Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/10/2007 S (w/South Florida Water Management District) January 10,2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, January 10, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 4:00 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION at the Hilton Towers, 5111 North Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala Frank Halas Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Michael Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney South Florida Water Management Staff Page 1 The Collier County Board of Commissioners and The South Florida Water Management District Joint Board Meeting Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 164 Concerning Transfer to Collier County of 640 Acres More or Less Under 2003 Contract This meeting is open to the public January 10, 2007 4:00 PM Hilton Towers 5111 North Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida ~enda 1. Purpose and Intent of Chapter 164 Hearing Process County Attorney David Weigel and County Manager Jim Mudd 2. Presentation by SFWMD of Proposed Settlement John Dunnuck, South Florida Water Management District 3. General Discussion and Questions January 10,2007 MR. McCARTY: Let's go ahead and resume the meeting. It's four o'clock. If everybody would find a place. All right. We'll go ahead and resume the governing board meeting, and now our joint meeting with the Collier County Board of Commissioners. Let me just say we're delighted to be here. We love coming to Collier County. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, thank you. We're very delighted to be here also. MR. McCARTY: We're -- if anybody wants to make a public comment or make a comment to the board, we have public comment cards. If you will give them to Jackie McGordy (phonetic), right here, so -- MS. CARLSON: May I? MR. McCARTY: Yeah, Alice. Go ahead. MS. CARLSON: Before we get started, I know -- whoever, John's going to get started, but I just want to thank you for having us to Collier County. It's so good to see you. I'm proud to represent you, and I hope -- I look forward to a good meeting, okay. And afterwards, we have a surprise. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Item # 1 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF CHAPTER 164 HEARING PROCESS MR. McCARTY: All right. So I believe we turn it over to you, Jim Mudd, or-- MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I'm Jim Mudd, the County Manager of Collier County. Today we're having a meeting that basically is a 164 meeting, chapter 164 meeting, to see if we could come to some kind of an agreement or mutual -- mutual agreement that has to do with fulfilling requirements from a 24 September, 2003, agreement between the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Page 2 January 10, 2007 Trust Fund, the South Florida Water Management District, Big Cypress Basin and Collier County, Florida. In this particular agreement, it had everything to do with trying to figure out how to vacate particular properties and easements in the South Golden Gate Estates so that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program could include that acreage into a proj ect to re-establish wetlands in an area that was platted for development in the future. And I -- and this board, the Board of County Commissioners, knows that the South Florida Water Management District and the State of Florida spent a lot of money to acquire those particular properties. In that agreement of 24 September, 2003, there was -- there was one stipulation in the agreement that basically said the district and the Big Cypress Basin acknowledge and agree that this -- and this is on page 3 of 7 of that particular agreement, and I read in paragraph 5 on that page. It talks about page -- or paragraph 4 and 5, district and the Big Cypress Basin will conveyor cause to be conveyed at no cost to the county fee simple interest of 640 contiguous acres, more or less, of unimproved land to the county no later than 1 October, 2005. The land shall be suitable for recreational purposes, including, but not limited to, recreational A TV use, and must be acceptable to the county. The county agrees not to unreasonably withhold approval of the land tendered by the district. And then it basically goes on to say in 5, the district and the Big Cypress Basin Board acknowledge and agree that the dedication of dollars for the maintenance and repair of the secondary canal system in Collier County and for the acquisition of 640 acres of land, as both are contemplated by this agreement, are statutorily-authorized expenditures. And that, I believe, is the only unexecuted provision of that particular agreement because 1 October, 2005 came and went, and the 640 acres was not deeded over to the county. I believe Mr. Clarence Page 3 January 10,2007 Tears, the director of the Big Cypress Basin Board, has addressed the Board of County Commissioners in the past and talked about the efforts that he has gone through with the help of your particular agency to find willing sellers to 640 acres in Collier County. And you say, yeah, it's a big county and it'd be easy to find, but it's not necessarily easy to find 640 contiguous acres that somebody hasn't already figured out how to develop something on that's high and dry, so to speak. And all of that has transpired. In the meantime with that dialogue, there's been a public outcry, so to speak, in Collier County from the A TV users that basically have asked the Board of County Commissioners that represent them to get that 640 acres so that they can continue to recreate with their A TV s. Now, if you don't know, part of the South Golden Gate Estates, there was an area there that A TV riders -- and for most of the folks that have been around for a long time in Collier County -- called Bad Luck Prairie. I'm not too sure how they called it Bad Luck Prairie, but it's where they all ended up riding A TV s. Legally or illegally they were riding A TV s in that area, and that became quite a recreational issue, and that's why -- and when the South Golden Gate Estates was turned over and the land was acquired and the road easements were given up, that's why the A TV clause is in the agreement of 2003. So why we're here today, to try to find some way to come to a mutual agreement on how we're -- we, the Board of County Commissioners, are going to try to satisfy with you that clause in that particular agreement. I think I pretty much hit it on the head. Item #2 PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT MR. McCARTY: Okay, great. Now we have a presentation by John Dunnuck from our staff. Page 4 January 10,2007 MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon. It's good to be back. I've got my former board and my current board together. I wish it was better circumstances, but hopefully we can work through this together to resolve the issues. Give it a second to pull up the item here. Jim talked about much of what the agreement discussed previously. The first part was to vacate the roads and the interest of the roads within the Southern Golden Gate Estates by the county. The district's obligation was to provide a million dollars annually for 20 years to support the maintenance of the secondary canals, and the issue that we're here to talk about today, which is the language in the agreement that says, the district was to convey, at no cost to the county, fee simple interest of 640 contiguous acres, more or less, of unimproved land to the county no later than October 1, 2005. This land shall be suitable for recreational purposes, including, but not limited to, recreation of A TV s use and must be acceptable to the county. The county agrees not to unreasonably withhold approval of the land tendered by the district, and that's part of the discussion today. The history, from the district's perspective, is, is there was an offer made on the -- what we would commonly refer to as the Lake Trafford site. And I believe pretty much everybody in this room knows where that's located, and there's a map in the backup package. It's a land that's used -- it's 628 acres used for the dredge material for the lake restoration. And the -- after that formal, you know, offer by the district, the county formally rejected the site on September 13, 2006, in a letter to the district, and cited three things. Cited that the site is not immediately available due to continued dredging because there's an ongoing dredging project with the lake; one-third of the site is environmentally sensitive and not suitable for A TV activity; and levels of arsenic and selenium detected in water and soil samples from the lake present an unknown and acceptable (sic) risk. And that's paraphrasing the letter, but I think those were the three main issues Page 5 January 10,2007 that have occurred through those meetings that occurred over the past summer. And one of the things we wanted to do, and you have in your backup packs, was the district proposal to offset those three concerns, and I wanted to take them step by step from that standpoint. And the first one was, the district proposal to the county's concern, this site is not immediately available. And in the discussion in the April county commission meeting, there was -- there was a lot of public output. Well, if this potentially could be a long-term site -- and it's not to say the other issues aside, but recognizing that you have an ongoing proj ect, we need to have some activity and we need to put A TV s on the ground somewhere as soon as possible. And I think that discussion came from Commissioner