Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
BCC Minutes 10/26/1999 R
October 26, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 26, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Tuesday, October 26, 1999 9500 a.m. NOTICEs ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER ~PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GP. ANTED BY THE CHAIRWOMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380~ ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12~00 NOON TO 1~00 P.M. 1 October 26, 1999 INVOCATION - Father Tim Navin, St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDAS ao APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ao September 28, 1999 - Regular Meeting October 4, 1999 - Value Adjustment Board PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS A. PROCLAMATIONS 1) Proclamation proclaiming November 8, 1999 as Community and Regional Planning Day. To be accepted by Ms. Dottie Cook, AICP, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 2) Proclamation proclaiming week of November 7-13, 1999 as Youth Appreciation Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Mr. Gerald Neff, President, Sunset Optimist Club B. SERVICE AWARDS 1) PUBLIC SERVICES~ a) b) c) d) Martha Skinner, Social Services - 30 Years Irving Baez, Park & Recreation - 10 Years Shahla Kermani, Library - 5 Years Joan Wojcik, Library - 5 Years 2) PUBLIC WORXS~ a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Elida Valdez, Transportation - 25 Years Enrique Salas, Transportation - 20 Years Robert Dennison, Wastewater - 10 Years Dale Bergenback, Transportation - 10 Years James Dibuono, Wastewater - 10 Years James Foster, Water - 10 Years Duban Guerrero, Transportation - 5 Years Gonzalo Blanco, Transportation - 5 Years 2 October 26, 1999 i) Ray Wells, Water Distribution - 5 Years 3) SUPPORT SERVICES~ a) b) John Ure, Facilities Management. - 15 Years John D'Amico, Facilities Management - 15 Years COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTs a) b) c) Randy Casey, PS/Engineering Review - 15 Years Gursel Yilmaz, Pollution Control - 10 Years David Hedrich, Code Enforcement - 5 Years 5 ) EMS ~ a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Scott Wernert - 5 Years Jonathan Harraden - 5 Years Sandra Pitts - 5 Years Eva Weeks - 5 Years Michelle Williamson - 5 Years Todd Coulter - 5 Years Daniel Bowman - 5 Years 6) COUNTY ATTORNEYs a) Mary Stuczynski - 10 Years 7) AIRPORT AUTHORITYs a) Gail Hambright - 5 Years 8) PELICAN BAY s a) Jeffery Sawicki - 5 Years C. PRESENTATIONS APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES. PUBLIC PETITIONS ao Scott Bonham regarding the Davis Blvd. median beautification project. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3 October 26, 1999 A. COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) 2) 3) Redirection of the ad hoc Collier County Census 2000 Complete Count Committee. This item has been deleted. PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED. Review hearing to consider a protest of Correctional Facilities impact fees assessed to Grey Oaks Country Club, Inc. for a clubhouse expansion. 4) Tourist Development Funding for Southwest Heritage, Inc. regarding advertising and promotion of the Lionel Toy Train Museum $17,000. 5) Request by Anthony P. Pires, Jr. representing the Naples Italian American Club for a waiver of the application fee for a variance. (COMPANION TO 17 F) 6) Proposal to prepare regulations to ensure that properties in North Naples (Sections 18 and 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East) are developed in a coordinated manner with regard to public roads, storm drainage, water, and sewer utilities 7) Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.691, "Forest Park (Heron Lakes)" located in Section 33, Township 49 South, Range 26 East; Bounded on the North by the Golden Gate Canal (Golden Gate City), on the South by 1-75, on the East by land zoned agriculture, and on the West by Golden Gate Community Park and Berkshire Lakes PUD. s) Discussion on the Florida Department of Transportation Fast Track Economic Growth Initiative. PUBLIC WORKS 1) Report to the Board regarding Road Impact Fee Update Study. 2) A report to the Board on the Sanitary Sewer Sub Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 4 October 26, 1999 10. 11. C. PUBLIC SERVICES D. SUPPORT SERVICES 1) A Report to the Board on the Progress of Year 2000 Compliance. 2) A settlement discussion regarding the lawsuit, Wajerski vs. Collier County, Case Number 95- 3067-CA-01. E. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1) Board adoption of a County legislative agenda. F. AIRPORT AUTHORITY G. EMERGENCY SERVICES COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Recommendation, pursuant to Collier County Resolution No. 95-632, that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the office of the County Attorney and the Risk Management Department to retain outside counsel to represent three individual county employees sued in Poppv. Collier County, Case No. 99-3286-CA, Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida and waive the purchasing policy to the extent it applies to the selection of Outside Counsel. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ao THIS ITEM IS TIME CERTAIN FOR 9~30 A.M. Update from Army Corps of Engineers staff on the Environmental Impact Statement. (TO BE HEARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITEM 10(D)). S o Appointment of member to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee. C o Appointment of members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County requesting an extension of the Public Comment period for the Army Corps Draft EIS (Timothy J. Constantine) OTHER ITEMS 5 October 26, 1999 A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS 12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 1) Public hearing for the 1999 Growth Management Plan Amendments. B. ZONING AMENDMENTS 1) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 12, 2) 3) 1999 MEETING. Petition R-99-1, Geoffrey G. Purse of Purse and Associates, Inc., representing Sunset Harbor Club, requesting a rezone from C-4 to RMF-12(8) for property known as Sunset Cay, located approximately 695 feet south of U.S. 41 East on Newport Drive at Port of the Islands Phase One, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.85 +/- acres Petition PUD-76-35(2), R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., of Young, vanAssenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing Aquaport, L.C., requesting an amendment to the Wildernes PUD, Ordinance No. 77-7, for the purpose of approving a mixed use (retail/service/offices) commercial development not to exceed 37,460 square feet of ground floor space subject further to a specific Site Development Plan for parcel 9 (a.k.a.) commercial tract of said Wilderness PUD Master Plan for property fronting on Goodlette-Frank Road (C.R. 851) in Sections 22 and 27, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Petition PUD-87-36(3), Karen K. Bishop, representing NTC Development Limited, seeks to repeal the current Carlton Lakes PUD and to adopt a new PUD in order to add drugstore, supermarket, and related uses to the uses already approved for the commercial tract of the PUD. This site is located on the north side of Immokalee Road at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road. 6 October 26, 1999 4) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 12, 1999 MEETING. Petition PUD-98-20, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning, representing Gulf Sun Corporation, requesting a rezone from "A" to "PUD" to be known as Whippoorwill Lakes PUD, a residential development not to exceed 518 dwelling units, on property located approximately ~ mile south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) on Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 76.85+ acres. C. OTHER 1) An ordinance repealing Ordinance 97-9 and replacing same with a new ordinance relating to street numbering, the names of streets and project, renaming public and private streets and providing procedures pertinent thereto. 13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 14. 15. 16. A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS B. OTHER STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT AGENDA - Ail matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Ae COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES . 1) Petition C-99-8, Reverend Villmar Orsolin of Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church requesting a permit to conduct a carnival on November 24 through 28, 1999 at 207 South 9th Street in Immokalee. 2) Petition C-99-9, Reverend Joseph Spinelli of St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, requesting a permit to conduct a carnival on November 10,11,12,13,and 14, 1999 at 5325 28th Avenue S.W., Golden Gate City. 7 October 26, 1999 Be Ce 3) Request to approve for recording the final plat of ~Eden at the Strand", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 4) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Santorini Villas at Olde Cypress", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 5) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Island Walk Phase Three", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. PUBLIC WORKS 1) Approve Change Order to the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant 8-MGD Expansion, Bid 97-269OR, Project 70859/70828. 2) Approve Amendment No. 6 to the Professional Services Agreement with Humiston & Moore Engineers for the Capri Pass and Big Marco Pass Inlet Management Plan to provide project authorization for dredging the entrance to Collier Bay. 3) Approve Amendment No. 5 to the Professional Services Agreement with Humiston & Moore Engineers for the Capri Pass and Big Marco Pass Inlet Management Plan to provide project authorization for additional T-Groins at Hideaway Beach. 4) Approve Settlement Agreement between Collier County, the Key Marco Development District, and Key Marco Development. 5) Award Bid No. 99-2990 for the construction of Livingston Road (Radio Road to Golden Gate Parkway) to Better Roads, Inc. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Approval of budget amendment recognizing and appropriating $58,581 of carry-forward from a Gates Learning Foundation Grant received in FY 8 October 26, ! 999 De Fe 99. SUPPORT SERVICES 1) Approval to award bid #99-2978 to painting contractors for annual painting contract. 2) Approval of Express Scripts, Inc. as the Prescription Drug Provider for the County's Group Health Insurance Program. 3) Approval to Complete Repairs at the Main Courthouse Plaza. 4) Approve Unanticipated Expenditures Related to Major Plumbing Repairs at the Immokalee Stockade. 5) Recommendation to declare certain County-owned property as surplus and authorize a sale of the surplus property. 6) Approval to utilize state contracts for purchase of furniture and floor covering over Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars. 7) Approval to recognize $87,760.85 in cash rebates from FP&L resulting from performance contracting. Award of RFP #99-2969 to Naples Studio for production of a weekly County Government cable television news program. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1) Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #00- 010; #00-011; #00-012; #00-020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EMERGENCY SERVICES 1) Agreement approval and adoption of Resolution authorizing the Execution and Agreement of said agreement between the Department of Community Affairs and Collier County regarding monies available in the Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund. 2) Award Bid #99-2987 for the provisions of medications for the Department of Emergency 9 October 26, 1999 17. Medical Services. H. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. I. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Recommend that the Collier County Commission endorse the United States Department of Justice/Department of Treasury Federal Equitable Sharing Annual Certification Report. J. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to approve a legal services agreement with Fixel & Maguire as Legal Counsel to represent County relating to County's property acquisition interests including Eminent Domain Proceedings, for the Radio Road Improvement Project (Project No. 65031). K. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) To recognize an additional grant of $27,500 and increase the Immokalee T-Hangar Construction budget by $55,000. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA~ 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. Ao Petition PUD-98-07(1) Karen K. Bishop of PMS, Inc., of Naples, representing Kenco Development, Inc., requesting a rezone from ~PUD" (Wyndham Park) to "PUD" to be known as Indigo Lakes having the effect of amending the PUD document for the purposes of changing the project name, increasing the project acreage from 120.85 +/- acres to 140.85 +/- acres, changing the density from 3.66 units per acre to 10 October 26, 1999 B o 3.14 units per acre, and changing the property ownership for property located on C.R. 951, south of the existing Oak Ridge Middle School, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 12, 1999 Ce E o F o MEETING AND FURTHER CONTINUED (NO DATE). Petition No. PUD-98-13, R. Bruce Anderson of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing Collier Development Corporation, requesting a rezone for lands zoned "A" Rural Agriculture and "PUD" Planned Unit Development ~PUD" to ~PUD" for a new "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Collier Tract 21, formerly Beachway PUD, for a golf course and accessory and incidential facilities including a club house, 50,000 square feet of C-3 commercial uses and/or a hotel on property located between U.S. 41 on the east and Vanderbilt Drive on the west, lying north of 111th Avenue and south of the Cocohatchee River, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 267.44 + acres. Petition CU-99-12, Louis H. Stirns, requesting conditional use in the "A" Rural Agricultural zoning district for a retail nursery for property located at 2061 Moulder Drive, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10 +/- acres. Petition CU-99-21 William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning representing Richard and Jean Yahl and Teresa Yahl Fillmore, requesting Conditional Use ~2" of the "A" zoning district for a sawmill, per Section 2.2.2.3., for property located in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Petition V-99-13, Thomas F. Long requesting a 10 foot variance to reduce the required 25 foot front yard setback to 15 feet for property located at 216 Fifth Street, Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Petition V-99-16, Anthony P. Pires, Jr., and J. Christopher Lombardo of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A., representing the Naples Italian Club, Inc., requesting a variance of 10 feet from the required 50 foot front yard to 40 feet and a variance from the open space requirements of Land Development Code Section 2.6.32.1 for property located at 7035 October 26~ 1999 Go He Airport-Pulling Road North, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (COMPANION TO 8(A) 5). Petition OSP-99-2, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning, representing Craig D. Timmins, Trustee, requesting approval of an off-site parking petition on Lot 70, Palm River Shores to serve a commercial development located on Tamiami Trail North directly to the west of the subject parcel on Lots 71,72,73,74, and 75, Palm River Shores. THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 12, 1999 MEETING. Petition VAC 99-003 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the public's interest in the east 565.38 feet of the 84' wide road right of way shown as "Falling Waters Boulevard, Tract D" on the plat of "Falling Waters Replat" as recorded in the Plat Book 19, Page 7, Public Records of Collier County, Florida and being located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East and to accept a 15' wide utility easement. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 12 October 26, 1999 October 26, 1999 Item #3 REGULAR AGENDA, CONSENT AGENDA AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call to order the meeting of the Collier County Commissioners for October 26th, 1999. We're honored to have Father Tim Navin from St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church this morning to offer our invocation. If you'll stand and thereafter, we'll have the pledge of allegiance. FATHER NAVIN: Let us pray. Oh, Lord, grant, we ask, your love, that it may deepen its roots in us and bring forth in our hearts the work of justice and the fruit of love, as we prepare to live in a new millennium. Help us to hear your call, a call to conversion of mind and heart, a call to communion of spirit, a call to solidarity with all your people. We pray to you, who are Lord and God, forever and ever. Amen. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Father. FATHER NAVIN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Changes to the agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. The first item to add to our agenda is Item 5(A) (3). This is a proclamation recognizing Monday, November the 8th as Rod Laver Day in Collier County, to be accepted by Larry Lewis, Pelican Bay Tennis Facility Director. I'd also like to add Item 10(E). This is a discussion regarding X-Fest, at the request of Commissioner Carter. Also, add Item 10(F), which is permission to enter into discussion on an informal basis with a consultant and Lee County regarding solid waste, and authorize staff to continue discussions with Lee County. This is a request of Commissioner Berry. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. MR. FERNANDEZ: We would like to continue two items to the November the 23rd meeting. These are Items 8(A) (6) and 12(B) (4), both of which relate to the Whippoorwill Lane area. First is the proposal to prepare regulations to ensure that properties in North Naples are developed in a coordinated manner with regard to public roads, storm drainage, water and sewer utilities. Petitioner's request. And also, Item 12(B), as I said, is Petition PUD-98-20, Gulf Sun Corporation, a re-zone from "A" to PUD, Whippoorwill Lakes PUD. Also, for your information, Item 10(A) is scheduled to be heard at 9:30. This is the update from the Army Corps of Engineers on the Environmental Impact Statement. Those are all the changes, Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, anything from you? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, no, none today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? Page 2 October 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have one question. It's under consent agenda. We don't necessarily need to pull it, but I do have a question about it. It's the subject of T-groins at Hideaway Beach. And it's my understanding from a lot of reading that I'm doing that T-groins are not a particularly acceptable way for control of erosion. And I would like some comment from staff as to why we are proceeding with that process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That sounds like a -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sounds like a pull to you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's do. Where would that go, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that should be considered under public works. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it would be B(3) . MR. FERNANDEZ: That would be B(3). 8(B) (3) . CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anything else, Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, that's it, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two things. I'd like to pull 16 (D) (3) . CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could you tell us the subject? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: D as in dopey. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the one I was wanting to pull. Okay, 16(D) (3). Where would that go? Support services, be 8(D) (3)? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The Fountain. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I also have a request to the board. If we get to the lunch hour and it looks like we have an hour or less of agenda left, I wondered if we might try to work our way through that, as my dad is flying in this afternoon, and I want to try to actually get to the airport for him. He's coming in about 3:00. I just -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: As long as it's your father. Otherwise, I won't give up lunch. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It was my expectation we could get through without a lunch break today, looking at this agenda. Anything else, Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That will do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have nothing to pull or add, but I do need to register a -- let me find it -- an abstention on Item 17(A), which is a PUD for Kenco Development. That's a client. Anything further? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion we approve the consent agenda, summary agenda, and regular agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye. Page 3 October 26, 1999 Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It passes unanimously. Page 4 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF CO UNTY COMMISSIONERS ' MEE TING OCTOBER 26~ 1999 ADD: ITEM 5(A)(3) - PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8TM AS ROD LAVER DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. TO BE ACCEPTED BY LARRY LEWIS, PELICAN BAY TENNIS FACILITY DIRECTOR. (BCC OFFICE). ADD: ITEM lO(E): DISCUSSION REGARDING X-FEST (COMMISSIONER CARTER). ADD: ITEM lO(F): PERMISSION TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSION ON AN INFORMAL BASIS WITH A CONSULTANT AND LEE COUNTY RE: SOLID WASTE AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS WITH LEE COUNTY. (COMMISSIONER BERRY). CONTINUE: ITEM 8(A)(6) TO 11/23 MEETING- PROPOSAL TO PREPARE REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT PROPERTIES IN NORTH NAPLES (SECTIONS 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST) ARE DEVELOPED IN A COORDINATED MANNER WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES (PETITIONER'S REQUEST). CONTINUE: ITEM 12(B)(4) TO 11/23 MEETING- PETITION PUD 98-20 GULF SUN CORPORATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD, A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NOT TO EXCEED 518 DWELLING UNITS. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST). NOTE: ITEM lO(A) IS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD AT 9:30 A.M. AND ALSO TO BE HEARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITEM lO(D) - UPDATE FROM ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. October 26, 1999 Item #4 MINUTES OF 9/28/99 REGULAR AND 10/4/99 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the minutes of September 28th, 1999 regular meeting, and the October 4th, '99 Valve (sic) Adjustment Board. COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Second. Second. All in favor, please say aye. It passes unanimously. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING NOVEMBER 8, 1999, AS COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING DAY - ADOPTED We have proclamations today. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm first. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You are up. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. Dottie Cook. Is Dottie Cook in? There she is. Dottie, would you come up here and kind of face the nation? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: At least the county. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Got to get the cameras on you there. Proclamation reads: WHEREAS, November the 8th, 1999 is the 50th anniversary of World Town Planning Day; and WHEREAS, November the 8th of each year has been celebrated as World Town Planning Day in many countries since its inception in 1949; and WHEREAS, the American Institute of Certified Planners, acting for the 11,000 members of the Planning Profession in America, a component of the 30,000 member American Planning Association, endorses World Town Planning Day as an opportunity to highlight the contributions sound planning makes to the quality of our communities and environment, and to celebrate American accomplishments in making collective decisions concerning our cities and regions that bring quality and meaning to our lives; and WHEREAS, the celebration of World Town Planning Day gives us the opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and dedication of the members of planning commissions and other citizen planners who have contributed their time and expertise to the improvement of Collier County; and WHEREAS, we recognize the many valuable contributions made by professional planners of Collier County and extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued commitment to public service. Page 5 October 26, 1999 NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November 8th, 1999 be designated as Community and Regional Planning Day, in conjunction with the worldwide celebration of World Town Planning Day. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th day of October, 1999 by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Pamela S. Mac'Kie, Chairwoman. And Madam Chairwoman, I'd like to move that we accept this proclamation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It passes unanimously. Thank you. (Applause.) MS. COOK: My name is Dottie Cook, for the record. I'm a principal planner with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. And I'm the current Chair of our local section of the American Planning Association. I'd like to thank you this morning for issuing this proclamation designating November 8th as Community and Regional Planning Day, and recognizing the role that planning plays in our communities. Two projects that you have going on right now in Collier County, I think, iljustrate this role. One is the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida, which includes Immokalee and a portion of Hendry County. The other is the Bayshore and Gateway Triangle redevelopment plan. Both of these efforts and projects will include programs that will make physical and social improvements in those areas. And that's really the role of planning, to help communities improve their areas for people who live and work in those areas. And so again, I'd like to thank you for issuing the proclamation, and for recognizing the role of planning in creating and preserving our communities. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Our next proclamation is Commissioner Constantine. Page 6 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, DONE AND November 8~, 1999 is the 50~ Anniversary of World Town Planning Day; and, November 8a of each year bas been celebrated as World Town Planning Day in many countries since its inception in 1949; and, The American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) acting for the 11,000 members of the planning profession in America, a component of the 30,000 member American Planning Association, endorses World Town Planning Day as an opportunity to bigbligbt the contributions sound planning makes to the quality of our communities and environment and to celebrate American accomplishments in making collective decisions concerning our cities and regions that bring quality and meaning to our lives; and, tbe celebration o publicly planning time us tbe opportunity to of tbe members of wbo bare contributed tbeir ~nty; and, we o planners the continued of Collier in Planning Day. FLORIDA ATTEST: S. MA C'KIE, CHAIR October 26, 1999 Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING WEEK OF NOVEMBER 7-13, 1999, AS YOUTH APPRECIATION WEEK - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If Gerald Neff would come up and meet the press. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That will be the theme of the day. Come on up, please. No, that's not Gerald Neff. Well, maybe he COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have the following proclamation. He'll not be meeting the press today. And this proclamation is for Youth Appreciation Week in Collier County. WHEREAS, the vast majority of youth are concerned, knowledgeable and responsible citizens; and WHEREAS, the accomplishments and achievements of these young citizens deserve the recognition and praise of their elders; and WHEREAS, Optimists International has since 1954 developed and promoted a program entitled Youth Appreciation Week; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Naples, Florida and Collier County have indicated a desire to join the Sunset Optimists in expressing appreciation and approval of the contributions of our youth. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of November 7th through 13th, 1999 be designated as Youth Appreciation Week in Collier County. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1999, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Pamela S. Mac'Kie, Chair. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye. Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. And I'll deliver it to my children tonight -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- is that okay? Just kidding. Our -- I will deliver my appreciation to them, however. Our next proclamation was added on, Commissioner Carter. Page 7 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the vast majority of youtb are concerned, knowledgeable and responsible citizens; and, WHEREAS, the accomplishments and achievements of these young citizens deserve the recognition and praise of their elders; and, WHEREAS, Optimist International bas, since 1954, developed and promoted a program entitled Youth Appreciation Week; and, WHEREAS, the citizens of Naples, Florida have indicated a desire to join the Sunset Optimists ' ' !ation and approval of the contributio NOW nty Commissioners ~ember 7-13, 1999 DONE ANF_, ,1 OF ATTEST: MA C 'KIE, October 26, 1999 Item #5A3 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING NOVEMBER 8, 1999, AS ROD LAVER DAY - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, this is for all the tennis buffs. Is Mr. Larry Lewis here this morning? Larry, if you would step forward, you can be on Candid Camera this morning. Okay, turn and face the audience. This proclamation is for Rod Laver Day; Laver, who is a great professional tennis player. WHEREAS, on November 3rd, 1994, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners opened Pelican Bay Community Park, which consists of tennis courts, open play area, basketball, racquetball courts and a children's play area; and WHEREAS, in 1997, the United States Tennis Association deemed this facility as one of the finest small tennis facilities in the nation; and WHEREAS, Rod Laver, an Australian professional tennis player, will present a clinic to the public on November 8th, 1999 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, Rod Laver has previously presented two free clinics at Pelican Bay Community Park for Collier County residents; and WHEREAS, Rod Laver won the men's single title in Wimbledon in 1961; and WHEREAS, as in 1962, Rod Laver won the Grand Slam of tennis, Wimbledon, Australian, French, and United States championships in the same year; and WHEREAS, in 1969, Rod Laver won 17 singles titles and earned his second Grand Slam. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Monday, November 8th, 1999 be designated as Rod Laver Day. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th of October, 1999, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Pamela S. Mac'Kie, Chairwoman. I move we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Some words for us? MR. LEWIS: I'd like to thank the Commissioners for honoring Rod Laver. Really, the greatest tennis player of all time. And I encourage all of you to come out to the clinic on Monday, November 8th. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wonderful. Thank you. Sue, is that a yes or a no? Page 8 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, on November $, '1994, the Collier County Board o/County Commbsioner~ opened Pelican Bay Community Park which consist~ of tennis courts, open. play area, basketball and racquetball courts and a children's play area; and, WHEREAS, in 1997, the United States Tennis Assoclaflon deemed thlsfacilio2 as one of the flnest small tennis factlMes in the nation; and, WItEREAS, Rod Laver, an Australian professional tennis player will present a clinic for the public on November 8, 1999from 2:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.; and, Rod Laver has pre~iously presented hvo free clinlc~ at Pelican Bay Commnnity Park for Collier County residents; and, wu REA ! IVItEREAS NOIV Rod Laver . :.. ~ ..~ · . :.: .~ :., 8, 1999, · ROI) LAVER DAY 1961; and, A,ntrallan, slam. ~f Colller as DONE AND DWIOHT E, BROCK~ CLERK ..":;'!~'COLid~i~.*~ FLORIDA, P[MELA S:M,~C KI~, CHA-~41WOMAN October 26, 1999 NOTEs AGENDA WAS INTERRUPTED AND TAX COLLECTOR GUY CARLTON PRESENTED A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,184,021.33 I'd like to -- I see our esteemed friendly local tax collector in the audience, and so I'm going to interrupt our agenda for a moment and expect that he has some good news for us. MR. CARLTON: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners. For the record, I'm Guy Carlton, your friendly tax collector. And with the World Series going on, two of the terms you hear most is records are meant to be broken, and batter up. So let me brag about my championship team for just a minute. They kept their eye on the ball. And what a record-breaking year we had this year. I'm a fee officer. Everything we do, we charge a fee for. If there's any fees left over, we're to return them back to the taxpayers by way of the taxing entities. This year in unused fees we had $3,542,765.28. The board's share of that is $3,184,021.33. It's with the greatest amount of pride that I present this check to you, Madam Chairman, on behalf of the staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think I've ever held a three million dollar check before. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a grand slam. MR. CARLTON: Made me nervous. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That is as grand slam. Pass that down to our county administrator. Guy, thank you so much. MR. CARLTON: Madam Chairman, before I leave, I was told that you would ask about my Y2K readiness. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have that later on in the agenda. MR. CARLTON: Oh, later on? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you ready? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If it's a quick report -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: But I think you're ready. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- we'll be happy to hear from you. MR. CARLTON: It's as quick as it can be. I have a friend in Alabama that I hunt with and he always says -- if you ask him is everything all right, he goes "okay-fine." So -- and I believe that's his abbreviation for okay, fine, so let me -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I speak Mississippi, so I understood that. MR. CARLTON: You understand that, don't you? So as far as our readiness, I'd like to quote my friend and say "Okay-fine," and "we ret to go." So all right, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Page 9 October 26, 1999 We'll go now on our agenda. We have several, would be an understatement, of award certificates today for employment longevity with Collier County. And I'm going to start with the Pelican Bay employee, Jerry Sawicki, who's been employed for five years in Collier County. If you'd come forward, or if we will have this delivered to you, along with that proclamation for the kids later. How about Gail Hambright, who's been employed with the Airport Authority for five years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She started on the board office. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, she started with us. She went there, but she's there now. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Next in the County Attorney's Office, for 10 years we have Mary Stuczynski, who's apparently hard at work. In EMS, we have Daniel Bowman, with five years of service. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Also in EMS with five years, we have Todd Coulter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't make the trip. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In EMS with five years, we have Michelle Williamson. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For five years service in EMS, we have Sandra Pitts. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And for five years service in EMS, we have Scott Wernert. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For five years service in community development and code enforcement, we have David Hedrich. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's a tough job. Somebody's got to do it. Thank you very much. For 10 years in pollution control, we have Gursel Yilmaz. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Also a great photographer. For 15 years in facilities management, we have John D'Amico. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate it, sir. Thank you. Also for 15 years in facilities management, we have John Ure. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You keep this place running, and we appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Now in public works, we have Ray Wells, with five years in water distribution. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but Wells and water, it's kind of -- thank you, sir. Page 10 October 26, 1999 For five years in transportation, we have Gonzalo Blanco. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Also for five years in transportation, we have Duban Guerrero. Close? Not bad, huh? (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you so much, sir. 10 years service in the water department, our appreciation goes to James Foster. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. For 10 years service in the wastewater department, we have James Dibuono. Is he here today? Then for 10 years service in transportation, we have Dale Bergenback. Close? Thank you so much. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Tell me how to say it. MR. BERGENBACK: Bergenback. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bergenback. You're generous. Thank you. For 20 years in transportation, we'd like to honor Enrique Salas. 20 years. Thank you so much. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For 25 years in transportation, Elida Valdez. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I got an extra N in there. It's Elida. Thank you so much. 25 years. Must have started when you were 10. Now in the public services department, for five years of service in the library, we have Joan Wojcik. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you so much. And for 10 years service in parks and recreation, Irving Baez. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And because I'm big on drama and high finales, we'd like to ask Martha Skinner to come forward, please. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Drum roll. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're honored, and I'm especially honored to get to be the person to present to Martha a plaque, her pin, and our sincere gratitude for -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What does the 30-year pin look like anyhow? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's got a diamond. 30 years of service to Collier County. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Martha, don't leave without the plaque. MS. SKINNER: I'm excited. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What Martha does for this county is just undescribable. She does an incredible job, and we appreciate her more than we can tell. (Applause.) Page 11 October 26, 1999 Item #TA SCOTT BONHAM REGARDING THE DAVIS BLVD. MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT - STAFF TO LOOK AT SAFETY ISSUE IMMEDIATELY AND RETURN IN 2 WEEKS WITH REPORT REGARDING PALM TREES AND EXTENDING PROJECT TO COUNTY BARN ROAD. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll move now to public petitions. Scott Bonham. Is Mr. Bonham here? Yes, sir, thank you. Please come up and you have up to 10 minutes to tell us what the issue is that you're bringing before us. And then we can't take action today, but we could direct staff to take further action, if it's the will of the board. MR. BONHAM: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you for this audience. I appreciate it. My name is Scott Bonham. I live at 5254 Whitten Drive. Our development is known as Villas at Whittenberg. We are very happy there; I want to start out with that. I rise to speak about the beautification project on Davis Boulevard. It was begun, as I understand it -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me, sir, just one minute. Could we ask you to close the door there? Thank you. It's hard not to be celebratory with 30 years, but we need to be able to hear you. MR. BONHAM: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. BONHAM: The schedule beginning was January 1st this year, scheduled to end June 30th. Work began at Airport Pulling, which made a lot of sense, the western end of Davis -- or of this project, I beg your pardon. So far as I'm concerned, it progressed well. The palm trees were put in very well at the western end. And I refer to that because it will come up later in my conversation. I waited for the finished product, and it seemed to me that it went well all the way out, until it almost got to us. When it was apparently finished, I really felt disappointment. To me, the area adjacent to our development was low quality, comparatively low quality, high density of plantings. I spoke with George Miller, who is the vice president of our association, and he had been in contact ongoing, I believe, with the foreman or someone in supervision of the development; that is, the planning. At that point it was stated that there would be no palm trees added to the existing plantings as it was then. There were some bushes at a cut-through, if you will -- I call it a button hook -- for eastbound traffic to get into the westbound lanes. These bushes impeded the view of motorists, and they still do, to the point that there is going to be a horrific accident there one day if those bushes are not removed. They have been trimmed back -- I was going to deal with this later. They've been trimmed back to the point that you can see between them, but bushes grow, so it's going to be less access to visibility, if you will. I want to jump back to March of 1990, which was the first time Page 12 October 26, 1999 that my wife and I drove into Naples, via the Tamiami Trail East, from Miami. Neither of us had ever been on the west coast of Florida, and we wanted to view it. We drove into Naples and immediately had a feeling of beauty and cleanliness; and after we met some people in the Chamber of Commerce office, friendliness. We were very favorably impressed. And less than 24 hours later, as we left town to go further north, go back home, we felt that this might well be the place that we would like to spend our last years, remaining years. Although my last years are going to be in advance of her last years. On July 4th of that year, we flew down and purchased property in Berkshire Lakes, in New Castle condominium. Roughly 18 months later, in October of '91, we moved here. We had sold our property in the north and made this our residence. We did this particularly because of the beauty, the aesthetics, if you will, beauty of the county. And I speak of the county as a whole. At the conclusion, I want to come back to the recent past. When I found that there was no -- going to be no more added palm trees in the development, I went to my commissioner, Mr. Constantine, met with him, expressed my feelings, and he assured me that he would check on it with staff and see what he could find out. Several days later I called his office and his secretary said that he had left a message for me that he was not satisfied with the reply from staff. That led me to write a letter to the county administrator, requesting this audience. I then received a call from -- I'm going to say a young man for two reasons. His voice sounded young, and compared to me, everyone's young. He was very cordial and was acknowledging the receipt of my letter. I asked him, what was the thought behind the design of the plantings in the beautification project. His explanation -- I didn't write it down, but his explanation basically was that the thought was to have the plantings in the median conform with the surrounding existing greenery, if you will. I had a problem with that, and still have a problem with that, because there are many, many palm trees which have been planted in the area out where I live. For example, in Whittenberg, we have 122 units and there are two palm trees that have been planted in front of every unit. In our entryway there are palm trees, across the street in Crown Pointe, to our east in Glen Eagle, and in Countryside. At this time I want to be sure to mention this. It seems to me that if we are going to give an impression of quality and beauty in our county, it better be throughout the county. And when we say we're going to do a beautification project on a road, which happens to be Route 84, one of the main entry points into our county, into the downtown area of Naples, it should be a continuing thing to the east. Because certainly, that property out there is going to have more development beyond where we are and beyond Countryside. To me, Collier County attracted my wife and I because of the Page 13 October 26, 1999 beauty, the cleanliness and the friendly atmosphere. And the beauty is a large part of that, because it's an impression that you have without meeting a soul or listening to a soul. I submit to you that there's an old phrase which must have come from Great Britain, penny wise and pound foolish. I believe if we do not continue that aesthetic feeling to the east, we're going to be pound foolish for sure. So I suggest to you, no matter what area in the county you individually represent, we should all be concerned about the county as a whole, and the impression that people get when they come here. Not that I want anyone else to move here. I wish they'd closed the gate after I came. But certainly for -- and I'm jesting. Certainly for the sake of the economy of the county, the way we can progress, and the feeling that other people have with having been here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sir, I'm sorry, I have to ask you to be on the microphone when you speak. MR. BONHAM: I want someone to help me with this. I can't do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I bet you'll get some help there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's another mike right there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That microphone will be fine. MR. BONHAM: This is the area that I wanted to show. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're so high tech. We got -- we have microphones all over the place, sir, so -- MR. BONHAM: As unfamiliar as I am with public speaking. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're doing an excellent job, and we appreciate it. MR. BONHAM: This is the crossover that I was referring to that is totally unsafe. It's what I call a button hook. I'm not old enough to remember having hooked buttons on shoes, but I've seen them. The visibility is next to nothing. And as I said, the bushes have been trimmed back. Because I complained about it to George and he passed that on to the developer. I submit -- now, the bushes have been moved, I have been told, six feet back from where they were. The bushes need to be taken out of there to give a line of sight. On these papers, line of sight is indicated on every crossover. And driving Davis Boulevard often, I'm aware that the line of sight access is excellent, except for that crossover. Please have someone do something about that. It's an accident -- a death waiting to happen. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for your petition. MR. BONHAM: If I can answer any questions that you might have, I'd be happy to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, I think I can help with this one. We did -- I know there was some changes on the bushes and all. If it's still not a safe situation, that's fairly simple. You just need to go out and make sure it's a safe situation. On the other item, as far as beautification, Mr. Bonham is absolutely right, there is a thinning out, if you will, from west to east, and you get very thin as you get out toward their community. Our staff offered one explanation that I didn't know if it went Page 14 October 26, 1999 quite far enough, so I talked to George Botner, who actually did the design and oversaw the installation of the project, who gave a little bit different explanation, but also pointed out that for an additional $15,000, we could have the exact same thoroughness as far as the palm trees in general, beautification, all the way out to the end of the project. Coincidentally, later today on in the agenda, there's an item for roughly $15,000 for a fountain outside my window that I'm going to suggest we don't spend, and that will free up $15,000 of capital project money that probably could be better suited toward serving the public on Davis. Additionally, the project stops well before it gets to County Barn Road, or certainly way before it gets out to Santa Barbara. We've got a future phase in there down the road to take care of that. But George Botner also indicated for $30,000 over and above that 15, we could actually finish the project out to County Barn, so at least we didn't stop off midway. I'm going to suggest that the board -- I know we don't normally take anything in the way of action on public petitions, but I'm going to suggest that we do three things: One, just direct our staff to look at the safety issue immediately, as far as visibility; I don't think we need to wait two weeks on that. Two, go ahead and commit the 15,000 toward making sure we have consistent beautification all the way out. And then explore the other -- not make the commitment today, but explore the 30,000, whether or not money is available or when that will be phased in and so on. Get a full report back at a future meeting on the possibility of extending the project out as far as County Barn. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I would suggest that the board withhold any action until you've had the opportunity for a full staff report. We're prepared to make one, if you'd like to have one. Rather than give you that report today, we thought we'd get the intent of the board as a result of this public petition request first. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What I'd support at this point is certainly that safety issue be immediately addressed. And I'm confident you will be doing that without our direction. You already know that's your job. The other -- I wouldn't want to say where this $15,000 should immediately go. I mean, I'd like to see a full report on capital projects and prioritization based on all of the needs instead of just targeting this particular one because we know about it today. But I'd like to hear back from staff on it at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection if we want to wait two weeks. I just say this isn't a matter of 15,000 for a new project, this is just let's complete the project that was scheduled for this year consistent throughout, so that Scott's neighborhood has the exact same as somebody down the street or Germain's Auto Dealership or anybody else so it's a consistent project. Page 15 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I recall in some discussion, I don't know if it was Mr. Botner and some of the people that came when they were talking about the median beautification. But there was an issue raised regarding transition. In other words, coming from a more rural setting into the coastal area. And you may well have palm trees around your house right now, but I'll almost guarantee you that the palm trees you have there certainly were not in that area originally. If you look in that entire area out in the eastern part because I'm going to have the same situation in my district when they do Golden Gate Boulevard, which is east of 951. And one of the things that the residents out there had requested was that the median fit in with the area, that what is the -- what are the trees around there? Sure, you'll find cabbage palm, you'll find those. But one of the main things that they were concerned about is that we don't come out and put flowery, fluffy kinds of things, but they want it to be more in a keeping with that particular part of the county. And frankly, sir, when you go out Davis Boulevard, as you progress easterly, you get into more of the pine forest that they've had out in that area. And frankly to me, and this -- I'm just speaking as a commissioner and I'm not certainly speaking against you, but I will tell you that to me a nicely mowed median and well maintained median with either some trees or, you know, whatever, to me is most attractive as opposed to having umpteen kinds of plants in there that are perhaps in a state of decay, okay? And I see nothing -- I did see -- I believe you wrote a letter to the editor, or someone from out in your area has spoken about the MR. BONHAM: I didn't. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Maybe you didn't, but another person had written a letter to the editor. And I made it a point recently, I wanted to drive out Davis Boulevard to just check and see what does this really look like, maybe I had missed something. And I have to tell you, I did not see ugly. And I did not see -- I did not see that anybody had been mistreated or that they weren't treated equally. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, that's why I'd like staff to give us a report. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's where I'm concerned, because when I drove out there, I did not see -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we bring it back in two weeks. That we go ahead with the safety issue immediately, but that we bring the other back in two weeks -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: The safety thing, there's no question about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for a full explanation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I am concerned about this other, because I don't -- there certainly is not any intent to slight anybody. But I think we do have to be careful that we keep in a setting within the entire area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. I -- just as a final thought with that motion, I would take exception, I guess, to the thought that Page 16 October 26, 1999 any of Davis west of Santa Barbara is more rural than others. I would say, you know, whether it's Countryside or Embassy Woods, Glen Eagle now, or - - CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's have this discussion in a couple weeks. How about that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or any of those, I'd say they're roughly the same development. So just -- and I appreciate you driving through there. And I hope we'd all do that in advance of the hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm certainly not going to sit here and be persuaded by somebody's argument that someone else's neighborhood has better palm trees than mine and I want more palm trees for mine. I'm not going to be swayed by that stupid argument. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, let's wait -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But I have no objection to listening to the staff explain why it was done this way in the first place in two weeks. I'd like to hear that answer. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not that we need to vote on the motion, if it's okay -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- with you, Commissioner Constantine. We'll just have given direction to staff. And we thank you very much for bringing this to our attention. MR. BONHAM: I would like to ask that the gentleman read the transcript of what I said today. I did not refer to us being slighted. I did not refer to ugly, ma'am. There are pine trees extensively up at Lakewood Boulevard on Davis. Drive it again and look at what is in the surrounding area, if you will. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Scott, I -- MR. BONHAM: If I have given the wrong impression here, and I regret. I hope it wasn't the words I said. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think so. MR. BONHAM: It may have just been a thought pattern. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not at all. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think you've just brought this to our attention and we appreciate it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I apologize. It's not a stupid argument either. I don't think that's appropriate coming from the dais. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you can think whatever you like, Commissioner. That's your privilege. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. And I don't think insulting the public is correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And speaking of -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I insulted his argument. Item UPDATE FROM ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STAFF ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PRESENTED Page 17 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Speaking of thinking whatever we like, we're a little late but we'd like to hear from the Army Corps of Engineers about the Environmental Impact Statement. You have to appreciate, John, that I didn't say speaking of stupid. See? So careful. We appreciate you being here today. It's very kind of you after also making a public meeting last night to come and make a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. We appreciate that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Very long public meeting for them last night. MR. BORUCH: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I appreciate the invitation to address the board. For the record, I'm Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Boruch. I'm the deputy district engineer here, instead of Colonel Miller, who is on his way to Washington for a series of meetings with the chief of engineers. I hope in the spirit of -- I noticed on last Sunday, Jimmy Johnson had to go to the bench for a quarterback, so in that spirit, I hope to be as successful as he was. I also appreciate the invitation back. As you know, our previous one was canceled because we were anticipating Hurricane Floyd, and we were deep into preparations for that. But thankfully, again it blew wide right and we were all saved a lot of headache. I'm accompanied here today by, as you know, Dr. John Hall, our chief of regulatory. Bob Barton. And I'm also accompanied by Eric Hughes, from the EPA. I'd like to, just with your indulgence, set the agenda for the time that you provided to us. I would just like to make some brief opening comments. I'll then turn it over to Bob, who will discuss the EIS process. I will then -- we will entertain any questions from you all, and then I'd like to reserve the balance of the time for Mr. Hughes, who would like to discuss some water quality issues that EPA is working on. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. BORUCH: As you know, we have just concluded three public meetings: One in Estero, one in Lehigh Acres, and last night in Golden Gate. By our count, we had in excess of 900 folks at those meetings. We had, by our count, a little over 100 public speakers. And how many other people submitted written comments and declined to publicly speak, I don't have a count on, but I suspect it was an equally impressive number. We stated in all our meetings that we came to listen, and I believe listen we did. Thankfully, the citizens of Lee and Collier Counties provided us some exceptional comments, and I think they all did very well. I have to commend also the groups that came to non-governmental organizations, the business, the environmental, the scientific, the development of construction industries, as well as just the individual citizens that came and presented to us. The quality of their comments Page 18 October 26, 1999 we received were outstanding, and they demonstrated a clear passion throughout the whole process of EIS. Now, as the headline reads this morning, as a result of the public hearings, Colonel Miller has extended the period from 4 November this year to 15 January next year as a period of 72 days on top of the additional -- the comment period we had since we issued the EIS on the -- the draft EIS on the 5th of July. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Forgive me for interrupting, that's an official decision that has been made? MR. BORUCH: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just needed to get that on the record. MR. BORUCH: We hope these additional comments, as we've heard again from meeting after meeting from the various interests, that there's additional data that I think can be provided to us specifically dealing with water quality issues, and also with the economic impact, that we're very interested in analyzing. And I think that will, just in the long run, make a better document for us. That concludes my opening remarks. I'd now like to turn it over to Bob and he will discuss the EIS process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Can you give us some help with that, Vince, on the -- oh, he's got it. He's an engineer. MR. BARRON: Actually, ma'am, I was here yesterday and I asked them how to operate it. So I remembered overnight. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Planned ahead. MR. BARRON: The EIS, as you've been previously briefed, is a portion of Lee, a portion of Collier County, which is now an owner of South Florida. The purpose of the project is to improve the regulatory process for the Corps of Engineers. I use the iljustration that the Corps wears many hats. You read about us overseas. You read about us when we're renourishing beaches, dredging harbors. This is a small portion where the Corps also has a program where private citizens or municipalities or governments that have wetlands on their own land, and they wish to fill them, they have to have a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, as provided under the Clean Water Act. So this is intended to improve how the Corps reviews those applications coming from private citizens and municipalities and other agencies. We've had many applications for fill in the area. This is a map of the study area. Fort Myers in the north. Naples down in the south. Immokalee. The green is existing proposed preserves. The red dots is your speckled of permits. We've been getting recurring issues of wetland loss. Concerns over wildlife habitat, concerns over quality water degradation. We get these comments on many of the applications that we put out for public notice. So we are trying to improve our permit by permit by permit review by taking a 20-year look at the future and what are the potential impacts from our continued issuance of permits in this area. Presently with the study area, again, it's portions of Lee, portions of Collier. This is to scale roughly of the 1,500 square Page 19 October 26, 1999 miles of how agriculture development, preservation, open water areas. We picked up Lake Trafford and areas like that. 30 percent of the area is privately owned but vacant. In other words, there's trees, marsh, melaleuca, you know, all on this area. Under the comprehensive plans in Lee and Collier, if you lay them over this study area, the predictions or the expectations is this vacant area will fill in with development, as well as additional land being acquired for preserve and then of course some of the agricultural turned developments. So this is kind of the line where it meets in this vacant land area. The Corps has a duty under the Clean Water Act to consider both the benefits and the detriments of many public interest factors. The wildlife impacts, more quality impacts, as well as the benefits ascribed of private ownership, economic development coming from the use of that property. We have a separate duty under the Endangered Species Act, as many others as well have, to use our authorities while we're reviewing those permit applications to further the conservation species listed under that act. Another duty is under the National Environmental Policy Act, where we're required to disclose the impacts of our program, which is the purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement. It's a statement of our expected impacts from our program. We asked the group of citizens and community agency representatives from the area, the board here -- you participated in some of that, formation of that group -- we asked them to help us as a kind of representative sample to help identify issues important to the community, to develop criteria, to evaluate some of those issues; in other words, in their language to create several predictions of the future. I mean what ifs, so to speak, if something happened different. And to evaluate the changes to the impacts and benefits, if, say, something different was done in the permitting of the future projects. From those -- from that work, you have several lines now, several potential places where the development and the preserve come together. You've got different places where they meet, so to speak, if you took the whole area and turned it into a block chart. As an engineer, I love block drawing, that's okay. The Corps went ahead and drew a line down the middle. We called it a permit review map, a proposed map, and we basically diwied up the area into two categories called development and preservation. The purpose of doing that is to utilize the information that is in the Environmental Impact Statement to effect how we do our review. If the review -- if the project is located in one area, the preservation category, we would devote more rigor to our review process, spend more staff time on it. And also, the landowners would also know that this would happen. If you're on the development side, the intent is that we would spend less time, lower -- you have a lower concern from the Corps on the impact side. Now, the map is not saying what we will or will not Page 20 October 26, 1999 permit, but it is saying what sort of questions and how much time we're going to spend on those questions. For single-family lots, a lot of concern from the -- particularly Golden Gate Estates, but it's not confined to that. Under current reviews, typically individuals constructing homes in Golden Gate Estates on their single-family lots are typically authorized by the Corps under a program called the Nationwide Permit. It's a permit that's issued out of headquarters nationally that with certain restrictions authorizes fill for individuals constructing homes. There's various limitations. There is a -- these are expiring and the proposed replacements that are currently out -- you know, they've been put out for public comment out of headquarters -- appear that they will still be applicable to future permitting in this area. You know, of course they haven't been reissued. We're just saying that's -- you know, all we can do is look at the rules. The Corps has no involvement, though, on any single-family lot where there's no wetlands. If there's no wetlands and you don't want to fill it, there's no Corps involvement. The Corps is not taking people's land. We're not removing houses. The only involvement is if an applicant, a landowner, wants to fill the property and asks for a permit, our involvement is either to issue or deny it. However, there is a general concern that as wetlands continue to be filled in this area, the wetlands that are left are going to be considered more important, environmental -- you know, environmental concern is nothing but going up. It is being heightened. And we're trying to use EIS as a springboard to look for local solutions to continue -- to work out local solutions here rather than relying on national permits and other solutions like that. The purpose of our additional review, trying to emphasize this review, particularly in the category we're saying more rigorous, is our decisions are based on balancing many factors, not just wildlife impacts but also economic and others. So what we're trying to do is add more information that puts on this scale, and also with the community dialogue, get more information to help us do those reviews with appropriate balance. The EIS is proposing -- is proposing that the Corps implement a standardized list of questions and factors, primarily so we can identify these issues up front for the landowners, to prioritize the Corps' staff time, and we're also disclosing this information for public dialogue. So we are saying here's what we're using to work with our decisions, help us here fill in these gaps. The EIS process is not setting a limit on impacts. We're not saying this is how much wetland fill we'll issue in 20 years. It's not trying to override the comprehensive plan. We're seeking to work in concert. We're looking at identifying what is the expectations of our program, where are we headed so that we can understand what the local -- you know, what the local community is expecting. And also, set the -- also cut down some of the fear as well. We are currently here in the review process. We have issued the Page 21 October 26, 1999 draft EIS process, draft EIS document. We've had four months. We've extended the comment period an additional time to January. So we are here. After the close of the comment period, we will take those comments, consider revisions to the document, issue a revised document, which would have additional public comment. After that additional comment, there will be further revisions or additional consideration where we would then issue a record of decision. The document -- the map I was talking about with the permit review map and some of this criterion questions, that's attached as appendix currently to the EIS. It's called this Permit Review Criteria, that if at the time of record decision we decide to issue it or a revision of what's currently in the appendix, then when an applicant comes in for a permit, they would have several tracts. The more rigorous questioning for one category, the less review process for the other categories. Or we're also hoping to issue several general permits, local permits, to expedite review for categories of applicants. And they, of course, would have an even more expedited process. The information is also -- on this process, we're posting it as it's developed on our Website. And that would -- you know, and of course we're obviously welcome for questions. And I want to thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Just a comment probably more than a question, but perhaps for you to help me with an observation that I have. There's -- one of the complaints that I'm hearing is that there's so much uncertainly, there's so much uncertainty. We need more time to look at this because there is so much uncertainty. Based on the graph that you showed us there with all of the mini -- that one, exactly. The "you are here" chart. It seems to me that some of the confusion about -- for example, where's the general permit? We expected a general permit out of this. The answer is, we're not there yet. We're still in the draft document, then we'll get the final document, then we'll get the record, then we'll work on the general permit. I mean, it's just a part of the bureaucratic process that the Army Corps has to go through. So I've sensed a lot of frustration with, we don't have what you promised us. But it appears to me that the answer to that is we're not there yet. Am I reading that right? MR. BARRON: Yes, ma'am. Before we -- for example, for the general permit, to develop a general permit, we would use that based on the information that we've gathered for the EIS and comments we've heard. And at this point we're at that stage. So that then we can craft an appropriate set of general permits that would reflect what we've been hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It seems to me that instead of saying -- instead of seeing that as something to complain about, it would be more appropriate to see that as something to be grateful for, because there is so much opportunity for continued public comment and input Page 22 October 26, 1999 before we reach that final stage. So I just wanted to make that observation. Other questions, board members? Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Barton, who gets to decide what specific properties are to be designated as a preservation category and which are development category and what other categories there may be? Who gets to decide that? MR. BARRON: Well the -- myself, as one of the staff working for the district engineer, and for John Hall, my immediate supervisor, we're attempting to prioritize some of our staff time by coming up with these two categories. And we're right -- we've proposed a map that's in the draft document. We're getting comments for adjustments to that map now from the public and various landowners. So then we'll propose a new map. Then the final map would be recommended to the district engineer at the time we -- you know, that we discuss what that decision ought to be. Then it will be the district engineer's decision to adopt a map and what that map would look like. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Short answer is the Corps' going to have final say on whatever the map looks like. MR. BARRON: I apologize, sir. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that is, I think, probably the biggest cause for concern that we have locally and within the public community as well, because certainly in Collier County it's going to be very arguable in many, many cases whether land is more appropriate for development or more appropriate for preservation, and there's where we're going to get into conflict. And I just expect that we're going to see a lot of conversation on this very point, what is the final map, because as soon as the Corps establishes a preservation category on a piece of land that some landowner thinks hey, this is my land and it's not for preservation, we're going to have trouble. And I just -- I think I see how this is all heading. MR. BARRON: And we've also had difficulties. We've already seen difficulties on the names of our two categories. And we're looking at changing those names, because our intent isn't to designate preservation but to designate that you have a different level of review. So there's been one suggestion from somebody who's already submitted a Tier I Level Review, Tier II. And that may be a more accurate reflection of our intent than the actual name preservation at this point, sir. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have something to add to that, Mr. Hall? MR. HALL: Yes. My name is John Hall. I'm chief of the regulatory division, Jacksonville District. I'd just like to add a little additional clarification. I think the substance of your question was is it the Corps of Engineers' intent or is it the Corps of Engineers' power to designate in advance areas that should be preserved or areas that should be developed? The Page 23 October 26, 1999 simple answer to that question is no. The complex answer to that question is that if people require permits to do things on their property from the Corps of Engineers, we have to make a permit decision. That permit decision is based on reviewing a lot of things, including the natural environmental value of that particular piece of property. There certainly are instances in the process of that review where we could conclude that the environmental value of that piece of property is so high, and the realistic possibilities of offsetting the loss of that environmental value are not very high, that we could conclude a permit needed to be denied. In which case I guess you could say the Corps of Engineers is making a statement that that particular piece of property, given the federal laws we have to administer, is considered exceptionally high in natural value. And if you would like to translate that into then the Corps of Engineers saying this area should be preserved, I think we would be saying that yes, under federal law there is a recognition that the values are so high that this is probably -- maybe a highest and best use for that particular piece of property. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But actually, that's not precisely the thrust of my question. But maybe if we go to what Mr. Barron said in that instead of we call it preservation and development, we call it Tier I and Tier II. Well, a property owner that has to go through a Tier I permit analysis and so forth has a much more onerous process than someone in Tier II. And the net effect to the property owner is the same, is that -- and the net effect eventually for -- as far as perception is the same. If it's the Corps who decides what is a Tier I and what is a Tier II then, you know, certain property owners are going to be upset and unhappy when they have to go through a far more rigorous permitting process than the guy next door who is Tier II. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Mr. Hall, does that differ significantly from the process today? MR. HALL: Not at all. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I didn't think so. MR. HALL: In fact, that's exactly what we do. We take a look at information that a property owner or a project proponent proposes for a particular piece of property, and if based on that information the Corps of Engineers concludes that there are fairly high environmental values to that piece of property, the questions that are part of the evaluation criteria are not questions that we have -- that we necessarily have originated out of thin air for this particular EIS. Those questions are questions that are asked anyway. You can ask any developer that comes before us, or for that matter anyone who comes before us for a permit, and those are the same suite of questions that we ask. The detail in the answer and the convincing arguments in the answer are the things that we are paying particular attention to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If your review finds that it is an Page 24 October 26, 1999 unusually high natural value and you decide that's more appropriate than somebody building their home, do you immediately -- does the Army Corps immediately cut a check to that property owner? MR. HALL: No, we do not. The process that we have is that if a permit for a particular project is denied, there are -- there is a two-tiered approach to getting at the issue of whether or not that property has been taken by a regulatory action. The first process is a fairly new process. It is internal to the Corps of Engineers, where the Corps has established through regulation what is called an administrative appeals process for denied permits and permits with special conditions that have been offered and those special conditions are rejected by the applicant. In those instances, there is a -- there is a one-tier review within the Corps of Engineers to take a look at the merit of that particular permit decision, both from the perspective of the process that the district followed and the policies that the district followed that are -- that have been established at the federal level for the program. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two-part follow-up, and the first is, what's a likely expense associated for an individual who has to go through that process? Is there something -- is there an application fee, a permit fee or so on? And also, is it realistic that John Q. home builder could go through that process without an attorney or someone who's an expert in the field? MR. HALL: Okay, the answer -- the answer -- you asked a couple of questions. One, what's the cost? There is no fee that the Corps of Engineers charges for that review. All that the permit -- all that the individual or the group wishing to seek a review of that denial has to do is fill out a form, send that form to our division engineer, and if the information on that form indicates that the permit denial is -- meets the established criteria for a review of that particular permit, that review takes place. Currently, within the Continental United States, these regulations have only been in place since May. Currently, there are six permit denials that are under review in various parts of the country. Jacksonville district has one of those permit denials that is currently under review. That particular permit denial involves a single individual property owner who was denied a certain kind of use for a piece of property he had in the Panhandle of Florida. And he, to the best of my knowledge, has hired no one, neither an attorney nor a consultant, to plead his case. So his costs are purely his. We are not charging him anything. This includes site visits to his property, sending people from our division office to his property, at no cost to him to look at his particular situation. And what I didn't get a chance to do was then -- back to the earlier comment I was making, is that I said that there are two -- there are sort of two levels of review. One of them is the administrative appeals process, which has recently been established. If that administrative appeals process is followed to its completion Page 25 October 26, 1999 and the permit denial is sustained through that appeals process, then obviously the recourse that that person who had a permit denied has is then to take the Corps of Engineers to court. And that obviously is an expensive process involving legal fees and things like that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Short of going to court, though, just so I'm clear that I've understood you, it's quite possible that someone could be told no, you can't use your property because it has such natural -- high natural value and you're just stuck with it. MR. HALL: That is -- that certainly is a possibility. Of the approximately 60,000 permits that the Corps of Engineers processes each year, that happens maybe 20 -- 10 to 20 times a year -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Hall -- MR. HALL: -- nationwide. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- is that something new that -- MR. HALL: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- as a result of the EIS or -- MR. HALL: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- is that -- that's the process today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if that's the process today, I still think it's flawed. I mean, my point is the same, whether we've had that practice or whether that's a new edition, there may be some new things considered because of the new laws that went into effect in six months. Equally of concern is some of the mitigation things, if you're dealing with individuals. Obviously if we're dealing with big developers, you know, they expect some additional expense, perhaps, on the front end. But when you have those individual homeowners, when you start talking mitigation -- we can cite specific examples in Commissioner Berry's district where you have people who bought a piece of property fairly inexpensively, and they have to, if they would like to use that property, pay multiple value of that property to mitigate. And so my worry is more with that individual who gets stuck, even if there's only a few dozen of them. I hate to see somebody stuck with a piece of land they can't use when they're just trying to build a home. MR. HALL: I certainly -- I think everybody working in the Corps of Engineers has exactly that same feeling. We feel very, very uncomfortable when we find ourselves in that situation. I would suggest that not necessarily the Corps of Engineers is to blame for that particular result. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who can we blame, John? MR. HALL: Who sold the property. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gulf American -- what was their name? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Land Development. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there public speakers registered? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, there are. Two. David Guggenheim and Ty Agoston. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How appropriate. For the offense and for the defense, and I'm not saying who's which. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Page 2 6 October 26, 1999 David Guggenheim, president and CEO of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, representing our 5,500 member families and 700 volunteers. Good morning. Last night Commissioner Constantine called for the EIS to be delayed so that we could include water quality data from Collier County. Water quality monitoring data is a critical tool. This is -- this is a tool that helps us determine human impacts on the environment. Monitoring data helps guide a sound decision-making process. And I think I in the past have expressed my angst and discomfort with the fact that the county had discontinued its water quality monitoring program, leaving us blind to our ability to monitor that. I'm glad to see, Commissioner Constantine, that you see value in that. And I think you know where I'm leading with my comments. When we talked about this issue two and a half years ago or so, I put on the table a proposal from The Conservancy, recognizing that your frustration about that water quality monitoring program was that we collect data that sits on shelves. I think I'm paraphrasing some of the words that were used. I offered the Conservancy's help to actually analyze that data, at no cost to the county. And I just want to make it clear today that The Conservancy, A, believes it is vital to continue to resume the water quality monitoring that we so desperately need. And the offer stands, that we would offer it at no cost our analytical services to help the county better understand the impacts on the environment. And certainly, as this EIS process moves forward and as we move beyond the EIS, we will always need to know how we're doing. I appreciate your time this morning, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Dr. Guggenheim. Mr. Fernandez, I'm sorry, but I was going to ask a question. What did we do in this year's budget cycle with regard to that monitoring money? Did we add anything back, or are we still at the zero level of water quality monitoring in this county? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't recall offhand -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does anybody know? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- what we did with water quality. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would that be you, Vince? Would you know? Because I do recall, as you say, Dr. Guggenheim, we cut that a couple of years ago completely, and I don't remember seeing it come back. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. We had no line item for that in this year's budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if the county wanted to get back in the water quality monitoring business and take The Conservancy up on this offer of analyzing it for free, that's something that would require a budget amendment? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or something we could take up in next budget year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Or something we could, as you say, Commissioner, postpone for another year. Page 27 October 26, 1999 But I would like to talk to you about it, Dr. Guggenheim, about possibly proposing some kind of a budget amendment that we could bring forward, since we're just beginning this budget year, and not have to wait another year. I appreciate the offer. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question on that. What was the rationale for stopping the process? You say we put the data on the shelf. That disturbs me. That, it seems, is the critical issue of water and we're not monitoring it does not seem logical to me. And why aren't we doing it and using the data in some way in the processes that we're doing? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it wasn't being used effectively at the time. And there were two or three -- there were a lot of examples, but two or three blatant examples. One being Lake Trafford, one being Clam Bay, other areas where they were taking the samples but somehow we still ended up with the problems we were taking. So we were spending money and collecting data, shelving it, never doing anything in particular with it. And when we asked our staff at the budget hearings what could we do with that, how could we use that, there was no answer. And we went through actually three consecutive budget hearings saying well, come back and tell us specifically how we could use that, and there was no answer. And if -- as you know, during our budget hearings, if we don't know how we're going to use it, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would say that's a flawed process. I mean, I think there's a need to do it. I think the flaw is that we don't know what we're doing with it after we collect it. And that may not be the only example of things that we do. And I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but there's something wrong with this system that doesn't use that data properly to take it somewhere. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I completely agree with Commissioner Constantine's description of why we came to cut that at that budget meeting. It was distressing, but that was the reality. So hopefully we could -- maybe now with this offer from The Conservancy we'll see a proposal for an amendment to bring that back. Thank you. Mr. Agoston? MR. FERNANDEZ: Ty Agoston, next speaker. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in that endangered Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Beautiful area, Ty. MR. AGOSTON: It sure the hell is. And we want to keep it that way. I find it amusing for the finger-pointing that takes place as soon as responsibility question arises. The gentleman behind me points the finger directly to the people who were selling the property, rather than to the Army Corps of Engineers, who, as far as I know, and I have a very limited historical background here, cleared and drained Golden Gate Estates. Consequently, if anyone is to blame, it's the people who are here Page 28 October 26, 1999 today essentially proposing to individually permitting. Because the line here, the operating line from that gentleman's presentation, is that yes, if you have a wetland and they define the wetland, you will have individual property owners having to prove that they don't have wetlands. I have looked at the map last night that identified wetlands in the Estates. And I hate to say this to you, and you should look at it, the good bulk of Northern Golden Gate Estates comes under that definition. Who drew that map? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does that surprise you, Ty? MR. AGOSTON: No, I've been hustled before. I mean, this isn't the first time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, but I mean from a reality perspective, do you think that Northern Golden Gate Estates is part of a former swamp, or not? MR. AGOSTON: Pam, as far as I know, the entire Southern Florida was part of a swamp. So I mean, if we are talking about definitions, it depends on who you want to listen to. And as far as I'm concerned, if you're going to start pointing fingers, somebody bought the piece of property, I can point fingers at you. You have been collecting taxes. All those people out there, we're talking about Southern Golden Gate Estates, you're talking about Northern Golden Gate Estates, you have been collecting taxes to provide a standard of living or a whatever convenience for the downtown Naples people with those taxes, those people, most of whom are absentee owners, provide to you. So it's -- there are plenty of areas where we can point fingers. And unfortunately, you're to blame for some of them. My biggest problem, and I concur with Mr. Constantine, that a large developer are in a position -- a financial position to hire the experts and hire the legal help. Although, looking at TwinEagles, I'm not even sure about that. But the fact of the matter is that it's more likely that a large operation can incur these expenses. What I believe is -- the rest -- the gentleman mentioned about the individual property owners and that they reserve -- no longer there's going to be a master permit. They are looking for the license to deny individual two and a half acre property owners up in Northern Golden Gate Estates the same they have done in Southern Golden Gate Estates, the right to build a home. They are essentially taking away that good old American dream of the picket fence with children playing in the front yard, and replacing it with a proposal in sustainable Southwest Florida and sustainable America of sky-rises with industrial production on the first floor, and people walking down so you don't have need to have a car. And it's going to be just an absolutely magnificent life of education from cradle to grave. That's by the way, gentlemen, definition of communism. Thanks very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks, Mr. Agoston. Page 29 October 26, 1999 Do we have anyone else registered to speak on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, that was your final speaker. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Bob. Other questions from the board for our representatives here from the Army Corps? Item #10D RESOLUTION 99-404 EXTENDING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE ARMY CORPS DRAFT EIS - ADOPTED W/CHANGES COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. We were going to take Item 10(D), which was the resolution I had put on the agenda with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I will just change the final paragraph in that resolution to read three months instead of six, consistent with what the Corps has said that they'll do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the Colonel -- I'm sorry, you have already agreed to a six-month extension or to something -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, 72 days. MR. BORUCH: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: January 15th. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that's not three months, is that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, roughly -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's 72 days. MR. BORUCH: 72 days by my count, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So would you change your resolution to 72 days? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, if that will make you happy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That will make me happy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay, 72 days. January 15 will be the day. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve that resolution as it appears -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in Item 10(D). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any discussion on that motion? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. We thank you again for being here and for your work. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take a break. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we'll take a 15-minute break. MR. BORUCH: Excuse me, ma'am. I had just wanted to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I apologize. MR. BORUCH: -- Mr. Eric Hughes from EPA just wanted to brief you Page 30 October 26, 1999 on the water quality issues -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We do need to do that. MR. BORUCH: -- they're working on. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me, we're not taking a break yet. I forgot that we need to hear from our EPA representative who's here. MR. BORUCH: And I want to thank you, ma'am, for letting us come in and update you on EIS and where we are in the process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We thank you. MR. BORUCH: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My apologies. MR. HUGHES: Thank you very much for having me, and I will make this brief, Commissioners. I'm here representing Regional Administrator John Hankinson, and my direct supervisor, Richard Harvey, who's the director of our South Florida office in West Palm Beach. EPA has been very supportive of the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Your name, for the record? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Your name, sir? MR. HUGHES: Excuse me. My name is Eric Hughes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. HUGHES: I work wit~ the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's been very supportive of the EIS process, and in fact has been a cooperating agency throughout the formulation of the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Because of our responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, we play several roles. And I'm going to try to make this brief. We have, to the extent that we have been able to with our resources, attempted to prepare a water quality evaluation that fits in with this Environmental Impact Statement. Secondly, every time someone applies for a wetlands permit, you probably are aware of the fact that we provide review comments to the Corps of Engineers. Historically EPA and the Corps of Engineers worked in tandem to develop the criteria by which the district engineer determines whether a permit should be denied or issued, modified, et cetera, et cetera. This is a very long process that goes back to the early Seventies. Now, one of the other things I really want to emphasize is, we have also invested, along with the Corps of Engineers, an awful lot of resources to restoration of those wetland systems of the Everglades, predominantly on the southeastern coast. You're probably reading in the newspaper that the Corps of Engineers is going to the United States congress and requesting in cooperation with the State of Florida billions of dollars. There's many people who have talked to us on this coast that basically are saying we don't want to see the federal government coming here in 10 or 20 years asking for large sums of money to restore the environment. We've got a very high quality environment here and we want to maintain that. And that is our desire to partner with the appropriate state agencies, specifically Florida DEP and the Page 31 October 26, 1999 Water Management District and both counties, to make sure that the water quality throughout Collier County and Lee County is fully capable of sustaining uses, and at the same time, we have a healthy economy. Now, to get very briefly into the water quality analysis, we retained a consultant who provided -- tried to provide us the best review. There is a -- there are a lot of issues in terms of the water quality data base. I don't want to drag you through that today, so I'm going to just touch the high points. In fact, you've apparently already had some conversations here today. Our consultants -- there is a national water quality database called STORET. When they went in and did their analysis, when the State of Florida DEP does its analysis, its report card, it goes in and evaluates data. