we controlled this wedge of land here (indicating), which would have been inside. But I won't take away from the fact that moving it here (indicating) made this entrance a little more amenable for planning. But by -- by having it here (indicating), you could have done a lot with this property as well. So -- MS. LOUVIERE: Where are The Villas again? I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: The Villas are right here (indicating). MS. LOUVIERE: The Villas are right there. THE WITNESS: This is the county parking lot (indicating), and this is the Lee County parking lot right here (indicating). MS. LOUVIERE: So technically where the old guardhouse was left The Villas open and not behind the gate. You see where the old guardhouse was, the old ore? THE WITNESS: Here (indicating). MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. THE WITNESS: Weil, as I said, they could have been putting the entrance in here (indicating). Lely controls all of this property (indicating). We could have had the entrance come in off of here instead (indicating). And as it stands to this day, this is just Page 70 16G 1 January 22, 1997 a post fence, just a simple fence that anybody could walk over or under abutting the villa property, and then there's a wall here (indicating). MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Agnelli -- THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. McCORMICK: - -- do you recall when The Villas was developed or when it was planned? THE WITNESS: It was after, I believe, that the contract was -- it occurred somewhere around '89. I don't know the exact date, but it was -- I only recall because of when I actually -- my own position in the deal, that it -- we were negotiating it through. I think it was around '89. MR. McCORMICK: So the development around '89, the construction -- THE WITNESS: The contract for the sale of the land, that's all. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. So you think the planning process would not have been undertaken before 1989? THE WITNESS: I don't think so. As I recall, the situation regarding the relocation of the gatehouse had already been handled. And then I believe -- as I recall, if you'll -- if you saw the contract document for the sale of that property, that was then included because the developer of The villas wanted -- we told him the guardhouse is going to be :roved, and hf- wanted to be sure then -- MR. McCORMICK: Uh -huh. THE WITNESS: -- because he had to lay out his site plan. He wanted to be sure then that we would honor that being moved. So that -- that was the sequence of events, and I know -- and I-would, you know -- that -- it's been turned around the other way. That's not the way it happened. Vie first decided in -- negotiated and agreed that where the guardhouse was going to be. Then we told the purchaser of the land, "This is where it's going to be, and we'd rather they come in off of -- off cf Lely Beach Boulevard because it's a main road." And then they said, 'Weil, okay, if you say that, we'll make our plans according to what you say, but we want it in writing." And, therefore, it got in the contract. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Agnelli, ;ust two clarifications: One, am I correct that the original guardhouse that in the PUD ordinance is referred to as the gatehouse complex, is this large building on the side of the road; is that correct? A. That is the gatehouse complex, yes, sir. Q. Okay. And, secondly, it was mentioned earlier that up here close to Bonita Beach Road there was obviously an ability of the public to go -- go directly to the beach without having to pass through the present guardhouse; correct? A. Not originally, but that was something that Lely did for the county, yes. Q. But that is different than the north /south access road that we see partially pictured here which goes down to the county parks approximately 2 miles to the south. Anyone going there has to Page 71 16G 1 January 22, 1997 pass the present guardhouse; correct? A. That is correct, yes. Q. Okay. MS. DEIFIK: Does anybody have a picture of this whole development? THE WITNESS. It's over there (indicating). MS. LOUVIERE: And I just want to say -- I just want to ask one more -- or make one more statement. You keep saying that Lely did this for the county. But in the cross - access agreement, didn't the county pay $50,000 for that to be able to access there? THE WITNESS: No. The only thing that I know that they did, Mrs. Louviere, is the -- they did -- you know, they built the parking lot and the walls and all that_. MS. LOUVIERE: No. 7 think it states in here they paid bucks for it. THE WITNESS: Well, it could be because we had to pave the road to get into them. That might have been to pay for some of that. But the site itself is worth a lot more than 50,000. The -- The Villa properties were sold to them at 50,000 per unit to go on that property to the south. So -- MS. LOUVIERE: So the county had to buy access from Lely to be able to access public -owned beaches. THE WITNESS: It wasn't -- no, wait a minute. There's a huge parking lot at the north end that the county did not buy. And I believe the money was to pay for the improvements to get to the property that Lely gave to the county to get to the public beaches. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. THE WITNESS: You're welcome. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. You mentioned that Lely Development had knocked down the freestanding structure in the middle of the road next to the gatehouse and then replaced it with the present guardhouse up further toward Bonita Beach Road; correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, the structure that was Knocked down was a much smaller structure, was it not, than the present one? A. Yes, sir. Q. Much less expensive? A. I don't know what the cost was, but it was much less comfortable and didn't have air conditioning. Q. It could be more easily rebuilt if it had to again as compared to the present one: A. No. The old -- the old hijilding and I'm not being argumentative, but to answer your question accurately, the old building was more complicated and a more expensive structure. This was a fairly simple building to build, and I believe the gentleman who built it is sitting here as well. But this is a fairly straightforward, simple building. Q. t4nti, when you say the old building, you're talking about the one that was in the middle of the road; right? A. Yes, sir. Page 72 1 bG 1 January 22, 1997 Q. Okay. But it was a much smaller -- A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. Mr. Hazzard asked you about Ordinance 85 -83, which I don't know if you still have before you there -- A. Yes, sir. Q. If you could turn to page 54 -- A. Yes, sir. Q. -- toward the top prior to the underlining, the sentence prior to that, does it not clearly state that no modification may be made to the north /south road as planned which would interfere with access to the state -owned land to the south? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, one sure way to have avoided all of the confusion in this case would have been to have you or any of your representatives seek an ordinance amendment to the PUD ordinances stating or setting forth clearly the present location of the guardhouse where it is; is that not true? A. Sir, I agree with you a thousand percent, and if the county had said that, we would have done it without question. But I -- I want to stress there were extensive negotiations regarding the existing guardhouse, and if anyone said, If you want to be absolutely safe that you won't have a problem, you should get a PUD amendment to fix this, it would have been done. I mean, we were familiar with many people in the county building department. It's not a big deal to get an amendment. This -- this probably would have flown right through. But it -- we just said, "Here, we want to build this. We want a permit." They said, "Well, you've got to build it way up in the air." And we said, "That isn't practical." They said, "This is where we Want it located, in this general area." We said, "Okay. We'll build it here. Is that acceptable ?" "Yes it is. Here's your building permit. Here's your C.O." Q. I believe Mr. Hazzard questioned you regarding the permit application that was submitted for the present guardhouse. A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you have that before you? A. No, sir. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That would be behind Tab 5 in the gray book. MR. MANALICH: I believe that's already an exhibit; correct -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. MANALICH: -- Madam Chairman? THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. MANALICH: Let me just make sure I'm on the same document with you in the compilation. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Now, the first page that I show there is the application. Is that also what -- what you have before you? A_ Yes, sir. Q_ Approximately halfway down there's an entry there, Page 73 16G 1 January 22, 1997 "construction." A. Yes, sir. Q. Does it not appear that there originally was a circle around the words "new" but that was apparently, it appears fro what I can read in this copy, somewhat scratched out and then replacel with a circle around "addition "? A. That's what it appears like, sir. Yes, sir. Q. And just a little further down, purpose of construction to the right where it mentions electrical, does it not mention existing electrical? A. Yes, sir. But that -- that, I believe, means there was electrical on the street, but I won't -- that's just my comment. Q. There certainly was not existing electrical at the present site of the guardhouse? A. Not right at the present site, I wouldn't think so, no. MR. MANALICH: Thank you, Mr. Agnelli. No further questions. MR. HAZZARD: Just a couple quick points on redirect, Madam Chairman. REDIRECT EXA.14INATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Agnelli, looking at the PUD ordinance -- A. Yes, sir. Q. -- the very front page of .'t, at least on my copy, shows a date of 12- 17 -85. What is your front page there? A. Well, my front page shows Ja-ivary 2, 186, and December 26 -- well, actually sixty -- I guess it's 185. Q. Okay. Let me make sure that ve're looking at the same shee't here. I'll be right there. A. Okay. All right. I found it. Q. Mr. Agnelli, you see the date that -- I guess it's on the third page back in that exhibit. It's the first page behind Tab 12, date of 12- 17 -85? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, as of 12 -17 of 185, there was a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard., wasn't there? A. Absolutely. Q. At the old location that we've referred to; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, Ms. Manalich referred you to the language on page 64 that referenced no modification would be permitted to interfere with access to the state -owned land to the south. Mr. Agnelli, there was a guardhouse in the middle of the road when this ordinance was passed by Collier County, was there not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, Mr. Agnelli, was it your understanding when you presented this ordinance that that guardhouse did not interfere with access to the state -owned land to the south? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, I'd like you to look further at Section 4.3 Page 74 I bG 1 ,January 22, 1997 of the PUD ordinances. It's on numbered page 16. Have you found that page, Mr. Agnelli? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you see a section right there in the middle that says 'Portions of the security gatehouse facility may extend into and over Lely Beach Boulevard right -o£ -way'? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, at the time this language was adopted by the Collier County Commission, there was a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard, was there not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Agnelli, was it your understanding that this language was intended to cover a stand -alone structure in the center of Lely Beach Boulevard? A. That's what we understood, yes, sir. MR. HAZZARD: No further questions, sir. RECROSS- EY.AMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. One follow -up, Mr. Agnelli. Your understanding, however, was not codified in literal terms in that document, was it? A. I think, Mr. Manalich, in retrospect, another sentence there, it would have said -- in other words, you could build -- a freestanding structure in Tract R would have been better, but our understanding was definitely -- and obviously we wouldn't have built the building -- that we could build it on that tract. MR. MANALICH: If you'll allow me just one moment, Madam Chairman. MS. McEACHERN: We just want to look at this for one secohd. MS. DEIFIK: We really need those M and Ms. MS. LOUVIERE: Can -- can I just say something really quick. In this ordinance it sort of like -- it contradicts itself in some cases, because if you read a section -- Section 5.3, minimum setbacks, A, it says, Lely Beach Boulevard, you have to meet 50 -foot minimum setbacks, and then in one aspect it says minimum setbacks, portions of the security gatehouse facility may extend into and over Lely Beach right -of -way which, you know, I mean -- I know the planner that wrote this. And he was -- it was a huge tract of land, and it's contradictory, your minimum setbacks called out for here. It would seem, though, that when -- that the developer should have been careful as to what he was proposing, and he would use good judgment and not place guardhouses or any structures outside minimum setbacks because then he would have a nonconforming use. MR. MANALICH: Thank you for your patience, Madam Chairman. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Just one last question, Mr. Agnelli. Whether or not the structure which appeared in the center of the road in the late '70s %das there historically or not, do you not agree that the only structure that is referenced throughout all of the PUD ordinances is the gatehouse on Tract A, whether or not it has extensions or not? Page 75 I bG 1 January 22, 1997 A. Without rereading it, I won't -- I won't dispute -- I think it says a gatehouse complex, but again, I'd have to reread it but, you know, if you say that that's it, then I'll take your word for it. MR. MANALICH: All right. No further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further? MR. HAZZARD: None from me, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Does anyone intend to call -- recall Mr. Agnelli for any reason? MR. McCORMICK: I have a couple questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, Mr. McCormick. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Agnelli, you've mentioned a couple times the negotiations that went aiorig with the building permit and the building permit review. Just trying to get an understanding of what that level of review was, because there's been some statements made that there was a misunder:3tan.ding between the county and the developer as far as the intent_ were you involved personally in some of those negotiations with county s`.aff? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. McCORMICK: Do you recall 4,,ho it was or maybe at what level the personnel. were? THE WI'T'NESS: I think, to the best of my recollection, I had conversations with Joe Magri and ?dick Clark. So I -- I felt it was fairly high up, and you knew, I can't recall word for word, but I -- I've got to look back now and say I know it happened. I know -- the detail that stuck most in my mind, because it was kind of humorous, was to put the guardhouse 11 feet up in the air. And we made jokes about how tall a guard we'd have to have to work this thing out: , And then Joe, who built it, got involved more when we would discuss how far south of Bonita Beach Road. And it was a practical matter, and it was just what's -- what's the best place to locate this thing. And everyone agreed, and we got our building permit. MR. McCORMICK: Thanks. More general question. What was -- what was the purpose that Lely really sold the land that is now on the south preserve, the park, to the county? Were there any other options for your company, or you know, what did you consider in giving the county that option? THE WITNESS: That property was zoned for condos, and that's Lely Beach south. That's a eery valuable piece of property. Well, you know, it's an old sales line you use. There's no more beachfront being built in Collier County. And Collier County, as you' know, is one of the most desirable places in the world to live. The conversation came up between -- I believe, initiated between Mr. Klaas and Mr. Pistor. And it was relative to the county wanting and needing -- because every -- every once in awhile -- I've been in Naples about 25 years -- there would be discussions about beach access and parking and when they put the parking meters in on all the avenues leading to the beach. So that was -- that's a common conversation, and I think that's what generated this conversation about the county acquiring Page 76 16G 1 January 22, 1997 this as a park site. Now, we had to build a road to that property; so there wasn't -- it wasn't like we were going to save a lot of money because we didn't have to put in a water and sewer line because we had to anyway. In addition, it made a lot of sense because of the state property to the south, which as I indicated, was a passive recreation area. That means you can walk in it. You could carry a canoe and canoe in it, but you can't drive in it, and you can't park in it. We -- to Lely's point of view, and which Nobody believes, is if we sell that property that is riot a preserve as a condo site, the state property does not get touched because there's no parking there. So no one's going to park at the north parking lot and walk two or three miles just so they can walk in the woods and get to Wiggins Pass unless they're a real avid fisherman. The only people that ever went down there were freshwater fish and game people to check on the turtles. They were allowed to drive their vehicles on that property. So from a development point of view and from a value of property point of view -- and anybody will tell you this -- Lely would have been farther ahead to sell !rat as residential property. And I think if you look at Le y's track record all over and all of the land they've donated to varicu�-; things for the -- the county library out in East Naples, many churches that then -- Lely has given to -- Edison College is on Lely- donated land. International College will be on Lely- donated land. Lely Elementary and Lely High School and St. Ann's -- St. Peter's Church are all on Lely- donated land. So while we're a big, bad -- you know, Lely -- I'm not there anymore -- is a big, bad developer, it would have 'veen ,much more profitable to leave that as a residential site because it would have meant zero traffic. I mean, once a month maybe somebo,ly from -.he government would go down that road to get to the state park -- state property. Mr. Pistor and Mr. Klaas put together the deal that provided what is now a beautiful, beautiful site. And *here are osprey nests up there; and the residents of Lely formed the Friends of Barefoot Beach, voluntarily clean '.1p the land, pick up litter on that site. And even though they argued with -- for a long time, because it allowed the public through the ccr,=,;ni_ty, they've taken that thing and turned it around. And they have this great society that has an annual dinner dance, and they raise money. They build rests for ospreys and bald eagles. They rake walking tours through the state land. And it's been, I think, a great thing for the community. And all that the community says is when the lights ga out, we want the guard there and the control. And, you know, that's why the guardhouse is up there. But that's the background of the land being acquired by the county. MR. McCORMICK: Thanks. One last question. Somewhere in looking through all these papers I saw that Lely Development Corp. sold Tract R, which I understand is the road to the -- the homeowners' association in 1987, and the guardhouse came about in 1988. What -- wbat was the relationship there in -- you know, why was the Lely DeyeloprAant company pulling the permits for the guardhouse? THE WITNESS: I don't recall them doing that. I may be Page 77 16G 1 January 22, 1997 wrong, but I don't recall that. I know that the -- the -- somewhere in the late '80s they turned over the Unit 1 property association to the residents, but I don't recall Tract R being sold. I could be wrong, but I don't recall, because I know in 1989 or '90 we replaced all of the street standard -- light standards down that road, which we probably wouldn't do if we hadn't -- didn't own it. And we still had a lot of property to sell up there at that time. So I don't -- I don't believe that that -- not -- not in '87. I could be wrong, though. MR. McCORMICK: Just to try and clear that up now since I asked it -- MR. HAZZARD: Mr. McCormick, perhaps I could clear it up MR. McCORMICK: Sure. MR. HAZZARD: -- with a question. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Agnelli, in the late '20s was Lely Development Corporation still an integral part of the development at Barefoot Beach? A. No, we were --- not at the development, no. Once we built the road to the county property, that was the extent of our land development. Q. In the late '80s was Lely still a major part of the property owners' association? A. Right around 1990 that stopped. No, we only ended up owning about 15 lots. Q. From 1994? A. Yes. Q. - Okay. THE WITNESS: Well, maybe that's it then. MR. McCORMICK: For the county and Mr. Hazzard, I'm looking at Tab No. 6 of the county - supplied information, and there's a deed there. Does that deed indicate the -- the Tract R was sold to the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association in 1987? MR. HAZZARD: Mr. McCormick, I th:_nk it -- the term "sold" is possibly confusing. I think that Lely, the developer, turned over various lands at the Barefoot Beach subdivision that would be owned and managed b-y the property owners' association at various times as the subdivision grew. So -- MR. McCORMICK: And that's what this reflects? MR. HAZZARD: Correct. That's my understanding, most likely. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Based on Mr. McCormick's questions, do either of you have any questions, follow -up questions for Mr. Agnelli? MS. LOUVIERE: -I just want to say one thing to Mr. Agnelli. He was talking about how beautiful it is there. And before I even sat on this board, I have beer. privy to visit a friend that 3ivas there_ The feel of the beach is a very beautiful beach because it has a huge buffer that has been planted, and it is everything that you say. The feel of the beach is that it's a private beach for the Page 78 16G 1 January 22, 1997 use of the people that live there. I didn't see anyone that -- and it's hard to tell obviously from that high floor, but he seemed to know all the neighbors within the area, and they were all people that lived in the same condominium. I didn't see anybody with, like, coolers or -- THE WITNESS: Well, I -- I can tell you because I took a lot of the phone calls. We had people with coolers up by the swimming pools in the single - family section. We've had cars parked in all of the roads up there when I worked there. Yes, it's a beautiful area, and as far as the feel of a private beach, I can't attest to that. But even with the access, even without -- even without a guardhouse, about bout a three -mile stretch that's private, just like several other areas in the county are private. MS. LOWIERE: Is that three -mile stretch -- is it fenced now? THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge, no. The access from the beach guards in particular to the beach is wide open, and it's -- it's no more private than the Pelican, Bay area. You know, the beach access at Pelican Bay is at the south and at the north, and the rest is private. There's access at the north, as we all know, at the Lee County line. There's access at the county beach preserve. But I don't think that the beach would be any more -- have any more of a public feeling without the guardhouse, because they still can only get in from the two spots: from the county, the Lely Beach preserve; and from the north parking lot, legally get in. And -- and we did have -- we did have situations -- MS. LOUVIERE: The City of Naples, when people buy pieces of property and they build a house on it, they always have to maintain beach access; right? THE WITNESS: No. MS. LOUVIERE: No? THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. Absolutely not. Like I said, go into Pelican Bay. You certainly do not have beach access. And the beach access, once you get south of 3rd -- M. DEIFIK: Pelican Bay is not part of the incorporated City of Naples? MS. LOUVIERE: That's correct. THE WITNESS: Miss Deifik, neither is Barefoot Beach. ?'m just trying to draw a parallel. well then go south of 33rd Avenue South. MS. DEIFIK: I'm not arguing with you. THE WITNESS: No. I'm trying to provide information because it's a good point. And I'm not disputing, 'cause I don't live on the beach; so I have to get there just like everybody else, but there are areas -- again, south of 33rd, there is no beach access. There is no public beach access. MS. LOUVIERE: I grew up here. I've been here, my God, all my life practically except for that little stint I did in Cuba, yo+a know, because I was born there. But I always remember us being able to go to the beach anywhere we wanted. You know, that was just -- it was just not a problem. Page 79 I6G-11 January 22, 1997 THE WITNESS: I agree. I used to go to Gordon Pass all the time. MS. LOUVIERE: You know, you could take your motorcycle. You could go walk on the beach. There weren't gatehouses. There just -- it was just a totally different place to live. THE WITNESS: And I agree with you. But I'll make the point, with or without that guardhouse, the access in that part of the county is the same. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you for your time. THE WITNESS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody else have any further questions for Mr. Agnelli? Thank you very much. If nobody is going to ask any further questions, I think we can excuse you. Thank you for coming. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. HAZZARD: Again, Madam Chairman, I'd like to thank the board and the county attorney's office for allowing us to take Mr. Agnelli out of turn. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. And, you know, we'll be cognizant of the fact that that was one of the respondent witnesses, and we'll get back to the county in a moment. But I did promise the court reporter we'd have a break at about an hour and a half, and that's exactly where we are. So let's take ten. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Collier County Code Enforcement Board meeting will come back to order. When we took a break we had just taken one of the respondent's witnesses out of order, but now I beli -eve we're back to the county's case, and so would the county attorneys call your next witness. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, before the county begins with their next witness, we'd like to ascertain what time everyone needs to leave because it will -- because that's going L': determine who our next witness is going to be. MS. LOUVIERE: Now -- I reed to leave now. No, I'm kidding. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We would all like to be out of here before five o'clock, if that gives you any help. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. The county calls Wayne Arnold. THEREUPON, DONALD WAYNE ARNOLD, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Will you please state your name for the record. A. Donald Wayne Arnold. Q. And how are you employed, Mr. Arnold? A. I'm planning services director for Collier County. Q. Arid how long have you been planning services director for Collier County? Page 80 16G 1 January 22, 1997 A. Approximately three years. Q. And would you explain to us what a -- what your responsibilities are. A. My position oversees long -range planning, zoning, subdivision review, and metropolitan planning organization staff, and right -of -way permitting for Collier County. Q. Have you had any other responsibilities other than planning director with Collier County? A. Prior to that position I was a senior planner in the zoning section for Collier County overseeing plan development reviews and other subdivision reviews. Q. Okay. And prior to any of that, have you had any other employment responsibilities with Collier County? A. No, I have not. Q. Okay. Would you provide us with your educational background as it relates to planning. A. Yes. I have a bachelors degree in planning. I also hold a masters degree in planning from the University of Kansas. I also hold a American Institute of Certified Planner's certification Q. Okay. A. -- in the field. Q. You have provided us with a curriculim vitae. If you could look at that quickly and tell us if there are any additions or changes that you would like to make to that or if that's an accurate statement of your background as a planner. A. It appears to be accurate, yes. MS. McEACHERN: At this time the county would like to enter this into as -- its -- as County's Exhibit 20, I believe; is that-correct? And are there any objections? MR. HAZZARD: No objections. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It will be introduced as County's Exhibit No. 20. MS. McEACHERN: Mr. Hazzard, do you have any objection if I give the members of the board a copy? MR. HAZZARD: Certainly. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: Please. (County Exhibit No. 20 was marked for identification.) BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Arnold, have you ever qualified as an expert in the azea of land use and planning in a court -- A. Yes, in Florida. Q. -- in the State of Florida? A. Yes, I have. Q. Okay. MS. McEACHERN: At this time the county would like to qualify Mr. Arnold as an expert in the area of land planning and land use. Is there any objection? MR. HAZZARD: No objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's fine. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. Page 81 I bG 1 January 22, 1997 BY MS. MCEACHERN: Q. Mr. Arnold, as chief planner for Collier County, would it be one of your job responsibilities to facilitate in the process of enacting and approving a PUD ordinance? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, can you tell us what a PUD is? A. A PUD -- those initials stand for planned unit development, and that essentially is one of our zoning district categories in Collier County that you can request a rezoning to. And that essentially becomes a contractual document in the form of an ordinance between the developer and Collier County. Q. And once it become -- do you -- can you tell us quickly about how it becomes an ordinance, Is there a public hearing and -- and advertisements? A. Yes. Initially an applicant will come in to the county and apply for rezoning to PtID, anc any act of rezoning requires a public hearing before the county's Planning Commission as well as a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Q. Okay. And at that time if anyone objects to the PUD becoming an ordinance, they would have the ability to stand before the Planning Commission and the zoning board of appeals and state their objections? A. That's correct. Q. As well as their support; correct? A. That is correct, yes. Q. Okay. Would you agree then that once a PUD does go through that process and becomes an ordinance, then it becomes what is referred -- commonly referred to as a zoning law of Collier County? -A.- Yes. I think we commonly refer to them as that, yes. Q. Okay. Could you also distinguish for us what a plat is as compared to a PUD? A. Okay. The PUD is the actual zoning district of the property in which you have SELMA regulations based on this planned unit development concept which also contains the master Man of how this development is going to occur. The plat is the actual legal instrument that gets recorded that the county reviews where they establish the roads, the tract boundaries, the lots of record, right -of -way widths, cross - sections for drainage, easements, etc., and that's what the land sales and development is based on. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Arnold, have you been asked to review the PUD ordinances for Lely Barefoot Beach as well as the plat of Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1 which includes Tract R? A. Yes, I have reviewed those documents. Q. Okay. ter. Arnold, were you also asked to review the notice of violation in this proceeding? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay. And as part of that, could you -- have you come across the Control No. 7719? A. Yes. I've seen that number on the documents listed. Q. Okay. Could you explain to us what a control number is? A. The control number in -- in this specific case, the 7719 Page 82 16G 1 January 22, 1997 that you mentioned simply meant that it was the 19th rezoning activity in the year 1977. An ordinance number would have followed, based on that control number that was given, for our tracking and processing internally. Q. Okay. Okay. Now, I'd like to -- I'd like to pull an ordinance out. I believe already in evidence is Ordinance No. 77 -48. I don't know what number it is. MR. HAZZARD: I think it's 3. M.S. McEACHERN: I have extra copies here if anyone needs an extra copy. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think it's your Exhibit No. 3. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Find it behind the tab. MR. HAZZARD: Tab 2 in -- in the book. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Arnold, did you determine if the control number document that had the Control No. 7719 became Ordinance No. 77 -48? A. Yes. Based on my research, I fully believe that Ordinance 77 -48 was the ordinance associated with that control number. Q. Okay. And was 77 -- is 77 -48 the first PUD ordinance for Lely Barefoot Beach? A. Yes. Q. It is? Okay. Looking at Ordinance No. 77 -48, does that ordinance provide for a gatehouse facility? A. Yes, it does. It's a section entitled gatehouse complex site on page 14 of that document. Q. And could you tell us what it states with regard to the gatehouse facility? - MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, not to interrupt, but I'm not sure the pages in the book that I have have page numbers on it. A. I was looking at the table of contents, and it references a page 14. But on mine I guess it's listed as paragraph 12, and on the bottom what I'm looking at would be -- it says O. R. Book Page (sic) 7, Page 245 -- Book 7, Page 245. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So the board knows, that's behind Tab 3 in the gray book, page 245. THE WITNESS: Should I be referring to this document? Is that easier? MS. McEACHERN: No. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. We just want to follow you; that's all. THE WITNESS: All right. BY MS. McEACHERN. Q. I -- could you, for all of us, read paragraph 12 aloud. A. Certainly. Paragraph 12, gatehouse complex site, it says: This site may be utilized for an entry gate facility wherein security against entry by unauthorized persons or vehicles will be provided. The gatehouse complex may contain dwelling units for resident employees of the project. Additionally, the gatehouse cnVlex may incorporate administrative maintenance and utilitarian activities and storage facilities for the project as a whole. During Page 83 16G 1 January 22, 1997 the period when the project is being marketed, development, administration, and sales offices may be located in the gatehouse complex. Prior to construction of the gatehouse complex, final plans shall be approved by the director of community development. Q. Okay. So my -- my next question then is, do you -- have you read the rest of this ordinance to determine if this ordinance locates that gatehouse facility in any particular tract yet? A. It does not at that point in time. Q. Okay. And have you also examined this ordinance to determine if there is the language that we've heard testified to earlier about portions of the gatehouse facility can extend over and into Lely Beach Boulevard? A. I don't recall seeing that specific language in this ordinance. I could be mistaken. I didn't hear some of the earlier testimony -- Q. Okay. A. -- but I don't believe that that language appears in this specific ordinance. I believe that appears in some later amendments to this ordinance. Q. Okay. Next, if you can turn to -- let's see -- MS. LOUVIERE: Excuse me. I'm sorry. On No. 23, development sequence and schedule on Phase 11 Book 007, Page 250, Phase 1 states Blocks A through J and the abutting section of the north /south access road; the utilities side, Community Recreation Center No. 1; and the gatehouse complex. MS. McEACHERN: I'm sorry. Where are you reading from? MS. LOUVIERE: You had asked him earlier if in here it said where the gatehouse had to be located. -MS. DEIFIR: And what -- what -- did that say as to where the location was to be? MS. LOUVIERE: It says Phase 1. MS. McEACHERN: Right. Okay. That was in paragraph 23. THE WITNESS: I'm looking at that specific paragraph, and -- and that's really the phasing schedule for the development. It's not really a locational sequencing of the project facilities themselves. That's the -- in my opinion, Phase 1 would have been development of Blocks A through J and the gatehouse complex, for instance. The last phase, for instance, would have been Blocks P through R on that PUD master plan. BY M.S. McEACHERN: Q. Okay. Okay. Next, if you would turn to page 22, which . is Article 9, Section 5, Subparagraph 11, which provides for the private streets and related facilities. Could you tell us if this paragraph is referring to what subsequently became platted as Tract R, which is Lely Beach Boulevard? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm sorry. Would you tell us what page again. MS. McEACHERN: Page 22. It's Article 9, Section 5, Subparagraph 11. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Could you give us the -- if it's Page 84 16G 1 January 22, 1997 Book 007, what page number is stamped on the bottom? We don't have the same page numbers as you do. MS. McEACHERN: I have page 244. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. M.S. MCEACHERN: You're welcome. MS. DEIFIK: It says 'entry." MS. MCEACHERN: And I'm sorry. I have the wrong paragraph number. It's paragraph 10. THE WITNESS: Are we all on the same -- MS. McEACHERN: I'm sorry. BY MS. Mc EACHERN : Q. I had -- I had the wrong paragraph number. It's paragraph 10, and it's on what comes across as Official Record Book Page No. 244. And it talks about the main north /south road. And I'm just asking if that is what later became Tract R, Lely Beach Boulevard. MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam Chairman. There's been no foundation laid for this witness to draw that conclusion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I guess you can ask him if he knows, and if he does, how. MS. McEACHERN: "11 withdraw the question. I'd like to move on to the next ordinance which is Ordinance No. 85 -2, which I believe is not in evidence, but the county would like to have it marked as County's Exhibit 21. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Why don't we mark the exhibit first and find out if Mr. Hazzard has any objections to the board looking at it. MR. HAZZARD: Not at all, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Then let's introduce it, mark it, and have it introduced into evidence as County's Exhibit 21. (County Exhibit No. 21 was marked for identification.) BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Arnold, have you had an opportunity to revit:w Ordinance No. 85 -21? A. Yes, I have. Q. And could you tell us if this ordinance locates the gatehouse facility in any particular r.ract? A. Yes, it does. In this particular document I -- which, at least on mine, the pages are numbered, it's page 11. There's a Section 4, platted Lely Barefoot. Beach Unit 1, Tract A gatehouse complex site. This gatehouse complex site section, if you will, provides that -- it's a section_ to establish development regulations for the platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1, Tract A. It goes on to indicate that the principal uses would be an entry -gate facility wherein security against road entry by unauthorized persons. It goes on to address the public access issue there as well as some other verbiage that did not appear under the original PUD's gatehouse complex site. Q. Okay. And then if you would turn to the next page, page 12, paragraph 4.3, entitled "Minimum Setbacks," and then it's subparagraph A? Page 85 16G 1 January 22, 1997 A. Uh -huh. Q. And there it provides -- it states, Lely Beach Boulevard, colon, none. Portions of the security gatehouse facility may extend into and over Lely Beach Boulevard right -of -way. Now, my question is -- I'd like to refer to what is County Exhibit No. 15, the old photograph. And I'd like you -- with regard to the minimum setbacks, if you could tell me -- on this photograph you can see the roof overhanging into Lely Bare -- Barefoot Beach Boulevard. Would it be, in your expert opinion, that that minimum setback set forth in the ordinance there is referring to the roof overhang? A. Yes. I believe that it certainly was meant to apply to that situation. an opinion Q. Do you also have on as to whether or not the structure that we referred to as the old gatehouse or the kiosk, which we see right here in the middle of the road, would it be in your expert opinion as a planner that chat minimum setback language also refers to the location of that kiosk? A. No, I would not. Q. And why? A. I don't believe that the --- the specific language that we have, at least as written where it talks about an extension into and over, doesn't to me imply a structure within. And it also indicates that the structure would have zero setback, and the prior reference was -- in Section 4.1 talks about the gatehouse being in Tract A. I don't believe Tract A was inclusive of the road, which was platted as Tract R, which is the road tract for the project. Q. Okay. And then if you would, turn to page 5 of Ordinance 85 -21, subparagraph B. And subparagraph B I will read. It states: The meandering north /south project access road shown on the master plan is constructed as Lely Beach Boulevard from its intersection from Bonita Beach Road to the south line of the plat of Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1. The road alignment from the south line of the plat of Lely Barefoot roved Beach project has been app state, and federal agencies and is partially constructed. It goes on in paragraph C and states: In addition to platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1 and Tracts D through O, which are shown on Exhibit A, easements, utility, private, semi - public, etc., have been or will be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary or deemed desirable to serve the project. Do you see anywhere in that language or in 85 - Ordinance 85 -21 any language that allows a gatehouse or guardhouse facility, by whatever name you call it, to be in the middle of the road? A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. Now if you would turn to page 6, and it's the last paragraph which specifically states that the mas -- the PUD master plan indicates that the meandering north /south access road extends frau Bonita Beach Road to the south boundary of the project. Vehicular access to the state -owned lands south of the Barefoot Beach Page 86 16G 1 January 22, 1997 project is to occur via this north /south access road. No modification may be made to this road as planned which would interfere with access to the state -owned land to the south. If you could clarify this, is this the same north /south access road referred to -- referenced in the PUD, Tract R, which has been earlier referenced in subparagraph B as Lely Beach Boulevard? Is that -- in other words, is that Tract R that they're referring to? A. It -- it would be my expert opinion that it is. It's the only north /south road shown on the master plan and the only north /south road contemplated to run throughout the PUD. Q. Okay. In -•- in the language it says, No modification may be made to this road as planned which would interfere with access to the state -owned lands to the south. Is that language referring to the ma3ster plan, the PUD master plan? A. I would think in this context it would have been referring to the master plan, yes. Q. And have you had an opportunity to review the PUD master plan? A. I have reviewed the master plan previously, yes. Q. And does the master plan show anywhere a gatehouse or guardhouse facility in the middle of the road? A. No, it did not. Q. Mr. Arnold, let's suppose hypothetically that the landowner wished to build a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard approximately 252 feet south of the pavement line of Bonita Beach Road. Without an ordinance amendment, would such a situation constitute a violation of the PUD? "A.- ' I believe that it would constitute not only an amendment to the PUD but would likely be in violation of the county subdivision regulations to place a structure there. MS. McEACHERN: Now I have to get another ordinance. The next -- the next ordinance is 85 -83, and again, I'm not sure what county exhibit number that is. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think it's 22. MR. KOWALSKI: No, it's 4. MS. McEACHERN: Yeah, it's No. 4. It's No. 4. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Oh, it's already been introduced? MS. McEACHERN: Yes, 85 -83. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's true. It's behind Tab 4 and has already been introduced into evidence before as your Exhibit No. 4. So we have it in our gray books under Tab 4. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Arnold, have you had an opportunity to review Ordinance No. 85 -83? A. Yes, I have. Q. And do you know if this is the most recent controlling PUD ordinance for Lely Barefoot Beach? A. I believe that it is the most recent amendment that we have cn record. Q. Okay. If you would turn to page 15, which is Section 4, Page 87 16G 1 January 22, 1997 it's entitled 'Platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1, Tract A, gatehouse Complex Facility." I'm on page 15. Do you know if this language has appeared in the previous Ordinance No. 85 -21? A. It appears to be. I can go back and review the two, but they seem to be very similar, if not exactly the same. Q. Okay. And does this section of Ordinance 85 -83 continue to locate the gatehouse complex site in Tract A? A. Yes, it does. Q. Is there any provision in this ordinance that would place a guardhouse or a gatehouse anywhere else? A. No, ma'am. Q. Okay. If you would turn to the next page, which is page 16 of the ordinance, paragraph 4.3, minimum setbacks, subparagraph A. Again, it provides Lely Beach Boulevard, none. Portions of the security gatehouse facility may extend into and over Lely Beach Boulevard right -of -way. Mr. Arnold, has there been any amendment to this ordinance with regard to this Section 4.3 from the previous order -- A. No, there's not. Q. -- that you know of? A. No. Q. Next, if you would turn to page 64. At the top of the page it provides that vehicle access to the state -owned land south of Barefoot Beach project is to occur via this north /south access road. Again, we see the language that no modification may be made to this road as planned which would interfere with access to the state -owned land to the south. Without an amendment to this PUD ordinance, would the building of a gatehouse or guardhouse facility in the middle of Tract R approximately 252 feet south of Bonita Beach Road be deemed an ordinance violation? A. Yes. Q. In order to legally place a gatehouse or guardhouse facility in that let -- location I just described, what process would have to occur? A. It's my opinion that a PUD amendment should take place, if that's the contemplated act, to go ahead and put provisions for the construction of a facility within the right -of -way. Q. Okay. I'm next going to pull out the building permit, which is, I believe, County's Composite Exhibit No. 7. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's behind our Tab No. 5. Q. Mr. Arnold, in looking at the Exhibit No. 7, which is the building permit -- permit application, could you tell me by looking at this what it appears this application is for? A. It appears that it would be a guardhouse addition or an addition to a guardhouse at No. 1 Lely Beach Boulevard. Q. Do you -- do you know -- the address that's stated on there, do you know where that is on Lely Beach Boulevard? A. I'm not entirely positive, but I believe I've heard some prior conversations that that is the original gatehouse complex area in Tract A. Page 88 I bG 1 January 22, 1997 Q. Okay. But in looking at the building permit application, what leads you to believe that it looks like it's an addition? A. Well, under -- about halfway down on the page under the major heading of construction, then it says circle one, it looks to be that both new and addition were circled. But on this particular copy it's -- appears that new has been scratched out, and addition is the one that remains clearly circled. Q. Okay. On that application is there a blank to be checked off to see if there's -- the structure is in compliance with the existing zoning? A. On this particular form I don't see one. Q. Okay. Do you know that if in issuing an actual building permit, which is also part of that composite exhibit, that the zoning has been checked off as passed or is in compliance? A. On the second page of the package you gave me it -- it says -- near the bottom right -hand corner there's a column under inspection report, zoning, two column -- three columns, one, inspected. I assume it stands for the pass, and I assume the other would be reject. It implies that it was inspected and passed, yes. Q. Mr. Arnold, did you do any investigation to determine what the zoning of Tract R, which is Lely Beach Boulevard, was in 1988, the time that that application was made out? A. The same that it is today. It's currently zoned agricultural with sensitive treatment overlay on the property at that location. Q. Mr. Arnold, in 1988 do you know if the zoning AST would permit a guardhouse facility such as is there today? A.- I do not believe that it would have, no. Q. Is there a process that would have to be followed in order for that to be permitted if it is at all permitted? A. Yes. The county, in its current Land Development Code and previously in the zoning code, had provisions for permitting structures within the ST overlay area, which would have been agriculture in this case with the sensitive treatment overlay which potentially would have required an applicant to go to the Board of County Commissioners for an approval of a site alteration plan for property that had potentially sensitive lands in it. And one of the other sides to that would have been that under the county subdivision regulations at the time, structures that would have prohibited vehicular access and structures within median locations were not permitted in the county. Q. All right. Now, you've already testified that the guardhouse in the middle of the road where it is today and built in 1988 is in violation of the current PUD ordinance. Can a building permit amend a PUD ordinance? A. No, it cannot. Q. So a building permit -- let me strike that. In order to have a valid building permit, does it have to be in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance? A. Yes, it would. Page 89 16G 1 January 22, 1997 Q. Do you know; is there a provision in any of the zoning ordinance or the Land Development Code for Collier County that addresses what happens when a building permit is issued in error? A. Yes. The county's Land Development Code does contain a provision for building permits issued in error. Q. And what is that? What does it state; do you know? A. The specific provision, I believe, is two point seven and something. I don't have the language in front of me, but I do have may Land Development Code in the room if you need the exact verbiage. But it says something to the effect that a permit issued in error, regardless of the extent of the construction, may be revoked if it's shown that it is permitted in error. MS. LOUVIERE: Is there a time limit? MS. MCEACHERN: If the record could reflect, I've just handed Mr. Arnold the Land Development Code for Collier County. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. And I would ask you to turn to, I believe, it's 2.7.6, paragraph 3. A. I have that section. Q. And could you tell us what it states? A. Yes. It's titled "Construction and Use to be -- as Provided in Application, Status of Permit Issued in Error.' It goes on to read: Building permits or certificates of occupancy issued on the basis of plans and specifications approved by site development review director authorize only the use, arrangement; and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications and no other use, arrangement, or construction. Use, arrangement, or construction different from that authorized should be deemed a violation of this Land Development Code. The first -- subparagraph A addresses statements made by the application -- by the applicant on the building permit application, that those are deemed to be official statements. The second paragraph deals with a buil -- basically states what I stated earlier, a building permit issued in error shall not confer any rights or privileges to the applicant to proceed or continue with construction, and the county shall have the power to revoke such permit until said error is corrected. Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the building permit, though, is issued -- I'd like to strike that. Let's assume that the building permit that you have before you, which is County's Exhibit 7, is, in fact, the building permit for the guardhouse, the present guardhouse that is closest to Bonita Beach Road. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not that building permit was issued in error? A. It would be my opinion that there should have been some other procedural components to the review and approval of this building permit, namely, the sensitive treatment review process. Q_ And why? A. dell, again, the issuance of the building permit cannot supersede provisions that would be contained in the PUD document or Page 90 1 6G ` 1 January 22, 1997 the county's Land Development Code, or in -- in the case of 1988, it would have been in the county's zoning code. Q. Okay. is there any provision in the Land Development Code that a building permit issued in error is void ab initio? A. I believe there is some language to that effect. I don't know the specific citation, but I believe there is some language to that effect in that code. Q. Okay. Do you know in your capacity as an expert planner if a building permit is issued that is void ab initio, would that have any force and effect in amending a PUD ordinance? A. No, it would not. Q. Okay. Therefore, Mr. Arnold, is it your expert opinion as a planner that this particular building permit does not amend Ordinance No. 85 -83 which states that the gatehouse facility can only be located in Tract A? A. Yes, that's correct. This does not in any way amend the PUD language. Q. Can -- and do you have an opinion as to whether or not the present guardhouse, the one that's closest to Bonita Beach Road and which is the subject et this proceeding -- I have to rephrase this question. I'm sorry. Okay. In your expert opinion, Mr. Arnold, we have -- you've testified to the language in the PUD ordinances that talks about the -- the minimum setbacks for Lely Beach Boulevard and that portions of the gatehouse facility may extend over and into Lely Beach Boulevard. Does that language, in your expert opinion, in any way apply to the location of the guardhouse that is the subject of this proceeding? A.- No, it does not. Q. So in your -- in your expert opinion, the present guardhouse is not an extension of the gatehouse facility that can extend over and into Lely Beach Boulevard? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. Okay. Now, if you would turn to page 10 of Ordinance No. 85 -83, and on page 10 down at the bottom of Ordinance No. 85 -83, it provides: The PUD master plan indicates that the meandering north /south access road extends from Bonita Beach Road to the south boundary of the project. Vehicular access to the state -owned land south of Barefoot Beach project is to occur via the north/south access road. No modification may be made to this road as planned which would interfere with access to the state- owned land to the south. Mr. Arnold, have you had an opportunity to review the PUD master plan for Lely Barefoot Beach? A. Yes, I have. Q. And could you tell me if there is a small, reduced copy of it attached to that particular ordinance in the back? A. There is on page 472, O. R. Book 22, page 472 in Exhibit A entitled "PUD Master Plan." Q_ Does this master plan show the road which is known as Lely Beach Boulevard or Tract R? Page 91 16G 1 January 22, 1997 A. It's not the most clear copy, but yes, you can make out what essentially is Lely Bare -- Lely Beach Boulevard. Q. Okay. And I think in one of our exhibits we had a larger drawing. Well, I guess not. I stand corrected. There isn't. Okay. Is there anything in the master plan ti;at indicates that a guardhouse may be built in the middle of the road where it is located today approximately 252 feet south of the pavement line of Bonita Beach Road? A. No. There is not on the master plan. Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Arnold, if you could turn to the exhibit book. Mr. Arnold, before I get into the notice of violation, I'd like to ask you, have you made any determination as to whether or not a portion of Tract R is outside the Lely Beach PUD? A. Yes, I have. Q. And is the new guardhouse in that portion that is outside the PUD? A. Yes. Q. I mean, do you know? A. I've seen a survey that had located the -- the structure, the subject structure -- that survey indicated that it was not within the PUD boundaries that our graphics department had plotted as the boundaries. Q. Okay. Now, you have said earlier that the zoning for the road in 1988 is as it is today, which is AST or agricultural special treatment; is that correct-, A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And is it not correct that our Land Development Code was originally adopted as Ordinance 21o. 91 -- 91 -102? A.- That is the original adoption number, yes. Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the first violation, which is Section 2.1.1.15, Mr. Mazzone had testified that that section makes reference to prohibited uses and structures in the zoning district. Therefore, my question to you is, would the new guardhouse where it's located right now be in violation of that section, prohibited uses and structures in the zoning district? A. In my opinion, it is, yes. Q. Okay. And the next violation is of Section 2.20.2.1 (sic). A. Okay. Q. Mr. Mazzone testified that that particular section addressed the relationship of a PUD to the Growth Management Plan in that all development regulations and all county ordinances shall apply unless specifically changed or amended by a PUD or modified by an ' improved PUD. Do you agree with Mr. Mazzone that the location of the guardhouse outside of Tract A of the PUD but placed in Tract R is in violation of the PUD? MR. HAZZARD: Objection. Madam Chairman, for the record Mr. Mazzone did not testify at all along the lines that counsel has just described. I'd appreciate it if counsel could direct us to where in the transcript he used that phraseology we've just heard. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Why don't you rephrase your Page 92 1 6G 1 � January 22, 1997 question and, you know, not refer to what Mr. Mazzone said, but just simply ask the question of this witness. MS. MCEACiERN: Okay. BY MS. MCEAC ERN : Q. Okay. With reference to the next violation, NOV, which is of Section 2.20.2.1 (sic) of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 91 -102, that particular section addresses the relationship of the PUD to the Growth Management Plan in that all development regulations in all -- I'll tell you what. Why don't you tell us what that section says. A. That section, Section 2.2.20.2.1, is titled 'Relation of Planned Unit Development Regulations to the Growth Management Plan, Zoning, Subdivision, or Other Application Regulations.' MS. LOUVIER.E: Wait. Can you say that section and say it once more and slow us up and get all the numbers. THE WITNESS: 2.2.20.2.1. MS. LOUVIERE: Section 2.2.20.2.1. MS. McEACHERN : No. MR. HAZZARD: Miss Louviere, just for your convenience, it's attached to the notice of violation which I think is in your packet. And let me just cc:u_nt how many pages back it is so you can find it. MS. DEIFIR: The county's packet or your packet? MS. LOUVIER.E: Your packet or the county's? MR. HAZZARD: The notice of violation itself, which I believe may be in both, but I thought you were given that notice at the outset of the hearing. MR. HAZZP.P.D: I think I got nine pages back into the notice of violation document with all the attachments -- MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: -- on it. MS. LOUVIERE: I see it, which is Tab No. 9. He quoted from the LDC. I don't have that, but go ahead. BY MS. MCEACHERN : Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, would you read to us what 2.20.2.1 (sic) states? A. Yes. It says, All applications for PUDs shall be in full compliance with the future land use element and the goals, objectives, and policies of all elements of the Growth Management Plan. All development regulations and other applicable provisions of all county ordinances such as, but not limited to, all provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code as may be amended shall apply unless specifically modified by the approved PUD document and PUD master plan. Q. Mr. Arnold, is the location of the guardhouse outside of Tract A and in Tract R a violation of that section? MR. HAZZARD: Objection. Mad -- objection. Madam Chairman, that's the ultimate issue before this board. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, he is an expert witness and kiss full legal capacity to answer that question. I can rephrase it and -- Page 93 I bG 14 January 22, 1997 question and, you know, not refer to what Mr. Mazzone said, but just simply ask the question of this witness. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. BY MS. MCEACHERN: Q. Okay. With reference to the next violation, NOV, which is of Section 2.20.2.1 (sic) of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 91 -102, that particular section addresses the relationship of the PUD to the Growth Management Plan in that all development regulations in all -- I'll tell you what. Why don't you tell us what that section says. A. That section, Section 2.2.20.2.1, is titled 'Relation of Planned Unit Development Regulations to the Growth Management Plan, Zoning, Subdivision, or Other Application Regulations.* MS. LOUVIERE: Wait. Can you say that section and say it once more and slow us up and get all the numbers. THE WITNESS: 2.2.20.2.1. MS. LOUVIERE: Section 2.2. 20.2.1. MS. McEACHERN: No. MR. HAZZARD: Miss Louviere, just for your convenience, it's attached to the notice of violation which I think is in your packet. And let me just count how many pages back it is so you can find it. MS. DEIFIR: The county's packet or your packet? MS. LOUVIEP.E: Your packet or the county's? MR. HAZZARD: The notice of violation itself, which I believe may be in both, but I thought you were given that notice at the outset of the hearing. MR. HAZZP.RD: I think I got nine pages back into the notice of violation document with all the attachments -- MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: -- on it. MS. LOUVIERE: I see it, which is Tc�h No. 9. He quoted from the LDC. I don't have that, but go ahead. BY MS. McEACHERN-: Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, would you rear: to us what 2.20.2.1 (sic) states? A. Yes. It says, All applications for PLTDs shall be in full compliance with the future land use element and the goals, objectives, and policies of all elements of the Growth Management Plan. All development regulations and other applicable provisions of all county ordinances such as, but not limited to, all provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code as may be amended shall apply unless specifically modified by the approved PUD document and PUD master plan. Q. Mr. Arnold, is the location of the guardhouse outside of Tract A and in Tract R a violation of that section? MR. HAZZARD: Objection. Mad -- objection. Madam Chairman, that's the ultimate issue before this board. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, he is an expert witness and bas full legal capacity to answer that question. I can rephrase it and -- Page 93 16G I January 22, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he's an expert witness, but I think that what Mr. Hazzard's objection is, he doesn't need to give us an answer on the ultimate issue, the ultimate issue being whether or not there's a violation, which is our job to find. You can ask his legal opinion -- well, he's not a lawyer. You can ask his expert opinion based on his interpretation of the statute, but the ultimate decision, I think, lies with this hoard about whether there's been a violation. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, in your expert opinion and based upon your interpretation of Section 2.20.2.1 (sic), is the present !,:;cation of the guardhouse in Tract R a violation of that section? A. I believe that it is, yes. Q. And why? A. Well, on a couple of points. One, you almost have an internal consistency within the PUD document if you can place obstructions within the roadway that is deemed to be a publicly accessible point to the public lands to the south of this access road. And on the other side of that you have other subdivision issues that come into play and especially would have come into play at the time that the structure would have been constructed in 1988 and 1989. There were issues relative to private versus public accessibility, but at the time structures within the median strips of our county roadways, whether public or private, were not permitted under the subdivision regulations. And an amendment in the form of a PUD standard that would have authorized that would have had to have been inserted into the PUD document. Absent of that, the subdivision regulations at the time would have been in effect. Q.- - Okay. Thank you. The next violation set forth on the notice of violation is that of Section 2.2.20.2.3, which references the unified control. And could you read that for us and tell us what that means. A. The section, again, 2.2.20.2.3, it's titled "Unified Control," all this being under the planned unit development district requirements in our Land Development C:)de. That section goes on to read: All land included for purposes of development within the PUD district shall be owned or under the control of the applicant for such zoning designation, whether that applicant be an individual, partnership, or corporation or a group of individuals, partnerships, or corporations. The applicant shall present competent, substantial evidence of the unified control of the entire area within the proposed PUD district and shall state agreement that if he proceeds with the proposed development, he will: number one, do so in accordance with the PUD master plan and development officially adopted for the district; B, regulations of -- and development standards as set forth in the PUD document and PUD master plan; C, such other conditions or modifications as may be attached to the rezoning of land to the PUD classification; and, D, the Collier County Growth Management Plan. And he goes on to indicate that they'll provide written cautxacts --hawing the unified control, et.c. It also goes on in its third paragraph to say that you bind successors entitled to any Page 94 16G 1 January 22, 1997 commitments made under the Section 2.2.20, which are the PUD commitments. Q. And what does that mean in laymen's terms? A. Well, the section -- it's spelled out under unified control to make sure that when we're dealing with a piece of land, that the person seeking the rezoning has control of the land which they're trying to rezone. The other provisions that are here that seem to be relevant would be that we need to know that they're going to abide by the development regulations that they have requested and the county has entered into in the form of an ordinance agreement with them and in all cases that that be consistent with our Growth Management Plan and that -- also that the statement that you bind future owners of the property as well, so that if the property is bought and sold as it -- as it so often is, they are bound by that ordinance of adoption unless it's subsequently amended. Q. Do you have an expert opinion, based upon your interpretation of Section 2.2.20.2.3 of the Land Development Code, if the present location of the guardhouse in Tract R constitutes a violation of that section? A. I believe it does under Provision No. 1 in that the regulations and development standards as established and Lely Beach PUD are not being adhered to, because access is restricted by having a gatehouse in the middle of the right -of -way. Q. Okay. Thank you. I'd next like to turn your attention to the next violation, alleged violation, which is Section 2.2.20.3.8. And I believe that references the common open spaces and facilities. A. Would you like me to also read that section or just to summarize what it says? Q. If you could generally summarize what it says. A. Again, it's titled "Common Open Space or Common Facilities,' and what this section essentially does is establish that each PUD as they establish common areas to the development, which in many cases we know would be recreational tracts, other commonly owned facilities such as clubhouses and things Qf that nature. And it essentially says that -- that you have these common areas and that the PUD -- they have now said that the -- the development will be responsible for those entities and that they'll conform to other provisions as established in the master ptan. Q. Mr. Arnold, based upon your interpretation of that section and in your expert opinion, does the present location of the guardhouse in Tract R constitute a violation of that section? A. I think in this particular_ case it's not a real direct link because I'm not very familiar with the ownership of that specific parcel of land or the ownership of the PU1) entity itself in terms of the Lely associations. But I believe that certainly without knowing that, there is am obligation that the maintenance for the common areas falls to the developer. Q. Okay. I'd like to turn your attention, then, to the next violation, which is Section 2.7.3.3, which references the effects of a planned unit development and --- and talks about, I think, the -- Page 95 16G 1 January 22, 1997 well, I'll let you tell us what it says. Do you want me to go through the number again? A. What is 7.3.3? Q. Yes. A. Effect of a planned unit development zoning? Q. Uh -huh. A. That reads: If the approved -- if approved by the Board of County Cov%missioners, the master plan for development and all other information and materials formally submitted with the petition shall be considered and adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and shall become the standards of development for the subject PUD. Thenceforth, development in the area delineated as a PUD district on the official zoning atlas shall proceed only in accordance with the adopted development regulations and the PUD master plan for said PUD district. And it also goes on to say tc the effect that before any agreements and conditions of approval, they have to be approved by appropriate officers and agencies of the county, etc. Q. Okay. Thank you. Based upon your interpretation of Section 2.7.3.3 and in your expert opinion, is the present location of the guardhouse in Tract R a violation of that section? A. Yes. I -- I believe they are in violation of that provision in that they did not fulfill. their commitments in the PUD. Q. Okay. Finally, the -- the notice of violation -- the second violation charges that the section -- second section of the violation states that the location of the present ±7uardhouse constitutes an impediment to traffic. Specifically in PUD Ordinance No. 85 -83, which is over there (indicating), Section 2.7, pages 9 and 10, it -- it states that the final site development plan makes reference to the PUD master plan and that the master plan indicates the meandering north /south access road which extends from Bonita Beach Road to the south boundary of the project and that vehicular access to the state -owned land south of Barefoot Beach project is to occur via this north /south access road, that no modification may b.� made to this road as planned which would interfere with access to the state -owned lands to the south. Do you have as -- in your expert opinion, do you have an opinion that the new guardhouse built in Tract R in the middle of the road is in violation of the PUD documents? A. Yes. I believe it's also in violation of Ordinance 85 -83 in that provision then that you do prohibit access down the north /south meandering road which we all refer to now as Lely Beach Boulevard. Q. Okay. I need to pull out another ordinance. MS. MCEACHERN: Madam Chairman, the county's next exhibit, I believe, is going to be No. 22, and it's Ordinance No. 88 -63. (Exhibit No. 22 was marked for identification.) MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, it's found behind Tab 12 of the respondent's booklet. It's the first several pages of -- behind Tab 12. Page 96 16G 1 January 22, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If it's behind Tab 12, then it's already an exhibit. We've probably already got it. MR. HAZZARD: It is, in fact, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. So we don't need to have it introduced into evidence. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. I believe -- okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 88 -63. MS. McEACHERN: I think it was the respondent's exhibit, whatever. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that's okay. If you want to introduce it as your exhibit, too, that's fine. MS. DEIFIR: It's introduced. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We've already got it as an exhibit MS. McEACHERN: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- so we're already considering it. MS. McEACHERN: And it was introduced into evidence on his side? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. DEIFIR: For the record, it's No. 12. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it's under Tab 12, but I'm not sure; does that mean it's Exhibit 12? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, for ease I think it should -- I think this entire book was Respondent's Exhibit 1, so we should probably call it Respondent's Exhibit 1 at Tab 12. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Arnold, have you had an opportunity to review Ofdfnance No. 88 -63? A. Yes, I have. Q. Can you tell us what is happening with Ordinance No. 88 -63? A. Ordinance 88 -63 was an ordinance that amended Ordinance 85 -21, which has been an ordinance that we've referred to previously, and it also amended Ordinance 85 -83 and 87 -53. And in this particular case it dealt with just a couple of minor points, at least in my opinion, in the PUD. And more specifically, to the issue at hand would have been, I think, some references that you see under Section 4.3 where it again talks about minimum setbacks under Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard. And it says portions of the security gatehouse facility may extend into and over Lely Beach Boulevard right -of -way. That language, again, appears in this ordinance, but it's not being amended. It's only there in reference to the other section, because ' under that the setbacks for properties adjacent to Anguila Lane were modified from 25 feet to 10 feet, and that really is the substance of that amendment. None of the setbacks relative to the guardhouse location were modified with this amendment. Q. Okay. Anywhere in 86 -63 is the guardhouse located to any tract other than Tract A? A. No, it is not. Q. So we already know that in -- you already testified that Page 97 January 22, 1997 with respect to Ordinance 85 -21, which this particular ordinance amends in part, that the location of the gatehouse complex facility is in Tract A? A. Correct. Q. And, again, you said that this does not have any language which relocates that gatehouse facility to another tract. Does this ordinance have any language that permits a guardhouse to be located in anyplace other than Tract A? A. No, it does not. Q. Does this ordinance have any language with regard to a guardhouse facility being permitted in Tract R? A. No, it does not. Q. Let's assume that the present guardhouse that is approximately 252 feet south of the pavement line of Bonita Beach Boulevard was built and existing at the time that this ordinance was enacted. Does the -- does this PTTD ordinance amendment implicitly allow that present guardhouse to exist where it is today? A. No, it would not. Q. Okay. Finally, back to Ordinance No. 85 -83 under Section 4, page 15 through 16, Subsection 4.2, subparagraph A, and continuing on page 16, it states that prior to construction of the gatehouse complex or subsequent modifications thereto, final plans shall be approved by the community development administrator. Mr. Arnold, would you e,,nsider the construction of this new guardhouse in Tract P, to be in v-olation of that section of 85 -83? A. I would think they would bf. I -- you know, I think that -- a couple things. One wo.,ld have been it really wasn't a modification at the gatehouse complex. It's far remote from that gatehouse complex. And secondly, there was no authorization, or at least on any information I reviewed, of an approval by the community development administrator. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I expect extensive cross - examination of this witness, and perhaps it's an appropriate time to adjourn for the day. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm sure you won't have any objections up here. The Code Enforcement Board will meet again in the morning at 8:30. However, this is not on our agenda for tomorrow. This case is not on our agenda till Monday morning at 8:30; is that correct? Well -- MR. McCORMICK: Excuse me. Before we adjourn can I ask Miss Sullivan if she has an estimate on how much time we'll need tomorrow for that case? Is it a half a day or -- MS. SULLIVAN: Well, it's -- it's my understanding that you're going to hear Mr. Pires' ;notions and then determine whether you're going to hear the case. So I -- MS. DEIFIK: We have noth -- nothing on Friday. MS. SULLIVAN: Huh -uh. KS. LOUVIERE: No. Page 98 16G 1 January 22, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. McCormick, it's my understanding that there's going to be a motion to dismiss or to continue or something like that on that case, and so it may or may not get heard. And it's also my understanding that we have before us the consideration of the rules of procedure that have been floating around out there for a long time but have never really been approved by this board. So I wouldn't anticipate, depending on what happens with that other case, that you'd be here that long, if that helps. MR. McCORMICK: Yeah, I know that's best -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And I might say this, I have an emergency hearing at 8:20, which is before an 8:30 court call. And if I'm late, it's Judge Baker's fault. But -- I won't be real late, but if I'm not here, that's where I am. Anybody have anything else they want to say? 2't. MANALICH: This is a matter of scheduling at this point. It's nTy understanding we'll next convene on this matter Monday at 8:30 a.m. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. And someone said that we could only stay till two. MR. MANALICH: Correct. MS. DEIFIK: And then we'll be back here Tuesday? MR. MANALICH: No. My understanding is that it was Wednesday -- MR. HAZZARD: Monday, Wednesday, Thursday next week. MR. MANALICH: Thursday. I would also point out, just for everybody's benefit, I had beer, told that this room would be available Friday of next week if necessary, hopefully not -- MR. HAZZARD: Based on what I've seen so far, I don't thin-c'Friday is going to be necessary. And my guess is that Thursday may not be necessary. MS. LOUVIERE: We keep moving along. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think, you know, my compliments to both -- all of the attorneys that, you know, we've gotten further along into this case than I thought we could today. I had my doubts earlier, but we've been moving -- moving right along, and so I compliment both of you for -- for doing so. MR. MANALICH: Then without the necessity of further notices, everyone is expected back next Monday -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. There -- there won't be any necessary notices to be sent, and we will be convening this board in the morning at 8:30, but this case Monday morning at 8:30. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, just -- just as a point of information, what's our anticipated scheduling in terms of the transcript being made available to Mr. Allen and this afternoon's transcript to Mr. Andrews? MS. SULLIVAN: I can answer that for you. I've arranged with the court reporter to bring the transcripts for Mr. Allen and Mr. Andrews Monday morning, because it's my understanding Mr. Allen won't be back in the country until Sunday anyhow; so they can take It wi.tb them when they leave Monday. MR. MANALICH: One other question -- Page 99 1 6G 1 January 22, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's like reading Chapter 2 before you read Chapter 1. MR. HAZZARD: Yeah, that's still -- yeah. That's still saying you haven't had thought -- I thought that we had -- that we had discussed attempting to get these transcripts to the missing folks in advance of them coming to sit for the next day's session. And I can understand Mr. Allen -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: In terms of Mr. Allen, you know, if he can't -- he's not in the country, he can't read it anyway. In terms of Mr. Andrews -- I don't know where Mr. Laforet is. M.S. SULLIVAN: Well, actually we weren't anticipating Mr. Andrews and Mr. Laforet, and for me to get these transcripts in less than 24 hours is just real, bad expensive. MR. McCORMICK: I recall. that we discussed having them available, but we decided that they only needed to have the transcripts before the final day when we would decide the case. I think that's the way it was left. MS. SULLIVAN: That was my understanding too. MS. LOUVIERE: Before they made their final vote. MS. SULLIVAN: And if there are no more absences, then everybody should have everything they need by Monday. MR. MANALICH: One other question I had with regard -- do we have -- and maybe we can ask the court reporter -- a County Exhibit No. 19, and what is that because I'm drawing a gap here in my records? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think it's -- I think it's the first amended complaint. It was a 17, and again, it was 19. And in neither case was it introduced, but you know, I could stand corrected. MS. DEIFIK: I think that's true. MR. HAZZARD: That squares with our records over here, Madam Chairman. MR. KOWAKSI: Yeah. MR. MANA.LICH: So at this point there really is no ).7. MS. DEIFIK: Or No. 19. MR. MANALICH: Well, 19, yes, .t was not accepted either. Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'll ask our attorney if he'd, you know, like to give us any instructions before we leave, just not to talk about the case and not to make up your mind until you hear all the evidence. MR. KOWALSKI: I -- I think the board members are very well familiar with those rules, and I know they'll abide by them. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Wonderful. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Stand adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:09 p.m. Page 100 I bG 1 January 22, 1997 COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ^� CHAIRPERSON LCL- 14 1 GI -f-_ TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DZOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara Drescher and Barbara A. Donovan Page 101 16G 1 January 14ECEIVED TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, January 23, 1997 FEB 2 8 1997 Board of County CoamissioAen LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board met on this date at 8:45 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: M. Jean Rawson ,Tim Allen Mireya Louviere Celia Deifik Louis Laforet Richard McCormick Absent: Charles Andrews ALSO PRESENT: Shirley Jean McEachern, Assistant County Attorney Richard D. Yovanovich, Attorney to CEB Linda Sullivan, Cole Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement ,. ' $ -- - / ►+'Smock Constantine sorry misc. Cares: O ?' p 1te; - lie 6. Page 1 CODE EN-FORCEMZka BOARD OF COLLIER COMM, RIDA I 6G n $ 9 g N D A Date: January 23, 1997 at a:30 o'clock A.M. Location: Collier County Government Center, Admn. Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD FALL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AN-D THEREFORE MA&Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VMtBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEIL C=OLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE EMFORCE "NT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. 2. APPRMWQ� OF AGE?iDP, 3. ApgoVAL OF MINUTES N,vember 25, ,995 and Decemb--r 12 and 13, 1996 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Board of County Ccmmissioners ,s. Dale H. Steinberg, TR. CEB No. 97 -001 5. STEW jaUSI SS -A. Board of County Commissioners vs. Mildred M. Anderson CEB No. 96 -013 Filing of Affidavit of Compliance B. Review Code Enforcement Board Rules and Regulations 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. REPORTS N/A 8. NEXT MEETING DATE 9. ADJ02M January 29 and 30, 1997 16G 1 January 23, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Good morning. The Code Enforcement Board of Collier County will now come to order. I apologize for my tardiness. As I mentioned to the board members yesterday, I had an emergency hearing in court this morning at 8:20. And it wasn't the judge's fault that I'm late. It was opposing counsel. Let's start with the roll call. To my left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Lou Laforet. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Jean Rawson. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The next thing we need to do is to approve today's revised agenda. And the agenda that I'm looking at for the board members, because we were given two, is the agenda of today's date, January 23rd. So if you'll have a look at that agenda, and I'll ask somebody to make a motion to approve that agenda. MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we accept the revised agenda for January 23, 1997. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do I hear a second? MS. DEIFIK: I second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All in favor signify by saying aye. The agenda will be approved. we've already approved the minutes of November 25th, December 12th and 13th, and I believe I signed those yesterday, Miss Cruz. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The public hearing for today is the Board of County Commissioners versus Dale H. Steinberg, and that's Case No. 97 -001. And Miss -- I see Mr. Pires is here. Our attorney is here. I don't see the county attorney. MS. SULLIVAN: That wil.l be me today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Oh, ;wonderful. Miss Sullivan is the county attorney today. Miss Sullivan is an attorney, by the way. Well, let's hear -- it's my understanding we might have a motion; is that correct, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes, Madam Chairman. The microphone? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. PIKES: Madam Chairman, members of the board, for the record, Anthony P. Pires Jr. of the law firm of Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo. I had filed with the chairman and provided copies to your counsel, to the county attorney's office, and to code enforcement's director, Linda Sullivan, four motions. And I'm not sure what order the board or the chairman wishes m,. to take these motions up in. We have some -- two of them are similar with regards to the issue concerning due process concerns and the failure to clearly articulate the nature and -- of the charges and the basis for the charges against my client So as to not enable us -- we are not abiue to prepare a proper and adeq.:ate defense. I don't know, Madam Chairman, which order you wish me to take the motions up in. Any preference? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The due process. Page 2 16G 1 January 23, 1997 MR. PIRES: As articulated in the motion to dismiss, due process, the statement that's made part of this particular notice of cr violation and request -- seeing the violation request for hearing merely states in the narrative that it's a violation involved -- it's a violation of Section 2.1.15 of the Land Development Code which states, the generalized language, quote, any use or structure not b'a specifically permitted in a zoning district as a permitted use, conditional use, or use allowed by reasonable implication shall be prohibited in such zoning district. Then it goes on to talk about roadside sales, which I don't believe are appropriate in this instant. The statement does not reference any portion of the Land Development Code to allege how the alleged illegal activity either is ' a use or a structure that i n't specifically permitted as a permitted use or as a conditional use or as a use by reasonable implication. It fails to articulate -- allege -,he :cuing district involved as the basis for the violation, the datF, ,f the alleged illegal conversion or utilization, and whethE�r the prohibited use is predicated upon a ' duplex not being a permitted use, a conditional use, or use by reasonable implication. Furthermore, throughout the proceedings I've attached transcripts and excerpts from various other proceedings where the county staff -- example, Investigator Mazzone is referenced in my t- memorandum, following and consistent with what Mr. Bolgar said in his attachment was that the zoning district involved here was an R -2 zoning district. That was in a May 16, 1996, memorandum from Mr. Bolgar. That same representation was in a memorandum from Mr. Vincent Cautero, administrator, where he said the zoning on the ' property was R -2 and that basically the only issue concerned was the numiser of units on the property. But then at June 17, 1996, Dennis y; Mazzone testified alternatively that the zoning district was R -2; that z two zoning districts were in effect, R -2 and then MF -1; and, thirdly, that the zoning was in transformation stage when the alleged activity, �.; illegal activity, occurred. At that same June 17th hearing when Arnold said the building permit that authorized or -- building permit involved here had the wrong zoning district on it back in 1969 and that the zoning -- building permit said the zoning district was R -2, Wayne Arnold says, No, that's a mistake. The zoning district was MF -1. And that was on June 17, 1996. On November 19, 1996, at a hearing before Michael McNees, Mr. Arnold testified that I was wrong, that it was MF -1. The zoning district was really MF -4. And the problem is MF -1, #: R -2, and MF -4 all have different criteria as to the nature of uses allowed, the minimum lot sizes, and square footage requirements. I've attached as Exhibit H to my motion to dismiss for due process violation a chart. that outlines the differences. And as I indicate there, it has different criteria for minimum building size or unit size. It has different criteria for minimum lot size. That's Y.xhibit H. . :+SCCORMICK: Can you give us just a moment to find the chart? MR. PIRES: I'm sorry. Page 3 16G i January 23, 1997 MR. McCORMICK: Can you tell us where that chart is? MR. PIRES: It's Exhibit H on the motion to dismiss for a due process violation. MS. L.OUVIERE: I hate to interrupt you, but I never received your motion to dismiss packet. Do you have an additional copy? CHAIRP RSON RAWSON: Does everybody else have it? MR. PIRES: I have one other packet with me. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm the one that probably mailed all of these out to all of you. Did you get a package from me? MS. LOUVIERE: I didn't_ go to my office yesterday; so it might be at my office, but I didn't receive one. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I sent it to you last week. MR. PIRES: I have another package. MS. LOWIERE: Thanks a lot, Tony. I appreciate it. MR. PIRES: Sure. Furthermore, to show the vagueness and uncertainty of the shifting target that my client has been faced with throughout all these proceedings is in the motion to dismiss for due process violation. I've attached, as I said, transcripts from various proceedings; and the Exhibit G is an excerpt from the minutes of the county commission meeting of November 26, 1996, where Mr. Arnold testified, quote, It is staff's position that at the time this permit was issued that the property in question would have carried the interim MF -4 zoning designation. I say that for a couple of reasons. I think it's eery difficult to, with a great degree of certainty, point to a. specific zoning district that was in place on this specific piece of property. He goes on to say, so the track record is sketchy at best to try to determine exactly when and what transpired on this specific piece of property. Yet the staff has continued to pursue this notice of violation without articulating the basis for it. During various testimony, during various hearings, they shift the basis. The first time it's R -2 zoning district, and you did not meet the lot size, Mr. Steinberg. During the course of that hearing Mr. Arnold says, No, no, no, R -2 is wrong. The building permit says R -2, but it's really 1IF -1, which has a square- footage - per -unit criteria that you didn't meet. Then we go to another hearing and Mr. Arnold says, No, I was wrong, and it's MF -4, which has yet another criteria. What we'd like to know is exactly -- our clients would like to know exactly what we're being charged with in this particular instance. I think that's a fundamental aspect of due process to have a sufficiently defined charging document to be able to prepare a proper and adequate defense as opposed to a constant shifting target, which has been the pattern in this particular instance. Additionally on November 27, 1996, I forwarded a letter to the county attorney's office, and that's attached as Exhibit I to the mut4.zn to dismiss for due process concerns, a letter to Ramiro Manali.c�L in the county attorney's office and Linda Sullivan as director asking specifically for the basis for any notice of violation in sufficient detail so as to be able to adequately prepare a defense Page 4 16G 1 January 23, 1997 to the charges. This fundamental aspect of due process is not afforded by the blanket language contained within this notice of violation as it currently exists. In other words, a more detailed statement of particulars is hereby requested as to the notice of violation. No response was ever provided to that. On December 30th the county attorney's office, which is Exhibit -- by letter, which is Exhibit J to the motion to dismiss, advised that they would not be prosecuting this case, and they forwarded my letter to Linda Sullivan with regards to this particular action. Once again, I have heard no response from the code enforcement director one way or another, no written response to my request for statement of particulars. And that's the basis for the motion to dismiss for due process. Fundamental due process is not being provided to my client. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Pires. Miss Sullivan. MS. SULLIVAN: Mr. Pires has alleged that the notice of violation fails to inform with reasonable certainty. If you'll look at the notice of violation on the space provided, it says that we're alleging a duplex, use of renovated boathouse, and then it references the building permit. And it's the same location occupied by a single - family dwelling. Then we reference the LTC section, which as Mr. Pires correctly stated, says that any use or structure not specifically permitted. Then it goes on, blab, blah, blah. It -- you know, to me it seems very clear that when you say illegal use of a duplex and refer to the building permit, what we are charging is that the duplex was not permitted, specifically permitted by the building permit. But,- you know, the reason that I didn't reply to Mr. Pires the last time, as your attorney told you in his letter to you was or his fax to you, is that Mr. Pires has been involved in this case since June, at least since June. It's been to the county manager twice. It's been before the Board of County Corr -nissioners once, and you ?snow, I can't imagine that all the discussions -- we :net with Mr. Pires and his client, and I can't imagine with all the discussions that he can't figure out that we're charging that the duplex use does not conform to the permit. If the board -- board would like me to issue a new notice of violation, you know, I'll be happy to do so. I'm trying to move the agenda. I don't think it matters. I think the only issue here is whether the duplex, was permitted by the building permit. As far as the zoning stuff goes, we can argue it all day, and I'm not sure, because the records aren't real clear, as to what zoning was in' effect. Wayne Arnold has determined -- and he'll be in here in a few minutes -- that it was probably RF -4. The point is, the use of a duplex, regardless of which zoning you use, does not meet the square footage. It doesn't matter which zoning we use. But now if Mr. Pires wwal.i like me to refile this, put the correct thing, it's going to be more difki_cult for him, because it's going to require even more square footage. And, you know, I can't imagine why we want to postpone and back up the agenda unless the board just feels he hadn't been afforded Page 5 16G 1 January 23, 1997 due process. I would also like you to look at your transcript from the county manager's hearing, if you have that. That's the big, thick thing. The front of it looks like this (indicating). I think it's in Mr. Pires' packet. MR. McCORMICK: Did everyone receive that or -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's attached to the motion to dismiss, I believe. MR. PIRES: But there was an entire transcript that applied to the permit, because it was so thick, what I call Appendix B of a full text of all of the transcripts, if that's the June 17th hearing that Miss Sullivan is referring to. Excerpts from the June 17th hearing were attached to the ;notion to dismiss, but the full transcript -- there were enough trees that I think have been -- MS. SULLIVAN: It's about 80 pages here which I got from Mr. Pires so -- I think I took this directly out of his packet; so I think everybody should have it. MR. PIRES: As I mentioned, the code enforcement staff I provided the Appendix B, which was the full copy of all of the transcripts. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's the one I sent to everybody last week. MS. SULLIVAN: You did provide the board with all this? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, he did. MR. McCORMICK: We don't have the full transcripts. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You do, in Appendix B Mr. Pires provided me at my office with this huge packet for each of you last week, and I mailed them all out to you last week. - MS. SULLIVAN: I think you probably got enough for this purpose. MS. LOUVIERE: Can we -- MR. McCORMICK: Plenty. MS. LOUVIERE: What did the Board of County Commissioners rule when they heard this issue? MS. SULLIVAN: The Board of County Commissioners ruled that it should go to the Code Enforcement Board. The county manager ruled that the violation was sufficient, and on the second hearing we had around, you know, with the zoning, he -- he ruled that the -- the notice of violation was sufficient to inform the parties of what the violation was. Okay. What I wanted to show you in the transcript, and I'll do it as briefly as I car., first of all, on page 4 Mr. Pires says -- he alleges that he only had two business days to prepare for the hearing. Mr. Mcklees says, "That would be, of course, assuming you had begun no preparation in advance." Mr. Pires, "I knew it was to be held eventually, but did not have a hearing date." On page 5 he says, it's the general section of the code, as he's alleged here and that -- he says "Hopefully that will be reso?ved if addressed during the course of the proceedings." Mr. McNees said, ask any questions you want -- you know, I'm here for -- staff is here for us to discuss this. Page 6 16G 1 January 23, 1997 Then we go on to page -- let me see -- page 13 telling how Mr. Mazzone went about this. And he said, "this year I was asked to look into the reperted duplex structure having been created without proper -- proper permits." Then on page 14, And when looking at the property and taking photographs and looking at the tax record, it appears that it was a boathouse and received a permit. When I discovered that it was being used for a duplex, we thought perhaps that was one more -- that the use was one more than would have been allowed by the property. And it goes on and on, and Mr. Pires, you know, discusses this. Mr. Mazzone says, well, you know, it couldn't have been a duplex. The square footage wasn't there. That's on page 15. He goes, there's a single - family structure that straddles both lots. The duplex and the single- family structure share the lot, and on and on and on. I mean, it seems to me that since June of this year Mr. Pires has been representing his client and doesn't know what the violation is, and he -- he asked For what the violation was at the end of November; so, you know, like I say, I'm -- I'm willing to work with the board. I'm trying to move the agenda. If he wants me to refile it, I can -- I can do that. I can allege the square footage. I can allege the waterway use. I can allege, you know, the setbacks. I can't imagine why he wouldn't want to proceed on this simple violation, but whatever's the board's pleasure, I'll do. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mrs. Sullivan. Any response, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Once again, it's not that simple because I kept asking, even at the June 17th hearing, what the basis was, and that's when it starred becoming a shifting target. I'd like to have a detailed statement of particulars as to the zoning ordinance that was alleged to have been in effect at that time, what was violated, and the specific criteria that the staff believes was being violated. MS. SULLIVAN: I'm not sure how much more detailed I can make it, but I'll try. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, before we get to the motion for more detailed statement of particulars, let's talk about the motion to dismiss. Anybody -- anybody on the board have questions for either Mr. Pires or Miss Sullivan? MS. DEIFIK: I -- I think it would be helpful if you would describe to us what is on the property. Apparently there are three different buildings on this property, and if you could point out what your understanding of what the permits were for, which building they applied to, because I think that's a bit confusing, particularly' here where it appears that you used a boathouse as -- used a boathouse as a duplex, was that one of the three buildings that was on the property to begin with? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON; For the board's use, you know, in the back of your packet there's about three pages of pictures. MG,_ DEIFIK: Uh -huh. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Dwenty to twenty -two, if you want to look at the pictures. Page 7 16G 1 January 23, 1997 MS. DEIFIK: Mine -- I left mine in the car. If I thought that we needed this -- MR. PIRES: I guess I -- MS. DEIFIK: It would still help me if there was a description of what -- what actually happened here, what was on the property, and what your client believed he was doing. MR. PIRES: Well, that almost gets into a defense. And if that's the board's pleasure, I'd be willing to do that. MS. DEIFIK: I just want a physical description. MR. PIRES: At the time there was two lots, 6 and 7, and there's a single - family structure that straddles the lot line. That was built in 1965. At the same time there was a pool and a dock, and the seawall was built at that time. In 1969 there was conversion of the boathouse to a duplex. The permit authorized adding -- altered that structure to add living quarters and a bath and a half. Prior to that time in 1969 when that permit was issued and then it was altered to become a duplex pursuant to the permit, there was a shower and a sink in the boathouse; so it was basically like half a bath at that time. And then it was converted to a duplex, and there's a duplex and a single - family structure, three dwelling units on the property. MS. DEIFIK: Three dwelling units and two buildings? MR. PIRES: Correct. one single - family residence and one two - family residence. MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: We had -- for the county manager's appeal we had graphics do up a drawing, and Dennis has sent for it. It should be here in about five minutes if you'd like to see it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Any other questions for either Mr. Pires or Miss Sullivan? MR. LAFORET: I have a question for Miss Sullivan. Miss Sullivan, I'm -- excuse me. I read in here that there's so many square feet of housing allowed on a certain size lot. Now, it's my understanding that a portion of these buildings is built: over the stream behind it, the waterway. MS. SULLIVAN: That's correct. MR. LAFORET: Which is not part of the lot. MS. SULLIVAN: That's correct. MR. LAFORET: Have deductions for that portion of the building been made instead of the gross volume as only the part that has a foundation on the lot -- is that part considered? -- and then have you not considered the part whose foundation is over the waterway? MS. SULLIVAN: No. We just considered the square footage that's in the building as it exists now. MR. LAFORET: Just took the gross building. MS. SULLIVAN: Right. MR. LAFORET: And charged it to the lot. uL. GJLLIVAN: Right. And the argument about the zoning is R -2 requires 600 feet per building. If you get into MF -1 or RF -1, what -- RF -4, whatever it's called, then it requires, like, you've got Page 8 16G j January 23, 1997 your chart there, 500 something, which can't be met. There's about 630 square feet in the building; is that correct, Tony? MR. PIRES: Six fifty, I believe. MS. SULLIVAN: So the only thing this structure can meet is the R -2 square footage of the building because there is no requirement. If you go into the other zoning designations, it can't meet those. That's why I'm saying the zoning doesn't matter because on R -2, you must have so much lot square footage, and this particular structure does not meet that. MR. LAFORET: Then if it is resolved at this hearing that R -2 is the proper code to follow, my question is that anything else is immaterial; is that correct? MS. SULLIVAN: Then it still doesn't meet the square footage. That's why I'm saying the zoning isn't fatal to the decision. MS. DEIFIR: No matter what the zoning is -- MS. SULLIVAN: The square footage of the lot is not meant to support three structures is what -- is our position. MS. DEIFIR: Three dwelling units. MS. SULLIVAN: That's correct. MS. LOUVIERE: I'm sorry. MS. SULLIVAN: You're right. MS. LOUVIERE: What is your square footage, your total square footage now? MR. PIRES: Of the building? MS. LOUVIERE: Of the lot. MR. PIRES: The two lots together are 13,260, I believe. MS. SULLIVAN: I have a drawing here I'll be -- if Mr. -Pires wants to see it -- of the square footage and of the lots that we did up yesterday just to make sure that we were correct. MS. LOUVIERE: Is that correct, 13,200 square feet? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, yes, we agree with that. MR. PIRES: 13,260, I'm sorry. MS. SULLIVAN: And our calculations -- and we've talked to people who did this way back when this supposedly was done. It would need seventeen five -- 17,500 square feet for three units. But you know, because Mr. Pires had -- had a problem with a notice of violation, I wasn't going to go there. I was going to try to -- you know, strictly with does this building comply with the building permit. MS. LOUVIERE: I tend to agree with you that the zoning issue, whether it's R -2, MF -1, or MF -4, only allow the uses -- only allow for one- and two - family units and all zoning issues. And you'r2 telling me we have three. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, part of our concern is now we're interjecting new issues and, you can just tell from what Miss Sullivan is saying, it's all over the place still, and we'd like to eve a detailed statement. ME. SULLIVAN: I've stated to the board I'm willing to say, y-xi know, simply put the issue before the board, one issue: Does the building permit that was issued allow a duplex use? But if -- if Page 9 1 bG 1 January 23, 1997 Mr. Pires wants to refile it, these issues were discussed in both hearings before the county managers. They're not new to him. They were discussed in our office with meetings with him, but if you want me to refile it and continue it, I'll be glad to put all the issues in there. I think he's better off without them, but I'll do whatever you want. MS. DEIFIR: Can I ask our counsel -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, definitely we're going to ask for some advice from our counsel. And although I am -- got a copy of your letter that you wrote Miss Sullivan, Mr. Yovanovich, and I appreciate that, the fellow board members didn't get a copy. And I haven't -- since I just got it, I. think, yesterday, I haven't shared it with them; so keeping that in mind, you might want to be more detailed in your advice to us. MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically the issue is has, you know, due process been met. And this hoard operates under the principle that fundamental due process prevails in its hearing procedures. There's two aspects to hue process. 'rhe first aspect is notice of what the violation is, and the second aspect is an opportunity to be heard. In reviewing the agenda packet, just focusing on the agenda packet itself, when I went through it, I was not sure what this individual was being charged with %,iolating. I had to rely on additional information outside of the agenda packet, namely, the various transcripts provided by Mr. Pires in his different motions to determine what exactly the violation was. And the reason I say that, in looking at the notice of violation, you'll see they list RMF -6 as the current zoning, and then they talk about an improper duplex. I went to the PUMP -6 district and the Land Development Code, and a duplex is not -- it is a permitted use in the RMF -6 district. Therefore, there must be some other basis for the charge that this particular duplex is not a permitted use in this district. I read -- I read the packet, and I got to Mr. Bolgar's memorandum to Miss Sullivan, I guess, laying out the particular violation for this -- this duplex. That's -- for the first time the --- tha square footage of the lot came up in detail as to what the violation was. In other words, they've got too many structures, according to staff, on -- on a lot. The lot's not big enough under the zoning district, which is R -2 in this memorandum, to support this duplex. So basically you have -- you have to -- you have to go beyond the notice of violation and the statement of violation to determine what Mr. Pires is being charged with. And I -- I'm not sure that -- that that's proper notice under the requirements. I think the notice has got to say to the respondent, you are in violation of our ' Land Development Code for the following reasons. If the reason is that you have three structures on a lot that can only support two structures, that's the notice I think you're entitled to. What confuses the -- the fact is that, you know, Mr. P'ires;ha.s an opportunity to refute the charges, and one way to refute the changes would be to prove that this is a legal nonconforming use. Basica Uy wbat a legal nonconforming use is when the zoning district standards were adopted establishing the square footage requirements Page 10 16G 1 January 23, 1997 for the different dwelling units, if that makes an existing building no longer in conformity with the new adopted standards, the old building, as long as it was properly permitted at the time it was constructed, can stay in -- in place until it's destroyed or goes away or loses its -- you know, it's no longer used as a duplex. In order for him to show you that it was legal at the time it was permitted, he has to know what the zoning district_ is at the time the permit was pulled. At the time the permit was pulled, the permit says R -2; it has gone all over the place. It's gone from R -2 to, I think, MF -1 to MF -4 throughout the testimony. I don't know if that's the final position that it is MF -4. If it is the final position that it was MF -4 at the time the pe=it was pulled and the permit was improperly issued, I believe that Mr. Pires should get the final position of staff in writing in order to be able to prepare a defense. He should -- you know, he shouldn't have to guess at which one is going to be the staff's position today. I heard staff say it doesn't matter whether it's R -2, MF -1, or MF -4 whether or not there is a violation. I don't -- I don't know that for a fact. I think we'll have to get into testimony to -- to finally resolve whether or not this structure meets the factual requirements on all -- on all those things, but I'm not sure that Mr. Pires has had sufficient notice to go forward today under the due process requirements of the ordinance. So if you asked me should you go forward, you can go forward, but I think that the notice is subject to attack, and I think there's a decent -- decent chance that the notice was improper, and we will be back here again. The easiest thing to do would be exactly what Miss Sullivan suggested, is provide the de -- and it may hurt Mr. Pires. That's his choice. He came forward and raised the issue that you didn't give me sufficient facts. If you lay it out, you're in violation of A, B, C, and D of the ordinance, well, he's going to have to address each of those charges. So my advice is that there's a problem with -- I think there's a problem with the notice. It's not clear what Mr. Pires has been charged with, just looking at the packet of information you have before you. You can go forward if you -- if you want to, but I think there's a decent chance the notice is improper. MR. McCORMICK: Ask a follow -up question, Mr. Yovanovich. Is it your opinion then that the -- the violation, the alleged violation, would have to be spelled out within the packet that is provided to the respondent and that any testimony, whatever it may have been in the hearings leading up to before this was actually issued, that's -- doesn't come into play as -- it sounds -- you know,' we've heard that it's been bouncing all over the place in those other hearings. But let's say that if that was clear what the violation was in past proceedings but it wasn't included in this package, it wasn't spelled out as you've said, does that make a difference? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think what you've got to look at is 1:he naaice given to Mr. Pires in writing saying these are the charges, okay. This is what you're being accused of. If -- if you're changing or supplementing, I think you change and amend your notice of Page 11 1 bG 1 4 January 23, 1997 violation to say this is -- this is really what we mean at this time. That could have been done in November by a simple letter saying this is it. We're going forth. You're violating REF-6 for the following reasons, and the zoning at that time was multifamily 4. If -- you probably could cure the record if you introduced all the previous testimony, but I'm not sure it ended with this is definitely RMF -4 as the zoning standard. So I'm uncomfortable that it has gotten to that finality through the evolution of the trying of the case. MR. McCORMICK: So specifically that wouldn't help in this case but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: In this case -- MR. MCCORMICK: Anyway, this 22 -page package that is provided, this is the notice of violation; that's what we should look at and we should go by in judging whether or not the -- the alleged violation has -- has been afforded due process. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe you need to go with the information put in front of you that looks like the charges of violation of RMF -6 duplex. The zoning at the time was R -2 on -- based on the information in your packet. MS. DEIFIK: Just so that I'm -- I'm absolutely clear, because I had the same concern that Mr. McCormick did, but one of the things that you said which struck me as being more important, perhaps, in our consideration is that in order to mount a defense, the respondent has to be able to make a -- an argument as to whether he was grandfathered in or legal 20 years ago, and in order to do that, he has to know what the zoning was then. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. _ MS. DEIFIK: And that seems to still be in some doubt. MR. YOVANOVICH: That -- and that's why I'm not sure that the record formally says this is the staff's position on what the zoning was. Maybe we can get around the -- the insufficiency of the document in front of you if we had gotten to a final resolution as to this is the zoning district; and maybe Mr. Pires at that point has waived, you know, the notice of violation because he ha-; participated in this process, but we're not there yet. I don't think we're there yet unless Miss Sullivan can say we have -- we have absolutely finally determined at that board meeting that it was MF -4, which I don't think she said today. MS. SULLIVAN: I can't say that because I think that, in effect, Wayne Arnold is the one that brought it up at the county manager's as a courtesy just to say, look, we don't -- we don't know what the zoning is. The records are in such a disarray, and there was an interim zoning, and there was a change in zoning in the process and all kinds of things, and we've been researching this for about three months trying to figure out -- I think Wayne has finally concluded that it is what, Maria -- he's going to be here in a few minutes. He can tell you. MS. DEIFIK: What if we never know? Then that's samet.Yhing that needs to be -- MS. SULLIVAN: I'm not sure that anybody can absolutely say with complete certainty that that's what it was because it was in Page 12 1 bG 1 January 23, 1997 such a mess at the time. And like I said, Wayne came up and he said, Wait a minute, you know, I'm not sure what it was. And we've researched and researched and researched, and so has Tony. That aside, the only concern. that I have, I could have reissued this and put other notices in there. I thought this is simple. If we go with I believe the notice is correct -- is sufficient to say you didn't build -- what's here is not what was on the permit, and that was my only intent rather than back the agenda up some more, because I think if that issue is settled, the rest of it really doesn't matter. What I'm concerned with, and we're trying to -- in the process of revising these forms now. If you look at the form -- I hate to get into every case that we have being turned into a court proceeding and code enforcement, you know, having everything to miss without putting the whole LDC in here. That's what concerns me. MS. LOUVIERE: Do you have some graphics you want to share with us? MS. SULLIVAN: I'll show you what's on -- in fact, I'll let Dennis explain it to you. He can explain it to you better, if that's okay. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Just a point of preference, I'm concerned we're getting into almost a testimonial phase. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's correct. We probably should just stick to the procedure. We are -- only have one issue before us, and that's the motion to dismiss for the due process violation. MR. PIRES: If -- and if I may interrupt the Chair -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. PIRES: -- I've discussed with my client -- Miss Sullivan, if I heard her correctly, said she's willing to go forward today. The only issue is the building activity that occurred in making this into a duplex, was it authorized by Building Permit 69 -317 and that she would agree and stipulate that the zoning - ,ras R -2. There'd be no issue about lot size. There'd be no issue about unit size. There'd be no issue about setbacks. That's my understanding. MS. SULLIVAN: No, that's not what I said, Tony. I said that we would be willing to determine what was built was -- was by the zoning permit, but I think you know if you're going to use that -- with R -2 that you met the square footage because there was none, I don't think that you can just ignore that there was also a lot size requirement, too, that's picking -- picking out of the chart which evidence you want to -- you want to. MR. PIRES: I guess, once more, I'm more confused. I thought that's what she was indicating, that just going by the permit authorized the duplex to be built. MS. SULLIVAN: Maybe I can clarify a little bit. We believe that what we said was, look, this structure does not conform to this building permit which we referenced. The reasons it doesn't conform were not on the notice of violation, and that's what I say; I hate to get into a situation, a precedent, where code enforcement has to spend, you know, two months trying to put every single thing that Page 13 16G 1 January 23, 1997 they can find and keep backing this agenda up. MR. PIRES: Correct me if I'm wrong, I guess what Miss Sullivan is saying, that she made it sound simple at first, that it would just be going -- whether or not the building permit authorized this but still be able to introduce evidence about other zoning districts and other possible violations. MS. SULLIVAN: No, just R -2. I'm willing to stick with R -2 if that's what you want. MR. PIRES: What violation of R -2? MS. SULLIVAN: That it doesn't -- that it doesn't -- the building permit doesn't allow it. And the reason we would say that the building permit doesn't, as a reason -- we're saying on the face of the building permit it doesn't allow a duplex. But, you know, as an additional reason, if you look at R -2, there is the lot size, and that's why we think that the building permit shouldn't have or was in error or did not allow duplex. MR. PIRES: Okay. So if I -- I don't mean to take words out of her mouth, but she said we're limiting it solely to a violation that the minimum lot size was not achieved and no other basis for violation. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't think that's what she said. MS. SULLIVAN: No. I'm willing to go with the R -2 designation and whatever is with the R -2. MS. DEIFIK: And that what you built is not what's on his permit. MS. SULLIVAN: Otherwise, you know, I'll file the whole thing, and we'll go with all the issues. MR. PIKES: I guess -- but, Madam Chairman, once again, I'm just confused because it seems like she's still reserving the right to go into all the issues involving R -2. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think that's what she said. MR. PIRES: Right. And I'm not sure what issues of R -2 would be involved. If she says I'll throw on the table today -- MS. SULLIVAN: Just what's on the chart, Tony, just what's on the R -2 zoning chart. I'm willing to go with that. MR. PIRES: But you're not telling us what part of the R -2 is allegedly being violated. MS. SULLIVAN: I'm saying that the building permit did not allow a duplex and that that permit could not have been issued to allow a duplex because it doesn't meet the lot size. That's what I'm saying. Does the board under -- have I made that clear? I thought -- MR. PIRES: I guess this gets into almost like a motion in limine, if that's going to be the testimony. If the only testimony would be that it doesn't meet_ the lot size and it was R -2, then we might be able to go forward, if that's what Miss Sullivan is saying, the testimony is limited solely to the zoning district, zoning category, that building permit and the lot size, and then we may have other testimony about its use -- I mean, is that what you're saying, Miss Sullivan? I don't mean to direct it to Miss Sullivan. MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah. No, I don't have any problem with it, Tony. I think that's the most advantageous position for you. But Page 14 I bG i January 23, 1997 that zoning chart -- we're saying that it says on the zoning on the building permit R -2. If you get into any other zoning, it's going to be even more difficult foou you all t e those. havethatchart, I believe. it says to stick with R -2. And y and all R -2 must have this much size building, this much lot footage, that. Yes, I'm willing to go forward. MS. LOUVIERE. The uses ar4e one- and two - family dwelling units. Density is nonstated. :Qinimun► size is 600 square feet per building. Andithen hea must have formcorner lot.S1And we5don'tsknowe ,000 ffeet for this is -- MS. SULLIVAN: That's correct. Z think that's a very generous compromise under the circumstances. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you going forward' forward solely on MR. PIRES: Once again, if she's going district the issue of the lot size and under otherniissueoinvolvi n involving failure to or any other zoning category or any comcplMS. DEIFIK: Well, also she said that what -- that you didn't build what was on the per CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The permit. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you going `forward? MR. PIKES: Yeah, we can go forward with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So the issues can -- I want to focus the evidence. The evidence can get into the size of the lot. Are you going to get into the minimum building size? MR. PIKES: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Minimum building size is an issue. - MS. SULLIVAN: I don't think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Density is not an issue, and one- and two - family is not an issue as far as permitting uses. MR. PIRES: Location, setbacks, and all those issues are nonissues and will not be prosecuted ever? I want to be exact before this board. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't either. MS. DEIFIK: What were the two things that will not? MR. PIRES: And location. MR. YOVANOVICH: we will not talk about setbacks and location of buildings. MS. LOUVIERE: Z don't think that's what she's saying. x MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to clarify that. MS. LOUVIERE: I think that she's saying that we just want to use the R -2 district and the -- and the regulations that are set forth in the R -2 district, and that would mean that they would still look at your setbacks. Now, I'm not sure, but that's what we need to check. MR. PIRES: I appreciate -- that's been exactly my ^..rte _,ern because that's been going up and down. r :�S_ Z,pUVIERE: Criteria set forth in R -2, which there are a whale bunch of them. MR. PIRES: Correct, absolutely correct. And that's my Page 15 January 23, 1997 concern, is which ones are we being charged with violating. We don't know. MS. DEIFZK: Doesn't density get to the number of dwelling units permitted on the squ are footage of the lots? MR. pIRES: One of our arguments is, and I thin staff they do would even concede, there was no density range nowadays, number of units per acre, that's in categories or on the comp plan Okay. I'm sorry. I missed the last MS. SULLIVAN: part. . LOUVIERE: That's fine. MS. SULLIVAN: Where are we? _ what MS LOUVIME: He said he wanted to make sure - Tony said, we were just going to look at R -2 district but that we were ing to take into consideration the -- setbacks was come with an not go thinking, R -2 district. Is that we are go the R -2 district ing to look - ict zoning, are we going to use all the criteria, using - any kind of zoning district talks because R -2 districts talk about - are dwelling per -- you about lot size, setbacks, you know, minimum square oing to use all }mow, so much square footage per dwelling. Are we gto pick and choose ' the criteria that come with R -2? Are we just going what are going to apply to t1lis? M.S. SULLIVAN: well, under -- under other circumstances I would say no, I would refile it. We would go for all the _ of violations. However, the complaint was the use of this single - this structure as a duplex; that was the complaint. My �obZlcanodo 1 address the complaints. idovr, I cyougknow, allndcandor, this thing's all this other stuff. But with, ou know, maybe the permit was issued in beerf here for 26 years, and y error by the county. I don't know. I don't know that we'll rg does }rnov,i. And I think with -- with all due respect, that Steinberg have an issue. Look, it's been there for 26 willingbton_ontohe tax rolls and all that thing, compromise on this -- MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. the main violation cured. MS . SULLIVAN: -- To get - pic, LOUVIERE: Which means that we would not look at setbacks then. MS. SULLIVAN: That's correct. MS. LOUVIERE: For the R MS. SULLIVAN: That is correct. r1But I guess I guess when somebody comes back up and the downside to this is, you know, you didn't look and says, you know, you didn't look at the setbacks, at the water requirements or so forth, I thik and we thoughtlitbwas a able to say, you know, we cured the violation, fair a fair compromise, you know, if you're comfortable with that. have an existing use that has MS. LOUVIERE: Because you been. there for 26 years. And I mean -- you know, if it Lei .. SLT�LLIVAN : Yeah . were me .I -- I can sympathize with that. I'm not here to hammer aLnybody. I'm here to take care of the complaint. page 16 16G i January 23, 1997 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this board isn't here to compromise on the charges. This board is here to hear whatever charges staff is bringing, and then this board will decide whether or not there is a violation. The board doesn't need to concern itself with whether it's comfortable with whether staff wants to go forward under these -- under these types of charges. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think this board's job is just to figure out what the complaint of violations are, and once we know what the issues are, just ascertain whether or not there's been a violation, and I don't think we can go any further than that. Now, if there's a chance of a compromise coming from the county, is this a time to ask you if you want to sit down and discuss this in the hall, take a bzeak, or we'll go to something else? Is that a possibility? MR. PIRES: Compromise as to resolving the issue or compromises as to the charges? 1 wasn't sure what -- CHAIRPERSON FAWSON: Well, I think she's already given you a compromise as to the charges. Is there a compromise as to the issues, Or you want to go forward on the charges? MR. PIRES: If the charges -- we agree that the only allegation would be square footage of the lots, won't talk about location, won't get into an issue involving unit size, which is what I heard her say, then we have no problem going forward. MS. LOUVIERE: I think she said we were still going to look at unit size. We're just not going to look at setbacks. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the way -- that's the way I understand it too. MR. PIRES: Look at unit size, okay, look at lot size, not worry about setbacks or waterfront location -- is that my understanding -- and the zoning is R -2? MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah, I'm willing to compromise, but my support staff seems to have a problem with this. You know, I guess what I -- what we asked on the notice of violation for compliance was that Mr. Steinberg turn this back inter a single - family Swelling; That's what we asked for. And, you know, what I'm saying right now, if you don't want to go forward with this and you want to effect compliance or go, you know, in that direction with a hearing, then -- then I'm okay with it because that's what we asked for. I guess -- does that explain better where I'm coming from? MS. LOUVIERE: Here on the notice of violation it says must convert existing duplex on Lot No. 16, Demere Landing subdivision, into single - family occupancy use only, must remove one kitchen and provide open access between interior units of existing duplex in question. MS. SULLIVAN: That is because we believe that the building permit that is in effect called -- allowed living quarters. we don't believe it allowed a duplex. MR. PIRES: Once again, I'll try to use this word for the 2,ast time about confused. If the issue is, once again, whether or not allowed -- if it's the agreement that the case will go forward on the R -2 zoning district, no issue concerning waterfront location, no Page 17 16G 1 January 23, 1997 issue concerning setbacks, and the question is whether or not this building permit authorized -- or activity that occurred converting it to a duplex was appropriate, then we can go forward. MS. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Pires, one more time. We can go forward with ;chat? MR. McCORMICK: I'm also confused right now as to what -- what the county staff is bringing forward before us right now. MS. SULLIVAN: Let me try one more time. MR. McCORMICK: If you could please state what the violation is that you feel could be presented today, and if you need some time or a break before you can do that, that's okay. But if you could state what the violation that should be brought before us today is, and then Mr. Pires simply says if he could agree to that or not, and then I think the board would understand what's going on. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And I'd also like to know which ordinance in the county Land Development Code we are saying has been violated. MS. SULLIVAN: LDC Section -- the one that -- that's been read a couple times here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 2.1.15? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, ma'am, 91, 102, 2.1.15. Here's -- here's what I would like to do. I think the cleanest way to go forward with this would be to say, you know, we don't know what the zoning district is, but we put R -2 on the violation. We're willing to go with R -2 and say does the structure -- does the permit that was issued under R -2 allow a duplex use. I don't think it's necessary to address the setbacks. I mean, I don't want to say- -hat, you know, I'm going to ignore the setbacks and I'm going to ignore everything else. I think a better way to put_ it is I don't think it will be necessary to address the setbacks. I think we have enough information without it. MR. PIRES: That's so wide open. Once again, it Tets back to the basic issue, we have no irea what we're def,:nding against. MS. SULLIVAN: What's on the R -2 chart is what I would go with, Tony. MR. YOVANOVICH: These are the only issues that you will introduce evidence on, either uses, density, minimum building size, or minimum lot size. That's the only evidence that will come in is on those four issues. MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir. MR. PIRES: On that basis we would be willing -- I think if I can have a few moments to sift through my files and take up some' other stuff, we will be ready to go forward. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is - -- is that -- I want to be sure that we are all on the same page here. The issue is, does the permit under R -2 allow a duplex, and specifically the evidence is going to be limited uses, density, building size, lot size. Is that what I hear? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Then why don't we do this. Page 18 1 bG 1 January 23, 1997 We have another, I think, item on the agenda which might not take so long. So why don't we come back to this case in ten minutes or so, and we'll hear it. Well, in all fairness to Miss Sullivan, she needs to prepare her case; so I'll try to go through the Code Enforcement Board rules and regulations, although we might need her input. Did everybody get a -- MS. CRUZ: Miss -- Miss Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. CRUZ: If you like, we can go ahead and address that other item. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Oh, the Anderson, that's a wonderful idea. All right. Let's turn our attention then to new business, Board of County Commissioners versus Mildred M. Anderson, CEB No. 96 -013, filing of affidavit of compliance. Miss Cruz. MS. CRUZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, this case, Respondent Mildred Anderson, Case No. CEB 96 -013, came before this board on November 25, 1996. Respondent was found in violation of County Code 91 -102 -- I'm sorry, 8906, Section 5, Subsection 11, and it was ordered that the respondent obtain compliance by January 9th of 1997. Code enforcement conducted an inspection on January 7, 1997, with -- 1997, which inspection revealed the compliance had -- had been obtained. MS. SULLIVAN: Except -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do we need to take any action on that? MS. SULLIVAN: There -- there was one problem. The -- are they done now? MS. CRUZ: Yes, ma'am. MS. SULLIVAN: All right. There was a problem that she thought the builder couldn't get in time, but Maria tells me now that everything is in compliance. So I guess that's it. MR. McCORMICK: This was that house down on Marco Island, and the people came down from Michigan? MS. SULLIVAN: That's it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So this board doesn't really need to take any action on that? MS. SULLIVAN: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Now, in your packet -- and maybe some of you have copies of this anyway -- there are the Collier County, Florida, Code Enforcement Board rules and regulations. I've had them in my packet, and I've been on this board' for five years and have tried to live by them. I see that they were written probably in 1989, but I don't think they've ever been approved. And maybe you have some suggestions as how to better do these. Did everybody have an opportunity to look at the rules and requlations? I think it's important that we have some rules to live by; and. you know, basically it covers jurisdiction, officers, election of officers, meetings, notices, attendance, quorum, voting, what order the business will be, initiation of actions before the Page 19 16G 1 . January 23, 1997 board. Procedures for hearings really is important. That's on page 4 and S -- 4, sorry, Enforcement and miscellaneous. Does anybody have any suggestions or comments to make about any of the rules and regulations that you have in front of you? MR. McCORMICK: One -- one question. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. McCORMICK: That one -- the section Article S, Paragraph I, that was the issue that we had with the Lely -- MS. LOUVIERE: Uh -huh. rdhouse and who could vote MR. McCORMICK: -- Beach gua way that that could maybe and who couldn't. I wonder if there's any be clarified so that down the road there isn't that s quite e confusion because that -- our attorney at the time -- there discussion about what that really meant. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Yovanovich, have you had an opportunity to look through these, MR. YOVANOVICH: No. But I am familiar with that issue, and I can -- I'd kind of like to know what your other Code Enforcement Board attorney has told you on the voting requirement, and then I'll tell you what I think, or I can tell you what I think regardless of what he thinks -- it's up to you -- on the voting requirement issue. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think that what Mr. McCormick was suggesting is that perhaps we can write that in better language so that we don't_ have this problem again. We had a serious problem on that case and knoorigr�rat 'sconstitutes toavoterandaso forth. know, the majority of the quorum MS. DEIFIK: Also I think one of the issues that came up was whether the board had the discretion to move forward or choose not to move forward when they had less than a certain number. And there was a strong feeling that this board should be able to make that determination, but it was unclear whether we had written guidelines that would permit us to do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically even though you have a quorum, you wanted to know if the board has the ability on its own to adopt a rule to say even though we have a bare minimum of a quorum, we vote not to hear this case today because we want more than a bare minimum quorum. MS. DEIFIK: Well, I think the problem with Lely last surmer was they had four people, and there was a concern: What if they split 2 -2? The whole matter would have to be heard over again anyway. It was just going to -- it was creating an unworkable situation, particularly for a complex and controversial case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And it was work -- was a serious problem in that we didn't have the four present all the time, and then it would get continued. It was difficult to always get the same four present, and then we had to vote whether or not to start all over again with the whole board. I don't_ know whether it would be -- we had the authority to do that, but we did it anyway. MS. LOUVIERE: And maybe we should get that in -- in writing. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And I see Mr. Hazzard is here, and Page 20 16G 1 January 23, 1997 he may have some suggestions for rules and regulations, and I'm delighted that he joined us this morning, and I'm going to give him an opportunity to tell us if he's got some suggestions for our rules. Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the record my name is Bill Hazzard. I'm not here representing any particular party today. I am here because I've been intimately involved in one case in front of the Code Enforcement Board, and I do have some suggestions in general that I think could help expedite the process. I want to avoid, however, giving input into the issue that you've just discussed -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. MR. HAZZARD: -- which bears upon the particular case that I've been in front of this board about; so I want to avoid talking about who should vote and how you should do all the things that you've just discussed. I will address one point that you -- that you did make, however, the outcome of a 2 -2 vote, and -- and in my humble opinion, the outcome of a 2 -2 vote should be that the county has failed to carry its burden of proof in the case and that the violation in front of you should be dismissed. That would also apply obviously to a 3 -3 vote. I think it's -- I think it's incumbent upon the county and this board to realize that the county has the burden of proof. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think that's probably something that should be in our rules too. MR. HAZZARD: It is certainly something that the folks going into this proceeding should know ahead of time, and you know, you_can -- you can write the rule any -- any way you would see fit, but it's something that folks ought to know in advance. I -- anticipating that you were going to have this discussion today, I brought with me copies of a letter that I sent to Commissioner Hancock back in November that gave some suggestions for expediting the process in front of the Code Enforcement Board, and I'll share that with you and also with your counsel, if I might approach for a second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. While he's doing that, Mr. Yovanovich, since you are our attorney -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- and since probably other than getting input from the board members and from the public and especially -- and, Mr. Hazzard, we're very grateful for your input, what I think -- and we'll let_ you address your letter here in a minute. What I think that might be most expedient in your spare time', if you would take a look at the rules as they are presently written, listen to the comments from the board, listen to comments from public input, especially from attorneys who appear before this board, and see if you can't come up with a draft for us of rules and regulations for us to adopt. And for very selfish reasons I'd like that done before Yebruary 14th, because that's my last day on this board. And I'd rally like on my watch that we have rules and regulations to live by. Page 21 16G 1 January 23, 1997 When we have big cases involving other attorneys, sometimes from all around the state, they always ask that we send them a copy of our rules and regulations. I oblige them. However, I tell them that they've never been approved; so we really would like to have rules of procedure. And if you would be so kind as to do that for the board, I'll be happy to have any discussions with you about it, you know, off time. Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: Yeah, Madam Chairman, I think one thing that's important is you don't -- you don't want to overlawyer what's going on in front of the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. MR. HAZZARD: And you need to recognize -- I do recognize that you must frequently have cases where there's a person before you who is the alleged violator and not represented by counsel and not perhaps in the same situation as some of the larger cases that you have referred to where you may have multiple counsel for multiple parties. But in any case, I've tried in this letter to Commissioner Hancock to address some very basic items that I think would help this board expedite its procedures. And whether parties are represented by counsel or not, I think this board should put some requirement in place that there is a discussion that goes on ahead of time between the respondent and the county where they agree on as much as they can possibly agree on in advance of coming to you. And that goes on over in the court system. Now, all I'm talking about is some sort of statement of facts that are stipulated to so that this board's time is not wasted hearing testimony about things that nobody is in disagreement about, but It's important information for you to know in order to get background on the case, to get -- you know, to get your decision made. That could come easily in writing. Now, of course, there's going to be situations where there are facts upon which the parties in front of you c;.isagree. And I think that can be handled similar -- in a similar fashion to what you sometimes see in small claims court where each party can then present a short and plain statement in writing of their case. Well, you know, here's what I think happened and -- and, you know, you can limit them. You can suggestively limit them by making a form that only has five lines on it that says, you know, if you need more space, attach another piece of paper. You know, you don't want some sort of 20 -page legal brief, but you need something short and plain and a clear statement of what everybody agrees on and what everybody disagrees on. And I think that sort of thing will expedite procedures, particularly in a long case, but it might expedite procedures in a short one as well. What I'm talking about, in essence, is you can avoid entire witnesses being presented for background material if this is Zbme properly, and you can simply come in and say, okay, as I uadeastaud it, the issue is X. Let's hear your witness about issue X, and Let's hear your witness about issue X, and then you decide. I think that's -- I think that's something that this board should work Page 22 16G 1 towards. January 23, 1997 I think part -- another item that would greatly help, particularly in your complex cases, is as I've described it in this letter to Commissioner Hancock, is to have your parties exchange who their witnesses are going to be ahead of time and in a simple few sentences of the subject matter of that witness's testimony. That's not unusual in`the court setting. In fact, in the court setting frequently, you know, you've deposed the witness for hours and hours, and you know what they're going to say when they get up there. But I think folks ought to have some notion, and I think having that notion will allow things to proceed at a more rapid pace in front of this board. I also think that you should force the parties to get together in advance and stipulate to as much physical evidence as is going to come before the board as they can possibly agree to. Yes, this is the building permit. Yes, this is the, you know, whatever -- whatever it happens to be. This is the contract; this is whatever so that you can get a packet ahead of rime and so that you don't have to spend a whole lot of this board's time on the introduction of evidence that everybody agrees is relevant to the case and that everybody agrees is something you should have in front of you. You can really, you know, pare away a lot of the fa` from this process so that you can concentrate your time on the issues that are really in dispute. And that's particularly important, I know, to you all because you're a volunteer board. Nobody is paying you to sit here. So, I mean, I appreciate the time that you volunteer, and I'm sure everybody does, but I think you have a right to -- to try to streamline the amount of time that you spend volunteering. And these are some of the ideas that I've had. I think if I -- you know, frankly, I kind of jotted these down very quickly to send to Commissioner Hancock. I think if you put a couple of folks together on this thing who appear in front of you regularly and some county staff, you could probably come up with something that's fairly workable, keeping in mind that it needs to be adaptive to -- to the lawyers and to the unrepresented parties. And, frankly, you know, I'd be glad to work on that with -- with anyone else that was interested in doing so. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank -- MR. HAZZARD: Questions I'd be glad to take. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Hazzard. I certainly do appreciate your input. Obviously we want input from county staff and.especially Miss Sullivan. And, Mr. Yovanovich, you might want to talk to some of the attorneys who regularly appear before us. We'won't pick on Mr. Pires today, but he's one I've got in mind for some Suggestions for our rules and regulations. Let me just mention three things to you that became a problem for the chair in the Seminole case. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I'll sit down now. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. One was can a nonparty participate. And as you may have Page 23 16G 1 January 23, 1997 re..;_i in the newspaper, we allowed that, and if so, to what extent. Ar.ci the other -- one of the other issues that came up is can we have tes'.imony by telephone and can we have a board member appear by to ;'hone. We had to make all those decisions, and there were pr-'..:ably some other real tough legal issues we had during the course Of ' -at case that we made without -- well, with the advice of counsel, of course, but without rules to lead us. And it's hard to anticipate e,_�;-y single issue that ever may come up, but if we could have some rules and regulations that would cover most of those things -- and I'll be happy to sit down and talk to you, and I'm sure we can pick on Miss Sullivan to do that, too, but I think it's really important that we get our rules and procedure down pat. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was -- was -- I don't know the a.;: =Yers to the questions other than you allowed the nonparty to pa:- r icipate . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we did. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. Is that the board's pr<. Terence? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well -- . YOVANOVICH: I'm asking what the board's preference CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We did; we let the nonparty in that case participate fully. We let them cross- examine witnesses and call their own witnesses, even though they weren't a party, oecause they we-,:.2 -- they would be the party most adversely affected by our de21sion if -- well, they would -- it could have been adverse. It col.;ld have not been adverse. But they would have been the party most affected by our decision, even though they weren't a party, because the county hadn't filed against them. They were in a position that this board's decision would have had impact upon them to such an extent that we allowed them to participate. So it was a different situation than just any nonparty. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So the preference, I guess, would be to allow, even though, for instance, in a landlord -owner relationship, which I think the Semino?e Indian case was, which I didn't follow that closely, if they charged the owner, you want to be able to allow the tenant to -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you want people who may be affected by the decision to -- MS. DEIFIR: We let more than the ;.errant participate. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to knnow; do you want to limit -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We let the tenant participate fully by calling witnesses and cross - examining. We always allow -- and this is precedent that's riot in the rules. We always would allow the public to say -- have their say in a situation, for example, where you have a number of condominium owners that are adversely affected by scrag alleged violation by the builder. And this room is filled with corr3cainium dwellers. They're all here to see what happens. And they usually want to say something to this board. And so precedence has been that we let them talk, but there's nothing in the rules that say Page 24 16G 1 January 23, 1997 we have to. We don't let them cross - examine witnesses, call witnesses, but we let them speak before the public, the same as the county commissioners do. Maybe we should have a sign -in sheet. Maybe we should, you know, have a space in our agenda to hear public input. You know, those are some of the issues that come up that we sort of, like, make our decisions as they come. But it would be nice if we had kind of an outline so that future boards will know. And I would suggest to any one of the board members that if you have thoughts, that you give our attorney a call and let him know what you think and, you know, if you have some suggestions. And, you know, I certainly want you to talk to Miss Sullivan and the county attorneys as well as any other attorneys who regularly appear before the board. But if we can get a draft and have a discussion on one of our many scheduled meeting dates, that would be terrific. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm happy to do that. Again, is it the board's preference to allow testimony by telephone and participation of the board by telephone? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I'll tell you what happened in those two instances. We did allow an attorney for the nonparty to testify by telephone. Well, she was an attorney; so she wasn't testifying. But we allowed her to participate by phone because she was calling from Tallahassee. So we have not really had a situation where we had testimony. We did not allow a board member to testify or to participate, I should say, by telephone simply because the cost was prohibited. He was out of -- he was in the Bahamas, and it would -- he would have been on the long distance line all day. So it was cost prohibited, but mainly the reason we didn't allow him to participate in the hearing without physically being present is because the attorneys didn't agree to it. And obviously there's something to be said about observing the demeanor of the witnesses and so forth. So I didn't have any problem with that decision, not to allow him to participate by telephone. Now, those are some of the issues that -- so that would be great. Now, I think what we'll do is we'll take a short bleak before we start this case, but let me -- let me just say this before so I don't forget it later. This board will meet again Monday at 8:30 for the continuation of the Lely Barefoot Beach case. This room is not available after two o'clock. MS. SULLIVAN: Right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So that you can plan your schedules accordingly, we'll be out of here by two, and then we'll be back in here again on Wednesday. Those board members who have missed any of the days, you need to read the testimony. And at this juncture before the break, I'm going to give Mr. Laforet an opportunity to tell us why he wasn't here yesterday because I think we need to have the record reflect that his absence -- MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- was excused. MS. SULLIVAN: Excuse me. If I may make a couple, if Xr. Ycvanovich is taking notes on suggestions for the rules. Page 25 1 bG 1 January 23, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: Just something real quick. I think that we need to try to work this out to include the second Code Enforcement Board and the Nuisance Abatement Board, probably need to add that in there. And as far as -- you know, my suggestion will be if you allow the public to speak, to put it on a certain part of the agenda and limit it to so many minutes like the Board of County -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MS. SULLIVAN: We have the timers and everything available. And also I would like to be specific as possible about the parties in interest, because it makes a difference as to who we send the NOVs. And I don't want people coming in here saying, well, I'm a party of interest, and you didn't send me an NOV and back the agenda up, if we can do that. I might just remind you that the problem we had, Rich, with the telephone conversation other than the lawyers is we can't call out from here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Once you lose them, they're gone. MS. SULLIVAN: We would have to go out in the hall and have quarters. We've got to kind of work with what we've got here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: She called in, and then we had to put the telephone next to the microphone, but it was her nickel. MS. SULLIVAN: But we can't call out. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly not the county's. MS. LOUVIERE: The only thing I want to say is that initially they were talking about when you have four people up here, if 2 and 2 vote, then the county did not prove its case and, therefore, it doesn't go forward. I disagree with that. I think it should be just like the Board of County Commissioners, majority rules. Where you have to have a 4 vote, you have to have 3 or 1. MS. DEIFIK: You could also have the problem where you start out with four people and then someone gets ill and you only have three people or two people. You know, I think that that's a concern for a complex case that's going to be over an extended period of time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We probably need something in the rules about tie votes, what that means. And I know there's precedent have -- having been set, because I can recall in my five years on this board a couple times when we had tie votes. So we need to decide what that means. MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman, I would -- if possible, I would like to get these rules into place before the second board comes on board because, you know, if it says the board may make their own rules, I'd hate to have two sets of rules. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think we need to make the rules for both boards. MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And I appreciate that, and I've already -- totally for selfish reasons I'd like them done before I'm off this board. MS. LOUVIERE: You really mean for three boards, the two Page 26 I 6 1 January 23, 1997 compliance boards, and then also the Nuisance Abatement Board. MS. SULLIVAN: Right. And the way we've got the new boards set up right now, the way we've called it in the ordinance, is Board A and Board B. We're thinking about, you know, doing it geographically, north /south board, but that shouldn't matter. And just include the new RFP that I've just done for the attorney for the second board. I have included the Nuisance Abatement Board as if it were one thing, even though we all know it's a separate board. Politically it's a separate board. But generally, you know, we've got it set up to meet at the same time after this board; so I'd just like to make sure all that's handled in there so we don't come up with 15 different sets of rules, if possible. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think if we already have the Code Enforcement Board rules in effect approved by this board and signed by the members of this board -- MS. SULLIVAN: I agree. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- the second board will just follow them. MR. YOVANOVICH: I only have one minor concern. I don't know anything about your Nuisance Abatement Board ordinance; so I don't know if there are different rules that apply there or different standards. MS. SULLIVAN: They don't have any rules either. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I understand. MS. LOUVIERE: I know what you're asking. MR. YOVA4OVICH: I said I don't know anything about that board. MS. LOUVIERE: There is an ordinance that was drafted for-the Nuisance Abatement Board. And when we tried to listen our first -- to our first nuisance abatement case, it became very apparent that our Nuisance Abatement Board didn't have enough -- it was not very clear as to what we could do to really resolve the nuisance. Therefore, I had asked Pam Mac'Kie -- I wrote her, and I had asked her to please review the nuisance abatement ordinance and maybe look at the one that they had in Sarasota because I was told that that -- that ordinance was very clear and gave the board the authority required to be able to deal with nuisances and -- and to give us the parameters. So I think that that's gone back up to the county attorney's office, and you might grant to talk to Ramiro about that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And you also might want to talk to -- I think it was Frank Kowalski that was our attorney that day. And he had to get into issues that he didn't -- hadn't come across before either; so he may have some ideas for you. MR. YOVANOVICH: My preference would be -- I don't know if you have any cases coming real quick on the Nuisance Abatement Board -- that I just focus on the Code Enforcement Board right now, and then when it comes time for your attorney who's going to do the Nuisance Abatement Board, that that attorney do the rules and procedures for that board. MS. DEIFIK: Rick, wouldn't it be a good idea, once we get these rules established so that they're consistent for all these Page 27 16G 1 January 23, 1997 boards, to have the county commission sign off on these or -- or somebody so that -- because otherwise we will have a situation of boards down the road saying, well, we're going to do this and we're going to do this, and then we're going to have five different sets of rules? MS. LOUVIERE: And I think that's great, the county commission, but also the county attorney, wouldn't they want to review it? MS. SULLIVAN: Oh, sure. Rich, the only problem I have with it is the Nuisance Abatement Board. What we envision is from here on out having the same attorney -- having two attorneys. Each one would do the one board and their Nuisance Abatement Board, the one do their board and the Nuisance Abatement Board. But, you know, the board members are right; there are probably a few special or procedural rules that need to be made because, for one thing, the sheriff's office is involved, that kind of thing. But I don't -- you know, again, if we don't do them now, then we're going to have two boards to try to come up with Nuisance Abatement Board rules. MR. McCORMICK: I think we know what we want with the Code Enforcement Board rules, and we don't really know that with the nuisance abatement, and we should not let that hold us up. I would say we just go forward with Code Enforcement Board revisions of the rules. And then when we have the next Nuisance Abatement Board, at that time we can look at modifying those or adopting them as is. MS. SULLIVAN: Whichever board comes up with the next nuisance abatement case would probably do that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We've only had one nuisance abatement case and found ourselves wondering what to do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MS. SULLIVAN: It's difficult. The way we have to go about the sheriff's office is real difficult. You know, I would suggest that whichever -- if we do it geographically, whichever board hears the next nuisance abatement case could maybe come up with the rules. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I mean, I can meet your time frame by February 14th for the CEB. I'm not saying I can meet your time frame for the other one. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's fine. MS. SULLIVAN: That would work for us. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Oh, I know. I was -- oh, Mr. Hazzard, did you have something else you wanted to add? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I appreciate all the time you've given me already, but I would simply urge this board to have counsel look ver;v, very seriously at the due process ramifications of having public comment intended to influence the decisions you reach in what appears to me to be a quasi- judicial setting. You know, frankly, my -- my off - the - top -of -my -head opinion is that you all are supposed tc)xv ke your decisions based on the evidence presented to you. And I have scree real due process concerns about whether opening the floor at a heaxing to, you know, 50 people who want to tell you what to do meets the fundamental due process requirements for the respondent in Page 28 16G 1 January 23, 1997 front of you. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Hazzard, you should know that we already raised those very issues, and our counsel brought to our attention case law throughout the state that said we were compelled to 'Listen to public. MR. HAZZARD: Okay, fine. I just want to urge -- MS. DEIFIK: I just want you to know -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We've thought of that. MR. HAZZARD: `lean. MS. DEIFIK: We had the same -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And also because the rules of evidence are somewhat relaxed and because so often we find ourselves in the situation where a number of people are in a position to be adversely affected by alleged violation of a code and they're here. MS. DEIFIK: Adjoining property owners, for instance. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And so we usually, even if they're not called as a witness, as long as they have a spokesperson, if we have like -- and we've been in situations where we had a hundred people here from a condominium association. And so we had to have certain spokespersons like the president or whatever, and we let them say what they want to say. M.R. HAZZARD: I understand. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And the board knows that they can weigh that and it's not evidence, but thank you for that comment. MR. HAZZARD: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Before we take the break, I want to be sure Mr. Laforet's absence yesterday was excused. You want to just say on the record why you were not with us yesterday, Mr. Laforet? -MR. LA_PORET: Yes. I received two notices of agenda. The first one was for January 22nd, and it listed Lely Barefoot Beach Properties. At the very bottom of it it said next meeting date January 23, but didn't list any cases. Following that I got an addenda that said revised date, January 23, and that's today's meeting. When I saw the word "revised," I assumed that they were revising the fist sheet because if the second sheet is an initial sheet, it's not revised. Nothing on the second sheet was included on the first sheet. I assumed, therefore, that whatever happened, that Lely Barefoot Beach Property Association was deferred, because it has been deferred so many times for so many excuses. So I didn't show up till today. In the meantime it cost me 140 bucks because my wife took me out and bought herself a dress; so you know that this was not intentional. MS. DEIFIK: Are you taking me shopping tomorrow? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank -- thank you for that explanation, and I want to be sure that your absence is excused, and I would let you know that a copy of yesterday's transcript will be available for you to read prior to the hearing that begins at 8:30 on Monday. MR. LAFORET: Right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And you'll have to get with -- MR. LAFORET: When you say Monday -- Page 29 I bG 1 January 23, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, probably Monday. You have to ask Miss Sullivan how she's going to work that out. MR. LAFORET: All right. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Why don't we take about a ten - minute break, and when we come back we will hear the Steinberg case. Adjourned. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Code Enforcement Board will come back to order. A couple of things before we get started on the testimony. First of ail, both parties should be aware of the fact that I don't know how long this case is going to take, and I'm not going to tell you how long you can have. I can just simply say that we have to conclude shortly before noon, at least for a break, because I have to be downtown to give a speech at twelve o'clock. So kind of keep that in mind as you're proceeding along and ex -- and do it as expeditiously -- expeditiously as possible. And the other thing is before we start, Mr. Pires, you had four motions before the board. I just want to for the record -- why don't you tell us what you want to do with the other three. MR. PIRES: As to the motion for detailed statement of particulars, I -- I believe that, in essence, has been handled. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. PIRES: As to the motion to dis -- dismiss for due process violation, I think the board by virtue -- once again, that's sort of incorporated into the agreement as to how this case will proceed. we still preserve the due process argument, but I think that it's been addressed appropriately for today. As to the motion in limine, I believe that's also been, in essence, addressed by virtue of the stipulation. As far as the motion to dismiss laches, as it's really in the nature of an affirmative defense, I believe it's more appropriate to be argued at the end after all the testimony is in. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay, fine. MR. PIRES: But we still preserve it, but it would lust be argued as part of the overall argument on the respondent's behalf. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay, great. I just want to get the -- keep the record straight. MR. PIRES: Thank you, ma'am. MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman, I wasn't under the understanding that we're preserving the due process argument here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: He can, in his closing argument, I suppose, you know, say anything he wants to say. I think -- I thought that that and the motion for particulars had been taken care of this - morning, and that's why we're hearing the case. MS. SULLIVAN: I do too. You know, I hate to go through this, present it and then do it again. M.R. YOVANOVICH: And, likewise, I was under the impression that we are here under a -- there's no more dispute over ~.hP notice of violation. 2fR. PIRES: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that there is no due process Page 30 16Gi January 23, 1997 argument based on improper notice. It is my understanding that we -- that is it, and there's no more due process argument based on the notice you received. MR. PIKES: Based upon the stipulation then that would be correct. ifR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I was also confused when you said you were presering it -- it's not going to be an appeal issue; is that correct? I mean due process has been resolved. ,�M. PIRES: Based upon representation, that's correct. It will not be. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Trien we'll start with the county, Miss Sullivan. MS. CRUZ: Madam Chairman, for the record. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Miss Cruz. MS. CRUZ: For the record my name is Maria Cruz. The case before this :;card is Board of County Commissioners versus Dale H. Steinberg, Trust, Case CEB No. 97 -001. Let the record reflect that Mr. Steinberg is present along ,-;i :h his representative, Mr. Tony Pires. Mr. Steinberg is the ctim er of record of the property and subject located at 2854 Becca Aven-oe, Naples, Florida, more parr.icularly described as Demere Landing, Lots -6 and 7. Mr. Steinberg is before this board for allegedly being in violation of Section 2.1.15 of Ordinance 1 -15, the Collier County Land Development Code, for illegal conversion and utilization of a boathouse as a duplex. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. For the record, Linda Sullivan, code enforcement director. As Miss Cruz has stated, our issue here is whether_ the building permit that I believe you all have in front of you -- has everybody got that in their packet? Page 18. - CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You want to go ahead and try -- get the packet- introduced into evidence as county's exhibit? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any objection to that, Mr. Pires? HR. PIRES: Other than the allegations that we contest those, no. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Why don't we have the court reporter mark that and keep a copy with the official record. (County Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.) CHAIRPERSON. RAWSON: Okay. Then it will be introduced into evidence. Go ahead. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. Staff's position is that Section -- what is it? -- two point -- Land Development Code Section 2.1.15 states that any use or structure not specifically permitted, and I underlined specifically permitted, in a zoning district as a permitted use, conditional use shall be prohibited. Staff's position is, if you will look at the permit, the structure that was a boathouse on Lot 6 was permitted to be altered into living quarters and a bath and a half. The structure as it now exists has two baths, two kitchens, two -- two separate entrance -- entrances. And we're simply saying that this permit did not permit anything other than single living quarters and a bath and a half. Page 31 16G 1 January 23, 1997 We're saying the bath and a half -- you know, a duplex needs more than a -- than a bath and a half. And if you'll look at your R -2 zoning thing, it says that there -- although there is no size requirement on here, density requirement, I believe it's called, that the lot square footage should be a certain amount. Now, this is very complicated. I have a drawing here, and I will let Dennis explain to you where we came up with the square footage, and then I'd like to call Wayne Arnold to -- to further explain the square footage requirement on that. And basically that's -- that's our entire case, that it simply was not specifically permitted by this permit that was issued. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have an opening remark, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: I believe that the -- I apologize, Madam Chairman and the board, that the -- our testimony will show that the time this activity occurred, that prior to the activity there was a boathouse, bathhouse with a shower and a sink in the structure, that it was -- the permit was to alter that building for adding living quarters and a bath and a half. That's what happened. Basically it was a half of a bath in the fore of a shower and a sink there beforehand prior to 1.969. And this alteration occurred in 1970; that • C.O. was issued,- that our client found - -- not the county staff, but • C.O. was issued in June of 1970 saying that the permit activity was completed; that Mr. Steinberg, who is the owner as trustee now, his parents acquired it in 1970 after all this activity had occurred and that it had been -- it was a duplex at that time, and modifications were made pursuant to that permit and that the lot size is appropriate and the square footage of the units or the building is appropriate and that- everything is appropriate under the zoning ordinance, and it's legal, valid, nonconforming use or structure. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Miss Sullivan, do you want to call Mr. Mazzone? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, I'd like to call Mr. Mazzone. MR. MAZZONE: Good morning. For the record my name is Dennis Mazzone. I'm an investigator for Collier County's code compliance services. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Mazzone, we need the court reporter to swear you in. THE WITNESS: Oh. THEREUPON, DENNIS MAZZONE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SULLIVAN: Q. Mr. Mazzone, would you explain to the board how you came to ime!stzgate this property and what you discovered? A. In Pebruary of 1996 the case was brought to my attention by internal staff due to another ongoing investigation on the Page 32 16G 1 January 23, 1997 property. I responded by going out to the property and looking into the -- the reported violations as they were explained to me. I -- we resolved one of the matters that happened to be a violation on the property at the time, which was a dock that had been built without a permit; and the owners, the Steinbergs, had then secured a permit from Collier County so that that part of the violation was then cleared up and taken off of our -- our -- our investigation, further investigation. I continued by researching the -- the county records and, of course, the permit records to be included. And when reading the permit information it -- it appeared to me that at no time did the county actually allow for a duplex use of this particular -- by the renovation of this particular existing boat -- boathouse. The verbiage in the permit made reference to the use having then being an increased use of a boathouse facility which extended -- a good portion of that building which extended over the waterway was to be converted into living quarters, bath and a half. I had photographed the property, my photos depicting a portion, one- -half of the duplex, extending over the waterway, and that raised some question to me. I -- I brought rry questions and my photos back to the office, discussed them with the -- our planning staff and my -- rry supervisors. The incre i. looked into it and the more I went out there -- and I took some measurements with the assistance of the Steinbergs. They were venj cooperative in this -- in this case. I took setback measurements between -- MP.. PIPES: Madam Chairman. A. Between the structures. MR. PIRES: I would object, if I could, to any testimony dealing with setbacys or an- other issues other than what we've agreed would bP the scope of this nearing. THE WITNESS: I'll reword that, if -- if i may. CiiyIRPERSO14 RAWS0:1 : I th ink , Mr. Maz zone , as I understand it, we were gcing to confine our testimony to uses, density, building size, lot size. THE WITNESS: Okay. A. Having gore bark cut ar.to the field, I had obtained a staternent from one of the occupants stat-Ing that the building was being utilized as a duplex. I had taken measurements. I had taken photographs and conferred with our office staff that based on the information provided on the permit and based on calculations that were made, because the permit designates an R -2 district at the time of the construction, we researched the R -2 district regulations, which was the 7,000 square feet for the corner lot minimum and the 5,000 square" feet for an interior lot, and had -- had calculations drawn up, and it was discovered that there was not enough space or area in total for the single - family residence, if I'm -- if I may show you the chart. May I? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Please. Mr. Pires, have you seen this chart? HR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am, I have, back in June, I believe. CHAIRPERSON R.AWSON: Okay. Page 33 16G 1 January 23, 1997 A. Can you all see the chart from there? Well, on the chart it shows the single- family dwelling that was -- that straddles both Lots 6 and 7. Lot 7 lies behind Lot 6, Lot 6 being the corner lot -- yes, Lot 6 being the corner lot. And the -- what was the boathouse structure is also totally on Lot 6, leading me to want to look into the -- what possibility of them could -- could exist that they could -- anybody could occupy it as a duplex. I -- I -- 7 couldn't understand that based on the fact that they both occupied one lot, and the square footage didn't seem to have allowed for that. Also, the permit was never specific to a duplex. It was my understanding and several people in the office, when we concurred on this subject, that having made a change from a simple boathouse structure, which was -- which was a recreational use, to a very serious living occupancy use, in fact, a duplex use, having elevated it all the way up to a duplex use, there should have been or would have been a notation on the permit stating such. It -- also we looked into the fact that it exceeded the bulkhead -- MR. PIPES: I'm going to object to any testimony concerning any other issue other than the square footage and lot size. THE WITNrESS : Very good. MS. LOUVIERE: What is the total square footage on Lot 6 and Lot 7? THE WIITTESS: The total square footage on Lot 6 and 7 is 13,260 square feet. MS. LOWIERE : Okay. THE WIT1,ESS: If you would allow me, I could provide you with this chart that I had drawn up. I'll show Mr. Pires, and we can intfoduce it if you -- if that would be allowed. CHAIRPERSON FAWSON: So it -- show it to Mr. Pires, and see if he has any objection. THE WITNESS: Certainly. MR. PIKES: I guess I'm going to have an opportunity -- if I could, do you wars me to voir dire Mr. Mazzene about this prior to -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON : yes. MR. PIRES: --- its being_ introduced? I guess -- is this the only copy, Mr. Ma ^zone? THE WITNESS: We have ano --her copy. VOIR DIRE FXA.MINATION BY MR. PIKES: Q. Mr. Mazzore, this particular calculation that is on this, you have a figure that's on there as to what you believe to be the necessary n,vnber of square feet for three units; is that correct? A. That's correct, sir. Q. Is the total square footage number that is on this calculation different than the total square footage that you had ar.`iculated back in May of 1966 as being required for three units? ?l don't recall what you have in front of you, sir. PR. piRES: Excuse me, Madam Chairman. Q. I'd like to, for the purposes of just voir dire, show Page 34 I bG 1 January 23, 1997 you and ask you, do you recognize this? Does this purport to be a copy of notes from your file with -- dated -- dated May 16, 1996? A. These are handwritten notes that were -- were provided to supervision, internal notes that Mr. Pires had obtained by going through our files and my allowing him and us -- our office allowing him to do so. This note indicates a 6600 square -foot measurement, which is the page prior to the R -2 district. Q. I guess the question is, the calculation on your notes -- these are your notes; is that correct? A. These are my notes, that's correct. Q. And the calculation on your notes of May 16, 1996, is a different total square- footage minimum that you had calculated at that time alleged to be necessary for three units; is that correct? A. There's been an ongoing investigation and ongoing fact - finding attempt in this case for several months. In doing so we had -- we had to revisit the ordinance several times. And in this case this ordinance is a small pamphlet, if you may. It's not a -- it's not -- it's not put together like the current pages of an ordinance. It was merely a pamphlet. The pamphlet page that we looked at inadvertently was the wrong set of figures. MS. DEIFIX: Aren't we all agreed that we're using R -2? THE WIT2dESS: That's correct. We are, ma'am, and that's how I stated. MR. PIRES: If I can ask -Just a couple more questions of Mr. Mazzone. BY MR. PIRES: Q. Mr. Mazzone, the calculations you conducted in May of 1996 and the calculations on that sheet are both from the same zoning pamphlet; is that correct? A. The same zoning pamphlet, different pages. Q. You used a different basis back in May of 196 for your calculation to show a violation than you're using today; is that correct? A. Sir, the main thrust of our -- our basis for ot.r violation is that Collier County had never allowed by permit the -- the increased use of a boathouse structure into that of a duplex use, which is a measurable increased use of a dwelling habitation. Q. I guess the question is, you're using a different calculation in your figuring today, _s that correct, than you did back in May of '96? A. No, sir. Q. The calculation -- MR. PIRES: Just a few more questions, Madam Chair<<,an, if you may indulge me. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. Q. The calculations on :his schedule, these calculations, are you applying today's standards in the community development services division or the standards from 23 years ago? A. The -- those calculations are based on the R -2 district's standards. The current standards would be an increase of -- of square footage. Page 35 16G 1 January 23, 1997 Q. Okay. Mr. Mazzone, let me rephrase that. In the R -2 zoning regulations, does it say this is the method that you calculate the number of units in an R -2 district? A. I -- I didn't get that information from the regulations, sir. I got that from our planners and customer service staff. Q. Okay. Were these planners and customer service staff issuing permits back in 1969? A. I believe -- I'll -- if I may mention a name, Joyce Ernst was here just -- just after that, and I had also talked to an employee who was a planner back when this structure was renovated, and they had -- this could be considered hearsay, but they had said to me that at no time would that have had been allowed as a duplex on that particular lot under those conditions. MR. PIRES: First of all, I object to that because it's not a named source as opposed to some other individual; And, secondly, I guess the question is -- A. May I -- may I give the name? The name was Lee Lane. Q. And is Lee Lane currently an employee of the county? A. Yes, sir. Q. And she's down there today? A. That's correct. Q. Is she here today? A. No, sir. MR. PIRES: I guess for the purposes -- I may still inquire, if I may ask, to try to impeach him, but for the purposes of him testifying and using this as just an exhibit to show his basis, I would have no objection to it coming in for that limited purpose only with the opportunity to still attack its credibility. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. Thank you. Why don't we have that marked, Mr. Mazzone, by the court reporter as County's Exhibit 2. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.) THE WITNESS: Okay. Should I have copies made so trey could be made available to you, or do you need these? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, you can do it one of two ways. After the court reporter marks it, you can either pass it through the panel, which would probably be fine. MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: I would like to object to the use of his interoffice notes that was -- was not included in any of the presentation of our case, if I may. That was not a final calculation. I don't -- I don't think it's reflective of what we're trying to -- to show here with the R -2. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, I think, number one, it's a public record under Florida Chapter 119; that's how I obtained it. And, secondly, I believe it's appropriate to use a witness's own notes for it eachment purposes to determine the credibility of that person as well as the nature of the case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: He didn't try to introduce it into Page 36 16 C January 23, 1997 evidence. He basically just used it for -- to attempt to impeach the witness; so I don't -- we don't have to make a ruling on the evidence. But, at any rate, Mr. Mazzone, back to your question. You can get the court reporter to mark it as County's Exhibit 2 and then just pass it, and we'll -- we'll -- we'll look at it as the testimony continues. MS. LOUVIERE: Can we -- can we -- can I ask you a question again back on the square footage, since this is the item we're discussing? I have a memo here; it's dated May 22 to Neil from Vince Cautero. And on it it states that the total that in nineteen -- currently the total Lots 6 and 7 have 13,200 square feet. In 1969 a minimum of 16,900 square feet would have to have been required to support the three dwelling units. So, in essence, way back in 1969 he would not have enough; right? THE +VITNESS: With -- with that figure or with the 17,500 figure he would not have enough; that's correct. That was my understanding, ma'am. (County Exhibit No. 2 was mnarked for identification.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further, Mr. Mazzone? THE WITNESS: Do you have anything that -- CHAIRPERSON RIAWSON: The board members have any questions for ?sir. Mazzone? MR. McCORMICK: Could you reiterate or clarify for me your initial involvement in this% L'ou said it was regarding something else. I don't need to know real specifics, but could you tell me just a little bit more about how you first went out to the site and got involved? THE7 WIT17ESS: Yes. There was a previous investigation underway by contractor licensing staff from our office. They were taking care of their matter and found what they thought to be zoning -- possible zoning violations on the property. They brought the information directly to me by way of photographs and information which then led me to the property within the next day or so. MIR. McCOP.MICK: Can you tell me on that photograph where -- where the people that are living in that duplex, where they park and where they access that structure? THE ,,ITWESS: The -- the parking for the duplex would be MR. McCORMICK: Stand to the side a little bit. Thanks. THE WITNESS: The parking would be directly in front of the duplex in this area (indicating). It's a graveled -- graveled area, I believe. The driveway ;.o the dwelling is -- MR. LAFORET: Mr. Mazzone. THE WITNESS: -- is directly in front of the garage. Oh, thank you. Thank you. This is where the duplex parking would take place (indicati_ng), directly in front of the duplex. And the parking for vehicles for the main residence would be in the driveway of the main residence. MR. McCORMICK: And can you tell us what the adjacent properties -- if they're occupied and in what manner? Page 37 l 6 G i January 23, 1997 THE WITNESS: Just to the rear of the Steinberg property there is a single - family residence, and, yes, it is occupied. I believe there's a -- a boathouse structure back there, and there may be some other outbuildings, but it's primarily used as a single - family structure. MR. MCCOR14ICK: And across Becca Drive? THE WITNESS: Right across Becca would be single - family residence and a vacant lot next to the single - family residence would be where I'm pointing (indicating) and a vacant lot -- several vacant lots beyond that (indicating). CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions for Mr. Mazzone? Mr. Pires, do you have any cress- examination for Mr. Mazzone? MR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am, I do. CROSS - EXAMINATION BY MR. PIRES: Mme. PIRES: Madam Chairman, first of all, what I'd like to do, if it's possible -- I don't know - -- once again, I know you don't have the formal rules of procedure that are followed, but I'd like to introduce as an exhibit tae certified copy of the county zoning regulations, the pamphlet that M=. Mazzone has been referring to. It's a 45 -page s=it of regulations, and I'd like to introduce that as our first exhibit. CHAIPPERSON RAWSON: 'dell, why don't you have Mr. Mazzone see if he can identify it. MR. PIRES: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Although it's unusual to introduce an exhibit through someone else's witness, if he can identify it as being the one lie's referring to and you're going to question him about it, we'll allow it. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That: appears to be the regulation that I'm referring to. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have any objection to that getting into evidence, Miss Sullivan? MS. SULLIVAN: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then we'll have that marked as Respondent's 1. MR. PIRES: And, Madam Chairman, I have another copy for Mr. Mazzone, because I might be asking him some questions from that, if I can hand -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Did you attach a copy of any of this to any of your mcti -ons? MR. PIRES: Portions of that regulation. CHAIRPERSON RAWSCN: Which motion is it attached to? MR. PIPES: It was embodied within the motion -- I think the one -- the motion, due process issues, because it was part of the pack,e ,-. The -- the transcript -- the Appendix B packer_ had the R -2 ziagulatioris, but not the entire set of the zoning regulations. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So where could we find it? Up Page 38 I bG 1 January 23, 1997 here, I guess"? MR. PIRES: In your packet. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Oh, I know where it is. It's behind motion to dismiss due process violation. It appears after a memorandum. It appears after Exhibit -- or maybe it's a part of Exhibit C -2. MP.. PIRES: What I've done, Madam Chairman, is made copies of excerpts from these portions I think we'll be dealing with, if I could have those handed out to the board. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That would be great. I was trying to find it for us. MR. PIRES: If I also may, Mr. Mazzone, do you -- i.s there another copy I can iny:ire of you? THE WITNESS: No, sir. YR. PIRES: Can I take this copy? THE WITNESS: That's the only copy I have. MR. PIRES: Okay. (Respondent's Exhibit .io. i was marketl for identification.) BY MR. PIRES: Q. Mr. Mazzone, I believe you have in front of you Respondent's Exhibit No. I., the 1965 zoning reg,.ilations? A. Correct. Q. And is that the zoning regulation that you were utilizing when reviewing the R -2 regulations? A. That's correct. Q. And I'd like to direct your attention to page 15. I 1-14 ve I have -- a copy of that's been provided to the board 1S, is that where the R -2 regulations begin? A. Correct. Q. And do they continue on to page 16? A. Correct. Q. And in the R -2 regulations or any -- throughout whole 45 -page zoning pamphlet, is there any language with the density, the maximum density that can be utilized at land? A. I found no such reference. Page this reference to a parcel of Q. And throughout this whole zoning pamphlet is there a reference to calculating the number of units allowable on a parcel of land by utilizing square footage calculations? A. I found no such calculations. Q. Okay. In the R -2 regulations, if you can go back to page 15, I think the board has a copy of that_, under R -2, Section A -2; if I could direct your attention to that for a moment. A. Yes, sir. Q. Does that not allow as a permitted use in the R -2 district one- and two - family dwelling,.;? A. That's correct, sir. :5_ Now, does it say -- so, therefore, on any R -2 lot you co,-Ud have one - and two - family dwellings; is that correct? A. I wouldn't say that, sir, no. Page 39 16G 1 January 23, 1997 Q. Where does it say you cannot have one- and two - family dwellings on any R -2 lot? A. I believe that the reason for the subject -- that you have made it that we can't mention setbacks -- MR. PIRES: I would. MS. LOWIERE: Can -- A. And the reason for county review, planning staff, and personnel to review applications for permits would be those subjects concerning density. Q. I believe my question was, where in the R -2 regulations or that entire zoning pamphlet does it say that you calculate square footage per units in the R -2 regulations or anywhere in this zoning pamphlet? A. I don't find it in this pamphlet, sir. Q. Now, doesn't this allow, under the R -2 regulations under 8 -A -2 you could have a two- family dwelling unit on any R -2 lot; is that correct? A. I don't have the ability to answer that, sir. Q. Why do you not have that ability? MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman, I -- A. Because I would be interpreting this ordinance. I don't think I have -- CHAIRPERSON RAPiSON: Miss Sullivan. MS. SULLIVAN: I think i'r. Mazzone can correctly testify as to how he -- how he got his calculations, but I called Wayne Arnold as the official interpreter of the code. These questions might be better directed toward him. 11R. PIRES: Madam Chairman, the only problem is, he testified to it already. So I think I have right to inquiry as to Mr. Mazzone also. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You do. You have the right to inquire. She's just trying to expedite matters and tell you this is probably not your best witness, but you can ask him. He'll answer whatever he can. MR. PIRES: Madam Court Reporter, if you could rea.d the last question back that I asked of Mr. Mazzone, I believe, unless it's already been -- I don't irilieve it was answered. (The requested portion of the record was read.) BY MR. PIKES: Q. I guess the question was with regards -- do you have -- you said you do not have r_he ability to ascertain whether a two- family dwelling could be built on an R -2 lot? A. Well, there -- there are various sizes of R -2 lots. I -- I would imagine that to make a determination on whether or not a two -story -- a two - family dwelling or a single - family dwelling could be built on any particular R -2 lot back in the '60s, I would had to have been in the position to have made that decision, which I was not, sir _ Q. But yet you're testifying here today as to what the calculations were back then. A. That's correct, sir, based on information that we Page 40 16G 1 January 23, 1997 received internally through staff that -- that was around -- during that period of time. Q. I believe that your testimony was and the R -2 regulations say, that provides for minimum lot sizes for interior and corner lots; is that not correct? A. Please repeat that. Q. Does the -- you've testified as to minimum lot sizes for interior and corner lots for the R -2 regulations. Are those contained at page 16? A. That's correct.. Q. And the total minimum lot sizes, when you add the 5,000 and 7,000 square feet together for interior and corner lot, the total is 12,000 square feet? A. That's correct. Q. The total combined square footage for the interior and corner lot, which are the subject matter of this violation, totals in excess of 12,000 square feet; is t;at not correct? A. That's correct, sir. Q. A-nd I believe your testimony was it was 13,260 square feet; is that correct? A. That's correct, sir. Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Mazzone, I believe you testified -- when you did your research with regards to the records, did you find a certificate of occupancy or inspection completion card for this property? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Have you since been shown one? A. Quite frankly, I don't recall seeing one, sir. Q. Okay. Do you not recall one being provided to you at the Jun-- 17, 1996, hearing before Mr. McNees? A. As I just stated, I don't recall that. Q. Okay. But you did a diligent search and inquiry of public records and -- in the development services, and you could not find a C.G. or inspection complet_ ion card for this property and Permit No. 69 -317? A. I don't recall ever seeing the C . 0. , sir. Q. Did you perform a diligent starch and inquiry for it? A. On, yes, sir. Q. Okay. Back they: was a C -- certificate of occupancy called a certificate of occupancy, or did it have another name? A. I've always known it to be called a certificate of occupancy. Q. Not inspection completion card? A. I don't have that knowledge. Q. Okay. Now, Demere Landing where this property is located, was that not platted in 1953? A. I'm not certain of the date of when it was platted, sir. Q. And it was platted, though, prior to the date of i c aimc e of Permit 69- 31.7? Do you have any testimony about that? X. I have no testimony to that. Q. Okay. Now, I believe your testimony was that the Page 41 16G 1 January 23, 1997 building permit would have had a notation of duplex on it. I think you said you were speculating as to the building permit would have had that on there; is that correct? A. No. Those are your words. I've never used the word "speculate." Q. Well, how would you characterize the fact that you're saying there would have been a notation? Are you trying to divine the mind and go into the mind of a person 27 years ago? A. Using my practical sense in a lot of the thinking that was brought about through conversations with staff, any change, dramatic change of this nature from a boathouse to a residence use of two different dwellings, a duplex, would have had a notation on the permit making note of that -- the same change. Q. Isn't that mere speculation on your part and part of others? A. That's your interpretation. Q. But is it not mere speculation on your part and the part of others that it would have carried that notation? A. That was our belief. Q. Were you involved in the building and permitting process in Collier County in 1969? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Isn't it true, Mr. Mazzone, that you're making the calculations that you've utilized and this calculation are based upon today's R F -6 standards? A. No, sir. Q. I believe in your calculations you're saying that you must have one unit per 7,000 square feet or 14,000 square feet for two units; is that your testimony? A. One unit per 7,000 square feet-, Q. Yes, sir. Is that your calculation and testimony? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please find in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, the zoning regulations, the rernii.rement t,-at ycu rust have one unit per 7,000 square_ feet or 14,000 sm;arC' feed for two units. A. It -- it could be a duplex per the 7,000 square feet. It can be -- it could be a structure, not -- not a unit. Q. Doesn't your calculation say if calculating as one corner lot with one deed, must have one unit per 7,000 square feet or id,000 square feet for two units; isn't that what your calculation says? A. That's right. Q. Where in the zoning regulations does it say, must have one unit per 7,000 square feet? A. I have not read that in the zoning regulations. Q. Mr. Mazzone, isn't it correct that it's not in the zoning regulations? A. Not to my knowledge. I have not found it. That doesn't caee ,,,'s not in there somewhere. �. I'd like you to take your time, and you've had plenty of time -- 11n going to let you have plenty of time. Forty- five -page Page 42 16G January 23, 1997 zoning pamphlet, and find within that the requirement that in the R -2 zoning district you must have one unit per 7,000 square feet. A. I will. not find it in there. I have taken my time. I have gone through tine R -2 district. I've not seen it in there, sir. The main thrust of our complaint was that this was never permitted as a duplex. The -- and then we went with the further facts that the -- the square footage requirements weren't met. Q. But, Mr. Mazzone, you made a. statement -- and this has been introduced as your exhibit, must have -- must, one unit per 7,000 square feet. I'm looking at the R -2 zoning regulations, and all I see on the R -2 zoning regulations are ycu have permitted use of one- and two- family dwellings, and then the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet for interior lot, 7,000 square feet for corner- lot. I do not see any such statement in this zoning ordinance, and I believe your testimony is there is none that says must have one unit per 7,000 square feet or 14,000 scf. %re feet for three units? A. Attorney -- just as you took my handwritten statements from my personal notes and utilized them at this hearing, you're taking my personal handwritten statements here. My -- my quotation, that muse have, that is my verbiage, not the policy of our department, our office, or historically what the -- the building officials of Collier County enforced back in the '60s. This is something I wrote. Thank you. Q. But I believe this is your calculation, your exhibit that you're predicating the whole case on; is that not correct? A. That's not correct. Q. I believe your testimony was, it violates the lot square footage based upon these calculations. A.- That's correct, but that's not my whole testimony. Q. That's the sole basis for the violation, is it does not meet this calculation; is that not correct? A. That's not correct. Q. "eat ot-hec -- A. That - -- that also we never permitted a c?uplex use or. Lot E. Q. Okay. And that's only because the magic words duplex do not appear on the permit; is that correct? A. Or any i- ndication of an escalated use of a boathouse into a multi f.a�ni.l_y use. Q. Mr. Mazzone, I believe your testimony was that to the rear -- what type of structures are to the rear of this subject property? A. I believe there's another -- there's another residence. I think there is another boathouse -type structure. I have not gone onto the other property except for visiting the front of the property. I -- I can't really tell you in detail what's on that property, but it seems like there's more than one structure. Q. And the property to the rear of the subject property is zoned R -2 also; is that not correct? A. I believe so, sir. Q. And the lots are the same size? Page 43 16G 1 January 23, 1997 A. Currently that is not the zoning district of it, no, sir. Q. But at the time the building permit was issued in this case, 69 -317, those lots were zoned R - ?.. A. I would be speculating. I don't know when that property was built. I have never done an investigation on the property to the rear of the property in question. Q. Okay. The property to the rear, isn't it true it has a duplex, a single - family house, and a boathouse? A. I beg your pardon. Please repeat that. Q. Isn't it true that the house to the rear of the subject property has a duplex, a single- fa:mnly house, and a boathouse just like the subject property? A. I have -- I have never taken an account as to what types of structures were on the rear property, as I just stated. I've never had an occasion to do so. I've only visited the neighbor upon request by that neighbor for other unrelated matters, never ever taking account what types of structures were there or when they were built. Q. Mr. Mazzone, just a few more questions. Did you ao through all the building permits in 1968, 1969, and 197E to see whether or not -- and then investigate the subject property to see whether or not 'Erie building permit was issued for something that did not say duplex. and yet did provide for a duplex? A. We have had many occasions to investigate other nvolved very similar situations investigations -- other cases that i -- were remodeled or -- or rebuilt where single - family residences were into -- under the guise of what was submitted to County permit-, but then they -- the overzealous applicant into either a duplex or even at times triplex use. And with those cases we've had those properties either brought down to the acceptable use at the time of the -- of the permitting, or we've had the property records adjusted so that the -- the lots were either joi:,ed together to accommodate the duplex or whatever it took to -- to remedy the situation. We have had previous cases like this, sir, yes. Q. Well, I guess in this particular instance the total square footage combined of these lots is 13,260 square feet; correct? A. That's correct, sir. Q. And that it er_ceeds the combined minimum lot size requirements under the R -2 regulations, which were 12,000 sTiare feet; correct? A. I think Mr. Arnold could better answer your -- your questions about square footage and what would be rewired by the zoning regulations and that subject. Q. Just one or two more questions. I'd like to direct you again back to page 16 at the top, B -1, area regulations. When you add those two square footages together, what is the total? A. 12,000 square feet. Q. Thank you. MR. PIPES: If I may have just a moment. No further craestions subject to the right to recall or to call Mr. Mazzone in Page 44 rebuttal. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank Mrs. Sullivan, for Mr. Mazzone? MS. SULLIVAN: No, ma'am, MR. McCORMICK: I would -- back? I bG 1 January 23, 1997 you. Anything further, not at this time. MS. SULLIVAN: Grab Mr. Arnold. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Mazzone, would you mind coming MR. MCCORMICK: Mr. Mazzone, I have a question for you. MS. SULLIVAN: Thanks. MR. McCORMICK: I think you stated that the duplex use was not noted anywhere on the building permit, and I know you didn't process this building permit. But if you could take a look at the building permit and show me where that could have or would have been noted, you know, some -- some places on that where if the county was really processing a -- a permit for a duplex, where would that have been shown? THE WITNESS: I have a copy of the per-„pit. Do you have one in front of you, sir? MR. McCORMICK: Yes. Normally under the size there's a description there. There's -- with the plot plan there's normally a drawing of a change of the structure if it's going to be escalated from some -- a use other than whar_. i.t was intended for originally. They would have probably - -- and this, again, I'm not -- I'm not part of that staff, but historically looking over other permits, they normally include a sketc, of what would be included on -- on this particular change. MR. McCORMICK: So it could have been shown on the plot plarf area? THE WITNESS: Floor- space area, total square foot, it could have been shown in many ways or spelled out, typewritten down there. And normally from what I've seen, I've found it to be the case that it was. MR. McCORKICK: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: How about under zoning? Would it be noted there in that -- that block of places where it says zoning, R -2, structure will face, and then it says use? Right under building size. THE WITNESS: Right under building size? MS. DEIFIK: Rigor_. Right in the middle of the page. THE WITNESS: Right, where it says zoning R -2 building or structure? MS. DEIFIK: Then it says use. THE WITNESS: Use, living quarters. MS. DEIFIK: Oh, sorry. THE WITNESS: Use, use is normally where they would insert duplex use or the particular use that they were going for. In this case they -- they -- they insert living quarters, bath and a half, wbich doesn't seem to be hinting at a duplex use. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. I have another question. If you'll note to the right of that in the plot plan there is no plot plan, but Page 45 16G 1 January 23, 1997 there is a notation that septic tank is 750 gallons or 780 -- I'm sorry. It's difficult to read and the drainfield is 140 square feet. Is that a sufficient septic tank and drainfield for two living residences? THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, that's calculated for three single- family units currently. Collier County's calculating that use as three single - family units. question. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. But -- let me revise my It appears to me from looking at this that this septic tank and drainfield is supposed to be correlated to the construction of this frame building. THE WITNESS: Correct. MS. DEIFIK: 14hat -- how many dwelling units would this hether tthat size septic tank and drainfield suipport, and do you would differ from 1969 to today? THE WITfT'SS: I. don't `owbeiief would adiffe�,- toFrom my research quite honest with you. But 'y ` is that. it supports _. two single- famii�r.ou1hJfo�dtwo MS. DEIFIK: That would b Sig g single - family units? THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am, MS. DEIFIK: Okay. MR. MCCOR.MICK: I can add a little btthe minimum size regulations change almost yearly, but right now septic tank allowed is 900 or 950 gallons, and that's for a two - bedroom residence. 750 gallons is probably adequate for that square -- square footage of the building, but Z don't think we can determine whether that vis sized for -- MS. DEIFIK: One or two? MR. MCCORMICK: -- one unit or two units. THE WITNESS: That's what they had said to me. unit, but it utilities told me you can permit them for a single - family was large enough for two -- two single- family units, and that's how they calculate the -- the cost for it. MR LAFORET: Mr. Mazzone, is the size of these srentcin the tanks based on the number of living urilts or the equip" living units? THE WITNESS: Sir, Z - I don't know that answer. Mme. LAFORET: Z would say that a house with automatic dishwashing machine, garbage disposal, two bathrooms or 2 1/2 baths, it would have one requirement to take all that sewage. A house or similar to one of these living units where you show just one bathroom in it and very limited kitchen facilities, Z would think it would take, oh, sir, or seven living units. I think the size of the septic tank is dependent on the load on the septic tank and not the number of units. MS. DEIFIK: Well, Z have another question that -- that r- rlates to -- to what Mr. Laforet and Mr. McCormick have brought up, ; cL, is if you look through the set of building permits anentionwof the 2sr-ued 4 -a t965, the only place that the -- there' s any septic facilities is on the February 111-h permit for the -- the living Page 46 16G 1 January 23, 1997 quarters, the frame building that's in contest right here. The house has a separate building permit but doesn't indicate that any separate septic tank or field is being built- for it. So it -- it appears to me that this septic tank and drainfield were the only ones being constructed on the property at that time, and -- and I guess my inquiry is, is there anyone here that can tell us if that's the case? MS. SULLIVAS ;: Madam Chairman, I believe that Mr. Pires is going to call a -- the building official, building inspector up here, if you might want_ to direct your questions to him when the time comes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Anything else for Mr. Mazzone from the board? Okay, Mr. Mazzone, thank you very much. THE WITNESS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Miss Sullivan. MS. SULLTVAN: I :.ant to call h;r. Arnold, please. THEREUPON, DONALD WAYNE ARNOLD, a witness, having been fi:-st duly sworn,, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SULLIVAI1 Q. Mr. Arnold, would you state your name and your position for the record, please. A. Donald Wayne Arnold, planning services director, Collier County. Q. Are you considered by county the official interpreter of the Land Development Code? A.- Yes, I am . Q. Okay. If you would, would you please tell the board what you know about how the scua.re footage is traditionally calculated for these situations. A. Historically and typically square footages and a_.n in this has been calculated using a lot area to building ratio. And in specific case, as we've heard in testirnony, the R -2 standards, as did the 1955 code that we're utilizing for the purposes of this hearing, do not indicate a method for calculating density. However, I will tell you that that's part of why we have development regulations within each zoning district. we cannot mention the word "setbacks" as a part of this particular item, but I will tell you that is part of how you go about calculating how many units you can place on any of these particular lots of record at Char, time. These 'Lots are even nonconforming lots of record for some of the lot -- minimum lot width' requirements under the code, not to mention some of the area requirements. There are a lot of factors here. It's not quite as simple as saying one unit, two unit per lot or anything like that. And, frankly, there's probably no one on staff who can tell you curattly, what methodology was calculated to determine the number of units rin this particular piece of property. But I will tell you that in combination with the development regulations, the maximum coverage Page 47 16G I January 23, 1997 requirements that we had in effect at that time, although I can't mention other setback requirements, you will narrow down to how many units you can get on this property. MR. PIKES: Madam Chairman, I would object to anything about coverage requirements and setback requirements and focus on the issues that we agreed should be in the hearing and ask that would be stricken from the record. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well -- THE WITITESS: If Mr. Pires would allow me to continue, I don't intend to make that a basis for what I'm going to follow. MS. LOtTJIERE: I think what you're going to show is that density goes hand in hand with square minimum size of building, and your minimum; lot size is what you're going -- that's -- that's your thought. You're going to take your lot size and what the building square footages are allowed, and that's how you really determine density. THE 'WI'ITTESS: That's part of i! . I'm going to try to tell you -- if you use the reasoning that's been implied by Mr. Pires, what I would tell you is the minimum, 600 - square -foot building that you have over a 14,000 - square -foot lot, absent of any setback requirements, will net you somewhere about 12 different structures on this piece of property, if you want to carry this out to the most absurd and literal extent that you can apply these standards. That's absent of setback requirements. You ca.n clearly put one- and two - family structures on ~.hese lots; we know that. The code permitted that by right in 1965. What it didn't tell you, does that mean you can have one single - family? Does it mean you can have a one - family and a two - family? Domes it mean you i can have all two - -fa ily structures? It didn't say that. It doesn't say that. That's a ;utter of interpretation. That's why we had a building official, and that's why we had a zoning director at the time. But I will tell you, absent of anything else, I would have to use an area calculation, as Mr. Mazzone did, to Bete =d ne how many units you can place on this property, that and in conjunction with other development regulations the.t were applicable at the time. By my calculations, I believe that nets somewhere just over two units for thLs property. I also looked at the building permit_ application for this living quarters bath and a half. It clearly says it's being built on Lot No. 6. That constitutes a third dwelling unit, if this is a duplex, for Lot 6. Only a portion of the single- family home that existed at that time encroached into Lot 7. And I don't even contest that possibly another structure at that time could have been built on' Lot 7, but I don't believe that it allowed for three units to be constructed on Lot 6. And that is the basis of the complaint, and that is the basis of the county's case. BY MS. SULLIVAN: Q. Mr. Arnold, do ycu have a building permit in front of •3oln, there? A. Permit 69 -370? Q. Yes. Pace 48 16G 1 January 23, 1997 A. Yes. Q. What does it say on their permit to -- does it say build, alter, repair, or remove? A. It says underlined -- under building it says permit to alter frame building. Q. Okay. With -- within your -- your experience and your knowledge, would a boathouse structure, which was what I think we've agreed on as being altered -- would a boathouse structurally normally have a half bath in it? MR. PIRES: I would object unless there is a time reference to this. MS. SULLIVAN: I'll withdraw the question. MR. PIRES: Are we talking about today or 28 years ago? CHAIRPERSON RAWS014: She wi`hdrew the question. MS. SULLIVAN: I'll withdraw the question. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions? MS. SULLIVAN: I don't have anything. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have cross- examination for Mr. Arnold? MR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you anticipate it lasting more than 20 minutes? MR. PIKES: I don't knovr. I don't believe so. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead. CROSS - FJt.A21INATTON BY MR. PIRES: Q. Mr. A- -hold, isn't it true that what you are applying are today's planning and current modern planning standards to form and specuIate as to how it would have been calculated back 28 years ago? A. I think I'm certainly using that as a basis for how I might arrive at that answer, yes. Q. You were not in the county planning and building department 28 years ago? A. No, sir. Q. And did you find any written policies and pract -ces -- written policies articulating calculation as used, as you testified here today, back from 1969? A. No, sir. Q. Is there anyplace within the Collier County zoning regulations -- I don't know if you had a chance to review the entire 45 -page pamphlet which is Respondent's Exhibit 1 -- is there anything in that document that supports the calculation basis that you've testified to and that Mr.. Mazzone has provided? A. If you refer back to some of the multifamily zoning districts, you do find calculations based on square footage requirements per unit, yes. Q. How about in the R -2 zoning district? Is there any basis for that calculation? A. :io, sir. Q. And isn't it true also that that zoning regulation also provided that nonconforming lots of record could still have the one- Page 49 16G 1 January 23, 1997 and two - family units on them? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that this -- and I believe , �n this instance these lots were platted long before the 1965 zoning regulations? A. Yes, sir. These lots were platted in approximately 1953, I think late 1953. Q. Aral I believe the zoning ordinances today and Land erent than they were 28 Development Code are written extensively diff years ago; is that not correct? A. That is correct. ny was there was no Q. And I believe your testimo prohibition in the R -2 regulations prohibiting three dwelling units on one site; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And I believe your r_estimony would be also that they were much less sophisticated back in 1969 than they are today? A. With respect to creation of the ordinance and some of the development regulations, I would have to categorize them as less sophisticated, yes. Q. Okay. ��tions of Mr. Arnold subject MR. PIRES: No further qu_� to the right to, you 'Know, call him later or for rebuttal. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Miss Sullivan, do you have any further questions for Mr. Arnold? MS. SULLIVAN: too, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The board have any questions for Mr. Arri o 1 d ? ME. DEIFIK: Mr. Arnold, I -- I think you were here when you heard us discussing the septic tank, septic field issue. Do you have any comments on that that could clarify that for us? THE WITNESS: No, I'm sorry. I do not. MS. LOUVIERE: I just have a question. R -2 zoning, it states that you're allowed one- or two- family dwelling units. And by the look of this, it looks like in Lot 6 we really have a duplex structure and a single - family dwelling unit with some encroachment into Lit 7. So basically you have three structures in Lot 6. Wouldn't that be a Nay of looking at it? Th"E WITNESS: I think you could look at it that way. And I think it depends on how literally you want to read the code from chat time, because it does say that the permitted uses on these lots shall be these. Taken literally, that could mean I can put any and all, including a mental 'hospital. MS. LOUVIERE: R.ight. THE WITNESS: As well as a duplex, as well as a single - family home, as well as a poultry farm. MS. LOUVIERE: I could have chickens there. THE WITNESS: That's why I believe you can't just look at the issue of the one permitted use, because you have to factor in the development regulations applicable at the time for these properties. And absent to that one could argue that any and all of these could have been jammed in this piece of property, which I think Page 50 16G 1 January 23, 1997 we might agree would be unrealistic if not -- MS. LOUVIERB: The way I interpret this, the R -2 use you're allowed one single - family dwelling unit or a duplex or a two - family dwelling unit on a lot. That's the way I see R -2. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, if I may ask, unless the board members have questions of Mr. Arnold -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MR. PIRES: Mr. Arnold, does the word "or" appear in the R -2 regulations when it says the type of uses allowed in 8(A)(2), I mean, Section No. 4(A)(2) at page 15. THE WITNESS: No. It only reads one - and two - family dwellings. MR. PIRES: Okay. Once again, it might be repetitive, and I might be taken to task for that. T'nere is no other -- other than the minimum lot size at B -1 at page 16, there is no calculation required for number of units per square footage; is that correct. THE WITNESS: That's correct. MS. LOUVIERE: And if you wanted to argue that it's one and two, then it should all be located on Lot 6; right? THE WITNESS: I think that is a valid argument, yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further from Mr. Arnold? Thank you, Mr. Arnold. THE WITNESS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Miss Sullivan? MS. SULLIVAN: That's it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The county has rested their case. Mr. Pires -- MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman, may I ask, wiii I have a chance to summarize at the end? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Of course. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. That's all I have right now. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Could you give me an estimate of how many witnesses you have, how much time you need? MR. PIRES: I think I might have four witnesses, and so I would anticipate an hour minimum. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Good, an hour. MR. PIRES: Before that, I wonder if it's possible, once again, not knowing what the rules or procedures are -- in a criminal case it would be, I guess, a motion to dismiss; civil case, the equivalent motion for summary judgment. But I don't know if there's time to argue that now before we put on any case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We don't have a rule of procedure that prohibits it. We don't have a rule of procedure that allows it,' Basically that, you know, this nonattorney board, with the exception of Miss Deifik and I, probably don't know what you're talking about. But I'll ask our counsel if he thinks that's proper, and if so, instruct the board accordingly. MR. YOVANOVICH: What. Mr. Pires, I believe, is saying is point in that he doesn't believe the county has met its burden at this proving its case, and he would like to basically have you decide at this point whether or not the county has met its burden to your Page 51 16G 1 January 23, 1997 satisfaction, and if it has, he will put on a defense. If it has not, he will -- we'll all go home. So basically, again, there's nothing in your rules and procedures that says you can do that, but there's nothing that says you cannot do that. Unless there's an objection from county staff, I would -- I believe you can go ahead at this time and decide whether or not you're comfortable that the county has met ine its minimum burden of bringing this case before you. I wtuoldu mmagize Miss Sullivan would like to at least have an opportunity the testimony before you make that decision; am I correct, Miss Sullivan? MS. SULLIVAN: That would be correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's wally at the board's discretion. de whether or not we should If you -- if you want to at this point deci continue on or not, I would be inclined to allow you to do that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Board members understand what we're doing here? He basically is going to make an argument. In a civil case we'd call it a motion for directed verdict saying that htthshould haven't met their burden and, therefore, they -- you know, win before he even has to present any evidence. So Z guess I need to know from the board, do you wart to allow this procedure, or do you want him to put on his evidence? MR. McCORMICK: It's my opinion that we'd have to continue. MR. LAFORET: I would suggest that we could evaluate as to whether or not they have proven it. CHAIRPERSON RAWS014: Okay. I guess I have two different MS. LO'JVIERE: I believe the county has shown a burden of proof, and I think we should continue to hear this case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, do I have that in the form of a motion, MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we continue to hear this case and that the county has shown their burden of proof and that the -- Mr. Pires represent -- puts up MR. McCORMICK: I second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? Moved and seconded that the respondent put on its defense. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? MR. LAFORET: Nay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Nay. Three to two. Well, in that case, Mr. Pires, you need to present your defense and call your four witnesses. It's about 20 minutes till 12, and unfortunately, I have to leave. Why don't we try to resume back here about 1:15, and hopefully then we'll be out of here by 2:30 so we can let our respective offices know. We'll adjourn then until 1:15. (A lunch break was held between 11:45 a.m. to 1:27 p.m.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Code Enforcement Board will xeKorvsveae . Is everybody ready to proceed? When we broke for lunch, I bel.iev+e r -he county had rested its case, and so now I'm going to call an the respondent to present their defense. Page 52 16G 1 January 23, 1997 MR pIRES: Madan; Chairman, if I would just for a matter of record -- Anthony Plcord an ways�a but lall uthe shubmittals that were would be part of the re any "ways, in this case by myself for the defense packet, the Appendix A and the Appendix B, just appreciate it if that's all made a part of this record. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You want those introduced as evidence? IoM. PIKES: Yes, ma'am. objection? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any (No response) Good, since we've all read them. if I MR AIRES: Thank you. If I -- additionally, could, there's some preliminary items. I'd like to introduce into this evidence a certified copy of the plat, and Z hope Z'm pronouncing correctly. I think they're called Demere Landing, and I present it to Miss Sullivan and see if she has any objections to same. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's fine. And while you're provided doing that, let me remind you that the entire packet that you p me with and I provided the board members with that's now been introduced into evidence, sheulouorobaePo =ter anaked andRkeptnwith, the Exhibit 2 -- it's 2 -- b' - records of this case. Do you have any objection to - _ MS. SULLIVAN: PIo, ma'am. MR. FIRES: And so this would then be marked -- the plat of Demere Landing be marked as Respondent's Exhibit 3. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That will also be introduced into evidence? � FIRES: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Also, if I could, has in its packet a copy of Permit 69 -317. But know the board already 11 show a copy ' to Miss Sullivan I -- what I'd like to introduce -- and is a true copy marked by Robert Salvaggio of said Permit 69 -317, as well as an inspection record card for said Permit 69 -31,. MS. SLTTILLIVAN: No objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then that would be marked adocument. introduced into evidence as Respondent's 4, two -pag e Does the court reporter have that whole packet that's No. 2? MR. PIRES: I don't see it. It would stand out because it's so high. I don't believe the court reporter has that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would you be sure that she gets it so she can properly mark it and keep it with all her files? MR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am. I would like to call initially will I have a few witnesses I'd like to call, and David Steinberg be the first witness. And will you prefer that the witness stand here or there, or is there any preference with the board? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: As long as he's at a microphone. MR. PIRES: David, if you could, and then be -- be sworn. THEREUPON, DAVID STEINBERG, Page 53 16G 1 January 23, 1997 a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PIKES: Q. Can you state your name and address, please. A. David Steinberg, address, 2854 Becca Avenue. Q. And is there -- are you any relationship to the respondent in this case? A. Yes. Q. And what is that relationship? A. I am his son. Q. Okay. I'd like to show you what's been marked as -- the second page, not yet marked, as Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, the inspection record card, and ask if you recognize that card. A. Yes, I do. Q. And how did you -- how do you recognize that card? A. I went to the county on Horseshoe Drive to the records department, and I found this on microfilm. Q. And what is that card? A. This is the C.O. for the Permit 69 -317. Q. Okay. I also have -- with the board's indulgence, I have a larger blowup of this inspection record card. Mr. Steinberg, is this a copy of what you are holding in front of you as Respondent's Exhibit No. 4? A. Yes. Q. And is -- the information on there, does it reference Permit No. 69 -317? A. Yes. Q.- Pmd is there a space on there indicating various inspections? A. Yes. Q. Board inspections are indicated as being on this card? A. Well the ones that have been signed have been frame, plumbing, electrical, and special. Q. And what does the special say? A. It saes -- there's a date, June -- I think its 9th, 1970. It says "complete." Q. Okay. And is this for the duplex that's involved in this particular action? A. Yes, it is. Q. Does it indicate the permit date in the top right -hand corner of said inspection record card? A. There's a date of February 11, 1969. Q. Okay. Now, was this inspection record card brought to the attention of Mr. Mazzone? A. Yes, I believe it was. Q. Okay. And did you find this through your diligent search and inquiries of the county records at Horseshoe Drive? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. PIRES: If the board wants to -- I can pass this Page 54 16G January 23, 1997 around to the board if they want to see this inspection record card. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think we can see it. You -- maybe you just kind of prop it up in front of the -- MS. DEIrIK: Use the easel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We can prop it up in front of Mr. Steinberg. MR. PIRES: There is an easel? BY MR. PIRES: Q. And, Mr. Steinberg, also, did you ever have an opportunity to discuss this particular case with Joyce Ernst in the county development services department? A. Yes. Q. And when did you have a chance to discuss this case with her, and what was the topic of your discussion? A. It was after the June hearing with Mr. McNees. There was a calculation that was used for the square footage needed for the land, and we were confused as to how that was arrived at. Z approached :-ir. Mazzone. He said -- I'm sorry, I approached Mrs. Ernst first. She said I needed to talk to Mr. Mazzone. I approached Mr. Mazzone. He said I needed to talk to Ms. Ernst. I went back to Miss Ernst, and she said the way that she calculated it was based on how they do things today. Q. Now, the calculation you're referring to, is that a calculation that Mr. Mazzone at that June 17th hearing, was using a similar calculation to what he's indicated on County's Exhibit No. 2? A. Yes. I believe it was the same, 17,500 square foot. Q. And Ms. Ernst said that the calculation that she utilized was one using today's standards? A. Correct. icate that it was a calculation that Q. Okay. Did she ind would be utilized in 1969? A. No. Q. Okay. I have no further questions of Mr. Steinberg subject to the right to recall. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any cross? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. SUI,LIVAN Q. Just one question. When you talked to Ms. Ernst, did she tell you what -- specifically what calculations would have been used in 1969? A. My specific question to her was, "How did you arrive at this number ?" And she said, "Well, that's how they -- that's based on how they calculate square footage minimum requirements today." Q. So she didn't indicate to you that it would have been different in 1969? A. I don't think she knew how it would be done in 1969. MS. SULLIVAN: That's all. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PIRES: Q. Two more questions. You were asking her to -- to determine how it would have been calculated back in 1969? Page 55 16G 1 January 23, 1997 A. Yes. Q. Okay. And she did not have any information as to how it was calculated back in 1969? A. No. I think if she would 'nave, she would have used that formula instead of how they do it today. MR. PIPES: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Next witness. MR. PIRES: Richard Townsend. And before that -- before Mr. Townsend is sworn in, I'd like to introduce as Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, I believe, an Affidavit of Casper Townsend. I provided a copy for Ms. Sullivan for her review, and see if she has any objection. MS. SULLIVAN: No objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, then it will be introduced into evidence as Respondent's No. 5. MR. PIRES: I have copies to hand out to the board. And then we're ready to call our next witness after the court reporter is finished marking the exhibit (Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and 5 was marked for identification.) THEREUPON, RICHARD TOWNSEND, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PIRES: lease, Q. Could you state your name and current address, p sir. A. Richard Townsend, T- o- w- n- s- e -n -d, 321 Brandy Lane. Q. And, Mr w . Tonsend, how long have you lived in Collier County? A. Pretty near 70 years. Q. Do you -- A. I was born here. Q. Are you any relation to C. M. Townsend? A. Senior, my brother. Q. Is he now deceased? A. Deceased. Q. Do yov recall him owning a property over on Becca Avenue that's the subject matter of this code enforcement action? A. Yes, I do. Q. And is Casper Townsend his son? A. Yes. Q. And he's alive at the present time? A. Right. Q. Okay. Are you familiar with this property on Becca Avenue owned by the Steinbergs that's the subject matter of this case? A. Yes, I do. Q. Are you familiar with its use prior to 1969 as a baLh}inuse or boathouse? A. Yes, I do. Page 56 I bG 1 January. 23, 1997 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that it had an indoor shower and sink prior to being converted to a duplex? A. It did. Q. And are you familiar with it becoming a duplex? A. I was there. To start with, you know, he was making it for his friend, but it was made into a duplex, but later it become Q. Okay. And that was C. M. Townsend, your brother? A. Senior. Q. Senior. A. Right. Q. And he was a building official with Collier County? A. That's right. Q. Okay. And he worked with Carl Clemmer? A. That's right. Q. Okay. . And is Carl Clemmer now deceased? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. PIKES: I have no further questions of Mr. Townsend subject to right for redirect or recall. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON : Any cros:3 ? CROSS- KXAMINATION BY M.3. SULLIVAN Q. Just one. Mr. Townsend, do you have any personal knowledge that there was a permit allowing a shower or whatever to be put in the boathouse? A. I couldn't tell you that now. I dcn't know that. Q. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further_? -MR. PIKES: Not of this witness, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON': Okay. Thank you, Mr. Townsend. Next witness. MR. PiRES: Dennis Mazzone. THEREUPON, DENNIS MAZZONE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMIIIATION BY 14R. PIR.ES : Q. Mr. Mazzone, I believe -- I'm referring to your -- County's Exhibit No. 2, your calculation. And I don't know if you have a copy in front of you. A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. I believe it says that if calculating is one corner lot with one deed, must have one unit per 7,000 square feet or 14,000 square feet for two units; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Then is it your testimony that under the R -2 regulations under this calculation that none of the properties within_ Demere Landing would have been able to have a duplex built on them since they are less than 14,000 square feet? A. That's not my -- my statement. Page 57 16G I January 23, 1997 Q. Okay. Are you aware of any lot within Demere Landing that's 14,000 square feet in size? A. I'm not really familiar with the lot sizes of the -- the lots in Demere Landing. Q. If I could share the microphone with you for a moment. A. Certainly. Q. This is the plat of Demere Landing, Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. And Lots 6 and 7 are the subject matter of this action; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, it appears that Lots 16, 25, 26, and 35, all corner lots, are the same dimensions as the subject Lot 6; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it appears that Lots through 4, 8 through 14, 17 through 24, 27 through 34, are generally the same dimension -- are generally the same dimensions as L(,t F? A. That's not correct. Q. There are a couple that may be a 1--ttle bit larger; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. But all the corner lots are the same size as Lot 6? A. Yes, they are. Q. Okay. Now, there are some -- Lot_ 3 30, 21, 20, 11, and 10 tend to be a little bit larger; is r_r.at not correct.) A. That's correct. Q. 1 through 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17 through 19, 22 through 24, 27 through 29, 32 through 34, are all the same size as Lot 7? -A.- That's correct. Q. Okay. And then your testimony would be that A. By this map; that's correct. Q. Okay. Then your testimony would be that a duplex unit cannot be built on any of those lots? A. That's not my testimony. The duplex evolved out of a boathouse, not out of a structure of it.s o•rm permitted as just a duplex originally. Q. But I believe your calculation was even if he was to build it brand new, he would not be able to by virtue of your calculation; is that not correct? A. I sav that the calculations that are introduced as part of the evidence, that it would not have been allowed. Q. In other words, if this parcel was unimproved at the time, your testimony is the duplex could have been built because that calculation didn't come into play? MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman, I'd like to object. I think we're getting repetitive here. I think we've already answered all these questions. MR. PIRES: That one I think was a new one because Mr. Mazzone, I think, has introduced a new element in it. CHAIRPERS014 RAWSON: Well, you know, if you would for -- to speed things up, don't ask him any of the same questions that you Page 58 16G 1 January 23, 1997 asked him this morning. And maybe they were on voir dire, but we still have all the answers. Repeat the last question that you asked him if you think it's a new one, and he'll answer it if he can. BY MR. PIKES: Q. Okay. If this was an unimproved parcel of land, Lot 6, would the R -2 regulations at that time -- would you use that same lot calculation and determine that a duplex could or could not be built on that? A. If this is an undeveloped parcel, again, Lot 6 back in that time, I wouldn't have been around no make that determination. Q. But you're saying that that was the calculation that was utilized; is that not correct? A. That's the -- that's •char_ we're saying. That's the calculation that we would guess would have been utilized. It's the closest I could come to denermining the - -- the -- the density that could be utilized on those lots. Q. I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any ques`.io..s, Ms. sollivan? MS. SULLIVAN: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Call your next witness. MR. PIRES: Please bear with me for just one moment if I may consult. Next witness I call is Dale Steinberg. THEREUPON, DALE STEINBERG, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. PIRES: If I :nay, Madam Chairman, take a moment to reshuffle my items here and return: the exhibit to the court reporter. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PIRES: Q. Could you state your name, please, sir. A. My name is Dale H. Steinberg, S- t- e- i- n- b- e -r -g, trustee for the property in question. Q. And where do you currently reside, Mr. Steinberg:.- A. 1313 Pelican Avenue, Naples: Florida. Q. Are you familiar with the property that's the subject matter of this Code Enforcement Board action? A. Very familiar. Q. Could you relate to the board in your own words how you were familiar with the property, how you first became aware of it, and how you came to be holding title as trustee. A. In 1970 my parents, when they were in Naples, they bought the property, a home with a duplex, for retirement income. I was -- I lived in the property afterwards. And as they got older, it got put in a trust of which I was the trustee for. Q. Did you -- were you involved in reviewing the property prior to the purchase by your parents? A. No, I was not. Q_ Okay. And did you become aware of the purchase after they had acquired it? Page 59 16G 1 January 23, 1997 A. Yes, I did. Q. And was that in 1970? A. That was in 1970. Q. Okay. And what did you -- what was the condition of the dwelling unit, the duplex, at that time? A. At that time there was a tenant that was in the house. There was a tenant in each of the apartments, which are efficiency apartments, in the duplex. When I had come down to Florida, it was my job to manage those tenants, my first job with tenants. Q. Did your parents make the alterat ons cr modifications to the boathouse to convert A. No, they did not. Q. How did that occur? A. It was that =.,gay when they _ojr.c and from what my understanding was, the former owner, * =. 'Townsend, had stopped by; and he had told me that it origir:.l:. c' r >een boathouse and a bathhouse and that it was converted -:t. _ �i And I only met the man twice, and that's w'rat he one of the meetings. Q. vow, at that time -- Ca-li VOID r_ ' _ ^_ the number Of dwelling ur_its within the duple._, ;:,1_.i> of electrical panels, number of bathrooms, number of en, ra :.ce .,: , =:c; t_ s* you could describe that for the board. A. Yes. In the duplex it had '.wo elri::`_rical panels, one for each apartment; it had two bathrooms, one for each apartment. As I said, these are efficiency apartments which were apparently common at that date and age. It haca a front door for each apartment, a rear door for each apartment, and these things were checked out with the building -- head of the building department, Carl Clemmer, at that timer. it had two kitchens, two full kitchen. -- more of a kitchenette, in each apartment, one in each apartment, two of them. Q. Now, I believe thes was in ? ;u A. This was in 1970. Q. And this was the condition -, .:12 uu.11ding at t�)e time your parents acquired the propel -ty? A. 7nat's true. Q. Okay. Arid the single - family :1w-11ing and the duplex were both in existence at that time% A. I didn't get the question. Q. The single -- family dwelling and a duplex were in existence at the time of that - -- A. Yes, they were. Q. Well, did you ever have any discussions with Carl Cle .er in 19.70 about that duplex? A. Yes. As soon as or short -- shortly after I come down to Naples, there was another piece of property he was interested in and I was interested, and I went over to talk to M_*'. Carl Clemmer about that. He said, *You're new to Naples ?" I said, 'Yes." And we had conversation, went on. He asked where I lived. I told him I lAved in the property my parents ix)ucl.r.. And he was familiar with it beceus.e C. M. Townsend was a building inspector in his department and worked for Carl Clemmer. He indicate(( ~o me, he said, Well, he says, Page 60 16G I January 23, 1997 You made a good -- they made a good buy, not because of price, but because it was on the water, and it had income for them, and that's when I expressed my parents bought it for their income. Q. In other words, is your testimony Mr. Clemmer was aware of the fact that this was a duplex at the time in 1970? A. Yes, it is. Q. Is this the same Carl Clemmer that is the -- indicated as being a building official on Building Permit No. 69 -317? A. Yes, it is. Q. Okay. And you specifically advised him your parents had bought the house on Becca Avenue, and .ially i1 y advised he was very familiar with that property A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, have you had dicsss.ons •riith Casper Townsend Jr. . , the son of C . M . To:•m i : ~, re -, -.rds to the situation on the bathhouse duplex prior to A. Yes, I have. Q. And you've read the I t:eer, introduced as an exhibit, and does that accl�;ratr.y r =` ':'e iscussions you've had with Casper Townsend? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. Now, I believe yc,. :r tF st.; :. -n; ','as ghat your parents acquired this for income. A. Correct. Q. And have that duplex, and the single- ami : home been utilized on a continuous, uninterr1:pted b-­­ si-nce 19 0 when your parents first acquired it? A. Yes, it has. Its been rer.te i for tl.e last 27 -- it was -- well, 27 years. Q. And I believe you acquired title as trustee from them; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you're holding it in trust `or your parents? A. That's correct. My father passed away just recon.tly, and my mom' s 91 . Q. would there be a severe ad•,erse effect if there was to be a removal of one of those units from that duplex? A. Well, yes, it would affect her incomQ greatly. Q. Was there a time in 1992 ;here sewer improvements were made in that particular area-, A. Yes. Q. Can you explain that to the board and describe that to the board. A. In 1992, it was after Hurricane Andrew, and there was a -- roof darage that had taken place, and water had gotten inside it and got the sheet rock wet. Some of the ceiling had to be replaced, and some of the -- the wall sheet. rock, and t7:ere were two closets that were adjacent to each other back to "rack +--hat were taken out. 9. Hr. Steinberg, I mean -- _'r sorry. It's the issue about serer hookups or connections. A. Pardon? Page 61 I bG 1 January 23, 1997 Q. About sewer hookups or connections -- A. Oh. Q. -- to the county sewer. A. Yes. It was hooked up for county sewer in 1992, and at that time it was hooked up as a duplex. The sewer ;.mpact fees were paid for a bathroom for each apartment, and it has its own sewer tap and a separate -- and the house has its own sewer tap, just as they each have their own separate septic tank. MS. SULLIVAN: Mr. Pires. MR. PIKES: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: We're -- we're perfectly willing to stipulate that the property was lased as a duplex in 1970. MR. PIKES: Okay. Well, this .s 1992, 1 believe, the testimony is. MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah. I'm `1; : e _ 1 i ng you, i f you -- save some time. We -- we real i:_e ; is ­ ; a d?ip1ex. We're not disputing that at all. MR. PIRES. Okay. I thin- _ _ _ -- you know, appreciate that from the lache_ I believe as part_ of the pa1k!r the board on Appendix A, our defense packet, --'rerr= was a pack -t of items in Appendix A, Item No. 8. I'd direct `he board's attention to that, and that's part of the record. i be':leve :'pis. Sullivan has that, and I'd like t^ provide a copy r_o Mr. :'_ei: berg for his review. BY MR. PIRES: Q. And, Mr. Steinberg, that item that's marked as Item No. 8 at the bottom right -hand side, does tha reflect the sewer impact fees paid for these properties on Becca Avenue- A.- That's correct. Q. How many bathrooms does this indica'_e are being paid for as sewer connection fees? A. Its two bathrooms in the duplex and a bathroom and a second bathroom in the house. Q. Okay. So, you mean, single - family dwelling and on A. That's ccrrect. Q. And the sewer impact dwelling units at that time; A. That's correct. Q. Were sewer lines run there'_ rwo bathrooms in tr,:� e bathroom on each side of the duplex? fee:. were paid for all three is ti,at Correc to ;.h_-ee units? A. There was one sewer line -_ha ~_ goes to the duplex, and then there's a sewer line chat goes `c he house -- Q. But -- A. There are two sewer 'Lines that were involved. Q. Oh. There's separate access to the sewer lines from the duplex into the one line? Can you describe the connection to the duplex for the sewer line? A_ Yes. When it goes to the -- goes �o the duplex, the pl,smbing breaks off into each apartment as i.t does in any duplex I've been familiar with. Q. Was that inspected by Collier County utility personnel? Page 62 16G 1 January 23, 1997 A. Yes, it was. Q. And was that all approved by Collier County utility personnel? A. Yes, it was. Q. Okay. On this property -- have taxes been paid on this property since 1971 with its value 'based upon the duplex and single- family structure sitting thereon? A. That's true. Q. Okay. A. Yes, they have. Q. Mr. Steinberg, are you fami iar -- if you could describe the other residences around this particular- property, what type of structures are across the canal 3nrl rnxt_ •3n- A. When Lay parents had purchasnd ir_ )n,3 I come down, obviously we looked at the neigh!),-rho<)d, was there to the south was a duplex and a house and a chat was built across lot lines on that property. To �- w_., a garage that was permitted as a garage and late >r a residence which people used in -- during the to the east, the residential property there wa. c3 :rr,:r._ ;,si b,; Collier County. And to the north is a house with. rya:`. -alon in it. That's all the properties that are adjacent Q. Mr. Steinberg, are you wish to tell this board that you ':hi :7 particular matter? While you're doing that, if --,.re you familiar with the -- back in 1969 or 1? 70 'A.;err, ;o!_: ::;:o3 -vr =d in -.he building industry in Collier County at that: -A: I had purchased property i c:i A,a ir:vol ved with at that time, and I was familiar aith had Q. Okay. Were you familiar pith -,:e requirements in that time frame as to the size of sep!.i . `'!T_ "- , ,` -;r ':upiex 117itS? A. Yes. A single- family hr.-,,me : z -err, `.r!ve that hail one bedroom -- one bedroom. single -- _:; ir:q'. - F _:: i ly home had 300 - gallon septic tank on it. Any of the t.ro -t ecir_ :,nes or duplexes had 750 - gallon tanks on them. After t`;a'_ w ,.is updated to nine hundred, I think, probably even ten fi'_t, Q. Sc it's your testimony `eat the size, 750- hundred - square -foot septic 1�ank on *his Building Permit 69 -317 are consistent with duplex cons *.ion as you knew it at that time? A. Yes, it is. And that's one rf the thing:. we checked out, to be. sure that the septic -any, 4rld arge enough for the -- for the duplex. Q. I'm sorry. I know I int.errl.ip'ed your thc,ughts. Anything else you wish to address `he :-,surd? A. Weil, I don't know if it's pertinent, tut one of the things that it was considered, i.t was !low many be rooms were -- were :u� to calculate the size of the tank. And I know we had discussion elazlier here whether it was bathroom -s or whether it was kitchens, but it was based on how many bedrooms. And if it was a one- bedroom Page 63 16G 1 January 23, 1997 apartment on each side, it was considered two bedrooms, and the tank was calculated on that. MR. PIPES: I have no further questions of Mr. Steinberg but reserve the right to redirect or recall. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any cross of Mr. steinbera, Miss Sullivan? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, ma'am. Just a moment please. MR. LAFORET: While you're waiting for her, what is the Rate Class RS that's on this sheet-, MR. STEINBERG: I don't know th:e ar, wer to that. My -- you're talking about the sewer o.ie: right% MR. LAFORET: Yeah. MR. STEINBERG: I see RS is scr17!tche <3 out and RA is put on it. MR. LAFORET: Yes. MR. STEINBERG: And I don't rate class is on the sewer. MR. LAFORET: All right. S '.,;as L�_ �i..) �i..:J �N ,. L till: R scratched out and --he RA put cn a `_ =.:e 1 -r,e ^ f i n s. e of the certificate? MS. SULLIVA^I: Where is the on MP.. STEINBERG: I don't havE-. _... 3:._.-f;er that. I don", know. MR. 1.,kFORET : All right. CROSS - F—XMI14AT ION BY MS. SULLIVAN: Q. Mr. Steinberg do you diuplex designation is? 'A.- 'What the sewer duplex. - Q. Uh -huh. A. -- designation is? No, I won`t. Q. Could it be that the duple >: on t :e sewer card -- it reads a 2 -A instead of an ?� A. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Q. Do you know whether a duplex desiyna'_i -on or. a sewer card is a 2 -A or an RA? A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. Can you show me •here the utility thing that Mr. Pires has referred to that sh(_)ws a duplex use on the sewer card, or does it simply say RA or. it? A. Under rate class it has t::e ?.c scratched out, and RA is on it. The impact fees were paid f:,. a duplex and paid for the single - family home, and they were calculated on the fact that you paid $1,100 -- I believe that's correct -- for each individual dwelling unit for the first bath. You pay the full amount for the first bath. If you have a second bath, then i.t's S %4G, I believe, the way this is calculated. Q. So what you're saying is that it's -- that you could 134e7e been paying the tax on three single- family residences rather than a duplex use according to the utility _eopi A. Yes. Page 64 I bG 1 January 23, 1997 Q. Because I believe FA designation is always a single family -- a single- family unit, and that's what it says here on the tax card. It -- does it not say Gam, on your sewer -- on your sewer card? A. Yes. That's the one where t'r.ey had RS. Zt was scratched out, and RA was put on it. Q. Okay. A. At what time I don't kno•,: . Q. Okay. You mentioned that you .fin_. about the -- you were familiar with the neighboring properties, A. Correct. Q. Do you know of the square foot«c;e of any of these -- these boathouses or any of these other than the -- the main residences? A. !1:o, I do not. Q. Okay. Do you recall a nsina investigation on. this property, MR. PIR.%S. I object. Zt �__s,_de _! e .scope of these proceedings unless it's pertinF =-:7,. r, _ >.r._ cu�ar case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Car, y,,, t:_e `: re' var.cy in with this proceeding? MS. SJLLIVAN: I probably to -- I m going to withdraw it. BY MS. SULLI11AN : Q. Do you know who built _.. s _ :: :'_ ..: e . i't:o built the duplex and the single - family A. My understanding is ' =hat nse.:d built them both. Q. Okay. And what's the :let ,,seen C. M. T0,wrCsend and -- and Carl Clem:-..er? A. C. M. -- Z understood C. ,r. :.mserd ;orked nor Carl Clemmer in the building depar. tr,e: -,, n' 'nat. he was a building inspector. Q. Okay. And what is the :f h be— ,:eer. C. M. Townsend and Casper Townsend? A. My understanding is Ca: r F _ ..T,s4 ._, i is t P son Townsend. Q. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any re ect. MR. PIKES: No redirect. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. S':einberg. Call your next witness. MP.. PIRF_S: I have no further witresses. I believe I have one -- lust one more exhibit _ hake part of the file. We already have the folio card. Z guess it doesn't -- unless they stipulate, there was another --op; of tY. <: folio card, certified copy from the property appraiser's olfl-e, that shows that this property has been valued since 1971 as having tI`:ree - ,,welling units on it, the duplex and the single- family Jweil.inq CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is that f.:lio earl in our packet of materials? MR. PIKES: I believe it is. Page 65 1 bG 1 January 23, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. So it's already probably in your Exhibit 2. MS. SULLIVA4: Where -- where is that, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: At -- it's Item No. 4 in Appendix A. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. it's really already in evidence, but we'll be happy to take a Look at it. MR. PIRES: Okay. One thing. The purpose of showing that, since 1971 the property has been valued with the duplex and single - family dwelling on it which conforms to the testimony of Mr. Steinberg that pax -- taxes have been paid on that property on that valuation since that time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. A: y from the county? MS. SULLIVAN: Just a second. '.r -.nt tc look at that document again, please. MR. PIPES: It also has an ac' :omrar.y�r;g c0',ler letter from the property appraiser's offic thn-_ says -- that references that the permit was issued in -- to thi prod :,erty, and our records indicate the boathouse with attached storage, ,s _­.nver'ed to inexpensive residential structures for tax for the tax year of '71 and subsequent years. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is t: ^a` let'_.-:- our packet of materials anywhere? MF,. PIRES: No, it is not. I'n pro.i'ina that_ to Ms. Sullivan now. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. So you're moving to introduce that one into evidence as ;(Yr next exhibit? MR. PIRES. Yes, ma'am. copy of the folio card. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MS. SULLIVAN: Mr. Pires, are ycu allecing that this -- this exhibit that you just gave me refers to a duplex on i.t? MR. PIRES- The correspondence _rot, the property appraiser's office that's attached to `fiat 'letter will at,.est to that MS. SULLIVAN: You're saying that: one refers to a duplex on it? MR. PIRES: It doesn't use ti at ward. It says it eras converted to inexpensive resi6 nt-ial. -- MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you. MR. PIRES: -- structures -- structures For tax valuation purposes for the tax year of 1 --71 and subsequent years. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have any objection to his introducing into evidence that letter from the tax appraiser; that, I think it, is not in our packet. MR. PIPES: That's correct. H.S. SULLIVAN: And what are you using this to prove, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: I believe that it's been valued for tax purposes since 1971 as having these structures on .it rather than the Page 66 16G 1 January 23, 1997 single fa.-nily and is recognized as such by the property appraiser's office. MS. SULLIVAN: But you're not using this to prove that this was -- that the tax collector said this is a duplex unit; is that correct? MR. PIRES: That according to his records -- I'm not trying to read any words into his 7_etter other than -- MS. SULLI-VAN: Okay. MR. PIPES. And this says that .)as converted to inexpensive residential structures, :�nri it says their records reflect it was pursuant to that permit. MS. SULLIVP.N: I have to o'r,;._c` o };at, Madam Chairman, because it says "inexpensive strlctures," and to me that does not indicate a duplex.. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: W 1i , s r� >' rF yoll know, the question is, do you care or paper gets introduced into evidence? MS. SULLIVAN: No. ma ' am . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: OkF-y. the arguments on both sides about t�:e ;since f paper, but the piece of paper will be introduced into e %i ,:-r:ce as respondent's next exhibit. Now, any rebuttal from the coun`y; M.S. SULLIVAN: Are we -- are -, ;e r:i: :ed % Are we ready for sun,mariz ing? CIiAIRPERSON RAWSON: Weil, you can put on rebuttal witnesses if you want. If you don't -:ave any, then we are ready to surrsnar i z e . MS. SULLIVAN: No, ma'am. ?o r;ot have any rebuttal witrre5ses . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay . Let ' s have. a sur rr.ary f tom the county then. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. Sr_aI . - -,_-)s,; t n .._ that the LDC Section we refer to, I believe L. says that a structure must be specifically permitted. It's that the pe :nit that is -- that's related to this strut_�,r, r:es not permit a duplex use. And we've heard testimony thaf,: says th -vt there was already a shower there, but we don't have -- you don't have any evidence of a permit allowing that, eznd it a our con t ,:�n . = :�D, that the building department may have not known that there was i hc.rrer mere and that they were permitting a living quarters with a ba-h and a half. Staff is also saying that a a?uplex couldn't have been -- correctly been permitted in 1969 on this property, nor could it be permitted today for various reasc;ns. AnCi i think what Mr. Pires is basically saying with this duplex is, grandfather it because it's been there for 26 years. But generally something which is grandfathered in an amendment to an ordinance is usually spelled out. And as far as the documents that's he's introduced to show that the county has inspected and C.O.'d this property, I don't believe that the county building inspector looks for the use of the prvps rLy. Only -- they er:ly inspect for what is correctly -- the workmansh:p that's correctly done on the property. Page 67 I 6G 1 � January 23, 1997 He's also saying that the tar collector said that there was a duplex on the tax rolls and they've been paying for a duplex use; but from everything I'm seeing on here, it doesn't say that there is a duplex. It's simply saying we're taxing you on what's there. we didn't look behind to see if what's there is permitted; we're simply taxing you on what's there. And, in fact, this one thing says -- on the tax roll it says 'residential," and it looks like marked out "storage" and "boathouse." It's the law -- the law is tha' raov= Srnment can't break its own rules. And in our opinion; t' unfortu�nate that Mr. Steinberg bought an illegal but if it was not specifically permitted accord" ng r :.:e 1,L -K it' a •✓iolation. That's all. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. ,'r. ?ires MR. PIRES: I guess -- ? g»2n.. -,a,n 'o stand. A number of issues. T*re ,:? 'r;e- ,r:r.g bandied about by the staff in their :ounty' s presentation is 'may,' "guess," and "best be 'Dennis Mazzone in his last testimony said, calci.:lation was used back then." That's what they _ You heard the testimony _._ to Joyce Ernst. Joyce Ernst said the ­rA ', :ilized to form the basis for this that's been _ _.;..,.ec. ?'.:. '�razzr,ne .s today s calculation. Mr. Mazzone's t_ stir.;: wa e :elie coon Joyce Ernst for the basis for the calculat:.on :r,, r using today's calculations to try to reach back 28 years a::r ; ;; , gee, f ';e «_:: e to use today's calculations, let's apply it n�_— ,dDer. one. Number two, you have a `'mod': _ '_ Ml-. A no 1.a has testi 'tied that the R -.'. regal %�' _ a` __..r,e d i nct have any such calculation contained within another section of the then existing -;i" a'. ^:sit, _ai.cllations and lot_ area calculations within them. c_ `_:'' ro :-ec:t. The R -3 -A did; the R -2 did not. Specifically -- and I Mr. Mazzon.e . I asked the quest ..,. Mr . Arne 1 74ere `.here any parts of this regulation, dealir.,_, 4i'... 't;F r -2 `.fat say you calculate number of units based upon. of 1o`s? The answer was no. It's a guess. It's a maybe. as to what would have happened back then. Under Mx. Mazzone' s scena_r:.c,, : -, ng his calculations, you :rust have 7,000 square says if calculating is one corner lot with one D, must have one 1_anit ?,000 square feet or 14,000 square feet for two units. And ;_t is r:c,t in this regulation. This is the entire zoning paraphiet for ba L: `'r.er.. I believe he testified it was not in there. What they also overlooked -:.` `_act t.nat a lot of the records can't be found from bac`r t en. '.'!r. Mazzone said he made a diligent search or inquiry, couJ_, —Ln' find _hem. Our -_Bent had to go through the efforts and do his _: m e .rc:^ ar:d inq..iry. So what does he find; an inspection card for The staff would have you :e hadn't done our Page 68 I 6G -I. January 23, 1997 own investigation, that there never was a C.O. issued for that property. Mr. Mazzone to this day says he has not found one. We have a certified copy that's part of the record. You've heard the testimony From Richard Townsend as to what existed prior to the time of the conversion, that there was a shower and a sink, half a bath. So what does the permit say; add living -- basically living quarters and bath and a half. You get two units out of that. Mr. Steinberg testified what he heard from the owner himself, who is now deceased, as to the conversion of the units from a shower and sink bath -- it's from a half a bath, basically, adding a bath and a half to ff_or�, two dwelling units, two separate electrical panels, two 3eparar_e eiitr«nces, two separate units. He had some discussion with Carl CIemmer, the building official, the gentleman that si;rFd ;.he permit, the gentleman that's aware of the situation. It's not « -,-j :t er of ust. any off of the street. He is the person that ~hat permit. For twenty -- heck, we're going on the 28th anniv_,rsary of `:hat permit almost. It was issued February 11th of 'S9. The »cork was completed June 2nd of 1970. Twenty -six, twenty -seven ✓ears :later the county says, gee, it's too bad they're all dead. It t iad they d,dl.'t do a good job of putting stuff on a permit. tR, =''re cing to reach back and try to get behind that permit and say appear; you're out of luck. And yet they acknowledge that a two- fa.m.ly dwelling can be on these lots. The zoning or :inar,ce says or:e- ar,d two- fami ly dwellings can be on an R -2 lo`_. T'-,e ack;:owiedge that; but then they come up with this calculation usinc, _cday's standards, which is incredibly unfair. It's reaching tack in time. it's like saying everybody out there needs to go bac'.- in time and look; let's apply today's standards to everything out there if we ha- ✓e any doubt or any question, because the %-ord 'd•jpl ex" does not. appear. The Steinbergs did not make moclification; C. M. Townsend did pursuant to a vali i; i.ss•:zerd permi . The cou,ity has known about this since that time. Yo,..: the c-our:ty building official who built it. You have the county ':::. _..: r of. `ic l a i , director -- zoning director, Carl Clemmer, who appro•,­-�` :ihc knew of it, talked to Mr. S t e i nice rg about it. You have the county in 1.99:: get_ing mor.ey. They're not ashamed to get money for four dwr,1- -- for four baths for these three dwelling units. Mr. Steinberg pays impact fees for the duplex and for the single- family dwelli:-:g. 'tie had no indication that the county would ever be doing this. So in addition to everything else, you have a laches issue. The county had 29 years i3 years to come after these people. Khat do they do; wait until 1996, and then they spring the issue on them and say that the words "duplex' were not on the unit, and we just don't think that you co,,.ld ele-,,ate a simp]e low -life use of a boathouse to that of a duplex '.:ithour having these magic words on the permit, which I find nut credihie at ail. Z believe that from all the to timony you've heard from Dave Steinberg -- his memory, they signed a C.O., his conversation Page 69 16G 1 January 2-, 1997 with Joyce Ernst; testimony of Richard Townsend as to what existed and what occurred afterwards; Mr. Steinberg's own testimony; and even testimony of staff, which you judge the credihd lily and you judge how the staff testified and how there was no -- and there is none -- mechanism here to support the argument made by Mr. Mazzone in these calculations that has a different number than it did back in June of 1996, I may add. For all those :-easons, it's bur position that the county has not proved by clear and convincing evidence their case in this particular matter. I believe that -,.;e have rehutted that. We've taken -- we've gone beyond, I ~_oink, what ,,re need to do by us searching the records -- to fin -. ~hose record:- to would be helpful -- and that this case -- and we think +.he action should be dismissed and denied. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank Al"v re to _ha closing argument? MS. SULLIVAN: No. I to make one correction. Mr. Pires says thy'. ,e ere ;i.n. today's standards to calculate the-lot square foot-_D-.1- :: wrr t. Today's standards are more stringent than that. ,Fsires %. s :are feet per lot. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any ons o either attorney? Then I will close the hearir, -j and enter .,:in any discussion from -- or motions _rom any of _:ne board merrbers. MR. MCCOR.MICK: Well, 1''i1 ::' -�r,_ off. T: : heard , the county has attempted to pro-;Q '_hat the boa house structure as a duplex was not specifically per- n'_tted and, secondly, that the duplex could not have been permitted ir: 1_959. Regarding whether or not the duplex could be permitted, I t ~ink that we heard tha`. there's really no way to tell exactly how tho:� iart]. --ular officials would interpret that code and lookin, :; at that pe=it at that instance. I think there's a number of ways -he;, could ha-:e done t;�eir calculations. One of the ways was prr:sent dd :�y the county, but I -- I can't say, and I don't think I hear_dl anybodly else say tha!- that was the only way that it could have ':jeen done. So don't t,4 .­nk that we can say that that building was especially considering the -- the limited, I guess, criteria that. •.;e agreed to look at today or that the county agreed to lock at. And, secondly, it's whether or not ,_his pa_ __ cllar building permit spells out a duel ^;{ or r.ot, 1 would suspect in most cases there would be some mention :)f a duolex on here. It's not. I don't know why it isn't, but there's been just as much testimony to the fact that county officials ,, %ere involved in this review, were involved in the inspection, anti it just -- in my mind, it just has not been proven conclusively that thn co..nty didn't know that there was a duplex in association with this permit. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Ariy other co=ents from the board? MS. LOUVIERE: I tend to agree with Rich. I think that it is kind of difficult to go ahead and just concentrate on this one asL- ther-e when we have other uses around it. There's a house with a beauty sa-Im and commercial zoning surrounding it. This use has been there for so long. They have been paying water and sewer impact fees. Page 70 I bG I January 23, 1997 They've paid taxes. And then after so many years, all of a sudden, let's just say that that's not +;hat's really there and change it back. I think it's not -- it's very unfair. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON : Arybody else, Anybody have a motion to MR. McCORMICK: Let me as'..: r),lr attorney, would the motion be to dismiss this case or to fi nd r.o violation? MR. YOWA1'70VICH: Either one :c.rld be appropriate, and you need to bring one or the or_:er, either disrni.ss it or to find no violation. NLR. MCCORM.ICK. No dif ferenc MR. YO'IANOVICii. It works o t the. s 7e. Yo'.] =-ld say that no violation's probably more = ochni -a; ._y ::orrric MR. MCCOP`':ICK: I make a „, `.,.. '-1ia'_ - e �_rd there's no violation as was MS. LOWIERE : I second CHAIRPERSON RA.'WSON. Bee- 'e . .._ violation be found. Any Furth:. All in favor signify by All cpposed? (Nc response) Ayes have it. No violas_ -. Anythinc else to ccrr,e .ref _ Poar d today? Then I'd like to remind here at 8.30 Monday morning for r Le_ _,_._<.t <ac on inuation. MS. DEIFIK: 8:30 Monday CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 8.3 ;!...�; _ or.._-c. Ccr.'e Enforcement Eoard is ad4ourned. There being no further f-__ t.._ cd _' e .'cur. f, the meeting was adjourned by order L.e C`:air .1, p..,,. I TA 7 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEFALF 71... :r''11%ti_1 BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Me' sr - -, 11 Page 71 16G 1 January 27, 1997 TRANSCRIPT OFF THE MEETING OF THE RECEIVED CODE EITFORCE21= 16OARD FEB 2 8 1997 Naples, Florida, January 27, 1997'1j,r� LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board met on this date at 8:39 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Eas,, Naples, --jor'-ria, with the following members present: J CHA 1 7� PEP a "q S DUlfik Ahsent: Char'_,�s Andrews ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manal ic:h, Chief_ ,`,s s'-_ - in'_y Attorney Shirley Jean ',-'v:Eacner,,,,, Asst_. County Attorney Linda Sullivan, Code Enf.orcemenr_ Director Maria E. Cruz, -de Fn f -rceme­t (The following proceedings ccm7rierlced. "� S. LOu%rlere being absent.) I � - Norris Hancocr -7 'vaie ' Page 1 s To- e Constantin• Doer v ------- I bG 1 January 27, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Ramiro, are you ready? MR. MANALICH: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Collier County Code Enforcement Board will come to order. Let the record reflect that Mr. Allen called in sick today -- I'm sorry, Mr. Andrews. Mr. -- Mr. Allen back fresh from the Bahamas. MS. DEIFIK: It's only 2:r. Allen's sense of humor that's has is CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: :se's looking rested. Mr. Andrews has called in sick today. Net's start with the roll call to my left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCc2rnick. MR. LAFORET: Lou Lafor t. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Del`.4k. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON7: J-an Pa";son . MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: !"r- Lafcre *_ r..i:> ;ems one day of testimony, as did Mr. Allen, and I'd r_his trine for them to state on the record whether- the, read -he '.ranscri.pt of the proceedings the day they mis <,ed. Mr. Laroret. MR. LAFORET: The day : missed un- :erstand !:hat I was requested to withdraw as a .ember thi: board. My response Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: A.nd did - rar.script of the day you missed? MR. Lp.FORET : Yes, ma ' a:r. . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Arid as we said on the record last is no. week, your absence was excu_e_d, as �t was your absence, Mr. Allen. Have -you had an opportunity '�_o read the transcript? MR. ALLEN: Yes, I have, every word. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And do you have a response to the request that you might rec, -ise yourself MR. ALLEN. I do not w -:..t to hie rec,_.sed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: ',- ,Iv . I'Y :an - y0,- -, . I believe if there are no other_ preiimina.^y matters, counsel has reminded me, an.­: I appreciate chat, that we left off with Mr. Arnold on the stand, ar:c{ wr wer „ts r. Hazzar-d's cross, I believe. COURT REPORTER: You're previously - - -- you're already sworn? THE WITNESS: Yes. COURT REPORTER: You're still Minder oath. CROSS - EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Good morning, Mr. Arnold. Hoy; are you this morning? A. Good morning. Fine, thank y,,u. Q. Mr. Arnold, just so there's no confusion, last week you testified on direct examinar_ ion as an expert witness; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And in your expert opinion, the guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard in either location has never been allowed Page 2 16G 1 January 27, 1997 under any version of the Lely Barefoot_ Beach PUD. Was that your opinion? A. That is my recollection, yes. Q. Okay. And that';; still your opinion here this morning as you sit here? A. Yes, it is. Q. Mr. Arnold, you have no firsthand knowledge of any of the facts that surrounded Lely Development Company's application for the building permit that's at issue in this case, do you? A. No, I do not. Q. And -- and that's because you d;dn't work for Collier County back in 1988 when this wa7, ssue�,); right? A. Correct. Q• And so as a result of ghat, ' ^.r. Arnold, you have no personal knowledge of any fac`. ,at- v. ;ld dispute Mr. Agnelli's testimony that he gave ias­ wee;, A. I don't belie-,-,-- sr). 1 �r.'_y n_ 3. a portion of Mr. Agnelli's testimony, but Q. Okay. A. I don't have an y '-n-,',,,]edge of that. Q. !4'ell, now Mr. the language of Section 4.3 of the Lely Barefoot 3ea,:h r'JD ordinance, the part that reads, 'Portions of the scurit� gateho;.e acility may extend into and over Rely Beach Boulevard' familiar with that language? He testified ' --hat tlia`- Lan ''i 1, F was Understood at the time to allow a guardhouse in the ;nid 11 _=:e road like was there when the language was adopted. You d;n ha any personal knowledge of any fact to dispute that; - i.ght? - A.- No, I do not. Q. And, in fact, if 1n,, s`ar:d yo .r testimony, Mr. Arnold, you've merely : Pad t_'::a', language today in 1977 and given your opinion that that 1a,.guagc-: does n';= allow a guardhouse in the middle of the road; is that correct? MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairmen, 1 -A,ou`ri like to object to this line of questioning. Mr. Arnold had testified on direct that the PUD ordinance is like a contrac- before it's enacted, and then once it's enacted it becomes th ` -orce or local law. Basic contract law states that as long as tha *_ is dear on its face, no evidence, extraneous evidence, prior to entering into that agreement is admissible, and so I object or. !:he basis that- -- of the parole evidence rule that it's inadmissible, i;'s irrelevant, and it's imniateri al . MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, if 1 understand counsel's objection, I think she's objecting to Mr. Agnelli's testimony that was entered into the record without objection last week. My question to Mr. Arnold was simply that is it his opinion that this language that he's reading today in 19 -- and he oa-•,;e expert testimony last week. Is it his opinion that the language he's reading today in 1997 does not allow a guardhouse in `h,e ;,ic.;dle cf the road? And that's -- that's not at all an objectionab_e question. MS. McEACHERN: Madan Chairman, I was objecting to the Page 3 16G 1 January 27, 1997 question -- the line of questioning with regard to personal knowledge of the facts prior to entering into th original PUI) ordinance was -- which was 77 -48, I believe. MR. HAZZAP.D: Well, Madan Chairman, with respect to that objection comes three questions. MS. McEACHERN: In order to show intent because the document speaks for itself. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. I understand the document speaks for itself, and you know, at least_ two of us up here are very familiar with the parole evidence rule, which basically for my nonattorney constituents means that you can't introduce contemporaneous, subsequent, or later -- or -- or earlier interpretations of a written contract because the contract on its face speaks for itself. And, you r_noa, if -- if he's asking Mr. Arnold any of those questions, you know, thee, c.;ec .. The question he last asked him, however, doesn't violates t_h - idence tale, Z don't believe. He's asking him on o .t ing that Mr. Agnelli said if he heard it and if '.n can, :,r r" ; - in'r, !,hays okay. MR. HAZZARD. Actually, _. ai_-;an, my question to Mr. Arnold is this: BY MR. HAZZAPD: Q. Mr. Arnold, you have mere`y reed t`:is language of Section 4.3 in 1997, and giver your opi ^, c;n, !hat that language does not allow a guardhouse in the mic,d'1e of the roa r?; is that correct? A. That is correct. (Miss Louviere entered the boardroom.; Q. And you have no ba--.s to q:ve an opinion on what that language meant in 1985 when 4,.. was F _ _..toci,�ced into the ordinance; is that correct? A. I would disagree with that. Q. Okay. And why is that? A. I would disagree only, t ha _'-e language speaks for itself; that is an ordinance of law ;hi h ,_s subject to interpretation, certainly, h• U - _he No--d_� peen unchanged. Q. Well, certainly if that la.nguaae came across your desk today in 1977, you would say it doez no ~. allow a guardhouse in the middle of the road; is that - orrect% A. I would, yes. Q. Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If I could "._errupr just for a minute, let_ the record reflect that Mass '-ouvi.ere is also present. MS. LOUVIERE: Please fcrcive me for being late. MR. ALLEN: Good morning. MS. LOUVIERE: I don't have a good exc-u e. I'm late. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: we're glad you're here. You haven't missed a lot of testircony. MS. LOUVIERE: Oh, good. Than'.- you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Continue, Mr, Hazzard. MR. HA-Z ZA.P.D : Sure. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, we're m -eting today in one of the buildings Page 4 16G I January 27, 1997 that's in what the county cal:_s t -:e c unty government. complex; correct? A. Correct. Q. And you'll agree 'air.` me t:iat pnr.ti,)ns of the county government complex facilities ezx enc' into an,, over several acres of land here, won't you? MS . McEACHERN : Mad&7.. Ci:a.. rman , I rib j ec t . That's totally irrelevant, has nothing to do with the P1' ordinances that are being scrutinized today. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chair -;r,an -- MS. MCEACHERN: It's i,acr,. *_ -r i z_ , ised to --onfuse . It has no relation whatsoever, ar- -- yc ) <_::oW, h� h sn' t even produced and I bet he's not going to prod•,�t.n ;An; Y_inci ter;' :t_en document that has allowed the government comple>: e on't know what its definition is. Lec >. _ f _here ,: _, i _ s just totally irrelevant and immaterial. CHAIRPERSON RAWS027 . OK 7 s ha t i t s irrelevant. Hr. Hazzard, art. ; -;: ;; : �_.. is how this evidence is relevant? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, Mada: -, _..ai_;,.a .. ;r. Arnold has given his expert opinion concernincj 71CI, 3ni -• i at exact language in another context, and I ar, si. :., . a _: r - r�: -hc t: his expert opinion holds true and, frankly, make, sense t...., i;oard in a parallel context. And it's quite relev nt :;i. -- !:i5 opinion. MS. McEACHERN: Madam C..airrr.a: ... c.: ,,--F-levant at= all. It's not parallel at al_. He hat;' rrod:ced -- we don't know how government complex facil_r_y is _<11— descr'bed on -- on the PUD or whatever governs this particular zonirn -:, district that we're sitting in t=oday. It's -- it's just, to-,ally and it's not parallel. He has failed to ',_a, and it's irrelevant and immaterial. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I .::derstar,c? your objection, and he may not be able to answer the. of the -- his lack of knowledge, the background. At any rate, e'li -- I'll �E.11ow the question because this board w' ..1 c i�.l; hope, be intelligent enough to determine what kind of .:e:7;:`. gi e whatever answer he might give. We understand that we 're __ talking about the government complex here today. We're on'_y talking about the Lely guardhouse. Go ahead. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, my question to yn -A,as, you'll agree with me, won't you, that portions of the cc!,inty government_ complex facilities extend into and o- ✓er several acres of land here, won't you? A. I guess I would agree with tha'.. L -- I don't really have a basis for disagreeing with yol..i. Q. Okay. And, in fact, Mr. Arnold, portions of Collier County's government facilities extend i.ito and over the entire county, don't they? A_ Certainly we own property throughout the county. Q. And they extend into Immokalee and :Marco Island; is that correct? Page 5 16G 1 January 27, 1997 A. Yes. Q. And over to Everglades City? A. Certainly. Q. And I'm not putting any type of strained interpretation on the words "extend into and over," in your view, are you (sic)? This is fairly common usage of those terms, don't you think? A. I don't know that I would agree will; that. Q. Okay. By the way, ?/r . �.r.i01. 1 , yc;u. do agree that there was a guardhouse in the middle Cl: Lely Yer.ch Boul -yard the first time language allowing multiple pGrtitns ` thF' e= ir_i'y gatehouse facility to extend into and over Lely Beach part of the Lely PUD; don't you agree with `'r:a'_ A. I've seen probably }10. J -Kph :a'.ructure that existed at -- near the median strip there. Q. Okay. A. I don't know exactly h:J, _ P;:ister.c�, brit Z did see photographs of that. Q. Okay. And the first o-�'._r,�xr.'e this language in Section 4.3 % as Ordi :a:,c %~ = :ar correct A. I think that wa ; the f' `. I- .:::ar:� `h,_�t actually located a gatehouse comb. -er. r -, :' . Q Okay. And there was al:_�; une middle of Lely Beach Boulevard when P';.. Or : n ;...� ? . _ �;as passed; : sn' t that correct? MS. Nc.FACHEt?iv: Ob ou tPat s not in evidence. We don't knowl b,_11-1 � and when it: was taken down. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he o .ld .,DronaDly answer the question, though, you know, whether he knows or not. BY MP.. HAZ ZARD Q. Do you know whether there was a - dhouse in the middle of the Lely Beach Boulevard when was passed? A. I don't know that for a fa�,:_ Q. Okay. Do you know whe`he_ an ord -- a guardhouse in the middle of 'Lely when PUD Ordinance 87 -53 was passed? A. I don't know for sure abo..t _na'. one ei -ther . Q. Okay. Well you do know fD- sure ~hat there was a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach B ,.'eVard when PUD Ordinance 88 -63 was passed; right? A. No, I don't know specificai] -y for a fact. Q. Okay. Well, let's look. at -- do you have Ordinance 88 -63 over there handy, or should Z present that to you? Maybe the county will let you look at 88 -63. MS. DEIFIK: Excuse me. Can I ask ~he county if you have an extra one of those gray books wit.: your. exhibits? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Actually, this is in the black book, I think. 88 -63 is in the black book under Tab 12. 1R. HAZZARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think it's -- I thank it's among the first pages behind Tab 12 and in the black book_ Page 6 1 6G 1 January 27, 1 019i BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Do you see 88 -63 there, Mr. Arnold? A. Yes, I do. passed? Do you see a date on the Q. And what date was that back page of that? A. Well, it was filed with the state .august 8 of that year, 1988. Q. Of 1988? A. Uh -huh. Q. And do you know when the certi`_icate of occupancy was issued for the guardhouse that we're in controversy about today? A. I don't know the specific date. Q. Well, I would submit to you t.h -it it -'s in evidence already, and the date on it is of 1988 Would you dispute that, or do you want to F;ec A. I'll take that for 7- Q. Okay. Well, so then, j -r. �.. :' �3nce 38 -53 passe on August the 2nd, 1988. wa. 4n :c ._ , :�a -;� . %.:en Cher. e was a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beac A. Correct. Q. ?� .d, ir. fact, Ordin :3ncr �3 ,';`; = just six weeks after the new guardhouse was i:ai:t, =�r,d t. 7,�ntained this very same language allowing multiple pc;rt -.o: :s 'Di =.: ;' ter. t. gateho use facility to extend into and over Lely B•ac :� c.,i _.. A. My copy does not reflect t'ra Q Your copy of 88 - -5; 1 e5 ,o f. , :"c;.a at ;rd Hance Your language? A. It says only the po_tic :�s :;f r_' -, v r ty jat`- ho,, :se faciaity may extend into and %er :. -f B - "a riu "t of -gay. It doesn't say multiple portions. ort Q. Oh, I'm sorry. �cns a�.ral, correct. A. Yes. Q. Do you take that word to ha'.e m ='a.: :la of more `.han one? A. Portions, yes. Q Okay, thank you. J J if r �U ,• r :(?re to demcn2Lrate that a guardhouse was bill l t in t.`; _' 'r, i r! ", i.'' i ` t :'aCh bol. i e YC� in 1979. then we would have at least inances amending the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD con - n' ng 1� : E''�,' Sa :;�e larig' aQe that we Ve been referring to that were passes, '. r,:. t.c '.`"ar_ guardhouse was iri the middle of the road; right.) A. Yes. Q. Okay. And that would be 85 - 21, 85 -83, 87 -53, and 88 -63; correct? A. Correct. Q. So if there was any doubt_ in anyone's mind at the time that the language we've been discussing meant anything other than what Mr. Agnelli testified that it meant, there were certainly ample opportunities to clarify that language; right? A. There were certainly ample opportunities to better define the intent of that section. Q. Okay. Now, your expert opinion, as I understand it, is Page 7 16G 1 January, 27, 1997 that that language passed multiple times by the county commission does not allow a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard. We've established that; right? MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I object to that. That's a mischaracterization of what this amendment did. This amendment only changed that portions (sic) that is struck through or underlined, and the rest of it remained the same. Therefore, it was not -- that language was not continually adopted because it was not -- it was not subject to further amendment is what I'm trying to say. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chai =.an, I object to counsel telegraphing to Mr. Arnold what the answer should be to his question. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well -- MR. HAZZARD: Frankly. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let r,e o ` h rule on the objection. You know, that's round for objection that you mischaracterized the g,lnstio :. _o: car: at. -11 probably ask the question whether it's mischarr3.ct.e_izez r and Mr. Arnold can answer it. MS. McEACHERN: Mischarac'_rr -ze_ the ? idence -- the question mischaracterized wha'. 1.,-, ir: evi7e:•:ce MR. HAZZARD: Can Mr. Arnold ,:er ;aest.o: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: S'�ire. MR. HAZZARD: Can Miss Donovan read :pack for us, please. (The requested portion of the record wa:s read. ) A. I would agree with that. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q.- Okay. Mr. Arnold, do you ,nderstand that at least the 1996 version of the county con,71iss1'rn ordered staff to take code enforcement action against this g3- iardho',.se" A. I don't have any :erect. '�...r;�F >c',1� -,f -- action. That's my ass':mi)t'Lon Q. That's why I phrased it as I ndertand `hat. A. That is my understanding. Q. But your opinion as an is not at all influenced by that fact? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, yo.4 t't.� a `: r lowed !:ham various y versions of the PUD ordinance; A. I have. Q. The PUD ordinance, as I understand i.t, dc2signates various land tracts by letter, A, 'r.'., C, TD, etc.; is that correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. Now, we've heard references ` ; Tract in this case. There's no Tract R described in the >D ordinance; :s r_hat correct? A. The best of my recci_lect. ion , I've never founrl reference to a Tract R in the PUD. Q. Tract R is a designaticr. given Lely Beach Boulevard in the plat of unit 1 of the s:,co' ivision; right? A. Yes. Tract R is a co ^lrcn cl?sig.lation for rcad tracts in Page 8 16G 1 January 27, 1997 our plats. Q. But your recall is the same as mine, that there's no Tract R in the PUD ordinance; correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, if I understand it, it's the county's position and also your expert opinion that some of Le.y Beach Boulevard is in the Lely Beach -- Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, and some is not; right? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. But all the tract:; Of lard that are described within the PUD ordinance by lete - are within ?.he PJD; is that correct? A. To the best of my hey are, yes. Q. Okay. So Tract -- Tr_act ;;; PUD w t'nin the PUD ordinance? A. Yes. Q. And -- and I know you sal"d to the west of your recollection; so clarify for r,, , ,(�,)]d i +: ')e possible for the PUD ordinance to describe a tract ' ;in -i an -3 cal; it 'Tract C and it's not in the PUD? A. I think it's possihie. In this particular case I'rn not sure that -- that it is used in that manner, but 1 believe it's possible that a PUD ordinance -,ou.d reflec "- something outside its boundaries. Q. And -- and would that= PUD ordinance change the zoning for that piece of land that's outside the boundary? A. No. Q. No way; right? A. Typically not. Q. Okay. So is it your recoi_lec` ion that Tract B of the PUD ordinance is wholly wir_hir, the PT31D o`- L:ely Barefoot Beach? A. I can't recall at this t m­ .,ha?. __race B is according to the definition of the PUD, but l 'hi l ass .r,e that Tract B is entirely within the PUD. Q. Okay. And I'm go,.ng ~.o '.y `hrou�•'n one more letter here, not to beat a dead hors-, _ds for 1, r.a.ct C? A. I would agree with Q. Okay. In fact, Mr. rst day of our hearing, day one of the J ul%, v C' ,' ' at page 3 9 , �lr . H -ya- t asked Inspector Mazzone a MIJ,-h I'm asking you.. He said, rt;e landsca ed entrance "And you would agree with n'�e •_'r.,:'. ;'r.�c � _ , _. p that we just talked alaout, is ai_ _; :... _1_y "arefoct Beach PUD% "Answer: Yes, Z would." Do you have any basis to di51,,— 7C ''_r. ;3ryanr's asserr_ ion and Mr. Mazzone's agreemen th t' A. Without seeing a Gn', t -.':E? _ti, Z UL1E:i 1 CGi.�l�aTI dispute that. Q. would you like to see a c- _) y G' t:he P -1) so that you Crai be sure on that? A. If you'd like me tc.�i I'd certainly be happy to. Q. well, why don't we do that. Do you still have it over there irl f_rotlt: of ycu% No. Page 9 16G 1 January 27, 1997 Let me get from the court reporter the latest version of the PUD Ordinance 88 -63 and all the suppor`inc1 ordinances prior. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are we talkina about Tract C? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, we are, Madam, Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Page 20. MR. HAZZARD: It's in the black hook. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right, Section -- MR. HAZZARD: 1012. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right, ir_'s ^,ect'_on 5, page 20. MR. HAZZARD: Page 20. MS. McEACHERN: Is it okay if I show him this? MR. HAZZARD: No, let's show him -- okay. Weil, let's show him also -- it's on page 20, Madam `:a i rmarn . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think .o. MR. HAZZARD: I -- I show plat -- =e -.`ion 5 on page 20 on the copy of this that county's has just handed me reads, platted Lely Barefoot Beach �nir_ No. 1, Tract C, landscaped entrance drive strip, and I'll give this to Mr. Arnold to review. A. I've reviewed that language. Q. And is Tract C within t::e ely Barefoot_ Beach PUD? A. According to the mas'Ler r'an at.-ached at the rear of this document, it appears that_ it _s, s. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Arnold, so yo� re in agreement with Mr. Bryant's question and Mr. Mazzc.e's affirmative answer to the question, Tract C is within the Le1y Barefoot Beach PUD? A. Yes, I would. Q. So there's no dispute so Ear among any of our witnesses as to that fact. -A.- (No response) Q. Mr. Arnold, were you here when Mr. Swing, who I think was the county's first witness -- he's a Fellow from Coastal Engineering. Were you here when he testified as an e-Per` for the county back on July the 25th? A. I think I was presence fr)r a por'l i.-)r: o` his testimony. Q. Okay. And I think yo`.; - yrl -) in your testimony Wednesday that you rev-,c-weed 'fir.. ::wing' s survey work. prepared for this case; is that corr��cr_? A. I had seen a survey co npiet`^ asr_ai En _ ineering for the project. Q. The county relies on Coa,Y.a C::1C; ir:ecri-ig ::o:: a fair amount of work, doesn't it? A. Outside of beach I'm not familiar w_th anything that I've been involved in •. i':`: goat_ t.a Q. Okay. Well, Mr. Ewing was tc this panel as act expert surveyor, and you have no reascn '.o dot,ht the accuracy of his work, do you, sir? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Have you rzii -ed on wcrk at all in looking at rhat survey that you mentioned in forming your opinions in this case:= A. At this point I don't bei :eve Bc,. I had also seen some information prepared by the county's l-aphics department. Page 10 Q. Okay. Well, Mr. Arnold, let's take a Exhibit No. 2 for a :moment. MR. HAZZARD: I tell you what, maybe I'll microphone for a second. Q. Mr. Arnold, I want to sho•�r you County which is Mr Ewing's graphic than he presented 16G 1 January 27, 1997 look at County's switch to this s Exhibit No. 2, as an expert on July 25th, okay? Have you had an opportunity r_o look at that -- that drawing, Mr. Arnold? A. Yes, I have. Q. Mr. Arnold, is that the drawing that you referred to earlier that you had seen at one mint? A. It appears to be the same riocument. Q. Okay. Look at County' No. 2, Mr. Arnold. You can see where Tract C is YOU, A. Yes, I do. Q. And Tract C on t`iat us.l_y reaches all the way to Bonita Beach Road, :7,i A. It appears to on this dra%,.,ing, yes. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Ch,)._rma-, 1 d like to circulate this drawing to the -- to the board sr, -a you can each see what we've been talking about here. Trac`_ Trac hiss Deifik. MS. DEIFIF.: And that ' -, ;her- .. `ac `_ ends . MR. HAZZARD: Tract C here. iss N. %.f son, Tract C, Bonita Beach Road. Miss MS. LOUVIERE. Tract C. _ r,nc r_r.d Tract C. MR. HA Z ZARD : I believe a.'_-_'s o n MS. LOUVIERE: Page 2C. - MR. HAZZARD: Mr. Allen , se h.2rc rac runs or. this drawing? MR. ALLEN: Yes. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Now, Mr. Arnold, ycu'll also see or. this drawing that Mr. Ewing has drawn the line that t_',r- county claims is t`.ie boundary for the Lely Barefoot Beach PLiD ra ;:nt. _hr -,ugh the middle of Tract C; is that correct? A. Well, at that polar I'��, n _ s!ira if Tract C was intended to continue along a southerly dii: -a `:or.- Is `.hat what you're referring to. that it splits Lt � r. .3 r,or. �n south pattern? Q. Yes. A. It appears it would, yes. MR. HAZZARD: Just to refresr; r_t:e p -3nei ;�i`h t't�at, here's what they claim to be `hr. >- =";nrlar, ', in > bis�.cting ' act C, Tract C clearly north of the 1 _r.e 3t '.hey claim is `:it bounda Y. Miss Rawson, Ms. Louvi.ere, t_hi , was the line that_ 4. r _ G.ri ng described. Tract C is shc:,:+'r. Of it . MS. McFACH -RN: would you s':ci•r, because we couldn't see. MR. HAZZARD: Sure. sal -d Trac� C, a_ d this is the line that Mr. Ewi;)g as _he bourcia.rl. Tract C is clearly north of it. Page 11 16G 1 January 27, 1997 BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Now, you, Mr. Bryant, and Inspector Mazzone have all agreed that Tract C is entirely within t.ie PUD, correct, sir, Mr. Arnold? A. Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. Q. I said you, Inspector Mazzone, and Mr. Bryant have all agreed that Tract C is within the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD. We've already established that; correct, sir? MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman A. It is within the PUD. Q. It is within the PUD. Is there something counsel wanted to add? MS. McEACHERN: I just wanted to object on the basis that Mr. Bryant was not under oath. He rias not a witness. He was in his -- anything he said -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We understand. I;e was just the attorney, and anything he said was n t. evidence. MS. McEACHERN: Correct. And Mr. Arnold -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: But whether he said -- you know, whether Mr. Bryant said it or nr,t, he basically gave his opinion that -- and he answered the question. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, this Tract C we've r,ow established is touching Bonita Beach Road, and it's within the PUD; correct, sir? A. According to Mr. Ewing 's dra•,:i.ng does. Q. And he was the co,,.nty' s expert ,u t.,ess ; is that -- is that your understanding? A. That's my understanding. Q.- Now, you claim that the c ardho:se si' =s on land that's zoned AST; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, can land be zoned AST and PU,7 in this case? A. No, sir. Q. A single piece of land car." cnr_y two different zoning designations like that, can it? A. I'm not aware of any property that maintains two zoning designations. Q. Okay. How about can a :jingle piece of land be a part of two different PUDs? A. When you say single piece of land, do you mean the same ownership? Q. No. I mean the same -- `.:e sa:re plot of grass, can it be in two different PUDs? A. My answer would be no `.o zhat as well. It would be two separate zoning districts. Q. Okay. Well, Mr. Arnold, let's look at County's Exhibit 6, and let's compare it with Cou:ty's Exhibit 2. MR. LAFORET: Counsel, toefore the part -- may 1 look at that again, please. MR. HAZZARD: Yes, sir. MR. LAFORET: Does Tract C appear to continue"? Page 12 166 1 January 27, 1997 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Is this on the record? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, it should be. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Laforet, could you ask him that because you articulated it better than I did? MS. WUVIERE: Would you put that up so we can see it on the easel? Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Laforet, do you have a question? MS. Ll3tNIERE: I think he questioned -- MR. LAFORET: My question was that on Parcel C that he shows as it continues down and diverges almost to a point at the Lely property line, does that line continue on do-wrn so that that Parcel C, as a matter of fact, has a s -mall projection into the Lely Development? MR. KOWALSKI: Just for clarification, 'fir. Laforet, is your question directed to the witr�s:> CHAIRPEERSON RAWSON-. i t shoi.l ld be .�i rec ter', to Mr. Arnold. MR. KOWALSKI: Yes, yes THE WITNESS: May I ans er? MR. LAFORET: tfif q'1flstro:. r:s, 'look a at that -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. H- izzard, woui yn'� -- would you let the witness look at the chart again. Thank you. MR. LAFORET: Does it appear that. that Parcel C, as it continues down and crosses the Lely Development 'line, does it continue past that line for a short_ distance? Does it:, in fact, project, small portion at the bottom, into the Rely parcel? THE WITNESS: I guess the easy ans*.ler to ?:hat is, yes, I bell -eve it does. And for that yo� have to rc _,ference the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD Master Plan, which Id Tract C in -- in its total extent, and I don't know if _!at' teen entered into the record or not, the L.ely Barefoot Beach P'.:ii .:.aster plan, for insta. ice, but it should show the entirety cf Tract C indicated on it. But I believe it does extend into the PUD. ?LM. HAZZARD: I -- I then? 1 acme e with Mr. Arnold on that poin*i, sir. MR. LA— FORET: All right. MS. LOWIERE: I'm sorry, b.:t ;ioesn' t that drawing also look like Tract C goes into Bonita Beach right -of -way, I mean, if you look at it? MS. DEIFIK: I'm having a prohlem with the drawing. MR. HAZZARD: I believe so, ma'am. The road line is right here (indicating) in this label of Tract C, which is the county's own exhibit, appears to me to be fairly clear as to Tract C being located outside of the boundary line the county claims as -- MS. LOUVIERE: Would you raise that? That's the site plan prepared by Coastal., o'ray. . MR. HAZZARD: Which was county's e­,-Pert in this case. Mr. A_—nold does anyone •21 se have any questions? I was getting ready to move to compare this r i_ ,.1: Cour, ty' s Exhibi t 6. BY MR. HAZZARD: Page 13 16G 1 January 27, 1997 Q. Mr. Arnold, as I recall the record, County Exhibit 6 was prepared by Mr. McDaniel, wrio is a county employee, and he testified, but he was not an expert witness like Mr. Ewing. Do you -- does that refresh your recollection about Mr. McDaniel is? A. I know Mr. McDaniel, yes. Q. Okay. Let's compare th^ land at the entrance to the subdivision on these two exhibit_; if we can. Mr. Arnold, I'll ask you to have a good look at those first, please. Mr. Arnold, would you agree with me that the area that Mr. Fwing shows zoned as Tract C of the Lely Barefoot Beach FJD triat everybody agrees is within the PUD, is shown as zoned AST on Mr. MCDariel's drawing, isn't it? A. Yes, it is. MR. HAZZARD: Let me just s:y,(;,w that to the board members. You can see the lard up .=` the en` y. This one says it's AST. This one says it's Tract C r,l[ thF PUD. I wish I had longer arms so that I could hold this up each - ca:-1 you see it down on this end (indicating)? MR. ALLEN: (Nodded head!. MS. LOWIERE. Could see that one more time? MR. HAZZARD: Absolut.el.i. -i. enc..rage yo"I to review it thoroughly. MS. LOWIERE: if you j�:st p: ' t u:; -- MR. HAZZARD: Sure, absoiut_E'Y. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let the beard members, as you look at these exhibits, you if you haze- any comments, kindly make them on the record. MS. LOUVIERE: I realize tat you're si:ow`�ng me a site plan--, -but when we're -- when 71'- this PUD ordinance, all it keep -- it references a plat. _= - a site plan, and -- and the tracts are representing a pJa~ MR. HAZZARD: Miss Loin: erg � _'T. shotiing You is the county's own exhibits that `he e: - pAr's have explained already, and I'm comparing _� ~e `.es`= ,'pony of the ccunty's own witnesses that Tract C is within th PUD, bur. some other witnesses who's saying the PUD apparently en(i : -, that iinE_ that bisects Tract C And -- MS . LOU'JIERE : And I - - MR. HAZZARD: If you're con:ised, so am 1. MS. LGWIERE: And understand ghat that is your -- I guess your job, to go ahead a.nd take the private testimony, but I think for me personally I'm here to find our_ just what tract is supposed to be where and what tract is supposed to do what -- it's allowed what uses. MR. HAZZARD: Yes. MS. LOWIERE: And in this rase if you read r hrc,,sgh most PUDs , they're very conceptual y a .. nal- re . until you get into actually platting the su divis or. .when �.he ordinances match the pl..at, pct the site plans. MR. tVaZARD: And I -- anrr - - ye-, Z d.o . MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Page 14 16G 1 January 27, 1997 MR HAZZARD: And we're going to talk about that plenty today. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. MR HAZZARD: Does anyone else need to see these documents? BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. So, Mr. Arnold, to recap, you've testified that land zoned agricultural special treatment can't also be zoned PUD; right? A. Correct. Q. And you also testified that it appears on the county's exhibits that it's zoned both, doesn't it? A. No. Q. That does not appear to zoned both ways? A. The same piece of 1 -�: d i nor_ zoned with two zoning districts, no. Q. At best these exhibitr- are confus ng; isn't that correct? A. I'm not confused by the f� nxr:ibits. Q. Okay. You also tesr_ifie< that one piece of land can't be part of two PUDs; is that right= A. Again, to define the sam =_ piece of land, that would be, again, your definition of th« same, �_xac'_ -- MR. HAZZARD: Piece of grass? A. -- piece of grass. MR. HAZZARD: Okay. A. It could not be two zoni:lg districts. Q. Well, let's take a look ar Dxhibit 6 so:<<e more then. Mr. Arnold, I -- -MR. HAZZARD: Can you hear :ne all right, Miss Donovan? Q. Mr. Arnold, I direct your attentio :i to this shaded area and ask you to focus on that, i`_ ynu 'aou'id. Do yo• see that shaded section, Mr. Arnold? A. Yes, I do. Q. Please tell the boars: ho.: t?.art land I.s zoned according to the county's own exhibit. A. I'm not really sure. This er.�ibit isn't clear in terms of its zoning district. Q. What does the annotation say that Mr. McDaniel put on there? A. The annotation with an arrow says, Portion Tract A included in both PUD descriptions. MR. HAZZARD: Let me just circ-ilate that to the board i one more time. This section here (indicating), read the language. Miss Deifik and Miss Rawson, thi.:_- shaded area :ier_e (indicating) Can you see how this -- COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Mr. Hazzard. I can't hear you. Can you stand -- , MR. HAZZARD I'm sorry. 1'! oo_nt.ng tc the area and asking whether -- K.S. U=IK: Portion Tract A included in both PUD descriptions, that's what yo'_i're me to notice-? Page 15 16G 1 January 27, 1997 MR. HAZ7—ARD: Yes. Mr. Allen and Ms. Louviere, this was the area Mr. Arnold was referring to (indicating). Anyone else? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, my paralegal who is seated with me informs me that as I was :showing the exhibit to the panel, Inspector Mazzone had some conversation with Mr. Arnold. Is that correct, Mr. Arnold? THE WITNESS: Mr. Mazzone made a comment to me, yes. MR. HAZZARD: Mariam Chairman, I would respectfully request that no one be permitted to converse with a witness while they are giving testimony in this case, and I would hope that that will not occur again. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So noted, Mr. Hazzard. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, what did Inspec.`or Mazzone say to you? A. Mr. Mazzone asked if tha`- were, in fact, what you were showing me was a part of another - -- the other F-UD that abutted this PUD. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, ��,� -i :e�iewed Ozciinance 77 -48, which is County Exhibit 3, and last we-Ine day you testified extensively about it. Do you recall that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Miss McEachern asked yon-: whether Ordinance seven -- 77-48 locates the gatehouse fa.cil-ty in any par`- icular tract, and you answered that it does not; Remember? A. Yes, I recall that. Q. Okay. My question is slightly different. Ordinance 77 -48 does show rrhere the gatehouse facility was supposed to be built, doesn't it? -A.- I would have to rerev: -ew Ordinance 77 -4p before I could give you a specific answer. Q. Okay. Let's get that ordi::ance in front of you, sir. MR. HAZZARD: I'll ask the :ur" reporter to pull out. I believe it's County's Exhibit CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It is, a d it's cn pace 18 in the gray book. MS. DEIFIK: Which i don't ha, CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are we `al' -_i_ng about 77 -48? It's behind Tab 3. MR. HAZZARD: Mr. Arnold, this is the exhibit chat we had some -- a little bit of difficulty with the page numbers on because the pages on the bottom are O.R. book and page, or at least they are in the county's binders. But I would like you to focus your attention on the O.R. Book 7, page 235. A. The copy I'm looking at it doesn't reference it with O.R. book and page numbers, but it does have page numbers in the upper right -hand corner. Is there a corresponding page number? Q. Well, let's see_, I'm relying only on the count.y's exhibit book here for that. I'.., looking at -- I'm looking for the per that describes -- at the top it says Section r, development criteria: one, general; two, the plain; three, dwelling unit distribution. Are you finding that, sir? Page 16 1 bG 1 January 27, 1997 MR. HAZZARD: Page 4. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. It could be the fourt-.h page back possihly. Maybe Miss McEachern could show you another copy that has corresponding page numbers to everyone else's. A. I'll use the copy. It's O.R. Book 7, page two -- Q. 235? A. -- three five, yes. Q. Do you find that, Mr. Arnold? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you see the section, Section No. 2, called the plan? A. Yes. Q. That section describes Exhihi.t A tc the ordinance as the master plan; is that correct_? A. Yes, it does. Q. And do you see that E:r:._. _ _ t: i ma ,e a part of this ordinance? A. Yes. Q. Now, prior to ;ke-_,resda-y did you review Exhibit A to this PITD A. I believe I probahll 1` wa—, the Exhibit A accompanying Ordinance 77­4s3, ' .7 nc t pos t I e . Q. Well, have you al _ since y testimony Wednesday? A. No, I have not. Q. Okay. I don't see that or.dinance attached to the back of -- I mean, sorry, I don't see that exhibit attached to the back of this ordinance anywhere. Do you, Mr. A.rnoid? A. No. It's listed as files, ordinance exhibits. Q. Okay. That's on page 256; correct-, A. Yes. Q. Mr. Arnold, I'll represen'i to yon_. that I viewed Exhibit A to Ordinance 77 -48 Friday alfternoon at t:nree o'clock %,-. the fourth floor of this building in the zierk's office, and that e_ch.ibit shows a gatehouse on the side of thF read and - .nother in the middle of the road just like they appear in the old photograph. Is that your recollection of what that exhin r_ chows? A. No, it's not. Q. What's your recollection r,f_ . ;har_ that exhibit shows, sir? A. I don't have a recollection. because I'm not sure that I viewed the same exhibit that. you're refer. ring to. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman -- Madam Chairman, if it would facilitate Mr. Hazzard, we ?.o have the original master plan that they brought down from the fourth floor, -ncl then we also have a certified copy here of the origin 1, ,T,aater L. -lan which they've asked that we actually enter in -o f - alas go ?:. CQ w a i t Cil.l mice, but if he would like t.o have or. igina? for ! -he 'zoard to see MR. HAZZAPD: I'd vary much, '.ikv ?.ai., Madam Chai..-man. Page 17 1 6G 1 January 27, 1997 My next -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Fine. MR. HAZZARD: -- question to you was going to be to figure out a way to get that thing down here from upstairs. The county attorney's office has (jcn(. so. That's very helpful. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If the county attorney's -- they're willing to give it to you now, it= will certainly save us all a lot of time. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, I'm showing you a document. Typed at the top of it reads Exhibit A to Ordinance ?7--45, and then on the -- the document itself it appears to 3a 1_xh4bi_t A, Lely Barefoot Beach Master Plan. Mr. Arnold, I' n qo;. ^, to <tsk •you if you have previously, prior to your testimony on Wecine; day, reviewed this Exhibit A to the ordinance. A. I think I would have no, because i haven't reviewed this from the clerk': o:.