Henning, who led off that portion of it, and suggested finding 100 acres somewhere in Collier County to create at least an interim place to ride. The site (sic) did infer that it was October 1, 2005, that we were supposed to have a site over to them, and with an ongoing dredging project, it was to be a longer period of time. The district's remedy to that is that, frankly, we didn't think we were going to be able to get there. We had been looking throughout Collier County even to find an interim site. And there were challenges of, you know, bound with everybody we talked to, most of it was, if you were looking at a leasing option, they didn't want to take on any kind of risk as a leaseholder. They wanted to push forward with potential development. They didn't want the activity. There were neighboring concerns and so forth. Luckily in the last month or so, we had a, what I would call, steward of Collier County come forward and say, we think we can find a site for you, and that was Alico, and they've -- we've had conversations with them, you know, more informal than formal because we didn't (sic) want to find out what the reaction of to day's meeting was, but to find 150 acres for an interim site for A TV activities. Page 6 January 10, 2007 We -- we are suggesting two weekends a month daylight hours, which is similar to a proposal we looked at when we looked at an interim potential in what's commonly called the CREW area in Lee County. We talked to a group up there about potentially doing that site using a trail only, weekends a month, daylight hours, just to get the A TV s on the ground and up and running. The other provision is that the district would fund the management of the site. We'd pay for the lease, we'd fund the management of the site, because, frankly, recognizing where this is located, there are panther habitat to the north of this location, and there -- and you can see on the screen there, it's outlined in red, I think it's in your backup. There's panther habitat to the north, but there's also continued agriculture operations to the south. And part of Alico assurances that we would have with them is that we would make sure A TV s did not go into their agriculture grounds. And we think having a management of a weekend per month when most of the activities would occur in daylight hours, that we'd actually have a staff out there and we could manage it in a way that is a good place of getting people out on the ground. The other side of this, too, was that having the interim site and looking to the Lake Trafford site is, we could start looking at the beginning of the zoning process. Any -- you know, any comparison that we do or whether we found the land tomorrow or found land -- or found this Lake Trafford site, we would have to start looking at, is it a compatible use with the zoning codes of the local county commission and the Land Development Code? And that would be an issue. Part of -- part of the overall perspective -- and this is one of the conversations that I had with the A TV group a month ago, were the expectations. When this was talked about three years ago, I was, frankly, sitting in the shoes over on this side, and part of that expectation was, provide 640 acres, it would ride anywhere on the 640 acres, and you could just -- you know, once the land was turned over, Page 7 January 10, 2007 it would be an activity that, you know, wouldn't necessarily have to be managed, but would be going riding. Well, when you start to look at the details of things and you start looking at, well, if it was operated by Collier County, you know, with experience over on this side of the shop, could you actually do that? Could you actually just turn over a piece of land to a government agency, and looking at liability and everything else, say, go ride on it and don't have any management expectations? I think that was unreasonable from that standpoint. You're going to have to zone it to a park property similar to what we'd have to do in any kind of, you know, park, if that was what was considered a recreation amenity. And so I think, you know, kicking it off and finding a site to begin that zoning process is something that would be important, to have something on the site. The other issue is, a third of the site is not environmentally suitable for A TV activity. The environmental area does provide recreational opportunity. And I think, you know, one of the terms from the language of the actual agreement is, recreational purposes suitable such as A TV activity, but from a balance perspective, looking at that and looking at having the site which is -- it's 628 acres, but roughly 200 acres is set aside for scrub jay habitat and was part of the mitigation for the site itself, it would be a great passive recreation area. In fact, last year I went and spoke to the Collier Conservation Committee, and one of their requests back to the district was to look at lands around Lake Trafford Preserve to keep away from development. And so in the back of my mind, having a passive recreation use as part of this amenity may not necessarily be a horrible thing. The other side of it too is, from a mitigation standpoint, if you were looking -- and as we've looked in Collier County -- and we've looked a lot of places -- one of the issues you're going to deal with are environmental habitat issues. If you're going to find 640 acres, Page 8 January 10, 2007 chances are in the rural area it's going to have some sort of Red-cockaded woodpecker issue. It's going to panther habitat. You're going to be dealing with all of those issues. This site already has the mitigation on it from that end of it, so it's a site that's ready to go for A TV activity in that respect. And actually I have Kim Dryden here from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife who can attest, because we dealt with Kim quite a bit in looking at parcels. And from that standpoint, this makes the site very suitable because it is so impacted already. I think Clarence was quoted in the paper as saying, you can mold it like clay. And from that end of it, it does work. And the other side of it too is, you know, from our position, one of the things is, you know, we talked to the county at staff meetings and said, do you think you could get in the site to work? And they developed a conceptual recreation plan on the site and showed it with moguls and so forth, brought in George Fogg. And George, you know, is renowned for writing a book on national rec. and park association standards -- he actually lives here in Naples -- and he drew up a plan saying, you know, if this was the site, could it work? And I think -- I think what the plan is that's in the backup, it could work as the site. And so from that end of it, we think that you could address, you know, where you have the environmental, it sets aside on the permit issue, it provides passive recreation as part of the amenity, and then you can develop -- you have the -- you know, a development of a conceptual recreation plan for A TV use on it. And just picture-wise so everybody gets a perspective, you know, the Lake Trafford site is here, and you have the environmental area tucked in over on this area, and this is the area over here which is where we're putting the dredge and fill material in three cells. You can kind of see how it falls along the lines here and here and here. But that's, overall, the area you'd have to work with to develop a first-class Page 9 January 10,2007 ATV site. The other issue, and, frankly, probably the biggest one that's, you know, had the most press about it is the level of arsenic and selenium detected in the water from the lake present an unknown acceptable ( sic) risk. The first factor is, they were taken inside the lake, and we really haven't -- we haven't taken the test on the property itself because it's still an ongoing dredge project. And so we really don't know if it's been, you know, watered down through that or not, or if it's every bit as much as what we saw in the lake. But what we can say in that is that what we saw in the tests in the lake is, based upon the D EP standards, there isn't anything that, from our perspective, is a red flag that says you couldn't clean up this site from that end of it, you couldn't address that issue through a remediation and through design of the park. And so what we've offered is that the district would retain consultants to design an A TV park similar to that conceptual design developed by the county. And we wanted to put that in as -- because one of the questions that came up in the discussion with the ATV representatives last Friday was, we want to make sure that it's not just going to be a small little area that we're going to have one little trail on the site and then you're going to say all the rest of it's arsenic laden, and you have to stay on the trail. So we wanted to have a frame of reference to work over, and we, frankly, thank the county for giving us a frame of reference, which was that conceptual design, to say, this is how it could look, because it, first of all, allowed us to go to the A TV groups and say, you know, is this something that you all think could work from that end of it, it gives a barometer so that we're not discussing two, three years from now, well, we didn't get what we thought we were getting. It gives a framework to work off of. And we also say, we'll get the permits and we'll do the earthwork Page 10 January 10, 2007 consistent with the design to put forward required regulatory protection, which in, you know -- in, you know -- in plain language means, we'll make sure that the site's safe to meet