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, that data has not been entered very effectively at all by either county. That's water over the dam. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I comment on that, just for clarity? Because I've looked into this some. This is in fact the data on the shelf that should have been put into this national computer base that then if it had been, would have some value, not -- we could still continue to analyze it further, but that would have been a value that is significant that we've lost to the state. I'm sorry. MR. HUGHES: Well, I would maintain that that's exactly correct. But even more importantly, from your perspective, the State of Florida every two years is required under the Clean Water Act to essentially prepare a report card, what's the condition of our water, and report back to congress. Without that data, the quality and accuracy of their report card is not nearly as good as it should be. But I want to emphasize to you today that that's water over the dam. We want to partner with -- the Environmental Protection Agency wants to partner with Collier County and Lee County to improve the entry of that data and to do a, I want to emphasize, joint evaluation of what those historical data trends say. We don't want to take the data and run off to Atlanta or West Palm Beach or anywhere else. And let me just hit on a couple points, okay? Our analysis of the existing data that we had accessed does show gradual trends in degradation over the last three decades. With the type of development that is occurring in these two counties, some of the highest growth rates in the United States, it's not a big shock if we see substantial pollutant loading going on. But there are so many questions that need to be asked that we really can't answer at the current time. And we need to partner with the counties. And in fact, I want to emphasize, I have had conversations with Dr. Yilnaz and technical people at the Lee County level, and I want to emphasize to you that they have been polite and to the extent that they were capable of, cooperative. Very briefly, stormwater -- non-point source stormwater loading of water bodies is not a water quality problem that's indigenous to Southwest Florida or the State of Florida or the United States of America. It is the single biggest issue that stands in front of us in Page 32 October 26, 1999 terms of dealing with water quality pollution. To cut to the chase, I want to emphasize that we did appear before the Lee County commission in August. My big boss, John Hankinson, who some of you probably know, did write a letter to Chairman Ray Judah on October the 14th. We intend to write a very similar letter, Chairwoman, to you in the next couple of days. That letter is an extension of our interest to work with you all, if necessary. And we anticipate to provide some matching resources to work with your natural resource department. And we want to do this with the full cooperation and involvement of the local offices of DEP and the Water Management District. With that, I think we want to just close by saying we are very open to comments, technical and otherwise, on the quality of the water quality analysis that appears in the document. I'm not going to stand in front of you today and say that's the most accurate, scientifically valid water quality analysis that's been conducted, because I know it hasn't been. But I think we can work to make it better. And most importantly, I think what we really want to do is to focus our attention on the areas that need attention. Is it the older development, is it the older urban development, is it the new development out in the suburbs? We will be working with DEP and Collier County on a -- what's called an MPDS Stormwater Program. I've met with Mr. Boldt. That's going to be a huge project and we need to do it in cooperation. And frankly, we need to use some common sense and focus our limited resources on the areas that's going to give the citizens of Collier County the most benefits. And with that, I just want to thank you once again for your time and emphasize that we're here to work with you in the open, in a consensus fashion, and craft an action plan where we can focus on where are the problems, are there problems, and if so, how can we most effectively use our resources to address them. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. And I have to say, I really look forward to receiving that letter. I had hoped that as I saw the one that went to Commissioner Judah, something similar would be coming in Collier County. And perhaps, Mr. Fernandez, that correspondence, along with the offer from The Conservancy, would be something that we could use to craft, if we are going to see matching dollars coming from the feds, and matching offer coming from the Conservancy, maybe that's what we could use as the impetus for some budget amendments so that we can accept the offer of this federal participation. That would be my view. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a word of thanks. I know we get it locally, I'm sure as a federal employee you get it more than we do, that people distrust government in general. It's just very, very encouraging to hear you say golly, we don't have the most accurate information, if you can help us with that, we're more than willing to Page 33 October 26, 1999 work to make sure we've got the best information possible. It's encouraging to have the Corps say we'll give you an extra couple of months to do what we need to do there. I know we've had frustrations along the way. And when we all get done, we may still disagree on some items. But John and everybody have been great to work with along the way, and I appreciate your comments as well. So I think it's very encouraging when we hear you and when our local residents, here again, the local forum saying, you know, we just want to make sure we have the best information possible. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chair -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- I think I heard a number of things from this gentleman's report this morning -- I thank you for what you said -- that we have several entities within our group. We need to be making sure that everybody is working together. I hear John Boldt mentioned, I hear -- of course, we've got David Guggenheim from The Conservancy. We have a number of opportunities to work with you to make sure that we all have a task force here to get to where we need to be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And that we don't end up with just one group doing one thing, another group doing something else. Let's get it all pulled together. I think that's a challenge to our county manager. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And to this board. Because I think you'll hear, as I hear and I'm sure you do, that this is -- water quality is the most important issue we've got facing us as we have this level of growth in Collier County. It's the challenge. And that's -- it's so encouraging to know we'll have partners as we work on it. Thank you. Anything else, board members? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If not, then we will take what's now about a 10-minute break, and we'll be back at a quarter till. (Brief recess.) Page 34 RESOL~LITION NO. 99 - 4 0 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REQUESTING THAT THE ARMY CORPS OF ~NGiNEERS EXTEND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON IMPROVING THE REGULATORY PROCESS IN SOUTHWEST FLORDA, ISSUED IN JULY, 1999, FOR AN ADDITIONAL 72 DAYS TO JANUARY 15, 2000; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") has undertaken an Environmental Impact Study for Southwest Florida to study the impacts of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting program on the area; and WHEREAS, the Corps has issued the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement on improving the Regulatory Process in Southwest Florida" ("Draft EIS") in July, 1999; and WHEREAS, testimony at public hearings held to provide for public comment on the Draft EIS indicates the following: 1. The Corps did not have a complete understanding of the extent and quality of Collier County's existing database for surface water quality within the County nor did it use the database in reaching its determinations regarding water quality within Collier County, relying instead on stale or insufficient data; and 2. The Draft EIS appears to adopt a preferred land use cover alternative map in Appendix H for the application of permit review criteria and any land use proposed that does not meet the requirements set forth in that map will be presumed not to meet the Corps permitting criteria even though the Draft EIS does not purport to adopt a preferred land use alternative; and 3. The Draft EIS does not include any analysis of the impacts of the Draft EIS on the adopted Future Land Use Map of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan even though the Draft EIS provides for preferred alternative land uses in its land use alternatives maps and the permit review criteria map in Exhibit H; and 4. The Draft EIS does not include any valid or scientifically supported analysis of the economic impacts of the Draft EIS if implemented, and the economic sustainability factor included in the Alternatives Development Group report likewise does not meet the requirements for such an analysis under any reasonable standard; and WHEREAS, additional comments and discussion with Corps staff is necessary to - address these shortcomings in the Draft ElS prior to the Corps preparing a Final EIS; OCT 2 6 1999 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The Board requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, extend the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Improving the Regulatory Process in Southwest Florida, issued in July 1999, for an additional 72 days to January 1 $, 2000. 2. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. DULY CONSIDERED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this ~(./~r~day of C.Q~ ,1999. DWIGHT'E. BROCK, CLERK gttest as to Chalrmatt'$ stgaature on15. Approved as to form and Legal sufficiency D-avld-C.-weigel County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ~ j PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIR/WOMAN / October 26, 1999 Item #8A1 REDIRECTION OF AD HOC COLLIER COUNTY CENSUS 2000 COMPLETE COUNT COHMITTEE - STAFF TO PROCEED AND IMPLEMENT COSTS FOR THE PRIVATE INITIATIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Call the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners back to order, October 26th, 1999. And we're to Item 8(A) (1), which is with regard to the census. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Very important item. Get us going, Stan, please. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and commissioners. This morning we'd like to update you on our progress and successes and some of our needs that we have and efforts to achieve a complete count in Collier County for the 2000 census in the coming months of March and April of the coming year 2000. I'd like to point out to you that we were before you about a year ago at this time, at which time the board adopted a resolution establishing the Collier County Census 2000 Complete Count Committee. In the meantime, we've had numerous efforts to solicit interested parties to participate in a 15-member complete count committee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move staff's recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I was just going to ask that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any discussion on -- Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, the only update I have is that we had been optimistic that Lee County was going to join with us and share the cost 50/50, based upon just a preliminary discussion I'd had with their county administrator there. I have since learned that they're going to have their own independent effort. So I just wanted to update the board on that, that they'll be doing their own. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that likewise, I'd had some question about whether or not it was appropriate, because it is so essential to Collier County that we do a Collier County effort. So do we need to make any change in our motion? Is that a change in the staff direction, any of the dollar amounts, for example? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't believe so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So without their 50 percent match, we still have enough money? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think we can hear a little more on that subject from Tom Conrecode, who had initially suggested this dollar amount, based upon the information that he had from the Southwest Florida Transportation Initiative. It may be possible that the balance can be raised from other sources as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: If I might add, Madam Chairwoman -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, please. Page 35 October 26, 1999 MR. LITSINGER: -- Dawn Jantsch from the Chamber of Commerce also would like to make some comments this morning on this effort. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. So we'll hear from Mr. Conrecode and Ms. Jantsch and other registered speakers. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe, Madam Chair, whatever the cost is, I think we will get that back. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Times 50. Times 1,000. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I am convinced that this is an investment that will pay off many times over. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Tom, since you've got a convinced staff and a convinced board, could you just tell us whether or not the budget amendments amounts that we have here, 25,000 and 75,000, considering Lee County's not participating in a joint effort, is that sufficient? MR. CONRECODE: If I could answer -- or if I could comment before I answer the question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: Upon hearing that the county administrator and Lee County wanted to take a different tact on this and did not want to participate with Collier in an outreach campaign, as we've outlined it in here -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Tom Conrecode, for the record. MR. CONRECODE: Tom Conrecode, for the record. I'm sorry. I'm used to that podium. I took it upon myself last Friday to speak with the chairman of the Lee County Commission and ask him if they had been briefed by the county administrator. The answer to that was no. In outlining some of the history on this, he was very interested and asked me to send the same outline to him that we had presented to Mr. Fernandez. I have since done that. He said that he would review it and then make a decision whether or not he wanted to bring it upon their agenda for discussion. One of the key elements in addressing the budget for this, we had spoken with a consultant that specializes in media campaigns and outreach, whether they're on the public side -- and this agency has done public things, for instance, for the Water Management District, and they've also done campaigns and a number of other issues. Because of the market in Southwest Florida, it really is essentially a combined market. If you put a message on the radio, whatever your favorite radio station happens to be, it reaches everybody in Collier County. The reason that we're -- the reason that this is important in terms of both counties, is both counties in the unincorporated area have the potential to cross the 200,000 population threshold in their unincorporated areas, which is essential to becoming an enterprise community or entitlement community under federal law, which increases the amount of revenues that become available to you. The interest from the Southwest Florida Transportation Page 3 6 October 26, 1999 Initiative's perspective is your road funding, the federal road revenues that come down and the state dollars that come down to your level, though your MPO allocates to projects are in part population based. That's what our interest is. And it's a very selfish interest on our part. But the county's benefit is far greater than just the additional funding for roads. And that's how we got involved in this. You have the packet. I could go into a great amount of detail in terms of the return on investment for every additional head count that you get. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we're sold already. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we're sold on it. The question is do we have enough dollars, Tom, to do that in your proposal with Lee opting to do their own initiaHive? MR. CONRECODE: I don't think it is. I think the budget needs to be roughly $150,000 for the outreach campaign. However, we can look at that in a number of ways. If Collier County wants to go out and try to get it all done under public service announcements and not buy any air time, then the budget is probably substantially reduced. You then have less control over how you reach out, the timing of those messages and so forth. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't have an interest in doing public service announcements only, I have an interest in a serious full-fledged media campaign, because it's going to pay off tens of hundreds. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want results and whatever it takes to do it, let's do it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: I see that we really have two choices. We can either today change the budget amount to $150,000, which is what we think the full-fledged ad campaign will take, or we can wait to see if there is some hope that Lee County will join us if there is an interest in a joint effort. If there's no interest in a joint effort, that you're feeling that our needs here are relatively unique, then the first option is the option that we should pursue and put the necessary funding in place to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would the motion maker consider increasing COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- to $150,000, the budget? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would -- what I would consider is combining both suggestions, that we increase our budget to 150,000, plus continue to try to come with up with an arrangement with Lee County to cooperate and where we both get better bang for our buck. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to see two of the Lee commissioners in the next few days, so I will speak with each of them about it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you second his motion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second it. Page 37 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I just want to have that clearly on the floor before we go to the next speaker. MR. CONRECODE: If I could comment just one final comment. Between Lee and Collier County, we're estimating that there's 170,000 part-time residents that could be counted in your population count. Now, not all of them are going to check the box that says they reside in Lee or Collier County. Some of them are going to continue to check the box for Ohio or Michigan or Minnesota or wherever it happens to be. But the potential that we can draw upon is 170,000 estimated part-time residents. So thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. And we'll hear from Ms. Jantsch. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I promise you at a quarter to 3:00 today, I'll talk to one of those part-timers about it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you're at the airport on time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. MS. JANTSCH: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I would first like to start out by commending the county staff who we have worked with on the census and especially the members of the board for recognizing the importance of this. As it is obvious, Collier County has recognized how important the census is to our immediate area in terms of state and federal dollars. For the record, Dawn Jantsch, Naples area Chamber of Commerce. As you noted in your position paper prepared by Mr. Conrecode, in Collier County the per capita allocation was $3,500 for 1994, which was the most recent estimate we could get. We estimate that would be $4,200 for the year 2000. I'd like to read a section to you that was printed in the March/April, 1999 issue of National Voter, published by the League of Women Voters. In Miami, there was more than 6,400 children under the age of 18 missed in the 1990 census. That equals eight schools staffed by 350 teachers that are missing funding every year. Every child not counted by the census means that $650 of federal resources is not going to a school, which must still educate a child. In Miami, that's four million dollars each year that the schools are missing because children are being undercounted. I must say that in the recent weeks the letter that you received regarding the missing 20,000 people that were not counted in Collier County, I tried to calculate the estimated funding from that, and my calculator broke. Thank you for your motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Dawn Clark, and then Chuck Mohlke is the next. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good morning. MS. CLARK: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Dawn Clark, and I reside here in Naples. And I would like to say that I really appreciate every day I wake up and I'm just blessed to live in such a wonderful area. I moved down here two and a half years ago from Pennsylvania, which is also a very beautiful area, but I'm awfully lucky now. Anyway, I live here with my daughter. I'm a single parent and Page 38 October 26, 1999 currently am renting. And what I would like to address the board with today are issues of lighting out in Golden Gate Estates, streetlights. Now -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If I could pause you for just one second. Have we called her under the appropriate item? Because we're discussing the census at this point. It may be that you wanted to talk on public comment on general topics. MS. CLARK: Okay. Well, the reason I wanted to talk in this area under the census was one, the surplus that the county is going to realize from the discrepancy in the numbers of the census, with federal aid and extra funding that now will be available. The dollar amount I read was 20 million dollars there may be a surplus for miscalculation on the census? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we expect to be getting a check, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I haven't seen an estimate of 20 million dollars, no. I think the expectation is that we will receive considerable additional funding in allocations from federal agencies as a result of a more accurate count. But I haven't seen -- MS. CLARK: So that's why I chose this area to speak under, because it seems that there will be additional funding coming from state and federal agencies. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if so, you've got some ideas on how to spend it. MS. CLARK: Yes, I do. And also, I have an idea on how to spend the three million dollar cheCk you got from the friendly tax collector. But anyway -- and that is what I would like to request of the board is that -- and I'm sure this is -- I've been here two and a half years, but I've heard that this is an issue that has been presented before, put for discussion. I don't know if there's been a facility study or a feasibility study, a cost analysis on how much it would cost the county, taxpayer dollars, to put lights out in the Estates. Now, the reason I'm looking into the Estates, because it's an area where as a single parent I may be able to build a house. And that is my goal, is to be able to purchase property and build a house out there. I also work out in Golden Gate Estates, and it's an area that I plan on -- you know, and I have friends out there, too. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, maybe I can help you with this. You know, the county doesn't pay for streetlights. We have a county-wide -- almost county-wide street lighting district, which is a special taxing district that residents within that are taxed to pay for their own streetlights. The county does not go out and pay for people's streetlights. MS. CLARK: Okay. Who is -- is the county responsible for improvements, infrastructure? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Certain parts of it, but not all of it. MS. CLARK: Okay. Would not safety concerns and issues of -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're not going to convince this board to stop having a streetlighting district with these arguments, I don't Page 39 October 26, 1999 believe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, could I suggest that you have -- you bring some valid points to the board. And I appreciate that you would take the time and come and present these to us, especially from the perspective of a single mother who's looking to build a house for her family in Golden Gate Estates. What I think might be the best use of your time would be to meet with some staff members that Mr. Fernandez would direct you to. I'd also introduce you to Cheryle Newman, who's in the audience, who represents the Estates -- I'm sorry, Golden Gate, not the Estates. I always get that backwards, Cheryle, I'm sorry. But she could certainly introduce you to the right people who maybe you could get some strength in numbers to bring your arguments in a petition format or somehow to the board. But initially your time would be best spent, I believe, by working with the staff members that Mr. Fernandez would direct you to. MS. CLARK: I appreciate that. Because I wasn't really sure of the channels or where I needed to go, or -- you know. So that's why I came here this morning. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just might add, I don't know exactly what area you're talking about in the Estates. That happens to be the district -- MS. CLARK: Everglades, out. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Everglades? If it's further east, then you're actually out in ag. land, and you're probably not even in the Estates. MS. CLARK: No, it's not as far as that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, probably, you know, what you might want to look at very simply is just FP&L will put a light on a pole for you out there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we could get you some help. MS. CLARK: And I understand what Commissioner Norris is saying, and there's avenues to do that. But with the amount of money and the population out there -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MS. CLARK: -- and the amount of money that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MS. CLARK: -- generated with tax dollars -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MS. CLARK: -- I don't understand why the county can't put up streetlights. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because we don't do it that way. MS. CLARK: The other thing is, actually -- I'm a good driver, but actually I'm a little bit handicapped because I have night blindness, and when I get out there, I swear, I cannot find the street signs. I can't find anything -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm not -- MS. CLARK: -- there's no light -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- and I can't. Page 40 October 26, 1999 MS. CLARK: -- it's so dark. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I understand. MS. CLARK: But anyway, I appreciate -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? COMMISSIONER BERRY: With the improvement of Golden Gate Boulevard, may I just assure you that at least from 951 on out to Wilson, there's going to be some things out there, okay, so if we can get you -- MS. CLARK: Some more lights? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I'm going to just try to get control of this meeting again by asking you if you would to meet with Mr. Fernandez and he'll direct you to the appropriate people. MS. CLARK: I appreciate it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we appreciate your being here. MS. CLARK: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: I've already given Mr. Ilschner the nod and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- he'll be getting his -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right there. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- current information and making arrangements to get together with her. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you very much. Do we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Chuck Mohlke. MR. MOHLKE: I just appear in support of the motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Mohlke indicates he's here in support of the motion. Do we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any further discussion then on the motion on the floor? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: That motion did include the increase of the additional -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To 150. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Along with urging continuing to work with Lee County, if we can do that. Item #8A2 - Deleted Item #8A3 - Continued Page 41 October 26, 1999 Item #8A4 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDING FOR SOUTHWEST HERITAGE, INC. REs ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION OF THE LIONEL TOY TRAIN MUSEUM - DENIED Okay, Item 8(A) (4), tourist development funding for the Lionel Toy Train Museum. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to deny. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have several questions on the item. MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Greg Mihalic. Yes, the Tourist Development Council has recommended $17,000 in funding for the Lionel Train Museum, which is going to be at Naples Depot. The money would go for advertising in your Exhibit A, which lists the advertising that they hope to use it for. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are they here? MR. MIHALIC: Mr. Garner and Mr. Schwartz. MR. GARNER: Yes, for the record, I'm John Garner. I'm the president of Southwest Heritage, Inc., which is the Naples Depot. I'm not here to make a presentation, but I am willing to answer any questions that the board may have. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you very much. Commissioner Constantine and then Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many train museums of this sort are around? Because I've been to a few myself. But do you have any idea how many model train museums there are around the United States? MR. GARNER: I don't, but this is not a model train museum, this is a toy train museum. The difference between a model train and a toy train, model trains are scaled with landscaping made to look real. Toys trains are toys. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My mistake. MR. GARNER: But as far as we know -- as far as I know, there's not a toy train museum in Florida, at least not south of Interstate 4. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where are we going to advertise these? It talks about designing an ad. And then where will that advertisement be placed? MR. GARNER: The advertisement will be placed primarily in toy train and model train magazines. These are national publications. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And also has a line item for 5,000 brochures for each of two items. How will those be distributed and to whom? MR. GARNER: The final distribution isn't -- hasn't -- the determination of final distribution hasn't been made, but it's -- what we plan on doing is very similar to the slots that you see in various places around the city, around the county, around the state. In addition, there are some museums up north that have the very similar boxes, that we would attempt to place them there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: How many people would you anticipate that would come and see an exhibit like this during a year? MR. GARNER: Those numbers, I -- Walt Schwartz is our station Page 42 October 26, 1999 master, and he may have better information for that. But at the onset, I'm not sure. Initially it's going to be a lot of seasonal tourists. We hope to have the train museum opened at Christmas time. But what we want to do in the off-season is have events that will bring people into Naples and the Depot as a destination place. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And does this generate any revenue for the Depot? Do you charge for people to go through and see this exhibit? MR. GARNER: We eventually will charge, yes. In addition -- there are actually two projects. There is also on the drawing boards a seven and a half inch riding rail project, which is the other half of the request here. And yes, we will charge for that as well. Fees have not yet been determined. Initially when we open up the museum, for example, it's going to be a donation jar type of situation because it's not nearly ready. It's not complete. But yes, eventually it will be an admission facility. The Naples Depot is a 501C3 organization. We're on the national historic register. So the idea is to bring some people back to the Depot. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, I'm going to second the motion to deny. It sounds like it's kind of in the idea stage right now. There's is no specific plan for the brochures, no specific off-season plan. We have been I think appropriately so criticized in the past for approving items that were kind of feel-good items but weren't necessarily going to draw a whole lot of tourists in. And while this is a really neat idea, and you'll probably find me wandering around down there when it opens up, I don't know that it's an appropriate expenditure, particularly with the lack of specif -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Specificity. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. That's twice I can't do that. -- then I think we can't approve that. CHAIRWOSIAN MAC'KIE: Are there other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any discussion on the motion? I supported this at the TDC. As I recall, Greg, it didn't engender very many questions about whether or not it was a viable project. I think we were convinced at the TDC that it was indeed -- perhaps it would be better if we had the presentation made to the board that was made to the TDC, because it was very well presented and very well organized and we were completely confident that this was not a maybe this gets off the ground and maybe this draws some tourists to MR. GARNER: If I might add a few items. The infrastructure for these two projects have come from a benefactor, William yon Liebig. Mr. yon Liebig passed away last spring. He gave nearly $280,000 to the Depot to these two projects. Basically the only thing that is not funded by Mr. Van Liebig's contribution is staff and advertising. And that's why we have come Page 43 October 26, 1999 here today, to make up one of those two items; i.e., the advertising. The monies that have been donated will have -- will allow us to build the track, build the layout, purchase growing stock. So this is an item that was very dear to Mr. yon Liebig's heart, and he found a viable project. In addition, we hope to be able to acquire additional land to expand the riding rail. But this is a project that we are taking wholeheartedly. This is a room -- the northern end of the Depot, the Deutschbein Studio, this is a room that we have taken off the rental and we are converting to a museum. We have our museum -- we have two committees. We have a museum committee and we have a committee for the rolling rail system. Our museum committee consists of mostly retired gentlemen who are Lionel train aficionados. We have approval from the Lionel Train Company to use their name and logo. And so this is not something that we just decided last week to do. We have a majority of the money that we need. The $17,000 is approximately five percent of our entire funds. And so, you know, we have -- we have the means to put this museum together. And we think it's going to be a wonderful place and wonderful destination. And in order.to bring people out, we need to tell them it's here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Exactly. The presentation that we got at TDC was there's no question that this is a funded enterprise. This is going to go forward. The question is whether or not we use some TDC dollars to draw out-of-county residents by advertising among those people who apparently plan vacations around and travel specifically for this purpose. And, you know, the question is whether or not we're going to market this asset that will exist in Collier County. Are we going to market it to out-of-county residents. And the TDC was supportive of that, and I continue to be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and just reiterating, though, the two points. There's no specific plan for how or to whom to distribute those brochures, and there's no specific plan for off-season, which is what that money is supposed to go for. And so I agree completely, it's a neat idea, it does not meet the requirements we have to expend those TDC dollars. MR. GARNER: Well, as to off-season, I think advertising works year-round, including off-season. As I explained to the TDC -- I mentioned to the TDC, we plan on coming back and asking for a special event for something off-season. That is not what I'm here for today. But we plan on putting these advertising and these brochures around where they will be taken and seen in the off-season. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Greg? MR. MIHALIC: Well, I think the leverage was a factor here, that they had $250,000 and they were asking for 17. I think the TDC, which voted unanimously, this was a seed project. Of course, any special effects in the future will be integrated into the Tourism Alliance in conjunction with the advertising program that's going on county-wide. Page 44 October 26, 1999 But it was a unanimous vote by the TDC. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other questions, board members? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just one for clarification. Greg, is this the last year we're going to be seeing things like this? MR. MIHALIC: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Next year will be -- it will be coming to us as a complete plan of events -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and advertising? MR. MIHALIC: That will be presented at the April TDC meeting. There will be an integrated program of advertising and whatever special events they choose to fund. That will be rolled into your budget for the 2001 fiscal year. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Great. Because I'll tell you, this is just not good doing it like this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: It's hard to do it this way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. And frankly, it's one of the reasons we changed it is it's hard to say no to a great idea, but it doesn't meet the criteria we have. So then we either feel like bad guys or you don't follow the rules. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does advertising -- advertising -- is this in the category of dollars for off-season promotion? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, it is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the advertising would have to target off-season. And do you have any special ideas about how that targeting would be done? MR. GARNER: Well, we can specifically choose to put the advertising in the magazines in the off-season. That's no problem. The museum's going to be open year-round, so it's not like we can say, well, you know, come to the Depot only on these days, because we're going to be open year-round. Same thing for the brochures. But, you know, we can -- you've got to remember, if we put these things up north at other museums, people are there in the summertime, and that's when they're more likely to see these brochures. They're not going to be traipsing to a train museum in the dead of winter in Pennsylvania. So they're going to see these things in the off-season. And I remember when I was a kid, we took summer vacations to Florida, and, you know, people still do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, any other comments? COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's the whole point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If not, I'll call the question. The motion is to deny the request. All in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? Aye. Page 45 October 26, 1999 Motion passes 4 to 1. MR. GARNER: Thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Item #8A5 ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR. FOR NAPLES ITALIAN AMERICAN CLUB REQUESTING A WAIVER OF THE APPLICATION FEE FOR A VARIANCE - APPROVED (COMPANION TO ITEM 17F) Next is Item 8(A) (5), is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hold it, hold it, hold it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's Tony Pires' Italian-American Club waiver of the variance fee request. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't -- I'm not going to support this, because I don't believe we waive variance application fees for places like churches or Moose clubs or anything like this. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I thought we did. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought we did in this case because it was an eminent domain case that basically the waiver of these fees has been factored into the payment in the eminent domain. Am I right about that? MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning director. I can't answer the question as to whether the required fees for the variance have been factored into the payment. I can answer Commissioner Norris' question. I think the board has very rarely, in my recollection, granted a fee waiver in general, other than for temporary use permits, or maybe if there was some mitigating circumstances. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could I then ask that if it's okay, if no one objects strongly, let's continue this and hear it in conjunction with Item 17(F) so we can hear all of the facts that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It's a summary agenda item. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not going to hear it, it's already passed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, darn, 17, it's already passed. Okay, then we better hear from Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, members of the board, Tony Pires, of the law firm of Pires, Woodward and Lombardo. From the standpoint as to whether or not the filing fee was included as part of the compensation paid in the eminent domain action, Ms. Ashton can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it was. I believe that from the standpoint of the expenses to be incurred in following the variance application, the Naples Italian-American Club, our fee is being paid for by them outside -- you know, without any dollars being awarded as part of the eminent domain action. And from the standpoint of the variance application fee, I Page 46 October 26, 1999 believe that's also the case. We just thought it might be appropriate to ask this board in its good graces, considering that the only reason for the variance was because of the eminent domain action, that they grant the fee waiver. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What is the amount of the fee? COMMISSIONER BERRY: 425 -- MR. PIRES: $425. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Heidi, do you agree with his assessment? MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. Let me just give you a little bit of background on this real quickly. I would like to state that the County Attorney's Office has no objection to granting the waiver. This -- several months ago we had a mediation with the Italian-American Club, and as a result of that the county did award -- did give them the additional $28,900. And then there were some other conditions as well addressed in our mediation agreement. At 10:00 at night, as we were sitting down after we thought we had an agreement, we were negotiating a mediation settlement agreement that gets drafted, and that's when Mr. Pires asked for a waiver of the variance application. And I told him at that time that I could not approve that, and that he could go forward with the Board of County Commissioners and request a waiver. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So this is or is not? MS. ASHTON: But I would like to point out, there is a variance application for a 10-foot setback, as well as there's one additional leg to the variance application. And I can't really address whether that's required as a result of the eminent domain. MR. PIRES: Those have, I believe, already been approved under the summary agenda. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They have. MS. ASHTON: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My motion stands. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that was a motion to deny the request? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it's to approve. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the request. John, had you made a motion, or just indicated you were -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I just said I wasn't going to support it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So we have a motion to approve on the floor. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any discussion further? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. Page 47 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion passes 4 to 1. Next item is continued. We can go to the commercial excavation permit. Item #8A6 - CONTINUED TO 11/23/99 Item #8A7 COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.691 "FOREST PARK (HERON LAKES). BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE GOLDEN GATE CANAL (GOLDEN GATE CITY), ON THE SOUTH BY 1-75, ON THE EAST BY LAND ZONED AGRICULTURE, AND ON THE WEST BY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK AND BERKSHIRE LAKES PUD - CONTINUED TO 11/9/99 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, this is the item that I had asked we bring back for consideration. The whole thing is fine with the exception of Item 11, which if you read through is a 20-foot recreational easement with an eight-foot pathway shall be provided by developer along the canal. If you can picture where the existing park with a swimming pool is and there's a canal runs on the north side of that property all the way over to 951 and beyond. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What would it be used for? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, there's two things here. One, an excavation permit is not the right place for us to be extracting commitments from a developer for what they're going to do within the PUD. And two, this was not -- I've gone back and looked. This was not in the original forum. But most importantly, the developer has said gosh, I will commit to have a pedestrian path-through for bikes and walkers, but I'd like to do it on the sidewalks and along the roadways through the neighborhoods as opposed to taking what will be backyards, running this sidewalk along the edge of the canal. They've got a layout and a plan. They have an intent to use that canal. Obviously it would be an attractive backyard. And somebody's out barbecuing burgers in their backyard and people are wandering back and forth, that's probably going to dampen the thing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They could be hospitable and invite them in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two things. My suggestion, just as we reconsider it, is to still approve it but just without Item 11, and then give staff direction to go ahead. And I think there's someone here representing the developer that will reiterate the commitment that yes, they'll still have pedestrian pass-through. They even gave me a drawing of what they conceptually had seen for that. But I think that we can answer both questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Mulhere, questions? MR. MULHERE: Yes, Bob Mulhere, planning director. Of course, this may be -- Mr. Humphreyville is representing the property owner, and just a few minutes ago suggested that the property owner would be willing to continue this item for two weeks to meet Page 48 October 26, 1999 with representatives from the county to resolve the bike path issue and then bring it back to you. So I just thought that I needed to let you know that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's do that then. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind if the petitioner wants to continue, but for my money, if you make the commitment that there is a pathway through. I know there has been some issue about having the equipment out there and not being able to excavate. MR. HUMPHREYVILLE: Right. John Humphreyville with the law firm of Quarles and Brady. We represent the petitioner. My preference would obviously be to get the permit without any conditions today. And we'd like to sit down in the next 15 minutes and hammer out where that location of the bike access easement is going to be, but I don't think we're prepared to do that and I don't think the county's prepared to do that, which is why we offered the two weeks to see if we could come to some resolve on where we could locate the bike easements. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm more comfortable with the two weeks. MR. HUMPHREYVILLE: We've got no problem with providing access. The question is where would that access be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you want to wait two weeks, that's fine. Let me just ask a question of the board. Is there any interest in making Item 11 say that there will be some access provided from west end to east end? Let you all hammer that out for the next two weeks but not be specific as to where it is. MR. HUMPHREYVILLE: So long as if we can't hammer it out two weeks from now we're back here arguing that it doesn't belong there at all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. And that way you can go ahead and start digging if you need to and we'll be -- if you don't have the agreement, we'll be back here in a couple of weeks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that sufficient direction to staff? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion in that regard. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Second. Second. Ail in favor, please say aye. That passes unanimously. Item #8A8 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAST TRACK ECOMONIC GROWTH INITIATIVE - PRESENTED We can talk about the Florida Department of Transportation Fast-Track Economic Growth Initiative. I think we heard a lot about Page 49 October 26, 1999 this already, individually probably, but it would be good to hear from Gavin. MR. JONES: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Commissioners. My name is Gavin Jones with the Metropolitan Planning Organization. I provided you some backup information about the source of the grant and the method by which the money will be awarded. I don't have anything to add at this time except that MPO staff will be preparing an application for the project development environmental phase of widening Interstate 75 from County Road 951 to State Road 78 in Lee County. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions then for Mr. Jones? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No? If not, thank you for the update. We look forward to working on this and grabbing some of this money for Collier County. Thanks. Item 8 -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: In addition to this, the County Airport Authority has already made application. And this is separate -- this is all out of the same amount of money, right, Gavin? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gavin, the Airport Authority,s application is out of this pot of funds; am I correct about that? Just yell. MR. JONES: Yeah, the Airport Authority has actually -- has made two applications now, one for the customs facility that I had in my hand when I prepared the executive summary, and one for a cargo handling facility. So yeah, they'll be competing along with all the other applications in the state. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. Item #8B1 REPORT REGARDING ROAD IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY - STAFF TO REDIRECT GAS TAX MONEY TOWARD MAINTENANCE, LOOKING AT THE HIGHER NUMBERS - PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 14, 1999. Okay, Item 8(B) (1), just says that we're going to be getting a report on November 23rd on road impact fees. Is there more to that than this? MR. KANT: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, good. Because I wondered why we had a staff-- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We received the report today and have a public hearing on the 23rd. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me ask a question. Why would we receive the report today and then have a public hearing again later? Why would we do that twice? MR. FERNANDEZ: The intent is to give you a preview of the information and ask that the board establish the date for the public Page 50 October 26, 1999 hearing, so that we can go forward and present this to you formally in the form of an ordinance. I don't believe it's in ordinance form at this time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would assume that's because while you and I may see that, John Q. Public may not see this report otherwise. And by doing the presentation, then they've got three weeks to think about it and do a public hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go right ahead. MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners. Yes, this is a report, and I have to make one change in discussing the date of the proposed public hearing with the County Attorney's Office. They've indicated that we may have a timing issue to have adequate advertising, so we're going to request, as part of the recommendations, that the date be changed from November 23rd to December 14th, which will be your December meeting. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I ask one more question before you get started? Because this is my frustration here. Why do we have no backup on this item? MR. KANT: I believe that in the agenda item that we indicated we were going to provide a copy of the draft report, and that's my fault. If you wanted the draft earlier, I was hoping we could get it in a form that it would be publishable. Because once we provide it to you, it's becomes a public document. And frankly, I would not want to have anything in there that we could not back up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it safe to assume that's also why you're doing the presentation three weeks, now five weeks in advance of the public hearing? MR. KANT: We were hoping to be able to do it as a preview to you so that both you and the public and anybody that happens to see it will have something to think about. Mainly because we're advocating some significant changes in the existing ordinance. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, you also have some options in this presentation that you could give us some direction on and that will be then incorporated into the information brought to you in the public hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And my wish is that we had had some backup to be able to consider those options longer than the 15 minutes we'll spend on it today. MR. FERNANDEZ: I see. Madam Chairwoman -- MR. KANT: If you would like to have us postpone this -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- one more comment. This is an issue that the board has expressed a lot of eagerness in having this move forward as soon as possible. I know that we've put some pressure on the consultant to try and come to us as quickly as possible. And I believe the fact that the information is not in your backup is a function of the fact that we've tried to bring it to you at the absolute earliest date. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: The document was not in a final form at the time Page 51 October 26, 1999 to be able to do that, so it's an attempt to try and meet the expectations of the board to move quickly on this issue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if we have enough information to make decisions on the policy options today, then we could make those today. If not, we'll make them after some consideration. MR. KANT: May we continue? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. MR. KANT: Thank you. As pointed out in the executive summary, this was a contract that we entered into back in February of this year. And Tindale-Oliver is our consultant. I have asked Steve Tindale to come here and give you a very brief presentation with a preview of some of the issues and some of the things that we're going to be discussing at the public hearing. Steve? MR. TINDALE: Good morning. I'm Steve Tindale with Tindale-Oliver and Associates, 1000 North Ashley, in Tampa, Florida. Back up a little bit. This morning what we want to do is very briefly give you a little historical perspective of what's going on in the county and what has been going on; update the impact fee components, the items that change the rate that you charge for impact fees; show you some potential fees that come out of those changes; and then talk about a schedule in terms of future public meetings and hearings and a potential adoption of the changes. First thing I want to do is when we look at any county, we look at what role the impact fee may play in terms of the total revenue. And many counties with fairly large impact fees, impact fees may only make up 10, 15, 20 percent of the budget. The reason for that is that many of the counties in Florida are growing at one or two percent a year now. So if you're growing at one or two percent a year, that growth is not ever going make a major portion of your budget. Collier County, interestingly enough, is one of the very few counties I've seen that that's not the case. This chart here shows Collier County's growth historically, well beyond what the state has averaged. And you're currently running almost six percent -- excuse me, about four percent a year, and the state and counties all over the state I'm working with are below two percent. So you have substantial growth. That chart may be a little misleading. The total population changes that you're having this year are much higher than they were historically. But as a percentage of your current base, you're running about four percent a year. And that is still substantial growth in terms of your current growth rates. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But yet it appears it is less than from 1980 to 19907 MR. TINDALE: An example, in 1980, you were probably changing population by 2 to 3,000 people, and now you're 6,500. So the absolute population is twice what it was in the Eighties. But you've got a base that's being developed, and that base generates revenue. So when you're dealing with relationships, we look at percent Page 52 October 26, 1999 change rather than absolute. So two things you've got: One, you've got some good absolute growth. And you're still maintaining a fairly high percentage of that relationship to your base population. So I wanted to make sure you understood both of those things. I think that's important to understand as we move in, whether the impact fee in general is going to -- could play a fairly major role in terms of revenues. Your last update was 1992. We are looking at both transportation impact fees, emergency services and libraries. At this time we're going to be presenting the transportation impact fee, and again, a very brief overview of the items that are affecting that. The impact fee formula basically is you take what a new development consumes and demands, we multiply out what it costs to provide a unit, whether it's a gallon of water or a vehicle mile of capacity, and that gives you the gross fee. And then we give a credit for the taxes that are being generated. So in theory the impact fee is the differential between your tax rate and what it really costs you to provide that development, the facility. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I want to pause you just for a second, because I think that's such an important point that people misunderstand, that when new property comes on line, there is credit given for the property taxes that will be generated by that property in calculating the impact fee. It's not a one-time shot that everybody -- that ignores property taxes. There is a credit for that in the basic calculation, in the formula that underlies the assessment of the impact fees, and I think that's important. MR. TINDALE: For libraries and EMS, it will clearly be a property tax and for transportation, it's the gas tax revenue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good point. Thank you. MR. TINDALE: Going into that formula, what I wanted to do very briefly is show you the thing that is affecting first the cost part of it and providing the service on the facility itself. I'll find my little curser. I just went the wrong way, didn't I? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There we go. MR. TINDALE: The cost. The actual cost during the last nine to 10 years, the actual construction cost index, has been relatively flat. The kind of the bluish color shows you the change in the physical cost in terms of building a road. The thing that's affected people all over the State of Florida and all over the country is the right-of-way. And that's what we wanted to show you. The big change here is the right-of-way. Back in the Eighties and the early Nineties, right-of-way was about 20 percent of the construction cost. And now in many communities is equal to it. And in some counties they are requiring us to use right-of-way costs that exceed the cost for construction. So you're typical of what we're experiencing all over the State of Florida, and that is that the change in the last nine years has been the relationship of your construction costs to your right-of-way costs. And that's a driving factor in the update. Page 53 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this a Florida chart or a Collier County chart? MR. TINDALE: That's Collier County, taking your -- what we did basically is took your 1991 construction costs, put the right-of-way at about 20 percent, and then showing your construction costs to right-of-way. And right now about 85 percent, 90 percent. And in many counties, they're actually exceeding it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. TINDALE: The next chart is the revenue side, the credit side. And the gas tax really is kind of a contracting revenue. I guess one way to look at that is for years I've wondered why when we have more congestion on the road can't we build more roads, because the revenue should be up. The tax on gasoline is per penny, it's not a percentage of value. And what's happened to us is from the Fifties to now, and I've just pointed this out, the fuel efficiency has increased by more than double. So if you can think of a road operating at Level Service B or C generating revenue years ago, now would have to be the same revenue comes when that road's running at E or F, because of this fuel efficiency. So that's one reason as we've grown and we've become more congested that the gas tax is a good source of revenue, but it's clearly because of fuel efficiency become less efficient in terms of the revenue it generates for that background. It kind of explains to you why -- why is it when we urbanize and we become more congested we can't respond to it? We have this process of where the revenues are actually being reduced per mile of travel. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That certainly answers part of the question when people say well, why doesn't gasoline taxes pay for everything? You have certainly answered that for me this morning. MR. TINDALE: You'd love to see that -- any tax source you'd like to see expanding, not extracting. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The good news in Collier County is we've got a lot of those big Caddies on the road -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- so maybe -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, we're doing our best to try to get those -- MR. TIN-DALE: The cost. Just to give you an idea of how we calculate the cost, we build the medians, we build the lanes, and we have to pay for the right-of-way. Those items we're estimating right now at about a million-six. To add one lane of roadway is about a million-six. Not both of them, just one lane for one mile. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One lane for one mile? MR. TINDALE: Exactly. 1.6 million dollars is what it costs you. And again, remember, about 85 to 90 percent of that is the right-of-way. And I don't think that's going to change over time. I think if anything, it's going to get worse. That one lane you build for that one mile can handle about 8,600 cars in terms of the traffic at your level of service standard. So Page 54 October 26, 1999 basically it costs you a million-six, and now you can handle 8,600 cars. A single-family home generates about -- generates 10 trips. But the mileage it generates is about 55 miles. So I put that 55 miles on that one lane, rather than having it all over the place, to show you. So now one home consumes 55 miles of travel and a lane can handle 8,600. You take that relationship, that percentage, and you calculate that that one home is consuming about $3,400 worth of that capacity. So it's fairly straightforward in terms of consumption. This is what it costs when you put that travel on the road and you consume that in terms of the impact fee. That's the gross impact fee, without any credit at this time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Question about -- the assumption then would be that in my house there's 55 vehicle miles driven a day? MR. TINDALE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, there's not at my house. I mean, that seems really high. MR. TINDALE: You have about 10 trips a day out of your home on the average. This is the average home, has about 10 trips a day and you travel about five miles. So it's about 55 miles -- excuse me, yeah, it's 10 trips and you take the 55 miles. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just surprised. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do 30 miles alone just coming down and going home from here to the office. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I'm just lucky. All right, thanks. MR. TINDALE: One thing we're talking about is taking that demand and moving to a sizable home. There's been some issues raised about potentially looking at affordable housing. We cannot base an impact fee based on income or anything else. But if the impacts are different and we can show that, then we can base a fee on that. We have data that indicates that the smaller home under 1,500 -- and these numbers right now are estimates we're actually going to do in the next few weeks. We're going to do a travel study, do traffic counts, and come up with a local trip generation in this county to be sure these are correct. So these could change up and down. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's an excellent concept, if that's legally defensible. That's something we've been looking for for a long time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you say these can change up and down some time in the next couple of weeks, just as you get more exact figures? MR. TINDALE: Yeah, the final trip generation rates will be plugged in and give you the number in terms of the numbers that -- but we do want to get in here and at least get the ideas to you and give you an order of magnitude of where we are. We're not talking about 50 percent changes in the numbers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. MR. KANT: If I could just -- Edward Kant. If I could just make one comment to that. Page 55 October 26, 1999 We have had, as you're aware, over the last few years a number of requests for alternative road impact fees for some of our typical, if you will, developments. And some of the trip rates that we're seeing do differ significantly from some of the national averages. And that's why we've asked Mr. Tindale to confirm that for Collier County. So the numbers you're going to see today are our estimates, but there could be a few percent difference, depending on what his final findings are. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. TINDALE: The trend basically is the smaller home is about five and a half trips, the medium-sized home, close to seven and a half, eight trips, and the large-sized homes, nine to 10 trips. So that's -- there is a significant range which then would give you a significant change or differential in the impact fee. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the correlation? Why a large house, more trips? MR. TINDALE: Income. I think the basic studies have shown as the income goes up, that the number of trips go up. So then the income and the size of house is a very strong relationship in terms of your financial ability to mortgage, et cetera, in those relationships. But the driving force is income. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be interested to see information to back that up. Because I would assume your middle, the 1,500 to 2,500, would most likely be your families. Somebody who's got two or three kids and is running around, they are more likely to generate, in my guesstimate, a lot of trips than somebody who lives here in retirement on the water in Port Royal. And that Port Royal house may be 7,000 square feet, but they're not going to generate as many trips as somebody with three or four kids. And I just -- I'll be interested to see the information to back that up. MR. TINDALE: The biggest thing on the income is the same four people in a large home and four people in the middle-sized home, the one that has the higher income is going to generate more trips. And that's usually the driving force is the income. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That will be interesting. Because that, like I said, is something I hoped we could find, but -- MR. TINDALE: In the early Eighties, it was persons per household. And there's absolutely a difference between the persons per household on the average. Not on everyone, but on the average. And they're finding now that people are traveling further and the person per household is coming down and the trips are still out there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. TINDALE: To summarize the cost, the cost because mainly of the right-of-way, we're changing that number by about 90 percent in terms of cost. And there's a credit issue in terms of how we apply the credit issue. And it's our understanding that you have both a five-cent gas tax and a six-cent gas tax. So some of the alternatives we're going to show you is we're going to assume that you do not have those -- if you do not re-adopt those gas taxes, what it would do in terms of the impact fees. Page 56 October 26, 1999 I 9uess this is the one everybody,s very interested in lookin9 at. On the left side tells you the type of use, single-family. Now, what we did in Collier here is we broke it into those three sizes to give you an idea of just the order of magnitude, how that would affect by size. And we give you a couple of other examples of uses: Light industrial, office, hotel and a retail at about 200,000 square feet. The next column showed you the current fee. And then we show you two columns. One would be assumin9 that the current gas tax was readopted for the next 20 years and just kept reoccurring. And the second was if you dropped the sixth and the fifth cent, if you dropped that 11 pennies, what would it do to the impact fee in terms of its effect. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so you know, we just renewed the sixth cent for 16 years, so that's done. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So why is that there? MR. KANT: Edward Kant again. But at the same time, based on per -- or existing budget policy, we are beginning to move some gas tax to maintenance, which would not be available for capital. So the effect is basically the same. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it really needs to be in maintenance. That's what the original intention of the tax was. MR. KANT: Well, it's -- we only have so many resources around. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Got it, yeah, boy. MR. TINDALE: Yeah, this is assuming capital. And what we're doing there is taking the five out and then over time removing the sixth cent, is what would occur. So those are the two ranges we've come up with. We've also -- showing you we took the counties surrounding you, just to show you the current fees that they've adopted. I've seen numbers in the state lower than this and I've seen numbers higher than this, significantly higher than this. But those are the three that were the closest to you and we thought that was the ones you'd probably be the most interested in. What does that do in terms of revenue? If you remember, I mentioned to you that you're one of the few counties I've worked in that have the substantial growth and a growth rate. We've plotted out your impact fee revenues since the adoption of the fee. And this is one graph in terms of projecting the future. We're still, I think, going to have some more work to do to get more comfortable with it. But it looks like we're running five and a half to six million dollars for several years. The last three years, the impact fee numbers have come up dramatically. And it's my understanding your permitting has come up. I just did some quick numbers and it seemed like that maybe your permitting is back up to where it used to be or something, because about 6,500 population is about 3,000 homes, and that's about what you've been pulling for a year or two. So we're still talking about, you know, was the last three years typical for the future or do we use the last five or six years? Page 57 October 26, 1999 But what I did is took the last three years and divided it by three to come up with an average to project in the future. And what we're saying is that if you'd go to that first column, of which you've got all of your gas tax, we're talking about moving up to almost 14 million dollars a year in impact fees. And if you go to the second column, we're talking about looking at 18, 19, start pushing 20 million dollars a year in impact fees. And I can tell you, that is very substantial in terms of a program. You take a 20-year program times 20 years -- 20 million dollars in 20 years, and you've got some money available to build some roads. So that's very significant. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I pause you on that for a second and ask that at some point, if not today, but soon -- I have been saying because I've been learning here that no matter what, we can't get impact fees high enough to address the road building needs of the county, the deficit in the capital projects. Is that perhaps not true? If we move all of the gas tax eventually to maintenance, which is where I think it belongs and, therefore, went with this future high column and had 20 million dollars in 20 years, might we eliminate the need for the sales tax for road projects? Somebody needs to do the math to tell us what the deficit is and what the math on 20 million for 20 years bonded, perhaps, would be. MR. KANT: Okay, bonded, perhaps. But the basis that we're -- we've been working with still continues to show that the impact fees -- and again, keeping a rational nexus between trips generated and trip length and percent new trips -- is still not going to cover the entire nut. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But if you get us at -- I'm going to need numbers. If you'd get -- I need to see, assuming future high, okay, that's the 20 -- almost 20 million for 20 years. Assuming future high on this chart, or whatever the numbers eventually become, what is that mathematically compared to what is the deficit? MR. KANT: Okay. The caution that I would put forward -- and we can work on those numbers -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gotta have that number. MR. KANT: -- but I think it's important to recognize that as Mr. Tindale points out, in order to give you some estimates, in capital letters, we've taken the last three years' building permits and used that as a basis to extrapolate the estimates. If there's a significant change that later this year, next year, the year after -- and that's entirely possible, depends on market conditions, it depends on things we have no control over -- then those numbers could change. So I just want to make sure that I caution you that this is not what's going to happen but it's one scenario. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I understand that. I do understand they're based on the estimates. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's equally important to remember, though, if there was some drastic change and growth slowed down dramatically here the need for some of those new road lane miles that Page 58 October 26, 1999 we're projecting out 10 years from now could be altered as well. MR. KANT: That's also a possibility. But frankly, Commissioners, I'm so fond of pointing out at every opportunity, we only have about seven major north-south routes and seven major east-west routes, and we don't have a lot of opportunities for new corridors. And since we have limited alternatives in travel, I would submit to you that we're -- and since our vehicle miles travel because of new attractors and new residents, I think that a lot of our problems of trying to provide for that travel growth is still going to be out there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not so sure that I agree with that, Commissioner. I am more where Ed Kant's going with this, and right-of-way, acquisition costs and everything. We're not talking one or two years here. I'm looking at 15, 20 years. And I think that -- don't want to get misled by some projections on projected growth, you've got to build it before you collect it. I want a real hard program that tells me what we need to do, not only in road, stormwater management, facilities, how much can come off the impact fees, how much we have to do in taxation processes, so that we can make the policy decisions on this board that affect this community that may be 20, 25, 50 years out. I think that's where we are and why we're doing this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. I just didn't want the impression to be made that if we had this sudden plummet in impact fees because growth dramatically decreased or stopped, that that wouldn't have any impact on that 20-year plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And my reason for commenting is I would be shocked if the answer to the question is you're right, we don't have to do sales tax, because impact fees are going to take care of it. I would be flabbergasted. But I want to be completely confident that we have as completely calculated that possibility as possible. I'd like to -- if I'm going to go on the road saying please vote for a sales tax, to know that I can as honestly as possible say to people, if you don't vote for the sales tax we're going to have to do this with property tax. And I want it to be for them to have the confidence that we have carefully evaluated that and thoroughly reviewed it. And that's the reason for my question. I'll be surprised if that's the answer, but I need to know. MR. KANT: I appreciate that, Commissioner. And that is the value of this airing of this preview. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But don't forget now that there's a big difference between what we have to do under our concurrency rules, what we have to do, and the road network from a functionality and a cost standpoint that we would like to have. And that's where we start talking about quality of life and the sales tax and how those two interrelate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And again, I think if the concurrency rules don't meet the expectations of the community, the concurrency rules Page 59 October 26, 1999 need to be changed, because that's the only real hammer to stop the growth if we don't build the roads. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Getting back to changing the concurrency -- MR. KANT: Before Mr. Tindale finishes up -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: bring in extra dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Whoop, one at a time. Changing the concurrency rules does not No. You've got to do something to bring in the But -- That's my point. -- changing the concurrency rules would stop, for example, Immokalee Road development. We see Immokalee Road as a road that we have to improve ahead of the curve on concurrency rules. We see that because the concurrency rules haven,t put up the big stop sign that says no more homes until this road is improved. If we change the level of service on Immokalee Road, it would -- the congestion would have been prevented. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What you're proposing has been done before, thankfully, in Sarasota, and it's a nightmare that they'll never recover from. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we'll continue to debate that one. But on today's agenda, we'll get back on -- MR. KANT: Before Mr. Tindale finishes up with his presentation, which I assure you is reaching a conclusion, I want to point out that when we're talking about this program and the many millions of dollars that we're going to generate or not generate or need, one of the things that we're basing all of this on is our current program, our current needs. We have not factored in the "I" word; that is, the interchanges that we've talked about. Keeping in mind that these are large single-point structures which have a large cost associated with them. What we're looking at are basically road projects, as opposed to interchange projects. And after we get a better handle on our interchange needs, which we will do this year through the study that we're commissioning, then we will be able to factor that and crank that in. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, we'll get you back on track. Thank you. MR. TINDALE: Well, again, I will highlight that it is critical we look at that last three years. And before we start talking about projecting anything, we'll go back through with a budget staff and review that. We're also developing an administrative manual that will be used for the whole -- the total impact fee program, not just transportation. It will provide guidance in the managing the program itself. It will establish the procedures to follow in terms of administering the program, independent fee calculations, pre-application meetings, any type of appeal process, et cetera. Page 60 October 26, 1999 And basically the development community then understands in advance what the rules are and sees a consistency in terms of the application, the rules of the program. So that manual is also being developed. In terms of the schedule, we did mention that we're going to collect the local travel data in terms of the trip generation rates and some of the characteristics. The administrative manual will be coming to you. And then we're -- I think there's a December 14th proposal to have the first hearing. And again, what we presented today is clearly just preliminary numbers to get out to the public and then from that, and your comments, will be modifications in terms of anything we present at a public hearing. MR. KANT: And as usual, if there are any questions, we'll be glad to try to answer them for you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Board members, questions? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm glad to hear that you're doing a manual process so that we all get on the same page. Because periodically the clerk comes to us with questions and a different approach to what we've been doing. And I would hope that this manual will cut down on the conflicts that arise between the clerk and between the county. MR. KANT: Yeah, we developed some internal procedures a couple of years ago in response to one of the audits. And the manual that you're going to see is -- I believe will be much more comprehensive. We have, as you're aware, eight different fees and about 14 different ordinances, and we want to get them all brought up and put into one package so that everybody is reading off the same page. We would ask that the board provide us with direction to go forward with the public hearing on December 14th. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would make that motion that we do that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez, before we vote on the motion, you indicated there might be some policy directives we would need to give prior to that. MR. FERNANDEZ: We had talked about in the presentation a range of fees based upon the assumptions of gasoline tax and so forth. There's one scenario that anticipates the gas tax sunsetting in the year 2003. The other scenario -- the other end of the spectrum is if the gas tax is reauthorized. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And even if the -- an important distinction that I heard that I want to be clear about is, we have reauthorized, as Commissioner Constantine said, one portion of the tax, but whether it's reauthorized or not, I think the board has made a policy direction already that we want to redirect the gas tax money toward maintenance. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it seems to me based upon that policy direction, unless we're going to change that policy today, then that Page 61 October 26, 1999 directs that the high numbers are the numbers that we should be seeing presented, unless somebody objects to that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, no. I think we have to look at the high numbers and we have to look at the capital needs and where would we get the funds to do this. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the direction we're looking for. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you very much. Appreciate that clarification. There's a motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. With all due respect for Commissioner Constantine's desire to meet his dad at the airport, I'd like to meet my kids after school, too. They get home at 2:30 and 4:00, respectively. I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to make it for either one. I think -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just suggest if you want to take a lunch break that we just do a shorter break rather than take an hour, and that if we take a half-hour -- take 20 minutes and I'll buy everybody lunch. Not everybody in the room, just everybody up here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the wish of the board? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do 30 minutes and let Commissioner Constantine buy the lunch. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Tim, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I heard 30 minutes down at this end. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Hour, hour, hour. We'll be back at 1:00. (Luncheon recess.) Item #8B2 REPORT ON THE SANITARY SEWER SUB ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - STAFF TO AMEND THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE SANITARY SEWER SUB ELEMENT OF THE PLAN AS PROPOSED CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the Board of County Commissioners meeting being back to order, and 8(B) (2), report on the sanitary sewer sub-element. MR. FINN: Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman. Edward Finn, public works operations director. The sanitary sewer sub-element of the Growth Management Plan was last amended in October of 1997. Since that time, in our view, the county's been successful in providing access to, as the goals say, environmentally sound and cost-effective sanitary sewer system. We have met or exceeded our level of service standards and kept up with the community's growth. Since the last amendment, we have phased out several package plants, including the Rookery Bay plant, the Eagle Creek package Page 62 October 26, 1999 plants. We've resolved the La Peninsula package plant issue, and we've initiated removal of the Woodlake plant. And as you know from our recent presentation, we've been pretty successful with our re-use program. And we've taken board direction on the use of supplemental water and rolled that into our policies. The policies are Attachment A to this, and staff has recommended changes. If the board cares to comment on those, I'd be happy to entertain questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there questions, board members, on any of the specific policy changes in the Attachment A? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought that they reflected accurately what we discussed previously and looked acceptable to me. I didn't have any questions. Does anyone else have any? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to direct staff to amend the goals, objectives and policies of the sanitary sewer sub-element of the growth management plan, as proposed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we have registered speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: There are none. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Finn. Report on Y2K compliance. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, the next item is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry. I missed one. Oh, were you going to tell me that? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, Commissioner Carter -- Item #8B3 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR THE CAPRI PASS AND BIG MARCO PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN TO PROVIDE PROJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL T-GROINS AT HIDEAWAY BEACH - APPROVED MR. FERNANDEZ: -- Item 16(B) from consent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. Forgive me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter had pulled an item about the T-groins. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I pulled the item in regards to the T-groins at Hideaway Beach because so much of what I've read, the T-groins are not an appropriate way to do beach renourishment or management. They're more destructive than they are constructive. So I need some input. Page 63 October 26, 1999 MR. HUBER: Okay. Yeah, I think to answer your question specifically, I'll -- Mr. Humiston from Humiston and Moore is here. He's their design engineer for the project. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your name, sir? MR. HUBER: I'm sorry, Harry Huber from public works engineering. Here's Mr. Humiston. MR. HUMISTON: Ed Humiston with Humiston-Moore Engineers. It was my understanding the question was whether or not these structures have been effective in controlling erosion. The monitoring report of the first year of performance has information in it that shows that it had actually been pretty effective in controlling erosion. The two structures at Southpointe were put in in a location where erosion was undermining mangroves. The mangrove fringe there was being lost. The structures have stabilized the beach there. There is now a beach in front of the mangroves and it's not eroding any longer. There is still erosion going on at Hideaway Beach to the east. But if you go approximately 1,000 feet east of where the structures are, the erosion rate, which had been around 14 feet per year during this period of monitoring, was reduced to eight feet per year. A little bit further to the east the erosion was actually as high as 70 feet per year. And during the year of monitoring, it was reduced to about 13 feet per year. So this -- it's an indication that we've not only controlled the erosion right where the structures are, but it also seems to be reducing the losses of sand from the Hideaway Beach system. And the idea behind adding an additional temporary structure there is to expand the area of influence of these structures to try to further reduce the losses. The other place where the T-groins are in is further to the east at Royal Marco Point. We don't have quite as good a handle on how well they've been performing there because there wasn't as much background information on what the erosion rates were in that area prior to the installation. But we do know that the erosion rates were very high. There's a conservation easement there where the vegetation was being undermined and falling into the pass. And that's been stopped. Just like at Southpointe, it's been stabilized and there's a beach there. Again, there is some erosion beyond the limits of where the structures are. And the idea behind the additional structure is to reduce those losses. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you're an advocate of this process. Is it a situational process? Because you told me it's a temporary piece that you're putting in there. MR. HUBER: The reason that these are temporary structures is because we started this process while the inlet management plan for Big Marco Pass was still being prepared and the state had not adopted it yet. When they received the application for the structures there, they required that they'd be put in as temporary structures and monitored to determine whether or not they're effective for erosion Page 64 October 26, 1999 control in that area. Now, the state has reviewed this monitoring report, and although we went back to them and asked them for -- we've had discussions with them about proceeding with permanent installations now, and they were not willing to modify the permit to the point where we would be able to put in permanent structures. But based upon the success of the existing installation, they are willing to modify the permit to allow the installation of two more temporary structures, with the idea being that it will be monitored for the full five-year period specified in the original permit. And at that time, a decision will be made as to whether or not to put in permanent structures. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, so temporary only means it's a monitoring period until you figure out whether or not it works. MR. HUBER: That, and as well as the fact that the structures are made out of sand-filled geo textile bags. So they're not as permanent as a rock or a sheet pile structure. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So if it works, you keep it the way it is. Use the sand-filled bags, or you're going to go to rock, you're going to go to water, what are you going to do? MR. HUBER: If it works, it would eventually be replaced with a more permanent type of a structure. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And what is the alternative then? I hear so much about the Parker net (phonetic) system, which is supposed to be equally as effective and less damaging over time. How do you compare the two systems? MR. HUBER: I think of the Parker net system as an experimental system. The T-groins that we put in, the existing temporary installation, is -- it's an innovative design, but it's a combination of a couple of proven technologies, breakwaters and groins. And it was combined in kind of a unique way to address this particular situation. I think the Parker net is more of an experimental process. I'm well aware of the installation that was done in Naples, I think about eight or 10 years ago. And I've seen the monitoring of that. And I would consider it experimental and also very temporary. It's even more temporary than what we're using down there. It would be a higher maintenance approach. There are some environmental concerns as far as the nets trapping marine organisms. I don't think that they would be allowed to remain on the beach during sea turtle nesting season, for example. Whereas, the T-groins -- one argument against the T-groins that I've heard is that it's inappropriate to armor the shoreline. But the T-groins do not armor the shoreline as shore protection devices like seawalls do. The T-groins are referred to as an erosion control device because they actually modify -- they work with the natural forces of currents and waves to modify the erosion stress and allow sand to accumulate in the area. And it provides for pocket beaches between the structures where sea turtles can nest. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your input. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have a recommendation? Page 65 October 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I move staff's recommendation. Second. Ail in favor, please say aye. That passes unanimously. Page 66 OCT 2 6 1999 AMENDMENT NO. 5 CAPRI PASS AND BIG MARCO PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE AND ENTERED into this o~6,-ac~ day of (2~) ~', , 19 ~ by and between the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "OWNER") and Humiston and Moore Engineers, P.A., a Florida corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, whose business address is 10661 Airport Road North, Suite 14, Naples, Florida 34109 (Hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the OWNER desires to obtain the professional engineering and surveying services of the CONSULTANT concerning certain design, permitting and construction phase services for the Capri Pass and Big Marco Pass Inlet Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), said services being more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners approved a Professional Services Agreement with the CONSULTANT to perform design services for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article Four, time has expired for performance of services under this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT has submitted a proposal for the design, permitting and services during construction of additional T-Groins at Hideaway Beach; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that it has expertise in the type of professional services that will be required for the Project. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the Capri Pass and Big Marco Pass Inlet Management Plan Professional Services Agreement entered into on May 17, 1994 (hereinafter also referred to as the "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: 1. Article Four and Schedule "C" of the Agreement are hereby amended to provide for completion of those additional services setforth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The time for completion of services under this Agreement therefore, is extended for 24 months or until May 17, 2001. -1- 2. Schedule B, Attachments A, B and C of the Agreement dated May 17, 1994, are hereby amended and revised as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Said Exhibit "A" is the September 10, 1999 letter from Humiston and Moore Engineers to Project Manager Harry Huber re: "Proposal for Design, Permitting and Construction Phase Services for additional temporary T- Groins at Hideaway Beach. 3. Article Five of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: Compensation by the OWNER for services rendered hereunder by CONSULTANT shall not exceed an aggregate amount of $79,833.00 provided in Exhibit "A' attached hereto without an appropriate change order or amendment to this Agreement. 4. Other than the changes/additions indicated in this Agreement, all provisions of the original contract are in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this amendment to the Agreement the day and year first written above. 'ATTEST: :. · Clerk Attest :'a~ 'to Chairman' s APproved as to form and Legal sufficiency: Witness Typed or printed name Witness Typed or printed name Attachment HEI-I/lh/amendment#5 Pamela S. Mac'Kie, Chairwomdn&/a,b//,~fl// By: Humiston and Moore Engineers, P. A. B~ice President (CORPORATE SEAL) EXHIBIT "A" HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING 2 6 999 10661 AIRPORr ROAD N.. SUITE 14 NAH,.ES, FLORIDA 34,109 FAX: 9,~ I $94 2~5 PHONE: 941 594 2021 September 10, 1999 Mr. Harry Huber, P.E. Public Works Engineering Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Re: Proposal for Design & Permitting of Additional Temporary T-Groins at Hideaway Beach; HM File No. 8-002b Dear Harry, In response to your request, we are providing you with this revised proposal which supersedes our proposal of March 30, 1999 for the referenced project. This proposal is for the design and permitting of two additional temporary T-Groins along the Hideaway Beach. One will be located at Royal Marco Point and one additional T-groin will be located in the South Point area. In both cases, the additional T-groin construction will be proposed east of the existing T-groins and will be constructed of temporary materials similar to the existing structures. Based on the surveys to be completed next month, we plan to design the additional T- groins and beach fill and submit a proposed permit modification to the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Corps of Engineers (COE) for construction next spring, or next fall, should the sea turtle nesting season preclude the ability to construct during the summer. A description of the proposed services is provided below: Scope of Work Basic Services: Design, Construction Plans & Opinion of Probable Costs: 1. Design additional T-groins and prepare plans based on April and October 1999 survey. $9,490.00 2. Construction Plans and Opinion of probable costs: Basic Services Subtotal: Additional Services: Permitting ~71400.00 $16,890.00 3. Prepare permit modifications & file with DEP and COE, and meet with each. $12,450.00 · Application fees 4. Application fees with DEP $8,000.00 I of 2 OCT 2 6 1999 EXHIBIT "A" Additional Services: Construction Phase 5. Assist the County with Contractor selection, Administration of contract, meetings with contractor and county: $6,260.00 Conduct daily construction observations through completion of the construction and provide pay quantity reviews, surveys, and regulatory project certifications as required. Construction Phase Subtotal: $28,975.00 $35,235.00 Project Subtotal $72,575.00 7. Contingency, 10% $7,258.00 Total: $79,833.00 We estimate that our services referenced above will not exceed $79,833.00. This assumes two meetings with the DEP and COE during the permitting, the County to select a contractor based on a continuing services contract, and a construction period of 60 days. This proposal also includes two meetings with the County or representatives of Hideaway Beach regarding the design and progress of the permitting. Basic services as listed above are lump sum to be billed on a basis of percentage complete. Additional services will be billed as time and materials in accordance with the attached fee schedule dated July 1, 1999 included as part of this proposal. Should services be requested which extend beyond the scope of services referenced above, such services will be provided as Additional Services in accordance with the referenced fee schedule. Should you have any questions regarding this request, please give me a call. Sincerely yours, .~~~~~ENGINEERS Brett D. Moore, P.E. Attachments HUMISTON & MOORE EN~NOL~E~S · NAPLES, FLORIDA OCT 2 6 1999 EXHIBIT "A" HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING 10661 AIRPORT ROAD N., SUffE 14 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 9~tl $9,1 2021 SCHEDULE "B" -ATTACHMENT "B" FEE SCHEDULE Humiston 8, Moore Engineers July 1, 1999 Principal Engineer* ........................................................... $110.00/hr Senior Engineer* ............................................................... $80.00/hr Associate Engineer ............................................................ $75.00/hr Staff Engineer .................................................................. $65.00/hr Technician ....................................................................... $55.00/hr Administrative Assistant ...................................................... $45.00/hr Facsimile ..................................................................... ; .... $1.00/pg Copies (in house) ............................................................... $0.05/pg Mileage ............................................................................ $0.29/mi Telephone ...................................................................... No Charge * Registered Professional Engineer, or Engineer Ph.D. All out of pocket expenses not covered above will be billed at cost and included with the monthly invoice. Subcontracts or Subconsultants will be administered at cost plus 10%. Invoicing will be provided on a monthly basis unless specified differently in the contract. Payments are due upon receipt of invoice. October 26, 1999 Item #8D1 REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE - PRESENTED Next we have our Y2K compliance reports. I would wonder if you could just tell us, is there anybody who's not ready? Because this seems to me as one of those items that's sort of the 80 percent of your job that we don't even need to know about. It just needs to be done. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have asked the constitutional officers to also be present and to let us know the staff's preparedness. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you want to just give us a quick are you ready in your administration? MR. FERNANDEZ: We can do that. Jeff Walker is here to say that we have only one application that needs to be in compliance, and that's the traffic signalization program. MR. WALKER: Actually I can update that. Jeff Walker, risk management director. That system has been made compliant, so we're 100 percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 100 percent. MR. FERNANDEZ: We're 100 percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's wonderful. MR. WALKER: So we're all taken care of and we're on track. And that's really the extent of my report. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Mr. Skinner's been here. I would love to hear from him, but we expect to hear quite the same. While he's coming up, we did get a memo from Mary Morgan explaining to us that she's ready. MR. SKINNER: Abe Skinner, Collier County property appraiser. First of all, let me apologize to the board for not having a three million dollar check to give you like my friend, Mr. Carlton, did. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Apology not accepted. But you can give us Y2K. MR. SKINNER: But I do have good news. We are in compliance with CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the -- MR. SKINNER: We gave you a letter earlier in the year indicating that we have been since April of '98. And all of this was done in-house by our staff, who looked at over 750 programs and made those compatible with Y2K. And that was at no extra cost to the taxpayer. And I'm very proud of the staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Appreciate you being here and bringing us that, Mr. Skinner. MR. SKINNER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I see Mr. Storrar. Are you here to tell us that all's well at the Sheriff's Office? MR. STORRAR: Yes, ma'am. For the record, I'm Tom Storrar, Page 67 October 26, 1999 representing the Sheriff. We are 95 percent compliant with our Y2K plans. We identified seven mission critical systems that needed remediation. Of those seven, we have two remaining. Of those two remaining, we're expecting to come online with the record system on 11-15. And on 11-1, our civil system. And that will bring us into 100 percent compliance. As far as a contingency operational plan, we have one in place. We are starting to train on that plan as we speak. And we will be prepared with all of our resources and manpower to address the New Year's Eve event. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like good news. Have we heard from the clerk? I'm just trying to go through the constitutionals to see. MS. MORRIS: Candy Morris. We too are compliant. We also have a contingent plan in place. And we're going to do an exercise in November to test those plans. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would be the first exercise Norris has had in months. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, thank you. MS. MORRIS: You're welcome. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Has that covered the field? Is that everyone? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can I just ask one question? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know that -- I think a number of us may have received a letter from a constituent and there was -- it was a lengthy thing. This question is for Ed Ilschner, actually. Just want to get it on the record, Mr. Ilschner. MR. ILSCHNER: For the record, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator. COMMISSIONER BERRY: This has to do in case of power outage as far as our sewer systems and pumping and those kinds of things. Are we -- the letter that I believe we received indicated that we were not compliant in this area, that we had not done anything, and that we would have serious problems. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We doubt that letter's true, Mr. Ilschner. You want to tell us? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, the wastewater department, headed up by Joe Cheatem, have done some preliminary run-throughs, contingency work. They have taken our plans completely off computer control. They are fully operational and will not be a problem. We also have the appropriate backup generation at all of our master pump stations. We have some portable generations on the trailer that would allow us to travel around to the key lift stations if we were out for an extended period of time and take care of those lift stations. We also have availability through a company called DCI any additional generation equipment we might identify as a requirement if it was going to be an extended outage. So I think we're well prepared Page 68 October 26, 1999 for that event. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. The only reason I asked, because I -- in this letter it mentioned that the letter had been sent to the newspaper. And I thought if this appeared, this was a great opportunity to have this information cleared up before it hits the -- MR. ILSCHNER: It would take several weeks for us to be out of power, for us to be in a problem with both wastewater as well as water. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, good. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that report. It gives us all some comfort. Item #8D2 SETTLEMENT OF WAJERSKI VS. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 95-3067-CA-01 - REJECTED Next item is the Wajerski lawsuit, a proposed settlement. I've been briefed on this and agree with the recommendation that we reject -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- the demand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- staff's recommendation to reject the demand. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there discussion? All in favor, please say aye. '~ Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It passes unanimously. Item #8D3 REPAIRS TO THE FOUNTAIN AT THE MAIN COURTHOUSE PLAZA - APPROVED Next we have the county legislative agenda. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, we do have another item pulled from consent -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Darn it, I saw it. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- to be placed here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, the fountain. MR. FERNANDEZ: This is repairs to the courthouse. Item 16 -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is actually the fountain out by the courthouse. I just -- as we debate all these various issues and talk about priorities, it seems like 15,000 bucks for a pretty fountain out in front of that building might be a lower priority than certainly other activities. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Take the fountain out. Is there a reason not to do that? Is that a water quality problem, we're going to have something ugly or stagnant? Page 69 October 26, 1999 MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, facilities management director. You have very few of these amenities throughout the county. You have a very small pond. We've been spending about $2,000 every other year just to replace the pump because the pump's inside the pond. The recommendation is to take it out. We'll have a better life cycle. We also can spend about $1,000 less in contractual service, because right now they have to come out every month and inject the chlorine. This proposal has an automatic injector. We think it's a good idea. You don't have very many amenities to begin with. This just seems economical. In front of your courthouse, it's a small pond. I don't -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Isn't it more economical just to take it out? I would support just losing it, unless you can tell me there's some functionality to it besides just pretty. MR. CAMP: I can't. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you for that straightforward answer. I'd support just eliminating it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think the time to have done that was when the courthouse was built. Now that you've got it in there, I think you're going to have an eyesore by its taken out. What do you end up putting in there? I mean, I think this -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: got to irrigate it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: pay for the plants. COMMISSIONER BERRY: A planter. -- is silly. Oh, please. Well, then you've You've got to irrigate it and you've got to You've got to irrigate that. I mean, for crying out loud, you've got a pond there in the fountain area. MR. CAMP: The system that we're recommending is more economical than the one you have now. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It makes sense. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not going to micro-manage. I'm going to stay with the staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that a motion, Mr. Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And a second. All in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes 3 to 2. Any further discussion? Item 8El ADOPTION OF COUNTY LEGISLATIVE AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGE Page 70 October 26, 1999 Now we can talk about the county's legislative agenda. My only question on it was where is the title owned legislation? I thought the board supported not doing that locally, but recommending that to the legislature. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I don't have any objection to that, if they -- I know they had introduced that, and it had got killed off in committee in the past. But if they want to do at the state level, that's where it belongs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Lee County's passed it and the City of Naples has passed it. And I'd like at least to see this board support it legislatively, unless there's some -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, and also Dudley Goodlette has got a Bill 199 on transportation that he is submitting, and I don't see that in here. And that to me is a -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's critical. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- very critical bill. It helps counties who have all their own local taxation and do all of the right things end up having an opportunity to get more state funding. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think the point of this agenda, though -- I'm doing this to you again, aren't I? I'm sorry. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I promised I was going to step in if you started this again. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: What I would like to just say is that the reason for this presentation is to bring the list of issues, to ask the board if you would like to present these to the legislature or not. If you want to add to this list, feel free to do so. If you want to take away from the list, feel free to do that as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My suggestion is to add to it the title on legislation. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there consensus on the board to do that? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To do a state statute, not a local ordinance? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. In other words, step up to the plate. If it's that important, then step up to the plate and do it up there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Carter would like I think to add an endorsement of Representative Goodlette's -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Goodlette's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- Bill 199. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Goodlette's Bill 199 on -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's two for that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- transportation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's three. Probably five. Page 71 October 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: Probably five. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. Anything else to add? Anything to delete? In the interest of still trying to make it to the airport, anybody want to make a motion on this agenda? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the items listed, plus those two that we've just added. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume our Chair will be at the legislative meeting, whenever they have that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. I'll be there to propose this. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. Item #gA RETENTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THREE INDIVIDUAL COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN POPP V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 99-3286-CA AND WAIVE THE PURCHASING POLICY TO THE EXTENT IT APPLIES TO THE SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL - APPROVED And we can talk about Item 9(A), which is the need to hire attorneys for individual employees who have been sued in their individual capacity. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, when do you have to leave to go to the airport? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've paid $150 for a limousine to pick up my father, since everybody needed an hour to go eat a hamburger, so we'll stay here as long as we need to. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It was cheaper for you to buy us lunch. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tried. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He offered. 9(A), is there any discussion on this, or are we going to do what we usually do? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to move approval. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Discussion? Ail in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. Item #10B Page 72 October 26, 1999 RESOLUTION 99-405 APPOINTING - WILLIAM CSOGI TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COM~ITTEE - ADOPTED We have appointments now to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One member there, I'll make a motion we approve William Csogi. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Am I pronouncing that correctly? We know who you mean. Second. All in favor, please say aye. That passes unanimously. Page 73 RESOLUTION NO. 9%405 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING WILLIAM J. CSOGI TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee was established by Collier County Ordinance No. 86-4, as amended; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 86-4, as amended, provides that the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee shall consist of five (5) members with (3) of the members being affiliated as holders of certificates to operate a motor vehicle for hire company within Collier County; and WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy on this Committee for the non-affiliated category; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that William J. Csogi, representing the non-affiliated category, is hereby appointed to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee to fulfill the remainder of the vacant term, said term expiring September 2, 2000. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: October 26, 1999 ATTEST: D~VIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Attest.': . to Chatman's signature ofll$. Approved as to form and legal su~ciency: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA County Attorney DCW/kn October 26, 1999 Item #10C RESOLUTION 99-406 APPOINTING CHARLES M. MCMAHON, SR., AND MARY ELLEN RAND TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Appointment of members to parks and rec. I believe there are three for two on there, but the committee made a recommendation. I'd support their recommendation to us. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't object. I just want to say Mr. Welborn's been in the Golden Gate community forever, and active as well. I don't think we can lose with any of these three. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's kind of a hard decision. I wish we had more openings, frankly. But yes, I do and I don't. But -- we had more positions or something like that. But I think you do have three people. And I guess if the choice comes down to it, then let's go with the committee recommendation, based on the fact that we do have three very qualified people. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If that's a motion, I second that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. Page 74 RESOLUTION NO. 99-406 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD. 0C' 1999 WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was created on November 25, 1975, and was composed of five (5) members; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on October 25, 1993, adopted Ordinance No. 93-81 which increased the membership from five (5) members to seven (7) members; and WHEREAS, there are currently two (2) vacancies on this Board in the category of Urban Area Community Park District; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Charles M. McMahon, Sr., is hereby appointed to the Parks And Recreation Advisory Board to represent the Urban Area Community Park District for the remainder of the vacant term plus an additional 4 year term, said term expiring December 3 l, 2003. 2. Mary Ellen Rand is hereby appointed to the Parks And Recreation Advisory Board to represent the Urban Area Community Park District for the remainder of the vacant term, said term expiring December 3 l, 2001. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: October 26, 1999 ~O',~: ¥.,i.. ,. . ,,.': :~ .~ ATTEST ,. .SY.;:i:?.ii:D~G?I",E. BROCK, Clerk :. ,.?¥~: · .. ,.;) ;,,,, . - Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: County Attorney DCW/kn BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: PAME~m~an October 26, 1999 Item #10E X-FEST - DISCUSSED Let's talk about X-Fest. Commissioner Carter added that to our agenda. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. The reason I added it to the agenda, because there's been a lot of discussion in the community about this particular festival. And I have, as we all have, memorandums from the county attorneys. It's a legal festival. We've met all the criteria. The sheriff had some concerns about this. I've asked the Sheriff's Department to come and outline for us what they're going to do from the safety issue in terms of doing this concert. So maybe at this time it would be appropriate to have them tell us what they're going to do to make sure that this is a safe event. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if they're here for information purposes, I'm certainly interested to hear from them. I wonder, Mr. Weigel, do we have any authority over whether or not this event goes forward? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's the county attorney opinion that it does not require a permit under the Outdoor Festival Ordinance. So in its normal proceedings it is not an issue before you to grant approval or not at the present time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we wanted to declare some kind of emergency or something, I guess that's the -- MR. WEIGEL: The board does have some inherent authority for the county public health, safety and welfare. But I'll just preface that with the fact that any determination may or may not have other ramifications in regard to reliance on permits issued, things of that nature. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine, and then we'll hear from you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we hear the presentation, I appreciate you bringing it up because I think it's important that we separate fact from fiction here and myth from reality. And there have been a number of issues raised and a number of questions raised. And frankly I wanted to say first, I've had several conversations with the folks from 99-X general manager, Joe Bell. They have been nothing but cooperative and jumped through literally every hoop we've set. And there have been plenty of hoops to jump through. I know there was the permit question, which has been answered definitively by our county attorney staff. There was the health issue. I know at a past concert they had difficulty with a number of rest facilities. They have hired literally every Port-a-Potty available in Southwest Florida for the event, so they should be fine there. We're going to hear on the safety issue that they've -- in addition to whatever public officers, they tell me they have hired 60 -- a team of 60 private security officials, too, for crowd control around the stage and all that sort of thing. Page 75 October 26, 1999 And I know the one thing we'd all talked about with the media and with others, I know I got some phone calls on, was some of the what I would say objectional activity, body piercing and that sort of stuff. They've taken all of that away. All they're trying to do is put on a concert and make sure it's done in a safe, healthy way. And I think you're right, Commissioner Mac'Kie, we don't want to tread on thin ice there and try to prohibit something, whether it's our choice of music or not. It happens to be my choice. But I just wanted to make sure they receive due credit for really making every effort to work with us on this and jump through every hoop that was put in front of them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. LIEUTENANT MARTINDALE: My name is Lieutenant Tony Martindale. I'm District 8 substation commander in Immokalee. And this encompasses the fairgrounds, and that's why I'm here today. CAPTAIN MULLEN: My name is Captain Pat Mullen. I'm the division commander of patrol. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate you both being here. Can you give us assurances that you have this adequately staffed for the event, as you understand it? LIEUTENANT MARTINDALE: I can give you some comparisons to other festivals and activity in Collier County itself to give us some idea of where we're all. I'd like to start with Midnight Madness at the Fair we have every year. That draws a crowd of between 3 to 5,000 people. In our experience with that program, we usually staff that with 40-plus deputies, which is a ratio of one deputy for every 125 people. We haven't had any trouble out there, there's no alcohol served, and we have a good grasp of the situation without anybody getting hurt that I can remember in the recent past. So that ratio there, one to 125, was a good ratio. In September of this year, last month, Alachua County had an outdoor festival. It was a -- it was called a rave, but it was not live entertainment. It was a disc jockey playing music all day long with a laser light show. They prepared for this event by scheduling 120 deputies, and they scheduled those deputies by the Florida Task Force, Sheriff's Task Force, compiling officers from several agencies, because Alachua County is a smaller agency than we have. They had 120 officers there. They had 2,000 pre-sold tickets. Their attendance at the event was over 9,000. I have letters here from the commander in charge of the operation. He said that they just did have a handle on the situation. And their ratio was similar to ours, it was one deputy for every 120-some people. And that's where we're looking at as far as comparison. Same type of situation. And there was no alcohol at that festival. During that festival they did make 53 arrests, most of them narcotics related. A couple of them were trafficking amounts, which is a quite a substantial amount of arrests. But they kept them busy Page 76 October 26, 1999 and they said they had a grasp on it with the amount of people they had. The information we have so far for the festival upcoming in Collier County, they have thousands of tickets sold already. We've looked at 99-X's plan. They have 60 security guards identified to cover their area. In their plan, we noted that they don't have any provisions for parking set up there. If they don't have people working the parking area and that people park at will, several thousand people at the fairgrounds is going to be chaos. So if they don't have that help, we're going to have to do that for them. The roadways coming into the fairgrounds are two-lane; one way in, one way out on 1-46. Or you come in the back way through Everglades Boulevard or down through Immokalee. Our experience has been in the past with the fair, Midnight Madness, that the traffic has been backed up for miles. And last year in particular I was out there. Took me an hour to get from Wilson to the fairgrounds. And that's just 5,000 people. So we're looking at having to have a substantial amount of officers on the outside perimeter just to get the people in and out safely. And we believe that the 30 deputies that they have identified as wanting to hire by contract would not be sufficient just to cover the inside. It may cover the outside. That would give them no law enforcement presence inside, because it will take all 30 of us to handle the traffic flow. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Traffic concerns is certainly a legitimate one. I think Pat worked when we did the Beach Boys' show out the at the sports park maybe five or six years ago. And we had 6, 8,000 people out there at that and it was 90 minutes or more disbursing that crowd at the end of that. So I don't -- CAPTAIN MULLEN: Not only do we have the X-Fest event, but it's also the 50th anniversary of Swamp Buggy, and that's Halloween night. And the traffic, as Lieutenant Martindale alluded to, on Midnight Madness with 3 to 5,000 people. If we have 10,000 people show up to this event, you can imagine the problems that we're going to have with traffic. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, let's hear from -- CAPTAIN MULLEN: There's going to be some areas that's going to be -- sorry, ma'am. There's going to be some areas there's going to be total gridlock, especially after it's over, because everybody is leaving at once. And we fully expect that we're going to have to have, between the parking area and Immokalee Road, a minimal of 20 deputies alone for those areas. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's hear from the promoters and see if they're willing to increase the amount of deputies that they're contracting for. CAPTAIN MULLEN: One other thing, ma'am? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. CAPTAIN MULLEN: Our plan that we have put together in everything Page 77 October 26, 1999 we've looked at in the Alachua County situation, we feel that we need 100 contract deputies for that event. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Their current contract is for 30? CAPTAIN MULLEN: They want 30 plus 65 -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Private. CAPTAIN MULLEN: -- private security people. We feel we need 100 law enforcement officers there, because not only parking but perimeter, inside. We're going to have arrest teams, we're going to have a pre-made booking area that's going to be all part of this operation. And with their 30 that they would like to hire, versus the 100 that we are requesting be there, depending if the 30 contract goes through, we say there's 100, there's going to be a $20,000 deficit that's going to come out of Sheriff Hunter's budget if we in fact put the 100 people out there. And that is our plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many people would you think would have to take care of parking? Because I think of whether it's the fair or some -- we've had country concerts out there, a lot of times they've had either Kiwanis or Jaycees or somebody run the parking, and they'll have a zillion volunteers that are doing it. o But assuming -- and I don't know this, but assuming they had bodies to do that, how many deputies would that free up? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Well, you know, once again, it's -- I don't know the exact holding of what they can hold out there. I understand they've increased it. If it holds anywhere from 3 to 6,000 cars, for an example, depending on how proficiently -- if you want to do a Disney World concept on parking cars, you'll need a lot of people. I'd say a minimal of eight to 10 people to try to park those cars. But the parking, not only once you get the cars parked, then you're going to have to station deputies in the parking area and surrounding areas to stop car burglaries or any other thing that may take place. So it's not like you park and then you go inside. We're going to have to keep people stationed there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I ask you, is this something -- if, for example, this were a Swamp Buggy festival or a country music festival or whatever else happens out there, are the numbers that you're recommending for staffing the same? Similar to, for example of -- I don't know, the Seminole tribe had something, I don't think they have it there, but they have a big country music deal. CAPTAIN MULLEN: Well, if you take the Swamp Buggy races, for example, we've staffed that in the past with 30 deputies or more. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the ratio there of deputies' attendance would be about what? I think you told us that before. CAPTAIN MULLEN: It would be about one deputy to 120 people. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So in this case you're thinking if there are 10,000 people here, you need to have 100 deputies. And is that the same ratio? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Ma'am, with all due respect, that's the issue. We don't know. And we have to be -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. Page 78 October 26, 1999 CAPTAIN MULLEN: -- prepared for that, versus not being prepared and something happens. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if -- but here -- I'm just trying to understand the math, because I'd never substitute my judgment for yours, I'm just trying to understand. That if for a Swamp Buggy festival one to 125 is sufficient, but for this festival we think one to 100 might be more appropriate, and you're basing your 100 based on 10,000 people showing up. I mean, that's your worst case scenario and that's sort of how you do your planning, one to 100 at 10,0007 CAPTAIN MULLEN: Well, yes, those figures come into play. But we're also basing our figures on Alachua County, who planned on 2,000 in attendance and ultimately had 9,000. And they planned that 2,000 attendance with 120 law enforcement officers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what is the process then, Mr. Weigel? If the Sheriff decides how he's going to staff something and it doesn't require a special permit, special event permit, what's the process for recouping those costs? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the -- I really can't speak to the Sheriff's ability or process for recouping the cost of expenditure. But what I can say, and I think this is of some informational assistance, is that the elements of security to be provided for the event is not specifically -- clearly now is not a determination of the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. MR. WEIGEL: And it's really an arrangement between the promotor, the entrepreneur and the Sheriff's Office, and the fair board, which is the underlying lessor of the property, and with some business connection to the event. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So basically we can hear this and be informed about it, but the decision will be between the promoter and the Sheriff's Office as sort of overseen by the fair board, because they are the owner of the property. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're the lessee of the property. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They're the? MR. WEIGEL: They are the lessee. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Lessee. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who is the lessor? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're the lessor. We own the property. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's a little bit of information. MR. WEIGEL: But under the -- but they -- the fair board has a 50-year lease executed in 1986. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, is a condition of their lease -- I mean, I'm not trying to -- I'm a supporter of this going forward, but I want it to go forward adequately guarded, adequately staffed from a law enforcement perspective. Does our lease give us authority to say you can do anything you want out there, or does the lease say dear fair board, you can sublet as long as you do it safely? MR. WEIGEL: It allows the fair board to get permits to put on events. It doesn't have too many restrictions from the county Page 79 October 26, 1999 standpoint. It does have built-in insurance and indemnification provisions. And in the same nature, this promoter for this event has both the Collier County fair board and Collier County government itself as additional insureds on a two million dollar comprehensive general liability policy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And who has opined about whether or not that two million dollars is sufficient? Who determined that amount? Sounds like I'm going to hear something from -- let me just see if I can get an answer out of staff and then we'll go -- MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's information that comes to us upon our request to find out all that is behind the festival -- or the concert, I guess we should call it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Other questions? Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Captain, you said you needed -- you think you're going to need 100 deputies. How many have you allocated at this point? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Right now we have 70 at this point that are able to work. I mean, we're having to pull all resources from days off and that type of thing. And we still don't have a commitment from our traffic unit special response people. But we should be able to get the 100, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But this -- now, will you also be adequately covering the Swamp Buggy festival? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Yes, sir. East Naples district is covering that, and they're totally out of the loop when it comes to the X-Fest event. They're not able to help us with staff. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, is this having all these deputies mobilized out to the fairgrounds, is that going to cause any problem with law enforcement in the rest of the county? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Sir, it's -- primarily these people are off-duty. They're on their day off, because they work a four-day workweek, and this is one of their days off. So that's where we're mobilizing that group from, for the most part. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. For the most part, you say, but there are some on-duty deputies, I would assume? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Well, what we're going to try to do, sir, so there's no cost overtime misuse to the agency, that's why we're -- one of the reasons why we're pushing for the 100 people under the contract to be paid by the promoter, so there is no overtime issues for the agency. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's go to the traffic problem. You say with -- I think your figure was 5,000 people to Midnight Madness, and that clogs that road pretty good. CAPTAIN MULLEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So you double that. And what would you expect then reasonably as traffic problems? Because that is our most dangerous road in the county. CAPTAIN MULLEN: We usually go to Midnight Madness an hour prior, and the traffic is backed up way past Wilson Boulevard an hour prior Page 80 October 26, 1999 to the event. So, for example, if you say there was 8,000 people there, you can imagine not only coming in off 1-75, but it's my understanding also that they've made arrangements for buses to go to Edison Mall in Fort Myers to bring people from Fort Myers. So they're also going to be coming the back way through Immokalee and up Immokalee Road in to the event. So you're going to have both areas of the roadway, there's going to be a problem with traffic. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Well, I am trying to imagine that. And it seems like if there's some -- something -- some occurrence where you do need to move in equipment, that you're not going to be able to do it. Would you say that's a fair assessment? CAPTAIN MULLEN: That's a fair assessment. That's one of the reasons why in our operational plan we're taking the steps for that equipment to be there prior. Another -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But then you have the problem of getting it out if you need to -- CAPTAIN MULLEN: Absolutely. Absolutely. Because a portion of our SWAT team will be there also, and we don't -- we have not been advised if there's any agreement with EMS to be out there. We also don't know that factor, too. And that's certainly a factor that needs to be there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. Mr. Weigel, just to clarify, you said -- I believe you said that the Board of County Commissioners has no authority to make any determination whether the event's going to go forward or not? MR. WEIGEL: There is no application or decision, actually, before the board at the present time. This is a discussion and information item. The temporary use permit issued October 12th -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but that's really not my question. My question is, is there anything that the board has authority -- any way the board has to authority to say no, we are not going to allow this event? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Based on? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Health, safety and welfare. You heard it from the Sheriff's Department. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Based on fear. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that the board has the -- has ability upon a finding -- and I would hope that you would have such findings in your record -- to essentially remove or disallow the previously issued temporary use permit, which by its own definition is a staff issued permit. But under the auspices of health, safety and welfare, I think the board could take such a measure. However, I advise you very carefully that we are at a point close to the event, and the denial of the holding of the event may put the county in a position of some potential liability, perhaps significantly, in regard to the event itself. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could we hear from the promoters at this point, if there aren't any further questions for the law enforcement officials? Yes, sir. Page 81 October 26, 1999 LIEUTENANT MARTINDALE: Could I add one more thing? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. LIEUTENANT MARTINDALE: We're not here to try and prevent this event from happening. We just want to adequately staff it so it can be held in a safe manner. If the event happens, that is fine with us. We just want to make sure that we're adequately prepared to handle it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you for clarifying that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for that comment. Mr. Farese, I think, represents the X-Fest promoters. MR. FARESE: Thank you. Larry Farese, with the firm of Cummings and Lockwood. And I represent Beasley Broadcast Company, which owns WJBX, also known as 99-X. And that station is one of the two promoters for the X-Fest. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear, explain to me or explain to the board, how large is Beasley Broadcasting? MR. FARESE: We probably have 25 stations around the country, maybe 700 employees. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wanted to clarify, this isn't, you know, a bunch of kids running a rock and roll station. MR. FARESE: No. And the headquarters of the company is in Collier County. And we own three or four stations locally, but many of the stations around the country. The other co-promoter is Southwest Productions. And I have with me today Joe Bell, who's the manager of the station. And Jim Sotolongo, who's with the other promoter, Southwest Productions, to answer any questions that the board might have. Let me just begin by sharing the most current information we have in terms of what we expect in terms of attendance. We have sold to date approximately 2,500 tickets. Based upon past experience in the -- and this is the third of three shows, we're now estimating maybe 7 to 8,000 people, which is about half the size of last year's event. We can't guarantee exactly who's going to be there, but, I mean, based upon our experience, we're now predicting 7 or 8,000 people. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Larry, could I interrupt you to ask, why would you expect it's going to be half the attendance as last year? MR. FARESE: Well, because last year at this time we had double the amount of sales, more than double the amount of sales we have this nOW. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FARESE: So if we have -- you know, based upon our experience, we're predicting 7 or 8,000. And frankly, some of the news press and so forth questioning whether the concert is going forward may be curtailing sales. And if it's cleared up, maybe there could be more. When we submitted the application for a permit, we were predicted 8 to 10,000. And that would be the absolute highest case that we can expect. Let me also clarify what this is. We are doing a rock concert and only a rock concert. That was mentioned before. There's no hell Page 82 October 26, 1999 tent, there's no freak shows, there's no body piercing, any of that. It is also not a rave, which my client's educated me this morning what a rave is. A rave apparently is a musical event where people take ecstasy drugs and stay up all night long drinking water and are under the influence. And the music is such that it engenders a lot of physical activity and that type of thing. This is not what we're doing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Physical activity? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's certainly redefining that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Kids at home, turn off the TV. MR. FARESE: This is purely a rock concert and only a rock concert. Now, on the question of security, which I think is a legitimate concern, last year's event, 15,000 people in Lee County, there were 10 deputies assigned to that event. My understanding is there were two arrests. One was a theft of a guitar and the other one may have been a fight of some sort. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think you misspoke. You said 10 deputies. MR. FARESE: That's what I'm told. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 10. He's correct. Anybody disagree with that? LIEUTENANT MARTINDALE: No, that's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct? 10 deputies is all they had. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And they had 15,000. MR. FARESE: I'm not saying that's all was needed, I'm saying that's all that was there and I don't think there was a major problem. What we're doing this year -- and we're learning from past experience, and the facilities were certainly one of them -- we think more than 10 deputies should be there. We have engaged 60 private security people. And in addition to that, we have requested 30 deputies. We think that is more than sufficient. And that will be a total of 90 security people for what may be 7, 8, 9,000 people. We think 100 deputies, as has been suggested, is frankly not appropriate and, frankly, overkill. I don't know of any event in Collier County where we've had 100 deputies. Maybe I could be corrected. But I think this is more analogous to a Country and Western concert that I understand occurred at the fairgrounds. There have been a couple of Spanish music festivals at the fairgrounds. I think we should be comparing this more to those events and asking questions about how many deputies were at those events and whether they were sufficient rather than comparing it to a rave, which is nothing of the sort. So we think the 60 private security people with the 30 deputies, which we have requested, is more than sufficient for safety. With regard to the parking issue, as was mentioned, we do have buses from Edison Mall to the fairgrounds to try to keep the traffic Page 83 October 26, 1999 from Lee County to a minimum. We have engaged 16 parking attendants to park vehicles at the facility. Smallwood Museum -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear, so there is a plan for parking? MR. FARESE: There is a plan for parking with 16 attendants. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the officers had said that 10 might be a good number -- MR. FARESE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- but you've got 16. MR. FOURES: We've got 16. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will there be any of your private security assigned to the parking area? MR. FARESE: Yes. We've submitted a plan that suggests where the security will be throughout the whole facility, and that's in the security plan. So we think that we've got that covered. Past experience is that the concert goes from 12:00 at noon till 8:00 at night. Not everybody stays to 8:00 at night. They come and go. Certainly most of the traffic leaving will probably be around 8:00. But -- and Toni Home, the attorney for the fairgrounds, is here to answer any questions about her experience in parking in events such as the Midnight Madness and so forth, and what her experience has been in that regard. So we think the parking has been taken care of. So we think that we've done everything -- learned from some mistakes in the past. Done everything to have a safe concert that will go off, we hope and expect, without a hitch. And we're here to answer any additional questions the board might have. And also, be happy to work with the sheriffs any way we can, but we just think 100 is a little -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question for the Sheriff's Department. Private security people do not have arrest powers, am I right? CAPTAIN MULLEN: No, sir, private security have no arrest powers. And there's just a couple of points if I may make in regards to Lee County. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. CAPTAIN MULLEN: This event took place in Lee County. I think it was excess of 12,000 people, if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, they said 15,000. CAPTAIN MULLEN: They started with four deputies there, and all they were responsible for is the outside perimeter. There was nobody inside. Things got bad. They called in six deputies. And the situations that were taking place inside -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you define bad? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Can I define bad? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Did you say things got bad? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So they called in six? CAPTAIN MULLEN: The partying that was going on inside, the body piercing, the showing of things that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, stuff that isn't going to Page 84 October 26, 1999 happen. CAPTAIN MULLEN: -- shouldn't be shown. Numerous issues were taking place. And the reason why we know about these issues that were taking place inside, because we had undercover people in there. So that's one of our concerns. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Collier County had undercover officers in a Lee County event? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. CAPTAIN MULLEN: We had undercover people in there, and that's part of our concern of why we're requesting 100 officers. And we stand by that number. We feel we've justified it. And once again, there's a difference in a price of 30 officers and 100 officers. And once again, I bring up $20,000 deficit that's going to be coming out of the taxpayers of Collier County. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pat, I've got a question, that I've been told that our Country and Western concert at Vineyards Park, we had about 6,000 people there at peak time. Over the course of a couple of days, we had 10 or 12,000, but we had 6,000 at peak time. I've also been told we had zero deputies assigned to that. CAPTAIN MULLEN: That was handled by park rangers. But once again -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You understand my point. And I'm not suggesting that's appropriate. But I'm just suggesting there's an awful big range from having none or having -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 30. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a handful. And maybe Tom can tell us how many park rangers to 100. CAPTAIN MULLEN: And once again, like was stated, they're planning eight hours. Most people will be gone by 8:00. There's not a problem with us scaling down the amount of deputies there. And it's like anything else, we'll refund whatever money is left over. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, how many park rangers did we have assigned at that -- and that was an all-day event or a multiple-hour event, too, wasn't it? Actually two-day event. MR. OLLIFF: It was a several-hour event. And I think we had anywhere from six to eight, probably, rangers on staff at any given time. The only real distinction between that event and this event is probably the use of alcohol and the traffic situation in and out of there. It's a little easier for us to deal with. But we managed that pretty much with the rangers, who did have certain police powers within the park. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Key point. Alcohol will be sold at this event if you're banded and be 21 years? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Yes, sir. Allegedly, all I.D.'s are going to be checked on the way in, not by us. And if you're good on the computer and you have a good printer, you can make a false I.D. Very simple. One other area of concern that also happened in Lee County that we're going to have here is something called the mosh pit, where this Page 85 October 26, 1999 type of music and the person that enjoys this type of music, it's called banging, body banging in a mosh pit type concept. That's real popular. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Isn't that part of the rave concept? Isn't that what they do? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Well, I don't want to mention that, because I don't want to be accused of somebody's rights, as far as their type of music. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I thought -- I have a 15-year-old. I thought a rave and a mosh pit went together. Sorry I didn't know that, but I thought they did. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and in fairness, though, I don't know what past -- defining as real popular, but, I mean, I go to some of these shows and you may have 100 kids banging bodies down there. But if you've got 8 or 10,000 people and 100 of them are doing that, I wouldn't say -- you know, I don't want to give the suggestion that 5,000 kids are all slamming their bodies around at each other in a mosh pit. It's not an activity that I would necessarily get into, but it's a tiny small percentage. I don't think it's -- you know, you're going to see an overwhelming thing. I also know -- and you can probably help with this -- they've actually submitted a plan to try to minimize any activity that leads to a mosh pit. They've submitted a specific plan to deal with that. CAPTAIN MULLEN: By identifying a mosh pit, you could have a mosh pit identified over here and you have four or five more over here. So, I mean, that's something that's a given that may take place. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think the Sheriff's point is reasonable. And what I've heard is if we don't need that many, we'll cut it back and we'll refund that money. My question to the promoters is, are you willing to pony up the $20,000 if it's needed to make this event happen? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think the question is, who defines need? The Sheriff's Office defines that there is a need and the promoters' experience is that there's not a need. So the question -- I guess the question that you're posing is, the Sheriff's Office says there's a need, are you willing to pay for it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Pat, you've said you're basing that on an estimate of 10,000 people, because that's probably the high number you could end up with. CAPTAIN MULLEN: I think what we heard today, sir, is that there's a possibil -- there's going to be 10,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And my question is, if you find -- if you get out there by 5:00 on Saturday, you've peaked out at 4,500 people, I assume you're not going to keep 100 deputies there. So you may not know until Saturday what exactly that number is going to be, but you'll deal with what you think is a fair number. CAPTAIN MULLEN: Well, and Lieutenant Martindale is going to be one of the leads in charge out there. And if there ends up being 1,000 people there and there's 100 deputies there, he is going to have Page 86 October 26, 1999 the leeway on Sunday to taper that. But we feel at this point to be prepared, we need 100 deputies. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, since the Sheriff's responsible for safety and security, my vote is going to go with his need versus the promoter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think what Mr. Weigel had said earlier is that's going to be an issue between the Sheriff's Department and the promoter, and that's -- this board doesn't really need to be in the middle. I am glad we had the informational item but CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We don't have authority over this question. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And so this is good information for us to have and some nice free publicity for the X-Fest. And otherwise, I'm not sure what we're accomplishing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I do think we've clarified some of the very objectionable items that people have voiced are not going to be there. And as far as the Port-A-Potties or EMS or some of the other issues, we've cleared that up. So at least there's a clear message out there. CAPTAIN MULLEN: I have one other question -- I'm sorry, go ahead, sir. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On the funding, are you -- would the Sheriff's Office be intending that the board provide a budget amendment or anything for this? I mean, you mentioned a couple of times the taxpayers are going to have to pay for that. Has that been the experience with other shows, that the taxpayer -- it falls to the taxpayer and not the promoter? CAPTAIN MULLEN: Fantasy 'N Fire in East Naples cost the Sheriff's office in excess of $7,000 because the bill was not paid. We're requiring -- we sent the -- Mr. Bell a letter asking by 4:00 today that we have a certified check for $33,600 under the contract. We have to pay a time-and-a-half rate by law. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that will cover your 100 deputies? CAPTAIN MULLEN: That will cover 100 deputies. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you don't get that check then? CAPTAIN MULLEN: If we don't get the check, then ultimately the decision is up to the Sheriff, because that's why I bring it up. If they were to hire 10 deputies, it's $10,800. We have -- I'm sorry, 30 deputies is $10,080. There's a deficit of 2,520. So there may need be a budget amendment, because we are going to staff it. There's no doubt about it, that we're going to staff it. And depending on what is paid -- we're doing a legal contract for 100 deputies, and depending on what is paid, we may have a budget issue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How can you do a legal contract for 100 deputies if they don't sign it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think probably the experience that you had with the Fantasy 'N Fire and didn't get your money has probably taught us all that you need to get your money up front. Page 87 October 26, 1999 CAPTAIN MULLEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's why you asked for it today at 4:00. If you don't get it, then you've got the decision to make whether the event goes on, and that's the way it should be, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But can they shut down the event, John? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- at least you don't have to worry about getting stiffed at the end. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, probably the legal distinction is there was a contract signed in advance by Fantasy 'N Fire for the number of deputies. And again, it's not ours to worry about. But you and them need to work out what that contract will be this week. I've seen that letter, I understand what you're asking, but the difference being there was a legal binding contract at that time. But you did get stiffed on it, shouldn't have, but you need to work out the details of the legalities of that with the promoter. CAPTAIN MULLEN: Well, depending, once again, what's worked out with the contract, we're going to staff 100 people. Whatever's worked out. There could be a request for a budget amendment, yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have three registered speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: First is Joe bell. The second is Jim Sotolongo, and the third is Toni Horne. MR. BELL: I'm Joe Bell, general manager of 99-X. I only registered to answer any questions anybody might have. We are prepared to pay for security. We just don't feel that 100 officers is necessary, based on our experience. But we are prepared to pay for 30, and we don't have a problem. I don't have the check with me right now, but we certainly will get a check. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question. One of the things Pat had mentioned before was there was no parking plan. MR. BELL: There is a parking plan. Smallwood Store has contracted with us to do the parking. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Which may knock down that number by a handful, anyway. Probably not a lot, but knock their requirement down by a handful. And maybe that's a starting point for where you work the number closer. One other quick question. The -- Commissioner Carter had raised the question, or Commissioner Norris had raised the question about EMS. You have taken care -- MR. BELL: Yes, we have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of that issue as well? MR. BELLOWS: I think we've -- you know, we have a list from the fair of everything that's required. We have met every requirement that's been put to us. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other questions for this speaker? If not, our next speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Jim Sotolongo. MR. SOTOLONGO: How are you doing? Couple of things. First of all, when it comes to the security issue, when I first contacted Lieutenant Cox at the Sheriff's Department, this is before he knew it Page 88 October 26, 1999 was X-Fest. I went over the numbers with him, told him 8 to 10,000. He told me that 20 officers would be more than enough. I'm the one that actually upped that figure to 30. Then later on a couple of days later they actually contacted us, told us they didn't have any officers available at all. And then just recently we got a bill for $33,000. As far as Lee County goes last year, Lee County, they're the ones -- it was held at a county facility. They are the ones that took care of security themselves. It wasn't an issue. It wasn't us. They're basically the ones that came up with the numbers. So it had absolutely nothing to do with us. And just so everyone here is clear, the industry standard is two per 1,000. As a matter of fact, I am also the promoter of the Clay Walker show coming up on Friday night at the Swamp Buggy 50th anniversary, and we're expecting 4,000 people. And our agreement with the Sheriff's Department is from eight to 10. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For 4,000 people, eight to 107 MR. SOTOLONGO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will there be any alcohol served at the -- MR. SOTOLONGO: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- country show? MR. SOTOLONGO: I'm sure quite a bit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So for double -- okay, 4,000. And you think you might have 8,000. MR. SOTOLONGO: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that would be a maximum 20 officers. MR. SOTOLONGO: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So what is the distinction between country music and rock music, if there's no alcohol? MR. SOTOLONGO: Well, the Sheriff's Department doesn't understand the distinction between rock and roll and rave. A rave is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. SOTOLONGO: You know, they're totally different. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The audiences are different. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Toni Horne. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ms. Horne. MS. HORNE: Commissioners, hello. I'm on the board of directors of the Collier County Fair, and I'm an attorney in that capacity. During Midnight Madness at the Fair, the treasurer for the fair has advised me that the number of people that usually come in are between 5 to 10,000 or more with the same amount of deputies that we're told here between 30 and 40. Midnight Madness does cause a severe backup on Immokalee Road. We've dealt with it every year with no problem. Last year the backup was so bad that the Sheriff's Department came in and said stop taking parking fees, get the cars in and park them and forget getting paid for it. We did that. So I have to agree that I think the requirement of the deputies Page 89 October 26, 1999 is overstated. It's way too much required. We've also done -- Darryl Singletary, a Country and Western fair -- excuse me, a Country and Western concert at the fair in 1997. There were about 2 to 3,000 people in attendance, and the contract from the Sheriff's Office was for six deputies for that particular event. We get about 1,500 people on the several we've done, four Spanish music festivals at the fairground and two country music festivals besides Darryl Singletary, and we get about 1,500 to 2,000 people with six deputies. That seems to be a standard number. So I think that between the 60 security guards that the promoter has offered and 30 more from the Sheriff, we're way overcovered. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question on a related but different subject? And Mr. Weigel, I'm going to want to some advice from you about this. Where did the two million dollar figure for insurance naming the county, what's the source of that? I'm concerned that that might not be sufficient. MS. HORNE: The source of that is the insurance company that we deal with at the fair board. Our fair director, Ann Ward, talks to the insurance company at almost every event that we do and says what kind of insurance coverage is required, what if there is alcohol. The reason for the two million on this is because of the alcohol being served. In standard practice on everything we've ever done before has been a one million dollar general liability policy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, just to put this number in perspective in terms of the appropriate number of deputies, Mr. Weigel has given you the opinion that your county outdoor concert ordinance does not apply in this case. But if it did apply, the standard in that ordinance is one per 500 participants. And that's optional. That's one of the requirements that the board may require. MS. HORNE: And that is what the fair requires on a standard -- as a standard practice for every event. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So instead of 20 for 10,000, you have 30 for 10,000 plus the 60 private. I'm convinced, not that I have authority to have an opinion, but I appreciate all the information. MS. HORNE: And the 30 deputies that will be there will have arrest power. The security guards, in my understanding, have the power to detain and have the power to put people off the property. So if a sheriff is needed to actually arrest, a security guard can detain and call in one of the sheriff's deputies to arrest. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the last thing I think anybody up here wants to do is create any sort of safety hazard. And frankly, there is nobody in the Sheriff's Department that I have more respect for than Pat Mullen. I'm just worried that because it's rock and roll and young people, that we're overreacting. It gives me a little bit of comfort at least that you're saying boy, if we get out there and we find the need's not there, we can release some of our guys. Page 90 October 26, 1999 But I just hope we can -- look, I know you've talked about the rave up in the middle of the state, but I 9o to probably 15 shows a year of different varieties, some old bands, some youn9 bands, and the number is considerably lower than what we're lookin9 at. And obviously, if you've 9ot Tony Bennett, you're 9oin9 to have a different crowd than you have for this. But somewhere in between, I think there may be a real number. And I just am hopeful -- it's your decision, but I'm hopeful that as the week 9oes on we can look and see. There may be a smaller number that is appropriate, but you're the safety expert. I'm going to obviously defer to you on that. But, you know, I just -- when we had no deputies and a handful of park rangers assigned for 6,000 people at Vineyards Park, which is not set up for an event, it makes me think 100 may be overkill. But go do that voodoo that you do so well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Voodoo is a bad thing for this one. Just one last question for me, and then I know Mr. Fernandez has a question or a comment, and that is again, none of this is my business, but now that you're sharing this information with us, I'd like to know more about what you're doing to -- how trained are your security officers going to be for fake I.D.'s? Who's in charge of that? MR. SOTOLONGO: When it comes to fake I.D.'s that's a problem that's relevant absolutely anywhere. I mean, you can walk into any nightclub any given day, there's going to be arrest for I.D.'s. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But when you do that, oftentimes there's an off-duty officer checking those I.D.'s, and so he is trained to -- MR. SOTOLONGO: Well, actually, what actually happens is normally security will contact the police department and say hey, I believe this is a fake I.D. But in any event, they do have sheets that outline, you know, What fake I.D.'s look like and, you know, they are trained to do that. We have a staff of 10 that is trained to do specifically that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you a great story. My wife and I went to a show maybe a month or two ago, and when you all said you'll be checking virtually everybody going through for I.D.'s is, they checked my wife and I for I.D.'s and my wife has not been so thrilled in years to have somebody check to make sure she was over 21 years old. At shows like this, when they say we're going to check everybody, it is not uncommon is my point, that they really do, regardless of how you look, check everybody. I don't look 21 years old, but they checked my I.D. MR. SOTOLONGO: It does actually happen twice. When you're first walking in, if you intend to drink, you're asked to produce I.D. at that time. That's the time that an arm band is issued to you. However, if at the beer stations there is a question that someone may be a minor, then they'll I.D. them again, even if they do have an arm band. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that information. Page 91 October 26, 1999 Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I hate to raise a new point, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why not? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- I've received word that EMS has not heard from this group. We understand from today's presentation that contact has been made with EMS, and we can't confirm that on our side. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We can confirm that we have a contract with EMS or we cannot? MR. FERNANDEZ: We cannot confirm that on our side. CHAIRWOM3LN MAC'KIE: Oh, Mr. Farese, ain't it good to be the lawyer? Somebody come tell us about this. MR. SOTOLONGO: There is no actual valid contract with EMS. The agreement is with the fire department to actually be there two hours before show time. And it is my understanding from the fair board that EMS is actually -- the fire department is actually right next door. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, they're separate units here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, what's the process? MR. SOTOLONGO: If it becomes an issue, we can handle that immediately. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You talk about out there you've go Corkscrew -- you're probably talking about the Corkscrew Fire District which is right on the corner. And right by the fairgrounds, almost the entrance, is the EMS -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Substation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- substation, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To clarify, you have no problem making sure there's EMS presence on-site. MR. SOTOLONGO: Absolutely none at all whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That would be good. Okay, any further questions? I think we have one more comment from our fair board lawyer member. Thank you. MS. HORNE: I've just been advised by the fair director that we did not require EMS contract over this. The EMS is right outside the fence of the Collier County fair, so if somebody is needed, they're right through the fence and they're there. We didn't require a contract for EMS on this one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Anything further on this? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think it would be a good idea to contract them because they might be on call someplace else, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I wish you would. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- don't count on somebody being there when they might be somewhere else. So I would make sure you do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You have a strong request from me with no authority that you please contract with EMS. MS. HORNE: We will abide by the request. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Let the record reflect they will abide by that request as stated by the attorney for the fair board. Item #1OF Page 92 October 26, 1999 REQUEST TO ENTER DISCUSSIONS WITH A CONSULTANT AND LEE COUNTY RE~ SOLID WASTE AND TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS WITH LEE COUNTY - APPROVED Let's talk about Barbara Berry's discussions with the Lee County folks about garbage. COMMISSIONER BERRY: All I wanted to do was put this on the agenda. Main reason is to -- I'm secondary, but the main reason is to allow staff or at least let them know that they have our support to have some discussions with Lee County. Because these are things that can get rather messy, if that is not the case. So I would rather that they have our authority to go ahead and enter into discussion. There's nothing binding here. But at least have discussion with Lee County. And secondarily, I have had one comment, because I did speak with a commissioner of Lee County, and we have had further discussion about perhaps meeting again and having another person involved in the discussion. And I'd just like the board to know that. If you say that's okay, fine, I'll do it. Otherwise, I won't do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate you getting whatever information you can. And appreciate, too, your clarifying that the board, I understood, had already given direction to the staff please to continue to work with Lee County. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just wanted to make sure that that was very, very clear. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I think that's great. If -- because whatever decision we make, when and if we actually make one, needs to be based on factual information. So I think that's great. I wondered if -- and we don't need to make a decision on this now, but perhaps some time early in the calendar year, I've once again been inundated with new and different technologies that -- some of which actually look pretty good, some of which are, you know, in never-never land. But it might be worthwhile to have either at a meeting or at a workshop some time in the year 2000 a presentation of some of the more viable options. Some of them are at least a decade old technologies now whose costs have suddenly come down dramatically. When we looked at some of these alternative technologies, still a lot more than we pay now, but it's a lot less than what it was when we looked at the alternatives in '93, '94. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let me just share with you that right from the onset, my view on this whole thing is looking long range and not for a short-term fix. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, wonderful. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would agree, Commissioner. I'm glad you brought it up again with this clarification. But it was my understanding that we had given direction to staff to pursue with Lee Page 93 October 26, 1999 County, to pursue our own operations, and to look at all viable alternatives. And I think Commissioner Constantine's idea is great, that probably some time in the year 2000 we better get this all back on the table and see where we are. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right, thank you. Do we have registered speakers for public comment on general topics? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none. Item #12A1 RESOLUTION 99-407 ADOPTING 1999 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES AND THE EXCEPTION OF CP-99-05; AND ORDINANCE 99- 72 ESTABLISHING THE 1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT UPDATE - ADOPTED CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then we'll go to the afternoon agenda. 12(A) (1), which is the public hearing for the '99 Growth Management Plan amendments. This is transmittal only at this point; am I right? MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione, with your comprehensive planning staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, for now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quitter. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Boy, do we hate to lose you. But when a dream job comes along, it's understandable. MS. CACCHIONE: Thanks. It's something -- I've enjoyed working for the county, but it's something I really look forward to doing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Hate to lose you. You're the institutional memory of this county's planning efforts, so -- MS. CACCHIONE: Well, seeing as how I'm getting senile, it's probably good. There are eight amendments today, five of which are public amendments and three of which are staff amendments. The staff amendments are the update of the CIE, the update of the transportation element, and the density reduction. The five public amendments, three are for commercial in the Golden Gate Estates master plan. And to clarify, staff had recommended not to transmit those three public amendments. And the reason and rationale for that is that we really feel what's needed in the Golden Gate Estates area is a thorough study of the transportation network, of the commercial needs in that area, where the bridges should be crossed in that particular area. We really need to look at that area as a whole. We have not done that, and we do think that that is something that is warranted. And so I just wanted to preface the staff presentations before that in terms of what staff's rationale was behind this recommendation not to transmit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Barbara, I wonder if we could take these -- because I imagine that there's no discussion on the CIE or transportation. Would I be right, that there are no comments from the Page 94 October 26, 1999 board on that in particular? And of course when we get to public comment, if people have comments on either of those, we can hear them. But maybe we could do the density -- you know, break them down one at a time. MS. CACCHIONE: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could we do that? MS. CACCHIONE: The CIE and the transportation, if there's any discussion on those. If not, I could move on to the density reduction, which has basically been directed by the Board of County Commissioners. And in that, the board had requested that we look at reducing density in the urban area. And this is mostly to deal with the density rating system, to delete the provision which allows you to convert commercial to -- from commercial to 16 units per acre, to delete that provision; reduce activity centers from a maximum of 16 units per acre to 12 units per acre; reduce the density band from three units per acre to two units per acre; and on agricultural properties greater than 50 acres in size, reduce that base density from four to two. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Barbara, have you evaluated how much property that would effect, the four to two? MS. CACCHIONE: Table 2 gives you an estimate of that acreage. And there are a couple parcels on that Table 2. This Table 2 is not a set in concrete and in stone, but it is merely iljustrative. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Help me find it. Do you have a page number, an agenda packet page number? Sorry. MS. CACCHIONE: I will get that page number. But it basically shows that there's 3,000 acres that would be subject to that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I found Table 1, so I must be getting close. How many acres? MS. CACCHIONE: 3,000 acres. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 3,000 acres. MS. CACCHIONE: About 30 -- 3,000 acres of property. And there's also a map in your packet as well, which shows the general location of those areas. There is an ability to regain that third and fourth unit. To regain the third unit, once you reduce from four to two, you would need to do some travel demand management techniques on your property. You'd either need to ensure that there's a public roadway through there. All of these techniques would be outlined in the Land Development Code, which would be a follow-up Land Development Code amendment. And to get the fourth unit back, you would need to develop either a conservation easement or an agricultural easement and -- on property. And that also would be subject to a Land Development Code amendment to flesh those things out in more detail. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I ask you another question about that, too? And then I promise to stop interrupting you. MS. CACCHIONE: Sure. Page 95 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I -- you know that I've opposed that density reduction inside the urban boundary because I think it's just bad planning. My question is, if a majority of the board goes forward with it, is there a grandfathered in date like there was, for example, in our final order with the state? MS. CACCHIONE: You did not provide for any grandfathering date in this language at all that you see before you today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if the language and part of this is adopted by the board, then it's effective when? MS. CACCHIONE: As soon as it actually becomes in effect. And these are transmittal hearings. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it would still be six months. MS. CACCHIONE: It would probably be more like four months from now, when it would be adopted. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chair, what would happen if we deferred that transmittal of that item until we have our other studies done? I'm not real comfortable with that anymore. At one time I was probably an advocate of it, but the more I've reflected, the more I've read, the more I've thought about it, am I moving a piece without having the whole picture? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's how I feel about it, too, Commissioner. And that is I think that it would be entirely appropriate for that issue to be held until we transmit all of the growth-related amendments that, you know, we are -- we now are studying so significantly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three years? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, if that's -- either three years or as a part of the interim amendments that we're going to be adopting over the next few months. Is there -- is that worth talking about? I mean, it's the first time -- I'm glad to hear that I'm at least not alone. Is there anybody else who's interested in -- ah, Commissioner Berry is smiling. Are you interested in deferring that, not transmitting that particular item? COMMISSIONER BERRY: At this point in time, until we get some more information on it, Madam Chair. Because more and more it's pointing to that we have some concerns -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's three. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- about reducing that density and what it may create in other areas. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hear three. I guess the thing -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He's going to try to reel us back. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of course. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I do that all the time. Of course, it's your job. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, the thing we got accused of last night at the Army Corps of Engineer public hearing, I think Commissioner Berry so correctly corrected on the record there. But what we were accused of when we asked for the extension is oh, this is just an opportunity for development to go on in the meantime and put Page 96 October 26, 1999 more units in, which isn't the case, because the Army Corps is dealing with stuff outside the urban area. And we have our moratorium in place until we get some answers out there. So it's just not accurate. My concern is here that could be an accurate comment, is -- we have an opportunity to make sure there's a limited number, a finite number that go into developments within the urban area. And what's interesting is when we hear complaints, when the public will say to us oh, there's building going on everywhere, when's it going to stop, what's going to happen, they're not talk about outside the urban area. 95 percent of those are driving around and seeing it popping up on this side of County Road 951. We've certainly got comments on TwinEagles. But that is not -- I can't believe that 95 percent of the people are driving along Immokalee Road -- although an awful lot do every day -- and are complaining about it. They see building going on everywhere and they're worried about what's the end result of that. We have an opportunity to lower what the finite number at the end of that process will be. And I think we make a mistake if we ignore that, because that number can be literally double as large if we don't make a move like this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry, do you have something you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER BERRY: My only reaction to that comment is that regardless of what we do up here today, Tim, they're going to continue to see that growth that's taking place right now in the urban area. It was approved a long time ago. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay? So whatever we do today is not going to stop. There's not going to be a magic bullet go out and put a stop to what's happening. They're still going to see it and they're still going to be concerned about it. And I think their concerns would be less if they weren't having to spend so much time at traffic lights on roadways. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand, and I agree completely. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It comes down to -- and I tended to agree with that concept early on until I started thinking about if we lower this density in the urban area where it's easier or more economical to provide urban services, instead of forcing it out into the outer areas, that that's beneficial, okay? That's where I'm coming from. And I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, because I know that this has been an issue and something you've talked about. But I'm just looking at this other side of it and I'm trying to somehow come up with what's the best way to do it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. And I think the flaw -- the development community's argument has been exactly that. Gee, if you limit it in the urban area, you will force it outside. I think the flaw in that thinking is saying it has to be an either/or. My suggestion is we can limit that build-out number, that finite number. We're already addressing the things outside the urban area. And there's going to be a finite number. There's going to be some Page 97 October 26, 1999 severe limitations on what can happen out there. So we won't be forcing it out there, because I suspect that when we get done all our work with DCA, there's going to be some strong limitations. And what you force out there is going to be so limited anyway, you're not going to be creating urban sprawl. As a matter of fact, that's the exact thing we're trying to avoid. What you are doing is limiting the additional number of units that are going to come online within the urban area, so you have fewer people waiting in those traffic signals. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which in many cases, though, they're doing anyway, because that's what the market -- the market's driving it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, the product, it's desirous, is already done what we are trying to formalize here in an amendment. So I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And a final comment. I know I'm not going to turn you around on it. But just the -- I heard someone say, three -- you know, well, at least for the three years while we deal with the other issue, I'll guarantee you we'll approve a lot of units between now and three years from now in the urban area. Perfectly legal, perfectly appropriate, you know, because that's where people own property and want to develop and where the demand is. But if we can approve those with fewer units than are allowed under the current law, I think that's what the public is asking us to do, is just slow it down and limit it a little bit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you both make very convincing arguments both ways. But I still am concerned because -- I'm going to come back, I think design is king. I think design is far more -- it's a very important part of this process. And until we get all the pieces there, I really would not like to make one move which may negatively effect what we're going to end up doing. So I'm going to vote for -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: First of all, perhaps the DCA's tentative agreement with Collier County is based in part on the fact that they knew we were going to take this action. I don't know whether that is or not. But really, we need to go back. I think one of the main points that's being missed here in this discussion is -- has to do with traffic. And that is, the density reduction going from four to two to get back to three, which will cover whatever the market is currently dictating is going to be built. You have to make traffic improvements within your area that will help keep traffic off of our arterials that already exist. That's the whole point of it. We're not going to reduce densities a lot with this discussion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're increasing responsibilities. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Far more important is what we're going to do, is to relieve some of our traffic problems with this proposal. That's why we're doing it. Not so much just blindly saying we're Page 98 October 26, 1999 going to reduce density, because you're not. Because the marketplace is saying we're going to have low density anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're correct. And the example we had used in the past was up on Pine Ridge, the busiest road in the county. And the example I use in the public often is if you live in Kensington and you want to buy a gallon of milk, you pull out of Kensington and you hang a left and you got to cross four lanes of traffic, you drive about two-tenths of a mile, and you cut across four lanes of traffic again to go into the grocery store. And then you come back. And what Commissioner Norris is saying is one of the real key features to this is it not only encourages, but rewards interconnections so that you don't have that little, you know, minimal use tying up what are our busiest roadways. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But Tim, can't we do that anyway? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate you bringing that up, John, because that was absolutely one of the keys. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, but can't we do that anyway? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can encourage it, but there's really no stick to make it happen. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But by reducing density, that's the stick? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, you give them one back if they do it. That's the stick. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I got you. I see what you're saying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You create that incentive there. And that was, I know, part of -- Commissioner Hancock, when he was on the board, his whole thing was trying to get interconnection back in -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think, though, that what we're seeing, what we would have had probably a long discussion about today with that home Whippoorwood, Whippoorwill -- whatever it was. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Whippersnapper. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whippersnapper Drive. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Whippersnapper Way. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Whipperwood will. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that there are ways for the county to require that to happen. It's a question of who pays and whether or not they get impact fee credits. And there are ways to do that. This is not an either/or choice. This is one alternate for how that could be accomplished. But at the same time -- and I don't know if this is going to argue against my three votes, you know, I've got to be careful here, but we also have to think about what it's going to do to the market and whether or not we're going to completely discourage housing; that people who work for a living can afford to buy within the urban area if we reduce the density to some level that's just not reasonable. So if I could, we've addressed two of the three staff proposed items. And two, we have indicated the desire to transmit. It sounds to me like there's three votes on this one not to transmit. Can I Page 99 October 26, 1999 take that as a consensus? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, let me just make one final point and then retake your consensus. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we delay this, you are going to see more approvals come through without the traffic enhancements that you so desire. So, you know, it would be my suggestion not to delay this, to go ahead and get it in place so that we can obtain these traffic improvements that are so much needed in our county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And just a final thought as well. There are two things that are non-debatable. And, I mean, someone can debate them but nobody can logically argue with. And that is, the public wants a limit on the number of people here. We're exploding so rapidly. I don't think there's anybody out in the general public who is saying boy, we've got to get more and more people to move here. They're saying great, we know there's some people who are going to keep -- continue to move here, is there any way that we can limit what that ultimate build-out number will be? This a tool to do exactly that. And two, the public wants transportation improvements. And this is a tool not only to do that but to get the private sector to pay for it. Both of those things, I don't think you're going to find any rational person that's going to say no, the public wants more people, or the public doesn't want transportation improvements. We've got an opportunity with this to take a giant step for both of those things nOW. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm not going to make a speech in rebuttal, but I'll just say that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not debatable, he said. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not logically debatable. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not logically debatable. But just on the question of whether or not DCA is strongly supportive or is going to be upset if we don't transmit this amendment, Barb, do you have any comment on that? MS. CACCHIONE: In my preliminary conversation some time ago, I don't believe DCA would have any problem if we didn't transmit this amendment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll tell you, I've had conversations where they said, what are you people thinking of? You know, what is urban sprawl if not discouraging urban density, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you, I've had that same conversation with the secretary and explained the answer to him, and he thought it made perfect sense. So they've raised the question. But again, as long as we are going to limit what's outside the urban area as well, then this makes sense. If we're not, then you do get into a sprawl situation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd support not transmitting this amendment. Does anybody else want to weigh in so we can have this discussion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's to stop if down the road we see that there's some compelling -- overwhelming compelling reason to do this? Page 100 October 26, 1999 What's to stop us from doing it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ms. Cacchione, can we do this as a later time? MS. CACCHIONE: Certainly. And I guess I would also bring up a couple of points. One thing you could also do is -- remembering, too, that the density range is a density range. It's from zero to four. So you do have that option of permitting lower densities based on issues with surrounding land use. You could also -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me, Barbara, we can do that anyway? Yes, ma'am. Like traffic. Exactly. Like the need for interconnections. Exactly. MS. CACCHIONE: In addition -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we had the gumption. MS. CACCHIONE: In addition to that, what you could also do is make these travel demand management techniques a density reduction. And basically if they don't do this, they lose a unit. So that is another way to maybe get the kinds of things you'd like to see in these projects and be able to accomplish that to some degree. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think I'd like to do that and just put this on hold until -- and not transfer at this time. I'm not going to change my mind. That just reinforces -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, that's two votes for no transmittal. Is there -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask Commissioner Berry a question. And you had said, you know, if down the road we find a compelling, overwhelming reason to do this -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Overwhelming compelling. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The OC plan. -- do you not think that the amount of growth and the amount of traffic now is overwhelming nor compelling? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, yeah, but I've already said that. We keep talking about building roads for the future, okay? We need to build roads for right now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay? Forget the future. You know, if we don't build roads, a lot of us aren't going to be around here for the future. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And again, the downside to waiting on the transmittal is the lost opportunity you'll have between now and then to be able to make these traffic enhancements. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we can adopt an ordinance immediately with the stick instead of the carrot. Do you understand what I'm saying? We can do that immediately, if the traffic is the concern as opposed to the other issue that -- Page 101 October 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think both are. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ms. Berry, have you a position on this? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just said what my position was on it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You do want to transmit it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that's three not to transmit that item. Let's go to the public proposals. MS. CACCHIONE: There is one -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: We need a break. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm so sorry. Our court reporter needs a break. Will five minutes do? She'll take what she can get. Five minutes. (Brief recess.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the meeting back to order, the Board of County Commissioners, October 26th, 1999. We have taken a consensus on two -- on three now of the three staff items for transmittal on the growth plan amendments. Two we voted to transmit and one we voted not to transmit. I understand that there are people in the room who have spent the day with us -- not that that wasn't just entirely thrilling -- who have spent the day with us who wanted to ask us not to transmit the density reduction amendment. And they would at least like to voice their opinions by standing at this time to indicate that they were here in opposition to the density reduction transmittal. We appreciate your being here, and you're more persuasive than you thought. You just didn't even have to come up here. Please -- excuse me, sir. I'd be happy to hear from you on the record, if you'd come right up. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Got to come to the microphone, Mike. MR. DEL DUCA: Thank you. The one thing -- there are a lot of people here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Your name, for -- MR. DEL DUCA: My name is Mike Del Duca. I represent a lot of different organizations. Just trying to be brief. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. DEL DUCA: There's a lot of people here that are with a group of organizations. The Marco Area Chamber of Commerce, Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, the American Speciality Contractors' Association, The Collier Building Industry Association, and NABR, Naples Board of Realtors. This is not a construction issue, it's a business issue. And these organizations have banded together to agree with the three commissioners that decided not to transmit this information. I just didn't -- I wanted to make sure that everybody knew that there may be 20 or 50 people here, but there's actually thousands of people behind these people that are a voice in this matter. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you very much for bringing that forward. Page 102 October 26, 1999 Okay. Ms. Cacchione, can you take us now to the public proposed amendments? MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, there's one item that is very quick, and it's the last item, CP-99-8, and that's for Bonita Bay. And that is basically transmitting language that we already have adopted in our EAR based amendments for the interchange at 1-75 and 951, which calls for the interchange master plan. That was just in case things got confusing with the DCA and things didn't get adopted. But that language should already be in there. We'd recommend that you go ahead and transmit it. But within the next 20 days, that should be effective, no matter what. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, that's Item No. 8 on our agenda here. Is there anyone who opposes that transmittal? Okay, then we'll -- MS. CACCHIONE: Then with that, we go back to the very first one, CP-99-1. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's see. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't we need to do disclosure on these? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yes, I guess we should, shouldn't we, Mr. Weigel, do disclosure of ex parte communications? MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me, which item is this? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're on the growth plan amendment transmittals. MR. WEIGEL: This is -- pardon me. This is legislative, so no, you do not have to do disclose. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So the first one is 99-01. MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Amy Taylor, and I'm with the planning services department. Before you for your consideration is Petition 99-1, an amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan. Specifically this is a text amendment to the Golden Gate professional office commercial district. The district is located in Golden Gate Estates and abuts Golden Gate Parkway, east of Santa Barbara Boulevard and east and west of the Santa Barbara Canal. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: MS. TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: MS. TAYLOR: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ms. Taylor? Again, in the interest of brevity -- -- it might be more appropriate to have board members ask questions, because I trust everybody's read their packet and are familiar. You have the picture on the screen here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we go to No. 2? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. MS. TAYLOR: We're on No. 1. COMMISSIONER CARTER: 99-01. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 99-01. MS. TAYLOR: Golden Gate professional -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just said -- Page 103 October 26, 1999 MS. TAYLOR: -- office commercial district. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Golden Gate Estates. It's not in the Estates. MS. TAYLOR: Oh, I'm sorry, I misspoke then. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's all right. We're at 99-01. There are probably people in the public who want to speak about this, because I did. COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is right along the Parkway. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right along the parkway, basically extending the commercial -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm very familiar with it. Just when I heard Estates, I thought we jumped one item. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Does anybody have questions for staff on 99-1, or do we need to hear a presentation on it from staff? Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I've got a couple of questions for the petitioner. Just a comment. We've gone through -- both with the Golden Gate Civic Association and the petitioner, we've spent an great deal of time on this, picking and choosing and knocking out different proposed uses that were inappropriate or just didn't meet with the community's definition. But there are two or three items I wanted to try to get some help with here. Mr. Anderson, are you representing the group? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I had a couple of questions just while he's coming up, Commissioner, about some of the uses that were deemed incompatible, like a convenience store or maybe a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A lot of those our community agreed to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How did you get -- what was the mechanism for their communicating that they don't want them? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They met -- the Civic Association and other community leaders met with the folks who are proposing this, probably about a half a dozen times and went through all kinds of uses. Golden Gate -- I'll give a little bit of detail. If you look at the map on the visualizer, the Parkway district there has its own special uses and not which were provided as part of the Golden Gate Master Plan, which had a unprecedented amount of community input back around 1989 through '91, and prohibited a number of uses, and focused primarily on office professional and a few other scattered uses. Because of the unique nature of these lots and their depth and a recognition that, you know, some things have changed in that time frame, they had suggested a number of uses beyond. There were some things from the old hearings and from the community leaders today that were very clearly not desired, like more gas stations and more convenient stores and so on. There are some uses that are expansion beyond what the community had decided in 1991 that the community seems fairly comfortable with now. And that's -- there were only two or three items on here that we Page 104 October 26, 1999 still had questions, but they had ironed out 99 percent of the issues. And I just wanted to run through those couple that we still had questions on. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate you clearing them up for me. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the items was we had talked about eating places and some specific limitations on that. I was disappointed to see ice cream stands taken out, by the way. But it talked about drive-through in the rear. We had talked about drive-throughs being limited. I see the wording down below here where it says fast-food restaurants shall shield drive-through facilities from view to the greatest extent practical. I think that doesn't go nearly as far as what the discussions I had had with the petitioner were. And that was specifically they'd be on the rear and be shielded from view from the roadway. Because the greatest extent practical at some point could be interpreted by someone to be some shrubs along the edge of the clown nose that you're talking into, the place you order for a burger. So the agreement we had had verbally prior to this was considerably more restrictive than that verbiage, and I wondered if you could help me in cleaning that up a little bit. MR. ANDERSON: I would be -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who are you, by the way? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, by the way, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent the petitioner. Again, if you have some wording that you want to see here, I would just remind you generally again that we are dealing with a comprehensive plan. And the more detail you put in here at this point in time, the less flexibility you have as a commissioner when a zoning petition comes before you, as does the property owner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is exactly why I'd like to get it in there now. And that is that verbally we had talked before, and I -- unless I'm mistaken, and I don't know if Jim O'Gara is back there somewhere, but we had talked very specifically about limiting the drive-through facilities to the rear of the building and that it would be shielded appropriately from the main thoroughfare, in this case Golden Gate Parkway. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, would you give me one moment, please? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's right behind you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: While they're consulting, do board members have other questions for staff or anyone else? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question for staff and that was, through adjacent properties to 53rd Street Southwest, there had been some concern about connections into neighborhoods from the commercial properties. MS. TAYLOR: No, we haven't heard specific concerns from Golden Gate Civic Association. Staff hasn't. But we had raised some issues about providing access through 53rd, which is here, which would be more of an impact on the neighboring community. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was a concern. We obviously Page 105 o October 26, 1999 didn't want people using that as their main way to get to the burger shop. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I must not understand this issue then, because wouldn't that be -- interconnection, wouldn't that be you can go to the Quik Mart without getting out on a major collector road if you could access it from the back? MS. TAYLOR: Well, the property that's affected is here. And 53rd is several properties away. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So how would they get there via 53rd? I mean, what is this issue of 53rd anyway? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why I'm surprised to see it there, because it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. CEAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, but we do -- is there a question about whether or not we do want to have neighborhood connection? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, we do not want -- and we could have pedestrian through-ways so that if you have neighborhoods want to walk or bicycle down. But the neighbors have been fairly clear, if you get a McDonald's or something in there, they don't want that exiting out onto what now is a neighborhood street that has very, very limited capacity. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But what if it's -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we'd always talked before that if there's an opportunity for you to get into a shopping area without having to go out onto a main roadway wherever possible, we think that that's a good plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand what you're saying, you don't want the drive-through traffic that comes through McDonald's or whatever, XYZ Fast Food, coming out and then having to travel down that neighborhood street. But how can we avoid -- I mean, how can we get the same thing where they can have access and we can avoid the situation that you speak about? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Amy, are you hearing that? Because what it sounds like the board is saying as a policy, generally even, is that we want there to be connection to neighborhoods for that loaf of bread, but we don't want there to be for drive-through convenience traffic that's less likely to be serving the neighborhood. So you may want to be thinking about how we can adjust that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the other distinct is, though, that we're talking in the past about when those neighborhoods are designed, design them with the interconnection, rather than after the fact because someone wants to put a commercial property, we're going to force extra traffic into your neighborhood. That's the difference here is the Golden Gate community has been there 30 years, and if somebody's lived on that corner, they've had, you know, 100 cars on their street every day, and suddenly we say well, this guy wants to put a McDonald's there or a bread store in and you're going to have to have 2,000 cars a day. So staying with what is also the board policy, is we want to try to protect the integrity of existing neighborhoods. Page 106 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This seemed to be conflicting policies to me. MS. TAYLOR: Excuse me, and that's how the Golden Gate professional office commercial district was written in its intent in the very beginning was that access would be limited to Golden Gate Parkway because of the sensitivity to the neighborhoods that surrounded it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: policy -- MS. TAYLOR: Exactly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: wants, God bless them. This is sort of an exception to the general -- of interconnection. Okay. Ail right. If that's what Golden Gate COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because it's an old neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go ahead, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I've put a graphic on here to indicate the kind of interconnection we're talking about. This is all we're talking about is right here off Golden Gate Parkway -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. ANDERSON: -- not from the residential area here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On neither the north nor the south side are you talking about the back ends of the property? MR. ANDERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: the drive-through limitations? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes. Thank you. You conferred with Mr. O'Gara about What his recollection is, is that the drive-in window itself would be in the rear. But we don't want there to be any confusion about -- the lane, the drive-through lane itself might very well be visible. But the actual unsightly window where the exchange takes place would be shielded from view. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The lane's not going to look much different from the parking lot, is it? It's going to be a striping question. That's what you're worried about is the clown nose, right? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. ANDERSON: Is that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. MR. ANDERSON: -- consistent? We would revise that to state fast through -- fast-food restaurants shall shield the drive-through facilities from view to the greatest extent practical, and shall have the drive-in window in the rear. Is that satisfactory? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And ordering -- what's the drive-through window versus the clown nose I'm talking into? What's that refer to? Hi, can I take your order, please? MR. ANDERSON: That is normally in the lane itself. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, then I was confused, too. I thought we were just talking about pavement and striping. Page 107 October 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the reasons we did not ask -- myself and the civic community did not ask that this item be removed was partially because your client was so cooperative in removing the gas stations and the convenient stores and all those inappropriate uses. But also because we were given some assurance that we wouldn't have the Hamburglar staring us in the face as you drove down Golden Gate Parkway. And that's where I'm trying to go with this, is make sure that that's shielded. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So what do you have to assure us in that regard? It sounds like that's not your understanding. Your understanding -- MR. ANDERSON: No, it's just -- no, that is our understanding. And we tried to address that, apparently in insufficient detail. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's move on to the next item and perhaps we can work on that verbiage before we have our final vote on this item. Is that acceptable? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Certainly is to me. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you define -- Mr. Anderson, I still have more questions on this site. I'm just not on that specific restriction. Food stores, No. 3, can you define food stores for me? We had some go-arounds on that as well. MR. ANDERSON: A food store might be like Fresh Market, or the farmer's market. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Could it be a bakery? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The infamous bread store. There you go. MR. ANDERSON: But not to be confused with a supermarket. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This will be kind of -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: In other words, it's not going to be a store with a pharmacy and a flower shop and a meat market and a seafood -- MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could be a health food store. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. 7, miscellaneous repair services, there's no TV or VCR repair. Computer repair could be only in conjunction with new computer sales. What then would be considered there? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Vacuum. Vacuum cleaner sales and repair. MR. ANDERSON: That would be one, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What else, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: We could repair radios, as long as they were not connected to a VCR or TV. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Big market for that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why do we care about TV repairs? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, really. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: What's the problem with that one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's -- the type of facility usually Page 108 October 26, 1999 is -- if you can visualize it, when you go in there's a zillion electronic things all dusty and piled on top of each other, and is not in keeping with the professional district that the community is striving to develop on that stretch. I would say stereo would fall in with -- and if my recollection with Commissioner Hancock's conversations on this in the past, stereo repair would probably fall in with TV and VCR repair there as well. So I wouldn't want to open the window on my receiver -- although my Sony disc player is on the fritz right now. I wouldn't want to open that window. I don't know that it makes a whole lot of sense to fix my stereo and not television or VCR. So I'm wondering what else. Other than vacuums, what would be allowed there? I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Shoe repair. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A pair of shoes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Watch repair. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Clocks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Anderson, is there anything else? You're very quiet over there today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So unlike you, sir. MR. ANDERSON: I'm very shy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, that's what they say. MR. ANDERSON: No, those are equally applicable. Shoes -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No other electronics or anything? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Do you want to broaden that and say no electronic repair? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With the exception of computer repair in conjunction with new computer sales. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And No. 11 we had a number of discussions on, and I've gone some research on, particularly as it relates to traffic impacts and so on. And I think the petitioner has agreed to remove Item 11, videotape rental, even though it was limited in size. MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So we take 11 out, right? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 11 out. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: We'll provide in here regarding the drive-through that both the ordering facility and the window itself will be shielded in some manner. It may be by landscaping. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some manner, okay. MR. ANDERSON: It may be architecturally. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you. Visually shielded. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Those are all the questions. And I just wanted to compliment your client on the work they did with the community. I wish everybody actually came out and had as many meetings and found out what the community wanted ahead of time as well Page 109 October 26, 1999 as they did. MR. ANDERSON: Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there other questions for the petitioner? Are there speakers on this particular item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Sheri Barnett is the first one, and Cheryle Newman. MS. BARNETT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Sheri Barnett, for the record. I'm here -- I actually was one of the people that sat down with the two developers from the beginning. I think we had six meetings in total. We have also been promised that should this go forward, they will have an open forum within the community for their also input. We discussed it with some of the people that had been on the previous panel back in the Eighties, I believe it was, and that helped devise the kind of master plan for that area. And it pretty much fit in that the community wanted to bring the commercial up the Parkway slowly, develop it into a center area. And this is pretty much where that is. So it did fit with that. We whittled down a lot of their requests. Tim whittled it down even a few more for us in one discussion that we had with him. And basically we met with -- I think there were 10 people involved from the community that represented both civic associations, the chamber, the newspaper, and just general people that were involved in the past. So we had a pretty good influx for the input. And we wanted -- I personally just want to say that I appreciate the fact that they let us have that input and that we are not opposed to this project. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could I just ask you, do you agree with the elimination of these uses and all of these are things that your association supports? MS. BARNETT: The only one that I disagreed with was the video rental. I didn't know if there was not a need for that out there. But I could also understand with the traffic and impact. We already have a problem with traffic out there, so, for that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, appreciate that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Cheryle Newman. MS. NEWMAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Cheryle Newman. I'm here in the capacity of the president of the civic Association, and I was also the group that met with the petitioner on a multiple amount of meetings we had. At least six meetings is what Sheri had indicated. I would like to say that they have demonstrated a great willingness to work with the community, and they listened to what we had to say as far as what we felt was acceptable and what was not acceptable to us. And it was a broad range of community leaders, as Sheri had indicated. It wasn't just the Civic Association, it was the Chamber and some of the business community, as well as some of the other organizations that are out there, including the Estates group. Page 110 October 26, 1999 They -- again as Sheri had said, they have agreed to provide an open meeting, if this is approved by the state and by yourself, to come forward and work with us to set aside or put in place standards that would include signage, landscaping, buffering and the whole gamut of the whole development area. As far as the assessability, they will be designing into this complex pedestrian assessability from the neighborhoods that it would be abutting, as well as they have discussed the possibility of bridges that could maybe go across the canals and get people from one area of the development to the other without having to go onto the Parkway and create more traffic than we already have. I would just like to say that it's probably not going to be something that's going to be put in place within the next couple of months, and I'm winding down in my term of office. So someone else -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You point that out every time you're here. MS. NEWMAN: It's getting closer, it's getting closer. I'm going to still stay involved as much as I can, because I was on the team working with them in the beginning. I won't be in the same capacity, but I will still be involved in it. And I look forward to working with the petitioners on this new project. We feel it's a good thing going on in Golden Gate, and we'd like to see that happen. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Other speakers on this issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: There may be, but I can't tell from the way they've signed up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anybody that particularly wanted to speak on this amendment? Speak now or forever hold your peace, as they say. So let's have a consensus -- I'm sorry, you have something to say? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do, ma'am. While we had a chance to hear from the public, I had a chance to speak with my client and also with Ms. Barnett regarding whether their concern was with shielding the view of the window where the orders are actually delivered, or where the orders are taken and if there was some loud speaking device. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think your suggestion that both of those be shielded was a great one. MR. ANDERSON: Well, it may be an impractical one. Here is the proposed wording: All ordering devices, a general term, or windows where orders are taken shall be shielded from view from Golden Gate Parkway. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not necessarily where the burgers are handed out, but where the burgers are requested shall be shielded. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And not to the greatest extent practical, but shall be shielded. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Again, it's transmittal, and we will be adopting more specific restrictions as we go forward. How do you feel about that? MR. ANDERSON: And indeed, there would, you know, be a PUD amendment to come before you at some point in time with even more Page 111 October 26, 1999 specifics. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It will be easier to talk about specifics when we see a specific application instead of now talking about the general, so that's fine with me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are we doing a consensus on this? We are, and I support it. I support it. I'll support it. There we go. I'll support it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Now, we can talk about 99-02, Mr. Jassy's 951 commercial infill designation. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David Weeks of the comprehensive planning staff. Appreciating your desire for brevity, I think I can do this in about one minute. The issues are the appropriateness of location and the need for additional commercial opportunities in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. It's in the Estates right opposite Golden Gate City. Staff certainly recognizes that the site abuts two busy collector roadways. The traffic volumes in '98 were in the neighborhood of 25 to 30,000 vehicles per day, depending on which of the two roadways we're speaking of. Staff's concern as far as inventory is from a standpoint of the total amount of commercial, both zoned and available to be zoned for commercial uses in the Golden Gate planning community as a whole and also in the what's referred to as the Study Area I of the Golden Gate Estates, which refers only to the Golden Gate Estates west of County Road 951 and Golden Gate City. In staff's opinion there is adequate commercial available for the office uses that are proposed as part of this petition. There are some commercial opportunities for the retail use -- a pharmacy -- certainly not as many as there are for office uses as the petitioner proposes. The second item -- well, let me finish up with that. With staff looking at the total inventory. This is not a matter, as I said, at Planning Commission of the petitioner coming before you and saying if we build it, they will come and staff saying no, if you build it they won't come. That's not the issue. We're not saying that the site could not be developed as proposed and be successful. Staff is saying here's the total inventory of commercial that the county has, both as a whole and as well as within this planning community, and we don't think there's a need for any additional commercial opportunities. If this is approved and developed, good for the petitioner. We will still have the same amount of commercial inventory as we did prior to this petition. The second issue, aside from the need of the inventory of Page 112 October 26, 1999 commercial is the appropriateness of location. Again, we acknowledge that it's at a busy intersection, but nevertheless, it is still part of the Golden Gate Estates subdivision, an area of semi-rural development. And our recommendation is that you do not transmit this petition. If you disagree and say well, staff, this is not reasonable and this property is not suitable for residential, we would suggest then consider going up one level of intensity and designate the site as an area for conditional uses. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: David, it says recommended transmitting to DCA as submitted by the petitioner. MR. WEEKS: That is the Planning Commission's recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll be darned. MR. WEEKS: Staff did not support this. Planning Commission unanimously did. And we have one letter of objection. It is from the property owner adjacent to the north. I think I'll hold off on summarizing that. I see that a representative of that property owner is here, and I'll let them -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me run through a couple of thoughts. This is the intersection of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway. And so while it is zoned Estates, it's actually this side of Golden Gate City, west of Golden Gate City. My question, and I know we talked about this earlier, is if you got 25 or 30,000 cars a day going by there, it's probably not particularly viable as a residential on an Estate lot. It's not going to be a real popular use. I think there may be some use. Whether or not these are all appropriate or not, we'll decide. But as far as commercial viability, my thought is when 1-75 opens up four and a half, five years from now, that's going to be particularly useful. Particularly where we're not allowing any commercial immediately adjacent to 1-75. The primary concern I have had, and we're going to hear today, is there is a pretty nice residence next door, and I'm sure they don't want to look out their window at the back of Walgreen's. And so is there a way to find a use that is more viable than a residential property set on an intersection with 25,000 cars a day but at the same time not destroying an existing home? MR. WEEKS: Two comments. First of all, yes, we believe there is. The first step that staff has historically taken, specifically with this property but with the Estates in general, is that if an argument is successfully made, that is, if ultimately you commissioners agree that a particular property such as this is not suitable for residential, let's look at the next tier or next layer of intensity of use. And that's why staff would suggest conditional uses; churches, child-care centers, nursing homes, things of that sort, quasi-commercial and in some cases a quasi-residential use. It is more intense than a single-family home, or in this case three single-family homes that can be built here, but it does not have the Page 113 October 26, 1999 level of intensity, the traffic volume noise, hours of operation, as commercial uses do, particularly retail commercial. So we would say if you don't think it's suitable for residential, first take a look at the layer of conditional uses. Secondly, I would point out to you that this is -- being a busy intersection and the concern about the appropriateness of use, that argument can also be made for numerous properties in Golden Gate Estates, because there are a lot of major intersections. Pine Ridge and Logan comes to mind. But there are many as well. And we may be crossing this bridge regarding appropriateness of use for many of these other intersections as well. Whatever action is taken here maybe could be applicable to the others as well. That's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? MR. WEEKS: -- kind of a cautionary note. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think one of the big concerns here is the four corners. You've got commercial right across the street to the east from this property. You have a school, Naples Christian Academy, it would across the street to the south from it also. There's a church parking lot, I believe there, kind of in conjunction with the school. My concern is any kind of an interconnect, how are you going to interconnect without everybody having to come out onto either Golden Gate Parkway or Santa Barbara? If you make this commercial, how are you going to -- if the guy that's over in Santa Barbara, what is it, Santa Barbara Shopping Center or Santa Barbara -- what do they call it? MR. WEEKS: Square. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Square. How do you get from there if you want to go across the street and then eventually you want to go pick your child up over at the Christian Academy? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Lot of rights and a lot of U-turns. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's my whole point. And it already as well acknowledged -- and I believe there have been a few accidents at that particular intersection. Why do we need to contribute to this? And I would like to see -- before this is transmitted anywhere, I would like to see a traffic control situation set up there, tell me how you're going to interconnect the traffic along this whole intersection. Just a thought. MR. WEEKS: I could comment very briefly on that. The staff's review of this, and I think the petitioner concurs with this, that there would be no access to Santa Barbara Boulevard. The depth of the property is simply too narrow, and with the turn lane on Santa Barbara to go west onto Golden Gate Parkway, staff's position is it's just not safe. Persons might be getting into the turn lane thinking they're going to be turning on the Parkway and instead find that they're going into the business here and then want to come back into the turn lane going to the Parkway, and the possibly of an accident occurring. I think the petitioner is in concurrence with no access onto Santa Page 114 October 26, 1999 Barbara. Also, in regards to access on the Parkway, planning staff had some concern about that as well. Our suggestion is that if this petition is approved that the access point be limited to one, not multiple access points, one to share all of the uses on the property. And secondly, that that access point be located as far west on the Parkway as possible. It does not change -- I think your point, Commissioner Berry, in that for person's making certain movements in and out of this property, they may have to go west and make a U-turn to get back east. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MR. WEEKS: And I don't think there's a solution to that in the sense that it's too close to the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard to have a full access point for a traffic light. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then I think this comes back to your statement that you made, that maybe a conditional use on this particular piece of property is more viable than, quote, the strictly commercial kind of uses. MR. WEEKS: Usually the conditional uses will have a lot less traffic. That's one -- and hours of operation being less and the noise. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't we hear from the petitioner at this point, unless there are other questions for staff. Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner. Before you today is a petition basically to redesignate the 951 commercial infill designation on the Golden Gate Master Plan to the Golden Gate commercial infill subdistrict. Staff went into a little bit of detail as to where this property is located. The parcel's about a seven-acre site. It's on the corner of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway. The uses we're requesting are basically a drug store -- working your way from the closest point of the intersection to the west, it would be a drug store type use, then a bank, then an office, and then a conditional use. So we are tapering down the types of uses from the intersection to the west. I think it's important to note that staff makes a point about the inventory of commercial property out in the Golden Gate area. And staff makes the point that there is sufficient acreage for commercial development out there. But staff, I think, will admit that the inventory out there has never really been analyzed as to whether or not in fact that inventory is sufficient for the types of uses that we are proposing. If you'll look at what's available as already zoned or could be zoned in that area, you'll see that those properties are 100 foot in depth and simply cannot accommodate the uses we're proposing. If they could, the market would have already put those uses there and they would have already been developed. So we would submit -- and I have someone here, Mike Timmerman can Page 115 October 26, 1999 address for you in detail how he did his study and his analysis to show you then in fact of commercial inventory is insufficient in this area. And he's here to speak to any specific questions regarding that. What we have attempted to do is set forth development standards in the comprehensive plan, which usually you will find in the Land Development Code, to assure compatibility with the adjacent properties. And we can get into the traffic and the access issues which are usually done, you know, at the site planning and also the PUD stage, not in the comprehensive plan. And we would submit that that's probably where we should do that and deal with those issues at that point. Adding more conditional uses to this area. I mean, I think if you have driven from Santa Barbara to the interchange, you will see that there are, I think, at least 10 conditional uses in that area already, and the Golden Gate Master Plan already says no more. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Church row. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So I think that the people of Golden Gate have said we don't want any more conditional uses in that area. I think you have -- the location, you can't emphasize enough that this will be the intersection of two six-lane arterials. And it makes perfect sense to have commercial development in that area. We have -- Mr. Jassy is here as the petitioner. He has spoken to the leadership of both the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gosh, they're both going no, he has not at this moment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, he can answer that question then. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's because they're the city civic. He's spoken to the Estates. MR. YOVANOVICH: The Estates. And it is in the Estates and the Estates association has voiced no objection. The petitions were submitted to the city civic association by county staff, and we have yet to hear any comment regarding that from the city civic association. So we would ask if there are some concerns, we would request that we be given an opportunity to address those concerns. During -- you know, transmit, give us a chance to work through the concerns, and then, you know, at the adoption, if we haven't resolved their issues, we would like to be given the opportunity to do that, since the petition was given to them and we have not heard any comments and are -- frankly, if there are any comments, they're going to catch us off guard today on that. If you have any specific questions of Mr. Jassy as to who he has spoken to and what he has spoken to them about, Bill Hoover our planner is here and can answer any of your planning questions regarding the petition. Mike Timmerman is here, who did our needs assessment, basically as to whether or not there's enough commercial viability for the site. And also, Lou Brenner. He's with Semper Development. He can't be Page 116 October 26, 1999 here now. He was here earlier. He did speak in favor at the Planning Commission. He is a developer of Walgreen's sites, and testified that there is a need and this is a good location for this type of use, and that there are not other adequate sites in the Golden Gate area for his proposed use. Otherwise, we would ask that you follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and transmit this to the DCA for their consideration. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions for the petitioner? No? So we'll hear from the public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Talitha Cirou and then Cheryle Newman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How many speakers do we have on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Three that I can identify specifically -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you tell us -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- for this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- the third name? MR. FERNANDEZ: Third name is Sheri Barnett. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if your name wasn't called and you want to speak on this particular item, come and speak up to Mr. Fernandez now, please. You know, since you do have pictures, you may want to put them over here. Barbara Cacchione, would you help her, show her how these things work? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does she know she loses them if she -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you know they become part of the public record? MS. CIROU: No, I didn't, but it's okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We need to get you on the microphone. You can be on that one, if you'd like. MS. CIROU: I was just -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That one first, all right. David, do you mind to help her back it up, too, so we can -- or however you want to handle it. That's great. Fine like it is. MS. CIROU: My name's Talitha Cirou, and I'm speaking today on behalf of myself, my husband, my son and my father-in-law. We live at 2925 Santa Barbara Boulevard, which is the residential property directly north of the proposed commercial infill site. I prepared the pictures mainly for the board to just to get an idea of the property that is directly north and what is our residence and what we're looking at. If I can address the pictures, because I actually wanted you to just look at them and pass them through. I'll go through real quick. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We can still do that, if you'd like. MS. CIROU: I would prefer that. It would be much easier. CHAIRWOMAi~ MAC'KIE: Of course you can. MS. SAROW: Starting with that one. Thank you. My husband and his father have lived happily at this address for 18 years, and myself for seven. The Cirous have owned and operated a business in Collier County for 50 years. We have a house and a guest Page 117 October 26, 1999 house with a gated entryway. Because our property is surrounded by heavily wooded areas with the gate, security and privacy have never been a problem. We are very concerned that if the corner is rezoned commercial, we will lose much of our privacy and security, not to mention the peacefulness and beauty. Therefore, we oppose rezoning the property next to us. It has been said that no one would buy this property zoned residential because it is such a busy corner. We would like to make the board aware that we have offered to purchase this property zoned as-is twice previously, and are still interested in purchasing it at the current appraised value. If we own the property and we built houses on it, we would deed them safe access off of our property. This would ensure safe access to the residents. We would also like to make you aware that we have plans to build a 6,400 square foot house on the north 180, which we also own. We have put those plans on hold, pending the outcome of the proposed rezoning. We feel that if the corner is left residential, it would be more of an asset to our environment and Golden Gate than if it were rezoned commercial. We already have an overabundance of underutilized commercial property along Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, as the planning staff has stated. We believe the proposed project would have a negative impact on our residential area and an already overburdened intersection. We have difficulty getting in and out of our driveway as it is. Any commercial center on the corner will only make the traffic worse. We estimate there to be approximately 800 to 1,000 trees, which provide not only us but everyone with cleaner air to breath and less noise from the traffic, which is only going to increase. If for some reason you approve this proposal for rezoning, we would like to request that the maximum setbacks for commercial abutting residential property be abided by. Since one of our biggest concerns is security and privacy due to the close proximity of the guest house and the property line, which is exactly 15 feet, we would like a seven-foot concrete masonry wall setback 15 feet onto their property for the length of the guest house, which is approximately 60 feet long, and then 10 foot setback on their property for the remaining 600 feet, which is the length of our property, with returns to our property line to adjoin to our fence or wall. This would prevent anyone from trespassing onto our property. We would also like the wall to be nicely landscaped. We also have questions concerning whether there would be a liquor store at the Walgreen's and what the hours of operations would be, because we do not want to live next to a 24-hour drug store. We also are concerned about garbage pickup and dumpster locations, since -- if it were left residential, the garbage would not be an issue. So in closing, we ask that you take into consideration my Page 118 October 26, 1999 family's safety and quality of life as you make your decision on this issue today. You can see we have a large investment in our home and properties, which we care very much about. We are very happy living at Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, and hope to remain there. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I just be sure you understand -- and I'm sure you do, I don't mean to be insulting -- that this is a transmittal hearing, not a rezone if -- MS. CIROU: Yes. I just -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- this is approved today. MS. CIROU: -- wanted everything to be on the record today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Because you would have a lot of other opportunities to talk about what would be appropriate buffering and walls or what setbacks would be appropriate. Today wouldn't even ensure that the comp. plan would be amended if we forward it, it's merely for transmittal, and then we -- MS. CIROU: Yeah, I just wanted it on the record. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, just wanted to be sure. Questions for the speaker? If not, our next speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Cheryle Newman and then Sheri Barnett. MS. NEWMAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Cheryle Newman. The reason that Mr. Jassy may have indicated that the civic association was not opposed to this, when we were contacted he was deferred to the Estates group because it does fall outside of our jurisdiction. After some months it became evident to us that the Estates group was not going to be in opposition of this change, and it does impact our community greatly, because that is the entrance to our community from that area. So the board voted on Monday, the 20th, for me to send a letter to the commission indicating that it was not so much that we opposed the project but that we felt that there were some items that needed to be addressed prior to the rezone. Some of those items that I would like to bring forward today, you should all have had your copies in hand prior to this time, was the traffic situation. That is an intersection that from what I understand is slated to be six lanes. We feel that high trafficked commercial area in that section would create even greater traffic problems than we currently have now. It would appear to us that if a pharmacy was put there, it would have to be the same type of arrangement that is currently at Airport and Davis, a right-in and a right-out, that there's no left turn into it, because of the high traffic volume in that intersection. And I think the second item would be, there's one at the Eckerd's at 41 and Pine Ridge. I don't believe there's a left-in at that one either. We feel that maybe there should be some more study done as far as the volume of traffic in that one area. And we felt that the intensity was too great going directly from a residential Estate-sized lot to commercial was maybe too many steps at one time. Page 119 October 26, 1999 I thank you very much. And I think that's all I have to say. We would be willing to work with Mr. Jassy, if in fact this does get transmitted and it is accepted, because we feel that it is -- the most impact is on our community, as opposed to the Estates group. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I -- just a couple of questions. One, did you think to copy the letter to us, maybe to the petitioner, or have they been made aware of the objections of the association at all. MS. NEWMAN: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. And again, you're aware this is a transmittal and should it go forward, it's not a guarantee for anything, but it does keep the issue alive to allow you to have time to discuss this. MS. NEWMAN: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cheryle, if you don't -- it sounds like you have some concerns thinking whether or not that's an appropriate use at that site. MS. NEWMAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a particular thought on what would be appropriate there? MS. NEWMAN: I don't think we went so far as to discuss that at the board meeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a personal thought on that, or just don't feel like doing that right now? MS. NEWMAN: I think something that would be less intense, maybe, would be inappropriate. The conditional use that you spoke about, there are obviously items under conditional use that would have less traffic impact at that intersection. I think that another pharmacy maybe is more than we need. Walgreen's was approved for 951 and the Parkway. This intersection is like two miles down. Do we really need another one when we've got an Eckerd's right at that same corner? I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Other questions for Mrs. Newman? If not, thank you very much. MS. NEWMAN: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker, Sheri Barnett. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Deja vu. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All over again. MS. BARNETT: All over again. My name, for the record. Is Sheri Barnett, and I'm here on behalf of myself. I'm also on the board of the civic association in the area, but I also belong to the Estates group. I happen to have missed the meeting where Mr. Jassy approached everybody, however. I formulated my own opinion because I drive that street every day during the week, because I take my daughter to day care across the street. Or not day care anymore, she's in kindergarten. The problem that I'm facing there on the other side of this street is one that I've already had the Sheriff's Department address with the school and they're talking with the transportation department now because the school didn't know who to contact, because we have a Page 120 October 26, 1999 lot of left-turn, right-turn, crossing. There's accidents there probably once a week. It's one of the worst intersections in our little community as far as accidents go. And I think that's record. I'm afraid if we put the intense commercial that he's asking for on the opposite corner, we're going to create a similar problem, because there's also a street across and they're going to try to go across, just like they do currently. I think right now the proposal that is being looked at by the transportation for the school is to have them go on the opposite side of the church for an egress out to the Parkway, which is going to then be across the street from Jassy's. So we're going to move the corner from this being a problem to that one being a problem. That's one of my concerns is the traffic. If they six-lane and if you have the buffers to protect the residents, how much of the property is going to be left to develop is a question I don't know. Maybe they can answer that for us during talking. But it kind of reminds me of a situation about nine years ago. Commissioner Norris will probably laugh about this one. George Warner was my current boss and I fought him on a piece of property that was right next to an interchange that was 7.63 acres that abutted across the street from my house. On that they wanted at that time some commercial use. The residents felt that the commercial use they were asking for, which included a bank, a restaurant, fast-food, and I think a motel, because it was on an interchange, was barked down to an office park, because that fit more in conditional use with a residential community. And I think that might be taken into consideration here. And 9:00 to 5:00, in working in retail, you do have the trucks that unload. They can come from 3:00 to 9:00 at night. Having worked at a retail store, it depends on the trucking situation as far as for their transport. And you also have the dumpsters being dumped, and they can start earlier for commercial than they can for residential. So I think those are impacts that you need to take into consideration for the residents that live there. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The petitioner, Mr. John Jassy, has requested to speak. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. Go ahead. MR. JASSY: Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, thank you for allowing me to speak. Here we have an intersection that within the next three years will be the first intersection off the new 1-75 interchange. It will be six-laned, both on Santa Barbara and Golden Gate. I think we already have an intersection that if you were to use the same criteria here as we did in other intersections in the county, it's functioning as an activity center by traffic and by congestion and so on and so forth, even though currently it's zoned residential. I think initially what we have here is something that -- something that clearly doesn't work for residential. And whether it's Page 121 October 26, 1999 today or tomorrow or the next day is going to become a commercial interchange. What we're suggesting is a use which from input that we've had and from the people that we've spoken to, they've asked us not to put -- we have toned down the intensity of it. We've eliminated gas station, we've eliminated fast-food at the request of the Estates and so on. We've eliminated 7-Eleven, so on and so forth. And what we've done is done a study based on demands of both in the area and developers we work with is to what would work at this interchange. And we feel what we've proposed as an attractive lower intensity retail development, which we think would be an attractive entrance to Golden Gate, would have very strict architectural features on it, would be attractive. At the Planning Board, we've made the commitment to put on -- put -- separate it from the neighbors with a gate -- I'm sorry, with a fence and by buffering. So I think we've accommodated most of those issues and I would appreciate your support on it. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Jassy, are you willing to continue to work with the Golden Gate people who have voiced some objections here this morning on behalf of the association? MR. JASSY: Yes. Initially, I think as Ms. Newman explained, we contacted her initially and we were steered to Jim Coletta. And we've -- so we've worked with everybody who would talk to us. And we're glad to continue to do that to make this work and make it attractive to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you can see how this was apparently a little technical glitch where this is not exactly in the Golden Gate Civic Association's jurisdiction, but it is a matter of real importance to them, so you'd work with them -- MR. JASSY: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- now that you know. MR. JASSY: And we've tried to be cooperative with everybody we've worked with so far to accommodate them every way we can. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions for the applicant? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Question. Would you be willing to sell the property to the neighbor, as was indicated to us earlier, at the appraised value? MR. JASSY: What my understanding of it was, we -- actually, we're a contract purchaser of the property. And the history that I have on it was that the neighborhood offered to buy the property for $100,000, and had offered to sell me his property for a million six. So I'm not sure what number we're talking about here. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't either. It was just mentioned in the lady's presentation that they were willing to pay appraised value for the property. It was just a general -- MR. JASSY: It's the first I heard of it. And we're a contract purchaser anyway, so we're not really in a position to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the appraised value, I assume, would be appraised at residential use, which would have a value of somewhere around $100,000. Page 122 October 26, 1999 MR. JASSY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the speaker indicates that we're in the $100,000 ballpark. I imagine that Mr. Jassy's contract contingent on this commercial up-zone is significantly higher than $100,000. MR. JASSY: A lot higher than that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other questions? If not, just for consensus, I'd support transmitting this with urging the petitioner to do what he said he would, I'm sure he will, and that is work with the Golden Gate Civic Association and other interested parties, and particularly the homeowner directly behind you, to see what you can do to shield them from their concerns. Is there other consensus for transmittal or against transmittal? Anybody speak up. Or do we have no opinions? Is there anybody in favor of transmittal? Is there anybody against transmittal? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As long as it's okay with the civic association. If they don't have major objections, I don't have any objection. There's no reason for me to object to it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what, for me it's very difficult. As often happens in a small community like ours, I know the folks who live next door, I know the petitioner, I know the civic associations, and they all have their various concerns and opinions. I agree that the appropriate use for this probably is not residential. You're not going to get somebody out there on 25,000 cars going by a day. I think the people who live next door have a legitimate concern about looking out their window at the back of a Walgreen's and a dumpster. If the majority of the board goes for it, I'll go ahead and support transmittal so that we can further explore it. I'm not ready to say no and that's the end of the story today, because we have an opportunity to come back and do this again. I would like to see us sit down with all the parties that we've talked about at the same time, the neighbors, the civic and so on, and see is there something in between, you know, the most intense uses we've talked about. I know you've already removed some things. But those intense uses and keeping it as Estates, there may be something in between there that protects the property that's next door and protects their value and their most valuable asset, their home, but at the same time allows for reasonable use of that property. So I'll go ahead and support transmittal. I don't think I could in any way suggest that that's a slam dunk for approval when it comes back to us from Tallahassee. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a comment on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, that's fine. I'm not commenting on what Tim said, but I'm commenting -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You rat. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, not on what he said. I did this one other time with an Estates issue and got handed my head on a platter. And I'm not really inclined at this point in time, Page 123 October 26, 1999 without some endorsement from the Golden Gate Civic -- the Estates, some kind of a letter that they truly endorse this particular situation. Even though it is -- it's still Estates, it's still zoned Estates and there is a Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, until I have a letter in my hand that says that they are totally in favor of pursuing this rezone, or whatever it might be -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you, Commissioner Berry, I spoke with their president yesterday and asked them that specifically, because we didn't have any -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- correspondence from them, and he said they did support it. And then I had talked to a couple of the folks in the city civic who said, you know, we really haven't had a formal presentation on it. And I know there's a history to that. But the Estates folks had said yeah, okay to most of -- you know, or it was kind of a lukewarm -- there wasn't really an overwhelming objection. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have anything in writing from the Estates Association? MR. JASSY: No, I didn't really ask. They didn't really offer. And that apparently they don't do that. Apparently, you know, they just, as Commissioner Constantine said, they, you know, gave sort of a lukewarm approval to things. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I have to tell you something. I was at a Golden Gate Estates Civic Association meeting last week, and there was a perfect opportunity, if they had any feeling about this, that there should have been -- they have feelings on some other things. And I'll tell you right here and now that this commissioner is not going to get herself out there on that limb and have somebody come along with a little saw in about two or three months and cut it off. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does this require three or four votes for transmittal, Mr. Weigel? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Three to transmit. MR. WEIGEL: Three. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Three? So I think we hear two in support of transmittal? We have three. So it will be transmitted and we'll urge you to work hard on it in the meantime. MR. JASSY: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think the last is Petition 99-4, which is John Pulling and Lucy Finch. This is -- didn't we just do that? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, CP-99-03. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So sorry. 99-03, Centrefund, for people who spell funny. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of your planning staff again. We do have two amendment petitions left. This is the last petition that involves the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. This request is to amend the future neighborhood center, as designated on the Future Land Use Map of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It is located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard Page 124 October 26, 1999 and Wilson Boulevard. The total site is a little over seven acres. The amount that would actually be developed commercial as proposed is five acres. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: David, this has recommended transmitting. That's Planning Commission, as I understand it -- MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- it wasn't staff. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. Staff does not support this amendment. And again, I'll try to be very brief in the presentation. This particular exhibit here shows the only existing neighborhood center, which is at Pine Ridge and 951 on the west side that is eligible for commercial rezonings. The site of the existing G's Grocery at the northeast corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is not eligible for any additional commercial rezonings. I want to go back very briefly in history and show you the Golden Gate Master Plan. As originally adopted, there were neighborhood centers at several locations, and these are shown. They're mentioned in the staff report, and they're shown in circles or semi-circles on this map up at Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard, Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, the subject intersection and then over at Pine Ridge and 951. That was the total of five neighborhood centers, each of which was eligible for five acres of commercial zoning. They varied in sizes. The full circles are 20 acres each, the semi-circles are 10 acres each. The remainder of each of those neighborhood centers will be limited to development with single-family homes or conditional uses. But the neighborhood centers were deleted, all of them except for the one at 951 and Pine Ridge in 1993 at board direction. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: David, let me just interrupt you because I think you're are going to -- you know, we're kind of fading here, that we ought to just ask you questions about this. I'm familiar with this application, having read the packet. And I've also heard from the petitioner. I'm curious to hear from the community, or if you know, Commissioner Constantine, how the community stands on this. Because I live in the urban area, obviously, because I want urban services. I can't imagine why somebody wouldn't want this alternative to more expensive loaves of bread. But I don't live there, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure Commissioner Berry's had a lot of conversation on this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Have you? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have. I've been -- last week was out at the civic association meeting. A lot of the people that are here today were there as well. And I think that the support from the community out there, obviously there are some objectors to it. But I think the overwhelming support from a number of the residents out there that actually live beyond Wilson, when you get out toward the Everglades and DeSoto areas, I think the support from that community out in there is overwhelming. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That makes so much sense. Page 125 October 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think there's some support now for a couple of reasons where there hasn't been in the past. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One, you have a greater population -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and you've got some transportation problems. But two, this is a pretty specific limited size and use. And also, it's -- this process we're going through is fairly clear that you're not going to end up with a lot of commercial running up and down either one of these roads. It is a location specific limited size use. And with the community understanding that, they don't have the objection. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You can almost look at this as simply an expansion of the commercial that's already there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. Well, this -- I would support transmittal of this item. But at the -- and I don't want to hold it up for the staff study of the overall needs of commercial usage out in the Estates. But if there is some desire for that, Commissioner Berry, I'd love to -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think there's a great deal of desire out there. In fact, people that normally had not been at meetings before, I think a lot of those people, when they have heard that this is a possibility, they came to speak and to be heard on the issue and let their wants and wishes be known, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but they did a vote that was unanimous -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in favor of that -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- out at the Estates Civic. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it sounds like there's three votes for transmittal of this item, but are there registered -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you want a count? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry? There's at least three votes. More than three for transmittal. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree, it should be transmitted. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like it's unanimous transmittal support, but let's hear who the public speakers are. MR. FERNANDEZ: The speakers are Kim Ellis. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do they want to talk us out of this? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you agree -- MS. ELLIS: No, I agree with you. We're very excited. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ms. Ellis indicates she agrees. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Anybody who agrees can just wave off. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just wave. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm not sure who's on this subject. Kathy Curatolo. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Kathy Curatolo, are you here? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think she was on the density item Page 126 October 26, 1999 and is probably gone. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, she's gone. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all I have, Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this item? If not, it's unanimous for transmittal of this matter. And we'll go to 99-4, Pulling/Finch. This is one we've seen about 15 times in a few different iterations, haven't we? MS. PRESTON: Yes, this will be the third presentation. For the record, Debrah Preston. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Preston, what was the staff's recommendation on this? MS. PRESTON: Staff recommendation is not to transmit due to the inventory of commercially rezoned property in the North Naples planning community. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the Planning Commission is to transmit. And this is one we've been through, as I said, several iterations, and I think I've supported them before. I know I'd support it again. This is a good idea. There's not a viable use for this kind of property that creates an alternative -- creates an opportunity for these small parcels to have a reasonable -- a viable use -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's its current use? CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: -- if they bring it in and have -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's like a -- MS. PRESTON: Nursery -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's like a tree farm. MS. BISHOP: -- retail commercial. MS. PRESTON: Agriculturally zoned property. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that the time's going to come, Commissioners, that we're going to have to look at other parcels along that Airport Road corridor. Because you've got very similar situations with small parcels that are currently commercial activities in there along Airport Road itself. MS. PRESTON: There are a few. According to the map, there are several that are agriculturally zoned that have a conditional use on them. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there supporters for transmittal of this item, or do we need to hear the whole shebang? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm in favor of transmitting. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm in favor. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, you -- MS. PRESTON: The petitioner is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear the whole shebang. MS. PRESTON: Okay. I believe you're familiar with the site. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He's going to pay for that limo; he's going to keep us here as long as he can. MS. PRESTON: -- located at the corner of Orange Blossom and Airport Road. It's approximately 14.5 acres. The staff's feeling is that we have an abundance of commercially zoned property in the North Page 127 October 26, 1999 Naples planning community that exceeds our expected demand past 2005. And so based on that inventory, we are requesting that you don't transmit this document up to DCA. CCPC did make some recommendations on the development standards to the petitioners' original request, in order to assure that the development is more pedestrian friendly and meets the TND, the traditional neighborhood design, criteria. Did you have any other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER BERRY: My question was, if you don't do this, what are you going to do with that property? MS. PRESTON: Well, there are other conditional uses that you could do. The church, the ALF, civic associations and residential development. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we don't have enough of those, church and ALF's. That was sarcasm. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's beginning to look like ALF row out there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Bishop, can you run through specifically what you're looking for for uses on the property and size and scope and everything else? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. Karen Bishop for the petitioner. Yes, we have been in front of you three times. This is my third time on this. The county uses we're looking for here are the small retail and small office. The footprints of these buildings will be capped at 5,000 square foot for the footprint on the grounds, so you're going to see a lot smaller type of developments here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Total square footage of commercial would be? MS. BISHOP: You could have a building that would be three stories at 5,000 square foot, so you could have a building that would be -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One building, though. MS. BISHOP: One building could be 15,000; right. But the bottom footprint would be 5,000, the coverage on the ground. So it can go up three stories with residential on the top. And then whatever uses, mixed uses you would have on the first floor and second floor. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. MS. BISHOP: The retail uses will be capped at a maximum of 5,000 square foot per acre, and the office uses will be capped at 7,000 square foot uses per acre. And then the mixed use, what we've agreed to is that we have to have 50 percent of our residential in mixed use buildings, and that we have to build 25 percent of our residential by the time we reach 40,000 square feet. Now, the size of our property, we have a parcel that's just under COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, my earlier question wasn't clear enough. All total, how many square feet? You said 15,000 in a Page 128 October 26, 1999 building. But how many are we talking about total? MS. BISHOP: Potential? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maximum. MS. BISHOP: For commercial? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Total. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me ask a question, Tim. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just did. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could I clarify the question? MS. BISHOP: Right, because I'm a little -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This applies to several different parcels. Are you saying per a particular parcel or per acre? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This changed right here. There's a maximum amount of square footage that can be built and used that wouldn't -- all for uses that aren't allowed right now. MS. BISHOP: Let's say potentially I have 13 -- or 15 acres, minus the right-of-way, I'd be down to around 12 acres. 140,000 square foot, I'm guessing, of office and retail. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many acres again? MS. BISHOP: It's 10 acres. About 10,000 square foot an acre. Be about that. So it's 10 times -- be around that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Be 15,000 square feet an acre, would it not, of commercial? MS. BISHOP: No, it's not -- well, that's what the cap is now, I guess, is what we use, 15,000. So we're capping that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Times 10 acres is 150,000 feet. MS. BISHOP: But we're not using 10,000 square foot, we're using 5,000 for retail. So retail -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, wait a minute. Excuse me, Ms. Bishop. You said 5,000 -- it says right here 5,000 square feet. MS. BISHOP: Maximum. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Per acre. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Per floor. MS. BISHOP: No, no, per acre. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Preston -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, then you can only -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- can you help? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- have 50,000 square feet. MS. PRESTON: Yeah, I did some calculations, and on the 4.77 acres, that's without any other right-of-way being taken, would be a total of 57,000 office/retail. On the 9.66 acres would be 115,000 office/retail. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it would be about 100 -- MS. PRESTON: 170,000. MS. BISHOP: Minus the right-of-way. That will drop those densities down. Because the Orange Blossom right-of-way takes about two acres out of the north parcel, and about a half-acre on the side. MS. PRESTON: But we're not at this time looking at doing that right-of-way. It's only until we expand Orange Blossom to four lanes, which -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So theoretically if they wanted to go Page 12 9 October 26, 1999 get permits tomorrow, they could still get the 172. I mean, when this passes, not literally tomorrow, but -- MS. PRESTON: Right. MS. BISHOP: Well, through the PUD process that we would go through to zone this property, during that process is when transportation will be coming to us and asking us for the right-of-way that they've already asked for us in the past. So in that time we will give up the right-of-way. That's a pretty normal standard process through the PUD process. So at that time that property will be dedicated as a part of the zoning process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maximum allowed, 172,000, roughly, square feet. Okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I didn't mean to interrupt. I know there was more to your presentation. MS. BISHOP: Actually, there's not that much more. What we've tried to do here is when we've come to you in the past, we were trying to do something with all these little parcels that seemed to be odd and not fitting in along these corridors. But with staff's concern about too much commercial, we have isolated it down after our second petition now, or the third petition, to just our two parcels. What we're planning on doing here is doing a true mixed use which is unlike, even though the activity centers allow mixed use, it's not being done, so this would be a true mixed use. The kind of things that we're trying to do here would be like a Waterside Shops or Venetian Village, which is pedestrian oriented, smaller term retail and commercial type facilities with a residential element above that, which makes the true mixed use like the downtown Naples type of thing. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this -- where's Mr. Ilschner? Is Orange Blossom -- that will go on through to Livingston, right? MR. ILSCHNER: That is correct, yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you get that on the record? He said yes. Thank you. I just can't see that there's a viable alternative. What do we want, people to build a house on these lots? And as it continues to develop, I think we have to open a door for an application. This isn't approving anything, it's only transmitting, and it will open the door for us to see what could be proposed that's creative that we might or might not accept in there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's underlying zoning to that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ag. MS. BISHOP: It's ag. And right now we have a retail/commercial tree house on there that sells trees, and on the other side we have a nursery that sells plants. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just the comments that were made on the last hearing might apply here as well, though, is do you jump from the lowest, least intense use to straight up to this? And I realize it's a mixed use, but still, 172,000 square foot is a giant Page 130 October 26, 1999 difference. Is there not perhaps something in between such as some of the conditional uses that might be a better move? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But again, isn't this an up, too? I mean, this -- there being a comp. plan amendment would be something that they would bring in in a PUD zoning that we would either approve 10,000 or zero or 100,000 or whatever number we'd approve. This is the maximum density. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm saying wouldn't a conditional use be more appropriate step up -- MS. BISHOP: And also -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- an interim step. MS. BISHOP: -- I'd like to point out that each time we've come before you guys in the past, you have sent us back to the staff to discuss with them saying that you thought that what we were doing was on the right track, but that we needed to define it more, define it more, define it more, which is in fact what we've done. So I believe that, you know, over the last three years we have tried to bring that down to a use and worked with the staff to implement what they've asked us to implement to make this a part of a working project. I suppose that you could say there are other conditional uses that could go on there. But one of the things that I see with, for instance, let's say a church, every church site I've ever seen, they're all expanding and trying to move into other areas because they have bigger communities now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's only one thing on here that really is giving me a concern and that is Condition A, where the "must" was stricken. MS. BISHOP: That was from -- your legal staff says that you can't force me to do a PUD. But I in fact will be doing a PUD. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a legal restriction. MS. BISHOP: Right. We did have "must" in there to begin with. That was our wordage. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we could have a commitment on the record from you today -- MS. BISHOP: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- that with regard to these parcels, there will be a PUD. MS. BISHOP: Well, we would like to do that because of the master plan. We want to show you the kind of master planning we have in mind. We're looking at the campus type setting, not straight lines. We're looking at, you know, centralized pedestrian areas. Like I said, the kind of things that you see at Waterside Shops, where they have a centralized area, buildings around the outside, and then the parking surrounding. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you planning to do -- are you going to do a PUD that covers the entire property? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Everything at once in one single PUD? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. Page 131 October 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Will you commit to that? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Preston, again, staff had recommended against this. And the reason was? MS. PRESTON: Because of the inventory of commercially zoned property in the North Naples area. We have approximately, I think, over 1,000 acres above our expected need in the North Naples community. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, are there other questions for the petitioner? Are there speakers on this particular item? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: else want to weigh in? COMMISSIONER CARTER: it is a PUD. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would agree to transmittal. Does anybody I agree with the conditions that say that Me, too. I'll agree with the PUD. I like that idea. That gets us there. So transmittal, with the commitment of the petitioner that all of the property will be submitted in a single PUD. MS. PRESTON: And with the language that the petitioner handed out today? Because she had made some modifications. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, do we have any other items under 12 (A) (1) ? If not, I'll -- is the public hearing -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, you need to close it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will move that we transmit the presented amendments with the stipulations that we made here today. MR. LITSINGER: If I may elaborate on the Commissioner's motion. We would ask that you adopt the resolution transmitting the 1999 Growth Management Plan amendments, except for CPE-99-05 which is the density reduction amendment. And we would also ask that you take a separate vote and motion to adopt the ordinance appearing on Page 173 of your package, which is the Capital Improvement Element update ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Mr. Norris' motion -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I could clarify, please. The vote was to not transmit 99-02, as I understand. MR. LITSINGER: The density reduction. I may have made an error. It's 05, I believe. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 99-05. MR. FERNANDEZ: But 02 is okay? 02 is passed? MR. LITSINGER: Density -- we should clarify. The density Page 132 October 26, 1999 reduction is the only amendment that you had voted not to transmit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that is 99-05. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I then amend my motion to say that we adopt a resolution transmitting the Growth Management Plan amendments as we stipulated -- with the stipulations that we provided here today, with the exception of 99-05, which will not be transmitted. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, say aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes 4 to 1. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I will also make a motion that we adopt the ordinance on Page 173, it is? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Purpose of that ordinance, Mr. Weigel, just so I can vote consistently? MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me? I was reading. Can you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The purpose of the ordinance that's being voted on now? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. The purpose of the ordinance -- and we've been doing this since we did the comp. plan -- is to have a CIE ordinance for us to operate under until such time as we get the amendment back and found in compliance by DCA, so that's legally effective. MR. LITSINGER: They have a schedule of capital improvements that is effective. MS. STUDENT: The Capital Improvement Element itself is not legally effective right now. It won't be until we finally adopt it. And because of our budget process and so forth, there's some lead time, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question? If Commissioner Constantine agrees with the transmittal of the Capital Improvement Element, would he be voting consistently to support this ordinance? MS. STUDENT: He would. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what you want to know, isn't it? MS. STUDENT: It's just to operate under, because we have no ordinance. And Stan can state what the dates are to operate under for our capital improvement. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we have a second? We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor, please say aye. That passes unanimously. Page 133 OCT 2 6 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99- 40 ? A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT INCLUDING THE INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTERS; THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT; THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT; THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN; AND THE GOLDEN GATE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Collier County has prepared Plan Amendments to the following elements of its Growth Management Plan: Future Land Use; Golden Gate Area Master Plan; Transportation; Capital Improvement WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission has considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes (1997), and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) have ninety (90) days to review the proposed Amendment and DCA must transmit, in writing to Collier County, its comments along with any objections and any recommendations for modification, within said ninety (90) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DCA must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, within sixty (60) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the DCA, within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must review and determine if the Plan Amendment is in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act of 1985; the State Comprehensive Plan; the appropriate Regional Policy Plan and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Words underlined are additions; Words ,struc~ thrcugh are deletions OCT 2 6 tg,g9 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendments prior to final adoption and State determination of compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1989 and Rule 9J5, Florida Administrative Code, Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Determination of Compliance. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion; second and majority vote this c~, day of ~ ,1999. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk ' Attest is to Chairman's signature only. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, Chairwoman Marjorie I~J Student Assistant County Attorney 1999 GMP Transmittal Resolution Words underlined are additions; Words ctr'..'ck thrcugh are deletions OCI 2 6 199 J Petition CP-99-01 Amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan - Urban Commercial Districts/Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict. Exhibit A Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict The provisions of this district (see Map ~ 8) are intended to provide Golden Gate City with a viable Professional Office Commercial District ~' ' ~ · '~ " Commercial District has two idenfified~!t~5~! ~ifi~. The Professional Offi~ purposes: · to serve as a bona-fide entry way into Golden Gate City~ · to provide a community focal point and sense of place. The uses permitted within this district are generally low intensity, office development, ~ and institutional type uses, such as churches, which will minimize vehicular traffic, provide suitable landscaping, control ingress and egress, and ensure compatibility with abutting residential districts. (words underlined are added, words sm:ok ~.rcugk are deleted, as amended in 1997; words ~ and underlined are added, words ~h~'d~.~ and :~-'-ck thrcugE are deleted, as proposed by this petition) 0 CT 2 6 1999 l'etitien CP-99-0! Amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan - Urban Commercial Districts/Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict. (words underlined are added, words~....~- *~_~w~,..~- are deleted, as amended in 1997; words ~ and underlined are added, words ~ and :~-'-c!: thrc----F~ are deleted, as proposed by this petition) Petition CP-O9-02 · Amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan - Urban Commercial Districts/CR-951Commercial Infill Subdistrict and amending the Golden Gate CR-951 Commercial Infill Subdistcict Map and Golden Gate Future Land Use Map Exhibit A "Policy i. l. l: The URB/C: Future Land Usc Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: URBAN - MIXED USE DISTRICT a. Urban Residential Subdistrict b. High Density Residential Subdistrict o URBAN - COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Activity Center Subdistrict Golden Gate CR 95 ! Commercial In-fill ~ Subdistrict Commercial Under Criteria Interstate Activity Center Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdi.stric[ Golden Gate Parkway Professional ()fficc Commercial Subdistrict identifi?2 in th-c Land Use Designation Dezcriptisn cf this "2) Golden Gate GR-¢-St- Commercial In-fill l-)c:,ignatien Subdistrict Duc '.o [l~e existing zoning and land use pattern in thc ( 'mnmercial In-fill IDe~nated-~ Subdistrict (sec .Map 4) and the need to ensure adequate development standards to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall be permitted under the followin7 cntcria: ;'~)mmcrcial uses shall be 'limited to: that are compatible -:;~th both residential and c,:mmercial, zznvenienze cataracts!a! to provide I .... -t ~ .... 1 ...... ~'~,o (Ordinance a~ ~n~, ad:q:ted n.,~k~. ~n !99!). · i.ow intensiW transitional commercial uses that arc compatible with both residential and commercial, to provide for small scale shoppmz and personal needs. - ~ntcrmediate commerciar to provide for a wider variety of goods and se~ices in areas that have a higher de~ee of automobile ~raffic. These uses shall be ~milar to C-l, C-2, or C-3 zoninu districts ontlincd in the Collier CounW Land Development Code (Ordinance 91 - 102. adovtcd ( )ctober 30, 1991). :,-',:)nes s:haH be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development shall ~e no minimum acreage requirement I~,- PUD rezones except for the requirement that ':,dUeStS for rezoning must be at least forty lhousand (40,000) square feet in area unless the sod rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent with the Golden Gate ),laster Plan); (~vords .... added, words ..... 1. ,~ ....... ~ are deleted, as amended in 1997; words shaded and underlined are t I*,..: ~ .... ;.IFC ............. ~,, :,ddcd. xvords shaded and ...... ~- 4 ....... ~- are dcictcct, as proposed by this petition) 0C! S lg99 Petition CP-99-0~ .Aanending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan - Urban Commercial ])istrict~/CR-9~lCommer¢ial Subdistrict and amending the Golden Gate CR-951 Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map and Golden Gate Future Land Use Map Projects within the in-fill area shall be encouraged to make provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining commercial developments when applicable; Driveways and curb cuts for projects within the Commercial In-fill area shall be consolidated with adjoining commercial developments; ~ Access to projects shall not be permitted from CR-951. Barbara B6ii bUildin 3--' 4--' Any proieC~ i6cE~ed ~hlh ih6 ih2fill width mamn e~ and :a hedg~ ninety,~ve (95)pc(cent opaque minimu~!ii6f (words underlined are added, words :m:ck threugk are deleted, as amended in 1997; words shaded and underlined are added, words shaded and zm:'ck threugh are deleted, as proposed by this petition) GOLDEN GATI~ AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP LEGEND NA~LI~ IMMOKALF~ ROAD Exhibit "A" Petition CP-99-2 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP NA~[,~ IMMOKALF..~ ROAD OIL WELL ROAD IANDAIJ.. BOUI~VAltD PINt / ; G.i PKWY. 0OLDF.,N 0 AI"E W~IT~ BLVD. ~)U~N GATE DAVIS~:~LVD. EXT. S.R.-~, '-; R.-84 Subject Site proposea for Infill Commercial MAP 4 Exhibit 051 GOLDEN GATE COMMERCIAL INFILL DESIGNATION Collier County, Florida Pe~tiop.CP-~lg-.~ 1999 I JI )1 II II_ILLI words underlined are added; words -..tr'.:'ck thrcugh are deleted Subject Site proposed for Commercial Infill PetitionCP-99-03 1 2 '~11 Amendingsubdistnct d~eandGOlden Gate Area Master Plan- Estates Mixed Use District/Neighborhood Centers 0 C ~ amending fl~e Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Map and the Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map Exhibit A Estates-Mixed Use District 1) Residential Estates Subdistrict - Sinqle-family residential development may be allowed within the Estates Mixed Use Subdistrict at a maximum density of one unit per ~ross acres unless the lot is considered a le.qal~ non-conforming lot of record. 2) E-states Neighborhood Centers Subdistrict - Recognizing the need to provide basic goods and services to Estates residents, Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Neiqhborhood Center desi,qnation does not ,quarantee that commercial zoninq will be .qranted. The desiqnation oniy provides the opportunity to request commercial zoninq. a ) Location The locations are based on intersections of major roads and spacing criteria (See Map 9). The centers are designed to concentrate all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated and to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development. The r~ode at the NE and SE quadrants of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately ,:5 12.15 acres in size and Icc---tod in consists of Tract 1, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 13 Goldeq Gate Estates. The SE quadrant of Wilson and GOlden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres of commercial deVelopment or Cond&~iional Uses, as permitted in the Estates zoning district, and allocates 2.15 a~res to proiect buffering and ri.qht-of-way for GoldenGate B0ulevard, · The nede at CR-951 and Pine Ridce Road is located on both sides of the intersection. Tracts 109-112 and the Nl/2 of Tract 113, Unit 26, Golden Gate Estates are included in this node as eliqible for commercial development. The S172 of Tract 113 and the E1/2 of Tract 107, Unit 26 are also included within this node but are only to be used for buffer, water management and open space~ )_~e de';clopmcnt Ceriteria for development at the nodes are as follows: 6 ............. USCC ........... fy..: ~: :: ~n,.ic:'lined arc added, xvords :ir'ack through arc deleted, as amended in 1997; words shaded and ~::..:~::':incd are added, words shaded and ~:ruc!( th:'~3t:~h arc deleted, as proposed by the petition) Petition CP-99-03 O C~' ~ 1999 l Amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan - Estates Mixed Use District/Neighborhood Centers Subdistrict and amending the Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Map and the Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map and !ntormcdlato ::miners!a! to pre'z/dc for a wider ':ade~.; cf geed: and :e,":iooc te C !, C 2, er C 3, zoning di:tdct= o'--'tllned in thc Ce~lJer Oc-'-'nty Land ................................ group ,~, ,~i~,~, --~ =...., ,~,~i .... ~; App · Limited to Iow intensity transitional commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and commercial. Convenience commercial to provide for small scale shopping and personal needs, and · Inl~rmediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C-1, C-2, or C-3, zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102, adopted October 30, 1991 ). · Future commercial uses are limited to 10 acre: and chall cnly bc Iccatcd in at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and thc Ectatc: ."!elghbcrhced Canter ?'..cared c,". CR-951. This Nei.qhborhood Center may be developed at 100% commercial and must provide internal circulation, and any rezonin,q is eecoura.qed to be in the form of a PUD. This Neighborhood Center may also be utilized for single family residential or conditional uses allowed in the Estates zoning district such as churches, social or fraternal organizations, child care centers, schools, and group care facilities. · The parcels immediately adjacent to the existing commercial zonin.q at the nodheast quadrant of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard may qualify for Conditional Use under the transitional use provision of the Conditional Use Subdistrict of this Master Plan Element. · A single project shall utilize no more than --'"'~. ,.~ 50% of the total allowed commercial acreage. The percentage may be increased at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners; · The project is encouraged to make provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining developments; · Access points shall be limited to one per 180 feet commencing from the right-of-way of the major ntersectin.q streets of the Nei.qhborhood Center. A maximum of three curb cuts per quadrant shall be allowed; (words underlined are added, words s .truch thrcugh are deleted, as amended in 1997; words shaded and underlined are added, words shaded and struck ~.zcugh are deleted, as proposed by the petition) Petition CP-99-03 Amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan - Estates Mixed Use District/Neighborhood Centers Subdistrict and amending the Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Map and the Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with adjoining developments, whenever possible; Driveways accessing parcels on opposite sides of the roadway shall be in direct!:,',,," ..... ,v ~,. alignment;. Projects directly abutting Estates zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a 75 foot buffer of retained native vegetation in which no parking or water management uses are permitted; except that for valid, approved conditional uses, no such buffer is required. Projects shall provide a 25 foot wide Type C buffer, as described in the Land Development Code, between the abutting right-of-way and the off-street parking area; /,,,,,: ! ::~dcriined are added, words st:-ack through arc deleted, as amended in 1997; words shaded and · _!'i meci are added, words shaded and '5',:'uck :h:-;zu,~l: arc deleted, as proposed by the petition) GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP LEGEND ] tNFILL COMMERCIAL r~ SETTLEMENT AREA ] GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ~ NAPLE~ IMMOKALEE ROAD RD. d'~~ ~ ?~' WHITE BLVD. GOLDEN GOLI~N GATE PARKWAY PROFESSIONAL OFFIC£ ,~"- COMMERCIAL 1~8?ffiC7 DAVIS BLVD. EXT. S.R.-84_/ GATE R26E GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP PROPOSED AMENDMENT CP-99-03 RA2qDALL RAN~AILL BO~J~EVA RD CO~MEI~CIAL 0181'~1C T ~r~.BOULEVARD SUBJECT SITE S,R.-84 NAPLES [MMOKALEE ROAD OIL WELL ROAD BOULEVARD R27E R28E PROPOSED AMENDMENT cP-gg-03 pREm .. ~ COUv , F~LE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS Collier County, Florido C.R. 8,$6 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WHITE BLVD. 3RAPHiCS AND T~CHNICAL SUPPORT SECT'S', : ,'-,._3?'.~EN'r AND ENVIRONMENTAL SER','ICSS - ::- ~C~'O DATE: ~/99 C.R. 846 INTERSTATE - ':'- C.R. 858 SUBJECT SITE GO~.DEN GATE ESTATES NEIGHBORHO00 CENTERS LEGEND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS 0 1 MI 2 MI Petition CP-99-04 Amending the Future Land Use Element - Urban Mixed Use District and amending the Future Land Use Map to reflect Orange Blossom Mixed - Use Sub-District Exhibit A 8. Orange Blossom Mixed-Use District The intent of this district is to allow for limited small-scale retail, office and residential uses while requiring that the project result in a true mixed-use development. The Activit3r Centers to the North and South provide for large-scale commercial uses, while this sub-district will promote small scale mixed-use with a pedestrian orientation to serve the homes both existing and future in the immediate area. This District is intended to be a prototype for future mixed-use nodes, providing residents with pedestrian scale development while also reducing existing trip lengths for small-scale commercial services. Commercial uses for the purpose of this section are limited to those allowed in the C-l, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts except as noted below. The development of this sub-district will be governed by the following criteria: a. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. b. A unified planned development with a common architectural theme which has shared parking and cross access agreements will be developed. c. Retail uses will be capped at a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. per acre for the total project. d. Office uses will be capped at a maximum of 7,000 sq. ft. per acre for the total project. e. Residential development will be subject to the density rating system. f. Maximum lot coverage for buildings is capped at 17.5% for the total project. g. No more than 25% of the total built square footage will be devoted to single story buildings. h. Primary entrances to all retail and commercial uses shall be designed for access from the interior of the site. Buildings fronting on Airport Road and Orange Blossom Road will provide secondary accesses facing those streets. i. All four sides of each building must be finished in a common architectural theme. j. A residential component equal to at least 25 % of the allowable maximum base density under the density rating system must be constructed before the sub-district completes an aggregate total of 40,000 square feet retail of office uses. k. Residential units may be located both on the North and South side of Orange Blossom Drive. 1. Integration of residential and office or retail uses in the same building is encouraged. m. Pedestrian connections are encouraged to all perimeter properties where feasible and desired by adjoining property owners. n. No building footprint will exceed 5,000 square feet. Common stairs, breezeways or elevators may join individual buildings. o. No building shall exceed three stories with no allowance for under building parking. p. Drive-thru establishments will be limited to banks with no more than 3 lanes architecturally integrated into the main building. (words underlined are added, words s~,:'ck t?.rcugh are deleted, as amended in 1997; words shaded and underlined are added, words shaded and :re:c!: through are deleted, as proposed by this petition) Petition CP-99-04 Amending the Future Land Use Element - Urban Mixed Use District and amending the Future Land Use Map to reflect Orange Blossom Mixed - Use Sub-District 12,41. q. No gasoline service stations will be permitted. r. All buildings will be connected with pedestrian features. s. Twen _ty foot wide landscape Type D buffers along Orange Blossom and Airport-Pulling Road and a 20 foot wide Type C buffer along all other perimeter proper _ty lines will be required. t. Parking areas Will be screened from Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive. u. The Office and Infill Commercial Sub-district provision would not be applicable to any properties adjacent to this district. ;~n',icrtined are added, words ~.......'~ *~,,...=,,2- arc deleted, as amended in 1997; words shaded and are added, ~vords shaded and :;truck :hrotm}~ are deleted, as proposed by this petition) T 4e $ I T 47 $ T 4B $ I T 40 S i T $2 $ I T S3 S ~8t I o~ 806,L S 16 .L i S Z9 .L I S 116 J. EXHIBIT A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT Ninth Annual Update & Amendment COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared by Comprehensive Planning Section 1999 A~r:NDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT *INDICATES ADOPTED PORTION NOTE: TidE ;~L.;PPORT DOCUMENT IS UPDATED PERIODICLY AS NEW DATA AND INFORMATION ~3ECOMES AVAILABLE. Words ':nder!ined are additions; Words st:ack :hrcu~k are deletions I. INTRODUCTION In 1985 and 1986 the Flodda Legislature significantly strengthened the requirements for county and city comprehensive plans. One of the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act is the requirement that the comprehensive plan must contain a Capital Improvement Element to "... consider the needs for and location of public facilities ..." (Section 163.3177(3), Flodda Statutes). The Capital Improvement Element (CIE)must identify public facilities that will be required dudng the next five years, including the cost of the facilities, and the sources of revenue that will be used to fund the facilities. One of the specific requirements of the legislation states that the public facilities that are contained in the CIE must be based on "standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities including acceptable levels of service." The administrative regulation that implements the statutes defines the phrase "level of service" as "... an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by ... a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level of service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility." (Section 9J-5.003 (41), Flodda Administrative Code). CIE- 1 Words underlined are additions; Words :t,".:'ck thrcu;h are deletions CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL 1: TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES CONCURRENT WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN OR EXCEED ADOPTED STANDARDS FOR LEVELS OF SERVICE. OBJECTIVE I. I: Identify and Cefine types of public facilities for which the County is responsible, establish standards for levels of ser,'ice for each such public facility, and determine what quantity of additional public facilities are needed in order to achieve and maintain the standards. Policy 1.1.1: The County shall establish standards for levels of service for three categories of public facilities, as follows: Category A public facilities are facilities which appear in other elements of this comprehensive plan, including arterial and collector roads, surface water management systems, potable water systems, sanitary, sewer systems, solid waste disposal facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. The standards for levels of service of Category A County provided public facilities shall apply to development orders issued by the County and to the County's annual budget, and to the appropriate individual element of this Comprehensive Plan. The standards for levels of service of Category A facilities which are not County provided shall apply to development orders issued by the County and to the appropriate individual element of this Comprehensive Plan, but shall not apply to the County's annual budget. Category B public facilities are facilities for the County's library, jail, emergency medical service, other 9ovemm~ent buildings, and dependent fire districts. The standards for levels of service of Category B pt~lic facilities shall apply to the County's annual budget, but not apply to development :~ders issued by the County. Category. C i,r~udes those facilities operated by Federal, State, and municipal govemments, indepe,~,~:ent ~tdcts, and pdvate organizations. The standards for levels of service of Category C facilities sf~,:al be advisory only, and shall not apply to the development orders issued by the County cr :he County's annual budget. Public facitit;.es :nali! include land, structures, the initial furnishings and equipment (including ambulances, fire ap..uaratus, and library collection materials), design, permitting, and construction costs. Other "capita? costs, such as motor vehicles and motorized equipment, computers and office equipment, office furnishings, and small tools are considered in the County's annual budget, but such items are not "~ublic facilities" for the purposes of the Growth Management Plan, or the issuance of development orders. CIE- 2 Words urder!ined are additions; Words st,~.-'ck through are deletions Policy 1.1.2: The quantity of public facilities that is needed to eliminate existing deficiencies and to meet the needs of future growth shall be determined for each public facility by the following calculation: Q = (S x D)- I. Where Q is the quantity of public facility needed, S is the standard for level of service, D is the demand, such as the population, and I is the inventory of existing facilities. The calculation will be used for existing demand in order to determine existing deficiencies. The calculation will be used for projected demand in order to determine needs of future growth. The estimates of projected demand will account for demand that is likely to occur from previously issued development orders as well as future growth. The County Commission will review all rezone requests and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall County-Wide density or intensity of permissible development with consideration of their impact on both the vadable "D" in the formula Q = (S x D) - I, and the overall roadway system. The County Commission shall not approve any such rezone request or FLUE amendment that significantly impacts either: (1) a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate within one year at an unacceptable Level of Service or; (2) the BEBR high range growth rate population projections throu.qh the year 2000, and then the BEBR medium range ~3rowth rate thereafter, for the vadable "D", unless one or more of the following simultaneously occur: Specific mitigating stipulations are approved in conjunction with the rezone to restore or maintain the Level of Service on the impacted roadway segment; The adopted population standard ("'E-am- .. h!~h .-..~- ........ ~-.-~--..-. v"~"*;""~ used for calculation of "Q" in the formula Q = (S x D) - I is amended based on appropriate data and analysis; The Schedule of Capital Improvements is updated to include any necessary projects that would support the additional public facility demand(s) created by the rezone or amendment to the Future Land Use Element. Significant impact is hereby defined for Section El of this Policy as generating potential for increased County-Wide population greater than 5% of the BEBR high range populafi~3n projections for Parks, Solid Waste, Water, Sewer and Drainage facilities, or as generating a volume of traffic equal to or greater than 5% of the Level of Service C peak hour volume of an impacted roadway. CIE- 3 Words underlined are additions; Words st,"--'ck th;c'-'~,h are deletions There are three circumstances in which the standards for levels of service are not the exclusive determinant of need for a public tacility: Calculated needs for public facilities in coastal high hazard areas are subject to all limits and conditions in the Conservation and Coastal Management and Future Land Use Elements of this Growth Management Plan. Replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, and repair, remodeling and renovation, will be determined by the Board of County Commissioners upon the recommendation of the County IV~ Administrator. Public facilities that provide levels of service in excess of the standards adopted in this Growth Management Plan may be constructed or acquired at any time as long as the following conditions are met: the facility does not make financially unfeasible any public facility of the same type that is needed to achieve or maintain the standards for levels of service adopted in this Growth Management Plan, and the facility does not contradict, limit or substantially change the goals, objectives and policies of any element of this Growth Management Plan. Any public facility that is determined to be needed as a result of any of the factors listed in Section B and D of this Policy shall be included in the regular Scheclule of Capital Improvements contained in this Capital Improvement Element. All capital improvement projects for such public facilities shall be approved in the same manner as the projects that are identified according to the quantitative analysis described in Section A of this policy. Policy 1.1.3: The determination of location of improvements to expand public facilities will take into consideration the projected grow~ patterns as identified in the County's annual population projections. Where applicable, ;ub. lic facility improvements will be coordinated with the capital facility plans of any other governmen?.s~ .~.ntit~ providing public facilities within Collier County. Policy 1.1.4: Public faciiity ~mprov. ements within a category are to be considered in the following order or pdodty: Reciacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, including repair, remodeling and renovation of facilities that contribute to achieving or maintaining levels of service. B. New facilities that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies in levels of service. New facili'~es that provide the adopted levels of service for new growth dudng the next 'i'.,'e fiscal y~=ars, as updated by the annual review of the Capital Improvement Element. !n :he even~that the planned capacity of public facilities is insufficient to serve all s~oiicants for d~velopment orders, the capital improvements will be scheduled in the foilowing priority order to serve: I. previously approved orders permitting redevelopment, 2. previously approved orders permitting new development, 3. new orders permitting redevelopment, and ::': new orders permitting new developments. CIE- 4 Words unc~=riined are additions; Words st,".-'ck through are deletions Do OCT 199 Improvements to existing facilities, and new facilities that significantly reduce the operating cost of providing a service or facility. New facilities that exceed the adopted levels of service for new growth during the next five fiscal years by either:. 1. providing excess public facility capacity that may be needed by future growth beyond the next five fiscal years, or providing higher quality public facilities than are contemplated in the County's normal design criteda for such facilities. Policy 1.1.5: The standards for levels of service of public facilities shall be as follows: Category A A1 A1.1 Public Facilities County Roads: County arterials and collector roads: Level of Service as indicated "_" below on the basis of peak hour, peak season traffic volume: Level of Service "E" on the following designated roads: Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette-Frank Road Goodlette-Frank Road Pine Ridge Road Roads From - To Airport-Pulling Road Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway Airport-Pulling Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway Golden Gate Parkway to US 41 Airport-Pulling Road to 1-75 The County has declared as "constrained" the followin,q se,qment: Vanderbilt Beach Road US 41 to Gulfshore Ddve A1.2 Level of Service "D" peak hour, peak season on all other County artedal and collector roads, however any section of road may operate at Level of Service "E" for a pedod not to exceed two fiscal 'years following the determination of Level of Service "E" in order to provide the County ~ith time to restore Level of Service "D" by making appropriate improvements. Development orders may be issued dudng the two year pedod to the extent their issuance is consistent with Policies 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 of this Element. A2 State and Federal Roads: EXISTING RURAL AREA TRANSlTIONING URBANIZED AREA URBANIZED AREA 1-75 B C C US ,41 C D D SR-84 C D D $R-:951 - D D SR-29 C - - SR-82 C - - CIE- 5 Words underlined are additions; Words st,-.'ck th;curb are deletions A3 County Surface Water Management Systems: A3.1 A3.2 Future "private" developments - water quantity and quality standards as specified in Collier County Ordinances 74-50 and 90-10. Existing "private" developments and existing or future public drainage facilities - those existing levels of service identified (by design storm return frequency event) by the completed portions of the Water Management Master Plan as listed in the Drainage/Water Management Subelement of the Public Facilities Element. A4 A4.1 A4.2 A4.3 County Potable Water Systems: County systems County Water Distdct - 185 gallons per capita per day Goodland Water Distdct - 163 gallons per capita per day City of Naples = 163 gallons per capita per day City of Everglades - 163 gallons per capita per day in incorporated service area Private potable water systems: Sewage flow design standards as identified in Policy 1.3.1 of the Potable Water Subetement of this Growth Management Plan. A5 A5.1 A5.2 A5.3 County Sanitary Sewer Systems: County systems: North Sewer Service Area = 145 gallons per capita per day South Sewer Service Area = 121 gallons per capita per day City (~;f Naples = 121 gallons per capita per day Priva~ sanitary sewer systems: Sewage flow design standards as identified in Policy 1.2.1 of the Sanitary Sewer Sube~ement of this Growth Management Plan. A6 County Soli~Waste Disposal Facilities: Ag I 1 10 ~'~"~ "~ So"'~ ~^~"~+ ....... ;+ .... :,,ear A6.2- !_ Two ~¥~ars. of ,_,'-"'~Ca',.,,,, lined """v_,, .,.~._.... '~; ..... ' c=pacity .."* prcsc,",t ¢;",,.,, ......""+-- constructed lined cell c~Da~ity at the averaqe disposal rate for the orevious five (5) years A6.G 2 Ten years of '~'"'~=~' .....'""'~ ..... ~+" '~+ ...... * ~" '~+~" ity ..................... ,., .... ; -, ~, ................ permit"table capac at the avera.qe disposal rate for the previous five (5) years. A7 County Parks and Recreation Facilities: A7. ! Regional' Park land = 2.9412 acres per 1,000/pop. A7.2 Community Park land = 1.2882 acres per 1,000/pop. AZ'.3 tecreatior,~ facilities = $179.00 capital investment per capita (at current cost) Category'S3 Pui~lic Facilities: B1 County Library Buildings B2 B3 B4 · 0.33 square feet per capita County Library Collection ' 1.30 _5 books per capita County Jail · 0.0024 beds per capita £.~umy Emergency Medical · .000068 EMS units per CIE- 6 Words, maar!ined are additions; Words st,-..'ck through are deletions B5 Service County other Government Buildings capita : 2.58 square feet per capita B6 County Dependent fire districts: B6.1 Isle of Capd Distdct = 0.00097 apparatus and stations per capita B8.2 Ochopee Distdct = 0.00057 apparatus and stations per capita Category C C1 C1.1 C1.2 Public Facilities: Municipal Streets: City of Naples Everglades City = not to exceed annual average capacity of "C" for all streets = annual average of "A" for all collectors C2 C2.1 Federal and State Lands Surface Water Management: Federal Lands Surface Water Management = to protect Natural Resources, development allowed will be designed so drainage will have no adverse impact on resources. (No measurable standard) C2.2 State Lands Surface Water Management = leased lands for agriculture to have best management practices per clean water act. (No measurable standard) C3 C3.1 C3.2 Municipal Surface Water Management: City of Naples = maintain existing level of service. New development to conform with County surface water Everglades City = 10 year - 24 hour storm event C4 Municipal Potable Water Systems: C4.1 Everglades City = 135 gallons per capita per day, plus 21% for non-residential C5 Municipal Sanitary Sewer Systems: C5.1 Everglades City = 100 gallons per capita per day plus 21% for non-residential C6 C6.1 C6.2 Private 'Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: City of Nap{es = 1.55 tons per capita. Everglades City = 1.55 tons per capita C7 Federal and State Parks: Federal Parks.'. Everglades National Park, Big Cypress Preserve - to protect environmentally sensitive lands. Boundaries set by legislation. (No measurable standard) C7.2 State Park: Policy is not to develop more than 20%. (No measurable standard) C7.3 State Recreation Standard is of no particular size, physical development CIE- 7 Words underlined are additions; Words *'*" '"~' +~ ..... ~' ............ ~,., are deletions C8 C7,4 C7.5 C7.6 C8.~, C8,2 Area: limited to no more than 50% of land area. C. T G tqg¢ State Preserves: To maintain exceptional objects to conditions. Physical development limited to no more than 5% of land area. (No measurable standard) State Museum: No standard for size State Ornamental Garden: No standard for size Municipal Parks and Recreation Facilities: City of Naples: a. Community Parks b. Neighborhood Parks c. Beaches d. Recreation Facilities Level of Service Standards: 1. Basketball Courts = 2. Baseball Fields = 3. Beach Access Points = 4. Boat Ramps = 5. Bike Trails = 6. Community Centers = 7. Football Fields = 8. Horseshoe Pits = 9. Meeting Rooms = 10. Pavilions = 11. Picnic Areas = 12. Play Areas = 13. Racquetball Courts = 14. Shuffleboard Courts = 15. Swimming Pools = 16. Tennis Courts = 17. Volleyball Courts = 2 acres/1,000 population I acre / 1,000 population 1 mile/25,000 population 1/5,000 population 1/5,000 population 1/1,000 population 1/6,000 population 1/1,500 population 1/8,000 population 1/10,000 population 1/2,500 population 1/6,000 population 1/5,000 population 1/5,000 population 1/6,000 population 1/2,500 population 1/2,500 population 1/25,000 population 1/2,000 population 1/4,000 population Everglades City: Community Parks Recreation Facilities: 1. Basketball Courts = 2. Baseball Fields = 3. Bike Trails = 4. Community Centers = 5. Football Fields = 5. Pavilions = ?. Picnic Areas = 6. Play Areas = 9. Tennis Courts = 1.25 acres/534 population 1/534 population 1/534 population 1/534 population 1/534 population 1/534 population 1/534 population 1/534 population 1/534 population 1/534 population CIE- 8 Words uncerlined are additions; Words stn-'ck through are deletions C9 C10 Cll Private Recreation Facilities: a. No standard in industry b. Collier County Usable Open Space Requirement Ordinance #82-2 Sec. 7.27 Planned Residential Developments = 60% of gross area shall be devoted to usable open space Commercial, Industrial, & Mixed Purpose Development = at least 30% of gross area shall be devoted to open space 3. Dedication of usable open space = Maximum of 8% of gross project site Public Schools: a. K - 5 Elementary School = b. 6 - 8 Middle School = c. 9 - 12 High School = 832 students/building 1100 students/building 2200 students/building Public Health Facilities: County Govemment Buildings standard of 2.58 sq. ft. per capita includes the County's public health facilities. CIE- 9 Words underlined are additions; Words ct."_'c,u. th;cu;h are deletions FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OBJECTIVE 1.2: Provide public facilities in order to maintain adopted level of service standards that are within the ability of the County to fund, or within the County's authority to require others to provide. Existing facility deficiencies measured against the adopted level of service standards will be eliminated with revenues generated by ad valorem taxes and intergovernmental revenues received based on economic activity. Future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by growth. Future development's payments may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user fees, special assessments and taxes. Policy 1.2.1: The estimated capital expenditures for all needed public facilities shall not exceed conservative estimates of revenues from sources that are available to the County pursuant to current law, and which have not been rejected by referendum, if a referendum is required to enact a source of revenue. Policy 1.2.2: Existing and future development shall both pay for the costs of needed public facilities. Existing development shalt pay for some or all facilities that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, some or all of the replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, and may pay a portion of the cost of facilities needed by future development. Both existing and future development may have part of their costs paid by grants, entitlements or public facilities from other levels of government and independent districts. Policy 1.2.3: Public facilities financed by County enterprise funds (i.e., potable water, sanitary sewer and solid waste) may be financed by debt to be repaid by user fees and charges for enterprise services, or the facilities may be financed from current assets (i.e., reserves, surpluses and current revenue). Policy 1.2.4: Public facilities ;!:,nanced by non-enterprise funds (i.e., roads, surface water management, parks, library, emerge,~cy medical service, jail, other government buildings, and dependent fire districts) shall be financed fr~.::T~ current assets (pay-as-you-go financing) except as otherwise provided in this policy. Public facilities ~inanced by non-enterprise funds shall not be financed by debt unless such borrowing is the only finsr:,:~'ng technique available that will enable the County to provide facility capacity sufficient to mee: standards for levels of service concurrent with new development. Debt financing shall not be use{: to provide excess capacity in non-enterpnse public facilities unless the excess capacity is an unavoidable result of a capital improvement that is needed to achieve or maintain standards for levels of service. Notwithstanding other provisions of this policy, general obligation bonds approved by referendum may be used for any public facilities to acquire capacity needed within the five year capital improvements plan or for excess capacity. Policy 1.2.5: The County shad not provide a public facility, nor shall it accept the provision of a public facility by others, if the County is unable to pay for the subsequent annual operating and maintenance costs of the facility. CIE- 10 Words un~eriined are additions; Words struck through are deletions The County shall continue to collect Road Impact Fees for read facilities requiring the same level of service standard as adopted in Policy 1.1.5 of this element in order to assess new development a pro rata share of the costs required to finance transportation improvements necessitated by such development. Policy 1.2.7: The County shall continue to collect impact fees for Parks and Recreation, EMS and Library facilities requiring the same level of service standard as adopted in Policy 1.1.5 of this element in order to assess new development a pre rata share of the costs required to finance Parks and Recreation, EMS and Library improvements necessitated by such development. Policy 1.2.8: If, for any reason, the County cannot provide revenue sources identified as needed funding for specific projects within the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements, the Growth Management Plan shall be amended based on one or more of the following actions: Ao Remove through a plan amendment facility improvements or new facilities from the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements that exceed the adopted levels of service for the growth dudng the next five (5) fiscal years; Bo Remove from the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements through a plan amendment facility improvements or new facilities that reduce the operating cost of providing a service or facility but do not provide additional facility capacity; Co Where feasible, transfer funds from a funded Non-Capital Improvement Element capital project in order to fund an identified deficient Capital Improvement Element public facility. The resulting revisions shall be reflected in the required annual update. Lower the adopted level of service standard through a plan amendment for the facility for which funding cannot be obtained. Do not issue development orders that would continue to cause a deficiency based on the facility's adopted level of service standard. Policy 1.2.9: Collier County will not exceed a maximum ratio of total general governmental debt service to bondable revenues from current sources of 13%. Whereas Flodda Statutes place no limitation on the application of revenues to debt service by local taxing authorities, prudent fiscal management dictates a self-imposed level of constra~t. Current bondable revenues are ad valorem taxes and State-shared revenues, specifically gas taxes and the half-cent sales tax. The Enterprise Funds operate under revenue bonding ratios set by the financial markets and are, therefore, excluded from this debt policy. CIE - 11 Words underlined are additions; Words :t,"_'c,u. through are deletions PUBLIC EXPENDITURES: COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA OBJECTIVE 1.3: Effective with plan implementation public expenditures in the coastal high hazard area shall be limited to those facilities needed to support new development to the extent permitted in the Future Land Use Element. In addition, public expenditures shall include the following categories: A. Maintenance of existing public facilities; B. Beach, shore and waterway access; C. Beach renoudshment. Policy 1.3.1' The County shall continue to expend funds within the coastal high hazard area for the replacement and maintenance of public facilities identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Policy 1.3.2: The calculated needs for public facilities will be based on the adopted level of service standards and future growth projections within the coastal high hazard area. The Future Land Use Element limits new residential .development (thus obligations for infrastructure expenditures) to a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre within portions of the coastal high hazard area. Policy 1.3.3: The County shall continue to insure that access to beaches, shores and waterways remain available to the public and will develop a program to expand the availability of such including funding options for acquisition witNi~ one year of adoption of the Seventh Annual CIE Update and Amendment. CIE- 12 Words underlined are additions; Words -+-,"~- +~' ..... ~, ............. ~,, are deletions PUBLIC EXPENDITURES: COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA OBJECTIVE 1.3: Effective with plan implementation public expenditures in the coastal high hazard area shall be limited to those facilities needed to support new development to the extent permitted in the Future Land Use Element. In addition, public expenditures shall include the following categories: A. Maintenance of existing public facilities; B. Beach, shore and waterway access; C. Beach renoudshment. Policy 1.3.1' The County shall continue to expend funds within the coastal high hazard area for the replacement and maintenance of public facilities identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Policy 1.3.2: The calculated needs for public facilities will be based on the adopted level of service standards and future growth projections within the coastal high hazard area. The Future Land Use Element limits new residential .development (thus obligations for infrastructure expenditures) to a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre within portions of the coastal high hazard area. Policy 1.3.3: The County shall continue to insure that access to beaches, shores and waterways remain available to the public and will develop a program to expand the availability of such including funding options for acquisition witNi~ one year of adoption of the Seventh Annual CIE Update and Amendment. CIE- 12 Words underlined are additions; Words -+-,"~- +~' ..... ~, ............. ~,, are deletions PROVIDE NEEDEDIMPROVEMENTS OBJECTIVE 1.4: The County shall coordinate its land use planning and decisions with its plans for public facility capital improvements by providing needed capital improvements for replacement of obsolete or wom out facilities, eliminating existing deficiencies, and future development and redevelopment caused by previously issued and new development orders. Policy 1.4.1: The County shall provide, or arrange for others to provide, the public facilities listed in the Schedule of Capital Improvements in the "Requirements for Capital Improvements Implementation" section of this Capital Improvement Element. The Schedule of Capital Improvements may be modified as follows: A. The Schedule of Capital Improvements shall be updated annually. Pursuant to Fiodda Statutes 163.3187, the Schedule of Capital Improvements may be amended two times dudng any calendar year, and as allowed for emergencies, developments of regional impact, and certain small scale development activities. Pursuant to Flodda Statutes 163.3177, the Schedule of Capital Improvements may be adjusted by ordinance not deemed to be an amendment to the Growth Management Plan for corrections, updates, and modifications concerning costs; revenue sources; or acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications which are consistent with the plan. Policy 1.4.2: All Category A public facility capital improvements shall be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the appropriate individual element of this Growth Management Plan. Policy 1.4.3: The County shall include in the capital appropriations of its annual budget all the public facility projects listed in the Schedule of Capital Improvements for expenditures dudng the appropriate fiscal year. Projects for which appropriations have been made in the annual budget will not be removed once they have been relied upon for the issuance of a building permit. The County may also include in the capital appropriations of its annual budget additional public facility projects that conform to Policy 1.1.2 (B.3) and F~icy 1.1.4(C) and (E). Policy 1.4.4: The County shalt determine, pdor to the issuance of building permits, whether or.not there is sufficient capacity of Catego~ A public facilities to met the standards for levels of service for existing population and the proposed ~le.~elopment. No building permit shall be issued unless the levels of service for the resulting developmer~twill achieve the standards in Policy 1.1.5, Category A, and the requirements for Concurrency Management as outlined in the policies within Objective 1.5 of this element are met. Policy 1.4.5: Public facilities and services provided by Collier County with public funds in accordance with the 5-year Schedule of Capital Improvements will be limited to Service Areas established within the boundaries designated on Map PW-1 titled, "Collier County's Three (3) Water and/ ~r Sewer Districts Boundaries", appearing in the Public Facilities Element for water and sewer. Roads improvements will be provided as designated on Map TR-4W titled, "5-year Capital Improvement Element Map", appearing in the Traffic Circulation Element. All other public facilities and service types w~tl be provided on a County-Wide availability basis. CIE- 13 Words underlined are additions; Words "~-'"~' *~' ..... ~' ............. ~,. are deletions CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE 1.5: To ensure that public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development, the County's Concurrency Management System shall be consistent with Chapter 163, Part II, Flodda Statutes and Rule 9J-5.0055, Flodda Administrative Code. The County shall establish a regulatory and monitoring program to ensure the scheduling, funding and timely construction of Category A Public facilities concurrent with, or prior to, the issuance of a building permit to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards. Policy 1.5.1: The concurrency requirement for the Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste Level of Service Standards of this Growth Management Plan will be achieved or maintained if any one of the following standards of the Concurrency Management System are met: The necessary facilities and services are in place at the time a building permit is issued; or Bo The necessary facilities and services are under construction at the time a building permit is issued; or Co The necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement that includes the provisions of paragraphs A and B of this policy. An enforceable development agreement may include, but is not limited to, development agreements pursuant to Section 163.3220, Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, Flodda Statutes. The agreement must guarantee that the necessary facilities will be in place when the impacts of the development occur. Policy 1.5.2: The concurrency ~equirement for the Recreation and Open Space Level of Service Standards of this Growth Manager~ent Plan will be achieved or maintained if any one of the following standards of the Concurrency Management System are met: Cor,'r~ liance with any o~e of the standards set forth in Polio.3 1.5.1 A, [] and C is met; or Bo At t~e time the building permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services am the subject of a binding executed contract which provides for commencement of actual construct- ion of' the required facilities within one year of the issuance of the building permit; or Co The necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreeme~t which requires the commencement of the actual construction of the facilities within one.. year of the issuance of the applicable building permit. An enforceable development agreement may include, but is not limited to, development agreements pursuant to Section 163.3220, Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, Flodda Statutes. CIE- 14 Words underlined are additions; Words st,"--'ck through are deletions 12A! Policy 1.5.3: O O'i2 6 t~g~ The concurrency requirement of the Traffic Circulation Level of Service Standards of this Growth Management Plan will be achieved or maintained if any one of the following standards of the Concurrency Management System are met: A. Compliance with any one of the standards set forth in Policies 1.5.1 A, B, and C and 1.5.2 B and C is met; or B. In areas in which Collier County has committed to provide the necessary public facilities and services in accordance with its five-year schedule of capital improvements, the concurrency requirement of the Traffic Circulation Level of Service Standards would be achieved or maintained if all of the following standards of the Concurrency Management System, based upon an Adequate Capital Improvements Program and adequate implementing regulations are met: o A Capital Improvement Element and a five-year Schedule of Capital Improvements which, in addition to meeting all of the other statutory and rule requirements, must be financially feasible. The Capital Improvement Element and Schedule of Capital Improvements may recognize and include transportation projects included in the first three years of the applicable, adopted Flodda Department of Transportation five-year work program. A five-year Schedule of Capital Improvements which must include both necessary facilities to maintain the adopted level of service standards to serve the new development proposed to be permitted and the necessary facilities required to eliminate those portions of existing deficiencies which are a pdodty to be eliminated dudng the five-year pedod under the Schedule of Capital Improvements. A realistic, financially feasible funding system based on currently available revenue sources which must be adequate to fund the public facilities required to serve the development authorized by the building permit and which public facilities are included in the five-year Schedule of Capital Improvements. A five-year Schedule of Capital Improvements which must include the estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of project completion. A five-year Schedule of Capital Improvements which must demonstrate that all actual construction of the road facilities and the provision of services is scheduled to commence in or before the third year of the five-year Schedule of Capital Improvements. A plan amendment is required to eliminate, defer or delay construction of any road project which is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is listed in the five-year Schedule of Improvements. Policy 1'.5.4: The County shall continue to implement, a Concurrency Management System, as identified in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance No. 96-53, codified in Division 3.15 of the Collier County Land Development Code, which shall include a regulatory program and monitoring system consistent with this Growth ~0anagement Plan and consistent specifically with the policies under Objective 1.5 of this Capital Impr~3verrm.~t Element. The monitoring system shall enable the County to determine whether it is adhedng to the ad'opted Level of Service Standards and its Schedule of Capital Improvements. CIE- 15 Words underlined are additions; Words =track +~' ..... ~ ...... ~,,. are deletions REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The Schedule of Capital Improvements on the following pages will eliminate existing deficiencies, replace obsolete or worn out facilities, and make available adequate facilities for future growth. Each project is numbered and named, and its cost dudng each of the next five fiscal years is shown in thousands of dollars (000). The month and year for actual commencement of construction and the month and year each project will be completed (in service) is indicated. Each project in Category A is consistent with the level of service standards as identified within this element and the appropriate individual element of this Growth Management Plan. Each project in Category B is consistent with the level of service standards as identified within this element. Optional elements were not developed for Category B facilities. CIE- 16 Words underlined are additions; Words -*-'"'~' *~' ..... ~' ............. ~.. are deletions I..- ...1 1.1.1 Z 0 ;I A I.,.* Z z ~J uJ 0 -I -I 0 IJJ IM LU U,I UJ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 I-. < < 0 0 L~ C ? > ~ i99~ O C ]~ ~ 6 !99~ z I,M 0 ,.,.I 0 m 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ I- z :3 --I 13[ ~U 0 > -~ o ,,'l 0 ,..I 0 ~ 0 OCi ~ 6 i99~ n~ Or', oo8 124,1 Z tLm ..I 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~Ef q~ M~ M~ E _~ ~ ~ I&l u.l 1.1.1TM 0 L~ ~ n,, UJ UJ Ud W IJJ ..,.I 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:) m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Al.., ,~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12A1 - 0 CT ~ ~ 0 0 C T 2 S. ~ggS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ E ~ ~ oE~ E ~ ° ,,:( uJ 0 0 0 Z ..~ l- O I-- UJ UJ ~J UJ ul 0 o~. ~ ~ LU. LU IAI IAI LM LAJ UJ UJ IAI ILl IAI "' UJ .~ -- ..J J --I .J r,' .j 0 0 0 0 0 0 u. u. 0 zo zo z z~ COSTS & REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY (Xll) In the table below, the left column itemizes the types of public facilities and the sources of reVenuel' 'The center column contains the 5-year (FY99-03) amounts of restricted revenues. The right column is a calculation of the deficit for each type of public facility. All deficits are accumulated as a subtotal. Below the subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue that will be used by the County to pay for the deficit in order to maintain the standards for levels of service listed in CIE Policy 1.1.5. COUNTY ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR ROADS LESS Available Revenues: Gas Taxes Road Impact Fees Carry Forward Miscellaneous State Reimbursements ~ $62,763,OOO 29v266vOO~ 33,290,000 · a~ '~ nnn 34 741 000 '~ 4~A nnn 3 010 000 -~-~= nnn 575 000 DRAINAGE PLANS AND PROJECTS Less MSTU Bonds Developer Contributions SFWMD DEP Naples 13,058,000 1,288,000 5,725,000 1,126,000 1 ,O02,O00 WATER & SEWk::~, SYSTEMS [ESS System DeYelopment Fees/User Fees SOLID WASTE/LANDFILL Surplus* Deficit Balance Balance $100,552,000 134,387,000 33,827,0O0 27,785,000 22,199,000 (5,586,000) 77,483,000 77,483,000 0 0 PARKS & RECREATION LESS Available Revenues: Park Impact Fees ~ 14,900,000 ,~oating Improverct~t Funds 500,000 750,000 [~3nd/Loan Proceeds 14,100,000 Deficit 29,750,000 29,750,000 l~ ~ k~v~vvv! CIE- 47 Words underlined are additions; Words with struck through are deletions EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE LESS EMS Impact Fees JAIL Less Bond/Loan Proceeds LIBRARY Buildings Collection Total Library Costs 5,604,000 4,619,100 3¢;~,-8-r(;~ 3,565,700 -9.r844-~14~ 8,184,800 LESS Library Impact Fees GOVERN M ENT BUILDINGS FIRE DISTRICT Isle of Capd Ochopee Deficit Balance ~ . :: nnn 2 244 000 -1¢-7-9¢.00 2,000,000 (1,27e,eoo) (244,000) 6,75__.,000 14,641,000 0 Deficit Balance Deficit Balance 0 0 0 Subtotal Deficit of Restricted Revenue vs. Costs** ADD Unrestricted Revenues: Ad Valorem Taxes Balance (9,958,800) 9,958,800 0 Notes: * Funding for non-CIE transportation projects and reserve for future CIE projects. ** Excludes transportation restricted surplus. CIE- 48 Words ~.lnderlined are additions; Words with struck through are deletions PROGRAMS TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION Through continued implementation of adopted land development regulations the following programs have been implemented to ensure that the goals, objectives and policies established in the Capital improvement Element will be achieved or exceeded. 1. Buildin.q Permit Review As part of the review of all applications for building permits, the County will determine whether or not there will be sufficient capacity of Category A public facilities to meet the standards for levels of service for the existing population and for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the Concurrency Management System. 2. Development Order 'Review As part of the review of requests for all development orders having negative impacts on Category A Public Facilities other than building permits, the County will determine whether or not sufficient capacity of Category A public facilities is planned for completion concurrent with the impacts on levels of service that will be created by the proposed development dudng the next five fiscal years. 3. Impact Fees Impact Fee Ordinances will require the same standard for the level of service as is required by Policy 1.1.5. 4. Annual Budget The annual budget will include in its capital appropriations all projects in the Schedule of Capital Improvements that are planned for expenditures dudng the next fiscal year. 5. Semiannual Report The mandatory semiannual report to the Department of Community Affairs concerning amendments to the comprehensive plan due to emergencies, developments of regional impact and selected small developments will report on changes, if any, to adopted goals, objectives and policies in the Capital Improvement Element. 6. Update of Capital Improvement Element The monitoring of and adjustment to the Capital Improvement Element to meet the changing conditions must be an on(~3ing process. Beginning in August of each year, the element will be updated in conjunction witch the County's budget process and the release of the official BEBR population estimates and projections. The update will include: 1. Revision of pc~ulation projections; 2. Updates of facility inventory; 3. Update of unit costs; Update of facilities requirements analysis to project 10 year needs (by fiscal year) in order to program projects to meet the service standards. Update of revenue forecasts in order to evaluate financial feasibility and the County's. ability to finance capital improvements needed to meet the service standards Revise and develop capital improvement projects for the next five years. The first year's schedule of projects will be incorporated into the County's budget effective October 1st. CIE 49 Words underlined are additions; Words ~.".:'c~ *.h:c'.'~h are deletions Update of the public school and health facilities analysis. 7. Concurrency Management System The County has established a Concurrency Management System by adoption of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The system consists of the following components: Annual monitoring report on the capacity and levels of service of public facilities compared to the standards for levels of service adopted in Policy 1.1.5. of this Element. The report summarizes the actual capacity of existing public facilities and forecast the capacity of existing and planned public facilities for each of the five succeeding fiscal years. For the purposes of long range capital facility planning, a ten year forecast of projected needed capacity is also done. These forecasts are based on the most recently updated Schedule of Capital Improvements in this Capital Improvement Element. This annual report constitutes evidence of the capacity and levels of service of public facilities for the purpose of issuing development orders dudng the 12 months following completion of the annual report. This report is the Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR). Public facility capacity review. The County shall use the procedures specified in Implementation Programs 1 and 2 to enforce the requirements of Policies 1.5.1, 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 of this Element. Review of changes in planned capacity of public facilities. The County shall review each amendment to this Capital Improvement Element in particular any changes in standards for levels of service and changes in the Schedule of Capital Improvements in order to enforce the policies of this Element. Concurrency Management Implementation Strategies. The County shall annually review the Concurrency Management Implementation Strategies that are incorporated in this Capital Improvement Element: Standards for levels of service are applied within appropriate geographical areas of the County. Standards for County-Wide public facilities are applied to development orders based on levels of service throughout the County. Standards for public facilities that serve less than the entire County are applied to development orders on the basis of levels of service within assigned areas. Levels of service are compared to adopted standards on an annual basis. Annual monitoring is used, rather than case-by-case monitoring, for the following reasons: annual monitoring corresponds to annual expenditures for capital improvements dudng the County's fiscal year;, and annual monitoring covers seasonal variations in levels of service. CIE 50 Words undedined are additions; Words ~,".'ck thrcugh are deletions 8. Second 5-year Evaluation and Appraisal Report The required Second 5-year evaluation and appraisal report will address the implementation of the goals, objectives and policies of the Capital Improvement Element. The monitoring procedures necessary to enable the completion of the 5-year evaluation include: a. Review of annual reports of the Concurrency Management System; bo Review of semiannual reports to DCA concerning amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and Review of annual updates of this Capital Improvement Element, including updated supporting documents. CIE 51 Words underlined are additions; Words .-'t.,"_'ck th,-'cu~,h are deletions Petition CP-99-07 Amendments to the Transportation Element Exhibit A O CT 2 i§9 , PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The proposed amendments to the Transportation Element will: · update traffic circulation maps for years 2010 and 2020 consistent with an upcoming Long Range Plan Amendment by the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); · update lists and tables where appropriate; · incorporate a build-out network for right of way preservation guidance; · incorporate by reference the Corridor Management Plan for the Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway; · incorporate by reference the Public Transportation Development Plan; · comply with direction given by the BCC during a review of the Transportation Element at the May 25, 1999 BCC meeting; · change the minimum standard level of service on State facilities in rural areas from C to D; and · modify the definition of"significant impact." Note: the attached maps showing number of lanes TR-6(W&E), TR-7(W&E), and TR-8(W&E) are preliminary versions that will be refined as a result of consultant work currently underway. FUTURE SYSTEM NEEDS Amend Section D.4. as follows: 4. Future Traffic Circulation Map - Year 2000 The roadways included in Table 5 are funded in the proposed 1997-_9-200-1.3 Capital Improvement Element. Update the following table and map consistent with the latest capital improvement program: · Table V - Collier County Transportation Planning Database and Capital Improvement Plan · Map TR-4W - 5 Year Capilal Improvement Element Update the following maps consistent with the Long Range Plan Amendment to be adopted by the Collier County MPO in the Fall of 1999: · [dap · Map · Map · I'vi'~.~ p · Map TR-6AW - Number of Lanes Year 2010 Western Collier County TR-6BW - Facility Type Year 2010 Western Collier County TR-6CW - Year 2010 Levels of Service - Western Collier County TR-6D - Evacuation Routes Year 2010 TR-7AW - Number of Lanes Year 2020 Western Collier County Tr~-7BW - Facility Type Year 2020 Western Collier County TR-TCW - Year 2020 Levels of Service - Western Collier County TR-TD -- Evacuation Routes Year 2020 Add Section D.7. to comply with direction from the BCC on May 25, 1999: t ~ ords underlined are added, words stntck thr,vugh arc deleted, as proposed by this petition) 7. Future Traffic Circulation Map - Build-Out This element contains an estimate of the build-out roadway needs for the county. Maps TR-8W and TR-SE depict the number of lanes estimated to be required when the county reaches build- out conditions. There is no scenario year connected to this lane need estimate, and it is included to provide quidance in the preservation of ri.qht of way. Add the following maps consistent with direction from the BCC on May 25, 1999: · Map TR-8W - Number of Lanes - Build-Out - Western Collier County · Map TR-8E - Number of Lanes - Build-Out - Eastern Collier County INTERMODAL & MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION Make the following amendments due to the adoption of the Public Transportation Development Plan on August 3, 1999 and its proposed incorporation by reference into the Transportation Element (see new Policy 12.10): Remove the following maps: · Map TR-8W Future Transit Demand Centers & Transit Corridors - Western Collier County · Map TR-8E Future Transit Demand Centers & Transit Corridors- Eastern Collier County Amend Section E.3. as follows: 3. Mass Transit a. Purpose Collier County curre~ly has no publicly sponsored fixed route bus system. Private services offered in the County are fixed route "trolleys" which operate during the winter season in Naples and on Marco Island, and a network of para-transit providers that offer transportation services to the disadvantaged..~J cc,_" vv.""~"~'~',~..,v."~'~ _.." ;'"-"*,._.. ~."~",...,v'" ..... ;"" ,~;" v,,~,"~"'"'~v_ The Transportation D~sadvantaged (TD) program is coordinated by -r-., ,'- .... ,., e....;.,, e..,.,,;,.,.. Collier County, which has been designated as the Coordinated Provider by the ~ollier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The TD services" ....... ..,~,.,~ h ...... ; .... ""'";"' .... ; ....... ;~' .... '~ offers home pick-up and delivery transportation for the elderly, handicapped, and economically disadvantaged in the County. The "trolley" systems mentioned above are run primarily for the tourist segment of the population and have fixed routes that visit the major shopping, beach and hotel interest points. Words Underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. 2 12Al ....... ~__~_ ~ ....... z ~ ..... ~ ~, ~ .......... b. Future System Needs · ^"... ,~'~,prelude *. .... .. ........ ~ _" plan, ,h~.., ,~ r-~., .... ,.,~ ~..o, ,.~ a~ ..... ~,~ ~l~"~a ~ map *~-*., ,-..~,~.~"";~*" the mai or +.._, .... ,~,.;+ ~aminat!on ~ thc ~oac +k~+ might k ...... a k,, ~, .... ;* system ~- tho f"t .... No attempt ~"-"' h,....=,..,..,4.. ,,-. ,~ .... , ....show "'" ....................... r- ........................... ~. any mac: tran:!t TR -:~aE are ';:hat ccu!d be major trandt ccrfidcm ccr/ing c'--'rront and fut'--'rc productJcr, and a~-e'-.,:t', o n areas. On Au,dust 3. 1999 the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Public Transportation Deveiopment Plan (PTDP), and agreed to become the Governing Agency for Transit in Collier Count,/. The PTDP contains estimates of un-met need in Collier County, both for the existin.q TD servic~-~s, and for general public transportation. It contains planning level discussions on demand centem route locations, vehicle sizes and types of services. Words ;Jnderiined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. 3 12A1 The PTDP recommends, as the backbone of the public transportation system, deviated fixed route service, in which buses would follow a fixed mute, with the ability to deviate from that route to pick up disabled passenqers curbside at their residence. This service could be provided by a private agency under contract to the county. Other services proposed in the start up public transportation system are a vanpool pro.qram, circulator service in Immokalee, an Immokalee to Naples shuttle service, and a Commuter Assistance Proqram. Althou.qh the PTPD final report suqgested the need for numerous public transportation service.~ in Collier County, the scale and growth rate of the initial system was such that no local fundinq contribution was predicted to be required until fiscal year 2006. This situation is the result of gradual changes in the requirements for local matchinq funds that accompany state and federal grant funds. Collier County is already spending funds on public transportation that meet the match requirements. GOALS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES With one exception, amend the following objectives and policies to comply with direction from the BCC on May 25, 1999. The exception: the change in minimum standard level of service on state facilities in the rural area (Policy 1.4) is the proposed response to a level of service deficiency on State Road 29 for which no improvement is funded: OBJECTIVE 1: The County 'will maintain the major roadway system (excluding State highways) at an acceptable Level of Service by implementing improvements to restore acceptable level of service to the following roadways that have been identified as operating below~ "D" their minimum standard level of service. CIE __~ Roac~uay From T~o 41 Pine Ri~qe Rd. Airport Rd. 1-75 Airpodt Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Rd. 62 Gold~m Gate Boulevard CR951 Wilson Blvd. 71 Immol~ee Road CR951 Wilson Blvd. Words Underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. 4 Policy 1.3: County arterial and collector roads shall be maintained at Level of Service "D" or better on the basis of the peak season peak hour traffic volume. Level of Service "E" or better shall be maintained on the following designated roadways. Roadway Airport-Pulling Road Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette-Frank Road Goodlette-Frank Road Pine Ridge Road Tamiami Trail East From Pine Ridge Road Airport-Pulling Road Pine Ridge Road US 41 Airport-Pulling Road Four Corners To Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Blvd. Golden Gate Parkway Golden Gate Parkway 1-75 Goodlette Frank Rd. Tamiami Trail North Pine Ridqe Rd. Solana Rd. The County has declared as "constrained" the following segments: ROADWAY From To Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Gulfshore Dr. U.S. 41 Level of Service "D" or better shall be maintained on all other arterial and collector roads, however, any section of road may operate at Level of Service "E" for a period not to exceed two (2) fiscal years following the determination of Level of Service "E" in order to provide the County with time to restore Level of Service "D" by making appropriate improvements. The ~Collier County-) MPO shall determine the optimum LOS for each county road segmem. This will be done by more accurately identifying the traffic volumes that correspond to the different LOS thresholds on county roads, and more accurately quantifying the peaking charac?eristics of traffic on county roads. The first component of this is to update the LOS tables in the Transportation Element to best reflect current conditions on county roads. The second component is to begin installing, as funds permit, permanent traffic count stations, to better d,entify the peaking characteristics of traffic on county roads. The third component will be to ame~n'd the Capital Improvements Element to implement findings. Policy 1,4: For the purpose of regulating development orders, Collier County has adopted the following level of service standards for state rnaintained roads: Rural Area Existing Urbanized Area Transitioning Urbanized Area I- 75 B C C US- ,~1 GD D* D SR- 84 CD D D SR-951 D D* SR- 29 64:) - SR- 82 ¢_D - ! !,e '-.egment of US 41 from Airl~3rt-P(llling Roac~ (CR-31) to Rattlesnake-Hammoc:,. R~.ac] ICR-864) and the segment of SR-951 (Isle of Capri Road) from New York [)r~ .,,- io me Marco Bridge have been designated as "backlogged" roadways bv '~P F or,da Department of Transportation, Reconslruction along these segments will !~e e-~edlted by' FDOT Words Underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. 5 It should be noted that FDOT has different LOS standards for state roads. The ~Collier County-) Metropolitan Planning Organization shall conduct a study to research the implications of these different LOS Standards that FDOT has established for state roads by area type. Establishing unreasonably high LOS standards in the fringe "transitioning urban area" may require the diversion of revenues from more congested areas with lower levels of service standards, in order to maintain the high standards established in the outlying areas. Policy 2.2: The County shall annually appropriate the funds necessary to implement those projects show in the annual element (first year) of the Scccnda,"/ ,.C~ca'~. ~. ..~,~... ...... Annual Update and Inventory I R.eport (AUIR). I Policy 3.3: By June 1998, Collier County's Transportation Department, r~m,.,,v...vv ''~_. ~'"~'~*~'v_,..._. Prcjcctc M~Public Works Engineering Department and the .~.~cplcc (Collier County-) Metropolitan Planning Organization will develop standards, criteria and implementation guidelines for right-of-way acquisition. Provision for landscaping shall be consistent with Collier County corridor management planning policies (see Future Land Use Element Policy 4.2 and Transportation Element Policy 7.4). The County shall acquire sufficient amount of right-of-way to facilitate no less than a cross section of (6) traffic lanes, appropriate turn lanes, medians, bicycle and pedestrian features, drainage canals, and shoulder sufficient for pull offs and landscaping areas. Exceptions to the right-of-way standard may be considered when it can be demonstrated, through a traffic capacity analysis, that the maximum number of lanes at build-out will be less than the standard. Maps TR-8W and TR-8E show roadway cross sections required to provide acceptable level of service (liven build-out land uses as currently identified in the Future Land Use Element. Policy 4,2: The Coumty shall provide for support services, resources and staff within the ~ollier County-) Metropolitan Planning Organization to coordinate the Bicycle/Pedestrian Program. Policy 4.3: The Cou~y shall provide an interconnected and continuous bicycle and pedestrian system by making the improvements identified on the 2020 Pathway Facilities Map series. The county's pathway construction program should be consistent with the Comprehensive Pathway i:h~an. The Pathway Advisory Committee should provide recommendations on the choice of pr~ects to be included in the pathway construction program, and the order in which t.h_ey are con~"~ructed. Policy 6.1: The Transportation Element shall incorporate to the greatest degree possible, the long range plans of the Nacler~Collier County-) Metropolitan Planning Organization. Words Underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. 6 Policy 6.5 The ~Collier County MPO's_ ~.wv - ~ --°r~n.v ~.,-,,~"'""" ,,..~ ~' .... adopted LongL Range,_ Plan has identified a need for an interchange at 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway. An Interchange Justification Report shall be prepared by the Florida Department of Transportation and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration by October 1, 19989. Policy 12.1: The ,~s, c4es-~Collier County-) Metropolitan Planning Organization, through the Transportation Disadvantaged Program shall assist the local community transportation coordinator in the implementation of the most efficient and effective level of service possible for the transportation disadvantaged. Policy 12.2: The County shall coordinate the development and maintenance of any fut. ur.~transit development plans with the Ncplcc (Collier County-) Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Florida Department of Transportation. Policy 12.3 The ~Collier County-) Metropolitan Planning Organization shall monitor the need and desirability of implementing a transit system and will coordinate the development of any transit development plans. Policy 12.5: The County shall participate in the MPO planning process through an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island, and in a Joint Participation Agreement with the FDOT. Add the following policy due to the designation of the first fifty miles of Tamiami Trail west of the Dade County line as a State Scenic Highway (see the attached memo from FDOT): Policy 10.3 The County shall incorporate by reference the Corridor Manaqement Plan for the Tamiami Trail Scenic Hiqhway, which formed part of the application for Scenic Hiqhway designation authorized by the Board of County Commissioners on November 3, 1998. Add the following policy due to the adoption of the Public Transportation Development Plan on August 3,1999: ~¢~1i c'¢ ! 2.10 TI~ Coumv sr~all incorporate by reference the Public Transportation Development Plan adopted .by He Bo~,d oF County Commissioners on Auqust 3, 1999. Amend *,he following policy to change the definition of "significant impact," to more accur~teiy reflect the community's chosen standard for level of service: Words U~:derlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. Policy 5.2: Si§nificant Impact is hereby defined as §enerating a volume of traffic equal to or greater than 5% of the L=;,=! cf $=.-':!=c C minimum standard level of service peak hour volume of an impacted roadway. Words Underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions. 8 5 LEE CO. MAP TR-,4*W YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT MAP WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY HENORY CO. COLLIER CO. C.R. B46 COLLIER CO. S.R. 84. I - 75 COUNTY, F~.ORIDA C(j/.~.. 0~- ~6..k./c° N W-.~-E S Number of Lanes Year 2010 Western Collier County e MAP TR-6AW OCT ,2 6 ~ N~I~RI~t./~OJ..ECTOR ,9 IM T ~-"T 1 Countywide Permanent Population 348,100 LEE CO. COLLIER CO. MAP TR-6BW FACILITY TYPE - YEAR WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY 2010 12Ai-- HENDRY CO. COLUER CO. COLLIER COMNTY. FLORIDA ~ ~C~ 0~' ~E,,,y/O° ~3 YEAR MAP TR-6CW 2010 LEVELS OF SERVICE WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY LEE CO. COLLIER CO. i i i I I I I i i i ,I COLLIER COI;7,,t"P¢, FLORIDA SCALE 55 ~ TR-6D Evacuation Roucas Year 2010 ! Number of Lanes Year 2020 Western Collier County TR-7AW LANE $ AI~T~RI~L/COCL.EC TOl~ FLO~I~ OIEPARTMENT OF T~L~NSPORTATION NAPLES. C C~J.~[R COUNTY M~AN P~M'~NIt~G ORGANIZATION Countywide Permanent Population 426,300 HIGHWAY ~ MAP TR-7BW FACILITY TYPE - YEAR WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY 2020 HENDRY CO. COLLIER CO. COLJJERCOUNTY, FLORIDA FACILITY 0~' ~E~iCo 60 YEAR LEE CO. MAP TR-7CW 2020 LEVELS OF SERVICE WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY i i i I I I I I i i I 12A1 HE"DRY ~0. COLLIER CO. I I i i "eh'%' v-- r.~mm SOLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA r- 62 o,~- ~?~eo ~ - 64. Number of Lanes Build-Out Western Collier County TR- 8W I I HENDRY CO. COMJEI~ CO. NUMBER MAP ~-8E OF LANES - Su~L].d-Ou~: F_AST~N COMJER COUNTY HENDRY CO. d FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GOVF_.KNO~. ~ ~mm~m i~l~t/~,.~.~m.a,~ S~CP~T~Y MEMORANDUM DATE: December 17, 1998 TO: Susan King District One Scenic Highways Coordinator FROIY~,~uddy Cunill C~b~ f~'"State Scenic Highways Administrator CC: DIST. ONE PLANNING FDOT- BART©W Scenic Highways Advisory Committee, C. Leroy Irwin, Lynne Marie Whately Suggestions from the Scenic Highway Advisory Committee Regarding the Tamiami Trail Designation Application Consistent with the recommendations of the Scenic Highways Advisory Committee (SHAC) during their review of the Tamiami Trail Designation Application, the following Program elements should be addressed during the next year and their compliance recorded in the first Annual Report for the designated corridor. The Program elements which must be addresses over the next year are: 1) Incorporation into the local government comprehensive plan of Collier County thc following 1) a map displaying the scenic comdor. 2) the Corridor Vision statement, and 3) the Goals, Objectives and Strategies specifically related to Collier County. 2) A signed Comdor Management Entity. Agreement. Along with this, the SHAC recommends that the Comdor Advocacy Group/Corridor Management Entity consider the following suggestions: 1) Broaden goals and objectives/n the CMP to address land use for non-public lands; greater consideration of wildlife crossings and movements along the corridor; and consideration of water hydmk~gy movement along the comdor to support adjoining natural systems. A) Continue to work with Collier County. to address preservation and protection of land use for non-public lands, B) Continue to work closely with resource agencies and the Department to address consideration of wildlife crossings and animal movements, C) Continue to work with the Army Corp. of Engineers and Water Management District to address consideration of water hydrology movement to support adjoining natural systems. 2) Consider vegetative management planning along the corridor for exotic plant removal and promoting native species. 3) Use tourist-oriented signage to make the experience easier and safer for eco-tourists and' establish a standard type of informational signage that is easy to recognize and understand especially for international tourists. 4) Work with local govermnent for a more positive commitment on the control of outdoor signs. 5) Protect archeological sites along the corridor from disruption by not identifying their exact location. Provide educational opporumities for these sites rather than direct visitation. Congratulations again on the designation of Tamiami Trail as a Florida.Scenic Highway. The hard work and dedication of yourself, citizens, Collier County, the MPO and others members of the Corridor Advocacy Group demonstrates that a partnership with shared goals can accomplish wonderful things and improve the quality of life in Florida. Those of us involved in the Scenic Highways Program look forward to the continued success of the Tamiami Trail. Your achievements will certainly serve as a model for other corridors to follow. G:~l'OBS\95~95R0360 l~d~OC~Two-33ksusanmemo.wpd Petition CP-99-08 Exhibit and motor ve~cI~ ~ the a rezone ACtivi~,ic~nt~r: up to 16 reSifi~fifiali~its P~r gr°sg acre ~a~ be permitted. throughout ~e P~°i~ti;inelUd~g any pOrti°n IOeated (words underlined are added, words :~.:ck t?czug~ are deleted, as amended in 1997; words S~d and underlined are added, words shaded and :~az!: :.ua~ugh are deleted, as proposed by this p~) "I! ' October 26, 1999 Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 99-73 RE PETITION R-99-1, GEOFFREY G. PURSE OF PURSE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING SUNSET HARBOR CLUB, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM C-4 TO RMF-12(8) FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS SUNSET CAY - ADOPTED Let's talk about Sunset Harbor Club, 12(B) (1). Will all persons wishing to be heard on this item, please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) COMMISSIONER BERRY: Madam Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was the one that asked that this be continued at the last meeting. And I have received word from the people down at Port-of-the-Islands, they are in agreement with this particular petition. And -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Close the public hearing, unless there's some questions from the other -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one important point to get on the record and that is the petitioner's necktie today is the finest necktie we've seen all day. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's tough, though -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's pretty good. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- because did you see Stan Chrzanowski's? It looks pretty good. MR. PURSE: I beat out Stan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm particularly partial to Tigger. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we close the public hearing, I have had outside contact on this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Has anyone else? COMMISSIONER BERRY: As have I, from the other side of this petition. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't recall. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think I have either. Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: out of the room. Move for acceptance of Petition R-99-1. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Motion passes 4-0. Commissioner Carter is Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 99-74 RE PETITION PUD-76-35(2), R. BRUCE ANDERSON, ESQ., OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP, VARNADOE & ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING AQUAPORT, Page 134 October 26, 1999 L.C., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WILDERNESS PUD FOR APPROVAL OF A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTED W/CHANGES Petition PUD-76-35(2). This is Wilderness PUD. All persons wishing to be heard on the Wilderness PUD item, please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have disclosure. I've spoken with Mr. Anderson about this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've spoken with Mr. Anderson also with the Wilderness folks about this. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Me, too. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've spoken with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Romundi (phonetic). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we -- well, go ahead. MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino, planning services. The petition that's before you would have you rezone a parcel of land located in the Wilderness PUD that's designated commercial but for which there are no specific uses provided for. And the PUD is unique in the sense than it says that this board shall determine what those commercial uses will be for each application that is made to you, subject to a specific site development plan. You recall you did this in connection with a nursing care facility a couple of years ago immediately to the south of this property. The uses that are proposed for this property were contained in your executive summary package. They are an extensive list of uses. For the record, let me say the Planning Commission recommended approval of this petition 6 to 1. However -- and the outstanding objection is raised by residents of the Wilderness. And I believe they're concerned that -- they're going to express to you that they really don't have a problem with the plan. As a matter of fact, they applaud the plan, but have a problem with the uses that are under entertainment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we should let them tell us that. MR. NINO: Sorry. There's no reason that -- this petition is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Growth Management Plan. And we found no inconsistencies with levels of service. As I said, we recommend approval. Staff -- the Planning Commission supported that by a vote of 6 to 1. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from the petitioner; Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, on behalf of the petitioner. As Mr. Nino briefly summarized, this is an old PUD. The parcel has been designated and vested for commercial uses since the mid Seventies. Kind of unusual in that it didn't specify any particular Page 13 5 October 26, 1999 commercial uses or development standards, it simply required us to bring back a site development plan to the County Commission for approval, which we have done today. I've put up a graphic on the board here to show you how far the property line of this commercial parcel is from the nearest condominium building in Wilderness. And it also depicts on the south side of the property the City of Naples' boundaries where the parcel is zoned highway commercial. The uses that we have proposed here are similar to those that are allowed in the City of Naples on the highway commercial piece of zoning. The City of Naples and Collier County have agreed on joint landscaping standards for Goodlette-Frank Road, and it calls for a 10-foot minimum landscape buffer along Goodlette-Frank. We have provided 20. The property owners also agreed to more restrictive sign regulations than are currently on the books or than are being proposed day for amendment to the Land Development Code, by agreeing to monument signs rather than pole signs. The property owners' representative has worked closely with the Wilderness homeowners' board and has committed to a specific architectural style for the buildings. That is depicted in a rendering which we furnished previously. And I can give another copy of that to Mr. Nino if -- MR. NINO: It's in the package. MR. ANDERSON: Put that on the visualize if anyone is interested. It is possible that the building arrangement could be changed at the back of the property to consist of several separate buildings, instead of the one larger one. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you all may have, or now or after you've heard from the public. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Questions for either petitioner or staff? Go to the public. MR. FERNANDEZ: Dale Armstrong is the only speaker we have registered. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Armstrong? MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dale Armstrong, and I hope I'm still president of the board of the Wilderness Country Club and the Condominium Association. I'm here representing 300 families who make up the Wilderness Country Club and Condominium Association, living in the 300 condominium units on the eastern border of this project. I must say to you that we are in complete accord with the architectural aspects of this project as we understand them to be. We're also in complete accord with the landscaping proposals as we understand them to be. Now, if that bears any weight with you for your decision concerning this, I hope my concerns about one of the end uses might also bear some weight. The area in which we live is a very, very quiet area, as far as Page 136 October 26, 1999 commercial activities are concerned. We have no restaurants from somewhere down here, 7th, clear up to Pine Ridge Road. We're particularly interested in the areas close to our facility where the Goodlette-Frank Road is bordered on the west by private homes of this project. Bordered on the north by the Windsor assisted living project. And of course on the east by us. We have no objection to any of the proposed table of permitted uses, except for the entertainment. We believe that that is not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. We are particularly concerned that such an open category could result in all kinds of different restaurants and bars, entertainment facilities. Because of the fact that we feel that such a thing would be inappropriate, we ask you, please, as you approve this project, and we hope you will approve the project, that you would delete the entertainment category from the table of permitted uses. I wanted to thank Mr. Nino for helping me in my presentation. And I thank you very much for allowing me to speak. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there was a way to have restaurants without the entertainment, without, you know, some risk of a chickee hut or a tavern with bands or, you know, whatever the entertainment would be, if it was limited to restaurant use only and maybe even had some limitations on hours, would you have any objection to that? MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Commissioner, I would say to you that that would certainly be helpful in our appraisal of what this particular end use might be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all. We have two or three areas in the county, one in Commissioner Norris', I think, district, a couple in my district, where entertainment near neighborhoods have caused a tremendous amount of difficulty. Is that over in Commissioner Mac'Kie's? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Lucky you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It may be in all three. But we have some areas. So I think the concern is probably well founded in that while nobody intends that on the front end, you can end up with some things that just plain are not compatible. So I would hope the petitioner might consider limiting that to a restaurant within certain operating hours but limit any other activity there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would agree with that. Certainly the place that's had the most experience that I'm aware of with this is in the City of Naples. And there's just been angst in many Naples neighborhoods because of unintended consequences of entertainment uses. So while I can agree that a restaurant is appropriate, I would join with you in saying that the entertainment aspect is a problem. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is -- you know, are piano bars, where there's limited, I guess you'd call it entertainment, is that a problem here during dinner hours where -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think what -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- somebody is playing a piano? I mean, is that -- Page 137 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- in the city again -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- offensive? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- just to use that as an example, in the .City of Naples, they've addressed it with amplified. Amplified music is entertainment that's not permitted near these residential areas. But if somebody has a -- strums a guitar or plays a piano that's not amplified, that that's not a problem. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And my second question would be, sir, does the Wilderness Country Club have any entertainment at your facility? MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. We have dancing on Saturday evenings with a small orchestra. We're well back from Wilderness Drive -- I'm sorry, we're well back from Goodlette-Frank Road. And I don't believe we've ever had any complaints about -- (speaker timer sounded). I'll marry your daughter. I don't believe I've had any complaints about the noise coming from our club. You know, we've never had experience with restaurants or entertainments in our area on Goodlette-Frank Road. And frankly, we're very much concerned that we might end up with a drive-in restaurant of some sort or a loud bar. And with the Windsor Court Assisted Living Facility just north of this facility, we think that that kind of an activity is completely inappropriate. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I share your concerns. And I just -- if they develop something within the parameters of what you do in your own club, or if it's not amplified music, would you have an objection to some sorts of things like that taking place? MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Commissioner, we would prefer nothing. But that doesn't suggest that we shouldn't sit down and discuss something. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would say, looking at this page with probably 50 uses on it, the fact that they're asking to take that one out is not asking too much. And whether it's the Vanderbilt Inn up in your area or the Tipsy Seagull in your area or the Golden Gate Quality Inn in my area, the entertainment bordering a residential neighborhood has been a problem throughout the county. So I think -- I don't think they're asking for too much there. We've got a whole page of uses that are still acceptable. I think they've been more than reasonable. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I do, too. We appreciate your input. Are there other questions for our speaker? Other comments for us, sir? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have just one question. You don't think your entertainment over in the club is going to disturb these people in the shopping center, do you? MR. ARMSTRONG: I certainly hope not, Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just kidding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only on New Year's Eve. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There you go. MR. ARMSTRONG: If there are no more questions, I thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate your input, sir. Page 138 October 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: restaurants, period? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: restaurant. Well, let me ask, are we saying no No. No, we're not saying that? I'm not saying that. I'm saying -- We're just saying no entertainment in the COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No entertainment. Maybe limit the restaurant to 10:00 p.m. or whatever is appropriate. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there any other public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, there are not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then I'll close the public hearing at this point. Are there recommendations from anyone? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve the item with the limitation -- with the deletion of the entertainment element. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, where does the restaurant come back in then? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Actually, it would just be eating and drinking establishments without entertainment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Without entertainment, amusement and recreation services. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless you've got a really funny waiter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No body slamming, right? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, let's just say -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No mosh pot. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I would like to see the language say there; eating and drinking establishments without entertainment, amusement or recreation services. COMMISSIONER BERRY: How would you -- where does a drive-in or drive-through fit? I mean, I'm not interested in that. That's why I -- I don't want that. But if someone wanted to come in there with a nice restaurant in one of those buildings that they showed us, how do you get the wording to say that you don't want the drive -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Nino has the answer for that. MR. NINO: You'd have to specifically exempt drive-through fast-food restaurants. COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right. Then I'd like to stipulate that as well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that part of the motion. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Does that -- can you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, absolutely. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought that restaurant group numbers under the SIC codes didn't include drive-throughs. MR. NINO: It CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They do? Page 139 October 26, 1999 MR. NINO: They do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So it's important then. The motion is eating and drinking establishments without entertainment, amusement or recreation services and without drive-through facilities. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that sufficiently worded, Mr. Nino? COMMISSIONER BERRY: So they don't have to worry about a golden arches. I mean, I'm not against McDonald's, but you don't have to worry about looking out your windows and seeing that. MR. NINO: You're saying drive-through and fast-food. I mean, are you -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Kentucky fried Chicken, or whatever. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: Without drive-through. MR. NINO: Fast-food. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Without fast-food. I'm sorry, we closed the public hearing, so I can't allow you to speak anymore. If we're doing something terrible -- MR. ARMSTRONG: Why don't you use sit down? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, that's -- it accomplishes the same thing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's essentially what we did. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, that's -- we've done that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: So there's a motion to that effect. Was there a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: Further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. Did you -- Mr. Anderson looks confused. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I just went to look in the Standard Industrial Classification Code. The amusement and recreation was not to be done in combination with a restaurant. We've now excluded physical fitness facilities and things like that. And I wanted to make sure that you didn't confuse and think that we were going to have a comedy club dinner theater. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Arcade. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: comedian? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: made the motion? Hooters. Please. Well, if they do, Bruce, will you be the So the question is, did the board in -- who COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you intend for the motion to exclude amusement and recreation services as a stand-alone item, separate from restaurants? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are certain amusement and recreation items that I don't think are appropriate there. So, yeah. Page 140 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So yes is the answer. Did the second intend to exclude that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that's what we voted on, Mr. Anderson, it looks like, that amusement and recreation as stand-alone uses are also excluded. MR. ARMSTRONG: As well as drive-through and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fast-food. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And entertainment. MR. ANDERSON: And entertainment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But you could have a restaurant with a piano player, you could have a restaurant with a strolling guitar player. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I don't think so. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No? Did you all say no on that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We said without entertainment. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You said without entertainment, okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless they're a very bad piano player, but I wouldn't be entertained. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Of course, you could always have Leon Redbone. That wouldn't classify as entertainment. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I guess we're going to have to cancel the Liberace restaurant franchise. Item #12B3 ORDINANCE 99-75 RE PETITION PUD 87-36(3), KAREN K, BISHOP, REPRESENTING NTC DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, SEEKING TO REPEAL THE CURRENT CARLTON LAKES PUD AND TO ADOPT A NEW PUD TO ALLOW CHANGES TO THE COMMERCIAL TRACT OF THE PUD - ADOPTED W/CHANGES CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Moving right along. 12(B) (3), Karen Bishop representing NTC Development. Will all persons wishing to be heard on this matter, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn by the court reporter. (Ail speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does anyone have disclosure on this item? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, but I sure want to know what you're going to put in there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't have any disclosure. Does anybody else? If not -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, please. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, good. Okay. Dr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Karen Bishop, representing NTC Development, is requesting to amend Carlton Lakes PUD, which was approved in 1987. This project contains seven acres commercially zoned property, allowing C-1 and C-2 uses. She's requesting to amend to add supermarket and accessory uses Page 141 October 26, 1999 to the list of uses already approved. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's the only change? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the only change. Albertson's Supermarket has a contract, I believe, to purchase the property. As you know, Albertson's has always built a supermarket, small liquor store on the side. Therefore, they are asking this amendment to build a supermarket, small liquor store and drug store inside the supermarket. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that answers the question, I guess. If this is approved, what we're going to see is a supermarket of some kind with perhaps a pharmacy and liquor store. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that liquor store and pharmacy have to be ancillary to the supermarket? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: To a supermarket. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is actually -- this is where Livingston Road's going to come up off of Immokalee Road? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right. The intersection of Livingston -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is the intersection of Livingston Road. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- and Immokalee Road, yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is where we've had a lot of discussion with the folks in Willoughby Acres; though I know that that probably isn't going to happen real soon. But the Piper Boulevard comes up there to that intersection. And there's been a lot of discussion about some kind of a pathway actually from there up along the front of Carlton Lakes on up to the Strand, which is where a Publix is located. Okay? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically a sidewalk or pedestrian access? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, originally what they really wanted is they wanted to have like a frontage road that would run the length of -- which runs right now almost from Palm -- I believe Palm River up through Willoughby. It stops at Livingston Road. Because from there on out to -- out past Carlton Lakes and the fact that they have now dredged the Cocohatchee Canal, they have eliminated almost any opportunity for us to really go on. You would have to take a look at the berm at Carlton Lakes to see how much encroachment, if there is any, into our right-of-way. But right now it looks like there is just a small pathway that has been left there going on up to the Strand. And of course it was desirous -- the people were desirous to have some kind of a pathway. I'm just -- I really didn't know what was intended here. And I haven't had an opportunity to tell you -- honestly, to talk with people in that area if this type of grocery store is desirous. I don't know, Jim, you're at Pelican Bay and you have this grocery store up there and -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Again, I do not have -- I have not had any input. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nor have I. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Albertson's itself is great. I mean, I shop Page 142 October 26, 1999 at the Albertson's at the other end of Pelican Bay often. It's a great store. And the liquor store is a small part. It's not offensive. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. But my next question's going to be, Ed, if they come up Piper Boulevard -- Piper Boulevard, is that what they call it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could you show me Piper Boulevard? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Piper runs out in front of Willoughby Acres. It runs parallel to Immokalee Road, Pam. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And as you're coming up -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- how is this going to connect? My next question is, how is this going to connect with this grocery store? Because you know what the next request is going to be. MR. KANT: Yes, ma'am. Edward Kant, transportation services director. I was not sworn, but I do. We have just received a copy of -- a report from our consultant that was going to examine both the connection and the traffic control in that area. And our recommendation is going to be not to make that connection. As it is, that connection is precluded by the landscape preservation strip in the -- now they call it the Strand -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: The Strand. MR. KANT: -~ development. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MR. KANT: The -- there still is probably an opportunity for some pedestrian or cyclist type of connection. But we've found, based again on the studies that we had commissioned, that even if that connection were made, it wouldn't get enough use to significantly affect Immokalee Road. We looked at even putting paired signals in, and it was -- that was recommended against. And there's just -- there's not that great a demand. And while we do get letters, we do get phone calls, we have to deal with the hand -- we have to work with the hand we were dealt. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ed, you're talking about there's not current demand or there's not anticipated demand? MR. KANT: There is no current or -- there is a demand. I'm not going to negate the fact that there is a demand. But that demand in itself is not so great that by forcing that connection you would seriously improve the level of service on Immokalee Road. By forcing those two -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this what he's talking about? That's Piper and -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that today, Ed, or if we look out at -- MR. KANT: No, we looked at it today and then we extrapolated it into the future. Because we looked at it under a six-lane scenario for Immokalee Road also. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. What about then, Ed, if they're coming up Piper to this new proposal, which is going to be on the east Page 143 October 26, 1999 side of Livingston Road -- MR. KANT: There's a direct connection there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can you get the people -- MR. KANT: There is a direct connection presently from Piper to the -- that initial 6, 700 feet of Livingston Road, and we're looking at maintaining that connection. The connection that's going to have a -- that is problematic, because of the platting of the Strand is the connection to, I guess you'd call it the Strand Shopping Center where the Publix is. But there is a direct connection. There's no intent on our part, even under the four-lane scenario, for Livingston Road to eliminate that connection. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. But can you get people safely from Piper across Livingston Road into this new shopping center? MR. KANT: Yeah, what we're looking at is if you can in your mind's eye visualize where the county has that pumping station -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. MR. KANT: -- would county own some property -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could you show us on the map, for those of us who can't visualize it in our mind's eye? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just drive this -- MR. KANT: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- quite frequently, so I'm pretty much aware of it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's Piper, where your pen just was. MR. KANT: That's Piper. And then the pumping station is right in here. Well, I've got it close. But Piper comes across right now and does that little hook in it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You have a big electrical -- MR. KANT: The Taj Mahal, if you will, or the new sales center there is -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: For Mediterra. MR. KANT: Right. Right in that point. However, since the county also owns significant property around here, we've looked at the potential for relocating Piper and bringing it in somethin9 like that -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wonderful. MR. KANT: -- which would eliminate that potential danger of being too close to the canal. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right, because it's right by -- almost right now it's right by the bridge. MR. KANT: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- so you have to be very careful when you come out of there and turn on to get onto the bridge. MR. KANT: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That was my concern with this proposal -- MR. KANT: I'm not suggesting that we have a solution, but we're looking at that and we believe we can make that work. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you can make the alternative work, as you have just drawn here? Page 144 October 26, 1999 MR. KANT: I believe so, yes. as a fait accompli at this point. Ed? But I can't represent that to you CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that there is a way to do it -- MR. KANT: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- and we have that property. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, what would preclude us from doing it, MR. KANT: I don't have any detailed plans. And I think I might -- I would attribute it to my own natural caution, in promising you something that I can't show you on a piece of paper right here today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because today we do have a connection. You're just saying that it will work better if -- MR. KANT: It will work better if we relocate it, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a cost associated with that relocation? MR. KANT: Yeah, but frankly that's the kind of cost that would be picked up in the design construction of Livingston Road, because we have to make those connections anyhow. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So this in effect could really come down in back of that new sales office that's sitting up there. MR. KANT: Well -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Or in place of that sales office? MR. KANT: -- we have the option of requesting that they remove that sales office on a time certain notice, and for -- I guess it's no secret that we've been looking at whether or not that should be a four-lane facility versus a two-lane facility. And we do plan to come back to you with that. But I don't want to contaminate this meeting with that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I really think we need to. MR. KANT: But that whole thing works together. That whole thing works together. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I really think -- I don't think you're contaminating this at all, Ed. I really think we need to have this information when we're looking at something like this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think this is really important, so I appreciate it. MR. KANT: We've had a couple of meetings with the applicant and they're looking at an access from -- directly from Immokalee Road. And they're also looking at an access from the -- I don't know what they call it, what I call the Carlton Lakes entrance. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MR. KANT: It's the existing road that goes into Carlton Lakes. We've also -- they've requested an access off of Livingston Road and. I'm less than lukewarm about that. The access off of Immokalee Road is probably a lot more desirable and it's simply a matter of money. If they want to spend -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're going to have to -- MR. KANT: -- the money to do it -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- build a bridge. Page 145 October 26, 1999 MR. KANT: -- they're going to have to build it, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are you willing to do that, petitioner, build a bridge? MS. BISHOP: As a matter of fact, the contract is specific, they must have that connection or we lose the contract. So they in fact are building the bridge, even though I personally tried to talk them out of it. But just to get to what you are talking about, pedestrian paths, there's a nice 20-foot -- right now the easement for the canal on that one side that a pedestrian path could run into Pelican Strand, or the Strand. The problem, of course, is that they've said no. So to get that connection into there, somebody's going to have to ask other than the neighbors, because they've already said no. We've wanted to build that for our people as well as just to continue that path along there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I bet Ms. Berry could help us with that, do some asking. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, what would it take to get that? I don't know why they denied it. MS. BISHOP: At the time -- actually, I do have some idea. On their -- Pelican Strand had some issues with preserves and buffers, and wanted the native preservation areas as well as some of the buffers up there. But if you go there now and see what's been done, it's been altered. So there is an opportunity, I think, to have a pedestrian path at the very least come through there and connect, if that is something desirable, because of the stores and the banks and all those issues. And it would be very simple, because it's a very short area. There's a couple of places where the connection between Carlton Lakes and Pelican Strand's no more than 15 feet worth of vegetation buffers on both sides. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will tell you that if we're able to do what Ms. Bishop is proposing here, when you stop and think about it, having a grocery store and perhaps a drug store, supermarket, whatever, if it's located in this Carlton Lakes, this may help a great deal as far as the Willoughby Acres and all the little villages that are connected with that particular development, in terms of helping keep them off of Immokalee Road, if they want to go to the grocery store. So it may well be beneficial. If Mr. Kant can figure out how he's going to get them out and around there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you're imagining -- MR. KANT: Just again -- MS. BISHOP: Put a driver at the sales facility. MR. KANT: -- for informational purposes, just so you know, we have been working with the developers of the Strand. We've contacted the -- what was the Donovan PUD and the Styles PUD on the south side, and we're trying to get a multi-party agreement together, because the Strand would like us to put that signal in there. The signal's designed. And once we can get all the parties to the table, then we're ready to put that signal in. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just so that I'm perfectly clear, Mr. Page 146 October 26, 1999 Fernandez, you've got staff working already on asking the question again for these pedestrian interconnections that may be possible now that were originally turned down, but that may be possible now that the Strand and otherwise, now that the configuration of the preserve and other areas are intact? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know that we're doing that. Are we in the process of doing that? MR. KANT: What we have been doing is looking at that right-of-way that was platted. Since we have -- we can't hook it up with a road, we'd like to do something with it. And if we can work something out. It's not a near-term project, it's not an immediate project, but it is something that we're trying to -- you know, it's one of those things that's in the works. I can't give you any time line or anything on it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess what I want to be sure, though, is that I know that we asked questions before for pedestrian interconnections that apparently the Strand was unable to give because of their concerns with their preserve configuration and other concerns. MR. KANT: Our concern is not with their preserve, our concern is with their big entrance sign. We've got to get around that somehow. That's what's causing us some problems. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think we've got a great opportunity CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- to meet with all the parties who all have a specific interest they want to accomplish. And in order to get what they want, they're going to have to give what the other people want. So I don't know what direction we need here, Mr. Fernandez, but we need to get all these parties talking and make this become a reality. MR. FERNANDEZ: To establish a pedestrian interconnection is what you're saying. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Along with what Mr. Kant has just outlined, along with what Ms. Bishop is talking about, with all of this conversation that's go on here in the dais. It looks like there's a number of discussions going on because everybody's got something they want to get done. Somebody wants a traffic signal, somebody wants this. Well, I don't want to interfere with my sign. I say wait a minute, if you want all this to happen, everybody's got to give to get the whole picture together. And I just want to make sure we've got a coordinated task force that makes that happen. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I enthusiastically agree. And I hope that somebody will review the transcript or something or the tape to be sure that we have incorporated all of these items, because this is the kind of place where the county falls down sometimes. We could do a better job of getting everybody at the same table with regard to transportation and connection kinds of issues. This would be a good opportunity to do that. Page 14 7 October 26, 1999 So back at the subject at hand. speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: petitioner? COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are there registered public Are there further questions for the No. If you'll close the public hearing -- I'll close the public hearing. I'd move approval of PUD-87-36 with some of the stipulations that we have talked about in this meeting: Looking at a better connection from adjacent property to this particular PUD petition, the commercial tract, and then from this particular development of Carlton Lakes on to the Strand, if we will review a pedestrian pathway along that area on up to the Strand communities. That's my motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So basically it would be for approval with direction to staff on those -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- two other areas. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. Item #12B4 - CONTINUED UNTIL 11/23/99 Item #12C1 ORDINANCE REPEALING 97-9 AND REPLACING SAME WITH A NEW ORDINANCE RELATING TO STREET NUMBERING, THE NAMES OF STREETS AND PROJECT, AND RENAMING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS - MOTION RECONSIDERED LATER IN THE MEETING Okay, we have another continuation, and then we have an ordinance about how to number and name streets. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to close the public hearing? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I have -- my particular -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've got a question here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess that's a no. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a no. Who's making the presentation for us? Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris has a question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, this paragraph here in the middle of the page in the executive summary says, "Procedures for naming streets go far beyond what is currently in the ordinance based on the premise that street names changes should come about only after a super Page 148 October 26, 1999 majority of resident wishes, or because of some overpowering public safety relationship." That just seems to me to be too restrictive. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would have the same question, in that if the board decided -- I know we had the discussion on 951, for example. If the board decided it was in the public interest, we ought to have the ability to do that. Is this restricting that? MR. NINO: In public interest, the board still has the authority to change the name of the streets. The item that Commissioner Norris refers to the requirement under a petition that two-thirds instead of 51 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What? MR. NINO: The amendment suggests that two-thirds of property owners, when it's a petition initiated street name change, as opposed to the current 51 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I don't agree with that, in that 50 percent plus one only gets them a public hearing. It doesn't guarantee it will pass. I know we have had -- most of them that come before us we've approved, but we have not had every single one approved. We've had some where they've got to 50 percent and we did not give that name, because we still had a vocal outpouring against. But that seemed like a rational number to at least give them a public hearing. MR. NINO: Let me suggest that prior to staff's motivation to change that figure, is that the street naming changes are basically a nuisance issue, particularly when it comes to the emergency management people, and that we ought to make it as difficult as possible, quite frankly. That was the bottom line. And that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Maybe it would have to be more expensive. MR. NINO: -- equated with a super majority thrust. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would say I realize it's a nuisance item; however, it is one that is important. I heard Commissioner Mac'Kie say more expensive. I don't agree with that. If it's a petition drive, if it's a -- you know, individual community trying to do something, the last thing we want to do is make them spend more money for us to serve them. I know there are at least a couple. Oakes Boulevard is trying to follow, along with what Logan and Santa Barbara have done. Exact same reasons, exact same logic. You got numbers that -- there are probably four or five other areas within Golden Gate and Golden Gate Estates that have the same numbers. Some of the rules you talk about here, the names of streets, renaming public and so on, you talk about not wanting more than a certain number of streets to use the same first word or whatever. MR. NINO: That's another reason. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's the exact reason in their case or when Livingston changed, or any of those, it's the exact reason they came to us. And so while they may be a nuisance, I think in those cases they're meeting the criteria why we don't allow that nowadays. So I hate to make that a higher hurdle, particularly for those groups that are already in process doing these, trying to get their Page 14 9 October 26, 1999 signatures and all. But I don't think it's necessarily broken. I understand we've had in the last year an unusually high number of requests and that it's more labor intensive for you all, but I don't think -- once you get some of those numbered streets out of the way, I don't think that's going to be something you see year after year after year after year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So is there support for this ordinance change with some tweaking, or would we like to send it back to staff? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would not like to support this ordinance change. And we may want to make some changes to the existing one, but I don't want to use this as for the model for it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is your objection also concerned with the practice of how many streets can have the same name, that portion? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The duplicative names portion was something that I thought I could support. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think that's probably good. You don't want to end up with -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the way Golden Gate is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we just amend the ordinance with those areas that has to do with the duplicative names, because that seems to be the concern of the emergency people. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And not include the two-thirds? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, just that. Just the duplication. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll go with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Mr. Weigel, will you need to bring that back to us, or if a motion is made to that effect, is that sufficient direction? MR. WEIGEL: This is adequately advertised and covered so that we can make the revision based on the determination of the board at today's hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. NINO: Do I hear you correctly, that -- what you're saying is that all the other changes are okay except that for street renaming, you want to go back to the 51 percent? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I said the only thing that we're going to change is those items that have to do with limiting duplication. That's the only changes we're going to make. That's what I said. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Isn't that the same? MR. NINO: That's the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. MR. NINO: -- number of prefixes and suffixes -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. NINO: -- that you're okay with. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That we're okay with. Everything else -- MR. NINO: Everything else should go. Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Comments? Any other comments? Close the -- MR. NINO: I would say that from the point of view of emergency management people, that is a gain. Page 150 October 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. Yeah, that's why I mentioned that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll close the public hearing. Do you have a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move that we approve the ordinance, but limit the changes only to those amendments that have to do with the duplicate names. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion and a second. Is there discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. Item #14A DISCUSSION RE ROAD PLANNING PROCESS PROJECTS I think we're down to communications. Do you have any for us, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, yes, I do. I know the hour is late, but there's an issue that I think is important I report to you on. We've taken a very detailed look at the road project process in response to the board's last discussion, and we've come up with what I believe to be a number of positive recommendations. We've determined that the most important element in the process is the acquisition process. We've recognized that the acquisition process does not begin until the project is in the 30 percent design stage. We feel there are some things we could do to start that process earlier. It involves the board approving some cross-section prototypes for different types of roads, which would include all the features of the road that you want at the front end, rather than the way we do it currently. Then direct staff to establish the corridor and begin the acquisition process. We have -- we've also taken a look at some organizational changes which would improve the focus of the project management process in the transportation department, some staff changes in that regard. I'm very pleased to report that we've had a chance to discuss these changes with the CBIA, and we have received their enthusiastic support of these changes. In fact, David was planning to be here, but he had another meeting and had to leave. But he wanted me to communicate to the board the fact that they were very, very supportive of these changes and really appreciated the responsiveness in getting back to them. I plan to bring this back to the board in a more structured format at your next meeting so that you can take formal action on it. It will require some policy change on the part of the board, specifically with respect to the acquisition process, and the Page 151 October 26, 1999 selection of those road cross-section prototypes at the beginning of the process. And I think those will greatly enhance our road project planning process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wonderful. Thank you. Item #15A ORDER FROM JUDGE HAYES RELATING TO USAGE OF LAKE AVALON Other communications from staff? Looks like Mr. Cautero has something. How about while they're talking, Commissioner Berry, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I wouldn't think of bringing up anything. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. The order that Judge Hayes issued yesterday causes me some great concern, and I'd like to see that issue brought in to -- for the board to discuss under an action item at our next meeting. I certainly can tell you right now, I am not supportive of having two groups use the lake, period. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. The unfortunate reality is if you have one group splinter off and say well, we want to use it, too, there's nothing to prohibit another splinter and another and another. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it's unfortunate, but this may put an end to the program over there, which is just a sad thing, because it's been a great program for a lot of kids. But by splintering it off, they may have ruined it for everybody. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I'll be interested to know when the coup judge is going to give us a decision about who controls that corporation. Because it isn't actually a splintering, it is a coup. And the question is was the coup successful or not, and with whom do we have a contract. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I want us to deal with one group. If it's going to be more than one group, I don't want to deal with it. I'd just as soon terminate the lease. And as a matter of fact, I think those are some of the options that we want to see in two weeks. The another option would be suspend the program until the legal fight is over about who's in control of the Skimmers Group. That would be another option. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I'd likewise like to add to that, if Mr. Weigel could advise us, whether or not the county has a position in the legal battle, now that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's hope not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, now that the court has ordered us to do certain actions with regard to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To abrogate our lease. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: To abrogate our lease. Do we have a position to go in and say Judge, tell us who you want us to deal with, Page 152 October 26, 1999 but pick a group. And it seems to me that might be in the county's best interest. COMMISSIONER CARTER: They're supposedly going to non-binding arbitration. I'd certainly like to know when they're going to do that. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 99-76 REPEALING ORDINANCE 97-9 AND REPLACING SAME WITH A NEW ORDINANCE RE STREET NUMBERING, NAMES OF STREETS AND PROJECTS, RENAMING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS AND PROVIDING PERTINENT PROCEDURES ADOPTED W/CHANGES CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, Mr. Fernandez, back to you for staff communication. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairwoman. I understand that we have a member of the audience that wanted to speak on the ordinance that you just passed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm so sorry. MR. FERNANDEZ: And he was not aware of the fact that he had to register for the ordinance. He's a representative of the North Naples Fire Department. I believe he was a participant with us in the process of drafting the changes. And he would like to speak to you on the ordinance, if it's possible to reopen the public hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We can certainly hear him. Mr. Weigel, can we change our actual -- what's the -- what might we be able to do at this point in time? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's hear him and decide if we even need to. MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. You can hear him. And then if you find it appropriate, then you can actually reconsider in chief. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He needs to be up here for the public hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. We'd like to hear from you. Thank you. And I apologize for not calling for public comment. MR. BRYAN: That's quite all right. Good afternoon. I'm Wayne Bryan, fire code official, representing the Collier fire districts here and I would like -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just for a technicality, I need to reopen the public hearing and then you go right ahead. And I just did it. THE COURT REPORTER: Does he need to be sworn? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You should be sworn if it's a public hearing. Thank you, Madam Court Reporter. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BRYAN: I apologize for not registering to speak. I was here really as staff support for the ordinance consideration, sat on the committee. I am again Wayne Bryan, the fire code official at community development, representing the fire districts. And we put this ordinance together. And there were some changes that we made that were beyond just the elimination of some -- of the Page 153 October 26, 1999 duplication problem that we have in the county, but some sort of housekeeping issues of aligning the addressing ordinance with the fire prevention code language about addressing. One of the things we did in the fire prevention code that was passed last September by the board was to require in strip centers that have rear access to also number the suites in the rear so police and fire and EMS know that they're going into the right unit if they're entering from the rear. We did some things like that, and wanted to harmonize that with the addressing ordinance. We also increased the letter signs and commercial numbering from a four-inch requirement to a six-inch requirement, which is common practice but had not been articulated in the ordinance. It had been a four-inch, but historically there'd be a practice of a six-inch requirement. We did some definitions. So my concern was that if we're going to go back and work on the ordinance again, that our commission be do we need to change those -- do we need to eliminate those housekeeping items and just keep the issues dealing with duplication of project and street names, or what then is the -- what then should be our charge as to cleaning up this addressing? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I personally would support all of the changes except the street name change procedure, that percentage change. I thought that the housekeeping items were good and would support those staying in. I don't know if there are other board members who agree or disagree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, can we make a motion to reconsider the item right now? MR. WEIGEL: You can. It's the two-stage process. First it's a motion to reconsider. If there's affirmative vote, then you can actually reconsider it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider the item. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a second? Second. Ail in favor, please say aye. That passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion, if you close the public hearing -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Closed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that we approve the item inclusive of those just outlined by our friendly neighborhood fire inspector. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Those dealing with addressing? COMMISSIONER BERRY: As he termed them, housekeeping items. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exclusive of the -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- procedural -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Size of the numbers, the numbering at the back of the buildings for different suites and so forth. Page 154 October 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Nino, do you have questions? MR. NINO: Basically we're going to eliminate Section 15 amendments. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what it looked like to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tell me what Section 15 is. MR. NINO: Section 15 is procedures for street renaming. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Everything else. MR. NINO: That was the complete rewrite. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll eliminate that section and adopt all of the other changes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, that's my motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And is there a second? Second to that. Ail in favor, please say aye. Passes unanimously. And we thank you very much for bringing that back to our attention. Item #14B DISCUSSION RE OUTDOOR CONCERT ORDINANCE - STAFF TO REVIEW MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: The only other item that I have under communications is to request of the board if you would like for us to go back and take a new look at the ordinance that you dealt with today having to do with outdoor concerts. The ordinance is from 1970. I think it's dated, and probably is due a review at this time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would ask you to do that. Second? I will second the asking. Is there a third? Third. Looks like there's three. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll do that, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then, Commissioner Carter, communications? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Nothing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I have nothing. Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: I have nothing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's go home. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agenda be approved and/or adopted with the exception of Page 155 October 26, 1999 Item #17A to which Commissioner Mac'Kie abstained~ ***** Item #16A1 CARNIVAL PERMIT 99-8, RE PETITION CP-99-8, REVEREND VILLMAR ORSOLIN OF OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CATHOLIC CHURCH, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON NOVEMBER 24 THROUGH 28, 1999, AT 207 SOUTH 9?H STREET, IMMOKALEE Page 156 OCT 2 6 1999 Permit No. CP-99-8 PERMIT FOR CARNIVAL EXHIBITION STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF COLLIER: WHEREAS, Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church, has made application to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, for a permit to conduct a carnival exhibition; and WHEREAS, Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church, has presented to the Board sufficient evidence that all criteria for the issuance of a permit to conduct a circus as set forth in Chapter 10, Article II, Amusements and Entertainments, of the Collier County Code have been satisfied and that such carnival exhibition will be conducted according to lawful requirements and conditions; and WHEREAS, said Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church, has requested a waiver of the, Surety Bond; NOW, THEREFORE, THIS PERMIT IS HEREBY GRANTED TO Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church, to conduct a carnival exhibition from November 24 through November 28, 1999, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the petitioner's application and all related documents, attached hereto and incorporated herein for the following described property: SE ¼, NE ¼, of the SW ¼ of Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. Thc request for waiver of Surety Bond is hereby approved. WITNESS my hand as Chairwoman of said Board and Seal of said County, attested by the Clerk of Courts in and for said County this ,~, (. ~ day of ATTESTi' · DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk · APprOved as to Form and "'-,,, ,Lgga.! Sufficiency: dcnt r Assistant County Attorney F/Cecilia Martin/C-99-S/CM/im ~", ', ,1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: PAI~ELA'S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWO~IAN ' / October 26, 1999 Item #16A2 CARNIVAL PERMIT 99-9, RE PETITION C-99-9, REVEREND JOSEPH SPINELLI OF ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON NOVEMBER 10, 11, 12, 13 AND 14, 1999, AT 5325 28Ta AVENUE S.W., GOLDEN GATE CITY Page 157 OCT 2 6 t999 Permit No. CP- 9 9 - 9 PERMIT FOR CARNIVAL EXHIBITION STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF COLLIER: WHEREAS, Reverend Joseph Spinelli of St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, has made application to thc Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, for a permit to conduct a carnival exhibition; and WHEREAS, Reverend Joseph Spinelli of St Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, has presented to the Board sufficient evidence that all criteria for the issuance of a permit to conduct a carnival exhibition as set forth in Chapter 10, Article II, Amusements and Entertainment's, of the Collier County Code have been satisfied and that such carnival exhibition will be conducted according to lawful requirements and conditions; and NOW, THEREFORE, THIS PERMIT IS HEREBY GRANTED TO Reverend Joseph Spinelli of St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, to conduct a carnival exhibition from November 10 through November 14, 1999, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the petitioner's application and all related documents, attached hereto and incorporated herein for the following described property: (See attached Exhibit "A") WITNESS my hand as Chairwoman of said Board and Seal of said County, attested by the Clerk of Courts in and for said County this a'~ ~-' day of ~ ~ , 1999. ATTEST: DWIGHT El BROCK, Clerk A'tt(st as to Chmtrm ne$ ' ' · Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Mm-joriOivI. Student ' Assis~nt CounW A~omey ~admin/C-99-9/CM/im BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION]~RS: ~PAMELA S. MAC'KIE,' CHAIRWOMAN / Exh~b£t Block 204 and 205, Golden Gate City, Unit 6, according to the plat l:hereoE, as recorded tn Plat Book 5, PaGe 11 of the Public Records of Coll£er County, Florida. Also lot 3, Block 201. Golden Gate, Unit 6, according to plat book ~, PAges 124 to 1)4, Inc. Public records o? Collier County, Fl. October 26, 1999 Item #16A3 FINAL PLAT OF .EDEN AT THE STRAND. - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS Page 158 CO~UNITY ENGINEERIN OCT 2 !99 PAGE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS entered into this ~ day of ~3900' betwe, en The Strand Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "Developer" and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Board." RECITALS: A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, appliod for the approval by tho Board of a e~rtain plat of a subdivision to be known as: Eden at The Strand. B. Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Developer to post appropriate guarantees for the construction of the improvements r~uired by said subdivision regulations, said guarasatees to be incorporated in a bonded agreement for the construction of thc required improv~nents, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Developer will cause to be constructed: The second lift of asphalt, striping, signage and the sidewalk for the subdivision called Eden at The Strand within 36 months of approval of the plat. Developer herewith tenders its subdivision performance security (attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof in the amount of $ 67,627.94 which amount represents 10% of the total contract cost to complete construction plus 100% of the estimate cost of to complete the requirod improvements at the date of this Agreement, In the event of default by the Developer or failure of the Developer to complete such improvements within the time required by the Land Development Code, Collier County., may call upon the subdivision performance security to imure ~atisfactory completion of the required improvements. The required improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 02 0 C T 2 6 199 The Development Services Director shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director's approval of the improvements. However, in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse Preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreemcnt. The Developer shall maintain all required improvements for a minimum period of one year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer has terminated, the Developer shall petition the Development Services Director to inspect the required improvements. The Development Services Director or his designee shall inspect the improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Board shall release thc remaining 10% of the subdivision performance security. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the required improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. Six (6) months after the execution of this Agreement and once within every six (6) months thereafter the Developer may request the Development Services Director to reduce the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security on the basis of work complete, Each request for a reduction in the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security shall be accompanied by a statement of substantial completion by the Developer's engineer together with the project records necessary for review by the Development Services Director. The Development Services Director may grant the request for a reduction in the amount of the subdivision performance security for the improvements completed as of the date of the request. In the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obhgations under this Agreement, upon certification of such failure, the County Administrator may call upon the subdivision performance security to secure satisfactory completion, repair and maintenance of the required improvements. The Board shall have the right to construct and maintain, or cause to be constructed or maintained, pursuant to public advertisement and receipt and acceptance of bids, the improvements required herein. The Developer, as principal under the subdivision performance security, shall be liable to pay and to indemnify the Board, upon completion of such construction, the Final total cost to the Board thereof, including, but not limited to, engineering, legal and contingent costs, together with any damages, either direct or consequential, which the Board may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to fulfill all of the provisions of this Agreement. 9, All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are an shall be binding upon the Developer and the respective successors and assigns of the Developer. 0 C T 2 6 199~ 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Developer hgve caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives this ~,0_ day of C)_o-~. 2000. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: Printed or Typed Name Printed or Typed Name .ATTEST:. .OW!~.T: E, .BROCK, CLERK ,Al~Pr°~ed,as to form and legal sufficiency: (/~ County Attorney The Strand Ltd., A Florida Li.mij3~d Partnership The Strand Dey31o~ment ~m'i3oa(ation of Naples, A Florida Cgr'j~'or4ion,,O¢~er~J Partner y-/. R. Paul Hardy, Vice President Primed or T~d N~e / By: I ' / OF Chairperson 0 CT ~ 6 1999 16A ]5! APPLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Ph 941-598-I274 2033 Trade Cen[er Way ORDER OF October 26, 1999 Item #16A4 FINAL PLAT OF "SANTORINI VILLAS AT OLDE CYPRESS,, - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY A_WD STIPULATIONS Page 159 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 1999 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS entered into this ~ day of__ (~2z:S'; t' ,/l~between John F. Soave, Inc., a Florida Corporation hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Board". RECITALS: A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as Santorini Villas: B. Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Developer to post appropriate guarantees for the consauction of the improvements required by said subdivision regulations, said guarantees to be incorporated in a bonded agreement for the construction of the required improvements. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as follows: Developer will cause to be constructed the Required Improvements within 12 months from the date of approval said subdivision plat, said infrastructure (water, sewer, drainage and roadway) improvements hereinafter referred to as the Required Improvements. Developer herewith tenders its subdivision performance security (attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a pan of hereof) in the amount of $ 21,627.00 which represents 10% of the total contract cost of completed construction plus $ 23,500.00 which represents 100% of the estimated costs to complete the Required Improvements at the date of this Agreement for a total of $ 45,127.00 In the event of default by the Developer or failure of the Developer to complete such improvements within the time required by the Land Development Code, Collier County, may call upon the subdivision performance security to insure satisfactory completion of the required improvements. The required improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 5. The Development Services Director shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of 0 c I 2 6 1999 the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director's approval of the improvements. However in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. The Developer shall maintain all required improvements' for a minimum period of one year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer has terminated, the Developer shall petition the Development Services Director to inspect the required improvements. The Development Services Director or his designee shall inspect the improvements and, if found to still be in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Board shall release the remaining 10% of the subdivision performance security. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the required improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. Six (6) months after the execution of this Agreement and once within every six (6) months thereafter the Developer may request the Development Services Director to reduce the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security on the basis of work complete, Each request for a reduction in the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security shall be accompanied by a statement of substantial completion by the Developer's engineer together with the project records necessary for review by the Development Services Director. The Development Services Director may grant the request for a reduction in the amount of the subdivision performance security for the improvements completed as of the date of the request. In the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, upon certification of such failure, the County Administrator may call upon the subdivision performance security to secure satisfactory completion. repair and maintenance of the required improvements. The Board shall have the right to construct and maintain, or cause to be constructed or maintained, pursuant to public advertisement and receipt and acceptance of bids, the improvements required her, in. The Developer, as principal under the subdivision performance security, shall be liable to pay and to indemnify the Board, upon completion of such construction, the final total cost to the Board thereof, including, but not limited to, engineering, legal and contingent costs, together with any damages, either direct or consequential, which the Board may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to fulfill all of the provisions of this Agreement. 9. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the Developer and the respective successors and assigns of the Developer. 0 C ~ 2 6 ;999 SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: John F. Soave, Inc., a Florida Corporation Witxw, s~ (Print name) i nes (Print name~/ BY: John F. Soave its Preside By.' ~e / Joh sident :'-, '~j A~.:,ved as; ,~6 ~'_rm~,nd legal sufficiency Assfstan~ou ty Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA · . 0 C T 2 6 1999 REMITTER $45,127.00 October 26, 1999 Item #16A5 FINAL PLAT OF "ISLAND WALK PHASE THREE" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS Page 160 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS entered into this,,?/~.Zday of (i~/r/e-,r, 1999 between IslandWalk Development Company hereinafter referred to as "Developer", and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Board". RECITALS: A, Developer has, simultaneously, with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as IslandWalk Phase III. B, Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Developer to post appropriate guarantees for the construction of the improvements required by said subdivision regulations, said guarantees to be incorporated in a bonded agreement for the construction of the improvements required improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as follows: Developer will cause to be constructed: a potable water system, sanitary sewer system, drahnage, grading, paving and miscellaneous as outlined in Engineer's Cost Estimate (attached hereto ads Exhibit "B' and by reference made a part hereof) within 12 months from the date of approval said subdivision plat, said improvements hereinafter referred to as the required improvements. Developer herewith tenders its subdivision performance security (attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof) in the mount of $1,497,998.88 which amount represents 10% of the total contract cost to complete construction plus 100% of the estimate cost to complete the required improvements at the date of this Agreement. In the event of default by the Developer or failure of the Developer to complete such improvements within the time required by the Land Development Code, Collier County, may call upon the subdivision performance security to insure satisfactory completion of the required improvements. OCT ? !99 County, may call upon the subdivision performance security to insure satisfactory completion of the required improvements. The required improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code. The Development Services Director shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement of substantial completion, with: a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of the improvements; of b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director's approval of the improvements. However, in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. The Developer shall maintain all required improvements for a minimum period of one year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer has terminated, the Developer shall petition the Development Services Director to inspect the required improvements. The Development Services Director or his designee shall inspect the improvements and, if found to be still in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Board shall release the remaining 10% of the subdivision performance security. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the required improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. Six months after the execution of this Agreement and once within every six months thereafter the Developer may request the Development Services Director to reduce the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security on the basis of work complete. Each request for a reduction in the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security shall be accompanied by a statement of substantial completion by the Developer's engineer together with the project records necessary for review by the Development Services Director. The Development Services Director may grant the request for a reduction in the amount of the subdivision performance security for the improvements completed as of the date of the request. In the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, upon certification of such failure, the County Administrator may call upon the subdivision performance security to secure satisfactory completion, repair I/'99-54967 Vet': 011-SMORRISO N0772-022-000--.0 O C T 6 199 and maintenance of the required improvements. The Board shall have the right to corntract and maintain, or cause to be constructed or maintained, pursuant to public advertisement and receipt and acceptance of bids, the improvements required herein. The Developer, as principal under the subdivision performance security, shall be liable to pay and to indemnify the Board upon completion of such comtruction, the final total cost to the Board thereof, including, but not limited to, engineering, legal and contingent costs, together with any damages, either direct or comequential, which the Board may sustain on account of the hilure of the Developer to fulfill all of the provisions of this Agreement. 9. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon the Developer and the respective successors and assigns of the Developer. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board the Developer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives this day of ,1999. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: Witness ISLANDWALK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY By: ~ ~sq------ By: Michael D. Rosen. Vice President F. Allen Witt Printed or typed name Marlene R. Sale Printed or typed name 5/I 1/99-54967 Vef: 0H-SMORRISO N0772-022-000--0 0 C T '2_ 6 1999 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Approved as to form and Legal Sufficiency: Assistant County Attorney COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PERFORMANCE BOND Bond KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: that Island Walk Development Company, 4500 PGA Boulevard, Suite 400, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 (hereinsiSt referred to as "Owner") and Safeco Insurance Company of Amcrlca (hereinafter referred to as "Surety") are firmly bound unto Collier County, Florida Board of County Commissioners, 2800 North Horseshoe: Drive, Naples, Florida 33942 (hereinafier referred to as "County") in the total aggregate sum of one million four hmldred ninety seven thousand nine hundred ninety eight and 88/100 (:$1,497,998.88) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, onr heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and sevcrally, firmly by these presents. Owner and Surety are used for singular or plural, as the context requires. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Owner has submitted for approval by the Board a certain subdivision plat name Island Walk, Phase [11 and that certain subdivision shall include specific improvemares which arc required by Collier County Ordinances and Resolutions (hereinafter "Land Development Regulations"). This obligation of the Surety shall comm¢nce on the date this Bond is executed and shall contiuue until the date or final acceptance by the Board of County Commissioners of the specific improvements described in the Land Development regulations (hereinafter the "guaranty period"). NOW, THEREFORE, if the Owner shall well, truly and faithfully perform its obligations and duties in accordance with the Land Development Regulations during the guaranty period established by the County, and the Owner shall satisfy all claims attd demands incurred and shall fully indemnify and save harinless the County from and against all costs and damages which it may suffer by reason of Owncr's failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay the County all outlay and expense which the county may incur in making good any default, then this obligation shall be void, other,vise to remain in full forcc and effect. PROVIDED, FURTHER, that the said Surety, for value reoeived hereby, stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteratiou, addition or deletion to the proposed specific improvcments shall in any way affect its obligation on this Bond and it does hereby waive notice orally such change, extension of time, alteration, addition or deletion to the proposed specific tniprovemcnts. PROVIDED FURT!tER, that it is expressly agreed that the'Bond shall he deemed amended automatically and imsnediately, without formal and separate amendments hereto, so as to bind the Owner and the Surety to the full and faithful performance in accordance with the Land Development Regulations. The term "Amendment" whcncver used in this Bond and whether referring to this Bond or other documents, shall include any alteration, addition, or modification of any character whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this PERFORMANCE BOND to be executed this 1st day of June, 1999. No. 5979636 OCT !999 SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY Countersigned by:~ '~ ' "7~,,_ ISLAND WALK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY By ~,,.4,¢~ Bruce E. Robinson Vice President/Treesurer IslandWalk Phase 3 Opinion of Probable Cost Sanitary Collection System Potable Water Drainage Paving Lighting Landscaping Surveying (PCP's) 100% total contract 10% warranty 110% bond amount $400,738.13 200,499.90 254,648.15 517,921.03 54,360.00 50,000.00 5,O0O.0O $1,483,167.21 148,316.72 $1,631,483.93 Reduction per completion $364,333.11 151,959.88 218,243.14 517,921.03 54,360.00 50,000.00 5,000.00 $1,361,817.16 $136,181.72 $1,497,998.88 October 26, 1999 Item #16B1 CHANGE ORDER TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH MILMIR CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, BID 97-2690R - IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,869.00 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO THE BOARD OFFICE AS OF 11/30/99 Page 161 October 26, 1999 Item #16B2 AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR THE CAPRI PASS AND BIG HARCO PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN - IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $106,750.00 Page 162 OCT 2 6 1999 AMENDMENT NO. 6 CAPRI PASS AND BIG MARCO PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ~ THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE AND ENTERED INTO THIS o~ day of (2Q~. , 19 5' ~ , by and between the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "OWNER") and Humiston and Moore Engineers, P. A. a Florida corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, whose business address is 10661 Airport Road North, Suite 14, Naples, Florida 34109 (Hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the OWNER desires to obtain the professional engineering and surveying services of the CONSULTANT concerning certain design, permitting and construction phase services for the Capri Pass and Big Marco Pass Inlet Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), said services being more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners approved a Professional Services Agreement with the CONSULTANT to perform design services for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article Four, time has expired for performance of services under this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT has submitted a proposal for Collier Bay Entrance Channel Dredging; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that it has expertise in the type of professional services that will be required for the Project. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the Capri Pass and Big Marco Pass Inlet Management Plan Professional Services Agreement entered into on May 17, 1994 (hereinafter also referred to as the "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows: 1. Article Four and Schedule "C" of the Agreement are hereby amended to provide for completion of those additional services setfonh in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The time for completion, of services under this Agreement therefore, is extended for 24 months or until May 17, 2001. -1- 1999 2. Schedule B, Attachments A, B, and C of the Agreement dated May 17, 1994, are hereby amended and revised as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Said Exhibit "A" is the September 10, 1999 letter from Humiston and Moore Engineers to Project Manager Harry Huber re: "Proposal for Collier Bay Dredging". 3. Article Five of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: Compensation by the OWNER for services rendered hereunder by CONSULTANT shall not exceed an aggregate amount of $106,750.00 provided in Exhibit "A" attached hereto without an appropriate change order or amendment to this Agreement. 4. Other than the changes/additions indicated in this Amendment, all provisions of the original contract are in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this amendment to the Agreement the day and year first written above. ATTEST: .Attest as to si~ature Approved as to form and Attorney Assistant~///l~~~County ~~L~ Witness Typed or printed name BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Bye/ Pamela'S. Mac'kie, Cha)/man Humiston and Moore Engineers, P.A. Brett D Moore, P E, Vine President Witness (CORPORATE SEAL) Typed of printed name Attachment HEH/Ih/amendment tt6 -2- " OCT 2 6 September 10, 1999 EXHIBIT "A" HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING 10661 AIRPORT ROAD N., SUITE 14 N/~aLES, FLORIDA. 34109 FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 $94 2021 Mr. Har~ry Huber, P.E. Public Works Engineering Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Re: Proposal for Collier Bay Dredging, H&M File No. 9028 Dear Harry: We are providing this revised proposal which supersedes our proposals of March 30, 1999, and May 12, 1999, for the referenced project, as requested. This project will consist of the dredging of the entrance to Collier Bay and placement of the dredge spoil as beach nourishment along Hideaway Beach. SCOPE OF WORK Basic Services, Engineering Design and Permitting. Cost 1. Design dredge cut and prepare plans based on survey data collected for the Hideaway Beach Monitoring program. 5,570.00 2. Design beach disposal area and prepare plans based on survey data collected for the Hideaway Beach Monitoring program. 5,130.00 3. Prepare an opinion of probable construction costs. 2,065.00 4. Prepare bid documents. 6,190.00 5. Assist with bid process, including pre-bid meeting, preparation of addenda, qualification of Iow bidder. 7,025.00 Basic Services Subtotal 25,980.00 Additional Services, Engineering Design and Permitting. 6. Boring analysis and compatibility 7. Permitting (including 2,000 DEP permitting fee, amount to be verified by agency) 13,690.00 17,800.00 0CT26 EXHIBIT "A" 8. Meetings and Coordination Additional services Engineering, Design, Permitting Subtotal Additional Services, Construction Phase. 9. Construction Phase Services ( 1.5 month construction period) Additional Services, Construction Phase Subtotal Project Sub-Total 10. contingency, 10% Total 61300.00 37,790.00 33,275.00 33,275.00 97,O45.OO 9,705.00 106,750.00 Basic services as listed above are lump sum to be billed on a basis of percentage complete. Additional services will be billed as time and materials in accordance with the attached fee schedule dated July 1, 1999. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E. enclosure HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS · NAPLES, FLORIDA OCT 2 6 1999 EXHIBIT "a" HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMiTTiNG 10661 AIRPOEq' ROAD N., SUITE 14. NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 $94 2021 SCHEDULE "B"- ATTACHMENT "B" FEE SCHEDULE Humiston & Moore Engineers July 1, 1999 Principal Engineer* ........................................................... $110.00/hr Senior Engineer* ............................................................... $80.00/hr Associate Engineer ............................................................ $75.00/hr Staff Engineer .................................................................. $65.00/hr Technician ....................................................................... $55.00/hr Administrative Assistant ...................................................... $45.00/hr Facsimile .......................................................................... $1.00/pg Copies (in house) ............................................................... $0.05/pg Mileage ............................................................................ $0.29/mi Telephone ...................................................................... No Charge * Registered Professional Engineer, or Engineer Ph.D. All out of pocket expenses not covered above will be billed at cost and included with the monthly invoice. Subcontracts or Subconsultants will be administered at cost plus 10%. Invoicing will be provided on a monthly basis unless specified differently in the contract. Payments are due upon receipt of invoice. October 26, 1999 Item #16B3 - Moved to Item #8B3 Item #16B4 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, THE KEY MARCO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND KEY MARCO DEVELOPMENT Page 163 OCT 2 6 1999 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE The effective date of this Agreement is the 151t day of September, 1998. This three party Agreement is among the KEY MARCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ("CDD"), and KEY MARCO DEVELOPMENTS (the "Developer"), and COLLIER COUNTY, (the "County"), a political subdivision of Florida, including the Collier County Water-Sewer District, whose governing board is the Board of County Commissioners. The CDD, the Developer and the County are "the Parties hereto." WHEREAS, the CDD and the County entered into a written Agreement on May 17, 1994, ("The 1994 Agreement") wherein the County agreed to supply potable water within the CDD's geographic area. The County has been supplying and is now supplying that potable water pursuant to that Agreement; and WHEREAS, the County initially intended to supply interim potable water service to the property within the CDD through utilization of a "Bulk Users Agreement" with Florida Water Services Corporation ("FWSC") including connection and construction of water utility lines to connect into the Goodland Water District's potable water system; and WHEREAS, the County later intended to supply the permanent potable water service to the property within the CDD and the Goodland Water District via a connection to the Collier County Water- Sewer District water system; and WHEREAS, the County has subsequently determined the connection to the Collier County Water-Sewer District water system was economically unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the parties hereby terminate the 1994 Agreement; arid WHEREAS, the County will not collect water or wastewater utility plant impact fees from within the CDD unless and until a County utility plant is the source of the respective utility service (water and/or wastewater); and OCT 2 6 1999 WHEREAS, the CDD, through its attorney at law, John L. Farquhar, has throughout the past year made claims to the County alleging that the County did not deal fairly with the CDD in formulating the 1994 Agreement and the CDD has threatened to file a lawsuit against the County if the matter is not resolved amiably; and; WHEREAS, County staff have met with representatives of the CDD to carefully consider those claims; and WHEREAS, this case is complicated and there exist many legal and factual issues (some of which appear to be of "first impression in Florida") whereby it appears certain that litigating these issues would cost the CDD and the County (both governmental entities) many tens of thousands of dollars and eventual outcome of such litigation is very unpredictable; and WHEREAS, the Parties hereto, without admitting any liability or fault by any of them, desire to fully and finally resolve any and all claims, known or unknown in any way related directly or indirectly to the 1994 Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, each of the three Parties agree as follows: 1. The foregoing "Whereas Clauses" are incorporated herein. 2. Because the initial source of the subject water utility service and the wastewater service being provided within the geographic area of the CDD is not from County water plant capacity and/or wastewater treatment plant capacity, the County cannot under Ordinance No. 98-69 collect water or sewer impact fees (plant capacity charges) from within the CDD; therefore, the County ~fill refund all water and/or sewer (wastewater) impact fees (plant capacity charges) previously collected from within the CDD pursuant to the 1994 Agreement. The County may, of course, collect such impact fees in the future if and when a County utility plant (water and/or wastewater) may become the initial source of the respective utility service within the CDD, which service is not now contemplated by the County. 3. The County shall reimburse to the CDD, from moneys heretofore collected from the CDD under the 1994 Agreement, one hundred thirty-one thousand six hundred and thirteen dollars and eighty- one cents ($131,613.81) within thirty (30) days following the day that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners signs this Agreement on behalf of said Board and the Water/Sewer District. The CDD shall concurrently pay to the County twenty-four thousand three hundred thirty-two dollars and ninety-nine cents ($24,332.99), or the current amount outstanding, to pay in full the now overdue wastewater monthly billing(s). Moreover, the CDD and Developer acknowledge that the County will 1999 charge the CDD and/or individual customers the County's cost to buy bulk water and/or sewer, as applicable, from FWSC plus a reasonable administrative charge until such time, if ever, that the FWSC may provide service directly to the CDD. 4. Since the CDD lies within the certificated water and sewer utility franchise service area of FWSC, the provision of water and sewer service to the CDD may become in the future the sole responsibility of FWSC and the parties agree to cooperate in any such transfer of responsibility from the County to FWSC. Such transfer of responsibility from County to FWSC requires no authorization or approval from the CDD, the Developer or any end use customer. 5. Each party hereto, on behalf of itself, its officers, directors, owners, employees, former employees, successors, predecessors, affiliates, heirs, assigns, and trustees, hereby does fully, finally and unconditionally release, acquit, remise, satisfy and forever discharge each of the other two parties, their predecessors, successors, heirs, assigns, employees, former employees, elected officials, officers, directors, owners, agents, representatives, attorneys, insurers, sureties and affiliates from any and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, reckonings, accounts, covenants, charges, damages, obligations, liabilities, contracts, promises, judgments, executions, claims, complaints, whether legal or equitable and whether known or unknown which the respective party could have asserted in the aforesaid Lawsuit, whether legal or equitable and whether known or unknown, arising out of or relating in any way to the claims or allegations made with regard to the 1994 Agreement. The term "successor" as used in this Agreement include the te~ns "assign", "affiliate", "transferee", or "heir' as the context may warrant. Each Party hereto expressly waives and releases any possible claims to seek payment from any other party any attorney's fees, costs or expenses. 6. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties. This Agreement is the product of mutual negotiation. No ambiguous word or any part hereof is to be consmaed more strictly against any party. 7. This Agreement shall be executed by the CDD and by Key Marco Developments before being presented to the Board of County Commissioners for Execution by the County. In the event this Agreement is not signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, nothing in this Agreement may be used as evidence or otherwise by any party hereto in any court, administrative proceeding, or any other proceeding(s) whatsoever. OCT 2 6 1999 8. In the event of an alleged breach of this Agreement, the sole remedy shall be for specific performance of its terms and conditions. The only venue for any such action shall be in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Naples, Florida, except in the case of an alleged breach of paragraph 6, above, whereby the proceeding can be brought in the jurisdiction(s) of the respective court or proceeding. 9. This Agreement shall terminate The 1994 Agreement. 10. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developments, and Collier County, September, 1988. The Key Marco Community Development District, Key Marco Florida, have entered into this Agreement on the 15~' day ATTEST: James P. Ward BY: Jecretary of the CDD STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER) KEY ~R~ COMMUNITY/~VELOPMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized Florida and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, the foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me by James M. Reinders, the Chairman of Key Marco Community Development District, and that he, as such officer, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing Agreement for all of the purposes therein contained, under authority duly vested in him by said District and that the seal affixed hereto is the true seal of that District and who is personally known to me. or-ha: --~'~',"'~ idamifu:atka~ WITNESS hand and official seal &uOli~ in Collier County, Florida, thi I Io9" day of ~ooc--h.~ my, .,~ 1998. ' No My Commission Expires: ...... William F. Snyder m/f,~ ~eo~ssenmeoa II Typed, printed or stamped name of Notary Public 4 0 CT 2 6 1999 KEY MARCO DEVELOPMENTS, a Florida general partnership; By: RONTO DEVELOPMENTS KEY MARCO, a Florida general partnership, as general parmer of KEY MARCO DEVELOPMENTS; By: KEY MARCO DEVELOPMENTS TWO, ~NC. a Florida corporation..a~s.j~neral partner of RONTO STATE OF FLORIDA ) BY:/~~6~'J~°n/P~es-~-en~ -- (L. S.) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in Florida and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, the foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me by A. Jack Solomon, and that he, as such officer an in each of the respective capacities, is authorized so to do, and under such authorities he executed the foregoing Agreement for all of the purposes herein contained, under authority duly vested in him by the corporation on behalf of the two partnerships and who is_personally known tn me or has produced r~/~2_ as identification. Collier, this~4~ of ~/~doo~WITNESS my hand and, 1998.official seal in ~" lorida, day My Commission Expires: Attest as to Chatv~&n;S s J,gnature onl,y. :.' '? f ';}::~~',i'.:BROcK, Clerk : ; ''.,'" "'. ".,' · ::~: "~ '::3 :';:" '~~~epu~ Clerk i~ro~ed ~ m fo~ ~d leg~ s~ciency: ~om~ C. ~mer, ~sismt Co~ A~omey Typed, prit~_ _~~_ ~~_ Public COLLIER CO~, FLO~DA~S:~'. GOVE~G BODY OF COLLI~ CO~Y October 26, 1999 Item #16B5 BID NO. 99-2990 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (RADIO ROAD TO GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY) - AWARDED TO BETTER ROADS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,054,969.07 Item #16C1 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AND APPROPRIATING $58,581 OF CARRYFORWARD FROM A GATES LEARING FOUNDATION GRANT RECEIVED IN ~x 99 Item #16D1 BID NO. 99-2978 FOR ANNUAL PAINTING CONTRACT - AWARDED TO THE PAINT DOCTOR, INC.; SPECTRUM PATNTING INC.; AR TYTON PAinTING, INC. Item #16D2 SELECTION OF EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC. AS THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROVIDER FOR THE COUNTY fS GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM TO BEGIN JANUARY 1, 2000 DOCUMENT AT END OF MINUTES Item #16D3 - Moved to Item #8D3 Item #16D4 UNANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES RELATED TO MAJOR PLUMBING REPAIRS AT THE IM~OKALEE STOCKADE - IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,700.00 Item #16D5 CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY DECLARED AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF ALL SURPLUS COUNTY-OWNED ASSETS TO BE AUCTIONED ON NOV~NRER 20, 1999 Item #16D6 UTILIZATION OF STATE CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND FLOOR COVERING OVER TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS Item #16D7 CASH REBATES FROM FP&L RESULTING FROM PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING WITH JOHNSON CONTROLS INC. - IN THE AMOUNT 0F_~87,760.85 Item #16D8 RFP-99-2969, FOR PRODUCTION OF A WEEKLY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CABLE TELEVISION NEWS PROGRAM AWARDED TO NAPLES STUDIO TO PRODUCE THIRTY WEEKLY NEWS PROGRAMS IN CALENDAR YEAR 2000 IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 Page 164 October 26, 1999 Item #16E1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 00-010, 00-011, 00-012, AND 00-020 Item #16G1 RESOLUTION 99-397, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT Page 165 OCT 2 6 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 397 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs has funds available for Collier County to spend for emergency management program enhancements and, subject to execution of a Grant Agreement between the State and the County, is authorized to disburse Grant funds to Collier County; and WHEREAS, the State, by means of proposed Grant Agreement #00CP-05-09-21- 01-011 is agreeing to provide, by means of reimbursement for costs incurred by the County in the satisfactory performance of that Agreement, up to $105,806.00 for items of performance agreed to in said Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County agree that performance of the subject Agreement is in the best interest of Collier County; · NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the board approve the Agreement #00CP-05-09-21-01-011 between the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and Collier County as presented to the Board for review, and hereby authorizes the Board's Chairman to execute the Agreement on behalf of Collier County. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote in favor of adoption this ~&/n~t,, day of (~)~ , 1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIF..R COUNTY, FLORIDA I / By: ~ 'ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Deputy Clerk Attest as to Chat~n's signature on15. Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney OCT 2 6 1999 Contract Number: 00CP-05-09-21-01-011 GRANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, with headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), and COLLIER COUNTY, (hereinafter referred to as the "County"). THIS AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS: WHEREAS, the Department is authorized, pursuant to Section 252.373, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 9G-19, Florida Administrative Code, to disburse funds for emergency management grants to counties; and WHEREAS, the County is eligible to receive said funds and agrees to comply with all the requirements of this Agreement and Rule Chapter 9G-19, Florida Administrative Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the Department and the County do mutually agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF WORK AND FUNDING The County shall fully perform the obligations in accordance with the Scope of Work, Attachments A and A- 1 of this Agreement. Funding for performance of the Scope of Work shall be provided in accordance with Attachment F. II. INCORPORATION OF LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIEs Both the County and the Department shall be governed by applicable State and Federal laws, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, those identified in Attachment B. i'II. PERIOD OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall begin October 1, 1999 and shall end September 30, 2000, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs VII. or IX. of this Agreement. All requests for reimbursement must be submitted within 30 days after the termination date of the Agreement. No reimbursement requests received after November 1, 2000 be reimbursed from this Agreement. Reimbursement requests shall not be submitted by facsimile transmission. IV. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT Either party may request modification of the provisions of this Agreement. Changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be effective only when reduced to writing, duly signed by each of the parties hereto, and attached to the original of this Agreement. No change to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including the Scope of Work, shall be effective until filed and approved in accordance with the provisions in Attachment A. However, changes to the amount of funding to be provided may be accomplished by notice from the Department to the County, in the form of certified mail, return receipt requested. The Department may make an award of additional funds by subsequent Award Letter certified Vo OCI 2 6 1999 marl, return receipt requested, to the County's contact identified in paragraph VIII, below. Should the County determine it does not wish to accept the award of additional funds, then the County shall provide notice to the Department contact within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Award Letter. Otherwise, the County shall provide to the Department its written notice of acceptance within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the AwardLetter. The term.q of this Agreement shall be consideavxl to have been modified to include the additional funds upon receipt of the written notice of acceptance. MO~O~G The County shall constantly monitor its performance under this Agreement to ensure that time schedules are being met, the Scope.of Work is being accomplished and other performance goals are being achieved. Such review shall be made for each function or activity set forth in Attachment A to this Agreement, and reported in accordance with Attachment D. Records of such activities Shall be created and retained in accordance with Attachment C. LIABILITY The Coumy shall be solely responsible to parties with whom it shall deal in carrying out the terms of this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, the County agrees tha/it is not an employee or agent of the Department. VII. NONCOMPLIANCE, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION. Ao If a County fails to comply with any term or condition applicable to an award under Rule Chapter 9G-19 or any term or condition including, but not limited to, federal and state laws, agreements, rules and regulations, applicable to any other funding for the County administered by the Division, then the Department shall take one or more of the following actions, as indicated by the attendant ¢ircnmstances: temporarily withhold cash payments, pending correction of the deficiency, or more severe enforcement action; 2. disallow all or pan of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance;. 3. suspend or terminate the award; disallow future participation in the program or funding provided~ under this rule chapter; 5. recover all funds provided under the current award. Costs of the County resulting from obligations 'incurred by the County during suspension or after termination of an award are not allowable unless the Department expressly authorizes them in the notice of suspension or ~instion, or subsequently authorizes them in writing. Other County costs during suspension or ~ termination which are necessary and not. reasonably avoidable may, in the sole discretion of the Department, be allowable if: 2 Ce 'D. Eo Fo 1999 the costs result from obligations which were Properly incurred by the County before the effective date of the suspension or termination, are not in anticipation of the suspension or termination, and, in the case of termination, are not cancelable, and the costs would be allowable if the award were not suspended or expired normally at the end of the period in which the termination occurs. Counties with terminated grants shall remain obligated to provide all required closeout information. In the event that any audit determines that costs reimbursed or otherwise funded under this Agreement should be disallowed, then the County shall return those disallowed funds to the Department. In the alternative, the Department may, in its sole discretion, offset the disallowed amount against any current or fumm awards to the County from any other grant agreement or contract with the County administered by the Department. Actions taken for noncompliance constitute final Department action under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as amended. Notification of such actions shall include notice of administrative hearing rights and time frames. The County shall return funds to the Department if found in non-compliance with laws, rules, or regulations governing the use of the fUnds or this Agreement. G. ' This Agreement may be terminated by the written mutual consent of the parties. NOTICE AND CONTACT Ao The Department designates Edgar W. Gonesh, Planning Manager, Division of Emergency Management, as the Department's Contract Manager. All communications, written or oral, relating to this Agreement shall be directed to him at the following address: Department of Commtlnity Aff~ Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 E-Mail ~ edgar.gonesh(~dca, state.fl.us The signer of this Agreement or his/her designee shall be the County's Contract Manager. All communications, written or oral, relating, to this Agreement shall be directed to him/her at the following address: Kenneth F. Pineau Emergency Management Director 3301 East Tamiami"Trail Naples, FL 34112 Telephone #: {} 41 )7 7 4 - 8 4 4 4 0 CT 2 6 999 All paymen~ ~lating to this A~ment shall be mailed ~ ~e ~llowing ~dress: Collier County Emergency Hanagement Dept. 3501 East Tamiami Trail Navles~ FL 34112 IX* In the event that different representatives are designated by either party after execution of this Agreement, notice of the name, title, address and telephone number of the new representative will be rendered as provided in Paragraph VIII. A and B above. OTHER PROVISIONS go The validity of this Agreement is subject to the truth and accuracy of all the information, representations, and materials submitted or provided by the County, in this Agreement, in any subsequent Submission or respouse to Department request, or in any submission or response to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement, and such information, representations, and materials are incorporated by reference. The lack of accuracy thereof or any material changes shall, at the option of the Department and with thirty 00) days written notice to the County, cause the termination of this Agreement and the release of the Department from ail its obligations to the County. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Florida, and venue for any actions arising out of this Agreement shall lie in Leon County. If any provision hereof' is in conflict with any applicable statute or rule, or is otherwise unenforceable, then such provision shall be deemed null and void to the extent of such conflict, and shall be deemed severable, but shall not invalidate any other provision of this Agreement. No waiver by the Department of any fight or remedy granted hereunder or failure to insist on strict performance by the County shall affect or extend or act as a waiver of any other right or remedy of the Department hereunder, or affect the subsequent exercise of the same right or remedy by the Department for any further or subsequent default by the County. Any power of aPProvai or disapprovai granted to the Department under the terms of this Agreement shall survive the terms and life of this Agreement as a whole. Do The Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, any one of which may be taken as an original. AUDIT REQUIREMENTS The County agrees to maintain financiai procedures and support documents, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, to account for the receipt and expenditure of funds under this Agreement. Bo These records shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection, review, or audit by state personnel and other personnel duly authorized by the DeparUnent. "Reasonable" shall be construed according to circumstances, but ordinarily shall mean normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to $:00 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday. 4 Fo OCT2 6 1999 County shall also provide the Department with the records, reports or financial statements upon request for the purposes of.auditing and monitoring the funds awarded under'this Agreement. The County shall submit an Audit of Agreement Compliance to the Department as provided herein. If the County receives or expends $300,000 or more in Federal awards in its fiscal year, then the County shall conduct an audit performed by an independent Certified Public Accountant or other entity independent of the county in accordance with the standards of the Comptroller General as specified in the General Accounting Office Standards for Audit of Governmental OrganiT~tions, Programs, Activities and Functions, and generally accepted auditing standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The Agreement number of this grant must be identified with the audit submitted. Such audit shall also comply with the requirements of Sections 11.45, 216.349, and 216.3491, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General, and, ,to the extent applicable, the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, 31 USC 7501 through 7507, OMB Circular A-87 and OMB Circular A-133, as revised June 24, 1997, or thereafter. If the County receives or expends less than $300,000 in Federal awards in its fiscal year, an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133 is not required, but an audit may otherwise be required under Section 216.3491, Florida Statutes, and rules adopted pursua, t thereto. The audit report shall include all management letters and the County's response to all findings, including corrective actions to be taken. The audit report shall include a schedule o~' financial assistance specifically identifying all Agreement and grant revenue by sponsoring Deparmaent and Agreement number. The complete financial audit report, including all items specified herein, shall be sent directly to: Department of Community Affairs Office of Inspector General 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 In the event the audit shows that the entire funds, or any portion thereof, were not spent in accordance with the conditions of this Agreement, the County shall be held ' liable for reimbursement to the Department of all funds not spent in accordance with these applicable regulations and Agreement provisions within thirty (30) days after the Department has notified the County of such non-compliance. The County shall retain all financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and any other documents pertinent to this Agreement for a period of three years after the date of submission of the final expenditures report. However, if litigation or an audit has been initiated prior to the expiration of the three-year period, the records shall be retained until, the litigation or audit findings have been resolved. The County shall have all audits completed by an Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) who shall either be a certified public accountant or a public accountant licensed under Chapter 473, Florida Statutes. The ICPA shall, state thai the audit complied with the applicable provisions noted above. 5 OCT 2 6 1999 H. The audit will be submitted no later than April 30, 2001. The Department may require the County to undertake such further or additional audits as determined necessary or appropriate including, but not limited to, past and current organization-wide audits. Such audits may be necessary to determine the adequacy, accuracy, and reliability of the County's internal controls, fiscal data, and management systems established to safeguard thc County's assets and to ensure compliance with this Agreement. ffthis Agreement is closed out without an audit, the Department reserves the right to recover any disallowed costs identified in an audit after such close-out. SUBCONTRACTS AND PROCLrREMENT If the County subcontracts any or all of the work required under this Agreement' the County agrees to include in the subcontract that the subcontractor is bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement with the Department. The County agrees to include in the subcontract a provision that the subcontractor shall hold the Department and County harmless against all claims of whatever nature arising out of the subcontractor's performance of work' under this Agreement, to the extent allowed and required by law. See Attachment E for any additional terms and conditions pertaining to subcontracts. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. ATTACHMENTS A. All attachments to this Agreement are incorporated as if set out fully herein. In the event of any inconsistencies or conflict between the lan~,~fe Agreement and the attachments hereto, the language of such attachments shall be controlling, but only to the extent o£such conflict or inconsistency. sTANDARD CONDITIONS The County agrees to be bound by the folloWing standard conditions: The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under this Agreement is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature, and subject to any modification in accordance with Chapter 216, Florida ffotherwise allowed under this Agreeme~, extemion of an Agreement for contractual services shall be in writing for a period not to exceed six (6) months and shall be subject to the same terms and conditions set forth in the initial Agreement. There shall be only one extension of the Agreement unless the failure to meet the 6 XV. OC! 2 $ 999 criteria set forth in the Agreement for completion of the Agreement is due to events beyond the control of the County. All bills for fees or other compensation for services or expenses shall be submitted in detail sufficient for a proper preaudit and postaudit thereof. If otherwise allowed under this Agreement, all bills for any travel expenses shall be submitted in accordance with s. 112.061, Florida Statutes. The Department reserves the right to unilaterally cancel this Agreement for refusal by the County to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters or other material subject to the provisions of Chapter '119, Florida Statutes, and made or received by the County in conjunction with the Agreement. The State of Florida will not intentionally award publicly-funded contm~ m any contractor who knowingly employs unauthorized alien workers, constitu~g a violation of the employment provisions contained in 8 U.S.C. Section 1324a(e). [Section 274A(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA")]. The Department shall consider the employment by any contractor of unauthorized aliens a violation of Section 274A(e) of the INA. Such violation by the Recipient of the employment provisions contained in Section 274A(e) of the INA shall be grounds for unilateral cancellation of this Agreement by the Department. A person or affiliate-who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with a public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of Category Two for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. STATE LOBBYING PROHIBITION No funds or other resources receiVed from the Department in connection with this Agreement may be reed directly or indirectly to influence legialation or any other official action by the Florida Legislature or any state Department~ LEGAL AUTHORIZATION The County certifies with respect to this Agreement that it possesses the legal authority to receive the funds to be provided under this Agreement and that, if applicable, itc g°verningfthis body has authorized, by resolution or otherwise, the execution and acceptance Agreement with all covenants and assurances contained herein. The County also certifies that the undersigned possesses the authority to legally execute and bind County to the terms of this Agreement. 7 OCT 2 6 1999 EQUIPMENT AND. pROPERTy MANAGEMENT The County acknowledges the completed installation of a Hughes Network Systems, Inc., Personal Earth Station® and related equipment (hereinafter "the Equipment"). The County acknowledges and agrees to comply with applicable terms, and conditions off (1) the State of Florida Lease/Purchase Agreement, dated October 1994, executed between Hughes Network Systems, Inc. ("HNS"), and the Department, (a copy of which is available from the Department) regarding the procurement and use of the Equipment; and (2) the Services Agreement Between Hughes Network Systems, Inc., and the State of Florida, dated January 1995, (a copy of which is available from the Department) (hereina/ter, collectively, "the HNS Agreements") regarding the operation of an interactive satellite commullications service for the Department, the County and other sites. In particular, the County agrees: That any reports of problems with the Equipment or system, lxouble reports, and any requests for repairs, service, maintenance or the like, shall be communicated directly and exclusively to the Department's State. Warning Point (SWP) (904) 413-9910. Do That the County will assist and comply with the instructions of the SWP and any technical service representative responding to the report or service request. County personnel shall cooperate with and assist service representatives, as required, for installation, troubleshooting and fault isolation, with adequate staff. That the County shah not change, modify, deinstall, relocate, remove or alter the Equipment, accessories, attachments and related items without the express written approval of the Department. That the County shall provide aec.ess, 'subject to reasonable security restrictions, to the Equipment and related areas and locations of the County's facilities and premises, and will arrange permitted access to areas of third-party facilities and premises for the purpose of inspecting the Equipment and performing work related to the Equipment. Service representatives and others performing said work shall comply with the County's reasonable rules and regulations for access, provided the Department is promptly furnished with a copy after execution of this Agreement. The County shall provide safe access to the Equipment and will maintain the environment where the Equipment is located in a safe and secure condition. The County shall provide service representatives with access to electrical power, water and other utilities, as well as telephone access to the County facility as required for efficient service. That the County shah take reasonable steps to secure the Equipment and to protect the Equipment from damage, theft, loss and other hA=rods. This shall not obligate the County to procure insurance. The Department agrees to procure and maintain all risks insurance coverage.on the Equipment. The County agrees to refrain fiom using or dealing with the Equipment in any manner which is inconsistent with the HNS Agreements, any policy of insurance referred to in the HNS Agreements, any applicable laws, codes ordinances or regulations. The County shall not allow the Equipment to be misused, abused, wasted, or allowed to deteriorate, except normal wear and tear resulting from its intended use. The County shall immediately report any damage, loss, trouble, service interruption, accident or other problem related to 8 0C] 2 6 999 the Equipment to the SWP, and shall comply with reasonable instructions issued thereafter. That any software supplied in connection with the use or installation of the equipment is subject, to proprietary rights of Hughes Network Systems, Inc., and/or HNS's vendor(s) and/or the Department's vendor(s). The use of one copy of said software is subject to a license granted from I-INS to the Department, and a . sublicense fi.om the Department to the County, to use the software solely in the operation of the Equipment, to commence on delivery of the software to the County and to last for the term of the HNS Agreements. The County shall not: (i) copy 'or duplicate, or permit anyone else to copy or duplicate, any part of the sofh~tare, or (ii) create or attempt to create, or permit others to create or attempt to create, by reverse engineering or otherwise, the source programs or any part thereof from the object programs or from other information provided in connection with the EquipmenL The County shall not, directly or indirectly, sell, transfer, offer, disclose, lease, or license the sofh~atre to any third party. To comply with these provisions until the termination of the I-INS Agreements. The amounts retained for the satellite service cover the initial order for services provided tO the Department pursuant to the services agreement between Hughes Network Systems and the State of Florida. The charge does not cover maintenance, repair, additional equipment and other services not part of the initial order for services. The service charge covers only the remote corrective maintenance specified in paragraph 4.3 of the Service Agreement with HNS and does not cover other maintenance, repair, additional equipment and other services not pan of the initial order for services. In particular, the service charge does not cover.' o Maintenance, repair, or replacement of parts damaged or lost through catastrophe, accident, lightning, theft, mi_suse, fault or negligence of the County or causes external to the Equipment, such as, but not limited to, failure of, or faulty, electrical power or air conditioning, operator error, failure or malfimctiOn of data communication Equipment not provided to the County by the Department under this Agreement, or fi.om any cause other than intended and ordinary use. Changes, modifications, or alterations in or to the Equipment other than approved upgrades and configuration changes. Deinstallation, relocation, or ~oval of the Equipment or any acx, essories, attachments or other devices. The County shall be independently responsl'vle for any and all charges not part of the ~ service order. 9 OCT 2 6 1999 coMMuNicATIONS COSTS By its execution of this Agreement, the County authorizes the Department to deduct the appropriate costs of the recurring charges for the satellite communications Service from the allocation provided to County under Rule 9G-19.005(3), Florida Administrative C..0de. The deduction is $3,129 for twelve months m|ntl$ a credit/'or satellite communications equipment costs deducted in previous years. In. the event the County desires to Continue use of the National Warning System (NAWAS) line, then the County shall assume all operational and fiscal responsibility for the NAWAS line and equipment in the County. VEHICLES Written approval from the Director of the Division of Emergency Management must be obtained prior to the purchase of any motor vehicle with funds provided under this Agreement. In the absence of such approval, the Department will have no obligation to honor such reimbursement request. CERTIFICATIONS By its execution of this Agreement, the County certifies that it is currently in full compliance with the Rule Chapters 9G-6, 9G-7, 9G-11, and 9G-19, F.A.C., Chapter 252, Flor/da Statutes and appropriate admini.~trative rules and regulations that guide the emergency management program and associated activities. The County certifies that funds received fiom the Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund (EMPA funds) will not be used to supplant existing funds, nor will funds from one program under the Trust Fund be used to match funds received from another program under the Trust Fund. The County further certifies that EMPA funds shall not be expended for 911 services, emergency medical services, law enforcement, criminal justice, fire service, public works or other services outs/de the emergency management responsibilities assigned to the County Emergency Management Agency, unless such expenditure enhances emergency management capabilities as expressly assigned in the local comprehensive emergency management plan. 10 By its signature below, the County reaffirms its certification to employ and maintain a full- time Director consistent with Section 9G-19.002(6), Florida Administrative Code. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their undersigned officials as duly authorized. COLLIER COUNTY Name/Title STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS: Name/Title Date: 59-6000558 Federal Employer ID Number .--i' ,i?~12 ~':'i!~'~'~i~s'~".'~ .'~.Vaa~T ~. ~OC~, CL~ ,: .:?~, . "'"..:;~:',' ;~ :' ¥?:~.~Peputy Clerk) ' ' itt~st ~s to Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Thomas C. Palmer Assistant County Attorney 11 OCT 2 6 Attac~ent A SCOPE OF WORK Base Grant funding from the Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund is intended to enhance coun~ emergency management plans and programs that are consistent with-the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and Program (reference Rule Chapters 9G-6 and 7, F.A.C. and Chapter 252, F.S.). This Scope of Work recognizes that each county is at a varying levcl of preparedness, and it is understood that each county has a unique geography, faces unique threats and bnT~ards and serves a unique population. In order to receive base grant funding, each county must certify that it will use the aw~r~ to ~Uance its Emergency Management Program. As a condition of receiving funding pursuant to this Agreement, the County shall complete the work items that fall between October 1, 1999 and September 30, 2000, listed in the most recently revised Five-year Strategic Plan, as approved by the Department. The revised Five-year Strategic Plan is attached hereto as Attachment A-1. Subsequent revisions during the term of this Agreement shall be those submitted in writing by the County, approved by the Department, and on file in the Division. The document evidencing the approved scope of work shall be the most recent Strategic Plan for the County on file in the Division of Emergency Management, Bureau of Compliance Planning and Support, evidencing approval by Division staff'housed in Tallahassee. As a timber condition of receiving funding under this Agreement, the County shall, following full or partial County Emergency Operation Center activation at a level equivalent to a State Emergency Operation Center level three (3) or above during the period of this Agreement, then the County shall, within forty-five (45) days following the conclusion of the activation, evaluate the performance of all elements of the local emergency management program during that activation, and provide a written aPter action report to the Department. Funds may not be used for items such as door prizes and gift. Flyers and promotional items to promote the Emergency Matmgement Program are allowable. Food and beverages may be purchased for Emergency Management perSOnnel and other personnel only if the Coumy Emergency Operation Center or field command office is in an activated status and personnel receiving food/beverage are on duty at either of these locations. Purchases may be made only under l) An Executive Order issued by the Governor or 2) a State of Emergency appropriately declared by local officials in response to an emergency event or threat. Within 60 days of execution of this Agreement, the County shall provide copies of any new or updated ordinances in effect which expressly address emergency management, disaster preparedness, civil defense, disasters, emergencies or otherwise govern the activation of the local emergency management program provided in s.252.38, 12 OCT 2 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Attachment B PROGRAM STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Chapter 252, Florida St~a~ Rule Chaptem 9G-6, 9G-7, 9G-11, 9G-19 and 9.G-20 Florida Administrat[v~ Code Chapter 287, Florida Statures Chapter 119, Florida Statutes Chapter 112, Florl~ OMB Circular A-87 13 Attachment C RECORD KEEPING OCT 6 Be Ali original records pertinent to this Agreement shall be retained by the County for three years foUowing the date oftermiua~on of this Agreement or of submission of the final close-out report, whichever is later, with the following exceptions: If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the three year period and extends beyond the three year period, the records will be maimained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved. Records for the disposition of non-expendable personal property valued at $1,000 or more at the rime of acquisition shall be retained for three years ~ final disposition. Records relating to real property acquisition shall be retained for three years after closing of title. All records, including supporting documentation of all program costs, shall be sufficient to determine compliance with the requirements and objectives of the Scope of Work, Attachmexlts A and A-l, and all other applicable laws and regulations. The County, its employees or agents, including all subcontraotors or consultants to be paid'-:.- fl~om funds provided under this Agreement, shall allow access to its records at reasonable times to the Department, its employees, and agents. "Reasonable" shall be consUued according to the circumstances but ordinarily shall mean during normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., local time, on Monday through Friday. "Agents" shall include, but not be limited to, auditors retained by the Department. 14 OCT 2 6 Attachment D REPORTS The County shall provide the Department with quarterly financial reports, semi-annual summary progress repons prepared in conjunction with the Department's Area Coordinator, and a final close-out report, all in a format to be provided by the Department. Quarterly reports shall begin with the first quarter of the county fiscal year, are due to the Department no later than thirty (30) days after the emi of each quarter of the program year;, and shall continue to be submitted each quarter until submission of the fmai close-out. report. The ending dates for each quarter of this program year are Decmber 31, March 31, June 30 and September 30. The final close-out report is due forty-five'(45) days aier termination of this Agreement. In addition to the above, in order to ensure compliance with Rule 9G-19.011, F.A.C., historical budgetary information relating to the County Emergency Management Program is also required. This information shall be developed based on guidelines provided by the Department and shall be submitted to the Department not later than December 31, 1999. A proposed smfl%g summary and budget summary describing planned expenditure of funds provided under this Agreement toward the completion of items detailed in Attachments A and A-1 shall be submitted to the Department in a format provided by the Departmem not later than December 31, 1999. If all required reports, budget summary and budgetary information prescribed above are not provided to the Department or are not completed in a mannzr acceptable to the Department, the Department may withhold further payments until they are completed or may take such other action as set forth in Paragraphs VII. and IX., and Rule 9G-19.014. F.A.C. "Acceptable to the Department" means that the work product was completed in accordance with generally accepted principles, guidelines and applicable law, and is consistent with the Scope of Work. Upon reasonable notice, the County shall provide such additional program updaI~ or information as may be required by the Department. All report formats provided by the Department shall be made available to the County on the Division's intemet site. 15 Al' Eo OCT 2 6 At~_vhment E PROC~. SUBCONTRACTS AND SUBORANTS All subcontracts entered into by a County in connection with any portion of the Scope of Work shall contain all terms of the County's Agreement with the Department. The County shah send a copy of any subcontracts entered into in connection with implementing the Scope of Work tO the Department within 30 days after' their effective dates. The County shall not award subgrants using funds awarded pursuant to this Agreement. The County shall comply with all applicable procurement rules and regulations in securing goods and services to implement the Scope of Work Wherever required by law or otherwise permitted, the County shall utilize competitive procurement practices. Allowable costs shall be d~ined in accordance with. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87. 16 Ao Do Eo {)CT 2 6 Attachment F FUNDING/MATCHING This is a cost-reimbursement Agreement. The County shall be reimbursed for costs incurred in the satisfactory performance of work hereunder in an amount not to exceed $104,215 subject to the availability of funds from the Department. The amount of funds available pursuant to this rule chapter may be adjusted proportionally when necessary to meet any matching requirements imposed as a condition of receiving federal disaster relief assistance or planning funds. Funds received from the Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund may not be used to supplant existing funds, nor shall funds from one program under the Trust Fund be used to match funds received from another program under the Trust Fund. Any advance payment under this Agreement is subject to s. 216.181(14), .Florida Statu. tes. Up to twenty-five (25) percent of an award may be advanced. If an advance payment is requested, the budget data on which the request is based and a justification letter shall be submitted. The letter will specify the amount of advance payment needed and provide an explanation of the necessity for and proposed use of these funds. Indicate below which method of payment is preferred: No advance payment is requested; payment will be made solely on reimbursement basis. An advance payment of $. is requested; balance of payments will be made on a reimbursement basis. (Justification letter must be provided; advanced funds may not exceed 25 % of total eligible award) After the initial advance, if any, any further payments shall be made on a quarterly reimbursement basis. Additional reimbursement requests in excess of those made quarterly may be approved by the Department for exceptional circumstances. An explanation of the exceptional circumstances must accompany the request for reimbursement. The County agrees to expend funds in accordance with the Scope of Work, Attachments A and A-1 of this Agreement. All funds received hereunder shall be placed in an interest.bearing account with a separate~ account code identifier for tracking all deposits, expenditures and interest earned. Funds disbursed to the County by the Department that are not expended in implementing this program shall be returned to the Department, along with any interest earned on all funds received under this Agreement, within ninety (90) days of the expiration of the award Agreement. The County shall comply with all applicable procurement rules and regulations in securing goods and services to implement the Scope of Work. Allowable costs shall be determined in accordance with applicable Office of Management and Budget Circulars, or, in the event no circular applies, by 48 CFR Part 31 CONTRACT COST PRINCIP~S AND PROCEDURES. 17 1999 At a minimum, the County shall continue to provide other funding for the County Emergency Management Agency at an amount equal to either: (1) the average of the previous three years' level of county general revenue funding of the County Emergency Management Agency; or (2) the level of funding for the County Emergency Management Agency for the last fiscal year, whichever figure is lower. County general revenue funding for 911 services, emergency medical services, law enforcement, criminal justice, public works or other services outside the local emergency management agency as defined by Section 252.38, Florida Statutes, shall not be included in determining the "level of county funding of the County Emergency Management Agency." The County shall certify compliance with this rule chapter and this rule by its execution of this Agreement, and as a condition precedent to receipt of funding. Should the County wish to carry forward, into the fiscal year beginning Octobez 1, 2000, any unspent funds awarded under this Agreement, the County must request such carry forward of funds in writing to the Department by July 31, 2000. This request must include a detailed explanation and justification for the request and may not exceed an amount equal to 25% of the initial amount awarded ($105,806) under this Agreement. Failure to timely submit information, or failure to submit complete information, may result in the denial of a request to carry funds forward. Any carry forward amounts approved will be added to the County's following year's base Agreement. Funds may not be carried forward for the purpose of paying salaries and benefits of regular or Other Personal Services personnel. Such salaries and benefit funds may be carried forward to cover contractual or other temporary personnel costs for non-recurring projects only. 18 COLLIER COUNTY FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN (2000-2004) Vulnerabilities and Capabilities Collier County continues to be one of the fastest growing communities in tl~C'[ United States. Its permanent resident population has increased more than twelve-fold since the passage of Hurricane Donna in 1960. There are currently three municipalities within the County: The City of Naples, (2],659), The City of'Marco Island (13,006) and Everglades City (565). Statistics provided by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section estimate that the county--wide population is 233,137 in 2000 and should grow to 260,917 by 2004. Peak population (January - April) is 323,135 in 2000 and 359,744 in the year 2004. Fortunately, peak season does not coincide with our hurricane season. Collier County, at 2020 square miles, is one of the largest counties, in size, within the State of Florida. The topography is relatively flat ranging from sea-level along the coast to 38-40 feet in Immokalee. Approximately 88% of the population live within the Tropical Storm-Category 3 vulnerability zones. Hurricanes remain the most serious threat. Since 1886, Collier County has had 54 named storms that came within 60 miles of its borders. The frequencies are broken down as follows: 3 1 Tropical Storms 7 Category 1 Hurricanes 5 Category 2 " 9 Category 3 " 2 Category 4 " 0 Category 5 " Storm surge and hurricane force winds, not withstanding, localized flooding from excessive rainfall over super-saturated soil and Iow category tornadoes are relatively common during the late spring and summer months. Most residences have been constructed since the County developed flood plain ordinances in the mid 70's thus residential flooding is not a significant problem although roads become flooded quite easily. Flooding resulting from Tropical Storm Jerry and Hurricane Opal caused damages to more than 350 homes and businesses in 1995. In addition, heavy rains (10+") from Tropical Storm Harvey flooded 70 homes and businesses in late September, 1999. Thunderstorms and their associated lightning are common from May-September with 97 thunderstorm days along the coast and 105 in the Northeast sections of the County. Forest fires, particularly in the Golden Gate Estates area can become serious especially after freezes and periods of drought. Thirty-thousand acres were lost in 1985 and 24,550 in 1988. Since 1988, local fire districts and the National Park Service have initiated a "controlled burn" program which mitigates the threat but more people are moving eastward to the urban/wildfire interface areas. Two significant fires occurred in Golden Gates Estates in March and April resulting in 4,000 acres and some homes destroyed. Tornadoes during the late winter and spring months can do considerable damage to mobile homes and screened pool enclosures Hazardous materials are present in significant numbers throughout the County with the Immokalee area having a very large quantity of agricultural chemicals. Collier County has between 70-80 facilities that store extremely hazardous substances on site. Other potential man-made threats could come from a mass casualty event involving an airplane or bus, terrorist activities, or civil disturbance. Collier County is considered an ingestion pathway county because of the close proximity of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant in South Dade County. Medical facilities within the county are: General Hospitals Substance Abuse Centers Urgent Care Centers Ambulatory Care Centers Nursing Homes Assisted Living Facilities 2 3 6 8 12 26 In addition, there are approximately 700 individuals that are registered with this department as special needs clients. There are, however, approximately 7000 individuals with special needs that are not registered with this agency. Many of them will require assistance during a disaster. The Emergency Management Department is staffed with 4 full-time employees: Director, 2 Coordinators and Senior Secretary. We also have a clerical assistant to help manage the special needs program from May to October. In addition to dealing with public awareness, alert and warning, special needs, sheltering, recovery and mitigation issues, communications exercise development and plan review for health-care agencies, we are increasingly being asked to sit on or chair task force committees for developments of regional impact, planned urban developments, disaster recovery task forces, grant management, local mitigation strategy and procurement, etc. 2 OC T 2 199! Current Assessment - Where are we? Collier County has been recognized state-wide as comprehensive emergency management program. Strengths foundation include: having a pro-active and that form the program's * Expertise in preparedness, response and recovery planning efforts. * Comprehensive public awareness/preparedness program that uses the press, radio and television in addition to the Internet and disaster seminars to convey information. * Experienced, well trained staff of dedicated professionals. * A mitigation program that stresses the reduction of future damages from disasters. * Outstanding working relationships with the media, public and private agencies. * Comprehensive emergency management exercise program. * Outstanding communications and broadcast fax system. * Active participation in State and National emergency management associations. * A nationally recognized web site on the Internet with links to other state and national public safety agencies and universities. * Strong supporter and participant of intergovernmental emergency management partnerships i.e. FEPA, IAEM, ASPEP, APCO, and ASFPM. * Highly trained cadre of amateur radio operators to assist in times of disaster. * Excellent relationships with local and national disaster relief organizations. * Both EM director and a Coordinator have received Certified Emergency Manager (CEM) accreditation through the International Association of Emergency Managers. The Director and both Coordinators are certified as Florida Emergency Management Professionals. * Good Support with the County's municipalities and independent fire Districts. * A good foundation to develop and manage Community Emergency Response Teams throughout the County. 3 Where Are We Going? What needs to be done? Although our emergency management program has make great strides during the past five years, much needs to be done. This includes: * Reducing public shelter deficit spaces to meet an established level of service of 60,000 shelter spaces by 2002. * Increasing the number of special needs shelter spaces to met the expectations of an ever increasing elderly and informed population. * Developing supporting plans and procedures to implement the County's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. * Assisting in the development of a region-wide evacuation plan for disasters. * Developing a contingency plan for sheltering operations in the event that the American Red Cross elects not to participate. * Increased Disaster Awareness Education training opportunities for mobile home residents and boat owners. * Increased private sector involvement in sheltering, response, and recovery activities. * Increasing the number of trained volunteers to augment the program dudng emergencies. Improving emergency responders' knowledge of Collier County's emergency response structure of 18 Emergency Support Functions under an incident command system. * Recommending and implementing mitigation measures by developing a local mitigation strategy; and * Expanding current service levels in the area of public awareness, staff development, resource management and equipment maintenance. * Assist in the Development of a State-wide Host / Risk Sheltering Plan. GOAL I Improve the County's ability to respond to post-disaster response operations. STRATEGY 1.1 Maintain a comprehensive inventory of post-disaster critical facilities within Collier County. Task 1.I~1 By April 2000, review and add or delete facilities to the master critical facility listing. Task 1.1.2 By June 2000, complete the critical facility inventory and send program diskettes to the Division of Emergency Management. Task 1.1.3 By June 2000, and every year thereafter, review and add or delete facilities to the master critical facility inventory and send updated diskettes to the Division of Emergency Management. Task 1.1.4 By January 1999, determine the type and size generator for all critical facilities that have been designated as absolutely essential. STRATEGY 1.2 Maintain mental health counselors within the county that could provide counseling to the general public after a disaster. Task 1.2.1 By March 2000, and every March thereafter, meet with the Medical Director of the Critical Incident Stress Debriefing team to determine the level of commitment, review capabilities and, if necessary, recruit new members. Task 1.2.2 Maintain a current listing of mental health counseling within the community that could provide counseling to the general public after a disaster. Task 1.2.3 By May 2000, and every May thereafter, determine the availability of American Red Cross accredited courses for the CISD team members. STRATEGY 1.3 Acquire a commitment from public and private resources for the use &facilities that could be used to further the recovery process. Task 1.3.1 By April 2000, and yearly thereafter, contact designated Disaster Recovery Center facility owners to determine their willingness to provide the use &their facilities. 5 OCT 2 G Task 1.3.2 Task 1.3.3 STRATEGY 1.4 Task 1.4.1 ~"~ Task 1.4.2 Task 1.4.3 STRATEGY 1.5 ,.~ .~. Task 1.5.1 Task 1.5.2 STRATEGY 1.6 Task 1.6.1 Task 1.6.2 By May 2000, and yearly thereafter, review the Disaster Assistance site worksheet and add or delete facilities to the inventory. By May of 2000, inventory Disaster Assistance kits and develop new, additional kits for center expansion. Maintain a high capability for the County and its municipalities to provide an assessment of damages to accommodate a rapid delivery of outside assistance. By May 2000, and annually thereafter, determine the need for damage assessment training and arrange for training if conditions warrant. By May 2000, and annually thereafter, review the RIAT Standard Operating Procedure for currency and update if required. By April 2000, and annually thereafter, check adequacy, currency and supply of Damage Assessment work sheets and amend and/or re-supply. Develop procedures to assume sheltering responsibilities if the American Red Cross continues its moratorium on shelter management. By April 2000, and every year thereafter, determine shelter manager availability and recruit and train additional managers from county resources. By April 2000, develop a minimum of 2 additional shelter manager kits for deployment to shelters when necessary. Provide for the effective use of volunteer workers in disaster response and recovery operations. By March 2000, and annually thereafter, determine the availability of the Florida Sports Park as a Volunteer and Donations Coordination Center. By April 2000, develop signage that would assist and direct volunteers to the designated Volunteer and Donations Coordination Center. 6 OCT 2 Task 1.6.3 Task 1.6.4 STRATEGY 1.7 Task 1.7.1 Exercise the Volunteer and Donations Coordination Center as part of the 2000 State-wide Hurricane Exercise. By April 2000, inventory Volunteer/Donations Administration Kits and replenish if necessary. Enhance the County EOC's ability to remain operational after a disaster. Submit a grant during the 1999-00 Competitive Grant bid cycle for an external generator outlet at the County Admin- istrative Building. GOAL 2 Improve the Emergency Management Department's ability to receive and disseminate critical weather and other disaster related information. STRATEGY 2. I Task 2.1.1 Task '2.1.2 Task 2.1.2 STRATEGY 2.2 Task 2.2.1 Task 2.2.2 Task 2.2.3 Expand the Collier County Emergency Management web-site By March 2000, and every March thereafter, research and update disaster preparedness information on the web. By April 2000, update the Pet Motel directory on the web-site to include hotels/motels in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia. By November 1999, develop a strategy to encourage citizens to use our EM Web Page "One-List" for Public Safety Announcements. Continue the use of AT&T Enhanced Fax or a suitable substitute to quickly disseminate emergency action state- ments to critical facilities with the county. By October 1999, and at least quarterly thereat'ter, review existing call lists for additions and deletions. By February 2000, as part of National Severe Weather Week, transmit a list message to all addressees to inform them of the event and to re-validate phone numbers. By March 2000, Develop industry specific guidance to be used in the event of an emergency. ? Task 2.2.4 ~[~ Task 2~2.5 By November 1999, submit a Competitive Grant for a computer managed facsimile dissemination system. Continue to encourage residents to purchase NOAA Weather Radios with "SAME" capability during all Disaster Preparedness Seminars. GOAL 3 Maintain a program that identifies facilities for residents guests and household pets within the community. STRATEGY 3.1 Continue to work with the Collier County Public Schools, American Red Cross, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and animal interest groups to obtain suitable shelters for the resident and pet population. .~ ~"Task 3.1.1 By March 2000, and biennially thereafter, review and update the Pet Motel Directory. Task 3.1.2 Exercise the animal shelter portion of the CEMP as part of the 2000 State wide Hurricane Exercise. Task 3.1.3 By December 2000, provide window protection for the cafeterias at Oak Ridge Middle School. Task 3.1.4 By December 2000, provide window/door protection at Immokalee Middle School cafeteria. Task 3.1.5 By October 1999, develop one pet shelter with the assistance of the Domestic Animal Services Department. GOAL 4 Identify and commit resources to preserve the health and welfare of the County's Special Needs population during a disaster. STRATEGY 4.1 Determine the need for additional special needs facilities within the community. ~'~ Task 4.1.1 By November 1999, submit a competitive grant for the repair and/or replacement ora generator switching mechanism for the Immokalee Health Clinic - a potentially valuable special needs facility. STRATEGY 4.2 Identify sufficient sources of staffing for the special needs shelters. 8 Task 4.2.1 Task 4.2.2 Task 4.2.3 STRATEGY 4.3 Task 4.3.1 Task 4.3.2 Task 4.3.3 ~'.,~ Task 4.3.4 By May 2000, continue to solicit the assistance of the nursing community to insure adequate staffing in the special needs shelters. By May 2000, assess the feasibility of an additional special needs facility in the East Naples/Golden Gate areas. By May 2000, and annually thereafter, coordinate with local kidney dialysis centers for shelter staffing and adequate water supplies for their clients. Maintain a comprehensive file on special needs clients within the community. By April 2000, and annually thereafter, obtain a temporary, employee to assist senior secretary in special needs program management. By March 2000, update, if necessary, the Special Needs Information Sheet and Registration Form. By May 2000, and annually thereafter, maintain an outreach program through the media and home health agencies that publicizes the People with Special Needs (PSN) program. By May 2000, review and update the Special Needs Plan as developed by the PSN task force. GOAL 5 Maintain a Comprehensive Training and Education Program for the Community. STRATEGY 5.1 Encourage the participation in emergency management related courses at the federal, state and local levels for county and municipal personnel. Task 5.1.1 By August 2000, submit the FY 00 Emergency Management Institute Course Catalogue to all supporting public safety agencies. ~"~ By April 2000, survey the needs of public safety agencies Task 5. 1.2' and request training locally to satis~ these needs. ,'~Task 5.1.3 Disseminate disaster related courses to all public safety agencies by blast fax upon receipt. 9 0 C T STRATEGY 5.2 Task 5.2.1 STRATEGY 5.3 Task 5.3.1 STRATEGY 5.4 Task 5.4.1 Task 5.4.2 Task 5.4.3 ~, Task 5.4.4 ~[~ Task 5.4.5 STRATEGY 5.5 Task 5.5.1 Provide Community Emergency Response Team training to a broad spectrum of groups within the community. By September 2000, develop and provide a minimum of 4 additional CERT courses to associations within Collier County. Provide awareness training to senior appointed and elected officials within Collier County and its 3 municipalities. By February 2000, schedule a Public Officials Conference and invite senior appointed and elected officials from Collier County, City of Naples, Everglades City and Marco Island. Develop a Comprehensive Public Awareness Program. By March 2000, update the Collier County All Hazards Handbook for printing. By March 2000, coordinate with Collier County Public and private schools for the preparation and distribution of the Hurricane [ Tornado coloring book for 1'~t 2"a students. (114 ~,~ffi~ll~l) and grade By February2000, coordinate the development of a Collier County Home Preparation Guide. By September 2000, present a minimum of 80 disaster seminars to Collier County residents. By April 2000, update guidance to assist County employees in developing family emergency preparedness plans. Maintain a comprehensive emergency management training program for emergency management staff members. By September 2000, ensure that all emergency management coordinators and director satisfactorily complete the following courses: · Principles of Emergency Management Disaster Response & Recovery Operations (DRRO) · EOC Management & Operations · ICS/EOC Interface · Debris Management 10 Task 5.5.2 Task 5.5.3 By October 2000, and every October thereafter, develop a training schedule for all emergency new hires to satisfactorily complete the following training courses within 3 years (at a minimum) of being hired. Principals of Emergency Management · Disaster Response & Recovery Operations (DRRO) · EOC Management & Operations · ICS/EOC Interface · Hurricane Planning · Damage Assessment · Debris Management · Emergency Planning · Exercise Design · Basic Public Information Officer By October 2000, and every October thereafter, ensure that each Emergency Management new hire, including administrative staff, complete the following home study courses within one year of employment: · Emergency Program Manager (HS-I) · Emergency Management USA (HS-2) STRATEGY 5.6 '~ Task 5.6.1 Task 5.6.2 Continue to provide flood plain management support for Community Rating System projects. By February 2000, review and update the Flood Warning Program and integrate it into the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. By May 2000, provide a flood insurance display at a minimum of two branch libraries to publicize the National Flood Insurance Program. GOAL 6 STRATEGY 6.1 Task 6.1.1 Increase and validate county capabilities by testing and exercising. Develop and participate in State and local exercises. By September 2000, participate in all local or state mandated Ingestion Pathway exercises involving the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. 11 Task 6.1.2 Task 6.1.3 ~'~ Task 6.1.4 'Task 6.1.5 By March 2000, review and update the "Agriculture and Nuclear Power" pamphlet. By January 2000, begin planning meetings that would involve all 18 Emergency Support Functions for the State-wide hurricane exercise scenario. By June 2000, participate in the State-wide hurricane exercise. By May 2000, recruit, train and exercise "rumor control' personnel. Ensure that at least one Bi-lingual person (Spanish-English) is on each team. GOAL 7 Enhance Collier County's ability to manage the Hazardous Material Response Program. STRATEGY 7.1 Update vulnerability analyses for facilities registered with the State Department of Community Affairs. Task 7.1.1 By October 1999 and biennially thereafter, notify all state registered facilities of our intent to perform a site visit. Task 7.1.2 By August 2000 and biennially thereafter, perform and complete hazardous analyses visits to all facilities storing extremely hazardous substances; input data into the Cameo data base and transmit results to the State Emergency Response Commission. Task 7.1.3 By September 2000, attend all meetings of the District IX Local Emergency Planning Committee. ,~'~. Task 7.1.4 Participate in all training and exercises involving the Metro- Collier Hazmat team. GOAL 8 STRATEGY 8.1 Task 8.1.1 Enhance the County's Public Information function. Train additional PIOs. By April 2000, solicit volunteers from county resources to attend the Basic Public Information Course that is held in conjunction with the Governor's Hurricane Conference or at other State sponsored locations. 12 ,~ Task Task 5' [~ Task 8.1.2 8.1.3 8.1.4 By August 2000, submit names of personnel who attended the basic P.O. course for attendance at the advanced P.O. course at the Emergency Management Institute. By May 2000, update P.I.O. procedures and distribute them to local P.I.O.s. By April 2000, review and update procedures for activating the Emergency Alerting System (EAS). c.//tyoct GOAL 9 Maintain Emergency Plans and Procedures to implement disaster response and recovery programs. STRATEGY 9.1 Update and submit required documents to the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) that assess and organize work priorities. Task 9.1.1 By August 2000, and annually thereafter, review and update the self assessment and submit next fiscal year's (or updated 5 year strategic plan) to the FDEM Area 6 coordinator for review and concurrence. Task 9.1.2 Task 9.1.3 By June 2001, and biennially thereafter, submit the Collier County self assessment to the Florida Division of Emergency Management. By May 2000, and annually thereafter, update the Collier County CEMP. ~'~ Task 9.1.4 Task 9.1.5 By April 2000, and annually thereafter, update the Standard Operating Procedures for Emergency Management including those of the Emergency Support functions. By March 2000, and annually thereafter, review and update County Administrator Instruction 5900: "Cessation of Normal Government Activities, and Personal Roles and Responsibilities During Emergencies". STRATEGY 9.2 Include shortfalls for the FY 00 self assessment into the Strategic Plan. Task 9.2.1 By June 2001, list all shortfalls from self assessment and include in the next update of the 5 year Strategic Plan. 13 GOAL 10 Maintain the capability of providing disaster preparedness support to the private sector. STRATEGY 10.1 Continue to assist the Chambers of Commerce/Economic Development Council in their disaster preparedness planning efforts for small businesses. Task 10.1.1 Attend monthly meetings of the Chamber of Commerce/ EDC Disaster Recovery Task Force coalition and complete tasks as assigned. Task 10.1.2 By February 2000, assist in development and participate in the Chamber of Commerce "Hurricane 2000 - Are You Ready" trade show. Task 10.1.3 By May 2000, review and provide input to the "Surviving the Storm" handbook for small businesses. Task 10.1.4 By June 2000, participate in the Chamber of Commerce/ EDC Disaster Preparedness Symposium for Small Businesses. Task 10.1.5 By June 2000, participate in the University of Florida's Disaster Preparedness Program for condo managers and hotel / motel staffs. STRATEGY 10.2 Provide quality disaster preparedness support to the health care industry. Task 10.2.1 Within 30 days of receipt, review and either approve or deny approval with guidance for all disaster plans submitted by nursing homes, assisted living facilities, day surgeries and hospitals within Collier County. Task 10.2.2 Assist all home health agencies and hospice centers in the formulation of agency disaster plans that meet state legislated criteria. (tentative) GOAL 11 Reduce the county's disaster potential through mitigation activities. STRATEGY 11.1 Develop an analysis structure for evaluating pre-disaster mitigation options. 14 Task 11.1.1 ~-~[~ Task 11.1.2 ~,. Task 11.1.3 STRATEGY 11.2 Task 11.2.1 Task 11.2.2 STRATEGY 11.3 ,~'~ Task 11.3.1 Task 11.3.2 Task 11.3.3 Task 11.3.4 Task 11.3.5 Task 11.3.6 By October 2000, complete the Unified Local Mitigation Strategy guidelines for Collier County and its municipalities. By November 1999, request that Emergency Management be included as a member of the County's Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Growth Management Plan. By August 2000, and annually thereafter, review status and re-prioritize, if necessary, existing mitigation projects. Develop plans with the private sector to reduce additional post-disaster damages by providing temporary repairs to repairable facilities. By January 2000, and quarterly thereafter, contact SMART, Inc. to obtain names &Contractors that are licensed to provide temporary repairs. By February 2000, and biennially thereafter, develop and review Memoranda of Agreements with the private sector for available resources. By January 2001, develop a Comprehensive Flood Plain Management Plan for Collier County. By October 1999, identify the nature and extent of the County's flooding problems. By July 2000, inventory the flood hazard area, including building data, development trends and constraints, critical facilities and natural area identification. By August 2000, review alternate activities to consider in flood plain management. By September 2000, coordinate plan development with other appropriate agencies. Develop draft action plan by October 2000. Obtain public input on draft plan and revise plan for ~,//) adoption by December 2000. 15 STRATEGY 11.4 ,.~Task 11.4.1 Task 11.4.2 Task 11.4.3 Implement the following management/regulation activities under the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System: · Open Space Regulations · Low Density Zoning · Stream Dumping Regulations · Protection of Critical Facilities · Foundation Protection · Enclosure limit regulations in Velocity Zone for flood depths greater than 8 feet. · Freeboard for new residential construction in 100 year Flood Plain. By March 2001, examine the feasibility of implementing protection of critical facilities and foundation protection regulations. By April 2001, examine feasibility of implementing enclosure limit regulations in Velocity Zone and freeboard requirements for residential buildings in the 100 year flood plain. If determined feasible, complete the following steps for activities listed in tasks 11.4.1 and 11.4.2 by September 2001. GOAL 12 Maintain a program that continues to review new communication technologies. STRATEGY 12.1 Task 12.1.1 Task 12.1.2 Monitor advances in new digital, voice and satellite technologies. By January 2000, monitor the progress of Sprint and Nextel's network facilities and determine the feasibility of changing to this system as a substitute for our current cellular phone and paging systems. By March 2000, monitor the progress of the Iridium system based on Iow earth orbiting satellites as a replacement or redundancy to our current satellite phone system. 16 STRATEGY 12.2 Task 12.2.1 Task 12.2.2 Task 12.2.3 Task 12.2.4 Task 12.2.5 STRATEGY 12.3 Task 12.3.1 Task 12.3.2 Task 12.3.3 Task 12.3.4 Monitor the adequacy of Public Safety communications. By May 2001, monitor the site availability of the NOAA Weather transmitter and, if necessary, secure an alternate site. By December 1999, determine the possibility of a redundant 800 MHZ radio system in order to enable Public Safety agencies to communicate with neighboring counties on non- compatible Emerson -GE system. By April 2000, determine the costs of including all critical communication and data processing equipment on the primary ups ( uninterrupted power supply) on 1st floor of building "F". By December 1999, insure that all primary shelters within Collier County have adequate UHF and/or VHF antennae available on site. By May 2000, determine the adequacy of the current cable vision and, if necessary, purchase an additional satellite delivered Ku. Based system as an alternative. The new system should have a teleconferencing capability. Continue to expand the EOC's data processing and Internet capabilities. By December 1999, study the need and feasibility of installing an Internet connection in the EOC that is not dependent on the existing Naples Free-net system. By April 2000, consider obtaining software licensing for 4 additional drops on the EM2000 management system. By April 2000, determine the need for additional EM2000 drops and purchase licensing for at least 4 per year. By March 2000, obtain two additional licenses for "HurrTrak" storm management system 17 October 26, 1999 Item #16G2 BID #99-2987, FOR THE PROVISION OF MEDICATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 99/2000 - AWARDED TO SUNBELT MEDICAL SUPPLY Item #16H1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated~ Page 166 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE October 26, 1999 FOR BOARD ACTION: 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period: A. September 27, 1999 - October 1, 1999 B. October 4, 1999 - October 8, 1999 Districts: A. B. C. Minutes: mo Fo Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District- Agenda for October 13, 1999 Immokalee Water & Sewer District - Meeting Notification Dates for 2000 North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District - Resolution for Final Millage Rate for District/Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Cmle Enforcement Board- Minutes of August 26, 1999 meeting HSttorical/Archae~logical Preservation Board- Minutes of September 17, 1999 meeting Belyshore Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 6, 1999 meeting and minutes of September 1, 1999 meeting Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee -Agenda for October 12, 1999 and minutes of September 14, 1999 meeting County Government Productivity Committee - Minutes of September 15, 1999 meeting Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Committee - Agenda for October 7, 1999 meeting AGE~IpA./I'I~EM No. 1 ~,,'7 / 0 CT 2 6 1999 Pg. / .... Environmental Advisory Council - Minutes of September 1, 1999 meeting Ho Jo Ko Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 8, 1999 and minutes of September 17, 1999 meeting Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee - Minutes of August 23, 1999 meeting Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 6, 1999 and minutes of September 1, 1999 Collier County Planning Commission - Agendas for August 19, 1999 and October 7, 1999 and minutes of July 15, 1999, August 19, 1999 and September 2, 1999 meetings AGENp,,A OCT 2 6 1999 Pg. ~ October 26, 1999 Item #1611 ENDORSEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY FEDERAL EQUITABLE SHARING ANNUAL CERTIFICATION REPORT Page 167 Law Federal Annual Certification Report OCT 2 6 This Annual CertlflcaUon Report muat be submitted within 80 days alter the ¢loas of your ft~eal year to both agencY: U.S. Department of Justice/ACA Program U.$, Department of the Treasury Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering ~n Ex~ Office for Aaset Focfettura POB 27768 740 15th Street, N,W., Suite 704) Washington, D.C. 20038 Washington, D.C. 20220 E-mail address:, program.~usdoJ.gov E-mail IG~ras~ treas.~teoaf, tmas.gov Fax:. (202)616-1344 Fa~ (202)6224~610 Enforcement Agency: Collier Count:y Sheriff's Office Contact Person: Attorney Danny Shr_vve~ Malli.g Addmas: 3301 Tamiami Trail East~ Telephone Number: ( Agency Fiscal Year Ende on: 9/30 (Monfh/Diy/Yeir) E-mall Address: N/A Buildinq J Naples Florida 34112 (ci~/) (s=ta) (z% Fax Number: ( c)41 ) _7q3-c)1 95 NClC,'ORIrrraoking No.: b'~Oll0000 Summary of Equitable Sharing Activi~ Ju,tlce F %n.d(~0 1. Beginning Equitable Sharing Fund Balance $ 2. Federal Sharing Funds Received $ 5,848.80 3. Other Income $ O. O0 4. lnter~t Income Accrued $ 111. O0 5. Total Equitable Sharing Funds (total of lines 1 - 4) ~ 6. Federal Sharing Funds Spent (total oflines a - I) $ ( 0.00 ) 7. Equitable Sharing Fund Balance (subtract line 6 from iine 5) $ 5,959.80 8. Appraised Value of Other Assets Received $ 0. O0 Tr#~ury Funds $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ n_nn ~( 0.00) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Summary of Shared Monies Spent a. Total spent on salaries for new, t~mporary, not to exceed l-year employees b. Overtime c. Total spent on informant and "buy money" d. Total spent on travel and training e. Total spent on communications and computt~ f. Total spent on firearms and weapons g, Total spent on body armor and protective gear h. Total spent on cleetronic surveillance equipment i. Total spenton buildingand improvements j. Total spent on other law enforcement ~ (attach list) k. Total transfers to other law enforcement agencies (attach list of recipients) i. Total permissible use transfer~ (st~ach list of recipients) m. Total annual law enforcement budget for your jurisdiction for current fiscal year n. Total annual budget for non-law enforcement agencies for currmt fiscal yenr o. Total annual law enforcement budget for yourjurisdiction for prior fiscal year p. Total annual budget for non-law enforcement agencie~ for prior fiscal y~u' $ O.00 S O.OO S. 0.OO S O.00 $. O.OO S 0.O0 $. 0. O0 $ 0. O0 $ 0.00 $, 0.00 s 0.00 s o.oo $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ O. OD $ 0. OD $ 0.00 S 0.00 ~ S $ 0.00 S $ 59~998t 300 $ N/A $ 55. ~q2R ~ ~C~ $ N/A 0.00 0.00 fed~al equitable sha~ pmsmm dm'ins ~ reportin~ period. Don Hunter 10/12/99 pamela S- .. ~' ~ta . (sim~' - DWIGHT t'. ~Kv~,: ~ /(si~) ~ / - / Sheriff .~~3 ~hai~n, Cell.ear Countv C~issio, Ti", ~a, or T~) ';'~ ' ~.-oeput3 ,C ~ erg ' Ti~ ~, ~ ~) - ~ A~ch list of mcm~r as~ci~ ~ aeir ~ddr~s~ and iadic~tC ~ts form ts subject to the Freedom bfId~rmatton ~ct and ~y ~ rele~id to requ~ts under 5 U.S.C. ~ 552. October 26, 1999 Item #16J1 LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FIXEL & MAGUIRE AS LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT COUNTY RELATING TO COUNTY'S PROPERTY ACQUISITION INTERESTS INCLUDING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RADIO ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 65031) Page 168 0 CT 2 1999 LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT made and ~ntered into thistles.day o£~.:; , 1999, by and between the Board of County Commissioners, (hereinafter referred to as the "Board" and/or "County"), and the law finn ofFixel & Maguire, 211 South Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, (hereinafter referred to as "Counsel"). WITNESSETH: The parties hereto, in consideration of the premises and the covenants contained herein, mutually agree as follows: 1. Counsel is hereby retained by the Board to represent and assist the County relating to County's property acquisition interests including eminent domain proceedings for the Radio Road Improvement Project (Project No. 65031) between Airport Road and Davis Boulevard. 2. Counsel, upon authority of the County Attorney, is to prepare all legal documents, correspondence, ~ommunications, etc. and to attend all negotiation meetings, settlement COnferences, cout~ hearings and trial(s) necessary during any eminent domain proceedings for Project No. 65~EI. 3. The Board, through its Public Works Engineering Department hereby agrees to pay Counsel as com~.-.msation for legal services at Counsel's discounted rate of $235.00 per hour for all trial work and ~.00 per hour for non-trial work. Counsel shall be compensated at $60.00 per hour for paralegal$ providing services hereunder. 4. The Board hereby agrees to reimburse Counsel for actual costs incurred including costs of mailing, copies, thcsimiles, telephone expense and document transmittal expenses (e.g., "Federal Express", etc.) incurred pursuant to this Agreement, provided that such costs are supported by appropriate documentation submitted with the invoice or statement for legal services to the County Page 1 of 4 Attorney. Counsel's travel expenses are expressly excluded from this Agreement unless approved in advance by the County Attorney. 5. A statement or invoice for legal services and direct costs incurred by Counsel shall be billed to the County Attorney on a monthly or quarterly basis at the discretion of Counsel. All invoices shall contain, as a minimum, the following information: 1) The proper name of the payee as it appears in the Agreement; 2) The date o£the invoice; and 3) The description of services and the time period in which billable services were rendered. All payments and the resolution of any disputes regarding such are subject to and shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 2 ! 8, Part VII, othe~vise known as "The Florida Prompt Payment Act." The County shall pay all invoices submitted in accordance wikh the provisions of Section 21 $.74, Florida Statutes. If the County fails ~o pay any invoice £or legal services within the time period specified in Section 218.74, Florida Statutes, Counsel shall have the right to invoice £or interest on the unpaid invoice at the ~te of one perccn! (1%) per month compounded monthly commencing thh~ (30) days after the due date. 6. Counsel shall be solely responsible to parties with whom it shall deal in carrying out the terms o£ this Agreement and shall not subcontract its responsibilities to the Board under this Agreement. Counsel shall cant Lawyer's Pro£essional Liability instance in an amount not less than $ 1,000,000 per occurrence. An insurance certificate evidencing this Lawyer's Professional Liab?~ey insurance requirement shall be tendered to the Collier County Risk Management Deparonent within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Agreement. Current, valid insurance policy(les) meeting the requirement herein identified shall be maintained by Counsel during the duration of this Agreement. Renewal certificate(s) shall be sent to the Cotmi.y ~ixty (30) days prior to the expiration date(s) on any such policy(ies). There shall be a thirty (30) day notification to the Board in the event of cancellation or modification of any stipulated insurance coverage. Page 2 of 4 ?. Counsel shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold the. Board and its ofccp) c~mployees) and agents harmless from and against any and all losses, penalties) damages, p~fessional fees) inclading attorney fees and all costs of litigation and judgment~ arising out of any willfal or intentional miscondact, negligent acts or error or omission of Cot~mel) its subconsultants) sabcontractors, agents or employees) arising out of or incidental to the p¢~'formance of this Agreement or work performed th~'etmder, including any claim(s) b~u~ht against the Coanty) its ox~ce~s) employees) or agents by any employee of Counsel) any subconsultants) subcontractor) or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Counsel)s obligation ander this p~vision shall not be limited in any way by the agreed-upon total contract fee specified in this Agreement or the Counsel's limit of, or lack of) sufficient insarance protection. The parties agree that one percent (1%) of the total compensation to Coansel for performance of service~ authorized by tl~s Agreement is specific consideration for Counsel's indemnification of the County. 8. Counsel agrees to obtain and pay for all permits and licenses necessary for the condact of its basiness and agx~'es to comply with all laws gov~ing the responsibility of an employer with respect to person~ (~mployed by Counsel. Counsel shall also be solely responsible for payment of any and all taxes l~'ied on Counsel. In addition, Cotmsel shall comply with all ~les) regalations and laws of Collie'County) the State of Florida, or the U. S. Govermnent now in force or hereafter adopted. 9. It is muta~y agreed between the parties that all anthorization for legal services shall originate with the Co~aty Attorney. 10. Eith~ part~ may terminate this A~ent for convenience ~Hth a minimum of thirty ('30) ,days written notice to the other party. The parties shall deal with each other in good faith d~a4ng the thirty (30) day period after any notice of intent to terminate for convenience has been Page 3 of 4 given. The County reserves the fight to terminate this Agreement immediately, for cause, upon written notice to Counsel. 11. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by the Board and Counsel. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Counsel and the Board, have each, respectively, by an authorized person or agent, hereunder set their hands and seals on the date and year first above written. WITNESSES: FIXEL & MAGUIRE (Printed witness signature) (Printed wimess si ~? ?~' :ATTEST: : :.:; DWIGHT E.' BROCK, CLERK By: Signature only. Appzoved as to form and legal sufficiency: County Attorney H:hfa/Forms/1998 Agreement/Radio Rd. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: P,'MMELA S. MAC' Kin, CHAIRMAN Approved by: JeffBibby, Director Public Works Engineering Department Page 4 of 4 October 26, 1999 Item #16K1 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AN ADDITIONAL GRANT OF $27,500 AND INCREASING THE IMI~OKALEE T-HANGAR CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $55,000.00 Item #17A ORDINANCE 99-71, RE PETITION PUD-98-07(1), KAREN K. BISHOP OF PMS, INC. OF NAPLES, REPRESENTING KENCO DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" (WYNDHAM PARK) TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS INDIGO LAKES, AND CHANGING THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON C.R. 951, SOUTH OF THE EXISTING OAK RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL Page 169 0CT26 t,q99 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL,, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME Mac ' Kie, Pamela S. MAILING ADDRESS 3301Tamiami Trail East Cl~ COUN~ Naples Collier DATEONWHICHVO~OCCURRED October 26, 1999 NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMI'rI'EE Collier Count_v Board of Commissioners THE I~OARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SEBVE I$ A UNIT OF': C3 C F'I'Y ]~ COUNTY I:::) OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Coll~er MY POSITION IS. , C~ ELECTIVE I-1 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an al:poinled or e!ecled board, council, commission, authority, or commiltee. It aFplies equally to members ot advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting contlict el interest under Sec:ion 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflicl of interest will vary greatly depenc~ing on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close artenlion to the instructions on this Iorm before ccmpleting the reverse side and liling the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person hclding elective or a.cpoinlive county, municipal, or other Iccal public office MUST ABSTAIN from voling on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local o['ticer also is prohibited Item knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other Ihan a governmenl agency) by whom he or she is re!ained (including lhe parent organi;:al~on or subsidia?./of a corpcrate princ:pal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or lo the special privale gain or Ices of a business associate. Commissioners ol communily redeve!c~,ment agencies under Sec. 163.35~ or 163.357. F.S.. and officers DJ independent special tax distric;s elected on a cne-acre, cne-vole I:asis are ncr l:rchibiled Irom volmg in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a 'relalive" includes only lhe officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brolher, sister, father-in.law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughler-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or enl,ly engaged in or carr.,,ing on a business enterprise wilh Ihe officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner ol property, or corporale shareholder (where Ihe shares el lhe corpora;~on are not listed on any nalional or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition lo abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating 1o the assembly the nature of your inlerest in the measure on which you are abslaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this Iorm with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeling, who should incorporate the Iorm in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voling in the situalions described above, you other~vise may participate in these ma.ere. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any artempl to influence the decision, whether orally or in wriling and whether mede by you or at your direction. ' IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt lo influence Ihe decision) wilh Ihe person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeling, who will incorporale the form in the minules. (Conlinued on olher side) CF FORM 88 - REV. 1/98 PAGE APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to fha other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after Ihe form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict fn the measure before participating. · You must complete the torm and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible tor recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the t'orm in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting attar the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Pamela S. Mac'Kie .. , hereby disclose Ihat on October 26 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) . .L inured to my special private gain or loss: inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate. inured to the spec!al gain or loss of my relative, '~ inured to the special gain or loss of Pamela S. Mac'Kie, P.A. whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is Ihe parent organization or subsidiary ol a principal which has relained me. (b) The measure before my agency and Ihe nalure of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: . ,19 99 : , which AGENDA ITEM 17.A. Petition PUD-98-07(1) Karen K. Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing Kenco Develc~ment, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" (Wyndham Park) to "PUD" to be known as Indigo Lakes having the effect of amending the PUD document for the purposes of changimg the project name, increasing the project acreage from 120.85 +/- acres to 140.85 +/- acres, changir~ the density from 3.66 units per acre to 3.14 units per acre, and changing the property (~4nership for prop~.rty located on C.R. 951, south of the existing Oak Ridge Middle School, ia Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. After consultation with the County Attemey, I abstained fi'om vofinl~ on the above matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, which provides that "no meml~' of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission or agency who is present nt uny meeting of'such body at which an official decision, ruling of' other official act ts to be taken or adopted ma), abstain fi'om voting.., except when, with resper, t'to any such member, there is or appears to be, a possible conflict of'interest undet'"th~.~ _ provisions of' 112.31 !, S. 112.3 ! 3, or S. 1 l;t.3143. In such cases, said member S. 112.3 I October. 26~ 1999 Date Filed Sig~ur. ~am~la ~. 1~c'Kie / NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §t12.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT;' REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8a - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2 October 26, 1999 Item #17B - Continued (No Date) Item #17C RESOLUTION 99-398, RE PETITION CU-99-12, LOUIS H. STIRNS, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE IN THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR A RETAIL NURSERY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2061 MOULDER DRIVE, CONSISTING OF 10 +/- ACRES Page 170 RESOLUTION 99- 3 9 $ oc'r 2 6 1999 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RETAIL NURSERY CONDITIONAL USE 21 IN THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.2.3. OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 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 Use 21 of Section 2.2.2.3.. in an "A" Rural Agricultural Zone for a retail nursery 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 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: The petition filed by Louis H. Stirns representing himself 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 Use 21 of Section 2.2.2.3.. of the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning District for a retail nursery in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C") and subject to the following conditions: Exhibit "D" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. -1- OCT 2 6 1999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted ai~er motion, second and majority vote. Done this o~,,,n~ day of ~., 1999. Attest as to Chairman's signature on15. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficie, ncy: Marjo~u~ M. Student Assistant County Attorney g/admin/sue/CU-99-12 RESOLUTION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ~/ PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, 01ttAIRWOMAN / -2- 0 C! 2 5 1999 Description as Furnished The east ½ of the north ~ of the northwest ¼ of the southeast ¼ less the east and north 10 feet of Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 27 East and as described in Plat Book 53, page 454, consisting of 10 acres. Exhibit "B" 0 CT 2 6 1999 STIRNS' III P~ANT NURSERY · Exhibit "C" 1999 Conditions for Approval of Conditional Use CU-99-12 (September 16, 1999) The Planning Services Director may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by this 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 91-102). The applicant will provide repairs and upgrading of the turnout at the intersection of CR-846 (Immokalee Road) and Moulder Drive prior to commencing the retail nursery operation to insure that there will be no operational or safety deficit at this intersection. All work will be done to County standards and subject to the County Transportation Services Depa,tment review. 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 Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. An appropriate portion of native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free) plan for the site, with emphasis on areas of retained native vegetation, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan and construction plan approval. Exhibit "D" 0 C]' Z 6 999 FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU- 9 9 - 12 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3. of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. o 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: ae Consistency with the'Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No 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 Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated 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: CHAIRMAN: f/~ZNDZN~ o~ ~ACT c~%z~/ Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 2 OCT 2:6 1999 FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-99-12 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3. of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 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: ae Consistency with the-Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No Be 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 Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated 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: MEMBER: f/FINDIN~ 0~' FACT Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 2 October 26, 1999 Item #17D RESOLUTION 99-399, RE PETITION CU-99-21, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, OF HOOVER PLANNING REPRESENTING RICHARD AND JEAN YAHL AND TERESA YAHL FILLMORE, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A SAWMILL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST Page 171 OCT 2 6 1999 RESOLUTION 99- 3 9 9 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HORTICULTURAL MULCHING FACILITY (SAWMILL) CONDITIONAL USE 2 IN THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.2.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 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 Use 2 of Section 2.2.2.3 in a Rural Agricultural Zone for a horticultural mulching facility 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 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: The petition filed by William Hover, AICP of Hoover Planning representing Richard and Jean Yahl and 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 Use 2 of Section 2.2.2.3 of the Rural Agricultural Zoning District for a horticultural mulching facility in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C") and subject to the following conditions as described in the attached Exhibit "D". OCT 2, 6 1999 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 _r'~_ ~ ~ day of ~ , 1999. Attost as to Chat~n's MgRature on15, ATTES;i'i DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: ~Student Assistant County Attorney f/CU-99-21/RESOLUTION/SM/ts BY:~ ~AMELA S. MAC'KIE, Chai/~woman -2- Ex~lblt A CU-99-21 FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR 0 CT 2 6 1999 CU-99-21 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3.2. of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 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: Consistency with the.Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes ~<~ No B o 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/X4 No Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, g~re, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use wi~n district Yes~'~ No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be rec~m~.ended for approval ~ ' f/FINDING OF FACT CHAIRMAN/ OCT ~. 6 1999 CU-99-21 Exhibit B The NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. OCT 2 6 1999 Exhibit D The property owner shall maintain a dumpster on site to properly dispose of solid waste. The only waste products permitted to be stored on site shall be horticultural waste waiting to be ground into mulch or otherwise used off site. There shall be no permanent storage of solid waste on site. 2. The tub grinder shall not be operated within 150 feet of any property line. The maximum height of piles for mulch and horticultural waste waiting to be processed or removed from site shall be ten (10) feet. During maintenance or cleaning, the tub grinder shall only be operated with a tub cover in place. There shall be a maximum of twenty (20) dump tracks and forty-five (45) roll-off containers stored on site. The tub grinder shall only be operated, maintained or cleaned between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and shall not operate on days classified as holidays for Collier County employees as well as Columbus Day. o On-site diesel fuel storage shall not exceed 500 gallons. On-site gasoline storage tanks are not permitted. Gasoline storage containers up to five (5) gallons in size are permitted for yard work, etc. Maintenance and repair services to dump trucks, roll-off containers and the endloader shall be limited as follows. (a) Dispensing of diesel fuel and oils. (b) Servicing of spark plugs, batteries, distributors and distributor parts. (c) Removing, remounting, balancing, repair and installation of tires. Recapping/regrooving of tires and wheel alignments are not permitted. (d) Replacement ofwaterhoses, fan belts, brake fluid, light bulbs, fuses, wiper blades grease retainers, wheel bearings, shock absorbers, mirrors, exhaust systems and similar items. OCT 2 6 1999 (e) Provision of water, antifi'eeze, flushing of the cooling system, and air condition recharge. (f) Washing, buffing, and steam-cleaning. (g) Servicing of fuel pumps and fuel lines. (h) Minor servicing of carburetors and fuel injection systems. (i) Electrical wiring repairs. (j) Providing repair and replacement of brake rotors, drums and pads. (k) Minor motor adjustments not involving removal of the head or crankcase. (1) .Lubrication, engine oil changes, transmission oil changes, and oil/air filter changes. (m) Minor welding and minor repainting but not flame straightening or major repainting. (n) The removal of engineers, transmissions, rear differentials and 4-wheel drive units shall not be permitted. The tub grinder shall be equipped with a dust suppression system which shall be operating at all times the tub grinder is operating for the purposes of grinding horticultural waste. 10. The stockpiled horticultural waste and piles of mulch shall be periodically watered down on a daily basis by the on site sprinkler system in order to reduce dust. 11. There shall be no other machinery or equipment stored on site which is unrelated to the horticultural mulching operation and not used in the daily operation of the business. 12. The tub grinder will be equipped and operated with deflectors to minimize flying debris. 13. The Planning Services Department Director may approve minor changes in the location of the use within the building or 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). 14. An appropriate portion of the native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in Section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended. 15. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic flee) plan for the site, shall be submitted to Current Planning environmental staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. 16. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) shall be presented prior to final site plarVconstmction plan approval. OCT 2 6 1999 17. If, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity, an historic or archaeological artifact, or other indicator is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 18. The existing natural, native vegetative buffer along the southerly 5 acres southem property boundary of the site, shall be retained as it currently exists, to no less than a minimum width of the twenty (20) feet. This vegetation preservation requirement shall be 9ver and above the minimum native vegetation requirements of Section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Land Development Code, and shall be maintained for the life of the project. 19. The existing eight (8) foot high opaque fence and existing landscape trees planted 25 feet on center adjacent to the northern five (5) acres' northern and eastern property boundary, shall be continued along the southern five (5) acres' eastern property boundary. 20. There shall be a maximum of 60 dump track trips per day and 90 medium duty track trips permitted per day, to and from the site. October 26, 1999 Item #17E RESOLUTION 99-400, RE PETITION V-99-13, THOMAS F. LONG, REQUESTING A 10 FOOT VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 15 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216 FIFTH STREET, LITTLE HICKORY SHORES UNIT 2, IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST Page 172 RESOLUTION NO. 99- 4 0 0 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER V-99-13, FOR A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OCT 2 6 1999 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 (Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 10-foot variance from the required front yard setback of 25 feet to 15 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", in an RSF-4 Zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.7.5 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in 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 V-99-13 filed by Thomas F. Long, representing himself, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 3, Block D, Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 79, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida be and the same hereby is approved for a 10-foot variance from the required front yard setback of 25 feet to 15 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", of the RSF-4 Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: Conditions for Variance for Petition V-99-13 The approved variance shall be limited to a one time increase in size of the garage as depicted on the attached plot plan (Exhibit "A" attached), and shall measure no greater than 10 feet into the front-yard setbacks. 1999 BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V-99-13 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this c~ 7~ day of (~) ~ , 1999. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk httest ar~ tO, Chatn~an's 'slg~aLure' on.l~ · Approvedas to-eorm and Legal Sufficiency: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ,. CO~qt~R COUNTY, FLORIDA '/ Marj~r~e M. Stu~-e-nt Assistant County Attorney g/admin/sue/V-99-13/RESOLUTION -2- ('ANAl. 4' ESV .. October 26, 1999 Item #17F RESOLUTION 99-401, RE PETITION V-99-16, ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR., AND J. CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO OF WOODWARD, PIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A., REPRESENTING THE NAPLES ITALIAN AMERICAN CLUB, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 10 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 50-FOOT FRONT YARD TO 40 FEET AND A VARIANCE FROM THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7035 AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD NORTH, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST Page 173 RESOLUTION NO. 99- 401 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER V-99-16, FOR A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 0C1' 2 6 1999 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 (Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 10 foot variance from the required front yard of 50 feet to 40 feet along the north property line as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", in a "A" Zone and a variance from the provisions of Section 2.6.32 of the Land Development Code, to utilize 0.3766 acres of roadway easement in determining the subject property's usable open space requirement for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.7.5 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be 'heard by this Board in 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 V-99-16 filed by Anthony P. Pires, Jr. and J. Christopher Lombardo of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A., representing The Naples Italian-American Club, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Exhibit "B" be and the same hereby is approved for a 10 foot variance from the required front yard of 50 feet to 40 feet along the north property line as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", of the A Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is for the encroachments depicted in Exhibit "A". 2. Any other encroachment shall require a separate variance. 1999 BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this ~(,~,e., day of Qg~ ,1999. Number V-99-16 be AT~EST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk .At,est aS to Chairman'S 9~atUre,,gnll. Approvea as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS O ail Marjo~'te M. Studefit Assistant County Attorney f/V-99- i 6 RESOLUTION/FR/ts EXHIBIT OCT 2 6 1999 EXHIBIT "A" TO VARIANCE PETITION DESCRIPTIONS OF LANDS Commencing at the Southeast comer of Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the East line of said Section 2, N 02° 14' 00" W 2038.10 feet; thence parallel with the North line of the S ½ of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 2, S 89° 51' 42" W 100.07 feet to the West Right-of-Way line of State Road 31 and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; thence continuing parallel with the North line of the S ~A of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 2, S 89° 51' 42" W 660.00 feet; thence N 02° 14' 00" W 330.00 feet; thence parallel with the North line of the S ~A of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 2, N 89° 51' 42" E 660.00 feet to said West Right-of-Way line; thence along said West Right-of-Way line, S 02° 14' 00" E 330.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; being a p_a~t of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Containing 5.00 acres, more or less. Exhibit "B" October 26, 1999 Item #17G RESOLUTION 99-402, RE PETITION 0SP-99-2, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP OF HOOVER PLANNING, REPRESENTING CRAIG D. TIMMINS, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN OFF-SITE PARKING PETITION ON LOT 70, PALM RIVER SHORES TO SERVE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL ON LOTS 71, 72, 73, 74 AND 75, PALM RIVER SHORES Page 174 RESOLUTION 99- 4 0 2 OCT 2 6 1999 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER OSP-99-2 FOR OFF-SITE PARKING ON 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 (Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the allowance of off-site parking, and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted board for Collier County which includes the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice and has considered the advisability of Off-Site Parking at Shores Avenue on Lot 70, Palm River Shores, to serve the existing business, located at 11980 North Tamiami Trail and Off-Site Parking as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.4.11.4, Section 2.7.5 and Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, for the unincorporated area of Collier County, and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting 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 William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning, representing Craig D. Timmins, Trustee, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 70, Palm River Shores, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 27, Official Records of Collier County. be and the same hereby is approved for Off-Site parking as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", of the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: Exhibit "B" OCT 2 6 1999 BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number OSP-99-2 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Done this :'ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. a?6,/~ day of ~ ,1999. .