`i: l' ✓n sr:en copies of similar plans in the files that we `:a•.,F rent set ✓icea complex. Q. I understand. In fac' , Ar nnlu?, Ex-hibit A to Ordinance 77 -48 demonstrates .hal� a freestanding guardhouse in the middle of :,el, _ac;. r ule:ard was part of the approved PUD for Lely Bar ef0o` _ a._.., doesn't it, sir? A. I think my answer wo li ha.F_ to be I'm not sure. Maybe if you could point me to the location you're referring to, I don't see an obvious structure in r_he of the road. Q. Certainly. Do yo:. =< ti:a~ -- what appears to be a median strip and a blue _._ uc`..r'_ `hat -- similar to the blue structures that are shown c n --h of . ;ie read? Do you see where there appears to be the 'gate .cu se' there and another word that appears to be "gatehouse" here MS. McEACHERN: Madan: Chai_, ^a:: -- strike. A. I -- Q. Mr. -- Mr. Arnold, do you see -- a shaded structure in the median strip in the middle ­)f -el.y Beach Boulevard in the approximate location of the o c: ey:ouse that counsel's been calling a kiosk that's in the picture -; -:3 t. "Ex "D A. I -- I do see a shaded aria, bl,.,t l - must say, I'm not absolutely positive and coui. -] t tel1 you for a fact that that is a gatehouse structure sitt " -nq there. Q. Do you see the words, appear to be the words 'gatehouse" next to that struc A. I see the words " gatehouse" wri`_ten across the area that_ would encompass the road. Q. And do you see the words "gatehouse" again written below that in the area that's next to the -- what appear to be the structures on the side of the road? A. I see the second area that-'s south of Lely Beach Boulevard at the entrance tc one -)f the -- the beachfront unit streets_ Again, neither desi.gnatior. i. what I would consider to be exactly on Tract A. Q. That's the point. One of them is exactly in the middle Page 18 16G 1 January 27, 1997 of the road, isn't it, sir? A. Actually, one would appear tc be more -- actually, they both encroach into Tract R, which would be +she road tract. Q. Yes, sir. Let me circulate that to `he board. MR. KOWALSKI: Madam Chairman, for purposes of the record, I would -- would inquire whether the board feels that this is a portion of County Exhibit 3 that was not included, and is it now part of the record? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's not been introduced into evidence unless it is a part of Exhibit 3, because it is obviously Exhibit A that was attaches; to Ordinance 77 -48. Are we going to stipulate and agree that that's a part of Exhibit 3, or do we need to reenter this? MR. HAZZARD: I believe that's up to the county, Madam Chairman. I think it's Exhibit A to Ordinance 77 -48, and it should be a part of our record that was omitted previously. MS. McEACHERN: And the county so agrees and stipulates. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Then beca.1se it is Appendix A attached to Exhibit 3, which has already been introduced into evidence, the board can look at it. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I represent to the board that this is now a 20- year -old document. It's a little bit yellowed, and it's a blueprint -type document, may be -difficult to read, but I'll try to show it to each of you and point out to you what I was pointing out to Mr. Arnold. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And, of coarse, this should be included with the records with 'he court reporter. MR. HAZZARD: Right. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, again, the clerk's office asked if we can enter this certified copy into evidence instead of that original because they need to Peep in for rheir own records. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's fine. then? MS. McEACHERN: So may I give this no _he court reporter CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. HAZZARD: Mr. McCormick and :fir. Laforet at this end and Miss Deifik, you probably will nun be able to see the structures I'm talking about, but what I'm painting out is these shaded buildings here on the side of the road which appear to match the building in the photograph on the side of the road and this shaded structure in the median strip, which appears -- MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I object. It appears that Mr. Hazzard is testifying, and if he wants to show that exhibit,' that's fine. But I think i'_'s highly inappropriate for him to actually testify and explain that drawing. If he wants to use a witness for that, he may. MR. HAZZARD: Well, Madam Chairman, I'm mere -- I'm merely trying to show the members of the panel what they could not see when Mr. Arnold was testifying about it, and I was simply going to point out the words "gatehouse" here and "gatehouse" there. MS. McEACHERN: He can -- Madam Chairman, I don't -- Page 19 16G 1 January 27, 1997 they can read for themselves and decipher what they see. He doesn't need to tell them. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Wc11, he can point things out. There's not a problem with that. `We understand that everything he says is, you know, an attorney talkirig. MS. DEIFIK: I resent that. MP,. HAZZARD: And I ar)Dreciate all the compliments contained in that comment, Madam Cha i rrnan . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: A-nd it'a not evidence. MR. HAZZARD: Have you had the opportunity to see this? MR. LAFORET: Yeah. MR. HAZZARD: Miss Deifik, did you have an opportunity to see what we're talking about? MS. DEIFIK: Yes. MR. HAZZARD: Miss Rawson and Miss Louviere, I'd simply point out to you, here's Bonita Beach Road (indicating). Here's Lely Beach Boulevard (indicating). These shaded areas match or appear to match the picture, Exhibit 15 for the county. MS. McEACHERN: Again, Madam, 7hai=,an, I strongly object. He is drawing co ^clusions For this board, and that is not his job. MS. DEIFIK: We -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I understand your objection. He can point out whatever he -nts to oo'rt oiit with his pencil, and we'll draw our own conclusions. MS. McEACHERN: We have no ohiect.ion r_o him pointing. It is what he is saying. MS. DEIFIK: We're - we'rc all prf�tty independent- minded people. MS. McEACHERN: Oh, I MR. HAZZARD: This -- MS. LOWIERE: Not me. MS. DEIFIK: Except Mirey.a, she's a pushover. NIR. HAZZARD: This itF., iri `he middle ( indicating) and you see the word what appears to he "gatehouse" there and a second word, "gatehouse" there (indicating). CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Pass it down. MR. HAZZARD: Pass it do,�.-r to Mr. MS. DEIFIK: Where is words? MS. LOWIERE: There are words? Somebody's phone is ringing. MR. HAZZARD: Mr. Allen, what we're talking about is this structure there on the side of the road (indicating) and the word "gatehouse", the structure in the median strip and the word "gatehouse" next to that. MS. LOUVIERE: Before you continue with this line of question, could I just ask a quick question of Wayne? I -- I am not an attorney, and a lot of attorneys are sitting here, and they have pointed several things to me as we go along that we -- the way we should do things. I do planning and zoning for Johnson Engineering, and I've been doing it for seven years, and Wayne also is a planner. Page 20 16G 1 January 27, 1997 So what -- when we are talking about master plans that -- that go with ordinances, what are they really? Are they not more than bubble plans, which is very conceptional? Rubhle plans are very conceptional in nature. In my bubble plans Z p-,)t -- I put people- an(: I put boats, and they're not there. That':, ah, I keep going b_.r_k to the ordinance and the plat. That's when you really get ir:to what `race is to be used for what use. It's ver, difficult. to look a +: a bubble plan, which is what we just looked at, and say that tha- is what's supposed to be there. MR. HAZZARD: I understand. MS. LOUVIERE: They're pretty ,pictures that a planner_ paints to sell the client and the zoning. Dc you understand what I'm saying? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, I do, need you t0 understand this Very 1, :i�)O`'..? l'_ Fi 1n =. ii: tClis case it is a part of the County Ordinance 77 -48 a ;;pro sec. i y _-uunty co msni ssion, and it demonstrates a gatehouse in th-_ :raid 11e. of t };e road in 1977. MS. LOUVIERE: Those buhbie t,larn :: -- :11 bubble plans become part of the ordinance i .a t --hey acc ,mpany . MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, again, Mr. Hazzard's not under oath. He's not testifying, an, he's making conclusions. And I thought the question was being directed to the witness, and may the witness answer that question, and then not !�r. Hazzard? MR. HAZZARD: I'm not sure `t was a ,yes =ion. I think it was a statement. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I thin'.; Miss Lot_iv_ere.'s Taking a statement, and you know, I appreciat? the expertise of all the board members, you know, since I am an attorney and not. a planner, and I dcm't understand these things eitt;er. . i app:-ec iate her comments. And if she has a question, she'll direct it to the witness, not the attorney. Anything else? MS. LOWIERE: No. I just wanted: to -- to clarify that because it's very confusing when yol_;'re looking at these bubble plans. It makes you think that this is w'::at's really tht:re, but not until you actually get a survey and then get into actual site development plan and actually get a plat and actually start to see what -- how much land you have there anJ -,what you can actually fit there, master plans are nothing more t:n n pretty pictures on the wall to tell the client this is what we conceptually see happening there, and that's important to remember. MR. HAZZARD: And respectfully, Miss Louviere, the other thing that this master plan does is tell the board of county commissioners what is -- MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairinan, he's testifying. MS. LOWIERE: Yes, he's doing it again. MS. McEACHERN: He's testifying. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. MR. HAZZARD: Miss Louviere, I assume we'll have some opportunity to talk about this at length at the close, but I just want to point out to you the importance of this locums -nent being part of the ordinance. Page 21 16G 1 January 27, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's get back, to asking questions MR. HAZZARD: Sure. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- of Mr. Arnold. MR. HAZZARD: Sure, absolutely. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, isn't it true that Collier County Building Permit No. 79 -0965 authorized construction of the building on the side of the road in the old photograph, anattached garages, and an unattached guardhouse in the middle of the read at an estimated cost of $209,000? A. I haven't reviewed that ex- ibni t if my aSsUIr,ptiOP. 1S correct that it is an exhibit. of recc;rd, : _` >_hose are statements of fact, then I will accept those :s 'jct. Q. Well, Mr. Arnold, it-'s .c _ :gin er.1- t.at yet. But, sir, in your preparing to testify, dig? y. ^,.� s inc �z �,uii� ling permit for the structure on the right -hard s�_�'.e ,`_ ,he . -c�,�d in Tact t•? A. My recollection, - �,- _e Q. Did you look for A. No, I did not. Q. Mr. Arnold, I'm going to shore yo,_i a document that I was able to retrieve from the county,s microi:i -he files on Friday afternoon and ask you to review i•- for a second, please. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chair -man, I have an oh-ection that there's no foundation for Mr. Arnold as a planner to review a building permit. And if Mr. Hazzard wants to set that founda fine. tion, that is MR. HAZZARD: Sure. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON. Weil, t ink that probably the proper way to do this is, whe ~her you're going to introduce it into evidence or not, if you're goi '_o a, the witness about it, at least have it marked for identificat.ic-, and see if he can identify it, and then if you want to mo•;e i_ in'_o evidence, we'll deal with that at the time. But wh*/ court reporter at least mark it for identification Fr:ow what we're talking about. MR. HAZZARD: I believe wr2 d be up to 3 on the respondent's side if we mark i~ r identification purposes. (Respondent's Exhibit No. was marred for identification.) BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, I've handed you a document that's been marked for identification purposes as Respondent's 3. The heading of* it is "Application for Building Permit." Do you recognize the signature or the name at the bottom of that document below the words, this is a true copy of the original document? A. Yes, I do. Q. What's that name there, sir? A. In their own writing style it appears to be the records room clerk, Sonia Grafton's (phonetic) signature. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, in yol.�r normal course of business, Page 22 16G 1 January 27, 1997 would you rely on a document_ ,uc;x as this signed by Mis� Grafton as an official county document? A. I would rely on it as an Of f is iai copy. Q. Okay. A. Yeah. Q. An official copy of the original r.hat is in Miss Grafton's possession? A. That's correct. Q. And -- and I'll just represent to you, sir, that the original actually is on microfiche due to the age of this. Does that sound familiar to the county's way of doing things? A. Yes, it does. MR. HAZZARD: At this time, Madam Chairman, I'd like to move into evidence what's been marked for identification purposes as Respondent's 3. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you. have a copy of it? MS. McEACHERN: I do, and we have no objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It will he introduced without objection. MR. HAZ ZARD : Sorry abo u t ti h a t. MS. DEIFIK: That's okay. I 'Know who 1 am. MR. HAZZARD: Mr. McCorTnick. Madam -' -.air -man, I should tell you -- represent to the board that ;'vc> only copied the pages that apply to the structures that we see in the picture, county's -- the photograph, County's Exhibit 15. ':here are other pieces of this which would apply to some other structures also built on the Tract A, and I -- and I don't mean to hold those from the board. It's simply that in the interest of COS-_ and time and things on the other day, I only-copied the ones that I plan,zed to ask Mr. Arnold about. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Hazzard, w.i- dust want to be sure that we're clear on the numbering. 1'_. `his No. 3, because everything in your black book came under No. l? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, ma'am, and '_:e -- and the appendix with the surveys in it was No. so I've tried to refer to Exhibit 1, Tab 12, for example. MS. DEIFIK: I -- okay. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, now directing your attention to what's been entered as Exhibit 3, does that appear to be a Building Permit No. 79 -0965 issued by Collier County in March of 1979, sir? A. Yes, it does. Q. Mr. Arnold, if you would turn back to the second page, I would call what appears there a -- a schematic, but I'm not a planner. What -- is that what a fair word is for that, what appears to be a drawing on the second page? A. My exhibit is labeled "Site Plan." Q. Site plan? A. (Witness nodded head.) Q. And does the site plan show where the -- where the buildings that you're applying for a permit for are going to go? A. It may show all or a portion of it. Page 23 16G I January 27, 1997 Q. Okay. And, Mr. Arnold, if you would turn to the third page, the folks, Miss -- Miss Grafton was kind enough to give us a blowup of the second page off of the microfiche again. Can you see the building labeled a two-story gatehouse appears on the side of the road, and a building, guardhouse, in the center median strip, sir -- A. Yes, sir. Q. And if you also see -- do you see a notation in parenthesis below the guardhouse label. in the center that says see Sheet A -7? A. Yes. Q. If you turn to the four-t', page, you'll see Sheet A -7 . Does that structure bear a striking resemblance to the -- what's been referred to as the kiosk in the center of Lely Beach Boulevard in the old photograph, sir? A. I don't know if I could characterize it as a striking resemblance, but it does appear tc :oc' referring to a guardhouse structure on sheet A -7. bas-1 w;�at yo•.i've seen here on Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold. ba this building permit application -.a- as -- and actually a permit -,-)a- was apparently was issued on March r_r. 2nr, of 1979. Does it appear to r - -� construction of a guardhouse in you as though Collier Count,,, apr the center of Lely Beach Boulevr-1 - A. I don't think I can s,1-1,i '.hat conclusively, no. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold. qi,,n tha fact that the PUD in 1977 has a picture that appears .0 de-,_ct a g'_.:ardhouse in the center of the road and given the fact treat t,;o years later such a structure was built pursuant to a building per, -,it, would you agree with me that having a guardhouse structure in the center of. Lely Beach Boulevard is allowed under the Lely Barefoot: Bc-: c' °' %D? A. No. Q. I didn't think so, but Est, fig..red I'd ask, sir. MR. LAFORET: I'd like t:� as:: co�nsF�l a question. MR. 'r�A'L ZARD : Ask me a q: e s t ion , yes, sir . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: well, I ti.in- -- you car, ask him maybe about procedure, something. b.:t 'or.' ` ask him to t�,stify, please. He can't testify. ` y,.0 '.�ave s question about the application, Mr. Laforet, pieaF .;S = �,rect .t tc Mr. Arnold. MR. LAFORET: All right. '.•`.r . Arno.,ci. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. LAFORET: In viewing '.his second sheet, at the present time is the road in frcn. cf that twc -story gatehouse -- is it actually 60 foot wide? -Ls it actually a (dual-lane highway with an island in the middle? THE WITNESS: It certainly ?pp =ars -o be from the drawing. M.R. LAFORET: Well, I see -e dra•,� =ng, but I asked you is it actually. THE WITNESS: Today or at the time of the permit? I don't think I can answer that. MR. HAZZARD- Mr. Laforet, does an examination of the picture answer your question, sir? Page 24 16G 1 January 27, 1997 MR. LAFORET: Yes, sir, thank you. MR. HAZZARD: Would anyone else like to see the photograph to understand the answer to Mr. Laforet's question? (No response) BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. isn't it true, Mr. Arnold, that the language added to the PUD in 1985 allowing portions of the security gatehouse facility to extend into and over the Lely i3each Boulevard right -of -way merely confirmed that a freestanding guar - arouse, like the one already there, was still allowed? A. No, I wouldn't agree '.hat staternent. Q. Mr. Arnold, after what been through this morning so far, are you still claiming guardho�-,se sits on land zoned agricultural with a special in spite of what we've seen on the county exhibits? A. For clarification, thi:i g.ardho-_.se structure? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, Mr. Arnold, Lely Boulevard itself was built right through what you claim was ar:,,ric,,, -iltural special treatment land; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that road is a pri•:ate road na: belongs to my client, the Lely Barefoot Beac:`, property '-,mers' Association. Is that your understanding, sir? A. I must claim I'm not posi' e who the ownership currently is held by for that road. Q. Well, Mr. Arnold, is it yo.:r understanding that the county would be bringing code enforcement procedures against a party to remove a structure that's on .ar:d it: does not own z? A. 'Typically wouldn't be .he ease. Q. I would hope not. Cer` iniy if that road •pert. o4m ed by Collier County and someone boil st:ucture in the middle of it, Collier County wouldn't nee(-? t:ie code enforcement process to remove it, wo•,.ld MS. McEACHERN : Ob jl e r_ i ,, , " : , _.., Chairmnan. Mr. Arnold is director of planning. He':> `- _a part of the code enforcement staff, and therefore, this is r.•F�v rid his area of e>cpertise -- CHAIRPERSON RAWS014: �1e.'.l, } can -- : ~e car. tell us -- MS. McF.ACHERN: -- to spec:_,_` as to what code enforcement would do. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. understand. But he can answer the question if ne can. BY M.R. HAZZARD: Q. Can you answer that r-p:estion, Mr. Arnold? A. I don't know the answer to the cniestion. Q. Okay. Well, Mr. Arnold, in your review of this entire situation, can you tell me whether the road that goes through the agricultural special treatment land that you claim it's zoned, whether that ever went through the sensitive treatment review process you claim the guardhouse should have gone through? Page 25 j 6G 1 I January 27, 1997 A. I don't know the answer to that. Q. Mr. Arnold, the county, as far as you know, is not advocating removal of that road from the agricultural special treatment land, is it? A. To my knowledge, they're not. Q. That would prevent thousands of people each day to get to the public beach at the end of that road, wculdn't it? A. It certainly would. Q. Mr. Arnold, roads are allowed on lands zoned agricultural, aren't they? A. Yes, they are. Q. And a privately owned road on private agricultural land is also allowed; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Arnold, would a quar_(,';ou.se or. private road on agricultural land be a use allowed ,ry reasonable implication under Section 2.1.15 of the Land Develo,) nt Code in your expert opinion? A. I'd have to refresh myself wit,, that particular section, but I guess I -- my answer mould i -- I wouldn't probably review just that section alone to make r_hat determination. Q. Okay, sir. We'll look at that section, perhaps, later on in the day. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, what -- what time does the board want to take a break-, I may be at a good stopping point if we'd want to take five. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's only take five. Here's the plan for the day. We'll take a five - minute break now. we're going to recess for lunch at 11:30 bQCause We're going to change court reporters, and we'll come hack at: 12:30, quarter of one. We're going to go to two o'clock, and that's it. So we'll take five. MR. HAZZARD: Okay, thank vo,:. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Our -- is everybody rea-?y to go back on the record? we'll go back on the record. Mr. Hazzard, continue. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you, Mad.a.T Chairman. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, by virtue of your position in Collier County, you are familiar with the permit process, are you not, sir? A. Generally I am, yep;. Q. Mr. Arnold, as part of a re-,.­ e e �f ar. application for a building permit, is the zoniru to see that the property in question supports what's to be wilt .acre? A. Today I know it is. i not sure what, the procedure might have been in 1979. Q. Okay, sir. And how abou_,_ , 1938 when the current guardhouse was built; do you knew what the procedure was then, sir? A. I do not. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, in the documents that we have seen, I believe it's County Exhibit 7, the 14 -page document that is the building permit application for the current guardhouse, there's been Page 26 I bG 1 January 27, 1997 testimony that that document, one of the pages, at least, maybe more, contains an annotation "Zoning Passed." And, in fact, you yourself testified about that. Do you recall that_, sir? A. I don't recall the specific testimony, but I recall us discussing that. Q. Mr. Arnold, given that !:here's a document in the packet from 1988 that says zoning passed, would it be your belief that zoning was checked and it passed? A. Can you refresh my memory? Was that on the application COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Was that on what? A. Was that on the application, or was that on one of the inspection records? Q. Well, let's look at the -- let's look at the document, then, and get it in front of yoi., sl'r. MR. HAZZARD: Why don't we -.c)ve n: , -)ut o`_ the way for now. Q. Mr. Arnold, I'll give you a -ro^•.ent or two to familiarize yourself with that multipaged documen,, --)Kay? Mr. Arnold, have you had an oppor- -unity to familiarize yourself with that multipaged d en r. agair:, Sirs A. Yes, I have. Q. And, Mr. Arnold, if you would turn to the -- the yellow sheet. MR. HAZZARD: Members of the panel, that is in the Respondent's Exhibit 1 behin 'rah ;, it's '.he second page. Q. Mr. Arnold, do you - ee tta +_ l o ; sheet? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you see in that yellow annotation "Received March 8, '88, p planning, slash, z non <;, sor,F sort of a stain ? A. I -- I'm sorry. Could ;ou Q. Yes. Do you see some s1 rt a 7i (311 on that yellow sheet that says -- A. Oh, yes. Q. -- received March 8, '88, T)Ianning, slash, zoning? A. Yes, sir. Q. Ard as you look down that yei.iow sheet, do you see just below the line something that says zon:�na, preliminar1 approval? A. Yes, I do. Q. And do you see land zoned an-3 a designation, PUD? A. Yes. Q. And do you see proposed use, guardhouse? A. Yes. Q. Do you see approved by NR? A. Yes. Q. And date 3- 14 -88? A. Yes, I do. Q. And this is the document, :Ir. Arnold, that has the yellow sticky stapled to it, please, please, please do this, return to zoning. Mr. Arnold, based on your knowledge of the system, the way it Page 27 16G 1 January 27, 1997 works in Collier County, does this indicate to you that the guardhouse went through some type of a zoning review prior to the permit being issued for it? A. It would appear so. Q. And given that, Mr. Arnold, can you reasonably conclude, based on your background, that it must have passed the zoning review process given that a permit was issued for it, sir? A. And, again, I guess the answer is, yes, with whatever reasonable assurance I might have in 1988 of procedure, it would appear that it did go through that review process. Aral, again, I'm not sure exactly what was included with the permit application that was reviewed. But, again, it would appear that at least on the yellow sheet that somebody from zoning approved it. Q. And, Mr. Arnold, in ford . ^.g your expert testimony that you gave this past Wednesday, did you speak wi h anyone yourself in zoning who had any tonne Lion. wi`h is:uir:: thi qi ardhouse permit A. No, I did not. MR. HAZZARD: I'll �axc `ha.r i ai :x f 7, ,,cu 3r::] ;ive it to the custodian now. I.R. ALLEN. Could I see '_ha" Xr. '- azzard. MR. HAZZARD: Absolutely. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, at this point I'd like to go back and look at the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD Ordinance that's behind Tab 12 in the Respondent's Exhibit 1. I'm going to get it i.n front of you, sir. Do you have it there, Mr. Arnold? A. Which ordinance number? Q. Well, let me just check. Mr. Arnold, in front of you you have an Ordinance 85 --83, and I've opener it to page labeled 'Project Plan and Land Use Tracts.' MR. HAZZARD: For members of the panel, that is Section 2.3. The page number on the bottom of it is page 4, although you have to get through several pages before you get to page 1 in the exhibit in order to find it. Mr. Arnold, if I can just borrow that from you so that I can show the panel me:nbers . You're looking fc.,r this page in the document (indicating). MS. LOUVIERE: Did you say Section 2.31 MR. HAZZARD: Yes, ma'am ;, project and land use tracts. MS. LOUVIERE: Project and !and use tracts. MR. HAZZARD: That's the page= I'm going to be asking Mr. Arnold to look at. BY MP.. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, just so that we'rF al] on the same page, you have open in front of you the parse -- the top of it says 2.3 project plan and land use tracts? A. Yes, I do. Q. Mr. Arnold, what's your understanding of what is going on, if you will, in this section of the PUD ordinance? A. This section of the PUD, which is typical of raost PUDs, identifies the different tracts of land, their approximate acreages, and what generally is to be in each of those tracts of land -- Page 28 1 bG 1 January 27, 1997 Q. Okay. A. -- in terms of land use. Q. Mr. Arnold, do you see the firsc item entered says platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1, etc.? A. Yes. Q. Designates some acreage for that. Do you agree with me, sir, that that area is part of the Lely Barefoot Beach =L ? A. It would certainly be my assumption that it is. Q. Okay. And how about the second item, platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1, Tract A, gatehouse complex site? Same question: Is that part of the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, sir? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to ask you the same thing for 3, 4, and 5. Would your answer be any different for either of those, sir? A. No. Q. They would be all part of the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD? A. Yes, Sr. i Q. Mr. Arnold, there's been some discussion concerning the plat for Lely Barefoot Beach, and there are five references here on this page within the PUD ordinance to the plat; correct? Actually, there are six. A. I -- I was just going to say, I actually think I see more than five. Q. Item No. 6 references the area South of platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1; correct? A. Yes, it does. Q. Now, Mr. Arnold, you have reviewed the plat for Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1, ha-7en't you, sir? A.- I have previously. It has been a while since I reviewed that document. Q. Did you rely on that document in giving your expert testimony in this case? A. In part, yes. _ Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, is there any part of the -e- Q. Barefoot Beach platted Unit No. y that Is not included in this PUD ordinance, sir? A. I may have to ask you to repeat that. I'm not sure I understood exact -- Q. Yes, sir. Is there any part of the plat of Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1 that is not included within this PUD ordinance, sir? A. Yes. Q. And what part is that? A. Any portion of the plat of record lying outside the PUD boundary. Q. Mr. Arnold, if I. represented to you that in order -- if you'd focus your attention on Item No. 5, the platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1 road right -of -way. If I were to represent to you that in order to get 5.37 acres of road, the PUD would need to reach Bonita Beach Road, Have you done any calculations yourself that would enable you to dispute that? Page 29 16G 1 Januar -y 27, 1997 A. No, I haven't. Q. I .rant to show it, display it to you graphically, sir. MR. F .ZZARD: And for members of the panel, it's behind Tab 14 in your book. BY KR. HA Z Z ARD : Q. Mr. Arnold, since you don't have a book, I'm going to present you with a blownup version of what's in the book, and we'll share this with the panel as well. Mr. Arnold, this is a representation of 60 -foot of Lely Baref_ ,)ot Beach Unit No. 1, and the shaded area is 5.3? acres. Can you see that on this document that's in evidence? A. Yes, I do. Q. Can you see the notation on r_his document, area of this easement south of the disputed line, 4.87 acres? A. I see that. MR. HAZZARD: You each have _,. s in front of you, so I assume you don't need the large version. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, just so that I'm sure, yo,,_1 did no calculation yourself on where this x.37 acres of platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1 road right -of -way wouid be; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, you also tesr_ified that if it's on this page, project plan and land use tracts, it is part of the PUD; is that correct, sir? A. I don't think I used that exact wording, but the purpose of this is to establish the land use tracts within the PUD. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Arnold, if I put an engineer on the sta.ild-later in these proceedings who explains that you cannot get 5.37 acres of Lely Barefoot Beach right -of -way unless the road and the PUD, of course, runs all the way to Bonita Beach Road, unless you count that land, you wouldn't have any basis to dispute that, would you, sir? A. No, sir. Q. Now, Mr. Arnold, you also gave your expert opinion that all of the violations of the Land Development Code that Mr. Mazzone cited my clients for violating were valid, except as I recall, it may be one that you were a little less sure of. Is that -- is that fair? A. I think I was generally in agreement to what -- Mr. Mazzone and his testimony. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, in your expert opinion, can you identify for this board what specifically did the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Incorporated, do to violate any of the ordinance -- ordinances that that entity has been cited with violating? A. Off the top of my head, I don't think I could recite those to you. Q. There was some discussion on Wednesday about the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association being named as a violator in this suit. cut of courtesy. Were you here for that? A. 21o, Z was not presen^ . Q. Okay. Then I won't ask you any questions about that Page 30 16 G ---, I � January 27, 1997 one. By the way, Mr. Arnold, did you know that the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association was not even formed yet when the guardhouse was built in 1988? A. I have no knowledge of that_. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, are you familiar with Section 1.23.1 of the Land Development Code? A. If I could reference that section if you're going to be asking questions, I would appreciate it. Q. Sure. I'm going to try to put a copy of it in your hand, sir. MS. McEACHERN: I can give him the official book. Why don't we just give him the boor. MR. HAZZARD: You want to give him the book? That's fine. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Will you tell us where the board can find that very quickly so we can follow? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I'm not -- I'm not certain that it's in any of the board's packets at this point. It's part of the Collier County Land Development Code than I think Mr. Arnold is quite familiar with. A. The section reference again was Q. 1.23.1. Have you found Chat section, Mr. Arnold? A. Yes. Yes, I have. Q. Would you -- it's -- it's just one sentence. Would you read it for us, sir. A. Section 1.23.1, effective date, the provisions of this code shall be effective on and after the 13th day of November, 1991. -Q.- air. Arnold, would you agree with me that Section 1.23.1 says that the provisions of the Nand Development_ Code my clients are charged with violating became effective on and ,after November 13, 1991? A. No. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, let me ask you to utilize your expertise as a land planner, and I'm going to ask you a hypothetical question. If you had been hired by Lely Development Company in 1988 to help get the guardhouse we've teen talking about built, how would you have gotten your hands on a copy of the 1991 Land Development Code to make sure that Lely didn't violate any of the provisions of this code? A. Obviously the 1991 code would not have been in existence, but under general provisions of the county's Land Development Code it adopted the prior zoning codes and was referencing those prior_ codes. Q. Isn't_ it true, Mr. Arnold, that my clients could not possibly have violated any portion of the 1991 Land Development Code by anything that went on in 19887 A. No, sir. I disagree with that. Q. So it's your understanding, sir, that in this country you can pass a law in 1991 that makes illegal, if you will, something that went on in 1988? Page 31 16G 1 January 27, 1997 MS. Mc_EACHERN: Madam Chairman, the county objects. It's argumentative. The question, has been asked and answered, and Mr. Arnold has testified that the 91 -- that Ordinance No. 91 -102 adopted the previous ordinance laws in effect_, and so it's been answered, and he's mischaracter.izing Mr. Arnold's testimony. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well I think the question he's asking is a. little different from the first, but I don't know that he's been established as a legal ex�,ert; so I don't- think, you can ask him questions of law. BY MR. HAZ ZA.RD : Q- Mr. Arnold -- CFiAIRPERSON RAWSON: Which I think is what you're doing. MR. HAZZARD: Sure. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, what I'll ask you then is this, sir. Is it your understanding -- given your 11a;_,,'7 .liarity with county government and your position in planning, is it yo,ar understanding that the county can charge my clients with having violated the 1991 Land Development Code based on what was done in 1988? A. Yes, sir. MR. HAZZARD: I don't have any furr_her qlsestions for Mr. Arnold. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: County? REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Arnold, starting with the last bit of your cross - examination, would you consider the violation, charged a continuing violation? A. I'm sorry. I don't think I understand. lam.. HAZZARD: Madam, Chairman, i,ust for the record I think we've had five violations charged. counsel is speaking of. I'd like tc kiZOw which one MS. McEACHERN: All five. BY MS. HcEACHERN: Q. Would you consider the violations that the respondents have been charged with to be a conti_n.ing violation? And by that, I mean it -- it -- whatever existed in 1988 when the guardhouse was built continues on into today and, therefore, it can be a violation today as well? A. Yes, I would agree with than. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, I'd like to turn your attention to Ordinance No. 77 -48. And I think you have my official record book page number, but I'm looking at Article 9, which in my copy is about four -- the fourth page to the last_ of the ordinance. A. what is the title of that section? Q. It says Article Roman Numeral 9, and then it says Section 5, and the actual title is 'Private Streets and Related Facilities.- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's on page 253 in our book under book 007. THE WITNESS: I have that. Page 32 16G 1 January 27, 1997 BY MS. MCEACHERN: Q. Okay. I'm going to read a portion of this. The intent of the Lely Barefoot Beach developer is to develop a system of private streets owned and maintained by a property owners' association. Uncertainties regarding ownership and development objectives of land to the south of Lely Barefoot Beach and uncertainties with respect to whether and to what extent the north /south Lely Barefoot Beach access road will furnish access to the land to the south may necessitate future determination that the principal north /south access road be public rather than private. Prior to Lely Barefoot Beach record plat approval, thEi county commission shall review the o,,,rnership and access recplirements of lands to the south of Lely Barefoot Beach and make a determination of whether the main north /south road rr,ay be t,r� gate ,r must be platted as a public street. Mr. Arnold, do you consider Tract R, Lely Beach Boulevard, a public road? A. If I were to only review thG p:.a, Of record, would say that it is a private road, but there is a public access easement that's been recorded over that Tract R. Q. Now, this ordinance is 77 -48; So it is the ordinance that was adopted in 1977. And we know at that time that the state already owned or held an access -- or excuse me, an easement right over what became the north /south access road or Tract R? MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam Chairman. There has been no testimony whatsoever about any easement that the state might own. MS. McEACHERN: Well, I believe that Mr. Bryant said that in his opening. MR. HAZZARD: Well. Well, as we've discussed many times, that isn't -- that isn't ev, dence in this case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well -- MS. McF,ACHERN: His statements have been used as evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Here's what we're going to do, because both attorneys are test`*_"ying all day today, and so apparently Mr. Bryant did too. Why don't you ask him a hypothetical there's something that's not in evidence. question if MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, for the record I think You've instructed us on many occasions that what the attorneys say is not testimony. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MS. McEACHERN: I -- i'li strike that question. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Okay. Mme. Arnold, I'm continuing on with the paragraph of Article 9 in Ordinance No. 77 -48. It continues to say, Regardless of whether public or private minimum development standards for the north /south access road through Lely Barefoot Beach shall be required by the: Coll -- Collier County subdivision regulations as modified by the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD Master Plan and the PUD document. Xr. Arnold, on the PUD master plan that was attached to 77 -48, did it show the north /south access road? Page 33 16G- ,, 1� January 27, 1997 A. Yes, it did. MS. McEACTIERN: And I'm going to show Hr. Arnold the -- that original master plan. Q. Mr. Arnold, does that or.icinal master plan attached to the Ordinance No. 77 -48 show the north boun -- the north boundary line of the PvD? A. Yes, it does. Q. And how is that i,adicar_ed on ttere? A. it appears to be a se ;Yi =:s of 601c_1 dashed lines indicating zoning boundary line on there. Q. Nora, you stated earl if-2r ilcr'_'_%; south access road is also shown on the -- the master plan; ccrrc.ct.? A. Yes. Q. ices that master plan ssio,r r,,r 7_ or that road that later became Tract R outside the_ PT;D "? A. Yes, it does. Q. Doers it show Tract C on that 7:4as`er plan? A. if it does, I !on,,. see it. Q. Okay. floes -- .i::t. 2t doer shfir: tIlf- gacehoilse facility off the side of the road; c:orrect? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And was your cross - examination that you cann-Dt agree with 741x. Hazzard that it shows the kiosk in the middle of the road? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, I would like you to assume that the master plan hypothetically does show the kiosk in the middle of the road. And for further illustration we c: 16G 1 January 27, 1997 Q. Okay. But you would agree that in the body of that ordinance it does state that in -- I think it's Section Roman Numeral 4 for Tract A, that that is the location of the gatehouse complex facility; correct? A. Yes, I would agree with that. Q. Okay. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, just -- just so that I'm sure I'm on the same page, is that in the book -- are we on the O.R. Book 22, page 472? MS. MCEACHERN: (Nodded head.) MR. H.A.Z ZARD : Yes? MS. McEACHERN : Yes, that ' s COURT REPORTER: What? m sorry, I can't hear you. MS. McEACHERN: Yes, that ,s '`he plan. MR. HAZZARD: Thank -- thank_ .l nu , Coun3e i . MS . Mr_ FACHERN : Okay. C_ -, , y -, v r e ,3 d L-,a c k n-P l a s t Question? (The requested portion of the o ,: was re,-,(3.y BY MS. Mc EACHERk7 : Q. Mr. Arnold, now going to the ,%wstpr_ ; >lan attached at the end of that particular ';;.::once, doors it sho.,; the kiosk or the guardhouse, as Mr. Hazzard refers '-o it; in the middle of the road? A. No. Q. Mir . Arnold, going t:o r aragrap., 4 . 3 Ordinance No. 85 -83, this is the paragraph dealing with the minimum setbacks, and subparagraph A states, Lei, Beac): a.culevard, none. Ar.�j it states that. portions of the security gvt ho.._ Facility may extend over and into Lely Beach Boulevard r ignt - -D f - ,Va -J . Now, you testified previously *that a portico, of the gatehouse facility that's in Tr a,.` A, _ts roof o-jerhangs into Lel.y Beach Boulevard. And you t e s t i f ear'ier that -- t1-:ar- that particular language could refer 1ha,_ roof overhang; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You also testified pre-.,icusly that you, in your opinion, did not believe that the ' -,'osk that was in the middle of the road was not a portion -- or was not, in your mind, what the ordinance was referring to when it stated th�)t portions of the gatehouse facility may extend over and into the road; is that correct? A. Correct. I didn't see that as an extension of the other facility. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, would you agree with me that in order for there to be an extension of the gatehouse complex facility, that that indicates that the gatehouse facility is in operation or intended to be in operation at that time? A. I think that would be my assumption. Q. And, in fact, doesn't that ordinance say that the gatehouse facility is to he used as an entZyr -gate facility to check for unauthorized access and as a security checkpoint? A. Yes. It makes a statement to that general effect. Q. Okay. So conceivably, hypothetically, could it be that Page 35 16G i January 27, 1997 the kiosk, if it was used, its use was in conjunction with the operation of that gatehouse facility, that perhaps that is an extent -- or was at that time an extension of the gatehouse facility? A. Z -- again, if it were deemed to be permitted through the permit we've viewed earlier, someone may have that -- made that assumption. Q. Okay. But let's just assume again that -- that the master plan, the original master plan, does show the kiosk in the middle of the road. Let's just assume that. And let's assume that in paragraph 4.3 of the later ordinance and which originated in Ordinance 85 -21, that -- and it spoke of, you ?-now, portions of the gatehouse facility could extend over and into. ;,cat's ass,.une that from a use perspective that's what tha *: la::gua,40 mean':, Okay? Are you okay with that? A. Okay. Q. All right. So under ~h ;r. sce; aria, would that kiosk be a -- a legitimate struCt,..:re the '�. LIi --IF m:Q + of the road? A. Based on the scera= 1G 'J'_ I: r- esen' -e" , L trunk you could make that argument. Q. From a use standpoint? A. From a use standpoint. Q. Okay. Now, we've already heard testimony that the present -- on Tract A the actual srruc -,ure that was the gatehouse facility complex is now occupied ty a realty office. Do you have any personal knowledge of that? A. I've never been inside the structure but_ 1 believe that- was my assumption in having traveae6 the roadway myself. Q. Ok.ay. But -- well, if you've traveled the roadway, do you -have any personal knowledge as to whether or not that building in Trac` A is being operated at pTesan'-- time as a gatehouse complex facility? A. it didn't appear to me `hat it was a gatehouse. Q. Okay. And we've heard `es- r.ony the kiosk is no longer existing in the middle of the roado:ay, is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you've been out there. You have not seen this kiosk in the middle of the road? A. Correct. Q. Okay. So, therefore, would you agree that if there is no longer a gatehouse complex facility in Tract A and the kiosk, which we are assuming hypothetically was a legally permitted structure, if neither one of those are there to operate from Tract A with an extension from '!Tact A over and into ttie road, that the present guardhouse that is located outside of the PUD, according to the county's case, that it could not be considered an extension of the gatehouse facility complex hat's no longer in -- in operation? A. 1 would agree with that. And not only that, it is clearly not in Tract A. Q. Okay. And, in fact, you testified earlier, is it not correct, that the guardhouse, the present guardhouse today, does not show up on the master plan than_ is attached to 85 -83; is that correct? Page 36 I 6G 1 4 January 27, 1997 A. That is correct. Q. And it doesn't show up on the original master plan also; is that correct? A. That is correct. MS. McEACHERN: Next I'm going to show Mr. Arnold -- and I don't know :chat number we are on for the county's exhibits, but it is a document entitled right -of -way easement with a date of -- it's a certified copy, too, November 12, 1987. MR. tf.ANAL I CH : It's N o. 22. MS. Mc:.ACHERN: Number 22? COURT REPORTER: Actually, 23. I show 22 as Ordinance 88 -63. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I've got 22 as Ordinance 88 -63 also. So is this a new exhibit that you're about to introduce? MS. Mc EACHERN: It's a new exhibit, but I'm not sure of the number. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay, i ` •.:oul�; be 23. MS. McEACHERN : Okay. r 2 3 . (County Exhibit No. ?.3 waE for den _ _ f . cat.i.on . ; BY MS. MCEACH °RN: Q. ?six. Arnold, this c3oc,_r. er, _hat ' -je shows, you is entitled 'Right -of -way Easemen *_, " ar:d it states that -- it -- i.t appears to be an easement document, a ri.gi:t -of -way easement, from Lely Development Corporation to County as the grantee. And In there it states that this 'easement was created by indenture dated August 1, 1985, from Lely Bar.efoct Beach Property Crorner.s Association, Inc., to Lely Estates, Inc., and recorded in Official Record Book 1291, page 1232 of the public records of Collier County, Florida." It sta.tes that 'Grantor grants unto grantee, its successors and assigns, full and free right and liber-y `_cr grar:tee and the genfral public, in common with all persons ha,,in g `_.` ?F 1-i' -e rir�hr, at all times hereafter, for all purposes connected with, ? use and, enjo},^nent of lands owned by grantee, its successors and assigns, in Section 7, T3wnship 48 South, Range 25 East, to pass and repass along the roadway known as Lely Beach Boulevard." And up at -- and up at the top of it it also states "that the grantor, for and i,n consideration of the sum of one dollar and other valuable cons ions, receipt. whereof is hereby acknowledged by these presents does hereby grant and convey unto the grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, nonexclusive easement for right -of -way for public road purposes over, under, upon and across the following described land, lying and being in Collier County Florida, to wit:" And then it goes on to describe Lely Beach Boulevard as shown on the plat of Lely Barefoot Beach. Mr. Arnold, is a term "nonexclusive easement" for right -of -way for public road purposes -- is that a term that is familiar to you in your capacity as planning director for Collier County? A. Yes, it is. Q. And could you tell us what a perpetual nonexclusive easement for right -of -way for public road purposes is? A. Well, in layman's terms, it says to me that the public Page 37 I bG I January 27, 1997 has forever the right to use the roadway for its public use. Q. Okay. Would you -- would you be able to tell us, then, if Tract R, Lely Barefoot Beach, according to this document, which has also been signed by Lely Development Corporation, which is the predecessor entitled to the respondents, if -- excuse me one moment if this is the road that we've been talking about today, Tract R? A. Yes, it is. Q. Okay. MS. McEACHERN: At this time, Madam Chairman, I'd like to enter this into evidence unless there is an objection by Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: Not at all. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: County's 23 will be introduced into evidence. MS. LOUVIERE: Since it has been introduced into evidence, could we see a copy of that easement' MS. Mc EACHERN : Oh, I'm s o r r-,, . BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Arnold, I'm looking again in Ordinance No. 85 -83, and Z, again, don't have one of the recorded copies. I believe you do, though. I'm on the second page of paragraph 2.7. It's -- in fact, it's the last page of pectic %n Roman Numeral 2, down at the bottom. The ordinance sr_ates tha v `h� r�UD :- :ast -`�r clan indicates that r- ; -h,d etcends from Bonita Beach Road the meandering north /south access to the south boundary of the projer`. Jenic'. :mar access to the state - owned land south of Barefoot Eeach protect. is ~_ -o occur via this north /south access road. No modifir<<ztion nay bc> .wade to this road as planned which would interfere with access to the state land owns (sic) to the south. And you've already testified that on the master plan that's attached to that ordinance, that the guardhouse is not shown; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. You also have testified. earlier that the exact location of the guardhouse is an area that is outside of the PUD, is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Could you, in your expert opinion, based on the evidence before you and that you've examined, explain to the board how a structure that exists outside of a PUD ordinance may be, in your opinion as an expert, in violation of a PUD ordinance, of the particular PUD Ordinance 85 -83-, A. Well, as I had stated earlier, that it's typical that anything found within the PUD ordinance governs only those activities occurring within the boundaries of that PUD. However, this specific reference that refers to a meandering road adjacent Bonita Beach Boulevard, or at least that's my terminology, but extending from Bonita Beach Boulevard or Bonita Beach Road south, is the reference that takes you outside the PUD boundary, if you will. And that expresses that this road will be accessible to the public and other places, and we've -- we've seen that that is access to the state -owned Page 38 16G - 1 January 27, 1997 lands. And it would be my opinion that if you cannot build a structure inside the PUD that restricts access, that the PUD cannot -- cannot also authorize activities beyond its boundaries that will have the same effect of restricting access to the public areas. Q. Okay. Would you agree that the present -day guardhouse is being used as a security checkpoint for the road -- the subdivisions of the residents of Lely '13arefoot each? MR- F_kZZA_N.D: Objection, ! adan; Chairman. There's been no testimony at all on -- certainly on direct and none thus far on this portion of testimony that Mr. Arnold has th=is knowledge. MS. McEACHERN: I'li strike and I'll ask it in a hypothetical, Madam Chairman. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. hr. Arnold, I would lire yo : to assume hypothetically that the present -day guardhouse Is h -ing •,ised as a security checkpoint facility and serves the residents of -,F,ly Barefoot Beach subdivisions. So if we ass-,_Lmf' do you not agree, Ordinance 85 -83, provides fr,r uch a_ and for such a structure, but only in :Tact A, Would you agree A. Yes. I would agree ghat :occur t; -type featur_F is only permissible in Tract A under that ordinance. Q Gica; ✓. Okay, Mx. AYn-ic ^k o'. sti�l have the building permit exhibit in front of you which is County's Composite Exhibit tic. 7. A. This being the 197:+ bui l dine Q. Yes. No, I'm sore, for_ the guardhouse. A. I don't have that pe=lt: in f ron'�: Of me . _MS. McEACHERN: The -- Q. Mr. Arnold, can you tell r,•e, looking at the actual permit that was issued, whose signature appears on Composite Exhibit 7? A. I'm sorry. I see a couple of signatures here. I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Q. Mr. Arnold, if you go through Composite Exhibit No. 7, which is the county's composite exhibit for the buildin(_ permit application and the building permit for the present -day guardhouse, if you would go through there and if -- tell me if anywhere on any of those do=ments they have been executed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, in the interest of time we'll stipulate that they certainly have not. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Arnold, typically -- do you know who typically signs building permits for Collier County? A. Typically the applicant will sign. The contractor will sign. I know subcontractors sign if they're performing other forms of work, and then ultimately it's signed by the building director. Q. An employee of Collier County. A. An employee of Collier County. Q. �or.rect. Is a building permit subject to advertisement, the application and the actual issuance of the building permit? Page 39 16G 1 January 27, 1997 A. No, it is not. Q. Is it subject to any kind of public hearing? A. Generally not, no. Q. Okay. And you already testified that the master plan of 85 -83 does not show the present -day guardhouse on the master plan; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, you testified on direct that you -- in your exert opinion, that than_ building permit was issued in error; is that correct? A. :'hat's correct. Q. Mr. A.inold, you also testified on direct that a building permit that is -- let me strike `hat. Would you -- you testified ,,n da.rect and again on cross that the present -day guardh ^use is in 6(Di.ation of the present PUD; correct? A.. T,nat is correct. Q. C::, Mr. A_*nOld, 4(C':1 1 ": .- 'yc)�Jr �xFE'r`: opinion that if a building permit is not. ir: har lw.;i;y w_l Ci: whmit" t:h , PTUM requires, that the structure that the buiid}ng supposedly authorized, would that not be a violation of tl -:e ',ru then, r_he actual existence of that structure? A. It's ury opinion :.hat: it ;,�e i '>; ,�iation of the PUD. Q. And as an expert plannei , car _ permit that is not in harmony with the contreiiing FUD ord,.'ncance at the time amend that PUD ordinance? MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam ('hairman. This is asked and answered on direct, as have several of the past questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he can --- he can answer it. I know it's cumulative, and we want to move on, but he can answer it. A. No, it would not amend the PUD. BY MS. Mc EACHE N : Q. Okay. So is it your testimony today, Mr. Arnold, that the controlling PUD for Lely Barefoot Beach has not been amended in any fashion or form to permit the guardhouse where it is -- exists today in the riddle of Tract R? A. 7 agree. It has not h>een amended to permit that. MS. McEACHERN: I have no further questions. CF.AIRP LLSON RAWSON: Anything further, Mr. Hazzard'? MR. HAZZARD: Just a few quick points on some of this most recent testimony, Madam Chairman. I know we're in a hurry, and I'll move along. RECROSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Arnold, you testified that the master plan in the 1985, eighty -- '85 through '87 version of the PUD ordinance does not show a guardhouse anyplace; is that correct? A. Correct. It does not appear to show a guardhouse. Q. Does it show any structure, sir? A. No, it does not. Q. It doesn't show a single one, does it? Page 40 16G ` 1A January 27, 1997 A. (Witness shook head.) Q. Does that mean you're not allowed to build any structures at Lely Barefoot Beach? A. No, it does not. Q. Okay. I'd like to show you a blowup of that. Mr. Arnold, will you agree that that's a blowup of the document that's attached to the ordinance that we've been looking at today? I believe it's behind Tab 4 in the county's book, and it's got the page number, O. R. Book 22, page 472 on it? A. Well, without reviewing every detail, it appears to be, but the exhibit doesn't note that it is an exhibit to that specific ordinance. Q. Mr. Arnold, do you see the section on the PUD master plan that you may not be able to read in the copy that's in the books provided that says platted Lely ?arefoot Beach Unit No. 1? A. Yes, I see it. Q. Mr. Arnold, doesn't that mean that platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1 is part of this PULE master plan? A. I'm not sure if that's specifically how it was intended to be applied. I mean, the statement is platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit I. I don't know if that's the entirety of platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1 or not. Q. But that is the PUD master plan that we've been talking about; correct, Mr. Arnold? A. It appears that it is, yes. Q. And can you see, Mr. Arnold, on this PUD master plan some hea,,ry line -- what appears to be heavy -line boundary of Lely Beach Boulevard connecting no Bonita Beach Roar: (indicating)? A.- I don't know what those lines are. They don't appear to be the same designation as the PUD boundary line. Q. That wasn't my question. 'm just asking you, do you see heavy-line boundary? A. Yes, I do. Q. Does that appear to match your understanding of the platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. i boundary? A. Yes, it does. Q. And would you agree with me, Mr. Arnold, that this document, Exhibit A, demonstrates that the platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. i is to be a part of the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD Master Plan? A. No, I don't agree with that. Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, just so that the board members can see what we're talking about at the large version instead of having to squint at the small one -- MR. HAZZA.RD: This is the language he identified (indicating). This is the line that we're talking about (indicating). Miss Rawson, here's the language; this is the line (indicating). Miss Louviere, Mr. Allen, this is the language; this is the line (indicating). SY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Now, Mr. Arnold, a couple of other quick questions. In all of the documents that you have reviewed and all the various Page 41 I 6 I January 27, 1997 exhibits, drawings, artist's renderings, whatever they may be, have you seen the word "kiosk" used to describe any part of the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD? A. To my recollection, no, I haven't. Q. Do you have any idea why the county continues to refer to the structure in the center of Lely Beach Boulevard that we've seen in the old picture as a kiosk? A. Only that it's referenced as a small structure, which our code defines a kiosk as a small freestanding structure. Q. And we have established earlier today, have we not, next to the picture that's the Exhibit h to the 1977 PUD the word "gatehouse' appears; is that correct? A. I think it was actually guardhouse. Q. Guardhouse? A. (Witness nodded 'head.) Q. Okay. Mr. Arnold, the right -of -way easement_ that was entered as Exhibit 23 during your redirect testimony, is it your testimony -- well, strike that. Mr. Arnold, you're not claiming that Exhibit 23 gives anyone the right to travel Lely Eeach Boulevard from Bonita Beach Road to the -- as far south as it can possibly go, are you, sir? A. The document that I'm reviewing, the right -of -way easement indicates that it is inclusive cf L,ely ?each Boulevard as shown on the plat of Lely Beach ?):pit 1, and then it references a plat book and page number. Q. Yes, sir. And have you examined the plat book and page to determine whether page 37 is the entirety of Lely Beach Boulevard? A. No, I haven't. Q.- A-nd, in fact, it's not, is it, Mr. Arnold? A. I don't know that for a fact. My assumption would be that a plat of that magnitude would extend beyond more than one plat book. Q. Okay. Well, we'll -- r:e'll explore exactly what's covered by this easement for the board with another witness. Mr. Arnold, finally, you testified that a building permit is ultimately signed by the building director; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And is that today, or was that the case in 1988 as well? A. I don't know about 1988. That J.s the case today. Q. Okay. MR. HAZZARD: Mr. Arnold, I don't have any further questions for you at this time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further from the county? MS. McEACHERN: The county has no further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, before we let Mr. Arnold go, does the board have any questions they want to ask him? 2�[2. LAFORET: I have a question I would like to ask our counsel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Let's do this first. Let's ask Mr. Arnold questions because he's been on the stand a long time. Page 42 1, 6G ' I I January 27, 1997 MS. LOUVIERE: I have one question, and I'm not sure, since Wayne Arnold's the one that's on the stand, if he is the person to answer this, but we apparently have state -owned lands, and it appears that there's -- we're supposed to keep access open to them. Is this -- has the state ever contacted the county regarding access to their lands? THE WITNESS: I don't -- MS. LOUVIERE: Is the state aware of any of this is going on? MS. DEIFIK: I think the stare is aware because of that memorandum which I understand is already in evidence. And it's my understanding that memorandum was introduced into evidence, the memorandum of counsel at DER something, and the question that's been in my mind -- I'm not sure how material it is -- is -- is all of this shadowboxing, because it appears that the state is not party to any of these agreements and can trump everything that everyone here does. M- . HAZZARD: Well, if I can respond, Miss Deifik, you've correctly pointed out that behind Respondent's Exhibit Book 1, Tab 11, is a letter from the sta -te, state Department of Natural Resources' assistant general counsel. And -- MS. DEIFIK: The trustees -- COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Z'm sorry, i didn't hear you. MS. DEIFIK: The trustees of the internal improvement fund are not bound. I'm sorry, Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: Yes. And -- and we've not heard any testimony concerning the significance of that document to date, but I'll just submit to you that it will --- it will be testified to as the case progresses. MS. LOUVIERE: What -- what does that all mean? I'in sorry. Would you explain that to me, please. MR. HAZZARD: Yes, if -- if you ,.,ould read the doc•iment that's behind Exhibit II, Tab 11, in the Exhibit Book 1, it -- Z mean, Z don't want to testify, but Z would characterize it as a lawyer's opinion letter to somebody who asked for it. And as you read that on pages 3 and 4 -- HS. LOL'VIERE: That still does not answer my question. CKAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are you going to put somebody on the s *_and? KR. HAZZARD: Yes. ?(S . LOWIERE: Right. MR. HAZZARD: It will be Wednesday. MS. LOUVIERE: My question was, has the state -- does the state -- I do not want to hear an attorney's opinion letter. Z would like at some point -- it seems we keep talking about state -owned lands, state -owned lands. There are lands out there that the state owns that somehow we're supposed to provide access to. And that to me is an issue that we haven't really even touched on. MR. HAZZARD: And I would submit to you that that's because we're not charged with that, with anything related to that in the notice of violation. Page 43 16G I January 27, 1997 MS. McEACHERN: The -- because this is a code enforcement board, the state does not have standing to bring an action before this board for any violations if they felt there was a violation, And that's all I can say. MS. LOUVIERE: I -- I know I'm not an attorney, but there is -- just correct me if I'm wrong. There is a civil suit in this matter; right? MS. McEACHERN: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. And in that civil suit can -- the state then can come in? MR. HAZZARD: The state has, in fact, come into that civil suit and has sued both my clients and Collier County. MS. LOUVIERE: There was one more question, and this does not really pertain to Mr. Arnold. Who's filed the civil suit? Who was the first person that filed the civil suit in this matter? MR. HAZZARD: That was try clients. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay, thank you. Before we close I want to get on record that I have been accused of not keeping an open mind on this matter, yet without the bene_`ir of a vone you have gone ahead and filed a civil suit. MR. HAZZARD: I'm not sure what your point is, ma'am, but you are exactly -- you're grasping the situation completely. In January of 1995, 13 months prior to the county bringing this action against my clients -- MS. LOUVIERE: I guess my point -- MR. HAZZARD: May I finish? -- my clients filed a civil lawsuit hoping -- in what's called a declaratory judgment action, hoping to clear up all these issues. And for some reason known only to the county, the county has brought this proceeding in the middle of it. If you'll reflect on my opening statement, I gave you some indication of why I thought the county has done that. MS. McEACHERN: I -- I would just like to remind the board memhers that each of you should have a copy of than verified complaint -- MS. LOUVIERE: Uh -huh. MS. McEACHERN: -- of that in your package someplace, and it's been entered into evidence. MS. LCUTTIERE: I -- I meat., I guess I know that -- it's two separate things, but I think that it would have been -- if you want everyone to have such an open mind, it would be -- I thought it would be best if we have finished listening to this, then this board voted on it, and then whether or not it should have gone on to the next level. Wouldn't that have been the logical progression? MR. HAZZARD: And let me just -- if I can respond to that, Mrs. Louviere -- MS. LOUVIERE: Uh -huh. MR. HAZZARD: That is impossible for my clients to do. My clients cannot initiate code enforcement action. My clients only have the ability to initiate a circuit court suit to try to clear all this up, and then some 14 months later Collier County brought this action. You're correct. While there is a lawsuit pending across - - Page 44 16G 1 January 27, 1997 across the breezeway in the circuit court, please do not hold any animosity toward my clients for merely exercising the only avenue that was available to then: at the time to try to clear all this up. And now we are in two different processes only at the county's instance. MS . LOTr,IIERE : Okay, thank you. I was -- I was just wondering. You know, I sat up -- I sat up this weekend thinking about this. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions for Mr. Arnold, because I want to excuse him if -- if we're -- and then we'll talk to our attorney. MR . LA-FORE":: Thank you, ma ' am . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay, Mr. Arnold, I guess you can be excused. Thank you very much. HE WITNESS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Now, Mr. Laforet, you have a question to ask of our counsel MR. LAFORET : Yes, I do. Oi- AIRPERSON RAWSON: -- Mr. Kow.alsri. MR. LAFORET: Counsel, I have read every -- everything I have, and I don't see an item -- causes me some concern, some interest -- in regard to the permit to construct this gatehouse that's under discussion here. In regard to the issuance of the permit, the signature of inspectors, the occupancy per -it, final inspections, I haven't seen anywhere authority in writing for the county to go retroactive on any of these things when it's been exhibited that the county, in fact, has had more than adeq,�.ate opportunity to inspect the premises and see if, in their opinion, it was not constructed in accordance with their regulations. glow, my interest is in seeing in writing authority for the county to go retroactive. Do you have any such document? rT,. KOWALSKI: That's a very good question, Mr. Laforet. My answer to that is a little 'nit more complex than a simple yes or no. First of all, I think -- I think what you're asking, to phrase it as a lawyer would, is whether the county can cite a property owner for a violation in a situation ir, which a building permit has been issued by ~he county and the activity is consistent with the building permit but arguably inconsistent with existing zoning. And your question specifically is whether there's any documentation that I'm aware 0` which would authoriz•� the county to enforce the code and and of a -- against the violator notwithstanding the issuance of the building permit. The answer to that question involves -- involves the application of several principles of law. First of all, I am not aware of any specific document that addresses your specific concern, Mr. Laforet. I can tell you that -- that it is up -- this is a quasi- judicial hearing, which means that you sit like judges to review the evidence, make findings of fact, and conclusions of law. It is up to the attorneys to point the board to specific documents and to question witnesses, to adduce evidence relating to the application of those documents. So if -- if I am mistaken and there are documents which address that, it is the duty of counsel for the county and for the respondent to make you Page 45 1 6 1 January 27, 1997 board members aware of that Now, my recollection, to summarize the evidence, is that was asked a question about whether there is any document Mr. Arnold Ar which would address the issue of a building permit being issued in error, which is related to, buttedltotaeprovisiontinthelLandhan, the one you asked. Mr. Arnold poir_ to the Development Code that he believed catbonroof that, but that's the only board to -- to determine the app i evidence, whether it be documentary or testimonial, that Z have been aware of to date that addresses that queStYion. w that would There -- there's another concept in would not necessarily be found in any of the documents or even directly in the evidence that -- t?'rat the board hears. And that's a concept called estoppel. I believe that the chairman, chairlady, chair -- chairperson, the chair - MS. DEIFIK: The chair. MR. KOWALSKI: -- may ask me at the conclusion of the hearing to address the board regarding what the concept of estoppel means. It's a legal term that we iaNyers use, ho'� it might possibly have application in this proceeding: and -� and the extent, becausenas the concept stoPP that this board should give to govern conduct in our lawyers know that the legal pri:cipl_s that e_s '+re only the contracts like the society are -- are circumst only by the oriinances and statutes that ones that we looked at, not only I - but also b;' a concept called common-law, which we've looked. at, but - tht may have is -- which. is judge -made law, and that's s So I think you've really omethin a.hit -- hit on one of relevance to this case. role, really, to answer the major issues in this case. It's riot my how that in any -- in other words, to tell you to find the facts, to tell yo',' frhat facts to find. But rope I'' ✓e given you some indicatio=n of the things that yo,l ,sight: be lookir : ^, at to answer those questic: sun } ,. Madam Chair man, may be ' -eard at L~.is NLR . �rLVn� 1CH : point? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MR. MANALICH: With regard to that question and Mr. Kowaiski's comments, it is t:: colInty,s position that it is the law in Florida -- and I have three cases to cite to you that if there is a zoning ordinance violation, a permit issued ir. error cannot justify that violation of the ordinance, as we believe we are assertir:g here in our case in chief as to the P want, Ordinances I have copies of applicable to Lely Barefoot Beach. And if you those cases. I can distribute them to you now. I would simply ask you take judicial notice of the lawresgo istonobv�ously take CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, g today in Florida. judicial notice of the law as it exists It might be premature for you to give us any cases and make your final argument about that one issue, but I appreciate your co lweloughtoto' wait queostic� that. was asked of our attorney, but probably rat's going to t until the closing argument because obviously be crucial for us. Page 46 I 6 I January 27, 1997 MR. MA21ALICH : Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Does that answer your question, at least for now? MP.. LAFORET: It brought up another question. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. LAFORET: And the other question is that this board is not allowed to recommend damages, to my understanding. It seems terribly unfair to me that if we were to make this judgment after -- MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Laforet. 2,1R. LAFORET: -- something was Spent in good judgment or not -- MS. DEIFIK: I think that you -- that all the members of the board want to wait until we hear all the evidence before we comment. MR. LAl °ORET: I will -- I will defer. I will defer and wait. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Weil, when we get -- when we dear all the evidence and we get to the end and the attorneys are ready to summarize their cases for us -- well, and after they do, it's a very good time to ask legal questions of our counsel, and I'm sure we will at that time. But -- but you are correct. The province of this board is simply to find if a violation exists, period. M.R. LAFORET: Thank you. I defer any further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Now, it's 11:15. Given the fact that we're going to adjourn in about 15 minutes, does somebody got a quick witness MR. -.1 4ALICH: Madam Chairman, at this point I'd like to inquire of the board its pleasure. we have one more witness. We expect that witness will be quick. It's Linda Sullivan, code enforcement director. And specificolly, and most importantly, she will primarily testify as to what amount of fines and whet type of order should be entered in this case should the board make a finding in the ccunty's favor. Now, I guess we need to hear from both Mr. Hazzard and from you as to whether you want to take that testimony at this point in the proceedings. i. do think it relates to your decision in the case -- or do you want no save that and have it presented if and when you make a finding? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I would prefer that we do it at the end, but I realize, of course, that that's taking her out of context. We -- what we could do is allow you to not really close your case but reserve your case to be opened until you call this one further witness after Mr. Hazzard has presented his defense. She's not really a rebuttal witness, bun we'll just reserve her in your case in chief if that's okay with Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, might I make another suggestion that might be workable, which is that we bifurcate those issues and simply wait until the board makes a determination, yea or nag, as to whether a violation exists, and if the board does determine that a violation does exist, then at that time take up the question of what should be done about it. Page 47 16G 1 January 27, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: What's the pleasure of the county? MR. MAINALICH: I -- I have no objection doing that in the interest of time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that's fine. I think it's probably premature to put Miss Sullivan on the stand right now and expect Mr. Hazzard to cross- examine tier, because I know the nature of what her testimony would be, the same as it is in all of our other cases. And I think probably we probably need to hear from her at the end. So we'll reserve. for Miss Sullivan. Any other witnesses that the county .:ants to present? MR. t".ANALICH: Just one moment. MR. KOWALSKI: Madam Chairman, just so that I understand the board's direction, the -- if the board does find a violation, the board is not-- going to entertain substantial evidence from both sides in the penalty phase that's going to essentially replicate all the evidence that the board -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No, we are not. Thank you. Also, I believe there's more than one charge in the complaint; so we'll have to go, probably, through each one of them separately. And there are more than one party; so -we need to go through those separately. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: While the county is ascertaining whether or not they're ready to cirise its case, with the exception of Miss Sullivan's testimony, let's -,et some idea about time. Mr. Hazzar- -], assuming that it's just about your turn and you've already had one of your witnesses testify, how many witnesses do you expect to call, and what kind of time do you expect to use? MR. 'HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I expect that_ I'll have, when we get back from the lunch break, one witness who may take the rest of today, and then I would hope that I'll conclude my presentation on Wednesday. I don't see us -- I don't see us running over into Thursday with presentation of witnesses certainly. We may run into Thursday with, you know, summaries and the board's decision making and all that sort of thing. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Was it Thursday or Friday? Thursday. MR. H_'ZZ ;JUD: I think i t s Thursday. N.R. L,,FORET: I thought you were going to quit today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We are going to adjourn today at two o'clock. MR. !LUOR.ET: Go the rest of the day. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. Ple're quitting at two o'clock today because we're being evicted from this room. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, what we would like to do, there's only less than 10 minutes t_o go before we break. We would prefer to adjourn. That way we can decide over the lunch hour if we have one more additional witness or not. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's fine. MR. MANALICH: If we did, it would probably not be a long ti7ie that that would take. Mr. Hazzard should be ready to go with his witness then when we come back from lunch. It's very possible we would not have anything further. Page 48 i January 27, 997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's fine. MR. HAZZARD: That's great. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then let's adjourn till -- is 12:30, okay? Anybody have any problems with that, luncheon plans or whatever? Okay. Let's adjourn then until 12:30. (A lunch break was held between 11:20 a.m. and 12:39 P.M.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Let's come back to order. I apologize since I got y'all back here at 12:30 and I'm the one who's late. However, during the short lunch break, I did check with my office. They didn't recognize me. And I'm not the only person here who has a conflict on Thursday. So, suffice it to say, we would certainly like to finish on Wednesday if at all possible. I have a mediation on Thursday that I have to go to because my trial is next week, and you can't go to trial unless you go to mediation, and that's the only day it can be. So let me just tell you guys I'd really like to finish this on Wednesday. So let's move on to our next witness. MS. McEACHERN: The county has just one matter. We discovered during the break that the original statement of violation and request for hearing has not been admitted into evidence and we'd like to -- and Mr. Hazzard stipulates to its entry. So it would be County's Exhibit No. 24, and it should have been entered in with Mr. Mazzone's testimony. CHAIRPERSON RAWS014: Okay. If there's no objection, then that will be County's Exhibit No. 24. (County's Exhibit No. 24 was admitted into evidence.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Does the county have any more witnesses other than Miss Sullivan? MLS. McEACHERN: The county rests. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. And -- and, again, to reiterate, we'll allow you to call Miss Sullivan back. Okay. Let's move over to respondent. Mr. Hazzard. XS— HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I -- I'd like to move at this time to dismiss all charges against the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc., because there's been a complete lack of any showing of that entity's relationship to the matters before this board. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Response? t-:R. MANALICH: Madam Chairman -- Hello? Is it on now? Yes Jl.lst -- first of all, just a clarification. It's my understanding -- I'm looking here at my exhibit list -- that the verified complaint in the civil case brought by the respondents against the county, that that's been admitted into evidence; is that correct? MR. HAZZARD: That -- That has been admitted, yes. MR. MANALICH: I mean, initially our first line of response to that motion in opposition to the motion is that within the verified complaint that you have had as an exhibit it's very clearly indicated that both respondents, the master association and the property owner association, have professed and admitted that they have Page 49 1 bG 1 January 27, 1997 an interest in the location of the guardhouse and the purposes it serves. I think it would be an incomplete adjudication to allow them to sever out one of the parties given their own admissions. It appears that the master association represents the umbrella interests there and that the property owners also -- and they don't claim they don't have an interest. So for a complete adjudication, I think it's necessary to have everyone with an interest. I think if we hadn't cited them, quite frankly, we'd probably be sitting here having motions complaining that we didn't afford them due process because they weren't included. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Response? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, by way of response, I would -- I would simply note that there are charges that five different sections of the Land De- ;elopment Code have been violated. You've heard no testimony whatsoever that could lead you to discern how the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc., has violated any one of those five sections, let: alone all five. And the -- the mere fact that this association has an interest in ~_he property -- I will tell you that there are multiple associations out at Lely Barefoot Beach, each of whom has some so-.-- of an interest in keeping this guardhouse there, but it's the county's burden to explain to this board what the master association has done on this Earth to ,'eserve to be hauled in front of this board and threatened with fines of up to $500 a day like it says on the notice of ordinance violation, and they haven't presented a lick of evidence as to why that entity is here. MR. MANALICH: Well, specifically, if you consider if there were to be a findinq in this case any lien that might be established against the property, I think it's critical to include the entity that not only sued the county in regard to this dispute but that would have obviously -- MS. DEIFIK: What does that have to do with anything? HR. YA.NALICH: The lien rights? MS. DEIFIK: What does the fact that the master association sued the county have to do with whether o2_ not there's a violation? MR. MANALICH: Well, I think it shows that they are directly affected and have obviously what they consider to be a very important interest in the outcome of this dispute, and they choose to be a litigant in the dispute. And, you know, what I was saying with the lien was that we need to include those parties that we can reasonably identify who might be affected by any lien should this board make a finding which results in fines. CF.AIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I guess procedurally, based on that motion, I need a motion from some member of the board as to whether or not you want to dismiss out the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc., a Florida corporation as a respondent in this matter. MS. DEIFIK: Can I ask -- and I really have been paying att-.en^icm, and I've heard all the evidence, but I am still slightly confused. Who owns Tract R? Anybody. MR. HAZZARD: Can we chat one second? Page 50 I bG I January 27, 1997 MS. DEIFIK: Sure. MS. LOUVIERE: I don'r . even think we need to discuss who owns Tract R because, see, I think what -- what needs to be understand is that when you have a development of this nature, once tracts get developed up, Bare -- the -- the association - - -- -_he condominium association normally gets handed everything. MS. DEIFIK: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: You're saying the PUDs. And in the ordinance, it says that they will be responsible for maintenance of all the facilities and therefore -- So I -- I'm a little reluctant to let go of Lely -- What is the correct pronunciation? MS. DEIFIK: Master. MS. LOUVIERE: -- Lely Barefoot Master Association just because -- like, I keep hearing normally once a PUD is built and everything, the -- the condomini m association is responsible for maintenance and ownership of the -- of the -- the development so -- MR. MAIALICH: Madam Chairman, their own lawsuit explains very clearly at paragraph 2 that in their terms they admit the property owners owns the -- the road, but they then say in paragraph 3 the master association is an organization comprised of various homeowner groups within the subdivision, the members of which depend on the road for entry to !_heir homes and depend on a guardhouse located. on the road for security against unauthorized entry into the subdivision. tdS. LOUVIERE: Also -- '?. IVUTALICH: The :Waster association represents the interests of subdivision residents who are the intended beneficiaries of the various documents that are subject of this suit. And those are the -very documents which, over our objection, they have attempted to introduce into this case. MR. HAZZARD: Just to correct the record, those are -- I believe ;Jr. Manalich is talking about the doctLments that are attached to the verified complaint in the case, each of which were entered by Collier County in this proceeding. f:owever, the complaint accurately describes what the master association is. It's an umbrella _group of associations at Lely Barefoot Beach. There are about -- I think there are nine, perhaps fewer, member enr_iti-es of the master association. Be that as it may -- and -- and it is enlightening that counsel seems to be relying on the fact that the master association iq involved in a lawsuit as reason to have them in this proceeding, but there's been no evidence whatsoever en *_eyed by the county, as is the county's burden, to -- to allow you to determine what the master association has done to possibly violate any of the ordinances it's accused of violating in the notice of violation. There simply has been no testimony about that from any county witness. There is a -- a -- an exhibit in evidence that's a complaint that both of my clients filed against Collier County, and it has been my theory in this case 'Chat the reason my clients are before you is retaliatory. MS. DEIFIK: Well, let's -- let's not engage in spec_-u_lar-A.on. Let's -- Let's all try and stick to the issues that are on the table. Page 51 16G I January 27, X997 MS. L07,IERE: I think that we are trying to establish if the :raster association does have a. vested interest in what goes on in Lely. Could you please tell me who is the president of the master association? MR. HAZZARD: A gentleman na,-red Jim Ryan. M.S. LOUVIERE: Jim Ryan. Does Jim Ryan currently own property in Lely? ?fit. HAZZARD: Yes, he does. MS. LOWIERE: Okay. 'Thank you. I would say that constitutes a vested interest in what goes on in Lely. MR. HAZZARD: And -- and I'm not certain -- MS. DEIFIK: But -- but -- MR.. HAZZARD: -- Miss Louviere, that having a vested interest is the issue before this board. The issue before the board is whether the master association has committed any violation that it's charged with co=mitting. NLS. DEIFIK: In constructing and maintaining the guardhouse on that property. - MS. LO'JVIER_E: I think your initial argument - 14R. HAZZARD: Yes, Miss Deifik, which the master association does not own. MS. DEIFIK: Did -- Did I miss anything? Can I -- with the chai ^.an's permission -- ask, counsel for the county, very shortly, in 20 words or less -- did you put on some evidence that the master association maintain -- built or maintained this guardhouse? MS. McEACHERN: I attempted to put in that evidence, and your chairmzn would not allow me tc put that in, and then I asked to make a proffer of that evidence - 14S. DEIFIK: That was the -- TIS. McEACHERN; -- and I -- MS. DEIFIK: -- villa compla.i: the second amended villa complaint? 'iS . McEACIIERN: Where the master -- yes , that was brought by the master association where the master made certain statements -- ?AS. DEIFIF: Okay. Well, if it's not in evidence, we can't consider it. That was -- That was the complaint that there was evidence -- there was -- 14S. McF-ACHERN: The -- the -- ?fS. DFIFIK: It -- it was aended sibsequently and we m have MS. McEACHERN: There's -- I mean -- MS. DEIFIK: We don't have the -- MS. McEACHERN: -- one of our concerns is -- is that this code enforcement action is also an in rem action, and if a violation is found and -- and time for compliance is allowed and -- and the structure is not -- MS. DEIFIK: I understand "in rem." MS. McEACHERN: -- no compliance and a fine -- N.S. DEIFIK: I -- MS. McEACHERN: -- and then -- because it's subject to Page 52 1 bG January 27, 1997 foreclosure, and we would also like to be able to, you know, not violate anybody's due process rights and allow anyone who asserts an interest in the structure and that portion of the road which the violation sits -- the alleged violation sits, that they're -- they have a voice. _ CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. At this point in time, I - 7. need a motion from some member of the board as to whether or not you I ant to dismiss out the master association. McCORMICK: Let -- Let me lust ask a question of our counsel. When it comes time for the board to deiernine whether or not there's been a. violation, would we also need to address these two respondents as separate entities at that time? MR. KOWALSKI: If -- If Mr. Hazzard's motion is not granted, you would have to do that. If his motion is granted, then there will no longer be any consideration of the master association as part of this suit. And -- and let me also say, in case the -- the board members are unfamiliar with this procedure, at -- at the end of the county's case, it's appropriate for the respondent to make a motion .like this if the respondent believes that there is no evidence presented by the county to substantiate the county's burden of proof, no evidence that you could use to find a -- and sustain a -- a violation. If -- If you find that there's an absence of that evidence in the record, you should grant the motion. But if you deny the motion, that does not mean that you have to find that the master association is liable at the conclusion of the case. Its. DEIFIK: I -- I would move that the master association be stricken as a party. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. ALLEt3 : I' l l second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Been :roved and seconded that the master association be stricken as a party. Any discussion? MS. LGi):IIERE: I -- I am definitely going to vote no on this because I'm -- I have seen notoriously when we go ahead and we go to the finding of facts, conclusion of laws and actually finding, that what happens is we do not name -- all the parties are -- are very instrumental and are -- and have ownerships in -- in these cases, and then we are not able to make our orders and our liens stick. So I would -- I would not. I'm definitely going to vote no. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further discussion? Been moved and seconded that the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc., be stricken as a respondent in this cause. All in favor signify by saying aye. MS. DEIFIK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Aye. MR. ALLEN: Aye. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's raise our hands. MR. ALLEN: (Raises hand) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: (Raises hand) MS. DEIFIK: (Raises hand) MR. LAFORET: (Raises hand) Page 53 16G 1 January 27, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Three? Four. MF.. LAFORET: I'm saying no. C'riAIRPERSON RAWSON: oh. MS. DEIFIK: You're saying no? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. This is aye. MR. i,A�FORET : Okay. Plha t ever . I -_ CHAIRPERRSON RAWSON: You want them stricken? MS. LOUJIERE: So that's three? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 'Three. All opposed? :,LS . LOUD I ERE : No. MR. 2'.CCORMICK: Nay. MR. LAFORET: (Raises Whand) nova, here we are. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: MS. LOUVIERE: Here we are. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: What no•ri? MS. DEIFIK: I withdraw the motion. MS. LOUVIERE: She withdraws the :notion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Without any rules of procedure. MS. DEIFIK: I withdraw the motion_ LOUVIERE: She withdraws the motion. _ I MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, in -- in that case, I - - or the motion has been as the motion fails since it's -- or - _ withdrawn. In reference to tdiss Lou iere' s - because this 1 woboard doeso disr•iiss the proceeding against b^th not have before it all entities with ansinterestthatt is property, and this photo that is in front of numerous subdivisions at Lely Barefoot Beach. You do not have the the Southport on the Bay Homeowners, ssociation inlfront�of You. youvd t onot Barefoot Beach Condominium have the Barefoot Beach l Condominium Association wh. -h hasnbeenave The Vi11as at Barefoot Beach referenced here. There are niamerous associations atBa Barefoot Beach that are not present. And if your concern is that you be nfor -- an enforcement process should that able *_o carry through an eI'm alerting you to that concern at this �, this board's decision, time. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, in response '- t appear rs what's very the respondent's theory now is safety in numbers, h clear here is that, number one, by their own admission and their own pleadings, we have the property ert•� owners Properly before you who are the ones that own the roawher�toegTar�oa�placed. Nunbe r two , by o�e�ission and their own pleadings, the master association is the one that to the world proclaims that it has a is interest in the continued existence of s to fulfill the security of all the the guardhouse and its m people living out there. But to sav that we should somehow go out an harass and seek out every potential individual and they zgte.rest, I don't think we have to go that far. What we identify and -- ashen Mr. Mazzone issued that NOV is to reasonably Y are the principal affected parties, and I think you have them before Page 54 16G 1 January 27, 1997 you. MS. LOUJIERE: I like that, "the principal affected parties.' In addition, I think it's a little bit late in the game to start looking at this. I mean, we have -- we are -- what -- how far are we into this hearing? Arid now you're saying, gee, we didn't name everybody. MR. HI.ZZARD: Well, I understand, Miss Louviere. I only brought that up because that appeared to be a motivating factor in your decision on the previous motion. Frankly, I -- I thought that the master association was improperly named, which was the reason for my first motion. I simply made the second motion as the inverse of your denial of the first motion. MS. L(DUVIERE: I really feel that -- just like Ramiro says -- we have noticed the principal affec�ed parties. In an effort to continue, I -- I am just --- ThIs is riaiculous. We have -- This should have been argued, like, at- the very beginning of this case. CFAIRPERSON RAWSON: G'Jc I i -- MS. DEIFIK: Let's move On. C,IjAIRPERSON RAWSON: yes. 1 c *: ' s do move on. Do I have a motion based on his request that we file a ;nor_' -on to -- that we do a motion to dismiss because we don't have all the parties named? Having heard no motion, let's move on with evidence. MR. HAZZARD: Finally, Miss Rawson -- I have one -- one additional motion, Madam Chairman, which would be to dismiss any violation based on a theory that the guardhouse violates the easement that is referenced in the notice of violation. Violation No. 2 references an easement that the county has not put into evidence in this case. It's an easement according to the violation that is recorded at -- at -- dated August 26, 1988, at OR Book 1376, page 279 of Collier County records. That easement is not before you. That is the only easement which my clients are charged with violating in the notice of violation, and I would respectfully request that any reference to easement violation be dismissed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Which count is that.) MR. HALZARD: Well, it's in -- it's -- As I read the first three pages of the -- of the notice of violation, it's in the second -- if you will, the second count, Violation No. 2, and it is on the -- what on my copy is labeled page 2 of 2, and it's the second to the last. paragraph. "Further, Collier County easement agreement recorded August 26, 1988, OR Bock 1376, page 279 of Collier County record states in part - -' and it goes on to suggest that this guardhouse violates that easement. You may recall during Inspector Mazzone's testimony I asked him about that easement, and he had nothing to stay about it. MS. DEIFIK: It's referenced in the -- the -- The right of the public to use the road is referenced in all of the PUD instruments that were introduced. MR. Y.AZZARD: I'm simply asking that this board remove from consideration any violation of an easement that the county has charged us with violating but has not put in evidence in the case. Page 55 16G 1 January 27, 1997 MS. DEIFIK: It's referenced everywhere else though. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we need a response from the county. MR. MANALICH: Well, frankly, I'm trying to grasp the exact nature of their argument because -- Are you referring, Mr. Hazzard, to -- which ordinance section? MR. HAZZARD: I'm referring in the notice of violation to Violation No. 2, impeding vehicular traffic. And in Violation No. 2, it references a violation of a Collier County easement agreement, and the book and page are referenced, and that agreement has not been placed in evidence before this panel. There's been no testimony as to any violation of the easement that we're charged with violating in the notice of violation. MS. LOUVIERE: I think you're referring -- are you referring to the use and access agree�ent? MR. H2+ZZARD: No, ma'am. MS. DEIFIK: There was a -- a right - of -'aay easement reference right before we broke for lunch. :�. HAZ7ARD: There serta4n7.y •4as . , R. M1- _]ALICH: Madam Chairman, l -- I think I understand now the -- the point and we -- obv'ously we disagree on the basis that on the notice of violation, what appears to be 3.5 my copy of it, the page light after the -- the face sheet of the violation, the one that has the two columns, one on the left being the -- the nature of the violation, the one on the right being the so- called stipulation. Behind that is a so- called Exhibit A which in text describes Violation 1 and Violation 2. When you come dorm to '.violation 2, it talks about the -- impeding the vehicular traffic being in violation of PUD Ordinance No. 77 -19 and 85 -83 and references the no modification to the road which would impede access. So we don't believe that -- whether or not that easement was entered into evidence is the crux of the charge. The crux of the charge is what the PUD ordinance regpaires. So we do believe there is evidence of record to support the charge. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, do l hear a motion based on the latest motion to dismiss the second count which is an easement violation because the easement has not been introduced into evidence? MR. McCORMICK: Just let me ask for a clarification. The easement that you're talking about is on page 2 of 2 of this Attachment A of the NOV, and is it referenced as OR Bock 1376? MR. HAZZARD: If that question is directed to me, Mr. McCormick, yes, that's the easement that I submit needs to be in evidence in this case if we're to be found to have violated it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me ask this: Was -- Was this part of the original packet that was sent to the board? Is that why we have it and we're looking at it? MS. DEIFIK: Yeah. It's already -- CIUKU PERSON RAWSON: Was that in your packet that the board gets In their regular black book? MR. HAZZARD: What -- The "that," you mean the easement? Page 56 I 6G 1 January 27, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON : Mnmm -hrrin . MR. Hr,ZZARD: I haven't seen it anywhere in this case, Madam Chairman. MS. DEIFIK: I have it. MR. MANALICH: 'Inhere have been some easements introduced, but I don't know if this one in particular was. Probably not. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON• Okay. I just needed an answer to that question. Now, do .I have a motion from any member of the bcard? Well, having heard no motion, we will move on. MS. LOUVIERE: Now I'd like to see it. MR. HAZZARD: Unfortunately that was the county's burden in the case, ma'am. Madam Chairman, that being the case, I'll call my next witness, who is actually the respondent's second witness, Joseph Joy. THEREUPON, JOSEPH P. JOY, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIPECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Would you state your name for the record, please. A. Joseph Patrick Joy. Q. And, Mr. Joy, how are you employed? A. I'm a general contractor employed by r_he Collier County School Board. Q. And how long have you been a general contractor, sir? since 19 A. I've been a general contractor o llier County Q. And, Mr. Joy, prior to working for the Co School Board, who did you work for? A. I worked for myself. Q. At some point, Mr. Joy, c3 id you work for Lundstrom Homes A. Yes. At that time it was known as Lundstrom- McDonald. Q. Okay. Mr. Joy, what type of "icenses do you hc,ld, sir? A. I have a certified genera'_ contractor's license with the State of Florida. •_ Q. And teat allows you o perfor7i contractor's ti;ork in Collier County, sir? A. Yes, and anywhere in 'the state. Q. Okay. Mr. Joy, just so that we're clear, do you have any affiliation with Lely Development Company today? A. tva, I don't. ;eing paid by anyone to testify Q. Okay. And are you Y today? A. No, I'm not. Q. And you were not subpoenaed to testify either, were you, sir? A. wasn't. Q. tor. Joy, why have you come voluntarily to testify today? A. I -- I came here today because of articles like this Page 57 16G 1 January 27, 1997 that were written in the paper and have been numerous articles on the -- on the fraud or supposed fraud on -- on Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse. I had -- My son asked me ahy I would bother to get involved. And I said, "Because my name was all over the documents." And I said, "This is -- this is my name. I know exactly what went on. I did it." And so I was contacted by Lely, I think, initially when they started this. Some gentleman phoned me one night and he asked me if I was the Joseph Joy on all the record. And I said, "Yes.' And he said, 'Well, have you got your documents from building the guardhouse ?" And I said, "No.' And he -- I said, "But just go to the county. They'll have a file, and in that file is everything." And he said, well, he went to -- they had gone to the county, and they don't have anything. And I said, "Well, you know, they've got to have a file. Everything was done." So he -- I didn't hear anything for quite a while. And then I was cleaning up my garage, and I came across my appointment books, and I have appointment books from 1972 to present day, and this is 1988. I have -- At that time about two weeks later there was another meeting about -- or ano ther article in the paper about this, and at that time that's when I found out your name, and I found out the president's name, and I phoned both of you about nine o'clock at night, got answering machines, and I said that I had found my book. if-you- wanted to know how that thing was built, call me. And the phone went crazy the next day. Q. Mr. Joy, when you talk -- when you say your name is all over this thing, are you referring to the fact that you are the person who actually applied for the building permit to build the guardhouse that's in controversy in this case? A. Yes. MR. HAZZARD: And I just direct the panel's attention to -- Respondent's Exhibit 1 behind Tab 4 is the application for building permit, and Mr. Joy's name -- Joseph Joy is listed as person to contact on that document. Q. Mr. Joy, would it be safe to say, in effect, you are the person who oversaw the construction of the Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse that's the subject of this controversy? A. Yes. I applied for the permit, and I hired the subs. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Joy, that was -- you were working for Lundstrom at that time? A. Yes, I was. Q. Do you recall when it was you began working for Lundstrom? I started working for Lundstrom on Februaz,� the 1st -- �. Of what year? A. -- of 1988. Page 58 16G 1 January 27, 1997 Q. Okay. And so, Mr. Joy, was the guardhouse at Lely Barefoot Beach one of your first jobs for Lundstr_om? A. Yes, it was. Q. Mr. Joy, can you tell us a little bit about what we have referred to as the old guardhouse, the guardhouse that was in the middle of the road when you first went on the scene at Lely Barefoot Beach? What did that look like, sir-, Where was that located? A. The original guardhouse was just off to the side of the model center. Throughout this -- even to me -- and I know the property. Everybody is talking about gatehouses and kiosks and guardhouses. There was a model center, which, I guess, in the original PUD was called a gatehouse, but it was a model center. That's all that was there and a real -- the real estate office. There was a -- There was a guardhouse. It was just a small shack in the middle of the road. There was arms to present -- Prevent traffic from Y going in and out. It was -- the -- The �e o_iginal guardhouse was very small. A person had to sta -- I think they could put a stool and sit backwards in it, and that was all the -- the size of it. Q. Mr. Joy, you have attended several days of testimony in this hearing; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And so if I refer to "the old photograph" that's been shown, is that something that you recognize, that term, "the old photograph "? A. Oh, yes. d it's Exhibit -- County's Exhibit 15. Q. And for the recor The thing that you're talking about is the model center. Would that be the -- the building that is on the right -hand side-of the road facing south? A. Yes, it is. Q. And the item that you're referring to as "the guardhouse," that's the structure that was in the middle of the road? A. Yes, it is. Q. Mr. Joy, can you describe for me the traffic flow between the old guardhouse in the middle of the road and what you've called the model center on the right -hand side? A. There was -- excuse me. From the time that this picture was taken and the time that I had been there, there were trees planted in the road. The -- The gate swung down from -- from the model center side of the road to close off the road. And any -- any traffic of any size, any trucks or whatnot, had to pass on the water side of the guardhouse, which is to the left -- it's away from the house. It's on the opposite side -- because they would hit the roof - Q. Is that A. -- of the building. Q. Are -- Are you talking about, then, that larger vehicles would have to actually go down -- enter through the exit lane? Is that a fair way to say it? A. Yes. Q, so I'm getting the impression --h this was a very tight restricted entry area. Is that fair Lo say? Page 59 16G 1 January 27, 1997 A. Yes, it was. Q. Mr. Joy, would you describe for us the location where you eventually built the new guardhouse in terms of the road width and that sort of thing? A. As -- As was stated by Mr. John Agnelli, when this photo -- when this photo was taken, this was the old -- the old entry. When -- The first time that I was there in '88 they had -- the county ent off to the right. This parking lot was already in. The driveway w stand of trees that shows up in the photo was -- the front portion of it where the parking lot was was still there, but they had widened the road out at this point down to the exist r.g -- to the new parking area. Q. And, Mr. Joy, is it true that where you built the new guardhouse two lanes of traffic can pass by headed south as opposed to the single, tight lane where the old guardhouse was located? A. Yes. I understand that was the reason to move it. Q. Mr. Joy, I'd like to direct your attention to the building permit application, and I'm going to bring it over to you. It's entered into evidence as Exhibit 7 on the county's exhibit list. Please take a moment to look through that packet, Mr. Joy. (tendering document) Have you had an opportunity to review the packet, sir? A. Yes. Q. Do any of the pages in that packet look familiar to you? A. Yes. The first one I filled out myself. Q. so you are the person who filled out the original application for building permit for this guardhouse; is that correct-- A. Yes. 4.- Mr. Joy, there's been an awful lot of talk and accusations leveled about that particular sheet, that first page, and I'd like to start right off by asking you to explain to this board how it is that the word "addition" is circled about -- in the middle of the page in a place that says "cons'-ruction.' Do you s,�e where I'm talking_ about? A. Yes. The "circle one" and what appears to be the word "new" Q. " circled and crossed out, "alteration" and "addition. A. Yep. Q. Mr. Joy, did -- Well, Mr. Joy, why don't you just tell this panel how it is that that came to look iik_e it does today. A. The inference -- The inference has been that I lied when I made this thing out and that I had circled "addition." I don't know where the original is to this, bur I'd like to see the original. The -- These sheets are free. If I was trying to deceive somebody, why would I cross something off -- out on -- on a -- on an application? happened at the old No „ally when you went in to -- This happ_ P building department. And Mr. Allen will know. When you went -- When you went through, you sat through your meetings with the engineering and tale znninq, and then you wens out to the front desk, and if there was a change made, currently at the -- at the new pla -- at the new Page 60 January 27, 1997 county services, they do every change themselves in red, and I don't know if it was done at this time, but obviously a change was made here, but I -- I'd be pretty stupid if I made a change and tried to mislead somebody and not take the old one away. Q. well, Mr. Joy, let me ask you this: Did -- Did you at any time plan to build an addition onto the building that you've described as the sale center that we've heard is located in Tract A? A. Never. Q. Mr. Joy, did you intend to build a new guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Joy, in connection with this building permit application, did you show Collier County plans for that structure? A. Yes. Q. And did those plans show where you were going to put it? A. Yes. Very clearly. Q. Mr. Joy, let me show you something that's already been entered into evidence, and it is behind Tab 5 in your books, and I've got a blowup of that. (tendering document) Mr. Joy, do those materials I've just handed to you look familiar to you, sir? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell this board what I've just handed you? A. This is the old entry, showing the new location of the -- of the guardhouse. Here is -- It looks like this may have been the spot survey because the elevations are on the guardhouse. A spot survey is the survey you have to have done when you pour the foundation so that they allow you to get inspections on any -- on any building. Q. Mr. Joy, would you tell the panel what the second page is behind Tab 5 in their books? A. This is the guardhouse. Q. Is it fair to say that's the -- the plan, the schematic of the guardhouse, if you will- A. Yep. Q. Mr. Joy, when you applied `or the building permit to construct this guardhouse, did you give a site plan and schematic that showed exactly what you intended to build? A. Yeah. They were given a survey and also given a set of plans, yeah, of the building. Q. Mr. Joy, is there any -- could -_here have been any doubt in anyone's :Hind that you were planning to put some sort of an addition onto the building in Tract A? A. Absolutely not. Q. You showed clear plans that you were going tc build something in the center of the road; correct? A. Yes. Q. And, in fact, Mr. Joy, if I direct your attention back to the first page, the application for building permit, about a third of the way down there's a place that says "legal," and you see there's some information on the left -hand side that's not filled in. Then to Page 61 I bG January 27, 1997 the right it says "complete description." Can you read that for us, please? A. It says, "Lely Barefoot Beach as per plan 70 feet south of Bonita Beach Road on the centerline of Lely Beach Boulevard." Q. So you did not apply at all to construct an addition no matter what it says on -- no matter what thing is circled in the middle of this sheet, did you, sir? A. No. Q. Mr. Joy, there's been some discussion about Che job address being No. 1 Lely Beach Boulevard as somehow misleading or deceiving Collier County. Have you heard that discussion as you've sat through the testimony? A. Often. Q. Mr. Joy, why did you put the job address as 1 Lely Beach Boulevard on this permit? A. It's the same concept as -- If you build a garage to a home, you don't give the garage its own number. Nobody gets mail in the garage. Nobody was getting mail in this -- in the -- in the guardhouse. What they were doing is we were -- The address of the property that was there was 1 Lely Barefoot Beach. The inspector could look that up and go to that location. Q. So this was something -- this was something that was -- This was the nearest building with an address? Is that what I'm understanding? A. Yes, it is. Q. Mr. Joy, you read the portion that says that it was going to be built as per plan 70 feet south of Bonita Beach Road. In fact, it was not built 70 feet south of Bonita Beach Road; isn't that correct? A. Yeah, Chat's correct. Q. And, in fact, the -- the plan drawing what you've called -- you said must be the site survey -- spot survey, I'm sorry -- that's clearly not 70 feet south. of Bonita Beacl, Road; right? A. No. We had meetings up �izer_e to move it. Q. And -- and when you say 'wvF, hari meetings, " who participated in meetings? A. I had a meeting with -- with Collier County with Bill McAnly on site. The whole purpose oc moving the guardhouse was to allow access to the -- the public parking lot that they put at the front and allow a reasonable turning radius if people were coining up to the guardhouse and wanted to go back out. Q. And that's why it was moved to the location that it eventually was constructed in? A. Yes. The -- The plans that we submitted -- This document I -- I had filled out for the application and they had cha we had changed -- The original survey that we put in shows it in the location it's in. We didn't -- We didn't make the changes before the -- before that went in. Q. So you had meetings with Collier County officials and ux;etirer decided where this guardhouse was going to go? Is that what I'n understanding? Page 62 I 16G 1 January 27, 1997 A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned something about this acc -- not restricting access to the parking lot. 'What you're referring to is a -- a northerly parking lot that you access off Lely Beach Boulevard; is that correct? A. The parking lot that was right along Bonita Beach Road. Q. And that's what -- You were here for Mr. Agnelli's testimony. He was trying to explain that parking lot to the board; correct? A. Yeah. That -- That parking lot existed, and then the stand of trees that shows up in here still filled that whole area between the parking lot and what they referred to as the gatehouse that was the model center. Q. Mr. Joy, on this drawing there's a line and a numeric -- looks like 20 feet to me. is that ,.?hat that says? A. Yeah. That's correct. MR. HAZZARD: I know each of yov have this in front of you. I'm simply pointing to this figure here, 20 feet. (indicating) Q. Mr. Joy, what was the significance of that 20 feet being placed on this drawing, if any? A. If cars were exiting out of the parking .ot and the gatehouse %, ;a any closer, people couldn"- `urn around if they'd come in and wanted to go back out. Q. Was it important to Collier County that there be 20 feet of clearance between that driveway and ,There the guardhouse was built? A. Yeah. That's what they had asked for. Q. So Collier County asked the guardhouse -- asked that the guardhouse be located there: -A.- Yes. Q. Instead of 70 feet south of Bonita Beach Road? A. Yes. Q. And all the time that you were having these discussions with Collier County personnel, the discussion was still '-rat this guardhouse was getting constructed on tiie centerline of L`ly Beach Boulevard; is that correct? A. It was always located in -- in the :riddle of the road. Q. Okay. And going back to this new or addition item, did Collier County regard the structure that you were building as an addition to the structure `hat was on Tract A on the side of the road in your discussions with them? A. No. MR. M.P,NALICH: Objection. He's testifying as to the position of Collier County and -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. MANALICH: -- has been for a number of questions now. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I -- MR. MANALICH: I was trying to give some latitude. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I would sustain that because he can't know what's in the mind of Collier County. BY MR. HAZZARD: Page 63 16G i January 27, 1997 Q. Mr. Joy, in your discussions with Collier County personnel, did anyone ever indicate to you that they thought you were building an addition to the structure on the side of the road? A. The discussion with Collier County was in the middle of the road on Lely Barefoot Beach Road standing where we were going to put the guardhouse. Q. Mr. Joy, on the building permit application, there was also some discussion, I think, when Inspector Mazzone was testifying concerning the notation that says "electrical existing." The word " existing" is written into a blank. Do you see that, sir? A. Yes. Q. Can you explain why you or whoever wrote the word "existing" if -- Did you write that word in that application as far as you know? A. No, I didn't. Q. Who might have done that, sir? MR. MANALICH: Objection. Speculative. Q. Sir, do you -- do you know who did? A. I can tell you who wrote it, the same person that wrote the cost of construction $12,000 and was the person at the counter. MR. MANALICH: Objection. Move to strike. A. They -- 2'M. MANALICH: Speculative. A. Thev asked me -- they -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Just a minute, sir, because we have an objection. Let me do this: Did you see the person write it? THE WITNESS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And you know it's the person at the counter? THE WITNESS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you kno,ri that person's name? THE WITNESS: Cindy. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. THE WITNESS: She no longer works for Collier County, BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Joy, can you tell us about how the word "existing" came to be written in that blank? A. Yes, because we -- when we iniL-ially went to build the -- the guardhouse, there is an existing service that serviced the original guardhouse. Now, we thought we had enough power in the existing panel to run out to the new location. When'— When we got under way -- We had hired, I think, Budget. Q. Budget Electric, sir? A. Yeah, Budget Electric. When we got under way, he said it was too far. So he went in and pulled another permit to put a new meter at the guardhouse. Q. Okay. So, Mr. Joy, it's your testimony that you witnessed Cindy, a Collier County personnel -- a Collier County employee, write the word "existing" next to that electrical dyes ign.a t iou ; correct? 'A. Yeah . Page 64 1 Januai yr 27, �G Q. And the intention at the time was that you were going to use the existing electrical; right? A. It was always -- yeah. Q. Mr. Joy, is it unusual, in your experience, for plans along those lines to change as construction progresses on a property? A. Surely. You know, there's always changes. Q. Okay. But you don't go back and fill out a new building permit application, do you? A. No. It's just an amendment to it. Q. Mr. Joy, on the first day of this hearing, Mr. Bryant told this panel that the county's position is that this guardhouse was built where it is improperly; that it was not properly permitted to be there; that the permit as drawn from the county by the builder of the building for the developer was a permit that was erroneous; it mislead the county; it was not truthful in the application. What's your reaction to that statement, sir? A. Everything on this was truthful at the time and is -- is still today. If I filled it out today, it would'be filled out exactly the same way. We had -- I had -- I had meetings with the zoning department at that time. As I -- I said, the building department was smaller, and you went right in, and you sat down with Joyce when you went through your zoning. And it's unusual but I actually -- on this one have actual times that I met with her. And normally you sat in the hail, so obviously this was meetings. And then when I had meetings with the zoning department, there's revisions being done by McAnly within two or three days and then resubmitted. Q. Okay. Well, let's step through that a little bit -- a little bit at a time, Mr. JOY. Your testimony is after -- after you submitted this building permit application, you had some contact with the zoning department about this; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And the person's name was -- was Joyce? Is that what you said? A. Joyce. Q. Okay. And do you show in your date planner from 1988 dates of meetings with zoning? A. Yes. Q. Can you give us some reference to some of those dates, sir? A. The -- The one that I talked about originally was that was set up, it was on the 219th of March. Q. In 1988? A. Yes. Q. And in that 29th of March 1988 meeting, did the zoning department understand where you were going to place -- or did you represent to the -- to the zoning department where you were going to bsild this guardhouse? A. Faractly where we were building it -- Q. Okay. Page 65 16G 1 January 27, 1997 A. -- and where it's built today. Q. And subsequent to that meeting, did the zoning department approve the plans? A. I've engineeringhadoasked us to note on feet. he 31st that McAnly did the revisions, and we resubmitted themd then on April 1 Bill . I've got another meeting with McAnly on the 4th. Yeah. The - -- on the 4th -- McAnly did the revisions, which is Friday, April 1. And Monday, April 4, I took it to the county. Q. And in -- in your discussion there, Mr. Joy, mentioned engineering wanted you to move it 10 feet. Are this panel that Collier County actually ou telling of where this guardhouse was Y Participated in the selection A. Exactly, gong to go? Q. Eventually, Mr. Joy, did you receive zoning approval to go ahead and construct the guardhouse? A. I received zoning Q. Of 1988; right? a pproval on -- on April the 5th. A. 1988. Q. Mr. Joy, let me just ask you, was this some sort of rubber - stamp p process that you went through A. No, it wasn't. we went through lot get meet thing? and revisions for them. meetings and -- Q. Did Inspector Mazzone participate in any of those meetings? A. No. I never met Mr. Mazzone until here. Q: No. Did Wayne Arnold participate in any of those meetings? 4• Has anyone who -- who you have seen Lest_ify for Collier County in this case thus far participated -- did any -- anyone participate in those meetings who's given testimony in far other than yourself? this case thus A. No. Q. Did Collier County eventually issue you a go -ahead to commence construction, issue a building permit for this structure? A. After the zoning approval on the Sth -- On the second page, the permit was approved PProved on the. 7th so that was -- On Tuesday, he 5th, I got zoning approval. And Thursday, the 7th, I got the the permit. _ Q• And then with that -- that being done, that - see -- is how long from the date you applied? If - let's application, do you see a date there, You look on your A. Yeah. March the 3rd. sir, up at the top? Q• And -- and the approval came when? A. April the 7th. Q• And so in that intervening these various meetings took place month's time, that's when all wir_h county personnel that you've described; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And after that you began constructing the guardhouse, did you? Page 66 16G 1 January 27, 1997 A. Yeah. We started on Tuesday, April 12. Q. Mr. Joy, on the first day of this hearing, Mr. Allen of Mr. Ewing, a the panel asked the county's witness at the Mr. Allen question. It's on page 23 of the Day 1 in to find said, 'n. Ewing, I've got a simple question. I m trying out -- they called that the new guardhouse, Tract R. How far is that w what that distance would located from the permit drawings? Do we kno be?' question. How far Mr. Joy, I'm going to ask you that did you build this thing from the drawings that. accompanied the permit? A. It's built on the location. Q. Mr. Joy, during the course of construction, did county personnel come out and visit the site for various inspections? A. Yes. ature of those sorts of inspections, if Q. And tell me the n you would. A. There was a slab inspection on the 13th, which means for the that we had the forms up ready for -- and the rebar in ready slab to be poured. Collier County Q. So when you say "a slab inspection," Y constructed personnel carne out and saw where that guardhouse was being or where the slab was poured? A. Q. Yes. nd. then what -- what happened after that, sir? A We -- We poured on the 14th and we started our -- We had material delivery on the 18th, and our framing started on April 19. Q And, Mr. Joy, do you have any idea of approximately how many different inspections went on as construction progressed on this property? A. I can count them. Q. Okay. Would you, sir' ti the final compieti�n. A. Nine, and then ten is t. p _ Q. So there were nine interim inspections and then, a. final inspection? A. Yeah' this was not somebody Q. And throughout that process calling over the phone to say, "Did you do this, Mr. Joy," was it? A. No. in person? Q. This was somebody coming A. Yeah. Anyone who knows the names on here ;chow they came in person. Q. What do you mean by that, sir? A. Kermit's a bug there for everyone. He's a -- he's a He inspects everybody's work no matter whether it's electrical or not. Q. Ed Kermit's name is on the -- the forms that you have in front of you as part of the composite exhibit? A. Yeah. Kermit and Herb. They're --- They're all - I don't know any of these people th would just sign sc3mething that say they were there and they weren't. Q. Okay. Mr. JOY, if you look further in your book, do you Page 67 I 6G 1 + January 27, 1997 see the date that the spot survey was done? A. Yes. The spot survey was done on May the 11th. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, not an objection but just -- I would offer, Mr. Hazzard -- The county in the interest of time would stipulate that the inspections were done as indicated by the permits. Q. Okay. Mr. Joy, would you tell the -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Q. -- panel what a spot survey is, sir? MS. DEIFIR: I think he already explained that. A. A -- A spot survey is -- is the establishment of the location and the elevation of the foundation of the building. Q. And ultimately a certificate of occupancy was issued for the guardhouse, correct, sir? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Joy, has anyone from Collier County Code Enforcement ever contacted you to talk to you about this matter? A. No. Q. Inspector Mazzone came here and alleged that you had purported to construct an addition and instead put something in the middle of the road, and he never verified that with you, sir? A. No. Q. Anyone from the county attorney's office ever contact you about this matter? A. No. Q. As you look through the document that's County Exhibit -- the 14 -page document that's County Ex'h bit 7, do you recognize the names in there of various folks who gave approvals throughout this process? A. Oh, yeah. We -- It was a small deparr_ment. Everyone knew everyone. Q. I'd like to focus in particular on the -- the z. -,ning approval, Mr. ,joy. Do you -- Do you know what county personnel did in your presence prior to granting zoning approval for this guardhouse? A. Could you repeat that, please? Q. Yes. What did -- what did -- if -- If anything, did county personnel who were examining the zoning of this property do anything in your presence to check on the zoning? A. Oh., yeah. The -- In this case it was Joyce, and she -- she checked it -- checked all the plat books, and she was the one I took the plans directly to when we made interim revisions. Q. Okay. And Joyce said that the zoning supported what you were going to build at the location where you built it; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Joy, I'd like to direct your attention to the first page of the application once again, sir, and that's -- that's the page, I believe, you said you par,.icipated in filling out; correct? A. Yes. Q•. Is there anywhere on that page where you represented to Collier County what the zoning was going -- what the zoning was for Page 68 16G 1 January 27, 1997 the land where you were going to build this guardhouse? A. No. It was just as per plan. Q. Okay. And so when we see references throughout the 14 -page exhibit to zoning being PUD, that was not your determination, was it, sir? A. No. Q. That would have been Collier County's determination at the time; correct? A. Yes. MR HAZZARD: Mr. Joy, Z don't have any further questions for you at this time, sir. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON- County. Could Mr. Laforet ask a question first? MR. MANALICH: Sure. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. LAFORET: I want to ask the two of you. Do you today or are you today required to turn in as -built drawings on the completion of the work? THE WITNESS: On -- on something like a guardhouse, no. It's not a -- it's not an as- built. The -- Once the spot survey is done determining the location -- Well, even a house you don't have to do an as- built. The only time you do as -built would be if you're working for -- Like jobs I'm on now with the school board, we have to do as- builts, but that's just for records. These are updated. If there's changes made, they're made as they go along. Like when we put in the new electrical service because the old service would not handle -- it -- It turned out to be too great a distance for the -- for the amperage. MR. LAFORET: I understand that. That was my first question, but you answered it. THE WITNESS: Yeah. And -- and it was too great a distance to -- for the amperage. So that's why the FPL wanted to pull for a new meter box, and -- and it's mo-inted on the back. But that change which is an as -built tv-pe of idea -- but that is a -- another permit added to this, and that was dune by the electrical contractor, and then it would just become part of the file. So there actually is an as -built ii you -- if you want to look at it that way because everything that's done on the site, if there's a change from the original plans, is in the file but it's done -- it's not done -- We don't have to a,-- tt:a end submit a final drawing showing any changes, no. MR. LAFORET: All right. Did you change the original drawings to show your rerouting of the -- of the electrical? THE WI724ESS: No. That was done by -- by a separate permit pulled out by the electrical contractor. He had to show that -- that -- that routing of that, and that would be in this file somewhere, wherever the file is. MR. LAFORET: All right. All right. THE WITNESS: But it -- it would be there because he has to pull a permit and show the location and the location of the new meter and the new meter box. Page 69 16G 1 Januar.1 27, 1997 MR. LAFORET: How about plumbing? THE WITNESS: There's no plumbing out there. MR. LAFORET: Thank you very much. CROSS - EXAMINATION BY MR. MANAL I Cii : Q. Mr. Joy, you did not sign this building permit application; correct? A. No. This is Lundstrom -- under Lundstrom Homes' license. On the bottom is Bob Lundstrom. At this time -- At this time that this was done, you could have a representative pull your permits as long as the permittee had -- had a letter registered with the county that I was responsible to pull the -- My license was -- was more inclusive than Bob's, and on this all we needed was this builder's license. Q. Did you review the PUD ordinances for this property before filling out this application? A. No. I don't review. Q. Are you aware that the PUD ordinance required that the gatehouse complex be located at a place called Tract A? A. If you're asking me that today in 1997, because I've sat here for three years, yeah. Q. And -- Well, I'm saying at the time you made the application. A. No. Q. Are you aware that a PUD ordinance cannot be changed except by an ordinance amendment? A. Again, if you're asking me today, I -- yes, I ''Know. I didn't examine the PUDs on this. All I did was pull the permit for a buil-ding. Q. At whose direction did you fill out this building permit application in this manner? A. Well, it would be ultimately Bob Lundstrom because he is the licensee on this. Q. And who was he doing this work for? A. Lely Development. Q. And it was Lely Development's intent in having you fill out this application to have a g,.:ardhouse located at the place you indicated on the application? A. Exactly. Q. Not at Tract A? A. As it is here, it was just as per plan, now how we drew it and row it was located in the field. Q. You mentioned that at the original location where the guardhouse was there was a gate that swung down and it created traffic problems, in your words? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, there - -- could there not have been installed there some type of swinging gate and instead of coming down, would have pulled out or in? A. Again, the area was so narrow -- This doesn't do it justice. The area was so narrow, any truck had to go down the Page 70 I 6G - 1 January 27, 1997 outside. If you brought a concrete truck in, it couldn't pass between the guardhouse and the model center. Q. That's a 60 -foot right -of -way, isn't it? A. I would have no way of knowing. Q. On the permit application, you have testified that when this was prepared you gave an address of 1 Lely Beach Boulevard; correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, that was also the address which was commonly used for the real estate gatehouse complex we have described; right? A. Yeah. Q. And it's also your testimony than as things worked out You actually built the new guardhouse at a place different from the application; right? A. No. It's at the same position that the application was in. We went through zoning approval, and when we got zoning approval, that was after McAnly had made the revisions and engineering had asked us to move it 10 feet to give the two lanes coming in. Q- Weil, the application. mentions 70 feet south of Bonita Beach Road? A. The application was made out on the 3rd. The engineering requested the change in mid - April. And then my meetings with zoning were the -- The meeting with the one building department was the 12th. And then the revisions were April -- again, what I said, April -- Friday, April the 1st, McAnly did the revisions, and I took them to the county on the 4th and got zoning approval on the 5th. Q. Okay. But my point being that as a result of those discussions you've described, it was not built at 70 feet south; is that correct? A. The drawing never showed 70 feet. The drawing was not complete -- Q Right. A. -- on the site until we :yet 41—h Collier County on the site to -- to lay it out. Q. But the application said 70 feet= A. The application said 7G feet, yea : -_ T' ar_ was a -- a number that I was just told that that's what it was. That was before I visited the site, I think. Yeats, I had just started pricing that job on -- in mid - February. Q• Who are the individuals soecif_i.cally that you met with from the county on these different occasions? Can you just name who they Here? A. On the -- On the site visit i don't have a name down, but on the engineering I've got a name of Terry, and then on all the zoning it was with Joyce because she was, - -- she and -I were doing the -- Q. Now, these were discussions that you had with representatives of the Collier County Building Department; correct? A. Yc -s_ Q. You never appeared be-'ore the Board of County Commissioners with regard to any of these items; correct? Page 71 I 6G '1 4 January 27, 1997 A. No. There never was a problem with the permit. Q. Now, it's your testimony, am I not correct, that this building permit application as approved was not erroneous? A. No. There was nothing -- There was nothing erroneous on the -- on the application. It turned out later to be that I couldn't use the existing panel, but that wasn't erroneous when I made this out. We assumed that we had lots of power. Q. Now, is that your testimony even though you have recognized that the application mentioned through whosever writing that this was going to be an addition as opposed to a new structure? A. Yeah. It's pretty obvious that I -- Z had put down 'new'. Q. And that's -- it's not erroneous even though someone put down "existing electrical "? A. It wasn't erroneous at the time. We figured we had enough power in the panel. Q. And - A. There's a drop. The further away you are from the parcel there's a drop in power, and the drop was too great over that -- that length. That -- It's FPL's call at that point or an engineer to -- whether or not you can pull off that panel or go to a ne-d service- That -- That's nothing to do with me. Q. The application is not erroneous even structure was not actually built 70 feet south of ?c::ita Beac.- Road- A. No, because it was put in as per plan -- Q. It's not -- A. -- and that was the plan I submitted. Q. It's not erroneous even though it listed : :.,ely Barefoot Beach Boulevard if it was also used for the gatehouse complex? A. That's the -- That's the mail address there, and so if any mail went there, that's where it would go. Ariat -- What would be the address of a barn if the barn's 400 feet out in -- in the -- in Golden Gate? It's whatever the house is. You know, it's the same -- it's the same type of thing. It would be the post office that would have to give that building a -- a :nailing address, and they wouldn't give it a mailing address until it was physically a building. Q. It would not be an erroneous application even though the controlling PUD ordinance said that the g- aardhouse :rust be at Tract A and it was not at Tract A? ?uM. HAZZARD: objection - -- A. I -- MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madan Chairman. Mr. Manalich is professing a legal conclusion as to what the PUD ordinance says. Mr. Joy is not testifying with any legal basis whatsoever, and he is simply a fact witness in this case. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chai.man, we've had ample evidence as to where this -- the PUD ordinances talk about a gatehouse complex being located. I merely asked him -- He's already testified on direct that he does not believe this application was erroneously submitted or approved. I'm asking if he maintains that belief if we assume that those things are true that I've mentioned in the PUD ordinance. Page 72 16G 1 January 27, 1997 MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I stand corrected if there was that "if" in the question. I didn't hear that -- that "if" at all. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. If, Mr. Joyce -- Mr. Joy -- I'm sorry. Confusion with Joyce. Okay. Close. If the PUD provided that the gatehouse was supposed to be at Tract A, you still believe that the application as approved was not erroneous? A. I didn't mention PUD anywhere I can see in here. I just -- I was going on -- directly on -- on a distance on the road. That's all that was given to me. Q. Okay. If I told you that the PL'D controlling ordinance said that no modification could be made to the road which would interfere with access to the park lands, the application is still not erroneous as either submitted or approved? A. Can -- Can you repeat that? Q. Well, very simply, you have stated that it was your intent and the intent of the respondents to build a guardhouse in the middle of the road, and what I'm telling you is, if you assume as true that I represent to you that the controlling PUD ordinance has language that says that there can be no modification made to that road which would interfere with access along the road for the public -- MS. DEIFIK: Are you asking him for a legal conclusion? MR. MANALICH: Well, no. I'm asking -- he's -- MP.. HAZZARD: Thank you, Miss Deifik. I was asleep at the switch. MS. DEIFIK: I'm just -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm, frankly -- MR. MAIIIALICH: He has given -- MS. DEIFIK: -- confused on this. MR. MAINALICH: On direct examinar_ ion he has stated that he did not believe that this application was misleading or erroneous either as submitted or as approved, and I'm laying out for him a series of facts and -- MS. DEIFIK: I -- I guess what I'r, saying -- MR. MANALICH: -- provisions of the PUD -- ME. DEIFIK.: I guess what I'm saying is that isn't that something that you want to argue to us rather than argue about with him? MR. MANALICH: Well, I think you can -- MS. DEIFIK: I'm -- I'm -- MR. ' AINALICH: -- draw your own con -- What I want is for you to draw your own conclusion as the decisionmaker here as to the validity of his opinion based on these factors I'm bringing to his attention. I certainly will argue it to you. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. I -- I'.n not trying to be smart, Ramiro. MP,. MANALICH: Righ�:. MS. DEIFIK: I'm just -- MR. MACIALICH: Right. MS. DEIFIK: -- confused. Page 73 z 6G January 27, 1997 MS. LOWIERE: I -- I have a question, just a quick question -- I'm sorry -- while I'm thinking about it. Why -- Why did you never fill out the legal on this application for building permit? THE WITNESS: It says "legal or." CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: This one. MS. LOWIERE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's this one. MS. LOUVIERE: We're talking about the old one? THE WITNESS: Yeah. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Sorry. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Joy -- MS. LOUVIERE: Sorry. Q. -- do you do any -- have you done at all, besides the guardhouse, any work for any of the respondents? A. No. Q. Now, you've indicated you came here because you wanted this matter to be set straight; however, you chose only to contact opposing counsel. You didn't contact myself or Mr. Mazzone, did you? A. No, but he didn't say anything that was bad about my application nor anything else. It was just the -- the newspaper and the county that said that I had lied. MR. MI.24ALICH: Thank you. No further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MIR . HAZ ZARD : Q. I just have one question, Mr. Joy, and I know we're going to get out of here on time. Mr. Joy, Mr. Manalich was referring to language in the b POD - aout no modification can be made to the road that would interfere with access to the park land, and I would like you, sir, to use your personal knowledge of what went on and compare for me the access that People had when the guardhouse was in the old location to the access that people had after you built the new guardhouse. was it improved access or more restricted access? A. It was -- It is very obvious that it,s an improved access and -- Q. And why do you say that, sir? A. The -- There was a bottleneck at the model center and the guardhouse as it was existing, and it was very little room to get by either way. I know -- I realize that -- that I -- you know, maybe I'm -- I'm being wrong, but you know, when I located this, I located this with county personnel. It's in an area -- you know, questions have been brought up about access to the park, access to the park. If you didn't own a boat, you didn't go to the par:c. You know, there was noth -- There was trees. There was, like, about 15 houses in that place. Now, sure, certainly sometime down the line when Lely sold that land and -- and everything else it became park dcwn there, but there was nothing -- there was nothing to restrict all traffic going down there. We moved the thing over to give them a bigger turnaround spot in front if they didn't want to go throgh lane and a Q. Are you simply pointing out to this panel that the road Pace 74 16G 1 January 27, 1997 did not reach the park when you built the guardhouse in its new location? A. You couldn't walk to that -- you know, to that -- to that park. You'd have to go down the beach. You couldn't walk through the land. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you, Mr. Joy. A. Unless you had snake boots. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do we have any recross? MR. MANALICH: One moment, please. RECROSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Witt. regard to your comparison about access before and after the two guardhouses, the -- the park was built as -- or was open, as I understand, after the construction of the new guardhouse; right? A. Yes. MR. MANALICH: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Joy. Mr. Joy, hold on a second. We have a question from the panel. MR. McCORMICK: Sorry. Since you were at the -- the old site where the gatehouse and the old guardhouse or kiosks were -- and I haven't been there -- if you could clarify for me -- This morning we got a copy of the building permit that went along with those two facilities, and you described the bottleneck there. Then this plan that I looked at this morning, it says that the road width is 24 feet between that guardhouse and the gatehouse. What -- What other obstructions were -- were really there in reality that aren't shown on this plan? THE WITNESS: From this there's no landscaping. There's -- There's not -- in this no front wall. There's -- There's front walls along the front here. Now, this area here is a lot -- is a lot wider. These palm trees are gone on the right -hand -- or to -- to your right, and there are trees in that median and there were -- it was tight to get through there. It was -- Actually, there are double -- these are double gates there, but there's the post at the front. That's why the vehicles went down the other side. MR. McCOR'MICK: Was - -- Was the bottleneck between the gatehouse facility and the other one that's in the median, the kiosk or guardhouse -- is that where the bottleneck was, or was it closer to Bonita Beach Boulevard? THE WITNESS: No. The bottleneck was right_ at the -- at the model center and the guardhouse. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. But do you think chat it was This plan that I'm looking at shows it to be 24 feet wide there. Do you think it was some -- some. measurement different t.han that"? THE WITNESS: From this picture it looks like that's what it is curb to curb, but with the trees and whatnot there, it wasn't -- you didn't have that kind of access. You didn't have that kind of access for -- for -- for trucks or anything else. Cars could get through, but you know, that was -- Matter of fact_, I -- I think at one point I fixed one of those gates at one time but just -- there was Page 75 I 6 I January 27, 1997 just only one that was ever open. MR. McCORMICK: I think you mentioned that the new guardhouse location was set in such a way it was 20 feet back from that entrance to the park, and that allowed vehicles to turn around before they went through the guardhouse to choose to turn around there. THE WITNESS: Yeah, but -- MR. McCORMICK: Is that different than the older -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. There's a -- if I can stand up here and hold this, there's a parking lot that's right here, and that was the public -- that was Collier County's public parking lot -- MR. McCORMICK: Right. THE WITNESS: -- before the -- before the park was ever built, and it was right here. I can't remember; maybe there was 40 spaces in it, if it was that big. And -- and the driveway goes right here, and then it curves in towards Bonita Beach Road. Now, this stand of trees was still all here, and just the front of it was cut out for the parking lot. Now, when we came up here, this driveway existed off to the -- to the right here. So we went back from the existing driveway. So if people came in -- There was no reason for anybody ever to drive back through here. There was no park. Lely Development was only back about -- maybe half the way, I think, and then it was all slash pines and Australian pines, and -- and the state park is just the little peninsula at the very end, you know. It's -- If you go to Delnor- Wiggins and swim across the channel against the current, you get to the park. It's just a very small, small amount. And this, there was nothing open there. There was only a few homes there. (indicating) MP.. MCCOR24ICK: One last question comes to mind. You probably don't need the picture for this. But you seem to have got this built in pretty quick -- pretty quick time, two -- two months or so from when you got the permit. Was there -- Do you recall some reason that you were putting it up so quickly? THE WITNESS: I was upset because it took so long. The guy -- the guy didn't -- The guy who did the framing didn't show up for a week or so, and -- and I was pretty upset because something like this is a 30 -day job. That's -- you .now, and I had to waste two months, and I had to run up and check it. M.S. LOTVIERE: I -- I did originally have a question, and somebody stopped me, and I want to go back to that question. In your application for building permit that's dated March the 3rd, 1998, (sic] there's a section that says, "Legal or a complete description. "' You never attached a legal to this; right? THE WITNESS: No. MS. LOUVIERE: And you consider this a complete description, "Lely Barefoot Beach as per plan "? THE WIi'NESS: Yes. It was located by the county -- by the county out there with us. t XS . LGUVIERE: Okay. CEAZRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody else have any questions of Page 76 1 6G -I January 27, 1997 Mr. Joy? Then you're excused, and I thank you very much. Well, I think we have to leave the room now, but let me ask this of ,<<y board and the respective attorneys: We're convening at -- How about if we start it at eight o'clock Wednesday morning? MR. HAZZARD: I -- I can't do it, Madam Chairman. I -- I can't get here by eight o'clock with -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- kids. MR. HAZZARD: -- you know, the kids' responsibilities that I have in the morning. I -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Just a thought. In that case, we'll convene at 8:30 Wednesday morning. MR. ALLEN: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes? �. ALL�i: -- I've got to leave at te" o'clock Thursday. I can be here until ten o'clock Thursday morning. MR. HAZZARD: We're going to tr-y our best to finish this thing on Wednesday. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we are indeed because Thursday is a problem -- MS. DEIFK: Can we stay late Wednesday? CHAIRPEP.SON RAWSON: -- for at least three of us. MR. HAZZARD: I -- I can certainly stay late ;,;ed-.esday if -- If we can conclude presentation of Witnesses on wednesday, I'm willing to stay as late as it takes to conclude the matter all together. MS. DEIFIK: Do we have the room? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I can't stay that late. `4e'll -- We'1-1 ,go until we can. We can all try to expedite tnings, and try not to be cumulative in your testimony and, you know, just -- let's try to keep it moving. We'll see you Wednesday morning at 8:30. ♦ f f ♦ ♦ There being no further business for the 9006' of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:'J3 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEI NT BOARD CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOV COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Christine E. Whitfield Page 77 1 6G January 29, 1997 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 24EETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD RECEIVED FEB 2 8 1997 q NAPLES, FLORIDA, January 29, 1997 Board of rsunty "orcmissioners LET IT BE RERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:95 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON VICE - CHAIRPERSON ky- W121\r� M. Jean Rawson Mireya Louviere Jarnes D. Allen Celia E. Deifik Louis F. Laforet Richard McCormick Charles M. Andrews ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalic:h, Chief Assistant County Attorney Shirley Jean McEachern, Assistant County Attorney Frank X. Kowalski, Jr., Attorney to the CEB Linda Sullivan, Code Enforcement Director William J. Hazzard, Attorney for Respondent Ilorr S s V Hancock Constantin% Mac Wry o .. _�_ - -.-� Page 1 16G 1 January 29, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is everybody ready to go? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, Madam Chairman. MS. McEACHERN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Wonderful. The Collier County Code Enforcement Board will please come to order. We are here on the continuation, of the Board of County Commissioners versus Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association, Inc., and Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc. Start with roll call to my left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Louis Laforet. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Ellen Deifik. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Jean Rawson. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let the record reflect that Charles Andrews has called in sick; and, therefore, his is an excused absence. Now, let's see. Is there -- Are there any preliminary motions or anything to come before the board before we get back into the testimony? And I believe it was Mr. Hazzard's case now. Anything come before the board? MS. McEACHERN: (Shook head.) M.R. HAZZARD: (Shook head.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Let's get started then. Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, members of the board, it's my objective to try to finish this today, and in the interest of doing that, I'd like to ask the county to stipulate entry into evidence of -- of two documents that were produced to me by the county. The first is a memorandum dated October 20, 1995, from Linda Sullivan, Code Enforcement director, to Vince Cautero. Subject: Code enforcement, Lely Barefoot Beach. Otherwise, I'd -- I'll call Miss Sullivan simply to authenticate. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 was offered into eviden(--e.) MR. KOWALSKI: Has that been marked as Ex -- Would that be Exhibit 4? MR. HAZZARD: That would be Exhibit 4. Perhaps I should give counsel the second item as well. It's the invitation to the park grand opening that I referenced in my opening statement and the -- it's a two -page document also produced to me by the county. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 was offered into evidence.) MR. HAZZARD: Any problem with stipulating either one into evidence? MS. McEACHERN: Just a second. MR. MANALICH: No objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The exhibits will be entered into evidence without objection as Respondent's 4. MR. HAZZARD: Well, let's make it 4 and 5. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 4 and 5. MR. HAZZARD: There are two. And let me give those to the court reporter now. Page 2 16G 1 January 29, 1997 (Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 4 and 5 were admitted into evidence.) ICR. HAZZARD: In addition, Madam Chairman, in the interest of trying to stream -- streamline things, move things along, I would propose to enter the affidavit of Tamela Eady Wiseman and the affidavit of Glenn Carroll. Those two individuals are the persons who signed the notice of violation and stipulation as registered agent. You may recall on the first day of hearing there was an issue raised about -- suggesting that my clients had stipulated to the violations, and these affidavits describe the circumstances of their signatures and attest that as registered agents they're not empowered to do so. (Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 were offered into evidence.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, does the county have any objection to the introduction of these exhibits? Z guess we're up to Respondent's 6. MS. McF_.ACHERN: Yes. The county objects because we lose our right to cross- examination. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So you are rbject4ng on the grounds that it's hearsay? MS. MCF.ACHERN: Yes. MR. 'HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, it's a sworn statement. It's -- They're each notarized. And in the interest of -- of moving things along, they merely say that -- that -- in the case of Miss Wiseman's affidavit, that she's a registered agent, she's not empowered to stipulate on behalf of the person that she signed for. On behalf -- On Mr. Carrol.l's affidavit, it describes the circumstances surrounding his signature and then attests to the same point. - CHI:IRPERSON RAWSON: Well., I think the county is saying that they'd rather you call those two people as witnesses so they can cross - examine them. Is that what you're saying? MS. McEACHERN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: In that case, I think we probably -- To protect the record, why don't you call thEm, ask them a few questions, which is what they would have said on the affidavit. MR. HAZZARD: I'll try to do that today and still get us out of here today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: Madam Chairman, should I go ahead and mark them though? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You can mark them for identification purposes. (Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 were marked for identification.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Was that 6 and 7? MR. HAZZARD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. We'll show those are -- MR- HAZZARD: For identification. Madam Chairman, at this time I would call Mr. Dudley Goodlette. Page 3 16G 1 January 29, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Goodlette. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, the county objects to this witness testifying on the ba -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: On what grounds? MS. McEACHERN: On the grounds that I was previously advised before this hearing started that he is testifying as an expert and if -- Maybe Mr. Hazzard needs to confirm that. The county's objection is that, number one, the witness is a previous law partner in the law firm that is now representing the property owners, and the county is concerned that it looks like the -- due to that connection, that because -- as you know, that there's a rule of evidence that says that an attorney cannot be a witness in his own case and -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I -- I understand what you're saying. Let's -- Let's take those objections one at a time. Let's let Mr. Goodlette testify and I don't -- Let's see if he tries to have him introduced as an expert witness in this case, and then you can make your objection. And then if you want to cross- examine him to show bias or prejudice, you know, we'll take that under consideration too. But, you know, just because Mr. Goodlette is standing here isn't enough reason for me not to let him testify until I find out what he's going to say. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, simply, if I -- MS. McEACHERN: There's more to our objection. MR. HAZZARD: Oh. If I could respond to that portion in any case -- although I understand you're going to rule that Mr. Goodlette can at least begin his testimony. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Cer -- Certainly. MR. HAZZARD: I -- I would simply point out that the county offered as an expert witness Mr. Arnold who is employed by the county, employed by the very entity prosecuting this case, and it -- it certainly would be a -- an interesting approach to take to say that your own employee can be an expert while the former -- former attorney formerly associated with my firm cannot be. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's Co !:his. Let -- let's -- let's let Mr. -- MR. HAZZARD: 'm sorry. Attorney formerly associated. I CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's let -- 11S. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes? MS. McEACHERN: -- the objection goes -- it's other than mere bias. It is that there's a long- standing rule that an attorney cannot be a witness in his own case. And the county's objection -- this part of the objection is that it's as if conceptually he is bein} a witness in his own case since he has been associated with this law firm -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: MS. McEACHERN: -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: MS. McEACHERN: is -- it's beyond that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I -- and -- I mean, I don't know that -- whether there's bias or not is -- Okay. Well, prejudice and bias is Page 4 16G 1 January 29, 1997 not enough to keep him from testifying. It's something that you need to cross - examine him about and something that the board will have to consider. But in te=,s of whether or not he's -- can be a witness in his own case, I don't know that until I hear what he says. MS. MCEACHERN: Okay. The -- The county also objects on the ground that the courts have frowned strenuously on lawyers testifying as experts. It's one thing for a lawyer to testify in a case if they have personal knowledge just like in a will contest and a lawyer who drafts the wills, something like that, but if he is testifying as an expert, then he is instructing this board on the law, and it's invading the province of what the attorneys who are actually before this board in arguing the case can do. It's getting a second bite at the apple of giving an opening and a closing statement, and it is our job to instruct this board on what the law says and -- and we object on that basis as well. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, again, I want you to raise objections depending on what he might say. I understand what you're saying. Actually, I -- I testify as an expert regularly in attorney's fees hearings. MS. McEACHERN: Well, other than attorney fee hearings. I mean, in a -- in a regular case, and there's case law out there -- I've seen it -- you know, that says that -- that -- In fact, the courts have normally said they -- they are almost insulted to have attorneys testify as experts unless it's in an area -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I -- I don't know that he's going to be qualified as an expert yet, so let's just wait until we get there, and then you raise the objection again, and then we'll rule on it based on what Mr. Goodlette has to say. THEREUPON, JOHN DUDLEY GOODLETTE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT F,AMINATION BY MR. i-:AZ ZARD Q. Would you state your name for the record, sir. A. Yes. My name is Dudley Goodlette. Q. And what's your occupation, Mr. Goodlette? A. I'm an attorney practicing law here in Collier County. And with what firm? Q' A. with the law firm o, Goodlette, Coleman Johnson. Q. And how long have you been practicing law in Collier County, Florida? A. Q. Since 1973. And do you recall when you went with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson? A. On Saturday of this week, it will be one year. Q. So that would be January -- A. February the 1st. Q. February the 1st of 1996? A. Q. That's correct. Mr. Goodlette, the not ice of violation in this case that Page 5 1 bU 1 ,January 29, 1997 we're here about was issued to my clients on February the 7th of 1996. Were you employed at Cummings & Lockwood when the notice of violation that we're addressing here today was issued? A. No. If it was issued after February the Ist of 1996, I was not. Q. Did you, during your employment with Cummings & Lockwood, have anything whatsoever to do with preparing a case to defend in front of the Code Enforcement Board on behalf of the respondents in this matter? A. Certainly not. Q. Mr. Goodlette, there's also been testimony in this case that -- that -- that there is a pending piece of litigation between Collier County and the respondents in this Code Enforcement Board action. Did you have anything whatsoever to do with that litigation when you were employed at Cummings & Lockwood? A. No, Mr. Hazzard, I did not. I -- I -- I practiced when I -- During the 14 years that I was with Cummings & Lockwood, I practiced in the business department of that firm, never ventured into, nor do I have any intention of venturing into, the litigation arena. So, no, I -- I did not. Q. Okay. Mr. Goodlette, in addition to being a member of the Florida Bar, do you hold any other designations or certifications, sir? A. I am certified by the Florida Bar in the area of real property law. Q. And, Mr. Goodlette, I'm going to show you what you've provided to me which is a bit of a -- not quite a resume but perhaps a small firm biography and ask you to review it. And I'll circulate it amon-g the board members as well. CliAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, you probably need to introduce that as an exhibit if you're going to circulate it among the board members. MR. HAZZARD: Okay. Let me simply ask one q�sestion. BY MR. HAZZARD Q. ':•Sr. Goodlette, is this a biography that you have provided me with, sir? A. It's some -- yes, some basic information that I did provide to you at your request. MR. HAZZARD: I move entry into evidence as the next numbered exhibit, which I believe is number -- CH.AIRPERSON RAWSON: -- 7 MP.. HAZZARD: -- 7. THE COURT REPORTER: Actually -- MR. HAZZARD: It's 8? THE COURT REPORTER: -- it's 8. MR. HAZZARD: -- as No. 8 for the respondents, a document entitled, 'J. Dudley Goodlette," which is a -- a short bio on Mr. Goodlette. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 was offered into evidence.) CFiA_IRPERSON RkWSON: -s there an objection? MR. MANALICH: No. Page 6 I 6 1 January 29, 1997 CH.AIRP 'ERSON RAWSON: it will be introduced into evidence without objection. And let the record reflect Mat the board is now receiving a copy of Mr. Goodlette's resume. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 was admitted into evidence.) BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. This short biographical sketch does not contain any references to publications you may have participated in. Have you participated in any -- in writing any type of articles on -- during your experience in the practice of law? A. Only one that was published as such in the Florida Bar Journal back -- it must have been in nineteen -- early 1990s, Mr. Hazzard, on the subject of equitable estoppel and vested rights under the new Growth Management Act. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Goodlette, you made brief mention of the type of work that you do. Could you -- Could you describe for the board in a little more detail the type of work that you do with Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson? A. I would say I'm a transactional lawyer. Basically Z handle -- Almost all of my practice has some -- some flavor of real property law intertwined within it. _ -- I -- I would say I probably spend a predominant amount of my time in the -- in the land -use area representing developers, appearing before r_he Board of County Commissioners, the city council, other collegial groups on -- on land- use - related applications, petitions. I'll have occasion to -- to oppose petitions on behalf of property owners' groups on occasion. Also have -- I have a commercial real estate practice as well as a residential flavor to that practice and -- and do some banking work and corporate work, just a regular business law practice. -Q.- In the course of that practice, have you become familiar with PUDs, planned unit developments? A. Oh, yes. Q. And how about plats of real estate? A. Yes, indeed. I -- I've been, you know, involvE:d in -- in signing plats on behalf of -- as legal review on behalf of developers. I'm familiar with the platting process. Q. And are you also, sir, familiar with easements? A. Surely. Q. In fact, have you -- would you say that you have worked extensively with PUDs, plats, and easements during the years you've practiced your occupation in Collier County? A. Yes, I would. Q. And in addition to that, Mr. Goodlette, did you have some involvement in the production of what is today the Collier County Land Development Code? A. I was on the -- I think it was a 26-menber citizens' advisory committee to the Collier County Planning Commission that, in turn, made recoimnendations to the Board of County Commissioners for the adoption of -- in -- in 1988 time frame of what ultimately resulted in today's 1989 adoption of the Collier County Growth Management Plan that was mandated by state law. Q. Would it be fair to say that you were among the -- the Page 7 I 6G 1 January 29, 1997 group that authored what's today the Land Development Code? A. Assisted in that process. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't say I authored it necessarily but there -- all -- all 25 of us. I think I may have been a -- a vice - chairman of that group at one point in tine. It was extended over a several -month period. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, at this point I would offer Mr. Goodlette as an expert in Florida real estate law, concentrating in land use, PUD -- PUDs, plats, and easements, and would advise the board as well that I have no intention of asking him to opine on the ultimate issues before this board. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Now I'll hear your objections. MS. McEACHERN: We just renew our previous objections to him testifying. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: As an expert? MS. McEACHERN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, if I might respond briefly, I believe the objections go to the credibility of the witness and not to the witness's ability to testify, and the -- this panel can weigh Mr. Goodlette's testimony as it weighed Mr. Arnold's testimony as it weiehs the testimony of any other witness in this case. I would simply further point out that Section 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code entitled "Testimony by Experts" says, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify -- might testify about it: in the form of an opinion," and -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think the object -- MR. HAZZARD: -- that's the intention. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. I think the objection is that -- to his being qualified as an expert, and as I understand the county, it's for a variety of reasons, and so at this tJme I'm going to look to our attorney to give us some advice. M11— KOWALSKI: Madam Chairman, I -- I think that you have correctly identified the -- the -- the issues. First of all, as -- as the board knows, the formal rules of evidence don't strictly apply, so I think that gives the board some discretion in determining what testimony it would like to hear. And -- and typically that discretion is -- is -- operates to more liberally allow evidence rather than to -- to foreclose the introduction of evidence. I noted, if -- if I have taken my notes down properly, that Mr. Hazzard has tendered Mr. Goodlette as an expert in Florida real estate law, including PUDs, plats, and easements. I have -- I would advise the board that you should have some concern about Mr. Goodlette being recognized as an expert in Florida real estate law because I -- I do believe that -- the county's objection, that -- that it is not appropriate for an expert to -- to be accepted as an expert in legal issues and give an opinion on legal issues. I do think, though, that -- that a predicate has been Page 8 I b 1 January 29, 1997 laid to establish Mr. Goodlette's expertise in PUDs, PLUDs [sic? -- excuse me -- PUDs, plats, and easements, which is -- seems to be among the areas that -- that Mr. Arnold testified about_. How, -- and - -- and I think that -- that Mr. Goodlette has testified he has experience in those areas. I think Mr. Hazzard is correct in that the evidence code does not require any specific training but -- but simply experience in -- in those areas. And I think that the board can appropriately weigh the -- weigh the experience of the witness and -- and determine the weight to which the board will give his testimony. I do feel, however, that as tendered as an expert in Florida real estate law, including FUDs, plats, and easements, that the objection :nay very well be well founded. Ar,d -- - and I wou l d suggest that if -- if the Chair agrees, ghat -- that Mr. Hazzard be given an opportunity to Establish Mr. Goodlette as an expert in -- in only some of those areas. MR. HAZZArZD: Madam rhairrma::, i -- in my notes I think I did mention Florida real estate law, concentrating in land use, PUDs, plats, and easements and I would simply -- its I earlier mentioned to the board, I don't intend to ask Mr. Goodlette the -- his opinion on the ultimate conclusions that this board is to reach on its own. So I will simply tender him as an expert in land use, PUDs, plats, and easements. MS. MCF.ACHERN: Madam Chairman, the county's -- the county is not attacking the witness's credentials at all. It is his right to testify as an attorney who is also going to be an expert on the law in those given areas that it is frowned upon because he is, number one, entering into the domain that we, the attorneys -- it is our responsibility to argue this case to you and argue the law. The county could pull in, then, its own attorneys that are also experts in this particular area, and we could go on and on and on. He is getting -- The property owners then are getting a second bite at the apple with their opening argument and also in their closing argument, unless Mr. Hazzard wants to waive his closing argument. You know, that is his time to instruct this board on the law. We are in no way attacking the witness's credentials. I want to make that very, very clear. We also have in your -- in evidence is a verified complaint of the circuit court case, and from the copy I have, that was filed January 9 of 1995. And according to the witness's testimony, he was still with this law firm at that time. And if nothing else, that would prohibit him testifying here today because there has been no establishment of the so- called Chinese Wall, which the courts have also frowned upon on using; and, therefore, we object' to this witness testifying. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me say this: In terms of Mr. Goodlette being allowed to testify and tell us what the law is and take any province away from the finders of fact here, we're not going to permit that. That's not a problem. Bet I do want to deal with your latter part, that the complaint for declaratory relief in this case was filed by the respondent during the period of time that Mr. Goodlette was still with Page 9 16G 1 January 29, 1997 this law firm. Mr. Kowalski. MR. KOWALSKI: As -- As I understand the various legal instru;-nents that might -- might impact that, I -- it is my understanding that -- that even if Mr. Goodlette were currently a partner in the firm of Cummings & Lockwood, which is presenting the respondent's case, that that would not disqualify him as a witness; that that could potentially disqualify the firm as counsel but would never disqualify the witness. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it's my understanding -- MS. McEACHERN: The -- The county respectfully disagrees with that opinion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Well, it's my understanding of the law that -- you know, it's an ethical problem and that he would have a conflict because -- to represent certain clients because of his involvement with Cummings & Lockwood at the time the thing was filed rather than be prohibited to testify as a witness. But if you think because he was there when this was filec: that he might know something about the suit and, therefore, that's going to show bias or prejudice, I think that's your province to attack him on cross- examination. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, it also goes to what I said earlier. There's also an ethical rule that says an attorney cannot be a witness in his own case, cannot :1"e a wit -- in fact, I think it says "shall not be." And it is -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand what you're saying. MS. McEACHERN: -- conceptually as if -- Mr. Hazzard could not sit there and take the stand and so -- CHAIPPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Let's -- Let's deal with that one. - MS. McEACHERN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: A -- a -- An attorney cannot be a witness in his own case. Mr. Kowalski. MR. KOPIALSKI: I believe that's true. Well, I don't believe that's true, actually. In -- Iii any event, this is not Mr. Goodlette's case unless the -- all of the property at -- at Lely has been conveyed to him, which we haven't heard yet'.. So I don't think that objection is well founded. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Well, I note all of your objections, and I anticipate that you will continue to make them based on the answers -- well, based on the questions that are asked. In terms of his being an expert in real estate, let's have a little bit more foundation about PUDs, plats, and easements. MR. HAZZARD: And land use. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And land use. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. loodlette, have you regularly represented clients in preparation of and presentation of PUDs before government bodies? A. Yes, I have. Q. Do you have any idea of the number of times you've done that, sir, over your career? A. Mr. Hazzard, I really would -- I would -- I -- Z really Page 10 16G z January 29, 1997 would prefer not to hazard a guess but it was -- it's -- it's several. I mean, you know, I -- Q. Are we talking about in the -- more than ten, sir? A. I would certainly think so, yes, during the course of the time that I've been involved representing -- Q. And -- A. -- developers or projects. Q. Can you hazard any sort of guess at the number of plats you may have reviewed, participated in, or dealt with in any way during your multi -year career? A. Again, in conjunction with the projects, at least a -- at least a half a dozen, I'm sure. Q. And in terms of easements, do you have any guess at the number of easements you've reviewed in your career, sir? A. Many -- many, many. I mean, in conjunction with almost every real estate transaction, there's an -- there's an -- an -- an access issue or an easement issue or some of those kinds of -- Q. Have you yourself ever prepared an easement? A. Oh, surely. Q. Any guess as to the n,L.^.uDer of times you've done that over your career? A. No. No guess really. Many, many. Q. Was that many, many? A. Very many, yes. MR. '-'J -.7,ZkRD: Anything further that the board -would like to bear on Mr. Goodlette's qualifications? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. Over the objections, which I'm sure are going to con -- I -- I'll just say that they will be continuing objections, and I'll note that for the record -- I'm going to allow Mr. Goodlette to testify, and I would just ask the county to listen carefully to the questions and, you know, object when you want to, and we'll. deal with each one as we yet to it. Go ahead. BY MR . HAZ ZAFD : Q. Mr. Goodlette, just as a preliminary muter, there's been some reference to a lawsuit filed between the respondents in this Code Enforcement Board hearing and Collier County. Have you ever read that lawsuit, sir? A. No, I have not. Q. Did you participate in any way that -- that you can tell this board of in the preparation of that lawsuit? A. No, I did not. Q. Mr. Goodlette, following your departure from Cummings & Lockwood and following the filing of the notice of violation against the respondents in this matter, were you hired by the respondents to provide them with your expertise and analysis in this case? A. I was, yes. Q. Do you recall approximately how long after your departure from Cu=ings & Lockwood you were hired? A. Again, it was probably in -- Mr. Hazzard, when you called me. It must have -- My guess is May, June, maybe, time frame. Q. Several months after you -- Page 11 1 bG 1 January 29, 1997 A. 1996, yes. Q. Several months after you had left? A. Yes, indeed. It was -- It was several months. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Goodlette, you're being compensated by my clients; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And does your compensation depend in any way on the outcome of this hearing? A. Certainly not. No. Q. Mr. Goodlette, did you ever do any work for Lely Development Company? A. No, I did not. Q. Never in your career have you worked for Lely Development Company? A. I have -- to -- To the best of my recollection, I have never represented Lely Development Corporation. Q. Mr. Goodlette, to the best of your recollection, during the time when you were with Cummings & Lockwood, was Cummings Lockwood, in fact, adverse to Lely Development Company in some -- some situations? A. At least one that -- that I do have a specific recollection of -regarding, I think, some Breckenridge litigation. Q. Okay. And just so that ;we're clear, Mr. Goodlette, since you did not do any work for Cummings & Lockwood -- I -- I mean for Lely Development Company during your career, you are not in any way today being asked to give testimony or -- or -- nor have you been asked to review any work that you yourself did in connection with the Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision, sir? -A.- No, I have not. Q. Have you reviewed PUD Ordinance 77 -48, Mr. Goodlette? A. Yes, I have. Q. In your review of Ordinance 77 -48, did you find any indication that would cause you to believe the Board of County Commissioners when they passed that ordinance had allowed a freestanding guardhouse in the middle o`_ I,eiv Beach Boulevard? A. Yes. It would appear that in the -- in approving that ordinance they -- they did permit that to occur. Q. And -- and what is it that causes you to reach that opinion, sir? A. I.anguage in the -- in the PUD -- I'm sorry -- in the Ordinance 77 -48 specifically authorizes a gatehouse complex site. And the master plan that's attached to that ordinance seems to clearly indicate that a guardhouse was contemplated to be located within the Lely -- the right -of -way. Q. Within the middle of the road? A. Yes. That's what it would appear_ from -- from the master plan, yes. Q. Is -- Is the master plan part of Ordinance 77 -48? A. Yes. It's an exhibit, I believe Exhibit A to that ordinance. Q. And in your experience with PUDs, Mr. Goodlette, does a Page 12 16G 1 January 29, 1997 developer have to include a master plan as part of their PUD application? A. They generally do, yes. Q. Now, does that master plan as it's -- it's drawn -- and the board members have all seen it. Does that master plan mean that, you know, every tree that's drawn on there has to go in the place where the tree is drawn? A. No. It's -- It's more conceptual. Q. And is it your expert opinion -- your professional opinion that the concept of a freestanding guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard was approved by the Board of County Commissioners when it passed Ordinance 77 -48? A. Yes, it was, or it's my opinion that it was. Q. Would it surprise you to learn, sir, that a building permit was issued in 1979 and a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard was constructed? A. Not at all. Q. In fact, have you reviewed a building permit issued in 1979 for Just that purpose? A. Yes, I have, at your request. Q. And does that building permit seem consistent with what you saw in Ordinance 77 -48 in your professional opinion? A. It looks to me like they, you know, built what they said they were going to build, yes. Q. So is it fair to say in your professional opinion, Mr. Goodlette, the ordinance authorized what was built pursuant to the building permit? A. It would appear to, yes. -Q.- � Mr. Goodlette, there's been an old photograph entered into this proceeding. It's County Exhibit No. 15, and I'm going to show it to you. It's right over there in front of you, sir. Mr. Goodlette, in terms of location of those structures shown in the photograph, in your opinion are those structures consistent with what is, in your opinion, permitted under Ordinance 77 -48? A. Mr. Hazzard, if you're talking about this building and -- and -- and this building, that appears to be what. -- what is -- what is set forth in the -- on the master plan which is the exhibit on 77 -48. (indicating) Q. And for clarity of the record, Mr. Goodlette, although you don't know it because you have not been here in this testimony in this case, yet you just pointed to what's been called the two -story gatehouse structure on Tract A and the guardhouse in the middle of the road. A. Okay. Yes, that -- that appears Q. Mr. Goodlette, have you reviewed Barefoot Beach Unit_ 1 which is recorded at through 37 in the official Collier County A. Yes, I have, at your request. Q. And at -- and did you bring that A. Yes, I did, sir. to be consistent. the plat for Lely Plat Book 12, pages 34 records? with you today, sir? Page 13 16G 1 January 29, 1997 MR. HAZZARD: And that has already been entered as Collier County Exhibit No. S, so you will find it in the county's book, members of the board. Q. Mr. Goodlette, does that plat indicate to you who would own the roads as platted in Unit 1 at Lely Barefoot Beach? A. On -- on the -- on page 34, which is the first page of that plat, there are dedications, which is customary. And i-L appears that -- It indicates here that the owner of the lands described herein -- on has caused the plat of such lands to be made and hereby dedicates the following: Lely Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association all road rights -of -way, same being shown, etc. So, yes, on the plat itself, it does indicate that Lely Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association, Inc., would -- would be the -- would be the owner of those right -- of that right -of -way. Q. And, Mr. Goodlette, have you come to learn in your review of various materials in this case that there was no such thing as the homeowners' association as the official name given to it in that plat? A. Yeah. I recall some discussion that -- that you and I have had regarding -- I believe you've shown -- shown me a deed or a later deed that corrected that, Mr. Hazzard. Q. And, in fact, that deed, I believe, is in evidence already, and it is one of the county's exhibits. I'm trying to find it on my list of county's exhibits. It was the deed that Mr. McCormick was referring to just the other day. I believe it's County Exhibit 8. It's a -- It says "WD" on the county's list, warranty deed, OP. Book 1308, page 000231. Is that the deed that you're referring to, Mr. Goodlette? -A.- I -- I would have to look at it, Mr. Hazzard, MR. HAZZARD: Okay. If I might have County's Exhibit 8. THE COURT REPORTER: (tendering document) Q. (tendering document) A. Yes, it appears to be because of the reference .n this that -- As I indicated, you had previously provided to m-- the purpose of this deed is to correct an erroneous reference to the grantee as Lely Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association rather than Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners, yes. And that's -- that language is set forth on that deed that you have just provided. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's behind Tab 6 in the county's book -- MR. KOWALSKI: Can I see that, please? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- for the board members. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. So, Mr. Goodlette, would it be your opinion that the road described on the plat belongs to the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association effective from when the plat was first recorded? A. Yes. Q. By the way, Mr. Goodlette, Collier County has entered into evidence in this case two easements that it claims gives it and the public the right to use Lely Beach Boulevard from Bonita Beach Page 14 16G 1 January 29, 1997 Road to its -- to Lely Beach Boulevard's southern terminus. And I have supplied you with those easements. Have you had an opportunity to review those, sir? A. Yes, I have reviewed two easements that you have provided to me. Q. The fir -- The first one, Mr. Goodlette, is entered as County Exhibit No. 10, for members of the board. It's a 1985 easement. Do you have a copy of it in front of you, sir? A. Yes, I do have a -- an easement dated August the 1st, 1985, recorded in OR Book 1291, page 1232. Q. And, Mr. Goodlette, could you describe for the board your opinion as to what land that easement gives rights to and to whom it gives rights? A. Well, it -- it -- It gives rights to the land described in the easement and -- and it -- and -- and those rights are granted from the property owners' association to Lely Estates, Inc. The property described in that easement is a strip of land -- It says, "To pass and repass along the roadway kno•�.-n as Lely Beach Boulevard as shown on plat of Lely Bea -- Barefoot Beach Unit 1 as shown in Plat Book 12, page 37." So I looked at Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1, Plat Book 12, page 37, and it would appear that what's the -- that the area of being passed over, if you will, as described in that easement on page 37 is a portion of Lely Beach Boulevard from Hispaniola to K- a- u -1 -a, however that's -- Q. Kaoola, (phonetic) I believe. A. Kaoola? -- which is that -- nofi, that's that page. So I don't know what the intention of that -- that deed was, but the land that-'s described in it is a portion of Lely Beach Boulevard from Hispaniola south to -- Q. Kaula. A. -- Kaula. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Goodlette, do you understand from your review of the materials in this case that Lely Beach Boulevard begins at Bonita Beach Road and extends furthar south than Kaula Lane? A. Yes. That's my understanding, yes. Q. So, Mr. Goodlette, in your opinion, does this easement -- this easement that you're looking at, County's 10, give Collier County any right_- whatsoever to travel Lely Beach Boulevard from Bonita Beach Road to the southern terminus of Lely Beach Boulevard? A. Only a portion of that, the -- !:he portion just described in -- in this particular instrument, yes. Q. So in this instrument it does not give it the r aht to -- give anyone the right to traTerse Lely Beach Boulevard from top to bottom? A. No, no. Not on this easement. Q. Okay. And that particular easement, in fact, gives no rights whatsoever to Collier County; is that correct-, A. To -- Lely Estates, Inc., is -- is Lhe grantee in that -- in that easement. Page 15 1 6G 1 January 29, 1997 Q. So it gives no rights to Collier County, sir? A. No. Q. I'd like you to look at the easement that's been entered as County Exhibit 23 in this case, and it's a right -of -way easement dated the 12th day of November 1987. Have you reviewed that easement, sir? A. Yes, I have. That -- That easement that I'm -- I've reviewed and that a copy of I have in front of me is OR -- recorded in OR Book 1308, page 1137. And, again, that is dated November 12, 1987. MR. HAZZARD: And that for the board members' information is Exhibit 23, and it was entered during the testimony of Wayne Arnold. Q. Mr. Goodlette, would you describe for the board what this easement that's County's Exhibit 23 does? A. It appears to describe the same property of the easement we just discussed but it grants -- it is a grant from Lely Development Corporation to Collier County. Q. Mr. Goodlette, in your opinion and based on your familiarity with easements and plats, do either of these easements entered by Collier County in this case give members of the general public any right to travel Lely Beach Boulevard from beginning to end? A. No, but this deed does grant it from Hispaniola to Kaula. Q. Thank you. Mr. Goodlette, let's go back. We were looking at ordinances before we began looking at the plat, and we've reviewed Ordinance 77 -48, and we've reviewed the Unit 1 plat. Did you also, sir, review Ordinance 85 -21? -A.- Yes, I did, Mr. Hazzard, at your request. Q. Do you understand that to be an amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD original Ordinance 77 -48, sir? A. Yes, it would appear to be. Q. And we know from our review of the build'_ng permit that there were structures built at Lely Barefoot Beach prior to the adoption of Ordinance 85 -21. Does Ordinance 85 - 21 as you have reviewed it require that any existing structures be removed from the subdit►ision? A. No, I did not see any language that r.equi.red the removal of structures. Q. Specifically, because we know it from l--he 1979 building permit, there was a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard when 85 -21 was passed. Does anything in 85 -21 indicate to you that the guardhouse was to be removed, sir? A. No, it does rot. Q. In your opinion, Mr. Goodlette, does any part of Ordinance 85 -21 authorize a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard? A. There's language in 85 -21 -- specifically, Section 4.3 -- Mr. Hazzard, that -- that does appear to me to permit it. It indicates that -- Lely Beach Boulevard; again, minimum setbacks. And there is an indication that portions of the security gatehouse Page 16 January 29,11&6 1 facility may extend into and over Lely Beach Boulevard right -of -way. Q. And, Mr. Goodlette, is it your opinion that that language that you have just read for us adopted when there was a freestanding guardhouse structure in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard simply verifies that the freestanding structure is consistent with the language? A. That -- that -- that would be -- That would be a reasonable conclusion that I -- I would make, yes. Q. Mr. Goodlette, in your opinion, is there any relationship between the plat for Unit 1 of Lely Barefoot Beach and Ordinance 89-21? A. Well, again, yes. Just- iuuking at t-he language of 85 -21 -- and, again, specifically I would refer to Section 2.3 of that ordinance -- Q. Let's give the board members a moment to find that section. This -- This is part of Exhibit 1 behind Tab 12 in the respondent's book. And you said Section 2.3, Mr. Goodlette? A. Yes, where it says, "Project plan and lard -use tracts," and then that goes over to the next -- the following page. That's page 3 of the ordinance. And then what I am referring to in responding to your question, Mr. Hazzard, is what's contained at the top of page 4 which appears to me to incorporate the plat of Lely Q). KL. Juudleccz -- A. -- or it's incorporated by reference. Q. Mr. Goodlette, have you examined the plat of Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1 and also Section 2.3 of Ordinance 85 -21 and been able to make a determination as to whether anything from the plat is not - included in Ordinance 85 -21? A. It would appear to me that there is nothing in the plat that is not in -- in the plat that is not included in the ordinance. Q. And, Mr. Goodlette -- A. And, specifically, I world -- I've reached that conclusion based upon what's set forth in -- i:, paragraphs -- 2.3. Q. And just for clarity, Mr. Goodlette, are each of those sections that you've referenced, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, identified in the plat for Unit 1 of Lely Barefoot Beach? A. Yes. Q. Is there anything else identified in the Le -- in the plat for Unit 1 of Lely Barefoot Beach that is not referenced on this page of the ordinance? A. I don't believe so, no. Q. Mr. Goodlette, in reaching your conclusion, have you also looked at a drawing of an -- an engineer that I provided you with which is behind Tab 14 of the respondent's book? It is a -- and I'll show you a -- a large -scale version of it; sir. (tendering document) In reaching your conclusions, Mr. Goodlette, have you relied upon information 7ontained in that drawing? A. In reaching my conclusion, I've rel -- I've relied upon Page 17 16G 1 January 29, 1997 the A -- A(5) on this, which is also one of the sections I just referred to that describes this property that's identified on the board that I'm holding here as having -- as containing 5.37 acres extending from Bonita Beach Road on the -- on the north south to just belo -- beyond Kaula, which is the plat of Barefoot Beach Unit 1. Q. And, My. Goodlette, you have not done yourself the calculation of the i.37 acres, is that correct, sir? A. No. I hav! -- certainly have not. Q. And is it unusual for you, Mr. Goodlette, to rely on work done by engineers in your dealing with plats, PUDs, ordinances, et cetera? A. Clearly in surveyors as well. Q. It is -- It is typical for you to rely on those things? A. Yes, indeed. Q. Okay. Mr. Goodlette, have you also reviewed Ordinances 85 -83 and 87 -53? A. Yes, I have, at your request. Q. And do you understand those to be PUD am endrnents for the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, sir? A. Yes, I -- I understand them to be that. Q. In your review of those documents, did you find anything in -- in either of those ordinances that in your opinion required removal of any existing structures, including the guardhouse that was in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard, at the time those ordinance were passed? A. No reference that I could see to removing structures. Q. Mr. Goodlette, let's look in more detail at that Ordinance 85 -83. Again, it's behind Tab 12 in the respondent's book. Are - there additional written references in Ordinance 85 -83 that support your opinion that the Unit 1 plat and specifically Lely Beach Boulevard from Bonita Beach Road south are incorporated within this PUD? A. Yes. There are -- There are several in -- Agaia, in Ordinance 85 -83 there are -- at -- at Section 1.3 -- MR. HAZZARD: That's on page 1 for the panel members. Q. would you tell us what it -- what it is on that page, Mr. Goodlette, that adds to your opinion? A. It says, 'Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision, Unit No. 1, a part of the area zoned PUD by Ordinance 77 -48." So there was more than that but that was -- all of that was included, it appears to me to have been the intention of the drafter. Q. Is there -- and -- and -- and also the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that adopted this ordinance, sir? A. Yes. Certainly. But, I mean, that's what was apparently intended by the person who -- who put the ordinance language together. Q. And, Mr. Goodlette, are there additional references within this ordinance that support your view? A. Very quickly, I think there are five or six others, and I'll just refer to them by section number and page, Mr. Hazzard, to expedite this. Page 18 16G 1 January 29, 1997 On Section 1.4 on page 2, again, there's -- the project site occurs, north -- northernmost 2 miles of Gulf beachfront land, accessible from the north by Bonita Beach Road, bounded on the north by the Collier County line. It -- That appears to make reference to the same roadway. On page 3, Section 2.2, again, there's reference to all of Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1 as being within the PUD. That's found at Section 2.2(C). Furthermore, at page 4, again, the same language that's in this -- that's on this that you just referred to. Q. The same language that was in 85 -21 is again in -- A. Right. Q. -- in this -- A. Right. Q. -- this ordinance? A. 2.3(A)(5) contains that same platted Lely Barefoot Beach. And then over on page 6, 2.3(B), as in boy, the reference to ano -- there's another reference to the road being completely within the PUD. Q. And does that reference that right at the very first sentence of that Section B, sir? A. Yes. The meandering north -south project access road shown on the master plan is constructed as Lely Barefoot Beach from its intersection with Bonita Beach Road to the south line of the plat of -- Same property we've just been describing but it's -- again, seems to be there -- this document seems to be replete with references to that same -- -Q . - And - A. -- that same land. Q. -- before you leave that page 6, Mr. Goodlette, also in the -- in Section C, do you see right in the very first sentence of Section C an additional reference to th? -- A. Yeah. Q. -- plat at Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1? A. I'm -- I'm -- I'm sorry. I should have mentioned that. Z -- I -- There are two on that page. Mmm-hmm. Q. Any further references within this ordinance, Mr. Goodlette, that cause you to believe that this ordinance incorporates the entire land within the platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1? A. Again, the same meandering north -south access road language is found on page 63 of `rear ordinance, Section 19.2(C), as in Charlie, extending over to the next page as well, and then finally on page 65 similar language in Section 19.2. I guess that's a continuation of C, Charlie; again, the same main north -south access road extending from Bonita Beach P.oad to the south line of the -- of the plat -- of the project in this case. Q. Now, Mr. Goodlette, I'm going to show you a large version of Exhibit A to Ordinance 85 -83 which the panel members have if they keep flipping towards the back. (tendering document) Page 19 16G 1 January 29, 1997 Mr. Goodlette, can you describe for the board what it is you're holding in your hand, sir? A. Lely Barefoot Beach PUD master plan -- Q. Exhibit A? A. -- Exhibit A prepared -- It's dated October '85, prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants. Q. Mr. Goodlette, does that Exhibit A graphically illustrate your point about the PUD incorporating in toto the plat for Unit 1? A. Yes, Z think it does because there are -- if you note on the legend here, there are two separate areas of -- of land being described. One is the south property line, if I may -- excuse me -- the south property line which is this dotted line. And then there's a tract_ line which seems to -- if -- if I'm -- if I'm reading this correctly, it seems to -- to come to Lely Barefoot Beach and be consistent with what I just read in the PUD that incorporates all of Lely Barefoot Beach all the way up to this point -- Q. In addition -- A. -- to the south end. Q. In addition, Mr. Goodlette, is there not language on this PUD master plan that references the plat at Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1? A. Yes. I mean, that's -- that's clearly delineated on the exhibit. Q. Mr. Goodlette, based on the words that you have referenced in the PUD ordinance and based on the Exhibit A that you have referred to, sir, is there any doubt in your mind that the entire -- the entirety of the Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1 plat is a pdrt of the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD? A. That appears to me to -- to be the case, yes, both intention of the people who drafted that -- the PUD language and the county commission in approving it, as you've alluded to earlier. Q. Mr. Goodlette, the evidence in this case is undisputed that in 1988 a new guardhouse was built on Lely Beach Bc+)levard in a spot north of the old guardhouse that you looked at in the photograph but still in the middle of -- of Lely Beach Boulevard. Based on all that you have reviewed in the various PUDs, the plat, and etc., in your opinion, is a guardhouse allowed in a spot that I'm going to show you on a graphic? (tendering document) For the record I've handed Mr. Goodiette the graphic that is found behind Tab 5 of the respondent's book. Mr. Goodlette, do you see a place there that points out guardhouse somewhere toward the north of Lely Beach Boulevard? A. Z -- I'm -- I'm sorry. Would you ask your question again? Z -- Z -- Q. Yes. r. Goodlette, based on that graphic, you see the M place indicating guardhouse somewhat north of the prior location of the guardhouse we've already established? A. Yes. I see on that now there -- there is a place for an existing guardhouse, and -- and what you're referring to is what's described larger as guardhouse as being north of that. Yes, I see Page 20 1 o G 1 +I January 29, 1997 that. Q. And the evidence in this case indicates that that is the location where the guardhouse that's the subject matter of this case was constructed. My question to you, sir, based on all you have reviewed, in your professional opinion is a guardhouse permitted to exist there under the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD ordinances? A. Yes, it -- it appears to me that it's permitted because it is in the platted Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard. It was incorporated in the PUD document as a -- as a permitted use, yes. Q. A-nd, specifically, Mr. Goodlette, in Section 4.3 that you referenced earlier, the language, "Portions of the security gatehouse facility may extend into and over Lely Beach Boulevard right -of- -way,' does that language have any bearing on your opinion in this question? A. It's -- It's consistent. I mean, that's -- that's what was originally permitted for the original structure to have been built where it was, which was over the right -of -way. So it would be consistent, it seems to me, that any additional guardhouse could similarly be constructed within the same area that the prior guardhouse was constructed. I hope that's responsive to your question. Q. I think so, sir. In addition, Mr. Goodlette, the evidence in this case is undisputed that following construction of the new guardhouse -- and -- and you may not know, but the certificate of occupancy was issued for that on June the 14th of 1988. Following that, Collier County adopted Ordinance 88 -63. Have you reviewed Ordinance 88 -63 as well, sir? A. Yes, I have, at your request, Mr. Hazzard. Q.- And, Mr. Goodlette, does Ordinance 88 -63, in fact, contain the very same language that allows, in your opinion, portions of the security gatehouse facility to extend into and over Lely Beach Boulevard right -of -way? A. Yes. Precisely the same language that I've previously testified in paragraph 4.3 it was set forth in Section 85 -- Ordinance 85 -83. Q. Mr. Goodlette, based on your familiarity with PUD ordinances and the entire process, given that there were four ordinances -- four PUD amendments adopted while there was a guardhouse standing alone in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard, would it be your opinion that there was ample opportunity for anyone involved in the process to make any corrections to language if, in fact, the intention was not to allow a freestanding structure in the middle of the road? A. It's hard for me to answer that question, Mr. Hazzard. I -- I'rn not -- I'm not sure I -- I can really. Q. If you were representing a client hypothetically in front of the Board of County Commissioners and you had any doubt in your mind and the Board of County Commissioners had any doubt in its mind that a freestanding structure was allowed in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard, wouldn't four various PUD amendments be ample opportunity to clear up any doubt? A. I would certainly urge that that -- that be the -- the Page 21 16G 1 January 29, 1997 conclusion that they would reach, yes. Q. And, Mr. Goodlette, based on your experience, had there been any doubt -- and this is your experience in dealing with PUDs -- had there been any doubt on the part of anyone in the county staff or in the entire PUD review process, would it have been addressed at these various times? MR. MA14ALICH: Objection. Speculative. MR. HAZZARD: He's -- He's giving his opinion. It's opinion testimony. I've laid out a hypothetical for him. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Kowalski, what do you think? 2-IR. KOWALSKI: It appears to ask the witness to offer an opinion as to what would have been in the minds of the county commissioners rather than the procedures that they would adopt, and I think it's -- it's -- the objection is well founded. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Sustained. BY MR. H.AZZARD: Q. Mr. Goodlette, has it been your experience that PUD ordinances are substantially reviewed when passed by Collier County? A. Certainly, by the staff and thereafter by a planning commission and thereafter by the Board of County Commissioners. Q. Has it been your experience that staff, commissioners, etc., ask a fair number of questions during the process? A. Certainly. Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Goodlette. I want to move on to a final topic, sir. I supplied you with a copy of the transcript of Wayne Arnold's testimony from Wednesday, January 22. Have you had an opportunity to read that testimony, sir? "A.- Yes. I reviewed the -- Wayne's testimony on, I think, Wednesday, the 22nd, perhaps Q. And -- A . -- of January. Q. And, Mr. Goodlette, do you understand that at least one of the county's theories in this case is that the Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse is zoned on -- I mean is located on land zoned agricultural special treatment, based on your reading of Mr. Arnold's deposition? A. I understood that to be the position that he was testifying, yes. Q. And do you agree or disagree with that position based on your view of the various materials you've looked at? A. No. I -- I really do believe that the -- based upon -- as I've previously testified, that the -- it was clear to me that it was the intention that Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard -- it was incorporated into the PUD by the incorporation of the -- the plat of Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1. Q. And Mr. Goodlette -- A. It, therefore, would be zoned PUD. Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. Goodlette, one of the county's theories in this case appears to be that, based on Mr. Arnold's testimony, the guardhouse being located on land zoned agricultural special treatment violates Page 22 1 bG 1 January 29, 1997 the PUD. Do you have any concept that would allow you to understand that theory, sir? A. If -- If I understood your question, that -- that -- that testimony of Mr. Arnold was that land located outside of the PUD would violate a PUD that it was not within, no, I don't understand that -- that rationale, if I understood your question correctly. Q. Yes, sir. My -- My question specifically is, can a structure constructed outside of the PUD violate the PUD based on your entire experience? A. No, I have not -- I have never seen that. Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Goodlette, you mentioned that you were part of the process in -- in developing the Land Development Code for Collier County; is that correct? A. The comprehensive plan. Really the -- the -- the Lana Development Code regulLtions followed, and there was not a citizens' committee that I'm aware of that was as involved in developing the LDC, the Land Development Code, as was involved in developing the comprehensive plan itself, and my participation was in the preparation of the proposed plan, not the -- not the land development regulations designed to implement the plan. Q. Is it your understanding, Mr. Goodlette, that the Land Development Code, and the sections specifically that my clients are charged with violating, were not adopted until 1991, sir? A. Yes. I think that's what -- what Mr. Arnold testified to as well. Q. Ms'. Goodlette, do you have any understanding based on all your experience as to how the 1991 Land Development Code could apply to events that occurred in 1988? A.- No, I don't have -- I don't have any knowledge of how -- how they could. I'm -- they -- They may be, but I -- I don't know how. Q. Would it seem unusual to you, sir? A. It -- to -- to apply them retroactively? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes. MR. HAZZARD: I have no further questions for Mr. Goodlette. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: County-, MR. MAJ LICH: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Madam Chairman, I'm sorry. I've been focusing on answering my questions, and I haven't been facing the the panel, but I apologize. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that -- that's fine, Mr. Goodlette. And when the attorneys are through, I'll ask the members of the panel if they have any questions for you. THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I guess this is a good time -- Time dies when you're having fun. I guess this is a good time -- my fellow board members told me to take a. little break. So I apologize, Mr. Goodlette, that we're doing this on your time. THE WITNESS: No problem. Page 23 16G 1 January 29, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's take ten. We'll be in recess for ten minutes. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON R.AWSON: Okay. The Collier County Code Enforcement Board will come back to session. When we took a break, I believe it was time for the county to cross - examine Mr. Goodlette. MR. MAIZALICH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Good morning, Mr. Goodlette. A. Good morning. Q. Always a pleasure to see you, even under these circumstances. A. Thank you. Q. Mr. Goodlette, you were previously in a partnership position at the law firm of Cummings & Lockwood; is that correct? A. Yes, I was. Q. And in that law firm, Mr. Hazzard was a member of that law firm at the time; correct? A. Yes, he was. Q. Okay. Were you employed at the law firm at the time that the lawsuit was filed by Mr. Hazzard's firm on behalf of respondents against the county? A. I believe so. If that was in January of 1995, the answer to that is, yes, I was. Q. Now, you are being hired by Mr. Hazzard's client, the respondents, to be their expert witness; is that correct? A. Yes. -Q.- Okay. What is your hourly rate? A. Two hundred dollars an hour. Q. Mr. Goodlette, you've reviewed all these PUD ordinances. In all of these PUD ordinances, there's always a reference to a gatehouse at Tract A; is that correct? A. I believe that's correct, yes. Q. Did you also encounter in these ordinances a provision that states that there be -- there may be made no modification to the road which would interfere with access along the road? A. That is mentioned. I'm not sure it's in all of the ordinances, but that is -- I have seen mention of that in -- in -- among the ordinances that I reviewed. Q. You were not involved in the creation of these ordinances; correct? A. That is correct. I was not. Q. At this point you are merely looking back and interpreting what you think these meat_; correct? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Hazzard showed you the master plan which is attached to -- and I believe -- Do you have a copy of that in front of you? X_ To which ordinance? 77 -4Q? Q. Yes. A. I have -- Page 24 16G 1 January 29, 1997 Q. I have the -- it's -- A. -- a -- a copy. MR. HAZZARD: It's in evidence. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. It's in evidence. This is -- I believe is a correct copy of what is in evidence. (indicating) MR. HAZZARD: That's the original -- MS. McEACHERN: That's the original, Ramiro. MR. HAZZARD: -- in your hand. MS. McEACHERN: That's the original. MR. MANALICH: Oh, all right. MS. McEACHERN: There's a certified copy that's in evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Could you help the board tell us what -- where we can find that so we can follow along? MR. HAZZARD: I'm not sure it's in either book, Madam Chairman. It's -- It was added -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's Appendix -- MR. HAZZARD: -- on Monday's -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. MR. HAZZARD: It's Appendix A to -- to Ordinance 77 -48 or exhibit A to Ordinance 77 -48. MR. MANALICH: I think we have another copy. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think you passed it among the board the other day. MR. HAZZARD: Yes. It was circulated among the board. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, can we do this: If we have two copies and if we're unable to see what you're pointing out to Mr. Goodlette, Mr. Manalich, maybe we can have one up here, and we can look-at it too. Thank you. MR. MANALICH: You want to just pass it up there? MS. McEACHERN: (tendering document) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's put it in front of the smart people. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Goodlette, I just want =o ask you a couple cf questions about this document. This was attached as an exhibit to Ordinance 77 -48; correct-, A. Yes, it was. Uh -huh. Q. And -- Well, I can go back to the podium. You can just look. Go ahead. That is a document that is not particularly easy to read, is it? A. No, it is not. Q. Okay. Now, I focus your attention on the -- the -- I guess it would be the north end toward Bonita Beach Road. A. Yes. Q. And there is, I believe, on that document a place where there is a shaded square with a label below it that appears to .ay 'gatehouse'; is that correct? A. Yes, it does appear to say "gatehouse" in two separate places. Page 25 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 Q. Okay. Now, the other place that you just referred to is a smaller shaded portion that appears to be in the road and I believe the -- the words that appear there are -- that I can make out are "gate.- Is that . I think there's two words. A. "Gatehouse," yes Q. Okay• ear to me A. There are two -- two separate places that app to say 'gatehouse, " Ramiro, right - g and "gatehouse" -- (indicating) Q. Okay. A. Yes, I think it says "gatehouse" in both places. Q. They -- They use the same word; right-, A. Yes. Q. Now, would it be fair to say that the gatehouse that has been -- the second one that you've described that appears to be in the middle of the road would be depicted as it existed at the time of the passage of seven -- 77 -48 or shortly thereafter in the picture that we have as County Exhibit 157' t_ pursuant A. Yes. That -- That appears to be what was built to what the master plan contemplated, yes. Q. Again, using the same ter- minology? A. Yes. The terminology is "gatehouse" on the master plan. Q. On the master plan, we do not see any reference to a gatehouse or a guardhouse at the present location. in the road, where the present guardhouse is; correct? A. Not on that master plan, no, sir. A to have been the Q. Would you agree with me that it appear purpose in the ordinance to have a ga'cehouse complex as it is referred to f-or security purposes. A. I -- I would rely in answering that question, Ramiro, on the language in 77 -48 and specifically Section 12 that describes what the gatehouse complex would ,consist of a d;nini.strat�ve offices and other things. So safety is certainly an important component of that but I -- I wouldn't -- Z -- I can't answer your question that was the exclusive -- Q. Okay. TWhat I would refer you to -- if you have before you a copy of Ordinance 85 -21 -- A. Yes, I do have it. _ Q. Okay -- which is County Exhibit Tab for board members A. Twenty -one on what I'm looking at here. MS. McEACHERN: It wasn't in the original - MR. MANALICH: Okay. We have the Exhibit -- MR. HAZZARD: I believe Mr. Goodlette has -- MR. MANALICH: That was not -- MR. HAZZARD: -- correctly identified it as Exhibit 21, County Exhibit 21, introduced during Way -- Wayne Arnold's testimony. MR. MANALICH: Thank you for your help on that. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. hat is labeled as Section 4 of that ordinance which i�i appears on what that ordinance originally numbered as page 11, 4.2(A) -- Page 26 16G 1 January 29, 1997 A. Yes. Principal -- Q. Okay. A. -- uses. Q. Right. Now, would you describe for us what the first two sentences of that section says, please, or state just what it indicates. A. Security against road entry, public access through and around the gate entry along the principal access road. That's the language that we -- Q. And -- and it does describe -- A. -- alluded to. Q. -- an entry gated facility for security; correct? A. Yes, it does. Q. Now, the gatehouse or guardhouse, whatever we choose to call it, that was originally constructed that we see in the picture from the late '70s is of a different size than the present guardhouse, is it not? A. I -- I really don't know. It would appear to be from the other picture that I was shown but I -- I really -- I haven't measured it, so I can't really answer that honestly and candidly, Ramiro. Q. No master plan or plat or any other real property document shows the guardhouse at the present location, does it, prior to 85 -21? A. Not that I have seen, no, sir. Q. Now, you mentioned in your testimony that you had reviewed the easements which apply to this road in this case; correct? A. The two that -- specifically that Mr. Hazzard posed questions to me regarding, yes. Q. Now, you're not saying today, are you, that the county and the public don't have rights under those easements to get to those parks, are you? A. No, I'm not -- I'm not -- That wasn't the question that I was asked nor was it the answer that T offered. Q. Okay. I'm sorry to have mischaracterized. A. No. I -- I -- I'm -- I was just responding to Mr. Hazzard's question regarding specific language in two easements that -- that I was asked to review. (County's Exhibit No. 25 was marked for identification.) BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Goodlette, I'm presenting to you what's been marked as County Exhibit 25, and I don't know if you've seen this before or not. A. No. I do not believe that I have. Q. Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Excuse me. Mr. Manalich, is this a new exhibit? MR. MANAI.I CH : It is. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any objection to introduction MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I would object to Page 27 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 introducing this exhibit if that's -- if that's Mr. Manalich's intention if he's planning to have Mr. Goodlette, A, be the person who is the source for introduction of this exhibit when he has just testified that he's never reviewed it; and, B, purport to introduce evidence during our case in chief. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's pass it back down. MR. MANF.L,ICH: Well, the reason I'm offering it is because Mr. Hazzard has proudly proclaimed Mr. Goodlette's expertise as regards to the easements, what they allow, what they don't allow. The -- This particular easement which was from the State of Florida -- MR. HAZZARD: Objection. Counsel's testifying as to a document that's not in Evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's do this: I'm going to pass them back down so the board really doesn't look at them until they become evidence. You can certainly show him this document that's been marked for identification purposes and ask him questions about it. And then when you make your offer to introduce it into evidence, then we'll deal with it at that time. But since it's really not evidence before us, why don't you just show it to him and ask questions, but I think the board probably shouldn't look at it yet. BY MR. MANAL I CH : Q. Mr. Goodlette, have you had a chance to review that document-, A. No, sir. It's about five pages. I'll be glad to read it if you'd like me to. Q. Could you take just a moment, please. What -- What I want to ask you so that it may help skim the -- the document is, does this not grant the state certain access rights along the length of the enti-re road of the access easement? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I'll withdraw any objection to introduction of this easement into evidence. MS. LOL'VIERE: Thank you. MR. HAZZARD: Let -- Let's let it roll. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: In that case, it will be introduced as Countv's 25 without objection. Now we'll pass it back down among the board members, and you may ask Mr. Goodlette questions about it. (County's Exhibit No. 25 was admitted into evidence.) BY MR. MA14AL I C H : Q. Mr. Goodlette, while you're reading, specifically I'm looking at paragraph 2 as to what Lely is granting. A. Yes. And this appears to be a grant of easement from Bonita Beach Road that has previously been referred to in my testimony as Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard to the property described in this document as an Exhibit A which I -- my impression is is the state - owned land at the south end of Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard. Q. So, in essence, there would be public access rights along the entire length of the road from Bonita Beach Road to the park lands? A. That -- That appears to me to be at least a portion of what this document creates, but I haven't reviewed it thoroughly -- Q. I understand. Page 28 16G 1 January 29, 1997 A. -- but based upon quickly looking at it -- Q. Okay. A. -- yes, that -- Q. I appreciate your candor. A. Very clear. Q. Okay. When Ordinances 77 -48 and 85 -21 were passed, the guardhouse again was not in its present location; correct? A. I don't know the answer to that, frankly. I really don't know when it was moved but -- Q. Okay. You did review the building permit, though, for the guardhouse, the present guardhouse; correct? A. In 1979, yeah -- the current -- no, I did not. I reviewed a -- Q. You did not? A. I reviewed a 1.979 building permit. Q. Okay. A. So that would have been in conjunction with the -- this guardhouse that I'm pointing to in the -- in the picture, yes. Q. Now, you mentioned Ordinance 88 -63 had been passed, and I understand your testimony correctly to be that the passage of Ordinance 88 -63 further confirms the present -- the proper present location of the guardhouse? A. I believe the specific question that I was asked by Mr. Hazzard was, was this -- was the language that was contained in the prior ordinance that I testified, which was 85 -83, I believe, repeated in 88 -63, and I indicated in response to that question that the answer was, yes, it seemed to be the same 4.3 language that's been referred to in my testimony as the portions of the security gatehouse facility extend into and over Lely Barefoot Beach right -of -way. Q. Now, do you have a copy of Ordinance 88 -63 there? A. Yes, I do have. MP.. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, is 88 -63 an exhibit that you have? Let me just check my list. MR. HAZZARD: Eighty -eight sixty -three is the first series of ordinances behind Tab 12 of the respondent's book. MR. MA LNLICH: It appears -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been entered. HR. MANALICH: -- to be Collier County Exhibit 22. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. So it's been introduced into evidence. BY MR. MANRLICH : Q. Looking at Ordinance 88 -63, that ordinance has some strike- throughs and underlines, doesn't it? A. Underline -- Yes, it does have. It has a strike - through in 4.3(B) and an underline, and then it has some underlining in -- in Section 2. Q. And that represents what are the changes made through this amendment from the previous ordinance; correct? A. That -- that's -- That would appear to be, yes. It was just a further amendment to the PUD, yes. Q. Now, none of those changes, either struck through or Page 29 16G 1 January 29, 1997 underlined, in any way refer to the guardhouse; correct? A. No. None of the -- the striking through or underlining refers -- Q. Okay. A. -- to the guardhouse. That -- There's no striking through or underlining in 4.3(A). Q. Okay. And the part that you mention about 4.3 that's not struck through or underlined that talks about portions of the security gatehouse facility may extend over and into Lely Beach Boulevard, that was already present in 85 -21; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that's at Section 4.3? A. Subsection A, yes. Q. Right. Now, that previous section, 4.3, was the one that again speaks about an entry gate facility and which locates it at Tract A; correct? A. That is correct. Q. Mr. Agnelli testified on behalf of the respondents earlier in these proceedings and admitted on cross - examination that this whole confusion regarding the appropriateness of the location -- the present location of the guardhouse could have been avoided had an ordinance amendment been passed specifying that location. Would you agree with that statement? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I would object that that mischaracterizes Mr. Agnelli's testimony. I believe his testimony was that had there been any confusion at the time, it would have simply been taken care of with an ordinance amendment. - CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think we can do one of two things. You can read to him from a transcript of what Mr. Agnelli says since obviously Mr. Goodlette was not present when that happened, or you can ask him a hypothetical question; if he said this, what would your opinion be. MR. MANALICH: Well, let me -- let me rephrase. BY MR. MANAL I CH : Q. Certainly would you agree with me that if anyone, either party, had passed an ordinance amendment to the PUD ordinances stating that the present location of the guardhouse was a permitted use at that spot, that would have certainly eliminated all of this discussion and confusion; correct? A. That would have further clarified the matter, yes. Q. And that's something that could have been initiated by the respondents, correct, in the ordinance amendment process? A. Could have been. Well, who is the respondent? I -- I -- I don't want to answer too quickly. Q. The association, the master association, the property owners' association. I mean, citizens can come to the Board of County Ccwmisaloners and public petition and request all types of relief. A. Yeah. And -- and -- and the reason that I was hesitant to -- to -- to be so quick to answer is because most -- it's not Page 30 I bu 1 January 29, 1997 unusual for PLM amendments to -- to emanate from the developer of the project, not the homeowner association. So I wasn't sure who the respondent was in the context of your question. I guess certainly the homeowners' association is free to and frequently does -- you know, or do, I should say, attend hearings of the Board of County Commissioners that affect the PUDs in which they reside. Q. You mentioned that -- in response to Mr. Hazzard, that usually county staff does a pretty thorough job of reviewing the ordinances. would you also agree with me, though, that it does from time to time occur that the::e are scrivener and other types of errors in ordinances that have to be brought for a correction before the board? A. Yes. I'm -- I -- I have to say my experience is that the staff here is pretty thorough, but obviously mistakes are make (sic] and errors -- errors do occur. Q. As a matter of fact, another thing you mention is that you disagree with Mr. Arnold on his expert opinion as to the location of the guardhouse and whether it's proper or not under the ordinances. A. I -- I think I disagreed with Mr. -- with -- with what I rear: in Mr. Arnold's testimony regarding the zoning, the -- the -- the special treatment -- agriculture special treatment zoning. I think my testimony and the way in which my opinion differs from Mr. Arnold's is perhaps I was asked a different question. By that, I mean I believe that the -- that the Leiy Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1 is incorporated into the PUD; and, therefore, the zoning is PUD. So that's the -- I think that's the only significant way in which my opinion differs from -- from Mr. Arnold's. Q. You do not differ with him, then, if I were to tell you that- he had stated in his examination that even if the guardhouse is within the PUD, that it still violates the ordinances because it's not at Tract A? A. I Q. You have no -- Do you have any opinion of that? A. I don't have an opinion -- Q. okay. A. -- on that, no. Q. Do you know if the Land Development Code adopted prior zoning ordinances when it was passed? A. Yes. I believe it -- it -- it -- I don't recall specifically but my -- my -- I would think that it would have adopted prior zoning ordinances. I can't be certain. Q. A PUD is a type of zoning ordinance, isn't it? A. Yes, it is. As you will recall, Ramiro, there was an elaborate process that the county went through which was zoning reevaluation during that time frame, and I don't know whether this is a subject that gets caught up in the discussion that you've had regarding this gatehouse or not, but I -- I want to be clear that there was -- there was a process that was put in place as a result of the county's adoption of a Growth Management Plan in 1989, a portion of which was adopting land development regulations to implement that plan, and there was a -- a process to preserve property rights of Page 31 166 1 January 29, 1997 people who had exi -- property that was zoned in one way that would be zoned differently as a result of the comprehensive plan amendment and the adoption of a new comprehensive plat., but those rights were not -- and understandably -- were not just sort of extinguished automatically. There was a process whereby property owners would have to be notified, could come forward, would have an opportunity to be heard regarding the zoning of their lands going forward. I don't know whether this prop -- property got caught up in that process so Z don't -- I -- I cannot testify today with as -- with any -- of any expertise in that or special knowledge about that -- those issues. So that's -- Madam Chairman, that's the only reason I'm being a little hesitant. I'm not trying to play games and -- and not answer your question. I -- Q. Well, I think you had in the sense that you thought it was -- it did adopt prior zoning ordinances. A. I believe it did, yes. Q. Z believe you stated in your testimony that you represent the respondents in this case or at least -- excuse me -- you've been hired to be of counsel to them on these issues in this case? A. I was -- Z was asked by Mr. Hazzard to review information that you provided to me to form an opinion on the issues that I've testified here to today. My -- My client is -- is the firm of Cummings & Lockwood or his clients. I'm not even, frankly, sure. My -- I think -- I think -- I'm not even sure I've rendered a bill. If I have, it's -- and it was paid, I don't know who paid it, to be candid with you, whether it was the firm of Cummings & Lockwood or whet -her it was the homeowner association but I'm -- I've really been -- Q. Okay. I appreciate your candor. A. Okay. Q. Within that mission, what I'm getting at is, yu-i have assessed and testified here today, as I understand it, as to easement rights regarding the access along Lely Beach Boulevard; correct? A. Yes. Q. You've assessed that and -- and made conclusions about what those easements provide? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Yes. Q. Now, in regard to that, have you reviewed the complaint which is in evidence in this case in the circuit court case filed by the property owners' association, the master association against the county? A. No, I have not. Q. Okay. Let me show you that complaint. Now, that was -- I'm trying to recall what exhibit that was. MS. McEACHERN: It's 16. MR. MA.NAL I C H : 16? BY MR. MANAL, I CH : Page 32 16G 1 January 29, 1997 Q. Let me just clarify that for a moment. What I will show you is -- and I don't really -- MR. MANALICH: Well, Madam Chairman, if I'm going to ask him about a particular document that is not the complaint but, rather, is an answer in affirmative defenses filed by the respondents in that action, are you going to require me to present this into evidence? I think that was your earlier ruling on something else. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No, I don't think so. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Not for purposes -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You -- MR. MANALICH: -- of cross - examination then? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You can ask him any cuestions about any document without introducing that document into evidence. If you try to introduce the doctnent into evidlence, you know, then you're going to have to establish the foundation that this is the proper witness to do it with. But I think you can ask him -- He's an expert. You can ask him his opinion about anything you want to read to him. MR. MANALICH: Okay. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. What I want to show you is in this answer, affirmative defense, and counterclaim filed by Mr. Hazzard's clients, the respondents in this case, I direct your attention to Count III of the counterclaim. And if you want to take just a moment to acquaint yourself with the preceding pages to put it in context, please do so. But the only thing I want to ask you about that is, in regard to this easement that we've been talking about here for quite some time, does Count III of that pleading not say that it is the respondent's intent to attempt to have a Court vacate in its entirety that easement? A. Let -- Let me read this, Madam Chairman. And then I -- then I want to clarify your question, if I may. Q. Let me clay -- Let me clarify. I may have misspoken. It's intending to try to vacate its entirety the state's easement; correct? A. Okay. Fine. That easement -- Q. Yeah. A. That was my question. Q. All right. A. Fine. Q. Do you agree with that? A. If -- If I may, without reviewing the -- the entire document, I -- I -- I'm hesitant to -- hesitate to comment. But in -- I will try to respond to your question by saying that appears to be what is the -- the -- the -- the respondent's objective in -- in alleging what is alleged in Count III, yes. Q. And that's filed by the respondents in this -- A. That -- That's filed by the -- Q. Master association, property owners' association? A. In this it's filed by the plaintiffs, Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association, Inc. That -- what I just -- you Page 33 16G 1 January 29, 1997 asked me to look at is Count III filed by Cummings & Lockwood representing the plaintiffs in this action, which is the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association and Lely Barefoot Beach Master Homeowners' Association, and I assume that -- that this was filed on behalf of both of those. Here's these other two too. (tendering document) Q. Are you informed as to what is presently located -- what facility is presently located at Tract A? A. No, I'm not. I -- I mean, I -- I haven't been asked to conduct a site inspection. I haven't been asked to -- to -- to -- to do that, and that's not a part of -ny testimony today, nc. MR. MA14ALICH: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON RAWS014: Redirect-, MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, just a couple quick pcints by way of redirect. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Goodlette, in terms of the easements that we've been talking about, were you asked to do any type of title search to Lely Beach Boulevard, sir? A. No, I was not. Q. Were you simply asked to give your opinion as to the workings, if you will, of the two easements that the county entered into evidence in this case prior to the one they've just entered as Exhibit 25-, A. The ones you asked me to look at I looked at, yes. Q. And I'll represent to you that those were the only two easements entered in this case prior to today. - - Mr. Goodlette, you testified on direct examination that, in your opinion, Lely Beach Boulevard was owned by the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association based on the plat dedication and then the corrective deed from 1985; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you also testified that the -- the two easements that the county entered into evidence thus far showed rights concerning Lely Beach Boulevard only between a few streets, Hispaniola and Kaula; correct? A. That's correct. Q. If you would -- Do you still have Exhibit -- County Exhibit 25 over there in front of you, the latest easement entered into in the case? A. No. I'll grab it. Q. Well, let's -- let's see if we can get him one. A. Sorry. I gave that back to Ramiro. Okay. Q. Mr. Goodlette, on August 17 of 1988, based on what you've reviewed, did Lely Development Corporation own Lely Beach Boulevard if this easement, in fact, gives rights to use Lely Beach Boulevard? MS. DEIFIK: On what date, Mr. Hazzard? MR. HAZZARD: As of August 17, 1988, the date of the easement. Page 34 I 6 1 January 29, 1997 A. It -- It would be hard for me to say without doing the title search that I -- that you just asked me if I had done, and I have not. But based upon the -- what I previously reviewed, it does appear that in the -- in the plat it was dedicated to the homeowners' association, and as you also provided me with the -- the conveying document similarly, I think both of which preceded 1988, which is the date of this document, but I can't be certain without doing a title examination. Q. Right. Based on the evidence that the county has presented thus far in this case, based on those documents that you've reviewed, however, Lely did not own the land purportedly conveyed in this easement; is that correct? MR. MANALICH: Objection. He's asked and answered that and said he needed a title search. A. I don't really think I can answer that. Q. Well, let me ask it this way: Can -- Can an entity give rights to land that the entity does not own? A. He cer -- can certainly -- You can certainly give something, but I'm not sure what the recipient of it receives. Q. For -- For example, sir, if I gave you all rights and interests that I have in Sue Filson's name plate that's on the desk in front of you, would you have any rights and interests in Sue Filson's name plate as far as you know? A. Only if you owned it. MR. MANALICH: Objection. Relevancy. MR. HAZZARD: Well, let me just try to tie in the relevancy. BY MR.- HAZZARD: Q. If. Lely Development Company -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I -- I'm not sure Miss Filson's name plate is probably relevant, so jet's move -- move on back to Lely Barefoot Beach. Q. By way of a hypothetical, Mr. Goodlette, if Le-_y Development Corporation did not own the rights that are purportedly conveyed in the easement agreement that is now County Exhibit 25, would it surprise you that a court case might be filed to vacate whatever alleged rights are transferred in this document? MR. MANALICH: Objection. Speculative. MAR. HAZZARD- I'm asking him in his opinion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: As a hypothetical? MR. HAZZARD: Yes. If -- MS. DEIFIK: Can we -- Can we make this a question on the Florida Bar certification? MR. HAZZARD: Yes. All -- The point I'm trying to make -- THE WITNESS: I thought we had one. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Goodlette, simply put, would you need to see some evidence that Lely Development Corporation owned the rights it purportedly gives in this easement in order to opine as to what the Page 35 January 29, 1997 recipient of this easement gets? A. Yes. If I was asked to do -- to prepare a policy of title insurance on this property and what did the rec -- the recipient, the grantee in this easement received, it would be incumbent upon me to -- to determine what the grantor owned before I could determine what the grantee received. Q. Now, let me -- let me represent to you the date of this easement is August the 17th of 1988, and I'll represent to you that the evidence in this case is undisputed that the guardhouse on Lely Beach Boulevard existed in its present location on June the 14th of 1988. That's the date that the certificate of occupancy was issued. Do you have any opinion as to the implication or effect of this easement being issued while there's a guardhouse in the middle of the road might be? A. Subject to whatever rights exist by the guardhouse to be there, I guess, is my short answer to your question, if I understood it correctly. Q. Yes, sir. My -- my -- My question is directed toward the fact that if there is a -- in -- in your opinion, if there is a building in the middle of this easement at the time that the easement is granted, does anyone have to remove this building under this easement, as you understand it? A. Not unless the document requires that to occur. I -- I notice that in -- when I did -- and, again, I briefly read this, but apparently this was -- this was -- deed was entered into as part of a resolution of a -- of a dispute that then existed because I noticed language in here about release. And by "this," I mean the -- the -- the- August 17, 1988, deed. So I don't want to venture too far into what -- what we -- what this was designed to accomplish because I'm simply not -- Q. Certainly. A. -- not -- not familiar with the history or -- or the facts. Q. And -- and I simply want to make clear again, Mr. Goodlette, that you were -- you were simply asked to review evidence entered by Collier County thus far in this case, which included two easements, and give your opinions as to what those easements covered based cn what you read in the documents; correct? A. That is correct. MR. HAZZARD: I have no further questions. RECROSS - EXAMINATION BY MIR . MANAL I CH : Q. Mr. Goodlette, the easement that we've just referred to does nor reference the guardhouse, correct, in its terms? A. I have not -- if you're -- Again, if you're talking about the August 17, 1988 -- Q. Yeah. I realize you just saw it. A. -- I have not read -- Q. Okay. A. -- the entire thing, so it's -- it's hard for me to Page 36 16G 1 January 29, 1997 answer that question Q. Okay. A. -- definitively. Q. Assuming it doesn't, would you agree with me that it's a separate issue as to whether the guardhouse is legally placed in its present location in regard to the governing PUD ordinances? A. Yes. Q. And would you further agree with me that the PUD ordinances that we have talked about here this morning all specifically refer to a gatehouse complex at Tract A that may extend over and into Tract R road? A. Yes. Q. Would you further agree, then, that the original small building guardhouse in the center of the road that we saw on the photo, as well as in the early master plan, had to be under the PUD ordinance an extension from the Tract A gatehouse into the road; correct? A. No. No. I -- I think it says -- it says extend into or o -- and over the right -of- -way so -- and -- and -- and -- and what I assumed in -- in reading that language and in looking at the master plan and particularly looking as it -- as it was built, that there was -- there's both an extension into and a construction over -- Q. Okay. A. -- the easement, the right -of -way. Q. Doesn't -- doesn't that mean that -- Well, first of all, are you aware that the roof overhangs from the gatehouse just over the road? A. It -- it would -- Just looking at a picture, it would appear to but -- Q. Okay. A. -- I haven't been asked to -- Q. Would you then -- A. -- to examine the survey. Q. would you further agree with me that if we're talking about an extension, are we not then in all practical texas talking about something that is functionally and physically serving the gatehouse? A. I -- I'm not sure that I'm - I -- I think the answer to your question is -- is correct, but -- but I'm not sure that I understand your question entirely. Q. It's pretty hard to say that a guardhouse located over 200 feet from that gatehouse is functionally and physically serving that gatehouse, isn't it? A. Yes. MR. MARALICH: Thank you. Nothing further. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAiQINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Goodlette, has anything that the county attorney has 4-uestioved you about today caused you to change your original opinion tl-at the guardhouse as it exists today is on land zoned PUD? A. No. Page 37 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 Q. Has anything that the county attorney's office questioned you about today caused you to change your opinion that the language of Section 4.3 of the PUD ordinance allows that structure to be a freestanding structure in its current location? A. Nothing has changed my opinion. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you sir. MR. MANALICH: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any of the board members have questions for Mr. Goodlette MR. ALLEN: I just have one small one, Mr. Goodlette. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Allen. MR. ALLEN: In theory, okay, had the PUD been amended from Tract A to Tract R, whatever -- had there been a PUD amendment in -- done in ordinance form, would we be here today? THE WITNESS: Impossible for me to answer that question. I -- I -- Z -- I relatively doubt that if that's the -- if that's the -- MR. ALLEN: I'm -- I'm not trying to ma -- oversimplify it but that's -- THE WITNESS: Right. MR. ALLEN: -- that's -- I was just asking a expert summary. ME. LOUVIERE: That's a good question. MR. ALLEN: I mean, is it -- THE WITNESS: I -- I -- I really can't answer that question, Mr. Allen. I -- I don't know enough about -- MS. LOUVIERE: That's a good question. THE WITNESS: -- anything other than what I've been asked to review pertaining to these proceedings. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other questions for Mr. Goodlette? MR. McCORMICK: I'll ask a question. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. McCORMICK: Let me try to clear up this property deed and -- and easement trail if -- THE WITNESS: Okay, sir. MR. McCORMICK: -- if we can. When I look at the plat or Lely Barefoot Beach, the road is dedicated to the Lely Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association by Lely Estates. THE WITNESS: That's correct. MR. McCORMICK: And I think this is in late nineteen -- THE WITNESS: 1978. MR. McCORMICK: -- seventy- eight? THE WITNESS: I think that's right, yes. MR. McCORMICK: The -- What is the corrective deed of 1985 that you mentioned? I don't believe -- THE WITNESS: I -- I think -- MR. McCORMICK: -- we've seen that, but you reviewed a deed in nineteen eight -- Page 38 16G 1 January 29, 1997 THE WITNESS: I did review a deed, and -- and -- and it's the one that was shown to me. I think it has been admitted, perhaps, into evidence. But I -- I -- I -- I only testified -- or I should say the limitation of my testimony was that I reviewed that to show that -- that the dedication in the plat is to Lely Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association. And the -- and -- and that deed corrected or, I guess, brought into balance what -- what was intended at the time because the actual -- I think there was a prior deed that actually conveyed it to an entity that perhaps did not even exist. I'm not even sure. MR. HAZZARD: Mr. McCormick, for clarity, it's -- in the county's book, it's behind Tab 6. It was entered, I think, as Exhibit -- County's Exhibit 8. MR. McCOftMICK: In regards to the plat, when -- when this states that Lely Estates dedicates the road to Lely Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association, who actually owns the property that the road lies on at that time? THE WITNESS: The -- The underlying title would have remained in Nap -- in -- in that Lely Estates, Inc., and the -- There again, looking at the language in the dedication itself is, "The owner of the lands described herein hereby dedicates the following to Lely Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association all road right -of -way, same being shown as Tract R, and the maintenance thereof, subject to easements here -- hereafter set forth." So the -- the dedication is not itself a conveyance of the property but it's -- t,9Z. McCORMICK: It's setting it up so that it can -- THE WITNESS: It -- MR. McCORMICK: -- there needs to be a separate deed to -- THE WITNESS: Indeed. MR. McCORMICK: -- transfer ownership if that's what is -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR. McCORMICK: -- to occur. THE WITNESS: I mean, that's -- and -- and -- and -- and -- and, you know, I have seen plats that dedicated, and there was no deed that followed, you know, into the homeowners' association. It's -- but -- but that's clearly the -- the intent, it seems to me. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. Mr. Hazzard, you said that this deed was found behind Tab 6 of the county? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, sir. MR. McCORMICK: What I have there is a deed dated 1987. MR. HAZZARD: Yes, sir. MR.. McCORMICK: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: I -- I -- I believe we're all -- we're talking about the same deed. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. So we -- MR. HAZZARD: Did I misspeak on the -- on the date? I,t. McCORMICK: Well, Mr. Goodlette had said the corrective deed of 1985, or maybe you had in directing a question to Page 39 16G 1 January 29, 1997 him. MR. HAZZARD: If I -- If I misspoke, it's the -- that's the -- the deed that's in evidence -- MR. McCORMICK: That's the one. MR. HAZZARD: -- in the case. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: That's the one he reviewed. MR. McCORMICK: And in this case it says the Lely Development Corporation is selling the property to Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association. THE WITNESS: That's correct, which is not the Lely Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association and that was the -- I think that was what was in question there, the name of the grantee entity, whether it was homeowners' or property owners' association. MR. McCORMICK: And then in this property deed, it appears that the plat is recorded in Plat Book 12, pages 34 through 37. THE WITNESS: That is correct. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. THE WITNESS: And that's the plat that I had been referring to in my testimony here today as the plat of -- of Barefoot -- of Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1. MR. McCORMICK: And then the easements that we moved on to -- that you've talked about, that only referred to one of those pages. THE WITNESS: That's correct. That's -- that -- That referred to page 37, which is one of the four pages in which that Unit 1 of Lely Barefoot Beach is recorded. - MR. McCORMICK: Perhaps with the assistance of Mr. Hazzard, could you show us what that area is on one of our larger exhibits that is referred to, that -- that page 37 of the plat book that you said was, I think, Hispaniola to Kaula? THE WITTIESS: Madam Chairman, may I just -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Please. MR. McCORMICK: Sure. THE WITNESS: If -- if -- if I can -- and what I'm showing for -- for counsel is the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD master plan. At -- This is shown here as platted Lely Barefoot Beach Unit No. 1 that I'm pointing to, and that stops right here, and the last page of that Plat 37 is the last portion. So it would appear to me looking at -- so -- because the -- the plat is of -- of Plat Book 12, pages 34 through 37 of all of this, 34 being all of it, 35 being, 36 being, and 37 being. That's the way that -- that plat breaks it up. (indicating) So the -- Actually, the part that was described in that -- in the deed that I testified to is a portion of the land. And -- and I'll do it on the -- on the -- how we -- pretty much right in here, I think -- M�. MCCORMICK: Okay. THE WITNESS: -- maybe starting with H, I, J, and K in the -- in the perspective plat. Is that responsive to your question? Page 40 1 bG 1 January 29, 1997 MR. McCORMICK: Yes. In -- In your review of -- of any of these materials, did you come across any reason why only that portion on that one page would have been included 3n -- in the easements? THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. I wasn't -- Z was only asked to review that -- that one -- MR. McCORMICK: That one document -- THE WITNESS: -- that one document. MR. McCORMICK: -- easement. THE WITNESS: I don't know whether that was just a scrivener's error, that it was really intended to be pages 34 through 37 but -- but I -- I didn't draft it, so I don't know the answer to that question. But I know that what was actually described related only to that portion of Lely Barefoot Beach Boulevard on page 37. So I didn't know when I reviewed that whether the portion on pages 36 and 35 had been previously -- you know, an easement had been granted. I didn't know, but I'm just telling you what I -- what I saw. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. One last question. In reviewing the plat, did you come across any total area figures, any -- any acreage on -- on what land was contained within that plat? THE WITNESS: Yes. And that was found on Section four point -- I'm sorry -- 2.3 of Ordinance 85 -21. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. Well, I was -- Z was hoping that something was found within the plat that matched or -- or didn't match with the PUD, but you're just going by what was in that PUD, and you -- THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. McCORMICK: -- didn't find any separate acres totals for-the -- the total platted -- platted area within the plat itself? THE WITNESS: No. Not specifically. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions from the board? MS. LOUVIERE: I have a question. THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: On the master concept plan, it would appear that there -- there's a PUD, a rather dark line that delineates where the PUD kind of ends and starts. What do the following words mean to you: "Mean high tide line." what do you think that means? THE WITNESS: It --- it's a -- it's a -- Zt's a line that's -- it moves. The mean high tide line, you know, meanders. It moves. I don't know how to answer your question other than it is a it is a line that is established by the Department of Professional Regulations in conjunction with coastal construction control lines and coastal construction setback lines, and there's a mean high tide line. And it's not necessarily a building line. It's normally a -- a line that's -- that's a reference line, if you will. MS. LOUVIERE: What -- What does the line mean -- "coastal development limit line" mean to you? THE WITNESS: That's -- that's -- Again, that's a state Page 41 16G 1 January 29, 1997 regula -- regulatory process, and it's identifying a line for -- normally for -- for state purposes. MS. LOUVIERE: Who do you think owns the land beyond these lines? THE WITNESS: The public. You mean -- You mean westward or -- or seaward? MS. LOUVIERE: Mmm -hmm. THE WITNESS: Yes. The public. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: In this PUD it -- it doesn't show it as such on this master plan. THE WITNESS: I -- I don't know -- I don't know the answer to that. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions for Mr. Goodlette? Any questions from the attorneys based on the questions from the board for Mr. Goodlette? MR. MANALICH: None. MP,. HAZZARD: None. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Mr. Goodlette, then I think you are excused, and thank you very much. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I -- Madam Chairman, I would like to try to get one -- at least one more witness done before -- C:Lk.IRPERSON RAWSON: I would too. MR. HAZZARD: -- the noon break. Do you need a break right now, or can I proceed? MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman and Mr.. Hazzard, on that point, at this point if you can have us -- give us just one moment, we may be able to expedite this a little bit by eliminating a couple of witnesses, and maybe that will factor into your planning here. MR. HAZZARD: Great idea. Just a moment. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, wonderful. Then we'll take five. Go for it. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Back on the record. It's still the respondent's case. Next witness. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, during the break counsel for the county attorney's office informed me that they are willing to' stipulate to entry of the two affidavits that I proposed earlier this morning. Mr. Manalich may have something to say about that, but it was in the interest of speeding things along, and I appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, thank you. MR. MANALICH: That -- that's -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So do we. MR. P.ANALICH: That's correct, Madam Chairman. The only comment we would have -- we -- we agree with everything he said -- is Page 42 16G 1 January 29, 1997 simply that since you will have before you these two affidavits of Tamela Wiseman and Glenn Carroll and they're not going to be here for us to cross - examine, that you simply be aware that on the July 25 meeting at pages -- I show it beginning around page 36 of that transcript that Mr. Mazzone testified about the very same things that are in the affidavits. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Page what? MR. M- NALICH: Thirty -six. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. And it seems to me we'd have some -- MR. MANALICH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- something introduced in evidence signed by Miss Wiseman and the other person too. That's -- MR. MANALICH: Right. And the only other clarification is the county is not agreeing with the content -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. MANALICH: -- of these affidavits. They are in dispute. We're simply standing behind Mr. Mazzone's statements in the previous transcript. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. So the board -- the board is to go back and look in your transcript of July 25 on page 36, read that testimony along with these affidavits and also -- I don't remember exactly where it is, but I know that we have the actual signatures of Ms. Wiseman and Mr. Campbell -- MP,. HAZZARD: Carroll. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- Carroll -- sorry -- on the notices of violations. Okay. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, for the sake of a clear record, I somehow kept the original of Mr. Carroll's affidavit at my desk, and I think it should probably go into the o:"ficial record. So I'll ask the original be substituted for the one that was presented earlier. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. And these were already marked earlier, I believe. MR. HAZZARD: Yes, they were. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 5 and 6? MR. HAZZARD: Let's see. They were 6 and 7 on our -- on my list. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 6 and 7. They will be introduced as evidence as Respondent's 6 and 7. (Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 were admitted into evidence.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Next witness. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to call Robert Lockhart. THERE) PON , ROBERT K. LOCKHART, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Page 43 16G 1 January 29, 1997 Q. Would you state your name for the record, sir. A. Robert Lockhart. Q. And how are you employed, Mr. Lockhart? A. A professional engineer with the firm of Consul -Tech. Q. And what is your educational background, sir? A. I graduated from the University of Florida in 1979 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering. Q. And, sir, what licenses do you hold professionally? A. Registered as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. Q. What kind of work do you do for Consul -Tech, sir? A. Land development primarily. Q. And can you tell us a little bit about Consul -Tech and what Consul -Tech is? A. It's an engineering firm with six offices throughout the state; again, primarily in land development; taking the raw land through rezoning, PUDs, subdivision plats, site development plans, infrastructure improvements, and coordinating with builders for permits and -- and construction of structures. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, I'm going to show you a resume that you've prepared, and ask you to verify that it is, in fact, yours, sir. (tendering document) Is that your resume, Mr. Lockhart? A. Yes, it is. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to offer Mr. Lockhart's resume into evidence in this case as the -- Exhibit 9 for the respondents. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 was offered into evidence.) - CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any objection? MR. MANALICH: No. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It will be introduced -- MR. LAFORET: I would like to ask Mr. Lockhart_ a question. Sir, what are you registered in, what field? THE WITNESS: Civil engineering. MR. LAFORET: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: This will be introduced as Respondent's 9. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 was admitted into evidence.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is the court reporter ready? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Lockhart, on this resume that you provided us, it shows that -- that your -- MR. LAFORET: It does. I asked the question before as far as -- Q. No. I was -- I was going to say it shows that your employment with Consul -Tech is 1997 to present, and prior to that, McKee & Associates, 1995 to 1997. You didn't just change jobs, did you, sir? A. No. The firm was purchased by Consul -Tech Engineering. Page 44 1 6G 14 January 29, 1997 Q. So Consul -Tech purchased McKee & Associates -- A. That is correct. Q. -- very recently? A. January 19. Q. Okay. Mr. Lockhart, have you spent the -- the bulk of your career since graduating from the University of Florida in 1979 involved in doing engineering work in Collier and Lee counties? A. That is correct. One month after graduation in August I began with the firm of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek at that time. I was employed there for 10 or 11 years. And then I started my own consulting firm, which was -- lasted until 1995, and then I merged with McKee & Associates. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, your resume shows about a page and a half that's labeled a partial list of projects beginning on the second page and running through to the third. Can you explain what -- what that section of your resume is al?. about, sir? A. Basically just to provide a history of development work within Collier County that I was involved -with either with Wilson, Miller or with Lockhart Engineering: PUDs, subdivisions, conventional rezoning, civil site improvement, infrastructure development work. Q. Mr. Lockhart, in the course of your work, have you become familiar with PUDs, plats, easements, and land -use issues in general, sir? A. Intimately. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, at this time I would offer Mr. Lockhart as an expert witness in land development. MR. MANALICH: No objection. MS. LOUVIERE: I -- I have a problem with that. "Land development," that's such a vast term. How -- Usually PUDs are written with -- by a planner, and an attorney reviews them. I -- Are you saying that he -- he's written PUDs? Is that what you're saying, or are you saying THE WITNESS: I have assisted in those, yes. MS. LOUVIERE: You have assisted in writing PUDs? THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. And -- but -- but, really, you're an engineer. Mostly general engineers, they look at plats, they -- they drain, they come in with water and sewer, paving. THE WITNESS: Let me -- let me -- MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, if I could interrupt, given that the county has agreed that Mr. Lockhart can be offered to this board as an expert in land development, did not object, I would offer him to the board as an expert in land development without objection from the county. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. He'll be -- He can testify. And, you know, as we do with all of our witnesses, we can assess the testimony. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Lockhart, you were beginning to describe the depth and breadth of your experience with respect to PUDs, zoning, and that sort of thing. Would you please continue, sir. Page 45 16G 1 January 29, 1997 A. Merely, I guess, the best way to express it would be that the county zoning ordinances, subdivision. regulations from 1976 on, I have had to become familiar with every aspects of them for the purpose of pursuing and bringing before the Board of County Commissioners developments of PUDs, conventional zoning, subdivision plats. It's -- It's hard to have those documents prepared and approved without knowledge of the procedures that the county has established in ordinances for doing so. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, across the top of your resume below the line that says "Consul -Tech Engineering, Inc.," it says, "Consulting Engineers, Land Planners, Land Surveyors." Is that the general nature of the work that you have done, or have you been in one or the other of those areas specifically over time? A. Yes. I've worked, again, directly with land planners, assisting land planners as well as land surveyors, environmental engineers, geologists, a gambit of land development consultants. Q. So your firm and the firms that you've been affil -- affiliated with over time utilize other persons with expertise in survey and other persons with expertise in land planning and various other expertise that you bring to bear on a -- on an entire project; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Mr. Lockhart, back when -- when it was called McKee & Associates, were you hired by the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association and the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association to assist in consulting on this case? A. McKee & Associates was, yes. Q. So -- So you were personally not hired, but your firm was Fired; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Mr. Lockhart, are -- are you in any way being compensated depending on the outcome of the hearing that's going on right now? A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Lockhart, what's your hourly rate that -- A. I -- Q. -- that's being billed in this -- in this case? A. I am not positive since the transition with Consul -Tech may have adjusted that, but I believe it was somewhere between 85 to 100 an hour. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, if I understand it, the firm bills your time out to various persons; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you're -- you're paid a salary, and you would be paid a salary whether you're here today or whether you're someplace else today? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. Mr. Lockhart, I -- would you verify that you sat through the testimony of Mr. Goodlette this morning. A. Yes, I did. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, have you reviewed the same series of Page 46 1 bG 1 January 29, 1997 PUDs that Mr. Goodlette described -- that being 77 -48, 85 -21, 85 -83, 88 -63, etc. -- for the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD? A. Yes, i have. lso reviewed the plat for the Q. Mr. Lockhart, have you a Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1? A. Yes, I did. Q. Mr. Lockhart, Mr. Goodlette testified -- and I -- and I don't want to go through a bunch of repetitive testimony today. Mr. Goodlette testified that in his opinion the plat for Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1 was incorporated within the PUD ordinance revisioshare beginning 85 -21 and carrying forward through history. Y that opinion? A. Yes, without any doubt. Q. Mr. Lockhart, Mr. Goodlette also in his opinion relied on information that's BarefooteBeachtPUD aoadlrgght�ofnwayhe Did7youracres of land for the Lely firm actually prepare that drawing? A. Yes, the firm did. ittle bit about how that -- how Q. And can you tell us a l that came about, sir? A. The firm was requested to verify the acreage of the easement identified. Q. (,tendering document) A. Thank you -- 60 -foot easement identified -- OR Book page 1008. And the area from Bonita Beach Road, the sou -- the right -of -way to the southerly extent of the Unit 1 was computed on a computer system. Acreage totaled 5.37 acres. Q So you -- you -- the computer totaled that acreage. You didrr't do some sort of calculation by hand, sir? A. No. It was a cogo program that you input the various geometric components identified on the subdivision plat, and it will give a closure area. Q And, Mr. Lockhart, did you then overlay the coordinates of that road right -of -way that's described on the ease,,--nt with the Tract R, Lely Barefoot Beach that is reflected in the plat for Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1? A. Yes, I did. Q. And is there a match between those two items? A. Yes. There are 5.37 acres. for the Lely Q. Mr. Lockhart, is it possible in any way Barefoot Beach PUD Ordinance 85 -21 to contain 5.37 acres of road right -of -way for Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1 without the PUD zoning reaching all the way to Bonita Beach Road? A. No. Q. And you base that on the calculations that y ou've performed, sir? A. Yes. And let me add that we further looked at the area of the easement south of the disputed line which corresponds, I believe, with d the limits wouldeonlygtotal 4.877 acres, 8 res, whichdoes not ordinance, match the area in the revised PUD. Page 47 1 bG I January 29, 1997 Q. Mr. Lockhart, in the course of your review of various documents and the PUD documents, have you reached your own independent expert conclusion that matches Mr. Goodiette's expert conclusion that the -- that the plat for Unit 1 at Lely Barefoot Beach is incorporated within: the PUD ordinance 85 -21? A. Yes, I did. Q. And -- and -- and is your conclusion that it is, in fact, included? A. Yes, it is. Q. Mr. Lockhart, is there any way to calculate the area within that plat that you're aware of so that it does not include it all the way to the road? A. No. Q. In other words, sir, to have closure on that PUD project land -use tracts list, you have to go all the way to the road; is that correct? A. That In crac r- ­ Q. Mr. Lockhart, in the course of your reviewing of the PUD ordinances, do you share Mr. Goodlette's professional opinion that the guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard where it sits today is allowed pursuant to Section 4.3 of the ordinance that talks to portions of the security gatehouse facility extending into and over Lely Beach Boulevard? A. Yes. Yes, I do. Q. Arid what's your -- what's your frame of reference for concluding that that type of language avuuld apply tai a freestanding of structure that needs to be tethered in some manner to Lne sLLUCLULe in Tract A? A. Well, again, referring to the experience with PUDs, not only in the written tent but the master plans, it,s very important that what is written or illustrated be specific and clear for the purpose of what the developer and the county is allowir.q. The words "facility" and I believe elsewhe,-e it's referencec. "complex," obviously interpretation of those words, be it by Webster or -- or whatever source, it is my opinion that they imply more than one structure, freestanding structures, multiple structures. And with the verbiage that portions of the gatehouse facility may extend into the right -of -way, certainly a freestanding structure is -- it's my opinion is what's allowed. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, in your review of the -- this entire matter, have you had an opportunity to look at the building permit application and the attached documentation that the county has entered as Exhibit 7, the 14 -page document? A. Yes, sir. Q. And does it appear to you that at the time that -- that building permit application was processed through the county's system that persons who were doing that processing shared your view as to whether that guardhouse could stand alone in the road? A. Yes. Several employees of the county within the development services or the process that would have reviewed building Page 48 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 permits at that time must have shared that same thought. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, I'm going to show you -- MR. MANALICH: Objection and move to strike. Speculative and not within his personal knowledge. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I would agree. You can't say what somebody else was thinking. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Lockhart, have you, in fact, in the course of your investigation into this matter spoken personally to persons who are employed in the capacities you've just described within Collier County? A. Yes, I have. Q. Have any of those persons shared with you their personal belief as to whether this guardhouse is allowed to be a freestanding building where it stands today? A. Yes, they did. Q. And -- and can you identify for us one or more persons who has shared their view with you? A. William Spencer. Q. And what was Mr. Spencer's view? A. He concurred that the right -of -way permit, which he is the engineer that reviews and approves right -of -way permits -- he recalls the instance with the Lely guardhouse gate -- MR. MANALICH: Objection. Move to strike. Hearsay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It is indeed hearsay. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Well, Mr. Lockhart, let me show you, then, a document, and ask you if you can identify it for us, sir. (tendering document) -A.- - That is a copy of the approved right -of -way permit that Mr. Spencer provided me. Q. And when did he provide that to you, sir? A. I believe last Friday. Q. And this is a copy that you received from with;.n the county's public records; is that correct? A. Yes, it is. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to offer this -- what's been identified as a right -of -way permit for the Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse into evidence as Respon -- Respondent's Exhibit 10. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 was offered into evidence.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Have you seen it? MR. 14ANALICH: No. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Take a moment to review it. MR. MANALICH: No objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would you tell me what this is? MR. HAZZARD: This would be Respondent's Exhibit 10, and for clarity we should call this "right-of-way permit." That's what Mr. Lockhart -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: -- has identified it as. MS. DEIFIK: Haven't we seen something that looked just Page 49 16G 1 January 29, 1997 like this? MR. HAZZARD: Yes. You've seen -- MS. DEIFIK: What's the difference? MR. HAZZARD: The difference is some stamps and signatures that are on this document are not on this document. (indicating) MS. DEIFIK: Oh, okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. HAZZARD: I'll further let -- I'll -- I'll let Mr. Lockhart explain exactly what that is. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. 7'hen the right -of -way, which is Respondent's Exhibit 10, will be introduced into evidence without objection. THE COURT REPORTER: i should go ahead and mark that. MR. HAZZARD: Yes. (Respondent's Exhibit No. :C was admitted into evidence.) BY ?-M. HAZ ZARD : Q. Mr. Lockhart, would you explain to the panel what that document is? And then we'll circulate it among the panel members. A. As I previously stated, it s a right-of-way approval permit. The substance is for the guardhouse, the second guardhouse, the present guardhouse. It is a right -of -way permit issued by the right -of -way engineer and the county. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, what do you understand -- based on your experience, what do you understand the process for obtaining a right -of -way permit to be, sir? A. In conjunction with a building permit, it is necessary fora' right -of -way permit to be obtained for any structure that is going to be constructed within a right -of -way or for any civil improvement work within a right -of -way, be it underground or above ground. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, do you sec the -- do you se-- what appear to be some initials and a date next to a stamped portion on that document? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you recognize those initials, sir? A. Yes. Q. And whose are they? A. Bill Spencer's. Q. And, Mr. Lockhart, in your experience as a professional engineer and the work that you have described, would you rely upon the issuance of that right -of -way permit to allow you to construct a guardhouse if you were doing so at the location shown on that permit? A. In conjunction with the building permit. Q. So, in effect, this is a second check within the county system? A. Yes, sir. MR. HAZZARD: I'd like at this time to circulate this thzough the panel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's fine. Page 50 MS. LOUVIERE: Can I should I wait? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: waiting to see, I -- I'd MS. LOUVIERE: He -- 16G i January 29, 1997 ask a question at this point, or Well, you know, while you're say go ahead -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- and ask the question. MR. HAZZARD: I -- I'd prefer that the members who are studying the document be able to hear Miss Louviere's question as well. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Fair enough. Why don't you wait until we've all seen the document. You might have further questions. MS. LOUVIERE: Oh, no. I just have that one. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, don't forget what it is. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Can I ask my question now? CHAIRPERSON] RAWSON : Mmm -hrnm . MR. HAZZARD: It's totally up to the Chair. MS. LOUVIERE: You -- you -- you kaep -- You keep talking about the road being private or you said that; okay? But -- and then you said that you had to get a right -of -way permit. THE WITNESS: Correct. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So why would ''ollier County make you get a right -of -way permit to work in the right -of -way if you own it? Usually -- Excuse me. I'm not done. Right -of -way permits are usually granted or given if you're going to work in Coiner County -owned and maintained right -o` -ways. THE WITNESS: That is incorrect. MS. LOUVIERE: That is correct. I get them all the time. THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, let me -- MR. HAZZARD: Was -- Was that a question? THE WITNESS: Do you want to debate it? I'll -- I can bring the code up and -- and show you where the code suites that it's required for private roads. MS. LOUVIERE: If you own the road, then you own the right -of -way. Why would they want to get a permit for that? THE WITNESS: Good question. Because the county requires that all work be built to county standards, whether public or private, and this is how it's ensured, that the plans are submitted and reviewed and maintained as being to county standards. MS. LOUVIER.E: They have -- You have a site development plan you're sending in. They're going to come and inspect your work. They're not going to make you fill THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't write the ordinance, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: I -- I read the ordinances also. I'm in total -- MS. DEIFIK: What -- what ordinance -- MS. LOUVIERE: -- disagreement with you. MS. DEIFIK: What ordinance is it? Maybe we could look at the ordinance. Page 51 16G 1 January 29, 1997 MR. HAZZARD: Well, I -- MS. LOWIERE: It's in the Land Development Code. MR. HAZZARD: If -- If the county would like to proffer some sort of evidence that suggests that my clients don't own this road and if the county would like to proffer some sort of evidence that suggests that this right -of -way permit was not necessary to be issued, then the county can do that, but the fact is Mr. Lockhart is testifying that this right -of -way permit was issued. If the county's position is that my clients do not own the road where the guardhouse is located, then 1 would respectfully request this board dismiss this law -- this case against us because if we don't own the road, the county can go knock down the guardhouse anytime it wants. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, t:: ^.e motions to dismiss have been previously denied, and it is another -- MS. DEIFIK: Let's keep '_his -- MR. MANALICH: -- attempt to raise that. MS. DEIFIK: -- a more civil atmosphere here, guys. MR. ALLEN: I'll mare a comment in -- I understand what you're saying, Mireya, okay, but Mr. Lockhart -- Technically we a:_1 say, "This is crazy. We own the property. Why should we get a pernit, and I think it's stupid," okay, bur I've been -- I've built three guardhouses myself, all nighty, the one at Naples Cay, the one at Imperial, and the other ones. So guess wha�:? We've still got to do them; okay? Imperial owns the land. They own the PUD; okay? I've said, 'Mr. Spencer, these guys o•,rn the land." He says, "I don't care who owns it. Give me a permit." So you -- you pay the $125 to get -- so you can go forward. - CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are you finished with that? MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah. I'm finished. MR. ALLEN: You're right in what you're saying but -- however, what -- what's right and what the county makes you do are two different things. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Lockhart, was there anything in your -- was there anything in your colloquy with Miss Louviere that causes you to change your professional opinions that you've expressed thus far this morning, sir? A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Lockhart, in connection with your review of this project, did you review any other materials that you want to bring to the attention of this board at this time? A. Just a few quick notes dealing with, I guess, the issues of the plat being, one, extending to Bonita Beach Road. There are certain sections in the subdivision regulations which preceded the curr -- current Land Development Code which required that access or a street -- street system of subdivisions shall be connected to a public road right -of -way, which in this case the plat had to have continuity and -- and be contiguous to Bonita Beach Road for it to comply with teat portion of the regulations. Q. And is it your opinion, sir, that the plat does, in Page 52 16G 1 January 29, 1997 fact, comply with those portions of the regulations as you've described them? A. Yes, sir. And, in addition, to have a plat reviewed and approved in the county, the plat has to go through a two -step process, a preliminary subdivision plat and a final subdivision plat. The preliminary subdivision plat has to go before the planning commission, the same commission that reviews PUDs and makes recommendation to the Board of County Commission. And part of that review is to verify that the zoning is correct and in place for that subdivision plat prior to it being recorded. You cannot plat on lands without zoning being consistent with the land use intended. Q. And is that consistent, sir, with what you found when you reviewed the building permit_ application, that there had been zoning reviews and zoning approvals for the guardhouse constructed in 1988? A. Yes, sir. MR. HAZZARD: No further questions for Mr. Lockhart. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me ask the county, is your cross going to be extensive, or do you want to take the lunch break now knowing that we'll probably have redirect? Up to you. MR. MANALICH: We'd prefer to do the cross now. I don't think it's going to be that extensive. CHAIPPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead. MP.. KOWALSKI: Bill, may I see the -- MR. HAZZARD: I'm looking for the exhibit. MR. KOWALSKI: I'd like -- He has it. I'd like to see that. Mme. HAZZARD: (tendering document) MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you. CROSS- EY,AMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Lockhart, am I correct that you have testif that you are retained by the respondents in this case to testify in their behalf? A. I believe -- yes. Q. Okay. Did I hear correctly you don't know what your rate of pay is? A. I know what my rate of pay is. I'm not sure what the current billing is for an expert witness. Because the transition from McKee & Associates to Consul -Tech, we are, I believe, forced to adopt their rate codes, and I believe there's probably a 20 percent increase or something of that nature. Q. And that rate of pay would include your attendance for all the time you've been here within the last few hearing days; right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now, you were not involved personally in the approval process for any of the PUDs or permits that are at issue in this case; correct? A. That is correct. Q. Have you done other work for the respondents or for this law firm? Page 53 16G 1 January 29, 1997 A. No. Not for them. Q. What do you mean by that? A. I believe in the past when Z was employed -- Lockhart Engineering firm existed, the firm of Cummings & Lockwood was used in conjunction with a project. They were attorneys assisting my firm and a geologist, Missimer & Associates. Q. Your concentration as far as your studies and your professional license is in engineering? A. Civil engineering. It's a broad field. Q. Were you here when Mr. Ewing testified A. No, I don't believe so. Q. -- a Coastal Engineering surveyor? A. Z -- I'm not positive. Z believe if -- I might have been for a portion of it, but I - Z can't recall -- Q if I A. -- any of his testimony. Q. If I told you that Mr. Ewing testified that the roof of the gatehouse facility on Tract A extended partially over the road, would you have any reason to dispute that? A • No. (JD ordinances Q. Do you agree with me that all of the p involved in this case reference a gatehouse complex at Tract A? A. That is correct. Q. Do you further agree that they -- these -- all of these ordinances also talk about an extension of the gatehouse complex over and into Tract R road? the word "extension" is right. I A. No. I don't believe believe the word "extend." -Q.- Is there a difference? A. To me there is, yes. Q. What -- what's your -- A. When it's used with the -- Q. Go ahead. A. When it's used in conjunction with the words "facilities" or "complex," it speaks to me of -- of geographically, not attached to. Q. Do you agree with Mr. -- You were here, by the way, when Mr. Goodlette testified; correct? A. Correct. Q. And you heard him say that he agreed with me that in reviewing that ordinance when we were talking about an extension, that it would have to mean that it's -- physically and /or functionally serves the gatehouse security complex. Do you disagree with Mr. Goodlette? A. The latter part of your statement, functionally, not physically necessarily. Q. Okay. So your position is it does not physically but it functionally has to relate to the gatehouse? A. That is correct. When it speaks of "gatehouse facility,' it needs to functionally be a part of it. Q. If I told you that the gatehouse is now being used as a Page 54 16G 1 January 29, 1997 real estate office, do you believe that the present guardhouse functionally relates to that gatehouse? A. I believe the PUD spoke of interim uses being for administrative, sales, etc. Q. Permits can't override ordinance provisions, can they? A. No. Q. Do you have an opinion today if you assume that the guardhouse in its present location is within the PUD, as you've testified, as to whether the PUD is violated by the location of the guardhouse? A. No. Q. You don't have an -- A. I -- I -- I do not believe it is violated. Q. Okay. Why is that? A. The PUD allows for the gatehouse to be in that location. Q. Even though the PUD talks about a gatehouse complex at Tract A that may extend over and into the road? A. The portion of -- I believe it is -- Section 4.3(B) speaks of the gatehouse facility may extend into and over the right -of -way. So I believe it is a proper and -- and permitted use, yes. Q. Okay. Now, do you have that ordinance in front of you? A. Which one specifically? Q. The one that has the section about 4.3 that you just referenced. Eighty -five twenty -one would be fine. A. I have 85 -83. Q. That'll do. A. Yes, I have it in front of me. -Q.- At Section 4.3, the preceding page, is that not -- not entitled, "Tract A, Gatehouse Complex Site "? A. Yes, it is. Q. Are you telling us that under your theory a guardhouse can go anywhere up and down that road? A. Not theory. Opinion that the guardhouse can be as allowed in the PUD, which speaks in 4.3(A) that portio.ls of the gatehouse facility may extend into the right -of -way. Q. Mr. Spencer doesn't have the authority to change an ordinance provision, does he? A. No, sir. Q. The right -of -way building -- The right -of -way permit, is that not issued in conjunction with a prior building permit that is approved? A. I believe the procedure is somewhat flexible, that it can be issued concurrent with a building permit, subsequent -- Q. But they're tied together? A. -- possibly even prior, but they are tied intricately to the nature of what you're proposing to construct. MR. MANALICH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. No further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any redirect? MR. HAZZARD: I have no redirect, Madam Chairman. Page 55 16G 1 January 29, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Lockhart. You are excused. MR. McCORMICK: Short questions? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah. I just have one real quick, and then I'll give it to you, Rich. You said you've never worked for -- for Lely at all? THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe I stated that. MS. LOUVIERE: What did you say exactly? THE WITNESS: I believe in the terms of Cummings & Lockwood, I don't believe I've been retained in the past by them. MS. LOWIERE: Okay. So -- THE WITNESS: Our firm has done work for various homeowners in Lely in -- in the line of constructing homes, surveys, interpretation of the coastal construction setback line, structural modifications of structures, etc. MS. LOUVIERE: So you're saying you've really -- you've never worked for Lely Development per se. You just worked for owners within Lely? THE WITNESS: I believe at -- MS. LOUVIERE: That's what you just said. THE WITNESS: -- Wilson, Miller the firm did do some work for Lely on 41, southeast Naples, but not for the Lely Beach -- Barefoot Beach project, no. MS. LOUVIERE: So you -- So you have worked for Lely in the past? You either have or you haven't. THE WITNESS: Firms I've worked with have worked for Lely Corporation, but again, it's -- there have been a multitude of ccrporations. I'm not sure who the owners were of the corporations, etc. I -- MS. LOWIERE: I know. It's so confusing, isn't it? I -- I have the same problem too. I just don't know who I work for. THE WITNESS: I usually just worry about who pays my paycheck. MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah. Well, you know, the only reason I stated it was because in your resume it says that you buil -- or you worked on Lely Palms Retirement Center. THE WITNESS: That was for the owners of the Lely Palms, which, I believe, is a health management organization out of Kansas. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, just for point of clarification -- MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Thank you. MR. HAZZARD: -- so that no one is -- MS. LOUVIERE: I was just wondering. MR. HAZZARD: -- further confused, my -- my clients, of course, are not Lely -- the development company. My clients are the homeowners' association entities. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: We understand that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Mr. McCormick. Page 56 16G 1 January 29, 1997 MR. MCCORMICK: In calculating the area of the - road, did you survey that road, or did you - the THE WITNESS: Just the plat was used along with the plat? researching and verifying any scrivener's errors or corrections. MR. McCORMICK: The -- The description that you used, then, came from a plat, right, and not from -- THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. McCORMICK: -- a PUD or any -- THE WITNESS: Correct. The information, the -- the geometries came from the plat_. What was verified in the PUD was the tabulation with the land -use summary of the northern portion of the access. MP. MCCORMICK: Did you calculate the total area of the plat in any way, or did you just look at the read? THE WITNESS: Just the road. MR. McCORMICK: Could you have calculated the total area of the plat using that Cogo -- THE WITNESS: Certainly. MR. McCORMICK: -- the same way? I would agree with what Mr. Allen said about_ the right -of -way permit, that the county probably doesn't really care whether it's a private or a public road, and they Just ask out a right -of -way permit just -- j ust because You You to filYou might as well. THE `AITNESS: No. I disagree. I -- I don't always take the side of the county, but I -- I believe if the construction standards that they have to support Y re going to have public roads, it's important for those to bee u ty and maintain for private roads so that the construction community ahas apseteofto standards or a level of expertise, construction skill, what have you, that -- that is consistent; otherwise, I think you have some potential for shoddy work and -- MR. McCORMICK: Right. THE WITNESS: - and holes in what you're getting. So I support the county's theory and -- and -- and ordinance. MR. McCORMICK: Well, I would agree with you that they do review the -- the design and the -- that it meets the county standards, but in your experience do you believe the - or -- in his review and approval of a right -of -wa - Mr' Spencer would determine whether the road was Y permit, that he THE WITNESS: ubic or private? TNESS: Again, I don't think that's relevant to Mr. Spencer. He's looking at what you're proposing to construct. Well, let me correct that. It -- It -- It is relevant standpoint that he does review what from from the right -of -way. is are not proposed within the right -of -way. They're only permitted within a public road right-of-ways. y permitted within private road Y So he needs to make that determination when he is reviewing a right -of -way permit. In this example for a the road right -of -way, it must be a private road. the in MR. McCORMICK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Lockhart. You can be excused. Page 57 It's now 12 o'clock. have a problem with that? MS. LOUVIERE: That's CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 1:15. Let's reconvene at 1:15 16G 1 January 29, 1997 .� great. Okay. We'll recess, then, until (A lunch break was held from 12:00 p.m. to 1:25 p.m.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Let's go back on the record. Is everybody ready to go? MR. HAZZARD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Now, let's see. We are -- MR. HAZZARD: My witness. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- back to Mr. Hazzard's next witness, I believe. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to call Garr Franco. Would you swear the witness, please. THEREUPON, GARY FRANCO, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Would you state your name for the record, sir. A. Gary Franco. Q. And what is your occupation, sir? A. I'm the park superintendent for the Parks and Recreation Department of Collier County. Q. And are you familiar with Lely Barefoot Beach County Park as a result of your employment? A.- Yes. Q. What relationship, by virtue of your employment, do you have with Lely Barefoot Beach County Park? A. As I said, I'm the park superintendent; so I oversee all park operations for the county at all parks. Q. At every park? A. Yes. Q. And that would include Lely Barefoot Beach Park, then, obviously. Mr. Franco, copies of documents that I obtained from your office have been entered without objection as Exhibit No. 2. And I -- I know you don't have any idea what that means; so I'm going to show you Exhibit No. 2. Mr. Franco, they were entered over -- without objection, but I'd ask you to just thumb through that and see if you -- if you recognize what those are, what those sheets are. Do you, sir? A. i do. Q. And what are they, sir? A. They are our visitor survey polls, our quarterly -- the things that we send down to the state on a quarterly basis. Q. And do you refer to those as intercept surveys? A. Yes. Q. And, Mr. Franco, just so that everyone understands here, I took your deposition about a year ago in connection with a court Page 58 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 case that's pending between Collier County and my clients; do you recall that, sir? A. Yes, I do. Q. So you and I have already had an exchange of some question and answer, and I -- I want to try to move as quickly as I can through it. But, Mr. Franco, as I understand it, anyway, county park rangers or county employees from the parks department developed some questions over time that you ask sort of at random to park visitors. Is that a fair assessment? A. That's correct. Q. And at -- at least at Barefoot Beach park, one of the things that rangers ask visitors about is their access and how they passed by the guardhouse at Lely Barefoot Beach; is that correct? A. Amongst other things, yes. Q. Okay. And these forms that are in the exhibit book that I've just laid in front of you, they're compiled as a result of the information that the rangers obtain; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, this was a -- pretty much of an informal type of survey that you all developed in the parks department; right? You didn't consult with a survey expert or anything like that; is that correct? A. No, we did not. Q. Okay. But these forms you mentioned you send to the State of Florida on a quarterly basis? A. That's correct. Q. And do you have any idea what the State of Florida does with those forms? -A.- - I don't know exactly what they do with it. I think it provides information to them about the access of Barefoot Beach park. Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Franco, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read through those surveys, they seem, to me anyway, overwhelmingly to say that access is not an issue. Do you read them the same way, sir? MR.. MANALICH: Objection to the leading form of tht! question and counsel's characterization of the evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well Q. Mr. Franco, do those -- MR. HAZZARD: Well, I'll rephrase, although I -- I should note that Mr. Franco does work for Collier County, and although he is a very nice gentleman, he may actually be -- certainly is an adverse party and may -- I don't want to offend him by calling him a hostile witness, but -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We'll -- we'll just say that he works for the county, not for the respondent. MR. MANALICH: This is counsel's direct exam. I mean -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That is true. He is your witness, and -- MR- HAZZARD: And I'll -- and I'll rephrase. BY MR_ HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Franco, could you characterize what your surveys Page 59 16G 1 January 29, 1997 show generally about access to the Lely Barefoot Beach County Park. A. Well, I haven't gone through every single one of them, and I don't know if every single one are here, but just thumbing through this, it says that there are -- seem to be some problems. To try to cpjantify that right now, I don't 'know what that means, but that's all I can say for right now. Q. Okay. Mr. Franco, do you coun-�_ the cars entering the park, Lely Barefoot Beach County Park, on a regular basis? A. They are counted on a regular basis. Q. And 'now is that count done, sir? A. With a traffic counter. Q. So the car -- cars roll over a -- a thing on the road, and it clicks a number, and you're confident that that's the number of cars entering the park? A. A close approximation, yes. Q. Mr. Franco, in -- when you provide the intercept survey information to the State of Florida, do you also provide to them summary data on the number of visitors to the park? A. That's correct. Q. Mr. Franco, I show you -- I'm going to show you a chart that is prepared here. MR. HAZZARD: It's, for members of the panel, behind -- I believe it's Tab 15 in Respondents' Exhibit 1, and it was entered into evidence without objection by the county as a -- it's a compilation of the data. Can the reporter hear me? Q. Mr. Franco, I know you have not kept numbers at the -- at the top of your head on car counts and things like that, but this exhibit was entered and stipulated to by Mr. Bryant when he was handling this case. To the best of your recollection, do these numbers approximate the data that you tell the State of Florida concerning the number of cars visiting the park? A. Right offhand, I can't tell you exactly how -- I'd have to take a look at our reccrds there, bait if that is reflective of what -- that you were getting from the county, then I would have to say yes. Q. Okay. So, for example, Mr. Franco, this would indicate that in February of 1994, February, a month with 28 days in it, some 45,254 cars entered the Barefoot Beach county park; is that right? A. I'm not sure, because what it says up there is park visitor count. Q. Yes, sir. A. And that is different than the car count. Q. Okay. So that -- so that may well be the number of actual people that go? A. That may well be. Q. What number do you report to the state? A. We report the car count and visitor count. Q. Okay. So your interpretation, because this says park visitor count, would be that 45,254 bodies actually visited the park; is that correct -- A. That's correct. Page 60 16G 1 January 29, 1997 Q. -- in February of 1994? Mr. Franco, you see on here that there is a -- a three -month span, January February, March of 1995, that says data unavailable. Do you recall you and I having numerous discussions back in July as I was -- as we were preparing for this hearing concerning obtaining a quarter's worth of data that you send to the park -- that you send to the stare? A. You want to rephrase that? I want to make sure I understand the -- Q. Yes. Do you recall you and I having several discussions last summer concerning my interest in obtaining a quarter's worth of data on your park intercept surveys and -- and visitor counts? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall ultimately that the county attorney's office indicated to you that you should not turn that quarter's worth over to me? A. I do remember that the county attorney had said not to release any information to you unless it was reviewed by him first. Q. Okay. Ultimately, Mr. Franco, just so that we're clear on this chart, data for January, February, March of 1995 is available. It simply was not available to me at the time we were compiling the information. Is that your understanding as well, sir? A. I'm not sure if -- if that data is available. I remember that we did have that -- have that conversation; so yes. Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. Franco, that the January, February, March time frame is about the peak season for park visitors? A. Correct. Q. So this number at the bottom of 1995 of 218,829 visitors for the year would be understated by virtue of having left out three of ne more significant visitors' months; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. And, Mr. Franco, I would simply represent to you that I -- I'm sure you have data that fills in 1996, but when we began this hearing in mid -1996, this was all that was available, and you -- you provided that to me. A. Correct. Q. Okay. Mr. Franco, one other item that I'd like to point out on that chart. Do you recall a -- a red tide influx occurring in Collier County that affected parks? A. I can recall since I've been here in 12 years several red tide occurrences in Collier County. I don't know which one you're referring to. Q. Okay. Do you recall one in the early portion of 1996 right in the peak of last season? A. That is correct. Q. And, Mr. Franco, I -- I notice that the data from 1994 compared to 1996 shows a -- a drop -off of visitors. Do you, in part anyway, attribute that to red tide? MR. MANALICH: Objection, speculative. How would this witness know that? Q. Mr. Franco, I'll ask you that another way, sir. Do you have any -- any idea in your capacity as park superintendent, park Page 61 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 supervisor, why we see a drop from 1994 to 1996 in the first quarter? MR. MANALICH: Same objection, speculative. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, he can answer the question. Do you have any idea? THE WITNESS: I have some idea, yes. Q. Would you share your idea with us, sir. A. The institution of the beach parking fees. Q. So Collier County implemented a beach parking fee at the Barefoot Beach county park around that time? A. Not only at the Barefoot Beach county park, but all Collier County -owned beaches. Q. What's it cost to get to the Barefoot Beach county park, sir? A. If you're a resident, it's free. If you're a nonresident, it's $3 per trip. Q. And I guess we've not qualified you as an economics expert, but your -- your opinion that you've given -- A. Just a hostile witness. (Laughter) Q. And you know I know that you are anything but hostile, but, sir, in terms of -- of your view anyway, when you implement a $3 fee on something that used to be free, you're going to see a -- a drop in -- in visitors; is that correct? A. Historically, every time that we have done that, we have seen a decrease in -- in visitors. Q. Mr. Franco, do you have any idea how many parking spaces there are or approximately how many parking spaces there are out at the Barefoot Beach county park today? A.- ' The number of -- somewhere about 256 seems to be appropriate. I can remember that, 256 -- Q. Okay. And, Mr. Franco -- A. -- without the overflow parking area. Q. Yes. And if you add in overflow parking, do y-Du know approximately how many cars you can accommodate in your parking area? A. I would say approximately another hundred bringing the total to 356. Q. Okay. Mr. Franco, over the time that you've been familiar with the Barefoot Beach county park, has the parking area expanded to this 356 number from some smaller number previously? A. Correct. Q. And do you know approximately how many times there's been a parking lot expansion there, sir? A. I believe the parking lot expansion occurred twice. Q. And, to your knowledge, was the parking lot expanded to accommodate more and more visitors that were coming to the park? A. Correct. Q. Mr. Franco, is it true that the Barefoot Beach county park has the lowest incidence of vandalism of any county park? A. I can't say that for sure. We have 40 -some parks in our park system; so -- Q. Okay. Do you -- do you think vandalism is a problem at Page 62 1 6 G) 1 January 29, 1997 the Barefoot Beach county park? A. From time to time, I -- I believe vandalism is a problem at all of our parks. Q. Does the guardhouse at the entrance to the Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision provide some measure of security to the park, particularly after operating hours? A. I really can't say. Q. Have you ever had a -- an incidence of vandalism at night at the Lely Barefoot Beach County Park that you can recall? A. I believe there's been several. Q. And when was the last one, sir? A. I'm not sure. It may have been -- it -- it depends upon what -- what degree of vandalism, but I know there has been some instances in the past where there has been some minor damage to the restroom area out there. Q. And how does that compare with your experience at other county parks? A. Again, I'm -- I'd have to say that they all have experienced some degree of vandalism. Which ones are the highest or the lowest right now, I really can't say. Q. Okay. Mr. Franco, have you heard of a -- an organization, the Friends of Barefoot Beach? A. That's correct. Q. What is that organization? A. Actually, they are a support group for the parks and recreation department. Q. And are they a helpful group, sir? A. Yes. -Q.- Are you aware that some of the :membership of the Friends of Barefoot Beach is comprised of folks who live at Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision? A. Yes. Q. Can you comment generally on the relationship iztween parks department employees and Lely Barefoot Beach residents, if you know, sir? A. I can comment on the relationship of the Friends group and -- and the county -- Q. Okay. A. -- not -- not the residents of -- of Barefoot Beach. MR. MANALICH: Objection, not relevant. Q. And I would simply ask you what is that relationship, sir? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me talk about the relevancy issue first. Why don't you explain the relevancy. MR. HAZZARD: Well, Madam Chairman, part of this notice of violation suggests that the Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association and the Barefoot Beach Master Association are somehow inhibiting folks from getting to the -- to the park, and I believe that there's cross - membership between those organizations that we're going to hear about with the next witness. And I would just like to knov from Mr. Franco whether or not the Friends of Barefoot Beach Page 63 16G 1 January 29, 1997 comprised of some members of my client association -- client associations enhances the county park facility there. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And so all this relevancy will be tied up with the next witness? MR. HAZZARD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead and answer the question. A. Again, I can -- I can only speak for the -- the people that I am aware of in the Friends group and not the residents of Barefoot Beach, but we've had a very good working relationship with the Friends group. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Franco, did you or any staff member at your request initiate or ask the county code enforcement department to act against the Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse in this matter? A. I can only speak for myself, and I did not. MR. HAZZARD: Okay. I have no further questions for Mr. Franco. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: County. )IR. MANALICH: Thank you. CPOSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Franco, is it not true that you have had literally hundreds of calls from citizens complaining about difficulties of access to the county parklands along Lely Beach Boulevard? A. That is correct. Q. The survey that you did, you didn't hire a specialized firm that studies survey analysis; correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And your survey didn't ask questions of anyone up at Sonita Beach Road or at the entrance; correct? A. it did not. Q. It only asked those fortunate few that made it to the park; is that right? MiZ. HAZZARD: Objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We'll understand the characterization, just re -- rephrase the question. Q. It only asked the people that reached the park about access; right? A. It only asked the people that -- that came within the confines of the park, correct. Q. Okay. And these people were asked these questions by uniformed park rangers or officers? A. Correct. Q. At one point in time after the guardhouse was built, gates were -- were put down on the way into the -- the park from the guardhouse; right? A. That is correct. Q. And at one time there were also, I believe, some type of parking passes or something that were distributed up at the front of the park. Do you know about them? A. I'm trying to remember. Q. If you -- if you recall it at all. Page 64 1 6G January 29, 1997 A. I -- I believe that is correct. cars may not tell anyone how many Q. Your surveys do not the guardhouse; correct? have entered the p ark upon seeing A. Correct. Hazzard used this particular chart based on Q. Now, Mr. from these traffic counts, and would you agree compilations apparently es there is one of with me that the overall pattern that emerg declining attendance at the parks? A. Yes. Q. And we -- we can talk all day about what the possible causes of that might be, can't we? A. We can speculate all day, correct. Q. But the trend, nevertheless, remains of less attendance? A. Correct. of 1995 Q. Those three dates, January, March, and February where data's unavailable, the ecision atwo °attorneys °presenthhereoond he shared was not ;Wade by behalf of the county; correct? A. Correct. we talked about, that's not a Q. The $3 fee that cost - prohibitive fee, is it, in terms of other county charges for people to access county parks? A. For access to beach areas, or Grey we talkingg out -- about people Q. Very simply stated, do you - that use the parks can afford to pay $3? MR. HAZZARD- Objection, speculative. doesn't CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I would agree. He probably -- can't answer that question. .Q.- Vandalism is a problem at all of the county parks; right? A. Correct. Q. Now, you were asked some questions about the arks relationship between the Friends of Bonita Beach and the county p and recreation department; correct? A. I believe I was asked about the Fr ends of -- of the park, not Bonita Beach, but Barefoot Beach. Q. Well, I think one of the questions that was asked of you was whether you considered them a helpful organi- ation. A. Correct. Q. And I thought your answer was yes. A. That's correct. Q. Would that answer be affected at all if I told you that they or anyone re -- assoimanaaewall accessaalongeLelynBeaochoBoulevard legal determination to el to the parks? MR. HAZZARD: Objection. Mischaracterizes all testimony to date. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think he asked him an assumption- type question. He said would your opinion change if 1 told you. So I don't know that he's said that these facts are in evidence, and they may or may not be, and I don't believe this witness has been Page 65 16G 1 January 29, 1997 here for any of the other testimony. MR. HAZZARD: I'll withdraw the objection if -- if that's the characterization of it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead, Mr. Manalich, and ask that question. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Do you believe it would be in the best interest of the users of the parklands at Lely Barefoot Beach to eliminate the road access easement along Lely Beach Boulevard? A. My own personal opinion, I don't believe so. Q. What about as a park superintendent? A. I don't believe so either. Q. What would that leave for access? A. I don't know. Q. And I assume that if any particular group attempted to do that, the relationship between the parks and recreation department and that group might not be the best; correct? A. I would agree with that. Q. Would that -- such an occurrence functionally close down the park? A. Absolutely. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Redirect? MR. HAZZARD: Very brief, Madam Chairman. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Franco, Mr. Manalich was asking you some questions about some sort of placards or things like that used -- folks entering by the guardhouse. Do you recall that questioning? A. I recall something about parking passes. Q. Parking passes? Have there been various programs put in place over the years where the county has attempted to stop access to the park at the Barefoot Beach guardhouse? A. We've made numerous policy changes regarding the park operations, some directed by the board of commissioners. So, yes, we've had several policy changes. Q. And when you gave deposition testimony to me, do you recall describing those various policies that have been in place over the years? A. I do. Q. And do you recall describing instances over the years where the county would post a sign that says the parking lot is full up at the Barefoot Beach guardhouse at the entrance *_o the subdivision? A. I recall that signs were placed out by park rangers at the entrance saying the lot was full. Q. Okay. And do you recall whether folks who operated the guardhouse placed signs at the county's request? A. I don't recall. Q. Okay. Mr. Franco, when I took your deposition on February 15, 1996, do you recall me saying -- asking you, "And how did Page 66 16G 1 January 29, 1997 the sign get posted up at the gatehouse; do you know? Was that a county employee that would post that sign, or do you know ?" Do you recall your answer to that question, sir? A. It's been over a year since I have given that; so, no, I do not recall my -- my answer. Q. Would you have any reason to doubt that your answer was, 'It has been both a county employee, and it has also been a representative of the -- of whoever is working in the guardhouse "? A. To place the sign out? Q. Yes. I -- I'm asking you if you have any reason to doubt that that was your answer at the time. A. No. Q. Do you recall, in fact, that from time to time the county has utilized folks working in the guardhouse to do that sort of thing? A. I recall from time to time that we have been in communication with them from in the back of the park -- Q. Okay. A. -- by -- by two -way radio. Q. Yes. I recall your -- your testimony about that from your deposition as well. Explain a little bit about how this two -way radio arrangement worked. A. Actually, what we would say -- when the parking lot was getting full, we would notify the guardhouse that the ranger would be coming up and placing the sign out and would also be directing traffic away from the park until space was available for more park patrons to enter. Q. And, now, did I understand that your testimony is that you've been directed by the Board of County Commissioners over -- over time as to how this policy should be implemented? A. The Board of County Commissioners does set the policy. We just go ahead and implement it. Q. Okay. Well, what's the current policy, sir? MR. MANALICH: Objection to this further line of questioning. It's beyond the scope of the cross - examination. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that's probably true. MR. HAZZARD: It's my last question. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: What's the relevancy of the county commission's policy? MR. HAZZARD: Well, Madam Chair=man, the -- the use /access agreement and option agreement that are in evidence before you indicate what the county commission at that time those documents were signed agreed to do. And I'm simply trying to establish through' Mr. Franco whether or not that policy is the same today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. He can answer the question if he knows. A. To the best of my -- to the best of my knowledge, that does not occur. The parking lot does not get full anymore. Q. And the number of spaces that you can accommodate, the number of parking spaces, is how many now? A. Three fifty -six. Page 67 16G 1 January 29, 1997 Q. And that's up from 154 when you were first familiar with the park; is that correct? A. That is correct. MR. HAZZARD: No further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any recross? MR. MANALICH: Briefly. RECROSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Franco, the county has never had a policy tc deter access to that park; correct? A. Absolutely not. Q. The ordinances that apply to this park area allow the county to control access; correct? MR. HAZZARD: Objection. I have no idea what basis Mr. Franco would have for answering that question. Q. Mr. Franco, are you familiar with the PUD ordinances related to this park? A. I'm familiar with that and the use /access agreement. Q. And under those documents, is it not the county, not the property owners, that determine when and if the park access will be limited? A. I think the official language -- MR. HAZZARD: Objection. That calls for a legal conclusion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think he probably can give us his understanding of what the -- what's happening over there. Q. You're charged with implementing the rules, your department, at the park; right? -A.- That's correct. Q. In implementing those rules, would you be guided by what -- who under those rules would govern, in your opinion, as to whether the park access is limited or not? A. I believe it -- it states that it's the park's superintendent's determination. Q. And not the property owners; right? A. That is correct. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any re- redirect? MR. HAZZARD: No, none. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Just a moment and see if -- any questions from the board. I think Mr. Laforet has one. FER. I.,AFORET: Yes. I'm a little bit confused about that chart. Is that the number of people, or is that the number of vehicles? THE WITNESS: Are you asking rne? MR. LAFORET: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. THE WITNESS: I believe the chart may be a little misleadI g. It says that it is the park visitor count; however, it it may be the number of vehicles that entered the park, because we keep -- we keep both. Page 68 16G 1 January 29, 1997 MR. LAFORET: And I -- I didn't find it reasonable. I heard that -- the number of people, but I also heard that you had a treadmill that the car goes over and registers in the meter. Now, the number of people you'd have to count. The treadmill would give you only the cars. So -- well, before I go further, you're not able to separate that for me and tell me how many that is, people or cars? THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what the chart is saying there, sir, but we do have a formula. We use, like, 1.8 people per car, and that's how we determine the -- the visitors in the park. MR. LAFORET: Do you know how many native people, freebies, come in versus the number of people that are out -of- towners, whether they're snowbirds or just an occasional visit or what? THE WITNESS: I don't recall, but we do have that information somewhere back at the office. We do keep that count, and I don't recall what the percentage is there. MR. LAFORET: Do you -- well, you can't answer me then. I -- with the lack of that information, the lack of whether this is a physical count of people -- for instance, there's churches that have buses come in. That would be counted as one vehicle, but I'm sure there's more than 1.6 people on a bus. If you use an average of 1.6 people going to the beach, there must be, statistically, a hell of a lot of automobiles with just one person in it. Do you find -- do you recall seeing a lot of automobiles with just one person in it? THE WITNESS: I can't say, sir. I don't -- I don't recall how many people were in -- in all the cars that went through -- you know, through Barefoot Beach. I'm not sure. MR. LAFORET: Would you -- THE WITNESS: We just used the national average. - MR. LAFORET: Would you feel that the statistics shown on that chart are, therefore, an unreliable indication of anything? THE WITNESS: I don't think it's unreliable. I may be a little confused about what it represents. Either it's the number of cars or the number of people. MP.. LAFORET: All right. Thank you, sir. MR. HAZZA -RD: Madam Chairman, if I could just_ follow up. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Mr. Franco, you've opened your book. Are you finding there's any information that you used to transmit these figures to the state, and can you tell us whether you're transmitting body count or car count in the information that's on this chart? A. I do say here -- I do say here for April 2, 1996, in our quarterly report that in January there was 21,516 visitors. Q. And so if I understand your response to Mr. Laforet's earlier questions, that would be derived by taking a car count and applying a multiple of 1.8, did you say? MR. MANALICH: Objection, Madam Chairman. The questions from the attorneys had closed. This is now the opportunity for the board members, and now we have counsel attempting to reexamine the witness. Page 69 16G 1 January 29, 1997 MR. HAZZARD: That's fine. Perhaps Mr. Laforet would like to ask the question. MS. LOWIERE: I don't really have a -- MR. MANALICH: I thought Mr. Laforet had his Tlestion anowared. W. T.ritTV T RAP : T T r Acs)) / l r nn) l f ,l��ri ' �, hn vA n question so much as I have a statement. I understand the 1.8 factor that you use for your PPC, which is your people per car, okay. That's normal -- normally how planners figure what's going on, okay. They're just ratios. I -- I'm also concerned about that chart, and basically I'm concerned because I did population projections for Collier County for the potable water master plan and the sewer master plan. We are growing as a county, and for me to see numbers drop like that, even though we have a $3 fee or red tide, it just -- it doesn't look right. We are -- we are growing as a county; therefore, there should be more people going to our beaches. So that chart disturbs me. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any more questions for this witness? 1,M. ALLEN: I have one. MS. DEIFIR: I have a question. Does -- does anybody have the figures for January, February, and March? Mr. Franco, do you have them now? Can you tell us what they are? THE WITNESS: T_ don't have there -- I ' m sorry. I don't have them in my possession, nor do I know off the top of my head what they are, but I would believe that that information is available back at the parks and recreation office. MS. DEIFIR: Does anybody here have them? Why not? MS. LOUVIERE: Maybe it wasn't kept. We don't_ know. MS. DEIFIR: No. He said that it was kept. MR. ALLEN: Excuse me. My question is that they were denied, okay. If we're -- if we're going to be talking about facts and numbers, my proble -m with this is that if the county asked not to show mr. . Hazzard these cumbers, they mast have -- there must be a reason. That's -- I mean, if we're here disclosing facts, is that -- that wasn't --- isn't what we heard? Is that correct? You were told not to -- MR. KkMALICH: For the record, T_ mean, to the extent that we can comment about it, I have not seen those figures. This is, to cry recollection, my first accpiair,tance with this whole subject other than the surveys. I mean, I'm aware of the surveys, and 3've read transcript when former_ counsel was here and all this was discussed previously. But other than that that's my only acquaintance with it. We, as present counsel for the county, Have no objection if those items are brought in to supplement the record, whatever they are. We don't know what those f iTj.re s are. MS. DEIFIR: How long would it take to get them, Mr. Franco? THE IWI'Il3ESS : I'm not sure. I -- I'd have to go and research the files, and I believe that the county attorney has all of the files relating to Barefoot Beach. Page 70 16G 1 January 29, 1997 MR. MANALICH: Well, you know, if you want him to go up to our office and he can go through everything we have, and if it's there, bring it down, that's fine. MS. DEIFIK: Well, let me ask this: Mr. Franco, you're the director of parks and recreation? THE WITNESS: The superintendent of parks for the parks and recreation department. MS. DEIFIK: The superintendent. The Czar. THE WITNESS: Don't tell my boss that. MS. DEIFIK: Can you tell us whether the 95 figures are greater or less than the '94 figures or greater or less than the '96 figures for the same quarter or give us any perspective here? THE WITNESS: For where it says -- the data that was unavailable? MS. DEIFIK: Right. THE WITNESS: I have no way of knowing that right offhand. MS. LOUVIERE: But you can i -)ok at the months that are available, and you can see that there's a drop in the majority of months. For example, in April of '94, you're looking at fifty thousand; and then all of a sudden we're dropping to forty -six; and then in '96, we're dropping to twenty -nine. MS. DEIFIK: No. MS. LOUVIERE: Oh, did I not -- in April of 1994 went from 50,774 -- am I going across the right line? And tnen -- MS. DEIFIK: In May it went up. MS. LOUVIERE: -- to 46, 528, and 29, 726. But the majority of it reflects a -- a trend in drop -- dropped rate. - - MR. ALLEN: Excuse me. When was the S3 fee implemented? THE WITNESS: That was implemented two years ago. This is the second year; so it was last year. MS. DEIFIK: At what time? THE WITNESS: October 1st. MS. DEIFIK: Of 195? THE WITNESS: Correct. MS. LOUVIERE: But you did say that most people that live here, they get a beach parking permit; right? And so they don't really have to pay the $3. I know I have one. THE WITNESS: It is free for Collier County residents. MS. DEIFIK: I live here, and I haven't ever gotten one, and I wind up paying the three bucks. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, get one. MS. DEIFIK: I know. But my point is that not everybody gets one. MR. ALLEN: In your opinion, okay, as -- as superintendent of the parks, can there be some harmony between having a guardhouse and a gatehouse and a park, sort of like Velcro? I mean, is there such a thing as that? THE WITNESS: In my opinion? MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir. Page 71 16G 1 January 29, 1997 THE WITNESS: There is a resolve to this matter. MR. ALLEN: That's what I want to hear. MS. LOWIERE: That's what we want. MS. DEIFIK: And what is that resolve? Mr. Franco, we'd like you to just tell us without looking at -- MR. LOUVIERE: The attorneys. MS. DEIFIK: -- other folks. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I was just looking at the -- the county attorney -- MS. DEIFIK: Ramiro, I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: -- but I don't know if I'm ualified to q make that judgment because -- because of all the other things going on -- on with the code enforcement and the placement of that guardhouse. So I can't really answer that. MR. McCORMICK: What about just from your perspective, just as somebody who's running that park down at the end of this road? MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, the only thing I think that the board -- you, as the chairman, and /or the board -- needs to -- to rule on is obviously this gentleman is in a difficult position CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MR. MANALICH: -- because the Board of County Commissioners is his employer and has an official position -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. MS. MANALICH: -- that's being advocated in this case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And I'm not going to make him answer the question. MR. MA.*IALICH: Thank you. MS. DEIFIK: Oh, make him. I'm sorry. I'll withdraw the question. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other questions? MR. McCORMICK: Just one question. Was 1994 when you first started these counts? THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. It was either '94 or '93. MR. McCORMICK: Do you recall; was it at the state's request that you started doing the counts and reporting to them, or was there some other reason? THE WITNESS: Actually, I believe that we started doing the counts just as a park -user survey for -- for our parks and for our -- our own information, and then the state required us to send them that -- that information. MR. McCORMICK: When a parkgoer approaches the park, when do they find out that there's a -- a fee or a -- this charge if they don't have a sticker? Is that noted somewhere at the front of the Lely development, or is it not until they reach the -- the actual park property? THE WITNESS: It's not until they reach the park entrance. C- 1AIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further? Any more questions? Page 72 16G 1 January 29, 1997 MS. LOUVIERE: I -- I do have just one little question, and then I'll stop, because I know you want to get back to parks. Normally when Collier County has a park and they have, like, a guardhouse or a -- like Vineyards, for example, my children went to Vineyards. There was a park representative there. In the guardhouse, who sits there? Is that a park employee? THE WITNESS: At Vineyards? MS. LOUVIERE: No, at -- at this park. THE WITNESS: At Barefoot? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. THE WITNESS: No. It is not a park employee. MS. LOUVIERE: Who -- who -- who gets -- what is his title? Who pays his salary? the development THE WITNESS: They are employed by association, I believe. MS LOUVIERE: Wow. That's -- isn't that kind of unusual? I mean, in most parks they have park personnel that gets paid through parks and rec. to monitor park activities. THE WITNESS: I don't recall of any other park in our system where this occurs. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you very much. MR. HAZZARD: Can I just ask a follow -up question? When you're -- when you are talking about the person at the park in the are you talking about the -- the facility that's at the entrance to the county park itself, or are you talking about the facility that's up at Bonita Beach Road at the entrance to Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision? MR. MANALICH: Objection, Madam Chairman, the same objection as before. This is the opportunity for the board members to inquire of the witness. Both attorneys have indicated they had no further questions. I mean, we can go on and on. We can continue to reopen. This is for the board members to inquire of the witness, not for Mr. Hazzard to inquire of the witness. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we are inquiring of the witness, and if anybody has a follow -up question based on what he said in response to one of our questions, I don't have any problem with that. But I would agree we don't need to open tip new areas. Any other board members have questions? r�idn'r. realize it's MR. McCORMICR: Just one more. Z been a year and a half since I'v2 actually driven through that park. Now, since the fees have enacted, where are they collected? THE WITITESS: The fees are collected at the park entrance. MR. McCORMICR: Arid is there some type of stnucture there that somebody sits in any? collects the fees, or how does that work? THE WITNESS: That's correct. There's a park attendant that's stationed in a little -- in a little enclosure there at the entrance to the park that collects the $3 fee. MR. McCORMICR: And that -- that structure didn't used to be there, did it, before you had the fees? Page 73 1 bG 1 January 29, 1997 THE WITNESS: It -- it was not there. I think that we had put that there about two years ago. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything else from the board? Thank. you. You are excused. MR. HAZZARD: Last witness, Madam Chairman. I'd like to call Dr. Leon Eisenbud. THEREUPON, DR. LEON EISENBUD, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Would you state your name for the record, sir. A. Leon, L- e -o -n, Eisenbud, E- i- s- e- n- b -u -d. Q. And I -- I called you as Dr. Leon Eisenbud. Are you, in fact, a -- a dentist, sir? A. Z -- I'm a dentist, yes. Q. And are you currently practicing dentistry? :N. I'm only -- the only professional work I do now is to teach at Edison. Q. Okay. Dr. Eisenbud, where do you live, sir? A. On Lely Beach Boulevard. Q. And do you live in one of the residences that's behind the guardhouse that's the subject_ of this controversy, sir? A. For the first seven years, I lived in a house on back water on Lely Beach Boulevard, and then a year ago we moved into a condo. -Q.- Okay. Dr. Eisenbud, there's been some discussion about the Friends of Barefoot Beach Preserve, Incorporated. Are you familiar with that entity, sir? A. Yes, I am. Q. All right. What is that, Dr. Eisenbud? A. It's an organization t_h c was founded six years ago by a couple of residents and myself: in -- in an effort cc mobilize the community to -- to heauti fy and pr Eserve and help the rangers with the work at the -- at the preserve. Q. And when you say Cry a couple of residents and yourself, you're talking about residents of nhe Barefoot Beach subdivision? A. Barefoot Beach, yes. Q. Okay. And what_ is, if you know, the approximate membership of the Friends organization, sir? A. It's just over 320, and they pay dues. Q. And those 320, are they ail residents of the Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision? A. Right now -- r igh _ now just about half and half. . Q. Half are residents and half are not? A. Half are out in Estero and San Carlos and so fortis. Q. What are some of the activities that the Friends of Barefoot Beach takes part in at nhe Barefoot Beach preserve, sir? A. It is a very active organization. I -- I hope I won't Page 74 16G 1 January 29, 1997 bore you by taking a minute or two to tell you about it. MR. MANALICH: Objection, Madam Chairman. Before he begins I object on the relevancy of this to the issues in the case. MR. HAZZARD: Well, let me see if I can clear that up. Q. Dr. Eisenbud, a.•nong the Friends of -- Friends Barefoot Beach, you've testified that there are somewhere in excess of a hundred and fifty residents of the Barefoot Beach subdivision? A. Yes, that's right. Q. And there has been allegations at least that the residents of Barefoot Beach are somehow trying to prohibit folks from getting to the Barefoot Beach preserve. Have you experienced that personally, sir? A. Have I experienced the allegation? Q. Have you experienced residents of -- A. No, no. Q. -- Barefoot Beach trying to A. Quite the opposite. Q. I'm sorry, sir. Trying to A. Quite the opposite. Q. Quite the opposite? A. Yes. Q. What is your experience about the residents of Barefoot Beach with respect to the Barefoot Beach preser-,•e and folks accessing it? A. They're very enthusiastic about the preserve. They are supportive and have been engaged at the learning center and as trail clearers and all the other things I was hoping to tell you about. Q. What is the learning center, sir? -A.-- It's a structure that was built without tax money by the Friends of Barefoot Beach. we raised $18,000 and erected this 30 -by -20 chickee hut. We now have displays and cabinets and panels, and we -- we're currently putting in an aquatic garden. We've erected three osprey poles, and we use it for '_ectures and clas:.es. This past Saturday we had 81 people come t a lecture on shorebirds. Q. Anel, Dr. Eisenbud, do you rubiicize these types of lectures? A. Yes. I send a notice of the lectures to three papers every week. Q. So, Dr. EisenLyud, would it iaQ fair to say that your organization and the -- in excess of a hundred and fifty Barefoot Beach residents that are meir}ers of that organization are actively trying to encourage members of the general public to come to the Barefoot Beach preserve? A. Yes. And the notice that I set-,0 out says clubs and other groups interested in the environment are invited to use the learning center as a meeting place free of charge or to mount exhibits. Friends of Barefoot Beach preserve built this center for the benefit of the community at large. T - - o roseve time, contact, etc. We -- incidentally, we gave that building to the county as a gift to the community, and we pay 510 a year rent to administer the -- the learning center. Page 75 I 6G 1 January 29, 1997 Q. Dr. Eisenbud, how often do you have these activities at the learning center that you described the most recent one had 80 -some people attend? A. Every Saturday morning. Q. And are you generally in attendance at those? A. Yes, every one. Q. And have you ever had anyone report any difficulty to you in gaining access to the Barefoot Beach preserve through the guardhouse at Lely Barefoot Beach? A. Mr. Hazzard, I consider that a nonissue. I have never had anybody tell me they had difficulty coming into the place. Q. And you are a regular participant and organizer of these activities that go on? A. And I'm the coordinator of the learning center. Q. Dr. Eisenbud, there's been an allegation in this case that the guardhouse at Lely Barefoor_ Beach restricts access to the county's park at the end of Barefoot -- of Lely Beach Boulevard. Can you describe for me the method of operation of the guardhouse at the entrance to the Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision during park visiting hours. A. That's from 8 a.,,. until dusk, yes. Both arms of the gate are up at 8 a.m., and they stay up until the park closes, which is at dusk. And there is a sign that_ says that visitors t-) the beach, park, the preserve, may proceed without stopping, and that's how it operates. And at dusk when the ranger leaves and has said -- indicated that he's locked up, we put the gate down. Q. And, Dr. Eisenbud, there's been some discussion when Mr. Franco was testifying concerning the method of operation at the county's park entrance. Is it also your understanding that after you get down this 2- mile -long road, there's a structure in the middle of the road that belongs to Collier County? A. Yeah. There's a -- there's a collection site there, a little house. Q. Okay. And, Dr. Eisenbud, have you ever witnessed any restriction to the public in getting through that collection site and into the preserve? A. 140. They line up during busy times to pay their $3 or to identify themselves, but nobody stops there from going in. Q_ So you -- so you don't consider -- if there was a line and a bit of a delay, a few seconds or something like to move through the line, you don't consider that restrictive? A. No. Q. Have you ever seen any such line lining up like that at the guardhouse facility at the entrance to the Barefoot Beach subdivision? A. No, I've never seen that. But I've seen as many as 50 cars lined up at the attendant's booth during the height of the season. Q. And, in fact, Dr. Eisenbud, haven't you taken a couple photographs of that situation.? I'm going to show you three photos and ask you if you could identify for. me that you took these photos. Page 76 6G 1 January 29, 1997 A. Those are my pictures, yes. Did you want me to pass those around? Q. Well, Dr. -- Dr. Eisenbud, we will in a second. You took those photographs, sir? A. Yes. Q. And what do chose photographs show, Dr. Eisenbud? A. They show cars lined up parked on the shell along the side of the road because all the parking lots were filled; so they had no choice but to park there. And so far -- I'm happy to say that it's been possible to accommodate everybody on those shell side roads. There are days when we almost don't make it, but that -- that's on -- on the real hot days during the -- during the season. This one shows a line of cars waiting to pay the S3. MR. HAZZARD: And, Madam Chairman, I would like to introduce these three photographs at this time as Composite Exhibit -- and the next number -- I think we're at 12 -- 11? MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, did the witness testify that he had taken these pictures? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: He did. I'd like to know when they were taken, what month, and what time of the day. THE WITNESS: I can check that. They were -- I don't know the exact day, but they were taken during the height of the season, which is February of last year. That's -- the height of the season is January, February, March, and I can go up any day during January February, and March and get pictures like this of the cars lined up. I mean, I'm happy to see it. We're vary anxious to see the park visitors, and I can explain that, because we know, as residents, that if we didn't have the park there, we'd have condos. So we like very much that there's a preserve there, and we want to encourage its use. 11R. HAZZARD: May we enter the three photographs? MR. MANALICH: No objection to the pictures. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, Miss Tomko will pass those out to the board members. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That would Respondents' No. 11. THE WITNESS: Mr. Hazzard, would permission to hand these out? I'm -- MR . HAZZARD: Dr. Eisenbud, what to hand out, sir? be introduced as you please give me I'm -- is it that you wanted THE WITNESS: I want them to see what we're doing. I have sketches and -- MR. MANALICH: Objection. I think counsel has to control the presentation of the evidence. BY MF.. HAZZARD: Q. Dr. Eisenbud, have you prepared some materials to share with the -- with -- A. Yes. Q. -- the board today? A. That was the idea of bringing these packets in. Q. And -- and these are things that you've personally 1 6 G 1 January 29, 1997 prepared that indicate the A. The activities -- Q. The -- Dr. Eisenbud, these are packets that you've prepared that -- that demonstrate the activities -- A. That's right. Q. -- that -- that go on in an attempt to draw members of the public to the Barefoot Beach preserve? A. Yes. Q. I would very much love to share that with the panel, sir. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think we need to show that to the county. While we're doing that, Doctor, can I ask you a question about one of these pictures? THE WITNESS: Yes, of course. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Sir, in -- in this one I see a little house, and I'd like to know which house that is. THE WITNESS: The little house in the middle of the road? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. THE WITNESS: That's the -- that's the house -- that's the house where they collect the money. That's the -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The park? THE WITNESS: -- entrance to Barefoot Beach park. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All right. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. That's the county's guardhouse, if you will, sir? A. The people -- the cars that you see there are still on Lely Beach Boulevard property owned by the cottages, which is the deve-lopment right next to it. But the minute they go through that attendant's booth, they're in the county property. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. KOWALSKI: Doctor, I'm speaking over here. I'm the one with the hand up. If -- if you would remain seated while -- because you need to speak into the microphone. The testimony's being recorded. MR. MA4ALICH: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. 2o?. MANALICH: We don't believe this is relevant, but we have no objection if the board considers it relevant other than that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we'll introduce it into evidence, and the board will look at it, and we'll obviously be able to weigh the relevance and the weight that we'll give the evidence anyway. MS. DEIFIK: Can I -- Dr. Eisenbud, one of the pictures with the cars parked along the shell road appears to be looking towards the beach, and it appears that there's an apartment building or a condo down there, or is it looking the other way? Which -- which direction is this -- THE WITNESS: That -- that's north. You're looking north. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Am I looking out towards Bonita 16G 1 January 29, 1997 Beach Road, or am I looking towards the beach? THE WITNESS: You're -- the condos are -- you would encounter the condos before you get to Bonita Beach Road if you took that road and went down it. So these cars are parked on the -- on the MS. DEIFIK: They're parked facing -- THE WITNESS: -- east side of Barefoot Beach Boulevard -- or Lely Beach Boulevard. MS. DEIFIK: And they're parked facing away from the park? THE WITNESS: They're faced whichever way the rangers park them, because they're parked there by the rangers. MR. I,AFORET: I see a long string of vehicles here. Do they have to wait if a -- somebody has a pass that he doesn't have to pay for, does he have to wait in that lire? THE WITNESS: Apparently he does, yes. But it doesn't seem to -- really doesn't seem to be a problem. It moves fast. MR. LAFORET: Ali right. Thank you. BY MR. i',AZ ZARD : Q. Now, Dr. Eisenbud, when we're talking about the people who have to wait in those lines even if they have a pass, the residents at Barefoot Beach have nothing whatsoever to do with causing that wait, do they, sir? A. We have nothing whatsoever to do with collecting money. We have nothing to do with it. Q. So if there is a wait in line for people to get into the Barefoot Beach preserve, it occurs at the county's -- A. Yes. -Q: -- guardhouse that mans the entrance there? A. While the attendant is :Waking change or giving them a sticker and so forth. Q. And that's a -- county park personnel as far as you know? A. Yes, it's a county person. Q. And, Dr. Eisenbud, that -- it may be obvious from the photos, but that structure of the county's, that's right smack in the middle of -- A. In the middle of -- Q. -- Lely Beach Boulevard; right? A. Yes. Q. Dr. Eisenbud, let me just ask you a few last questions. Was it important to you when you bought at Lely Barefoot Beach that you live in a gated community, sir? A. Yes, it was. Q. Why, sir? A. The community is very vulnerable. It consists of about 3 miles of winding roads with several subdivisions. There are no street lights except a short distance on the main road so that c,f!r-�irity is -- is a problem at night. There's water on one side, which is a back water. It's very easy -- and we notice boats reconnoiter in the area quite often without lights on. We're Page 79 16G 1 January 29, 1997 vulnerable from the beach side; so the residents, as I, felt -- feel very strongly that at the very least, we ought to have nighttime coverage of the road to prevent the ingress of cars. Q. And, Dr. Eisenbud, in fact, that is what you have currently; is that correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. The gates come down after the park -- A. At -- at dusk. Q. -- closes? Dr. Eisenbud, does the guardhouse at Lely Barefoot Beach, in your observations, prevent_ anyone from accessing Barefoot Beach county park during parr operating hours? A. Mr. Hazzard, nobody knows )hat place better than I do. There is nobody being blocked. There is completely free access, and we encourage it. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you. No further questions. CROSS- EYAMINATION BY MR. MA.NAI, I CH : Q. Dr. Eisenbud, you are a resident at Lely Barefoot Beach; correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. As a resident do you want to have traffic ilong Lely Beach Boulevard? A. Well, all residents want as little traffic as possible. Q. Okay. Fair enough. Are you or any of the members of the Friends also members of either the property owners' association or the caster association? A. Only insofar as we pay -- we pay into it with our monthly dues, bait we're not officers, no. -Q.- , But you are members? A. Well, every resident is a member of the association. Q. Okay. And so then these people that are in the Friends are, by definition, also members of the property owner and master associations? A. Well, the master association takes care of the landscaping and the irrigation of that road, and therefore, we have to pay into it. So we are technically members of it. Q. Now, it is your testimony here today that it is the position of the Friends to encourage access along the road; is that correct? A. Yes. As demonstrated in our ads in the papers and our handouts, a very strong position that we want people to come in. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, at this point I'd like to mark as County Exhibit -- a document that has previously been mentioned, although not introduced into evidence, which is an Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim filed by the master association and the property owners' association in the circuit court case. Mr. Hazzard, I assume, has an objection. MR. HAZZARD: I haven't seen it. KS. ?4CRACHERN : You wrote it. MR. HAZZARD: I haven't seen it recently. No objection, Madam Chairman. Page 80 I 6G 1 ' January 29, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And that's County's No. 26. It will be introduced into evidence. (County's Exhibit No. 26 was marked for identification.) BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Dr. Eisenbud, I've presented you with Collier County Exhibit No. 26, which is a pleading filed by the firm of Cummings & Lockwood on behalf of the property owners' and master association in a circuit court case against the county and the State of Florida. I would direct your attention to page 8 -- MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I -- I've not been provided with a copy. Could I have a copy, please. MS. McEACHERN: We ran out, but he wrote it. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I certainly am not expected to have memorized it among the many documents that -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No, you're -- no. We'll. certainly see that you get a copy. MS. LOWIERE: You're disappointing us. You mean you don't remember this? MS. DEIFIK: But we know that Frank Kowalski's been -- B': HI R. MANAL ICH : Q. At the bottom of page 8, paragraph 'No. 1�, what does that state? A. You want me to read it? Q. Yes, please. A. This is an action tc vacate an Basemen` over homeowners' land. Q. Now -- well, let me ask you, if this -- if the court were to grant what this is requesting, wouldn't this have the effect of L-liminating access altogether along that Lely Beach Boulevard? 2-M. HAZZARD: Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion. A. I must tell you, sir, you're into legal things now. I -- I came here to tell you about Barefoot Beach and the Friends, and I don't know a thing about the legal technicalities at this -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's -- that's a good answer. Q. Well, what I'm asking, then, is, it is still your Position today that the Friends and the membership of the Friends want to encourage access, even though your attorney has filed a lawsuit asking to vacate that access easement. Is that your testimony here today? A. Yes. We don't have any relationship to the lawyer. Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned that, to your knowledge, there's not anyone who has ever had a problem accessing the park through the guardhouse that your association has built. A. To my knowledge. Q. Okay. And is that still your belief despite the hundreds of calls that Mr. Franco described of complaints about access? A. Now, I hope this is not out of order. I really must see that list of calls. I don't believe it. Q. Okay. You're entitled to have your opinion. You would agree with me, would you not, that the structure that has been placed Page 81 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 in -- well, that is in the pictures that your attorney has introduced into evidence showing the county structure -- do you have the pictures there? A. I know -- 1 know it, sure. Q. You would agree with me, wouldn't you, that that's a far smaller structure than the one that's up at the Bonita Beach Road end? A. Yes, it is much smaller. Q. Okay. Does that -- take a look at the picture with the structure in it. MR. MANALICH: And I don't know if that's been passed around to the board members or not, but if I may approach just to show you which picture I'm referring to. Q. There are no buildings in sight of that structure, are there? A. We're looking south, and that's now in the preserve. Q. Does that look to yols like the entrance to a private gated community? A. No, it's not. It's the entrance to the preserve. Q. Okay. You mentioned that when you moved into the Lely Beach community, it was your desire to live in a gated community; correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's the desire of most of the residents there; right? A. Yes, yes. Q. Are you aware that the PUD ordinance that set up your community provided for a gatehouse complex for security at Tract A? A. Yes. May I qualify that? When I -- in 1987 I was nego-tiating with John Winfield (phonetic) to purchase a piece of land on the bay, and at that time I was told that there was going to be a preserve at the end of the road and that there would be public traffic going up and back on that road. It was made very clear to me. They were very honest about it. My wife and I talked it over, and we inquired then :bout whether this gatehouse would be there. It was alreaoy in place. There was already a guardhouse when I got there in 1987, and they assured me that it was a pernnanent thing anti. showed rye documents including the PUD which provides for the gatehouse. A; that very same time, I saw a copy of that use/access agreement, and that clinched it for me. I had no problem then, and I still do not. I think we have adequate security at night, and we have no problem with keeping the gate open during the day. Q. Okay. But let's return for a moment to my specific question, and that is, are you aware that under the ordinances security was to be provided -b-y, a gatehouse complex at Tract A? A. Where -- what -- what's Tract A, please? Q. Okay. Tract A is where the present real estate office is with a building on the side of the road approximately 250, 300 feet down, RNaybe more than that. I don't know exactly -- well, let me show you one of the exhibits here that's already been -- whether or not that will reflect -- refresh your memory, I don't know. And this is Page 82 16G 1 January 29, 1997 marked as County Exhibit 15. Now, this is an older picture from the '70s, but the structure I'm referring to is (indicating ), -- is still right there A. Yes, that's the office building. And what is it, sir, that you're asking me? Q. Well, all I'm asking is regarding that particular building, were you aware that the ordinances that set up your community provided that the security that you much -- so much desire was to be provided through a facility at that location? A. That -- that's where it was .located at the time I saw the property, and I assumed it was going to stay there. Q. Okay. Thank you. MR. MANALICH: No further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MP.. HAZZARD: Q. Dr. Eisenbud, when you say that is where it was located at the time you saw the property, you're talking about that structure that's right in the center of the road, sir? A. Yes. Q. And, Dr. Eisenbud, if -- if I ask you where's Tract A or Tract B or Tract C at Lely Barefoot Beach, do you have any idea what I'm talking about, sir? A. Not the least idea. Q• Thank you, Doctor. RECROSS- EXAMINATION BY MR. MANALICH : Q. That structure that counsel just referred to is immediately next to -- in the road, but immediately next to the other larger building; correct? A. I have to think back. I -- I don't really remember. It goes back now ten years, and I don't really remember exactly where that gatehouse was located. I only know that there was a gatehouse with a gate. Q. I'm talking about, like A. It very well may have beer. right next to the office building. Q. I'm just talking about what is shown in the picture there. A. I think it was next to the office building. Q. And as a matter of fact, if you look at the picture, that structure in the middle of the road looks an awful lot like the county structure down at the end of the park; right? A. No. I think it was bigger. It was bigger. Q. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No further questions? Thank you, Doctor. You're excused. MR. McCORMICK: I'll just make one comment, Doctor. I'd like to commend you on putting together your group and organizing it. I think that it's -- it's good to hear, especially after we've been involved in so many days where -- of testimony where everybody's on one side or the other, and to hear that there are -- that there is a Page 83 16G 1 January 29, 1997 group there that has citizens from the community working with residents is good to hear. And I think that it's good for the park and good for the community overall. So I encourage you to keep that up. THE WITNESS: Let me just say the last word. There's nothing wrong at Barefoot Beach. Everything's fine if they'd just leave us alone. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank -- MS. LOUVIERE: I have one question -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Doctor. MS. LOUVIERE: -- before you leave. I'm sorry. One little question. One little question before you leave. I was reading this letter, and maybe you're -- you're going to say, "Gee, I don't know. I'm not the person to answer," but do they stop people at the guardhouse? They do? I mean, as far as checking in and seeing where they're going; right? THE WITNESS: No, they do not. There is a distinct sign that says visitors to the beach may proceed without stopping. It's a big sign, and they just go right on through. The only people that stop are the vendors who want to know where Mrs. Jones lives because I'm delivering a refrigerator. And in that regard, that guardhouse is very important to us, because it is an information booth for a community with 710 residences. MS. LO'JTVIERE: So if I wanted to go to Lely Barefoot Beach, I would just drive right through those arms. THE WI T NE SS: Drive on right on through and -- MS. LOUVIERE: Break those arms right -- THE WITNESS: -- when you do, please let me know so I can-take you on a nature trail. MS. LOUVIERE: There -- there are arms, thcugh. There are arms there. THE WITNESS: They're not down; they're up. MS. LOUVIERE: There up; so I can just drive through, and I don't have to tell anybody if I'm going to the beach or not. THE WITNESS: No, no. You don't believe me? MS. LOUVIERE: You're sure about that? THE WITNESS: Ma'am, that's exactly how it works and has been working ever since the community had a few individuals who objected to having one side down. We raised that side. I mean, we've done everything they've asked us to do, and we're only asking you to give us the nighttime -- MS. LOUVIERE: Then why is there -- THE WITNESS: -- the nighttime security. MS. LOUVIERE: -- a letter -- why is there a letter dated September the 26th that states -- it's signed by Judy Brooks. It's a certification to the DEP stating that during the planned development process, staff received substantial correspondence pro and con regarding the legality of the guardhouse and complaints that guards were turning away park visitors when the park was not at capa c i t y . 'rHE WITNESS: Ma'am. Page 84 16G 1 January- 29, 1997 MS. LOUVIERE: In this packet that -- THE WITNESS: I don't know how -- how I can get to -- people to understand that this is a political issue. This is not an issue that relates to the facts. This is a political issue. There is a very active group of people who are beach activists who are determined to take away the -- the privileges that the people at Barefoot Beach have earned through their lifetime earning and saving. They want it, and they think that we have something they should have. And you can go through the correspondence as it relates to -- to the Land Management Plan, and you will find references to, they want it all to themselves. MS. LOUVIERE: But how can that be? Do you know that that there's -- this is a park that contains 342 acres that was acquired by property -- by all our t--ax dollars? THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: That's a lot of acres. THE WITNESS: I certainly agree with that. MS. LOUVIERE: And there should -- I mean, why should there be a guardhouse there? If you're not impeding traffic and if it doesn't matter and if you want everybody to use it, then why do you care if there's a guardhouse there or not? 1HE WITITESS: Ma'am, if you would like to put the guardhouse on wheels and wheel it out to the middle of the road at night, we're in favor of it. (Laughter) THE WITNESS: It has been suggested that we make a mobile gatehouse and move it to the middle of the road at night. That's okay with me. We only want protection that -- all over the place: in fact, the Collier County Commissioners are giving that privilege to communities that don't own the road. We own the road. MS. LOUVIERE: I want protection -- THE WITNESS: We're asking to do what we want at n:ght. MS. L0 VIERE: I want -- I want protection at nigh'. too. THE WITNESS: Okay. That's -- MS. LOUVIERE: You know, but I can't. You know, I don't MS. DEIFIK: I don't know that the guardhouse affords the protection that people believe it does. MS. LOUVIERE: -- believe it does. It's -- you know, that's just the nature of our society now. I mean -- and I -- I understand your concerns, because I also have them. There are other ways to obtain protection. You can hire a private guard, and he could -- he could walk around Lely Barefoot Beach and make sure that THE WITITESS: We do. We have roving -- we have roving guards. MS. LOUVIERE: You have roving guards? Do you have dogs? Do you have roving dogs? (Laughter) THE WITNESS: No dogs, but that may be the next step. (Laughter) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Doctor, thank you very much, and Paqe 85 16G 1 January 29, 1997 thank you very much for bringing these materials. I especially like this one with all the plants. THE WITNESS: Well, if you give me a call, I'll arrange a personally guided tour of our nature trail. We've marked 30 plants there. We have a book that describes them. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I enjoyed that book. Thank you. THE WITNESS: You'll have a good time. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Doctor. You're excused. MR. HAZZARD: I have nothing further, Madam Chairman. CiT.AIRPERSON RAWSON: The respondent has rested; so we are to the county for rebuttal. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, we'd ask for a brief recess prior to rebuttal. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Good idea. MP.. HAZZARD: Madam Chair-man, if we could keep it brief, I -- I really do think we can end this thing today, it we can -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It would make my day. MR. HAZZARD: -- keep going. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's take ter. minutes. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are we ready to go back on the record? Well, we'll -- the Code Enforcement Board will go back on the record, and I think it's time for the county's rebuttal. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, yes. We'd like to call two witnesses, the first one being Marge Ward. THEREUPON, MARJORIE WARD, a. witness, having been first duly sworn, upon her oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Please state your name. A. Marjorie Ward. Q. Ms. Ward, do you belong to any associations? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you belong to an association related to Bonita Beach and -- in particular that has an interest in the Lely Beach -- A. Absolutely. It's -- it's called the Citizens' Association of Bonita Beach. It goes by the initials C- A -B -B, and some years ago we -- we even said we could change the name to Citizens' Association of Barefoot Beach without changing the initials because of our involvement there. Q. And how long have you been involved in that association? A. I'm one of the cofounders, and I have been president for 11 years. Q. And what is the purpose of that association? A. It's to -- the dedication is to preserve and protect the beaches in the entire -- in the State of Florida and provide access freely to the public thereto. Q. In that regard, have you had involvement regarding Page 86 I 6G 1 ' January 29, 1997 access at Lely Barefoot Beach? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. Okay. And in what ways? A. Well, I've had personal experience of having the gates down and being denied admittance to the -- to the beach. Q. When did that occur? A. It's occurred on several occasions. One specifically is in my :Hind where we went through, even though we were -- we were told that the parking lot was full, and it was the 4th of Juiy, and it was about two o'clock in the afternoon. Arid when we got down to the Parking lot, there were only about -- someplace between three and four cars parked there. But the -- the guardhouse as it exists and was being operated by the people of Lely were denying people to get into the beach. Q. You heard Mr. Eisenbud's testimony that at some point the arms of the gates at the guardhouse were left raised -- in a raised position during the day. n'Ihen did that occur, to your knowledge-, A. That has only been the case for about the last year to two years after the attorney general's office got involved in what was happening to the -- MR. HALZ.AR.D: Objection, hearsay. There's been no foundation, that this witness speaks for the attorney general. Q. Well, when -- when approximately did you notice that the Guardhouse gates were raised? A. About -- about a year and a half to two years ago. Q. Did that -- A. Prior to that they were down. -Q.- Did that happen to coincide in time with anything that the attorney general, to your knowledge, had done-, A. Yes. Q. What was that' A. Nell, they -- they were becoming involved in th:'.s because of the easement which exists on the roadway that the -- that is the state's. Q. Has your association collectively had any experiences of being denied access through the guardhouse? A. Many -- MR. HATZARD: Objection. There's no foundation, and it's completely hearsay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it probably is hearsay. Rephrase your question. Q. You are president_ of the CABS association.; right? A. Correct. Q. And has your membership had difficulty with access at the guardhouse? A. Yes. As -- and we have substantiated it to the parks department who in turn was to be sending it through Mr. Franco up to the state with the reports. Now, whether or not it's in the packet, I clDn't know. But we said -- we monitored the gates, and we monitored any problems the people reported to us, not just members, but people Page 87 16G 1 January 29, 1997 of the public. Q. Have you personally been acquainted with this Lely Barefoot Beach area during the course of the last 11 years or so while you've been -- as president of CABS? A. We became involved with that before there were any houses built there, and what we worked for was to try to have the state increase their property to make it a beautiful state park for all of the public. Q. How has access, to your knowledge, changed during the time from when you first saw the property in its undeveloped state to now? A. Well, in the undeveloped state, the only way you could get to the state preserve land, which was the last mile, would be walking down the beach. There was a road, but it was not something in -- when we got involved with it which was drivable. Now there is a road that goes all the way down to the state property, and of course, it makes it much more convenient for people to access the state property and, of course, the property that the county owns. Q. Does that road, to your knowledge, have a public access easement on it? MR. HAZZA.RD: Objection. There's absolutely no foundation laid for this witness to have any such knowledge. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON- Well -- MR. MANALICH: I think it's -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- ask her if she has any knowledge. BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Well, that road -- has that road been the method used over the last ten years or so to gain access to the parklands, to your knowledge? A. And -- absolutely because -- as it's been built. It's been built in sections, and as it increased, it got the people further down towards that area. Q. Do you -- have you been able to observe whether the guardhouse -- has its creation at the present location up by Bonita Beach Road affected the ability of ordinary citizens to access the park through the road? A. Based upon the input that we have received and which is substantiated -- I don't -- I wasn't expecting to testify today; so I don't have files with me. But based upon the information which was turned in to us, when both of the gates were down, there were many people from many walks of life, including a wife of a commissioner, the press, and other people that indicated, I didn't know. I thought' it was private property because of the guardhouse being there; so I never even tried to get in. I didn't know it was open to the public. Q. On behalf of your association, how do you believe access to the public parks is best served in this particular location? A. I would say on the basis of the LMAC agreement, which -- tkP Land Management Acquisition Committee of the State of Florida had a meeting several years ago which we attended, and their reccKmerdations in order for the county to ;se able to operate the I 6G 1 ' January 29, 1997 state portion at all, there was a management plan that had to be drawn up. And with that management plan, I'm sure that the -- the -- the People on the Land Management Acquisition Committee are actually either cabinet members or they are aides to cabinet members, and I'm sure they have much more knowledge of how this is supposed to be done than I do or the average individual does. And I think if it -- if that was -- if it was done the way it was intended to be, I would be -- I would feel very much relaxed, because the people would be able to get to the beach. Q. Do you believe that access would be substantially improved if the only guardhouse or gatehouse that existed at the property were at -- on the side of the road at Tract A as the PUD ordinance is referred. to? A. Absolutely. From what I've heard here, from what I have read in reviewing the papers, it would not only be the legal way to do it, but it certainly would remove the intimidation to the public to be able to get in there; and it is p'lb'ic property at the end. MR. MANALICH: Thank you, nothing further. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Cross? BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Good afternoon, Mrs. Ward. Let me see if I understand Your testimony. It is that as you approach the guardhouse at Lely Barefoot Beach with which you're very Familiar, two gates are up? A. Now -- now they are. Q. And as I understand it, it's been that way for almost two years, did you say? A. A year and a half or two years, but the gates themselves were down prior to that time from the rime that the guardhouses were built, and they were down all the time. Arid in order to get them up, unless you had one of those beepers which was being a resident in there -- if you had a beeper as a resident, you could get the gate to go up, but if you were a general person from the general public who wanted to get to the beach, yo12 had to stop at the guardhouse, you had to register, they took your license number, they gave you a little sticker on your car, and then they raised the gate after they knew where -- where you said you were going. Q. And what year is this? A. This is from the time that the guardhouse was originally built. They started the day -- Q. in -- in 1979% A. They started the day after the Collier County park was opened. Q. 1990? A. Well, yes -- that -- that -- wait a minute. I'm - let me correct myself. The -- they were preventing people from getting in because of the guardhouse, but there wasn't really -- in the beginning stages, there was not much reason for the public to want to go through there, because you weren't going anyplace but into a private development because the beaches were unaccessible. Q- So it's because the road -- r- So if you wanted to get to the beaches, you had to walk Page 89 16G 1 January 29, 1997 down the -- the beach. Q. And that's because the road didn't go all the way to the beach; correct? A. That's right. Q. And do you understand that the developer, Lely Development Company, is the entity that built the road all the way down to the public beach? A. Yes. Q. You understand that there's not a dime of taxpayer money that was spent to do that? A. Because they consider it -- Q. I'm sorry. Do you understand that there was -- A. Yes. Q. -- not a dime of taxpayer money to do that? MR. MANALICH: Objection. A. To -- to the best of my knowledge. Q. Okay. Thank you. MR. NIA.INALICH: Madam Chairman, I'd like to ask that the witness be allowed to complete her answer. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I -- I would agree. MR. HAZZARD: I merely asked does she understand there was not a dime of taxpayer money -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And I think she said yes. MR. HAZZARD: And she said yes. Okay. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Now, you mentioned L.MAC, Land Management Advisory Committee; is that correct? A. Land -- Land Acquisition Management Committee (sic). They-are the group up in Tallahassee who was responsible for giving the approval for the state park property to be under the operation of the county. Q. Yes. A. And to approve a management plan once the count- was in charge of any -- anyone getting into tl-.e state property ', -)f how it was to be developed and how it was to be managed. Q. Is it your understanding that that entity, that land acquisition entity in Tallahassee, said that the gates, the two gates at the Barefoot Beach guardhouse, should be kept up during park hours? A. That's right. Q. And isn't that exactly what's going on? A. Now. Q. Yes, absolutely. Isn't that A. Now, it is. Q. -- exactly what's going on now? A. But it was not before. Q. So what is your complaint, that the residents didn't follow it fast enough or didn't follow it before the agency had advised that it be done, or what exactly is your complaint? A. The same complaint that the county is lodging, and that is that -- and the state has been lodging, that there is not supposed to be anything in the roadway to deter anyone from being able to get Page 90 16G 1 January 29, 1997 there, because it -- there's intimidation that exists even with the gates up. Q. Now, you just said that the state entity recommended that the gates be kept up. The state entity did not recommend that the guardhouse be removed; isn't that correct? A. Not at that time. Q. And has not since, has it? A. Yes. The attorney general's office has stated that. Q. But that's a different entity; correct? That's not the Land Management Advisory Committee -- A. No, no. Q. -- that you were talking about earlier? A. They -- they are -- they are a part of the Land Acquisition Management Committee (sic). All of the various departments of the state are. Q. So -- MR. KOWALSKI: Excuse me. Excuse me, Madam Chairman. Our court reporter is having problems -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I -- I'm sure. MR. KOWALSKI: -- recording two people speaking at once. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So let's do this: Let Mr. Hazzard complete his question, and, Mr. Hazzard, please let the witness complete her answer so -- the court reporter can only take one of you at a time. BY MR. HAZZARD: Q. Certainly. Ms. Ward, let me understand. When you first became familiar with Barefoot Beach, you could not reach any public lands at all by vehicle; is that correct? A.` We couldn't. There had been in years prior to our involvement that -- there was a road down there that did -- that people used to go fishing or things of that sort before Lely was involved, before the state was involved, and that old road has formed the basis of part of the trail that the Friends of Barefoot are using. Q. And that old road, was that a paved road? A. No, no. It was strictly a sandlot road that you had to have a vehicle that wasn't going to get stuck in the sand. Q. So eventually the developer at Lely Barefoot Beach built a paved road that could accommodate the public reaching the public facilities; is that correct? A. The -- not entirely. The developer built it as far as the state -- as the county property had been bought, and then the county had to put the road in from there to the state property. Q. So you're saying that the county put roadway in on county property, and the developer put roadway in on the developer's property; correct? A. And the development property is where the developer was putting it in for homes. Q. Yes. And hasn't that greatly enhanced access to the state preserve that you've been discussing? A. Oh, there's no question about that. 'fiat's not -- that's not the point as to whether or not the people could -- they Page 91 16G I January 29, 1997 could have gotten there; but this, of course, makes it much easier, because the state property has now a parking lot on it which was built by the county because the county is operating it. MR. HAZZARD: Thank you. I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further? MR. MANALICH: No, no. No questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any questions from the board members? MS. LOUVIERE: I don't really have so much a question as a statement. I mean, generally developers go ahead and make improvements and also donate -- like, for example, Veterans Park. They donated the land, the developer di,], for a park and a school, you know. But they don't have a guardhouse there that controls access to the school and to the park. So just because the developer went ahead and built roads, that doesn't mean that they have -- you know, -- access to build residences, that they have a right, then, to put a guardhouse and control it. Wouldn't you agree with that? THE WITNESS: Absolutely. That's -- that's where much of the problem lies. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions for this witness? If not, she'll be excused. Thank you very much. Next witness. MS. McEACHERN: The county next calls Joyce Ernst. THEREUPON, JOYCE' ERNST, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon her oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS: McE.ACHERN: Q. Good afternoon, Mrs. Ernst. Will you please state your name for the record. A. Yes. Joyce Ernst, that's E- r- n -s -t. Q. And how are you presently employed? A. Well, I work for the county, and I work in the building plan review department, and I'm a -- a customer service agent. Q. Okay. And how long have you been with the county? A. Nineteen years. It will be 20 years this April. Q. Okay. And Mrs. Ernst, in March of 1988, how were you employed with the county? A. I was then a zoning technician. Q. In March of 1988, what were the job responsibilities of a zoning technician such as yourself at that time? A. When building permits were applied for, we approved the -- or when I say "we," T_ mean myself and Pam Lowe (phonetic) who worked -- we worked together, and we approved building permits for zoning compliance. I mean, we also did other .ve had other responsibilities like getting information and -- you know, but that's basically what our job function was. Q. Okay. Prior to becoming a zoning technician with Collier County, did you have another position with Collier County? A. Prior to that I was a -- a planni.-ig technician. Page 92 I 6G 1 r January 29, 1997 Q. A planning technician? A. Not planning, I'm sorry. Graphics technician. Q. Okay. And what were some of your other previous positions with Collier County before becoming a graphics technician? A. Prior to that I was the -- a secretary for the building director, and prior to that I was -- I worked in word processing. Q. Okay. In order to become a zoning technician for Collier County in 1988, were you required to have completed any type of formal educational zoning courses? A. No, we were not. Q. Okay. Did you, in fact, have any formal education in the area of zoning? A. No, I didn't. Q. Did you have any on -the -job training prior to becoming a zoning technician for Collier County? A. It was just that, on -the -job training. We had to learn the zoning book and the -- you know, the requirements for building permits. Q. Okay. Typically back in 1988, particularly March of 1988, if a builder or contractor or a property owner applied for a building permit in Collier County, would that person have to come to you in order to have you review their zoning compliance and obtain your approval with regard to zoning? A. Generally what they just did was apply for their permit through the building department, and then the building department sent us a copy of the application with -- along with the plans. Q. Okay. But you were required -- part of your job responsibility you testified was to check to see if the intended construction was in compliance with the controlling zoning. A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Typically, how was zoning compliance checked? A. Well, first of all, our secretary would check the zoning map to put the -- you know, the designated zoning on tho permit application, and then we would review the -- you know, the plans and that for zoning compliance. Q. Okay. Did your secretary have any type of formal training in zoning, if you know? A. As far as I know, she did not. Q. Okay. Did -- typically, did you verify her conclusions when she presented you with her opinion on whether or not zoning was in compliance? A. I really don't recall whether I did or not. Q. Okay. Mrs. Ernst, do you remember in March of 1988 ever meeting with a contractor from Lunds -- Lunds -- Lundstrom builders by the name of Joseph Joy? A. No, I do not. Q. Do you -- I need to pull an exhibit. It's County Exhibit No. 7. Mrs. Ernst, I'm going to give you a moment just to go through that and look through it for a moment. Mrs. Ernst, have you ever seen that document before, which is County -- County's Composite Exhibit No. 7? Page 93 16G 1 January 29, 1997 A. Well, I -- when you were -- when I was asked to testify, I went through the copy that Dennis had, which was -- but prior to that -- I know I see my initials on this; so I probably saw maybe the one sheet of -- you know, the one sheet and maybe the plans. I -- I don't remember. You know, it's been a long time. Q. Okay. You said that you see your initials on there. Could you tell us where your initials are. A. On this yellow copy of the permit application that was sent to the -- our -- the zoning department for us to sign off after the permit was reviewed. Q. Okay. Mr. Joy testified yesterday or the day before that you were the one -- or excuse me. That a Joyce with Collier County in their zoning department reviewed his application for the building permit for the guardhouse, which is the present guardhouse, which is located closest to Bonita Beach Road and which is the subject of this proceeding. Are you that Joyce that he was referring to? A. I don't recall talking to somebody about it, but I was probably the only -- you know, I used to -- I worked for Collier County then; so -- Q. And to the best of your recollection, was there any other Joyce working in the zoning department in March of 1988? A. Not in the zoning department. Q. Okay. Do you have any recollection whatsoever of reviewing the zoning with regard to this building application? A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. Would you have any reason to believe that the -- the review of the zoning for that building was anything other than -- follow the typical procedure that you previously described? A.- I -- it probably followed the typical procedure. Q. Okay. Do you have any recollection if you reviewed PUD Ordinance No. 85 -83? A. I don't recall at all. Q. Okay. But you do have a recollection, do you not, of reviewing the zoning maps? A. You mean at this time? Q. Back then in March of 1538. A. As I said, I don't remember really looking -- you know, looking it over. Q. Okay. But you have in the last few days reviewed the zoning maps for 1988; is that correct? A. Yes, I have, uh -huh. Q. Based on -- have you reviewed any other document prior to your testimony with regard to the building permit application for March of 1988? A. Well, I -- you know, along with reviewing this application, I also looked at the -- well, I'm not sure if it's a zoning .;lap, but there's another map that Dennis had in his -- in his packet that was a more clear outline of part of this Lely PUD. Q. Okay. Did Dennis also show you a PUD ordinance? A. Yes, he did. Q - Okay. But do you -- you probably don't remember the Page 94 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 number. A. No, I don't. Q• Okay. Based upon the materials that you reviewed, is your opinion today different than what it was back in March of 1988 with regard to the zoning for the guardhouse? MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam Chairman. She's already testified that she can't remember a thing about what went on in March of 1988. She's not testified as to what her opinion was about zoning for the guardhouse in March of 1988. She merely testified that she thinks she would have followed normal procedure. MS. McEACHERN: ?Madam Chairman, she -- Joyce is the one -- she testified that she's the one -- her initials are on there -- that marked the zoning as passed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I understand that, and -- you know, but you asked her if her opinion was the same, but I don't know what her opinion was then.. MS. McEACHERN: Well, obviously her opinion is reflected on that document as passed. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, let's have Joyce tell us what her opinion was, if we might, rather than counsel telling us what Joyce should tell us her opinion was at that time. BY MS. McF.ACHERN: Q. In March of 1988, as -- is your opinion as to the zoning compliance with regard to the building permit in March of 1988 reflected on that document? MR. HAZZARD: Objection, Madam Chairman, calls for opinion testimony, and the witness has not been qualified as an expert in any area. - CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, if she can -- if she can refresh her recollection by looking at her application, since, apparently, she's the one that filled if out and initialed it, if she can recall, she can tell us. Show her whatever this exhibit number is behind Tab 4. AY MS. F;cEACHERN: Q. Mrs. Ernst, does the fact that your initials appear on that document, does that indicate that the zoning in Me--ch of 1988 passed? A. Can I -- can I say something? Mhen I did this back in 1988, generally what I did was residential development, and Pam Lowe did commercial. I see a little -- little sticky note on here that I didn't write, and so -- and it looks to me like someone wrote their initials on and then whited it out. So, I mean, just based on -- on this information that I see here, plus I'm looking at the dates that are on here, it looks to me like it was on hold for something. And -- and what I was -- you know, that -- possibly -- if Pam reviewed it and she put it on hold for something, that whenever they brought in whatever it was on hold for and whenever that situation was taken care of -- because as I said, I didn't do cmmercial. If I did have a question on commercial, I went to my -- I we'Ut to my -- the zoning -- the zoning director, and he inquired with her as to whether it should be approved or not. And based upon that, Page 95 16 G January 29, 1997 either an okay from the zoning director or, you know, an okay from -- from Pam, I would have initialed it. So -- and that's the only thing I can really recall. I mean, looking at this it says it's in a PUD, and you know, because it was Lely development, I don't think I would have double- checked to make sure it was in the PUD. I just would assume that what was written on here was correct. 4• Okay. So you just -- okay. You just assumed. Is that your opinion today, that the zoning is correct? A. When I checked the -- the more recent map that we have, the more precise map we have of this Lely development, I see that this is not within the Lely PUD, and I would say, no. The zoning that was put on here in '88 was not correct. 4• And if the zoning had not passed in 1988, do you know if the building permit would have been issued? A. It should have not been issued. NO, it wouldn't have been issued. MS. McEACHERN: I have no further questions. MR. HAZZARD: I have no questions, Madam Chairman. board CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Any questions from the Thank you. You're excused. Any further rebut`_al? MR. MANALICH: One moment, Madam Chairman. (A discussion was held of'f the record.) tom• MANALICH: No further rebuttal. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any more evidence to be presented by either side? MR. HAZZARD: All the exhibits that respondent intended to enter have been entered into evidence, Madam Chairman. - - CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We!!, then before we close the public portion of this meeting, I assume that you respective attorneys want to make closing arguments to us, and -actually we would appreciate that, for you to summarize the evidence as you see it's been presented. But I don't really want you to drone on for the rest of the day; so tell me how long each of you needs. I will allow the county to reserve part of their time for rebuttal.. MR. MANALICH: Well, Madam Chairman, there's the expression that genius thinks along the same lines, and Mr. Hazzard and I both commented to each other that we thought we both could do this each within 20 to 30 minutes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Wonderful. MR. MANALICH: Is that correct, Mr. Hazzard? MR. HAZZARD: I - -- I agree on all counts. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Well, then I'll let you reserve part of your time for your rebuttal. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, might we take a short stretch break of just a couple minutes' duration? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, our couple of minutes always sort of, like, go further than that, but that's fine. Let's -- let's take five minutes, and then we'll come back and hear closing arguments, and then this board can deliberate. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, before we break, just a Page 96 16G 1 January 29, 1997 couple of things I need to clarify. First of all, there was -- Miss Sullivan, we indicated earlier in the proceedings, was available to testify; however, you indicated you wanted to wait on that. My understanding is -- and we have no problem with this if that's your direction -- that any testimony she might give about any type of order in this case would not occur unless you first reach a point of making a finding. I have no problem with that if that's the way you w,-Znt to proceed. But we just want to have -- reserve that right. MR. HAZZARD: That was my understanding, and the -- and CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's -- that's not a. problem. And let me ask you this before -- and then I'11. ask our attorney too. In terms of rendering a decision, we probably need some logical procedure to do this. Obviously, there's more than one count, and there's more than one respondent. So it probably would make sense to me if we took them one at a time. Anybody have any preference about how we do that? MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, of course my preference would be if a member of the board moves to dismiss all counts about both parties and the board wished r_o vote on that, then I think that would settle everything. If the board -- if there's not a such motion and not such a vote, then the board might take them one at a time. MP.. MANALICH: In the unlikely case that would happen, we don't have any objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: dell, then I guess we'll leave it up to the board and -- and our counsel. I just thought I'd ask you for your opinions. Anything else further? Yes, Miss Sullivan will be able to come back and testify, and I understand we're talking about finers as -- depending upon what the board finds. MR. MANALICH: The next point I had had to do with Mr. Andrews' absence today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Andrews indicated to me on the telephone yesterday that he was ill and he would not be }sere today, and so -- that we could proceed without him, that he was not going to vote. So I told Ms. Sullivan. MR. M.ANALICH: Well, it would be the county's preference -- I mean, obviously we want to proceed to closing today, but it's the county's preference -- Mr. Andrews has sat in for substantial portions of this hearing. I don't think it's fair to him or to the rest of the board to not have his input, plus we have an even number of members of the board here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I see what you're saying. That's true. That's a problem. MR. MANALICH: Consequently, I think it would be better for this case and for the board to have Mr. Andrews participate in the decision. Now, we addressed that that could be done if he reviewed transcripts. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, my recollection is long ago in this case we determined that whoever was going to be here on vwting day is going to vote, and I believe we should move forward along those lines. Page 97 I 6G January 29, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that's -- that's true; we did. I recall that very specifically. And I -- and I did have a conversation with Mr. Andrews yesterday about his health, and he said he couldn't drive the car, and so he wasn't going to be here, and we didn't need to get a transcript for him because he didn't think he would finish this case out. MR. HAZZARD: Well, Madam Chairman, I -- I would just note that I endeavored to expedite the -- the presentation of witnesses today specifically so that we could conclude this matter today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I appreciate that. I guess we'll just have to deal with what happens if there's a tie vote, but I don't believe Mr. Andrews is planning to be here. MR. MA14ALICH: Well, as the board wishes to do. I mean, I don't take issue with mr. fiazzard's comment that it was obviously the intent to have everyone here to vote. I don't recall, frankly, whether that meant that literally when the evidence closes, whoever's here votes or whether that meant you could postpone it so that everybody would be here and review the transcripts and vote, but -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think that -- you know, that you've got six board members here who have heard or read all of it; isn't that correct? I don't think that any of us haven't heard some of us have been lucky to hear every word. MS. LGTTJIERE: Every single word. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So I think that you have given us all you want to give us. Mr. Andrews has missed several days; so, I mean, I think that, you know, you've certainly done your both -- your best, both sides, to inform us. So anything else? M.R. MANALICH: One other point, and that is I wanted to get clarification and have opposing counsel have an opportunity to comment also, both from you and from Mr. Kowalski. If we find it necessary in our closing argument to refer to Florida lay, do you want to have copes of -- whether it be a case or whether it be a statute, do you want to have copies of that before you? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I -- yes, I think so. And not just because I'm an attorney, because I think my nonattorne would like to see what you're talking about too. y People here MR. MANALICH: Yeah. I don't believe this point has been discussed before, and I mean -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that's because we don't have any Procedures and rules. MS. DEIFIK: In previous -- MR. MANALICH: Well -- MS. DEIFIK: In previous hearings people have given us case law. You have given us case law. 212. MANALICH: Well, all I'm saying is, I mean, perhaps -- I don't know. But, I mean, 1 -- I -- maybe Mr. Hazzard has -- if the intends to rely on law -- copies available. All I'm saying is -- CHATRPERSON RAWSON: We'll give him time to Xerox,. I think that all the -- anything -- anything you're going that's not in front of us or that's not introduced into evidence upon I 6G 1 r January 29, 1997 we haven't seen or we don't have, including copies of statutes or copies of cases, I would appreciate it if you would share it with one another, all members of the board, and our attorney. MR. MANALICH: I believe I have copies of those things that I wish to refer to, but quite frankly, in fairness to -- MR. HAZZARD: I -- I brought -- if I need to refer to a case, I brought you a copy. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. vJ%NALICH: All right. Well, then it's a nonissue . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All right. Be sire that Mr. Kowalski gets a copy. Anything else? M.R. MCCORMICK: Just a comment. I don't want to do anything to extend our time here, but in the past we've always made the offer that anybody that's present in the audience and needed to speak on the issue could. I -- I don't know of anybody here that -- that needs to say anything before us, but perhaps during the break if -- if anybody feels they do need to speak, they could tell our -- our counsel that, and we could decide whether to hear that -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's -- MLR. McCORMICK: -- after the break. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Point well taken. Thank you. We've always allowed public input, even in major litigation matters such as this. All right. Let's take five minutes, and then we'll come back for closing arguments. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are we ready? MR. HAZZARD: Yes, Madam ChairTan. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Code Enforcement Board is back in session. Before the break we decided that right after the break we would take closing arguments from each side. I believe the attorneys have decided to limit themselves -- thank you -- to 20 to 30 minutes. We'll start with the county; then we'll hear from the respondent; then i I'll allow the county about 10 mnutes of rebuttal. MR. MANALICH: Good afternoon, Madam -- MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, did -- not to interrup,:, but are the parties to have equal time? Some -- Mr. Manalich may -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. HAZZARD: -- accumulate his time at the beginning and the end -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. HAZZARD: -- sandwiched around mine? Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think the rule usually is 30 total; 20 and 10 if they want rebuttal. MR. K NALICH: Good afternoon. May it please the Chairman, members of the board, opposing counsel. The county respectfully submits that it has proven in the evidence presented to you that the guardhouse is illegally located on Tract R Road instead of on the side of the road at Tract A as required by the applicable PUD ozdinances. The county has also shown that the presence of the guardhouse at the present location is a -- is a physical and psychological impediment to the access by the public to the county and Page 99 16G 1 January 29, 1997 state parklands. In reviewing the evidence in a case of this length of history and in documents, I think it's important to keep in mind a couple of preliminary basic points; and I think if you do, you'll be able to more clearly concentrate and focus on the charges and the notice of violation. First of all, I'd like to distribute to you a copy of Chapter 162.02, Florida Statutes, regarding the Code Enforcement Board. I only do that just to remind you that under 162.02, you can see for yourselves that the statutes limit your legal mission to determining if the respondent has violated the Collier County Codes and to enforce any such code ✓iolator (sic). Now, the respondents during the course of the testimony in this case, have attempted to divert your attention from the narrow mission in the statutes by a shotgun approach of throwing at you contractual documents such as the option and use /access agreements and their negotiated history. Respondents apparently believe that if they throw enough alleged problems, documents, history, and witnesses at you, that you won't be able to see the clear violations in this case through all the smoke. The contractual issues, I submit, belong only in circuit court, and that's why the respondent filed suit there a long time ago. The county believes it will prevail in that forum, but you should not exceed your legal jurisdiction by delving into those matters. One last point about the use /access and option agreements that came up here in the course of these proceedings. As Mr. Agnoli, the respondents' witness, recognized on the county's cross - examination, they do not mention anything about the location of the guardhouse. Only the PUD documents do that, and they place a, quote,' gatehouse at Tract A and not where the respondents have placed the guardhouse. One other preliminary point, and then we'll t-srn to the evidence itself. The respondents have, in fact, admitted to there violations. You have before you the affidavits of Tamely Wiseman and Mr. Carroll disputing that they have adri;itted to these violations. Their signatures appear on the notice of violations stipulations admitting to the violations. We're not going to waste a lot of time on that. Our position is that it's strange, indeed, especially in the case of an attorney that's assigned to receive service of process on a routine basis, that you wouldn't read the text of ar, admission to a violation. But regardless, even assuming they didn't even mean before a notary and witnesses to make those admissions, let's move on and let's get into the evidence itself regarding the violations. And remember the violations are not complex. They're straightforward, and they consist of two things. The first one is the location and whether it violates the PUD, and the second thing is whether that guardhouse impedes access contrary to the PUD ordinances. Regarding the first violation, a straightforward application of PUD Ordinances 77 -48 through 88 -63 shows that the present location of guardhouse is contrary to those ordinances. Ordinance 77 -48 established a gatehouse complex. Ordinance 85 -21 came along and located that gatehouse complex at the Page 100 16G 1 January 29, 1997 side of Lely Beach Boulevard at Tract A. That location of the gatehouse never changed in any subsequent PUD ordinance amendment. Ordinance 85 -21 admittedly also provided that portions of the gatehouse could extend over and into Lely Beach Boulevard. This is under the heading of setbacks and most obviously refers to the roof overhang that you've heard -- you've heard mentioned of the gatehouse over the roadway. And you saw that pictured in Exhibit 15, which you've all seen before as it originally appeared in the late '70s. It is a quantum leap, I submit, to maintain, as the respondents do, that that provision of the PUD ordinances authorizes the imposing, freestanding guardhouse located more than 200 feet away from the gatehouse which you saw in the original pictures. More importantly, planning expert Wayne Arnold told you that in his opinion, after reviewing the PUD documents, the present guardhouse is not in the proper location in Tract A as required by the ordinances. Interestingly, Mr. Goodlette, who we have nothing but good things to say as being a prominent attorney and good local citizen, admitted on cross - examination that he di3 not intend to enter an opinion in conflict to Mr. Arnold as to whether -- if the guardhouse was within the PUD, whether it violated the ordinances or not. And, in fact, as I recall. his testimony, he agreed at the end of the cross - examination that for that guardhouse to be where it is, it had to be found to extend into the roadway from the gatehouse as a physical -- I mean, a -- a functional or physical connection to that guardhouse. And if you will recall the testimony established through different witnesses, what's at that gatehouse right now is nothing more than a real estate office. County surveyor, Richard Ewing, even testified that his measurements indicated the guardhouse was not within the PUD. Whether it is or is not within the PUD, and we have conflicting experts on that, the important point is that it clearly is not at the side of the road at Tract A as required by the PUD ordinances. aow, respondents have attempted to use the -- the prior existence that you saw in the picture from the late 1970s of the so- called kiosk or smal.1 struct�ire in the middle of the road as a justification for the present location of the guardhouse. The county believes this argument is flawed in several fundamental ways. First, the PUD ordinances never refer to a distinction between a guardhouse and a gatehouse. Instead, they only create a qatehouse complex at Tract A. The county submits that this language distinction is, at best, extrapolated by respondents to justify the existence of the guardhouse at the present location despite the PUDs. Now, the only permit that was obtained for that kiosk was apparently at the time of the gatehouse complex and not separately or afterward. It can be argued whether or not that so- called kiosk should be in the middle of the road or not, but that's not the egregious facts of the present case that is before you. The present guardhouse is freestanding, over 200 feet away from the gatehouse cu,-nPlex. As Mr. Joy recognized in his cross - examination, the kiosk only had room for one person to tightly fit with maybe a stool. That's very different than the pictures you saw and the testimony you Page 101 16G January 29, 1997 heard described about the elaborate guardhouse near Bonita Beach Road. Planning expert Wayne Arnold explained that a PUD is an ordinance that requires formal advertised adoption by the BCC. Changes to -- changes to a PUD likewise require a formal, advertised amendment adoption by the board. These PUD ordinances always located the gatehouse at Tract A. No PUD change was ever passed by the Board of County Commissioners to allow for the guardhouse at that present location. Briefly, and I don't want to bog us down in matters of law, but -- MS. DEIFIK: Can I have page 2 of this 162 -- Statute 162 so that we can see 162.08, which is powers of enforcement boards? MR. MANALICH: We can get you the statute if you'd like. I only copied that page because it had .02 on it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 1 have it. MS. DEIFIK: Ms. Rawson says she has it. MR. LAFORET: It's not on the back of mine. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. I mean, I have it that I just keep in my purse for ready reading. MS. DEIFIK: You don't have it? Mr. Kowalski, do you have it? MR. KOWALSKI: No, I do not. I -- curiously, I looked at it yesterday, but I have it up here (indicating), Celia. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I can't find it. I guess I can't find it. MR. MANALICH: I have one copy of Chapter 162 ghat I can show you. - -MS. DEIFIK: Madam Chairman, I'm sorry if I took any time from Mr. Manalich. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We'll give it back to him. t'?. MANALICH: I've provided you a Florida Supreme Court case Hartnett versus Austin, and the only reason I've d,,ne this -- I don't mean to bog us down in principles of law any more :.han necessary, but basically this case holds that a contract such as the option or use /access agreements you heard respondents refer to, cannot change matters established as a matter of law by local ordinance. And my only point is that Mr. Arnold explained that any changes to an ordinance have to be by a formal advertised amendment. The option agreement and the use /access agreement were not such an amendment. They were a contract to contract and did not change the ordinance. Now, Mr. Agnoli reccgnized in his crass - examination that this entire controversy could have been avoided had the developer and /or respondents sought to appropriately obtain a PUD amendment from the Board of County Commissioners to obtain approval for the guardhouse at its present location. Instead what the respondents have done is to use the questionable existence of the kiosk to their advantage by calling it a guardhouse and then arguing it as a historical precedent for the present guardhouse far removed from the gatehouse complex to which the kiosk was originally integrally connected. This reasoning runs afoul of the LDC and the PUD Page 102 16G 1 January 29, 1997 ordinances. Now, what makes this end run around the county codes even more egregious is that the respondent and everyone else knows that this PUD is located at the entrance to unique public lands; yet they have gone ahead and built an impediment to public access, the guardhouse, without ordinance approval. Let's move on to my second point about the charge and the notice of violation regarding the physical and psychological impediment to public park access. Ordinance 85 -21 requires unimpeded access to the parks along Lely Beach Boulevard. There's an -- as You've seen, there are easements which grant access along that road. Actually, to my mind, the -- and to the county's mind, the PUD ordinances struck a reasonable balance between unimpeded access to the Public parks and security for the private development. The PUD ordinance has allowed a gatehouse on the side of the road that could extend over and into the road. Remember the PUD ordinance is an agreement between the developer that came before the respondents and the county. Those were the terms that everyone agreed to be governed by. If the respondent wanted a freestanding guardhouse, they could and should have sought a PUD amendment. Instead what they did was put through a building permit application which, at best, from all of the morass of testimony that we've heard here, was confusing, and then use that as a basis for justification for the guardhouse location. Remember that permit had question marks related to existing electrical, One Lely Beach Boulevard, an addition. Now, I know Mr. Joy mentioned that he thought some of those things were put in by county people or whatever, but you can see the confusing nature of that building permit. Joyce Ernst came before YOU-and honestly testified that she didn't have a lot of recollection about what happened, not quite as clear as Mr. Joy, but that when she looks at thing -- at the thing now, she doubts whether that permit could have been properly issued. Now, the respondents claim that they were motivated to place the guardhouse near the intersection of Bonita Beach Road in order to be good public citizens and serve the public interest by more easily implementing the use /access agreement and allowing for turnaround space. Now, I ask you to pause. Does anybody really believe this, or were the respondents seeking to create the gated enclave which are becoming prevalent, as Mr. Starnes told you, in wealthy areas throughout the country? Dr. Eisenbud stated in his own testimony that when he moved there, he wanted to have a gated community. It's interesting. He talks about how the Friends group wants to have and promote access' along that road, yet his own -- well, not his own, but the -- the law firm that represents the same people that are part of those respondents in this case is filing pleadings which are in evidence which indicate they want to vacate all access along the easement. Mow. which was it? was it a desire to accommodate the public and the turnaround, or was it an attempt to create a gated corratunity? Remember the ordinances talked about the community development director himself. It was that important giving approval to a number Page 103 1 6G 1 4 January 29, 1997 of these changes under this PUD, yet I don't believe we ever heard that that was ever obtained. Now, another point that's come up -- well, just to finish on that, you heard Mrs. Ward, who's intimately familiar with the area for many years, and she talked about the documented access problems that she personally knows of. You heard Mr. Franco tell you he's had hundreds of calls complaining about access. Now, at one point in these proceedings, the estoppel term came up, another legal term; and I'm not clear as to whether the board and the chairman intended to hear any evidence about that or not, and I -- I'm just going to simply maintain that if the board -- well, I guess I would ask for a clarification from the Chair at this point. Otherwise I simply won't even touch this subject. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it's my understanding that that's probably a defense i.n this case, and so, you know, go ahead and say whatever you want to about estoppel, and we'll ask our attorney to explain it to the board members who are not attorneys. MR. KOWALSKI: Madam Chairman, if -- if I might make a suggestion. I don't think that it's appropriate for the county to initiate -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's correct. MR. KOWALSKI: -- argument about that, but if -- if counsel for the respondent wishes to bring it up, then we -- I will try to advise you about what your role would be and then the county - CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: He can talk about it in rebuttal. MR. MANALICH: I only mention it now because it -- it did come up at one point. It was never fully explored in any way. I'm perfectly happy to save it at this point been raised. since it apparently, viewpoint, under Mr. Kowalski's viepoint, is not currently an issue or has not CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, if it's raised in his closing argument, you can certainly come back and rebut it. i-LT?. MANALICH: All right. All right. That's final. Well, continuing with the evidence, then, about the access impediment, you heard from Professor Starnes, professor emeritus from the University of Florida, expert in land use. You saw his impressive list of credentials in governmental and private service as an expert in litigation. And you heard him rather objectively testify to you about this subspecialty within land use about the proliferation of walled communities in societies throughout this country. And more importantly, what he testified was that he went to the site. He reviewed the PUD documents. He familiarized himself with this case, and based on his expertise, he told you that the existence of that guardhouse with its size and the way it appears, is a psychological impediment to those arriving at that location. Now, against this scholarly information and opinion, what have the respondents rebutted with? With a pseudoscientific survey conducted on an ad hoc basis by county park enforcement officers. You heard Mr. Starnes testify that he deals with surveys all the time, that there were a number of deficiencies in this survey, the most fundamental of which was they didn't ask anybody who didn't Page 104 16G 1 January 29, 1997 get in. They just asked the people that got there. What answer do you expect? Mr. Mazzone took a lot of grilling, probably an excessive amount, during the course of his presentation, but he testified truthfully that he saw cars backed up there on the one or more occasions that he went out to photograph the guard site -- the guardhouse site, and he gave you the photographs you've already seen a number of times of the imposing structure and the way it looks. Now, beyond that, let's just talk common sense here a moment. If you go and pull up in an area that you either know or maybe don't know and you see buildings, you see a guardhouse, you see a guard, common sense tells you you're going to be reluctant to go in and access that area. You're going to think it's a gated enclave. You may not even bother to stop and talk to that guard. You know what the word is: You're not welcome; this is our turf. Well, at this point it's easy to conclude that the location of the guardhouse is in violation of the PUD ordinances and impedes access; but you know, there's a more important thing here which I think we started to get into earlier which is, is there any way to sort this all out? Is there any way that this all can make sense and we can do the right thing in this decision? Well, I think there is, and remember the PUD ordinances recognize that access to the public parks was very important and that no modification could be made to the road which would impede that access. However, the PUD ordinances also recognized the legitimate security concerns of the private residents, and I think these two can coexist and a proper balance is struck with the gatehouse at Tract A on the side of the road and away from the Bonita Beach Road intersection as the PUD ordinance is prescribed. This way the public is not confused by what now appears to be a gate to a private community. The gatehouse appears to be more of a house or an administration building. The PUD ordinances allowed the gatehouse to extend over and into. Well, what that would allow would be for a teinpora r1 gate to go across the road that could be pulled out during hours when the park is not in service. Now, remember the kiosk was, for all practical purposes, almost physically and certainly functionally connected to the gatehouse. The same is not true about the present guardhouse. As a matter of fact, Mr. Joy testified that the present guardhouse -- or excuse me, the gatehouse, the original large building on the side of the road at Tract A, is now being used as a real estate office. There's no connection between the present guardhouse up on Bonita Beach Road hundreds of feet away and the gatehcuse which is now being' used for other purposes. All right. In his opening statement, respondents' counsel stated to you that he almost didn't show up at this hearing because of a newspaper article that essentially predicted that you would order the guardhouse removed. Weil, the county always intended to srov up for this hearing, and quite frankly, regardless of any headlines, is happy that the respondent also showed up for this hearing so you could have all the information and all the evidence Page 105 16G 1 January 29, 1997 that you need to reach an informed conclusion that the guardhouse must go from this location. This conclusion is based on the law of the PUDs and is not just based on public opinion. Now, today you have an awesome responsibility and a unique opportunity to apply and enforce the county PUD ordinances and Land Development Code and thereby serve the public interest by restoring unrestricted access to pristine public beaches and nature preserves. You can end eight years or more of blatant disregard of ordinance requirements. At the same time, you're not going to ar:n the respondents, because you're going to only ask them to live by the terms of a properly adopted ordinance that they had input in creating through their predecessors when this development was created. The gatehouse at Tract A, as it should be, will allow unfettered access along the road during 1--hose hours when access is most needed. At night, perhaps, when the park is riot to be used, then an extension over and into can be done such as a swing -out gate, whatever, that will keep the security interests protected. The county wishes to r_hank you for your attention to this long case and respectfully and strongly requests that you find that the guardhouse location is in violation of the county ordinances and impedes access to the public parks. Thank you very much for your attention. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Manalich. Mr. Hazzard. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to thank -- start by thanking the board members for the hours that you have devoted, and I join Mr. Manalich in that regard. A couple of small matters initially. The county has provided you with no information whatsoever to indicate that the registered agent for a corporation can stipulate to the entry of any sort of sanction or agreement with respect to a notice of violation, and the affidavits of Ms. Wiseman and Mr. Carroll describe their understanding as well_, that as registered agents they are not empowered to stipulate to the notice of violation in this case. Further, clearly the county has not been prejudiced by receiving that stipulation since it proceeded to present a full case. Now, in my view in this case, I've been shooting at a moving target. The county's asking you to ignore some of its own evidence that it put in like the use /access agreement. Well, that's because Mr. Bryant put it in. He thought it was relevant, but Mr. Manalich and Miss McEachern don't think so. The county wants you to ignore the park intercept surveys that the county's own park rangers produce and send to the state offices in Tallahassee. It must mean something for the county. I would invite you, as to the access issue, to go through those intercept surveys and read them; and in the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of comments that say the gate's no problem, no problem, no problem, you may come across one or two fo­_ks who -- who think that there is a problem. B»t it's hard to imagine how that there is -- how there is a problem today and for the last two years when, as you heard Mrs. Ward testify, two gates are wide open at the entrance to Lely Page 106 I bG 1 ' January 29, 1997 Beach Boulevard, and you know that there's a sign right there with the county turkey emblem on it that says all vehicles going to the park proceed without stopping. You must decide whether either the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association or the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association violated the five sections of the 1991 county ordinance in the two ways that are described in the notice of violation. We're hitting a moving target because initially the story was Lely deceived the county when they applied for this permit to build the guardhouse. The county was mislead. Well, the county attorneys have clearly dropped that argument after hearing testimony from 11-ir. Joy. You can't have heard Mr. Joy's testimony and believe for an instant that anybody in the county was mislead. He gave you chapter and verse from the 1.98P, dare book that he still has -- what an organized man -- chapter and verse of who he met with, when he met with them, what went on, how it got approved. And i believe his testimony was that ultimately the county participated in deciding where this guardhouse should go. He wanted to build it 70 feet south of Bonita Beach Road on the centerline of Lely Beach Boulevard. The county said no, no, no, make sure it's 20 feet south of that driveway going into the north parking lot on the centerline of Bonita Beach Road. The county put the witness on this afternoon, Miss Ernst, who essentially said she can't recall any specifics of that sort of discussion. Mr. Joy recalled the specifics quite plainly. I would submit to you that the evidence in this case plainly shows that the respondents have not violated any of the sections that they're charged with violating. And one item that we need to address early on that Mr. Laforet was on to the other day, and that:- is this issue of can you be charged in 1997 for violating a 1991 ordinance about something that went on in 1988. And let me illustrate it to you this way, and then I'm going to give you some cases. I wore my pink shirt today for a special reason, so that next Tuesday if the Collier County Commission outlaws appearing in a pink shirt in front of the Code Enforcement Board and assesses a fine of $500 for doing so, you would all realize that I don't have to pay that fine. You don't have to go to law school to understand that concept. You can't make legislation apply retroactively and give somebody a penalty for it. Now, maybe you do have to go to law school to understand that in legal parlance that means a substantive law only applies prospectively. And I'll ask Miss Tomko to pass out to you all two cases that illustrate that. They are Young versus Altenhaus and Alamo Rent A Car versus Mancusi (phonetic ). Now, we've also heard discussion on the doctrine -- what does equitable estoppel mean? And I'll ask your attorney to advise you on what equitable estoppel means. But I would submit to you my view is simply this: Equitable estoppel means you can't invite someone to stand on a rug and then pull the rug out from under them, and that's what the county has done in this case. Who in this world would get the crazy idea that they could put a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard? Well, I would. I'd get it from Ordinance 77 -48 because Exhibit A to Ordinance Page 107 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 77 -48 shows a guardhouse in the middle of Lely Beach Boulevard. There's simply no denying that. And Ordinance 77 -48 that shows that guardhouse was obviously relied upon when the guardhouse in its original location was built in 1979. You have seen the permit drawings. You've seen the drawing that's Exhibit A to Ordinance 77 -48. And then the county argues that there couldn't be any modifications to the -- to the development as planned that would restrict access to the county park. What you have heard is the guardhouse was moved to a more northerly location where access was wider, where there is not another building immediately on the side of the road funneling you. That is not restricting access to the county park; that's enhancing access. So I would like you to consider the credibility of the witnesses and the credibility of the county's story that keeps moving around here. I guess they +;ere no longer mislead as of today. Now, why are we even here? This morning I have entered into evidence Miss Sullivan's memorandum dated October 20, 1995, to Mr. Cautero. I think if you've had an opportunity to read that, You'll understand why we're here, because code enforcement has been directed by the Board of County Commissioners to proceed with enforcement on this gatehouse. Miss Sullivan's memo makes plain that she wished that the Board of County Commissioners would reconsider, that this case belongs over in the -- in the court. Interestingly, she refers to serving notice of •✓i.olation on the counsel for the plaintiffs. She's clearly talking about the lawsuit that you all know is pending next door. I *_old you on the first day that my theo ry was that the reason that we're even here is so ft;at the county can gain some upper nand in that litigation, and I wound submit to you that Miss Sullivan's memorandum that you received this morning fully supports that theory. That's why you're here. The '77 ordinance shows a guardhouse in the middle of the road. They built a guardhouse in the middle of the road in 1979. Things went along fine. The developmen- plat was filed in -- right around that same time of '78, '79 and the plat runs the -- Lely Beach Boulevard all the way to Bonita Beach Road. In 1 108:5 the PUD ordinance was amended to fully incorporate all aspects of the plat for Unit 1. You heard that from ins. Goodlette, who is a recognized expert in this area; and you heard that from Mz. Lockhart. In fact, the acreage calculations in the 85 -21 PUD ordinance do got. work unless you run the Plat for Unit 1 as part of the PUD. So it's clear that the county's argument that we heard at one point during this discussion, the guardhouse sits on land zoned agricultural special treatment, not PUD,' has been abandoned by virtue of the compelling evidence that you have heard that the 1985 PUD amendments incorporated the Unit 1 plat. So now what target are we shooting at? Well, now we're down to a very basic issue. Does the language in Section 4.3 of the amended PUD, "portions of the security gatehouse facility may exte:id into and over Lely Beach Boulevard right -of -way,' does that language permit a guardhouse standing in the middle of the road? Remember the following: First, there was a guardhouse freestanding in the middle Page 108 16G 1 January 29, 1997 of Lely Beach Boulevard when that language was adopted. Four ordinances were adopted with a guardhouse standing in the middle of the road and that language contained within them. I heard Mr. Agnoli's testimony a little differently than Mr. Manalich did. I heard Mr. Agnoli say, had there been any question in anybody's mind, of course the thing to do would have been to -- to change that language in those ordinances somehow. But there was no question in anyone's mind at the time, and we are the only parties -- we're the only parties in this case who have put on testimony of witnesses who, A, were there at the time and, B, remember. I would submit to you that's Mr. Agnoli and Mr. Joy. They were there and they remember. Their testimony was credible, it was firsthand knowledge, and they were consistent with one another. You've had no credible, firsthand- knowledge testimony from anyone on the county's side. If there were a county employee out there somewhere who would come in here and tell you, That's not what it meant in 1985 because I was there, you would have heard from that person. That's the missing witness, and certainly the county has the wherewithal to examine every one of their employees and find out what went on. Importantly, Inspector Mazzone never did so; he told you he just did up his notice of violation. And Mr. Arnold never did so; he just reached his opinions. Neither one talked to anybody who was there. They didn't even talk to Joseph Joy. How could you not have talked to him? He's working over at the county school system. His number's in the phone book. He's right around. He can tell you everything that happened. Why didn't they talk to him? Why didn't they talk to anybody-- W-rhy haven't you seen anybody? I submit to you they don't want to know what went on at the time. Why? Go back to Miss Sullivan's memo. The -- the Board of County Commissioners says get rid of the guardhouse. Now, Mr. Arnold and Mr. Mazzone are not about to cone in here and lie to you. They are simply going to restrict the facts to what they can glean without finding out what really went on, because the Board of County Commissioners said sick 'em. Go get that guardhouse. And I'd like to share with you a cn -Iick summary of what went on in sequence. And, members of the beard, I have a -- a handout of this su.,-rmary for you all if you ',-fish to refer to it as we -- as you proceed in your deliberations, but here's the chronological chart on what happened. And perhaps we'll Gass this -- pass these handouts now. First, in 1977 the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD was established; it's Ordinance 77 -48. And the master plan shows a gatehouse facility that's freestanding in the middle of the road. Next, in 1978 the Unit 1 plat got recorded, and the roads get dedicated to the homeowners' association. Mr. Goodlette explained to you the misnomer in that and how it was corrected by a deed later. There were no public use rights given in the plat. 1979 the county issues their building permit for the original gatehouse complex facility which includes a freestanding mid -road building. You saw the plans. You didn't see them, Page 109 16 G 1 .1 January 29, 1997 interestingly enough, presented by Collier County in this case. We had to present those plans. The guardhouse gets built in the middle of the road just like the Board of County Commissioners approved in the master plan. Time forward to 1985 and the PUD ordinance gets amended twice, 85 -21 and 85 -83. There's a guardhouse in the middle of the road when these ordinances' amendments are passed. The thing to remember is, this is an amendment to a structure that is in process, a development that is going on. The amendment ordinances do not provide that you have to take down the guardhouse in the middle of the road. Their -- their language incorporates all of the Unit 1 plat, including the 5.37 acres for the road right -of -way. And, importantly, the language "portions of the security gatehouse facility may extend into and over Bonita Beach Road right -of -way" gets inserted. It defies logic to suggest that putting that language in when there's a guardhouse in the middle of the road unattached to anything in Tract A means anything, but you can have a guardhouse in the middle of the road unattached to anything in Tract A. I was joking a little bit with Mr. Arnold when I asked him what he called this county government complex site and don't the buildings of the county government complex site extend into and over several acres. In fact, don't the buildings that Collier County runs government from extend into and over the entirety of Collier County? Well, that's not a strained meaning on the phrase "extend into and over.' Mr. Goodlette suggested to you that that's absolutely a perfectly logical meaning. Mr. Lockhart suggested to you the very same thing. Mr. Arnold suggests to you that it's not, Inspector Mazione suggests to you that it's not, and I suggest to you that the Board of County Commissioners' edict to go get . the guardhouse has a little bit to do with Mr. Ai:nold's opinion and Inspector Mazzone's opinion. Now, in 1987, June, the county gets an option to buy parkland that is behind the guardhouse, south dc'wn Lely Beach Boulevard. The county enters into evidence the option agreement that the current set of county attorneys tried to unenter into evidence, but we know that can't happen. The option agreement_ was approved and signed by the county commission, by the county attorney, and by Lely Development. Why is that significant? I'm talking about the estoppel argument. How can you -- how can a county agree to put a guardhouse in the middle of the road in the 77 -48 PUD, agree to use that guardhouse for regulating access to the subdivision, and then come back later and say even having one in the middle of the road with two gates open whenever anybody wants to go to the park somehow violates the PUD ordinance? I submit to you they should be estopped from doing that, but I'll ask you to rely on your counsel's view for that. Moving forward to '87, July, there's another PUD ordinance amendment. If there was any doubt about the legality of the guardhouse in the middle of the road being authorized by the language that was in the PUD, there were now three different iterations of the Page 110 16G 1 January 29, 1997 PUD amendment where that could have been changed. I submit to you that it was not changed because there was no doubt. The county tries to blame it on the developer. Well, the developer should have changed it. That's not what Mr. Agnoli said. Mr. Agnoli said if I had known that ten years down the road there would be such a stink about it, of course I would have changed it, and there wouldn't have been a problem changing it. Now, the county finally executes its agreement to purchase the land in 1987 in November. The county closes on the parklands purchase. The use /access agreement gets approved, signed again. First, all the terms in the option agreement are approved by the Board of County Commissioners, by the county attorney, and by Lely. Same thing with the use /access agreement at closing. The agreement permits the public to use Lely Beach Boulevard to reach the park, and my clients don't dispute that. You have heard an awful lot about our -- our pleading in the court case with respect to a state easement and that we want to vacate that state easement. Let me explain :shy. That's the easement that Mr. Goodlette's testimony suggests has no validity to it. It's an easement document that Lely purportedly gave rights to Collier County -- or to the State of Florida, rather, that Lely didn't own at the time. That was what Mr. Goodlette's point was in all that. We would lire that easement vacated. We would like the judge to declare that very thing. Yes, Lely gave them something that Lely didn't have to give. And by the way, there was a guardhouse in the middle of the road when Lely did give it. So, you know, the state, I would submit to you, is on notice to look in the road and see our easement is subject to the fact that there was a guardhouse there already. But in any case, we want that vacated, and we want the court to declare who gets to go down the road when. And we would like the court to declare that we ought to abide by the use /access agreement that Collier County signed. Let everybody come on down. When the parking spaces fill up, shut the gates. dell, Mr. Franco tells you that the parking spaces don't fill up. Well, they've built so many, maybe they won't fill up. That's fine. We'll just close them at night. Moving forward to the -- the movement of the guardhouse, 1988, the county closes on their land in November 1987. On March the 3rd, 1988, Joe Joy goes and applies for his -- for the building permit for a new guardhouse. Residents at Lely Barefoot Beach, Mr. Manalich wants you to believe, were trying to pull some kind of a fast one to get to live in a gated community. They already lived in a gated community. They were going to take down the old guardhouse and put the new one up. And where were they going to put the new one up? Not to be repetitive, but in a place with wider spacing, in a place where they could actually implement the county's obligations under the use /access agreement. They're going to put that guardhouse further north up the road. Mr. Joy told you that county personnel helped pick t:ze spot. Stand on the rug; eight years later we're going to pull it out from under you. That's estoppel. Now, 1990 the park opens. By 1990 the developer -- Paae 111 16G January 29, 1997 using private money that I submit came from the pockets of my clients who were buying property in the subdivision, the developer has now built a road that gives Mrs. Ward access all the way down to the county's parklands. And then the county continues that road on down throughout the county's parkland. The park opens. The county directs its invited guests to stop at the guardhouse and identify themselves on the way to the gala grand opening. You got that document in evidence this morning. The county directs people to do that, not my clients. And I submit to you that it's rather two -faced for the county to do that in 1990 and come back today and say those residents are trying to stop people from getting to the park. They're trying to make people stop at the guardhouse. You know it's not true. You know both gates are open. Even Mrs. Ward, who is an avowed opponent of the guardhouse, tells you that for at least the last year and a half to two years, you can drive right by that guardhouse because both gates are open. Professor Starnes said he has visited four times. Each time he drove right on by. Twice there wasn't even an attendant in t-he guardhouse. The other two times there was just somebody sitting in there who didn't bother him a bit, didn't even stand up to move to try to bother him. Now, from 1990 to the present at various times Mr. Franco described to you county's atternpts to -- to abide by the agreements that it signed, and the -- the Board of County Commissioners kept changing the program. So they tried to do things, and sometimes it would work, and the program would get changed. The bottom line is, now the county refuses to honor its agreement. In 1995 the residents' associations out there sue Collier County, January 1995. Thirteen :ronths later, brought: 996, the county t this code enforcement action. Look at Miss Sullivan's memo. The county brought it to gain some sort of upper -hand advantage in that lawsuit. Let's talk about easements for a second. If you're having a difficult time figuring out who has what easement and what easement is valid and what easement is not valid, don't feel alone. I would submit to you that you don't have nearly the information that You need presented by Collier County to figure out those questions about easements. And that's precisely why easement questions need to be dealt with over in the courthouse where somebody will do some type of a -- some type of a run on the property records to look and figure it all out. The county submits first one easement that gives a right to a part of the road, and Mr. Arnold told you, that gives us the right to go from Bonita Beach Road all the way to the count Well, Mr. Goodlette sure debunked than.. So the county scrambpeskin this afternoon and puts in this other easement, the state easement which, by the way, is the one -- finally they get around to putting in the one that we were put on notice of in the notice of violation. And that's why I withdrew my objection to it. I thought, well, gee, for the re�cord, at least that thing out to be in the record. But that easererir, 1985, who knows whether that's valid? Who knows whether Lely had the right to give the state that easement at all? Page 112 I 6 1 January 29, 1997 Now, I'm going to tell you that there's no judge in this world who is going to say no one can ever get to that county parkland, and I'm also going to tell you that that's not what my clients want. They want to vacate the terms of those easements, and let's tell -- have the judge tell us what are going to be the ternns by which people are going to get to the county parkland. And that's precisely why we're in court on this case, and that's precisely where we ought to be. Now, I think you should recognize by this point that this case shows county government run amuck, refusing to honor its agreements, putting extreme pressure on good people like Mrs. Sullivan, like Inspector Mazzone, .like Wayne Arnold, like poor Mrs. Ernst that came in this afternoon, because obviously Dennis Mazzone had gone and gotten her trying to salvage this case. And she wouldn't say what they wanted her to say: I never met with Mr. Joy. I never did this. I never -- nonsense. Oh, forget it. All she said was, I don't remember. She did mention that if there was any doubt, the director of the department would have stepped in and assisted in figuring out zoning. ?iow, I would like you in your written decision and in your vote today to fill in the last line on my chart, and that's mainly that on January 28, 1997, the Code Enforcement Board finds the respondents not guilty of any of the violations charged in the notice of violation. The charges are ridiculous in the light of evidence that you've heard. Applying a '91 ordinance to events of '88 violates the law, I'd submit to you. It -- it -- a substantive law like the Land Development Code should apply prospectively, not retrospectively. Now, when we raised that issue, Mr. Arnold and some other county witnesses said, well, you know, the ordinances were the same. Well, where's the evidence of that? Where's the ordinance that applied to this situation back in 1988? You don't have it. It's not my clients' responsibility to supply it to you; it's the county's. They haven't done it. One question: Does this guardhouse keep people from getting to the park? It's a resounding no. Look at the numbers that Mr. Franco sends up to the state, thousands of people a day, a month of February with 28 days, 45,000 people going down there. Where do people get tied up? They get tied up at the county's own ranger station, kiosk, guardhouse, whatever that thing is where they connect the three -- collect the $3. Dr. Eisenbud showed you the long line of cars. There's no line of cars like that at the guardhouse at the entrance to the subdivision. Why? Two gates are open. People drive on down all day whenever the park is open. You have two issues to decide. As they're expressed in the notice of violation, does the guardhouse violate the PUD? Does the guardhouse impede access? And I submit to you that the answer to both of those is no. I submit to you that all of the testimony that your time was wasted by about the -- the developer misleading the county into thinking that they were going to build an addition onto the thing in Tract A, it should be clear to you they made that up. They made it up, and they got exposed as making it up when Mr. Joy Page 113 16G 1 January 29, 1997 explained to you all about the process that went on. And you haven't heard Mr. Manalich come back to that in his closing argument. You're not hearing, They mislead the county. No, and it's crystal clear that they did not mislead the county. So my clients are asking you -- somebody on this panel at the -- at the conclusion of this case, somebody make a motion to dismiss all counts against both, and four of you vote to do so. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Manalich. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I have one case on the doctrine of equitable estoppel that I'll share with Mr. Kowalski and Pass among the panel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Hazzard. MR. MANALICH: Thank_ you, Madam Chairman. I suppose I could have engaged in artistry and drawn graphs and gone over extensive volumes of history, etc., but I don't think we need to do that here. All we need to do within the legal mission set out by the statute is focus on the controlling PUD ordinances. They tell you where that gatehouse and that extension of the gatehouse was supposed to be. It's that clear and it's that simple. You know, they talk about whether the county is providing a moving target. Well, are they providing a defense? What's the defense? is it estoppel? Is it lack of notice? Is it You know, I don't know exactly -- they're -- they're grabbing at everything. Now, I submit to you, you have in your -- in evidence before you the notice of violation. If anything, this notice of violation is guilty of giving them too much information. It not only outlined the two charges and what they had to do to correct it, but it attached all the possible ordinance provisions that might apply to this. So they were fully on notice. You know, they talked about the use /access and the option agreements. Remember one thing about those: They never talked about the location of the guardhouse. They talked about some operational procedures as to how the park's going to be run. As a matter of fact, their very language says that it's going to be the county agency that's going to control how those arrangements are made. Now, Mr. Arnold -- you know, we talked about the pink shirt, okay. Mr. Arnold told you that the LDC adopted prior zoning ordinances. As a matter of fact, I would submit to you that they're continuing every day to violate their own PUD ordinances. Of course the '91 ordinances apply. They're still in violation. They're continuing their violation. Yes, we can't prosecute Mr. Hazzard for having worn a pink shirt in the past prior to the law, but if he continues to wear it, then we can apply the law as it is. All right. We've heard about estoppel now. I can hardly wait to get to that. Well, I have a number of cases, and I don't mean to have you speed read here, but let me just tell you in sihort what those cases say, those cases which include Dade County versus Gayer. In Gayer we had a situation where a -- a wall was built, and then an issue came up as to whether a permit was issued in Page 114 1 6G 1 1 January 29, 1997 error or not for the wall, okay. The court of appeals stated the following about estoppel, and this is on page 1294 of the decision on the right -hand column toward the bottom. "While at first blush it seems that the application of the rule may be harsh, it would be inconceivable that public officials could issue a permit, either inadvertently, through error, or intentionally, by design, which would sanction a violation of an ordinance adopted by the legislative branch of the government. Only the duly constituted members of the Dade County Commission enjoy that prerogative and then only in accordance with established procedure." The other cases I'd like -- I'm not going to spend time on each one. You have them. They basically stand for this proposition that a -- an error or an oversight as to a structure that's built with an erroneous building permit cannot excuse a violation of ordinance, and the remedy is to enforce the ordinance. Now, a big deal was made about some of these agreements being signed by, not myself, but another member of the county attorney's office at some point in time. Well, if you look in the Corona Properties case -- and this is a serious case. This is a case of a building that had an error in that a letter was given -- and this is at page 1316 at the bottom in a footnote. Page 1316 of the Corona CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't think we have that one yet. MR. MANALICH: Okay. I think I -- sorry. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We have Zalarick versus Monroe County. MR. MANALICH: You won't hold the distribution time against me, will you? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. MR. MANALICH: I got ahead of myself. In Corona Properties, the case you've just been handed, what -- I just want to bring your attention on page 1316 at the bottom, Footnote 1, the approval that was given for a certain density of use was a letter that contained the signature of the county attorney. Despite that they applied the Gayer case and said that that was not enough to create an estoppel defense. I won't take up any more of your time. You -- you've got the basic cases on estoppel. I only will distribute one more for Mr. Kowalski's benefit that you can also share, and that's the Metropolitan Dade County versus: Fontainebleau case. And this, again, involved a problem with -- the purchasers involved in the construction of a service station were on notice of the controlling ordinances and' did not claim detrimental reliance or estoppel, as I read the case. But the important point is you can't, through errors or omissions or oversight, do an end run on the zoning ordinances and have them simply not apply. Just think about it a moment. What the respondents are saying is that you have to go through a series of extrapolations; and as I recall, Mr. Lockhart, their engineer, even testified that he had to do computer calculations for the PUD as to whether it was within or Page 115 I 6G ,1 I January 29, 1997 without. You know, you heard Mr. Goodlette's good faith, but -- you know, hard efforts at trying to, you know, figure out all these parcels of land and put them all together and calculate acreage and etc., etc. You don't need to do any of that. You just go to the section of the PUD ordinance that tells you where the gatehouse is supposed to be as it extends over and into the road. And there is no way, except with a quantum leap of faith, that you can say that the present guardhouse over 250 feet away up the road near Bonita Beach Road is now physically or functionally related in any way or an extension from the gatehouse at Tract A, which is now a real estate office. You know, it's curious. Mr. Joy claimed he was outraged about all these comments that are being <rade about misleading, and you know, we've adopted (sic) as the evidence has come out. We're not pointing accusatory fingers. We're just simply saying there was confusion; there were errors. And if Mr. Joy can state that, to his recollection, that he thinks that there was no intent to mislead, we'll take him on faith on that. But it's curious he only contacted the respondents. He didn't contact us about that. You know, they've admitted -- what more do you want -- in their own pleadings that their goal is to vacate that easement and remove the public access. Where does it stop? I mean, what else are they going to -- are they going to finally succeed in walling off that whole area so that only people that can afford a boat can go down to the parklands? What I submdiL to you is 3 ust mane your mission simple. Go back to the ordinances. They tell ever -gone where that gatehouse is supposed to be. I ask you - -- they've made the claim this is county government run amuck. Well, is it that, er is it a blatant disregard of clear ordinance provisions in an attempt to defeat public input in the ordinance amendment process and public access, in fact? You have the power to answer that cquestion, and you answer it by simply applying the ordinances and finding that the clear charges made of location and access being denied in contravention of the PUD ordinances have been proven. And we ask you to return a decision which upholds the public interest through public access as was intended in those PLTD ordinances, but yet at the same time does not disregard the security interest, because it does leave room for a security gatehouse complex at Tract A. It is a reasonable approach that was in the PUD ordinances. Those ordinances have been violated as charged, and we ask you to so find. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Manalich. I want to thank all the attorneys for presenting clear cases, for speeding up the process today, for giving us enough information so that we can properly deliberate, and for being civil to one another and to the board mp_mbers. It's been a pleasure, believe it or not, to work with such professionals, and I -- and I want to thank you. At this time we're going to close the public portion of this meeting, and we're going to go to the board's deliberation. Page 116 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 Before we do that, I have a number of questions for our attorney, but I'm going to reserve most of them until the end when we'll ask him for his advice. But let me ask you this one thing before I ask, you know, for some deliberation from the board. I've read Chapter 162, and I've read Ordinance 92 -80, and I know what our job is here; and I don't find in either of those two the burden of proof. My recollection tells me that in the Administrative Procedures Act, it's probably clear and convincing, but I'm not positive. And do you know; and if you do, would you explain to this board the differences in the various burdens of proof. Probably everybody's watched the O.J. Simpson trials, and so now they know the difference between, you know, those two standards. But I think it's clear and convincing, but I'm not sure. MR. KOWALSKI: Mad -- Madam, Chairman, 1 think the court reporter has to change paper. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON; it was probably very unfair of me not to tell you that I was going to ask you that question. MR. KOWALSKI: Oh, not -- not at ail. As -- as the Chair knows and some of the panelists, I'm sure, also know, the Administrative Procedures Act is a statute enacted by the Florida Legislature which prescribes the -- the rules and regulations or procedures for conducting what we call quasi- judicial hearings before certain 1(!1r1ininLretly#a 1)(,)dif�n, nrld iypicolly thus hie bodies created by state agencies for -- for state administrative hearings. MY -- my experience is that -- that by law the Administrative Procedures Act does not apply to administrative hearings that are not specifically made subject to its regulation. I don ^t'believe that these hearings are subject to the APA. I think that -- that in light of that and assurr,ing that I'm correct, that the burden of proof would -- would lie with the county. The county is the petitioner in this action and has the burden of -- of proving the viQlaLiun to this board; 5Ut �_t,ar_ r_ },,, ,.yt,.�,t (,f t }�cai_ i „Ui,iela i.r� merely to show a violation by a preponderance • -)f the evidence, which means that it is at least a little bit more likely than not, based upon the evidence presented, that a violation exists. It's sometimes expressed as 51 percent. Following up, though, on -- on the question if, in fact, this board does consider any defense that has been raised by the respondents, then the burden of proof in -- in establishing that defense would be on the respondent associations. And the -- the defense that the respondents may be asking this board to consider is a defense of equitable estoppel. What that is, how it might apply, whether it can apply, and whether you can even consider that defense are questions that I haven't been asked. But -- but if, in fact, you do consider -- and I suspect I will bF asked soma of those questions later on. If -- if you do consider an;, such a defense, then it would be the associations rather the county I:hat would have the burden of proof, and similarly their burden would simply be a preponderance of the evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Now I'd like to have Page 117 I 6G *11 January 29, 1997 some deliberations by the board. Any comments from any of the board members? MR. ALLEN: I'd like to make a comment, and this is basically a comment for my competitor, Mr. Joy, out there in the field, okay, and for the county and everybody. I think y'all are doing an excellent job, but one of the problems that I am aware of is that the sophistication of the -- of the county today is greatly enhanced from what it was back in '87 and 188, as Mr. Joy pointed out. We used to walk into little hut3 and get permits, Etc. At this same point in time, our company was building three guardhouses, and the same -- and I won't mention where they are, because it'll be giving Mr. Hazzard more people, more clients. But basically what Mr. Joy explained to you is exactly what -- how things happened back in those days. We would go out -- okay, the county would come out from a preconstruction meeting, and they would say, Jiany, you and your guys, you know, you're across from this church or whatever. We need to move this over here another 15 or 20 feet. I'm not defending or making a -- I'm just making a comment. And that was done, and all three guardhouses we were building were in PUDs, okay. None of these PUDs were ever amended. This was basically -- we facilitated what the county asked us to do back in those days. Now, today our level of sophistication is different, and I understand the technology, but exactly what Mr. Joy explained to you all, I have personally been involved in three times Myself. So I'm just putting that on the table. CHAIRPERSON RAWSO14: Any other comments? MR. LAFORET: Madan Chair. CF- NIRPERSON RAWSON : Yes. MR. LAFORET: I would like to preface my comment as -- MS. DEIFIR: You need to use the mike, Lou. :�• LAFOR.ET: -- admiration and respect for -- for the attorneys, their supporters, their staff, and their witnesses. I think they all proceeded with sincerity, and -- and I thank them for that. The comment I have to make is that in paragraph 162.02, which is the intent, the generation of this board, the intent of this park to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. I am not convinced that the location of the gate falls under this category. I'm more inclined to believe that this case should not have been -- appeared before this board for that reason. However, I have, when I finally make my decision, considered the evidence in depth and in detail, and I thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other comments by the board? Anybody want to deliberate? MS. LOWIERE: I have something that I want to say. This has been very lengthy to listen to. Regardless, I know we're all going to have to vote on this, and some people may think we're going to -- we're out to get Lely residents or whatever, but that's not 'he case. Regardless of our vote, I do not think this issue is going to go away. These guys -- there's a state park, and there will have to -- it will continue to be monitored. Page 118 16G 1 January 29, 1997 There's correspondence from them dated September the 28th that states that while staff feels that the proposed management plan technically provides for unrestricted access by the public, there is continuing concern that problems created by conflicting public and private interests will persist unless the situation is carefully monitored and incipient or potential problems are dealt with in a timely manner, To ensure an adequate degree of oversight, staff recommends that Collier County monitor the publi access situation closely and submit quarterly reports to the Deparc tment of Environmental Protection staff commenting on how the public access provisions of the management plan are working. That's one issue. If -- if your -- if the people that are paying you want to continue with this, I don't think this is going away regardless of our vote today. That's number one. Number two is, I have heard nothing in this whole week or so that I've been listening to this that states that the PUD -- the Planned unit development that govern how development_ is supposed to take place in that -- in treat -- in those tracts of lands has been modified to allow for the placement of the gatehouse currently exists. As a board member, I do not have the eauthority to supersede an ordinance that exists in -- that was -- that is really state statures (sic). We ha-,,,e a PUD. It dictates where the is supposed to be 'Located. Regardless of my feelings atehouse regardless of how well gs on this matter, disregard this PUD and forget rabout`itsand letnthe y a gee, let's just stands. gatehouse where it CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other comments from any other board members? - MS. DEIFIK: I make these comments only because it's my understanding -- Mr. Kowalski, correct me if I'm wrong -- that we're going to have to put some findings of fact in any order that we -- is it absolutely necessary that we put findings of fact in any order that we enter? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, it is. MS. DEIFIK: All right. I have -- I want to make it clear. I've really devoted a lot of time to reading over the material from the day I was not here, reading over all of the exhibits, and going over everything. I am very, very conscious of -- being a lifelong Florida resident, of the public's right of access to the coast having grown up in Florida and myself been affected by development and sometimes impeded from what, I thought, were, you know, my rights as a cracker, so to speak. But I do have the following problems: The county tells us that the gatehouse, guardhouse, is in violation. Because of its location, it violates the PUD. The county put on substantial evidence to the effect that the guardhouse was not in the PUD. And we also heard evidence, but from the respondent, that the guardhouse was in the PUD. So I -- I feel that the county's argument is inconsisten =. I'm not convinced that there's a violation because of the arguments that the county has put forward. I'm also concerned that the language in the PUD that's repeated four times appears to encompass a wider Page 119 I bG I January 29, 1997 area, and it appears to authorize location elsewhere. I'm not convinced that access is impeded, but I've also spen'_ a great deal of time thinking about the narrowness of the jurisdiction of this body. I have no illusions as to the aug-ast ness of this body, and I certainly want to stay within those parameters_ So I have examined -- even if, assuming one were convinced that the location of the guardhouse violates the language of the PUD as the county's witnesses are now interpreting that language, can we look at equitable estoppel, or can we look at the circumstances bey which this guardhouse came to be there? Now, the county has given us some case law on this matter. The Metro Dade case, which, I believe, is illustrative of :he cases that the county is urging, states that errors do not override zoning where, and I quote, "conditions were matter of public record of which purchasers were on constructive notice.' how, I certainly understand that concept, and I understand the necessity of police power of a municipality or sovereign entity overriding little defects or -- or screwups that clerks might make. But I think what's critical here is it says where 'conditions were :natter of public record of which purchasers were on constructive notice." Here it does not appear. that Lely or the very successors to Lely were on such constructive notice, reecause all of the witnesses, particularly the witnesses who were there and particularly what one can glean from reading the record of the PUD ordinances, which were continually being amended, all of those people, then the county personnel, the county officers, file county attorney's office, and the representatives of Lely interpreted the PUD completely differently then as opposed to how the county interpreted it now. - I also cannot help but note the Supreme Court case from 1953, which I'm presuming would not have been given to us unless it was the most recent supreme court case ruling on this issue. I also note the fact that there's no Second DCA cases. The Shyklosky case where it says that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may prevent arbitrary recision of a building permit in a situation in which the doctrine would be invoked if the municipality were an individual. And I would submit that the circumstances we are looking at now come more within the parameters of the Shyklosky case than within the parameters of the Metro Dade case. I also have to go back to language which appears in the four PUDs, and I do not interpret that language, sitting here today in 1997 and knowing everything that I know now, to prohibit that guardhouse. Unless I've missed something -- and I -- I want to emphasize that I -- I could have missed something. I -- I certainly could have missed something. I also have a problem with the retroactive application argument. I listened very carefully to Mr. Wayne Arnold when he said that the current Land Development Code merely carried forward or incorporated many of the aspects of the prior zoning ordinances, but unless I missed something, I didn't see anyone introduce prior z -)ning ordinances that were on point. So I -- I have serious concerns. I also cannot help but note that the evidence that the Page 120 1 6G '1 4 January 29, 1997 county introduced -- and I understand and, believe me, sympathize and empathize with Mr. Manalich and Miss McEachern in the fact that they were thrust into this case after someone else had brought it. But the fact is that both they and Mr. Bryant are agents of the county, and Mr. Bryant introduced these documents -- seem to argue against some of the very evidence and arguments that were later put on when other counsel took over. So I just put that out for further deliberation. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. Mr. McCormick. MR. McCORMICK: Oh, okay. Sure, I'll make a few comments. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I thought you were leaning forward; so I was going to call on you next. MR. McCOR.MICK: I can do that. First of all, I would not -- in reviewing this case and the evidence that -- that was presented to us, I would not view Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association or the development corporation as blatantly disregarding the county and their regulations, because we -- we know that there was a back and forth and involvement, and there was a lot of different agreements and things; so I can't agree with that per se. And, you know, the other part of the violation that's been brought before us regarding the building permits being misrepresented or -- so I think that that doesn't hold water, and -- and we shouldn't really consider that any further. Looking at -- you know, whether or not this guardhouse restricts access is -- is a very difficult issue. I -- now I would say that it doesn't because of -- you know, in the last year and a half the travel that -- that I know occurs up and down the guardhouse; and, you know, I've been there. I've -- I've picked the times that I = --that I go there, and there's not any crowds, and I don't have any problem getting there. And actually, more often I put -- put my kayak in over at Vanderbilt Lagoon and paddle over to the beach. It's a beautiful thing. It's a beautiful park. But I also recall back in -- about five years ago when I first moved to this area, I was tryinq to explore the different beaches. And you'll have to look at this from -- from both sides, you know, being county residents that know that we can get to the park, then you get there. There's no problem. But when I first was trying to explore and find the park, I think that I stayed on -- on Bonita Beach Boulevard, and I didn't -- I didn't drive down there because of the guardhouse. And I don't think there were signs there at the time that said proceed freely, or at least I didn't get far enough along. So that's a really tough -- tough issue for us to address, I think; and it depends on the perspective, and it depends on the timing, too,' that we look at. I would also say that the county's argu:-nent in regards to the -- the land that the existing guardhouse is on is not zoned properly, is not a part of the PUD -- I -- I didn't hear a convincing amount of evidence to -- to prove that that was -- was not within the PU"J_ And -- and as was mentioned already, there -- there is some conflict regarding if -- if that violation was supported that the guardhouse is outside the PUD, then how can we really assess, you Page 121 I bG I January 29, 1997 know, the violations to the PUD? So I -- I don't think that -- that that violation is is -- is valid, in my opinion, and then, therefore, I have to fall back and look at the PUD language and try to assess whether or not it was permanent in the PUD and whether or not the -- as an obstruction. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further? MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah, I have -- go ahead. MR. McCORMICK: Not from me at this moment. MS. LOUVIERE: I - just think that -- that we're getting into -- I know you're - enough evidence for t s he thin thyou' re trying to find if we have g - that they're accusing them of but -- or suggesting, but I think what we need to really concern with is, is the guardhouse located in Tract A as it states in the planned unit development? Is it in Tract A? I -- from this planned unit development master concept plan that is part of the ordinance, the original ordinance, that sets development there, that shows where Tract A is, that shows where the guardhouse is, and where the guardhouse is now are two totally different ball games. And all the other ordinances, all t-he- plans -- all the other times that the PUD, the original PUD, was modified, they never ever said let's move the gatehouse from Tract A. to Tract F or whatever other tract they're calling the road now. I You have to look at the original PUD where the originalc PUD usaid that gatehouse was supposed to be. It was never amended; so it's not up to us to say, gee, this -- this -- the -- the thing was given in error. All we have to do is look at the ordinances that are set forth. I mean, Bill Vines was not here. He wrote the ordinances. 'They're good ordinances. That's why planners write them. That's why they get voted: That's why they go through hearings. That's why the Board of County Commissioner votes on them. They're to set forth lands are going to be developed. Stick to the ordinance.hoTheracts of ordinance was never amended. All we have to say is put it back in Tract A. MS. DEIFIK: I had -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead. MS. DEIFIK: -- one further comment. One of the things that struck me throughout the many days of testimony as eve Pointing to different portions of the PUD; and when say "the I mean the c' ' emulative PUD, because I realize it was repeatedly amended. And there was considerable disagreement and confusion, not only over the language related to the guardhouse, but over what portions governed what. And I studied the case that Mr. Manalich and Miss McEachern gave us, which was another Florida Supreme Court case, admittedly an old one, but sometimes the old ones stand u p well. And I read everything that Miss McEachern had circled ore - bracketed, but I also read another headnote that said - or which is so vague that its - "An ordinance invalid." And, you know , Precise meaning cannot be ascertained iL, , all of the witnesses, and particularly Mr. Goodlette, who I realiz you know, previously worked for Cummings & Lockwood and all those things, but I think he's a person of Page 122 16G 1 January 29, 1997 integrity. There was considerable inconsistency between those PUDs and considerable inconsistency between the language and considerable difficulty of many, many very intelligent, very well - educated people over the last ten years in interpreting what that meant. And so the county gave us this case. And I think that's a telling statement in addition to the other provisions that they were pointing out to us. MR. ALLEN: I've just got one last comment. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. YIP.. ALLEN: And this is basically -- I understand what Mireya is saying in totality about whether -- if it should be Tract A or Tract R or Tract F or whatever, and this is just a personal opinion. Whether it's 200 feet one way or the other, what difference does it make? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I -- I guess it's my turn. I -- Z -- MS. DEIFIR: Particularly when the maps did not -- MR. ALLEN: They don't jibe. MS. DEIFIR: They don't jibe. C'14AIRPERSON RAWSON: The admissions that were signed by the *>eople who accepted services, registered agents, I think are probably meaningless, and so I'm not giving those any weight. Besides it's moot anyway, because the country's presented its whole case. A couple of things trouble me about this case. First of all, clearly the guardhouse is not in Tract A, and I don't think that there's any dispute of that. But did the amended ordinance in 1995 incorporate all of that land in the PUD, and is that ordinance so vague as to include language that would allow you to put that guardhouse anywhere? In terms of the access, does it impede traffic? I don't think there's been substantial evidence presented that it does, although I don't give that survey much weight either since we only asked the people who got through, and that's not what I would base my opinion on. So I guess what we need to do here is to focus on these two issues, and before I ask anybody if they have any motions, let's focus on these two issues: first of all, the location, because the first violation that they asked us to decide is whether or not the construction of the additional guardhouse located on Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1, Tract R, which is obviously not Tract A, is in violation of the Collier County various ordinances. And then when we look at that one issue -- and let's discuss that one issue first. Let's look and remember that we have two separate respondents; and so whatever you decide about the first violation, you have to decide whether or not that -- Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association, Inc., a Florida corporation, whether or not they violated the construction of that additional guardhouse. And then you have to decide whether or not Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, Inc., a Florida corporation, violated that construction of an additional guardhouse in the wrong place, the location being, you know, not in Tract A. Now, before we ask for a motion on -- on that particular violation, let me ask our attorney if Page 123 I bG 1 January 29, 1997 he has any words of wisdom for us. MR. KOWALSKI: Well, I think the board has -- has done a sensational job of -- of listening to the evidence and, from your comments, obviously, understanding what the issues are and how the evidence relates. I don't think you need a lot of guidance. Let -- let me suggest to you how your analysis might operate, however, in in regards to this particular question. I think the Chair is -- is prudent in suggesting that the charges against each of the separate respondents be considered separately; and if -- if the board at any point needs additional input from me regarding how you assess both respondents as violators, I would -- I would certainly do that. In terms of -- of analyzing the substantive charge, the question that the Chair has laid out is whether the guardhouse in its present location within Tract R violates the ordinances, i.e., the PUD and -- and is -- is it the proper subject of what, I guess, would be described as Violation No. 1 in the notice of violation. And I think there are, essentially, two components to -- to that issue. And the first issue is whether the erection of the guardhouse at that location constitutes an ordinance violation; and secondly, if your answer to that question is in the affirmative, then you need to consider whether the defense that's been proffered by the respondents is legally sufficient, and if so, whether it's proven. And this is -- if -- is it appropriate for me to discuss the issue of estoppel? MS. DEIFIK: Yes. Is it in our jurisdiction? MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. The -- these are the issues I if -- if I'm not exceeding my authority, that I would like to -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No, you're not, you're not. I want you to talk about estoppel, and I also want you to address the issue of whether or not -- and -- and I've read the cases and, of course, I know the law. But there has been testimony to, you know, contradict this. I know that we can't apply ordinances retroactively. There was testimony, and maybe this is a question of fact for us, that the Land Development Code incorporated some prior zoning ordinances. It troubles me that we didn't see those prior zoning ordinances that were incorporated in the Land Development Co6e. But -- but maybe you should instruct the board about the application of retroactive ordinances. MR. KOWALSKI: I will try to do that, and ordinarily -- (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. KOWALSKI: I think you'd have to go on the record to do that, Shirley Jean, and that's fine. I think that the county attorney's office wanted to make one comment before I -- I give my opinion. I'll -- I'll ask the Chair if that's -- if the Chair would allow that comment. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, if there's some evidence in here that we're missing, you know, I'd be happy to know that. MR. HAZZARD: Madam -- Madam Chairman, I would strongly object to that, because I believe certain members of the panel have already expressed some viewE that indicate to me that, perhaps, there is some evidence they are missing. And I would strenuously object to allowing the attorneys to make a comment every time a board member Page 124 16G 1 January 29, 1997 makes a comment that the attorney thinks is not appropriate. I think the attorneys are done in this case. I think we should sit back and defer to you -all and your attorney for deliberation in this matter. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, 1 -- I closed the public portion of this meeting, and so I don't disagree with you. But I will say to the county if those zoning ordinances are somewhere in our packet, just give us the exhibit number. MR. KOWALSSKI: I -- I'm not aware that they are, Madam Chairman. Let -- let me attempt, then, to address the question that the Chair posed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let -- let me -- wait just a second. Miss Deifik, you are leaving for just -- MS. DEIFIK: Ten seconds, ten. (Ms. Deifik left the boardr000m.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Maybe sh doesn't think she needs your legal advice, sir, but I do; so we'll wait. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, when she returns we would appreciate clarification as to what_ it is that you're asking for. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'll wait until she returns, because she raised it also. Well, let's do this: Since she's taken ten seconds, let's all take -- MR. KOWALSKI: Here she is. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. (Ms. Deifik returned to the boardroom.) MS. DEIFIK: My children time me; so I've learned to be prompt. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Miss Deifik, I waited for you because you expressed the same concern I did, and that is in applying ordi-nances retroactively, did the Land Development Code incorporate those ordinant -- those zoning ordinances? And I believe that's what Mr. Arnold told us, and -- and so I believed him. Your question was, we weren't -- or were we shown prior zoning ordinances that, in fact, became the Land Development Code? Was that your concern? That's basically what mine was, too. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, as I understand it, you want the county's attorney -- the county attorney's office to tell you an exhibit number. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. HAZZARD: If, in fact, that's correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. MR. HAZZARD: Without -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Without comment. I mean, I believed Mr. Arnold. I think he was a very credible witness, and and he told me that, and so I believed him. But I don't have any evidence of that is my problem. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I was merely going to suggest that perhaps to make things a bit clearer that we all look at the notice of violation and go through it, like, with Violation No. 1. MR. HAZZARD: Madam Chairman, I object. Obviously, the county attorney's office has not answered the question under the parameters that you laid out, and we have obviously closed the public Page 125 I 6G 1 I January 29, 1997 portion of this hearing. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I -- I agree and I -- but I do understand what you're saying, and what I would do is ask the board -- I'm looking at Exhibit A to the notice of violation, which basically goes right through all the ordinances; and I have it in front of me, so I would suggest the board do also. I don't disagree with you. We should go through -- MS. DEIFIK: And I -- I -- I think that, perhaps, what the county is hinting at here is the argument that they made earlier, which is -- is something we should consider, that it doesn't matter -- I think this was their argument. It doesn't matter whether something old was violated, because the guardhouse continues to stand and, therefore, the new zoning -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think that's what they told us. MS. DEIFIK: -- applies to it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. M.S. DEIFIK: And I -- I have difficulty with that. MS. LOUVIERE: 1 -- I think what the county's toying to say is that -- that anytime you erect a structure, if you go pull a building permit, you cannot disregard the zoning layer that exists. You know -- MS. DF_IFIK: There's no evidence of what that zoning layer waS at that time. MS. LOUVIERE: Every ordinance I have read is very specific as to the guardhouse being located in Tract A. Every plat I have seen that shows Tract A, it's not where the guardhouse is now. I mean, it's not this complicated. It really isn't. Ramiro explained it very, very well. It is not that complicated. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I don't -- I don't think the -- I mean, I think the evidence is really clear. It's in Tract R. It's not in A. MS. LOUVIERE: It's not in A. That's what every ordinance says. If they wanted to put it in Tract R, I don't really care. I don't care if it's in tract -- call it any tract you want. You should go through a planned unit development amendment. That's what they're called; that's what they're for. You come in here; you go through -- the Planning Commission hears you; you go to the Board of County Commissioners, and they grant you that new -- they -- they revise your -- your ordinance. This ordinance has been revised throughout the ages. Things have been scratched out and everything, and I've read every ordinaZce. God knows I haven't had a life since I started to deal with this, but nowhere in any of the ordinances does it say that you can take the guardhouse from Tract A. I've never heard -- seen it. MR. ALLEN: I read it differently, and this -- this is just_ another board member. I read it as that -- from Mr. Goodlette's testimony and Mr. Lockhart's testimony that as the -- that as the -- it was platted, okay. And in the area of square footage of acreage etc., etc., etc., allowed the use of the guardhouse at this point in tijre. And -- and it didn't need -- it did not need to go through the -- the change of -- of amending the ordinance, okay, because nobody Page 126 I 6 1 January 29, 1997 objected. MS. LOUVIERE: I -- I disagree with that totally. You cannot go ahead and just arbitrarily figure acreages and then, boom, go ahead and plat it. It -- that doesn't make any sense. You have a planned unit development and that dictates what every tract is going to do, the sizes of it, and how it's going to be platted. When this planned unit development came in -house -- and by "in- house" I mean it was reviewed by Collier County staff -- they went ahead and they obtained and they looked at the preliminar -y plat and they had a final plat. Every plat I have seen, I have never seen a -- the -- it doesn't match what your -- you guys are telling me. You're telling me that I should allow a guardhouse to sit in Tract r, okay. Well, the plat -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: R. MS. LOUJIERE: Tract_ R. Thank you. The plat does not say that. You have plat -- the plats you have shown me clearly show me at Tract A, and the -- I have a planned unit development that says Tract A is supposed to be for this use; it is supposed to be a gatehouse complex; this is what you can put in there. It -- and it was never changed from that. I -- you know, maybe it's because I do this all the time that it's not so confusing to me. I don't even have to look at a bunch of easements. I don't have to listen to a bunch of experts that talk about how a gatehouse blocks things. All I have to look is -- read a planned unit development, know that this was never amended, know that I have a guardhouse that doesn't sit in Tract A, and know what my findings are supposed to be. I'm sorry that the rest of the board members don't do this all the time, and it has been -- they have beery confused to no end; but that is the issue here. MR. KOWALSKI: Madam -- Madam Chairman, if I may try to address the Chair's question about the applicability of the '91 code to 1988 violations. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. And I apologize that we - nterrupted you earlier, because that was one of my questions for you. MR. KOWALSKI: First of all, so that we're all on the same page, we're dealing with, essentially, two layers of ordinances: One is the planned unit development ordinance which, obviously, is an ordinance which is specific to the property at Lely Beach and applies to no other property within the county. The other layer of ordinances that apply are contained in the Land Development Code, which, in fact, is an -- an ordinance of general application throughout the county, as I'm sure the board knows. The -- the significance of this is that the county has the burden of proving the violations as per the notice of violation that was served upon the respondents. The notice of violation alleges that the respondents violated specific provisions in the Land Development Code and -- and, in fact, attaches provisions of the -- the cited provisions of the Land Development Code to the notice of violation. Now, the provisions of the Land Development Code that ere attached to the notice of violation disclose that those coprovisions were enacted in 1992, 1993. They were enacted after the guardhouse Page 127 16G 1 January 29, 1997 was constructed and a certificate of occupancy issued by the county. Now, YLr. Hazzard has provided a couple of cases to me which stand for the -- at the hearing today, that -- that stand for the proposition that a subsequent ordinance amendment or adoption cannot take away substantive rights which are vested in a property owner under a lawful prior ordinance. So clepirly the -- I'll instruct you as a matter of law that the -- that the construction and the continued operation of the guardhouse cannot violate a code provision adopted years later. Now, the question that the Chair is raising is whether there is evidence in the record to establish that the -- the same or a substantially similar code provision was in effect at the time that the building permit was -- was applied for and a certificate of occupancy issued. There is, in fast, no documents in the record as exhibits which would -- which would -- which I find disclose that there was, in fact, any such ordinance. There has been testimony by Wayne Arnold, who -- who certainly is a credible witness, to the effect that the ordinances which existed prior to the enactment of the -- of the comprehensive Land Development Code revision were carried forward. The question that you have to decide related only to this one little issue out here is whether you interpret that testimony as sufficient evidence to -- to prove that it is more likely than not in your mind that these particular provisions contained in this Land Development Code that are the subject of this notice of violation were, in fact, contained in the code as it existec. a few years previously. You -- frankly, you're -- you're stuck with a record that has some evidence, but -- but less than the quantum of evidence that, I tt;ink, the board would like in order to decide the issue. Madam Chairman, does that -- does that address that par *_icular question? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, it does. Thank you. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. MS. LOWIERE: I'm not an attorney. Can I ask a quick question? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Sure. MS. LOWIERE: When 1 look_ at the Land Development Code, in the front of it, it's got a -- a whole page that talks about all the ordinances that are implemented by mention; so wouldn't that case -- and one of them is the zoning ordinance, and since we are referencing sections out of the LDC, wouldn't -- in that way, we are really implementing those zoning laws? MR. KOWALSKI: Let -- let me respond to that this way, Miss Louviere. There are some documents which -- which a trier of fact like this board can only consider if they're introduced as -- as evidence in a case. And then there's other kinds of documents like these cases that the attorneys have shown to me that -- that you can consider because they're -- they're legal instruments that you can consult as -- as references of the law, even if they're not exhibits. And i think that you've hit on a -- a potential solution to this. I don't -- I don't think that the -- I think that the board could receive information about what the Land Development Code in 1991 Page 128 16G 1 January 29, 1997 carried forward outside of the scope of the evidence in a case. I don't have the answer to the question, but what I'm saying is that even though the evidence has been closed, that information could be imparted to you -all, in my opinion, if -- if anyone has -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: As a legal document? 1,M. KOWALSKI: As -- as -- right, as a -- as a reference of law rather than an exhibit. Do you have a problem with that, Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No, I don't. I think we can take judicial notice of the Land Development Code and whatever the entire volume says. I don't -- I don't have any problem with that. MS. DEIFIK: But -- but that still doesn't get back to the issue of what the pertinent zoning ordinances were at the time this building was permitted, and that still leaves me with the problem that the county has not met their burden. i - MP.. McCORMICK: Let me say without a doubt the PUD was a zoning ordinance that was in effect at the time and remains in effect. What I'm not clear on and -- and I'd like Mr. Kowalski to comment on is what -- in our review in deciding this case, what is the link between the violations which are described in reference in Exhibit A when they talk about a PUD or, for example, an easement or something else versus the violations which are described on the front of the -- the NOV where it's only -- they only list r_he LDC sections. What is the length there that we need to look at? For example, could we find a violation in a section of the LDC that's not a violation of the PUD? And vice versa, could we find a violation of the PUD that maybe isn't linked to any of these sections in the LDC? YCA- 4XILSR1 : That's ar. excellent question. The answer to that is thet the '_ink is -- is actually contained in -- in the sections of tie LP.nd Development Code that are referenced in the notice of viol.at.on. For example, 2.2.20.2.3 is entitled uniform -- unified control, and -- and it references a violation of -- of a PUD. Several of these reference violations of -- of PUDs so; what you have to do is to find that -- in order to find a violation is to find that that -- that that provision in the Land Development Code applies and that will trigger compliance with the -- with whatever PUD applies to that particular property. So you really have to find both is what I'm saying. MS. DEIFIK: Then we're still applying a subsequent ordinance in order to -- MR. KOWALSKI: I'm -- I'm sorry, Miss Deifik. You're right. What I meant to say is that you -- you would have to find that the provision which is designated as 2.2.20.3 (sic), for example, in -- in this -- in this code is the same or substantially the same as -- as a provision that existed in the previous code and was -- and was reenacted and brought forward, which is -- which is information that I don't think is available to us at this time unless -- unless you believe that this simple statement under oath by Mr. Arnold answers that question. MS. LOWIERE: And I think it does. I think Wayne Arnold's been around for a long time. I do have -- there is the issue Page 129 16G 1 January 29, 1997 of burden of proof, and I do have a problem with Violation No. 2, which is I didn't really get a good feel -- did not feel for sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that the -- the . The People there are really impending (sic) vehicular traffic e a gatehouse, though, I -- Z __ I'm totally adamant about the Violation 1 continuing to exist, and I feel if -- whatever our vote is today when this goes to court, they' going to -- anybody that reads those PUDs realizes that the PUD wa re never amended and that the gatehouse is in the wrong place. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's do this: Let's -- MR. ALLEN: I'd like to make a motion.. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yeah. Let's -- let's go back to Violation I. Let's near your motion. MR. ALLEN: My motion would I--e that in the -- in the case of both respondents, okay, on Violation rio. 1 that the -- that the gatehouse, guardhouse -- whatever we want to call it this afternoon -- is in the wrong place, is invalid. That - saying that -- you know, I'm saying this with ton - and I'm not that the burden of proof from the county I don't thiinknishsubstantial enough. I -- I don't believe that Mr. Arnold's testimony alone without the documentation that :'ins. Deifik and you, :•i�rs. Rawson, have brought up -- without these previous ordinances - , look at something that was in black and white, okay, - say, we could the violation occurred in '88 and it's continued todoccur,yIsthink we would have a different way to look at this. But I don't think we've been shown enough burden of proof, positive proof, other than one testimony where one man, who I believe was wrong, okay -- he was also -- I think the -- from what Mr. Goodlette and what Mr. Lockhart have shown us today, we have been shown that this agricultural special treatment had been amended in the Plat. So I'm not saying that Mr. Arnold didn't give good testimony. I think he may have been mistaken, and that's all we have to work with. So my motion is that both respondents are not guilty of the Violation No. 1. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. MCCORMICK: Let me ask -- I -- I don't disagree with anything you just said, but I thought that I heard earlier that there may be this other reference of the -- the link between our current LDC, and the previous zoning ordinances may be available to us or may not be. MS. LOUVIERE: It's referenced right at the beginning of the Land Development Code. It brings in all the other zoning laws. But that's irrelevant because, really, when you have a planned unit development, that PUD gets voted. It be - - it really modifies the zoning laws for the county and, in essence, what it does, it modifies the zoning for that plat -- that -- that about being able to implement, okay, thingsethroughand th oughha said platting, modifying a P -- a planned unit development through platting can't be done. The only way you can modify a planned unit development is t_o take -- take it through a planned -- a PDA process. MS. DEIFIK: Well -- MR. LAFORET: I agree -- I agree with Mr. Allen. I do Page 130 I 6 1 January 29, 199/ not agree that it's the board's responsibility to look up the laws and find out what applies to where. We listened to testimony, and if the parties do not provide us with the information necessa make a decision, that's the party's fault. rY for us to CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? MIR . LAFORET : I second. MS. DEIFIK: Z -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded that insofar as both respondents are concerned that there's not enough evidence to find a vio -- that they are responsible for Violation 1, construction of an additional guardhouse located on Lely Barefoot Beach, Unit 1, Tract R, under Collier County building of them -- all of the ordinances. g ion on and all MR. MCCORMICK: I'll - Any further discussion on that? it would be a lot easier for uslif�we� had kall hthe oinformation in front Of us; but when we don't, I have to rely on m t interpretation Y y judgment, you know, my beenarlottofback andffor +�h testimony abour�i� i And n paying that there's facility is allowed to extend into the ther that gatehouse that the -- that did not a e road and I think that the approve she guardhouse within the PUD to be placed that additional 200 feet awa MS. LOUVIERE: Good. Thank u. so 'I won't support the motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: An You. (No response) �' other comments? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are we ready for a vote? Ill favor of the motion signify by saying aye. in All opposed? MR. MCCORMICK: Nay. MS. LOUVIERE: Nay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The vote's 4 to 2. Violation 1 will be dismissed. Let's get into Violation 2, impeding vehicular traffic from the Bonita Beach Road entrance. MR. ALLEN: I'll make a motion for that also. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. ALLEN: Again, I'd like - qualify this motion, okay. - again, I'm going to sign, a white stripe across the road, that any guardhouse, stop impede any kind of access, all right, anything tthat'stuptthe e. all person standing there with a flag in his nand will do that, okay. But when I look at these numbers, and Z people that went through the say' go11Y, You've had 374,000 guardhouse in 1994, and we all know that the gates were down in 1994, okay. I don't call that very impediment, okay. I mean, the gates, as ever•bod agreed much get raised up until, like, a f Y's agreed to, didn't irregardless, the numbers aren'travailabledto half ago. And quarter of a million o us today. When a people can go to a park freely, I don't think the guardhouse is that big of an impediment or impedes the access; and 1 believe that -- that violation should be dismissed also. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: As to both? MR. ALLEN: As to both the respondents, yes, ma'am. Page 131 16G 1 January 29, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: There's been a motion. Is there a second? MR. LAFORET: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? (No response) MR. McCORMICK: I'll just comment that I - violation I -- I agree that - - this that there isn't the impediment there. There could be some things done to i Public's access. You know, the signs improve the public's knowledge, the the group the Friends of the Beach ndare and rtheir advertisements and things, that all goes to help the community know about the legal access through there better. And with, you know, the up at this time, I don't think that there's an access blocking. ButgI would, you know, encourage or -- we're going to sa probably long past that. I was Y I'd encourage the county and Lely to continue to try to allow, you know, as much access as possible. MR. ALLEN: Now, let me amend my motion t o incoorate what you just said, Rich, okay, that with this dismissal, okay, that the respondents agree to keep the gates open and access to the beach as ultimately possible at all. I mean, Possible access -- if we dismiss, that respondents say ntssagreeetoekeep the gates up and open during park hours that. MS. DEIFIK: I don't think we have the power to -3n CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Can we do that? MS. DEIFIK: I like that a lot. I love it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Our attorney says we can't do that. MS. DEIFIK: And what with all the -- the publicity from the Naples Daily News and everything, I -- I don't think there's a soul in this county over the age of five that doesn't know that you can go to the beach at Lely Barefoot - (Laughter) MR. ALLEN: Well taken. I'll drop my amendment. MS. DEIFIK: But -- but I would hope that all the Parties would act in good faith subsequently. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think that we probably don't have the power to do anything other than vote on the violations as they were brought before us, and it's been moved and -- has it seconded? MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Laforet seconded. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: - and seconded that Violation No. 2 be dismissed as to both respondents. Any further discussion? Call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Violation No. 2 is also dismissed. Now, let me just say this to all the parties that are here. We are not a court of law. We are simply Board with very limited powers. Whatever happen a Code Enforcement pp� I�'t gainq to make any impact on any sitting s here today probably we found here simply is that we didn't have enough What we - what either violation existed; and so in our limited j proof urisdictio find that on, we Page 132 �j G January 29, 1197 couldn't find that violations exist. But that's not to say that, you know, some other judge, some other -- some other body might not find some other way. Let me encourage the parties to leave those gates down, to access the public -- MR. HAZZARD: You don't mean down. MS. DEIFIK: Up. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Up, up. MS. LOUVIERE: Up. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Freudian slip; it's too late. To let the public have access to this beach. And if -- you know, if there's anyway to settle this case before you go through many more litigious days in a court of law to please do so. MS. DEIFIK: Can I say just a second, because I didn't get a chance to say this before, that I know that both parties worked awful hard, and I don't think there was any deficiency on the part of either tecun. I think that you have to recognize sometimes that the facts are what the facts are. You only have what you have to work with. MR. HAZZARD: May I say, again, thank you to all the board members, and we appreciate your time and your studied deliberation on this matter. And I sure hope somebody makes a motion to adjourn pretty soon. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well -- MS. DEIFIK: Well, we have another piece of business we need to take care of. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we're going to -- MR. HAZZARD: That being the case, can we leave? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Wait. Somebody else has something to say before we adjourn. MR. MANALICH: Just the same. Thank you for considering the matter. MR. LAFORET: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. LAFORET: The board would like to express appreciation to you for your patience, your advice, and your loyalty, your attendance and -- by a slight token. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, thank you. (Applause) MR. ALLEN: Excuse me. We have one other thing. Can I show your -- the panel up here what you received today? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Oh, yes, you may. If -- if you -- if you haven't noted from my comments on and off the record, this is my last meeting. MR. ALLEN: She received today, but she didn't want to wear, her medal of valor for bravery above and beyond the call of duty, especially exemplified in the administration of code enforcement cases, Indian confrontation, and gatehouse controversy matters. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MK. HAZZARD: And, Madam Chairman, I congratulate you on concluding this matter in your lifetime, which is -- Page 133 14 I 6 1 January 29, 1997 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you very much. MR. ALLEN: It was close. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'll -- I'll be happy to -- to show you my present, but the -- the meeting will stand adjourned. Thank you very much. •sstt There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:49 p.m. CODE bTTFORCE MENT BOARD CHAIRPERSON I TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF Or DCf�OvA COUP.T REPORTING BY: Ch_istine E. Whitfield and Barbara Drescher 16H Z EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION TO ISSUE A CLAIRVOYANT PERMIT TO ANNA MARIE NICHOLAS OBJECTIVE: To issue a clairvoyant permit. CONSIDEP.ATIONS: Mrs. Anna Marie Nicholas inadvertently applied for an Astrologer's permit on February 28, 1997 and reapplied for a clairvoyant's permit on March 11, 1997. The Board approved the Astrologer's Permit or N.arch 11, 1997, howe',.'er, , this permit was not issued due to the fact that the applicant desired a clairvoyant permit. According to Ordinance 81 -42, the applicant shall have been a resident of Florida for at least (6) months; shall have furnished at least five written statements from reputable citizens of the County indicating that the applicant has established good moral character; that a recent photograph be submitted; and that a background check be done on the applicant. Mrs. Nicholas has provided the necessary information as well as a recent photograph and has completed an application for a clairvoyant's permit. All paperwork was submitted to the Sheriff's Office for a background check and their records indicate that this applicant has had no adult arrest record. Therefore, all pertinent information is in order. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That Anna Marie Nicholas be issued a clairvoyant permit whereupon she will obtain an occupational license for same. i PREPP.RED BY: - - -- - iBard re Kenyon; pervisor Minutes Records APPROVED BY: 'Dwig B ock Cler f the Circuit Court It 16H 2 AODLTC['TTC1 ! FnR FORTU!!E TELLER, CLA IRVOY NMTC ETC `TAME Nicholas, Anna Marie ADDRESS 1872 South Airport Road FORMER ADDRESS None MARITAL STATUS Married `TAME OF SPOUSE Steve Nicholas DRIVER' S LICENSE NUMBER /S7A E N --242 (Florida) TELEPHC'TE `TC . 775 -378 SOC . SECURITY PTO . 067 -62 -3325 DATE OF BIRTH, 5 -21 -76 �* ^,C? ^E Baltimore, Maryland EMPLOYED BY Doris Palm and Card Reader npEVICUS EXPLOYER None Attach: 5 written Eta e-- e,. - .._ a_ _ u. _ c frcm 5 : eY•...�..:o citizens of Collier Cc-,=t , as to moral c'-a_ Soto~ . Proof of Flor_dla residency for at _cast `:._. Recent photograph. PERMIT FOR CLAIRVOYANTS STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER) 16H .z PERMIT NO. 97 -1 WHEREAS, AP1NA MARIE NICHOLAS has made appli.cat ion tj the Board of County Corunissioners, as required by Ordinance 81 -42, for a permit to apply for an occupational license to practice clairvoyance in Collier County, Florida; and 'fi'HEREAS, ANNA MARIE NICHOLAS has complied with all requirements of Ordinance No. 81 -42 and the Clerk has made investigation and examination of the application as req- a1rFd; NOW, THEREFORE, this permit to apply is hereby granted to ANNA 14ARIE NICHOLAS in accordance with, Section 27 of Ordinance 81 -42. yrITNESS my hand as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Seal of Collier County, attested by the Clerk in and for said County, this day of �.� .{ y 19 9 -7 . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLOR DA TIMOTHY/ L'. '. N,A OC K , CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 'DWIGHT E. BROCK ; _ CLERK mz�6reen Ken )(Ciro' - 1)0t�uty Clerk Approved for.legal form f f ;.qi ency ounty Attorney DA TE : RE: ALSO KNOWN AS: t unte�r 1 6H 2 Collier Countv Govt, Complex Bldg. - J 3301 Tamiami Trail. East. Naples, FL 33962 Telephone !AC 941 774 -4434 JANUARY 26, 1997 NICHOLAS, ANNA MARIE DATE OF BIRTH: 05-21-76 Except as may be entered below, as of this date, the Collier County Sheriff's Office has no record of arrest on the above named .individual for the past ten (1 o,, years. Sealed ar,d expunged records were not searched. A records check by our aoency provides only .local, Collier County arrest inforsation. Affidavit is accurate for the date of inquiry on-2 y. No other representation .ics mede. Unlece this is an original document with green letterhead, do not accept.. Copies are not eutborizpd. DA TE ARRESTED CHARGES NO ADULT ARREST RECORD. 8 y TeTl j 0, , , , Central Records Aeputy ELLEN C. TROYAN tor: Don Hunter, Sheriff Collier County Sheriff 's O-ffi ce Soce e-(wtat Se" 4 7t4A&4, lac. 590 10a 4w.4" 717V 7e 34120 (941) 455 --0295 ?o 7a4w u I 6 2 f "",r+ 15. 1997 Oc R POi� �llS,t44GGC' swcK. G�Z.CCar -a �crc•ac� co�dro�cL�a. � �cavG �iaj G�% �,C�,Q� O� acu�cq 14.ic 4 sac a AAa&, e dZ ata Lgt& ad a. aaec:aZ e4 aitawe , G'4d, at 44" u cre& yr setd "d �eor,..s� iwc lug �tia�'c aaiaeu l aa�b +rei�� a;a cull Rd iftmat od &AaA,*V4 -. 71 vott tae Ri[+ pwift Qsceate.ca . *Lcaac c3.vegzt . x. ?ow., c *4&, ;%te4ae a Teresa D. Hollis 3361 6th Avenue, S.E. 1 6H 2 Naples, Florida 34117 December 5, 1996 To whom It May Concern: i have known Anna Maria Niciiolas For one ( I ) year. I would highly recommend her for anything that she would chose to do. She is a very honest individual. Slip is definitely deserving of licensing. Pleas feel free to contact me. Si, /ncerely,%— Teresa D. Hollis 1 6H z Michad J. Kehl, President/CEO WORLDWIDE TECHNOLOGYNIARKETING, INC. 801 12th Avenue South Suite 504 Office: 941/435 -9855 Napks, FL 34102 Foiz: 941/435.9858 c=mfl: mjkeh a1C worldnrt.attnet .January 7, 1997 Please consider this letter of reference for his. Anna Nicholas. I have known Anna for a year and one half. She is of giaod moral character as well as a very reliable and responsible person. Anna is trustworthy and a kind and considerate Is el y. Regards, lkqtc J. Kehl President/CEO Panther Security Investigations & Information. Inc December 3, 1996 To whom It May Concern: 16H 2 I have known Anna Maria Nicholas for over one and one half (1h) years. She is a very honest, forthright and conscientious individual. I would highly recommend her for anything she would choose to do. She is definitely sincere in her actions and deserving of licensing. Anna resides at 1872 South Airport Road, Naples, Florida. Please feel free to contact recommendation or questions. erel Paul E. Wilson, III Director me for any further 2386 Linwood Ave. Naldes, Florida 34112 • 941 -417 -0707 • Fax 941- 417 -0711 d.h.a. L.E. Wilson Sr. P.L. • F1, Lich NA9300103 Panther Security Service - Fl. Lic N 89300146 24 January 1997 Re: Anna Maria Nicholas TO V',/HOVI R MAY CONCERN: 16H 2 have known Anna Maria Nicholas for over one year and can attest to her honesty and integrity. I recommend that her permit be granted and support her application. i have been a resident of Collier (County, Florida for over ten 110) yeamc. // J Very truly yours, f,� - m Head Address: /YL� � r�i- 611' TOURISM GRANT PROGRA1 ADVERTISING AND P4OXG7104 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this ]th _day of January, 1997, by and between Naples Area Accommodations Associa- tion, Inc., a not- for - profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as "GRANTEE" and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNT':." RECITALS WHEREAS, the COUNTY has adopted a Tourist Development_ Plan ;hereinafter referred to as "Plan ", fur:d2d by proceed:, from tr.e Tourist Development Tax.; and WHEREAS, the of the revenues generated by the Tourist_ e�< - ,pr_,._ :ax are reserved for activi- ties and events intended to promane, advertise and bring tourists to Collier County for nhe PerlOd 50nween Any t„ rough November each year, hereinafter referred to as " a. *get period"; and WHEREAS, GRANTEE applied to the Tourist Development Council and the COUNTY for funds to Promote .Pallier County as a tourist destination through promotional activities common to destination marketing; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to fund prom,ctional activities. WITNESSETH: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS M=Ai_LY .AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The above recitals are .._ue and correct and are incor- porated herein. 2. SCOPE OF WORK: GR.ANTZE prepared a written detailed proposal outlining specific projecr(5) /activity(ies) to be provided along with a detailed line item budget as part of the grant application process, hereinafter referred to as "PROPOSAL." The PROPOSAL is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A ". GRANTEE shall provide the project s) /activity(ies) outlined in the PROPOSAL within the budget pro%Q ded in the PROPOSAL. All expenses incurred in connection with PROPOSAL as incorporated herein will be considered eligible expenses subject to reimbursement or payment by the COUNTY under this Agreement. 3. PAYMENT: The maximum payment under this Agreement shall be Four Hundred Eighty -Nine Thousand Fifty -Eight Dollars ($489,058.00). The GRANTEE shall be paid for expenditures incurred for the project (s) /activity (ies) upon submittal of an 1 61 1 invoice. Payment shall occur in ac(-crdance with th? Prompt Payment Act. However, the COUNTY shall be under no obligation whatsoever to make payments for goods or services in excess of, or not included in the PROPOSAL or to make payments using any source of funding other than the Tourist Development Tax or to make payment to the r- PANTEE or any vendor in advance of providing the service. Any payment made by the GRANTEE which is shown to be an unauthorized expenditure during the performance of the grant contract shall not be eligible for payment. Any expendi- tures which have been paid to the GRANTEE which are subsequently determined by the COUNTY to be ar. ineligible expenditure shall be repaid to the COUNTY within 30 days of written notice to GRANTEE of the expenditure or the CCC;!"TY its option can withhold future payments tc the GPANTE.. ,r deduct the amount to be repaid by GRANTEE from any rema..ning ran` funds. Provided, however, the COUNTY shall provide writt .r: r:ot ,e +1D �PA.NTEE of such ineligi- i)i1ity withir: (r) i,,y, of r­ rr;i);TY r,f the audit or ,, • ,aril lh"J ,s r ; , ,•r; rrn rJ,• will be deemed proper. 4. INSURANCE• GRANTEE Is required sub nit a ': ertificate of Insurance naming Collier Ccjnt /, and its Board of County Commissioners and the Tourist_ Development Council as additionally insured. The certificate must te vaiid for the period of the promotion, and be issued by a company licensed i re the State of Vi',r i �l.�, nn�) J,r �,v i -1• ter;••. .r ; , i t -/ ' n•.,ir.rn• - f --r r),, I r ,•r t har) the following amounLt3: BODILY INJURY LIABILITY S300,000 each claim per person PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY 5300,000 each claim per person PERSONAL. INJURY LIABILITY $300,000 each claim per person WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY- Statutory In the event that the cost of GR.ANTEE's general liability insur- ance increases as a result of adding such additional insured parties under this Section 4 then such increased cost of insur- ance shall be an eligible and reimbursable expense. S. INDEMNIFICATION: The GRANTEE, in consideration of TEN DOLLARS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is accepted through the signing of this document, shall hold harmless and defend COUNTY and its agents and employees from any and all suits and actions including attorney's fees and all costs of litigation and judgments of any name and description arising out of or inciden- 1611 tal to the performance of this Agreement or work performed thereunder. This provision shall also pertain to any claims brought against_ the COUNTY by any employee of the named GRANTEE, any subgrantee, or anyone- directly or indirectly employed or authorized to perform work by any of them. The GRANTEE's obliga- tion under this provision shall not be limited in any way by the agreed upon Agreement price as shown in this Agreement or the GRANTEE's limit of, or lack of, sGfficient insurance protection. 5. NOTICES: All notices from the (;GJNTY to the GRANTEE shall be deemed duly served if mailed by registered or certified mail to the GRANTEE at the following address: Joseph Cinunzo, Presiden- Naples Area Accori:nodati -)ns Association, Inc. P. • -). :m00% ....9`, Naples, FL All notices from the GRANTEE t, t ~,e COJNTY shall be deemed duly served if mailed by registered ,_ certified mail to the COUNTY to: County Mar,ager Second Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 The GRANTEE and the COUNTY may change the above mailing address at any time upon, giving the other party written notifi- cation. All notices under this Agreement must be in writing. 7. NO PARTNERSHIP: Nothing herein contained shall be construed as creating a partnership between the COUNTY and the GRANTEE or t,) constitute the GRA.NTFE a an c ent .f the COUNTY. 8. TERMINATION: The CCUNTY or the GRANTEE. may cancel this contract with or without cause cr, at least 30 days advance written notice of such termination and specifyi:-, the effective date thereof. If the COUNTY terminates this Agreement without cause, the COUNTY will pay the GRANTEE for all expenditures contracted to pay up to the effective date of the termination so long as such expenses are part of the PROPOSAL. If it is deter- mined that there was not, sufficient cause for the COUN'T'Y to terminate this Agreement_, the GRANTEE's remedies shall be limited to the payment of the contract amount earned by the GRANTEE on the date of termination. If the GRANTEE terminates this Agree- 1611 ment without cause, GRANTEE shall pay to COUNTY all funds ex- pended by COUNTY under this Agreement required by the Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, cause shall mean failure of either party to perform its duties under the Agreement. 9. GENERAL ACCOUNTING: GRANTEE is required to maintain complete and accurate accounting and project(s) /activity(ies) records. GRANTEE shall make its books and records available to COUNTY for its inspection fir a period of three years from the date of this Agreement. All revenue related to the protect /activity should be recorded, and all expenditures mist be incurred within the contract period. GRANTEE is required _ G,:a_ financial statements on the expenditures of the .:_lnre 'c submit acceptable financial statement; will res u. _ !A nne cessation of payments on all grant contracts the GRANTEE may have with the COUNTY at the __see, effective on the ta`n the vnbmi5sions become overdue. Under such circumsi;nces, no further pay:- en'_.- will be made for the duration of contract periods and any payments already made shall be subject, at the sole discretion of the COUNTY, to later return to the COUNTY if acceptable statements are not submitted as required, or if the payments are later shown to not be eligi- ble. 10. TERM: This Agreement shall become effective on January 7, 1997 and shall remain effective for two years. 11. RECUIR.ED NOTATION: All promotional literature and media advertising produced with tourist tax revenues must include a visible reference to Collier County, Florida - (logo)". "A Cooperative Effort Funded by the Coiner County Tourist Develop- ment Tax." 12. INELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES: The following expenditures are ineligible and shall not be paid by grant funds: a. Annual operating expenditure not directly related to the activity or project. b. Salaries of full -time staff. Employment of person- nel not directly related to the activity or proj- ect. C. Real property. 161 1 d. Capital Improvements, including but not limited to new construction, renovation, restoration and in- stallation or replacement of fixtures. e. Tangible personal property, including but not lim- ited to office furnishings or equipment, permanent collections or individual pieces of art. f. interest, or reduction, of deficits or loans. Ex- penses incurred or obligated prior to or after pro- ject funding perior. g. Prize money, scholarships, awards, plaques, or cer- tifiCates. h. Travel not with project. _. Projects whit -:re _ ric_,o private or exclu- sive DartiC'_Fiar_:.,.. -. %C:cC)t for in'JitatiGnal events which re�.uire a of participant.., through proven rar•� n . ror;n nights durinc �h= ;la`I2s ar °a .''r ".._��_': Seas-_Jr!. Private en.tertain7.-7'nt, fr,,:,d ')r .)e vri'agj,� except for invita`ioJia'l ev -nl_s wni eQL `2 a pr qualifica- tioni of partiClCa',tS tnr,ugh prC;ven arilllty to gen- erate hotel room nignrs during the Naples' area sho'ilder season. k. Making payments for goods or services purchased for previous or other evants. 13. AMENDMENTS: Any changes in the projects)/activ- ity(ies) such as project dates, key participants, and budget revisions must be submitted first to the Touris,_ Development Council and then to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration, approval and contract amendment by the Board, if applicable. 14. PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS: All promotional materials, including but not limited to artwork, brochures, posters, and promotional items, shall be approved by the TDC before articles are printed. 15. The Tourism Gram Program Guidelines, Grant Applica- tion, and Contract Administration Guidelines are incorporated herein by this reference, except where these guidelines are in conflict with this Agreement. 1611 ,.-IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTEE and COUNTY have each respe- ctive . 1 y, ..b I y an authorized person or agent, hereunder set: their hands -a s �a 1 s on the dare and year first above written. 'D E AT b BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS C191GHT, E BR(5tK', Clerk r COT LIEF. COUNTY, FLORIDA By: TIMOTHY 0 T H HA11COCK, Chairman WITNESSES: (2) R r-L -S E-Cr- " S> A P, 'j F_ 2 Printed /typed Name GRANTEF. Naples Area Accommodations Jose ph Di:-'unzo Print..; / Typed ?resident Pr:r,t!d/Typed Title 'corporate seal) Approved as to form and legal sufficiency A Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney f,'ew Agmrn"tgNaples am* Accommodahms Assoctat,on Rrvlsrd WOO CERTIFICATE OF ADTfrENTICITY FOR CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA This is to certify that the microphotographs appearing on this reel are true and accurate reproductions of the records of the Clerk of Circuit Court, Collier County, Naples,Florida. That the records were microfilmed on the date or during the period indicated; and that at the time of microfilming the records were in the custody of the Clerk of Circuit Court. It is further certified that the records microfilmed on this reel were microfilmed under the authority of the Clerk of Circuit Court: and that in order to insure archival quality, authentic reproduction, and legal admissibility of records filmed they were microfilmed with equipment and film approved by the Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services - Records Management and that the guidelines set forth by the Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services - Records Management were adhered to. Mi rofilm Camera •perato nc Date - Mont /Day /Year THIS PORT MPT ETFn ONLY WIiEN APPT TCABT F CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY REGARDING CONTENT OF INFORMATION ON FILM This to certify that the microphotographs appearing on this film; start with CASE NUMBER and end with CASE NUMBER Microfilm Camera Operator Date - Month /Day /Year