the DEP standards. Now, I don't want to say to everybody right here and now that that's absolutely 100 percent, you know, all of that 400 acres is absolutely clean. You know, we do want to keep some of it through design. So we believe that you can work with that and build a site similar to what that plan calls for with the arsenic and address those issues through the design. And finally in the provision it has, consistent with the current agreement, the county will have management -- the county would have management oversight of the design construction of the site in conjunction with the district. What we're saying here is, you know, we recognize that, you know, we want to make the county a partner in this whole issue in the design of this park, and so we want to make sure that Marla and her staff and the recreation staff are involved in it, and so we can work through your standard processes of making the outreach and dealing with the A TV groups for making a first-class amenity. And the community feedback -- and this was one thing that was very important to Commissioner Coletta in the conversations we had through this past summer in the hearings -- were, you know, we need to hear back from the A TV groups and we need to have conversations with them. And so from that standpoint, we've had -- we've held two meetings. And while the very first meeting was just to discuss exactly where we're at status-wise -- and I think one of the issues that, from our standpoint, has been very much a challenge is the fact that there has been this consideration that we haven't been looking at properties throughout the county and that we really haven't taken this issue senous. And from that standpoint -- it's not the best picture here, but I Page 11 January 10,2007 wanted to show you in the red all the areas we did try to look at. Clarence had a committee together where he dealt with Nancy Payton and some other groups, and they looked at all kinds of areas throughout the county and said, where could we -- where could we find an A TV site? And you can see the list is pretty extensive. And I think -- and I don't want to put words in Clarence's mouth, but I think what you'll find is, when we got into the eastern part of Collier County, with Ave Maria at the same time kicking off, you're not going to find a lot of willing sellers for ago land and areas in that rural area from that end of it. The other issues we dealt with, especially when we were looking in the southern area and so forth is the panther issue, is we -- you know, we looked at North Belle Meade per the county's request and were working with the state, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife was very adamant about not using that site. And so we've dealt with those challenges throughout the process. I think what we could have done a better job of is making sure everybody's communicated, found out what the issues were, and had a better partnership throughout the whole thing. But nevertheless, we did meet with the A TV folks in that December meeting and talked to them about the overall history, and we also talked about that whole perspective. When you take an area where they can ride of roughly 55,000 acres and then mold it down to 640 acres, and then you -- then we say, well, we hadn't talked about this three years ago, there are going to be regulations that you're going to deal with through the Land Development Code and through other areas, you know, from that end of it, I think there was a level of expectation that was here, and probably we didn't do a good job of managing that. And so one of the things we tried to emphasize is, to keep it in Collier County and to look at sites there -- because we even looked outside of Collier County. It was a challenge from that perspective Page 12 January 10,2007 with all those issues of regulations that we all deal with. And I believe, you know, from, you know, being on the other side, the county side, that we even dealt with them on road construction and so forth, that those challenges do exist. The second meeting we had with them, which was last Friday night, we laid out this proposal to them, and we said, here's where we are from our district perspective. We're trying to address the three issues and concerns that the county raised in rejecting this site. We're trying to follow the feedback from the county from the perspective of finding an interim site, getting it up and running, and we think we're on the right track. And honestly, the feedback there, I think, was mostly positive. There was one real key concern in the whole discussion, and that goes back to the arsenic issue, and that is, deeding over the property immediately, which is what we're suggesting. And honestly, we're suggesting that because -- and it's up -- clearly up for discussion today -- but we're suggesting that for the purposes of zoning and moving forward with the project because to continue to go look with all the challenges we have in Collier County is an uphill struggle trying to find something else. The county (sic) is in the business of moving dirt and doing environmental restoration, and we wouldn't be making a presentation and putting something together if we didn't think it could work from a standpoint of safety, and health and safety -- MR. McCARTY : John, the district, because you just said county. MR. DUNNUCK: Oh, I apologize. MR. COLLINS: You crossed the chain, but I just wanted to -- MR. DUNNUCK: -- from that end. And so, moving forward, you know, we think it can be done. And I think the discussion was, don't take the deed to the property immediately. That can be discussed. Page 13 January 10, 2007 Other than the feedback, the discussions I've had with some of the ATV representatives about the two weekends a month, you know, just getting the foot in the door, having a place to ride. I haven't seen any red flags from that perspective. It was the same kind of presentation we looked at when we were looking at the CREW lands in South Lee County. And, you know, we can manage and we can make sure that we're protecting the environment around it. And from that end of it, you know, that's how we're trying to address the issues that the county has raised, and we're opening it up for discussion where we hope it will be positive feedback back and forth and we can come to an understanding in moving forward. Thank you. Item #3 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS MR. McCARTY: Okay. I've got one public comment card. How about we hear that? Brian McMahon. And then we'll go to general board discussion. MR. McMAHON: Hello. My name's Brian McMahon. I've worked with John and Clarence on this, and I appreciate the work that they've done here in the last six months in trying to get this thing to be put together. I was the one who raised the concern about taking title to the land. We've taken a 600-acre site -- I also, by the way, served on the Division of Forestry's Off-Highway Vehicle Advisory Committee. A 600-acre site is a very small site. With the Division of Forestry, they looked at water levels, et cetera. As I said, that is one of the smaller sites that we can use, but it is a part of what the county agreed to, so that's what we have to work with. My concern about the county taking the title to the land is, we don't know how much -- 200 acres of this are already in mitigation, Page 14 January 10, 2007 and we don't know how much of this land will be usable at the end of this process of moving the dirt around and remove the arsenic, selenium, whatever it is. We don't know how much is there and how much of the actual 400 acres it's going to take -- is going to be left for the user groups. My concern is, if the counts are higher than what we anticipated, that we could end up with a 200-acre site as a permitted basis with another 200 acres, for instance, being not very usable because of the levels of it, and, of course, the 200 acres in mitigation. I would certainly advise the commissioners to wait before we take the title, to do an independent test of the soil to make sure that it is within the levels. It thinks it's 5.5 parts per million, whatever it is -- I'm not a scientist on that stuff -- within the acceptable levels of that to make sure that the majority of the remaining 400 acres is a usable site. There is talk of, of course, building a berm around it, which is already there, and moving that soil into the berm. It's a good idea, and you're going to need the berm for noise abatement anyway. But, like I say, my primary concern with this would be that we would only end up with a very much smaller site than even the 400 acres that are remaining. The only other thing that I have to say about this is -- and the agreement did call for 640 acres. And I hate to catch you off guard, John. This is about a 600-acre site even with the mitigation bank, which they used for another project. But there is one user group that kind of fell through the cracks in this whole thing. As long as we've got 40 acres left to play with, I'd like to make a proposal that will cost thousands of dollars, not millions. I would like to see the district also, if this does come to fruition after the thing, would be to buy up a 10-acre lot in northern Golden Gate along a canal and put a launching ramp in for the fishermen. And that's all I really have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And if I may go first. MR. McCARTY: I've got one more public comment. Page 15 January 10,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead. I thought you said you had one. MR. McCARTY: Thank you. Eric Schrack. MR. SCHRACK: Hello. Thank you all