¸3 'Attest as to Chairman's 'Signature onl$. Approved asto Form and Legfl Sufficiency: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, COLLIE~ (,.1;YAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CH~WOMAN / Mm-jc~-e M. Student Assistant County Attorney g/admin/OSP-9%02/<> RESOLUTION/CB/im -2- I \ TkWJ~ tn.L (U,S. 4~NO~TH) 1999 1 EXHIBIT "A'l CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OCT 2 6 1999 This approval is conditioned upon the following stipulations requested by the Collier County Planning Commission in their public hearing on October 7, 1999. a. The applicant shall bear the cost of recording the restrictive covenant in the public records of Collier County, and shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning Services prior to the final SDP approval. Lighting shall be designed to shield streets and all adjacent properties from direct glare, excessive light, and hazardous interference with automotive and pedestrian traffic. c. The proposed parking shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete and striped accordingly. d. A 15-foot landscape buffer shall be provided.along the residentially zoned property. This shall include a six-foot high opaque masonry wall. The wall stipulated in condition "d" above shall be continued along the northern property line between the northeast property corner and the access point to the parking lot. EXHIBIT "B" CLBRK TO THK BOARD INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR BXT 7240 RBCORDED in the OFFICIA~ RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, 10/29/1999 at 11:09M( DIiIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND OFF-SITE PARKING AGREEMENT R~C F~ FL COPIES OCT 10,50 1.00 1995 This agreement is made and entered into this~&~ay of O~1999, by and between Craig D. Timmins and the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Petitioner is the owner of 11980 North Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida (hereinafter the "subject property"), more particularly described as: Lots 71-75 Palm River Shores as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 27, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner wishes to operate off-site parking facilities on land more particularly described as: Lots 71-75 Palm River Shores as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 27, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida comprised of RSF-4 zoning; and which petitioner also ownes; and WHEREAS, the proposed off-site parking facility does not adversely impact the character and quality of the neighborhood nor hinder the proper future development of surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, the proposed off-site parking facility is in conformance with all of the criteria set forth in Section 2.3.4.11.4 of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed off-site parking facility will provide Ten (10) new parking spaces which will serve to provide the necessary parking for the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has passed Resolution No. 99- attached hereto as Exhibit "A", relating to Petition OSP 99-2 approving the proposed off-site parking. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration thereof, the Petitioner agrees in his capacity as the owner of the subject property as well as the owner of the property which will provide the off-site parking to the following: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. 2. That the proposed off-site parking areas shall never be encroached upon, used, sold, leased, or conveyed for any purpose except for use in conjunction with the subject property and use so long as the lease for the off-site parking facilitates are required and that this Agreement constitutes a restrictive covenant. 3. That the petitioner shall bear the expense of recording the Agreement in the Official Records of Collier County which shall bind the property owner, his heirs, successors and assigns. 4. That the petitioner abide by all of the conditions and stipulations described in the Resolution No. 99-q~land by the Site Plan noted as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. -1- · *** OR: 2606 PG: 1475 *** 5. That all of the requirements for a Board of Zoning Appeals determination for off-site parking referenced in Petition OSP-99-02 have been met and approved by Planning Staff. 0 C ][ 2 $ ]911~ 6. This Agreement supersedes and modifies any prior Parking Agreement which may have been executed between the Board and the then or current owner of the subject property and the property which will serve as the off-site parking area. 7. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless and until terminated by the Board under Items 8 or 9 below. 8. This Agreement shall be voided by the Board if other off- street parking facilities are 'provided in accordance with the requirements of Division 2.3, Collier County Land Development Code. 9. That upon failure to conform to any of the provisions of this Agreement or the attached Agreement Sheet, this Land Reservation and Off-Site Parking Agreement shall be voided by the Board and the Petitioner shall be required to conform to all zoning regulations as contained in the Collier County Land Development Code. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. ,-.z :". ~ ' .DWIGHT E:B~OCK, Clerk Attest as' to Chat~mn'$ signature Witnesses: BOARD OF COUNTY COMIMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAA B~WOMAN /~/~. ~/;~ / PETITIONER AND OWNER OF LAND UPON WHICH OFF-SITE PARKING CRAIG'D. TIMMINS, TRUSTEE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF FLORIDA Witnesses: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: 1Viarj orl~- M: Student Assistant County Attorney The foregoing Agreement Sheet acknowledqed before me this day of ~ ,1999,by~.~./~1~ ~.-'~- ,w ' . y ka4~g4~-~.~--me or who has produced ~c.4.o ~ as identification and who did not take an oath. (Signature of Notary Public) Ia:, _ .......... -, SEAL October 26, 1999 Item #17H RESOLUTION 99-403, RE PETITION VAC-99-003, TO DISCLAIM RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE EAST 565.38 FEET OF THE 84' WIDE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY SHOWN AS "FALLING WATERS BOULEVARD, TRACT D" ON THE PLAT OF "FALLING WATERS REPLAT", LOCATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND TO ACCEPT A 15' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT Page 175 CLERK ?0 ?HE BOARD I~TEROHICE 4TH HT 7240 11/12/1999 at 08:39A~ DWIGHT B, BROCK, CLBRK , RESOLUTION NO. 99- 4 0 3 RESOLUTION FOR PETITION VAC 99-003 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE EAST 565.38 FEET OF THE 84' WIDE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY SHOWN AS "FALLING WATERS BOULEVARD, TRACT D" ON THE PLAT OF "FALLING WATERS REPLAT" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 19, PAGE 7, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING LOCATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. RBC EBB 24.00 COPIES 5.00 OCT 2 619 ]9 WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 336.09, 336.10 and 177.101, Florida Statutes, Douglas A. Wood, Esq., of Sicsky, Pilon & Wood, P.A., as agent for the petitioner, Falling Waters Recreations, Inc., docs hereby request the vacation of the East 565.38 feet of the 84' wide Road Right of Way platted as "Falling Waters Boulevard, Tract D" on the plat of"Falling Waters Replat' as recorded in Plat Book 19, Page 7, Public Records of Collier County, Florida and being located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East; and Apprq¥cd as to form and legal Assistant County Attorney · : ATTEST: ....-.. .::' '. DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk WHEREAS, the Board has this day held a public hearing to consider vacating said road fight of way, 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 tight 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 road tight of way is hereby vacated: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Utility Easement, more particularly described in Exlfibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to advertise the adoption of this Resolution once in a paper of general circulation in the County within 30 days following its adoption. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed 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 Official Records of Collier County, Florida. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE~J'~ / 0 C T ~ 6 i99g g00'66 ~VA -q 1999 OR: 2610 PG: 2557 UTILITY EASEMENT Ex~b~ Sb~* lof3 VAC ~3 THIS EASEMENT, granted this ~- day of A~r~, 1999, by FALLING WATERS RECREATIONS, INC., whose post office address is 7200 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34104, as Grantor, to the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, its successors and assigns, whose address is Collier County Courthouse, 3101 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, 3~1I~, as Grantee. .- WITNESSETH: 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, in, on, over and under the following described lands being located in Collier County, Florida, to wit: See attached Exhibit "A" TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the Grantee and its assigns, together with the right to enter upon said land, e~cavate, and take materials for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining utility facilities thereon. Grantor and Grantee are used for singular or plural, as the context requires. 2610 PG: 2558 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: P~rin~ Name Witness Print Name STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Albo J. Antenucci, Jr., as President of Falling Waters Recreations, Inc., this day of A~r-i~, 1999. · ANTHONY J. KUNNY Notify Public, State of New York No. OIKU6036078 Qualified If1 Wistch.ester County ~ommllllon Explfel o4t, Personall~ Known ~__ Or Produced ID ID produced This instrument prepared by: DOUGLAS A. WOOD, ESQ. Siesky, Pilon & Wood 1000 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34102 (941) 263-8282 F: \AI~PS\WP51\FOI~MS\UTILITY\vaceas. doc · ~ r.?.o' 3 87°01'5"?"E __7-T? ~ C F ",'V" /- iIIIPOE H L -T-EEC/- "r', . ~3~g3 VAC ~J~.~03 COLLIER COUNTY 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT Commencing at the Southeast corner of Tract "A" Falling Waters Replat as recorded in Plat Book 19, Pages 4 through 7 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence South 00° 13' 05" East 67.0 feet to Point of Beginning of a 15 foot wide easement lying 7.5 feet each side of. the following described line; thence South 89° 01' 59" East 565.38 feet. NOTES: Beavi. ngs based on center line o£ Falling Waters Boulevard, being S. 89°01'59'' E. P.n.C. = Poinb of Commencement PoO.B. = Point of Beginning BRIIN° & BRUNS, INC 1072 Sixth Avenue, North NapLes, FL 34102 DAVID B. BRUNS, PL.S Fla. Cert. No. 4520 Date: 2-10-99 Corporation No. L.B. 32A1 941-261-5965 NapLes DaiLy Na~s NapLes, FL 34102 Affidavit of PubLication NapLes DaiLy Nevs BOARD OF COUNTY CONN]SS]ONERS ATTN: TONYA PHILLIPS PO BOX 41S016 NAPLES FL 3&1C)1-3016 REFERENCE: 001230 912501 579/126~10 VAC-99-003 NOTZCE OF State of FLorida County of CoLLier Before the undersigned authority, persopaLLy appeared B. LAM), vho on oath says that she serves as the Assistant Corporate Secertary of the NapLes DaiLy Ne~s, a daiLy nevspaper pubLished at NapLeS/ tn CoLLier County/ FLorida: that the attached copy of advertising vas pubLished in said nevspaper on dates Listed. . Affiant further says that the said NapLes DaiLy Nevi is a nevspaper pubLished at NapLes, 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 mail matter at the post office in NapLes, in said CoLLier County, FLorida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or coporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. PUBLZSHED ON: 09/26 10/03 AD SPACE: 98.0(X) ZNCH FILED ON: 10/C)~/99 S~orn to and Subscribed before me this ~ day of 1 Per.onaLLy known by .e ~_--~ ~ ~ _(T~ ~::::) .~_ .~ ~:}. Susan O Flora My Commission CC58t717 Explre~ Dec. 10, 2000 1999- .' VAc-99-003 Notice thof t Gomr · tober Collier EOst the of be ed- ers 5 minutes on onv Ifem..~Th~ selection of on .InRl..Ivt.mJu~ ~o speck on benarr ot orgonlzclflon or group is encouro~ed. If recognized by the Chcdr, (3 spokesper- nlzotlon moy be Olioneo ~0 mlnUfos fo speak on on Ifem. Persons wishing fo hove wri~en or grclp.h, lc noferlols Included In me Boord c]gendo pQckefs musf 5ubmlf sold i;nclfer!~ o minimum of 3 weeks prior fo the respective public heclrlng. In ony cose, wriflen mclteri.o!s In-. tended fo be cof~slClerea by ~ne Board sholl be sub- miffed fo fhe opproprlofe CounfY doff o .mln!m.u.m of seven d~ys prior lo 111e public heorlng. All moferl- gl used In presenfoflons before the B0ord will be- come o permonenf pod of the record. Any person who decid- es fo oppecd o deci.slon of the Boord will neeo q. re- cord of ~e proceedings perfolnlng fherefo ond ensure ~haf o verboflm record of ~ne proceedings is mede, which record in- cludes the tesflrnonv croci evidence upon which opPeol Is I~sed. BOARD OF: COUNTY CO~v~hN$iSONER5 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA · pAN~ELA $. ~AAC'KIE~ CHAIRWO/V'tAN DWIGHT E, BROCK, CLERK By:/s/Arlene J. Boker ~q~. 26, Oct. 3 No. 1480463 Naples Daily Nek. Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News Reta: CLBRK TO T~ BOARD I~?gRO~FICg 4TH F~OOR BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS ~17 72~0 2555452 OR: 2610 PG: 2560 *** RBCOROBD in O~HCIAL RBCORB,~ of COLLIER COUNT~, FL 11/12/199~ at 08:39AN D~IGHT g, BROCK, CL~RK R~C ~ 6.00 COPIB~ I. 00 1999 ATTN: TONYA PHILLIPS PO BOX &1~016 NAPLES FL $4101-3016 REFERENCE: 001230 1131383126491 57958113 VAC-99-003 NOTICE OF State of Flortda County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that she serves as the Assistant Corporate Secertary of the NapLe~ Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates Listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, FLorida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published tn said Collier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail hatter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person/ firm or coporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 11/04 AD SPACE: 60.000 INCH FILED ON: 11/04/99 ..... ..................................... Sworn to and Subscribed before me this L~ day of ~ 19~[q ' , ' v^c...oo3 ' · ' ' "t~er 1999 the ~ ~ on fie 26t~ day ~ Oc- _ ..., _ , d ~ ~u~ Commissioners · . .sg~ m aleSKy, PIIOn & W~, P.~ es ege~ for ~e ~ ~:' ~: '~ ~IQ~;jW~ PI~.,"FOIIInQ W~ers Sou ~:. : - . ~ELA S. ~C KIE, CHAIRWOMAN' ~ ' ' ' .r ' WIGHTE. BROCK, CLERK. : : Susan D Flora My Commission CC581717 Expires ~. 10, 2000 2'?-. '.:: ':' October 26, 1999 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~dLA S MAC KIE, HA~RWOMAN ATTEST: D~I~" ~." ~ROc'~, CLER~ Attest as to Chairman's .... r ~..... These. minu~S approved by the Board on Il f presented ' or as corrected TRAN~d~I'PT"~EPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC , as Page 176 161] 2 EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC. MANAGED PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM AGREEMENT THIS MANAGED PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of the 1st day of January, 2000, by and between EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., a Delaware corporation ("ESI") and COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT, organized under the laws of the State of Florida ("Sponsor"). RECITALS 1. ESI is in the business of providing, managing and administering prescription drug programs, including the maintenance of a nationwide network of contracted retail pharmacies, pharmacy claims administration, mail service pharmacy, preparation of prescription drug management and utilization reports, compliance and disease management programs, and other pharmacy benefit management services. 2. Sponsor desires to provide a prescription drug benefit program for Sponsor's employees and their eligible dependents. 3. The parties to this Agreement deosire to enter into and maintain an arrangement whereby ESI will provide prescription drug benefit programs ("Prescription Drug Program") for Sponsor's Members. AGREEMENT SECTION I DEFINITIONS The following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: "Average Wholesale Price" or "AWP" means the average wholesale price of a prescription drug as determined by ESI from the most current information provided to ESI by drug pricing services such as First Data Bank or other source nationally recognized in the retail prescription drug industry selected by ESI. The applicable AWP for prescriptions filled in the Mail Service Pharmacy will be the AWP for the lessor off (i) the NDC code for the package size from which the prescription drug was dispensed or (ii) package sizes of 100 units or 16 ounce quantities, or the next larger quantity if such quantities are not available. "Benefit Summary" means a prescription drug benefit summary form ESI has provided to Sponsor which, when completed by Sponsor, will describe the essential elements of Sponsor's pharmacy benefit plan. Such summary may be amended only in accordance with Section 2.4(b) herein. 51338v3 "Copayment" or "Coinsurance" means that portion of the charge for each Covered Drug dispensed to the Member that is the responsibility of the Member as indicated on the Benefit Summary. "Covered Drug(s)" means those prescription drugs, supplies and other items that are covered under the Prescription Drug Program, as indicated on the Benefit Summary. "Deductible" means the aggregate annual amount the Member is required to pay for Covered Drugs before becoming entitled to the benefits under the Prescription Drug Program as indicated on the Benefit Summary. "Eligibility Files" means the list submitted by Sponsor to ESI in electronic or other mutually acceptable form indicating persons eligible for the Prescription Drug Program. "Formulary" means the list of FDA-approved prescription drugs and supplies, which designates each item as "preferred," "non-preferred" or "neutral" for purposes of benefit design and coverage decisions. The Formulary is developed by ESI's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee taking into consideration safety, medical appropriateness, efficacy, quality of life and relative cost indications within applicable therapeutic categories. The Formulary may be modified from time to time in ESI's sole discretion, as a result of the factors described above and new therapeutic agents that become available. A copy of the Formulary as in effect from time to time will be delivered to Sponsor. "Formulary Savings" means retrospective rebates or discounts which are (i) paid to ESI pursuant to the terms of a contract with a pharmaceutical manufacturer regarding formulary management services; (ii) directly attributable to the utilization of certain pharmaceuticals by Members for which ESI has been compensated by Sponsor under this Agreement; and (iii) net of any data management or administrative fees paid by a pharmaceutical manufacturer to ESI. "Generic Drugs" means those pharmaceuticals which are "A" or "B" rated and FDA approved or previously approved under state or federal law. "Identification Card" means a printed identification card containing specific information about the prescription drug benefits to which the Member is entitled. All Identification Cards shall have the applicable ESI pharmacy network logos or other method of identifying the fact that ESI is the provider of the prescription drug benefit in a form acceptable to ESI. "Mail Service Pharmacy" means a duly licensed pharmacy operated by ESI or its subsidiaries, where prescriptions are filled and delivered to Members via the United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service or other delivery service. "Member" means each person who is eligible (as determined solely by Sponsor) to receive prescription drug benefits under the Prescription Drug Program as indicated in the Eligibility Files. 51338v3 2 "Member Confidential Information" means a Member's name and social security number, Member-specific medical or prescription information and any other Member-identifiable information which may be deemed to be confidential from time to time under federal or state law. "Member Submitted Claim" means (i) a claim submitted by a Member for Covered Drugs dispensed by a pharmacy other than a Participating Pharmacy; (ii) a claim for Covered Drugs filled at a Participating Pharmacy for which the Member paid cash; or (iii) subrogation claims submitted by the United States or any state under Medicare, Medicaid or similar government health care programs. "Non-Participating Pharmacy" means any pharmacy that does not have an agreement with ESI or Sponsor for the applicable ESI pharmacy network to provide Covered Drugs to Members. "Participating Pharmacy" means any licensed retail pharmacy with which ESI or Sponsor has executed an agreement to provide Covered Drugs to Members. "Preferred Product List" means drug products listed on the Formulary in a preferred or co- preferred position relative to other products in the same therapeutic class. The Preferred Product List shall be developed by ESI and is subject to change from time to time, in ESI's sole discretion. A copy of the Preferred Product List as in effect from time to time will be delivered to Sponsor on request. "Prescription Drug Claim" means a Member Submitted Claim or claim for payment submitted to ESI by a Participating Pharmacy or Mail Service Pharmacy as a result of dispensing Covered Drugs to a Member. SECTION II ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM 2.1 Exclusivity. Sponsor shall use ESI as Sponsor's exclusive provider of prescription drag benefits and mail pharmacy services during the term of this Agreement. 2.2 Eligibility of Members. (a) Sponsor or Sponsor's designee shall provide ESI with an initial Eligibility File at least fifteen (15) days prior to the effective date of its Prescription Drug Program containing the names of all Members and any other information specified by ESI that is necessary to administer the Prescription Drug Program. From time to time thereafter, but not less frequently than monthly, Sponsor shall provide ESI with updated Eligibility Files which shall specify the effective date for each Member who is added to or terminated from participation in the Prescription Drug Program. All Eligibility Files shall be on tape or disk in a format that is acceptable to ESI. Alternatively, by agreement of Sponsor and ESI, Sponsor may enter Eligibility 51338v3 3 Files directly on-line to ESI's claims processing system. Not more than three (3) business days (for tape or disk submission) or one (1) day (for on-line submission) after ESI has received each Eligibility File, ESI shall enter the eligibility data into its on-line claims processing system and thereafter shall accept claims for Covered Drugs that are dispensed to new Members after the effective date of their eligibility and deny claims for Covered Drugs that are dispensed to terminated Members after the effective date of their termination. (b) Sponsor or its agent shall pay all claims for Covered Drugs dispensed to a Member on or before the later of (i) the date of the Member's termination, or (ii) the date three (3) business days after ESI receives notification of the Member's termination in an Eligibility File and other written notice, or the date one (1) business day after ESI receives such notification electronically. Sponsor shall be solely responsible for ensuring the accuracy of its Eligibility Files, and shall be obligated to pay ESI for claims accepted by ESI in accordance with the eligibility procedures established in this Section 2.2. Sponsor bears the risk of fraudulent claims submitted by Members or by unauthorized persons using a Member's Identification Card or identification number, except to the extent that such fraudulent claims arise from the negligence of ESI. 2.3 Identification Cards. At the option of Sponsor and for the fees set forth in Exhibit A, ESI shall print and deliver the Identification Cards to Sponsor within a mutually agreed upon time frame. Sponsor shall be responsible for delivering the Identification Cards to Members, unless Sponsor requests that ESI deliver the cards and pays the fees set forth on Exhibit A for such delivery. 2.4 Benefit Summary. (a) Prior to the provision of any services under this Agreement, Sponsor will submit a completed and executed Benefit Summary prepared with the assistance of ESI. By signing the Benefit Summary, Sponsor certifies that the Benefit Summary accurately depicts the pharmacy benefit provisions of Sponsor's Prescription Drug Program. Sponsor is solely responsible for any liability arising in connection with its benefit design, except to the extent that such liability is caused by ESI's actions in connection with the preparation and completion of the Benefit Summary. (b) If Sponsor elects to change certain benefit design features of the Prescription Drug Program after initial setup, including but not limited to changes in Copayments, Covered Drugs, prior authorization requirements, or otherwise, such change shall be communicated in writing by Sponsor to ESI by notifying the account service manager for Sponsor's Prescription Drug Program and submitting a new or revised Benefit Summary. ESI will acknowledge the request in writing and notify Sponsor of (i) the proposed implementation date of the benefit design change or that such change cannot be implemented as requested and (ii) any additional fees due to ESI by Sponsor as a result of such change. Sponsor must accept the change and assume the obligation of additional fees, if any, in writing prior to its implementation. Such benefit design changes implemented in accordance with this Section shall be deemed incorporated into the Agreement as of the implementation date of the change. No benefit design change shall be 51338v3 4 160 2 retroactive unless approved by ESI in writing. ESI will not be responsible or otherwise liable to Sponsor or a Member for costs or other damages for failing to a make benefit design change not communicated to ESI as provided in this Section. SECTION III CORE PBM SERVICES 3.1 Pharmacy Network. (a) Mail Service Pharmacy. If included in the Prescription Drug Program, Members may have prescriptions filled through the Mail Service Pharmacy. Upon presentation of a prescription by a Member, ESI shall promptly determine whether the Member is eligible under the Prescription Drug Program and whether the prescription is for a Covered Drug. ESI shall charge and collect from each Member the applicable Copayment, Coinsurance and/or any Deductible (or portion thereof) based on the Benefit Summary. ESI may promote the use of the Mail Service Pharmacy to Members, provided that ESI shall bear the cost of any promotional incentives offered to Members. (b) Participating Pharmacies. Members may obtain prescriptions for Covered Drugs through the network of Participating Pharmacies maintained by ESI identified on Exhibit A. ESI will provide Sponsor with a list of Participating Pharmacies in such network(s) prior,to the effective date of the Prescription Drug Program and will make available an updated list from time to time. Any additions or deletions to the network shall be in ESI's sole discretion; provided that ESI shall provide written notice to Sponsor of such deletions or additions that materially affect the access of Members to Participating Pharmacies. ESI shall require each Participating Pharmacy to meet ESI's credentialling requirements, including but not limited to, licensure, insurance and provider agreement requirements. ESI does not direct or exercise any control over the professional judgment exercised by any pharmacist in dispensing prescriptions or otherwise providing pharmaceutical related services at a Participating Pharmacy. Participating Pharmacies are independent contractors of ESI, and ESI shall have no liability to Sponsor, any Member or any other person or entity for any act or omission of any Participating Pharmacy or its agents or employees. (c) Filling a Prescription Through a Participating Pharmacy. A Member may have prescriptions filled at Participating Pharmacies upon presentation of an Identification Card. Each Participating Pharmacy is required to verify the Member's eligibility through ESI's on-line claims processing system. ESI shall direct the Participating Pharmacy to charge and collect the applicable Copayment, Coinsurance and/or any Deductible (or portion thereof) from Members for each Covered Drug dispensed. The Member's Copayment shall be the lesser of the applicable Copayment set forth on the Benefit Summary, or the Usual and Customary Retail Price. (d) Audits of Participating Pharmacies. ESI shall maintain criteria, which it may amend from time to time, to establish when and how a Participating Pharmacy shall be audited to 51338v3 5 160 2 determine compliance with its agreement with ESI. The audit may be conducted by ESI's internal auditors or its outside auditors, and at the pharmacy or at ESI by a review of electronically transmitted claims. To compensate ESI for the cost of conducting such audits, ESI shall charge an audit fee equal to twenty percent (20%) of any overpayments attributable to the Prescription Drug Program recovered from Participating Pharmacies. The balance of any such overpayments will be paid to Sponsor. ESI shall not be required to institute litigation to collect any overpayments. ESI's obligations to attempt collection shall be ESI's sole obligation and liability with respect to remedying such overpayments. 3.2 Claims Processing. (a) On-Line Claims Processing. ESI will perform claims processing services for Covered Drugs dispensed by a Participating Pharmacy and Mail Service Pharmacy. Such services include (i) verifying eligibility; (ii) calculating benefits in accordance with the Benefit Summary; and (iii) adjudicating the claims. In all cases, Sponsor shall have the final responsibility for all decisions with respect to coverage of the Prescription Drug Program and the benefits allowable thereunder, including determining whether any rejected or disputed claim shall be allowed. (b) Member Submitted Claims. If provided on the Benefit Summary, ESI shall process Member Submitted Claims. The Member (or Medicaid agency, as the case may be) shall be responsible for submitting such claims directly to ESI on a form provided by ESI no later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the dispensing date subject to the limitations in Section 7.7. When sufficient claim information is provided to ESI in the proper format, ESI shall ~process Prescription Drug Claims submitted by Medicaid agencies and, if appropriate, ESI shall reimburse such agency on behalf of Sponsor, the lesser of the amount invoiced by the agency or the amount ESI would have reimbursed a Member for such claim in accordance with ~the applicable Benefit Summary. Sponsor shall reimburse ESI for all amounts paid to Medicaid agencies under this Section and the applicable Member Submitted Claim administrative fee set forth in Exhibit A. Claims submitted by a Member or Medicaid agency after one hundred eighty (180) days from the dispensing date will not be paid absent Sponsor's approval. (c) While ESI is responsible for processing Prescription Drug Claims, Sponsor shall be solely financially responsible for providing funds for payment of Prescription Drug Claims submitted by Participating Pharmacies, Mail Service Pharmacy, government agencies or a Member, including any taxes imposed in connection with such claims, (except to the extent that Sponsor is exempted from paying such taxes per applicable law). 3.3 Customer Service and Pharmacy Help Desk. ESI will provide 24-hours a day, 7 days a week telephone support via a toll-free number to assist Sponsor, Sponsor's agents and Members with Member eligibility and benefits verification, location of Participating Pharmacies or other related Member concerns. In addition, ESI will provide 24-hour a day telephone support via a toll-free number to assist Participating Pharmacies with Member eligibility verification and questions regarding reimbursement, Covered Drug benefits under Sponsor's Prescription Drug Program, or other related concerns. 51338v3 6 160 P_ 3.4 Program Management. (a) General Support and Consultative Services. ESI shall provide to Sponsor, upon Sponsor's reasonable request, general support and consultative services regarding pharmacy benefit design, general drug use and cost data, pharmacy network design, Member communications, formulary design and implementation. (b) Management Information Reports. Subject to the availability of on-line reporting as further described in this Section, ESI will send Sponsor a hard copy of ESI's standard management information reports containing information relating to the Prescription Drug Program on a quarterly basis. As each standard report becomes available on-line, Sponsor shall be required to access such reports through the on-line system (through the use of a unique log-on identification code) and ESI shall not be required to provide the hard copy. Sponsor shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary hardware and software and bear the cost of any telecommunication charges associated with such on-line access. Customized reporting and programming may be developed and provided to Sponsor upon request from time to time for ESI's standard hourly rates for such services or as otherwise agreed by the parties. (c) Management Information System Enhancements. At the request of Sponsor, ESI may, in its reasonable discretion provide qualified MIS personnel to meet the specific programming needs of Sponsor in connection with the Prescription Drug Program, including but not limited to developing special reporting packages and special program set-up requirements for ESI's standard hourly rate for such services. Sponsor agrees to make its personnel available to define the scope of Sponsor's programming needs and to participate in the testing and validation of any such custom programming projects. (d) Remote Access. Upon Sponsor's request, ESI will provide Sponsor on-line, real time access to Member data. ESI will specify minimum standards or specifications for software and hardware. Sponsor will pay any costs for necessary software, hardware, set-up and telecommunications charges to perform such access. ESI will provide Sponsor the following options: (i) Claims View. ESI will permit Sponsor to call up screens and data reflecting Member claims. Sponsor will not have on-line ability to add, modify, or delete any data maintained by ESI. (ii) On-line Eligibility. ESI will permit Sponsor to call up actual eligibility screens and data regarding its Members as well as to add, modify, or delete such data regarding its Members on-line. (iii) Prior Authorization. ESI will permit Sponsor to call up prior authorization screens regarding its Member-specific overrides as well as to provide prior authorization for certain drugs selected by Sponsor. (e) RxWorkbench®. Sponsor shall have the option to license ESI's RxWorkbench® proprietary desktop Decision Support System consisting of RxReports (an on-line reporting tool), 51338v3 7 and Physician Utilization Review (a physician report card tool). The terms and conditions of such license are set forth in Exhibit B hereto. 3.5 Medication Management. ESI provides certain standard medication management services as described below for no additional fees, except as specifically stated for certain enhanced services and optional programs. (a) Concurrent Drug Utilization Review (DUR). If Sponsor provides ESI with Members' named dependents in the Eligibility Files, ESI shall perform a standard concurrent DUR analysis of each prescription filled through the Mail Service Pharmacy or submitted for processing on-line by a Participating Pharmacy in order to assist the pharmacist in identifying potential drug interactions, incorrect prescriptions or dosages, and certain other circumstances that may be indicative of inappropriate prescription drug usage. ESI's DUR process is an educational program designed to enhance information available to the pharmacist in filling prescriptions, and is based only on the current claim for Covered Drugs and such Member information as has been previously provided to ESI and is available in ESI's on-line claims processing system. Furthermore, the DUR process depends, in part, on clinical drug data and information on dispensing practices provided to ESI by third-party vendors, and is limited to certain drags and certain analytical criteria that are established by ESI from time to time. ESI's DUR process is not intended to substitute for the professional judgment of the prescriber, the dispensing pharmacist or any other health care professional providing services to the Member. Accordingly, ESI assumes no liability to Sponsor or any other person in connection with the DUR process, including, without limitation, the failure of the DUR process to identify a prescription that results in injury to a Member (b) Prior Authorization. (i) Base and Standard. ESI shall provide base prior authorization services for those drugs listed on Exhibit A at no charge to Sponsor ("Base PA"). Such drugs, which typically are associated with low volume utilization, must be prior authorized before such drugs are deemed to be Covered Drugs under the Prescription Drug Program. Sponsor also may designate on the Benefit Summary that additional drugs (typically those associated with higher volume utilization) be subject to prior authorization for the fees set forth in Exhibit A ("Standard PA"). The criteria for coverage of Base PA and Standard PA drugs would be those of approved FDA indications and uses generally accepted in the medical literature, which criteria are incorporated into the prior authorization protocols developed by ESI ("Protocols") and which Protocols must be approved by Sponsor prior to implementation of the Base PA and Standard PA services. (ii) Enhanced. Upon request of Sponsor and for additional fees as set forth in Exhibit A, ESI shall implement enhanced prior authorization programs ("Enhanced PA Program") which would cover those drugs designated by Sponsor on the ESI Enhanced PA Program list set forth on the Benefit Summary ("Enhanced PA Drugs"). The Enhanced PA Drug list may be modified from time to time upon mutual agreement of ESI and Sponsor. The Enhanced PA Program involves the application of the Protocols described in subsection (b)(i) 51338v3 8 2 above, but the Protocols also would incorporate criteria specific to Members with specific disease states, co-morbid conditions, concomitant lab tests or other specified conditions involving greater communication with a Member's physician. The Protocols for Enhanced PA Drugs will be developed by ESI and must be approved by Sponsor prior to implementation. (iii) Application of Protocols. Upon receiving a prescription for a drug for which prior authorization (whether Base, Standard or Enhanced) is required in the Mail Service Pharmacy, or a claim adjudication request for such drug through a Participating Pharmacy, ESI will determine whether to authorize coverage of such drug in accordance with the applicable Protocols. In determining whether to authorize dispensing of such drug under the Base, Standard or Enhanced PA Programs, ESI may rely entirely upon information about the Member and the diagnosis of the Member's condition provided to it from sources deemed reliable to ESI at the time that the prescription is to be dispensed, and upon such prior authorization protocols. Sponsor acknowledges that prior authorization programs are non-discretionary processing techniques intended to provide better management of the Prescription Drug Program based on objective criteria and the limited amount of patient information available to ESI. ESI shall not undertake, and is not required hereunder, to determine medical necessity, appropriateness of therapies, to make diagnoses or substitute ESI's judgment for the professional judgment and responsibility of the physician. Appeals of prior authorization denials shall be made to Sponsor. (c) Medication Adherence Program. The Medication Adherence Program retrospectively examines Mail Service and/or Participating Pharmacy prescription claims data to identify Members taking drugs used for certain disease states where non-compliance may cause an impact on medical costs.- The Medication Adherence Program is aimed at improving Member awareness of the medication and the impact of non-compliance on overall health. The Medication Adherence Program includes mailings and/or phone calls to Members through a (i) New Patient Letter Program (medication compliance education and clinical information regarding the condition), (ii) a Non-Compliant Patient Program (refill delays are identified), and (iii) an Expired Prescription Program (notice prior to prescription expiration). Medication Adherence Program disease states may be added or deleted at ESI's sole discretion. (d) Therapy ManagementPrograms. Mail Service and Participating Pharmacy prescription claims data are reviewed retrospectively to identify Members who appear to have certain conditions (identified below) and may benefit from alternate therapies pursuant to nationally accepted and established clinical guidelines. Medical materials, surveys and educational information are sent to Members and/or their physicians periodically concerning applicable prescription drug therapies. The disease states in the Therapy Management Program may include asthma, congestive heart failure, hyperlipidemia, stroke, diabetes, glaucoma and women's health concerns. Disease states or drug therapies may be added to or deleted from the program at ESI's sole discretion. (e) Emerging Therapeutic Issues. ESI may communicate in writing from time to time with Sponsor, Members and Members' physicians, as appropriate, concerning emerging therapeutic issues when the health and welfare of Members are at issue. Such communications may involve, but shall not be limited to, information regarding drug or device recalls, additional 51338v3 9 2 wamings issued by a manufacturer or the FDA, or new therapies or indications approved by the FDA which may impact Members or the Prescription Drug Program. (f) ExpressTherapeutics®. At Sponsor's option and for additional fees, ESI shall implement an enhanced drug utilization evaluation program, ExpressTherapeutics®. This program is designed to improve patient care and reduce unnecessary costs through an automated system that identifies therapies outside established clinical guidelines or that present a risk to the Member. The ExpressTherapeutics® program fees and terms are described on Exhibit C-1 hereto. (g) Express Health Line. Sponsor shall have the option to implement Express Health Line, a non-directional informed decision counseling service staffed by registered nurses and available 24-hours a day, seven days a week. Express Health Line provides non-directional informed decision counseling using on-line medical guidelines and protocols. The fees, terms and conditions of Express Health Line are set forth on Exhibit C-2. If Sponsor elects to implement the Patient Care Management program set forth on Exhibit D, Express Health Line is provided to Members who enroll in the disease management programs at no charge to Sponsor. (h) Patient Care Management. Sponsor shall have the option, for additional fees, to implement the Patient Care Management Program described in Exhibit D. (i) Member Authorizations. Sponsor represents to ESI that it has or shall obtain Member authorizations required, if any, for ESI to perform the medication management or ~.y additional programs or services elected by Sponsor under this Agreement. 3.6 Formulary_ Management. (a) Formulary. Sponsor agrees that the Formulary shall be the exclusive formulary program for Covered Drugs under Sponsor's Prescription Drug Program. Sponsor agrees that, except in connection with the use of the Formulary for the Prescription Drug Program, Sponsor shall at no time copy, distribute, sell or otherwise provide the Formulary to any third party without ESI's written approval, except to the extent required by the Florida Public Records Act and general laws governing public records in Florida. Sponsor further agrees that ESI will be the exclusive formulary administrator for the Prescription Drug Program during the term of the Agreement. (b) Formulary Compliance Programs. ESI will implement ESI's formulary compliance programs and procedures such as the Preferred Product List and OptiMedsm as further described in this Section 3.6, which may include communications to Members and/or their physicians to encourage formulary compliance ("Formulary Compliance Programs"). Sponsor agrees to permit ESI to contact Members, Members' physicians and Participating Pharmacies to promote therapeutic and generic substitution opportunities. Sponsor shall provide ESI with Members' addresses and such other information as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate the substitution. ESI will notify Sponsor of any material changes to the Formulary Compliance Programs. 51338v3 10 160 2 (c) Preferred Product List. ESI shall implement and manage the Preferred Product List as part of the Prescription Drug Program. Sponsor shall pay ESI the Preferred Product List incentive fees specified in Exhibit A. Sponsor agrees to permit ESI to contact Members, Members' physicians and Participating Pharmacies, consistent with professional judgment and applicable medical and pharmaceutical laws and procedures, to encourage compliance with the Preferred Product List. (d) OptiMedsm. At Sponsor's option and for the fees on Exhibit A, ESI shall implement the version of ESI's OptiMedsm drag therapy management program selected by Sponsor (i.e., Select 1, Select 2, Physician Preference with or without a copay differential on preferred and non-preferred products) as a part of the Prescription Drug Program. ESI will maintain an OptiMedsm List, identifying approximately 35 to 40 preferred and non-preferred drugs in various therapeutic classes. The OpfiMedsm List may be modified or amended fi.om time to time, in ESI's sole discretion, to reflect developing clinical information, changes in FDA approved indications, pharmaceutical pricing changes, available discounts and rebates and other relevant factors. Under Select 1, a non-preferred prescription presented by the Member at the Participating Pharmacy or Mail Service Pharmacy will not be a Covered Drug. Under Select 2, the first prescription for the non-preferred drug will be covered but thereafter will not be a Covered Drug. The Physician Preference programs are voluntary to the physician. If the physician approves the substitution of the preferred drug, then the non-preferred drug will not be a Covered Drug. If the Member attempts to refill a prescription for a non-preferred drug at a Participating Pharmacy after the prescribing physician has approved the substitution of the preferred Covered Drug but before the Participating Pharmacy has received the new prescription, then ESI may authorize an interim prescription for up to a four (4) day supply of the originally prescribed drug and may waive the Member's Copayment for this interim supply. In all cases the prescribing physician shall have final authority over the drug that is dispensed to the Member. (e) Savings. Certain of the Formulary Compliance Programs (e.g., OptiMed) and others that may be implemented by ESI from time to time are intended to result in savings to Sponsor. In that regard, savings derived fi.om the Formulary Compliance Programs will be shared with ESI in an amount not to exceed 35% ("ESI Share"). If no savings are generated, there shall be no ESI Share. In addition to the current Formulary Compliance Programs, ESI may propose other interventions from time to time which are designed to increase Formulary Savings and/or reduce the costs of the Prescription Drug Program. Sponsor may decline to allow such interventions, but in such event ESI shall not be responsible for any loss of economic benefit which results from the failure to implement the proposed interventions. (f) Formulary Savings Program. Sponsor shall be eligible to receive Formulary Savings in the amounts indicated on Exhibit A upon meeting the following requirements of the Formulary Savings Program. Sponsor's eligibility to receive Formulary Savings is based upon: (i) the provisions of Sponsor's Prescription Drug Program as summarized in the Benefit Summary, including implementation of the Preferred Product List and OptiMedsm programs 51338v3 11 16g and/or 3-tier copayments; (ii) conformance to the Formulary; and (iii) the provisions of ESI contracts with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Sponsor understands that its eligibility to receive payments for Formulary Savings may change over time. Sponsor also understands that changes in its Prescription Drug Program, changes in ESI contracts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, or the selection of certain services, such as prior authorization, or open formulary management may disqualify Sponsor from eligibility or limit Sponsor's eligibility to receive Formulary Savings. Sponsor further acknowledges that it may be eligible for Formulary Savings payments under this Agreement only so long as Sponsor, its affiliates, or its agents do not contract directly or indirectly with anyone else for pharmaceutical products or programs without the prior written consent of ESI. Sponsor agrees that during the term of this Agreement, Sponsor shall not negotiate or arrange or contract in any way for rebates on or the purchase of prescription drugs from any pharmaceutical manufacturer. In the event that Sponsor negotiates or arranges with a pharmaceutical manufacturer for rebates, but without limiting ESI's right to other remedies, ESI may immediately terminate Sponsor's participation in Formulary Savings or terminate this Agreement according to the terms of the material default under Section 7.3. In the event of such termination of the Formulary Savings or this Agreement, ESI shall be entitled to keep 100% of any and all Formulary Savings due to Sponsor which have not been paid to Sponsor as of the effective date of termination. 3.7 Vision Program. (a) Upon the option of Sponsor, Members will be eligible to receive savings on vision exams and vision materials, including eyeglass frames and lenses and contact lenses (collectively "Vision Benefits") through ESI's Vision Program, administered and serviced by Cole Vision Providers/Optical Centers ("Vision Providers"). Members will be provided a toll-free number to obtain a list of nearby Vision Providers participating in the Vision Program network. (b) Eligibility for the Vision Program will be derived from the eligibility information Sponsor provides to ESI under this Agreement. Members shall have unlimited use of the Vision Program. ESI shall have no responsibility to provide information to Sponsor regarding the Members' utilization of the Vision Program. (c) ESI does not charge a fee to Sponsor for the Vision Program. Members shall bear the full cost of the Vision Benefits they receive and shall be responsible for all payments to Vision Providers. Neither ESI nor Sponsor shall be responsible for any fees of the Vision Providers. ESI will supply standard communication material(s) regarding the Vision Program to Sponsor for distribution to Members. If Sponsor requests communication material(s) be sent directly to Members an additional charge will apply. (d) Sponsor or ESI may terminate the Vision Program upon 30 days notice to the other party; provided however, that the termination of such program shall not cause the termination of this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement shall result in termination of the Vision Program. ESI shall have no liability to Sponsor or Member or any third party for any 51338v3 12 2 damages, injury or costs arising out of, or in connection with, the Vision Program, including but not limited to any acts or omissions by, or professional liability of, a Vision Provider. 3.8 Additional Services and Programs. From time to time, ESI may offer to Sponsor programs that have varying purposes (e.g., health outcome improvement or cost containment). Sponsor may, upon request, participate in any such program by meeting the qualifications for the program, signing the appropriate documents and paying any applicable fees. ESI retains the right, upon sixty days written notice, to modify or replace such programs or to discontinue any existing program without offering a substitute. In each case, Sponsor will have sixty days, following the date of ESI's written notice, to discontinue a program or to transfer to a new one, as applicable. SECTION IV FEES; BILLING AND PAYMENT 4.1 Fees. The fees for the Prescription Drug Program provided hereunder shall consist of the fees specified in Exhibit A and any applicable fees set forth in Exhibits B, C and/or D of this Agreement ("Fees"). Sponsor shall be responsible to ESI for timely payment of all such fees. [NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ROLE OF CBSA AND MAY NEED SIDE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ESI AND CBSA (e.g. Patient Confidentiality] 4.2 Billing and Payrnents. (a) Billing. ESI will bill Sl:onsor or Sponsor's designee weekly or twice per month, at ESI's discretion, for: (i) Covered Drugs dispensed by the Mail Service Pharmacy, less applicable Copayments, Coinsurance and/or Deductibles; (ii) Covered Drugs dispensed to Members by Participating Pharmacies, and, if applicable, for Member Submitted Claims, less applicable Copayments, Coinsurance and/or Deductibles; and (iii) for all other applicable Fees. (b) Payment Method. Sponsor agrees to pay ESI by wire or ACH transfer within two (2) business days from the date of Sponsor's receipt of the ESI invoice. Sponsor shall be responsible for all costs of collection, and agrees to reimburse ESI for such costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Any amounts not paid by the due date thereof shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum (1.5% per month) or, if lower, the highest interest rate permitted by law. If Sponsor disputes any item on any invoice, Sponsor shall state the amount in dispute in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice. Sponsor shall pay the full amount owed and shall notify ESI of the disputed amount. 51338v3 13 16D 2 (c) Deposit. In the event Sponsor is delinquent in payment of fees for two consecutive months, ESI shall have the sole option to require Sponsor to provide ESI a deposit in an amount equal to the average monthly invoice amount for the previous six (6) months or if there is less than six (6) months billing history, then such deposit shall be based on the average monthly invoice of the actual billing history. ESI shall retain the deposit until the termination of this Agreement. 4.3 Sponsor Audits. (a) Provided that this Agreement has been duly executed by Sponsor, Sponsor or Sponsor's third party auditor, as approved by ESI ("Auditor"), may inspect prescription drug claim data and billing records relating to the Prescription Drug Program not more frequently than once each year. All audits shall be conducted during normal business hours at ESI offices upon sixty (60) day's prior notice. ESI may designate the specific dates of availability for the audit, none of which may be in December or January. Any and all costs and expenses associated with Sponsor's audit shall be borne by Sponsor including reasonable costs and expenses incurred by ESI to the extent the audit goes beyond ESI's standard audit protocol. The scope of any audit shall not exceed claims incurred during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding the audit. Audit materials or documentation provided by ESI will be confined to Sponsor-specific information. (b) Confidentiality. ESI requires its form of confidentiality agreement to be signed by any approved third party auditor prior to commencing the audit. Any requests by Sponsor or a third party, auditor shall constitute Sponsor's direction and authorization to ESI to disclose Member information to the auditor, and Sponsor shall indemnify ESI for any liability associated . with such disclosure. Contractual information concerning Participating Pharmacies and other providers of products and services to ESI is proprietary and confidential to ESI and will not be disclosed to Sponsor. Nevertheless, ESI acknowledges that the requirements of a confidentiality agreement shall be subject to the Florida Public Records Act and other laws governing access to public records in Florida and also to any applicable state or federal laws governing the responsibilities of any third party auditor. 4.4 Claims Data Retention. ESI will maintain Sponsor's claims data supporting invoices for Covered Drugs adjudicated by ESI during the term of this Agreement and for a period of six (6) months thereafter in their original forms, on microfilm, microfiche or other form determined by ESI. During such period and upon request of Sponsor, ESI shall provide such data to Sponsor in a format determined by ESI. ESI shall use reasonable efforts to cooperate with Sponsor for purposes of meeting Sponsor's Prescription Drug Program-related reporting obligations under applicable law. After expiration of the six (6) month period, ESI may archive or otherwise dispose of such data in accordance with its standard policies and practices and applicable state and federal law. 51338v3 14 SECTION V OWNERSHIP AND ACCESS TO RECORDS; CONFIDENTIALITY 5.1 Ownership and Use of Prescription Drug Records. (a) All records and other data provided to ESI by Sponsor, other than records that ESI is required to maintain by law (including, but not limited to, records required to be maintained by the Mail Service Pharmacy) shall remain the property of Sponsor; provided, that Sponsor hereby permits ESI to use such data to perform its obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, medication and formulary management, disease management programs and related services. In addition, it is contemplated by this Agreement that Member Confidential Information will be obtained by ESI in providing services under this Agreement (e.g., through adjudication of Prescription Drug Claims through the Mail Service Pharmacy and Participating Pharmacies and therapy management programs) and that such confidential information will be obtained from and/or distributed to Sponsor, Participating Pharmacies and Members' physicians for drug utilization evaluation and other purposes relating to the Prescription Drug Program. (b) Sponsor irrevocably grants ESI permission to use both during and after the term of this Agreement and/or transfer to third parties the anonymized (non-Member specific) drag and related medical data collected by ESI or provided to ESI by Sponsor for research, provider profiling and other databases for benchmarking, drug trend, cost analyses, cost comparisons or other business purposes of ESI and its affiliates, all without charge to ESI. ESI shall retain full ownership rights over all compilations, analyses and reports prepared by ESI (other than those reports prepared specifically for Sponsor under this Agreement). 5.2 Confidentiality of Member Information. (a) ESI shall maintain confidentiality of Member Confidential Information to the extent required by applicable law and regulations. In no event will ESI release or disclose to third parties Member Confidential Information or otherwise identify Sponsor when using the data as set forth in Section 5.1(b) above without the approval of Sponsor. ESI shall indemnify and hold harmless Sponsor from any and all claims, penalties, liabilities, losses, damages, settlements or costs ("Damages") which may arise from ESI's breach of its confidentiality obligations in this Section 5.2(a). (b) Sponsor shall maintain the confidentiality of any Member Confidential Information in accordance with any applicable laws and regulations. Sponsor hereby represents and warrants to ESI that, as Sponsor of a health plan, Sponsor is legally entitled to receive Member Confidential Information relating to the Member's prescription drug utilization. Sponsor further represents and warrants that it has or shall obtain the Member authorizations required, if any, for ESI to perform the services under this Agreement and release Member Confidential Information to Sponsor. All Member Confidential Information, records, reports and other data provided by ESI to Sponsor under this Agreement are solely for Sponsor's use in managing its health benefit plans, and ESI disclaims all liability arising out of Sponsor's receipt, use or dissemination of such information, records, reports or data. Sponsor covenants that ESI 51338v3 15 shall not be responsible or otherwise liable to Sponsor or to any Member and ESI disclaims all liability with respect to any Damages which may arise (i) from ESI's provision of Member information to Sponsor, Participating Pharmacies, or Mail Service Pharmacy or (ii) from Sponsor's use of Member Confidential Information, except to the extent that any Damages are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of ESI. 5.3 Proprietary Information. (a) ESI Proprietary_ Information. To the extent there exists a specific exemption from public disclosure in Chapter 119, Florida statutes (the "Florida Public Records Act") or other Florida statutory provisions, Sponsor agrees that all confidential and proprietary information of ESI, including, but not limited to, ESI's reporting packages, system formats, databanks, clinical or formulary management operations or programs, Formulary Savings, Participating Pharmacies, and other system information, proprietary software and related user documentation, clinical and other manuals, prior authorization and prescription drug evaluation criteria, information and documents related to the Preferred Product List, drag pricing information, and Participating Pharmacy agreements (collectively, "ESI Proprietary Information"), are confidential and proprietary to ESI. Sponsor shall not use ESI Proprietary Information, or disclose it to any third party, at any time during or after termination of this Agreement, except as specifically contemplated by this Agreement, upon ESI's prior written consent, or as otherwise required pursuant to Florida's Public Records Act. Upon termination of this Agreement, Sponsor shall cease using all ESI Proprietary Information, and all such information, along with any other ESI systems, manuals, procedures and equipment provided to Sponsor shall be returned to ESI immediately upon ESI's request. (b) Sponsor's Proprietary Information. ESI agrees that all confidential and proprietary information of Sponsor, includir~g, but not limited to, Sponsor's Member information files, business operations and strategies (collectively, "Sponsor Proprietary Information"), are confidential and proprietary to Sponsor. Except as provided in Section 5.1 above, ESI shall not use Sponsor Proprietary Information, or disclose it to any third party, at any time during or after termination of this Agreement, except as specifically contemplated by this Agreement or upon Sponsor's prior written consent. Except as provided in Section 5.1 above, upon termination of this Agreement, ESI shall cease using all Sponsor Proprietary Information, and all such information, along with any other Sponsor systems, manuals, procedures and equipment provided to ESI shall be returned to Sponsor immediately upon Sponsor's request. 5.4 Trademarks. Each party acknowledges each other party's sole and exclusive ownership of its respective trade names, commercial symbols, trademarks, and servicemarks, whether presently existing or later established (collectively "Marks"). No party shall use the other party's Marks in advertising or promotional materials or otherwise without the owner's prior written consent; provided, however, that the parties may publicize the fact that ESI provides this Prescription Drug Program to Sponsor. 51338v3 16 1AD 2 SECTION VI LIABILITY INSURANCE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAW 6.1 Liability Insurance. Each party shall maintain such policies of general liability, professional liability and other insurance of the types and in amounts customarily carded by their respective businesses. Proof of such insurance shall be available upon request. ESI agrees, at its sole expense, to maintain during the term of this Agreement or any renewal hereof, comprehensive general liability insurance coverage in an amount of not less than $2,500,000 per occurrence, and in the aggregate, including pharmacist's professional liability protection from such claims for bodily injury as may arise from operation of the Mail Service Pharmacy under this Agreement. ESI does not maintain liability insurance on behalf of any Participating Pharmacy, but does require such Participating Pharmacies to maintain a minimum amount of commercial liability insurance or, when deemed acceptable by ESI, to have in place a self- insurance program. 6.2 Compliance with Law; Change in Law. (a) Each party shall be responsible for ensuring its compliance with any laws and regulations applicable to its business, including maintaining any necessary licenses and permits. Sponsor shall be responsible for any governmental or regulatory charges and taxes imposed upon this Prescription Drug Program, other than taxes based on the net income of ESI. If ESI's performance of its duties under this Agreement is made materially more burdensome or expensive due to a change in federal, state or local laws or regulations or the interpretation thereof, the parties shall negotiate an appropriate adjustment to the fees paid to ESI. If the parties cannot agree on an adjusted fee, then ESI ma)'. terminate the Prescription Drug Program on thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Sponsor. (b) Sponsor shall ensure that its activities in regard to the Prescription Drug Program are in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"). Sponsor acknowledges and agrees that it is responsible for disclosing to Members any and all information relating to the Prescription Drug Program as required by law to be disclosed, including any information relating to the calculation of Copayments, Coinsurance and/or Deductibles, and any other program coverage and eligibility requirements in connection with the Prescription Drug Program, and any other information concerning commissions, rebates, discounts or provider discounts referred to in Section 6.3 hereof. In providing services under this Agreement, ESI is not acting as a fiduciary (as defined in Section 3.21(a) of ERISA) of the Prescription Drug Program, and Sponsor shall not name ESI as a plan fiduciary. ESI has no power to make any decisions as to Prescription Drug Program policy, interpretations, practices or procedures, but rather provides administrative services for the Prescription Drug Program within a framework of policies, interpretations, rules, practices, and procedures chosen by Sponsor. Sponsor acknowledges that ESI does not have discretionary authority or control respecting management of the Prescription Drug Program and does not exercise any authority or control respecting management or disposition of the assets of the Prescription Drug Program, if any exist. Sponsor further acknowledges that all such discretionary authority is retained by Sponsor or some other person or entity. 51338v3 17 16D 2 6.3 Disclosure of Certain Financial Matters. From time to time ESI may receive formulary savings and other fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to certain Covered Drugs dispensed to Members by Participating Pharmacies and by ESI's Mail Service Pharmacy. In addition, ESI contracts with Participating Pharmacies at various rates that are renegotiated from time to time, and charges Sponsor at a uniform rate that may be greater or less than the actual rate paid to Participating Pharmacies. In negotiating such fees and rates, ESI acts on its own behalf, and not for the benefit of or as agent for the Sponsor, Member or any benefit plan in which a Member may participate. Except as may be expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, Sponsor acknowledges and agrees that ESI will retain all such payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers and all such provider discounts, if any, in addition to any administrative and other fees paid by Sponsor, as ESI's compensation for administering the Prescription Drug Program described herein. Sponsor acknowledges, for itself, Members and any benefit plan, that, except as may be expressly provided herein, neither it, nor Members, nor any benefit plan in which a Member may participate in, has a right to receive, or possesses any beneficial interest in, any such discounts or payments. SECTION VII TERM AND TERMINATION; DEFAULT AND REMEDIES 7.1 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall begin on January 1, 2000, and end on December 31, 2002, and may be terminated earlier or extended in accordance with the terms hereof. Either party may notify the other party upon at least sixty (60) days prior written notice that it wishes to terminate this Agreement without cause; provided that such termination shall not be effective prior to the first anniversary of this Agreement. If no such written notification is given, this Agreement shall continue with the same terms and conditions as set forth herein for an additional one (1) year term, subject to the right of termination as otherwise provided herein. 7.2 Renegotiation of Charges and Fees. For renewal periods after the initial term, ESI may provide written notice of new fees for the renewal period not less than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the start of the renewal period. Unless the Agreement is terminated under Section 7.1, the new fees shall become effective at the beginning of the applicable renewal period. Refunds and/or credits granted by ESI after the initial term of this Agreement shall be based upon the fees in effect at the time of the original transaction(s). 7.3 Termination for Breach or Default. Either party may give the other written notice of a material, substantial and continuing breach of this Agreement. If the breaching party has not cured said breach within thirty (30) days from the date such notice was sent this Agreement may be terminated at the option of the non-breaching party. If the amount of time commercially reasonable for the breach to be cured is longer than thirty (30) days, this Agreement may not be terminated by the non-breaching party pursuant to this provision until such commercially reasonable period of time has elapsed; provided, however, that in no event shall such period exceed sixty (60) days. 51338v3 18 7.4 Termination for Non-Payment. (a) Notwithstanding Section 7.3, ESI may terminate or suspend its performance hereunder immediately and cease providing or authorizing provision of Covered Drugs to Members without any written notice if Sponsor fails to pay ESI or provide a deposit, if required, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. ESI also may suspend Mail Service Pharmacy service to a Member who is in default of payment of any Copayments, Coinsurance or Deductibles in the Mail Service Pharmacy. (b) If ESI has reasonable grounds for insecurity as to the ability of Sponsor to meet its financial commitments hereunder based on payment record, Sponsor's latest financial information or claims volume, ESI may require adequate assurance of Sponsor's future performance, which may include the requirement that Sponsor provide security to ESI in accordance with Section 4.2(c) or an amount equal to $20.00 per eligible Member. 7.5 Termination for Insolvency. To the extent permitted by applicable law, ESI may terminate this Agreement, or suspend performance hereunder, upon the insolvency of Sponsor, and Sponsor may terminate this Agreement upon the insolvency of ESI. The "insolvency" of a party shall mean the filing of a petition commencing a voluntary or involuntary case (if such case is an involuntary case, then only if such case is not dismissed within sixty (60) days from the filing thereof) against such party under the United States Bankruptcy Code; a general assignment by such party for the benefit of creditors; the inability of such party to pay its debts as they become due; such party's seeking or consenting to, or acquiescence in, the appointment of any trustee, receiver or liquidation of it, or any material part of its property; or the commencement against such party of an involuntary case under the United States Bankruptcy Code; or a proceeding under any receivership, composition, readjustment, liquidation, insolvency, dissolution, or like law or statute, which case or proceeding is not dismissed or vacated within sixty (60) days. 7.6 Remedies. (a) A party's right to terminate this Agreement under this Section 7 shall not be exclusive of any other remedies available to the terminating party under this Agreement or otherwise, at law or in equity. (b) Neither party shall be liable in any manner for any delay or failure to perform its obligations hereunder which are beyond such party's reasonable control, including, without limitation, any delay or failure due to strikes, labor disputes, riots, earthquakes, storms, floods or other extreme weather conditions, fires, explosions, acts of God, embargoes, war or other outbreak of hostilities, government acts or regulations, or the failure or inability of carriers, suppliers, delivery services, or telecommunications providers to provide services necessary to enable such party to perform its obligations hereunder; provided that this subsection shall not relieve Sponsor of its obligation to pay ESI for services already rendered. 51338v3 19 16D 2, (c) Each party's liability to the other party hereunder shall in no event exceed the actual proximate losses or damages to the other party caused by such party's breach of this Agreement. In no event shall either party or any of their respective affiliates, directors, employees or agents, be liable for any indirect, special, incidental, consequential, exemplary or punitive damages, or any damages for lost profits relating to a relationship with a third party, however caused or arising, whether or not they have been informed of the possibility of their occurrence. 7.7 Obligations Upon Termination. Sponsor or its agent shall pay ESI in accordance with this Agreement for all claims for Covered Drugs dispensed and services provided to Sponsor and Members on or before the effective date of termination. Claims submitted by Participating Pharmacies or Member Submitted Claims filed with ESI after sixty (60) days from the Termination Date shall be forwarded to Sponsor or Sponsor's designee for adjudication and payment. Sponsor shall pay all fees or other charges due and payable to ESI under this Agreement within ninety (90) days after the Termination Date. Notwithstanding the preceding, ESI may (a) delay payment of any final Formulary Savings to allow for any final adjustments, or (b) request that Sponsor pay a reasonable deposit in the event ESI is requested to process after the Termination Date claims incurred on or prior to such date. 7.8 Survival. The parties' rights and obligations under the last sentence of Sections 3.1 (b), 3.2(b), 3.5(a), and 3.5(b)(iii), 3.7(d) and Articles IV and V, and Sections 6.2 and 7.6Co) shall survive the termination of this Agreement for any reason. SECTION VIII MISCELLANEOUS 8.1 Notice. Any notice or document required or permitted to be delivered pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing and shall be deemed to be effective upon mailing and must be either (a) deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or (b) sent by recognized overnight delivery service, in either case properly addressed to the other party at the address set forth below, or at such other address as such party shall specify from time to time by written notice delivered in accordance herewith: Express Scripts, Inc. Attn: President 13900 Riverport Drive Maryland Heights, Missouri 63043 With copy to Legal Department Fax: 314-702-7120 51338v3 20 Collier County Government Attn: Mr. Jeff Walker 3301 East Tamiani Trail Naples, Florida 34112 8.2 Independent Parties. No provision of this Agreement is intended to create or shall be construed to create any relationship between ESI and Sponsor other than that of independent entities contracting with each other solely for the purpose of effecting the provisions of this Agreement. Neither party, nor any of their respective representatives, shall be construed to be the partner, agent, fiduciary, employee, or representative of the other and neither party shall have the right to make any representations concerning the duties, obligations or services of the other except as consistent with the express terms of this Agreement or as otherwise authorized in writing by the party about which such representation is asserted. 8.3 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement will be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by, the respective successors and permitted assigns of the parties hereto, provided that this Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party; provided that ESI may assign this Agreement or delegate any rights or obligation hereunder to any entity affiliated with ESI. 8.4 Integration; Amendments. This Agreement and any Exhibits hereto constitute the entire understanding of the parties hereto and supersedes any prior oral or written communication between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No modification, alteration, or waiver of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by both parties or the agents of the parties wh6 are authorized in writing. 8.5 Choice of Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in all respects according to the laws in the State of Florida, without regard to the rules of conflict of laws thereof. 8.6 Waiver. The failure of either party to insist upon the strict observation or performance of this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of this Agreement or impair or waive any available right or remedy. 8.7 Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, such invalid or unenforceable provision shall not invalidate or affect the other provisions of this Agreement which shall remain in effect and be construed as if such provision were not a part hereof; provided that if the invalidation or unenforceability of such provision shall, in the opinion of either party to the Agreement, have a material effect on such party's rights or obligations under this Agreement, then the Agreement may be terminated by such party upon thirty (30) days written notice by such party to the other party. 8.8 Third Party Beneficiary_ Exclusion. This Agreement is not a third party beneficiary contract, nor shall this Agreement create any rights on behalf of Members as against ESI. Sponsor and ESI reserve the right to amend, cancel or terminate this Agreement without notice to, or consent of, any Member. 51338v3 21 16g 8.9 No Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity of Collier County or as a waiver of the limitations of the tort liability of Collier County as set forth in Section 768.28 Fla. Stat., beyond such waiver described in County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc., 703 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 1997). 8.10 Authority. Each party has full power and authority to execute this Agreement, and the execution and performance of this Agreement is a valid and binding obligation which does not conflict with the parties' respective articles of incorporation, by-laws, or any other agreements to which such party is bound. 51338v3 22 160 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Managed Prescription Drug Program Agreement as of the day and year first above written. Corporate Secretary/Witness EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC. By: Stuart L. Bascomb Title: Executive Vice-President- Sales Date: Executive Vice President Phone: $14-702-7245 Fax: 1314-702-7055 2nd Wimess Date: ~i'gh~;. 13r°ck;42~ terk ~";: ,":i .::.?.:7' ": ', 't':: 1~ ' ...... , ' Legal Sufficiency: Michael W. Petit Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By:OF COLLIER~C~~A.~,~.f,q,~g,~/....~ J~ D. Carter, Ph.D., C'"~hairman/e,/:~/,,,y Phone: Fax: Federal ID Number: 51338v3 23 EXHIBIT A 16D 2 PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM FEES Prescription claims through Participating Pharmacies PERxSelectsM Network: A. Ingredient Cost and Dispensing Fee The lower of: (1) An ingredient cost off Brand Drugs: Generic Drugs: AWP less 12%; AWP less 20% or, if lower, the MRA, plus a dispensing fee of $2.25 per prescription, subject to increase as provided in Section 8 below, plus any preferred product or generic incentive fee payable to the Participating Pharmacy under its provider agreement with ESI, plus applicable sales or excise tax or other governmental surcharge, if any; or (2) The Usual and Customary Retail Price of the Participating Pharmacy dispensing the prescription drugs, plus applicable sales or excise tax or other governmental surcharge, if any. Notwithstanding the preceding pricing, certain injectable, biotech, and compounded drugs (e.g., Betaseron and Avonex) will be priced separately from the contracted rates proposed herein, due to specialized manufacturer processes, limited availability or extraordinary dispensing and/or shipping requirements. If ESI pays a particular Participating Pharmacy a higher rate because Sponsor has requested such pharmacy be included in the network, the rate charged to Sponsor shall be the net ingredient cost plus the dispensing fee paid by ESI to such pharmacy, plus applicable sales or excise tax or other governmental surcharge, or any preferred product or generic incentive fee, if any. If any change in Federal or applicable state law or regulation (including the interpretation of existing laws or regulations by a court or administrative agency) first occurs after the effective date of this Agreement, and in consequence thereof ESI increases payments for Covered Drugs to Participating Pharmacies in the applicable jurisdiction under its provider agreements, the Prescription Drug Program fees set forth above will be increased by the same amount. For purposes of this Exhibit A, "Usual and Customary Retail Price" means the retail price charged by the Participating Pharmacy for the particular drug in a cash 51338v3 24 2 transaction on the date the drug is dispensed as reported to ESI by the Participating Pharmacy. For purposes of this Exhibit A, "Maximum Reimbursement Amount" or "MRA" is equivalent to an average of 45% to 65% discount off of generic drugs AWP, depending upon Sponsor's actual generic drug mix. ESI, in its sole discretion, periodically updates the MRA to reflect changes in generic drug prices. B. Claims Administration Fee $0.40 per submitted claim, subject to increase as provided in Section 8 below. Prescription claims through Mail Service Pharmacy: A. Ingredient Cost Brand Drugs: Generic Drugs: AWP less 18%, plus applicable sales or excise tax or other governmental surcharge, if any AWP less 45%, plus applicable sales or excise tax or other governmental surcharge, if any Minimum: Notwithstanding the preceding rates, if the calculation of the cost of the claim is less than ESI's then current minimum mail rate ("Minimum Rate"), then ESI will charge the greater of the AWP discount, or the Minimum Rate. B. Dispensing Fee $1.25 per prescription, subject to increase as provided in Section 8 below. This fee is subject to adjustment from time to time for increases in postage and delivery charges upon notice to Sponsor. C. Claims Administration Fee No additional charge. D. Preferred Product List Incentive Fee $0.50 per prescription filled with a preferred drug. Notwithstanding the preceding pricing, certain injectable, biotech, and compounded drugs (e.g., Betaseron and Avonex) will be priced separately from the contracted rates proposed herein, due to specialized manufacturer processes, limited availability or extraordinary dispensing and/or shipping requirements. 51338v3 25 Member Submitted Claims: A. Ingredient Cost and Dispensing Fee. The fees set forth in Exhibit A, Section 1A or such other amount set forth in the Benefit Summary. B. Claims Administration Fee. $1.50 per submitted claim. Prior Authorization Fee: Ao Base PA Program- No charge per request for the following drugs: Growth Hormone (Protropin, NuTropin, NuTropin AQ, Humatrope); Octreotide (Sandostatin); Alglucerase (Ceredase); Erythropoetin (Epogen); Filgrastim (Neupogen); GM-CSF (Leukine); Fertility Medications (Pergonal, Profasi) B. Standard PA Program (optional) - $7.50 per authorization request C. Enhanced PA Program (optional) - $20.00 per authorization request 5. Implementation Fees: There is no charge for implementation of the Prescription Drug Program if Sponsor provides ESI with Member eligibility on electronic medium in'ESI's format. If ESI must create a Member eligibility file by manually entering employee data, there will be a $1.00 per Member implementation fee. 6. Identification Cards: ESI will provide up to two (2) paper Identification Cards per employee at no charge to Sponsor. Additional Identification Cards will be provided for $0.25 per card. On initial implementation and renewal there is no charge for bulk shipment of Identification Cards to Sponsor. If Sponsor requests that such cards be mailed to Members, Sponsor will pay ESI a distribution charge of $1.00 per Member. 7. OptiMedsm: In those cases in which ESI's intervention with the prescribing physician or dispensing pharmacy results in a switch to a preferred drug, Sponsor will pay ESI the fees specified below applicable to the OptiMedsm program selected. ESI's bills to Sponsor will reflect the applicable OptiMedsm management fee for the applicable billing period, and if applicable, the savings used in the calculation of ESI's management fee. 51338v3 26 16D 2 Pro~ram Management Fee Fee to Pharmacy Select 1 None None Select 2 Physician Preference (with or without copay differential) $3.00 for each Member communication when a non- preferred product is dispensed 35% of total cost savings~ None $0.50 (PERxSelectsM) or $1.00 (PerxCare®) each time a preferred brand drag is dispensed I Percentage of the total cost savings that result from the successful interchange of the preferred drug in place of the non-preferred drug each time the Member receives the preferred drug during the 12 months beginning on the date the preferred drug is first dispensed. Total cost is based upon ingredient cost plus all fees payable to the dispensing pharmacy plus any administrative fee plus applicable sales or excise tax or other governmental surcharge, if any. 8. Formulary Savings Credit: ESI has (i) reduced the Dispensing Fee set forth in Section lA of this Exhibit A by $0.25 per prescription, (ii) reduced the Claims Administration Fee set forth in Section lB of this Exhibit A by $0.25 per claim, and (iii) reduced the Dispensing Fee set forth in Section 2B.of this Exhibit A by $1.00 per prescription (the "Credit"), to compensate Sponsor for its share of Formulary Savings paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to ESI with respect to those Covered Drugs dispensed to Members for which ESI receives Formulary Savings. ESI will retain Formulary Savings collected by it as its fee for developing, implementing and managing the Formulary. Sponsor acknowledges its requirement to adopt the Formulary Compliance Program set forth in Section 3.6 of the Agreement in order to be eligible for Formulary Savings. Sponsor further acknowledges that pharmaceutical manufacturers may discontinue payment of Formulary Savings at will; that laws governing prescription drug pricing (including Formulary Savings) may change; and that Formulary Savings are affected by physician prescribing and other factors. If any such event, or any other event whether or not similar to the foregoing, shall occur and Formulary Savings payable to ESI are materially reduced, then at ESI's option any Credit may be reduced or eliminated upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Sponsor, and the Administrative Fee and/or Dispensing Fees shall be increased by an amount not to exceed the amount of the respective Credit. 51338v3 27 160 2 EXHIBIT B RXWORKBENCH® Upon execution of ESI's RxWorkbench® License Agreement, ESI will provide Sponsor rights to use RxWorkbench®, ESI's proprietary desktop Decision Support System consisting of RxReports (an on-line reporting tool), and Physician Utilization Review (a physician report card tool). RxWorkbench® analyzes prescription claims data based on user selected criteria and is accessed through a modem for a direct connection to the ESI computer system. RxReports provides access to a relational database and Oracle software. Physician Utilization Review compares performance statistics for individual plan physicians to peer groups. The following is a listing of available on-line reports: Plan Summary Reports > Claims Activity Summary ~ Claims Activity by Age/gender ~' Utilization Summary by month ~ Utilization Summary by group Drug Reports ~' Drug ranking ~ Drug ranking by therapy class ~ Drug Utilization ~ Therapy class ranking Member Reports Controlled substance utilization High Utilization Member ranking Member ranking by doctor Member ranking by drug Single member activity Single drug/single member utilization Physician Reports Drug ranking by physician Physician ranking Controlled substance physician analysis Physician/drug utilization by therapy class Physician ranking by drug PUR (Physician Utilization Review) Reports are typically available within 45 days following the end of a quarter. A desktop PC configured for modem communications and appropriate hardware is required to use RxWorkbench®. Sponsor is responsible for any hardware and telecommunications charges. Fees: RxReports only RxReports with PUR $0.03 per Prescription Drug Claim $0.05 per Prescription Drug Claim 51338v3 28 2 EXHIBIT C - OPTIONAL MEDICATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS EXHIBIT C-1 EXPRESSTHERAPEUTICS® Through the ExpressTherapeutics® program ESI will analyze Members' drug claims history retrospectively to identify opportunities to improve health outcomes. The program is designed to improve Member care and reduce unnecessary costs through an automated system that identifies therapies outside the norm or that present a risk to the Member. The analysis will utilize current and medically accepted clinical criteria to identify Members and physicians for whom a targeted education intervention may be appropriate. Pricing will depend upon the program level and number of products selected, as further described below. Sponsor agrees to permit ESI to contact, as appropriate under the applicable ExpressTherapeutics® guidelines ("Guidelines"), Members, Prescribers and Sponsor's case manager, whether internal or external, ("Case Manager") or medical director ("Medical Director") in cases where intervention appears warranted in accordance with the applicable Guidelines. In contacting such persons, ESI may indicate that it has been authorized to do so by Sponsor. ESI shall provide to Sponsor quarterly summary reports concerning ESI interventions under the selected Modules, if any. Program Descriptions: An automated daily review of 3 day old claims data involving pharmacist and technician review and action. Letters will be faxed or mailed to the Prescriber. Members will receive a letter if their therapy is changed by the Prescriber. Prescribers are requested to respond. ESI will track case results and report cost savings and program outcomes to Sponsor in summary form. Product Description: Disease Specific Migraine - assures appropriate use of prophylactic and acute migraine therapy GI Program- encourages Helicobactor Pylori eradication Product Description: Drug Specific > Addictive Substance - monitors for potential drug abuse >*Geriatric Drugs of Concern - identifies prescriptions for potentially harmful drugs > *Duplicate Therapy - screens for duplicate therapy > *Polypharmacy - screens for multiple medications and complicated drug regimens in the senior population >Step Therapy (POS)- assures a logical progression in therapy > Long Term Therapy - identifies medications used for long periods of time > Compliance - assures Members are taking medications key to managing their conditions > Serious Drug-Drug Interactions(POS) - calls attention to possible life threatening interactions * Part of ES1 Seniors Focus Program 51338v3 29 160 2 Fees Disease Interventions GI Program (H. Pylori/GERD) Migraine Per Intervention $20.00 $2O.OO Per Rx $0.130 $0.100 PMPM $0.0650 $0.0050 ExpressTherapeutics® Addictive Substances Long Term Therapy-Hypnotic Polypharmacy Compliance Step Therapy Serious Drug to Drug Interaction Geriatric Drugs of Concern Duplicate Therapy Per Rx $0.01 $0.O2 $0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 Up to 3 Modules $0.04 4 to 5 Modules $0.06 6 to 7 Modules $0.07 Note: Sponsor acknowledges that ESI is not a case manager for Members identified for intervention through the ExpressTherapeutics® program. ESI and Sponsor agree that the ExpressTherapeutics® program is designed solely to (a) identify Members who may be better served through different drug therapies or compliance regimens, or whose health may be at risk because of certain medication use as defined by the applicable Module, and (b) notify the subject Member, Prescriber, Case Manager or Medical Director, as appropriate, for such person(s) to take further action, if warranted. ESI shall not be responsible to Sponsor or Members for any action or inaction, including disclosure of confidential information, by Sponsor, any Member, Prescriber, Case Manager or Medical Director concerning the information provided by ESI under the ExpressTherapeutics® program. Prescriber shall at all times retain the authority to decide what prescription drags are to be prescribed and the course of therapy for the Member. Sponsor and ESI agree to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of Member specific information as required by federal and state laws. Sponsor shall not disclose ExpressTherapeutics documents or materials, including the Guidelines, to any third party without ESI's written consent. 51338v3 30 EXHIBIT C-2 EXPRESS HEALTH LINE Express Health Line is a Demand Management telephone counseling service staffed by registered nurses ("Care Counselors"). Express Health Line provides non-directional informed decision counseling using state-of-the- art on-line medical guidelines and protocols. Express Health Line provides health care delivery options to members upon "demand" or at the time the member requires health care information. Express Health Line's goal is to assist Members in participating in their own health care decisions which reduces their dependency on ER and office based services. Express Health Line also provides general health information in response to a member's need for proactive information (prior to surgery) or chronic medical conditions. Components of the Program A. Unlimited 24 hour/365 day per year toll-free telephone access for Members to Care Counselors for counseling and information support about health care decisions using medical research databases and counseling protocols. For all calls seeking advice about obtaining care for a specific medical condition, the Care Counselor will offer to make a follow-up call to the Member within an appropriate time frame after the initial call to ascertain the Member's actions in response to the initial call. B. Introductory welcome packet consisting of welcome letter question and answer sheet, and any optional communication materials selected by Sponsor. C. Transmittal to Members of requested health care information. D. Faxes of Member information to case managers where deemed appropriate for urgent care calls in accordance with protocols to be mutually determined. E. Provision of foreign language lines through AT&T or other reputable vendor of comParable services, and TDD lines. F. Quarterly program reports G. Account management Fees: Members PMPM ~ PEPM2 Fewer than I0,000 $0.40 $1.00 10,000 to 24,999 $0.38 $0.95 25,000 to 49,999 $0.36 $0.90 50,000 to 99,999 $0.34 $0.85 100,000 to 249,000 $0.33 $0.83 250,000 to 499,999 $0.31 $0.78 500,000 to 999,999 $0.29 $0.73 Greater than 1,000,000 $0.28 $0.70 Per Member per month Per employee per month Note: Express Health Line does not direct care but presents a range of options and information for Members. In addition, Express Health Line is not a substitute for the advice of a physician or for an individual Member's judgment. EXHIBIT D 160 2 PATIENT CARE MANAGEMENT The Patient Care Management Program ("PCM") involves disease management programs which are designed to improve the quality of care and health status of Members by supporting informed health and medical decision making. PCM also offers Express Health Line to enrolled Members. Express Health Line is a non- directional informed decision counseling service available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. PCM is staffed by registered nurses and supported by pharmacists who assess Members' health risk and provide information related to health, wellness and medical care. Disease Management. The disease management portion of the program provides a comprehensive approach to empowering Members to become more proficient at managing their pediatric or adult asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular conditions or peptic acid disorders. Disease states or conditions may be added or deleted at ESI's discretion. Members are invited to enroll (participation is voluntary) after identification through prescription drug and medical claims data. Upon enrollment (including a consent form permitting ESI to contact the Member's physician) and collection of baseline information, the Member receives a welcome packet explaining the program and disease specific background information. Communication with the Member and/or the Member's physician allows ESI to determine risk stratification. The Member's physician is notified of the Member's participation in the applicable program and is given the opportunity to select intervention strategies. The physician also may be contacted during the program at the discretion of the counseling nurse and updates may be sent to the physician. During the program, additional educational materials are provided as well as scheduled counseling sessions with a registered nurse. Outcomes are evaluated every six months and reported in a summary format to the Sponsor. Sponsor may purchase one or more programs, however a Member may be enrolled in only one program at a time. Express Health Line. Members enrolled in the disease management portion of the program also have access to Express Health Line, a 24-hour telephone counseling service staffed by registered nurses. Express Health Line provide non-directional informed decision counseling using state-of-the-art on-line medical guidelines and protocols. Please refer to Exhibit C-2 for further description of Express Health Line. In order to implement PCM, Sponsor must provide ESI with Member names, addresses, home phone numbers, dates of birth and gender; pharmacy data (from ESI or previous pharmacy benefit vendor) and medical claims data. If Member targeting information is not available or in a usable form, additional fees may be charged for PCM. Fees: Disease Management Case/Year Asthma $325.00 Asthma - Pediatric $325.00 Diabetes $325.00 G1 H. Pylori Eradication $200.00 Congestive Heart Failure $325.00 Ischemic Heart Disease $325.00 Note: PCM does not direct care but presents a range of options and information for Members and their physicians. In addition, PCM is not a substitute for the advice of a physician or for an individual Member's judgment. S:~LEGAL\ES1 Clients\Collier County\Collier Cotmty l.doc 51338v3 32