for hearing from me today. I'm not with any group here in South Florida or anything. I'm just an average rider. Been riding here since I was a little boy in Bad Luck Prairie area. MR. COLLINS: I used to ride there, too. MR. SCHRACK: I know it's hard for the county and it's hard for the water management district to understand how many people actually ever go out there and enjoy the woods, take their kids camping, their motor homes and so forth. I see all this coming to an end, you know. Six hundred forty acres, it's getting shrunk down to 400 acres because we have panthers or ow Is or something out there that's just not going to be able to live with us. I can see that, you know, motor home usage isn't going to be available. Parking's not going to be available. And by the time we get everybody in Naples or in Collier County that wants to go out and recreate, how many people can you put on 400 acres? How often -- two weekends of the month. I mean, you know, okay, well, I can't go Saturday because there's too many people. Well, Sunday they're closed at noon. You know, you're going to run into this problem. You know, we've got -- Collier County's one of the biggest counties in Florida. It's got -- if you ever take a flight over Collier County, if you looked at the Bad Luck area, the area that the national forest has just taken over and kicked us out of, it's huge. I mean, you can't -- in an airplane at 10,000 feet, you can't see across it, you know. What is Bad Luck Prairie? It's a piece of land that's over by U.S. 41 surrounded by water. There's nothing there. There's never been anything there. The wildlife has been run out of there for years. Why can't an area be open? He showed it on the last screen; he showed that area that we're Page 16 January 10,2007 looking at. Well, we already own it. It's part of the United States. It's part of the national forest, you know. We need to open this up. We need to see that there's many more riders. There's not just the flat trackers that want to run down these trails and create dust so you can't see. We've got to have areas that our kids can go on. You know, right now we've got a law that we can't carry our little ones with us while we're riding our four-wheelers in the national parks. Well, you know, my little kids like to go four-wheeling. And we have to go to places, private lands, wherever, where we can go with our kids and enjoy this sport. I think you all need to see a bigger picture. You need to be a place that when so many people come that they can't recreate, that we can go to a larger space, somewhere we can expand. A 100 acres? I mean, I own a two-acre plot, and it takes me less than a minute to go around two acres. What's 100 acres? What's it with a 100 riders? That's going to be, you know, very -- something that we really need to open up, and we need to make sure that everybody here in Collier County can continue. That's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. McCARTY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Thank you very much for this opportunity -- for this opportunity to speak today. This has been an issue that's been before the Collier County Commission and water management for many years. We've tried many avenues to resolve this in the past, and they've been less than fruitful. Brian McMahon can testify to the fact he's been one of the most hard -- hardest working people I've ever seen on this particular issue where he's been there in the forefront working with such people as Mike Davis from-- our state representative, working with other entities out there. The truth of the matter is, no matter where we turn, every time we thought we had a new avenue open to us and a new direction that we could go to, it came to naught. And every single time it seemed Page 1 7 January 10,2007 like there was a complication with that particular piece of land, everything from the cost of it. And I know Clarence Tears himself has come up with some great inventative (sic) ideas that have gone astray. We're not getting anyplace with it, so here we are today, three years after this whole thing started, a number of young people have grown up, never been able to go back to the particular sport they enjoyed doing. And we're going to be talking about issues that are very much of importance to Collier County and the residents, and we want to make sure that we protect the integrity of the taxpayers on both ends, those that pay the taxes in Collier County and those that pay the taxes to water management. We're all the same entity in the end. But the truth of the matter is that a deal is a deal. When it says 660 acres, 640 acres -- 40 acres? Well, I tried to grow it by 20 acres. That's the interest you owe me. But the 640 acres, we're not going to make it. That's obvious from what you're saying. The new site, it's the best you can come up with. It's going to fall short. It's going to fall short by one large number by the fact that something has to be put into special conservation easements, some of it has to be used for spoil banks. It's going to be limited in scope that we can do, and we still don't know what the end result is going to be. It's a pig in poke. We don't know where we're going to be able to go with this, and that's a big concern to everyone here at this table. I'm sure it is on your side, too. However, with that said, the idea of coming up with an interim site is a wonderful idea. I think you're on the right direction of that. I think it's far short of what's needed, but, you know, at this point in time, I'm willing to take something to be able to get this thing going forward. Possibly we should look at the interim site as the -- as an interim site with the idea that we keep our options open on the Lake Trafford site till we come up with something a little more definite. But I'd also Page 18 January 10, 2007 like to talk to you, discuss with you, the possibilities of covering some of the costs of the improvement of this site. If we're going to be responsible for doing the mitigation to be able to move the dirt around, I can assure you that's going to cost many, many dollars, and that's going to have to come from somewheres within the funds of the Collier County Parks and Rec. or some other fund that we'd have to tap. We need to have some assurances that our costs are going to be covered on this, that we can get up to the point where it's going to work. We need to be able to be brought to something that's reasonably whole to the contract that we originally signed. Once again, that's why we're here today, and I appreciate the time that you've taken to come here to Collier County today. MR. McCARTY: Yeah, a quick question. MR. COLLINS: John, were we asking the county to pay for that? MR. DUNNUCK: No. Just to be clear for the record, we're offering to pay for all the earthwork necessary to mitigate that site. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And all the mitigation it would take to be able to move the soil around and to truck it off site -- MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and not -- maybe not even store it on site if determined to be hazardous, and to bring it to that point. Also too, John, what kind of -- what kind of guarantees can you give us that -- if everything that's going to be done will not be adequate and we're still going to be stuck with a site that will be unusable, what kind of assurances can you give us there? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think -- you know, I don't know how you definitely say assurance is 100 percent on anything. What I would say is, our experience is, with what we've seen coming out of Lake Trafford through those tests, and based upon what we see on the land and where we think it's going to settle is, we are saying in this Page 19 January 10, 2007 agreement, in this offer, that we will meet all regulatory requirements to make sure the site is safe. What we're saying, we do it through design, and that you can move the earth that's there, you can mix it, you may be hauling some of it off site. We're saying, that's our burden. What we're saying is we'd meet it to a standard consistent with the conceptual design that was provided by Collier County. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: John, would you be willing to build the facilities that are needed to be on this site to be able to meet the recreational needs of Collier County? Because that cost is going to be considerable. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, where (sic) we've offered is, is the earthwork. And what's on that amenity in addition are, I think, a couple pavilions and a rest room facility on the site. We're not offering that in this letter. We can discuss it, but we're not offering that in the letter. And part of it, too -- and one of the feedbacks we found from one of the individuals the other day was, we may not want that level of activity. We may not want the pavilions. Maybe they want trees instead. I don't know from that end of it. But what we're saying is, from an earthwork standpoint, we're offering to do the earthwork. We believe that, you know, the value of this offer is very significant from that end of it. We can discuss it amongst the boards from a facility standpoint, but the facilities would have typically been the county's under the obligation in the current agreement. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I must remind you, too, John, that the original agreement did not call for earthwork. It called for 640 acres of usable lands. This particular site, which may be the best you can possibly do -- and I had this premonition going way back when we first got into this discussion and we were just talking about turning the roads over, that it was going to be very difficult, next to impossible, to Page 20 January 10, 2007 find 640 acres in Collier County that would meet all the requirements. And God, I wished on this one I was wrong. In any case, we've got to do something that's going to make Collier County whole, something that will enable you to live up to the original agreement that was signed in good faith by both parties. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Henning. MR. McCARTY: Well, I think Mike's got a comment here. MR. COLLINS: You know, I've ridden ATVs on Bad News Prairie (sic), and I've -- a bunch of us from the Keys and from this county had a lease in Big Cypress that we hunted at, been on A TV s for many years, on finding a trail that was closed, you know, a bunch of years ago. But I can remember when you could take an A TV down to Monument Trail from what is now 1-75 down to Tamiami Trail, and I've done it more than once. The world has changed. It's not a good thing. I mean, I'm with you guys on that 100 percent. It would have been nice if when our staff assured us that this was something we could do, if somebody bothered to check and see whether it was physically possible, and the answer is probably that it's not. So I like the idea, Brian. I think that's a great idea that we provide boat ramps and access if we get some kind of agreement out of the federal government that that's something they'll let us do. I like that idea. I think, you know, there were people left out of this. But I think, you know, whether anybody likes it or not, you know, there are things that are limiting our ability to fulfill this that have nothing to do with your commission or our board. I mean, you know, we've got endangered species issues. Anyag. property that you find in this county or any other county is going to have exactly the same issues with arsenic and selenium that we've got with Lake Trafford. So, you know, we know how to fix that, and I think -- I think we should pay to fix that. I don't have a problem with that. I think that's entirely possible. Page 21 January 10, 2007 But, you know, when I became aware of this, I mean, I've been all over John and the rest of our staff, just tell me, you know, how we do this? I mean, what do we have to do? And there don't appear to be a whole lot of answers. So I think we need to work together. I think we need to kind of deal with reality in the middle of this. Because we signed an agreement that I was assured could be fulfilled, and I'm pretty sure right now that it can't be, you know, I mean, in the original intent. I don't think it's unreasonable for A TV'ers that got removed from lands that they've been riding through for, I don't know, the 30 years that I know about, to expect us to make good on that. We've gotten stuck paying -- I'll use the word stuck -- paying for a whole bunch of things that are a result of federal regulations, endangered species or otherwise. You know, I've sort of gotten used to the idea. But, you know, to the degree that we can, I don't think there's any shortage of commitment. I'm just not sure that we're really going to be able to do everything that everybody would like to do here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Collins, I appreciate your comments. Mr. Chairman, I hope at some time that -- and I didn't get a clear message from the public speakers of whether the interim A TV area is adequate or if it's going to work. So if we could get -- MR. COLLINS: For two weekends. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. But I do have some questions for Mr. Dunnuck, if you don't mind. MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Dunnuck, what -- how'd you come to the conclusion of two weekends a month? MR. DUNNUCK: Honestly, Brian McMahon and I, we had-- we had a meeting out at Lake Trafford roughly two and a half months ago, and I was showing him the site specifically and saying kind of what my vision of what could be done at that site was and discussing a Page 22 January 10, 2007 lot of the issues we're talking about today. And, you know, his frank discussion was, you know, John, you've got to find someplace to get A TV'ers out there riding. Get-- you know, find a place so that at the very least, you know, we get the tires on the ground, and then specifically made the suggestion about Flint Pin (phonetic) up in the CREW area. And we talked about the management of -- you know, we recognized that it's kind of like that walk before you run kind of concept. There are a lot of perspectives. And when you think of A TV, people's perspectives of A TV s as a whole is, there's two kind kinds of concepts. There's the wild, want to go ride everywhere, and then there's the family oriented, and then, frankly, if you want to have a third, it's the utilitarian one where they're using it for hunting and everything else. And so from that discussion -- you know, we were talking about going into the CREW area and -- in an area which is a restoration area, and it is adjacent to Audubon, and saying, can we allow riders? And we discussed it, and the suggestion was, do two weekends a month, see what the impacts are. You know, you can manage from that perspective. It would be trail only. You set the whole parameters to ensure the safety of the site. And then in the discussion I had with Alico moving forward after, you know, the CREW property, you know, was not recommended by the CREW trust group, the meeting I had with Alico was, one of the provisions was, you need to make sure that they don't ride into my agriculture areas. The discussion with U.S. Fish and Wildlife was, we have a panther in that area. We're willing to make a concession here and work with you. I actually have a letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife supporting that site. So we want to make sure it's managed in a way that doesn't get out of control. And so, we invited the county staff to that meeting last Friday night in discussion. And we put it out there, and, frankly, there wasn't Page 23 January 10,2007 much discussion about that. I think the perspective I have is, if you're dealing with that kind of stereotype of which kind of A TV group is out there, it's good to start conservative and show that you can do it well. And if things go well, maybe you can expand it. We're talking to the Division of Forestry about grant funds to help support that site and an interim management site as well, and it may be a tremendous, you know, foot in the door kind of thing to say, this is a responsible activity from that end, and that's how we came up with the two weekends a month. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. It wasn't very clear to me. Was this Brian McMahon's suggestion for the two weeks (sic) a month? MR. DUNNUCK: Honestly, Brian -- we talked about this. MR. McMAHON: We had talked about it when we were talking about CREW, which is East Bonita. Obviously if you go to the CREW trust, they were not going to allow it to be open 24/7. So we came to two weekends a month just to allow people to go out and do the trail and ride in CREW, because the trail's already in place there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there some flexibility there about the two weekends a month? MR. DUNNUCK: Certainly we can work with you on that. I mean, our suggestion is that the county staff would actually manage it, you know. We'd pick up the tab for it and they would actually manage that site. So, you know, I think there's flexibility in that perspective. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And when would this temporary site be available for A TV use? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, from ours, I would be looking to finalize negotiation of the lease quickly, bring it back to our board next month for execution. It then becomes an issue of how fast can the county get resources up and running to manage the site, and are there any issues with -- you know, with the code, Land Development Page 24 January 10,2007 Code, and so forth, you know, with that from the interim standpoint. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you checked on the permitting for this temporary use? MR. DUNNUCK: I've asked the county staff to check on it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you checked the state and federal government? MR. DUNNUCK: I've worked with u.S. Fish and Wildlife, and they're the ones who would be our -- it's a private lease, so -- and it's private land that we would be leasing, so there aren't that many -- we wouldn't have to pull a permit to do it. So we went to U.S. Fish and Wildlife, said, is there any issue that you would have because there are Caracara nests in that area and so forth, and we wanted to make sure, as a good steward in working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, that we wouldn't have an issue, and they have submitted a letter in writing to me saying, there's some suggestions that we do for indigo snakes and for Caracara education, but there is nothing to prohibit us from using that site. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question. But before I say that, my perspective, I can't sign off on 640 acres that we don't know that could be used for A TV sites because of environmental reasons. I hope that possibly we can move forward together in the endeavor of this 640 acres. But, Mr. Dunnuck, just to the north of that is ample farmland. With the rural stewardship program recognized by the State of Florida, the lands that are set aside within that 640 for conservation, the indigo snake and the turtles, is far invaluable than farmland as a perspective of a developer. And I would like to see if there is a possibility, talk to the landowner to the north, and negotiate a land swap, that way there won't be any limitations on recreation on that 640 acres. MR. DUNNUCK: The limitation that we have from that aspect of it is that area is tied to the permit to do the dredging proj ect, and therefore, you couldn't remitigate it, so to speak, to another landowner. Page 25 January 10,2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not talking about any mitigation credits or panther credits. What I'm talking about, through our Growth Management Plan, that land is a lot more valuable to a developer. And it could be that one of the big landowners do own the land to the north, and that could be more valuable to them. And I just want to leave our future uses open, because what we have now in that conservation area is limited to the trails, no camping or anything like that. I'm just throwing that out as a possibility. And I guess it's up to your board to direct you to investigate that. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? What we're going to do is use the lights. I'm sorry, I didn't see your light down there, Commissioner Coyle. We'll get to you next. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your light's off. COMMISSIONER HALAS: On the temporary land that is suggested here for A TV riding, who is going to put the -- protect the perimeters of the other properties that butt up against that? Is there going to be a fence that you're going to construct around this temporary property? MR. DUNNUCK: We would have to negotiate that with the landowner from that perspective. There's two schools of thought, whether, A, a fence really does any good or not. But if you have on-site management from that, you can do things with GPS units that are fairly cost effective today, that you can know exactly where they are on the site while you are out there and watching it to ensure that people aren't trespassing on property that isn't part of the lease -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's-- MR. DUNNUCK: -- but that's something we would negotiate, and that would be the district's expense. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I think that there's Page 26 January 10,2007 areas up here that may be very sensitive, and people may not realize if they get off of the property that is designated as temporary property, and then I think we'd end up with a problem. The -- on the permanent site that we're talking about, the Lake Trafford piece of property that you're willing to deed over to us, at the time that the dredging was started -- I know that you went through a large cost in regards to preparing the ground there. Can you tell us what was done at that site so we as the county, if we decide to take over this property, that we won't have any long-term problems with this piece of property? And I'm getting to the point where, was the site lined so that the arsenic and selenium was contained that way so that, as the years pass, that there could be some areas of high concentration level of arsenic that may leach into the water table? MR. DUNNUCK: And Clearance may know better the mechanics of construction. I know that we have a very significant levy berm around that site. I can't tell you what's on the inside of that site or not. What I will tell you is that it had to follow all the regulatory guidelines consistent to make sure that we were protecting from that situation, containing the site. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Clarence, can you maybe elaborate a little on it? MR. TEARS: Originally when we reviewed the site, arsenic wasn't the concern because it meets the environmental standards. So all the testing that we did in the lake when we refined it on site, there was no concerns whatsoever because it met environmental standards. N ow that we're going to different uses for the property, we start to get into industrial standards and residential standards, and that's where the issue becomes an issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's-- MR. TEARS: But the lake currently is not lined. It was dug out just as a containment facility, but it was based on the usage at that Page 27 January 10,2007 time, and there was no concerns whatsoever. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now we're looking at using this as a form of recreation, and you're saying that the levels may be of such magnitude that we may not even use -- be able to use all of the acreage because you're going to have to move soil from one place to another; is that correct? MR. TEARS: No, that's not what we're stating. Basically what we're stating is, once the plan is designed and acceptable to Collier County and the A TV groups, this is the design plan, we'll go in and construct the A TV track and the whoa-type facilities on the property to ensure that the property is safe for the expected usage. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What would you think if we put in the agreement that it's your responsibility to clean the site as best as possible to meet standards that the average person can walk on that without being subjected to high levels of arsenic? I mean, let's face it, we're going to have A TV s out there. There's going to be dust flying. MR. McCARTY: Well, we would clean the site up to EPA standards, correct? MR. TEARS: Correct. MR. McCARTY: And Cheryl can -- Cheryl's our attorney. I'd like to get a reading on the word reasonable here. Would you consider EP A standards to be reasonable cleanup? MS. WOODS: If we're going to agree to that, that would be reasonable, yes, sir. MR. McCARTY: All right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're saying that you would try to establish the minimum levels that were required by the EP A on this site? MR. McCARTY: Whatever the levels the EPA requires, we would establish that we would meet those levels. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I think there's been some talk about possibly taking and moving some of the soil to the Page 28 January 10,2007 berm, and I think the berm in our design is going to be used for mountain bikes, stuff of this nature, and obviously, you're going to, again, disturb what's underneath the material. MR. McCARTY: Well, if the EP A standard were to call for -- this is my feeling. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. McCARTY: If the EPA standard were to be, okay, you can take this dredge material and you can bury it under two or three feet of other material, then I would say that we would have met -- it would be my opinion that we would have met the standard, and we -- you know, we would be reasonable there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. WOODS: The standards are going to be based upon the use, and you're going to tell them in the design what that use is going to be before they're going to tell you that that's permittable. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other thing is, when you say you're going to cover the material, are you going to use that as -- use clay material to kind of put a cap or a seal on the particular entailings that we have there now? MR. McCARTY: Whatever the EP A standard is. I do not know what it is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, see, where I'm going with this is that once we take over ownership of the land, then it becomes our problem. MR. McCARTY: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we want to make sure we're not inheriting a problem. MR. McCARTY: Correct. We understand. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: In our original agreement, it clearly states that the district will convey to the county 640 contiguous acres, Page 29 January 10,2007 more or less, of unimproved property. You're actually transferring to us 625 and change, and you're agreeing to improve it. I, quite frankly, think that there's been a lot of movement here to reach an acceptable compromise. Whether we've reached the end of the road is a different question. But I, quite frankly, believe that we have become too preoccupied with an early analysis which is not decipherable. How can it be that the level of arsenic is unacceptable if it's unidentifiable? And that's what the analysis says. It's unidentifying and unacceptable. I've always been concerned about operating on such a vague conclusion, and I have reached the conclusion that if this were a very serious arsenic contamination problem, it would long ago have leaked into the water table because it's been in Lake Trafford for a long, long, long time. But that aside, there are some unknowns here, and it's hard for any of us to make a legally binding decision with such unknowns. And one of the unknowns is, just how much of the 625 acres will we actually be able to use if we go through the mitigation process? And I suspect we will not know that until we actually determine if there is a contamination problem, and if so, what is the level of contamination. So my first question would be, how can we go about resolving that problem, answering that question as quickly as possible so that we maybe can move closer to an agreement? Is there anyone here who can give us some guidance on that? MR. McCARTY: Mike would like to speak. MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I think we can resolve it, at least to the degree -- if everybody agrees we can resolve it. I'd like to make a motion to direct or combine staffs to amend the existing 2003 interlocal agreement between Collier County and the district to reflect reality, okay? I think that's a possibility if you find it agreeable and we find it agreeable. I think we need to develop a second agreement for the leased Page 30 January 10, 2007 property that you can live with and that we can live with for the interim site, work with the A TV group, work with, you know, staff from the county and the district on a reasonable schedule, a management plan. I -- I understand why we're doing two weekends. I don't think that should be our goal. I mean, that may be where we start, but that sure isn't a lot of time for people to get out there with the kids on the thing, and I, at least, would be a lot more comfortable if we can, you know, state up front we're planning on moving past that. We will commit at the district to remediate the Lake Trafford site to meet all federal and state regulations. We assume the responsibility for that. We will, you know, certify that that takes place, and then we'll commit to funding the permanent site design here first, okay? I don't think it's unreasonable for us to do that, but with the acknowledgement that that sort of needs to take care of some of the issue of whether it's 640 or 625. And then I think on completion of remediation, the completion of all that work, we'd like to ask you guys to take it. If we can certify that it meets all the standards for that particular use where it's safe for the ATV'ers, if we finish the earthwork and, you know, it's consistent with the design that the county's -- county has come up with, at that point, if we do all of that, can you agree that under those terms you can accept the site? And I would like to propose that this board make that as our offer to try to resolve this issue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, if I may? Is there a possibility you might consider -- I think we're all negotiating in good faith, and I haven't heard anyone from your side of the room come out and say that we were wrong on some of our conjectures and positions, statements that we were making, so I think we're pretty much in agreement. Just how we're going to get there is going to take a period of time. But meanwhile, three years have elapsed. Page 31 January 10, 2007 Is there some possibility that in good faith we could get the interim site open with the idea that we're moving forward in good faith to resolve this? If we delay it to put the whole package together, it could be another six months, three months. But it's a period of time that's going to be lost to our -- the public out there that enjoys this recreational pursuit. MR. COLLINS: And in good faith, I have no problem with that, but having already had one of these get in front of us that we approved it that didn't have any big reality -- John, can we do that? MR. DUNNUCK: I think we can. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. COLLINS: I don't think there's any lack of effort. There's a lack of land. That's what we're living with here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, we cut Commissioner Coyle off. He still had some other comments to make. Then we're going to go to Commissioner Fiala. MR. COLLINS: That was just my shot at answering the commissioner's question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think the proposal is a good one. I'm in favor of considering it with one very minor modification, and that is, if it turns out that we have less than 640 acres in this site, that you will make an effort to find us 15 or so acres somewhere else for boaters and launches as we had previously discussed. MR. COLLINS: I don't have a problem with committing to make a good faith effort to do that under any circumstances. It's just, you know, when we get into some of those land uses, having -- I mean, I've worked on a lot of boat ramps. I used to be a fishing guide, so there's no shortage of support there. We have run into some federal regulations in places that really hamstrung us on that. I think that's a wonderful idea that was proposed, and I will do everything I can, and I believe this board will, to make that happen. And I would make that Page 32 January 10, 2007 part of the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I think all of the uncertainties have been removed as far as I'm concerned with that proposal. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think we're going in the right direction, of course, we need to see the final draft. If you don't have any other comments, Commissioner Coy Ie, I'm going to give Commissioner Fiala a chance to ask questions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I think that -- I think it is a logical balance between getting some land that would be available for immediate use -- and I'm not talking about tomorrow morning -- but reasonably immediate use on a temporary basis while the district moves to improve the property and mitigate whatever pollution problems exist there. And it, I think, removes all of the risks that we have been imagining here, and I would be willing to favorably consider it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I just had two comments. Number one, when I understood that you had proposed two weekends, that -- I think you added to that, that was because it was on CREW lands, but now this 150 acres is not CREW lands. Should there be any limitation to how often they use it? MR. DUNNUCK: Well -- and when I fast forwarded on to this property, that -- the protections I have are surrounding the neighboring landowners there, and so you're going to want to have management oversight on the site. I think the direction I received from our governing board in that motion was, start off with two weekends, but let's try to be more aggressive and allow ourselves to get together with your staff and figure out how we can do that as soon as possible from that end of it. It's just right now in the discussions and the assurances I have to have to Alico, I will assure them that the A TV'ers aren't going to ride into their agricultural activities. I have to assure the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Page 33 January 10,2007 that they're not going to go into the Ochee Slough to the north in the panther habitat, and so we have to protect against that. You know, we're looking at doing something with transponders and GPSs and we've got something to do right now where we can actually track exactly where they are similar to the EMS ambulances and so forth, where you can tract exactly where they are at all times in the property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I would just like to see if you can't -- couldn't expand that. The second thing is, as was mentioned previously, have you at all investigated that farmland to even see if there's some kind of swap so that if that -- if there was some kind of a swap available, you'd have -- you'd have 640 entire acres and possibly more, and maybe to do something along that line? I'm sure that you didn't want to spend any money or anything on this, but at the same time, we're talking about a place for all these guys to recreate. MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. We have had discussions with other parties about potential swaps of the Lake Trafford site. And they're not -- they're not -- there's not enough hope in it to bring it out publicly from that standpoint, but we have had discussions with some of the larger landowners in this area and other areas actually outside of Collier County about potentially swapping that piece of land. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala. I have taken the prerogative as the chairman to invite Brian McMahon to the table. He's spent more time on this particular subject than any one staff member or anyone from any of the other agencies out there, and he has some comments and suggestions he'd like to make at this time. MR. McMAHON: The one comment on the launching ramp, fishing area, that needs -- with the current Picayune restoration project, those canals are going to be plugged. So, in essence -- in addition to the loss of the A TV use, we lost about, I don't know, 40 Page 34 January 10, 2007 miles of canals or whatever. This needs to be on northern Golden Gate side, and there is no federal issues, I don't believe, and the Big Cypress Basin owns those canals. In essence, what do we need? We need a five-, 10-acre lot and a bulldozer, and it's done, you know. MR. COLLINS: As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with the concept. I mean, I just -- I'm not familiar enough with the regulatory framework or statutory framework that, you know, is working in that area. You know, if you're right, it shouldn't be a problem. We'll build a boat ramp. I mean, if that's the only issue, we'll build a boat ramp. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I don't want to throw cold water on this, but I'm going to ask Clarence Tears to comment on it, because there's been numerous times that we have tried to open up canals in the Estates in some of the areas out there for fishing and we ran into the problem with the water conveyance. Clarence Tears, anything that you could add to this? Just so we don't get our hopes up to find out that they're -- MR. COLLINS: Well, if you can't put boats in, then we can't do it, right? MR. TEARS: Just to let the district governing board members know, these are drainage easements. MR. COLLINS: Oh. MR. TEARS: And we do not own any title on it. In a lot of the cases, the underlying fee owner actually owns to the middle of the canal or to the other side, and we only have rights to use the drainage easements. MR. COLLINS: So we're back up against -- I mean, we can't make a commitment on something that we can't deliver on, so -- MR. TEARS: Right. But it's possible-- MS. CARLSON: We can look for one. MR. COLLINS: Let me make one suggestion. The concept that has been proposed is valid. I mean, the idea that, if we can't come up Page 35 January 10, 2007 with 640 acres, then some other, you know, recreational use needs to get covered. Brian, if you're willing to work with the staff -- MR. McMAHON: Right, yeah. MR. COLLINS: -- and you've done a lot already -- I'll help you try to find something that reflects reality -- MR. McMAHON: Yeah, I understand that. MR. COLLINS: -- and I don't think you'll find a lack of commitment on our part. MR. McMAHON: Yeah. I don't understand all the legali -- I know you can boat in a canal, and I would imagine you could launch in it if you own the property. So if the county owns the property, my understanding, you could launch there, you just can't step foot on land? MR. TEARS: In the original agreement, when we put the statement in, the more or less, the reason for that is we always knew we had 624 acres, and that basically has been purchased, and that was the reason why you see 640 acres, more or less. MR. COLLINS: I know. I mean, I know that, okay? MR. TEARS: But we're -- honestly, John and myself, we've been trying to find that -- MR. COLLINS: We need to resolve this, okay? This has been a mess lying out there forever. I want this finished. I want us to -- to the degree that we can, to live up to that agreement, and that's why I propose we amend that existing agreement to reflect some reality on both sides. MR. McCARTY: Alice? MS. CARLSON: And I would like to second that motion and amend it to incorporate what Mr. Coyle has said. MR. McCARTY: Mike, why don't you go ahead and restate your motion. MR. COLLINS: All right. I would make a motion that we direct our staff to, A, amend the existing 2003 interlocal agreement between Page 36 January 10, 2007 Collier County and the water management district to reflect some of the things we're agreeing to, and reality, develop a separate agreement, at least for the lease agreement for the interim site, working with the A TV group on a reasonable schedule, a management plan, as well as the county. The water management district will commit to remediate the Lake Trafford site to meet all federal and state standards for the applicable use. South Florida Water Management District will also commit to funding the permanent site design and earthwork. And our completion of the remediation of the earthwork that the county commission will agree, if we meet all the issues that you've raised, that they'll accept the site as was originally contemplated in the agreement, and manage it, and I would make that my motion. Oh, and that we make a good faith effort -- I know it's said more or less -- but to resolve this issue, to try to find some other site to provide some other recreational activity in the county, preferably a boat ramp somewhere, on waters that can be fishing, but where they can actually -- MR. McCARTY: Alice? MS. CARLSON: And I second it. MR. McCARTY: Any discussion -- more discussion by the board? MR. LINDAHL: I think we need to know whether the motion -- MR. COLLINS: Let's make a motion, let's get the motion through, and then Kevin can tell us what to do. MR. McCARTY: Okay. So all in favor of the motion? MR. LINDAHL: Aye. MR. COLLINS: Aye. MR. McCARTY: Aye. MS. BAGUE: Aye. MR. THORNTON: Aye. MS. CARLSON: Aye. MR. McCARTY: Any opposed? Page 37 January 10,2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Well, we do have a couple of comments or questions from commissioners still. Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just wanted to say that as long as what was discussed here this afternoon is fulfilled -- and I believe that your intentions are as such -- I feel comfortable that we're moving in the right direction, and I just want to thank you for the opportunity that we could sit down at this table today and go forward and try to figure out the best way to come up with a great compromise. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Yes, I agree with that. Get 'er done. I appreciate the motion. I think we could work it out, but I do believe that we need to give a time frame for the staff to come back to the perspective boards with a -- some sort of agreement. MR. COLLINS: John, how long you need? MR. DUNNUCK: I think addressing, you know, separately, you know, the interim site, I'll begin negotiations. And, you know, we've already had primitive negotiations with Alico. We'll finalize those negotiations and have them to our board by next month so that we can get a site, you know, approved and up and running. We'll work closely with your staff so that we can work with the management aspect of it from that end of it as well. And I think from the overall agreement, memorializing that, logically speaking, that may take two months to get all of the attorneys together and so forth, to bring it back to the board, you know, looking at, you know, probably -- we're in January, looking at probably a March time frame. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle, and then I'm going to ask Jim Mudd to maybe chime in if he has anything additional. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was just going to make the Page 38 January 10,2007 observation that we really should have a companion motion in order to direct our staff to coordinate with the district staff to accomplish the same goal. MR. McCARTY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'll ask David Weigel if that would be appropriate. I don't know if we can do that at this particular meeting. But if he says so, then I'd be more than happy to entertain a motion. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You may wish to make a motion to direct staff to work with the South Florida Water Management District staff, but you don't need to go any further than that at this point because it's all to be brought back to you to review with recommendations at that point in time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that your motion, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion from Commissioner Coyle and a second from Commissioner Halas. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you, gentlemen. I'm going to ask Jim Mudd if he has -- Page 39 January 10,2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: You haven't voted? Did you? MR. McCARTY: We already voted. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just to make sure we covered everything, I'd really like to hear from Jim Mudd. MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, County Manager, Collier County, for the record. Commissioner, I think you pretty much have it. I think you've laid the groundwork for a -- for an agreement that can be made. Yeah, we have to work out the details, but we'll get those back. And I don't believe that a two-month period of time is too early. I believe we can get it all done within that 60 days and get it back to this board. And what I've heard, you will receive a temporary agreement to agree to, and you will also have an amendment to the original 2003 agreement you agreed to that will be brought forward to you, and it will be -- we'll agree to it. Now, there's another term to the -- and I want to make sure we address it real quick. In the -- in the letter to me on 5 January, 2007, which we're talking about, it talks about item 8, and I think we need to turn the page on that letter just so you can see it. It says, the county will agree to amend the memorandum of understanding between the state, district and the county to identify the Division of Forestry as the agency responsible for the access and maintenance of the road as outlined in the agreement removing the district as the responsible party, and we'll talk about that a little bit. It's because South Florida Water Management District turned over those particular lands to the Division of Forestry to maintain, and the agreement is with them. So as we work through this, our legal staff will talk about that particular item, but I believe that's the only -- that that's the only pebble that we haven't talked about today. MR. McCARTY: All right. So we're -- hopefully we're on our way to cumbaya. MR. COLLINS: Roll the dirt. Page 40 January 10,2007 MR. McCARTY: Keep our fingers crossed. We made some progress today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. I think that concludes -- I'm sorry. We have one more comment from Mr. Weigel? MR. MUDD: Sir, you just need to adjourn. You need to adjourn, because this is advertised as a separate meeting. You need to adjourn this particular meeting. And, sir, I believe you continue your meeting after this is over at a closed-door session. MR. McCARTY: Well, this is actually our last item, so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So do I have a motion from the commission side of the room to adjourn? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No arguments there, so we're adjourned. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, and we appreciate your time. MR. McCARTY: Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:20 p.m. Page 41 January 10,2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRI#~NNTROL JIM COLETTA, Chairman A TTEST:"":',,( DWIG~T~E: .B~OCK, CLERK ..~~~~k Attest/....~t'Q . ChI 1 rsan s '1onlt~t""&n , ~ These minutes ap~y the Board on I ! ~~ l Q~ , as presented v_ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 42